AN ANTIDIATRIBE: OR THE APOLOGY OF Some Ministers and godly people, asserting the lawfulness of their administering the Lords Supper in a select company; Proving also the necessity of Examination in our Congregations, in order to a more holy Church-Fellowship.  
Wherein a Paper is answered, bearing this title, viz, A Diatribe concerning the administration of the Eucharist and Examination thereunto precedent.  
Together, with A VINDICATION Of the Lord's Supper from its manifest abuse by a general admission; Being an Answer to Mr. Humphrey.  
By Humphrey Saunders Minister of Holles-worthy in Devon.  
LONDON, Printed for Thomas Brewster and are to be sold by Joseph Laughorne Bookseeler in Truro. 1655.   

The AUTHOR'S PREFACE INTRODUCTORY.  
Christian Reader,  
I Had the liberty of two days to review this small piece, before it fully passed the Printers hands. In this time I gathered the Errata which thou seest at the end of this; and have taken liberty to Preface it a little, for thy better understanding. That which now comes to thy hands was written some years ago; one part is in answer to a paper sent me by an eminent Gentleman in the West; who disliking mine, and some other Ministers practice, as to the Ordinance of the Lords Supper, did hereby put us to vindicate the truth, and ourselves, as to the way walked in. After I had written this, I kept it by me many months, not suffering any copy to be taken, nor the papers to go farther than the sight of some dear friends about us. I will not burden thee with recital of the censures which attended and prevented its coming forth; such and so many, that had I consulted with flesh and blood, and been tender of mine own ease, this had been adjudged to silence. I was at length prevailed with to communicate the manuscript, and so it came into the hands of some reverend Ministers of London, who thought it worthy of a more public view: Upon a letter from one of these I consented to a publication, upon this ground (as the Lord knows) that I apprehended and hoped some good might be done by it. Since this, these papers have lain in London, expecting the press, and under it, more than a years space. These circumstances have only this use, to excuse the delay of the whole, and the unseasonableness of a part, viz. that which relates to Mr. Humphrey, who hath since been answered by divers, and hath himself replied unto one; here is not room for much more; only this. There is not one Word added to what I wrote at first: I am likely to have occasion to do somewhat more in this argument, which if the Lord call me unto, I hope to keep time better, and to amend the defects which shall be shown me in this. This way of public edifying is new to me, it's the less marvel if I fail somewhat in matter and manner; though I appear for separation (in a sense,) yet am I so far in love with Unity, that I hold it my duty to promote it among the godly, and (what I may) to bring all reformed Churches into it. I know no greater dishonour lying (this day) upon the Gospel, than our divisions. O let me beg of thee one sad and tender thought of this grievous evil. I must needs say, that not a few of the godly seem much more inclined to peace, than they have been; blessed be his Name who hath wrought this. What, is it hard for men of the same spirit to walk in one way? Doth not the Lord speak this to all the godly in the Land, in the language of Providence? [when they cannot rule over one another, they will agree;] God hath done the one, let us do the other: Shall lesser differences always divide those who are one in the great things of the Kingdom of Christ? I am deceived, if ever Church-Reformation and Constitution prove comfortable and successful among us, unless holding communion with other Churches, come to be a matter of more weight with us. I have no more but to commend this poor labour to the blessing of God, and subscribe,  
Thine, H. S.   

To the Reader.  
Good Reader,  
ONe great Duty of Christians is to be established in the present truths, 2 Pet. 1.12. that is, to be well versed in the matters that are ventilated in their age and time, but usually the Orthodoxy of the generality of the world cometh an age too short, in all things already recovered from opposition, and sufficiently established, they hold aught, but in the truths which God bringeth upon the stage of the world in their time, they are to seek, being either blinded by interests, or discouraged by their own weakness, and so dare not determine any thing, till parties be more agreed, or, which is worse, kept back by their own laziness from using the helps of Prayer, diligent searching and conference, whereby (through the blessing of God) they might come to the knowledge of the truth: and yet herein is our sincerity tried, 'tis no thank to us, to own what is already received upon sufficient evidence with public consent and esteem, but to find out the secret of the Lord, whilst the strife is depending; and the dust being raised by contention, casts a mist and darkness upon the truth, that argueth most sincerity, because it costs most labour and self-denial.  
The great truths now a foot, are those which concern the constitution and reformation of the Church, in these days of contention; other controversies are revived, but this was the first quarrel; and because of our darkness, mistakes, and oppositions, herein, are other distractions by a just judgement continued upon us.  
Reformation is a great blessing, but we are not worthy of it, assoon as door of hope was opened, it was presently obstructed and shut up again by the interposition of many adversaries, yea, the differences among the friends of Reformation have been no small let and hindrance to the progress of it. A person lieth desperately sick, and the Physicians are not agreed about the means and way of cure; some would have the corruption taken away by degrees, lest the cure prove as bad as the disease; others, all at once, and so would make hasty work of it to the endangering of the body its self: or rather let me lay it thus, an house, if on fire, some are for pulling it quite down, others for quenching the flame; and whilst the differences of judgement continue, the body languisheth the flame increaseth; just thus, and worse is the present state of things amongst us; we have been disputing about a remedy, and the disorders by a long and sinful neglect of discipline are much increased.  
Among all others none have deserved worse of the Church of God, in my judgement, than those that plead for a lose way of receiving of all sorts of persons to holy things, and by promiscuous admissions prostitute the Ordinance of God to every comer; I will not say for handfuls of barley, and pieces of bread (though the opinion looketh as exactly calculated for a worldly interest) but at least out of a judgement much mistaken in the matters which do concern the glory of God's house.  
One great mischief of the collapsed estate of the Church, was this prostitution of Church-Priviledges, and in the beginning of these contests not only complained of as a grievance by the godly, but confessed as a disorder by them through whose neglect it first crept in; and 'tis strange, that after the matter hath proceeded thus far, any professing godliness, should interpose for the continuance of this dust and filth, which was in so fair a way to be swept out of God's house; And holy communion is the glory of the Church, Holiness becometh thine House for ever, Psal. 93.5. Christ would not be the head of an ulcerous body; yea, a monstrous body, like that of Nebuchadnezars image, where the head was pure gold, but the members were made up of brass, iron, clay, etc. a thing the Lord cannot endure, and therefore by a just providence all down along he hath broken off the branches of the Covenant, when they began to run wild, and cast off his people, when by the intermission of a vigorous and strict discipline they have suffered the Church to run into the world, and the world into the Church: when the door hath been too wide, and kept too open, only mischief hath entered in; such a practice may fill the Church, but heaven will be never the fuller. Carnal men are but hardened in their senselessness and security, whilst by man's charity they are suffered to enjoy Privileges beyond God's allowance; and so (as Salvian complained long ago) it falleth out, that 
* Multiplicatis fidei populis fides imminuta est.  whilst the Church is multiplied, the faith is lessened; and though more profess it; yet with less vigour and power.  
To prevent this abuse, it hath pleased God to stir up many of his worthy servants to plead the necessity of a well-tempered Reformation; amongst others this eminent godly Minister in this book which is now presented to thee, a book which (if my love to the person and cause deceive me not) will contribute much light to the ending of this controversy. The Answer to Mr. Humphreys was penned long since, before any had as yet appeared against him. The other discourse is in Answer to some Objections of a person of worth and quality in those parts where the Author liveth, concerning the same matter; both might have seen the light much sooner, had they not been kept private, first by the Author's modesty, since by some neglect and miscarriage here; but we hope they are not borne out of due time; the Controversy being returned every day, and men, either tired with opposition, or out of other reasons, growing faint in the cause of God, generally now inclining to some remissness, and carelessness in this weighty matter: if these labours of the Author find acceptance, he will be encouraged (I hope) to go on with that which he hath been urged to, to wit, an Answer to Master Humphreys second Part. The Lord give us understanding in these and other truths.  
I am thine in all Christian Bonds, Tho. Manton.   

ERRATA  
Reader,  
The Press hath made much work for thy pen; this if done before thou read, will prevent thy stumbling: mistakes as to pointing, are infinite, and therefore not referred: these which mar the sense, crave this correction; the other, thy common charity.  
Page 3. line 13. for showing read strewing p. 9 l. 8 f. intentions r. inventions p. 20. l. 28. f accept r. expect p 38. l. 19 f. her r this p. 44 l. 8. f. Scripture r. paper, p. 60, l. 5. f. Friars r. Tryers, p. 67, l. 16. f. calling r. callings, p. 68 l, 27. f. th●mes r. times, p 70. l. 2 f. don r. do not, p. 76 l 2. for apologicall r. apogogicall, p. 85 l. 14. for in the margin for mour r. Mr, p. 93 l. 17 for ill r. all. p. 109 l. 2 for Puul r. Paul, p. 137 l. 7 for expressed, r. express, p. 140 l. 1 signate and significate are noted as adverbs, but amiss, p. 149. l. 17 for must r much p. 161. about l 12 in the marg. for Clem r Clerum. p. 162 l. 8 for provoke, r. promote p. 167 l. ●0 for man r. men, p 109 l. 11 for k●d r. wicked p. 173 l. 24 for freely r. truly p. 174 l. 8 for and devotion r. but religion, p. 175 l. 4 for of r. in p. 182 l. 14 for commemorate r. commemorative p. 103 l. 22 for expect r. except p. 194 l. 22 for i● r. into p 19● l. 24 for to r. in p. 200. l. 28 for creatures r. her men bers p 202 l. 13 for if r. his Baptism p 203 l. 9 for he r is p. 204 l. 23 after will r. be, p. 205 l. 13. for Prosoproprias r. Prosopopeias', p. 205 l. 26 after they r. so, p. 207 l. 8 for selves r. self p. 209 l. 200 blot out not, p. 216 l. 11 for gous r. God's p. 2 7 l. 29 for duties r. duty p. 218 l. 9 for Lily r. Lily p. 222 l 20-for unworthy r. unworthily.   


THE TWO FIRST SECTIONS OF THE Paper.  
§. i. ALthough I am none of the superstitious adorers of Antiquity, (for, Antiquitas saecli est juventus mundi,) neither will be any of the froward retainers of custom, which may be as turbulent a thing as innovation; and Christ having said that he was Truth, not custom; yet I have learned from Scripture to make a stand upon the old ways, and then to look about, and discover what is the strait and right way:  
And sure novelty though it be not by and by rejected, yet is always suspected; and what is settled by custom, though it be not of the best, yet at least may seem fit; and therefore I remember that not only the Spartans' set a mulct on the Musician that added one string more than ordinary to his Harp; but the Lycians suffered none to propose a new Law, but with an halter about his neck, that if the reason thereof were not approved, he might forthwith be hanged for offering novelties; and therefore I cannot but conclude with Ulpian. In rebus novis constituendis, evidens debet esse utilitas ut recedatur ab eo jure quod diu aequum visum est.  
If this new way (and I think I may without the hazard of a quarrel take the liberty to style it so) of administering the Eucharist, and admitting and excluding Communicants, had ground and warrant from God's Word, the practice of the Primitive Church, the demonstration of reason, or did manifestly conduce, and tend to the advance of godliness and pure Religion, I should not check with it for the novelty; but when many good, and moderate, and rational men are much unsatisfied, that it bears any such stamp, or character. And for mine own part, unless I am blind through infirmity, (whose own heart witnesseth to me that I am not maliciously or wilfully so) I can see nothing to support this new frame, but popular, not Logical discourses and similitudes, rather than reasons, adpopulum phaleras, (which is handsomely to paint a house that hath no solid foundations) I cannot therefore but excuse such, that at the sound of such Music, cannot fall down and worship the Image that Nabuchadnezzar hath set up.   

The entrance and sum of the two first Sections.  
The Author (showing his way with some flowers of Reading and Rhetoric) Apologizeth for himself, as one that dotes not on Antiquity, nor is led by Envy. And after censures some men to be abettors of a new way, whereon this character is set, (viz.) being unsatisfactory to many good, moderate, and rational men; not grounded on the practice of the primitive Church, not rationally conducing to the advancement of godliness, but supported, and vindicated by popnlar arguments; that is, (as we take it,) having the paint of persuasion without any life, or strength of reason: From these thoughts he concludes smartly, if not bitterly; I cannot therefore but excuse such, that at the sound of such Music cannot fall down and worship the Image that Nabuchadnezzar hath set up.  

SECT. I.  
Answering the Preface of this discourse.  
§. 1 The scope of the Preface is to advance Antiquity, being (as is supposed) favourable unto the Author: putting a vizard of novelty upon an aged face, to make a Scarecrow to fright weaker judgements from closing with the contrary opinion. We shall first weigh these Prolegomina, and answer the generalities of this Plea, not forgetting the particulars: wherein we shall take liberty to speak freely, that we may more fully convince, and yet carefully, that it may be said, 
(a) Eccles. 12.10.  That which was written was upright, even Words of truth.   

SECT. II.  
What is due to Antiquity, and what is true Antiquity.  
We hearty embrace that saying, 
§. 2. Quod antiquissimun est verissimum.  That which is first is most true, because true: Antiquity is always a friend to Truth; and though all that is old be not good, (sin and Satan are both very old) yet every good way is old, and therefore in every good old way we may safely walk. We are not moved to hear men count, and call good ways new; who knows not that the Adversaries of true Doctrine have always loaded it with this title? 
(b) Nostra omnia ut peregrina, & nova condemnant. . Apol. Eccl. Anglic p. 114, 115.  All our doctrines are condemned to be new, and strange. It confirms us to see the ways of government to have the same lot. So that the principle of Antiquity yields but a 
(c) Satis sciunt nihil istis nominibus po●ularius esse aut in vulgusgratius. Idem. pag. 116. vol. c8.  popular and fallacious argument; yet it being the firstborn of the Paper, and the first weapon formed against us; we might say much to it, but that we think of dispatch. Jerome is condemned by one for desiring leave of Austin to err with seven Fathers which he found of his opinion. We dare not take, nor are we willing to give the liberty, as the Scripture saith, 
(d) Luk. 17.32. Josh. ch. 9  Remember Lot's wife; so do we to the pretenders of antiquity, Remember the Gibeonites. Scripture-antiquity is venerable; but if the antiquity which we call others to, signify but custom, (as may be guest by some passages, (viz.) what is settled by custom, line 5. of the Paper,) we may be bold to say of such antiquity, that in most things it is vetustas erroris, the age of error. 
(e) Prov. 16.31. Ch. 20.29.  The grey hairs of opinions and practices are (then) beauty, and a crown, when found in the way of truth and righteousness. For matter of doctrine, it must be spoken with thankfulness, that long hath the light thereof filled our Horizon: But the light of Discipline was not so forward and successful. Truths of this nature were a long while held by some men in 
(f) Rom. 1.18  unrighteousness; corruptions in worship continued, when corruptions in doctrine were generally decried.  
Now because the Sun shines not out till twelve, 
Si ordo in Dominican coenâ observandus Apostolorum praecepto definitus sit, illi adhaerescendum quem Apostolica Scripta docent, non quem sequiora secula introduxêre. Spanhem. dub. Evan. Part. 3. p. 237.  shall we say it riseth but then, or not at four? Was America a second, or new creation, because found out but of late? The present light of government contended for, is elder than the former customs of our predecessors. If any man can prove it younger than the Scriptures, we will soon cast it out as an untimely birth; we think it unreasonable and unsafe to look only on the customs and practices of the next ages before us, while we are sure that they for a long time worshipped God impurely, not doing as it was written. 
(g) Josh 1.8.  We may shut up this, only minding the lovers of truth, that they be not frighted with a notion of novelty from a more excellent way: 
(h) Mat. 5 47 1 Cor. 12.31.  this being certain, that while we agree with the Word, we never check with true Anquity.   

SECT. III.  
Unsatisfactory to many good, moderate, and rational men.  
§. 3 That which satisfies one good man, may satisfy all; when informed, they having one and the same Spirit within, and rule without. Of all men, we would study to satisfy good men. It is possible some such may be unsatisfied with our way; the time is not yet come, 
Zach. 14.9  which will unite the minds of God's people, till then, differences in judgement will continue, but without breach of affections, if we do well. We do not condemn all that differ from us in these outward things, which may for a time be hid, where Jesus Christ is revealed in most saving truths. It is acknowledged that there are many learned and eminent men in parts and places, not closing with us, some of which we must think godly; there are many no less godly unsatisfied, but it is upon another account.  
As others censure us for going too far, those for not going far enough in our separation; but as these last are above us, so are they more against our opponents. To speak freely, who are foremost in opposition to us? they are the most carnal, and profane in the Country, the scum of whose choler we often see and hear: these measurinp us by a fleshly line, find our work defective, their own large principles not being able to bear the strictness of the Word.   

SECT. iv  
Not grounded on the practice of the Primitive Church.  
§. 4 This is the great thing in question, and subject matter of this congress, and therefore not to be begged in the entrance. We make the Word our Antiquity, (as before) and that which is so new, as to have footing only on men's intentions, and examples, we reject as not old enough to be called truth. We are contented, 
Ifa. 8.20.  and desire it may be sealed on both sides, that what is said shall stand, or fall, as the Word judges.   

SECT. V  
Not rationally conducing to the advancing of godliness.  
§. 5 This we more wonder at, then at any other passage; our hearts must deceive us much, and our understandings fail us quite, if this be so, conduce as a proper means it doth, and this we take to be rational conducing, otherwise the cause of our progress in that way must be fastened on the Grace and Spirit of God. That which shames and restrains sin, must needs conduce to godliness; But the way pleaded for, tends apparently to this. It advanceth godliness, 

1. 
Eph. 4.17.5.15.  By engaging such as walk in it to more watchfulness, they being by this profession exposed to more observation for their ways.  
2. 
Col. 4.5.  In regard of the mutual watch they submit unto.  
3. 
Heb. 10.24, 25.  Through the benefit of many private exhortations and duties, whose light and heat may both kindle and cherish gracious affections. God hath given sundry of our meeting so much experience of growth (as to knowledge and affection) this way, as plentifully confutes this Paradox.    
We are sure the old impure way of pelmell tends to so many evils, that it would fill a large Paper to set them down.  
First, 
Jer. 23.14.  It strenghens the hands of the wicked.  
Secondly, 
Luk. 13.26  Blinds them in their wretchedness. While wicked men enjoy the privileges of the godly, it will be difficult to convince them of their impenitency, and want of conversion. Let the Minister make them Saints in the Chancel they will give him leave to make them Devils in the Pulpit till he be weary.  
No wonder if such profane ones as have usually received the seals of the Covenant of Grace, and joined in the highest act of Church-communion, 
Jer. 7.8.  live in a good opinion of their soul's estate, and trust in lying words.   

SECT. VI  
Supported, or vindicated by popular Arguments.  
§. 6 It is not much that this weak way of arguing is fastened upon us, who pretend not much to Art. Some others (of the same judgement with us in the main of this business) have published arguments enough, and such as were never answered to this day by such as drew them forth. It may be the arguments the Paper means, have been lamely and disadvantagiously represented.  
We have not given out under our hands any arguments, but in our private meetings, and public exercises, we have argued the present controversy, of which some account shall be given hereafter; so that the censuring of our arguments unseen, is shooting at rovers. God hath given us so much skill as to distinguish between an illustration, and an argument: and we do plainly discern some reasonings in the Paper before us, to be just of that constitution. What we find shall be duly weighed, and we hope in this as in other undertake, we shall prove ourselves to be bvilders, and not painters; the riveled skin of former customesneeds paint, where the beauty of holiness wants.   

SECT. VII.  
I cannot therefore but excuse such that at the sound of such Music cannot fall down, and worship the Image that Nabuchadnezzar hath set up.  
Sir,  
§. 7 We were sensible of this lash of your rod, for it cuts very deep.  
1. The way which we suppose holy, and Christian, is Nebuchadnezars Image; we wish it as free of all defects, as it is of Idolatry: Doubtless the old way pleaded for, hath much more of that Image.  
2. The Ministers exhortations moving souls to our society, (as tending to reformation, and being the rise of some order,) this is Pagan Music, and somewhat worse than Paul's tinkling Cymbal: 
1 Cor. 13.1.  We hope our Music hath been no unpleasant sound in God's ear, while to our knowledge we sought submission to Jesus Christ, 
Col. 1.15.  and to no other Image. Towards them that stand off, we have freed our souls, by expressing our desires of their good, and tendering them the holy means of spiritual life: We shall not take upon us further to censure their refusing, though to speak freely, we dare not excuse them.  
We must wait till God persuade men, than they will come in. In the mean time among the refusers, there may be different principles; some may stand off out of doubtfulness, and dissatisfaction, but others (perchance) may be Adders, 
Psal. 58.5.  that stop their own ears, or such as Christ condemns in that reproof of his: 
Mat. 11.17.  We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned, and ye have not wept.    

The third Section of the Paper.  
THe liberty, 
The third Section of the Paper.  and profitable use of private conference, in order to preparatory instruction; yea, or probation of faith and repentance, (which Chemnitius tells us to be in use in some Lutheran Churches) is not controverted. It is an apt, and elegant comparison of Quintilian, that men are as bottles, which are sooner and better filled by taking them in hand one by one, and pouring water into them, then by setting them together, and sprinkling water upon them.  
2. That whereas the Casuists speak, there is violenta suspicio quae moraliter facit rem certam; for if it be only probabilis suspicio, they will tell you, that melior est conditio possidentis bonam famam;] but in case of violent suspicion, that any persons are through ignorance unable to discern the Lords body; that they may, and are meet to be examined, is not denied. In such a case the same may be spoken of neglect of probation, as in a lapse into a crime is said of the omission of reproof, and admonition. A man may be called to an account for an idle silence, as well as for an idle word; for as evil talk leads men into evil, so an evil silence leaves them in it.  
3. That notorious sinners, and the Casuists say, they can be notorious only upon this account, cùm crimen est manifestum, aut per sententiam in judicio aut per publicam in eo confessionem, aut per evidentiam talem ut nullâ possit tergiver satione caelari;] that such may, and must be excommunicated is granted; not so much for prevention of any pollution that others may contract by communion with them, but to humble and to reclaim the offender, and to keep the example from having any contagious spreading influence by impurity, as also to remove the scandal that the discipline of the Church may contract by remission, and indulgence. And a power to act in such cases, the Ministry need not complain to want, much less upon the pretence of such want suspend the celebration, and administering of the Sacrament altogether; for this power is rooted, and inherent in the keys, and they may assume as large, and free a power to exclude some such, as they now take to put by, and excommunicate all, which they do while they (at least the most of them) administer it to none, but intermit the use thereof altogether. And therefore as one being asked, where he found the interpretation of, and concerning Constantine's Donation, (as another his gloss upon the Salic Law?) answered, If any looked on the backside of that Donation, (and so of that Law) there it was to be found; so it might be more truly said, that from whence they derived the power to excommunicate all by non-administration, they might fetch a right to exclude persons scandalous, and apparently ignorant. But our Rhodus, and Saltus, our present question●s, Whether it be (not only profitable▪ but) necessary, antecedently to the communion to examine (not only such, who may well be suspected to be of incompetent knowledge▪ but) all indifferently, so as for want of will in any to submit to this probation, they may justly be debarred the Sacrament; and for want of power in the Minister to exercise this Discipline, he may lawfully intermit the administration, or administer it only to such as will subject themselves thereunto convened, (and not by their proper Pastor) out of distant places, and several congregations?  

SECT. VIII.  
Of the liberty, and profitable use of private conference, etc.  
§. 8 1. In this are 

1. Some Concessions.  
2. The state of the Question.    
1. The Concessions are of private conference, examination of some persons, the excommunicating of others; these we accept of. And to say truth, in some of these is more granted than is desired; namely the investing the Minister with power of excommunication, or censuring alone, which many learned men make an act of jurisdiction, belonging, non uni, sed unitati, (as they express themselves) to the whole Church, or to the Officers of the Church, but not to the Minister alone. But he speaks in this the opinion of the Scloolmen, who seem (to us) to put Church-censures into the Ministers hands alone. Whilst this opinion makes rather for us then against us, we shall not contend about it, but take it for granted, and to be as is affirmed and yielded. That which is affirmed of suspicious, and scandalous persons, may also pass. But some note must be set upon that charge of absolute forbearance to administer the Lords Supper, and of excommunicating all; for we do neither the one, nor the other.  
It was our fault (for a time,) and it may be some other men's fault at this day. We saw cause to be humbled for our omission of this duty among other offences, as to the Lords Supper: And we now conceive the institution to be so strict, as admits of no denial, nor of long delay: For some years past, we have not been guilty of this forbearance; there hath been a frequent use of this as of all other Ordinances among us, so that all desirous, and worthy with a little pains might partake thereof. If any defect be, it is but circumstantial as to the place, and not as to time, or substance. So much for the Concessions. That which follows is the state of the Question.   

SECT. IX.  
Wherein of the state of the Question.  
§. 9 Herein we find the Author unacquainted with our way, and putting too much together.  
First, we do not examine all, as is supposed; such as are more knowing and willing, do only make profession of their faith and knowledge; some in the public, others more privately. Many have been admitted without having a question asked them, and we can truly aver that we examine none, but such as well may be suspected of incompetent knowledge; so that here is no need of dispute between us.  
Secondly, That of omitting altogether the use of the Sacrament, must have no place in the question neither; for our practice and judgements oppose it.  
Thirdly, About convening from divers Parishes, this will but confound the discourse, if mixed with it: For,  
1. Most of those admitted were taken in, not without their proper Paster.  
2. Such as were admitted of other Congregations, are persons justly offended with the grossness of their administrations at home, where no separation at all is made, nor any cherishing of desires that way. The lawfulness of this we shall assert in another place.  
As the Question is stated, there are so many things laid together, as would make plaustraria argumenta, tedious Syllogisms, and so beget confusion in the dispute. The state of the present difference may be better expressed in this, 
The question stated.  or the like manner; that is, Whether in the reforming of a long corrupted Church, it be necessary that all the Members thereof do submit to some examination, or trial of their knowledge, before they be admitted unto the Lord's Table?  
This Question we fear not to maintain in the Affirmative. Here we suppose corruption in our Churches, and therefore with men well satisfied with their present frame and temper, not looking on them as under any such disorder, as we suppose, with such we desire not much to dispute; We can accept little of reason, or truth from men of that mind.  
Lastly, It seems to us that this Paragraph agrees not with itself, for it opposes examination as precedaneous to this ordinance, and yet yields it in some cases to be practised. Can the paper allow the keeping back of some, yea of ignorant, as well as scandalous, and yet absolutely oppose examination (as previous) without which ignorance cannot be well known? Promiscuous administering, must either stand, or fall. If stand, than no reformation can be rationally hoped for. And if it fall, let us be taught how the admission of all sorts formerly practised can be redressed without examination, or some equivalent course. At present we shall bend ourselves to maintain the necessity of examination unto the right use of the Lords Supper in our Congregations, and that such as refuse to submit thereunto are deservedly excluded.  
When we say, examination should be previous (as the Author speaks) or a necessary Antecedent, we understand not a Physical Antecedent, as if it were essential to this duty, or Antecedent suâ naturâ, for than we should examine as often as we admit, which is not done. Self-examination is a necessary Antecedent at all times, and Ministerial at some times; an Antecedent it is, non physicè, sed moraliter, & ex hypothesi, that is, upon a supposition of a general corruption in our Churches. It is morally required as necessary to the exclusion of the unworthy, according to the mind of Christ. We shall make this as strong as we can, when we have once answered the Arguments by which it is opposed, which is our next task.    

The fourth Section of the Paper.  
IT is St. Basils' conclusion extracted from the exordiums of Moses, 
The fourth Section of the Paper.  and St. John (in the beginning) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to begin at the beginning. In quavis institutione quod primum est, & principium, & praecipium. Christ Jesus when he first instituted this Sacrament, made no previous examination of his Disciples before he administered to them: He shown them the nature, use, and end thereof, he washed their feet; An emblem of that preparative cleansing by faith and repentance, purifying of the affections; for, Cùm rebus humanis post a vivitur ubique terr a calcatur ipsi igitur humani affectus, sine quibus in hac mortalitate non vivitur, quasi pedes sunt, ubi ex humanis rebus afficimur, as St Augustine moralizeth it; & quia pedes ultima pars hominis sunt, & debemus per poenitentiam non solùm summa quasi flere peccata, sed usque ad ultimas infimasque conscientiae nostrae partes descendere, intimas quasque animi nostri cogitationes excutere, & purgare, (as St. Cyprian appliesit;) but to enable the discharge of this duty, a general exhortation on the Minister's part is proportionable, without a particular examination; That Christ admitted Judas to the Communion, is not only the consonancy of the Fathers, but the very pregnant result of the Text, Luke 22. v, 14, & 21. though he might look with a face of Religion towards the Apostles, yet Christ whose eye was upon his heart, beheld him under the notion of an hypocrite, and yet not excluding him from the Sacrament. I should gladly learn by what authority or precedent any that professeth Religion, and is innocent of notorious, and scandalous sins that check with his profession, can be rejected.  

SECT. X.  
Wherein of the first Argument against examination, drawn from the first institution in John 13th. Chap.  
§. 10 Here gins the charge, the first Argument is from Christ's example, and may be thus laid down.  
Object. Christ's example in the first institution of this ordinance ought to be our rule; But he made no previous examination then: Ergo none is required.  
Answ. So fare as Jesus Christ may be followed by us, we must stick to his example. In two things it is impossible, and unlawful for us to follow him, viz. in his miraculous works, and in the works of his mediation.  
In his institutions we may, and must follow the rule and example of Christ, his example being part of our rule. In these institutions somewhat is essential, or substantial, somewhat circumstantial.  
In the last there is no absolute necessity to adhere: For if necessary to administer in all circumstances, as then the Sacrament must be given only at night, or to men only; but in those things we may do so, and we may do otherwise. Christ's example must be strictly followed in all substantials; 
1 Cor. 11.23.  and therefore the Apostle lays down nothing to the Church, but what he had received from the Lord. For our part, we wish men were in this and all Ordinances more devoted to the example of Christ, 'tis the right way to pure and true worship. Peter Martyr tells of a woman that was herself deformed, 
Pet. Mart. loc. come. pag. 32. Heb. 1.3.  yet conceived very beautiful children, by daily eyeing some exact pictures in her Chamber. Christ's example (who is the brightness of his Father's glory) is our fair Image; which the more we look unto, the more perfect and comely will the Ideas and conceptions of our minds be in divine things. Unto the Minor,  
Object. But Christ did not examine his Disciples.  
Answ. How know you that? the Evangelist tells you, 
Joh. 20.30.  all that Christ did was not written. For our own part, we know not where to find it, unless on the backside of Constantine's Donation, or some such place, as you mention. So that this concludes not for you. Argumentum à Scriptura negatiuè non valet. But you add:  
He shown the nature, use, and ends thereof; He washes their feet as a preparative cleansing by faith; but to enable the discharge of this duty, a general exhortation on the Minister's part is proportionable without a particular examination.  
This is said, not proved. It appears not to us, that any such thing was intended by Christ's action of washing, as is affirmed. We are rather satisfied on the contrary, that no special type, or emblem of Sacramental preparation is intended, though it may be so applied by those Fathers allegorically and morally. He that builds arguments upon the Father's allegories and morals on Scripture, will come off weakly in his conclusions.  
Not to mention that some learned men suppose this set down, John 13th. to be done after the Sacrament. It is therefore too confidently affirmed, that Christ shows the nature, 
See the late Annot. fol. 2. Vol. in loc. To teach love, and the cleansing by his blood, these are his ends.  use and end of the Sacrament. That which our Saviour especially commends to his Disciples, is humility, which disposeth to every ordinance, and to the whole life of a Believer, If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them, that is, these things of humility, as from the coherence herence is evident: Harken but to these words, I have given you an example; what of Sacramental preparation? No, But that ye should do as I have done, that is, wash one another's feet, namely be humble, loving, condescending; the mystery of this action was to be revealed hereafter, as verse 7. Therefore not of obvious concernment to their preparation. 
It was an example of humility, as the plain words of Christ are; although by occasion of that example, other Doctrine was inferred of our spiritual washing by Christ, once wholly unto regeneration, and daily of our feet for our daily transgressions. Dr. Fulke on the Rhemish Gloss, on Joh. 13. p. 164.  See more, John 13. v. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. Who will believe that these words, wash one another's feet, signify, Examine yourselves. Again, you say, Christ's washing is answered by the Ministers exhortations, (and why not by their examining as well?) whereas we think that a lesson to examine themselves, would have stood better, if they had been bid to wash their own feet. The deficiency of such general exhortations we shall touch upon anon.  
Lastly, what if Christ did not examine his Disciples? doth it follow that we may not examine some, or all in our Assemblies? Rather in his administering only unto Disciples, he teacheth us to exclude the ignorant and wicked; these (admitted) were his choice Disciples, he had the seventy, and several others besides; but these as more infirm were not called, as a Learned man observes. Besides, we examine none that are taken to be Disciples; but if we should, real Disciples will not refuse to satisfy the Church, and encourage weaker Brethren by a voluntary profession of their saith, which is the most Disciples are put unto. In short, Christ had communicated before with those Disciples in the Passeover, which was the same in substance with this institution; therefore he needed not examine those that were admitted before.  
The most zealous Assertors of Examination press not any to this after their first, or once admission in a due way.   

SECT. XI.  
Wherein of Judas his receiving the Sacrament, which is the second Argument.  
§. 11 The second Argument in the Paper is from the supposed admission of Judas.  
Object. Christ admitted Judas to the Communion, therefore what need of such prying?  
Answ. When this is disputed out to the last, nothing is concluded against our judgements or practice. The conclusion is, that though Christ saw Judas to be an hypocrite, yet he admits him. Now what follows? therefore hypocrites may be admitted. Who thinks the contrary? we are of the same mind, we speak of excluding profane and ignorant persons, and we are told that an hypocrite was admitted. It is not in men's power to exclude hypocrites, or secret sinners, but open. This is truly to paint a house which hath no foundation. You must not expect from us such a precedent as you call for, while it is most remote from our thoughts to debar any from God's Ordinances, who professing Religion are so innocent in their lives, as you speak.  
Were we of your opinion, we should manage this Argument (about judas) in another sort, (viz.) Christ knew judas to be a wicked man, yea, a reprobate, and yet admitted him; therefore Ministers may not keep back such as they see, and know to be wicked ones: Thus Mr. Prinne, and the Erastians'; and this is plain dealing, and the conclusion is directly against us. But here also the argument is weak, and will tremble in its arraignment at the bar of Reason.  
As to the admission of judas, we do ingevously confess that it is somewhat doubtful to us, 
See Mr. Bolton of Heaven in his Book. Tit. 4. Last Things. p. 144.  whether he did receive or not? but we incline strongly to the negative. It is one of the things that we look to have our knowledge perfected in heaven; as whether jephta slew his daughter, or consecrated her to Virginity? or whether Naaman were a true Convert, or unsound? So whether judas received the Sacrament, or not? yet this example of judas being thought to go fare in this controversy, we have somewhat heedfully searched, and weighed, not only the texts of Scripture, but the authorities objected. And first we do not find the consonancy spoken of to be among the Ancients, but see some of them denying, others doubting of judas his receiving. It must be granted that divers of the Father's vote with this Paper; but these are balanced by multitudes of the best Modern Lights, who are of another mind; The Fathers might receive this from one another, without due looking into the Text. They are conceived to err in this point, by taking the sop to be the Sacrament, as these words of Austin discover 
* Num enim mala erat bucella quae tradita est Judae à Domino? absit, medicus non daret venenum: Salutem medicus dedit, sed indignè accipiendo ad perniciem accepit, etc. Augustinus in 6. Tract. in Johan. . Was the Sop evil which was given to judas by our LORD? fare be it. A Physician doth not give poison, etc. where he calls the Sacrament the Sop; now the Sop was undoubtedly given to judas.  
The Ancients denying this consonancy, 
Aaron's Rod blossoming, p. 451. etc.  are fully and clearly set down by Master Gillespy, to whom we refer the Reader; but to satisfy them that may not come to see his Book, we have given a taste of what is more full in him.  
Hilary one of the Fathers speaks thus in English: 
Hilarius, can. in Mat. Postque Judas proditor judicatur, sine quo etc.  After which words judas the Traitor is discovered, without whom the feast of taking the Cup, and breaking the bread was performed, for he was not worthy of the fellowship of the eternal Sacrament; nor could he drink with him here, who was not to drink in Heaven. 
See Theo. in 26. Ch. of Mat. Fol. 33. In Mark 14. p. 53. quidam dicunt etc.  Another of the Fathers is Theophilact: But some say, saith he, that Christ gave the Sacrament to his Disciples when judas was gone forth, we have found this in two places of him. That which lessens his testimony is, that it is only Quidam dicunt, some say; yet note, 

1. If some (then) said so, the consonancy than falls.  
2. Let it be noted, what he infers in that place of Matthew: Therefore must we (saith he) do the like, and put off evil men from the Sacrament. Now this shows how much Theophilact valued this (Quidam dicunt) whosoever they were, he judges them worthy of credit, by making Christ's practice, according to their interpretation, a rule unto Believers. Doubtless therefore these (some men) were godly and eminent Divines in, or about Theophilacts time; we have considered this authority the more, because the Author is in our hands.    
Others we have transcribed only upon the forenamed Author's authority, and given his references; Clemens saith, 
Clemens, lib. 5. constit. Apost. cap. 13. Georg. Pachy in his Comment. upon Dionysius Ariopag. de Eccles. cap. 3. part. 3. Sect. 1.  But when he had delivered to us the Antitype, mysteries of his precious body and blood, Judas not being present. Christ (saith another) doth cast out, separate, or excommunicate most justly judas, who had not holily supped with him, (viz. in the common or Paschal supper) for having given to him of a mystical bread or cup, that is, of the Passeover, he gave the mysteries to the Disciples alone, after he went forth.  
It is manifest that judas went first out, 
Innocent the third, l. 4. de mist. missae, c. 13.  before Christ administered the Sacrament (saith another). We have examined some of these by our own books, and find them truly cited, the others must rest upon the forenamed Authors credit.  
As to our latter, and modern men, the most eminent Writers oppose the opinion of judas his receiving, at least leave it doubtful.  
Their opinion seems to be certain, who deny judas to be present at the holy Supper, saith renowned Beza in John 13. It is no doubt to me saith Musculus; We have set a full Jury in the Margin of learned men, 
H. Za●chius. Musculus. Beza. Danaeus. Piscator. Diodati. Grotius. Dr. Kellet. Gomarus. These two have written professedly. Rutherford. Gillespy. Scharpius.  hardly to be matched, who would not err with such as these are? And yet these are not all, we could name more, yea, double to this number, besides learned Papists not a few. Now judge what the consonancy is worth, which is spoken of in the Paper: The Reader will see we are not behind for humane authorities. But if the authorities of men fail to determine, yet the Text (he saith) is pregnant. What Text? Luk. 22.14. But is this the only Text to be eyed in this controversy? He that reads John 13.30. shall find a Text more pregnantly proving the direct contrary. These Texts do not contradict one another, (thou that readest, beware of that inference.) It is our darkness of mind, which doth hinder our resolution in these matters.  
Although we cannot largely dispute these Texts, yet we will study the help of such as desire light in this point. That  makes the point doubtful, we take to be the number of the Suppers, which were about one and the same time. Some makethese to be three, others but two, viz. the typical, and the eucharistical. It is probable that there was a third, (viz.) a common Supper. The order of these Suppers is also controverted. By the grant of all, Judas was present at one of these. For he sat down with the twelve, some say at the common Supper only, 
Aaron's R. p. 461.  as learned Gillespy; others, at both the common Supper, and at the Passeover, but not at the holy Supper. Now Judas might be present at one, or both the former, 
Joh. Randal. B. D. p. 219.  and yet slink away, (as the word of a learned Divine is) between the common Supper and the Passeover, or between the Passeover and the Sacrament.  
As to that Text of Luke 22. Divines do note a transposition, that is, setting down that last, which was done first, or before.  
A thing not strange, being found in other places of Scripture. As in Genesis the second Chapter. 
Innocent the third, lib. 4. de Miss. c. 13. See also Beza. Salmeron. Maldonate. in loc.  You have set down after the sixth day, what was done before. The reasons and authorities to be brought for this, are many; That Luke after the Cup, speaks of the Traitor, may be understood by recapitulation (saith one.) The reasons are these.  
1. Because Matthew and Mark put that before the institution, which Luke puts after. See Luke 23. v. 21, 22, 23. compared with Matth. 26 21, 22, 23, 24, 25.26. vers. and Mark 14.18. so that here are two to one.  
2. Luke himself puts the taking of the Cup before the breaking of the bread, although doubtless it was after.  
3. The note of the last Translators of the Bible is also considerable, who at the 21. v. set a note of theirs (¶) showing that there gins another matter, therefore not a continued History orderly set down.  
4. Nor doth Luke say, that Christ spoke the words after the Sacrament, but only sets them down.  
Now as to that other Text, John 13. which we allege; It proves Judas departed before the Sacrament was received. Sanè Johannes quiddam ejusmodi subindicare videtur, saith Victor Antiochenus, cited by Mr. Prinne.  
Another more fully we may gather from hence, 
Diodat. in locum.  that judas did not communicate of our Saviour's Sacrament.  
The force of this reason lies in the word (immediately;) what it signifies, every Englishman knows, that is, instantly, forthwith.  
Now this being granted, as it is, that the Sop was not given at the holy Supper, but before; how could so remarkable an action as receiving the Sacrament intervene, and yet judas be said to go forth immediately?  
Truly, neither truth, nor good English will suffer this; to say that immediately signifies a short time, is a miserable shift, and an abuse of the word. Therefore learned Gerrard upon second and better thoughts retracted that gloss, 
See Gor. Har. c. 171. p. 453.  and he is a good precedent for others to follow.  
He that desires more may consult learned Scharpius and others, 
Scharpius, in curs. th'. p. 1431.  he by four arguments proves that judas was not present, and also answers the Objection from Luke 22. One of his arguments is this:  
With whom Christ drank in the Sacrament, 
Attersol, The New Covenant, p. 486.  with them in the Kingdom of his Father: But not with judas there; Therefore not in the Supper.  
It is also considerable to observe the different manner of Christ's speaking, sometime without exception, and sometime with it. When judas was present, with exception, john 13. v. 10, 11, 18. afterward without exception, most sweetly, 
See our English Divines in their large Annot. in 2. Vol upon the place.  and generally, Matth. 26.29. Luk. 22.28, 29, 30. See john 13. After Judas going out, how his speech varies; If judas were present, than these speeches must be applied to him, which may not be granted. Ambrose and Gerrard expound these words of Christ, (That which thou dost, do quickly) as a casting out of judas. As if he had said, Get thee gone from the company of my Apostles, and out of my sight. Now these words were spoken before the Sacrament.  
Lastly, 
Evangel. common. by Ph. Goodwin, p. 118.  should it be granted that judas did receive, yet much were not gained. judas, as one says well, is but a bad porter to let in men to the Sacrament. There was nothing in him discernible (by men,) contrary to his profession. There was no visible cause for his exclusion. The Apostles thought as well of him as of themselves, and did not so much as suspect him, though he were known to Christ as God. But Christ in her Ordinance dealt as man (ministerially) as a Pattern to us, who are to admit visible Disciples, not being able to descend into their hearts. When the woman taken in adultery was brought before Christ, he dealt as a man, called for her accusers, and when none came, dismissed her; and yet he knew her (as God) to be guilty, and therefore says, Go, and sin no more; Unless Christ as a Minister had known judas to be a Reprobate, what reason had he to exclude him? Now let the Reader judge, what life is left in this Argument about judas his receiving, which is found and proved to be so feeble in its consequence, and antecedent.    

The fifth Section of the Paper.  
THE Canon prescribing, and directing the due administration, 
The fifth Section of the Paper.  and receiving of the Eucharist is, 1 Cor. 11. We cannot with Tertullian adore the fullness of Scripture, unless we yield it to be a perfect rule of faith and manners, which it cannot be if it be deficientin any thing necessary to be done, or believed, especially in such places, where it purposely hand let things of that concernment; and therefore here (and only here) an argument ab authoritate negative holdeth good. But in that Chapter I find a precept, Let a man examine himself; none, that he should necessarily pass the examination of his Pastor. Between the proper examination of himself, and eating, and drinking; no other thing intervenes, and therefore this very Commentary is made upon that Text by pathetical chrysostom: He doth not bid one man to examine another, but every man himself, making the judgement private, and the trial without witnesses. Pareus strikes in unisons with that ancient Father: The Apostle saith not, The Priest shall examine, or prove them, but every man himself. So doth Sarcerius, He commands not that one should be approved to another; but each one to himself, as long before Clemens Alexandrinus accounted every man's conscience to be hisbest director in this case, l. 1. Stromat. By what authority then can he be rejected that hath examined himself? And to suspect that any have not examined themselves, that shall profess to have done so, without pregnant probability to the contrary, how can it be compatible with that charity that hopeth all things, and suspecteth not?  

SECT. XII.  
Wherein of a third Argument from 1 Cor. 11.28. Let a man examine himself.  
§. 12 The third Argument lies in the fifth Paragraph, and is another beaten Objection from 1 Cor. 11.28. This hath two supporters: 

1. That it is the very Canon for the Sacrament.  
2. The fullness of the Scripture.    
Answ. We answer, There is a twofold fullness of the Scripture:  
In its parts, and in the whole. There is a fullness in every part, in every phrase and sentence. The smallest filing of this wedge is pure gold. Mountains of matter hang upon the smallest syllable, as the Jews use to speak; so in the whole. The whole is a full rule of faith. Now so far we agree, but that all of any matter is contained in any one place, (which is here supposed) will be hard to prove. We are not wanting to the due respect of Scripture, while we hold the whole to be a most complete rule of faith and manners. That which is wanting in one place, is supplied in another. It hath been the ill hap (if I may so speak) of all the Arguments hitherto alleged, to dash upon that Rock, (ab authoritate Scripturae negatiuè,) which makes them all deficient in their authority, while the Scripture stands for a firm and full rule to all the godly. That the Apostle doth purposely handle the Doctrine of the Sacrament in that place, we freely grant; but that nothing can be necessary about the practice of it, which is not there expressed, we see no reason to yield. We are sure there is that elsewhere which is not there, and we hope all is necessary that is revealed. For redundancy is a blemish the word is as free of, as it is of defect. Besides, reasons may be given, why no mention there, and then, of any preparatory work by the trial of others.  
1. Because those spoken unto, namely the Corinthians were before, and newly admitted into Church-fellowship, by profession of their faith, and therefore needed not to be called to this again. Whereas ours are borne in a Church, where hath been a long neglect of true Discipline, and where an unfitness in many is confessed by all that are ingenuous.  
2. The Apostle in this Scripture eyes Christ's performance with his Disciples, where was no need of this examination, they being all formerly joined to Christ, and known of him. You may find learned Zanchy the Protestant Schoolman (as he is deservedly styled) making, and in some part resellng your objection, so fare, as that this Precept doth not deny the inspection of others. If none of these were of weight, why may not the examination of Pastors and Church-Officers well stand with that of a man's self? These being not contrary, but subordinate, the Precept is not exclusive. It is not, Let a man examine himself only: Small hopes of that man's self-examining, who cannot bear the friendly trial of his Minister.  
It is meant (as Zanchy well) of secret sins, (we may add, and of sincerity of graces) which men cannot see in others.  
But our examination is for the satisfaction, and honour of the Church, and is of that which may be known and judged by others: men's own is for the reformation, and comfort of their own consciences. We believe that those Ministers that hold it necessary, (as the case now stands with our Congregations) to examine others, are yet little behind their Opponents in earnest pressing upon men's consciences the examination of themselves, charging such as they deal with, not to rest on the trial and approbation of others, but to approve themselves to God in the searching, and judging of themselves.  
Lastly, because the Scripture stands for such a fullness in that single Scripture, as to leave out no one necessary thing: Let us ask whether a godly Communicant be bound to no other duty, besides what is there particularly expressed? We hope prayer at least, and sundry other duties, which are not mentioned, may yet be regarded and practised, and have their warrant elsewhere. Some Fathers and others do gloss these words, as is said in the Paper, but not in that sense.  
Their mind was, and so is ours, that men should not busy themselves about others, neglecting their own condition, nor rest upon other men's opinions of them, without discerning a difference from themselves formerly, and from others at present. chrysostom speaks well, when rightly taken for private examination should be in a secret place, (where the soul may freely have communion with God;) but that which is for reformation, and satisfaction of the Church, should nevertheless be with witnesses.  
If Clemens Alexandrinue counted every man's conscience his best director, we hope he meant this of conscientious men, not of men void of true conscience, which is the condition of all such as we willingly keep off. 
Pareus in verba, id est, 1 Cor. 11.28. in part altera, p. 563.  Pareus is one brought in to side with the Fathers, unto him we are contented to hearken; We have sought the words alleged, and find him thus speaking: Non dicit Apostolus, Sacerdoter probent, etc. that is, The Apostle doth not say, Let the Priests examine, or try the Communicants; but, Let every one examine himself; to show the Reader, what an unison this is. We must freely point at a great mistake, and that in three points.  
1. Pareus speaks this of Popish Priests.  
2. Of Auricular confession.  
3. In the following words he is ours, justifying what he is alleged against: Examina publica, vel privata, that is, 
Examina publica, veprivata minimè improbamus, sed requirimus.  public or private examinations of Communicants we by no means condemn, but require.  
So that however he grants the examination there commanded, to be especially of a man's self, which we freely assent unto. yet he is not against that which we contend for. It is here and elsewhere hinted, that our examination is risen out of the ashes of Auricular confession; but (alas!) the difference between these is easily showed, and the harshness of the comparison is as evident.  
1. Examination defended is sometime before the whole society, and never so private, as is suggested: but always before two or three witnesses at the least.  
2. Auricular confession is constantly, and continually renewed, so often as the Ordinance is made use of: this is never but once.  
3. Ratione subjecti, they are as wide as a Minister of the Gospel, and a Friar or Jesuit. It is not for want of ignorance, & ill will to the truth, that examination by Church Officers, to find out men's fitness for visible communion, is counted by many a point of Popery; but enough of this. Shortly, he that builds upon the alleged Text, that no others have to do with men's fitness to the Sacrament, because a private self-examination about the sincerity of their graces, to ground a judgement of faith upon, is commended; or that it is against charity, to suspend any man that professeth himself prepared; he that lays this upon the Text, lays more upon it than it will bear, and which the Ancients and Modern approved Authors will not own, as we hope more fully to prove anon.    

The sixth Section of the Paper.  
IN the Primitive Church were excluded from the Communion, the Catechumeni, 
The sixth Section of the Paper.  Energumeni, persons excommunicate, and penitents. and such as lapsed into Heresy, until they repent, and I should be glad to be taught; for sure it is out of my learning, where, or when any others were rejected, but only under this notion and capacity. In these ancient times I find that mutual reconciliations, and in African Churches vigils with prayers, and in Chrysostom's times fastings, and sometimes in some places the public renouncing in some particular heresies, were antecedent to the Synaxis; but I find no necessity of previous examination. When the Church saw the benefit of public confessions for public offences, as well for the subduing of the stubbornness of their hard hearts, and the improving of their deep humiliation; as for the raising up again by those sensible comforts, which they received by the public prayers of the Church, and use of the Keys. Some men reflecting hereupon, and finding their consciences smarting for like fins, which being secretly carried, were not obnoxious to the censures of the Church, to the end they might obtain like consolation and quiet mind, did voluntarily submit themselves to the Church's Discipline herein, and underwent the burden of public confession and penance; and to the end this publication of secret offences might be performed in the best way, and discreetest manner, some prudent Minister was first acquainted therewith, by whose direction the Delinquent might understand what sins were first to be brought to the public notice of the Church, and in what manner the penance was to be performed by them.  
At first it was left free to the penitent to choose his Ghostly Father; but at length by the general consent of the Bishops it was ordained, that in every Church one certain discreet Minister should be appointed to receive confessions, until at length in the time of Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople, (who died, An. D. 401. 
Socrates, Hist. l. 5. c. 19 ) upon occasion of the infamy drawn upon the Clergy by the confession of a Gentlewoman, defiled by a Deacon in that City, it was thought fit it should be abolished, and liberty should be given to every man upon the private examination of his own conscience, to resort to the holy Communion, which doubtless occasioned chrysostom the successor of Nectarius to make those deliveries of himself, which are prementioned The result of those premises is this, that the ancient Church sometime thought it requisite that confession of penitents should precede the Communion, but not the examination of all, or any that communicated. I shall desire that it may be deliberately considered,  
First, Whether repentance be not as necessary to worthy receiving, and as principal a part of that examination which every one ought to make of himself, as knowledge; and then as advisedly to perpend.  
Secondly Whether there be not as great a reason to revive Auricular confession, (in some qualified, and rectified manner) as to introduce a particular examination, especially since the Church of Rome asserts, and practiseth it upon this same principle, 
Greg. Valentia, tom. 3. disp. 6. quest. 8. punct. 3. pag. 43.  which these men do their precedaneous examination, (viz.) because it is the duty of the Priest to repel unworthy, and to admit the worthy, which is best done upon the knowledge of the penitents estate in confession.  

SECT. XIII.  
Wherein of the practice of Antiquity in preparation for, and exclusion from the Lords Supper.  
In the sixth Paragraph he passeth from Scripture-Argument to Antiquity, 
Illi verò quamvis non habent sacras literas. habent fortasse doctores veteres, & sanctos Patres, . Apol. p. 114.  which discourse is continued in the seventh and eighth Sections. In this a line is drawn from the Primitive Church, down to the time of chrysostom, or rather a circle about that age he lived in. In whose time the yoke of Auricular confession was broken, and liberty granted to every man to resort to the Communion upon the private examination of his own conscience. We shall now make trial of the strength of this also, where we find some things yielded, others affirmed, and supposed, all which we will consider. We might here show many reasons against building too much on the Fathers and Antiquity, this objection being raised upon the sand thereof, and taken not for Scripture-Antiquity, but upon humane account, of Fatherss and Counsels. 
Sibrandus Lubertus, de principiis, c. dogm. p. 7.  It is received among all Orthodox Divines, that the Books of the Prophets and Apostles, are the only principle of Christian belief. The Fathers have their errors, sometimes they agree in mistakes, and another while are divided in truths. It is the saying of an eminent man, 
L. Verulam Essays, p. 140.  (They that teverence old times too much, are a scorn to the new,) in his Essay on Innovation, whereon by some passages in the first Section of the Paper sent, we conjecture the Author's eye to have been. Justine Martyr refers the opinion of the Chiliasts (which hath been taken for an error,) to the Apostles. Irenaeus says, that he had by tradition, that Jesus Christ lived fifty years on earth, which is false.  
It is the manner of the Fathers (saith our Author) when they would commend a thing, 
Sib. Lub. de p. c. dog. p. 130.  not knowing its Original, to refer it to the Apostles, and Primitive Church. In the three first ages, or centuries of the Fathers, the Learned are perplexed with spurious works; so that there is great uncertainty as to the Fathers and state of the Primitive Church, as it is reported by Writers. Besides, the Primitive Church is stretched somewhat too fare, when it is brought down to the time of chrysostom, (who lived in the fourth Century) when in the judgement of some it extends not beyond the Apostles days, or but to the third Century: We wonder most at this, that devout chrysostom is brought in for this suggested liberty. Let the Reader consult him, especially on Matth. Hom. 38. 
Chrrysost. Hom. 28. on Mat. p. 98  toward the end of the Homily; and if he find not chrysostom of another mind, we are deceived. We shall set down his words hereafter: But what if such a thing be concluded on, will it therefore be a truth not to be gainsaid? No, the consent of Bishops is not always so authentic. Here again Auricular confession is made our pattern, and so presented, as to cast an odium upon the Ministers, and their actings in this business. What else that story of unclearmesse serves for, we know not.  
As to the Queries, and demands in the end of the Section, we answer, 

1. Repentance is as necessary as knowledge, and is a part of examination, or rather examination is a part, or act of repentance.  
2. That private confession in a right and rectified manner, hath never been totally disused; the private unburthening of grieved souls into the bosom of some Christian friend, Minister or other in some difficult cases, hath been, and is practised home to this day.    
We hope that the Author may see in time, that the Ministers principles in their separation, and examination are not Romish: We abhor the Church of Rome's rotten Principles; We abhor her, her ways, and friends. Some of her Principles may be good, yet than her inferences are base. These men pointed at in the Paper do undertake to show, that as they dislike not that Christian refuge of private confession, which is the very word and will of God: 
Jam. 5.16.  So they can maintain their course of examination without use of the Philistines forge, nor do they introduce anything; only they desire that all, whether public or private duties to God, or the Church's honour, may be upheld.  
We come next to consider, what is produced from Antiquity, and yielded in this Controversy; as also to see, whether this be for the Paper, or against it. A smatterer in Antiquity may know, that the Ancients rejected, and suspended divers sorts of men under sundry considerations, and that they were exceeding cautelous about admission to this Ordinance, no print whereof is to be seen in the common practice of our Assemblies. Such orders, or distinctions of men as are named, may be found; some make three, some four sorts of these, as Catechumeni, Energumeni, etc. All which forms were in order to a holy Communion, that persons ignorant and unfit might be kept off.  
First, The Catechumeni were such as the Church nurtured in the fundamentals of Religion, being unbaptised, the children (as we suppose) of Pagans.  
The Energumeni were a sort of men possessed of Satan, or men excommunicate; as Peter Martyr 
* P. Mart. loc. come. p. 835, & 831. Illi dicuntur energumeni, qui interiùs laborant pervexationem daemonis, etc. Joh. Alstaig. Lex. Th. p. 282.  thinks, because such were delivered unto Satan. Energumeni, ab energia, as others, from an inward labouring under Satan.  
What the penitents were, is more easily known by the sound of the Word, namely such as became scandalous by their manners, or opinions. Now that such as these are mentioned in ancient Writers is granted; nor is it necessary we should assign other qualifications, when these distinctions in Antiquity were in order to a more holy Communion, (which is our end) that persons ignorant and unfit might be kept off: Such as speak of the Discipline of these times do relate their courses more fully about admitting penitents, and such as had been scandalous.  
1. They were admitted to the limits of the Church.  
2. To lie down in the Church-porch.  
3. To hearing of the Word, but not to stay at prayers.  
4. Next to see the Sacrament, not receiving till they were sufficiently humbled.  
These things without doubt had a good use, and do shame the ordinary Administrations in our Parishes, where no such things are thought on, 
See Evangel. Com. in Episle, in p. 4.  but (all to the Sacrament.) is the plea and practice.  
Thus fare Antiquity is for us, rather than against us.  
Let us take a little more of what is granted; The Primitive Church (says the Paper) saw the use of public confession; Now our examination is little more or other The admission of very many of our members, was only by public confession, and that some others have done the same thing more privately, before two or three witnesses, this hath been out of our tenderness, and condescension to their bashfulness; Otherwise we think the public (we mean the presence of the Church) to be the fittest place, so that here is little varying from Antiquity. Now if this be considered, what comfort can Ministers, or others take in holding larger and wider principles than the ancient godly did; the clear light of the Doctrine of Grace calling (now) for more pureness in our own ways, and in the Churches, and the times now being more enlightened, and discerning, godly men then submitted to the Church's discipline, why are such as would be so esteemed averse now? That the practice of public confession at first pure, did afterward become corrupt by the working of Antichrist, this is to be bewailed, but it is no argument against the use of the same, o● a very like course by us. The rejection spoken of, was after the abuse appeared; but now men (to use the Proverb) sweat to see the saddle, or rather bridle to curb their lufts. It seems to us the authorities urged should constrain men, we speak (to the better sort of Ministers) to do somewhat equivalent to what the Ancients did, rather than to stickle against the day of small things. It affects us to read in the few Ancients (we converse with) such passages as these, Sancta Sanctis. Holy things to holy men, which was pronounced by the Deacon before the administration of the Lords Supper; which shows their purity this way; the very Heathens had one to cry, Procul hinc, 
J. Mich. Dilherrus, lib. 2. Elect. c. 1.  Be gone you that are profane. We see by what we have read, that the Ancients require as much, or more than we do; and therefore are censured by one for going too fare this way: Now what if some difference be in the formality of our actings? a distingue tempora will take off that. We live in a Church corrupted through the negligence of latter days; If we redressing differ (something) from them in gathering and ordering, it is not much to be stood upon. We shall shut up this Section with one or two testimonies, by which the Reader may see of what Spirit the best of the Ancients were, as to the point in hand, namely about suspension, or admission to the Lords Table.  
They thought it (saith one) detestable to God and man, not only for them that were defiled with lesser sins, but if but under a cloud of suspicion to come to the Eucharist, and they judged it dangerous for absolved penitents to touch those things.  
If not thought holy enough by them to whom the care of the Sacrament was committed. chrysostom is as full as can be wished, I would not suffer these things to be done (speaking of the approaching of men unfit) rather will I give my life, 
Albaspinaeus, lib. 2. obser. 25. Nulla potest congruentior commodiórque afferri ratio, (speaking of the strictness of the Ancients) quàm quae ex reverentia ac Religtone petitur; quâ adversus Sanctam Eucharistiam ferebantur; detestabile quippe Deo & hominibus non solùm existimabant hominem vel levissimâ maculâ inquinatum, ac maculae nebulâ offensum ad Eucharistiam accedere, etc.  and pour out my own blood. After he had admonished Ministers not to deliver the Eucharist, to the unworthy, he adds these words, if therefore any general, if the Consul himself, if one that wears the Crown come unworthily, forbidden and restrain him, thou hast greater authority than he. How round are these words? Let us therefore keep off all (absolutely) that we see to come unworthily. No small punishment hangs over our heads, if we suffer any to come that we know to live in any sin; He doth not say, if he will not submit to trial, you are free; and if you exhort, you have freed your own soul. No, his principles were more strict, and holy, then so to speak. His blood will be required of thy hands: This is other, 
See chrysostom at large, 38. Hom. on Matthew, p. 198.  yea, higher language. If it be said, that chrysostom spoke of notorious known sinners, and that such are not pleaded for; We must answer, nor are others pleaded against, or willingly excluded by us: Though knowing men, and such as are of innocent lives, may be called forth, these make little work for Friars, and are good examples to their weak Brethren. What is required of, and done by them, is chief to encourage others; We wish we could but see notorious wicked ones kept off in the Assemblies obout us, it would beget better thoughts in us of the spirits of some, than now we can have; but we hear of no such work, rather we know the contrary.    

The seventh Section of the Paper.  
THE Eucharist was often in these Primitive times sent to persons absent: 
The seventh Section of the Paper.  It was given to Strangers coming to Rome, as a pledge or Symbol of their consent, and communion in the same faith, where was no probability, surely not evidence of precedent examination.  

SECT. XIV.  
Wherein is replied unto the seventh Paragraph, about giving the Sacrament to strangers, and sending it to the absent; Arguments against Examination.  
§. 14 Sending the Elements to persons absent, we take to be a corruption, smelling of rank superstition; The Paper you see fetcheth it from Rome; prove it you to be an ancient practice, and we will maintain it to be an ancient error. Antichrist hath been long working in the Church, the Fathers might be too free, 
2 Thess. 2.7  this will not excuse men's prodigality of Christ's blood in these days. men's actings which have been without warrant, are neither good precedents, nor arguments; such as are strangers by place, may upon the knowledge of some members, or certificate from their Church be admitted; Strangers in place are not to be stood upon, if they be not strangers in heart and condition: He that dwells next door, may be a stranger to Heaven and Jesus Christ.    

The eighth Section of the Paper.  
IN the first times they generally communicated daily, which St. Hierom saith, 
The eighth Section of the Paper. Euseb. ex Iren. cent. 2. Magdeburg.  he neither approves, nor reprehends. Zepherinus Bishop of Rome about A. D. 300. ordained that generally every one pubertatem excessus, (which was about the 15. or 16. year) should communicate once a year. Fabianus; that they should do it thrice; so did the Agathense Council.  
This decree is found under the name of the Apostles Canons, Can. 10. Which though I am not ignorant, are not rightly fathered upon them; yet are ancient, and not contemptible. As many of the faithful as come into the Church, and hear the Scriptures, but continue not out the prayers, nor receive the holy Communion; let them be put from the Communion of the Church, as men that work the breach of order. And it is noted in the Margin upon the same Canons: In old time all that were present did communicate. And consonantly the Council of Antioch decreed. that all that come into the Church of God, and hear the holy Scriptures, and refuse the receiving of the Lords Sacrament, let them be put from the Church; In vain, 
Hom. 3. ad Ephes.  saith chrysostom, we stand at the Altar, when none will participate.— If thou stand by, and do not communicate, thou art wicked, thou art shameless, thou art impudent; I would not only have you to participate, but to be worthy partakers. Thou wilt say, I am unworthy to partake of the holy Mysteries; then art thou unworthy to be partaker of the prayers; not only by those things set before us, but by Hymns also doth the Holy Ghost descend; you that are under penance, depart.— He that partakes not, 
De medicina penitent. super illud, 1 Cor. 5. Si quis frater, etc.  is a penitent. We can, saith Augustine, repel no man from the Communion, but one that by his own confession, and the sentence of the Ecclesiastical, or Civil Judicatory shall be accused, or convicted of some crime. And in another place, (which Gratian citys) under the name of St Hilary (De consecrat. didst 2.6. si. non tanta,) Only for these sins that deserve excommunication, may a man be driven from the Communion, Ep. 118. c. 3.  
And the School (if it hath any regard left it) doth generally hold, as also the Casuists, (and besides many reasons, they cite the authority of Saint Augustine to abet their opinion) that the Communion is not to be denied to a secret sinner, that is not notorious, if he desire it, left he be thereby defamed. Let it now be considered, whether there can be any conformity between the Ancient Church, and these men, that are as careful, and as earnest to exclude men from the Sacrament, as the Ancients were to bring them to it. Now men stand by, and would, but are not suffered to communicate; where then, and upon whom shall we lay Chrysastomes' stigme of wicked, shameless, and impudent? If the Pastor shall say of his flock, as it seems some of Chrysostom's auditors said of themselves, they are unworthy, the same Father will give the Pastor the same answer which he did his own flock, they are then unworthy to be partakers of the prayers; and the Council of Antioch adds, unworthy to hear the holy Scriptures. If they are not under penance, they are not in that Father's judgement to be rejected. And I would have it laid to heart in a serious consideration, that seeing the Word is the savour of death unto death unto some, as well as he eats and drinks his damnation that eats and drinks unworthily; why there should not be as great a necessity to examine men of their preparation and fitness in order to the hearing of the Word, as to the receiving of the Sacrament; especially seeing that precept of not casting pearls before swine, or giving holy things to dogs, (which some allege to justify this Occonomy of excluding from the Sacrament such as they suspect unworthy) is first and principally intended of preaching of the Word.  

SECT. 15.  
Wherein other Arguments from Antiquity are answered, and the vote of the Schooolmen produced for the defendants.  
§. 15 Here are more lines then in the former Section, but little that presseth us.  
1. What if they received often? this was an argument of their faith, and strength of love to Christ in those days; we like their daily receiving better than their general, unless the times were much better than ours. It may be oft, and yet not so oft. There is no necessity, nor hardly fitness in this daily receiving.  

1. How shall the Church come together?  
2. What shall become of their calling?  
3. What time of preparation?   
This often receiving touches not us, but checks those that while they dislike us, do content themselves with receiving it once, or twice a year, if they make it not an Easter-formality alone.  
2. What if they received at fifteen or sixteen years old? so they be godly young ones, we see no fault in that neither, we have had some taken in among us about that age.  
3. Suppose it were decreed that all present at the Word should communicate; this might well be, if such as were under censure, or obnoxious to it were excepted. We also believe that such as belong to a reformed and orderly Church, cannot without offence, unless the cause be shown go away from the Eucharist, (having been present at the Word) when it is administered. All this while these men are no enemies to Antiquity. While we are considering these authorities, we see more confusion than variety; How agrees that note upon the Margin of the Canons? [In old time all did communicate, yea all that hear the Word by the appointment of the Council of Antioch, and no difference between presence at the Church's prayers, and at her breaking of bread.]  
This was in old time, and truly unless the thimes were holier than ours now are, they were old dark times when such things were practised. Thus the former authorities. But the following testimonies remember of some restraint upon that Ordinance, which is the true account of Antiquity, as is confessed in the Paper, and hath been demonstrated by us. It is as clear as the light at noonday, that all under the Word were not suffered to come to the Lords Table, though this be the mind, and desire of most in those days: and that which commonly lies in the deck, where examination, and such like distinguishing courses were opposed. 
Mr. Ph. Goodwin.  All to the Sacrament, being (as a godly man speaks) the great Goliath of these days, with whom the little Davids of this age are encountering; 
Amesius in medulla, Th. p. 288 289.  As little weight has that testimony, which allows no cause of suspension from the Communion, less than that which deserves excommunication; whereas the Paper makes the excommunicate but one of those sorts of the excluded, Antiquity hath distinguished between suspension, and excommunication, which are now termed the greater and the lesser excommunication.  
We come now to give an account of our regard of the Schoolmen, and of their respect to us in the present debate. We shall desire those that have them, to consult them upon the third part of Thomas Aquinas, and to bring us word whether they don ot put it into the hands of Ministers, to deny the Sacrament unto all such, as they do judge to be scandalous sinners, or unworthy persons. We have given a taste of the words of one of these.  
This dispensation or denial of the Sacrament, 
Haec dispensatio vel negatio Sacramenti, non est consideranda ut actio judicialis, etc.  is not to be considered as a judicial or penal act, but as a prudent and faithful administering; and therefore depends not upon witnesses and proofs, but only upon that judgement and knowledge, which in a prudent existimation by occurrent circumstances is judged sufficient, that without any offence the Sacrament may be, and aught to be denied; see the Schools say so much, 
Suarez par. 3. Tho tom. 3. disp. 6, 7. Sect. 3 p. 856.  that they say more than we would have them; that whole Section, and all the Sections of that disputation tend to the same purpose. The Pastor must more regard the reverence, or dignity of the Sacrament, than the right of the sinner. In the sixth Section are these words: A violent suspicion is enough to deny the Sacrament, 
Ib. Sect. 6 p. 863.  according to the common opinion of Divines. Now to prove from the Schoolmen, and Casuists, that all but the scandalous were admitted, or that secret sinners are not to be kept off, is to prove nothing at all, 
Greg. Mag. Epist. lib. 2. cap. 66.  for we finde that only such aught to be excluded, as are some way scandalous. If it be manifest to our knowledge of any man, that he is guilty of some ungracious fault, let him by our authority be deprived of the communion of Christ's body and blood. It is a sad charge which closes these authorities, but being misapplied, it troubles not us much, we leave it to the Reader to judge whether there be not more conformity between us and Antiquity, than our Adversaries can make good of their practice, while they make no separation, and set no bounds or fence against profaners. Who they be that are so careful to repel, and exclude men, as the Ancients were to bring them to the Sacrament, we know not. Nor will we too hastily resolve where that stigme of chrysostom (being so foul) should rest; a man may see (with half an eye) where the Paper would fix it, nay, where it doth; but no matter, harder words than these must the servants of Christ bear with joy: With more truth, and candour may it be laid at their doors that are more careful and forward to have men partake, then to have them worthy partakers, as many are; this was not Chrysostom's mind, we have cause to bless God for the comfort he hath given us in our weak endeavours, to preserve the dignity of his Ordinance. Nor have we the least touch of guilt, as to our excluding some, many are worthily excluded, some stand off, and exclude themselves upon some poor pretences. We shall not bear their guilt at the last day. It is not much what men think, man's judgement is much easier borne then Gods. There is yet one thing unanswered in this Section, which we are requested to consider. It is, Whether it be not as necessary to examine men before they hear the Word, 
See Ursini Cateche. à Pareo illust. p. 531. See Evang, come. p. 178. See Gillespy, Aaron's Rod. p. 489. Canes quidem quibus sanctum non est dandum, & porci ante quos margaritae non suntt abjiciendae, Mat. 7.6. ab ista sacra mensa abigantur. At in quibus seriae poenitentiae signa deprebenduntur, illi non diu●urnis remoris, etc. Harm. Evang. Ger. fol. cap. 66. p. 941.  as before the holy Supper, becanse the Word hath the savour of death to some; and that Scripture (Cast not your pearls before swine) is meant of hearing the Word? It seems to us to be below reason, to see no difference between other Ordinances and the Lords Supper, as to mat-of examination. Those words (Cast not your pearls, etc.) may extend to hearers of the Word, this is not denied: but where one applies it so, many do apply it to the Communion. So by Alexander Halensis, and others of note, Who knows not that distinction between a converting and confirming Ordinance?— Some indeed have contested against this difference, but with slender success. The Word Heathens are capable of. Go, preach the Word to every creature. The other is proper to Saints, to comfort, and strengthen the begotten. So that there is not the same reason for a preced aneous examination in these two Ordinances.  
As to that controversy, Whether the Sacrament may convert (which borders upon this opinion?) so much is said about it by two learned and godly men, as little can be added. 
Gillespy.  One in a vigorous reply to Master Prinne, by whom (though a man free of his pen) no answer hath been given. 
Ph. Good.  The other is a late, clear, and sweet discourse. Consult these; we are sailing with a side-wind, being not directly engaged by the Paper, to speak our thoughts, yet we shall spare a few words to it. Conversion of souls is God's work, who is not limited by his own Ordinances, but is above them, while we are under them; he can without any or by unsanctified means call a soul. We read of one converted by often seeing a death's head in a ring, another by a man's falling down dead in his sight; these (you will say) are not proper, or sanctified means. Again, by prayer a soul may be converted in some sense, As  
1. Grace may be then given in.  
2. In prayer much of the Gospel may be held out, as to sin's guilt, misery and remedy, and so a soul may be wrought upon, this is by prayer, but not as such: The scope of it being to beg grace, to seek a blessing on the Word, and sanctify that means. Further, a soul may be wrought upon by a Sacrament-Sermon, or Sacrament-exhortation, or one may be turned from the practice of a particular sin, and may have his conversion cleared at such a time. Or thus, the time of receiving the Sacrament, may be the time of his first sensible feeling of grace wrought, yet all this doth not make it a converting Ordinance in an ordinary way, such as in faith may be used for that end. No, Faith comes by hearing, Rom. 10.17. which is meant of preaching, as a distinct Ordinance, see ver. 15. But this is more than we own the Paper, which doth not affirm (in terminis) that the Lords Supper is a converting Ordinance, but only this, that the danger is alike of unworthy hearing, as of unworthy receiving, and therefore examination is no more necessary to the one, then before the other; there being no examination before hearing, why before the Lord's Supper?  
1. But this conceit hath no conformity with Antiquity, for the Catechumeni, and penitents were admitted to the Word, but put from the other as all men know.  
2. Hear a worthy or two in this case. The Word goeth before faith, the Sacraments, follow saith learned Amesius. Peter Martyr speaks thus in English: Moreover, 
Amesius, Bel. Eneru. tom. 3. lib. 1. cap. 1. Pet. Martyr upon Mat. 18.17. Adbaec praedicandum est eis qui nondum audierunt, aut certè nondum perceperunt: attamen utcunque feratur impuritas conventuum ubi ver bum praedicatur quam Christus & Apostoli tulcrunt, coenae tamen communio (ut dixi) purior esse debet, etc.  we must preach to those that have not yet heard or not understood. Yet though the impurity and mixture of Assemblies where the Word is preached, be to be born with, which Christ, and his Disciples did bear, yet the communion of the Supper should be purer (as I said) for it is a public thanksgiving for redemption given of them, who do openly profess themselves Christians.    

The nineth Section of the Paper.  
WHat apological reason can there be showed to obstruct or impede the admission of all that profess the faith of Christ, 
The ninth Section of the Paper.  though formally, and are not scandalous by a manifest belying of their profession? The Sacrament is not defiled by their partaking, no more than the Word is by being preached unto faithless people, and that is no more than the Sun is polluted by shining upon a dunghill. Those that communicate with them are not polluted, or defrauded thereby of the fruit, and efficacy of the Sacrament; neither doth God bind us to dive into other men's consciences; nor can their fraud, or deceits, or cold, formal profession hurt any beside themselves. To God they seem such as they are, but of us they must be taken for such as they seem. In the eye of God they are against Christ, that are not truly and sincerely with him: in our eyes they must be received as with Christ, that are not in outward show against him. (Beside that it was said by Tully to be Cato's fault, that he was so strict and severe, as if he had lived in Plato's Commonwealth, not in the dregs of Romulus:) The Church at no time can pretend to, or hope for perfection of degrees, rarely that of parts. jacob's ladder had several degrees in it, and all were not of one height, or rising. The floor hath in it wheat, and chaff; the field corn, and tares; the net good fish, and bad; and which I would have more especially taken notice of, at the nuptial banquet was one found without a wedding garment. I keep the Church, saith St. Augustine, full of wheat, 
Contra. Crescon. l. 3. c. 15, & 36.  and chaff: I amend whom I can, I tolerate whom I cannot: I fly the chaff, lest I become the same thing; but not the floor, lest I be nothing. Accuse thou with all thy forces; if they be innocent, thy ventosity shall not hurt them, as being corn; if nocent, the corn ought not to be deserted for the chaff. Accuse them what thou canst, I, overcome if thou provest it; I am victor if thou provest it not. If thou prove it not, I overcome, be thyself Judge, if thou dost prove it, I am victor by the judgement of Cyprian, who taught that the barn was not to be forsaken for the chaff. To forsake the Assemblies because of the mixture, and communion of hypocrites, and evil men I should willingly know, if it be not to revive the old heresies of Donatus, Lucifer, Novatus, and Audius? And to make the Church of the called to be of no greater latitude then that of the elect? whereas many are called, but few are chosen. And as the people may not withdraw themselves from the Communion upon that pretence, so neither may the Minister withhold the Communion from them; for can it be thought rational that the holy desire of a competent number should be unsatisfied, because the greater part is careless, and indisposed to join with them? Is not this to eradicate the corn for the tares sake, whereas rather both should be suffered to grow together until harvest? And as it is no prejudice to the rest of the people to communicate with them, so none likewise to the Pastor to administer it to them, so as he have by public and preparatory teaching, and as he shall find it fit, and seasonable and meet with opportunities to do it, by private conference endeavoured to principle, and dispose them to a worthy receiving. Petitur à te cura, non curatio, saith St. Bernard, If thou teachest, that is thine; if he will not learn, that is his: take what is thine, and go thy way, saith the same Father. If the watchman cry, and the City will not be warned, their blood shall be upon their own heads, he hath delivered his soul. Neither was the Pastor of Corinth blamed for admitting those that did eat, and drink unworthily, but they were reprehended that came so unprepared; nor were the servants checked for bringing into the marriage-feast a man that had no wedding garment, though himself were cast out into utter darkness. I know a man is guilty of every sin he labours not to hinder, but than first he must have a power to impede it; and to say a Minister is impowered to put from the Sacrament without the party will submit to examination, is petitio principii, for that is the thing controverted. And secondly, if the matter be necessary, and the failer be only in the manner of doing it, the rule holds not, for to crop one ear of a whole harvest; and to instance in one of many cases, How then could a Christian Prince from a Heathen, for confirmation of a league, take an oath made by his false gods? And surely, take, eat, and let a man examine himself, and so let him eat, being in the imperative, and so consequently commands, make the Communion a matter necessary, and it is denied by none that the Sacraments are necessary necessitate precaepti, if not medii. It is true, chrysostom that so vehemently urgeth all to come, as deeply chargeth Ministers not to admit known offenders to the Communion; But if one, saith he, be ignorant, that he is an evil person, after that he hath used much diligence therein, he is not to be blamed; for those things are spoken by me of such as are known, but this is not our present case; for persons openly evil, and scandalous, we have before professed that we plead not for; but I shall desire it may be thought upon, whether, or no, while some men fear accidentally to lose or hazard souls, they do not more endanger them, and their own souls too, by withholding from them the Sacrament, the likeliest means of full, and perfect recovery of them?  

SECT. 16.  
Wherein answer is given to the ninth Paragraph, calling for reasons, and grounds, and containing some other arguments.  
§. 16 This Section is the largest, yet affords little work for us. There are in it some arrows well drawn, but aimed at a wrong mark. In much the Paper objects, and then answers itself; there we shall not need to meddle, as that the Sacraments are necessary, necessitate praecepti; true, so they may be, and yet to be administered in due manner; and with due care. It is still intimated that scandalous sinners should not come; now we might take this for granted, and say no more, but that the concessions look one way, and the arguments another; how shall any be kept back, if the Ministers have no power to impede, unless men will submit? no man saith, the Minister (or any other) hath power to impede such as are not unfit. If the unfit may be suspended it is enough; and if not, these the Minister hath no power at all. If some be scandalous, and unfit as is yielded (in terminis) then there must be a Judge of this unfitness, which must not be themselves, but the Ministers; and Church-Officers. But to come nearer to the very words, and order, we can yield no reason why men not scandalous, (nor ignorant) should be kept off, our minds being to admit all that come not under those qualifications, namely, ignorant, or some way scandalous; if we could know men to be but formal, (that is dead, and hypocritical) though they were not scandalous, they should be kept off; for such are intruders, have no right, and are necessarily profaners of the Sacrament; but we cannot ordinarily discern this, though we know that there are many such; therefore we steer by another compass.  
We say further, that the openly wicked only do defile the Sacrament (in the worst sense;) secret sinners (hypocrites, and formalists) in God's eye, profane ones in the Church's sight; the first draw judgements on themselves, the latter on others: ungracious persons cannot actually, and intentionally sanctify God's Name in their approaches to the Lords Table. But if all these, and such as these be excepted, there will be no dunghills for the Ordinance of the Sun of righteousness to shine upon, and so no fear of manifest pollution.  
Again, God's people themselves may be faulty through negligence; but if Ministers, and godly people do their duty, then though ungodly ones be admitted, they are blameless, and the Ordinance may not be null to them, nor polluted; however, if they know such to be admitted, it must needs be a sore burden to them. Long have godly people in this land groaned (Ministers especially) under this heavy burden, from which (as they hope) they may now deliver themselves. That which is affirmed here, that a previous exhortation on the Minister's part frees his soul, is to us an unsound position; for we conceive much more required, and incumbent on Ministers, and the Church. There is more required: Why else doth chrysostom bid them deny it to some? If after he have admonished, he admits such as he knows, (or may know) to be wicked, he sins against his own soul, by defiling it with other men's sins. The people also have somewhat to do on their parts, namely, praying against the toleration of the wicked, besides informing, and declaring against them that live loosely, and are inordinate walkers, as did the house of Cloe; 
1 Cor. 1.11  why should men think that public warning is enough, while some are not capable of the sight of the danger shown, or of performing the duty of self-examination; others are hardened, and will advance through a storm of the most terrible threats? suspension is a more effectual means, than a bare exhortation to teach men repentance; we have seen the experience of both. You will scarce find one staying away in these Parishes, where are warnings, but no other discipline; let not men deceive themselves, and others. It is objected that the Ordinance is defiled no more than the Sun is by shining upon a dunghill. We answer, the Ordinance may be defiled, that is, profaned, and abused, though not corrupted in its essence. The Sun is a natural agent, and in a Physical way cannot be defiled: The Sacrament doth continue a holy, and pure institution in itself, while it is most profanely abused. God is dishonoured truly, yet he doth not become inglorious in himself, by men's wickedness: the defilement of the Sacrament is this, the society, 
1 Cor. 5.7.  wherein the wicked are, is corrupted, leavened, or troubled, as the Spirit speaks; defiled it is unto the wicked through the sins of their souls: Yea, unto the godly too, they do become filthy, if they be faulty.  
Object. But why do the wicked more defile the Communion than the Word?  
Answ. They may defile the one, and not the other, seeing God's Word allows a visible mixture at the one, but not in the dispensing of the other, as was plainly proved before.  
All that follows about the errors of Novatus, and others: 
Gal. 5.12. Holymour Stock on Mala. p. 30. By Minister's continuance and suffering wicked men, & not censuring them, they may be many ways hurtful, and infect the clean, and holy, these being more capable of the others evils, than they are able to communicate good to them, as health is not so communicable, as contagion, 1 Cor. 5.6 Then if they desire to keep them whole from pollutions, they must separate the wicked as shepherds, saith Chysostome, separrate the infected, and scabbed from the whole.  The distinguishing of the Church visible from the invisible, the state of the Church here below, etc. We yield all this, and yet can see nothing gained upon us thereby, there will be tares among the wheat unto the world's end, only we are not taught that tares do signify profane men, but rather hypocrites, such as come so near Christians, that we cannot distinguish them.  
Tares are very like the wheat in the growing up, as one observes out of Jerome, 
* Gospel-worship. p. 239.  but scandalous men are not like believers.  
Object. But is it not rational, that the desire of a competent number be satisfied, though the greater part be indisposed?  
Answ. Yes, it is fit they should be satisfied in a lawful, and due way: But what if such a competent number hath not appeared, when proposals have been made; upon this supposition, that such might be found? We know of no godly and well-disposed people within our precincts, but may have the Ordinance if they desire it, nor is it our desire to straiten the Ordinance causelessly; we are joyful, when any discover a serious minding of that holy business. The fewness of those that are accepted is either from men's own unfitness, or from their own unwillingness. The truth is, men will have it where they please, and in what manner they please, otherwise they are not so godly, but they can neglect so precious an institution. But still the strong hold and place of retreat we find to be this. If men come unworthily it is to themselves, the Minister can but teach, and warn; so doing he needs not fear the guilt of other men's sins, for he hath no power to do more. We answer, 

1. The zeal of chrysostom and Ambrose will rise up against those, who taught not only to admonish, but to keep back. Ambrose kept off Theodosius an Emperor.  
2. The partaking of other men's sins will not be so easily avoided. Can I clear myself by telling one that there is poison in such a cup that will be his death, and yet (he desiring) afterwards give it him? What a folly is this? But the Minister hath no power to do more. That is a question not yet fully resolved. Though the power be not solely in him, yet if it be in the Church-Officers, it is enough; and surely there is a power to that end somewhere, or almost all the learned men in the world have mistaken the doctrine of the keys, from that text, Mat. 16.19. We should confirm this more, 
See the 3d. Section of the Paper.  but that we find the paper in a sort granting it. If Ministers have not a power, who have? If there be such a thing to be done, the power is somewhere; shall we raise up Bishops, and their Substitutes out of their graves to lead us herein? Is not the Word Christ enough? Alas, that a duty should be to be done, but none found to do it; a power, but none to act it; keys, but no hand to hold them. What a vanity is this? If the Schools be regarded, they empower the Minister, as was showed before. And the Authority we live under, did (and for aught we know does) authorise the keeping back of the unfit, 
See the several Ordinances of Parliament  and unworthy. If you say, This is granted you, that scandalous persons should not be admitted: We must needs say, we have observed such words often. But how are they made good while this passeth so current, that a Minister hath no power to keep him back that will not submit to his trial, which is here affirmed? If you say, He may keep back the scandalous, but not whom he pleases, or men well qualified; nor is this desired, or pleaded for; Let coming to this Ordinance stand, and pass for a Disciple-priviledge, and Ministers authorized, and allowed to discern Disciple properties in them that come, and we are agreed. Other allegations seem to us to lessen the care, and take off the activity of Ministers in casting out, or turning off the unworthy. The Pastor of Corinth (you say) is not blamed for admitting those that eat, and drink their own damnation, but they themselves are reprehended, not he. We grant, he is not there, or elsewhere blamed alone, but the whole Church, (whose the duty is, and not the Ministers alone) is blamed, 1 Cor 4.21. This Rod was for abuses among them, and their negligence in this might be one.    
Object. Again, the servants are not checked when one is brought in without a wedding garment.  
Answ. Our Answer is, 

1. This is a Parable, & so proves nothing, but only in the scope of it.  
2. It is a great Question whether this be not to be understood of the Preaching of the Gospel, or of the Supper of grace at large in the Word taught, and not of this Ordinance alone? We do not find that the servants brought in that man, 
Mr. Phil. Goodwin. p. 125.  for than they might have been questioned too, and not he himself alone. One says well, Parables are like spectacles, they help some to see, 
Ne quem à gratia Dei excludat, impiis quoque illam & iniquis proponit. Musc. in Isa. cap. 55 p. 745.  but others see the worse for them: So shall we, if we build a liberty of coming to the Lords Supper, and an exemption of Ministers from blame upon this Scripture. 'Tis true Ministers must preach Christ freely, bidding all according to the universal tenders of grace in the Gospel. See we not the greatest sinners sometimes foremost in coming to Christ? So that the Gospel's way of inviting all sensible sinners, suits this parable right well. But should the utmost be made of each branch thereof, to advance Sacramental liberty, not only admitting, but even constraining of the worst might be inferred; and this foundation every one would see to be sandy. The unsealed may be called, or invited, but the uncalled may not be sealed. We like a free Pulpit well, but condemn a too free Table.    
Object. Now to shut up our reply to this Section. There is a serious caveat given us, not to hazard, and lose our own souls, while we are scrupulous about others.  
We answer, we do not (at least desire not to do) things out of fear, but upon knowledge and persuasion of our duty. We know that the unworthy comers do directly (quoad corruptionem actûs) defile and destroy themselves; nor is the Sacrament a proper or likely means to recover such as we desire to keep back, but is rather likely by accident to blind, and harden them more than before. The preventing of men's sins, and damnation cannot hazard our souls, 
Epistle of Judas, v. 23.  but will comfort our consciences at the last day; 
2 Cor. 2.15  under this buckler we fight, and act.   

SECT. XVII.  
Answering the Queries made in the end of the Paper.  
I should be glad that some godly, 
The beginning of the tenth Section of the Paper.  and moderate men might be satisfied in the scruples they have concerning this course, and discipline.  
§. 17 If our principles, and practice be mistaken, many things will appear offensive which are not so. Where are pure doubts, we have hopes our Apology may remove them, especially from godly, and peaceable men. But when we reflect upon these doubts, or queries here made, they seem to us to be rather the hard thoughts of enemies, than the doubts of friends. Scruples are (as we take it) men's doubts in their own way. That which impedes, & entangles my conscience in my own actings, that is my scruple. But whatever these be, (for we are not willing to contend about words) whether objections, censures, or scruples, they shall (by God's help) receive some answer.   

SECT. XVIII.  
Wherein of the first Querie, namely,  
Whether it suit with the rule of the Apostle, Rom. 14.1. Him that is weak in the faith receive you? 
The first Querie in the tenth Section of the Paper.  Whether it be not judging, or setting at naught thy brother, or indeed not owning him as a brother; And so contrary to ver. 1?  
§. 18 How fare the Apostles scope is from the business in hand is quickly seen; He speaks of receiving, and eating, but it is of herbs, not of the Sacrament. He speaks of not receiving the weak to doubtful disputations; men therefore are not to be called to such exercises as may be hurtful to them. Briefly, their receiving is this: Such as were more resolved, knowing and satisfied about the abrogation, and burial of the legal ceremonies, these as strong must deal gently with Jewish converts, who were not of so pure a Gospeljudgement.  
This languor or infirmity of faith must be borne, this is the sense of the place. But lest we should seem to decline this Scripture, let it be granted, that believers may be weak in other respects, and that this Apostolical precept must not dashed against in any practice.  
Our answer therefore is, that the Ordinance of the Supper is very proper for the weak in faith, being a strengthening appointment. We exclude not (willingly) any such as are weak in the Apostles sense, but rather invite, and encourage them. We think our brethren go beyond their warrant, while they take Saints of the first magnitude only into fellowship. God hath people of ill sizes; there is the same holiness, but not the same degree of true holiness in all believers; not the weak, but the dead; not children, but bastards do we (purposely) refuse. Where we see any measure of true godly fear, any degree of graciousness we gladly admit. God forbidden we should refuse the meanest as to the world, or in grace: no, we covet the purest, and take the weakest.  
As to judging the other part of our burden, 
Calvin on the 14. Ch. to the Ro. ver. 1.  Calvin will tell you, that judging there, is to bring men under our own Laws. We abhor this: we desire to bring men under Christ's rules, and Laws, to find men able to examine themselves, to be discerners of the Lords body, and that they are desirous of holiness, and conformity to Jesus Christ; this we do try for, and strive to discern: we judge not men's hearts, or final estates, but their present condition by their actions. When we act in those matters (according to our callings) we build our thoughts upon men's words, 
Mat. 7.16, 17.  and fruits, by which we are taught to discern one man from another, and good men from bad; It is Christian and rational so to judge.  
Who will fear to say, it is a smoky house, where ordinarily the smoke breaks out at doors, and windows? We desire to fear, and feel the least guilt of evil, which may lie upon us; but as for this pride and contemning which is laid to our charge, we hope the Lord sees us innocent. Austin makes it pride to contemn discipline, not to use it: But more of this, when we come to answer the Querie about Lording. It hath been an old design of Satan, 
See bolton's direct. to walk with God. p. 7, 8.  to brand religious courses with pride, as Master Bolton observes. He that differences his society, and is not humble enough to be base, is by many deemed proud. 
The Discourse of true happiness. p. 43.  To be render beyond the common course, this is to be straitlaced: to be sullen, rigid, proud, or what you will; but after the way that the world calls pride, have the precious servants of God walked, in a holy, 
Mr. Boroughs Gracious Spirit, p. 156.  not in a humourous singularity, as one speaks. It is not safe to call good evil. The Lord deliver us from that which some call humility. He is truly devoted to humility, that can be content (in this world) to lose the repute of an humble man, 
1 Cor. 4.10  and be thought proud, (as Paul and his fellow-Christians were counted foolish, weak, 
Nemo virtuti magìs devotus, quàm qui boni viri famam perdit, ne conscientiam perdat. Seneca, Epist. 8.  any thing) for Christ's sake. Pride in judging others is a very foul thing, it concerns all to watch against it. We know no better remedy then to judge ourselves rightly; we ought to observe the inward workings of our own hearts, and to have a judgement of faith of ourselves. He that judges himself truly, is most likely to judge others wisely, and charitably. But if the godly cannot persuade others to think well of them, 
1 Thes. 2.5, 6, 7, 8. 2 Cor. 1.12.  yet let them rejoice in this, that they so fare know their own spirits, that though they be compassed about with great infirmities, yet they know, that what they do is not out of pride.  
Lastly, if our suspension of some from the Sacrament, must needs be contemning, yet let me tell you of whom it is; it is of them that contemn Gods ways, and of no others. Now to contemn such contemners is no sinful contempt, and yet we deny that we contemn any: no, we mourn over the worst; Refusing the wicked, may be (we hope) without contemning, but esteeming of the godly will hardly stand without such contemning; as that of David, Psal. 15. ver. 4. These will not be parted, both springing from a pure heart. 
2 Thes. 3.6, 15.  Such as are withdrawn from in this exercise, are not disclaimed altogether from being brethren, but looked upon as offending brethren, at present not capable of that which they have a remote right unto.   

SECT. XIX.  
Wherein the second Querie, namely,  
Whether this Oeconomy, that seemeth to hope, or believe nothing, and suspecteth all to be ignorant, 
The second Querie in the tenth Section.  or hypocrites, and therefore necessarily to come under probation, resent of that charity, which hopeth, believeth all things, and fuspecteth not?  
§. 19 The Scripture hinted at in this must be, 
Morton in locum. p. 345.  1 Cor. 13.7. Whereon the judgement of some learned ones is, that the particulars there are rather to be referred unto God, then to man; but not to stand upon that. If we hope nothing, and suspect all, we are uncharitable to the utmost, we had then as little love, and wisdom, as now these words, as applied to us have of truth. We know some, (yea, many) to be knowing, and hope of divers that they are not hypocrites; there may be reasons given why persons may be called to some trial and procession of their knowledge, who are not suspected of gross ignorance; the more remote any are from the suspicion of ignorance, the more forcible will their example be to bring on others of a lower form: and the more pliant such are, the more will their humility commend their knowledge. The trial of such may be necessary, though not in their single capacity as communicants, yet in the relative, as to the body they unite with, and the work of reformation which the Church is to pass under. We have a mind to be as charitable as others, and as we ought to be, but we cannot suffer charity, (as much as we love and honour it) to swallow up all our duty. Ministers may be charitable overmuch, and are, when they are prodigal of Church-priviledges, (and therein of Christ's blood,) and when they are senseless in their hopes, as some are, trusting all, and trying none: but watchmen must suspect, and Ministers must save some with fear. Paul was jealous and afraid, was he uncharitable? It is the praise of the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, that he had tried some; charity hath a garment to cast upon some sins, 
Rev. 2.2  but no licence, or indulgence for any. True charity (as the saying is) is not blind: We are not bound to hope contrary to our knowledge, and experience; charity when true, is friendly to the love of God (whence it springs) and to his ways, and people; it is not against charity to suspect of ignorance and unfitness, when the contrary is no way discovered. Men show ignorance of their duty in this very thing, that they refuse to submit to the trial of their knowledge in so fair a way. We hear much of charity, we wish we could see more of that which rejoices in the truth, 
1 Cor. 13.6  more than in iniquity.  
Some men's charity is so great, that if they know a man to be an often swearer, or that loves the pot, or alebench, or have but overnight, (or lately) beheld him in his sins, yet if he cry guilty, and say he will amend; they can next day believe a change in him, and that such a one may be a fit partaker of that blesseh Ordinance. But (alas!) this is a large charity, which fond neglects Gods revealed will, and flies to his absolute power. Men experienced in the work of grace, and repentance will have other thoughts: hell and heaven do not stand so near together, that men may so quickly step from one to the other. Commonly men fall down before they stand upright, and when they are down, 
Act. 2.37 2 Cor. 7.12  there is some struggling and striving before they get up. Grace, if we judge by God's common working, is not like Jonah's Gourd, which sprung up in a night. Let us not be over-credulous, and unscriptural in our thoughts and hopes; there may be more charity in in our keeping back, then in our admitting some.  
1. It is against love to God, 
Et quam ventam hujus contemptus consequeris Hom. 38. in Mat.  whose Ordinance by this credulousness is prostituted to many vile persons. They are fare from loving God whose embracing of men is a spurning at their Redeemer, a trampling on the blood of the Covenant, Heb. ●0. 29. as that text is appled by chrysostom.  
2. Love to men requires, that if we see one about to hurt himself, we prevent him, if we can; Shall I permit a man to drink his damnation, and say, I love him? Love must be guided by wisdom; there is little love unto the souls of men shown by them, who admit all; though they pretend to do this out of love. We take them (say some) to be all God's people, that will come, and will not debar themselves of so great a good, thus some speak.  
Pareus will teach those men that the work is not good, unless the men be good; but alas, 
Cùm ab infi delibus usurpentur Sacramenta, eorum usus non est bonum opus. Usus Sacramentorum est bonum opus, quando hunc usum praecedunt opera moralia, tunc dicitur usus, alias abusus. Pareus in Cath. Uisin. p. 539.  it is not good to them though it be good, and most precious in itself. It is that which will content them for the present, but undo them (namely, the impenitent) in the end. He loves his friend best that keeps him to his Physicians rules, though it cross his present desire. One of note, among other reasons why unworthy persons were kept off, proves it to belove to their souls.  
3. It is against charity to the Church, 
Walt Strato. de rebus. Eccles. cap. 17.  lying under loss, and reproach through neglect of order, and discipline: Some separating absolutely, others staying with grief of soul.   

SECT. XX.  
Wherein of the third Querie, namely,  
Whether it savour not much of the old Pharisees, Touch me not, for I am holier than thou; 
The third Querie.  and relish not of that Pharisees standing and praying by himself in the Parable, where Beza notes a singularity, and sequestering himself from the Publican, who must stand afar off, which as one saith was not supplicatio, but superlatio?  
§. 20 Things savour according to the disposition of men's palates. In some conditions the best, and most wholesome meats have the worst taste, 'tis the stomach mars the taste. What taste have the godly ones with us that so deadly a weed as rank Pharisaisme should be shred into their pot, and yet their food be so savoury, that they eat it with much blessing of God?  
Answ. Answ. Well, Touch me not, etc. This saying of the Jews hath been the old attendant of that common nickname of Puritan, and the very label of profane lips. But if we may not suspect others (as was thought in the former doubt) of hypocrisy, why are we suspected?  
Are we fallen below all good thoughts and hopes? May not our actings proceed as well from the tenderness of our consciences, and love of holiness; as from the base overweening conceit of our own pureness? Surely it is possible they may. May not a man be humble in his own eyes, and yet be wary about his society in God's Ordinance? We are persuaded he may, we see no incongruity in either of these. Truly we desire more holiness in ourselves, and others, then is yet attained, and we judge our present way conducing to it. When you find us boasting of our own holiness, condemn us boldly; we wish all Pharisees had hypocrisy written on their foreheads with a Sunbeam, we should see many a worlding, and Politician detected then. As to that text of Esay, it is spoken (as the best think) by the people to the Prophets, 
Musculus on Esay 65. ch. p. 851.  who had reproved them for their corrupt worship in gardens, and mountains, Stand by thyself, (say they to Esay) come not near us. Now if the speakers prove to be the people, why are the Ministers marked (with this coal) for Pharisees? Many like those in Esay's time stand off from us as too holy, and the while blame us for standing off from them as Publicans. The distance between us, and others is not of our making, but of their own.   

SECT. XXI.  
Wherein of the fourth Querie, namely,  
Whether it mell not strongly of the spirit of Diotrephes, that sought the pre-eminence, and be not a Lording it over God's heritage, since it tends to reduce every one to an awful subjection to his Minister, lest his reputation be blasted by being repelled from the Communion? 
The fourth Querie.  ● his is the more suspected, because not only persons, which they may think they have cause to suspect to be of incompetent knowledge, must pass this trial by examination, but generally every one; not only such, of whom they might be doubtful, (and yet in dubio melior est possidentis bonam famam, (as I said before) yet when sure there can be no such violent suspicion, that makes the thing morally certain, and which only by the opinion of the Casuists, may warrant the trial, but even those that perchance were more susceptible of Catechising the Minister, and whose shekels are known to be double to those of the Sanctuary. And to think there is cause to suspect every man's insufficiency in point of knowledge is to imply, as the Papists have abusively perverted that of Gregory, that while the Oxen laboured, 
The fourth Querie in the tenth Section of the Paper.  they were all Asses that fed by them. It grieves some that suffrage for Presbytery, to see others hereupon to suspect, that it was cast in like mould with that of Popery, whose main (if not only) pinciple was the advance of the power and grandor of the Prelates and Priests. As they (among other things) would seem to have a power to damn any man, while they taught a necessity (necessitatem medii) of partaking the Sacraments, as absolutely medious to salvation, and the efficacy of those Sacraments to depend upon the intention of the Minister; so as it was no Sacrament, where he intended it not, vesting a power in the Pastor, without any notorious offence to exclude from the Sacrament, empowers him to reject any from the ordinary means of salvation, and so coacts an awful dependence of all upon him in order to subjection.  
§. 21 We have transcribed the whole; as the other tasted, so this smells, such hard thoughts we are more grieved to read, then troubled to answer. The spirit of Diotrephes is that which seems to possess and act us in our way. Pudet haec opprobria dici potuisse, & non potuisse refelli. Should we spread ourselves upon every limb and part of this Objection, too much time would be spent in answering.  
But why the spirit of Diotrephes?  

1. Because it designs reducing our people into awe.  
2. Because all are called to trial, yea, such as are more able than the tryers.  
3. Makes the people asses.  
4. Shapes Presbytery to Popery. This is the series.   
Answ. Answer unto these severally.  
1. To Diotrephes and his Lording power. 
See Estius on the 3. Epistle of John, v. 9  It seems to us that the author is somewhat mistaken in the condition of Diotrephes. The text tells us, he sought pre-eminence, and the learned tell us, that his ambition rather crossed John, then oppressed the people. He was an heretic, and sought to sit in the Church above an Apostle. He receiveth not us, saith John; any thing over the people above the state of a Bishop we read not of in him, only he depressed John; so that he was nearer the spirit of an Anti-apostolist, then of a rigid, and imperious Presbyter, as to the people. But what is it to Lord it over God's heritage? It is a going beyond Ministerial power, and infringing the liberties, and privileges of the Saints.  
1. It is a going beyond Ministerial power. Then if keeping away ignorant, and scandalous persons be not an exceeding of this power, it is no Lording, 
1 Cor. 4.1, etc.  or imperious thing. That Ministers are Church-Officers, and have committed to them, as stewards in Christ's house, all the mysteries of the Gospel, is too clear to be denied, or doubted. This Paper yields (somewhere) a Ministerial power as to the use of those two keys of Doctrine and Censure, we desire but Ministerial power. If we act more, we are deservedly blamed. We shall not dispute (here) the proper, and proximate subject of Church-power, as Ministers we claim, but what doth belong to Church-Officers without injury to the Church. Now if stewards of the mysteries of the Gospel, it behoves us to be faithful as to the people's right, so to the dignity of the Sacrament. Did we impose any thing not commanded of God, or act Bishop-like in a sole jurisdiction, we could never avoid this blame. Let Lording fall, so rule may stand, some subjection is due by God's Word to all godly Ministers from their people. If when minded of this, they cry out of Lording, this is their own fault, and ignorance of their duty. In a way of surmising, what godly courses but may be (thus) blasted, and confuted? With some men all rule is tyranny. Some Anabaptists count all Magistrates Tyrants, so do others all Church-power tyranny.  
Erastianisme, and Anabaptism do in this join hands. 
Ph. Goodwin, Evan. Communicant. p. 206  A late godly Writer saith, that in Luther's time some profanely professed, that they had rather live under the dominion of the Turk, then where all should be ordered according to the will of God. Shall such thoughts, and say now prejudice God's ways? We read that the men of Israel counted Solomon a Tyrant, 
1 Kin. 9.22.10.27.  yet the Queen of Sheba admires the happiness of his servants, and Subjects, he made none of the people bondmen. Yea, he made silver to be as stones, only he laid a tribute for the house of the Lord. But they that cannot distinguish between pride, and power, between pride, and discipline, need somewhat to clear their eyesight. When the Apostle condemns Lordship over the flock, he takes not away government, 
Heb. 13. ver. 7.17.24.  for that were to contradict Puul in three places in one Chapter; the Pastor than hath rule, but it must not be tyrannical.  
2. Lording is an overthrowing of the privileges of the Saints, and godly; but we study to preserve their privileges, and to raise a fence, that they may not be trodden down by wild beasts, 
Esay. 5.2.  but preserved in their use from evident profanation. We gather out the stones of God's vineyard? Besides all that is done is by voluntary agreement, our rules extend but to them that freely submit to them. We excommunicate none, nor meddle with other men's ways. Indeed we discover by our actings what we would draw our Congregations unto; and that while they refuse to follow us therein, our union with them (in that Ordinance) cannot be comfortable. And this we do as being bound in conscience to use all good means to redress abuses, and to promote the National Engagement of Reformation. Here now are essays of rule, and order, but no imperiousness, or usurpation: When Moses stood for the Priest's Office against the pride of Corah, and his complices, they tell him, that the Priests took too much upon them.  
Truth is, only gracious spirits are fit to be governed in a Christian, or Churchway. God's yoke is grievous to the sons of Belial. Hinc illae lachrymae. Is any thing put upon men but the light burden of Christ's laws? Is it intolerable to come under the duties of godliness? is there cause given to men to cry out of Lording, and blasting their reputation, when so facile a thing is required, as the discovery of their knowledge, and clearing of their practices from known wickedness?  
Object. 2 Object. 2. But all are called to trial, such as excel their teachers.  
Answ. Answ. Why not all as well as some? Duties of Religion are to be imposed without respect of persons. It is possible (though not so usual) that the Pastor may be exceeded in learning, and gifts by some of his Congregation, but doth this exempt such from obedience? What if a wife have more knowledge than her husband? some particular subjects more policy than their governor's? will this justify the disobedience of the one? or thursdays the authority of the other? An humble man may submit to one of meaner abilities than himself; yea then, when they are known, and confessed to be so; if for no other reasons, yet to avoid exceptions, and to encourage others; such as are able, and godly too, do seldom scruple this, because though they have great abilities, yet they know them not so, as to oppose them against their duty. Again, if the persons tried be found so knowing, it will add to their esteem, and not diminish it in the least. Among other mistakes this is one, that our greatest suspicion is of ignorance. Alas, many are better headed, then hearted. We believe, were the truth known among them that stand off from us, the greater part suspect their practice, more than their knowledge. For did they live as they should, and as they conceive we expect, the discovery of their knowledge of Jesus Christ before a few Christians would not appear so formidable a work; yea, should we know any under our charges, or near us, that were susceptible of Catechising any of us, we might in policy forbear the calling of them forth, without any other reason.  
Nay, we could ingenuously say to such, as once John to Christ, I had need to be taught of thee, and comest thou to me? which was the answer (as I am informed) of a Minister not long since to an eminent man, submitting to his trial for admission to the Sacrament. Shortly, we envy no man's gifts, but wish them more, and their conversation suitable. One says of the present state of the University of Oxford: There have been more Muses heretofore, 
Cor. à Lap. in Exod. 6.30. p. 543  but never so many Graces as now. We honour Graces above Muses. We find it to be a doubt among the learned, whether the common shekel be greater, or less than that of the Sanctuary? Some make it less, others greater; we will not go about to determine this; the allusion (every one sees) reflects upon the particular Ministers: however, we pass it by. There were shekels of gold some, others of brass, iron, etc. Answerable to these are the various kinds and degrees of men's gifts; not the largest shekels, but the holiest are the best; a little piece of gold is better than a great piece of silver. Knowledge adorned with humility, and engaged to advance piety (of whatever measure and content) is after the shekel, and standard of the Sanctuary.  
Object. 3 Object. 3. We imply that our people are asses.  
Answ. Answ. We need a pair of tongs to deal with so odious a comparison as this is, let it return to the place from whence it came; we leave it to Popish Priests, and Episcopal spirits, whose guise it hath been to advance themselves, and depress the laity, and to this end wish their ignorance, rather than their knowing much. We maintain a difference between Officers, and members of Churches; but we freely acknowledge all godly people to be the Lords Clergy; however, we are not ignorant of a more restrained use of that word in the Ancients.  
Obj. 4 Object. 4. We shape Presbytery to Popery, etc.  
Answ. Answ. These are the dregs of this bitter cup. We stand not much upon the say of them that have voted for Presbytery. Perchance some voted and acted therein for wrong ends, and their votes might prosper accordingly; some we are sure were once in a nearness to act in that way, who were very unmeet for such a work.  
Last of all, that Presbytery should be cast into the mould of Popery is a wild fancy, and argues both the corruption of the man's heart, and darkness of his mind that suspects it.  
Men that like not the restraint of their lusts by any Church-government, must cry out of Popery, covetousness, ambition, Prelacy, and such like, which are but fig-leaves to cover their nakedness. In a word, a man may say this for Presbytery, though he be not fond of it, that (whatever it be else) it is the strongest bar that ever was set against Popery.   

SECT. 22.  
Wherein of the fifth, and last Querie, namely,  
Whether this be not half way towards the Independants, and symbolise not with the congregational way? For what difference is there between their gathering a Church, and this collecting together of communicants, 
The fifth query in the tenth section of the Paper.  some of one place, some of another? what material disparity is there between their covenant with the Church, and this admitting none without satisfaction given, and profession made of their sufficiency to the Minister? They admit any to the hearing of the Word, not to the Communion, and such is the method also of this Difcipline. Are not both equally guilty of an Allotrioepiscopacy of removing the ancient landmarks, and confounding of Churches, and limits: And taking in such of whose souls they have by no law, nor consonancy to good order, any proper, or special cure?  
And of a resemblance with the Partridge, Jer. 17.11. which gathereth the young which she bringeth not forth, 
The fifth query of the tenth section of the Paper.  (as was the ancient, and is still the marginal reading) and of that Magic which some Romans were slandered with, of charming, and bringing other men's fruits into their fields? Consider what I say, and the Lord give me, and thee understanding in all things.  
§. 22 Here we shall only answer for ourselves, though others be charged with us. Independants are no such formidable creatures to us, there are many eminently godly men that lie under that distinction of judgement; we see some imperfection in their way, nor do we know our own altogether free; our present reformation is not the measure of our will, but of our power; though some difference between us and them be professed, yet we look upon them as dear brethren, and desire so to walk, waiting for theirs, and our own suller satisfaction. We agree in the greater, and differ but in lesser things; we conceive the interest of both parties to be the same, the rule one; so that accommodation is neither sinful, nor impossible. We are so much for peace, that we could (if our hearts deceive us not) go many miles barefoot to meet it. We are very sensible of that of the Apostle Paul, and wish others to mind it: 
Gal. 5.15.  If ye by't and devour one another, take heed ye be not consumed one of another. They are strangers at home, and to the times, that see not truth and holiness losing sensibly and fearfully by our rents.  
Lastly, 
Of infant-baptisme. p. 228.  we commend the opinion, in some branches, of holy master Baxter to serious scanning.  
Notwithstanding all this, if our neighbours will see how fare we are from compliance with rigid Independants, 
One blow more to Babylon. p. 21.  let them consult a late book written by an affectionate opposite. We leave them to answer the confounding of Churches; when we have fully embraced their principles, we will reply to this charge also.  
In the mean time that which is called disorder against law, and Magic, is but the effect of such speeches, as we have often heard, terming our meeting schismatical, and seditious: but we are assured the society is guilty of neither; not of Schism, because we separate not from true Churches, but only aim at the Reformation (if possible) of those Congregations we watch over, and in the Country about us; not of sedition, while the present authority is for us, (at least not against us,) and we no underminers of them, nor are we tumultuous, or injurious: we constrain none; that which is done is a voluntary, and free work. If we cannot convince, and satisfy other men's consciences, we leave them to themselves, nor is there any injury to other Ministers. We do not clock their chickens from them, but it may be (if it be serious enough so to speak, as we are in a sort urged,) we may have hatched some eggs of their nest, and this offence (we hope) they will forgive us.  
But to answer the comparison taken out of Jeremy. We shall borrow a like resemblance from a learned Divine, and so end. He speaking to that word of Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Pet. 4.4. alludes thus: 
Mr. Hoskins Dr. of law, in his 7. Serm. p. 22.  The hen that hath hatched Partridges or Pheasants eggs, seeing them soar aloft, looks strangely after them, because she knows not that they are of a higher kind.  
This is the reason (saith he) why men of the world do gaze, and grudge at such as take a flight somewhat above them, because they are ignorant of this, that they are of a better generation.  
We have gone step by step with the Author to the end of his walk. To satisfy the Reader, and more fully to lay open our minds, and desires as to the use of the Lords Supper;  
These four following heads we purpose to pass over.  

1. Why not the Sacrament in our own Congregations?  
2. Why we separate not in other Ordinances?  
3. What are the Scripture-grounds and proofs for our way, and practice?  
4. Some other queries about this business in the close of all.    

SECT. 23.  
Why not the Sacrament in our own Congregations?  
§. 23 To open ourselves in such points as this, only the law of love and condescension binds us, we stand not upon terms of policy, and closeness, while we have hopes of doing good to souls; and therefore answer,  
It is in some, but not yet in the rest of our Assemblies, and this is because there is no fit matter, or rather not sufficient at home; not that we think all our people uncapable, as is by some enviously surmised, and suggested. No, it is unto some more their own unwillingness, than any thing else that keeps them off. They that will partake must not only be fit for such an Ordinance, but willing for such a work as we design, (viz.) Reformation of corruptions, and noting of corrupt members; we know not how these Ministers and people do satisfy themselves, who wholly neglect the Ordinance. We must needs say, our former corruptions are justly punished with these interruptions, which are as well the sins, as judgements of most places. Most particular Churches have been fed (of late) with one breast, the other being dry; though we doubt not but the Lord hath supplied this to all his, (who is able to make this nonuse, useful, holding forth a crucified Christ in the Word, and giving souls to eat, and drink the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ by faith, 
See Calvin on Joh. 6, p. 806. Perperam hanc locum de caena.  of which John the sixth Chapter, while they have wanted the Sacramental eating) yet we conceive the Word of Christ to be peremptory, and therefore the duty so incumbent on all believers, as upon no pretence whatsoever (if necessaries be not wanting) altogether, 
Evang. Commun. 403.  or long to be discontinued. One Objection without any long digression we may consider. It is better (saith one) to delay, then to defile an Ordinance; better to delay that we may not defile, then to defile that we may not delay; the delay only opposing the circumstance, etc. We shall more fully answer this in another place.  
Here in a word, the delay doth more than oppose the circumstance; as it may be prolonged, it doth oppose the command itself, time here being of the substance of the command: Do this as often. But (to return) whatever others think, we could not satisfy our consciences as to our own duties, without procuring opportunities for them that were godly to enjoy this so blessed an institution: but when this is done, and all serious people may with no great pains embrace this privilege frequently and purely; they (the generality) scruple that which hath no sin in it, namely, the going out of their Parishes; a circumstance which defiles not the action, 
The true administering of censures the earth cannot bear it. The thief endureth to hear of hemp, as well as unruly lustful men to be shackled in the fear of being excommunicate. Mr. Paul Baine on the Ephesians. p. 293.  so much as in appearance, while we have professed (as they know) and are still resolved to return to our places, (as to this Ordinance too,) as soon as a competent number shall appear fit, and willing to carry on so great a work. Some years since, and before we pitched at Pyworthy, this our intendment was spoken of in the Pulpit; and the people desired to discover their affection to the work, but not a man in some places appeared. Some through worldly fear, doubting State-changes, and revolutions; others (we fear) for worse reasons, and a few (as we believe,) wanting zeal, and boldness to go before others in the matters of God. Upon this there being a Church formed in one of our Congregations, according to the rule of the Word, in the choice of a Pastor, Officers, and Members, other Ministers, and people are joined to this society; for which we bless God, and in which we are likely to walk till we can see truth, or reason against us, which yet is not shown us. But lo, what a dust doth this raise? what rumours fill the Country, as if some strange thing had happened? how are we become our people's enemies, and grievous burdens? we complain not of uncivil disturbances, (we have found none,) but of hard thoughts, and untempered words; unto which that of the Historian concerning Germanicus may be applied:  

* Tacitus.  He was hated (saith he) and maligned the more violently, because unjustly. Instead of six hundred necks in one man (as one saith) to submit to the Discipline of the Gospel, we find a thousand mouths opened by one against it, when we observe the disorder of men's spirits, and their unthankfulness; the 
* Joshua, chap. 22. And for our much desired Discipline and holy order, was there ever a people under heaven who called themselves reformers, that opposed it mere desperately, and that vi●ified it, and railed against it more scurrilously? as if it were but a device of ambition; Presbyters, that traiteronsly sought domination over their superiors, and not the law, and order established by Christ, as if these men had never read Scriptures, or will tread in the dirt the laws of Christ, which must judge them? Mr. Baxter his Saints everlasting Rest, p. 296. 2d. part.  Divine history brings to our minds that passion, which was once stirred up in the other tribes, against the two tribes, and half; when they supposed a schism to be hatching, yea, broken forth, they censure deeply, and prepare cruelly, but the issue was peace at the last; the like approbation and blessing we hope for, when a good understanding is begot. In the mean time, better is dissension for Piety, then corrupt communion. As to them that traduce, and revile us, did they know how sweet God makes their gall to our tastes, they would soon grow weary of their reproaches out of very envy. Let no good soul faint for men, but eye God, whose Word must be our Sun and shield; whatever we suffer in our estates, names, and quiet, we shall have him a faithful debtor, and seasonable paymaster.   

SECT. 24.  
Wherein of this, Why we separate not in all Ordinances?  
§. 24 It is because we are for Surgery, not for Butchery. Physicians seek all means to cure, before they cut off but a member; should not we before we cut down a Church? Here we must answer them that condemn us for coming short, as others do for going too fare, and doing too much. 
Camero praelect. de Escles. p. 402.  The learned distinguish of a twofold separation, namely, positive and negative. The first we condemn, unless upon weighty and just grounds. The second we are acting in, namely, making a separation in our Congregations, not separating from our Churches, but from some corruptions in them, in order unto Reformation. So did our Saviour; he lived in unity with the Jewish Church in necessary Ordinances, but yet separated from it in regard of corruptions in some things, as in the washings, 
Mr. Hildersham, on Joh. p. 167.  and misobservation of the Passeover, namely, on a wrong time. Churches are to be made new, as Christians are, by restoring that which was lost. We are not so strong, 
Mr. Cotton against Williams, p. 117, 118, 119. in the 5. part.  as they seem to be, who renounce their Ministry, and Congregations, as nullities. It is no small matter to destroy Churches and to scatter flocks. It hath been matter of repentance unto some, the seducing of men from hearing in Parish-Churches, and teaching them to account their Ministry a false Ministry, and our professors no visible Saints. It is supposed by us, that some at least of our Congregations are sound in their essentials, and so capable of Reformation: these we would cure, not destroy. We are afraid of schism, as of a great sin, and work of the flesh. We profess before God, Angels, and men, that our consciences tremble at the destruction and confusion of true Churches in the lowest capacity; we may not (as we conceive) safely forsake Assemblies, which God hath not forsaken, but is present with, in the Word, and Doctrine of salvation.  
Rigid and absolute separation carries contempt with it, and rather hinders than furthers the amendment of evil men. The rigid separatist hath seldom been steady, or rested, till all instituted worship, and moral laws of God are separated from. It is the saying of acute Baxter, Commonly the truest opinion lies in the midst. But more particularly,  
1. We separate not, as to the Word and prayer, because a mixture is allowed here, not only in the judgement of the godly learned, as before, but by the example of the Word, and true reason, all sorts have been admitted to both these, and necessarily must, being the ordinary means of begetting faith. Christ taught the multitude. The Apostles sent to preach unto the world. The godly have prayed in the presence of unbelievers. He gave thanks (which is prayer) in the presence of them all, namely passengers in his ship, Act. 27.35. Elisha prayed in the presence of Gehazi, 
Dr. Gouge in his whole armour. p. 216.  as is collected by some of note, from 2 King. 4.33. We may pray for wicked men, which is not denied, then why not in their presence, or with them? To pray for, is more than to pray with; their presence at the duty can be no sin, while 'tis that they are commanded to do, though at present their own evils make them unable to do as they should. Peter bids Simon Magus to pray, Act. 8.22. and yet he saw him in the gall of bitterness.  
Lastly, that which is lawful in itself, and the duty of all men, may be done any where, or in the presence of any; but so are prayer and hearing.  
2. As to Baptism, 
Disciplina cum verbo & Sacramentis conjungi solet ab optimis Theologis in Ecclesia Dei notanda: quamvis non sit nota simpliciter essentialis & reciproca. (Jicut neque reliquae duae) ad completum tamen ecclesiae statum necessario debet idesse. Ames. Medul. Theol. c. 37. p, 285.  we suppose our Churchss to be true, but sick, and corrupt; the truth of some of them (as to their essence) we think we can prove. A Church may be in a Parish, as well as in a Country, or City, (as Ephesus, Corinth) yea, as well as in the world. We do not say our Assemblies are Churches as Parishes, but that they are Churches in Parishes: and in that sense Parish-Churches. They are Churches, as having the matter and form of Churches, but not without great disorder at present. We are willing to discuss in another fit place this question with our brethren otherwise minded, Whether the Churches of England be true Churches (because it is the hinge of many other controversies?) and we will undertake to prove that some are, which is enough where all are denied for matter & form true Churches.  
We suppose the Controversy would quickly be ended, were the characters of visibility agreed on. The Word and Sacraments have passed as notes of a visible Church, in the judgement of Austin, Calvin, Zanchy, and almost all good Writers unto this day; and although we may and must allow discipline to have a place in the definition of sound, and healthy Churches, yet to put all, or most upon this one, is unwarrantable, & unreasonable. Amesius speaks somewhat to the purpose, and (as we conceive) fully and truly, to whom we remit the Reader, Men professing holiness and not contradicting their profession are the proper matter of a true visible Church: but such our Churches have, though not only such, which the Apostles Churches had not. The form of a Church is the union of the body with Jesus Christ, which is (visibly) by living under Gospel-Ordinances conscientiously dispensed; the form of a man is the union of the soul and body together. Ordinances are the ligaments that tie Christ and the Church together. Now the means cannot be denied to be with us, no, nor the effect of the means, therefore with us is the form of visible Churches. Now (having a little cleared our supposition) upon this account it follows, that all infants borne in our Churches are to be baptised. For Congregational Churches (as they are called) do baptise all their infants, we follow in this the same ground and principle. If any object that sundry of the Parents are ungodly, whose children we baptise; We ask, whether they can deny baptism to the child of any member, (how offensive soever) before the sentence of cutting off pass upon him? These supposed wicked ones whether (as carnal or profane) are not excommunicated, what therefore should hinder their children's baptism? Besides, the children are not baptised in their right alone, but in the Churches: Where the child is borne a member, being holy (federally) by birth and therefore to be baptised. We look to see so much as may perswde us in charity to take a man's profession to be serious, before we think him fit to come to the sealing, and distinguishing Ordinance, 
Mr. Perkins on Gal. 3. ch. 2. vol. p. 284.  a remote right may serve to bring in his child, but a nearer right (in actu primo, (as the learned speak) that is present, and visible) is necessary to a man's self.  
While a father is sequestrable, or sequestered, his son hath the right of an heir. Under excommunication itself (as some think) it being for the souls good, there remains (so terrible as it is) some dormant, or virtual right still: and therefore it is a question, whether formal excommunication of the Parents, 
The Lord deliver us from this medicine of our dissentious, that we be not made so to agree (viz) as Hooper, and Ridley in the prison, yea, that we be not soldered together with our own blood. Mr. Burroughs on Hosea p. 131.  do cut off the seed from all Church-priviledges? Charity may embrace the child in some one initial Ordinance, when it cannot embrace the Parent in all.  
But to close this. We are not of those that take delight in making differences among the godly more wide, but (as equally tender of peace and holiness, of unity and piety:) do humbly desire all professing religion in earnest to lay to heart Satan's, and profane men's advantage by the Church's divisions. O pray for the peace of Jerusalem, they shall prosper that love it. But alas, instead of prayers, fightings. The godly were better friends when they enjoyed less liberty: but this doth not please God, nor become his children: our fear is that if the godly unite not under mercies, God may bring together by some common calamity.   

SECT. XXV.  
Wherein the Scripture-grounds and proofs for our way and practice are held forth.  
§. 25 The texts which contribute more or less to warrant our practice, are these among many others, 1 Cor. 14.40. Jer. 15.19. 2 Thes. 3.2. 6, 14, 15, verses, 1 Cor. 5.11. Mat. 7.6. 1 Cor. 11.27. unto the end, compared with Judas ver. 23. 1 Tim. 5.22. Heb. 13.17. 1 Pet. 3.15. 2 Chron. 23.19. Joel 3.17. Nahum 1.15. Zach. 12.21. Unto all these, And  
1. Unto, 1 Cor. 14.40. 
The first Proof.  Let all things be done decently, and in order. This is a general rule serving unto the world's end, to direct the Churches in matters of outward worship, whereof this of admission to, and exclusion from the Lords Table is one; suppose now we had no particular warrant from God's Word to bear us out, yet if our course be holy, and orderly, it hath warrant from that general rule.  
Courses that have an excellent, and holy use in the Church, may be justified by this text (being well managed against all the world. 
B. Abbot against Church forsakers. p. 116.  It is confessed by one, and it is the mind (we believe) of the most moderate, and ingenuous of our adversaries, that it were a glorious and comfortable thing, if none but holy persons did draw near to this holy Table. We assume, But a general rule will bear up a glorious and comfortable practice in the Church. He says (in another place) that it is the Ministers misery, that he must admit all. This (must) is without either command of God, or man. If it seem necessary, but yet a misery, and they (the Ministers) sensible of it, why embrace they not with joy the liberty now given to exclude the unworthy? He is not sensible of his misery, that embraceth not the remedy. It could not be a misery but as it is sin; and if a sin to admit all, as undoubtedly it is (as our Congregations are) a great one, than God's Word must warrant the exclusion of some. If a misery, why doth not the sense of this misery stir up men to act in courses of reformation? But they will tell you, they want a command from men, and therefore cannot do as they would. This is but a shift of unwilling minds. Is not God's Word our rule, giving a command for all Gospel-duties? We will not undertake to speak the mind of the higher powers in this matter; only this we believe, that they give more liberty then. is taken, and we hope they will satisfy the just desires of the godly in this thing. The Magistrate doth command Ministers to do their duty, but leaves them to the Word for their rule. There be Ordinances of Parliament (which are in force while the same Parliament sits that made them) which do authorise the keeping back of all ignorant and scandalous persons. It is not good to father our own corruptions, and unwillingness to the work of reformation on the State. Let not Ministers say they want authority, while they have the authority of the Word. Let us ask the learned, what other warrant, or authority, besides the general rule , had the Ancients for all their wary discipline, and separating, and distinguishing orders about the Lords Supper? No particular warrant from the Word (we are assured) as to their orders of Penitents, and courses about them.  

The Text then, 1 Cor. 14.40. will yield this Argument.  
Where is no due order in Sacramental administrations, there God's Word is not observed; But where all are admitted there is no order: Therefore in the admission of all Gods will is not observed.  
The Major is very clear; God's Word commanding order, it cannot be observed without it.  
The Minor may be further proved.  
Where there is mixture, and confusion of good and bad fit and unfit, there is no order. But where all are admitted is this mixture. Ergo.  
We do not well see what can be denied here.  
Lastly, as the course which others walk in is contrary to this rule, so ours is according to it.  
Which may be thus drawn out:  
That course, and way which doth naturally, and directly tend to set up order, and holiness in the Church, is warrantable by this text;  
But our way doth so tend.  
The Minor is thus proved.  
Where only such are admitted, and all such are admitted as can challenge right to the Sacrament by the Word of Christ, there due order and decency are observed.  
But so it is with us.  
Therefore with us is a direct tendency unto holy order and decency.    

SECT. XXVI.  
Wherein of that text, Jer. 15.19. If thou takest forth the precious from the vile, then shalt thou be as my mouth.  
§. 26 
The second Proof.  Not to mention variety of interpretations: it may be otherwise worded thus:  
If thou separate the flexible, ingenuous, and godly Jews, from the hardened, profane, and obstinate.  
This is most likely to be the truth, because he speaks of persons, not of things; not of graces, and corruptions, but of men, namely, precious ones, and vile ones, for he saith (them, namely men) in the next words. What by taking out? This is a Metaphor alluding to Goldsmith's refining metals, taking the heaviest from the lighter; the heaviest metal being purest. Some give the sense in this manner: If thou seek to win the good; from the bad. Others thus, If thou wisely make a difference between the profane, and godly. Now there is a threefold separation, as some distinguish.  
1. Ministerial, or Doctrinal, which is twofold.  
1. In preaching, which is called a dividing the Word aright.  
2. By preaching, namely, when by God's blessing the Word preached converts some, and so separates them from the world, or men uncalled.  
2. The other kind is Practical separation, this is when in some things of conversation we turn from some men; of which the Apostle, 2 Tim. 3.5.  
3. The third kind of separation is Ecclesiastical, which is properly the act of the Church, or its Officers. This is also twofold.  
1. When a company of men do separate from an Idolatrous Church, (as we from Rome justly) and do make another Church; 
See Camero de Ecclesia. p. 402.  of this, Rev. 18.4. and many other Texts: This the learned call a positive separation.  
2. Another is when a Church doth separate from the scandalous members of her own body, or separate such as are scandalous from her; This hath been, and may be practised, being grounded upon this, and other texts of Scripture; as, 2 Thes. 3.6. of which hereafter. This is termed a negative separation, in a Church, not from it. This is our case, we separate only in that wherein those separated from cannot lawfully join; the lawfulness of this is contended for by this, and many other Scriptures. The text in hand is by many taken as speaking only of doctrinal separation in preaching; but this cannot be: for the following words are expressed for more, for a practical separation at least: Return not thou to them, let them come to thee, that is, walk thou Jeremy in a right way thyself, and draw as many to thee as thou canst. He speaks of making, and maintaining a personal separation, as to some things of God. He speaks of separating persons.  
Further, if the opinion be true, that the text alleged allows only a doctrinal separation in preaching, and denies any other, than Excommunication falls, and all the Religious practices of the Ancients (who make divers sorts in the Church, 
The Ministers of the Gospel, and New Testament ought to make difference between the godly and wicked, as much as in them licih; to accept and receive the one, and to reject and exclude the other from the public prayers of the Church, & from the sacred Table of Christ; hence is the command to the Church of Corinth, and to the Pastor, as the principal man. Adds these texts, 2 Cor. 5.13. Jer. 15.19. See this and more in that learned, & godly man Mr. Stock, in his Commentary on Mal. p. 129, & 130.  as hath been shown) must be, and are condemned. It hath been a rule in expounding Scripture, that we must not limit it, and straiten it, when the Spirit leaves it free, and general; now they do limit for their own ends, who will have it speak only of differencing men's spiritual estates by preaching. Who knows not that Church-censures were under the Old Testament, and that there was (then) an Ecclesiastical separation, or casting out, but that the love of carnal liberty makes men forgetful? But to sum up this text also.  
That which God commands is our duty.  
But God commands more than a doctrinal separation in applying the Word.  
Therefore more is our duty.  
The Minor is proved in the opening of this text, and by the reasons given upon it. What reason, and cause we have to make some separation in our Assemblies, the whole land saw, (the godly party we mean) in every corner of it, as doth appear by their petitions, and the Parliaments orders, and acts upon them: and truly he that sees it not necessary at this day, is not a little blind; now if some separation must be made, than examination and such like proper means must be also.   

SECT. XXVII.  
Wherein of 2 Thes. 3.2, 6, 14, 15. verses.  
§. 27 
The third Proof.  He speaks of wicked men (verse 2.) which he will have noted, (verse 14.) that is, censured, as is plain; and that not as to civil conversation only, 
1 Cor. 5.10 Ità sanè, ut nec emendationis vigilatia quiescat corripiendo, degradando, excommunicando, caeterísque coercionibus licitis, etc. Aug. lib. 4. contra Donatistac.  for herein more liberty hath been, and may be taken, as hereafter may be shown. The best Divines do expound verses 14.15. of Church-censures. So by Austin of old, speaking touching mixture in the Church: This may be, provided that Church-censures be not neglected (saith Austin alleging the Words of our text.) So by many choice ones of latter days. Here is first a character of some false brethren, unreasonable wicked men; then a command, (ver. 6.) to withdraw, and after to note, and have no company, ver. 14. which by the following words we are constrained to understand of some exclusion from fellowship in some Ordinances, or act of Church-communion.  
Note, that is, put a mark upon him, that he may be ashamed: Non significatè sed signatè, as Erasmus, and others. What should this black mark be? Is it casting out by excommunication? No, that is too much at first, 
1 Cor. 5.13  the excommunicate is to be accounted as a Heathen, not as a brother. What, is it only by leaving his society in civil things? No, that is as much too little, and hardly to be done, such may his relations be. 
Dr. Sclater 1 Thes. 2. p. 284.  Therefore meant of withdrawing in sacris, namely, in holy things. Thus judge the best, and soundest Interpreters. Some censure; either the greater, as Excommunication; or the lesser, as Suspension from the Lords Table must be. It is noted as a punishment to be in the sight of the Church, such a noting, and withdrawing, as tends to the shaming, and reforming of scandalous and misliving brethren. Suspension from civil society, is less shaming. But to end this text.  
Noting offending brethren so as to shame them, is holy, and necessary.  
But such is our suspension of misliving men.  
Therefore holy and necessary.  
That it hath, and doth humble, experience proves. What noting, or shaming is there, or can there be in general caveats, and warnings? who sees not that the grossest men take neither shame, nor warning by them.   

SECT. XXVIII.  
Wherein of these words: If any man that is called a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such a one no not to eat, 1 Cor. 5.11.  

The fourth Proof.  We will not cloy the Reader with authorities of most learned, and holy men, 
§ 28. Centurists, lib. 1. cap. 2. p. 275. Atque ità excluduntur à communione Ecclesiae.  which might here be multiplied. The Centurists apply this text to the Sacrament, that he will not have meat taken; this belongs to Discipline (saith Tossanus upon the place.)  
Others are as express, as Martyr, 
Beza in his Annot. in locum. p. 526.  Beza, who defends Aquinas in this against Erasmus. This text affords an argument (which way soever taken) against admission of drunkards, 
Quantò magìs convictu sacro, saith Pareus on the place.  and such like to the Sacrament.  
If by eating you will understand common bread, than it follows à minori, from the lesser, to the greater, that if we may not eat common, much less sacred bread with such men. But,  
3. If we take it for Sacramental eating, than we have an Apostolical injunction, against the coming of ungodly ones to the Lords table, and by consequence an allowance of ●eparation as to such, and of trial in order to it. Now that this is the true meaning of the words, is to be proved many ways.  
1. By the context, for the whole Chapter concerns Church-fellowship, and censures.  
It is about casting out of the Incestuous person, as every one sees; mark these words which follow immediately (Do not we judge them that are within?) than he speaks of judging, that is, of a Church-censure; therefore infers as a conclusion, Put away from among you that (or the like) wicked person.  
2. It may be proved by these reasons out of the text.  
1. If meant of common bread, than this absurdity follows, that I may not sit at an ordinary, or dine, or sup any where. if any ungodly man be present; what a snare will this be to men's consciences, considering that we account all brethren (in a larger sense) that profess Christ? so that it must send us out of the world, and put us to borrow Novatus his ladder.  
2. He means not the withdrawing of civil society by particular persons in a private way, but of the Church; for to them he writes; therefore meant of Church-eating.  
3. The nature of the recited sins show that he intends scandals calling for Discipline, and coming under the like censure with incest.  
4. He had spoken of keeping company before, therefore (eat not) contains more than a denial of civil converse.   

SECT. XXIX.  
of Matth. 7.6. Give not that which is holy unto dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine.  
§. 29 
The fifth Proof.  The conceit (here) of some is, that this is meant of preaching the Gospel unto the Gentiles, but much besides the mark. Some restriction we read of, as to going into the way of the Gentiles; 
Mat. 5.10.  but this was but for a time, 
Act. 13.46  afterwards we read, Lo, we turn unto the Gentiles; this fancy evacuates the text, and makes it to be as a Bee without a sting. Others will have the words to be meant only of those that be open persecutors, or of dogs, by a legal censure, namely, such as have been proved, and judicially so made, which they do suppose none to be (in actu, vel potentia,) because Church-government is unsettled. There is some truth in this last, but (yet) as it is urged by some it is but a shift: The truth (that we grant) is, that every private Christians Censure does not make a man to be a dog, but the sentence of such as have some power from Christ to keep back from an Ordinance; but the shift is this, That because now government is unsettled, therefore none may be taken, or looked on as such. This we cannot close with; we believe that Ministers of the Gospel may act by virtue of their commission from Christ, upon their own knowledge or conscience, as to censuring, by not admitting such as are scandalous. Do profane men cease to be dogs, because there is not a complete Judicatory to judge them? No, they are so voted by the Word, their sins, and contempt of God's ways make them such, the Scripture interprets this expression to signify men of a profane life. See 2 Pet. 2.18, 19, 20, 22. Prov. 26.11. Adogge turneth to his vomit, and so a fool to his folly, that is, a wicked man to his sin. Now if the will of Jesus Christ be, that this fountain be kept pure, as chrysostom speaks, that is, that the precious Ordinance of the Lords Supper be not prostituted unto men of vicious lives, than our endeavour to keep off the unfit, is fully the mind of Christ too. But the first is true; Therefore, etc.  
Lastly, where none are kept back, where no courses of discipline are acted in, but preaching alone, there this Command of Christ is not observed at all.  
It is clear that the Sacrament is holy, and that vicious men are swine, then to give them the Sacrament is to profane it, which should not be given way unto. But,  
See more of this Text, pag. 42.  
Object. Object. It is objected by some that the Word preached is a pearl too, and upon this account not to be preached unto swine.  
Answ. Answ. The word is indeed a pearl, and some men are so swinish, and dogged, that this text will warrant our silence toward them, but the objection is weak; for non est eadem ratio, as we say, the reason is not the same; For though the Word, and Sacrament be both jewels, yet the one is necessary to conversion, to make them that be swine to become sheep; and dogs, lambs: but of this before. So then sancta canibus, is a harsh discord to that sweet note of the Ancient Church, Sancta sanctis, namely, holy things to holy men.   

SECT. XXX.  
Of 1 Cor. 11.27. unto the end of the Chapter, compared with ver. 23. of the Epistle of Judas.  
§. 30 
The sixth Proof.  Many things for our purpose may be drawn hence. In the former text there is a fiery danger represented, and detected in unworthy receiving. In the other text a duty towards them that are apt to run into this danger, and to neglect their warning. In that the Apostle would have men to examine themselves, and so to eat, he shows, that such as do eat worthily must be people of knowledge, and grace; for such only can, and will examine themselves. So that if self-examination be necessary to go before receiving, than such as do not, or cannot, ought to be excluded; and the danger being so capital, there should be a preventing thereof in others to their utmost. Now it is very certain that a natural man, an ignorant, impenitent person cannot prforme his duty of examining, therefore all such aught to be excluded. That which we examine for (as to one principal part) is, whether people can examine themselves? which we are assured many cannot do, who yet are left by many Ministers to themselves, and desire so to be. Upon this ground infants, fools, and mad men are not admitted, because unable to examine themselves; now such as be wicked men cannot be (rationally) supposed either able or willing to try, or judge themselves, they are spiritually fools, wanting that prudence, patience, and self-suspition, which are the principles of this examination; they suspect neither good absent, nor evil present, but are full of false confidence, and Laodecean security. How should a natural man be willing to such a work? He that lives in sin, and is unconverted, hath no principle to walk in the ways of God freely; he may play the Ape, and do (as to outward works) what he sees others do, but as for discerning in the Ordinance, or searching his own heart before, these are things far above him. We do then our own work, not other men's, while we try their fitness, and capacity to examine themselves.   

SECT. XXXI.  
On 1 Tim. 5.22. Neither be partakers of other men's sins.  
§. 31 
The seventh Proof.  Other men's sins becoming ours, will prove as terrible to our consciences, as any originally our own. The evasions applied to this text are many. We are not partakers of other men's sins, (say some) while we exhort the unworthy not to come, setting before them the danger of such coming; which is all that lies on us to do. But we suspect the insufficiency of this excuse. If a Minister be silent and do not reprove the sins of his Congregation he is guilty by silence of their sins, this is truth. But yet though silence makes guilty, yet bare reproving doth not make innocent, because not our full duty. A Ministers reproving & binding the impenitent in the Congregation by denunciation of God's judgements may clear him (ad hoc,) or as a Preacher, but not as a Ruler or Steward. For if the same Minister shall lose the same men by giving them the seals of the New Covenant, which is in effect to tell them, that they are Saints interested in Gospel-priviledges, and promises, or justified persons, we must fear that the guilt which was thrust out at the foredoor, comes in again at the backdoor.  
It must needs be, that Ministers observing the state of their flock, shall, and will find, and know among them some that are very sottish, worldly, and wicked: now are they not guilty of these, or such men's sins, when they admit them knowing them to be in the gall of bitterness, so far as fruits can show it? In the text we are upon, the Apostle speaks of Ordination of Ministers, wherein by not examining the persons to be ordained, guilt is contracted, and this is when that great work is done without examining, or proving, As 1 Tim. 3.10. than it is sudden. In like manner the giving of the Sacrament is sudden, and guilty, (though but once in a year) where no difference or trial is made of them that come; but as in Jeroboams days, he that would might be a Priest, so he that will (though of the basest of the people) may be a guest at the Lords Table; men may put all this off, by thinking the fault is is not theirs, while the act is other men's, but other men's sins may be ours. As in civil Judicatories there are Principals and Accessories, so before God there will be too and non-examiners, are Accessories before the fact.   

SECT. XXXII.  
On Heb. 13.17. Obey them that have the rule over you. 1 Pet. 3.15. Be ready always to give an answer to every one, that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.  
§. 32 
The eighth and. nineth Proofs.  We join these together that we may be the shorter. Here are two famous Apostles appearing for us, the one requiring confession of faith even before enemies; that which we desire in order to men's discovery of their knowledge, is but in effect the confession of their faith, or an answer, or reason of their hope. Now if this were to be given before an enemy, then much more, and easier is it to be made before friends: Such as desire to be helpers of men's faith, not upbraiders of their weakness.  
Not expecting more submission from any, than they (hope) to show meekness, and gentleness to all.  
As to the other text, Obey them that have he rule over you.  
They that would construe it of the Magistrate; forget themselves very much; for though they be Rulers in a true sense, yet the Apostle could not mean such here. He speaks of actual Governors at that time. Now were there any (then) that did watch over the souls of believers? Were they not enemies to them, and their faith? But now if we take Guides, and Rulers to be Ministers, (which is the opinion almost of all Expositors) than these things will follow.  
1. 
1 Thes. 5.2. 1 Tim. 3.5 4.11.5.17.  That the people under them must be ruled and governed by them, for the title of Rulers enforceth duty.  
2. Ministers must give an account of them, which cannot be well done without taking knowledge of their estates.  
3. They must not only preach and exhort, but do all else, which may conduce to the people's salvation.  
4. If people obey not, they hurt themselves two ways: 

1. By sinning directly against this command.  
2. By sadding their Pastor's heart, and so lessening their profit by his Ministry. All these are applicable to our purpose, urging activity on the Ministers as well in discipline as in preaching. and calling loudly for compliance from the people.     

SECT. XXXIII.  
On Leu. 13.5. 2 Chron. 23.19. Joel 3.17. Nahum 1.15. Zach. 14.21.  
§. 33 
The 11.12, 13, 14, & 15. Proofs.  These Texts, (Leu. 13.5. 2 Chron. 23.19.) have an equity in them, which is Argumentative. May none enter the gates of God's house being unclean in any thing? then still there need Porters in God's house to keep out men morally unclean; shall we be less tender in the substance, than they were in the type, and shadow?  
That of Leviticus shows that the Priests were made Judges of the people's fitness, 
Priests, and Prophets under the Law ought to reject and exclude, much more they in the Gospel; that which was not tolerable then, cannot be now. Holy Mr. Stock, p. 130. on Malachi.  as to the legal qualification: then may Ministers try and discern (by virtue of this) of men's fitness for spiritual communion.  
Lastly, these Texts, Joel 3.17. Nahum 1.15. Zach. 14.21. All these are against the impure, and horrid mixtures, which in our days are without sufficient check in most Assemblies. God hath promised this happiness unto his people under the Gospel, that there shall come no more into them the uncircumcised, and unclean; So shall you know that I am the Lord your God dwelling among you, 
See Mr. caryl in his 5. Vol. on Job, p. 85.  Esay 52.1. Now if strangers, and men of Belial, (that is not enduring the yoke of Christ) shall still be mixed (knowingly) with God's people, How is this promise made good? The times of the Gospel will never appear pure and Gospellike, while this is unredressed: and he that suffers such to pass and stand approved in the fellowship of the Gospel, will be found one day a backfriend to holiness. God looks now for a more real and spiritual people, and will not own such for his people as are graceless, whatever their profession may be. Camero observes well. That in the Old Testament they that were jews without, 
Camero, to 3. p. 538, 539. In populo Novi Test. Deus omnia voluit esse spiritualia, & realia. In Novo Test. nusquam populi Dei nomen tribuitur prophanis, & impiis hominibus, utcunque extrinsecus nomen Christo dederint.  though inwardly, and really profane, yet they were called God's people: but (saith he) in the New it is not so found; because the present state is more spiritual. The name or title of God's people is never given to wicked men, though they profess, unless by antieipation, as Act. 18.10. Here is an end of the texts, which conclude positively for our endeavour, and practice in gathering and distinguishing our Communicants by examining. What all these lights will do, being set up together, who knows?  
There remains yet a fourth proposal, which we intent to finish in a few Sections; and so an end of this discourse. Three heads are intended. Of 

1. Arguments.  
2. Objections.  
3. Queries upon the whole business.     

SECT. XXXIV.  
Wherein of some Arguments, as seconds to the Scriptures alleged.  
§. 34 We shall speak here of convincing Arguments. In the next of moving and persuading That there should be examination, and differencing of men in order to the reformation of an undisciplined Church, and prevention of unworthy receivers of the Lords Supper, This may convice:  
1. Because this Sacrament belongs only to godly ones: all admitted upon good grounds are supposed to be such (in the judgement of charity) (viz.) to be true, and real believers. Men have a right (in God's sight) only as such; the wicked eat panem Domini, not panem Dominum, as by Protestants is maintained against Papists: and they that have no true grace, have a seal to a blank, as their case is commonly expressed by our Divines. Men stand in the visible Church, as they are apprehended to belong to the invisible. All this is fondly proved by our Saviour Christ, administering at first to Disciples only, Mat. 26.26. Not to Disciples in the largest acceptation, (for many professed besides) but to such as were more peculiar was it given. Nor can we without much weakness take this to be an accidental circumstance, it being foredetermined by Christ so to have it, and his practice being a rule to the Church. Such as are not learners of Christ (as the grossly ignorant) or such as are not sincere lovers of Christ, but lovers of, and livers in known sins, how can any man make those to be Disciples of Christ? An unregeverated person is far from a Disciple. He cannot examine himself, (as before) not act graces which he wants. None can take Christ in the Sacrament who have not taken him first in the Word. Shall souls be thought to extend spiritual acts which are carnal? This being so clear it must needs be agreeable to the Word, and mind of Christ, to examine men in order to a worthy receiving, & walking up to the rule, & example of Christ.  
1. Posito fine, ponuntur media couducentia ad finem. The means, 
Quae Deus prohibet in Ecclesia fieri, ea vult Ecclesiae judicio vitari.  and the end come under the same command; this passes with all learned, and intelligent men. Now we find the end commanded. Unworthy ones are forbidden, and denied. Who will say that ignorant and scandalous in life are to be admitted? 
In opere Catech. Ursi●i Parei oper â recognito. p. 538.  Now this being granted, any proper, and sufficient way to this end, namely, exclusion of the unfit, cannot want a probation from the Word. For the end is attained by means, and is in vain set forth without them. Christ's will is that only Disciples (real souls) should come to this Ordinance; Must there not then be a means, and a way found to distinguish them from others? 
London Ministers Vindication. p. 66, 67  The point is handsomely expressed by this similitude: A man gives a legacy by will to certain poor Scholars. Now shall the trusties of this Will take men's own say, or trust, reports that they are Scholars, or try their ability in arts, and tongues? All will say, the trusties may examine such as desire the Legacy▪ and refuse them that will not submit. Now let this Sacrament be this Legacy of Christ, as 'tis (you know) the New Testament in his body and blood, and then apply and resolve accordingly. If there be a work to be done, there must be powers to act it, for powers are in vain unless drawn into act, and a work is in vain commanded without a power somewhere. If admonition will not serve, there must be a further power of suspension, and censure. Christ hath not only a purpose that this ordinance should be continued, but that it should be fenced from profanation in the continuance. He that holds up the use of this Ordinance, without setting up a fence to keep it pure, respects too little the will, and glory of Jesus Christ. 
2 Cor. 13.8  We can do nothing (saith the Apostle) against the truth, but for the truth. He speaks not of doctrinal truth alone, but chief of practical, or true administration of Church-power in matters of plety; for before he threatens the use of Apostolical power in punishing. The end of which power is the supporting of the Church by upholding godliness, and purity of Ordinance therein, and suppressing the contraries, so that to make no separation is to cross the very end of Church-power, and to do against the truth of Piety, which the Apostle could not do, and we should not, though we be as reprobates, or unapproved by some for it.   

SECT. XXXV.  
Motives unto Ministers, and others serving to move them unto a right transaction of the Lords Supper.  
§. 35 We shall commend divers heads of consideration, and persuasion without much enlargement.  
1. See, 
Motive.  and lay to heart the evils following the neglect of this, or any like course, these will make a large Catalogue. 
See Mr. Hilder-sham on Joh. 4 p. 167.   
1. And chief God is provoked to remove our Candlestick for neglect of Church-Censures upon scandalous offenders, considering the Apostles Words, A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, 1. Cor. 5.6.  
Alas, we have not only a little leaven in our Congregations, but are (many wheres) even lumps of leaven, as to the practice of known sins. Our corruptions unless appeared against will provoke God to departed from us: Thy Camp shall be holy, that he may see no unclean thing in thee, and departed from thee, Deut. 32.14.  
2. The second evil is the confusion of souls by ordinary and common profanation; eating and drinking their own damnation.  
3. Abuse of the blood of Christ, by being too prodigal thereof.  
4. Obstructing the reformation of the Churches we live in.  
5. Crossing the desires of the godly in the land, and the actings of the State herein.  
6. 
* p. 33. Omnes simpliciter pellamus, quos indignè accedere videmus, Chrys. in Hom. 83. on Mat p. 198  Degenerating from the primitive times, and all true Antiquity. Witness the forecited courses of the Ancient Churches, and the Words of chrysostom, Let us keep away all without exception that we see to come unworthily.  
These and many more we might represent (viz.) all former attempts this way fall to the ground. Malignants, and Neuters made to rejoice at our confusion, grieving the godly in communion, who though they dare not rashly separate from a Church, yet desire a differencing by censure in it. Thus not of late, but of old. 
Laurentius Humphredus de religionis conservatione & confirmatione vera ad Nobil. Clem. & populum Anglicanum, p. 23.  We shall present but one, or two of former times. One of good learning and good esteem writes thus from abroad of the Church where he was. I cannot wonder enough (saith he) or grieve enough, when I perceive in these places Church-discipline to be rejected. And to be either none or too lose, or not vigilantly administered, where yet else a true image of religion is seen, as if the Gospel could be where men live not Evangelically: 
Interea non desperandum libenter esse fateor, dabit posterior aetas tractabiliores fortè animas, mitiora pectora quàm nostra habent secula. Aret. Probl. p. 132.  thus he. Aretius' living in such evil times (as ours are) wherein men were impatient of any restraint or censures as to Church-fellowship, comforts himself with hopes of better days.  
Lastly, the want of making some separation as to the Lords Table, hath given occasion to such as have absolutely forsaken our Congregations: 
Mr. Cotton, Bloody Tenent. 2. p. p. 138. Sacramental stumbling-block removed. p. 24. Motive. 2  See Master Cotton, and others. All these well weighed, they will prove the Church's best friends, that in an humble, and moderate way desire the best means to be used to provoke its purity.  
2. The second Motive, and consideration contains the great advantages got by acting in some courses of discipline.  
1. We shall the better defend the truth of our Churches, 
Disciplina est pars regni Christi, sic câdem ratione est pars Evangelii, est sanctus modus Evangelii promovendiin ipso Evangelio institutus. Neque igitur totum Christi regnum, neque Evangelium recipiunt, qui rejiciunt disciplinam. Ames. Medul. p. 287.  while the whole Gospel is with us, and not a part only, and the holy means of promoting the Gospel, as Reverend Amesius.  
2. We shall see the more comfort in our preaching, have the better satisfaction in our own consciences, (whilst God is our witness that we have taken pains, drawn loss upon our estates, stirred up the envy of the multitude against us for his service sake) and adorn our Ministry: This is your dignity (saith chrysostom) speaking to Ministers about keeping off from the Lords Table, this your stability, and crown; in the forecited Homily.  
3. We shall enjoy the sweet society oftentimes of them that fear the Lord, 
The communion & fellowship of the Saints is the lower heaven of Saints Mr. Caryl 5. vol. on Job p. 254.  which the godly find to be a rare cordial. Men of this world (great ones) think they do not live longer than they have their matches, and meetings in a fellowship suitable to their spirits. A soul having real union with sesus Christ, finds the communion of Saints its proper, and natural element, out of which he languisheth, and in which he liveth with much pleasure.  
4. We shall have the honour of professing Christ, beyond the line of former customs, and formality, and shall bear witness to the excellency which the Word places in those that be really gracious. None are now counted (by some men) sublime, but such as are of good blood and birth above common men, the excellency that is by grace is little noted. The world looks on them as Jewels who have some natural, and outside-lustre, though never so low, and dark creatures as to the ways of God.  
5. We reap the fruit of the prayers, and dangers of those renowned Saints in the age before us, who desired to see the things we (do or might) see, but did not see them, we are entered into the labour of their spirits.   

SECT. XXXVI.  
Wherein usual Objections are answered.  
§. 36 Object. 1 Object. One is this: The Stirs and troubles where any such separation is made.  
Answ. Answ. To this our answer is, That the farthest we may follow peace with men is, as it may stand with holiness, and duty to God. Better to quit peace then holiness, though peace be dear. Indeed from a high, rash or absolute separation there are dangerous consequences, but from that which is moderate, and warrantable no such dangers; we must distinguish between the cause, and occasion of stirs and divisions.  
Christ's Doctrine may be the one, but men's lusts are the other. Esau is angry with Jacob, now although Jacob loved peace, and would not willingly offend his brother, yet he thinks it not fit to part with his blessing to end the quarrel: So here reformation is necessary, and that requires examination, and alteration in some things, which offends men that are brethren by profession; shall we now desist for quietness sake? that were to lose our blessing, & to offend God by being wanting to his providence, and our own duty.  
Object. 2 Object. 2. That this is not discernible from schism, and absolute separation.  
Answ. Answ. For answer to what is said already, we add this: Separation from Churches is properly a renouncing of all membership with them as unlawful rigid separatists would not communicate, though they know all to be godly with us, this is remote from our thoughts.  
Object. 3 Object. 3. Against the responsory part of this discourse, that we do but undertake to prove what is granted us, namely, that all scandalous persons are to be kept off, and therefore answer not.  
Answ. Answ. But may we not retort this? The Paper which is answered doth grant the main thing we contend for, and drive at, and yet opposes us stiffly, which is to prevaricate, as we take it. He that will put us to this task, namely, to prove that persons knowing, & not any way scandalous may be kept from the Lords Table, will hear of our refusal; the Oeconomy of our way is only to exclude the visibly unworthy, and no others. We do still desire that all serious Christians may enjoy this, and all other privileges of the Gospel. We have in our answer (as was said before) opposed all that doth oppose us, and no more. Other Objections are touched on before.   

SECT. XXXVII.  
Wherein of certain Queries upon the whole business, which is the last head.  
§. 37 In these we desire not only, or so much to satisfy, as to be satisfied by others, and to put others upon satisfying themselves; and first in this:  
Query. 1 Whether it be not against the solemn Covenant, (which in the eyes of conscientious men is a sacred tie upon all that have lift up their hands unto God in it) not to act in some disciplinary courses? For in this we have sworn to endeavour Reformation in Discipline, according to God's Word. Whence we may assume in this sort:  
When this was taken, either we saw the alteration of corrupt customs to be necessary as to the Congregations we live in, or we saw it not necessary to be so now; now if the latter be true, may we not say, that whosoever so took it, he swore not in judgement, and so took God's Name in vain? For he swore to reform, being convinced of no corruptions. But if the first be true, than we desire to know of every Minister, and other man that hath taken it,  what conscience they can oppose ways, and courses tending to that sworn end, and how they dare to withhold their own activity therein?  
Query. 2 Whether Ministers contradict not themselves, 
Ecclesia esset falsaria, admittens, quos Deus excludit, & pugnaret secum. Ursin. Cath à Pareo illust. p. 532.  in giving the Seal of salvation to the very same man, which they have pronounced damned; binding the same men in one Ordinance, and losing them in another? Is not this to play fast and lose with the Ministry? We put this to them only, that do admit such as they know to be scandalous, and see them (as fare as men can see) to be impenitent. This is ordinarily done without any grief or scruple, that we hear of. In the denunciation of God's judgements, the most scandalous of any Congregation must needs be sometimes in the Preachers thoughts.  
Query. 3 We desire to learn of all able, and godly men, what other way there is to be walked in, to answer the holy courses of the Ancients, and to keep close to the Word? when they blame ours, we desire them to set down their way to us, which finding better, we will embrace, and desert our own.  
Query 4 Whether the Church should own men to be members for bare profession, having no positive qualification? We understand bare profession to be that which hath no wool of holiness upon it, or when it is without a suitableness in practice. Some say, 
See Manton on Epist of James p.  the Church is not to own upon profession only: others say, profession gives a right; but when the learned so speak, they (as we think) take profession as contradistinct to faith, and truth of grace, which is inward, and invisible. Should they understand it so, as if profession alone namely, a bare, dead, and naked profession, without any thing to evidence it to be serious, should be enough, they should not (as we conceive) speak sound.  
Query. 5 What shall Ministers do, while government is unsettled, 
See Mr. Stock on Mal. p. 130  and their people being opposite to ways of reformation? shall they give the Sacrament promiscuously to all? or shall they by their own authority exclude, and put off the unfit? or shall they wholly desist, or lay down? We conceive that Ministers are in a very great strait, having a necessity lying upon them on the one hand, to administer the Ordinance, and yet having (perchance) a ked party predominant in their Congregations ready to hinder any good course of separation. Somewhat is written, but not much, to this purpose; we wish a timely and full light were given. We conceive, 

1. The use of the Ordinance of the Supper to be so necessary; as that it may not always, nor long be discontinued; the command of Christ [Do this] requires obedience; This is well proved by one of late. 
Mr. Jeanes  But we see no necessity to close with him, in another point, that while the Church is undisciplined, the Sacrament may be administered in every Congregation, without any separation, which seems to be his practice, and judgement.  
2. We conceive that the Lords Supper cannot be holily transacted by any, unless the scandalous be removed: the mind of Christ being fully against it. 
* p. 16.  Intending it for Disciples only, as was there shown. As he that pleads thus, My Church is not Presbyterated; Therefore I am at liberty to administer, or not, pleads weakly: So he that saith, My Church is not disciplined; Therefore I make no separation at all, but take all; truly to us he speaks as weakly as the other. The pleas are much alike. Mr. Jeanes his advantage upon his adversaries, is by this, that he holds them so strictly to Presbyterian principles; whereas we think it much safer to transgress a disputable principle of Presbytery, then to offend against the light of the Word. All principles of Church-government are not alike clear; were we to speak to some particular Minister, we should open our minds thus: If you cannot with the godly party of your Congregation, join yourself fitly to some well constituted Church, then may the Minister by his own authory (without Elders) put back such as he knows to be unfit, and so administer it at home; this seems safer than a total disuse of the Sacrament, or then the abuse of it by admitting all. We speak of this as to be done only in a case of necessity. The necessity of Elders to join with the Minister is clearer to some godly men, than it is to others. The Minister is impowered, and commissioned as to all Ordinances by Christ; whether in this Sacrament to act solely, or alone, is a question. What if two, or three Ministers join and act together for a while, being not so well able to act alone? Stands this at any great distance from the rule?    
The Fathers, and Schoolmen give much, yea, most (if not all) to the Minister. We writ this as willing to help others, and willing to be helped ourselves by better judgements.  
Query. 6 Who are fit to come to the Lords Table? and what are the qualifications which may be justly required?  
Let the godly consider these following.  
1. As to knowledge, there must be so much light as may let in Christ into the soul; the quantity of a man's knowledge is not so much to be weighed, as the quality thereof to be tried. Knowledge of principles, and fundamentals must be. If to our our best discerning a man's knowledge appear to be sound, and distinct, that is, not of many things, but of one thing from another, or in order to another; then our mind is that the least measure may serve: 
Job 21.14 2 Pet. 3.5 Hos. 4 6.  the light comes in at a very little hole, the best know but in part; all are therefore in some sense ignorant, but in the worst sense they only are ignorant, who care not to know, who have no mind to knowledge, who are ignorant of their ignorance, and the danger of it. Mark these with the black coal of ignorance. 
Eph 5.11   
2. As to practise these four qualifications seem necessary.  
1. He that is received upon good grounds, must be no companion of drunkards, 
2 Tim. 3.5. Psal. 101.4, 5. Prov. 1.14, 15. Gen. 49.6. Prov. 28.7. Mat. 8.22. 2 Chron. 19.2. 2 Cor. 6.14, 15, 16. Act. 2.42, 44. 1 Joh. 1.7. Heb. 10.33. Mal. 3.16. Psal. 15.4 Psal. 101.6.  or deriders of godliness, nor of any lose livers. It become not Disciples, or the children of God to accompany their Lords, and Father's enemies. It is in some sort an approving of their ways, which not only in word, but every other way we should appear against; we are not free enough from any sins, while we are too free in accompanying those that commit them; while the wicked confess they are burdened with the company of the good, the godly must profess the like of the wicked.  
2. He must be such a one, as frequents, and delights in the society of godly people. 
Dr Preston of love. p. 102, 103. 1 Sam. 19.2 Heb. 10.25 Ps. 122.1. 2 Pet. 2.7, 8 Ps. 120.5. Psal. 16.3 Phil. 2.1, 2 Eph. 4.3. 1 Thes. 5.11.  A man's companion is (as it were) the counterpane of himself. Of all other things (saith one) company is worst dissembled. Will ye profess that ye love the Saints? and that you delight in them, and yet you desire to be in any company rather than theirs; that when you are among them, you are as it were out of your element? It is impossible, but those that are moved by the same Spirit, should be best pleased when they are in one, and the same society; 'tis natural to love company, and religious to love good, and suitable company.  
2. 
1 Joh. 1.6. 1 Thes. 2.10. Phil. 1.27. 1 Chron. 5.1, 2. 1 Cor. 6.11 Gal. 5.19 Rev 22.15 2 Tim. 2.19.  He must not be known to be guilty of any gross sin. Sins of infirmity (truly so called) will stand with this rule, but the practice of known sins will not; A man is guilty of that sin, not which he hath once committed, and repent of, but of that which he is not changed from, but continueth in.  
If it may be said freely of any one, that he is a liar, a deceaver, a swearer, an idler, a wanton, a filthy talker, or such like; he, or she lives in a known sin; there must be a freedom from scandal. 
Sine crimine, though none fine peccato, as Jerome.   
4. He must be such a one as performs all religious duties, as well in private, as in public according to his calling, this is visible godliness. 
Reverend Mr. Stock on Malachy p. 132. Phil. 2.15. 1 Pet. 1.15 2.12.3.16. 2 Pet. 3.11 Luk. 1.6. Act. 3.19. Rev. 3.19. Rom. 2.4. Psal. 4.3. Psal. 32.6 1 Tim. 2.2, 10. Gen. 18.19. Act. 17.11 Acts 16.25. Acts 2.42. Revel. 1.10. Heb. 10.23, 24, 25● Acts 20.7. Acts 10.2, 9, 30. Joh. 4.23. Joh. 9.31. 1 Tim. 4.7. Tit. 2.12. 2 Pet. 3.11. 2 Pet. 1.6, 7. Gen. 12.7.  Inward worship makes a Christian in God's sight, and outward in man's: no other virtue can commend, or qualify without godliness, this is the chiefest flower of a Christians crown. Honesty is indeed a part of religion, and devotion is the life, and soul of honesty. We deny not but these may be apprehended to be in such as God sees unsound. Nevertheless requiring these, we do what in us lies. While undiscerned hypocrites deeply engage their souls in Sacramental guilt, we have freed ours, and shall be a sweet savour to God, when their sacrifices stink.  
We have (now) done, 
Conclusion.  only this Caution we thought to conclude with, while we have spent time, and some pains in holding out the truth in, and about the fellowship of believers in that great Ordinance of the Lords Supper. We would not be so taken, as if we placed the life of Religion in any outward way, or more refined course of God's worship. No, the having of Christ is an inward thing, the power of godliness is first to be heeded. If we be nothing within, no great matter though we sit at the right or left hand of Christ's outward Kingdom. Let us contend principally to be members of Christ, to be of the invisile Church: Embodied in the Church of the firstborn. Here we cannot easily be too careful, or curious; but as to external fellowship, though the mind of Christ in this also be to be sought, and followed, yet so much earnestness, and confidence needs not, as in the other, unless men take care how they live, 'tis not much matter how they worship. Thou may'st be in a purer Churchway than another, and yet be the impurer, and vainer soul of the two. It is better to see a man's conversation commending his way, then to see men beholding to their way for their esteem.     

AN ANSWER TO Mr. HUMPHREYS FIRST SERMON.  
I Shall make two stands upon the whole;  
How this Doctrine is 

1. Raised.  
2. Managed.    
I. How this Doctrine is raised. His Text is, Mark 14.23.  
And they all drank of it.  
These [all] he saith, were the twelve Apostles, and Christ's whole Congregation; whence he gathers his free admission to this Ordinance.  
Answ. Two things are here supposed or affirmed.  
1. That they were the twelve Apostles which did communicate with Christ.  
2. That these twelve were his whole Congregation. This is the Basis of the whole; so that if these communicants were rather less than twelve, or not Christ's whole Congregation, than all is lost on his side.  
1. That all then present, when this Ordinance was instituted by Christ, did partake thereof is to be granted, so far the universality holds right; but,  
2. That these all which drank, were the twelve Apostles, is more than is said, and is (at least) a disputable point.  
Now to suppose or beg that which a man knows to be doubted, and denied by many eminent Divines, this is not Scholastical. They might sit down all, (in his sense) and yet might not all continue out all the several actions which were performed at that sitting.  
3. To gather hence, that all howsoever professing Christ should be admitted to this Ordinance, seems to me weak, and most unsound. My reasons are,  
(1.) Because Christ did not then call all that did profess him, and so belong to him; he had many more Disciples besides the twelve, as is well known, which were part of Christ's followers, though not so nearly altogether related as these. To say that the twelve were Christ's whole Congregation, is but a fancy, however serviceable to the design in hand; Christ's followers were his Congregation, at least the seventy were surely part of it, and therefore the twelve were not his whole Church, as is boldly affirmed. These than were but part of his Disciples, the chiefest and most real, as Elders or Officers in a Church may be, so that their general admission is no plea for free admission. If all named Disciples had been called to this holy Institution, there had then been some footing for such a Collection; but not so, not all, but only the choicest are called.  
Besides, (2.) Christ's words point not out only this generality, but rather by that restriction ye (Take ye, drink ye,) show us that Christ did not intent that spiritual feast for all howsoever professing; but that such as were his true Disciples should partake.  
All Disciples (we say) should drink of Christ's cup, and only Disciples, not bare born professors, whose profaneness plainly showeth them to want all true love and duty to Jesus Christ. You see how sandy the foundation is on which the whole Book and Discourse is built, viz. on a forced and wrested sense of Scripture. Thus shortly of the first.  
II. How his Doctrine is managed.  
The management is in three things: 

1. Apology.  
2. The state of the question.  
3. Proof by Scriptures and Reasons.    
1. His Apology, wherein he commends his own meaning to be honest; so it may be, and yet his plea evil; sometimes the meaning is better than the matter.  
2. In his stating of the point,  
1. He distinguisheth the people of a visible Church into capable, and uncapable. The uncapable are of three sorts, Infants, Mad men, and Excommunicate persons: all besides (he saith) are capable.  
And why are these uncapable? The Church (he will say) hath censured one sort; but the other (I hope) are uncapable, because they cannot discern the Lord's body, or examine themselves; and if so, than all that cannot perform those duties are uncapable also. Now it is sure that all grossly ignorant of Christ, all impenitent sinners are unable to do these; therefore his own reason will constrain him to allow the keeping back of others, (viz.) as well spiritual fools, and mad men as natural. Folly and madness can never be denied to be, wherever sin reigns.  
1. He distinguishes of men's capacity.  

(1.) In regard of themselves, this he dares not affirm as to all in the Church; should he, the very stones might cry out, and confute him.  
(2.) In regard of the Church, or Ministers, and thus all are capable that do, or may come.   
But what Scripture hath this distinction footing on? Those that are incapable in themselves, (we knowing them to be so) we should judge to be such, and exclude them. Can necessary profaners of the Sacrament be capable in respect of the Church, whose duty it is to preserve the dignity of all Christ's appointments? The Church must take none but such as she sees, and may suppose capable. The reason to colour this distinction, is this: Ministers are to offer Christ freely, (which is more formally laid down afterwards, here but in a Parenthesis) therefore an universal capacity for all men, [whoever comes.] It seems by this that even Jews, and Pagans may not be denied this Saerament, if they come, and ask it; for these are called to believe, even all that believe not within the sound of the Gospel, so that here he seems to forget his former limitation as to the Church; his Scripture is, Revel. 22.17. and Esay 55.1. which indeed do hold out a free admission of all sensible sinners to believe on Christ, but to ground on this a liberty for the most insensible soul to come to this Ordinance, is a non sequitur with a witness.  
In the foot of all, he believes that none except ipso jure, or de facto, (that is, such as are, or aught to be excommunicated,) should be excluded. Here is somewhat more than was before, he seemed to speak of actual excommunication alone; now if there be but such as ought to be excommunicated, they may be kept back. Truly this will almost ma● the man's market. Such as he speaks against do desire to exclude none but these that ●●jure [of right] should be censured by the Church; for this very exclusion is a noting, or censuring of them, as some ways offending; Now let the Reader judge, what weight, and light these distinctions carry, wherein he rather contradicts himself, then clears his matter.  
3. His Scripture-proofs. His first Text is, Exod. 12.3, 47 50. verses. They shall take every man his lamb, that is, This is my, law concerning every family in Israel, all the congregaion, and every person rightly disposed in their families must observe this. Of these general terms, [every man, all the Congregation, the whole people] I may say (as to his use, Dolosus in universalibus; I deny not but the Evangelicall Sacrament is one in substance with the Passcover, which did foreshow Christ to die for his people's sins, nor dare I slight arguments fetched from the Old Testament, yet I conceive, that arguments out of the Old Testament, and matters of the Jewish Church may be sometimes misapplied unto the things of the New, and if I am not mistaken, it is so here. Here is (viz. Exod. 12.) a free admission. Why? All are commanded to eat, and all disaccordingly. But many things may be said to this.  
1. This was the first Passcover, and some things were extraordinary in it, (viz.) sprinkling of the blood, the staff in hand, etc. As learned Interpreters observe.  
2. The text only shows what is the law of the Passeover as to all families, not meddling with the laws of suspension from it, as to some persons, which were afterwards given, (Numb. 9.6, 7. Levit. 22.47.) where some for seven days, others for a month were suspended; this is plain that no unclean person was to eat of holy things, Passeover, or other. Some [then] knowing this, grumbled, as many do now, Wherefore are we kept back? Numb. 9.7? God's answer indeed there is not an absolute denial, & the reason is, because the uncleanness spoken of was not moral, it was but for a ceremonial fault; now uncleanness as to sins lies till men repent; here are no set days therefore, but in that cause, God resolves how long that typical filthiness should exclude. Now because no such laws were given at the first Passeover, shall we infer, therefore it was free for all, which other Scriptures show to be false?  
3. This text serves not Mr. Humphreys turn. For, 

1. He excepts some, but here all are called; Make the Lords Table, as free as the Passeover, and it should be extended to every man, without exception.  
2. If legal pollution did keep off for a month (so long is the pollution judged to continue) as he grants, much more ought spiritual pollution to exclude, which is greater; how else do we answer, or rise higher than the type?  
3. It seems to me to be a very falsehood, that no spiritual pollution did keep off. Did not uncircumcision of heart, declared by practice keep back? Why else are those that have the charge of God's Sanctuary blamed? Ezek. 44.7.8, 9 The Jews thought they might not eat the Passeover, if they enter the Judgment-hall on an holy day, which was not forbidden by any ceremonial law, therefore a moral, and not a legal pollution, joh. 18.23. And why else are the Priests reproved for putting no difference betwixt the holy, and profane?  
4. The Passeover had an external benefit which all did partake of, therefore a right to that Ordinance so far, as external; but the Lords Supper is a more spiritual Ordinance, no type. The wicked were termed God's people then, not so in the New. See Camero, p.  
5. Morally unclean were kept from the trespasse-offering, which was less than the Passeover, Num 5.6.7. How inevident then, if not untrue, is that assertion, Moral evils keep none from the Passeover.    
2. To the second proof, which is, 2. Chro. 30.5. They decreed to proclaim through all Israel from Dan to Beersheba, that they should come, and keep the  to the Lord.  
Here is indeed a general proclamation, but yet you see after, v. 18. that such as sanctified not themselves, and yet came, did highly, offend the will of God; therefore there should not have been so free a coming, as he suggests. Besides, they had all interest, as I said, in the typical, external, and commemorate part of that Ordinance, Look upon Hezekiahs' prayer, and you will find that general coming sinful; and if so, some prevention would have done well; see also that even the heart's unpreparedness, when men are legally pure, doth deserve exclusion.  
3. To the 3d. proof, which is, 1. Cor. 10.17. We being many are all partakers of one bread.  
Here he hath found the word [all] and this is victory enough; but (with his leave) some might be excluded for all this; the sense is but this, we partakers do all partake of one bread; If in that Church they did suffer all, or too many to partake, that was their fault, and it is set down to warn us against the like, not to be a rule to us.  
This mistake I wish those men would see, that would feign make the faults of the Corinthians to become our rule. What if these that were Idolaters, and drunkards did eat? This (I believe) is not set down, to teach or allow us to admit the like scandalous ones; but rather to warn us, that we might be more pure. I hope the faults of particular Churches, & believers are not recorded for our imitation. Again, it doth not appear to me that any of those Corinthians were so gross as you make them. How is it possible that any one embracing Christ, can remain an actual, and open Idolater? Idolatry was their great sin before conversion, from which they were turned to believe in Christ. How can it then be conceived that they still retained it? It is true, that they did not keep themselves so clear, as they should have done from Idolatry, in that they might be sometimes present (as a Protestant at Mass) in their idol-temples, or else (as I think) in that they eat with them, eating of the very meat sacrificed by the Pagans, and drinking in the same cups, in which they offered. This was very base, it was in them Idolatry, they were guilty of that sin, by sitting, and eating with them in such a manner, that men given to Idolatry (as you speak) that is, serving of Idols, were admitted to the Lords table, this (in my opinion) is very unlikely, if not false; do not you believe any longer, that the Church of Corinth was so corrupt, as that they would take into fellowship Gentiles, without an utter renouncing their known sin of Idolatry; yet this you do surmise (very sinfully, as I think) that you may make men believe an over-easinesse in this Church as to receiving members, and persuade the stronger to your own Idol of general admission to the Sacrament.  
4. The next Scripture is, 1 Cor. 10.4, 5.  
To this some answer, that this Sea, Rock, & Manna, were not Sacraments to the Jews, but their use was external, to feed their bodies, which had they wanted they must have died; but I rather answer, 

1. That these were extraordinary things, and Ab extraordinario ad ordinarium non valet argumentum.  
2. 'Tis true, they had some Spiritual signification, and therefore God was displeased with that very action proceeding from unworthy ones.  
3. Their sins did follow, not forego those actions, at least one of them (viz.) Baptism in the cloud & sea. Therefore this proves not, that such as are scandalous before, may be admitted to the Evangelicall Supper. How far then is this place from the man's purpose, notwithstanding his crowing upon it? The Apostle presseth it to this end, that things spiritual be not abused by carnal, and ungodly ones, which is our aim, and desire.    
5. His next argument is from the Parable of the feast, Mat. 22. and, Luk. 14.  
This to serve his turn must signify the Sacramental Supper, whereas it seems much more to point unto the preaching of the Gospel, or the Supper of grace, to which souls are invited. It is that feast which the Prophets called to, before ever this Ordinance was instituted. See, Isai. 55.1, etc.  
The scope of Parables (I grant) is argumentative, but you shall find him arguing from particular branches, as that of compelling men to come in, which he will have to signify their duty, which is a wild fancy; rather (as I apprehend) the scope of this Parable may be either,  
First, by sending three several times, to signify the three several dispensations of the Gospel. First, as a breakfast, Gen. 3. Secondly, under the Law, as a Dinner. Thirdly, under the Gospel, as a Supper. For that which is a Supper in Luke, is a Dinner in Matthew.  
Secondly, in that it is a Supper, it shows we have now the fullest, and last dispensation of Christ; as a Supper is the last meal of a day.  
Thirdly, it may note Gods sending first to the Jews, who for the generality refused; then to the Gentiles, who were far off. The compelling may signify the Spirits convincing, or Gods drawing of souls to Jesus Christ.  
The love of Christ constrains (saith the Apostle;) and the Spirit of Christ doth convince, when it gins conversion; and the love of Christ draws, when it seizeth upon a wounded, and bleeding heart for sin.  
So that all these flourishes from this Parable (restraining it to the Sacrament) seem much besides the mind of God therein. I might note other defects, as where he saith, the servant brought in the man without the wedding-garment, which the text doth not say. Lastly, the man will have a free Table, and a free Pulpit to be one. I mean the same liberty and latitude in coming to the Sacrament, as in hearing, which is a gross mistake, contrary to Scripture, reason, and Antiquity.  
6. Another Scripture is, Mat. 3.11. with Mark. 1.5. where John baptizeth all; whence is inferred an equal latitude for the other Sacrament; this argument he takes to be very strong; but the Reader searching the Scripture, will find it weak.  
1. John did baptise none, but such as came in a capacity for it, and he required confession of sins, yea, fruits of repentance too; give us these, and we shall ask no more. John's example serves us much better than him. 1. John did not baptise those Pharisees which he calls a generation of Vipers, they wanted the fruits he called for; the Publicans came in a capacity, the Pharisees not, therefore checked by Christ; See, Luk. 7.29, 30. And all the people that heard him, and the Publicans justified God, being baptised with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees, and Lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptised of him. The Pharisees came to his baptism; which might be to see the administering of it, or as sent. See, John. 1.24. And they which were sent, were of the Pharisees; which is the judgement of divers godly learned; this might be, and yet they not be baptised: the text is plain, that some did refuse, if not all: and therefore are checked by John for resting on that carnal privilege of being Abraham's seed; had some of the Pharisees only resused, they had not been more to be blamed then the Publicans, for some of them rejected also.  
Secondly, those that were baptised by John whether Pharisees, or Publicans, did all confess their sins, they were first tried by that; now grant this to be done before the Lord's Supper in a serious way, and we are friends. The drunkards, and profane persons, which he would have freely admitted must first confess their drunkenness to be a foul sin, and take shame to themselves for it, or we may exclude them by his own argument; for Eadem est ratio utriusque Sacramenti; and John did not baptise any without this trial by confession of sins, which was an act, and evidence of their repentance.  
7. The next Text is, Acts. 2.41. Then they that gladly received his word, were baptised, etc. And did communicate.  
How little this Text helps him, the Reader will plainly see, when he hath noted the great difference between those thousands, and our multitudes.  
1. These were all converted ones, ours many of them making but a dead and contradictory profession, some as void of the knowledge of Religion as the Heathen, and others worse then Pagans in their practice. Is it not the man's doting on his Sacramental liberty, which keeps him from seeing any difference between those converts, and [some] lose professors among us? I would feign learn from this Author, what more could be said of the truest Saints, then is said of these, Acts. 2. First, they are pricked in heart, ours (alas many) insensible sinners, blinded, and hardened creatures. Secondly, they affectionately desirous after the ways of salvation, ours (some) enemy in heart, and very cross to good ways. Thirly, they were steadfast and constant in the communion with the Apostles, and practice of holy duties; these stand off from the people of God as hypocrites, maligning and defaming them; what they can, not having so much as a form of godliness, if you expect their customary coming to the Church.  
It seems to argue some want of spiritual sight and love to holiness, when scandalous persons, only because they profess, must be admitted to the Lords Table upon this ground alone, because thousands of precious godly ones had this liberty of general admission; in his next let him teach us how we shall know common drunkards and swearers to be converted, which must be, or this argument dies; it was, I know, some twenty years a go, the opinion of Chancellors and Officials, that albaptized persons were to be held regenerate, and upon this account their use was to check such Ministers as did difference men's spiritual estates in their preaching.  
8. Acts. 10.28. God hath showed me that I should not call any man common, or unclcane.  
He very much likes this place as peculiar for expression; See how fancy may bring a man in love, and make him bless God for that which should make him mourn; he judges no man unclean, and yet the Apostle teacheth us to call, and account some swine, even all such as wallow in their sins. But let us see his strength from this Scripture. Peter he saith was scrupulous about admitting the Gentiles in Christian communion, and well he might, till God resolved him; I much question whether Mr. Humphrey can show so good a warrant for his resolvedness to admit scandalous ones to the Lords Table: If he have had a vision from heaven to justify his general admission, let him tell us; He hath not any clear light from Scripture, and yet he is resolved, so was not Peter; Why must the Gentiles be taken into fellowship? First, because the wall of partition is taken down. Secondly, because God gives of his Spirit & grace to them; I pray see Peter's Comment. v. 35. In every Nation he that feareth God; and worketh righteousness is accepted of him; Such Gentiles as fear God; yea, all men fearing God must be embraced; must all Gentiles be embraced? No, but such as believe, receive the Word, had the Holy Ghost, and repentance unto life. See Acts. 11.1.18. Acts. 10.46. The Gentiles upon this account are not accounted unclean. If your conscience be so large, as not to account those men unclean, who want all hopeful evidences of grace, yet do not so abuse the Scripture, and Peter's example, as to make these your supporters.  
9 His last texts are, Isay 55.1. Ho, every one that thirsteth, come. Rev. 22.17. Whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely. Mat. 11.28. Come unto me all ye that labour. 1 Tim. 2.4. Who will have all men to be saved. John 6.37. All that the Father giveth me, shall come unto me.  
To speak nothing particularly unto these Scriptures; here are two gross mistakes. 1. That the tender or offer of Christ in the Word preached aught to be no larger than admission to the Lords Table; Christ and grace are to be proposed in the ministry of the Word, even to the wicked, being sensible of sin; yea, to them, that they may be sensible; but that before men do believe, or are converted, they should have enjoyment of the Sacrament, is contrary to all the practice of Christ, and his Apostles. 2. Another mistake is this, That we so straighten the Ordinance, as to shut out poor sinners from it; This here, and elsewhere he quaintly dilates on, and aggravates to stir up hatred against godly Ministers. But Sir, I would have you know, that we embrace every poor sinner, so fare as we can discern; and they are only scandalous, and gross sinners, such as want feeling of sin, and spiritual poverty that we willingly exclude; do you no better understand who are poor sinners? Alas poor Froome.  
Having spoken to his Scriptures, I come next to his Reasons, and considerations, which are six, or seven, as he numbers them.  
Reas. 1. His first Reason is shortly this. The Sacraments are a visible word, a declaring of Christ crucified; This Sacrament spoken of, sets forth Christ to the eyes, as the Gospel preached doth to the ear; 'tis only to divers senses, there is all the difference; hence he confidently infers, that the same latitude must be in communicating, and hearing; and here, saith he, I stand as upon a Rock; Now I shall try whether he build upon a Rock indeed, or upon the sand. Sir, you do in this tell us that the forenamed Ordinances aggree in their matter, this is most true; but that there is no difference between them, but only in this, that they are to divers senses, this is what you affirm, but do not prove; Some difference besides in their proper and peculiar use, is apparent; the Word serves to call sinners, this Sacrament to nourish, and confirm believers. Multitudes of authorities, even of the most learned and godly might I heap, who are so rational as to reject this Reason, but I should argue, and reason out the difference between us in this particular. Where do you find that ever the Sacrament was made use of but to confirm, and comfort such as had already the effect of the Word upon their hearts? Therefore although the Sacrament doth represent Christ to believers, (which is all you prove, and this is not denied) yet it doth not follow but the Word hath a precedency, and must first call and dispose before this Sacramental declaration is propor for any eyes; Go teach, and boptize, saith out Saviour; first teach, make disciples, and then baptise; this [de adultis] is found reasoning; we must not baptise men of years, much less give the Lords Supper without some fruits of teaching, appears. Our blessed Saviour only mentions those two, Word, and Baptizme for the gathering of Churches, and so as the Word must go before Baptizme too; As for the Lords Supper, that follows both. It is by the Gospel phreacht in a proper sense, that sinners are gathered Eph. 1.10. Though we be not about gathering Churches (unless our people's obstinacy drives us to it) but studying and striving to reform our Congregations corrupted by a too long disuse of Scripture discipline, yet here to persecute this rationally and effectually, it will be necessary that we try who they be that are wrought upon by the word, at least that we for a time keep off them from the Ordinance who appear to be wicked ones. We are about I say to redress, and perfect our Church-communion according to the Word; our Covenant, and will of the chief Magistrate. Now, why may we not observe the same rule in reforming, which the Apostle did in gathering?  
So then, I grant you what your texts say, namely, that the Sacrament doth declare Christ crusified to believers, but it follows not (as I take it) that it must be a proper Ordinance for the ignorant, and scandalous to partake of; The Word in its proper latitude reaches to the world, to every creature, to the old creature, as well as to the new; but if we make the Word & Sacrament to be (as you say) of the same latitude, we shall confound the Church and world, which the Word distinguishes and opposes; but you say, are there any to whom the matter of the Word may not be declared?  
Sir, the bare declaring, or setting forth of Christ is not the thing we stand upon; we set not bars to men's hearing, or seeing, but to their receiving; the Sacrament doth more than declare, it doth seal Christ, now this ought not to be done, but to believers only; I mean, to such as in a rational charity may be judged such.  
The matter of the Gospel may be declared to any to the Word preached, or any other holy way, even to the most scandalous, if they will give it the hearing; but it doth not follow, that therefore in this Ordinance which doth not declare only, but seal, they should have equal fellowship; The declaring or setting forth of Christ even to the worst dishonours not Christ, but the taking of such as are scandalous into full communion, and owning them as members of Christ, I dare not say that this either pleaseth, or honours Christ. The Doctrine of the Sacrament, or Christ Sacramental may be set before them, but it is their admission to partake, that we oppose; The Sacraments are (you say) seals as signs; As much as they are signs as seals; 'Tis true, these two signing and sealing are distinct ends of the Lords Supper, they are signs to represent, and seals to confirm. So fare as they represent they may be somewhat suitable unto scandalous persons, but nothing as they confirm. Would you have them confirmed in grace, who have no true grace at all? Your two lame similitudes contributes nothing, that the seal is not to be divided from the writing, we easily grant, but you will have the writing sealed to him which is no purchaser, which is absurd. You tell us how the writing and seal are delivered together unto the Church, but our dispute is about the Church's delivery of them to creatures. Baptism, and the Lords Supper were delivered together unto the Church, must the Church therefore deliver them together? then Infants must partake of the Lords Supper as well, and as soon as of Baptism. What an absurdity is this? Because men are under the declaration of such a bargain as heaven, that therefore the Church must seal it to them in particular, in hope that they hereafter will have a mind to buy, 'tis pity such stuff should stand under the notion of reason. No man (I grant) will say that the Proclamation belongs to any, to whom the seal belongs not, nor will any one (well advised) say, that either Proclamation or Seal doth belong to a Rebel that doth not lay down his arms, which are your own wrods. The Gospel belongs in a fence to all such as are under it, God sends it to most wretched sinners, offers them conditions of peace with himself, sealed with Christ's blood, but the doubt is, whether these promises, and tenders must be actually and formally sealed to men, because this Proclamation, they being still in arms, this you seem to affirm.  
What you mean by confirming men to come in, I scarce understand, I think they should come in before they be confirmed, or else your confirming will prove to be (as it is) a sad delusion.  
The Author adds force to his first Reason by four considerations. He had need add some force, for his reason wants it.  
His first consideration is this. He finds the Gospel is to be preached to every creature, and baptising, which includes this Sacrament (as he saith) in the same Commission; I Answer, the Lords Supper is in the same Commission, if you understand the whole Gospel, else the Word and Baptism are named you know without it; If Baptism as large as preaching of the Word, because it is in the same commission? I hope not; you know many were preached unto, who nevertheless were never baptised, neither aught to be.  
The Second consideration is. The whole Gospel is to all, and offers Christ freely, therefore you infer, that we, who would have a poor soul come to Christ, and yet will not have the same come to the Sacrament, deal amiss. Answer. Sir, you are a stranger (as it seems) to the actings of godly Ministers, you conceive so grossly of them.  
1. That they refuse to admit poor souls, this is your slander, I told you before of this, you distinguish not between gross sinners, and sensible sinners  
2. That they receive not men though qualified according to Christ's mind. This is another false witness.  
Sir, it is Christ's mind that men should be qualified with grace, as with knowledge, to discern Christ in that Ordinance, etc. And therefore do his faithful Ministers look after these things.  
3. He coming with knowledge and repentance, or requiring and looking after these, contrary to free grace? I had thought that free grace had only opposed merit, not cast off all qualifications as the fruits, and signs of it. Cannot Christ be free in the Sacrament, unless the ignorant, and scandalous person be also admitted to it? I know well, we must come to this Ordinance, without the least thought of the merit of our graces; but yet he that comes to the Lords Table without this price in his heart, and life, will be dealt with as he was that wanted a wedding garment; Indeed by your arguing you make grace not free, but lose.  
The third consideration is an inconsiderate one, a very dark, and sad one; It doth affirm or suppose, that the giving or applying the seal of the New Covenant is a proper means to convince, and save them. Answer. Sir, the use of the Ordinance of the Gospel in Christ's own way, and order is best; I am confident you neever read that Christ, or the Apostles used this way of conviction. The experience of the most godly in all parts of the land, and of the world, will rise up against this your assertion; The sealing of the Covenant to men, before they understand it, and take hold of it, is the common cutthroats of souls in our Parishes. Which way soever we take it, it is the spirit, and his fullness that doth convince. The Sacrament is not the fullness of the Word, but the Spirit; the Word may come with the outward seal, and yet not come in its full virtue, as you say.  
The fourth consideration is. That the Gospel is a Gospel of peace, but the course of separation, or admitting only some, this is unpeaceable. Answer. Have you never read those words of Christ? I came not to send peace, but a sword. The godly will more peaceable, and quiet, when the scandalous are put from them. You would have a worldly, and fleshly unity kept up, whatever become of purity and Reformation. Sir, The peace of the Church will not well, nor long stand without a holy use of all Church Censures. It is the sweet saying of a godly man. It is fare better to occasion wrath in the bad, than grief in the good. We are and must be tender of unity, but not insensible of corruptions in God's worship. We look upon the distempers in many men's spirits, their railing, and many created difficulties to the godly to be evidences that the work is Gods, who can, if not calm, yet restrain the spirits of the worst; you are told that wounded sinners are not to be rejected: in your next impression leave out your Prosopopria's, we take Saints of the lowest form, and acknowledge none to be such, unless they acknowledge themselves to be the chiefest of sinners.  
Reas. 2. This is from the nature of the visible Church containing a mixture, now our Congregations being Churches, they should have this Sacrament in a free, and mixed way.  
Answ. I shall in this oppose you upon your own principles, let the Churches of England be true Churches, (as it will not be hard to prove many of them to be) yet are they corrupted through the negligence of former times, that there may be need of Reformation or separation in our Churches, to prevent separation from them.  
I do not believe, nor can you prove, that we should own men for Church-members for bare profession.  
Sir, We are not about to take this Ordinance from our Churches, but to fit our Churches for this Ordinance; so that what you say is little to the purpose, you allow particular Churches to use the highest censure of Excommunication, why not this of Suspension, acting in, and for the Reformation of our Discipline according to God's Word, and our Covenant, whereof you take as little notice, as if you were a man of another Nation. What you say about the nature of a visible Church, I shall not oppose, only I must point at your ignorance in making our separation, and Christ to be one. Christ's is a final determination of all men as to their estates. Ours is but a severing of some in order to their future salvation, if they belong to God. We note some for ignorance, that they may get knowledge; and others for their wickedness, that they may repent. We should indeed presume, and (as you say) anticipate Christ's work, did we attempt, or design, a general, or final separation. Hypocrites (as the tares) will grow together with the wheat to the end. This is all the scope of that Parable, but the force of your argument is built not upon the scope, but upon the circumstance, namely the servants discerning; which is but a branch of the Parable, and added to fill up this Similitude, of no virtue therefore to prove that known sinners must not be kept off, when discerned. The Parable speaks of hypocrites, as you yourselves say well, now hypocrites are not discerned but by God only. Is not here a contradiction? If we put these things together.  
Let us come now to Christ's example. What is that?  
1. He converses with Publicans, and sinners, but where I pray you? Was it at the Sacrament? I hope not, but at their own Table. This he did that he might have occasion to do them good by his Word. But what is this to the purpose? We know it is our duty to hold forth Christ to the worst of men, if they will hear us.  
2. But in this Ordinance, Christ also conversed with Judas, something you say for this; and I could quickly say as much against it; I will only tell you, what a learned man saith to others, that you have chosen a bad Porter to let in men to the Sacrament, nor have you well studied the Evangelists I see: for you might have found the three Evangelists to differ somewhat, which might have abated your confidence.  
Luke indeed speaks of Judas after the Cup, but Matthew, and Mark before; and it is the opinion of very many godly and learned, that there is a recapitulation in Luke's Narration. As for John he is expressly against you. Immediately after the Sop, (saith he) which was before the Sacrament, Judas went out, being now discovered, and in a sort cast out, as those words intimate (John 13.30.) which was before the Suppers administering; so than what was dark as to the disagreeing of the other Evangelists about the order, and Judas his presence, that John clearly resolves, saying, That he went immediately out upon our Saviour's discovering him.  
That which thou dost do quickly, which words were spoken before the Sacrament.  
Here is little argument in all this; But he will tell you that it is a poor shift to say, Judas was a close hypocrite.  
Answ. He aims (I know) at an Objection lying against him, namely this, That though Judas had received, yet this will not help him, or his cause. Had he proved that to be a shift, which he so styles, he had written ingenuously, but he says it, and proves it not.  
The truth is, That though the most eminent of our Divines, (at least many of them) oppose Judas his receiving, (which should have moved this Author unto a little more consideration, and modesty in saying down his opinion) yet the thing is left by others as doubtful, and so hath it ever stood in the Church, so that there is no such evidence of fact, as he speaks of; if there had, men of clear heads, and upright hearts would see it, as well as himself,  
Sir, let me give you and others this Caveat. You know the story of Judas, beware lest your contending for a free admission to the Lords Table, prove not as traitorous to the Church's purity, as Judas did to Christ himself.  
Reas. 3 Reas. 3. Admission to, and transaction of the business of this Sacrament must be with much charity, and humility; without judging, especially in Ministers; But this is impossible, where there is not a free admission. Thus he.  
Answ. But what time will he take to prove his Minor?  
He shows us not the least proof or reason, only flies to his own experience, which is a weak prop. Should a Jew go this way to work, how might the precious doctrine of our Saviour be decried? That Doctrine which is of God ought to bring forth, and continue love among men; but see the Gospel doth the contrary. What sects, what wars, what bitterness from this way? The Popishly affected commonly argue in this sort against the Gospel. Look (say they) what stirs, and blood since Luther, the founder of their Reformation: The truth is; That when men fail in their judgements they must needs fail in their observations, so doth this Author; He is fallen in love with a free admission to the Sacrament, (and so is the generality of men) and therefore lays load upon our opinion and practice, voting it to be the ready way to heart-burnings, and such like evils in men's spirits; I will not say, but these courses of Reformation may occasion and draw forth such evils, but surely men's own lusts and wickednesses are the causes of them. And why so much pride, and hatred, and contempt of others in Ministers, and other Christians, persuaded to exclude some from the Lords Table? May we not be humble, and loving too, and yet careful, and tender over the Ordinances of Christ? The Spirit of a Minister of Jesus Christ (as I take it) carries him to a special love of the godly. Can we not be loving to men unless we be cruel to the blood of Christ? Lay down therefore these uncharitable conjectures, and evil surmises of God's servants: the faithfulness, humility, and gentleness of some of these is very evident to the hearts of the godly, and yet of a contrary judgement to you in this matter of the Sacrament; Your text 2 Tim. 2.24, 25. is not to be understood of such forbearing of evil men, as rationally conduces to please them in their sins, and blind their souls; such suffering and bearing with evil ones is most ungracious; see what follows his suffering, and bearing, In meekness instructing, ver. 25. This all godly ones will strive to observe; such as they debar they also lovingly inform of their unfitness, and entreat to forbear till they shall be apprehended to be in a better capacity. Can you tell us of any won to repentance by your free way? truly we know none; but if we may speak our experiences, as you do yours, we find very many hardened in their sins by this indulgence, which you plead for.  
Here you mind us of three passages of our Saviour's.  
1 From that Parable of the Pharisee, and Publican, where you go about to fasten Pharisaisme upon us, but with some mollifying; not a proud, only a strict and rigid Pharisaism; here he is somewhat more modest than others who are of his mind in our dispute. We are Puritans, Novatians, Chatharists, Donatists, or what you will, if we be found desirous to mend our Church-society by examining and severing of our people. But what if this be his own blind zeal? For, first, he knows not that we turn off any poor sinners: no, we embrace where we see any (though the least measure of) true spiritual poverty, Secondly; I might tell him, that he rather inverts the use of this blessed Ordinance, and by his freeness lays it open to manifest profanation. Christ ordained it to be a Disciple-priviledge, a bond to unite his people, and he would have it lie common even to them that have not the face of Christians in their practice. O blessed Lord! open the eyes, and rectify the zeal of these men, who are more forward to satisfy the desires, and cries of carnal men, than they are to advance the Church's holiness, or preserve the dignity of thy holy institutions.  
2. The second memorable passage concludes Christ's freeness in eating with sinners to be a reason for a free communion; but I have told him already, Christ was more free at the Pharisees Table, then at his own. Christ that did eat with Publicans, did celebrate his Supper with his own Disciples only, he took none of them in there; nay, he left out very many that professed him to be their Lord; How impertinent therefore is that passionate exclamation? O sweet Jesus! etc. I see Rhetoric must serve, when Logic fails.  
3. The third place is in John 8. of the woman taken in adultery, of whom our Saviour saith: Let him that is without sin himself, cast the first stone at her. I could tell him of a better use to be made of this example; though Christ knew this woman to be a grievous sinner, yet because no proof came, he would not censure her; he would act so as he might example us; not as a God, who knew all things, but as a Judge, who must know but what is proved. And this may afford a reason, why Judas was not excluded, (if we grant him admitted) because Christ would not exclude him upon his divine knowledge, as he would not condemn the woman spoken of; as to men, Judas was as free from scandal as any of the rest; besides, if this be a reason why we should not censure, and note open offenders, because we ourselves have sins and corruptions about us, then why should not this hinder the Church from excommunicating also, which he himself grants to be a Christian censure? I confess the feeling of our own sins should make us act humbly, and compassionately, but that this should take us off from censuring others in the way of our callings. and offices, because God may censure us; this is a mere fancy; God without doubt can censure us all, and will as for other sins, so for our unrighteous censures of others, yea, for our not censuring when there is cause. Why falls he so foul upon the Church's censures? Why doth he not tell the Judges on the bench, that they are sinners themselves and therefore should not condemn thiefs, and murderers? The Churches spiritual censures are in the hands of men, subject to like passions with others, even to all humane infirmities, and if this had been a bar to their execution Christ would (not doubt), have found other hands for them.  
Reas. 4 Reas. 4. This is drawn from the vanity, (as he saith) formality, impossibility of selecting people to this Ordinance, all these separations come to nothing.  
Answ. Answ. He hath heard (I believe) of some rash, groundless separations to have run unto a shameful extreme. What of this? doth it follow that a moderate severing (as to some Ordinance) of the more precious (in a visible Church) from the vile must needs end so too? he might (were he willing) observe the contrary in many places of this land, where this discipline hath been long practised, and the Churches standing to this day, and the godly walking with much steadfastness in them; so then, here an untruth is affirmed; & he bids men to look for that which I hope they shall never see; here he makes this query under his reason, Who are to be accounted fit? Are all that make profession? or only real believers the men? I answer, We do not think bare profession to be enough to challenge admission unto this Ordinance, where there is a denial thereof by ignorance, or a contradiction by ungodliness of life; and yet we do not stand to this that all must be sincere; you are out therefore in your division, it wants a member; we expect rational grounds for our hopes of men's seriousness in what they profess; but are not for certainty, and infallibility, as to their gracious estates. We are not ashamed to profess that we would have our Churches as pure as by any sanctified means we can make them, and yet are enemies to the endless, infinite separation you point at. As for your girds at Purity, God may perchance make you mourn without an Onion.  
Reas. 5 Reas. 5. This is gathered from a supposed uniformity of Gous' service in all other parts of worship; the command of God is universal, therefore should be so as to the Communion. Answ. Some enclosure you yourself have yielded, as to children, mad men, etc. All therefore may not do this. In a Church reform, as to government, all (I grant) should be admitted which are not under the Church's censure; but with us hath been a long neglect of discipline, with us are multitudes of profane ones, and no such thing as excommunication in use. The present enclosure put upon this Sacrament, is a way to redress our fellowship, and communion, which are grown so corrupt, that without a purge there can be small hopes of ever seeing order or discipline among us. Had you, and others the patience to wait till the Church's hedge be made up, you might then have your desired freedom. While the Church is without enclosure, the Sacrament will need one very much; When the street-doore lies open, there is the more need to lock the inner rooms. You say, that unregenerate men, who cannot perform duties without sin, are not yet to be excluded from any. [You say] This is your strength and common thunderboult; should I but say the contrary, this were a just answer to you. But to give you better than you bring: you would feign (I see) have all duties alike, but this will not be yielded you. There be duties that be natural, and there be duties that be instituted; These you should learn to distinguish. There be intiall duties; To these unregenerate men must be called and moved, as to pray, believe, repent. Prayer and hearing of the Word, are such, that whatever the men be, they are to endeavour, and act in these as the means of grace. Notwithstanding that it is any one's duty to come to the Sacrament being unregenerate, this you will hardly prove. Certainly Christ commanded not those to come, that cannot perform what he wills, nor discern what he offers. Every one must pray to God, and praise God. It is their duties as creatures to do those things, and they sin as much or more in not doing, as in doing. But to receive the Sacrament, this is a duty of men, not as creatures, but as believers. And he that is judged unfit by his Minister or the Church, doth not sin in staying away.  
To your Grammatical conceit, which here follows, I return you this: Why do you not as well question Lily, as to his Grammar method, as Independents, and Presbyterians for their practice as to Ordinances? Being a Scholar you, know, the Grammar would not be perfect without a Quae genus. No more will our Churches if there be a Syntax, & no noting Anomala's. The ignorant, and scandalous are Heteroclites to the Church's communion, or Syntax. And to your question, the Presbyterians will tell you, that a child, by a remote right of his Parents, may have a just claim to a Church-priviledge. The Lepers had a right to their houses, when they were thrust out of them. Such as are of a Church may make themselves incapable of some Church-enjoyment, and yet prefer their children: So do suspended, and excommunicated persons. Infants of Church-members, whether the jure, or de facto excommunicate, or whether growing mad, and so excluded; these infants (I say) are borne in that Church, whose censure their Parents bear.  
Now Sir, that is such a stitching, such a Presbyterians seam, as your knife is (for aught I see) too dull to rip; So fare is this from truth which you say, that in yielding the one, they have granted the other.  
Reas. 6 Reas. 6. This is made up of many particulars.  
1. I do (saith he) but my duty. Answ. When you prove it your duty to do, as you teach, I shall then believe you.  
2. You have no power to turn away any. Answ. Yes, as a steward of the mysteries of the Gospel you have a power to preserve the dignity of this Ordinance, and to keep off all visible unworthy ones.  
3. I hope the best of all. Answ. So (it seems) of the most profane drunkards and swearers; but is not your hope faithless, and your charity blind, and irrational.  
4. I know God can turn the worst. Answ. But his absolute power must not be eyed in such cases, but his revealed will.  
5. I endeavour my utmost, that all may come prepared. Answ. This is good, and charitable, that your endeavour extends to all; but when you do, or may know by constant experience of too many, that they are unprepared; is not this branch of your reason vain? Your duty is to endeavour to fit all; but, Sir, this is not all, but only a part of your duty. It is your duty to advance holiness, and order in the Churches of Christ, to preserve the dignity and purity of his Ordinances, to provide for the comfort of his people in the use of them. This you do not.  
6. I humbly confess the sins of all. Answ. Because God in mercy heard Hezekiah, and removed upon his prayer a judgement inflicted for unworthy coming to a typical Ordinance, therefore he concludes his innocency from doing a like; but stay, Sir, in this you are unlike Hezekiah, he did this once, when upon an extraordinary occasion, the people came from far, and could not well observe the legal rites; but you (it seems) make this a common practice. You know beforehand what people will come, (that the scandalous ones of your flock will come) and you think to preserve your soul from the guilt of their sins by confessing their unworthiness. Pray for those that come, (the best need it) but think not that your praying will be an antidote to you and others, if you knowingly admit the unworthy.  
7. Lastly, I venture the issue on God. Answ. It is good to be sure keeping to our rule, and not to venture too far.  
To venture without the Word is to presume, which is evil as you know. It is good to walk by a rule; for than if we venture, 'tis in a good bottom.  
God's Ordinances (I acknowledge) will be a sweet savour to him, whatever be the effects of them upon others: But while his Ordinances are sweet, our actings may be sour; and when they are so we must look one day to hear of it.  
Finally, he hints at some other pressing considerations from the command, and good of coming, and from the evil of omitting this Ordinance. Answ. What is here behind in the bottom, we'll meet with in the other part of the book.  
Ordinances are means, this is true, but yet all Ordinances are not alike, as hath been shown. If a soul want grace, there are proper means of conversion, and begetting grace, to which he must apply himself; some Ordinances (as this) are both means and pledges of grace already given.  
The Ordinances are baths, but are baths common to them, that have the plague, (I hope not) though they are open to all, or most other diseases, Some Records tell us, that John would not come into the bath, because Cerinthus was there.  
In his upshot, he makes a weak flourish, with the Parable, Mat. 22. and instead of scrupling the unworthy coming of the worst men, sentences them to be worst of all that come not. I think him a wretch, who despises, and altogether neglects this Ordinance; but he that forbears for a time, either as scrupling his own fitness, or as offended with the undue manner of administering where he should partake, I am far from thinking such a one more unworthy, than a presumptuous intruder. Such as are in a capacity, and come not, these deal unworthy indeed. As to your trouble about neglect of administering, and coming; Why take you such a large stride, stepping from one extreme into another, whereas the truth and your duty lies between both? You need not neglect administering, that is another extreme to admitting all. I wish you would avoid them both. If you will not be persuaded to this, but still practise your free admission, who will promise you, that none shall presume? I think very many have already presumed upon your book to come unworthily, and many more (while you maintain this freeness) are like to do so. Let this stick another while on your thoughts, and then perchance instead of calling in of all, you may see cause to call in much of what you have published in this book.  
FINIS