<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2011-08-04</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Lauren Proux</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Checklist: x Add TEMPHEAD, change DATE, validate x Add DIV TYPEs, validate x Review structure, use BODY or rarely GROUP x Check PB placement and completeness, ensure sequence of N="" x Proof title page(s) x Check HEAD TRAILER ARGUMENT EPIGRAPH OPENER CLOSER SIGNED SALUTE BYLINE x Check ^, oe, abq (Esq;), italic I / J, _Initals, &amp;c. x Check # @ -- UNCLEAR LB FIGURE x Check q; startq endq Q&#62; x Correct illegibles from proofsheet x Check illegible page, para, line, span, word, dollar signs Final validate Corrected [ ] illegible groups out of [ ]. Converted [ ] illegible groups to GAP DESC="illegible". DONE</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A88693">
<STC T="W">L405</STC>
<STC T="T">E1823_2</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99868662</BIBNO>
<VID>170420</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P>SUSPENSION REVIEWED, STATED, CLEERED AND SETLED UPON PLAIN Scripture-Proof.</P>
<P>Agreeable to the former and late Con&s;titutions of the Prote&s;tant Church of <HI>England</HI> AND OTHER REFORMED CHURCHES.</P>
<P>Wherein (Defending a private &s;heet occa&s;ionally written by the Authour upon this &s;ubject, again&s;t a pub|lique pretended Refutation of the &s;ame, by<HI> M^r W.</HI> in his book, entituled, Su&s;pen&s;ion di&s;cu&s;&s;ed.)</P>
<P>Many important points are handled; &s;undry whereof are &s;hortly mentioned in the following Page.</P>
<P>Together with a Di&s;cour&s;e concerning private Bapti&s;me, in&s;erted in the Epi&s;tle Dedicatory.</P>
<P>By <HI>SAMUEL LANGLEY,</HI> R. S. in the County Palatine of <HI>Che&s;ter.</HI></P>
<P><HI>LONDON;</HI> Printed by <HI>J. Hayes</HI> for <HI>Thomas Underhill</HI> at the <HI>Anchor</HI> and <HI>Bible</HI> in <HI>Pauls</HI> Church-yard. 1658.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="table of contents">
<PB REF="2">
<PB REF="2">
<HEAD>The following Di&s;cour&s;e containeth the&s;e things (among others.)</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM>_HOw far Prudentialls are to be admitted in Church-Government, <HI>Ch: 2. &sect;. 2.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>A &s;trict con&s;ideration of the Scripture Texts, whence the doctrine of Excom|munication is to be gathered; and de|ductions therefrom, <HI>Ch: 3. &sect;. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Excommunication cuts not off Chruch-member&s;hip, <HI>Ch: 3. &sect;. 6.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Degrees of Excommunication; greater and le&s;&s;er; ma|nifested by Scripture light, <HI>Ch: 3. &sect;. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>How far the <HI>Presbyterian &s;u&s;pen&s;ion,</HI> is &s;utable to the Rules appointed under the late Epi&s;copal Govern|ment, <HI>Ch: 4. &sect;. 3, 4, 5, 6. Ch: 14. &sect;. 1. Digre&s;s. 3.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The di&s;tinction of <HI>negative</HI> and po&s;itive Beleevers con|&s;idered; and how far its of u&s;e in this Controver&s;ie, <HI>Ch: 5. &sect;. 3, 4, 5, 6.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>A ju&s;tified Beleever as ea&s;ily di&s;covered to, and known by others, as a dogmatical Beleever, <HI>Ch: 5. &sect;. 5.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The ma&iuml;ne conclu&s;ion, <HI>viz.</HI> that the Lords Supper ought not to be admini&s;tred to unbeleevers who are &s;uch, in re&s;pect of actual notorious di&s;obedience to the Go&s;pel, <HI>Ch: 5. &sect;. 2.</HI> Proved from Mr. <HI>W.</HI> his conce&s;&s;ion, <HI>&sect;. 7.</HI> From the &s;u&s;pen&s;ion of &s;ome from the Pa&s;&s;eo|ver, not ceremonially uncleane. <HI>&sect;. 8.</HI> From parallel
<PB REF="3">Ca&s;es, <HI>&sect;. 9.</HI> From the forme of admini&s;tring; <HI>Eate this in remembrance Chri&s;t dyed for thee, &sect;. 10, 11, 12.</HI> From the con&s;ideration of the qua|lifications required in the adult, as nece&s;&s;ary condi|tions of their admi&s;&s;ion to Bapti&s;me, <HI>Ch: 6.</HI> through|out.</ITEM>
<ITEM>The maine conclu&s;ion afore&s;aid cautioned, <HI>Ch: 7.</HI> wherein e&s;pecially is &s;hewed, how an habituall &s;in|cere beleever, may be unpardoned and &s;o lyable to condemnation for actual wickedne&s;&s;e not yet repen|ted of, <HI>&sect;. 2.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The great and &s;tronge&s;t objection, again&s;t the fore&s;aid Conclu&s;ion, taken from the &s;uppo&s;ed general admi&s;&s;i|on to the Pa&s;&s;eover, con&s;idered and an&s;wered, <HI>Ch: 8. &sect;. 4, 5. Ch: 9. Ch: 10.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Particular &s;cruples and objections an&s;wered, and mi&s;|takes removed, <HI>Ch: 11.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Rom. 4.11.</HI> &s;trictly con&s;idered, <HI>Ch: 12. &sect;. 6. &amp;c.</HI> Where is proved that the Sacraments are &s;eales of the <HI>mutual Covenant,</HI> i. e. on Gods part, and mans part al&s;o.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Exceptions an&s;wered in the following Chapters.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Notorious wickedne&s;&s;e vi&s;ibly continued in, without re|pentance, is (and ought) to be taken (in the judge|ment of the Governing Church, or where there is no Governing Church, in the judgement of the Mini&s;ter officiating) as equivalent to word-rejecting of Chri&s;t; and therefore equally renders a per&s;on uncapable of having the Lords Supper admini&s;tred to him, <HI>Ch. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>By immediate though notoriou&s;ly ungodly &s;u&s;pended or excommunicate parents, a right may be conveighed for the Bapti&s;me of their Infants, <HI>Ch: 19. &sect;. 4, 5, 6, 7.</HI></ITEM>
<PB REF="3">
<ITEM>A di&s;cour&s;e about Examination, or taking an account of per&s;ons confe&s;&s;ion of the faith, before their fir&s;t ad|mi&s;&s;ion to the Lords Supper, <HI>Digre&s;s. 3.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>An ob&s;ervation concerning the name <HI>Antichri&s;t, Di|gre&s;s 12.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The right meane betwixt unwarrantable &s;eparation from and undue admi&s;&s;ion to, the Sacrament, <HI>Di|gre&s;s. 14.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Rom. 3.19.</HI> opened and vindicated, <HI>Digre&s;s. 19, 20.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>An Argument from <HI>Act. 15.</HI> proving that &s;elect Brethren (not Mini&s;ters) may authoritatively act in Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall Government, <HI>Digre&s;s. 22.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="dedication">
<PB REF="4">
<PB REF="4">
<HEAD>TO THE REVEREND LEARNED &amp; GODLY <HI>Di&s;pencers of the My&s;teries of God</HI> (and more e&s;pecially tho&s;e of the <HI>Cla&s;sicall A&s;&s;ociation</HI> in the Ea&s;tern parts) of the <HI>County Palatine of Che&s;ter:</HI> Together with the Reverend and mo&s;t endeared M^r <HI>Simeon A&s;h</HI> Mini&s;ter in the <HI>City</HI> of LONDON.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">As al&s;o To the truly judicious and experien|ced <HI>Phy&s;itian,</HI> his highly honoured Friend M^r WILLIAM BENTLEY. <HI>The</HI> Authour <HI>wi&s;heth all grace and peace to be multiplied.</HI></HEAD>
<OPENER><SALUTE>WORTHY SIRS;</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>_IT's no intent of mine in prefixing your Names to the en&s;uing Treati&s;e, to en|gage you in the patronage thereof. Let it &s;tand or fall at the bar of right Rea&s;on. What the Learned <HI>Wotton,</HI> in his Epi&s;tle before his accurate book <HI>de Reconcil. peccat.</HI>
<PB REF="5">&s;aith to <HI>Kings</HI> Colledge, that do I mean to you in this thing; <HI>Reum apud vos agere (viri ornati&s;&s;imi) non clientem, &amp; vos mihi non patronos qui pro me dicant comparandos, &s;ed qui de me &s;ententiam ferant, judices con&s;tituendos e&s;&s;e decrevi.</HI> Nor do I thinke &s;o low of you, or &s;o highly of my di&s;cour&s;e, as to judge it de|&s;erving of this joynt dedication. But con&s;idering I am not likely to appeare againe in print, I judged it ho|ne&s;t, to divide the&s;e my goods (though never &s;o &s;mall) among you, rather then to appropriate them to any of you &s;ingly; having cogent Rea&s;ons for this Addre&s;s to you all in this bu&s;ine&s;&s;e.</P>
<P>To you the Renowned <HI>Ae&s;culapius</HI> of our Coun|ty, that I might hereby publiquely te&s;tifie the en|gagements of my &s;elfe and family to you both as a Friend and Phy&s;itian; more e&s;pecially that I might &s;ignifie a grateful &s;en&s;e and remembrance of your long continued, &s;ucce&s;full and carefull (though un|feed) Advice for the health of him whom I was en|debted to for my being and wel-being. And your ur|ging mee to this &s;ervice had no &s;mall influence upon mee, &s;o that you may rightfully challenge a &s;hare in the fruit of my paines therein.</P>
<P>And you deare <HI>Sir,</HI> a bright <HI>Star</HI> of the fir&s;t mag|nitude in the <HI>Metropolitan firmament,</HI> may not be ex|cluded hence. For when I call to minde your former Re&s;pects to mee in both Univer&s;ities; the precious precepts and fervent prayers you favoured me with, at and in mine Ordination; And the mo&s;t endeared, cordial, long continued intimacy which you had with my Father (of ble&s;&s;ed memory) who ever bore you upon his heart with the greate&s;t tenderne&s;&s;e; and who before he was taken from us, in commending the &s;er|vice of this booke to mee, forcibly commanded me
<PB REF="5">the &s;ame: (The&s;e things, I &s;ay, con&s;idered, not to mention other,) I finde my &s;elfe deeply engaged, as the heire of your mo&s;t loving Friend, as well as upon my own account otherwayes, to te&s;tifie here my &s;in|gular gratitude to you, with &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion of the&s;e my &s;tudies to your grave, quick and judicious, yet mo&s;t candid Cen&s;ure.</P>
<P>And yee my Bo&s;ome Friends and Brethren of that Cla&s;&s;ical A&s;&s;ociation, wherein my lot is fallen (at pre&s;ent) to make up a number, are not only concer|ned in my cau&s;e, but injuries al&s;o. Would it be be|leeved if I &s;hould tell you the Gentleman I have to deale with, intends you the contemptuous language he be&s;tows on me? Yet &s;uch is his <HI>brow,</HI> that he hath taken up a conceipt, (ask me not whence, I am not of Councill with him who taught him it,) That my A&s;&s;ociated Brethren were acce&s;&s;ory to the paper he endeavoured to di&s;grace. The&s;e are his words to me; <HI>Your notes (probably) were not of &s;uch private con|cealment, as you would make us beleeve; but were &s;hew|ed to divers Divines of your own party, for advice and approbation. Thus it is reported. And there is &s;trong probability for the truth of this report. For its not like|ly, you would pa&s;s a bu&s;ine&s;&s;e of that nature to a profe&s;|&s;ed Antagonist, without con&s;ultation first with your A&s;|&s;ociates, whom the grand de&s;igne of your notes concerned as intrin&s;ecally as your &s;elfe.</HI> The fal&s;ene&s;&s;e of which his &s;elf magnifying and in&s;olent conjecture, is known to your &s;elves, and may appeare to others by the Ac|count given, <HI>Digre&s;&s;</HI> 21.</P>
<P>And truly, Gentlemen, As this his affront to you, mini&s;tred ju&s;t cau&s;e of a greater indignation again&s;t his incivilities, &s;o the publi&s;hing that he intended you as well as me, I account a &s;ufficient di&s;paragement to
<PB REF="6">his calumnies; which will not be fa&s;tened on your Names, how ever they might more ea&s;ily have &s;tained mine, if I had been &s;ingly be&s;pattered by him. Yet in making this advantage of your company under his abu&s;es, I do not in the lea&s;t attempt, to &s;helter the weakne&s;&s;es and defects of my paper, or its defence, under the covert of your protection. The interpel|lation of you in the&s;e lines, de&s;igneth only a publique te&s;timony of the precious e&s;teeme I have of you, who&s;e unanimous and &s;tudious per&s;evering in the work of the Lord (notwith&s;tanding the &s;ad and never too much lamented lo&s;&s;e we have lately &s;u&s;tained in the decea&s;e of that paire of mo&s;t grave, venerable and unblemi&s;ht Divines, as al&s;o of a third, though not &s;o ancient, yet very u&s;efull and able Mini&s;ter, who were lately the &s;trength and ornament. the Hor&s;emen and Chariots, not only of our Cla&s;&s;is, but County and Province al&s;o; I &s;ay, notwith&s;tanding this di&s;courage|ment, your continued pious endeavours together and apart) are and &s;hall be no le&s;&s;e the joy of many, then they &s;eeme to be the envy of &s;ome.</P>
<P>And you my much honoured Fathers and Brethren in the Mini&s;try of this County, I cannot omit in this Dedication, as having been moved by many of you to the work here undertaken, which now I humbly lay at your feet; obliging my &s;elfe to be thankfull for any of your learned faithfull Animadver&s;ions, you may be plea&s;ed to afford me, in what I may be con|ceived by any of you to have erred: a&s;&s;uring you that &s;uch oyle (if not inflamed with pa&s;&s;ion) &s;hall be of mo&s;t precious account with mee for the healing the wounds you may di&s;cerne in my head.</P>
<P>This Controver&s;ie which &s;ome have enlarged by the introducing of many things not conclu&s;ive here|in,
<PB REF="6">is here reduced to this point; wherein, indeed the &s;tre&s;s lyes, <HI>viz.</HI> Whether the word of God gives any warrant to admini&s;ter either to &s;uch as are vi&s;ibly in the wayes of wickedne&s;&s;e, incon&s;i&s;tent with the exer|ci&s;e of ju&s;tifying faith? Or to &s;uch as have not in their own per&s;ons under&s;tandingly, and before competent witne&s;&s;es, profe&s;&s;ed their owning of their bapti&s;mal engagements, which in their infancy were layd upon them? In this the whole controver&s;ie is contained; the former being a&s;&s;erted and proved e&s;tabli&s;heth &s;u&s;|pen&s;ion, the latter non-Admi&s;&s;ion, as is &s;hewed in the third Digre&s;&s;ion about Examination. All acknowledge beleevers only have right to the Lords Supper. But then the Que&s;tion will be, whether all beleevers who are &s;o called in any &s;en&s;e, particularly in regard of their having been baptized, and po&s;itively engaged to beleeve? This cannot be granted, for then no Apo|&s;tate, though excommunicate, could be debarred of nece&s;&s;ity, therefore we mu&s;t allow &s;ome qualificati|ons nece&s;&s;ary, to make one capable of the Sacrament, over and be&s;ides his bapti&s;me, and having been po&s;i|tively engaged to the Chri&s;tian faith. And this the Brethren for generall admi&s;&s;ion &s;eeme to confe&s;&s;e, when they in &s;tating the Que&s;tion &s;till limit it to per|&s;ons adult and intelligent, and that in re&s;pect of the u&s;uall exerci&s;e of under&s;tanding, and actuall freedome from drunknne&s;&s;e, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> which &s;hould make them unca|pable of exerci&s;ing rea&s;on during their intoxication. Their Antagoni&s;ts have often urged them to give a Rea&s;on, why the&s;e may be debarred who have not the fore&s;aid qualifications, and not the notoriou&s;ly pro|phane? It hath been an&s;wered: 1. In re&s;pect of the drunk, that they are fit for no ordinance, and &s;o not for the Lords Supper; which is a &s;atisfactory An&s;wer
<PB REF="7">in it &s;elfe. But not upon their principles, who 1 plead for an actual right in all to receive who&s;e duty it is to receive; and 2. that Church-member&s;hip entitles (or proves a title) to all Ordinances in the Church. For the drunken Chri&s;tian is not di&s;obliged from his duty in reference to this or other ordinance, nor di&s;mem|bered, by his drunkenne&s;&s;e at pre&s;ent. 2. In reference to <HI>Minors,</HI> and the <HI>unintelligent,</HI> as to the ordinary ex|erci&s;e of Rea&s;on; it is an&s;wered, that they come not under the command to receive, as being innocently unable to examine them&s;elves; but the prophane are unfit only through their own fault: and &s;o they &s;ay, there is as much difference between the&s;e, as betwixt [will not] and [cannot]; the latter excu&s;eth, not the former. This I confe&s;&s;e is &s;omewhat, but it reach|eth not the matter wherein the knot lyes. For the Que&s;tion is not intended only, why <HI>Minors</HI> and the <HI>unintelligent</HI> are &s;ecluded from the Lords Supper? (to which the Rea&s;on given is an An&s;wer.) But al&s;o, why they are &s;ecluded from the Lords Supper, when they are not &s;ecluded from other ordinances of publique prayers and preaching in the Church? And this the fore&s;aid Rea&s;on toucheth not. For if innocent incapa|city as &s;uch, excu&s;eth and &s;o &s;ecludes from the Sacra|ment, it would according to our Brethrens principles excu&s;e and &s;eclude from other ordinances of equall &s;anctity (as they &s;peake) and wherein as much know|ledge and other graces (they &s;ay) are nece&s;&s;ary to be exerci&s;ed to an acceptable performance, as in cele|brating the Lords Supper. And therefore the Rea&s;on of excluding the innocently uncapable from the Sa|crament, will lye in this, becau&s;e they are vi&s;ibly <HI>un|capable, in generall,</HI> as &s;ome prophane per&s;ons may be; not in this <HI>in particular,</HI> that they are <HI>innocently</HI> un|capable;
<PB REF="7">And then the exception &s;tands &s;till in force, <HI>viz.</HI> that they produce no Rea&s;on for debarring the <HI>unintelligent</HI> from the Sacrament, whiles they are ad|mitted to other Ordinances, which will not &s;erve us for debarring the prophane from the Sacrament, though they are not debarred the prayers and hearing the word in the Church. But the Gentleman I have to deale with in this reply, &s;eemes more liberall in this matter. For he de&s;cribes his <HI>po&s;itive beleever,</HI> that is, one who is po&s;itively obliged to Chri&s;tianity, who is with him capable of the Sacrament, by many other qualifications, <HI>p.</HI> 50, 51, 57. which I have mentio|ned in the Treati&s;e following, <HI>Ch.</HI> 8. &sect;. 3. As 1. that he is one who is profe&s;&s;edly of the Chri&s;tian per&s;wa|&s;ion. (But what if he be an Arrian, is he no Chri&s;tian? then he is no heretique? &s;o we are at a lo&s;&s;e, how far this qualification will be extended, <HI>to be profe&s;&s;edly of the Chri&s;tian per&s;wa&s;ion.</HI>) 2. That he frequent our A&s;|&s;emblyes. 3. Heare our doctrine with reverence and attention. 4. Vi&s;ibly &s;ubmit to the outward meanes of reformation and amendment. 5. Not ju&s;tifying his mi&s;|carriages. 6 One who gives us vi&s;ible te&s;timony of his a&s;&s;ent to our doctrine. Now if the ab&s;ence of the&s;e render a per&s;on debarrable; It will not &s;inke into my dul head, that Mr. <HI>W.</HI> or any one el&s;e can gratifie us with any &s;criptural Rea&s;on, for the &s;ame; (as to debar him who comes not to Church ordinarily,) which will not debar any prophane &s;wearer, drunkard or unclean per&s;on, notoriou&s;ly appearing &s;o to be. And if any would favour me with a cleere Rea&s;on from Scripture, why an unintelligent per&s;on (though baptized adult, &amp;c.) may be debarred the Sacrament, as they hold he may, although not debarred other ordinances: I &s;ay if any would give me a proof of this, without mani|fe&s;tly
<PB REF="8">overturning thereby, the maine props of that &s;tructure, which the Brethren for general Admi&s;&s;ion have layd, I &s;hall pawn my promi&s;e before you, to be much engaged for &s;uch a di&s;covery; which I mu&s;t pro|fe&s;&s;e is not within the reach of my pre&s;ent under|&s;tanding.</P>
<P>There hath bin much &s;poken in the di&s;cu&s;&s;ion of this &s;ubject, about polluting holy things, ca&s;ting pearles to &s;wine, not di&s;tingui&s;hing betwixt the precious and the vile, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> which the other party will I think yeeld are pertinent, if fir&s;t it be proved, that the per&s;ons pleaded for are unwarrantably admitted. And unle&s;&s;e this be &s;oundly evinced, they who u&s;e tho&s;e pa&s;&s;ages mu&s;t acknowledge they have no edge again&s;t their Antagoni&s;ts. For certainly to di&s;pen&s;e Ordinances to them whom the word warrants us to di&s;pen&s;e them to, cannot ju&s;tly be loaded with any of tho&s;e aggravati|ons. For Scripture is the Rule of purity. And &s;o, on the other hand, the Arguments for the general admi&s;|&s;ion contended for, taken from Chri&s;ts command to admini&s;ter to Di&s;ciples, Beleevers, that the Sacrament is a converting Ordinance (in &s;ome &s;en&s;e) &amp;c. will, I &s;uppo&s;e, be granted by tho&s;e who make u&s;e of them, to have no force again&s;t us, if this be once cleered to them, that the Di&s;ciples and Beleevers to whom the Lords Supper belongs, are not all &s;uch Di&s;ciples or Be|leevers, as are &s;o called in re&s;pect of their profe&s;&s;ed en|trance into Chri&s;ts &s;chool, and po&s;itive engagement to beleeve in him, (which no Apo&s;tate Arrian, nor Ma|hometan can loo&s;e or put off from him) but tho&s;e on|ly who are &s;uch vi&s;ibly in regard of &s;erving Chri&s;t and abiding in his wayes: the proving hereof is the de&s;igne of a maine part of the Treati&s;e following. And though herein I may &s;eeme too &s;trict; it may be I &s;hall be cen|&s;ured
<PB REF="8">on the other hand, by &s;ome when they read how favourable my judgement is in the judging and di&s;cer|ning who are vi&s;ibly in a way of di&s;obedience incon&s;i|&s;tent with the exerci&s;e of ju&s;tifying faith. For there I thinke charity hath its place; not in widening the Rule, but in application of the Rule to particular per&s;ons. But I &s;hall not anticipate your peru&s;ing the booke, (as you may have lea&s;ure) by a tumultuary mentio|ning of the contents thereof here. But I mo&s;t earne&s;t|ly de&s;ire your &s;erious &s;tudying the Que&s;tion, which is weighty and of practical continuall importance. And this I crave, not only in reference to your &s;elves, and tho&s;e to whom you are guides in your particular Con|gregations, but al&s;o with &s;ome re&s;pect to my &s;elfe, who may hope to receive benefit by the imparting your dige&s;ted apprehen&s;ions concerning this Argu|ment. For by a brotherly, private, impartial di&s;cu&s;&s;ion of a controverted point, I &s;hould think peaceable Di&s;|&s;enters from each other, may mo&s;t probably and effe|ctually receive &s;atisfaction; which then might be made publique (if they &s;aw cau&s;e) by mutual con&s;ent of both parties, all impertinencies and mi&s;takes on each hand di&s;covered, being fir&s;t lopt off. Whereas Di&s;cep|tations in print at the fir&s;t da&s;h, are u&s;ually full of mi&s;|takes, and great Temptations to the Authours there|of.</P>
<P>From you therefore, my much honoured Fathers and Brethren, wherein any of you do or may di&s;&s;ent from me, I &s;hall readily receive rational correction. And if I approve my &s;elfe to you truly &s;tudious of truth (without bitterne&s;&s;e to &s;uch as may be of diffe|rent judgement from me herein;) I &s;hall have little cau&s;e to be &s;ollicitous about the <HI>Rejoynder</HI> to mee, which my Gentleman Publi&s;her hath already talked
<PB REF="9">of, in his printed Apology. If he rationally convince me of the faultine&s;s of the main parts of my di&s;cour&s;e, I &s;hall endeavour to let you and others know my &s;en&s;e thereof: if not, you may conjecture by my &s;ilence. Controver&s;ies mu&s;t not be endle&s;&s;e; and I will not contend with him for a &s;cowlds prize, to have the la&s;t word.</P>
<P>Some of you and others may (perhaps) think this Treati&s;e too long ere it came, and now too long when it is come forth.</P>
<P>In reference to the latter, I de&s;ire the weightine&s;&s;e of the &s;ubject, which in the main is treated upon, may be con&s;idered, and the nece&s;&s;ity of taking in &s;ome extravagancies mine Antagoni&s;t had with much noy&s;e ca&s;t in my way. At lea&s;t comparatively, I hope I &s;hall be excu&s;ed. For &s;ince Mr. <HI>W.</HI> &s;pent 9 &s;heets in an&s;we|ring my one; If I had taken a proportionable liberty, I &s;hould have taken up 9 times 9 (81) in a reply to his. The like may be con&s;idered for &s;ome &s;atisfaction to the former complaint. If tho&s;e monthes he had for his an&s;wer to my &s;heet, be multiplyed by 9 times &s;o many monthes, due to me for returning a reply to his nine, I &s;hall be found much to have prevented the day I might have taken on that account. But its known to Divers, that I was long before I could be per&s;waded to entertaine a re&s;olution for &s;uch a bu&s;ine&s;&s;e, con&s;i|dering how unhand&s;omly he had proceeded. And when I began to look more &s;eriou&s;ly on it, I mu&s;t ac|knowledge it was not quickly, that I could read his book without di&s;turbance; which nece&s;&s;itated me to lay it a&s;ide, till I perceived my &s;elfe compo&s;ed to per|u&s;e it calmely, as if I felt not my &s;elfe &s;carce at all per|&s;onally concerned therein. And then the heavy af|fliction which befell me <HI>June</HI> 1. 1657. (which I doubt
<PB REF="9">not, many of you had a &s;hare in) will ea&s;ily be &s;uppo|&s;ed by you a great di&s;compo&s;ure of my &s;tudyes for &s;uch a &s;ervice as this. I mention not my other im|ployments, ordinary and extraordinary. The Treati&s;e was ready before <HI>Michaelmas,</HI> and &s;ent up to <HI>London</HI> the week following. Let the re&s;t be imputed to my dulne&s;&s;e and &s;lowne&s;&s;e, and if you will to (that Mr. <HI>W.</HI> hath &s;pyed in me) my timorou&s;ne&s;&s;e.</P>
<P>I deferred the di&s;patch of this Epi&s;tle till I &s;aw &s;ome &s;heets of the book printed, which I did not till the la&s;t week.</P>
<P>&para; And now you will expect I &s;hould cea&s;e to be further trouble&s;ome to you. And &s;uch of you as are already tired, have the law in your own hands to help your &s;elves by leaving off here if you plea&s;e. But pre|&s;uming that &s;ome of you will afford me your patience a little longer, I &s;hall make bold (at the urgent reque&s;t of &s;ome who&s;e judgement is not to be &s;leighted) here to annex a &s;hort di&s;cour&s;e concerning the privacy or publiquene&s;&s;e of admini&s;tring the other Sacrament, <HI>viz.</HI> of Bapti&s;me, which will not be un&s;utably joyned with the main &s;ubject of the di&s;cour&s;e following. And this challengeth its place here, becau&s;e it &s;o particu|larly concernes the Mini&s;try, and is therefore to be &s;ubmi&s;&s;ively pre&s;ented to your &s;erious con&s;ideration, and candid cen&s;ure. Let this then be the Que&s;tion to be di&s;cu&s;&s;ed before you, <HI>viz.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Whether (or if at all in what ca&s;es) Bapti&s;me may be now administred privately not publiquely?</HI></P>
<P>To <HI>publique</HI> is &s;ometimes oppo&s;ed in Scripture that which we render, from <HI>hou&s;e to hou&s;e,</HI> e&s;pecially in that text, <HI>Act.</HI> 20.20. But I humbly conceive the phra&s;e &s;o rendred, <HI>viz.</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> and <GAP DESC="foreign"> is not equiva|lent to <HI>private</HI> or <HI>per &s;ingulas demos,</HI> as <HI>Era&s;mus</HI> in <HI>Act.</HI> 2.46. renders the phra&s;e, for which he is ju&s;tly
<PB REF="10">blamed by the Learned <HI>Beza.</HI> The phra&s;e and the im|portance thereof is worth a &s;trict enquiry. In <HI>Pauls</HI> farewel &s;peech to the Elders or Bi&s;hops of the Church of <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> Act. 20. (for to them only he there &s;peaks, and if [from hou&s;e to hou&s;e] be to be under&s;tood of private hou&s;es, its manife&s;t it mu&s;t relate only to the private hou&s;es of the &s;aid Bi&s;hops, not the private hou&s;es of the people) he avoucheth his integrity in the di&s;charge of his Apo&s;tolical Mini&s;try, as in other In|&s;tances thereof, &s;o e&s;pecially in that he &s;aith, <HI>ver.</HI> 20. <HI>I have kept back nothing from you that was profitable for you; But have &s;hewed and taught you publiquely and from hou&s;e to hou&s;e,</HI> (or at the hou&s;es, <GAP DESC="foreign">) <HI>te&s;tifying both to Jewes and al&s;o to the Greeks re|pentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t.</HI> This adverb <GAP DESC="foreign"> (as al&s;o <GAP DESC="foreign">) &s;eemes to &s;ignifie not only <HI>publiquely</HI> but <HI>openly, popularly,</HI> and agrees to an action expo&s;ed to open view and cogni|zance of the people and multitude, without di&s;tincti|on of Chri&s;tians from Jewes or Heathens (and that with or pretending to the State authority, <HI>Act.</HI> 5.18.) the word is tran&s;lated <HI>openly,</HI> Act. 16.37. <HI>They have</HI> (&s;aith <HI>Paul</HI>) <HI>beaten us openly,</HI> i. e. expo&s;ed us to open &s;hame before the promi&s;cuous multitude, <HI>Act.</HI> 18.28. <HI>Apollos</HI> mightily convinced the Jewes, and that <HI>pub|liquely</HI> (in their Synagogue, <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 26.) that Je&s;us was the Chri&s;t. And being here oppo&s;ed to the <HI>Christian hou&s;es,</HI> it denotes, the Temple, Synagogue, Market pla|ces, or &s;uch open conventions, to which per&s;ecutors and enemies as well as Chri&s;tians had a free acce&s;&s;e; and then <GAP DESC="foreign"> &s;ignifies not meere private hou&s;es, but the Church A&s;&s;emblyes which u&s;ed to convene in &s;everall hou&s;es appointed for that purpo&s;e; which are therefore oppo&s;ed to [<GAP DESC="foreign">] becau&s;e they were not built nor appointed by any publique act of the State;
<PB REF="10">and 2. becau&s;e here was not a reception of the people, friends &amp; foes promi&s;cuou&s;ly (at lea&s;t not at all times) but of the brethren joyned together in eccle&s;ia&s;tical Chri&s;tian &s;ociety. For the cleering hereof I &s;hall &s;hew, 1. that this phra&s;e <GAP DESC="foreign"> in the N. T. (though &s;undry times there u&s;ed) is ever appropriated to the &s;ignifying of the Church meetings in their hou&s;es; 2. And always (I take it) &s;ome other phra&s;e is u&s;ed to denote &s;uch as are in a meere private hou&s;e. This latter may be &s;eene in <HI>Act.</HI> 16.32. <GAP DESC="foreign">, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11.34. <HI>&amp;</HI> 14.35. <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>Gal</HI> 2.2. <GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp;c. The former I &s;hal more in|&s;i&s;t upon; for the demon&s;tration whereof I &s;hal pro|duce all the places of the N. T. where the phra&s;e is u|&s;ed. <HI>Rom.</HI> 16.5. Greet the Church in their hou&s;e, <GAP DESC="foreign">. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 16.19. <HI>Aquila</HI> and <HI>Pri&s;cilla</HI> &s;alute you with the Church <GAP DESC="foreign">. <HI>Col.</HI> 4.15. Salute&mdash; <HI>Nymphas</HI> and the Church which is at his hou&s;e <GAP DESC="foreign">. <HI>Philemon</HI> ver&s;. 2. to the Church <GAP DESC="foreign">. That this phra&s;e in the&s;e Texts &s;ignifies the Church meetings, and Chri&s;tian A&s;&s;emblyes is demon&s;trated already by the learned Mr. <HI>Mede</HI> above all contra|diction. I &s;hall only quote one pa&s;&s;age or two of his for this, which he hath in his di&s;cour&s;e called <HI>Churches,</HI> i. e. <HI>appropriate places for Christian wor&s;hip,</HI> p. 22. <Q>Unle&s;&s;e (&s;aith he) this &s;hould be the meaning, why &s;hould this appendant be &s;o &s;ingularly mentioned, in the &s;alutation of &s;ome and not of others? and that not once but againe, if the &s;ame names be again remem|bred, as of <HI>Aquila</HI> and <HI>Pri&s;cilla.</HI> Had none in tho&s;e catalogues of &s;alutation chri&s;tian families, but &s;ome only who are thus remembred! It is very improba|ble; nay if peru&s;e them well, we &s;hal find they had, but otherwi&s;e expre&s;&s;ed, as in that prolix catalogue, <HI>Rom.</HI> 16. we find <HI>Ari&s;tobulus</HI> and <HI>Narci&s;&s;us</HI> &s;aluted, with their hou&s;hold; <HI>A&s;yncritus, Phlegon,</HI> &amp;c. with
<PB REF="11">the brethren which are with them, &amp;c. Others with the Saints which are with them, 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.19. the hou&s;hold of <HI>One&s;iphorus;</HI> this therefore &s;o &s;ingular an appendix mu&s;t meane &s;ome &s;ingular thing, not common to them with the re&s;t, but peculiar to them alone: And what &s;hould this be, but what I have &s;hewed; thus that happy Interpreter.</Q> There are on|ly two more places where <GAP DESC="foreign"> is u&s;ed in the N. T. both which comply with the forementioned &s;en&s;e of Church meetings in hou&s;es, <HI>Act.</HI> 2.46. Breaking bread <GAP DESC="foreign"> (compared with <HI>ver.</HI> 42.) referring to the love-fea&s;ts which they had in common, (to which the celebration of the Lords Supper was &s;ometimes annex|ed) in &s;everal hou&s;es appointed among them for that purpo&s;e; &s;ee <HI>Beza</HI> on the place. <HI>Act.</HI> 5.42. the Apo&s;tles dayly in the Temple and <GAP DESC="foreign"> cea&s;ed not to teach &amp; preach Je&s;us Chri&s;t; where preaching in the Temple promi&s;cuou&s;ly is oppo&s;ed to the preaching in Church meetings of the Chri&s;tian brethren, as it was in the text la&s;t quoted, and therefore is fairly interpreted to the &s;ame &s;en&s;e here as it was there. I &s;hal only adde one thing more, which makes it probable that <GAP DESC="foreign"> in <HI>Act.</HI> 20.20. &s;hould denote the Church A&s;&s;emblyes, ra|ther then the private hou&s;es of the <HI>Ephe&s;ian</HI> Elders as &s;uch; One de&s;igne of <HI>Pauls</HI> &s;peech appeares to be the confirming the <HI>Ephe&s;ian</HI> Elders by his example of con|&s;tancy and boldne&s;s in the Chri&s;tian faith, and his fun|ction, notwithanding all per&s;ecutions, <HI>v.</HI> 19. Yet &s;aith he, <HI>v.</HI> 20. <GAP DESC="foreign">. I have not through fear or cowardize withdrawn in any thing needful (&s;ee the im|portance of the word as its u&s;ed el&s;where, <HI>Gal.</HI> 2.12. <HI>Heb.</HI> 10.23, 25. comp: with <HI>ver.</HI> 38.) his boldne&s;s is in|&s;tanced in preaching both publiquely or openly, before friends and foes, and at their Church A&s;&s;emblyes, not|with&s;ta~ding the danger of coming thither; which made
<PB REF="11">&s;ome to withdraw them&s;elves, <HI>Heb.</HI> 10.25. Now to in|&s;truct privately in Chri&s;tian families, was no &s;uch in|&s;tance of boldne&s;s, as this was. &mdash; The peru&s;al of this phra&s;e may be otherwayes u&s;eful, (which hath invited me to this &s;trict con&s;ideration of it.) At pre&s;ent this u&s;e is to be made hereof, that when we &s;peak of private Bapti&s;me in private hou&s;es, it is not to be under&s;tood according to the &s;en&s;e of the phra&s;e <GAP DESC="foreign">, as its u&s;ed, <HI>Act.</HI> 20.20. though it &s;eeme there to be accord|ing to our tran&s;lation oppo&s;ed to <HI>publiquely.</HI></P>
<P>But as publique bapti&s;me is that which is now per|formed in the publique place, where publique ordi|nances are u&s;ually admini&s;tred, the accu&s;tomed &s;ignes being given for the a&s;&s;embling of the Congregation there, at &s;uch time when it is to be celebrated; &s;o pri|vate bapti&s;me on the contrary, is that which is done either in the place of publique A&s;&s;embly, when no publique notice is duly given for the Congregation to re&s;ort thither, or in a private hou&s;e, where although many are pre&s;ent, yet it is not free, or at lea&s;t its gene|rally &s;uppo&s;ed it would not be civil, for any Chri&s;tian that will, though uninvited, to come to the ordinance of Bapti&s;me there admini&s;tred.</P>
<P>Now that we may better di&s;cern what is incumbent upon us in reference to this circum&s;tance of admini|&s;tring Bapti&s;me, we &s;hall peru&s;e Scripture in&s;tances, and &s;ee what direction they may afford us herein, in the&s;e following The&s;es.</P>
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="thesis">
<HEAD>(The&s;is <HI>1.</HI>)</HEAD>
<P>The Bapti&s;me of <HI>John</HI> was not privately admini&s;tred, according to the &s;en&s;es of <HI>private</HI> before mentioned, <HI>Matth.</HI> 3.5, 6. <HI>Then went out unto him</HI> (<HI>viz.</HI> to the wilderne&s;s of <HI>Judea</HI>) <HI>Hieru&s;alem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan confe&s;&s;ing their &s;ins.</HI> So &s;aith <HI>Mark.</HI> 1.5. <HI>And
<PB REF="12">there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Hieru&s;alem, and were all baptized of him in the river Jordan, confe&s;&s;ing their &s;ins.</HI> And <HI>v.</HI> 7. <HI>And he preached, &s;aying, there cometh one after me mightier then I,</HI> &amp;c. Ver. 8. <HI>I indeed baptize you with water, but he with the holy Gho&s;t Luke</HI> &s;aith, Ch 3. ver. 2, 3. <HI>The word of God came to John in the wilderne&s;s, And he came into all the Country round about Jordan, preaching the Bapti&s;m of repentance for the remi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins.</HI> And <HI>v.</HI> 7. <HI>Then &s;aith he to the multitude</HI> (which <HI>Matthew</HI> &s;aith he &s;aid to the Phari&s;ees and Sadduces that came forth to be bapti|zed of him, <HI>Mat</HI> 3.7.) <HI>O generation of Vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?</HI> Its related, <HI>Joh.</HI> 1.25, 28. <HI>They asked him why baptize&s;t thou, if thou be not that Chri&s;t, nor Elias, neither that Prophet; John an&s;wered, I baptize you with water,</HI> &amp;c.&mdash; <HI>The&s;e things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing,</HI> &amp;c. From this harmony we may ob&s;erve, 1. That he baptized where he preached ordinarily, and as openly. 2. That multitudes came to him to be bap|tized, to whom he preached, expo&s;tulating with them; and they confe&s;&s;ed their &s;ins, when (probably before) they were baptized. Now this was not confe&s;&s;ion be|fore <HI>John</HI> alone, as our Divines &s;hew again&s;t the Pa|pi&s;ts, who would hence inferre auricular confe&s;&s;ion; but it rather was an open renouncing of former wic|kedne&s;&s;e, as tho&s;e did, <HI>Act.</HI> 19.18, 19. who being con|verted to the chri&s;tian faith, confe&s;&s;ed &amp; &s;hewed their deeds, and &s;ome brought their books of curious arts, and <HI>burned them before all men.</HI> There is no other pa&s;|&s;age concerning <HI>Johns</HI> Bapti&s;me which &s;eemes to inti|mate privacy, or that it was not done according to the tenor of the former Scriptures; but rather comply therewith, <HI>Luk.</HI> 3.12. <HI>Mark</HI> 11.30. <HI>Joh.</HI> 3.23. <HI>&amp;</HI> 4.1. <HI>Luk.</HI> 7.29 <HI>Act.</HI> 1.21, 22. <HI>Act.</HI> 10.37. <HI>Peter</HI> in this la&s;t
<PB REF="12">Scripture &s;peaking of the Go&s;pel, &s;aith it was that word which you know was publi&s;hed throughout all <HI>Judea,</HI> &amp; began from <HI>Galilee, after the Bapti&s;me which John preached.</HI> Which phra&s;e further cleeres it to us, that <HI>John</HI> fir&s;t preached to the people concerning the nature &amp; u&s;e of his bapti&s;me, before he baptized them; which hints his bapti&s;me as publique as his preaching. There is only one in&s;tance more to be con&s;idered con|cerning <HI>Johns</HI> Bapti&s;me, &amp; that is his baptizing Chri&s;t. <HI>Mat.</HI> 3.13. <HI>Mark</HI> 1.9. In this, 1. there's nothing again&s;t the publiquene&s;s of it, and therefore it may fairly be &s;uppo&s;ed to be admini&s;tred as publiquely as in the for|mer In&s;tances. 2. Yea there's probable proof of the publiquene&s;s of it. For 1. Chri&s;t was plea&s;ed to come to <HI>John</HI> at <HI>Jordan,</HI> Mat. 3.13. (at which place <HI>John</HI> was preaching to, and baptizing the multitudes &s;poken of in <HI>ver.</HI> 5, 6. of that &s;ame chap.) Chri&s;t did not &s;end for <HI>John</HI> to &s;ome private place (as &s;ome now would have Mini&s;ters come to their hou&s;es) and <HI>Luk.</HI> 3.21. relates Chri&s;ts &amp; the peoples bapti&s;m as done together. 2. At this time Chri&s;t was to be &s;olemnly inaugurated unto the manife&s;tation of his office (as our Divines &s;ay) and that declared by a voice from heaven. Now it was of infinite concernment and u&s;e, that his bapti&s;me &s;hould be publique, and that there &s;hould be many witne&s;|&s;es thereof; whereby al&s;o it might publiquely appeare that Chri&s;t approved of <HI>Johns</HI> Bapti&s;m, that by his ex|ample others might be moved to &s;ubmit thereunto.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="thesis">
<HEAD>(2)</HEAD>
<P>The bapti&s;me admini&s;tred by Chri&s;ts di&s;ciples before Chri&s;ts death, &s;eemes rather to have been publique as their preaching was, then private. <HI>Job.</HI> 3.22. <HI>After the&s;e things came Je&s;us &amp; his di&s;ciples into the land of Judea, and there he tarried with them and baptized</HI> (although Je&s;us baptized not but his di&s;ciples, <HI>Ch.</HI> 4.2.) where|upon
<PB REF="13"><HI>Ch.</HI> 3.26. <HI>Johns</HI> di&s;ciples tell <HI>John</HI> of it, that Je|&s;us baptizeth, and all men come unto him.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="3" TYPE="thesis">
<HEAD>(3)</HEAD>
<P>The examples after Chri&s;ts a&s;cen&s;ion are divided, &s;ome admini&s;tred in publique, &s;ome privately, and one doubtfull to which &s;ort it is to be referred. I &s;hall be|gin with the publique. We have a notable example of publique bapti&s;me, <HI>Act.</HI> 2.41. when the &s;ame day (that they had heard <HI>Peters</HI> Sermon, and probably of other Apo&s;tles) there were added 3000 &s;ouls who were bap|tized. <HI>Act</HI> 8.12. <HI>When they</HI> (<HI>viz.</HI> of <HI>Samaria</HI>) <HI>beleeved Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdome of God, and the name of Je&s;us Chri&s;t, they were baptized both men and women.</HI> Here baptizing was as publique as preaching. Now the preaching was publique where all had free admi&s;&s;ion, <HI>ver.</HI> 5, 6. At this &s;ame time one is particularly mentioned, <HI>ver.</HI> 13. <HI>Simon,</HI> who beleeved <HI>Philips</HI> preaching and miracles, as the former per&s;ons did, and was baptized at the &s;ame time, &s;o <HI>Act.</HI> 18.8. Another example occurres, <HI>Act.</HI> 10.44, 47, 48. in like manner de&s;cribed. That's a notable one, <HI>Act.</HI> 16.13, 14. <HI>On the Sabbath</HI> (&s;aith the text) we went out of the City by a river &s;ide, and we &s;ate down and &s;pake to the wo|men, which re&s;orted thither, and <HI>v.</HI> 14, 15. <HI>Lydia</HI> was there converted, and its probable, baptized and her hou&s;hold. For after &s;he &amp; her hou&s;hold was baptized, &s;he invited the Apo&s;tles home to her private hou&s;e, <HI>ver.</HI> 15. Now if it had been the u&s;e to baptize ordina|rily in private, its likely &s;he would have invited them to her hou&s;e before, that &s;he and her hou&s;hold might there have been baptized.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="4" TYPE="thesis">
<HEAD>(4)</HEAD>
<P>There are two manife&s;t In&s;tances of private bap|ti&s;me, the one of the Eunuch, <HI>Act.</HI> 8.35, 36. the other of the Jaylor and his hou&s;hold, <HI>Act.</HI> 16.33.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="5" TYPE="thesis">
<HEAD>(5)</HEAD>
<P>That of <HI>Pauls</HI> bapti&s;m is more doubtful, <HI>Act.</HI> 9,
<PB REF="13">11, 17, 18. <HI>&amp;</HI> 22.16. The probabilities <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="2 letters">me rather to ca&s;t it among the In&s;tances of publique bapti&s;me, accor|ding to the opportunities of tho&s;e times; which appeare by laying the&s;e circum&s;tances together. 1. <HI>Paul</HI> was mi|raculou&s;ly converted in his going to <HI>Dama&s;cus,</HI> &amp; &s;truck blind neer to <HI>Dama&s;cus,</HI> to which place he was led. 2. In <HI>Dama&s;cus</HI> there was a brotherhood of Chri&s;tians, (a Church) at this time, <HI>Act.</HI> 9.19. 3. This miraculous con|ver&s;ion of <HI>Paul</HI> could not be concealed from the&s;e bre|thren there; For there were divers with <HI>Paul,</HI> when he was miraculou&s;ly converted, who heard the voyce from heaven, who were likely to &s;peak of it: the very novelty and wonder of the matter would make them divulge it: be&s;ides al&s;o they being <HI>Pauls</HI> companions on his jour|ney, and probably a&s;&s;i&s;ting to him in his per&s;ecuting de|&s;igne, could not be in&s;en&s;ible of their concernment, in the voyce &s;peaking, <HI>Saul, Saul, why per&s;ecute&s;t thou me?</HI> which would be an obligation on them to give God the glory of the vi&s;ion by declaring it. And what &s;tory could they make in <HI>Dama&s;cus</HI> to &s;atisfie them who &s;hould enquire concerning <HI>Pauls</HI> blindne&s;&s;e who was led by them; but they mu&s;t tell the truth? the weighti|ne&s;s and &s;trong influence of the pre&s;ent providence, not permitting a di&s;&s;imulation of the matter. And the &s;ame may be &s;aid over againe, much more to &s;hew that <HI>Paul</HI> him&s;elfe was not likely to conceale this thing. 4. <HI>Paul</HI> was three dayes blind at <HI>Dama&s;cus</HI> before <HI>Ananias</HI> came to him. 5. Its very probable <HI>Paul</HI> after his con|ver&s;ion being now under the terrour of his former cru|elty again&s;t Chri&s;t in his members, and at pre&s;ent blind, would de&s;ire to be conducted to the hou&s;e of &s;ome di&s;|ciple at <HI>Dama&s;cus,</HI> or at lea&s;t &s;end for &s;ome di&s;ciples to him. 6. And as probable it is, that many di&s;ciples would flock in to him, hearing of the mighty work of God done on him. 7. Its al&s;o noted that he fa&s;ted the three
<PB REF="14">dayes and three nights of his blindne&s;&s;e; and that (like|ly) for a religious end, and then he would joyn &s;olemn prayer therewith, (to which I &s;uppo&s;e the voyce &s;peak|ing to <HI>Ananias</HI> e&s;pecially refers, which &s;aith of <HI>Paul, Be|hold he prays,</HI> i.e. now he is praying or joyning in pray|er, having &s;et him&s;elfe &s;eriou&s;ly to be humbled for his former &s;in.) 8. And now its not likely he &s;pent 3 dayes in prayer all alone, Its probable therefore there were the Di&s;ciples in <HI>Dama&s;cus</HI> gathered to him, into the hou&s;e of <HI>Judas,</HI> whither <HI>Ananias</HI> was in&s;tructed to goe to <HI>Paul,</HI> and where he baptized him. Neither may it be forcibly objected, that becau&s;e of his former rage again&s;t Chri&s;tianity, the di&s;ciples in <HI>Dama&s;cus</HI> would not &s;o &s;oon tru&s;t him as to come unto him. Upon which ac|count, &s;ome time after, the Church at <HI>Hieru&s;alem</HI> dur&s;t not receive him into their company. For the&s;e at <HI>Da|ma&s;cus</HI> who heard of his vi&s;ion, &amp; might &s;ee him hum|bled under his blindne&s;&s;e, would hereby be made fear|le&s;&s;e of receiving hurt from him. And yet the Di&s;ciples at <HI>Hieru&s;alem,</HI> who wanted tho&s;e advantages of confi|dence, might prudently &s;cruple at a &s;uddain admi&s;&s;ion of him into their &s;ociety. If all the&s;e taken together wil not amount to a probability, that here were with <HI>Paul</HI> a con&s;iderable number of Chri&s;tians, and a free invitati|on of them hither (which in tho&s;e times might be &s;uch an a&s;&s;embly as u&s;ed there &s;olemnly to joyn in publique ordinances) who might be pre&s;ent when <HI>Paul</HI> was bap|tized by <HI>Ananias,</HI> yet I thinke more will hardly be &s;aid for a probability of the contrary; and &s;o I leave it.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="6" TYPE="thesis">
<HEAD>(6)</HEAD>
<P>It appears then, that in all ca&s;es it was not unfit, much le&s;s unlawful to admini&s;ter Bapti&s;m privately; yet there &s;eem to be but two cleere undoubted examples thereof in Scripture, when as all the per&s;ons baptized by <HI>John,</HI> and &s;o probably tho&s;e baptized by Chri&s;ts Di&s;ciples be|fore
<PB REF="14">Chri&s;ts death, &s;eem to have been openly baptized. And we have peru&s;ed 5 Scriptures which &s;peak of ma|ny, multitudes, thou&s;ands, baptized after Chri&s;ts a&s;cen&s;i|on, who&s;e bapti&s;me, was as publiquely admini&s;tred, as was the preaching of the word ordinarily in the Chri&s;ti|an Churches. Hence I think I may rea&s;onably conclude,</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="7" TYPE="thesis">
<HEAD>(7)</HEAD>
<P>That publique bapti&s;me is according to the ordinary common Rule, &amp; private is the Anomalon, or an excep|tion in &s;ome peculiar extraordinary Ca&s;es. The&s;e two conclu&s;ions are to be handled di&s;tinctly; and fir&s;t of the fir&s;t.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="8" TYPE="thesis">
<HEAD>(8)</HEAD>
<P>Its according to the ordinary common Rule of the N. T. that bapti&s;me be admini&s;tred publiquely, <HI>i e.</HI> as is a|fore&s;aid, according to the opportunity of the times, and &s;o that it be as publique as ordinary preaching in the Church a&s;&s;emblyes is. This I &s;hall further illu&s;trate and &s;hew in the&s;e Rea&s;ons hereof en&s;uing.</P>
<P N="1">1. The nature of this ordinance, is a publique &s;eale of the covenant of grace, and &s;o annexed to the Go&s;pel; therefore its fit it &s;hould be annexed to the preaching of the Go&s;pel, and be as publique, as that is ordinarily, <HI>Matth.</HI> 28.19, 20. 2. One effect of Bapti&s;m, is the &s;o|lemne admi&s;&s;ion of Chri&s;tians into the vi&s;ible Church, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.13. Therefore its fit to be done ordinarily in the face of a Congregation. I &s;ay &s;olemn admi&s;&s;ion, (for they are Chri&s;tians before) now the &s;olemnity re|quires publiquene&s;&s;e &s;o far as may <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="2 letters">e. 3. The great u&s;e and benefit of having this ordinance publiquely, pleads again&s;t the private admini&s;tration thereof, where it may be publike. (1) In <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">egard of the per&s;on baptized, to have the prayers of <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> Congregation. (2) With re&s;pect to the parents, that they may be more quickned by the &s;o|lemnity of the ordinance, in renewing their covenant with God on this occa&s;ion. (3) For the whole Congre|gation
<PB REF="15">to be minded of the nature of this ordinance, and the engagements which have been layd upon them herein, for them&s;elves and their children they have for|merly in bapti&s;me devoted to God. (4) And la&s;tly, the Mini&s;ter herein hath opportunity to approve him&s;elfe publiquely in the admini&s;tration hereof, in a right man|ner, and to &s;ubjects capable of the &s;ame according to Go&s;pel Rule. 4. The horrible abu&s;e formerly and now in &s;ome places, making many bapti&s;mes private tran&s;|actions (with a few women only pre&s;ent be&s;ides the Mi|ni&s;ter &amp; Father of the infant baptized;) as al&s;o the ob|&s;ervation that this is generally the imployment of &s;can|dalous Mini&s;ters; &s;hould make us le&s;&s;e free in comply|ing with them herein; lea&s;t we bring contempt on our per&s;ons, function, and Mini&s;try. 5. The contempt in our dayes ca&s;t on this &s;acred ordinance by many, and the aptne&s;s we &s;ee in divers of our people to make it a mat|ter of &s;tate &amp; formality for the entertainme~t of friends, not regarding the prayers of the Congregation, rather then a bu&s;ine&s;s of &s;erious devotion, &s;hould provoke us to labour after a greater &s;olemnity in the admini&s;trati|on hereof. 6. The exceeeding great &s;nares and incon|veniences which private bapti&s;me brings on the Mini|&s;ter, when he baptizeth &s;ome privately and not others, may di&s;&s;wade us from gratifying any herein, unle&s;&s;e we would comply with all who may de&s;ire it; and then I thinke (in &s;ome places) we &s;hould have few baptized in the publique Congregation. What grudges and &s;urmi|&s;es of partiality this may beget, we cannot be ignorant. 7. Either bapti&s;me is a private or publique ordinance; If private, then it needs not at all to be admini&s;tred pub|liquely. If publique, then it ought not to be admini&s;tred privately, where it may be publiquely and that fitly. I &s;ay fitly, for &s;ometimes even &s;olemn preaching may be in private places, but not when it may fitly be in pub|lique:
<PB REF="15">&s;o is the ca&s;e here. 8. If private bapti&s;mes be ad|mitted, I &s;ee not how private communions in the Lords Supper will be rationally avoyded: which yet are now exploded, and I think ju&s;tly according to 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11.22. For which &s;ee al&s;o M^r <HI>Medes</HI> di&s;cour&s;e of Churches for Chri&s;tian wor&s;hip in the primitive times, <HI>p.</HI> 4.9. Private bapti&s;m would be too neere a &s;ymbolizing, with the Pa|pi&s;ts, who lay the &s;tre&s;s of &s;alvation upon bapti&s;me, <HI>Ne|ce&s;&s;itate medij;</HI> and with the Separati&s;ts, who leave our publique A&s;&s;emblyes &amp; retire into corners for the per|forming of publique ordinances. 10. La&s;tly, The judge|ment of the Churches of God, e&s;pecially the Church of <HI>England,</HI> may di&s;&s;wade from private bapti&s;me. <HI>Zepperus de polit. eccl. l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 12. &s;aith; <Q><HI>Bapti&s;mum in primitiv&acirc; eccle&s;i&acirc; Catechumenis adultis qui e gentili&s;mo vel Ju|dai&s;mo ad chri&s;tum tran&s;ibant &mdash; non ni&s;i ferijs pa&s;cha|libus, penteco&s;tes &amp; natalitijs Domini admini&s;trari &s;o|litum, id&abque; magno cum apparatu, &amp; &s;olenni omnium pio|rum laetiti&acirc;, ex illorum temporum monumentis manife|&s;tum e&s;t. Nunc quia alia eccle&s;iae ratio e&s;t, illa&abque; ex chri|&s;tianorum parentum liberis fer&egrave; con&s;tat &amp; colligitur, quotie&s;cun&abque;</HI> publici eccle&s;iae Caetus ordinari&egrave; haben|tur, <HI>chri&s;tianorum parvuli te&s;timonio &amp; &s;igillo Bapti&s;|mi, chri&s;to eju&s;&abque; eccle&s;iae inferentur, &amp; quidem patre ip&s;o ad Infantis &s;ui bapti&s;mum prae&s;ente at&abque; a&s;tante.</HI></Q> This is evidenced by the ancient cu&s;tom of <HI>&s;pon&s;ors,</HI> who were to make promi&s;e before the Church for the in|&s;truction of the baptized in the chri&s;tian faith; <Q><HI>Fidei|ju&s;&s;ionem</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>&amp; &s;pon&s;ionem, &s;u&s;ceptores apud bap|ti&s;mum coram Dei &amp; eccle&s;iae ip&s;ius facie &s;acro&s;anct&egrave; prae&s;tant.</HI></Q> The learned <HI>Beza in libello Quaestionum &amp; Re&s;pon&s;ionum chri&s;tianorum,</HI> &s;peakes home to this bu&s;i|ne&s;&s;e; <HI>Q. An de loco bapti&s;mi nihil &s;tatuendum putas. R. Imo, quum omnia decenter &amp; ordine fieri in eccle&s;i&acirc; o|porteat, &s;it autem evangelici Mini&s;terij pars Bapti&s;mus,
<PB REF="16">eundem locum &amp; verbi &amp; &s;acramentorum mini&s;terio at|tribuendum cen&s;eo, ut in coetu Eccle&s;iae, &amp; communibus precibus adjunctis Bapti&s;mus admini&s;tretur, ne&abque; i&s;tos ne&s;cio quos nece&s;&s;itatis ca&s;us temer&egrave; admi&s;er<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">.</HI></P>
<P>I &s;hall only hereunto adde the determinations of the Engli&s;h Liturgy, and the Directory. Though in &s;ome ca&s;es of great nece&s;&s;ity (as the Common prayer book &s;peaks) it permit private bapti&s;m, yet if the child live, it is to be brought to the Congregation, where the Spon|&s;ors &s;hall make &s;olemn profe&s;&s;ions, as in the order for publique bapti&s;m; and the Congregation being &s;o &s;a|tisfied, the child is publiquely to be declared &s;olemnly received into the Church. Now how &s;hamefully do ma|ny of our corner Baptizers, who pretend much for the Epi&s;copal Government and Common prayer book, offend again&s;t this Direction?</P>
<P>The Directory (which I &s;uppo&s;e is owned as a con|&s;iderable Authority humane, e&s;pecially in a doubtfull ca&s;e, in this County, mo&s;t of the Mini&s;ters names where|of then re&s;ident here when the Presbyterial Govern|ment was fir&s;t commended to us by the Parliament, I have by me, &s;ub&s;cribed with their own hands, to a pro|fe&s;&s;ion of their judgement for that way, and re&s;olution to put the &s;ame in practice) it orders expre&s;ly thus: <Q><HI>Bapti&s;m is not to be admini&s;tred in private places, nor privately, but in the place of the publique wor&s;hip, and in the face of the Congregation.</HI></Q> There is but one, I know of, profe&s;&s;ing the Congregational way, who comes to private hou&s;es in the Country, and with the parents and a few women, baptizeth, and this I think is offen&s;ive to the Mini&s;ters of the &s;ame way he profe&s;|&s;eth, as well as to others of us his neighbours. Now we all profe&s;s to be &s;tudious of peace. But how &s;hall we make it appear, if in &s;uch a thing which all I think ac|knowledge lawfull, we comply not with the Directions
<PB REF="16">of the former con&s;titutions of the State and Church of <HI>England,</HI> and the pre&s;ent Rules commended to us by the Parliament, with the a&s;&s;i&s;tance of &s;o Reverend an A&s;&s;embly, as they had herein? which yet re&s;pect only our uniform practice, and tie us not to an opinion of nece&s;&s;ity, that Bapti&s;m &s;hould be ever admini&s;tred thus publiquely. Should not tho&s;e Scriptures, <HI>Rom.</HI> 14.19. <HI>Phil</HI> 3.15, 16. and &s;uch like, have &s;ome impre&s;&s;ion up|on us, as to this matter? I leave it to the con&s;ideration of the peaceably Judicious. Now I come to my &s;econd Conclu&s;ion I deduced probably from the peru&s;al of the forementioned examples of Bapti&s;m, <HI>viz.</HI> That</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="9" TYPE="thesis">
<HEAD>(9)</HEAD>
<P>From the ordinary Rule of publique Bapti&s;m, there is &s;ome exception in &s;ome &s;pecial ca&s;es. That there is &s;uch an exception is already proved, by the Scriptures produ|ced. But to &s;et down a perfect enumeration of &s;uch ca&s;es wherein that exception hath place, I dare not profe&s;&s;e ability to undertake; but I &s;hall endeavour &s;omewhat herein according to my poor mea&s;ure, 1 Negatively. 2. Affirmatively.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="10" TYPE="thesis">
<HEAD>(10)</HEAD>
<P>Divers things are pretended as of weight, when they occurre, to challenge an exception from the common Rule of publique Bapti&s;m, which I humbly conceive are of no validity for the &s;ame. 1. The childs weakne&s;&s;e, and danger of death, is no &s;ufficient rea&s;on for private Bap|ti&s;m, (this is the only exception allowed by the Com|mon prayer book.) Indeed this &s;eems rather a rea&s;on for the denying of private Bapti&s;m, then granting it, lea&s;t they who demand it &s;hould be &s;trengthened here|by in the conceit of the nece&s;&s;ity of Bapti&s;m for &s;alvati|on of the infant, <HI>ratione medii.</HI> They &s;hould rather by our preaching and practice be informed in the right doctrine of the Sacraments. It's true &s;ome of the An|cients
<PB REF="17">in the heat of their oppo&s;ition to the Pelagians, who denied original &s;in, went &s;o far, as to lay &s;tre&s;s of &s;alvation upon Bapti&s;m. But others were more &s;ound, who teach, that not the defect or want &s;imply, but the neglect of them is the crime. Now there is not a neglect, where the fir&s;t opportunity is taken for &s;olemn publike Bapti&s;m, no more then there is a neglect of the Lords Supper, although it be not received by him who cannot come to the Congregation, who yet is ready and de&s;i|rous to lay hold on the fir&s;t opportunity he can, to joyn him&s;elf in the publique Communion of the Church in that Ordinance. 2. Nor is the gratification of mens (or rather womens) humours, a &s;ufficient rea&s;on for private Bapti&s;m. For then it &s;hould be denied to none who de|mand it on that account, one mans humour being of as much validity as anothers; and this will not weigh down the Di&s;&s;wa&s;ives from a private celebration, before re|hear&s;ed. And then again, a &s;ick mans de&s;iring the Com|munion &s;hould be a &s;ufficient rea&s;on for our private admini&s;tring of the Lords Supper unto him in a private hou&s;e, where the Church hath not free acce&s;&s;e, of which there is no foot&s;teps (that I know of) in the holy Scri|ptures. 3. Nor is the pretence of a cu&s;tom to have fea&s;t|ings and entertainments (which may not fitly be on the Lords day) a &s;ufficient rea&s;on for private bapti&s;m; for that cu&s;tom ought rather to be altered, then the ten former inconveniences of private bapti&s;m &s;hould be ad|mitted. And it is altered ea&s;ily in &s;ome places (by the Mini&s;ters per&s;wa&s;ion) that they have their fea&s;tings on a week day (where they are of ability to have them) when the bapti&s;m is on the Lords day. But it's known experimentally, that many invited to &s;uch entertain|ments (in Country Villages) do not u&s;e to come to the Church to be pre&s;ent at the bapti&s;m, as making this the lea&s;t part of their bu&s;ine&s;&s;e at &s;uch a time. And upon the
<PB REF="17">&s;ame pretence la&s;t mentioned, two or three (perhaps more) Lords daies, or other opportunities for publique bapti&s;m are neglected, till they be prepared for their dinnerings, which I &s;uppo&s;e is a fault in the Parents; agreeable to what the fore-prai&s;ed <HI>Zepperus</HI> in the Chapter mentioned, quotes out of <HI>Augu&s;tine,</HI> in his Ser|mon, <HI>de immolat. I&s;aac.</HI> <Q><HI>Rogo vos fratres, ut quicun&abque; filium aut vernaculum &s;uum baptizari de&s;iderat, jam nunc</HI> Eccle&s;iae eum offerre non differat</Q> (that phra&s;e &s;uits be&s;t to publique bapti&s;m) <Q><HI>Quia non e&s;t ju&s;tum, ut res quae tam magna, tam praeclara creditur, negli|genter aut tardi&ugrave;s quam expedit, requiratur.</HI></Q> I now proceed to &s;peak po&s;itively to the point under con&s;ide|ration, by laying down this Rule.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="11" TYPE="thesis">
<HEAD>(11)</HEAD>
<P>Private bapti&s;m then hath place when the ca&s;e is &s;uch as the expediences thereof for the general good of the Church do over-weigh the fore-mentioned inconveni|cies. More particularly, as 1. In the fir&s;t gathering of a Church, &s;ince they who are to be members thereof, are to be &s;olemnly made di&s;ciples by bapti&s;m, there may be a nece&s;&s;ity that &s;ome who are the fir&s;t fruits of the place mu&s;t be baptized privately: for Church order &s;uppo&s;eth a Church exi&s;ting, wherein it &s;hould be exer|ci&s;ed and ob&s;erved. But where a Church is con&s;tituted, there this hath no place. 2. In times of per&s;ecution, when there cannot be &s;et &s;olemn A&s;&s;emblie<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">, but Chri|&s;tians, as they may catch at an opportunity of conve|ning; It's a greater inconvenience to the Church that Bapti&s;m &s;hould be omitted, then that it &s;hould be cele|brated privatly. But I did not need to put in this ca&s;e, unle&s;&s;e the per&s;ecution be rai&s;ed again&s;t this Ordinance, rather then preaching, for as I have &s;tated the Que&s;ti|on, bapti&s;m is not to be called private, which is as pub|lique as the ordinary preaching in the Church is at that
<PB REF="18">time. 3. A like ca&s;e hereunto is that, in times of gro&s;&s;e defection and Idolatry in the Church, where this ordi|nance cannot be publiquely admini&s;tred, without &s;uper|&s;titious or heretical mixtures, as in Popi&s;h Countryes. 4. There may po&s;&s;ibly occurre &s;ome In&s;tance, wherein, an eminent re&s;pect to Gods glory, propagating the Go|&s;pel, and the good of the Catholique Church, may war|rant private bapti&s;me; that being to be preferred to the advantages of a particular Congregation in &s;ome re|&s;pects. This I &s;uppo&s;e was the ca&s;e of the Eunuch, to whom <HI>Philip</HI> was directed by the extraordinary dictate of the Spirit, who being on his journey to his own (re|mote) Country, was converted, and then in&s;tantly bap|tized: of whom <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> in his Eccle&s;ia&s;tical hi&s;tory. <HI>lib.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 1. (according to <HI>Hanmers</HI> tran&s;lation) &s;aith; <Q>He was the fir&s;t of the Gentiles, which obtained of <HI>Philip</HI> the holy my&s;teries, by the in&s;piration of the heavenly word; he was made the fir&s;t fruits of the faithfull throughout the world. And as it is reported, after his return unto his native &s;oyle, he preached the knowledge of the Univer&s;al God, which giveth life unto men, and the coming of our Saviour, whereby the prophecy was fulfilled, which &s;aid, <HI>Aethiopia &s;hall &s;tretch her hand before unto God:</HI></Q> &s;o he. And &s;o this in|&s;tance falls al&s;o under the fir&s;t ca&s;e for private bapti&s;m. That example of the Jaylors bapti&s;m and his hou&s;hold, comes under the fir&s;t and &s;econd ca&s;e; that being a time of per&s;ecution, and <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Silas</HI> then impri&s;oned, and knew not when they might hope to be relea&s;ed; much le&s;&s;e when they &s;hould have an opportunity of a&s;&s;embling the Church in that neighbourhood. And its not altogether improbable that many other Chri&s;tian pri&s;oners might be there, and then there might be a &s;o|lemn a&s;&s;embly agreeable to the allowance of tho&s;e trouble&s;ome times. What other ca&s;es there may be of
<PB REF="18">like exigence as to private bapti&s;me, I refer to the di&s;|qui&s;ition of better judgements.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="12" TYPE="thesis">
<HEAD>(12)</HEAD>
<P>None of the&s;e &s;ingular ca&s;es wherein bapti&s;me was privately admini&s;tred, do (for any thing I know) occur in the pre&s;ent times among us. If there be conceived to be &s;ome analogical or proportionate to the&s;e, as to this matter, it concernes them who think &s;o, to name them, and to prove the &s;ame; the three fore pretended ones I have already &s;hewed not to be &s;uch. And I know none el&s;e pretended, except, (1) the gratifying Separati&s;ts, &s;ome whereof would &s;uffer their children to be bapti|zed at home with a &s;elect company of their own only pre&s;ent, but &s;eparate from our publique A&s;&s;emblyes, as no rightly con&s;tituted Churches: (2) And very rarely (perhaps) one convinced of the errour of Antipedo|bapti&s;me, who hath been tainted therewith before, &s;eemes inclinable to have his children bapti&s;ed at home, but is loath to honour God &s;o far as publiquely to ap|pear in the devoting his &s;eed to God in this ordinance. But if we comply with the former we wrong our Chur|ches, and &s;eem to take upon our &s;elves the di&s;parage|ment they lay upon us in their unwarrantable &s;eparati|on. And the humouring the latter, &s;eems to be a wrong to bapti&s;me it &s;elfe: the honour whereof had need to be carefully pre&s;erved in the&s;e times. And the Que&s;tion in this ca&s;e &s;eems to be, whether the real honor of Gods holy ordinance, or the imaginary &s;uppo&s;ed though in|deed) fal&s;e honour and credit of the&s;e people &s;hould be mo&s;t re&s;pected</P>
<P>I have now plainly layd down before you my appre|hen&s;ions in this matter, &amp; &s;hall add nothing more here|in, &s;ave that upon a review I conceive it may be need|ful to expre&s;&s;e my &s;elfe more fully, in one thing which hath been hinted already, <HI>viz.</HI> What we &s;hall call pub|lique
<PB REF="19">bapti&s;me? to which I have an&s;wered, that &s;uch a place &amp; convention of Chri&s;tians as is judged meet for the ordinary exerci&s;e of mini&s;terial publique preaching, is a place and &s;ociety to admini&s;ter bapti&s;me in, if we would have it to be publique bapti&s;me. According to which rule, more particularly I &s;ay. 1. Bapti&s;me in a pri|vate hou&s;e is not publique though many be there pre|&s;ent, becau&s;e this would not (in times of freedome) be counted a fit place for ordinary conventions of the Church for preaching. 2. Bapti&s;me on the week day, at the place of publique a&s;&s;embly, where there is not &s;o con&s;iderable a number pre&s;ent, as it would be counted expedient for a publique Sermon to be made to, is yet but private bapti&s;me. 3. I &s;uppo&s;e it al&s;o requi&s;ite that the Congregation on the Lords day before have notice of the time of a bapti&s;me intended there, the week fol|lowing (unle&s;s there be &s;ome known lecture or exerci&s;e there at that time, or at lea&s;t we may probably expect a con&s;iderable number of Chri&s;tians then) that they may freely repair unto the Word and Sacrament then to be di&s;penced; the u&s;uall &s;ignes being given for warning a publique tran&s;action. 4. Yet if it be judged unfit, fre|quently to call an a&s;&s;embly of the Church, I &s;uppo&s;e at &s;uch time when we cannot urge a con&s;iderable number of our Congregation to attend in publique, nor blame their ab&s;ence, we may not appoint a publique ordi|nance for them to be pre&s;ent at. For this &s;eemes little better then a prevaricating with them. 5. To conclude, Hence it follows, that its not this or that number pre|&s;ent, which is nece&s;&s;ary to the making a bapti&s;mal ad|mini&s;tration publique in the place of publique Church meetings; For then we &s;hould be at a lo&s;&s;e, what &s;hould be the lea&s;t number nece&s;&s;ary: But the admini&s;tring it at &s;uch a time, and in &s;uch a place, where and when the Congregation may freely and is obliged to attend. We
<PB REF="19">may (in &s;ome Pari&s;hes or Chappelries) &s;u&s;pect &s;omtimes on the Lords dayes, and upon other &s;pecial and impor|tant occa&s;ions for preaching on other dayes, when we call an a&s;&s;embly, that few wil be pre&s;ent, yet do we then preach publiquely though to never &s;o few, becau&s;e its not our fault that the Church is &s;o empty. But if it were our fault that &s;o few are pre&s;ent, by taking inconvenient times, either of the dayes of the week, when their occa|&s;ions call them another way; or of the houres of the day, which are not u&s;uall nor commodious for an a&s;&s;em|bly; or la&s;tly, if we &s;hould call them to attend preach|ing &s;o frequently, that we could not rea&s;onably expect the attendance of a con&s;iderable Congregation: I &s;up|po&s;e in the&s;e ca&s;es we &s;hould offend in pretending to the exerci&s;e of publique preaching before &s;o &s;mall a number. And the &s;ame &s;hould I &s;ay concerning publique bapti&s;me. For this is my maine direction, that the&s;e or|dinances of publique preaching and admini&s;tring Bap|ti&s;me ought to go parallel one with another, in regard of the publiquene&s;&s;e of di&s;pencing the &s;ame. &para;.</P>
<P>It remaines now, much honoured Sirs, only to crave your pardon for this overtedious interpellation of you, your courteous acceptance of my unfeined re&s;pects to you, and your earne&s;t prayers at the throne of grace for me, the which I hope you will be more fervent in on my behalfe, by your ob&s;erving of the many weak|ne&s;&s;es clogging me in this pre&s;ent &s;ervice. And now its my humble petition for you who are called to the weighty function of the Mini&s;try, that the Father of mercies may ever direct and pro&s;per your precious la|bours in his vineyard, for the honour of his name, the edification of his Church, and the joyfull refre&s;hment of your own &s;pirits! And for you Sir, who are honou|red to be an In&s;trument for pre&s;erving of natural life in many, my hearty reque&s;t at the throne of grace is; that
<PB REF="20">your &s;oul may live the life of grace here, in the exerci&s;e of godline&s;s in the power of it, (which you have &s;eene in a precious in&s;tance mo&s;t neerly related to you, is the &s;ure and un&s;haken foundation of un&s;peakable comforts and peace pa&s;&s;ing all under&s;tanding in life and at death) that &s;o you may live the life of glory hereafter.</P>
<P>In te&s;timony of which my cordiall and unce&s;&s;ant prayers for you all, I &s;ub&s;cribe my &s;elfe with all readi|ne&s;&s;e;</P>
<CLOSER><DATE>Decemb. 15. 1657.</DATE>
<SIGNED>Your a&s;&s;ured and affectionate &s;ervant in our deare Lord and Saviour, <HI>SAMUEL LANGLEY.</HI></SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="to the reader">
<HEAD>To the Reader.</HEAD>
<P><HI>_I</HI> Have here in the following di&s;cour&s;e endea|voured rightly to &s;tate and cleere the do|ctrine and practice of &s;u&s;pending notori|ou&s;ly prophane and &s;candalous per&s;ons from the Lords Supper; and to vindicate the &s;ame from Mi&s;repre&s;entations and exceptions made again&s;t it. And although I could rather have de&s;ired to have per|formed this in my own method, yet I was advi&s;ed, in refe|rence to the&s;e parts, where a book entituled <HI>Su&s;pen&s;ion di&s;cu&s;&s;ed</HI> is &s;pread and taken notice of, to accommodate my di&s;cour&s;e in way of refutation of that book, which pretend|ed to an&s;wer a private &s;heet I had occa&s;ionally written. (Concerning which an Account is given at the latter end of this my defence.) Yet have I not &s;o confined my &s;elfe thereunto, as not to take in other things I apprehended of mo&s;t importance in this &s;ubject, e&s;pecially &s;uch as I had &s;eene lea&s;t &s;poken to by others who have owned the &s;ame
<PB REF="20">Conclu&s;ion with me. And although I have not particular|ly and expre&s;sly an&s;wered all the objections I have found in &s;ome Authors again&s;t me (fearing lea&s;t the book &s;hould &s;well too big under my hand, and perceiving the mo&s;t of them &s;ufficiciently an&s;wered already by others,) yet I have (as I humbly conceive) given in tho&s;e grounds which are fitly applicable for the ea&s;ie expedite and cleere &s;olution of them; as the peaceably judicious I hope will di&s;cerne. <Q>I like <HI>Augu&s;tines</HI> coun&s;ell; <HI>contra lit. petil. Don. l. 1.</HI> at the conclu&s;ion. <HI>Diligite homines, interficite errores; &s;ine &s;uperbi&acirc; de veritate prae&s;umite; &s;ine &s;aevitia pro veritate certate; orate pro eis quos redarguitis at&abque; convincitis,</HI> &amp;c.</Q> And before my Reader judge mee to have tran&s;gre&s;&s;ed this <HI>Rule</HI> in the following &s;heets, I mu&s;t de&s;ire him to ob&s;erve, <HI>1.</HI> Whether there was any one tart expre&s;&s;ion in the paper, which the Authour of <HI>Su&s;pen&s;ion di&s;cu&s;&s;ed,</HI> an&s;wereth? <HI>2.</HI> Whether he doth not uncivilly trample upon me in his an&s;wer, and not me only, but the Reformed Churches, with the Reverend A&s;&s;embly, yea and the Parliament, which commended the Presbyterial Go|vernment to us? <HI>3.</HI> Whether there is not a meane betwixt a &s;heepi&s;h in&s;en&s;iblene&s;&s;e (whereby further abu&s;es &s;hould be invited) and a pa&s;&s;ionate returne of &s;uch calumnies and reproachfull revilings on my Antagoni&s;t, as he hath be|&s;towed on me, (which I have touched upon, <HI>Ch. 20. &sect;. 4.</HI> and <HI>Digre&s;s, 12.17?</HI>) And then, I tru&s;t, the equal Reader will allow me without condemning my &s;elfe to &s;ay to my An&s;werer, what the formentioned <HI>Augu&s;tine</HI> &s;aid to <HI>Peti|lian,</HI> l. 3. <Q><HI>Si &amp; ego tibi vellem pro maledictis maledi|cta rependere, quid aliud quam duo maledici e&s;&s;emus, ut ij qui nos legerent, alij dete&s;tatos abijcerent &s;an&acirc; gravitate, alij &s;uaviter haurirent malevol&acirc; voluntate.</HI></Q> And becau&s;e the Gentleman I &s;tand on my defence again&s;t, hath told me, that he favoured me &s;ufficiently in conceal|ing my name in his booke, &s;etting <HI>L</HI> for it; I &s;hall not be
<PB REF="21">wanting in retaliation of the like courte&s;ie; and therefore that <HI>double letter</HI> he hath made the character of him&s;elfe in his <HI>dealing</HI> with mee, &s;hall &s;till &s;tand for his name in the di&s;cour&s;e following. And now Reader, thou may&s;t next peru&s;e a true Copy of my paper, which he gave thee de|praved, with his pretended refutation thereof; and then my defence, which is Chri&s;tianly &s;ubmitted to thy impar|tial judgement. I &s;hall not, in the lea&s;t, go about to court my Reader into a complyance with me, I wi&s;h him not to take one &s;tep to accompany me in an errour appear|ing &s;o to be; nor will it be for his advantage to refu&s;e any complyance which the light here offered may rationally re|quire from him. I leave the whole intirely before him, de&s;iring the Father of lights, by his holy Spirit to guide him into, and pre&s;erve him in the wayes (or rather way) of peace and truth.</P>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="text">
<PB N="1" REF="21">
<HEAD>Su&s;pen&s;ion Reviewed; CLEARED &amp; SETLED upon plain Scripture-Proof.</HEAD>
<P><HI>_THe Argument M^r</HI> W. <HI>impugneth was thus mana|ged in my Manu&s;cript.</HI></P>
<P>It is &s;aid by &s;ome, <MILESTONE N="(1)"> that no unregenerate or ig|norant and &s;candalous members in the Church, being baptized and of years, not excommuni|cate, may be debarred the Lords Supper, they expre&s;&s;ing their de&s;ires to receive, and proferring them&s;elves. The&s;e words <HI>Timp&s;on</HI> hath in his An&s;wer to <HI>Collins,</HI> p. 2.</P>
<P>For the better under&s;tanding of this po&s;ition, <MILESTONE N="(2)"> according to the mind of the A&s;&s;ertors thereof, it may be noted, That</P>
<P N="1">1. The Que&s;tion which is at pre&s;ent under con&s;ideration, <MILESTONE N="(3)"> reacheth to any cour&s;e which is effectual for debarring of the fore&s;aid per&s;ons; whether it be by di&s;&s;wading them from com|ing, or by forcing them in a way of Eccle&s;ia&s;tical cen&s;ure to keep back. Tho&s;e who defend the forementioned <HI>The&s;is,</HI> <MILESTONE N="(4)"> hold it unlawfull to advice the forementioned per&s;ons, to forbear, as well as to hinder them by juridicall &s;u&s;pen&s;ion. I hold the lawfulne&s;s of debarring both waies; and the proving of either overthrows the fore&s;aid po&s;ition, according to the minde of them who a&s;&s;ert the &s;ame.</P>
<PB N="2" REF="22">
<P N="2">2. <MILESTONE N="(5)"> Suppo&s;ing it to be an act of power, whereby they are debarr'd; yet then the Que&s;tion is not at pre&s;ent, concerning the &s;ubject of that power, whether it belong to the Elder&s;hip? and that whether Congregationall or Cla&s;&s;ical, <HI>&amp;c?</HI> or to the community of a particular Congregation? or to one &s;ingle per&s;on? whether a Dioce&s;an Bi&s;hop, or a Mini&s;ter?</P>
<P N="3">3. <MILESTONE N="(6)"> Nor yet is the Que&s;tion, what kinde of power that is whereby they may be &s;u&s;pended? whether it may be done by vertue of the <HI>power of order</HI> inherent in a Mini&s;ter, as &s;uch? or by the <HI>power of juri&s;diction?</HI> &amp;c. But the Que&s;tion is only <Q>concerning the lawfulnes of the act of &s;u&s;pending the fore&s;aid per&s;ons, by any per&s;on or per&s;ons what&s;oever; in what&s;oever capacity they are, or by what&s;oever kind of power it may be exerted by them or any of them.</Q></P>
<P N="4">4. <MILESTONE N="(7)"> Tho&s;e who hold the forementioned po&s;ition, do under|&s;tand the excommunication which they &s;peak of, to contain in the e&s;&s;ence of it, an exclu&s;ion from all (or divers) other pub|lique Ordinances in the Church, as well as from the Sacra|ment. <MILESTONE N="(8)"> So that to them, one <HI>not excommunicate,</HI> and <HI>one not excluded from</HI> (or warned to depart) <HI>the publique Ordinances of hearing and praying and &s;inging in the Church,</HI> are of equal im|portance. <MILESTONE N="(9)"> Whence it manife&s;tly follows, that if I prove &s;ome per&s;ons &s;candalou&s;ly wicked, who are not kept from all other publique Ordinances, may be &s;u&s;pended from the Lords Sup|per, they mu&s;t acknowledge their a&s;&s;ertion fully over|thrown.</P>
<P N="5">5. <MILESTONE N="(10)"> They al&s;o intend by <HI>excommunicat,</HI> &s;uch as are fully and compleatly, with &s;olemnity excommunicate. For they cannot be ignorant that our Divines, who hold &s;u&s;pen&s;ion (when it is a cen&s;ure) take it to be a degree of excommunication, and therefore call it <HI>excommunicatio minor:</HI> And it is <HI>exclu&s;io &s;ive &s;uspen&s;io, vel ab&s;tinentia a coen&acirc; Domini, qu&acirc; interdicitur pecca|tor ad tempus coenae participatione,</HI> as <HI>Trel|catius,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Trelca.</HI> In&s;tit. l. <HI>2. Bucan.</HI> loc. com. <HI>44.</HI> qu. <HI>10.</HI> &amp; <HI>16. Po|lan.</HI> Syntag. Theol. l. <HI>7.</HI> c. <HI>18.</HI> To the like &s;en&s;e &s;peaks <HI>A|me&s;ius</HI> med. Theol. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>37</HI> &amp; de con|&s;cienti&acirc;, l. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>29.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Bucanus, Polanus,</HI> and others ex|pre&s;s it. <MILESTONE N="(11)"> Neither doth <HI>Aretius</HI> deny this for ought I can finde: I know in his com|mon places he &s;aith Excommunication is larger then Su&s;pen&s;ion from the Commu|nion of the Lords Supper, according to the Scriptures. But I &s;uppo&s;e he &s;aith not any where (there I am &s;ure he doth not, nor (I think) in his Commentaries) that
<PB N="3" REF="22">its unlawfull to inflict the cen&s;ure of excommunication by de|grees. Unle&s;s therefore our Admi&s;&s;ioni&s;ts do take <HI>excommuni|cate</HI> for <HI>fully excommunicate,</HI> they trifle egregiou&s;ly. <MILESTONE N="(12)"> For then the meaning of their A&s;&s;ertion would be; no wicked Church members, not excommunicate, may be excommunicated, and that becau&s;e they are not excommunicate. <MILESTONE N="(13)"> But rather they deny all gradual proceedings in excommunication, and &s;o re|ject the di&s;tinction of <HI>major</HI> and <HI>minor.</HI> <MILESTONE N="(14)"> If therefore I prove that it is lawfull to begin excommunication in &s;u&s;pen&s;ion for a time, and to &s;tay there &s;ome time, before there be a proceed|ing to a more &s;olemne curting off in the face of the publique Congregation, and with their con&s;ent, I &s;uppo&s;e my Antago|ni&s;ts will acknowledge this a lawfull manner of combat again&s;t their free admi&s;&s;ion pleaded for.</P>
<P N="6">6. That pa&s;&s;age in <HI>Ame&s;ius</HI> I judge very remarkable in this Que&s;tion, which he hath in his <HI>de con&s;cienti&acirc; lib.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 29. <MILESTONE N="(15)"> <Q><HI>Su&s;pen&s;io ab u&s;u coenae &amp; &s;imilibus eccle&s;iae privilegijs, nihil aliud est quam gradus excommunicationis, &amp; ideo vocari &s;olct</HI> A Multis <HI>excommunicatio minor, quamvis non</HI> ex &s;ingulari Chri&s;ti in&s;tiruto, ex aequitate tamen et rei ip&s;ius natur&acirc; <HI>prae|cedere debet, &amp; aliquandiu continuari, ubi &s;candali ratio fer|re potest moram.</HI></Q> <MILESTONE N="(16)"> I wi&s;h &s;ome who have written for &s;u&s;pen|&s;ion, had ob&s;erved this pa&s;&s;age: and if they had attended to it, I thinke they would have defended their Province never a jot the wor&s;e then they have done.</P>
<P N="7">7. <MILESTONE N="(17)"> It is not nece&s;&s;ary in oppo&s;ition to my Antagoni&s;ts A&s;&s;er|tion, that I &s;hould &s;ay all unregenerate, ignorant or &s;canda|lous members baptized, &amp;c. may be debarred or &s;u&s;pended the Lords Supper. But it is &s;ufficient to overthrow their opinion if I prove that &s;ome may, For their tenent in reference to bap|tized per&s;ons of years not excommunicate, is an <HI>univer&s;all ne|gative,</HI> that none &s;uch may be debarr'd. Now <HI>one particular affirmative de&s;troys a univer&s;all negative.</HI> <MILESTONE N="(18)"> It belongs not to the pre&s;ent di&s;qui&s;ition, for what or how many &s;ins, or in how many and what ca&s;es, any per&s;on qualified as afore&s;aid may be debarred; but whether in any ca&s;e for any &s;in, he may be de|barred. For if in any ca&s;e it may be lawfull to &s;u&s;pend a per|&s;on not fully excommunicate (and that is, according to the &s;en&s;e of my Antagoni&s;ts here excluded from all publique &s;er|vice in the Church) then that cannot be freed from untruth, which they a&s;&s;ert, <HI>viz.</HI> that there is no &s;uch ordinance of &s;u&s;|pen&s;ion in the Church approved by Chri&s;t. <MILESTONE N="(19)"> This caution is
<PB N="4" REF="23">not more plaine in it &s;elfe (and what can be plainer?) then it is u&s;efull and nece&s;&s;ary to be remembred in this di&s;pute. I &s;hall therefore further illu&s;trate it, by a familiar &s;imilitude. If one &s;hould &s;ay that no flagitious <HI>Engli&s;hman,</HI> who is not cut off from the freedom of the Corporation where he is a mem|ber, may legally be whipt; I need not to contradict him, prove, that all flagitious <HI>Engli&s;h</HI> per&s;ons not deprived of their free|dome afore&s;aid, may be whipt; but to prove that &s;ome may, in &s;ome ca&s;es, is a &s;ufficient contradiction to him who &s;aith none may in any ca&s;e: &s;o is the pre&s;ent ca&s;e in reference to Eccle|&s;ia&s;ticall polity.</P>
<P>In oppo&s;ition therefore to the fore&s;aid po&s;ition, <MILESTONE N="(20)"> I a&s;&s;ert, <Q>That it is lawfull for &s;ome per&s;ons in &s;ome ca&s;es to debar by di&s;&s;wa&s;ion, &s;u&s;pending their own act of admini&s;tring, or by Ec|cle&s;ia&s;tical Cen&s;ure (I &s;ay to debar) &s;ome per&s;ons from the Lords Supper, who are baptized, and not warn'd to depart (or kept) from other publique Ordinances, of hearing, praying, &s;inging, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> in the publique Congregations of the Church.</Q></P>
<P><HI>Arg.</HI> 1. <MILESTONE N="(21)"> Tho&s;e who are vi&s;ibly &s;uch whom the Lord hath in his Word declared to be per&s;ons to whom he would not have the Lords Supper admini&s;tred, may be &s;ulpended from the Lords Supper. But &s;ome baptized per&s;ons not fully excommu|nicated, may be vi&s;ibly &s;uch whom the Lord hath in his word declared to be per&s;ons to whom he would not have the Lords Supper admini&s;tred. <HI>Ergo</HI> &s;ome baptized per&s;ons at years not fully excommunicate, may be &s;u&s;pended from the Lords Supper.</P>
<P>The <HI>major</HI> is cleere, <MILESTONE N="(22)"> if it be under&s;tood, that by <HI>vi&s;ibly,</HI> I meane &s;uch as are proved and appeare &s;o to be by Scripture Characters. And now the <HI>major</HI> is not likely to be deny'd: Becau&s;e God hath placed a power &s;omewhere in his Church, <MILESTONE N="(23)"> for the managing of his Ordinances, &s;o as that they may not be di&s;pen&s;ed to &s;uch as he hath declared in his word, he would not have them admini&s;tred unto.</P>
<P>The <HI>minor</HI> is thus proved.</P>
<P>Tho&s;e who by word openly renounce the Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t, <MILESTONE N="(24)"> are vi&s;ibly &s;uch to whom the Lord would not (according to the revelation of his will in his word) have the Lords Supper admini&s;tred. But &s;ome baptized per&s;ons at years not ful|ly excommunicate, may be &s;uch as openly by word renounce the Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t. <HI>Ergo</HI> &s;ome baptized per&s;ons at years
<PB N="5" REF="23">not fully excommunicat, may be vi&s;ibly &s;uch to whom the Lord would not have the Sacrament admini&s;tred.</P>
<P>The <HI>major</HI> here againe I thinke will not be deny'd. <MILESTONE N="(25)"> But lea&s;t it &s;hould, I thus prove it.</P>
<P>Tho&s;e who are vi&s;ibly unbelievers (I meane who ought to be judged and taken to be unbelievers) are vi&s;ibly &s;uch to whom (according to the word) the Sacrament of the Lords Supper ought not to be admini&s;tred. But tho&s;e who by word openly renounce the Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t, ought to be judged and taken to be unbelievers. <HI>Ergo</HI> tho&s;e who by word open|ly renounce the Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t are vi&s;ibly &s;uch, to whom (according to the word of God) the Lords Supper ought not to be admini&s;tred.</P>
<P>The fir&s;t of the&s;e is cleare. <MILESTONE N="(26)"> For if the word warrant us to admini&s;ter the Sacrament only to believers (which none can deny) that is, &s;uch as are to be taken for believers, then it excludes all them who are to be judged and taken to be un|believers. The latter is no le&s;&s;e manife&s;t. <MILESTONE N="(27)"> For to profe&s;&s;e to renounce Chri&s;t, is to profe&s;&s;e not to believe; and he that &s;eemes &s;eriou&s;ly (for &s;o I intend it) to profe&s;s his not belie|ving, that is, his renouncing Chri&s;tianity, cannot be by any warrantably judged or taken to be a believer.</P>
<P>If to the <HI>minor</HI> of my &s;econd <HI>Syllogi&s;me</HI> (which was this; <MILESTONE N="(28)"> Some baptized per&s;ons at years not fully excommunicate, may be &s;uch as openly by word renounce the Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t) it be an&s;wered,</P>
<P><HI>Excep.</HI> 1. That no baptized per&s;on at years not fully ex|communicate, tendring him&s;elfe to receive, will or doth ever &s;o openly by word renounce the Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t. I an&s;wer.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. The ca&s;e may yet be &s;uppo&s;ed, yea it may happen; <MILESTONE N="(29)"> and if in any ca&s;e &s;uppo&s;able which may fall out, &s;u&s;pen&s;ion as di&s;tinct from that full excommunication before mentioned, may have place according to the Rule of the Word, (which &s;huts out profe&s;&s;ed open unbelievers from the Sacraments,) then &s;u&s;pen&s;ion cannot be denied univer&s;ally, to have any place di&s;tinct from that full excommunication. That is really a power for Cen&s;ure, which may be exerted upon an occa&s;ion which may po&s;&s;ibly occurre, (whether that occa&s;ion do ever occurre, or not, actually.) So a fuperiour may have power to correct his inferiour in &s;uch a manner, for &s;uch a fault, if he do commit it, though perhaps he never do commit it. 2. <MILESTONE N="(30)"> Be|&s;ides the ca&s;e is &s;uppo&s;able, not only as po&s;&s;ible, but probable
<PB N="6" REF="24">to occurre, if that which my Antagoni&s;ts in this Que&s;tion &s;o much commend, and which they &s;ay was happily exerci&s;ed un|der the Epi&s;copal Government in <HI>England,</HI> &s;hould be revived and brought againe into practice among us, <HI>viz.</HI> That all bap|tized per&s;ons of years &s;hould be required under a (pur&s;e) pe|nalty to communicate once or twice in the year; then many open rejecters of Chri&s;tianity, and who profe&s;&s;e again&s;t the &s;ame, (and averre there is no Chri&s;t without them, <HI>&amp;c.</HI>) might, to e&s;cape the penalty, tender them&s;elves to communicate. I have been credibly informed concerning the Athei&s;me of an eminent per&s;on, <MILESTONE N="(31)"> who not many yeares agoe dyed in <HI>London,</HI> who on his death-bed told his friend, who urged him to re|ceive before his death, <HI>That to gratifie him he was willing to communicate; but yet with all profe&s;&s;ed he looked for no good from &s;uch things.</HI> Whereupon the Bi&s;hop who was there to have given h<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">m the Sacrament turned away from him. But what &s;peak I of one? The&s;e times declare that there are hun|dreds, I feare thou&s;ands, who are above all Ordinances, and count the Sacraments carnall things, and &s;ay &s;o; who yet, its probable, to e&s;cape a penalty would come to ask the Sacra|ment.</P>
<P N="2">2 <HI>Excep.</HI> <MILESTONE N="(32)"> If againe it be &s;aid, that per&s;ons baptized and ten|dring them&s;elves to receive, cannot openly at that time pro|fe&s;s their rejecting Chri&s;t: becau&s;e that in this tender of them|&s;elves to this Ordinance they offer to profe&s;s the contrary, <HI>viz.</HI> their owning of Chri&s;t.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> <MILESTONE N="(33)"> I &s;ay, fir&s;t, the ca&s;e under our pre&s;ent con&s;ideration &s;uppo&s;eth him, at the &s;ame time, when he tenders him&s;elfe to be admitted to the Communion, to profe&s;&s;e (being asked) again&s;t his owning Chri&s;t (at lea&s;t in this Ordinance) <HI>q. d. I de&s;ire to do as others doe in receiving, but I am re&s;olved at pre|&s;ent I will not now receive the commands of Chri&s;t, nor part with my lusts which Chri&s;t bids me fly from.</HI> (I would I had not known &s;uch a &s;ad ca&s;e as this occurre!) <MILESTONE N="(34)"> 2. Its not impo&s;&s;ible for &s;uch a man to profe&s;s contradictions; &s;o that you cannot conclude he profe&s;&s;eth not again&s;t Chri&s;t, becau&s;e he profe&s;&s;eth for Chri&s;t, at the &s;ame time or with one breath. 3. He that openly denyes Chri&s;t expre&s;sly: he profe&s;&s;eth to receive Chri&s;t only by con&s;equence, from the nature of the Ordinance which he de&s;ires to joyn in; although perhaps he under&s;tand it not, or doth plainly reject his owning of that Con&s;equence.</P>
<P N="3">3 <HI>Excep.</HI> <MILESTONE N="(35)"> But &s;ome will &s;ay; Such an one at that time &s;hould
<PB N="7" REF="24">be fully excommunicated, and may be, as well as &s;u&s;pended.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Whereunto I returne. But there may not (ordina|rily cannot) be power in that particular Congregation, <MILESTONE N="(36)"> or the Officers thereof, fully to excommunicate him. How &s;hould he be excommunicated at that time, when a meeting of other Of|ficers (a Cla&s;&s;is) cannot then be had, by who&s;e advi&s;e and authority full excommunication &s;hould be managed? And o|ther barres be&s;ides may &s;ufficiently di&s;&s;wade from an in&s;tanta|neous full excommunication, as &s;oon as a per&s;on di&s;covers his rejecting of Chri&s;t.</P>
<P N="4">4. <HI>Excep.</HI> Furthermore, If it be pleaded, <MILESTONE N="(37)"> That we have no &s;uch in&s;tance in our times, and therefore its to little purpo&s;e to perplex our thoughts with foreca&s;ting what might be done in &s;uch an extraordinary ca&s;e. But the pre&s;ent Controver&s;ie is concerning &s;uch as in word do profe&s;&s;e to own Chri&s;t, when they tender them&s;elves to communicate, although there be vi|&s;ible te&s;timony, that their lives are not agreeable (hitherto) to this profe&s;&s;ion.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> I an&s;wer, Its no needle&s;&s;e point of wi&s;dome, <MILESTONE N="(38)"> to labour to fore&s;ee the nece&s;&s;ary ill Con&s;equents, which may en&s;ue up|on the receiving of a principle, although at pre&s;ent there is no opportunity for the actuall exi&s;tency of them. If a wi&s;e man fore&s;ee that his principle, if followed clo&s;e, will in &s;ome ca&s;es which may occurre run him on the rocks, he may ju&s;tly &s;u&s;pect his principle not to be &s;o good as it &s;hould be. If &s;u&s;pen&s;ion in the ca&s;e propo&s;ed cannot be deny'd, then it mu&s;t not be uni|ver&s;ally rejected as having no place in the Church. 2. <MILESTONE N="(39)"> But I &s;hall further adde, though not for confirmation of the argu|ment, I have already propo&s;ed to prove and evince this conclu|&s;ion, viz. <HI>That &s;ome baptized per&s;ons at yeares not fully excom|municate may be &s;u&s;pended,</HI> for that needs not this addition. But for the improving the argument to further u&s;efulne&s;&s;e, I &s;hall (I &s;ay) further adde, That this ca&s;e already propo&s;ed, <MILESTONE N="(40)"> though it &s;eeme &s;o rare and extraordinary, yet by nece&s;&s;ary con&s;equence, it concludes other in&s;tances of daily and ordina|ry incur&s;ion. For if he, <MILESTONE N="(41)"> who in words rejects Chri&s;t may be de|barred, then he who by &s;ome notorious deeds rejects Chri&s;t, (though not in words) may be debarred, although he be a per&s;on baptized, at yeares, not fully excommunicate.</P>
<P>The con&s;equence I prove thus; <MILESTONE N="(42)"> If this con&s;equence do not hold, it mu&s;t be, either becau&s;e no deed-rejection of Chri&s;t is &s;o manife&s;t, vi&s;ible, notorious and hainous a rejecting of Chri&s;t,
<PB N="8" REF="25">as word rejecting of Chri&s;t is; or els becau&s;e the Officers in the Church have &s;ome good Rule, according to which they may di&s;pen&s;e with (or not deny the Sacrament for) deed-rejecting of Chri&s;t, rather then word rejecting of Chri&s;t. But neither of the&s;e do enervate the con&s;equence, nor any other Rea&s;on. <HI>Er|go</HI> its good and valid.</P>
<P>Not the latter, <MILESTONE N="(43)"> becau&s;e no &s;uch Rule can be produced, but rather the contrary; <HI>Titus</HI> 1.16. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5. <HI>Math.</HI> 18.15, 16, 17. <HI>Rev.</HI> 2.2. <MILESTONE N="(44)"> Not the former, Becau&s;e words are no otherwi&s;e Te&s;timonies then as they are &s;ignes of a per&s;ons rejecting or owning what in and by the&s;e words he profe&s;&s;eth to own or reject. And &s;ome deeds are more &s;atisfactory Te&s;timonies then words. <MILESTONE N="(45)"> <HI>Validior e&s;t vox operis quam oris.</HI> Where there be two cro&s;s-witne&s;&s;es, the Te&s;timony of the more credible witne&s;&s;e ju&s;tly prevailes again&s;t the other. So when deeds cro&s;s words in the pre&s;ent ca&s;e, the Deeds may be more credible Te&s;timo|nies and &s;ignes of a per&s;ons rejecting Chri&s;t, then his words are of the contrary. And therefore this deed-witne&s;&s;e is to prevaile again&s;t the word witne&s;&s;e. I have heard from a great Lawyer, that in our common Laws, they have this Rule, that <HI>Actions &s;peak either a&s;&s;ent or di&s;&s;ent.</HI> And &s;hall not the Church make u&s;e of the &s;ame meanes naturally &s;ub&s;ervient to the di&s;cerning of per&s;ons, who are to be admitted to, or reje|cted from the Sacraments?</P>
<P>Furthermore, <MILESTONE N="(46)"> If the deed-rejecting of Chri&s;t were not of as certaine credible &s;ignification concerning a per&s;ons infidelity, as word rejecting is, Then no per&s;on who denies not Chri&s;t in words may be fully excommunicated; e&s;pecially if he de&s;ire to co~mmunicate, and that earne&s;tly, which the&s;e men &s;ay is a te|&s;timony of his &s;eriou&s;ne&s;&s;e, which we may not refu&s;e in his pro|fe&s;&s;ion to believe. <MILESTONE N="(47)"> And doubtle&s;&s;e the Church ought not by full excommunication to declare a per&s;on to be as an Infidel, and &s;o to be dealt with, who now makes a credibly &s;erious profe&s;&s;ion of his faith, and willingne&s;s to &s;ubmit him&s;elfe to the Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t. <MILESTONE N="(48)"> But if they do fully excommunicate him, they do declare him in a &s;tate, wherein he is to be looked on, and to be dealt with, as with an Heathen, or, by word-profe&s;&s;ed, Infidel.</P>
<P>By all this which hath been &s;aid as an Appendix to this Ar|gument, <MILESTONE N="(49)"> (and much more might be added to the &s;ame purpo&s;e) It may appear, that, If it be granted that one though formerly baptized, and not yet fully excommunicated, yet now being
<PB N="9" REF="25">an openly, and by word profe&s;&s;ed, Infidel, may be &s;u&s;pended in any ca&s;e when there is a barre again&s;t his then full excommu|nication: then at lea&s;t in the like ca&s;e, &s;ome &s;candalous livers in the Church may be &s;u&s;pended. And therefore becau&s;e &s;o much depends upon the former, I have &s;o largely in&s;i&s;ted on the proving and cleering of the &s;ame. <MILESTONE N="(50)"> I remember I have read &s;omewhere in <HI>Salvian. Qui Christiani Nominis opus non agit, Christianus non e&s;&s;e videatur.</HI> And <HI>Infidelis &s;it nece&s;&s;e e&s;t, qui fidei commi&s;&s;a non &s;ervat.</HI> Agreeable whereunto is what I finde quoted from <HI>Tertull. apolog. cap.</HI> 44. who &s;peaking of the Heathens pri&s;ons &s;aith, <HI>Nemo illic Chri&s;tianus ni&s;i plan&egrave; tantum Chri&s;tianus; aut &s;i &amp; aliud, jam non Chri&s;tianus.</HI></P>
<P>&para; There was another argument in my paper for the taking off the imputation of novelty which is charged on &s;u&s;pen&s;ion. But not above a fourth part of it is printed by Mr. <HI>W.</HI> &amp; the re&s;t, not an&s;wered by him. So I &s;hall not here tran&s;cribe it. Perhaps divers things therein will occa&s;ionally fall in to be mentioned el&s;ewhere. And I have no &s;uch conceipt of my writings as to trouble the Reader with any more of them then I am in a manner forced unto. I &s;hall now apply my &s;elfe to the con&s;i|deration of Mr. <HI>W.</HI> his pretended refutation of the argument mentioned; and I &s;hall intend to omit nothing material he hath produced, yea I &s;hall take in much more then I appre|hend pertinent alledged by him. But the mo&s;t of the Digre&s;|&s;ions as about examination, Elders, and the like, I &s;hall de&s;igne to &s;peak to by them&s;elves, that the di&s;cu&s;&s;ion of the argument, be not made too confu&s;ed by the intermixture of tho&s;e hetero|geneals therein. And there are few things but are mentioned by Mr. <HI>W.</HI> many times over, and therefore though I &s;ometimes lightly pa&s;s over &s;ome things he hath in his fir&s;t or &s;econd, perhaps third or fourth &s;peaking of them, I mu&s;t entreat the Readers patience, and hope before I make an end, he &s;hall finde I have not neglected any thing con&s;iderable of his alle|gations. And where I apprehended mo&s;t need, I have enlar|ged and confirmed my argument in the mo&s;t important parts of it. So that the judicious I hope &s;hall di&s;cerne &s;undry argu|ments wrapped up in the pro&s;ecution of this one. I have al&s;o noted the particulars of the argument as managed in my paper he an&s;wers to, with (1) (2) (3) (4) to 50 &amp;c. in the mar|gin, to &s;ave the labour of tran&s;cribing them againe in the following di&s;cour&s;e, and that it may not grow too big; I &s;hall
<PB N="10" REF="26">ea&s;ily by helpe of the&s;e numbers referre the Reader to the par|ticulars there, which he may turne back to as there may be oc|ca&s;ion all along, at lea&s;t very frequently. And the di&s;cour&s;e following falling into 22 Chapters, I &s;hall for the compo&s;ing my own &s;pirit the better, annex at the end of each Chapter one part of the 119 <HI>P&s;alme</HI> done into <HI>Engli&s;h</HI> according to the Acro&s;tical conceit of the Originall, which I tru&s;t will not be altogether ungratefull to the Reader, having been never that I know of done before. And let the&s;e be our <HI>crums of comfort,</HI> in &s;tead of Mr. <HI>W.</HI> his <HI>crums of merriment</HI> which he intimates as needfull for our <HI>refre&s;hing in &s;o unplea&s;ing an argument.</HI></P>
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. I.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 1.</HEAD>
<P>_AFter his Preface (the which by parcels is, mo&s;t of it, &s;undry times repeated beneath) he thus be|gins. <HI>p.</HI> 4. <HI>The contents of your paper, I &s;hall now &s;et downe in parcels under the letter [L] and mine an&s;wers thereunto under the letter [W] And to put the more life into the matter in agitation, I &s;hall call upon you, (as if you were pre&s;ent) to relate your own words, and &s;hall (the Lord a&s;&s;isting) in mine own name &s;ubjoyne mine An&s;wers thereunto. And now Sir I pray begin.</HI></P>
<P>I am credibly informed that M^r <HI>W:</HI> told one who asked him what <HI>[L]</HI> &s;tood for in his di&s;cour&s;e, <HI>that it might &s;tand for Li|beller.</HI> And he him&s;elfe in his Epi&s;tle to the judicious Reader (for to him he directs his book, though his Title-page &s;ay it was for the &s;atisfying of weaker con&s;ciences) thus &s;peakes con|cerning my paper. <HI>At fir&s;t,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>(there being no name &s;ub|&s;cribed to it) I put it back as a Libel.</HI> And why a Libel? Is eve|ry writing a Libel which hath not a name &s;ub&s;cribed to it? A great part of holy Scripture and many other mo&s;t excellent writings &s;hall then fall under the imputation of being Libels. I am &s;orry to &s;ee this Gentleman &s;o tran&s;ported with pa&s;&s;ion in the very entrance. This cloud now ri&s;ing which &s;eemes no bigger then a mans hand, I am afraid will grow to &s;uch an ex|ten&s;ion and thickne&s;s as to darken his following di&s;cour&s;e, and fill it with &s;tormes and tempe&s;ts. When the <HI>Stafford&s;hire</HI> hills have an angry and gloomy cap or cover on their heads in the morning, we in <HI>Che&s;hire</HI> are wont to expect no very faire wea|ther the day following.</P>
<PB N="11" REF="26">
<P><HI>Salvian</HI> concealing his name in the Epi&s;tle he wrote to the Catholique Church of his time, gives this account of it to <HI>Sa|lonius</HI> a Bi&s;hop. <Q><HI>In omni volumine profectus magis quaeritur lectionis, quam nomen auctoris. Et ideo &s;i profectus e&s;t in lecti|one, &amp; habet qui&s;quis illud quod potest in&s;truere lecturos, quid ei cum vocabulo, quod juvare non potest curio&s;os?&mdash; Cum enim nullus profectus &s;it in nomine, qui profectum in &s;crip|tis invenit, &s;uperflu&ecirc; nomen &s;criptoris inquirit.</HI></Q> And after a|mong other things he addes this for the concealing his name in that Booke, <Q><HI>Scilicet ne auctoritatem &s;alubribus &s;criptis, per&s;onae &s;uae parvitas derogaret: omnia enim admodum dicta tanti existimantur, quantus est ip&s;e qui dixit. Siquidem tans imbecilla &s;unt judicia hujus temporis, ac pen&egrave; tam nulla, ut hi qui legunt, non tam con&s;iderent quid legunt, qua~m cujus legant; nec tam dictionis vim at&abque; virtutem, quam dictatoris cogitent dignitatem. Idcirca &s;criptor ille ab&s;condi &amp; latitare omnibus modis voluit, ne &s;cripta quae in &s;e habent plurimum &s;alubritatis, minora for&s;itan fierent per nomen Auctoris.</HI></Q> I might have thus <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">xcu&s;ed my &s;elfe if I had publi&s;hed that paper without adding <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">y name to it. But I made no matter of it, he to whom it was <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">ritten knew my hand well enough; and when it was &s;hewed <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> M^r. <HI>W.</HI> and I heard he excepted again&s;t the want of my <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="2 letters">me being &s;ub&s;cribed to it, I gave order to his Pari&s;hioner, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">ho by frequent entreaties had extorted that paper from me, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="2 letters">at he &s;hould (if that would do any good) put my name to it. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="3 letters">t if that be a right Etimology of <HI>Libel,</HI> that its a <HI>ly,</HI> as with <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="2 letters">bell</HI> rung abroad, I thinke he that hath publi&s;hed &s;undry no|torious untruthes and calumnies concerning me, as that I in <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="2 letters">aching acquitted the Pope from being Antichri&s;t, &amp;c. and <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="2 letters">th done more again&s;t me in that way, then if he had po&s;ted <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> up, in every Market Towne in this, and the neighbour <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1+ letters">unties, for a Theefe; he, I &s;ay, who hath thus abu&s;ed me, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> will appeare beneath) will appropriate this brand to him|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="4 letters">e, with which he would &s;tigmatize another, yet for my part <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="3 letters">orne to put the terme upon him. But now <HI>to put the more life <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> the matter, he will call on me to relate my own words.</HI> Such <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> abu&s;ive piece very fitly fetcheth its life and &s;oul from the <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word">, and it would be very dull indeed if this did not &s;eeme a <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> to quicken it. And now he calls the parcels of my paper, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> commands them to appeare and they appeare, to &s;peake <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> they &s;peake, and when he plea&s;eth they are &s;ilent; and he <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> his bu&s;ine&s;&s;e &s;o bravely and imperiou&s;ly all along, that it
<PB N="12" REF="27">can hardly choo&s;e but make one merry &s;ometimes, to &s;ee (as the gallant that often looked back, and &s;ayd, do not my &s;purres jingle) how much he &s;eemes to plea&s;e and applaud him&s;elfe in his affected triumph and command over the poor paper, he hath captiv'd and detained to be the object of his &s;corne and indignation. <HI>Solu&s;&abque; in &s;icc&acirc; &s;ecum &s;patiatur aren&acirc;.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 2.</HEAD>
<P>To that noted with number (1) in my paper, he returnes, <HI>p.</HI> 5. <HI>Why begin you &s;o abruptly, with an [It is &s;aid by &s;ome] As if it were rather the verbal &s;aying of &s;ome, then grounded upon ju&s;t warrant.</HI> See Reader whether I am like to plea&s;e this Gentleman? It may be I &s;hould have begun thus; <HI>Some affirm, hold, maintaine and teach,</HI> as M^r. <HI>W.</HI> &s;ounds it out, <HI>p.</HI> 127. <HI>&s;ay|ing, will not &s;erve his turne, he will not be &s;aid.</HI> If I write they <HI>&s;ay this</HI> or <HI>that,</HI> I di&s;parage them, as if they did only &s;ay it, and could not prove it; and yet when I had &s;tated the Que&s;ti|on I would di&s;cu&s;&s;e, and then added (at number (20) I <HI>a&s;&s;ert</HI> that its lawfull, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> he &s;eemes angry that I &s;hould &s;o much as <HI>&s;ay</HI> what I held, before I proceeded to prove it immediately af|terwards; and thus chides me for it, <HI>p.</HI> 31. <HI>And at length as a triumphant oppo&s;er of our a&s;&s;ertion, you manfully oppo&s;e us with an (I A&s;&s;ert:) a pretty charm to delude the &s;imple.</HI> But if he had no de&s;igne to delude the <HI>very very &s;imple ones,</HI> he needed not to have mentioned <HI>Oxford</HI> and <HI>Accademical and School-or|der</HI> &s;o often; all others know (in their own rea&s;on, or by ob|&s;ervation of others practice,) that both the Opponent and Re|&s;pondent declare which part of the Probleme each takes, be|fore they proceed to any di&s;putation thereupon.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 3.</HEAD>
<P>And this leads me to the an&s;wering his next exception, <HI>p.</HI> 6. which is made again&s;t my paper at (number 2.) wherein I pro|po&s;ed to note &s;everall things for the &s;tating the Que&s;tion I in|tended to di&s;cu&s;&s;e. He &s;aith, <HI>Its not the cu&s;tome with us at Ox|ford for the opponent to &s;tate the Que&s;tion.</HI> And further adds, <HI>Your method is unaccademicall; you might have &s;pared the paines of your needle&s;&s;e inventions: your &s;tating the Question wee look upon as a declining of the Controver&s;ie, as a mudding of the cleare water, as con&s;ciou&s;ne&s;&s;e of inability to refute the preten&s;ions of the A&s;&s;ertor. However I must follow you in your Extravagancies, le&s;t any poor &s;oul &s;hould be &s;educed by your noy&s;e of words.</HI></P>
<P>Reader, thou &s;ee&s;t the Clouds gather more, I hope thou wilt be armed for foul weather. To his exceptions I reply.</P>
<PB N="13" REF="27">
<P N="1">1. There is nothing more u&s;uall in polemick Authors, then in their an&s;wering the preten&s;ions of their Antagoni&s;ts upon any point, to &s;tate the Que&s;tion and &s;et down what is granted and denyed, and often to tax their Adver&s;aries with a wrong &s;ta|ting of the point to be di&s;cu&s;&s;ed. There's none who have read <HI>Chamier</HI> again&s;t the Papi&s;ts, nor <HI>Chemnitius</HI> again&s;t the <HI>Council of Trent,</HI> or any &s;uch like Authors, but mu&s;t ob&s;erve how ordi|nary this is with them; and yet the Papi&s;ts were never (that I know of) &s;o &s;illy as to charge them with an unaccademical procedure in their di&s;putations with, and refutations of them.</P>
<P N="2">2. It was not M^r <HI>Timp&s;on</HI> only that I a&s;&s;aulted, though I mentioned him rather then others becau&s;e I heard he was then (as he is &s;ince in print) much cryed up by M^r. <HI>W.</HI> And they are not agreed among them&s;elves about the &s;tating of this Que&s;ti|on. Some allow a di&s;&s;wa&s;ive debarring of &s;ome, who yet, they thinke, may not juridically be kept off, though notoriou&s;ly wicked, if not (in their &s;en&s;e) excommunicated. Others granting a debarring of tho&s;e who are <HI>ip&s;o jure,</HI> excommuni|cate, though not <HI>ip&s;o facto.</HI> And others allow only the de|barring of the actually <HI>ip&s;o facto</HI> excommunicate, and that in their &s;en&s;e of it, as was &s;aid, to wit, as it denotes the &s;eparati|on of per&s;ons &s;o cen&s;ured from all publique ordinances in the Church, as well as from the Sacraments. And I matter not though it be not concealed, that as I di&s;liked not all in the writings of tho&s;e who were again&s;t &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, &s;o I could not comply with all I found in the writings of them who were for the &s;u&s;pen&s;ion pleaded for. Was it not nece&s;&s;ary then that I &s;hould freely impart my opinion concerning the point which I was de&s;ired to give &s;ome account of? which indeed is &s;uch as partakes of both parties, and is not wholly included in the propo&s;als of either of them. And M^r. <HI>W.</HI> might ea&s;ily &s;ee by my &s;tating the Que&s;tion, that though I held a conclu&s;ion con|trary to the maine a&s;&s;ertion of tho&s;e Gentlemen who have written again&s;t &s;u&s;pen&s;ion; yet I have by the putting in of the term <HI>fully</HI> or <HI>not fully excommunicate,</HI> altered &s;omewhat of the manner or method nece&s;&s;ary for the defending or overthrowing the &s;ame.</P>
<P N="3">3. I wonder not that M^r. <HI>W.</HI> is &s;o hot again&s;t the&s;e limita|tions I gave for our que&s;tion, &s;ince &s;o much he had to &s;ay was concerning Examination, Ruling Elders, Prudentials in Go|vernment, excluding for ignorance, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> for the&s;e all were by my limitations ca&s;heered the pre&s;ent di&s;pute; one point being
<PB N="14" REF="28">enough at one time to handle. Its the known way of the <HI>Qua|kers,</HI> and &s;uch like people, in their writings or Di&s;putes to jumble many things together, and they will not be gotten to &s;peake clo&s;ely to one thing by it &s;elfe. Let the Reader judge whether Mr. <HI>W.</HI> in his di&s;cour&s;e do not by his example too much patronize that their roving and loo&s;ene&s;s? The order of the whole Controver&s;ie I take it lyes thus. 1. Whether any per&s;ons baptized at yeares intelligent not fully excommunica|ted (or if you will, <HI>not &s;ecluded from other Ordinances</HI>) may be debarred the Sacrament? 2. Whether they may be debarred by di&s;&s;wa&s;ion only? 3. Whether by a juridical act? 4. In what ca&s;es or for what crimes they may be debarred? 5. By whom that juridical act may be exerted for the debarring of them? In the fir&s;t of the&s;e would be con&s;idered; whether a &s;en|tential debarring one the Sacrament, be not really an ex|communication? 2. Whether there is not a further degree of excommunication then this? 3. Whether its not lawfull to exert the fir&s;t when the latter is not? And in the fourth, It might be enquired further: How farre ignorance may be a cau&s;e of &s;u&s;pen&s;ion? 2. Whether the refu&s;ing of them who have never te&s;tified their under&s;tanding aright of their Bap|ti&s;mall engagements by a verbal profe&s;&s;ion thereof before the Church, or &s;ome appointed by the Church to receive the &s;ame, or at lea&s;t before &s;ome publique Mini&s;ter of the Church; whe|ther, I &s;ay, the refu&s;ing of them be any &s;u&s;pen&s;ion properly? or if only non admi&s;&s;ion, whether it be lawfull? and here would come in the bu&s;ine&s;&s;e of examination. But I expre&s;sly limited the Que&s;tion fir&s;t to be di&s;cu&s;&s;ed to an enquiry, whe|ther in any ca&s;e the parties above mentioned (baptized <HI>adult,</HI> and not fully excomminunicated) may be debarred the Sacra|ment, expre&s;sly &s;ecluding from our pre&s;ent di&s;pute tho&s;e inqui|ries, by whom and what power, and for what offences they may be debarred. And yet Mr. <HI>W.</HI> calls the&s;e my <HI>Limitations</HI> and explanations of the Que&s;tion, <HI>Extravagancies,</HI> and <HI>need|le&s;&s;e Inventions;</HI> when as their de&s;igne was to keep from ex|travagancies; and if he who took upon him to an&s;wer that paper, had duely ob&s;erved them (as was meet) his di&s;cour&s;e would have been much better, although much &s;horter, then it is.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 4.</HEAD>
<P>My fir&s;t limitation (which may be &s;eene at numb. (3) and (4) in the copy of my fir&s;t paper,) Mr. <HI>W.</HI> (I thinke) pretends
<PB N="15" REF="28">to an&s;wer or except again&s;t, or &s;ome &s;uch thing, I &s;uppo&s;e, he de&s;ignes, in his <HI>p.</HI> 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. where he di&s;cour&s;eth a|bout <HI>divine obligation to receive, bapti&s;mal regeneration, tolera|tion, examination, Church-con&s;titution,</HI> &amp;c. If in the&s;e words p. 8. <HI>The &s;eed of regeneration was (as to us) &s;own in their Bap|ti&s;me;</HI> he take regeneration for &s;anctification by inherent gra|cious qualities infu&s;ed, at the time of Bapti&s;me, I &s;hould be de&s;irous to &s;ee him prove what he a&s;&s;erts. As regeneration denotes in Scripture, adoption, ju&s;tification, and &s;o our rela|tive &s;tate, I can clo&s;e with the doctrine of &s;acramental regene|ration, yet in a &s;ober and wary &s;en&s;e. But Mr. <HI>W.</HI> his expre&s;|&s;ion concerning the <HI>&s;eed</HI> of regeneration, I feare is not capa|ble of that meaning. But this point hath no influence con&s;i|derable, that I can di&s;cerne upon our Controver&s;ie; therefore I &s;hall not launch out into it. The other things Mr. <HI>W.</HI> here hath in the&s;e pages, will occurre more then once beneath.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 5.</HEAD>
<P>In my &s;econd note, (numb. 5.) I &s;ecluded from the pre&s;ent Que&s;tion the con&s;ideration of the &s;ubject of the power of &s;u&s;|pen&s;ion; and Mr. <HI>W.</HI> in an&s;wer hereto, &s;uppo&s;eth <HI>there is no need to enquire after the &s;ubject thereof,</HI> p. 13. Why might we not then here have agreed? But even in this place he will fetch in (though by head and &s;houlders) the mentioning of, <HI>illegal u&s;urpation, flat Browni&s;me, Rebaptization,</HI> &amp;c. What is the &s;ecluding, the con&s;ideration of the &s;ubject of &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, from our pre&s;ent que&s;tion, is this u&s;urpation, flat Browni&s;me, Rebaptization? If not, how come the&s;e in here? But &s;uch termes as the&s;e &s;erve for general Arguments (to them who are &s;o &s;illy as to be moved with them) and &s;o will thru&s;t in any where, as being indifferently calculated to fit every turne.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="6" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 6.</HEAD>
<P>My third note or limitation of the Que&s;tion (number 6.) &s;ecluded al&s;o from our pre&s;ent que&s;tion, the con&s;ideration of the kinde of power, whether <HI>of order</HI> or <HI>juri&s;diction,</HI> requi&s;ite for &s;u&s;pen&s;ion. To this Mr. <HI>W.</HI> an&s;wers, <HI>p.</HI> 14. <HI>They</HI> (he meanes my Antagoni&s;ts) <HI>hold there is no &s;uch kinde of &s;u&s;pending power as you &s;tand for, pre&s;cribed in the word of God, for refu&s;ing to &s;ubmit to your examination.&mdash;It is your u&s;urped kind of &s;u&s;|pen&s;ion they except again&s;t, as you your &s;elfe might have &s;cene, had you read their workes through, as you &s;natch at a piece.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. See now how nimble our learned Gentleman is, to evade the que&s;tion if he could. Is our que&s;tion, <HI>Whether per&s;ons may
<PB N="16" REF="29">be &s;u&s;pended for re&s;u&s;ing to &s;ubmit to examination;</HI> not that I re|fu&s;e to &s;peake to that in its due place; but fir&s;t we enquire whe|ther in any ca&s;e, for any crime, the per&s;ons before mentioned may be debarred? and that was Mr. <HI>Tim&s;ons</HI> po&s;ition before rehear&s;ed, viz. <HI>No unregenerate, or ignorant and &s;candalous members in the Church; being baptized, and of years not excom|municate, may be debarred the Lords Supper,</HI> &amp;c. It was not, none may be debarred for ignorance, or refu&s;ing to &s;ubmit to examination. But none though never &s;o &s;candalous members in the Church may be debarred. And this I oppo&s;ed; which Mr. <HI>W.</HI> &s;hould have defended, as he took upon him.</P>
<P N="2">2. Is not this a pretty &s;tating the que&s;tion Mr. <HI>W.</HI> here teach|eth and informes me in? viz. <HI>Whether is an u&s;urped kinde of &s;u&s;pen&s;ion lawfull?</HI> This is even like to the que&s;tion, <HI>Quot &s;unt quinque praedicabilia?</HI> But what are we the better for a|greeing in that que&s;tion, when as it pre&s;ently occurres; whe|ther there is any &s;u&s;pen&s;ion not u&s;urped?</P>
<P N="3">3. But indeed I &s;ee no Antagoni&s;t who is &s;o &s;illy as to &s;tate the que&s;tion on that fa&s;hion; though Mr. <HI>W.</HI> &s;ay if I had read their works through, I might have &s;eene, it is our u&s;urped kind of &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, that they except again&s;t. Alas! good man! how indu&s;trious is he to make the world believe I am a man of no reading? I will not goe about to per&s;wade them of the con|trary. Yet I mu&s;t needs &s;ay I had read through divers Au|thors again&s;t &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, and particularly Mr. <HI>Timp&s;ons</HI> bookes, before I drew up tho&s;e lines which Mr. <HI>W.</HI> hath a&s;&s;aulted. I would not have told this, but that I apprehend it will be no matter of glory and commendation to me; and it affords an argument &s;omewhat probable in mine opinion to evince that Mr. <HI>W.</HI> is not infallible, who in&s;inuates (el&s;where as well as in this place) my not reading <HI>Tim&s;ons</HI> works through, but &s;natch|ing at a piece. I hope he will not be offended at our catching the piece of the P&s;alme following for our &s;olace a while.</P>
<EPIGRAPH>
<Q><BIBL>PSAL. 119. PART 1. <HI>A.</HI></BIBL>
<L N="1">1 <HI>ALL &s;uch are ble&s;t, who perfect are,</HI></L>
<L><HI>who&s;e fect Gods wayes do pace.</HI></L>
<L N="2">2 <HI>About his Lawes they take most care;</HI></L>
<L><HI>with whole hearts &s;eeke his face.</HI></L>
<L N="3">3 <HI>Al&s;o, they do nothing unjust,</HI></L>
<L><HI>But Gods good pathes frequent.</HI></L>
<PB N="17" REF="29">
<L N="4">4 <HI>As thou (Lord) bid'st &s;trictly we mu&s;t</HI></L>
<L><HI>keep thy Commandement.</HI></L>
<L N="5">5 <HI>Ah! that &s;ound guidance might me teach,</HI></L>
<L><HI>to keep thy &s;tatutes high!</HI></L>
<L N="6">6 <HI>And then foul &s;hame &s;hall ne're me reach,</HI></L>
<L><HI>who all thy Lawes do eye.</HI></L>
<L N="7">7 <HI>A right heart in me &s;hall thee prai&s;e,</HI></L>
<L><HI>taught in thy judgments ju&s;t;</HI></L>
<L N="8">8 <HI>And I will keep thy &s;tatute-wayes:</HI></L>
<L><HI>O leave me not poor du&s;t!</HI></L></Q>
</EPIGRAPH>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. II.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 1.</HEAD>
<P>IN my fourth note (at number 7, 8, 9.) I &s;aid that my Anta|goni&s;ts by [excommunicate], under&s;tand them who are de|bar'd from all publick Ordinances in the Church, as hearing, praying, &amp;c. And therefore if: I prove the per&s;on &s;poken of in the que&s;tion, not debar'd from the&s;e, may yet be debar'd the Sacrament, it cannot be denied I &s;hal rightly conclude again&s;t their a&s;&s;ertion; wherein I do not declare any thing of my own judgment concerning Excommunication, but &s;peak onely <HI>ad hominem.</HI></P>
<P>And here though Mr. <HI>W.</HI> hath not a word again&s;t the Con|tents of this Note, he carries it as if he would &s;eem to con|fute it, by 1. rendring <HI>extra communionem ejectio,</HI> an ejection out of the common union (as if there were not degrees of communion, and &s;o not of an ejection out of communion). 2. by rambling about the <HI>Jus Divinum,</HI> without any occa&s;ion at all mini&s;tred by any thing I had &s;poken here in this note. for his mentioning the &s;ame. 3. By concluding thus: <HI>But for your full overthrowing of our a&s;&s;ertion, we &s;hall believe it when we &s;ee it. We believe you cannot, I am &s;ure you do not:</HI> What needed this vapour here? The man is prodigall of them being &s;ufficientiy &s;tockt for the large&s;t expence of them. I boa&s;ted not of a full overthrow of their a&s;&s;ertion, but &s;aid, That if I prove a per&s;on baptized, adult, intelligent, and not de|barred the publick Ordinances of hearing, praying, &amp;c. in the Church, I &s;hall then fully overthrow their a&s;&s;ertion which holds none baptized, adult, intelligent, and not ex|communicated
<PB N="18" REF="30">may be debarred. The which Mr. <HI>W.</HI> doth not deny, yea he grants it in &s;everal pa&s;&s;ages of his Book, expre&s;&s;y or by con&s;equence. But the former particular about <HI>Divine right,</HI> he is often upon: and he &s;o often (as di&s;turb'd if not intoxicated with pa&s;&s;ion) reels into di&s;cour&s;es concerning prudentials, and <HI>Jus Divinum,</HI> charging me for excluding all prudentials from Church-government, that his importunity wil force me to trouble the Reader with &s;ome &s;hort account of my apprehen&s;ions concerning the&s;e things, he &s;o pitifully raves upon throughout his Book.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect; 2.</HEAD>
<P N="1">1. The Lawes of Chri&s;tianity are given to men &s;uppo|&s;ed not altogether de&s;titute of right Rea&s;on, &s;ome beams of the Image of God, &s;ome remains of that &s;ignature imprinted on man at his fir&s;t creation, &s;till continuing upon him. And men are not called to lay a&s;ide any of their natural right Rea|&s;on in their becoming Chri&s;tians; but rather by Chri&s;tian helps to attain to an higher improvement, to a more noble elevation and u&s;e thereof. And therefore what&s;oever right Rea&s;on doth dictate in re&s;pect of government in generall, agreeing to all government as &s;uch, (as it doth in many things) Chri&s;tians are to make u&s;e thereof in reference to Eccle&s;ia&s;ti|cal government. Alwayes provided, that that mu&s;t not be accounted right Rea&s;on, which thwarts the ble&s;&s;ed Scriptures, which &s;hould ever prevail again&s;t any conceit of our own. Right Rea&s;on it &s;elf teaching us, that God is infinitely wi&s;er then we, and that Chri&s;ts lawes mu&s;t be obeyed, not di&s;puted, when once they appear to be his lawes. But the light of Na|ture (the &s;pirit of man, that candle of the Lord,) doth direct in many whol&s;ome things, for the due ordering of any &s;ociety in a &s;uitablene&s;s to the end for which the a&s;&s;ociation thereof is lawfully made; whether <HI>Civill,</HI> in Families, Towns, King|domes, States; or <HI>Eccle&s;iasticall</HI> in particular Churches, or in the a&s;&s;ociations of particular Churches, greater or le&s;&s;er</P>
<P N="2">2. Yea, the law of Nature, or Naturall Rea&s;on, is part of Chri&s;ts law, whereby he rules his Church. And therefore Chri&s;tians not onely may, but ought to act prudentially in the admini&s;tration of Church affairs, as well as in other things, and to make u&s;e of all the light of Rea&s;on in pur&s;uing that general Rule, <HI>Let all things be done decently, and in order.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. Yet in Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall government Chri&s;t the King of his Church hath given us many po&s;itive Directions in his Word,
<PB N="19" REF="30">partly by expre&s;s preceptive Rules, and partly by obligatory pre&s;idents and examples, &s;uch e&s;pecially as were not &s;uited to any temporary account of tho&s;e times, and the condition there|of; but who&s;e ground and rea&s;on &s;till continues in all the &s;ucceeding ages and conditions of the Church. The&s;e are Ec|cle&s;ia&s;ticall con&s;titutions on a <HI>Divine right &s;imply and &s;trictly.</HI> From the&s;e we may not digre&s;s upon any pretence of Rea&s;on what&s;oever. Yea becau&s;e we mu&s;t act rationally, therefore we mu&s;t clo&s;e with all the&s;e the directions of wi&s;dome it &s;elf; and deal with all our conceits and humours making in&s;urrections again&s;t the &s;ame, as with mutiners which are in rebellion again&s;t their Lord and Ma&s;ter.</P>
<P N="4">4. In a larger &s;en&s;e al&s;o a government may be &s;aid to be by <HI>Divine right,</HI> not onely in reference to its compliance with the fore&s;aid po&s;itive Scripture rules and binding exam|ples, but al&s;o in re&s;pect of its rationall &s;uitablene&s;s to godly prudence, for the order and edification of the Church, in things not particularly determined in the Scriptures, and yet neither expre&s;ly nor by con&s;equence thwarted by the &s;ame. And thus (I &s;uppo&s;e) who ever have owned a Church-government, they have thought it by Divine right, that is, that it was according to the Scriptures, and not contrary thereunto.</P>
<P N="5">5. And thus I was &s;atisfied to comply with the con&s;titutions of the Presbyterial government (the government in &s;ub&s;tance upon the matter of all the forraign Prote&s;tant Churches in Europe) compo&s;ed by a learned, pious, and judicious A&s;&s;em|bly, impo&s;ed by authority of both Hou&s;es of <HI>Parliament,</HI> when I fir&s;t &s;etled in this County, and by their Ordinance of <HI>Aug.</HI> 29. 1648. &s;till continued as much in force (for ought I know) as any other law, at lea&s;t as any other Ordinance of Parliament, divers whereof are acknowledged to be &s;till in force. Upon the apprehen&s;ion, I &s;ay, of the lawfulne&s;&s;e of the &s;aid government, partly upon a &s;trictly Scripturall account in the main things, and partly, <HI>viz.</HI> in le&s;&s;er matters, upon a rational, prudentiall account not contrary to the Scripture, I did and do &s;ubmit unto the &s;ame. And I doubt not if it had been faithfully pur&s;ued according to the religious de&s;ign and intention of the impo&s;ers thereof, the excellent fruits thereof through Gods ble&s;&s;ing. would have been &s;o great, as might have &s;ilenced the mo&s;t of its con&s;iderable adver&s;aries</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 3.</HEAD>
<P>In my fifth note. (at <HI>Numb.</HI> 10.11, 12, 13, 14.) I hinted
<PB N="20" REF="31">the ordinary and common di&s;tinction among reformed Di|vines, of the greater and le&s;&s;er Excommunication. Here Mr. <HI>W.</HI> crowes over me, as flying to the authority of men of &s;o late a &s;tanding, for proving the ab&s;tention pleaded for. Whereas any one (yea one who&s;e <HI>brains</HI> are as ill <HI>mar'd</HI> as he tells the world <HI>he fears mine are</HI>) may ea&s;ily perceive that I quoted them not to prove &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, but to &s;hew that they called Su&s;pen&s;ion <HI>Le&s;&s;er Excommunication.</HI> And therefore tho&s;e who oppo&s;e the debarring of the &s;u&s;pended, &s;hould not have &s;tated this que|&s;tion, &s;imply concerning the unexcommunicate without di|&s;tinction. And yet for all Mr. <HI>W.</HI> &s;o much blames me for this, he him&s;elf quotes <HI>Peter Martyr,</HI> who (&s;aith he <HI>pag.</HI> 18.) being <HI>as great an Antiquary, and as great a reverencer of true Antiqui|ty as any of you, &s;aith, That though degrees of excommunication may ea&s;ily be proved from the writings of the Fathers, yet no &s;uch thing can be proved from Scripture.</HI> And Mr. <HI>W.</HI> gives his own judgment thus, pag. 20. 21. <HI>We deny not degrees unto excommu|nication, nor in excommmnication unto further degrees of &s;everity in ca&s;e of per&s;i&s;tance in ob&s;tinacy again&s;t the authority of the Church.</HI> To both which I an&s;wer, 1. Compari&s;ons are odi|ous. Doth Mr. <HI>W.</HI> know, that none who a&s;&s;ert &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, do excell <HI>Peter Martyr</HI> in knowledge and e&s;teem of Antiquity? Belike he thinks his tongue is his own, and he may talk at ran|dome. Our renowned <HI>U&s;her</HI> hath a glorious name in forreign Countries as well as in the&s;e Nations, for the Prince of Anti|quaries, who hath merited &s;uch an Epitaph as Doctor <HI>Hack|well</HI> in hs Apology for Gods providence, <HI>l.</HI> 3. c. 6. &sect;. 2. &s;aith was be&s;towed on that Phoenix of learning, <HI>Johannes Picus</HI> Earle of <HI>Mirandula.</HI>
<Q><L>Johanes jacet hic Mirandula caetera norunt,</L>
<L>Et Tagus &amp; Ganges, for&s;an &amp; Antipodes.</L></Q> Yet hath this our mo&s;t learned Doctor and Bi&s;hop pleaded for <HI>Su&s;pen&s;ion,</HI> and that as grounded upon the holy Scrip|ture, in his Body of Divinity, <HI>pag.</HI> 435. 2. Did the Fathers think their degrees of excommunication, which they admitted, were not regulated within Scripture-bounds? 3. If that de|grees of excommunication may be proved from the Fathers, how come tho&s;e who now plead for degrees of excommunica|tion, to be charged with novelty and innovation? and how came it to pa&s;&s;e, that Mr. <HI>W.</HI> in his Epi&s;tle pa&s;&s;ed his word to
<PB N="21" REF="31">the judicious Reader, that <HI>all men of reading know how much the Church government mentioned in, or collected from the Fa|thers, and in u&s;e in their dayes, differs from our mens pre&s;ent Mo|del?</HI> Immediatly before the&s;e words Mr. <HI>W.</HI> exclaim'd. <HI>High language!</HI> It may very fitly be the Title and Epithete of the&s;e his words following: What was <HI>Grotius</HI> no man of reading? &amp; was he not a man confe&s;&s;edly impartiall in this matter? who yet a&s;&s;erts the ruling Elder from antiquity. <HI>Imper. &s;um. potest circa &s;acra. c.</HI> 11. quoted by Mr. <HI>Blake. Covenant &s;ealed, cap.</HI> 7. &sect;. 16. Was our renowned <HI>Cambridge</HI> Profe&s;&s;or Doctor <HI>Whi|taker</HI> no man of reading? who in his Defence of his an&s;wer to <HI>Campions</HI> ten Rea&s;ons again&s;t <HI>Dureus, London.</HI> 1583. <HI>l,</HI> 9. <HI>de Sophi&s;matis. p. Mihi.</HI> 807. &s;aith, <Q><HI>Ita es ignarus ut e&s;&s;e in Chri&s;ti Eccle&s;ia presbyteros ne&s;cias, qui gubernationi tantum, non verbi aut &s;acramentorum admini&s;trationi operam darent? Art thou &s;uch an Ignoramus, as, to be ignorant that there are Elders in the Church of Chri&s;t, who &s;hould be im|ployed onely in governing, not in the admini&s;tration of the Word and Sacraments?</HI></Q> And he quotes 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 5.17. and <HI>Am|bro&s;e</HI> on it. And (<HI>p.</HI> 820) he tells the Papi&s;ts that <HI>Luther, Zuinglius, Bucer, Oecolampadius,</HI> and many others of our Re|formers, were Presbyters ordained by Popi&s;h Bi&s;hops, and then (to prove again&s;t them the lawfulne&s;s of our Mini&s;tery) that the&s;e being Presbyters, might ordain other Presbyters. <Q><HI>Tum &s;i Presbyteri erant, &amp; &s;unt presbyteri, jure Divino iidem, qui Epi&s;copi, alios etiam Eccle&s;iis presbyteros praeficere potue|runt.</HI> Yet he adds, <HI>Sed nolim exi&s;times a nobis ve&s;tros ordi|nes tanti fieri, ut &s;ine illis nullam e&s;&s;e legitimam vocationem &s;tatuamus, &amp;c.</HI></Q> Or is it the bu&s;ine&s;s of Su&s;pen&s;ion [the pre|tended &s;ubject of his Book] which he &s;aith, all <HI>men of reading</HI> know differs much from the Fathers; why then hath he ac|knowledged by <HI>Peter Martyrs</HI> mouth, that degrees of excom|munication may ea&s;ily be proved from the Writings of the Fathers? For there's no que&s;tion, I think, but &s;u&s;pen&s;ion will be allowed to be one degree, if degrees be once granted.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 4.</HEAD>
<P>But <HI>Aretius</HI> quoted by me as not again&s;t &s;u&s;pen&s;ion as a le&s;|&s;er excommunication (at <HI>Numb.</HI> 11.) Mr. <HI>W.</HI> takes him&s;elf &s;pecially concerned in, though yet he &s;aith, <HI>pag.</HI> 19. that <HI>he never engaged Aretius as oppo&s;ite to our &s;u&s;pen&s;ion.</HI> The rea&s;on of my mentioning <HI>Aretius,</HI> was an information I received
<PB N="22" REF="32">from him who de&s;ired my paper, that Mr. <HI>W.</HI> quoted <HI>Aretius</HI> again&s;t &s;u&s;pen&s;ion. And how ea&s;ily might Mr. <HI>W.</HI> have certi|fied his Pari&s;hioner of this mi&s;take, without troubling the world with it in Print; &s;ince he doth not di&s;prove in the lea&s;t, what I alledged concerning that Author: Yet that he may &s;eem not to &s;ay nothing, he will &s;hew that <HI>A|retius</HI> u&s;eth not, nor pleads for the di&s;tinction of greater and le&s;&s;er excommunication; which thing it is manife&s;t I did not affix on him.</P>
<P>But he hath here another, (and that belike no &s;mall) quar|rell. I cited <HI>Aretius his Common places,</HI> and Mr. <HI>W.</HI> &s;aith, <HI>He knowes no &s;uch Piece.</HI> I &s;hould have &s;aid his <HI>Problemes,</HI> as if his quarrel&s;omne&s;s were not more to be blamed then &s;uch a mi&s;take &s;uppo&s;ed. O how exact will Mr. <HI>W.</HI> have us to take him in the very names and editions of Books! But why may not <HI>Problemata</HI> be rendred in Engli&s;h <HI>Common places,</HI> my mo&s;t &s;evere Ma&s;ter? <HI>Aretius</HI> him&s;elf I hope may be allowed to give us the meaning of his own words (to &s;ave a labour of turning to <HI>Holy-oke</HI> under who&s;e leaf <HI>recubans &s;ub tegmine,</HI> Mr. <HI>W.</HI> beneath (<HI>p.</HI> 137.) would &s;helter him&s;elf) In my Book <HI>Edit. Lu&s;annae.</HI> 1578. the fir&s;t page thus begins. <HI>Problematum &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">u locorvm theologicorum pars altera.</HI> And it is likely Mr. <HI>W.</HI> his Book is of the &s;ame Edition, becau&s;e his quotation of <HI>pag.</HI> 48. which he hath <HI>p.</HI> 20. agrees with the 48. leaf of mine. If I &s;hould tell him I find no &s;uch thing as he quotes in the 48 page, but it is in the 48 leaf, &s;hould I not be ridiculous to him? and yet he might then &s;ee his own weakne&s;s in mine.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 5.</HEAD>
<P>But the &s;ub&s;tance and de&s;ign of my fifth note, was to &s;hew, that (as I apprehended) mine Antagoni&s;ts do deny the di|&s;tinction of greater and le&s;&s;er excommunication: and in &s;pecial they deny &s;u&s;pen&s;ion or ab&s;tention to be one degree of ex|communication, which may lawfully be exerted by it &s;elf again&s;t any per&s;on. And therefore in their a&s;&s;erting, that the per&s;ons &s;poken of in our que&s;tion, <HI>if not excommunicate may not be debarred,</HI> by [not excommunicate] they mean not cut off in our &s;en&s;e of full excommunication; and that otherwi&s;e they &s;hould but trifle. viz. if they took [excommunicate] for &s;uch as were under a le&s;&s;er degree of excommunication in our &s;en&s;e. The which is &s;o manife&s;t, that I &s;ee not how any man of rea&s;on can deny it. Now to this Mr. <HI>W.</HI> an&s;wers, <HI>pag.</HI> 23. <HI>Why put you your non-&s;en&s;e upon us, and &s;ay we egregiou&s;ly trifle,
<PB N="23" REF="32">unle&s;s we admit of degrees of excommunication in your &s;en&s;e?</HI> What &s;hal one do with a man who heeds not what he &s;aith? He chargeth me with putting and affixing on my Antagoni&s;ts, the di&s;tinction of greater and le&s;&s;er excommunication, unle&s;s they would be guilty of non-&s;en&s;e: whereas I did flatly re|move from them that di&s;tinction, and &s;aid, they did not ac|knowledge degrees of excommunication, particularly not this of Su&s;pen&s;ion, adding, that if they did own them in this que&s;tion (as they hold it) they &s;hould but trifle. And yet Mr. <HI>W.</HI> will needs face every body down, again&s;t the evidence of plain words before their eyes. And he talkes his plea&s;ure of Sophi&s;try and Impo&s;ture, and at la&s;t apeals to the judicious Reader, under who&s;e eye I willingly leave him with the paper he pretends to be an&s;wering. In the interim I will &s;tep a&s;ide to take a little refre&s;hing in the</P>
<EPIGRAPH>
<Q><BIBL>PSALM 119. 2^d part. <HI>B.</HI></BIBL>
<L N="9">V. 9 <HI>By what &s;hall you ths wayes clean&s;ed be?</HI></L>
<L><HI>By heeding holy Writ.</HI></L>
<L N="10">10 <HI>Behold my whole &s;oul hath &s;ought thee:</HI></L>
<L><HI>Let me not erre from it.</HI></L>
<L N="11">11 <HI>Becau&s;e I would not &s;in, thy word</HI></L>
<L><HI>I hid in heart and will.</HI></L>
<L N="12">12 <HI>Ble&s;&s;ed art thou most mighty Lord,</HI></L>
<L><HI>Teach me thy Statutes &s;till:</HI></L>
<L N="13">13 <HI>By my lips have declared bin</HI></L>
<L><HI>The Judgments of thy mouth.</HI></L>
<L N="14">14 <HI>By Riches none more mirth can win</HI></L>
<L><HI>Then I have by thy Truth.</HI></L>
<L N="15">15 <HI>Bu&s;y'd in thy Precepts I mu&s;e,</HI></L>
<L><HI>And all thy wayes re&s;pect,</HI></L>
<L N="16">16 <HI>By them all joy to me accrues,</HI></L>
<L><HI>Thy Word I'le not forget.</HI></L></Q>
</EPIGRAPH>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="3" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. III.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 1.</HEAD>
<P>THe terms of <HI>Excommunication full,</HI> or <HI>not full,</HI> &s;undry times do occurre in the following Argument. The&s;e
<PB N="24" REF="33">Mr. <HI>W.</HI> rejects as <HI>adokima's,</HI> as <HI>fooleries,</HI> as <HI>not con&s;iderable, &amp;c.</HI> and in a fume <HI>piping</HI> hot, he fancies the <HI>bag-pipes</HI> when he hears them named (<HI>p.</HI> 151) Such arguments as the&s;e mu&s;t be his <HI>apodicticall proofs</HI> again&s;t them, in refuting whereof belike his friends think I &s;hal be hard put to; and they conjecture not a|mi&s;s, I &s;hal hardly devi&s;e a reply weak enough to bear a fit pro|tion to &s;uch &s;orry preten&s;ions. But in &s;tead thereof I &s;hal judge it requi&s;ite to offer &s;omewhat concerning excommunication, and that di&s;tinction of it, &s;ubmitting the &s;ame in all humility, to the &s;ober and judicious; as followeth.</P>
<P N="1">1. The con&s;ideration and &s;trict peru&s;all of the places and phra&s;es of Scripture treating on this matter, is the be&s;t foun|dation of a right knowledge and di&s;cerning hereof.</P>
<P N="2">2. Yet &s;ome places &s;peak of an excommunication which is not pertinent to our times, or at lea&s;t not to our pre&s;ent con|trover&s;ie. I mean that excommunication by way of <HI>Anathema|tizing</HI> and cur&s;ing an incurable offender; to which kind <HI>Po|lanus</HI> (<HI>Syntag. l.</HI> 7. <HI>c.</HI> 18.) referres, <HI>Gal.</HI> 1.8. and <HI>Rom.</HI> 9.3. which he calls the <HI>&s;implex anathema,</HI> and 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 16.22. called <HI>Anathema maranatha.</HI> And that <HI>cutting off</HI> mentioned <HI>Gal.</HI> 5.12. (not to &s;peak of <HI>Hierome</HI> and <HI>Grotius</HI> their interpretation of it, for the &s;moothing or di&s;membring the parts of tho&s;e Hereticks who &s;o much pre&s;&s;ed circumci&s;ion) It is by the lear|ned Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> made parallel to that of 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 16.22. <HI>viz.</HI> (as he &s;aith on the place) <HI>as an expre&s;&s;ion of excommunica|tion of the highe&s;t degree, an&s;werable to the</HI> SHAMATHA <HI>among the Jewes;</HI> which he explained on 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 16.22. <HI>to be excommunicated from the hope of the Lord,</HI> and <HI>as leaving the offender to Divine vengeance</HI> (agreeable to the denunciation of <HI>Enoch,</HI> Jude v. 14.) which is denounced again&s;t them who <HI>love not Chri&s;t,</HI> that is, as he excellently expounds it, who fall from Chri&s;t, by renouncing of him to avoid per&s;ecution, e&s;pecially if teachers of others, &s;o to do, and ju&s;tifying the thing as lawfull, as it is &s;aid the <HI>Gno&s;ticks</HI> did. See Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> in Apoc. 21.8. denying the Lord (before men) who bought them.</P>
<P N="3">3. That phra&s;e al&s;o of <HI>[delivering to Satan]</HI> though a tole|rable &s;en&s;e of it, may be, and is accommodated to the ordi|nary excommunication &s;till in u&s;e in the Church; yet many, if not mo&s;t, learned Interpreters think, it had a further and more peculiar &s;en&s;e in tho&s;e Apo&s;tolicall times, which the Church doth not now look at nor expect, <HI>viz.</HI> the
<PB N="25" REF="33">externall buffeting the offender by Satan.</P>
<P N="4">4. There are two other pa&s;&s;ages, which though they are by divers referred to &s;ome excommunication, yet I think we can build little or nothing upon them, in the explication of this point The fir&s;t is, <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>to be ca&s;t out of the Sy|nagogue,</HI> u&s;ed <HI>John</HI> 9.22. and 14.42. and 16.2. Now this is ap|plyed only to the Jewes their wicked practice again&s;t them who owned Chri&s;t; and the phra&s;e is no where (that I know of) ju&s;tified by Chri&s;t or his Apo&s;tles. And me thinks we have little rea&s;on to &s;eek for the nature of Chri&s;ts Otdinance in the vile practice of his enemies taken by it &s;elf.</P>
<P>The other pa&s;&s;age is in 3 <HI>John</HI> 10. where <HI>Diotrephes</HI> is &s;aid <HI>to ca&s;t</HI> the Chri&s;tian Jewes <HI>out of the Church,</HI> that is, a Church of the Gentile-Chri&s;tians. Let us a little peru&s;e the Text, which runs thus, <GAP DESC="foreign">.</P>
<P N="1">1. I would ask, Who are the&s;e he <HI>ca&s;t out of the Church?</HI> Not tho&s;e who <HI>would</HI> entertain the Jewi&s;h Chri&s;tian &s;tran|gers, there is no probability any would be &s;o &s;otti&s;h, as to ex|communicate them for their <HI>will, de&s;ire,</HI> or <HI>intention</HI> to have entertained tho&s;e gue&s;ts: and if tho&s;e he is &s;aid to have ca&s;t out, were the gue&s;ts them&s;elves called the brethren, then ex|communication cannot be here meant, becau&s;e they were not under the juri&s;diction of that Gentile-Church, nor any Officer therof, and &s;o could not be ca&s;t out of that particular Church in which they were not before. 2. It cannot be proved that <HI>Diotrephes</HI> was any Church-officer in that Church. <GAP DESC="foreign">, may &s;ignifie one who &s;eeks inordinatly, or a&s;&s;u|meth dignity, as well as one that u&s;eth immoderatly the &s;ame, and it is very probable (&s;aith Doctor <HI>Hammond,</HI> that this <HI>Dio|trephes did this without having any reall authority in the Church, as a pre&s;umptuous, confident bold per&s;on,</HI> and then his act in ca&s;ting any out of the Church, would not be accounted a &s;en|tential excommunication. 3. The word <GAP DESC="foreign"> is frequent|ly u&s;ed in the New Te&s;tament to &s;ignifie <HI>any hindring,</HI> although it be not by any act authoritative forbidding, nor pretend thereunto, and is rendred <HI>to hinder, Luke</HI> 11.52. and to <HI>with|&s;tand,</HI> Acts. 11.17. and <HI>to let. Rom.</HI> 1.13. and therefore that pa&s;&s;age wherein this <HI>Diotrephes</HI> is &s;aid to <HI>forbid,</HI> or <HI>hinder,</HI> and <HI>withstand</HI> them, who would be more ho&s;pitable then him|&s;elf, doth not invite us at all to interpret the following words of any authoritative Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall cen&s;ure. Upon the
<PB N="26" REF="34">whole matter I humbly conceive, that this pa&s;&s;age here, <HI>[He ca&s;ts them out of the Church]</HI> doth denote nothing el&s;e, but his thru&s;ting out the Jewi&s;h gue&s;ts from being kindly har|boured, telieved and accommodated in that Church, he by his factious and pragmatical endeavours (taking upon him to be thought &s;ome body more then ordinary,) laboured to draw the Church to joyn with him in that inho&s;pitality, wherein he had among many too good &s;ucce&s;&s;e. But I &s;hall not contend in this, onely I have &s;ignified the probabilities which incline me to conceive that Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall excommunication is not &s;trictly &s;ignified by the phra&s;e of <HI>[ca&s;ting out of the Church]</HI> here u&s;ed; at lea&s;t that it is &s;o dubious, that it will be no founda|tion &s;tone in the Doctrine of Excommunication.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 3.</HEAD>
<P>I &s;hall now proceed to con&s;ider the le&s;s que&s;tionable and more plain phra&s;es and pa&s;&s;ages in the New Te&s;tament, where|by excommunication is intimated, which are &s;uch as the&s;e.</P>
<P><HI>Let him be to thee as an Heathen and Publican, Matth.</HI> 18.17. that is in &s;ome re&s;pects, as to thy behaviour towards him, and e&s;teem of him, as generally the Interpreters I meet with do under&s;tand it.</P>
<P><HI>To bind on earth,</HI> v. 18. doth al&s;o relate to the &s;ame thing. That fifth chapter of the fir&s;t Epi&s;tle to the Corinthians, hath mo&s;t in it concerning <HI>Excommunication,</HI> of any one chapter in the Bible. Here are &s;everall phra&s;es &s;ignifying the &s;ame thing. v. 2. That he who hath done this deed, might be <HI>taken away from you.</HI> So al&s;o v. 13. <HI>Put away from among your &s;elves</HI> that wicked per&s;on. The phra&s;e of <HI>delivering to Satan,</HI> u&s;ed ver&s;. 5. and 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 1.20. &s;o far as it may &s;ignifie what is yet of continued u&s;e in the Church, is commonly interpreted by the words of Chri&s;t before mentioned, <HI>Matth.</HI> 18.17. Let him be to thee as <HI>an Heathen and Publican.</HI> Satan being vi&s;ibly the God of the Infidell world, and of the manife&s;tly and no|toriou&s;ly prophane and wicked men, as the Publicans though Jewes, were accounted by their own Nation. But there are in this chapter two more expre&s;&s;ions concerning excomunication, which we mu&s;t &s;omwhat more in&s;i&s;t upon, e&s;pecially the for|mer, which wil help to clear the later. The one of the&s;e in v. 9. and 11. <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>I wrote to you in an Epistle, not to keep company with fornicators, &amp;c.</HI> the meaning wherof he cau|tions again&s;t mi&s;take, v. 10. <HI>yet not altogether with Fornica-tors of this world.</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> may be ren|dred
<PB N="27" REF="34"><HI>not at all,</HI> as 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 16.12. or <HI>in no wi&s;e,</HI> as <HI>Rom.</HI> 3.9. or (ta|king <GAP DESC="foreign"> for an Adverb of confirming) not &s;urely, as <HI>Luke.</HI> 4.23. <HI>Act.</HI> 18.21. &amp; 21.22. &amp; 28.4. And <GAP DESC="foreign"> is not found in that ancient manu&s;cript, which the profoundly learned Do|ctor <HI>Hammond</HI> hath given us an account of, in what it differs from the other received Greek Copies. <HI>Qua&s;i dicat, What I wrote to you concerning your not keeping company, or not being mingled with fornicators; In that word [Fornicators] I meant, not at all,</HI> or <HI>&s;urely I meant not,</HI> or (at lea&s;t) <HI>I did not altogether mean the Fornicators of this world, &amp;c. For ye mu&s;t needs go out of this world.</HI> For with <HI>Calvin</HI> I &s;o under&s;tand tho&s;e words, <GAP DESC="foreign">, q. d. <HI>Quid o|pus e&s;t, vobis praeclpere de fili is &s;eculi, quando ut &s;emel renunci|a&s;tis mundo it a oportet vos ab ecorum on&s;ortio &s;ubducere; totus enim mundus in maligno po&s;itus e&s;t,</HI> &s;aith <HI>Calvin</HI> on the place. Neither doth it at all prejudice this interpretation, that <GAP DESC="foreign"> here &s;eems to be left out. For though &s;ometime it &s;ignifie and is rendred <HI>Then,</HI> as Matth. 12.42. 1 Cor. 7.14. yet it is al&s;o el&s;where but an <HI>expletive particle,</HI> &s;ignifying no more then <HI>nempe,</HI> to wit, &s;o, <HI>Act.</HI> 7.1. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 15.15. And (that I may further pur&s;ue this &s;en&s;e) 1. I humbly conceive the Corin|thians could &s;carce need &s;uch an admonition and in&s;truction, <HI>viz.</HI> that their &s;eparation from the world obliged them not to a totall &s;eparation from all per&s;ons not of the Church. 2. Divers learned Interpreters think that in this tenth ver&s;e, the Apo&s;tle referrs not to any Canonical. Epi&s;tle of his now lo&s;t: but to the &s;econd ver&s;e of this chapter, where he had ad|moni&s;hed them concerning their duty of withdrawing from Fornicators. And the <HI>vvv,</HI> or none in the beginning of the eleventh ver&s;e, is but an ordinary tran&s;ition. 3. The phra&s;e <GAP DESC="foreign">, is u&s;ed in Scripture but rarely: and then it is u&s;ed to &s;ignifie the Churches withdrawing from a brother offending. So it is manife&s;tly taken 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5.11. and 2 <HI>The&s;&s;.</HI> 3.14. and it is never el&s;e u&s;ed in the New Te&s;tament &s;ave in this ninth ver&s;e <GAP DESC="foreign">, therefore here it mu&s;t be &s;o &s;en&s;ed, unle&s;&s;e there were &s;ome cogent rea&s;on for the contrary, which to me appears not. And being thus &s;en&s;ed in <HI>v.</HI> 9. the <GAP DESC="foreign"> in the beginning of ver&s;e 10. mu&s;t be read, <HI>not at all,</HI> or to that purpo&s;e, and not, <HI>[not alto|gether,]</HI> whereby the <GAP DESC="foreign">, &s;hould be in part referred to the not keeping company with heathens, which is to Church or Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall withdrawing by way of cen&s;ure.</P>
<PB N="28" REF="35">
<P N="4">4. According to the &s;en&s;e our tran&s;lation hath of the tenth ver&s;e. (which many other learned Interpreters comply with) it &s;hould &s;eem but a temporary monition, <HI>of not altogether a|voyding the company of Heathens. viz.</HI> &s;o long as the altoge|ther avoyding them would nece&s;&s;itate the believers <HI>to go out of the world,</HI> or to have almo&s;t no conver&s;e with men. And then in a Chri&s;tian Nation we might have no conver&s;e at all with a heathen, which no one will a&s;&s;ert.</P>
<P N="5">5. What an har&s;h <HI>Ellip&s;is</HI> is there in the &s;en&s;e of our tran&s;la|tion? I <HI>wrote to you not to keep company (or to be mingled) with Fornicators, yet</HI> [here we mu&s;t &s;upply, I <HI>wrote not to you not to keep company</HI>] <HI>not altogether with the Fornicators of this world.</HI> But if you take it with the mo&s;t excellent Interpreter <HI>Calvin,</HI> it runs ea&s;ily, referring <GAP DESC="foreign">, not to <GAP DESC="foreign">, but to <GAP DESC="foreign">, the very la&s;t word before, q. d. <HI>I wrote to you not to keep company with Fornicators</HI> [we may either leave out <HI>[And]</HI> as the Kings <HI>M. S. Copy</HI> doth, or el&s;e tran&s;late it <HI>but!</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> being frequently an <HI>adver&s;ative particle,</HI> put for <GAP DESC="foreign">, as <HI>Stephanus</HI> &s;hewes in divers in&s;tances. See his <HI>Grae|co-lat. Concord. Nov. Test.</HI> in the word <GAP DESC="foreign">) <HI>But not at all the Fornicators of this world &mdash; for ye mu&s;t needs depart from the word:</HI> as if he &s;hould &s;ay, <HI>I me&agrave;nt not the heathen Idola|ters and fornicators, when I warned you not to keep company with fornicators: tho&s;e I was not &s;peaking of, for [or &s;ince that] yee ought to go out from them, the Church being called out of the world, and therefore ye ought not onely to &s;hun their &s;infull wayes, but that per&s;onall conver&s;e with them which might coun|tenance them therein, or endanger your &s;elves thereby. This I thought not needfull to admoni&s;h you of, you knew it well enough before. But now I have written to you, not to keep company with a wicked brother, &amp;c.</HI> And thus I have &s;hewed (in clearing the context) that <GAP DESC="foreign"> is peculiar to Eccle|&s;ia&s;ticall withdrawing, or excommunication, as it is u&s;ed in the New Te&s;tament.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 4.</HEAD>
<P>The other intimation of excommunication, we have in the later end of the eleventh ver&s;e of this. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5. <HI>not to eat,</HI> which as all agree, includes exclu&s;ion from the Lrods Supper; &s;o it's very probable it mu&s;t be extended &s;o far further, as to leave the wicked brother cen&s;ured under as great a &s;eparation from the privat familiarity of the church, as the heathen was. &s;ee the phra&s;e el&s;where u&s;ed, <HI>Luk</HI> 15.2. <HI>Acts</HI> 11.3. <HI>Gal.</HI> 2.12. I &s;uppo&s;e
<PB N="29" REF="35">there is little difference betwixt the import of this and the o|ther la&s;t mentioned. But here that is expre&s;&s;ed proverbially, or <HI>Symbolically,</HI> which there is more <HI>plainly.</HI> A per&s;ons eating with another, when he doth it upon choyce and de&s;ign, being a &s;ymbol of intimate friend&s;hip, and voluntary complacential communion with him. At lea&s;t &s;o it &s;eems to have been in tho&s;e times of Chri&s;t and his Apo&s;tles, <HI>Matth.</HI> 11.18, 19. The whole &s;ignificancy of the phra&s;e as to the pre&s;ent point, is grounded on the opinion and cu&s;tome of the time and place, where eating with any as afore&s;aid, is notoriou&s;ly reputed to be an owning of the cour&s;es of them with whom we eat or drink, and a te&s;tification of that complacentiall re&s;pect to them which may probably harden them in their wickedne&s;&s;e, and incourage others in the &s;ame: there <HI>not to eat</HI> is a nece&s;|&s;ary withdrawing or not mingling our &s;elves. But where <HI>eat|ing with,</HI> is not a probable &s;ign of <HI>countenancing of them,</HI> as a|fore&s;aid; and there are more evident &s;ighes of di&s;countenan|cing them manife&s;ted at that time, I &s;uppo&s;e that phra&s;e then and there cea&s;eth to &s;ignifie the withdrawing mentio|ned in this chapter. The learned Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> thus pa|raphra&s;eth on this eleventh ver&s;e <Q>But the purpo&s;e of my writing is onely to interdict you that free encouraging con|ver&s;e with Chri&s;tian profe&s;&s;ors guilty of any of the&s;e &s;en|&s;uall heathen &s;ins, u&s;ed by Idolaters: and to command that with &s;uch an one, you enter not any friendly commerce, &s;o much as to eat with him; much le&s;s to admit him to the Sacrament, or the fea&s;t that attends that, untill he do re|form.</Q></P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 5.</HEAD>
<P>Another phra&s;e is u&s;ed, <HI>Rom.</HI> 16.17. <HI>Mark them who cau&s;e divi&s;ions and offences contrary to the doctrine ye have learned, &amp; avoyd them.</HI> It mu&s;t be confe&s;&s;ed, &s;ome learned Interpreters make this exhortation parallel to that of our Saviours, <HI>Be|ware of fal&s;e prophets</HI>&mdash;and that Chri&s;t his &s;heep &s;hould <HI>not hear, but fly from the voyce of the &s;tranger and &s;al&s;e &s;hepheard.</HI> But others interpret it of di&s;countenancing tho&s;e &s;editious per|&s;ons, by &s;hunning communion with them. <HI>"From &s;uch ye are to &s;eparate, that others may not be deceived, by taking them for men as orthodox as any,</HI> as Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> paraphra&s;eth it. And <HI>Paraeus</HI> &s;aith, <HI>Hos igitur, ob&s;ervari &amp; vitari, hoc e&s;t, ab Eccle&s;iae con&s;ortio excludi monet Apostolus.</HI> And he paral|lels it with <HI>Titus</HI> 3.10. A <HI>man that is an heretick after
<PB N="30" REF="36">the first and &s;econd admonition, reject.</HI> Which is another Scri|ture phra&s;e referring to the ca&s;ting of a per&s;on out of the com|munion of the Church.</P>
<P>In the 2 <HI>The&s;&s;.</HI> 3. There are two other phra&s;es, both relating to the denying &s;ome communion to di&s;orderly Chri&s;tians. Many think the&s;e, e&s;pecially the first of the&s;e, belong not to any authoritative &s;ententiall excommunication pronounced and declared by the Officers of the Church, but &s;hew the du|ty lying on all Chri&s;tians to u&s;e their own di&s;cretion to di&s;cern and &s;eperate from the&s;e offenders, &s;o far as concerned them in their places and &s;tations. The fir&s;t of them is at ver&s;e 6. <HI>We command you brethren to withdraw your &s;elves from every brother that walketh di&s;orderly.</HI> And the later is at ver&s;e 14. <HI>If any man obey not our word by this Epistle, note that man, and have no company with him that he may be a&s;hamed, yet count him not as an enemy, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>That al&s;o is a denying of &s;ome Chri&s;tian communion, which the Apo&s;tle exhorts to in the third Epi&s;tle of <HI>John,</HI> ver&s;e 10, 11. <HI>If there come any to you and bring not this doctrine</HI> (that is, a doctrine contrary to the doctrine they had received before mentioned) <HI>receive him not into your hou&s;e, nor bid him god &s;peed. For he that biddeth him god &s;peed is partaker of his evill deeds,</HI> the which Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> interprets of the wicked and Apo|&s;tatizing Chri&s;tian Gno&s;ticks, who taught men to deny Chri&s;t in time of per&s;ecution.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="6" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 6.</HEAD>
<P>From the&s;e hints the Scripture gives us <HI>about withdrawing communion from wicked Christians,</HI> duely peru&s;ed, we may ga|ther,</P>
<P N="1">(1.) That <HI>Excommunication</HI> is no <HI>Scripture word,</HI> but is u&s;ed by the Church to <HI>&s;ignifie all that ju&s;t Eccle&s;iastical &s;eve|rity, which over and be&s;ides admonition, is to be u&s;ed towards a wicked brother in re&s;pect of the Churches behaviour towards him, for the reclaiming of him, ond freeing the Church from the pollu|tion of his intimate &s;ociety.</HI> For this de&s;cription doth agree to the texts before mentioned, as is manife&s;t; and therefore if excommunication do &s;ignifie what is the &s;en&s;e of tho&s;e texts, we &s;hall not in the de&s;cription afore&s;aid, mi&s;conceive the im|portance of it.</P>
<P>That it is a part of Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall &s;everity no one doubts, all the texts mentioned do evince that. That it is all that Ec|cle&s;ia&s;ticall &s;everity the Church and members thereof do make
<PB N="31" REF="36">u&s;e of, be&s;ides admonition, will not, I think, be que&s;tioned; becau&s;e &s;o generally Authors do make <HI>Admonition</HI> and <HI>Excom|munication</HI> the only divident members of Church cen&s;ures in generall: and becau&s;e al&s;o neither the texts quoted, nor any other, do give ground for adding a third part of Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall cen&s;ure di&s;tinct from the&s;e. The re&s;t of the de&s;cription al&s;o is &s;o plain in the texts, that I &s;hall not in&s;i&s;t upon any of the particulars thereof, <HI>viz.</HI> that the object of Excommunication is a wicked Brother; that it is inflicted by the Church, and the members thereof, and that for the ends mentioned. It is im|plyed in <HI>ju&s;t</HI> Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall &s;everity, that it is done according to the appointment of Je&s;us Chri&s;t.</P>
<P N="2">(2.) Excommunication is nothing el&s;e but a <HI>Su&s;pen&s;ion</HI> of a <HI>per&s;on at pre&s;ent from per&s;onal priviledges;</HI> &amp; not a <HI>cuttig him off &s;imply from the Church.</HI> But (as I &s;aid) a &s;u&s;pending him from the priviledges, which as an orderly Church-member he might rightfully enjoy. Mr. <HI>W.</HI> renders <HI>extra communionem ejectio,</HI> an ejection out of the common union. <HI>p.</HI> 15.</P>
<P>But though &s;ome excommunicate per&s;ons are to be dealt with (in &s;ome eminent re&s;pects) as if they were cut off from, and were none of the Church, in reference whereto it is ordinary for Divines to &s;peak of them as <HI>cut off.</HI> Yet they are not <HI>&s;im|ply cut off</HI> from all <HI>union with the Church</HI> thereby, nor are &s;o to he reputed; which may be evinced from the forementioned Scriptures.</P>
<P>For 1. he that is mo&s;t <HI>excommunicate</HI> according to tho&s;e Scriptures, is to be <HI>but as an heathen,</HI> therefore not an hea|then. <HI>Simile qu&acirc; &s;imile non e&s;t idem.</HI> Now if he were <HI>&s;imply cut off</HI> he &s;hould be an <HI>heathen,</HI> and not onely <HI>as an heathen.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. Some excommunicate are to be accounted as <HI>Bre|thren,</HI> 2 <HI>The&s;&s;.</HI> 3.15. Therefore they are not reputed no <HI>Church-members.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. The Pa&s;tors are to have a pa&s;torall care over the excom|municate, and they and other Church members are &s;till to <HI>admoni&s;h him</HI> as a brother.</P>
<P N="4">4. He is onely as a &s;ick per&s;on under cure and Church re|medies in order to his recovery. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5.5. <HI>Mat.</HI> 18.15. 1 Tim. 1.20. Now there is no phy&s;icking of a member &s;imply cut off.</P>
<P N="5">5. He is obliged to hear the word as a Church-member, and to receive admonitions in publick and private. For he is tied by vertue of the bapti&s;mall Covenant he hath profe&s;&s;edly en|tred
<PB N="32" REF="37">into, to exerci&s;e him&s;elf in all the ordinances of Chri&s;t he hath opportunity for, as he hath for hearing the word as well as an heathen, with hope of receiving good thereby; and for &s;ome other ordinances it is &s;aid that he loo&s;eth at pre&s;ent <HI>po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ionem</HI> rather then <HI>jus,</HI> as Mr <HI>Rutherford</HI> expre&s;|&s;eth it, and explains it by the &s;imilitude of a man having three hou&s;es, who is for &s;ome offence confined to &s;ome one of them, and &s;eque&s;tred from the other, &s;o as he may not make u&s;e of them.</P>
<P N="6">6. If he were made no Church-member by excommunica|tion, he &s;hould upon his repentance be rebaptized: and &s;o the Donati&s;ts rebaptized tho&s;e who came into their Societies, which was rea&s;onable enough upon &s;uppo&s;ition that they were before no members of the vi&s;ible Church, as Mr. <HI>W.</HI> &s;peaks. <HI>pag.</HI> 22. 23. and <HI>pa&s;&s;im alibi.</HI> But the excommu|nicate when readmitted are not to be rebaptized, therefore they were not reputed &s;imply no Church-members whiles they were excommunicate.</P>
<P N="7">7. All (&s;ay they) are <HI>cut off</HI> but <HI>conditionally,</HI> if they do not repent; therefore they are not cut off till that condition be fulfilled, which cannot be before their death, for ought we know; the <HI>&s;in again&s;t the Holy Gho&s;t,</HI> or the <HI>&s;in unto death,</HI> I &s;uppo&s;e can hardly (if at all) be known to be committed by any individuall per&s;on, &s;o as that the Church &s;hould conclude him ab&s;olutely irrecoverable. To &s;ay a per&s;on <HI>is cut off con|ditionally,</HI> includes he is <HI>not &s;imply and ab&s;olutely cut off,</HI> whiles that condition of his finall impenitency is not exi&s;tent and ac|compli&s;hed. Doctor <HI>Ricard Field</HI> of the Church, <HI>lib.</HI> 1. <HI>ch.</HI> 13, 14, 15. &s;hewes how tho&s;e three &s;orts of men who go out of the Church, <HI>viz.</HI> Schi&s;maticks, Hereticks, and notoriou&s;ly wicked per&s;ons who are excommunicate, do yet all of them remain &s;till <HI>parts of the Church of God.</HI> And concerning the la&s;t of them he thus &s;peaks <HI>ch.</HI> 15. <HI>Excommunication doth not wholly cut off the excommunicate from the vi&s;ible Church of God.</HI> <Q><HI>For they may and often do retain the intire pro&s;e&s;sion of &s;a|ving Truth, together with the Character of Bapti&s;me, which is the mark of Chri&s;tianity, and &s;o far forth notwith&s;tanding their di&s;obedience, still acknowledge them to be their lawfull Pa&s;tors and Guides, by who&s;e &s;entence they are excommuni|cate, that they would rather endure and &s;uffer any thing, then &s;chi&s;matically joyn them&s;elves to any other communion.</HI></Q> So he. And in the &s;ame chapter &s;peaking of &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, he &s;aith,
<PB N="33" REF="37">
<Q><HI>The le&s;&s;er excommunication excludeth onely from the Sacra|mentall pledges, and a&s;&s;urances of Gods love; which when it is pronounced again&s;t them that stubbornly &s;tand out, and will not yeeld them&s;elves to the Churches direction and di&s;po&s;ition, is properly named Excommunication.</HI></Q></P>
<P>I have the rather in&s;i&s;ted on this, becau&s;e of two con&s;e|quences which wil naturally and ea&s;ily flow from this doctrine, <HI>viz.</HI> 1. That the &s;cruple hinted by Mr. <HI>W. p.</HI> 133. and in&s;i&s;ted on by others (in oppo&s;ition to our ab&s;ten&s;ion, or &s;u&s;pen&s;ion) is manife&s;tly frivolous and groundle&s;s. They &s;ay, if a parent turn not his children out of doores, he will not deny them bread; and apply their <HI>&s;imile,</HI> that in like manner, tho&s;e who are not excommunicated, or not ca&s;t out of the Church, &s;hould not be denyed the Sacramentall bread in the Lords Sup|per.</P>
<P N="2">2. That Church-member&s;hip (taken at large) doth not give right to per&s;ons of years, to the Lords Supper. For then they who are cut off by any excommunication, &s;hould be ad|mitted; they being &s;till <HI>parts of the Church of God,</HI> as <HI>Field</HI> calls them.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="7" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 7.</HEAD>
<P N="3">(3.) Since excommunication is a withdrawing or rejecting of one from communion, hence it follows, that as communi|on is more or le&s;&s;e, &s;o this withdrawing (and therefore ex|communication) is capable of degrees, to be more or le&s;s. And &s;ome more notable degree may be denominated by one name, and another by another. Thus it was among the Jewes, the common nature of who&s;e <HI>excommunication was, a withdrawing from &s;ome communion, as ours is.</HI> Many of the learned have de&s;cribed theirs, in the three &s;peciall degrees of it: as <HI>Schindler pentaglot. in voce</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">. <HI>Gerrard. harm. Evang. c.</HI> 178. gives a &s;ummary account of them out of &s;e|veral Authors. The fir&s;t was truly a &s;eparation, or withdraw|ing. But the &s;econd was <HI>more &s;olemnly &s;uch. Qu&acirc; quis &s;olenni|ter in totius Eccle&s;iae con&s;pectu&mdash;exclu&s;us e&s;t.</HI> The word <HI>&s;o|lenniter</HI> &s;ome &s;uch man as Mr. <HI>W.</HI> would catch and cavill at; as he doth <HI>p.</HI> 18. again&s;t &s;uch a pa&s;&s;age in my papers. <HI>What</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>is your Su&s;pen&s;ion &s;uch an Apocryphall bu&s;ine&s;s that it de&s;erves no &s;olemnity in the managing thereof?</HI> Unto &s;uch in|con&s;iderable flirts I &s;hall not trouble my &s;elf nor the Reader with any an&s;wer. But I in&s;i&s;t not in de&s;cribing wherein the &s;everall &s;orts of their excommunication did con&s;i&s;t (there being
<PB N="34" REF="38">much difference among the learned in that. See Dr. <HI>Hammond</HI> on 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5.) But that there were &s;everall &s;orts; and in tho&s;e, that one was a &s;everer degree of exclu&s;ion or &s;eparation and withdrawing from, then another. The four degrees or &s;teps in the cen&s;ure of excommunication among the Greeks for|merly, are mentioned by mo&s;t who have written on this con|trover&s;ie. The <HI>&s;tantes, &s;uccumbentes. audientes</HI> and <HI>plorantes.</HI> But the Gentlemen who oppo&s;e us alledge, that tho&s;e were <HI>&s;teps in readmi&s;sion of the excommunicate,</HI> not <HI>&s;teps or degrees in excommunication.</HI> But (though I confe&s;s this is an ingenuous an&s;wer, yet) methinks we may rationally inferre the lawful|ne&s;s of proceeding by &s;teps in excommunication, from that &s;uppo&s;ed lawfulne&s;s of admitting &s;everall &s;teps of delivering out of excommunication. Sure I am, there is as much ground in Scripture, (and rea&s;on too as I apprehend) for the former as there is for the later.</P>
<P>And that conceit of excommunication under the notion of a <HI>di&s;membring,</HI> and turning out or cutting off from Church-member&s;hip, being (I conceive) &s;ufficiently and clearly re|felled in the fore-going Section; this inference will appear much more evident and convincing. But I &s;hall offer here the&s;e two con&s;iderations, for the further confirming of gradual excommunication, or putting out of Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall commu|nion.</P>
<P N="1">1. If there be nothing in the nature of excommunication it &s;elf, which is again&s;t a graduall procedure in excommuni|cation, nor any Scripture prohibition of it, and if it be not contrary to the generall Rule of <HI>doing all things in the Church orderly and to edification;</HI> then it is lawfull: But the former is true; therefore the later al&s;o. That there is nothing in the nature of excommunication again&s;t it, hath been &s;hewed, in that <HI>withdrawing communion,</HI> which expre&s;&s;eth the nature of all excommunication is capable of degrees. That there is no Scripture prohibition hereof is to be reckoned upon, till &s;ome Scripture prohibition be produced, which I could never yet &s;ee, nor hear, &s;o much as pretended by any. Nor is it contrary to the Rule of orderly and edifying tran&s;action of affairs in the Church: &s;ince cour&s;es of mildne&s;s and gentle|ne&s;s are mo&s;t likely to edifie, when they thwart not Ju|&s;tice and Right, as tho&s;e do not which are not contrary to the Word, the Rule of Right and Ju&s;tice.</P>
<P N="2">2. Again, if a per&s;on may have no right to, yea ought to
<PB N="35" REF="38">be debarred the Sacrament, who yet ought not to be turned out of all that private Chri&s;tian communion, which &s;ome ex|comunication deprives of; then there may be degrees of ex|communication, or putting one out of Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall commu|nion, and particularly one degree of ab&s;ten&s;ion or &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, preceding (for &s;ome time) the withdrawing of private Chri|&s;tian communion. But the former is true; therefore the later. The Con&s;equence I &s;u&s;pect not the deniall of; the Antece|dent &s;tands firmly upon the&s;e two pillars, <HI>viz.</HI> 1. That no Chri&s;tian notoriou&s;ly under gro&s;s and &s;candalous wickedne&s;s, hath any right to the Sacrament, nor hath the Mini&s;ter any rightfull commi&s;&s;ion from the Donor or author of the Cove|nant and Seals thereof, to admini&s;ter or give the Sacrament unto him. As &s;uppo&s;e in point of faith, a notorious Heretique who denies a fundamentall of the Chri&s;tian Creed; or in point of manners, &s;uppo&s;e one hath committed whoredome, and it is notoriou&s;ly known; both the&s;e remaining vi&s;ibly impenitent, are uncapable of having the Lords Sup|per lawfully given unto them. And yet 2. an offender though &s;o notorious as in the forementioned ca&s;es, ought not forthwith to be rejected and turned out of all that Chri&s;tian private communion, which &s;ome excommunication deprives of. For the proof of the former of the&s;e two propo&s;itions, I mu&s;t crave the Readers patience, and (God willing) in the following di&s;cour&s;e he &s;hall find it (I hope) clearly and convincingly confirmed. The later of them I know none that deny. And there is Scripture-evidence for it. The heretick, <HI>Titus</HI> 3.10. is not to be rejected and ca&s;t out of all that private Chri|&s;tian communion, which &s;ome excommunication deprives of, till after the fir&s;t and &s;econd admonition, which are not to be given together and at one time, as all acknowledge; but at &s;ome di&s;tance. And a per&s;on is not thus to be rejected, till ob&s;tinate: Now ob&s;tinacy in wickedne&s;s (referring to faith or manners) cannot be &s;uddenly manife&s;ted, but requires &s;e|veral admonitions being to be rejected by an offender, before he can be declared ob&s;tinate.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="8" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 8.</HEAD>
<P N="4">(4) There are &s;undry &s;orts of per&s;ons in &s;undry capacities, concerned and exerci&s;ed in withdrawing from a &s;candalous brother. 1. The Mini&s;ters, the Stewards of the My&s;teries of God. 2, The people. 3. The whole Church of Officers and people together. The&s;e ought to be di&s;tinctly con&s;idered,
<PB N="36" REF="39">and not confounded, as too u&s;ually they are.</P>
<P N="1">1. The Mini&s;ter are exerci&s;ed herein, by the <HI>power of Or|der,</HI> which enables them to take cognizance of their capable or uncapable &s;ubjects of any of their admini&s;trations, as in reference to the reproof and admonition of &s;corners, &s;o e|pecially in reference to the Sacrament; (e&s;pecially where there is no governing Church which might over-&s;way their particular judgements of di&s;cretion.) And they are to bind and retain &s;ins. not onely by preaching the Word, and de|nouncing the judgements of God again&s;t &s;uch as walk in wicked cour&s;es indefinitely, <HI>Matth.</HI> 16.19. <HI>John</HI> 20.23. but al&s;o by with-holding the &s;acramentall pledges of Gods fa|vour (&s;o far as concerns their office and admini&s;tration there|of) from &s;uch as are manife&s;tly and notoriou&s;ly impenitent, though not yet declared ob&s;tinate in &s;uch gro&s;s wickedne&s;s: And much more are they to deny the Sacrament to them who are by Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall juridicall procedure manife&s;ted to be ob|&s;tinate in &s;uch &s;candalous prophanene&s;&s;e: this is included in (though not the whole of) tho&s;e texts directed to the Apo|&s;tles and Mini&s;ters, <HI>Matth.</HI> 18.17, 18. <HI>Titus</HI> 3.10. being compared with other Scriptures which authorize them to ad+mini&s;ter the Sacraments onely to obedientiall believers (of which we mu&s;t treat beneath) and therefore do inhibit their ad|mini&s;tring to any other.</P>
<P>Of this excommunication I &s;uppo&s;e they e&s;pecially &s;peak, who &s;ometimes de&s;eribe it with reference onely to a with|drawing from &s;acramentall communion. So <HI>Camero</HI> in one of his Epi&s;tles, <HI>inter opu&s;cula mifcellanea, pag. (mihi)</HI> 532. <HI>col.</HI> 2. thus &s;peaks, <Q><HI>Haec una e&s;t legitima excommunicatio, quare &s;ic defin<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">o: Excommunicatio e&s;t &s;ententia peecatori impeniten|tiam profitenti, vel reip&s;&acirc;, vel etiam verbo, denuncians peecata ejus non e&s;&s;e remi&s;&s;a, proinde&abque; abstinendum e&s;&s;e illi &s;acramen|torum u&s;u, quae &s;igilla &s;unt remi&s;sionis peccatorum.</HI></Q> And <HI>Calvia</HI> hath a pa&s;&s;age to the like purpo&s;e, in his 278 Epi&s;tle. <HI>Qui &s;u&s;pen&s;i &agrave; &s;acra coena proterv&egrave; judicium Eccle&s;iae re&s;puunt, declarant &s;e extraneos, ac proinde nihil &s;enioribus restare video, ni&s;i ut Magi&s;tatum ex&s;limulent ad cos durius coercendos: nam in poenis Eccle&s;iasticis ultima est excommunicatio.</HI> On this account I &s;uppo&s;e it is, that <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome</HI> &s;o much and vehemently warns Mini&s;ters, that they admit not &s;uch as they know to be under gro&s;s wickedne&s;s, to the Lords Table. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom. Hom.</HI> 60. <HI>ad populum Antiochenum de &s;umentibus indigne divina &amp; &s;ancta
<PB N="37" REF="39">my&s;teria.</HI> <Q><HI>Let no cruel, no unmercifull, no impure one any way approach. Haec tam ad vos qui communieatis, quam ad vos qui mini&s;tratis dicta e&s;&s;e volo&mdash; No &s;mall puni&s;hment hangs over your heads, if yee &s;uffer any one to partake of this Table, whom you know under wickedne&s;s: For his blood &s;hall be required at your hands. If a Captain, if the Con&s;ull him&s;elf, if he who hath the Diadem, approach unworthily, do thou hinder and re&s;train him.</HI></Q> &mdash; This he amplifies by one ha|ving the charge of keeping a Well clean. &mdash; And a little after the &s;ame Father adds, <Q><HI>But thou wilt &s;ay, How &s;hall I know this or that man, what he is? I di&s;pute not what &s;ins are unknown, but what are known. Dico horribile quoddam atque tremendum: non e&s;t ita malum demoniacos intus e&s;&s;e, &s;icut i&s;tos qui peccatorum &s;ordibus polluuntur. Illud enim pe&s;simum e&s;t, &s;icut</HI> Paulus <HI>ait, Chri&s;tum conculcare, &amp; Te&s;ta|menti &s;anguinem ducere communem, &amp; &s;piritus gratiam contemnere. Multo igitur Demoniaco pejor e&s;t, qui petccati &s;ibi con&s;cius accedit. &mdash; Let us therefore exclude all whom we &s;ee come unworthily &amp;c.</HI></Q> And that &s;peech of <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome</HI> is known &s;ufficiently, <Q><HI>I will &s;ooner give my life, then the Lords body to one unworthily: And I will &s;ooner endure my blood to be &s;pilt, then I will allow that most holy blood to any but the worthy.</HI></Q> So al&s;o in <HI>Cyprians</HI> time, to give or deny the communion was all one, as to give or deny the Churches peace. See his Epi&s;tle 54. <HI>Cyprianus, Liberalis, Caldonius, &amp;c. Cornelio fratri.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="9" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect; 9.</HEAD>
<P N="2">2. Private Chri&s;tians in the Church (wherein al&s;o are in|cluded the officers, con&s;idered in their private capacity com|mon to them with other members) are concerned and exerci|&s;ed in excommunication or withdrawing communion. For to them as &s;uch, &s;eem tho&s;e in&s;tructive directions and precepts to belong, 2 <HI>The&s;&s;.</HI> 3.6, 14. <HI>Rom.</HI> 16.17.3 <HI>Ioh.</HI> ver&s;e 10.11. to withdraw from and avoyd, and not entertain &s;ome noto|rious offenders: yea, and that whether the&s;e offenders are cen&s;ured and declared to be &s;uch by the governing Church or no. Indeed it is mo&s;t orderly, that the Guides and Officers go before and direct the people concerning &s;uch as are to be avoyded. yet are not the people excu&s;ed in their neglect of withdrawing communion (in their places and &s;tations, <HI>viz.</HI> as to private encouraging intimate communion) from noto|rious ob&s;tinate offenders, although their &s;pirituall Governors
<PB N="38" REF="40">enjoyn them not this withdrawing from the fore&s;aid ob&s;tinate notorious offenders. For the&s;e Scriptures do ab&s;olutely com|mand this withdrawing, and give no &s;uch di&s;pen&s;ation to the people in ca&s;e of the negligence of their guides. And when the people follow the injunctions of their Officers herein, (as being thereby and therewith &s;atisfied concerning the ob&s;ti|nate wickedne&s;&s;e of &s;uch particular offenders) they do clo&s;e therewith not meerly becau&s;e the governing Church requires this, (for then they &s;hould be bound &s;o to withdraw from any whom their leaders may warn them to avoyd;) but e&s;pecial|ly becau&s;e they are &s;atisfied in their opinion of the integrities and abilities of their guides, or by their per&s;onal knowledge of the parties cen&s;ured, or by &s;ome other way, that the&s;e particular per&s;ons whom they are warned to avoyd, are &s;uch as the Scripture commands them to withdraw their fore&s;aid intimate and encouraging communion from.</P>
<P N="3">3. The Officers and people of the Church conjunctly are to withdraw communion from &s;ome offenders. For to them as together, the Directions for this purpo&s;e are pre&s;cribed, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5.1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 13. <HI>When the Church is met together.</HI> Whether it refer to any parricular congregation met, among the Corinthians, or to a cla&s;&s;icall meeting of &s;undry con|gregations, comes to one pa&s;s as to the pre&s;ent point. For in a cla&s;&s;icall Church-meeting, there are (as there were in that Synod, <HI>Acts</HI> 15.2, 22, 23) be&s;ides the Mini&s;ters, others of the brethren, delegates from the re&s;t, and therefore repre&s;enta|tives of their whole congregations re&s;pectively, &amp; with re&s;pect to the tran&s;action of a <HI>withdrawing</HI> by the&s;e, excommunicati|on is thus de&s;cribed, as <HI>Aretius</HI> hath it. <HI>Problem. Theol. de Ex|communicatione.</HI> <Q><HI>Excommunicatio est alicujus pro&s;e&s;si religionem nostam &agrave; con&s;ortio fidelium, in &s;acris &amp; prophanis rebus exclu&s;io, facta in nomine &amp; virtute Chri&s;ti, per ordina|rios Eccle&s;iae mini&s;tros, con&s;entiente reliqu&acirc; Eccle&s;i&acirc;, &amp; facta emendandi peccatoris cau&s;a, &amp; ad liberandum &agrave; contagione peccati Eccle&s;iam</HI></Q> And thus in <HI>Cyprians</HI> time it's manife&s;t, great re&s;pect was had to the people, or brethren as &s;uch, in the management of Eccle&s;ia&s;tical juri&s;diction, and e&s;pecially in matters of Excommunication or Ab&s;olution of their members; and they had &s;o great a &s;troke, that they had a negative voice, and &s;carce any thing done without, or at lea&s;t, again&s;t their will, in the&s;e great affairs. <Q><HI>Remeant quotidie</HI> (&s;aith <HI>Cyprian Epi&s;lola</HI> 55. <HI>Cornelin &s;ratri</HI>) <HI>&amp; ad Eccle&s;iam pul&s;ant; nobis
<PB N="39" REF="40">tamen &agrave; quibus ratio Domino reddenda e&s;t, anxi&egrave; ponderanti|bus &amp; &s;olicit&egrave;e x aminantibus, qui recipi &amp; admitli ad Ec|cle&s;iam debeant. Quibu&s;dam enim, aut crumina &s;ua ob&s;i&s;tunt, aut fratres ob&s;tinat&egrave; &amp; firmiter renituntur, ut recipi om|nino non po&s;sint, cum &s;candalo &amp; periculo plurimorum. Neque enim &s;ic putamina quaedam eollig<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">nd a &s;unt, ut quae integra &amp; &s;ana, &s;untvulnerentur; nec utilis ac con&s;ultus e&s;t pa&s;tor, qui ita morbidas &amp; contactas over gregi admi&s;cet, ut gregem totum mali cohaerentis afflictione contaminet&mdash; ut gaudent &amp; laetuntur, cum tolerabiles &amp; minus culpabiles redeunt: ita contr&agrave;, fremunt &amp; reluctantur, quoties immenda|biles &amp; protervi, &amp; vel adu&s;teriis vel &s;acrificiis contaminati, &amp; post haec adbuc in&s;uper &amp; &s;uperbi, &s;ic ad Eccle&s;iam re|meant, ut bona intus ingenia corrumpant. Vix plebi per|&s;uadeo imo extorqueo, ut tales patiantur adm&ugrave;ti.</HI></Q> And even in the weighty bu&s;ine&s;s of in&s;talling or ejecting Mini&s;ters. (<HI>Epi&s;tola</HI> 68. <HI>Cyprianus, Caecilius, Primus, Polycorpus, &amp; Fe|lici Presbytero, &amp;c.</HI>) it is &s;aid, <Q><HI>Propter quod plebs ob&s;e|quens praeceptis dominicis, &amp; Deum metuens, &agrave; peccatore prae|po&s;iio &s;eparate &s;e debet, nec ad &s;acriledgi &s;acerdotis &s;acrificia mi&s;cere, Quando ip&s;a maxim&egrave; habeat potestatem, vel eli|gendi dignos &s;acerdotes, vel indignos recu&s;andi&mdash; In|&s;truit &amp; o&s;tendit ordinationes &s;acerdotales non ni&s;i &s;ub populi a&s;si&s;tentis con&s;cienti&acirc; fieri oportere, vel plebe prae&s;ente, vel de|legantur malorum crimina, vel bonorum merita praedicentur, &amp; &s;it ordinatio ju&s;ta &amp; legitima, quae omnium &s;uffragio &amp; ju|dicio fuerit examinata.</HI></Q></P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="10" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 10.</HEAD>
<P>This joynt act of the Mini&s;ters and people (or the major part thereof) declaring according to the word of God, a no|torious (and not only &s;o, but) ob&s;tinate flagitious brother to be as an Heathen and Publican, and &s;o to be removed from that Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall communion, which an heathen may not be admitted unto; (This I &s;ay) I take to be the greater or <HI>full Excommunication:</HI> which yet is not &s;imply a cutting off the excommunicate from the Church, but in &s;ome re&s;pects only, <HI>viz.</HI> in regard of the &s;u&s;pending them from &s;ome priviledges of the Church, as <HI>Maccovius</HI> &s;aith. <HI>Loc. com. c.</HI> 84. <Q><HI>Non igi|tisr penitus &egrave; corpore gladio hoc (excommunicationis) amputa|tur, &s;ed quoad certas qua&s;dam communicandi rationes per &s;a|cramenta &amp; familiarem con&s;uetudinem.</HI></Q> This withdrawing in the&s;e two re&s;pects (<HI>viz.</HI> 1. in re&s;pect of &s;acramentall com|munion.
<PB N="40" REF="41">And 2. &s;uch inward encouraging familiarity as might not be afforded to an ob&s;tinate heathen) being decla|red and denounced by the Church as afore&s;aid, again&s;t an of|fender, I conceive includes the utmo&s;t which is in any ex|communication now in u&s;e in the Church of God. I know &s;ome extend it further, both for the exclu&s;ion from the word and prayers of the Congregation, and from almo&s;t any civill communion, except in &s;ome ca&s;es of very neer relation to the excommunicate; yea, and then too, from praying with them, that the wi&s;e might not joyn in prayer with the excommuni|cate husband. But this &s;evere Doctrine I know not how to prove, and therefore mu&s;t not a&s;&s;ert it. I find indeed an <HI>Antichri&s;tian excommunication, Revel.</HI> 13.17. <HI>That none might buy nor &s;ell, &s;ave he that had the mark of the Beast.</HI> But <HI>it is dangerous</HI> (as one faith) <HI>to &s;weep Chri&s;ts floore with Antichri&s;ts be&s;ome.</HI> I know &s;ome of the Ancients &s;peak of the excommu|nicate as deprived of the &s;uffrages and prayers of the Church. But then I think their meaning is, that they are not prayed for as the faithfull are; not but they were prayed for under the notion of impenitents, that God would give them true repentance, as the Church prayes for the conver&s;ion of the heathens. Some were thru&s;t out of the place of the A&s;&s;em|bly, but then mo&s;tly tho&s;e places were (I conceive) private hou&s;es where the Church had their meetings; of their com|ing to which there is not the like rea&s;on as there is of their li|berty to come to our a&s;&s;emblies, where the excomunicate may have a civill right to a &s;eat as well as others. And where there were &s;eats for the excommunicate di&s;tinct from the faithfull; there al&s;o were &s;uch like di&s;tinct &s;eats for the Catechumens and Heathens; whereby as it appears they were not excluded from the hearing of the Word, &s;o it is al&s;o manife&s;t they were not excluded any more then Heathens were, which is all contend for in this matter. The reverend Vindicator M^r <HI>Hum&s;reys, Vindic. p.</HI> 149. is &s;o ingenuous as to acknow|ledge, he thinkes there's rea&s;on to come to compo&s;ition with his worthy Antagoni&s;t about the admitting the excommuni|cate to the Word and Prayer, from 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. <Q><HI>I could be willing</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>to compound the matter with one distin|ction: Exclu&s;ion is either reall or relative. I &s;hall leave it to him that will di&s;pute with</HI> M^r Drake <HI>how the Church can exclude the excommunicate really from being pre&s;ent at the Word and Prayer; and it &s;hall &s;uffice me that they are ex|cluded
<PB N="41" REF="41">cluded relatively however, &s;o that though they may be pre&s;ent as heathen, yet are they cut off from all their interest in them, &s;till as members; &s;o here.</HI></Q> But why will not this hand&s;ome di&s;tinction be applyed, to the receiving the excommunicate to the Sacrament al&s;o <HI>really,</HI> though not <HI>relatively,</HI> if that this ex|communication did not e&s;&s;entially containe in it a withdraw|ing from communion in the Sacrament, and not &s;o in other Ordinances? And why &s;hould our Brethren check us for ma|king &s;uch a difference as they &s;ay we do betwixt Ordinances of equall &s;anctity, <HI>viz.</HI> the Word, Prayer, and Sacraments; when they them&s;elves are here forced (as to admi&s;&s;ion to them) to do the &s;ame thing? Exclu&s;ion from the Word and Prayer, I doubt not may be exerci&s;ed on an excommunicate (and &s;o on heathens) where no civil right he hath hinders not; in &s;ome ca&s;es as prudence may direct. But then its an accidentall, and was not intended in the &s;entence of excom|munication con&s;idered in it &s;elfe. That great mi&s;take of taking excommunication for a cutting off from Church-member&s;hip hath been &s;ufficiently, I hope, manife&s;ted in the &s;ixth &s;ection of this Chapter.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="11" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 11.</HEAD>
<P>I &s;hall only adde one thing more concerning this full ex|communication. As the con&s;ent of the particular Congregati|on, whereof one is a member, is nece&s;&s;ary for this his excom|munication, becau&s;e el&s;e it cannot have its execution; and therefore cannot be inflicted, where the <HI>major</HI> part of that Church are again&s;t it (though the Officers are never &s;o ur|gent in it). So al&s;o becau&s;e in a neighbourhood and a&s;&s;ocia|tion of Congregationall Churches, this excommunication pa&s;|&s;ed in &s;ome one of them, is not likely to be effectuall for hum|bling the offender, unle&s;s the re&s;t al&s;o comply therewith: And it cannot be expected they &s;hould, unle&s;s they have &s;atisfaction concerning the ju&s;tne&s;s thereof. Therefore we judge it re|qui&s;ite that where a <HI>Cla&s;&s;is</HI> may be had, this excommunication be managed with their advice and con&s;ent, that &s;o other Mini|&s;ters and Churches may not admit an excommunicate of any one, to their Communion among them; either &s;acramentall, or that private encouraging fellow&s;hip, which by excommuni|cation he is ju&s;tly debarrd from, at home.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="12" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 12.</HEAD>
<P N="5">(5) La&s;tly, from the Texts before mentioned, it may al&s;o appeare, that there is an excommunication <HI>ip&s;o jure</HI> as well as
<PB N="42" REF="42"><HI>facto,</HI> that is, 1. where the Law of God determines who are to be withdrawn from, and its left to the di&s;cretion of the Church-Officers and private members, to determine who tho&s;e per&s;ons are, who by the Law are &s;o excommunicate, upon a notorious manife&s;tation thereof. And 2. where there is re|quired the juridical &s;entence of &s;ome Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Judge to determine that &s;uch a per&s;on is to be excommunicated. This latter none doubt of. And the former is proved by 2 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 3.6. and 3 <HI>John</HI> ver. 10, 11. That learned Gentleman M^r. <HI>Willi|am Morice,</HI> quotes <HI>E&s;tius,</HI> &s;aying, that, <HI>If the crime be &s;o noto|rious that by no gain&s;aying it can be denied, it &s;eemes not that the &s;entence of the Judge is to be expected, in order to the avoyding of the offender.</HI> This quotation he hath in the 147 <HI>page</HI> of his booke, which he hath entituled, <HI>Caena qua&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> <GAP DESC="foreign">. The new In|clo&s;ures broken down, and the Lords Supper laid forth in com|mon for all Church-members, having a dogmatical faith, and not being &s;candalous.</HI> Which po&s;ition, if it be limited to Church members adult, who have duely once made a per&s;onal recog|nition of their bapti&s;mal Engagements. And if herein he ex|clude not the profe&s;&s;ion of a ju&s;tifying faith, as if it were not nece&s;&s;ary to be joyned to, and with the dogmatical faith he &s;peakes: I &s;ay, if that po&s;ition of his be &s;o under&s;tood (as I &s;ee not but it may according to the tenor of his di&s;cour&s;e fol|lowing) I finde nothing therein to be gain&s;ayd. For all &s;uch Church members are to be reputed and dealt with, as ju&s;tified &s;incere beleevers.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="13" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 13.</HEAD>
<P>In my &s;ixth particular concerning the &s;tate of the Que&s;tion (in the <HI>M</HI> S. numb. 15, 16.) I made u&s;e of <HI>Ames</HI> his words to expre&s;&s;e my minde, <HI>viz</HI> that the le&s;&s;er degree of excommuni|cation which con&s;i&s;ted in &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, hath place in the Church, not by any particular expre&s;s In&s;titution of Chri&s;t, but from equity, and the nature of the thing it &s;elfe. There, fir&s;t Mr. <HI>W.</HI> flouts me as quoting <HI>&s;o low an Authority,</HI> and adjudgeth me to be <HI>&s;tiled a private man for it.</HI> I had been more private but for him. But its evident I built nothing upon the authority of <HI>Ames</HI> here, no more then Mr. <HI>W.</HI> doth on the Author of cha|rity mi&s;taken, or <HI>Torne&s;ius</HI> which he quotes in his Epi&s;tle. Next, he gives us his ob&s;ervations concerning the time and order of <HI>Ames</HI> his workes; and that (in part) I thinke to &s;hew my quotation of him to be ami&s;&s;e. And though he after mention his Tran&s;criber of my copy; his diligence he commends, that
<PB N="43" REF="42">none of the faults may be taken off my &s;elfe; Let him excu&s;e his Tran&s;criber as he plea&s;eth, my paper quoted <HI>Ames, de Con&s;c: lib.</HI> 4. <HI>cap.</HI> 29. But who could thinke this lofty <HI>Eagle</HI> would deigne to <HI>catch</HI> at &s;uch poore <HI>flies</HI> as the&s;e. But he had lea&s;ure enough it &s;eemes, and a mind to &s;ay any thing, &s;o it might be again&s;t me. And then becau&s;e <HI>Ames</HI> is not of my minde in all things about the &s;ubject of the power of excommunication, he tells the world I wrong <HI>Ames,</HI> in quoting that pa&s;&s;age from him. When as our di&s;pute was purpo&s;ely and expre&s;ly &s;eparated from the Que&s;tion about the &s;ubject of this power. <HI>Numb.</HI> 5, 6.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="14" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 14.</HEAD>
<P>My &s;eventh and la&s;t note was to this purpo&s;e, <HI>One particu|lar affirmative overthrows an univer&s;al negative,</HI> and therefore if I prove &s;ome in the Que&s;tion, in any ca&s;e may be &s;u&s;pend|ed, I attaine my end. The which is &s;o manife&s;tly true to every fre&s;h man, that Mr. <HI>W.</HI> hath not the face to deny it; yet he chides about it extreamly, but mo&s;t impotently, as if he would challenge our <HI>Wych-wallers</HI> to a &s;cuffle with him. <HI>Your maje&s;ti|call &s;everity &mdash; in a bead roll of words, as if you would charm the &s;en&s;es of the vulgar with your rare skil in Logick. &mdash;to delude the &s;imple, by fraudulent and illogical arguments,</HI> &amp;c. Thus his tongue runs at random, and he hath confuted me fluently, if his Reader will but do him this &s;mall, very little favour, as to be|leeve him without proofe. But in the mid&s;t of this ranting fit, he interweaves two impertinent Que&s;tions, <HI>Pag.</HI> 31. The fir&s;t is this; <HI>Why all unregenerate, ignorant and &s;candalous members &s;hould not be debarred as well as &s;ome? &s;eeing they all (as well as &s;ome) do &s;tand guilty of the &s;ame notorious cau&s;e of exclu&s;ion.</HI> To which I an&s;wer. 1. Some may be unregenerate, who are neither ignorant nor &s;candalous. 2. There are degrees of ig|norance and &s;candall, and therefore &s;ome may be more debar|rable than others. 3. I no where &s;ay that any notoriou&s;ly ig|norant or &s;candalous &s;hould be admitted; but its &s;ufficient for the overthrowing their univer&s;all negative, <HI>None &s;uch may be debarred;</HI> if I evince any may, let him look to it whether all &s;uch may; my pre&s;ent province not putting me on the proofe thereof.</P>
<P>His &s;econd Query is; <HI>Whether your pretented flagitious Bur|ge&s;s may lawfully be whipt, before be he carefully convented or convicted, or after; If before, tell us by what Law, if not till af|terwards, Then you no wayes contradict our A&s;&s;ertion.</HI> As if I
<PB N="44" REF="43">had brought this &s;imile to prove &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, when as I u&s;ed it only to &s;hew, that a particular affirmative overthrows an uni|ver&s;all negative, <HI>viz.</HI> that if &s;ome flagitious Citizen may be whipt, then its fal&s;e that none &s;uch may; &s;o it &s;ome &s;candalous Church-members may be &s;u&s;pended, then its fal&s;e that none &s;uch may. The matter he queries as to &s;ome excommunication of &s;candalous per&s;ons notoriou&s;ly &s;uch, although no juridical &s;entence of an Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Judge hath pa&s;&s;ed on them to be &s;uch, hath been an&s;wered in the la&s;t &s;ection. And now having di&s;patcht his cavills again&s;t my explication of the Que&s;tion, and the management thereof; I &s;hall attend him in the argu|ment it &s;elfe. But fir&s;t let me take a little refre&s;hing.</P>
<EPIGRAPH>
<Q><BIBL>PSALM 119. part 3d. <HI>C.</HI></BIBL>
<L N="17">17 <HI>Choyce bounty &s;hew, that whiles I live,</HI></L>
<L><HI>Thy Word I keepe with awe!</HI></L>
<L N="18">18 <HI>Cleere up my dim eyes to perceive</HI></L>
<L><HI>The wonders of thy Law!</HI></L>
<L N="19">19 <HI>Conceale not from me thy Lawes high!</HI></L>
<L><HI>I am a &s;tranger here;</HI></L>
<L N="20">20 <HI>Care breakes my &s;oul, whiles all times I,</HI></L>
<L><HI>Long for thy Judgements deare.</HI></L>
<L N="21">21 <HI>Cur&s;t are the proud, whom thou do&s;t blame.</HI></L>
<L><HI>Who from thy precepls &s;tray.</HI></L>
<L N="22">22 <HI>Cast not on me Reproath and &s;hame!</HI></L>
<L><HI>For I have kept thy way.</HI></L>
<L N="23">23 <HI>Crown'd Princes 'gain&s;t me &s;ate and &s;pake;</HI></L>
<L><HI>But on thy Lawes I thought.</HI></L>
<L N="24">24 <HI>Certaine delight in the&s;e I take,</HI></L>
<L><HI>And from them coun&s;ell &s;ought.</HI></L></Q>
</EPIGRAPH>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="4" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. IV.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 1.</HEAD>
<P>TO my fir&s;t &s;yllogi&s;me (at <HI>numb.</HI> 21. of the Copy of my <HI>M S.</HI>) he an&s;wers <HI>p.</HI> 33. 1 by quarrelling with my con|clu&s;ion; and that in two re&s;pects. (Be&s;ides his exception a|gain&s;t the phra&s;e [fully excommunicate], which hath been re|&s;elled above) 1 that theres left out of it <HI>[They expre&s;&s;ing their
<PB N="45" REF="43">de&s;ire to receive, and offering them&s;elves:]</HI> But how vaine is this cavill, <HI>expre&s;&s;ing the de&s;ire he hath to receive any</HI> eva&s;ion that <HI>of|fers it &s;elfe?</HI> For 1. will he grant we may &s;u&s;pend them who <HI>do not profe&s;s their de&s;ire to receive, and do not offer them&s;elves?</HI> If &s;o, then Church-member&s;hip alone doth not give right to the adult for the Sacrament, and &s;o his cau&s;e is marr'd. And he a little before, and in his Epi&s;tle, puts in the limitation of <HI>intelligent per&s;ons</HI> at yeares, who only with him are admitta|ble; &s;o that if they are not intelligent, they are to be debarred, though they expre&s;s their de&s;ire to receive, and offer them&s;elves. Now let Mr. <HI>W.</HI> &s;hew what Scripture debarrs the&s;e from the Sacrament, and not from the prayers and other publique ordi|nances of the Church? But that he attempts not to doe. If he had, it were ten to one, the &s;ame proofes would bring in more limitations as well as that. But its &s;ufficient for him, for his part to cavill again&s;t others. 2 Againe, my argument pro|ceeds concerning the law of Chri&s;t debarring a vi&s;ible pro|phane per&s;on; and then who &s;ees not that it concludes again&s;t him, whether he de&s;ire and offer him&s;elfe to be admitted or no? And yet with the&s;e &s;hifts it &s;eemes he <HI>non-plust</HI> my paper, when he and it were together, and tells it he could &s;top its cour&s;e here, and &s;ince it bri&s;led not againe, he is heartned to let the world know, how brave acts he could do, if he would. 2 The other quarrell he hath again&s;t my conclu&s;ion is, That its a <HI>Tautology;</HI> and that is meanes that <HI>&s;ome baptized per&s;ons at yeares &s;u&s;pended may be &s;u&s;pended. For</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>by [not fully excommunicate]. we under&s;tand your meaning to be [&s;u&s;|pended.]</HI> Su&s;pending may either denote the <HI>&s;entence of debar|ring,</HI> or the <HI>execution of that &s;entence.</HI> To &s;ay &s;ome per&s;ons cen|&s;ured with ab&s;ten&s;ion or &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, may be &s;u&s;pended, that is, have the Lords Supper denyd to them is no <HI>Tautology,</HI> no more then to &s;ay, a per&s;on cen&s;ured with full excommunication, may be debarrd all publique Church ordinances (according to their &s;en&s;e of it). But the pofition I undertooke after &s;tating the Que&s;tion was this; <HI>viz. That its lawfull to debar &s;ome per&s;ons the Lords Supper, who are baptized, and not warned to depart or kept from other publique ordinances, of hearing, praying, &s;ing|ing, in the publique Congregations of the Church.</HI> And immediate|ly after this I began my argument, the conclu&s;ion whereof was, <HI>Some baptized per&s;ons at yeares not fully excommunicated, may be &s;u&s;pended from the Lords Supper.</HI> Whereby its manife&s;t, that by [not fully excommunicate] I meant [not kept from all pub|lique
<PB N="46" REF="44">ordinances in the Church] which is their &s;en&s;e of excom|munication. And is this a <HI>Tautology,</HI> &s;ome baptized per&s;ons not kept from all publique ordinances, may be &s;u&s;pended from the Lords Supper? My own judgement concerning full excommu|nication hath been &s;hewed before in the la&s;t Chapter. But what a pittifull bu&s;ine&s;s is this, that Mr. <HI>W.</HI> &s;o much quarrels at the &s;tate of the Que&s;tion, and &s;ometimes &s;aith, I &s;ay what he holds him&s;elfe in it; and yet he would never rectifie the &s;ame in a line or two, though de&s;ired (as I am informed) &s;o to do, if it plea&s;ed him not, that we might have been agreed on that, be|fore we proceeded to di&s;pute upon it. But he &s;eemes to imitate the crafty <HI>Gunner,</HI> who would alwayes &s;ay he aimed at that which he hit, but would never agree before he &s;hot, what &s;hould be the mark he would &s;hoot at. Thus much concerning the conclu&s;ion of my Syllogi&s;me. Now he comes to the pre|mi&s;&s;es.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 2.</HEAD>
<P>The <HI>major</HI> he &s;aith <HI>p.</HI> 35. he <HI>grants with my elucidation thereof in &s;uch general termes as they &s;tand.</HI> Yet after he be|thinks him&s;elfe, and will (as he &s;eemes to me) grant it upon condition that the granting of it may do no hurt to his own opinion. Whether this be not the &s;en&s;e of his <HI>p.</HI> 36, 37, 38. let the Reader judge who will peru&s;e the &s;ame.</P>
<P>The proof of my <HI>Minor</HI> (which the Reader may receive if he plea&s;e to turn back to the Copie of my paper <HI>M</HI> S. at numb. 24.) M^r <HI>W.</HI> &s;ets down in his p. 39. and gives us words upon it, p. 40, 41, 42, 43. without di&s;tingui&s;hing upon, or denying any propo&s;ition therein. He talkes much of <HI>Accade|micall disputings.</HI> Be it known to him I am not ignorant of the method of Di&s;putation u&s;ed in <HI>both our Univer&s;ities.</HI> But if the <HI>Re&s;pondent</HI> (as he here makes him&s;elfe) &s;hould in &s;tead of giving a &s;hort an&s;wer (as he ought) by denying or di&s;tin|gui&s;hing upon the terms of either propo&s;ition, run out into &s;uch extravagancies as he here doth, he would (and that mo&s;t de&s;ervedly) be hi&s;t out of the Schools. He raps again at the di&s;tinction of <HI>greater</HI> and <HI>le&s;&s;er, fully</HI> and <HI>not fully</HI> excom|municate; but impotently, without any proof offered again&s;t the &s;ame. And then le&s;t the practice of the Church of <HI>England</HI> formerly u&s;ed, &s;hould give any countenance to the di&s;tinction, he endeavours to clear the Church of <HI>England,</HI> who manife&s;tly u&s;ed that di&s;tinction. But the great fault is, that it is now u&s;ed by us; &amp; what in them he excu&s;eth, in us <HI>Presbyterians</HI> is a
<PB N="47" REF="44">crime, he can hardly find terms of aggravation and di&s;grace bad enough to put upon it.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 3.</HEAD>
<P>Let us then fir&s;t &s;ee what was the practice of the Church of <HI>England</HI> herein. And then how M^r <HI>W.</HI> takes us off from plea|ding that, and I &s;hall give my reply thereto. And fir&s;t let us ob&s;erve what was required by the Church of <HI>England</HI> former|ly, in reference to the manife&s;tation of the knowleledge of &s;uch as were to be admitted to the communion, and their un|der&s;tanding owning of the Chri&s;tian faith.</P>
<P>In the order for Confirmation, it's thought good, that none be confirmed, but &s;uch as <HI>can &s;ay the Articles of the Creed, the Lords Prayer, &amp; ten Commandements, and can an&s;wer to &s;uch questions of the Catechi&s;me as the Bi&s;hop (or &s;uch as he &s;hall ap|point) &s;hall by his di&s;cretion appo&s;e them in. And this order is mo&s;t convenient to be ob&s;erved for divers con&s;iderations: Fir&s;t, becau&s;e that when children come to years of di&s;cretion, and have learned what their God-fathers and God-mothers promi&s;ed for them in bapti&s;me, they may then them&s;elves with their own mouth, and with their own con&s;eat, openly, before the Church, ratifie and confirm the &s;ame: And al&s;o promi&s;e, that by the grace of God, they will evermore endeavour faithfully to ob&s;erve and keep &s;uch things as they by their mouth and confe&s;&s;ion have a&s;&s;ented unto, &amp;c.</HI> And at the end of the Confirmation it's ordered, <HI>And there &s;hall none be admitted to the holy Communion, untill &s;uch time as he can &s;ay the Catechi&s;me and be confirmed.</HI></P>
<P>Here is the &s;ub&s;tance of what is required among us, Let a|ny who come to communicate, &s;hew that ever &s;ince they came to years, they thus per&s;onally owned the Chri&s;tian Faith, and I know no bar in the <HI>Presbyterial Government</HI> to their admi&s;|&s;ion. The Ordinance of Parliament no where requireth that all &s;hould be examined now in order to their admi&s;&s;ion. But that <HI>the ignorant are to be excluded;</HI> and that implies not (as &s;ome have over-ha&s;tily concluded) that all are to be now ex|amined. But onely that all not examined &s;ometime before, are to be examined now, and they onely; unle&s;s there be proofes (or at lea&s;t &s;trong pre&s;umptions) of any their apo&s;ta&s;ie from (or lo&s;ing the knowledge of) the faith they have &s;ome|time per&s;onally profe&s;&s;ed.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 4.</HEAD>
<P>Secondly, for &s;candall; the order of the Church of <HI>England</HI> was manife&s;t, that the &s;candalous &s;hould be &s;u&s;pended, though
<PB N="48" REF="45">not then fully excommunicated, or <HI>excommunicated majori excommunicatione,</HI> as the Canons &s;peak.</P>
<P>In the Rubrick before the Communion, it is thus ordered, <HI>If any of tho&s;e who intend to communicate, be an open notorious evill liver &mdash; the Curate &s;hall adverti&s;e him, in any wi&s;e not to pre&s;ume to the Lords Table, untill he have openly de|clared him&s;elf to have truly repented and amended his former naughty life, &amp;c. &mdash; The &s;ame order &s;hall the Curate u&s;e with tho&s;e betwixt whom he perceiveth malice and hatred to reign, not &s;uffering them to partake of the Lords Table, untill he knowes them to be reconciled. And if one of the parties &s;o at va|riance, be content to forgive the other from the bottome of the heart &mdash; &amp; to make amends for that he him&s;elf hath offended, and the other party will not be per&s;waded to a godly unity, &mdash; the Minister in that ca&s;e ought to admit the penitent per&s;on to the holy Communion, and not him that is obstinate.</HI></P>
<P>The fir&s;t exhortation which is ordered to be read at <HI>certain times, when the Curate &s;hall &s;ee the people negligent to come to the holy Communion,</HI> is mo&s;twhat <HI>verbatim</HI> and altogether in &s;en&s;e, what Mr, <HI>W.</HI> hath prefixed before his Book under the name of D^r <HI>Peter Martyr,</HI> and why he might not have quoted the Common-Prayer Book for it as well as <HI>Peter Martyr,</HI> I can|not certainly tell; but the Reader may ea&s;ily gue&s;&s;e &s;omewhat &s;hrewdly at it. And for an&s;wer thereunto, as I &s;ee nothing therein again&s;t the &s;u&s;pen&s;ion pleaded for, &s;o tho&s;e who fra|med the Common-Prayer, thought it no way thwarted their &s;u&s;pen&s;ion and le&s;&s;er excommunication; if they had, they would not have contradicted them&s;elves &s;o gro&s;sly, as to in|&s;ert it in the Communion, where they &s;o expre&s;sly give order for the debarring the ptophane, as you have already heard. And in their next exhortation to examine them&s;elves, repent and amend, they add, <HI>For otherwi&s;e the recieving the holy Communion doth nothing el&s;e but increa&s;e your damnation.</HI> And e&s;pecially in their third Exhortation. It's &s;aid thus, <HI>Therefore if any of you be a bla&s;phemer of God, an hinderer or flanderer of his Word, an adulterer, or be in malice, or envy, or any other grievous crime, bewayl your &s;ins, and come not to this holy Table, le&s;t after the taking of that holy Sacrament, the Divel enter into you as he entred into Judas, and fill you full of impiety, and bring you to de&s;truction of body and &s;oul.</HI> Whereby it is evi|dent, the fir&s;t exhortation to come, was made to them onely, who were &s;uppo&s;ed obedient believers; and here they who
<PB N="49" REF="45">were di&s;obedient are warned to keep off, whiles &s;o wilfully di&s;|obedient; and tho&s;e who were notoriou&s;ly &s;uch, were to be kept off by the Mini&s;ter. But yet certainly the Curate did not fully excommunicate all them whom he was not to &s;uffer to partake of the Lords Table, though in part he did eccle&s;ia&s;ti|cally withdraw from them; as is more evident in the Canons of the Synod held at <HI>London</HI> in the fir&s;t year of King <HI>James.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 5.</HEAD>
<P>The title of the 26^t^h Canon is, <HI>Notorious offenders not to be admitted to the Communion.</HI> And in the Canon; <HI>No Mini&s;ter &s;hall in any wi&s;e admit to the receiving of the holy Communion, any of his cure or flock which be openly knowne to live in &s;in no|torious, without repentance, nor malicious per&s;ons not reconciled, nor unfaithfull Church-wardens,</HI> &amp;c. Can. 27. The title is; <HI>Schi&s;matiques not to be admitted to the Communion.</HI> The title of Can. 57. is, The Sacraments not to be refu&s;ed at the hands of unpreaching Mini&s;ters. In the Canon it &s;elfe its ordered; <HI>Tho&s;e who leave their own Pari&s;h Churches in that re&s;pect,</HI> &amp;c. they are from the Ordinary to receive puni&s;hment by Eccle|&s;ia&s;tical Cen&s;ures &mdash; that is, <HI>Let them</HI> (per&s;i&s;ting in their wil|fulne&s;s) <HI>be &s;u&s;pended;</HI> and then after a moneths further ob|&s;tinacy excommunicated. In Can. 59. Enjoyning Mini&s;ters to catechize every Sunday; Its decreed, if the Mini&s;ter do neg|lect, he is to be admoni&s;hed &mdash; and if he wilfully offend a|gaine, <HI>&s;u&s;pended;</HI> and if the third time, then <HI>excommunicated;</HI> and others concern'd to come them&s;elves, or &s;end theirs to be catechized, are in the &s;ame Canon, in ca&s;e of their neglect herein, <HI>to be &s;u&s;pended</HI> by their Ordinaries (if they be not children) and if they &s;o per&s;i&s;t for the &s;pace of a moneth, then <HI>let them be excommunicated.</HI> Can. 68. the title whereof is, <HI>Mini&s;ters not to refu&s;e to chri&s;ten or bury.</HI> But in the body of the Canon there is this <HI>provi&s;o; Except the party decea&s;ed were denounced excommunicate majori excommunicatione, for &s;ome grievous and notorious crime, and no man able to te&s;tifie of his repentance.</HI></P>
<P>The&s;e three la&s;t Canons I have quoted, &s;hew how cleerly they owned a degree of Cen&s;ure, called by the name of <HI>&s;u&s;pen|&s;ion;</HI> though it was in tho&s;e ca&s;es to be inflicted by the <HI>Ordi|nary.</HI> But the former quotations &s;hew how farre the Mini&s;ter al&s;o was entru&s;ted with a debarring from the Communion, notoriou&s;ly prophane per&s;ons, who might tender them&s;elves to receive. Now we are to heare, what Mr. <HI>W.</HI> alledgeth to cut
<PB N="50" REF="46">us off from our pre&s;ent pleading this order of the Church of <HI>England: The &s;u&s;pen&s;ion</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>taken up in the Church of England, in ca&s;e of ob&s;tinacy in &s;ome notorious crime, was the publique act of the Church and State, not inherent in a Mini&s;ter (as a Mini&s;ter) but derived to him by deputation; and cannot now be pretended to, the Common prayer book (which gave the power) being now aboli&s;hed.</HI> So he, <HI>p.</HI> 41.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="6" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 6.</HEAD>
<P>Fir&s;t; Its to be ob&s;erved that Mr. <HI>W.</HI> here &s;peaks of the &s;u&s;|pen&s;ion taken up in the Church of <HI>England,</HI> as if it were only <HI>in ca&s;e of ob&s;tinacy</HI> in &s;ome notorious crime; whereas its manife&s;t, mo&s;t of the pa&s;&s;ages before rehear&s;ed out of the Canons and Common prayer booke, cleerly evince, that &s;u&s;pen&s;ion was in|flicted for &s;everal crimes without re&s;pect to ob&s;tinacy therein, and then ob&s;tinacy and continuance in tho&s;e crimes, without vi&s;ible repentance and reformation, was puni&s;hed <HI>with greater excommunication,</HI> as the Canon it &s;elfe &s;peakes.</P>
<P N="2">2. But as to the &s;ub&s;tance of his exception, I an&s;wer briefly thus for the overthrowing of it; Either the Common prayer booke <HI>was not aboli&s;hed</HI> by a lawfull authority &s;ufficient for the nulling and abrogating of that &s;anction whereby it was for|merly e&s;tabli&s;hed; <HI>or els it was. If it were not,</HI> then Mini&s;ters by vertue of the Common prayer booke, may (as opportunity is offered) &s;u&s;pend according to the Directions therein given them; which remaine &s;till in force, if not nulled by a &s;ufficient authority. But if the Common prayer booke was aboli&s;hed by a lawfull authority, &s;ufficient for the abrogating that &s;anction whereby it was formerly e&s;tabli&s;hed, then certainly, they who had &s;uch power to abrogate that government and order, had power al&s;o to e&s;tabli&s;h our &s;u&s;pen&s;ion. <HI>It belonging to the &s;ame power or authority to null as to make a law.</HI> And then the &s;ame &s;u&s;pen&s;ion (in &s;ub&s;tance) is delegated to Church Officers &s;till, in the Ordinance of 48 for Presbyterial Government where this is appointed, by the Lords and Commons, by whom only the Service booke was abrogated.</P>
<P>I have the rather hinted this for the &s;atisfaction of &s;ome godly per&s;ons who have not been well &s;atisfied with the State proceedings, in reference to Church Government; who yet have an high e&s;teem of the former con&s;titutions of the Church of <HI>England:</HI> And, me thinkes, where the &s;ame thing for &s;ub|&s;tance is appointed and practiced, they &s;hould not reject it. And now let the Reader if he plea&s;e, judge, whether M. <HI>W.</HI> or
<PB N="51" REF="46">we <HI>behave our &s;elves most like Mini&s;ters of the Church of Eng|land,</HI> (in reference to the degrees of excommunication, and &s;pecially in reference to &s;u&s;pen&s;ion) <HI>the neglect whereof, he (out of Mr. P.) chargeth us with.</HI> Mr. <HI>W.</HI> proceeds to carp at [may be] in my &s;yllogi&s;me, when as yet [may be] was in the po&s;ition I oppo&s;ed. And the que&s;tion was, whether &s;uch ca|&s;es <HI>may</HI> occurre, not whether they <HI>did</HI> occurre, wherein the per|&s;ons &s;poken of might be &s;u&s;pended, as appeares in my <HI>M S.</HI> at <HI>numb.</HI> 6.17. But our <HI>Doctor re&s;oluti&s;&s;imus &amp; ab&s;oluti&s;&s;imus,</HI> de&s;cends not &s;o low as to ob&s;erve the &s;tate of the Que&s;tion; he had rather, it &s;eemes, be &s;hewing his Logick to his <HI>weaker con&s;ciences</HI> (for <HI>who&s;e &s;atisfaction</HI> his title page de&s;ignes his booke) and telling them, <HI>p.</HI> 43, 44. which are the <HI>&s;ubjects</HI> and the <HI>predicats</HI> in the <HI>Propo&s;itions,</HI> and the <HI>medius terminus in the &s;yllogi&s;me:</HI> they will (it may be) applaud their Doctor, with an <HI>Egregiam ver&oacute; laudem.</HI> But if any of his <HI>weaker con&s;ciences</HI> meet with the&s;e lines, I am of opinion they will not &s;o farre admire tho&s;e logical termes as to refu&s;e the plaine and whole|&s;ome provi&s;ion I now offer them to &s;hare with me, in the</P>
<EPIGRAPH>
<Q><BIBL>PSAIM 119. Part 4. <HI>D.</HI></BIBL>
<L N="25">25 <HI>Down on the dust my &s;ad &s;oul &s;tayes.</HI></L>
<L><HI>Let thy truth life afford!</HI></L>
<L N="26">26 <HI>Declar'd to thee I have my wayes.</HI></L>
<L><HI>Thou heard&s;t: Teach me thy Word!</HI></L>
<L N="27">27 <HI>Di&s;clo&s;e thy Precopts-way to me!</HI></L>
<L><HI>Thy wondrous workes I'le tell.</HI></L>
<L N="28">28 <HI>Deep griefe my &s;oul melts; &s;trengthen me,</HI></L>
<L><HI>After thy Word right well.</HI></L>
<L N="29">29 <HI>Drive lying wayes from me; thy Law</HI></L>
<L><HI>Grant to me graciou&s;ly!</HI></L>
<L N="30">30 <HI>Duely, I cho&s;e thy Truth, and &s;aw</HI></L>
<L><HI>Thy Judgements with mine eye.</HI></L>
<L N="31">31 <HI>Dearly thy witne&s;s'd Truth I hold</HI></L>
<L><HI>From &s;hame Lord me di&s;charge.</HI></L>
<L N="32">32 <HI>Daily in thy wayes run I would</HI></L>
<L><HI>If thou my heart enlarge.</HI></L></Q>
</EPIGRAPH>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="5" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="52" REF="47">
<HEAD>CHAP. V.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 1.</HEAD>
<P>THe confirmation of the <HI>Major</HI> Propo&s;ition in my &s;econd &s;yllogi&s;me, (at <HI>numb.</HI> 25. in my <HI>M S.</HI>) Mr. <HI>W.</HI> repeats in his <HI>p.</HI> 44. where he hath &s;uch jejune and lanquid exceptions, again&s;t &s;ome explications being in&s;erted in <HI>Parenthe&s;es,</HI> and &s;o &s;eparated from the &s;yllogi&s;me it &s;elfe; that I judge it needle&s;s to make any defence again&s;t them. There being none (I thinke) who manage a di&s;pute in writing, who do not u&s;e the like. Although its true, in di&s;putations face to face, there is le&s;s need of them; any mi&s;take which might occurre about the meaning of the termes, being &s;oone rectified by explicati|on thereof. The like frivolous complaint he makes of &s;ome various equipollent phra&s;es u&s;ed, <HI>viz.</HI> [vi&s;ibly unbeleevers] and [&s;uch as ought to be judged and taken to be unbeleevers] when as I had expre&s;ly &s;ignified the equipollency of them, <HI>numb.</HI> 25. The propo&s;ition I was to prove was, <HI>Tho&s;e who by word openly renounce the Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t, are vi&s;ibly &s;uch to whom the Lord would not (according to the revelation of his will in his Word) have the Lords Supper admini&s;tred.</HI> Now my con|clu&s;ion in the &s;yllogi&s;me I brought to prove this, was; <HI>Tho&s;e who by word openly renounce the Lord Je&s;us Christ are vi&s;ibly &s;uch, to whom (according to the word of God) the Lords Supper ought not to be admini&s;tred.</HI> An ordinary Reader, I think, would &s;ee no difference betwixt [them to whom (according to the word of God) the Lords Supper ought not to be admini&s;tred], and [them to whom the Lord would not, (according to the revelation of his will in his word) have the Lords Supper admini&s;tred]. But Mr. <HI>W.</HI> that he may &s;eeme to &s;ee further in|to a mil&s;tone than another can doe, hath &s;pyed the di&s;agree|ment. He was (belike) at a great want for exceptions who takes up the&s;e; and con&s;idering his nece&s;&s;ity, he may be better excu&s;ed. <HI>Its better to pick &s;trawes than to doe just nothing.</HI></P>
<P>But at la&s;t he hath unbutton'd his eyes, and can perceive &s;ome &s;trength in my proofe when it hath been (he thinkes) beholding to him for a better dre&s;&s;e, <HI>p.</HI> 46. where he thus formes it; <HI>Tho&s;e who are vi&s;ibly unbeleevers, are vi&s;ibly &s;uch to whom the Lords Supper ought not to be admini&s;tred. But tho&s;e who by word openly renounce the Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t, are vi&s;ibly unbeleevers.</HI> Ergo, <HI>Tho&s;e who by word openly renounce the Lord
<PB N="53" REF="47">Je&s;us Chri&s;t, are vi&s;ibly &s;uch to whom the Sacrament of the Lords Supper ought not to be admini&s;tred.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect; 2.</HEAD>
<P>Well, now he hath the <HI>honour</HI> (as he &s;peakes) to be <HI>oppo|nent</HI> him&s;elfe, I hope he will be more civil in his an&s;wer, and not be captious again&s;t his own creature. <HI>Wherein now</HI> (&s;aith he, <HI>p.</HI> 47.) <HI>doth this argument advance your preten&s;ions, or di&s;|parage ours?</HI> and then explaining that Que&s;tion, or &s;hewing that he is not at a want of other <HI>artificiall</HI> words to &s;ay the &s;ame thing againe as pompou&s;ly, he addes, <HI>What evidence doth it artificially and intrin&s;ecally give for you or again&s;t us?</HI> My conclu&s;ion was [tho&s;e who by word openly renounce the Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t, are vi&s;ibly &s;uch to whom (according to the word of God) the Lords Supper ought not to be admini&s;tred]. The conclu&s;ion he hath made for me is [tho&s;e who by word openly renounce the Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t are vi&s;ibly &s;uch, to whom the Sacrament of the Lords Supper ought not to be admini|&s;tred]. Let the Reader judge what material difference there is betwixt them. Yet he grants the latter, when he quarreld the former. But then as bethinking him&s;elfe, that the <HI>argu|ment</HI> is mine, though the dre&s;s be his, he will now have ano|ther thru&s;t at it, and denies the <HI>Minor:</HI> yet not ab&s;olutely but with di&s;tinction; now he attempts to play the part of a <HI>Re&s;pondent</HI> indeed. But what he might have &s;aid, as befitted a Re&s;pondent in a few lines, he mu&s;t &s;pend many leaves upon (though not altogether) in the following part of his booke.</P>
<P>This being the very point of my argument, and this place mo&s;t fit to con&s;ider it more throughly, I &s;hall here make my reply to him upon it, once for all.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 3.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Vi&s;ible unbeleevers is not taken</HI> (&s;aith he, <HI>p.</HI> 47.) <HI>in the &s;ame &s;en&s;e in the Major and Minor. In the Major according to the an|cient and famous &s;en&s;e of the Catholique Church for pagan Infi|dels, for men without, for non-receivers of Chri&s;tian doctrine, but po&s;itively &s;tanding under the delu&s;ion of &s;ome vi&s;ible Idoll or Idolls. In the Minor, according to your moderne Browni&s;me</HI> (thats one of the flowers he u&s;eth to dre&s;s me a garland with) <HI>and private &s;en&s;e, for Chri&s;tians within the Church, baptized and adult; but manifestly defective in their Chri&s;tian Ethicks, though orthodoxall otherwi&s;e in all points of faith, and frequenters of our Church A&s;&s;emblyes and &s;olemnities, as profe&s;&s;edly of our Prote&s;tant per|&s;wa&s;ion in point of Religion and divine wor&s;hip.</HI></P>
<PB N="54" REF="48">
<P>By the way I might reply, What if the&s;e baptized adult per&s;ons are not orthodox in faith, nor frequenters of our Church: a&s;&s;emblies and Solemnities? Are they then unbelie|vers in the fir&s;t &s;en&s;e? or mu&s;t there be a third &s;en&s;e devi&s;ed for them? The Reader will ob&s;erve this confu&s;ion. But if he had applied this di&s;tinction &s;uch an one as it is, he had done &s;omewhat becoming the place he hath taken upon him. But that he leaves at large. Well, &s;ince one good turn re|quires another, I will endeavour to make out his An&s;wer as he (ere-while) thought to do my Argument. And it may be this: Vi&s;ibly unbelievers may be taken in a two-fold &s;en&s;e. 1. For Pagan-infidels. 2. Morbid-Chri&s;tians, [under which term I &s;uppo&s;e he will contain &s;candalous and notoriou&s;ly-prophane Chri&s;tians, or el&s;e he &s;aith nothing to the que&s;tion.] Now, take <HI>vi&s;ible unbelievers</HI> in the former &s;en&s;e, for <HI>Pagan-In&s;idels,</HI> and then I grant the <HI>Major.</HI> Tho&s;e who are vi&s;i|bly unbelievers, that is, Pagans, are &s;uch to whom the Lords Supper ought not to be admini&s;tred. And then I deny the <HI>Minor.</HI> All who in word openly renounce Chri&s;t, are not <HI>vi|&s;ibly unbelievers,</HI> that is, <HI>vi&s;ibly Pagans.</HI></P>
<P>But take <HI>vi&s;ible unbelievers</HI> in the later &s;en&s;e for <HI>Morbid-Chri&s;tians,</HI> and then I grant the <HI>Minor.</HI> Tho&s;e who by word openly renounce Chri&s;t, are <HI>vi&s;ibly unbelievers,</HI> that is, <HI>Mor|bid Chri&s;tians:</HI> But then I deny the <HI>Major,</HI> and &s;ay, That tho&s;e who are <HI>vi&s;ibly unbelievers,</HI> that is, <HI>Morbid Chri&s;tians,</HI> are not &s;uch to whom the Lords Supper ought to be admini&s;tred. I appeal to any judicious Reader, whether I wrong Mr. <HI>W.</HI> in this gue&s;&s;ing at the application of his di&s;tinction and an&s;wer thereupon to my Argument. And indeed this el&s;ewhere he gives us in as his &s;en&s;e, many times over and over. p. 50. &s;aith he, <HI>You mi&s;-judge in taking the Morbid Church members of our Parochial A&s;&s;emblies to be unbelievers and Infidels po&s;itively, as Pagans, &amp;c.</HI> So <HI>p.</HI> 51, 52, 53. and <HI>pa&s;&s;im alibi.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 4.</HEAD>
<P>Here Mr. <HI>W.</HI> a&s;&s;erts, that to u&s;e the word Infidel, or un|believer for any but Pagans (who never took on them a po&s;i|tive obligation to the &s;ervice of the true God) is <HI>Browni&s;me.</HI> And that the Scripture and Catholique &s;en&s;e of the word, doth onely denote Pagans. But how ha&s;tily was this a&s;&s;erted by him, &s;hall be &s;hewed in the following ob&s;ervations concerning the Scripture u&s;e of the word.</P>
<P N="1">1. Chri&s;t &s;aid to <HI>Thomas, John</HI> 20.27. <HI>Be not thou</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">,
<PB N="55" REF="48"><HI>be not an unbeliever, but a believer.</HI> Was not he now in a po&s;&s;ibility <HI>(ex natura rei)</HI> though baptized, to have become an unbeliever by apo&s;ta&s;ie from the principles of the Chri&s;tian faith, e&s;pecially this, that Je&s;us is the Me&s;|&s;ias?</P>
<P N="2">2. Tho&s;e two Texts, 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 6.14, 15. <HI>Be not unequally yoa|ked with unbelievers &mdash; What part hath a believer with an In|fidel?</HI> and <HI>Titus</HI> 1.15. <HI>To the unbelievers nothing is pure, &amp;c.</HI> are both expounded by D^r <HI>Hammond</HI> (who&s;e rea&s;ons are worth weighing) to be under&s;tood of the <HI>Gnostick Hereticks,</HI> cal|led there <HI>Infidels,</HI> or <HI>unbelievers,</HI> in that their doctrines and practices made &s;o great an oppo&s;ition to the Go&s;pel.</P>
<P N="3">3. And on <HI>Matth.</HI> 24.51. he makes tho&s;e two words, <HI>hy|pocrites</HI> and <HI>unbelievers</HI> of equall importance, i. e. &s;aith he, <HI>Knaves, fal&s;e, deeeitfull per&s;ons, expre&s;&s;ed by S. Luke in &s;etting this down, ch.</HI> 12.46. <HI>by</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>unbelievers,</HI> or <HI>unfaithfull.</HI> And he renders the <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>Rev.</HI> 21.8. <HI>unfaithful,</HI> that fall off from Chri&s;t.</P>
<P N="4">4. The Jewes, after Chri&s;ts a&s;cen&s;ion, who received not Je&s;us for their Chri&s;t, or Me&s;&s;ias, were unbelievers in Scrip|ture-&s;en&s;e. <HI>Act.</HI> 14.2. and 17.5. yet were they not then Pa|gans, under no po&s;itive obligation of wor&s;hiping a fal&s;e God. And an excommunicate per&s;on, who hath been baptized, and &s;till profe&s;&s;eth the Chri&s;tian faith, is to be dealt with, as an Heathen, yet he is no Pagan, nor ab&s;olutely cut off from the Church, as hath been &s;hewed above. And the Apo&s;tle tells us, that the Jewes were broken off by unbelief, though they were Church-members before,, <HI>Rom.</HI> 11.23.</P>
<P N="5">5. <HI>Belief,</HI> doth ordinarily in Scripture-&s;en&s;e, denote &s;uch a profe&s;&s;ed acceptance of the Go&s;pel-call, as in|cludes &s;incere obedience; and vi&s;ible believing, vi&s;ibly &s;in|cere actuall obedience. (And on the contrary, unbelief and unbelieving, may in Scripture-&s;en&s;e denote <HI>wilfull</HI> di&s;obe|dience and rebellion again&s;t the Go&s;pel, and vi&s;ible unbelief, &s;uch vi&s;ible notorious rebellion or actuall di&s;obedience.) Therefore &s;ome di&s;obedient within the Church, may be ter|med unbelievers. For the <HI>Concrete</HI> is rightly <HI>denominated</HI> from the <HI>abstract;</HI> a <HI>ju&s;t</HI> man from <HI>ju&s;tice,</HI> &s;o an <HI>unbeliever</HI> from <HI>unbelief prevailing.</HI> The Antecedent is manife&s;t in ma|ny Scripture-in&s;tances. 1. That believing to which ju&s;tifi|cation and pardon of &s;in is annexed, is a &s;incere and obe|dientiall believing, 2. And &s;o al&s;o is that to which &s;alvation
<PB N="56" REF="49">is promi&s;ed; But to a Scripture-believing is annexed ju&s;tifi|cation, <HI>Act.</HI> 16.39. and pardon of &s;in, <HI>Act.</HI> 10.43. And al&s;o to it is promi&s;ed &s;alvation, and that mo&s;t frequently, <HI>Act.</HI> 16.31. <HI>Rom.</HI> 10.9. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 1.21. <HI>Gal.</HI> 3.22. <HI>Eph.</HI> 1.19. 2 <HI>The&s;&s;.</HI> 1.10. <HI>Heb.</HI> 4.3. &amp; 10.39. <HI>John</HI> 3.15, 16, 18, 36. &amp; 6.35, 40, 47. &amp; 11.25, 26. &amp; 12.46. <HI>Rom.</HI> 1.16. &amp; 9.33. <HI>Mark</HI> 16.16. 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 2.6. 1 <HI>Iohn</HI> 5.10. 3. It may al&s;o be ob&s;er|ved, how <HI>Abraham</HI> is called the <HI>Father of believers,</HI> in re&s;pect of that eminent and exemplary faith of his, which was truly ju&s;tifying and &s;aving, and included in it &s;incere actuall obe|dience, <HI>Rom.</HI> 4.3. <HI>Gal.</HI> 3.6. So not <HI>to believe is not to obey, Rom.</HI> 15.31. <HI>Rom.</HI> 10.16. They have not all <HI>obeyed the Go&s;|pel.</HI> For <HI>E&s;aias</HI> &s;aith, Lord who hath <HI>believed our report.</HI> And this is referred to the Jewes, who were Church-members, at lea&s;t before Chri&s;ts death. And tho&s;e in the later time, who &s;hould depart <HI>from the faith,</HI> may be called <HI>unbelievers;</HI> tho&s;e <HI>departers from the faith</HI> mentioned 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.1, 2, 3, 4. the learned Mr. <HI>Mede</HI> doth &s;hew, are meant of Papi&s;ts, and the grand apo&s;ta&s;ie of the Antichri&s;tian Man of Sin. So <HI>tho&s;e who draw back from the truth,</HI> either in re&s;pect of doctrinall or practicall apo&s;ta&s;ie, are oppo&s;ed to <HI>them who believe, Heb.</HI> 10.38, 39. Therefore tho&s;e who apo&s;tatize, <HI>do not believe,</HI> and &s;o are not believers in &s;ome Scripture-&s;en&s;e: which al&s;o a|grees with the u&s;uall &s;ignification of the word. <HI>Budeus Com|ment. Ling. Graec.</HI> &s;aith, <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>cui credi debet, &amp; fidem faciens verbo &s;uo.</HI> And <HI>Scapula</HI> explains <GAP DESC="foreign"> to be <HI>incredu|lus, qui fidem non adhibet. Item infidus, cujus &s;u&s;pecta est &s;ides; cui fidendum non est. Item perfidus.</HI></P>
<P N="6">6. I acknowledge the words <HI>believe</HI> and <HI>not believe; belie|liever</HI> and <HI>unbeliever,</HI> are u&s;ed more largely &s;ometimes in Scri|pture, as I &s;hall perhaps &s;hew beneath. But that &s;ome Church-members, (that is, <HI>&s;uch men on each as by their po&s;itive engage|ments and promi&s;es, are obliged to believe in Chri&s;t, and for|&s;ake their &s;ins,</HI>) may yet by their notorious di&s;obedience, be|come vi&s;ibly unbelievers in &s;ome Scripture-&s;en&s;e, is all that I here contend for. And therefore my reverend brother comes off (me thinks) but <HI>blewly,</HI> who puts &s;o great an honour on <HI>Brown,</HI> as to call this the <HI>Browni&s;ticall &s;en&s;e of unbeliever,</HI> oppo&s;ing it to the <HI>Scripturall and Catholique &s;en&s;e</HI> of the &s;ame.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 5.</HEAD>
<P N="2">2. Now I proceed to the application of the fore&s;aid di&s;tin|ction,
<PB N="57" REF="49">and the very &s;tre&s;s of our controver&s;ie will lye on this point, <HI>Whether to tho&s;e who are vi&s;ibly unbelievers in this &s;en&s;e</HI> (I have proved to be a Scripture-&s;en&s;e of the word, that is, as are <HI>vi&s;ibly in the way of actuall notorious di&s;obedience to the Go&s;pel,</HI> whether to the&s;e I &s;ay) <HI>the Lords Supper ought not to b&egrave; admini&s;tred,</HI> though they be baptized, adult, intelligent, and not excluded other publique ordinances in the Church? I explicated <HI>[vi&s;ibly unbelievers]</HI> by [&s;uch as are according to the word of God to be judged and taken to be thus unbe|lievers.] Such explications Mr. <HI>W.</HI> cannot endure. Oh! how he puffs and &s;torms at them! <HI>p.</HI> 60, 61. and in very &s;ad earne&s;t calls them <HI>Bomba&s;t, &amp;c.</HI> But let us leave our brother to cool at his lea&s;ure, and calmly con&s;ider the thing it &s;elfe now before us. And herein I &s;hall de&s;ign, 1. To premi&s;e &s;ome con&s;iderations, as introductory to what followes. 2. To determine and prove again&s;t Mr. <HI>W.</HI> the negative of the que|&s;tion la&s;t propo&s;ed. 3. To annex &s;ome cautions at the later end, for the further clearing and preventing mi&s;take in this doctrine I mu&s;t in&s;i&s;t upon.</P>
<P>The con&s;iderations to be premi&s;ed are the&s;e.</P>
<P N="1">1. It is certain, that a di&s;tinction ought to be made betwixt <HI>Believers,</HI> and tho&s;e we are to account and deal with as in the way of believing actually. The &s;ame is to be &s;aid of the dif|ference to be put between unbelievers, and tho&s;e we are to account and deal with as in the way of notorious di&s;obedience and unbelief.</P>
<P>As to the habit of faith, or unbelief, and the denomination a per&s;on may receive from the exi&s;tence or predominancy of either of them; we cannot certainly know, that any (be&s;ides our &s;elves) are &s;o believers or unbelievers. But we may know who are vi&s;ibly in the way of faith or unbelief. And therefore I own and comply with the &s;ub&s;tance of what Mr. <HI>W.</HI> &s;aith concerning the impo&s;&s;ibility of our knowing who are true be|lievers in re&s;pect of the habit, <HI>p.</HI> 55, 57. &amp;c.</P>
<P N="2">2. Yea, I do not onely grant this in re&s;pect of the <HI>ha|bit of justi&s;ying and &s;aving faith,</HI> but in re&s;pect al&s;o of <HI>a dog|maticall faith,</HI> that is, a&s;&s;ent to the propo&s;itions of the Chri|&s;tian faith, as truths, &s;uch as the Divels may have, and the damned, who doubt not of the truth of the Go&s;pel. And if this be made out, I hope the Di&s;putes may be &s;omewhat al|lay'd, which are at pre&s;ent on foot, betwixt very learned and godly men, <HI>viz. Whether a dogmaticall faith, or ju&s;tifying
<PB N="58" REF="50">faith entitle to the Sacraments?</HI> The one may with like rea&s;on be granted as the other, and both are attended with equall difficulties or inconveniences &s;uppo&s;eable. I may as certainly know whom I am to account a ju&s;tified believer, as whom I am to account <HI>a dogmaticall believer;</HI> yea, and mo&s;t commonly (perhaps) as ea&s;ily too. Is a per&s;ons profe&s;&s;ing his a&s;&s;ent to the Articles of the Creed, or owning the Scriptures, a &s;uf|ficient character of his believing dogmatically or hi&s;torically? So, is his profe&s;&s;ing con&s;ent, and cordiall &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion to the doctrine of the Go&s;pel, as &s;ufficient and ready a note to us, of his being a ju&s;tified believer? yet we cannot be certain he is of that per&s;wa&s;ion in the Articles he profe&s;&s;eth a&s;&s;ent unto; no more then we can be a&s;&s;ured he &s;incerely con&s;ents to the &s;ame, according to his profe&s;&s;ion of &s;incerity. Is (on the contrary) a per&s;ons di&s;claiming the principles of the Chri&s;tian faith, a &s;ufficient token whereby we may be directed in ac|counting him dogmatically or hi&s;torically no believer? &s;o his profe&s;&s;ed renouncing of &s;ubjection to Chri&s;ts Lawes, [<HI>qua&s;i dicat,</HI> I will not yet for&s;ake my lu&s;ts that I may obey Chri&s;t] is a &s;ufficient note whereby we are to account him at pre&s;ent as out of the way of actuall ju&s;tifying faith: Is a per&s;ons de|nying Chri&s;ts divinity, a note to us that he is not a dogmati|call believer, though yet he profe&s;s he believes the Scriptures to be true and &s;o contradicts him&s;elf? So is a per&s;ons di&s;obe|dience to, and actuall rebellion again&s;t the Commands of Chri&s;t, when notorious, a &s;ufficient token to us that he is not in the way of actuall ju&s;tifying faith, although he doth pro|fe&s;s in word that he believes &s;incerely and obedientially, and &s;o in this contradicts him&s;elf. But of this we &s;hall have occa|&s;ion to &s;ay &s;omewhat more beneath.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="6" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 6.</HEAD>
<P N="3">3. Sometimes <HI>per&s;ons</HI> are called <HI>holy</HI> and <HI>Saints,</HI> and per|haps may be <HI>beleevers</HI> too, and <HI>&s;uch like titles</HI> attributed to them, whiles here alive in this world, on the account of their being po&s;itively obliged (by their own promi&s;e) to holine&s;s, faith, and the &s;ervice of the true God; &s;o as the Heathens and other Nations were not. Thus all the nation of the <HI>Jewes,</HI> who were devoted to God by their profe&s;&s;ed acceptance of the Covenant of God tendred to them, were an holy people, chil|dren of the Kingdome, the Church of God, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> And &s;o all tho&s;e per&s;ons alive are now <HI>Saints,</HI> and <HI>holy,</HI> and <HI>beleevers,</HI> who have &s;olemnly taken an engagement upon them&s;elves, by their
<PB N="59" REF="50">promi&s;e made, to believe in Chri&s;t; and they are in Covenant, that is, they have by their own promi&s;e covenanted with God, and bound them&s;elves thereby unto his &s;ervice, &s;o as Pagans are not. And no one can be &s;ure that that promi&s;e was not in &s;in|cerity, and therefore we cannot &s;ay ab&s;olutely of any &s;uch (though never &s;o wicked, and cen&s;ured too) that he is no Church-member; that is, that the hath not devoted him&s;elfe to Chri&s;t in truth. But now an heathen hath not (vi&s;ibly) devo|ted him&s;elfe at all to Chri&s;t, and therefore cannot be a Church-member; yea though he be of Gods Elect. But for tho&s;e who have vi&s;ibly devoted them&s;elves to Chri&s;t, this indelible cha|racter remaines on them, though they are apo&s;tates from the Covenant they have profe&s;&s;edly entred into; whether in re|&s;pect of doctrine or practice. Chri&s;t &s;peaking to the rebelli|ous <HI>Jewes</HI> &s;aith, <HI>John</HI> 8.54. <HI>It is my Father that honoureth me, of whom ye &s;ay that he is your God;</HI> when yet he had told them before, that they were neither <HI>Abrahams</HI> children, nor had God for their Father, nor were of God, as they pretended, ver&s;. 39, 41, 42.47. The <HI>branches broken off</HI> vi&s;ibly from <HI>the olive</HI> (in &s;ome re&s;pects) <HI>are thus holy &s;till,</HI> Rom. 11.16, 17. and &s;o are &s;uch as are excommunicated, and &s;u&s;pended from the per&s;onal priviledges of orderly and uncen&s;ured Church-mem|bers. They are <HI>brethren</HI> in this &s;en&s;e &s;till, 2 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 3.15.</P>
<P>A Church-member really is one who is &s;incerely devoted to Chri&s;t, and we mu&s;t account all &s;uch again&s;t whom we cannot prove, that they never were &s;o &s;incerely devoted to Chri&s;ts call. And then I thinke <HI>none alive must be rejected ab&s;olutely</HI> from being Saints, beleevers, Chri&s;tians, Di&s;ciples, and Church-members, <HI>who have been po&s;itively engaged to Christ;</HI> unle&s;s we could tell who had committed the &s;in again&s;t the Holy-Gho&s;t, or had &s;inned unto death in St. <HI>Johns</HI> &s;en&s;e; the which is &s;o difficult if not impo&s;&s;ible to di&s;cerne, in particular per&s;ons, that I need not have much re&s;pect thereto in this matter.</P>
<P N="4">4. In this la&s;t &s;en&s;e its true we may be certain (in reference to many or mo&s;t) who are beleevers, and who are not. But that this is not the character and Rule of admi&s;&s;ion to the Sa|craments, will appeare in the en&s;uing arguments; which I now ha&s;ten to.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="7" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 7.</HEAD>
<P>In the &s;econd place I de&s;igned to prove this Conclu&s;ion; <HI>That to tho&s;e who are unbeleevers in re&s;pect of actuall notorious di&s;obedience to the Go&s;pel,</HI> (whiles &s;uch) <HI>the Lords Supper ought not to be admini&s;tred.</HI></P>
<PB N="60" REF="51">
<P N="1">1 And my fir&s;t Argument &s;hall be grounded on Mr. <HI>W.</HI> his conce&s;&s;ion, and the Introductory con&s;iderations before evin|ced. Mr. <HI>W.</HI> grants that beleeving is the Rule for admi&s;&s;ion, <HI>p.</HI> 56, 57. <HI>You &s;ay</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>that knowledge who are belee|vers, or who are not beleevers, mu&s;t be the load&s;tar of our admi|ni&s;tring or not admini&s;tring the Lords Supper. We &s;ay</HI> in the&s;i, <HI>the &s;ame.</HI> And I have proved that neither a per&s;ons being a <HI>be|leever habitually</HI> is the Rule of admi&s;&s;ion, for that cannot cer|tainly be known; nor yet his being a <HI>beleever in re&s;pect of po|&s;itive obligation layd on him&s;elfe to beleeve,</HI> though that may cer|tainly be known; for then none could be debarr'd who have ever been baptized, yea or who otherwi&s;e have entred into a po&s;itive engagement to Chri&s;tianity. For the <HI>Jewes</HI> were <HI>Gods people and holy,</HI> not only by Circumci&s;ion, but by the <HI>renewing of that Covenant,</HI> afterwards to <HI>take the Lord for their God, Deut.</HI> 26.17, 18, 19. <HI>&amp;</HI> 29.10, 11, 12, 13. Now hence it cleerly follows, that the knowledge who are vi&s;ibly in the way of beleeving or obedience to the Go&s;pel they have po&s;itively (e&s;pecially by Bapti&s;me) obliged them&s;elves unto, is the Rule of admi&s;&s;ion to the Sacrament. For the two former being re|moved, no other but this can be a&s;&s;igned, that I know of. And then none can doubt that to tho&s;e who are unbeleevers in re|&s;pect of notorious di&s;obedience to the Go&s;pel, the Lords Sup|per ought not to be admini&s;tred.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="8" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 8.</HEAD>
<P N="2">2. If &s;uch were to be excluded the Pa&s;&s;eover, who were in vi&s;ible notorious di&s;obedience to the Law they were debtors po&s;itively unto by their Circumci&s;ion, and other obligations; then the Lords Supper ought not to be admini&s;tred to them who are in a vi&s;ible notorious di&s;obedience to the Law they are debtors to by Bapti&s;me and other obligations. But the former is true; therefore the latter al&s;o.</P>
<P>The Con&s;equence, at lea&s;t <HI>(ad hominem)</HI> to the men con|cerned in this di&s;pute, holds firmly.</P>
<P>The A&s;&s;umption &s;hall be proved by In&s;tance of the parent-Pro&s;elyte, who though circumci&s;ed him&s;elfe, yet, might not eat the Pa&s;&s;eover lawfully, if he wilfully neglected his duty in circumci&s;ing his males. And this was not &s;uch a meerly cere|monial bar, as is pretended to have been the only bar (among the <HI>Jewes</HI>) from the Pa&s;&s;eover.</P>
<P>The place is <HI>Exod.</HI> 12.48. <HI>When a &s;tranger &s;hall &s;ojourne with thee, and will keep the Pa&s;&s;eover to the Lord; Let all his Males
<PB N="61" REF="51">be circumci&s;ed, and then let him come neere and keepe it.</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>veaz, et tunc,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> &s;aith the <HI>LXX</HI> (a phra&s;e of like im|portance with the <GAP DESC="foreign">, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11.28.) the Syriack reads it, <HI>After that all his males are circumci&s;ed, then &s;hall he come neere and keep it.</HI> And he &s;hall be as one that is borne in the Land. For no uncircumci&s;ed per&s;on &s;hall eat thereof. By the <HI>geer</HI> here is not meant the <HI>advena,</HI> ver&s;. 45. but the <HI>&s;tranger within the Covenant,</HI> di&s;tingui&s;hed from th&egrave; <HI>&s;tranger within the gate only,</HI> who did but dwel among them as <HI>Ain&s; worth</HI> &s;hews; and &s;o the <HI>LXX</HI> render it by <GAP DESC="foreign">, and the Latine ver|&s;ion of the Chaldee Paraphra&s;t, hath, <HI>aliquis pro&s;elytus.</HI> Now he was not a Pro&s;elyte but by Circumci&s;ion; and yet (we &s;ee) before he might be permitted to eat the Pa&s;&s;eover, all his males mu&s;t be circumci&s;ed. Both were his duty, yet the neglect of cir|cumci&s;ing his males barr'd him the Pa&s;&s;eover. For &s;aith <HI>Ain&s;|worth,</HI> <Q>he was yet in his &s;in, whiles his children were (through his default) uncircumci&s;ed, <HI>Gen.</HI> 17.12, 13, 14. <HI>Exod.</HI> 4.24.26. And thus (&s;aith he out of <HI>Maimony</HI>) the <HI>Jewes</HI> have interpreted this place, that as the circumci&s;ion of him&s;elfe (if it be omitted) debarreth him from doing the Pa&s;&s;eover, &s;o doth the circumci&s;ion of his &s;ons, and of his &s;ervants, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> and if he kill it before he doth circumci&s;e them, it is un|lawfull.</Q></P>
<P>Its added in the Text; <HI>For no uncircumci&s;ed per&s;on &s;hall eat hereof.</HI> I confe&s;&s;e it may be rendred [And no uncircumci&s;ed per&s;on, <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>vecol, et omnis praeputiatus</HI>] with which agree the <HI>Chaldee Paraphrast,</HI> and the Latine Interpretation of the <HI>Syriak ver&s;ion;</HI> and the <HI>LXX</HI> leave out <HI>[And],</HI> and &s;aith only, <HI>No uncircumci&s;ed per&s;on &s;hall eat it.</HI> But if it have refe|rence to the preceding part of the ver&s;e, as our Tran&s;lators &s;eeme to have conceived, (and doubtle&s;s <HI>vau</HI> is frequently u&s;ed as a cau&s;al or rational conjunction, as <HI>Schindler</HI> &s;hewes in <HI>Pentaglott.</HI> and &s;o is rendred <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 60.11. <HI>For</HI> vaine is the help of man. <HI>E&s;a.'</HI> 64.5. Behold thou art wroth, <HI>for</HI> we have &s;inned,) And then I do not &s;ee how it can be accommodated thereunto, unlo&s;&s;e we conceive, that <HI>[uncircumci&s;ed]</HI> is here taken for [one notoriou&s;ly di&s;obedient to the Laws which his circumci&s;ion had obliged him unto], as in &s;pecial in this of circumci&s;ing his males; and that not only in regard of the di&s;|obedience in this neglect con&s;idered in it &s;elfe, but as it argued other di&s;obedience accompanying the &s;ame; as we heard out of <HI>Ain&s;worth; he was yet in his &s;in, while his children were un|circumci&s;ed.</HI>
<PB N="62" REF="52">This accords with tho&s;e words, ver&s;. 43. of this 12 Chap. <HI>No &s;trdnger &s;hall eat thereof;</HI> as the <HI>Chaldee Paraphra&s;t</HI> renders it; <HI>Omnis filius I&s;rael, qui fuerit Apo&s;tata, non comme|det ex eo; no &s;on of I&s;rael, that is an Apo&s;tate, &s;hall eat thereof.</HI> Thus we have an in&s;tance of debarring the Pa&s;&s;eover for a pol|lution not ceremonial which &s;hould make him uncleane cere|monially, &s;o as to &s;eparate him from the company of others ci|villy. And this we &s;hall have occa&s;ion (I thinke) to improve further beneath. <HI>Mr</HI> Cotton <HI>in his grounds and ends of chil|drens Bapti&s;me,</HI> p. 11, to &s;hew the hainou&s;ne&s;s of the &s;in of a baptized parent, who neglects to baptize his Infant, quotes this place, and &s;aith, <HI>Surely in the old Te&s;tament a man was accoun|ted of God as uncircumci&s;ed him&s;elfe, if his children were un|circumci&s;ed.</HI> And according to the analogy Mr. <HI>W.</HI> pro|ceeds upon, (and rea&s;onably enough) in his &s;olving the Que|&s;tion why Infants are not admitted to the Communion; taken fromthe not partaking of the <HI>Jewes</HI> Infants at the Pa&s;&s;eover, <HI>p.</HI> 131. I &s;ay on the &s;ame analogy we may more particularly argue, If a circumci&s;ed per&s;on formerly might not eat the Pa&s;&s;eover if he circumci&s;ed not his males, then a baptized pa|rent now may not eat the Lords Supper, if he bring not his in|fant to Bapti&s;me; and indeed &s;uppo&s;ing the command as cleere now for the baptizing of In&s;ants, as it was before for circum|ci&s;ing of male Infants, the argumentation is &s;trong enough.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="9" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 9.</HEAD>
<P N="3">3. I thus argue in the third place; The Sacrament ought not to be admini&s;tred to them, whom we are no wi&s;e called, nor obliged to admini&s;ter to, upon the account of admini&s;tring to beleevers. But we are no wi&s;e called, nor obliged to admi|ni&s;ter the Sacrament to unbeleevers, who are &s;uch in the &s;en&s;e, and in re&s;pect of notorious di&s;obedience to the Go&s;pel, upon the account of admini&s;tring to beleevers. <HI>Ergo,</HI> the Sacrament ought not to be admini&s;tred to unbeleevers, who are &s;uch in the &s;en&s;e, and in re&s;pect of notorious di&s;obedience to the Go|&s;pel. The <HI>Major</HI> is manife&s;t; the <HI>Minor</HI> I thus confirme. If in other like ca&s;es, where duties are incumbent on us, re&s;pecting our behaviour towards others, as &s;o and &s;o qualifi'd, the obli|gation to tho&s;e duties of our behaviour towards per&s;ons cea|&s;eth when they are not vi&s;ibly &s;o and &s;o qualified; then we are no wi&s;e called, nor obliged to admini&s;ter the Sacrament to un|beleevers, who are &s;uch in the &s;en&s;e and re&s;pect of notorious di&s;obedience to the Go&s;pel. But the former is true; therefore
<PB N="63" REF="52">the latter al&s;o. The Con&s;equence is cleere; For <HI>paria arguunt fidem&abque; faciunt.</HI></P>
<P>The <HI>Minor</HI> may be &s;hewed in &s;undry like in&s;tances. The Scripture enjoynes us &s;everal duties in our behaviour towards the wicked and godly, the righteous and unrighteous, although we cannot certainly tell who the&s;e per&s;ons are <HI>habitually</HI> and <HI>inwardly.</HI> But all agree (I thinke) that tho&s;e are to be taken and dealt with by us as &s;uch, who are <HI>vi&s;ibly</HI> in the wayes of godline&s;s or impiety. <HI>David</HI> de&s;cribing the practices of an ho|ly man, <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 15. among others reckons this, ver. 4. <HI>In who&s;e eyes a vile per&s;on is contemned, but he honoreth them who fear the Lord:</HI> we mu&s;t &s;hun the company of the wicked, <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 119.115. we are to give to him that needeth, and not as in a way of cha|rity and nece&s;&s;ary reliefe, to them who need not. But we know not ever who needeth, that craves our almes; he may coun|terfeit; and if it appeare he doth counterfeit, we are not obli|ged, nor called to give unto him what belongs to the needy. We mu&s;t know per&s;ons to be Chri&s;ts Di&s;ciples by their loving one another, yet &s;uch love cannot certainly be known to us to be in others. <HI>John</HI> 13.33. So al&s;o we are commanded, <HI>Luk.</HI> 17.3, 4. If thy brother tre&s;pa&s;s again&s;t thee, rebuke him, <HI>and if he repent forgive him.</HI></P>
<P>But how &s;hall I know when he repents? It follows, ver&s;. 4. <HI>If he tre&s;pa&s;&s;e &s;even times in a day, and &s;even times in a day turn a|gain to thee &s;aying, I repent, thou &s;halt forgive him.</HI> There is a <HI>two-fold forgivene&s;s,</HI> 1. that which is oppo&s;ed to <HI>hatred, grudges, and unjust de&s;ire of revenge</HI> again&s;t him who hath wronged us. Thus we are to forgive him who tre&s;pa&s;&s;eth a|gain&s;t us, whether he repent or no; we are to love our enemies remaining &s;uch. 2. That which is oppo&s;ed to the <HI>not receiving him into familiarity,</HI> and tokens of intimate and encouraging friend&s;hip as formerly. And thus we are not bound to forgive, unle&s;s he who hath tre&s;pa&s;led do repent; that is, do manife&s;t his repentance; and his <HI>&s;aying he repents,</HI> may be a manife&s;tation thereof &s;ufficient to us, that we may &s;o far acquie&s;ce therein, as to be obliged to forgive him in this later &s;en&s;e. But here <HI>Calvins</HI> caution is u&s;eful, <HI>Addendum e&s;t</HI> (&s;aith he on the place) <HI>Chri&s;tum non privare fideles judicio, ut &s;lult&egrave; ad verbulum unum creduli fint; &s;ed tantum velle aequos e&s;&s;e &amp; humanos, ut re&s;ipi&s;|centibus manum porrigant, &s;i modo apparet ip&s;os ex animo &s;ibi in peccat is di&s;plicere&mdash; &s;ed quoties probabile Agnum conver|&s;ionis dederit peccator, admitti vult Chri&s;tus ad reconciliationens,
<PB N="64" REF="53">ne repul&s;ae fractus deficiat.</HI> Now he who hath taken away my goods, and &s;aith he repents, and yet will not, having them in his hand, re&s;tore them to me; by his wicked and wilfull de|tention, overthrowes the crediblene&s;s of his verball profe&s;&s;ion; and his &s;aying, <HI>I repent,</HI> obligeth to this &s;ort of private forgive|ne&s;&s;e I have mentioned, no otherwi&s;e, then as it is a probable token of his &s;erious repentance. Nay, though he is a wi&s;e &s;on (as the proverb goes) who knows his own father, yet is every child obliged to honor both his parents. So manife&s;t is it, that we may be, and are obliged in &s;everall duties to tho&s;e per&s;ons as &s;o and &s;o qualified, whom we cannot certainly know to be &s;uch, under the notion whereof we tender tho&s;e re&s;pects to them. But as our Saviour &s;aith, <HI>He that receiveth a Prophet, or Di&s;ciple, in the name of &s;uch</HI> (that is, who probably appeares to be &s;uch) <HI>&s;hall have his reward:</HI> &s;o here in the&s;e and &s;uch like ca&s;es. But when per&s;ons appear to be in a way vi&s;ibly contrary to the&s;e qualifications on which is founded any of|fices in &s;undry re&s;pects, who doubts that our obligation to perform &s;uch offices to them, then cea&s;eth? When therefore &s;uch as by bapti&s;me have bound them&s;elves to believe, that is, to receive and obey the Go&s;pel, do yet notoriou&s;ly appeare to be <HI>unbelievers</HI> in re&s;pect of their actuall di&s;obedience to the Go&s;pel, we are not obliged to admini&s;ter the Sacrament to as <HI>believers:</HI> As on the contrary, when baptized per&s;ons own|ing their bapti&s;mes, appeare not to be in a way of notorious di&s;obedience to the Go&s;pel, we are bound to admini&s;ter to them as believers, whether they are really and inwardly &s;o or no.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="10" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 10.</HEAD>
<P N="4">4. A fourth argument may be grounded on the forme of admini&s;tration, wherein the Mini&s;ter &s;aith to the Communi|cants according to 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11.24. <HI>Take, eat, this is the Body of Chri&s;t which is broken for you.</HI> So Luke 22.19, 20. <HI>And this Cup is the New Testament in Chri&s;ts blood which is &s;hed for you.</HI> In the Common-prayer book it is, <HI>Take, eat this, in remem|brance that Chri&s;t died for thee. Drink this in remembrance that Chri&s;ts blood was &s;hed for thee.</HI> The Directory &s;aith in <HI>Pauls</HI> words, <HI>This is the body of Christ, which is broken for you.</HI> Whence I argue, The Lords Supper ought not to be admini|&s;tred to them to whom the&s;e words may not be &s;poken particu|larly in the admini&s;tration of it. But to &s;uch unbelievers as are &s;uch in re&s;pect of their notorious vi&s;ible di&s;obedience to
<PB N="65" REF="53">the Go&s;pel, the&s;e words may not be &s;poken particularly in the admini&s;tration of the Sacrament: Therefore to them the Lords Supper ought not to be admini&s;tred. The <HI>Major</HI> is a|bove exception: For tho&s;e ought not to be admitted, to whom the Mini&s;ter may not &s;ay what he ought to apply to the com|municants. The <HI>Minor</HI> I &s;hall further in&s;i&s;t upon, and la|bour to clear. In order whereto I mu&s;t enquire into the mea|ning of the fore&s;aid words to be u&s;ed in the form of admini|&s;tration.</P>
<P>It mu&s;t be acknowledged, that the&s;e words con&s;idered ab|&s;olutely and in them&s;elves, may be interpreted more generally either, 1. of Chri&s;ts being &s;acrificed for the redemption of all the world of mankind, the <HI>genus humanum;</HI> and that not onely <HI>&s;ufficienter</HI> (for that which is paid for the redemption of per&s;ons, is not <HI>&s;trictly</HI> a price, becau&s;e it is &s;ufficient in its own nature to be a worthy and valuable con&s;ideration to re|deem them) but <HI>conditionally</HI> by way of <HI>Chri&s;ts intention al&s;o</HI> to redeem mankind, that is, upon the condition of believing: So that this Go&s;pel may be preached to every humane creature (not &s;o to any lap&s;ed Angel) <HI>He that believeth and is bapti|zed &s;hal be &s;aved.</HI> God &s;o loved the world, &amp;c. Or, 2. (if this plea&s;e not, the fuller explication whereof may be &s;een in lear|ned <HI>Camero,</HI> and the larger di&s;qui&s;ition of it in the acute <HI>A|myraldus</HI>) Chri&s;t dyed for all, in that he bought all, to be Lord and Ruler over them, as Mediator in the Kingdome he hath received by di&s;pen&s;ation from the Father to be Lord of all. Or, 3. as he procured &s;ome common benefits for all. But I conceive it's manife&s;t, the&s;e words of admini&s;tration con&s;ide|red as words of admini&s;tration in the Sacrament, and &s;o with &s;peciall relation to the Sacrament, cannot be under&s;tood in &s;o large a &s;en&s;e, q d. <HI>Chri&s;t died for thee if thou will believe,</HI> or on condition of thy faith; or Chri&s;t died for thee, or was broken for thee, that he might have power over thee as Lord and Judge, or to purcha&s;e &s;ome common benefits for thee, as he did for all mankind. For &s;o they might be applyed to heathens, yea to the mo&s;t wicked of heathens, and &s;uch as are vi&s;ibly in the mo&s;t nototious oppo&s;ition of, and apo&s;ta&s;ie from the very name of Chri&s;tianity; and &s;o this &s;hould be no more an application of comfort to the vi&s;ibly mo&s;t worthy receiver, then is applicable to the vile&s;t Mahumetan on the face of the earth.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="11" TYPE="section">
<PB N="66" REF="54">
<HEAD>&sect;. 11.</HEAD>
<P>There is another as narrow a &s;en&s;e put on the words, as the former is large, and that is to re&s;train them, to the applicati|on of the benefits of Chri&s;ts death <HI>ab&s;olutely</HI> to every receiver. q. d. <HI>This is the body of Chri&s;t, in which thou hast &s;aving inte|re&s;t. As &s;urely as thou receive&s;t the outward &s;ignes, &s;o certainly is the inward grace there al&s;o.</HI> But this cannot be the mea|ning here, becau&s;e no Church nor Mini&s;ter can certainly tell who tho&s;e are who are &s;incere believers, who onely are par|takers ab&s;olutely of the remi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins purcha&s;ed by Chri&s;ts broken body, and his blood made over unto them. There re|mains onely a third &s;en&s;e (that I know of) which is a <HI>mean</HI> betwixt the two former. And this is to be founded on the ma|nife&s;t &s;en&s;e of other &s;uch like pa&s;&s;ages in Scripture, and the nature of the Lords Supper it &s;elf. <HI>Paul</HI> &s;aith to the Corin|thians, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5.11. <HI>But ye are wa&s;hed, but ye are are &s;anctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Je&s;us, and by the &s;pi|rit of our God.</HI> And to the Ephe&s;ians, <HI>Eph.</HI> 2.1, 8, 19, 20, 21, 22. <HI>You hath he qu ekned who were dead in tre&s;pa&s;&s;es and &s;ins; by grace ye are &s;aved through faith,</HI> chap. 5.8. <HI>Ye were &s;ome|times darkne&s;s, but now are ye light in the Lord.</HI> Abundance of &s;uch pa&s;&s;ages there be in Scripture, where it is manife&s;t the Apo&s;tle applies to them the comforts and benefits of &s;incere believers, as theirs; and yet he knew not their &s;incerity ab&s;o|lutely. It mu&s;t needs then be, that according to his knowledge of their &s;incerity, &s;o was the application he makes to them of the priviledges annexed onely to &s;incerity, that is, according to the judgement of the Church which received them as &s;uch probably. If they were &s;uch as Eccle&s;ia&s;tieally they appeared to be, then all the&s;e benefits were really theirs. And hence the baptized are &s;aid to be illuminated and &s;anctified, becau&s;e in the judgement of the Church they were &s;uch, who were ad|mitted to bapti&s;me, who if they were really what they were by the Church e&s;teemed to be, were certainly &s;anctified and en|lightned. &s;o I humbly conceive the meaning of the&s;e words, <HI>This is the body of Christ which is broken for you,</HI> is this. q. d. If thou be really what the Church taking thee into her fel|low&s;hip judgeth thee to be (whiles it being in a capacity to judge, hath not judged thee contrary) then thou art certainly partaker of the inward grace of this Sacrament. All the &s;a|ving benefits flowing from Chri&s;ts blood, are thine. If thou art &s;incere, as the Church or Mini&s;ter hopes and judgeth of
<PB N="67" REF="54">thee in admitting thee, then Chri&s;t is thine really. Not <HI>if thou wilt believe Chri&s;t is thine;</HI> but <HI>if thou now do&s;t &s;incerely be|lieve as thou now appearest to do;</HI> which &s;uppo&s;eth that he is taken for one who doth &s;incerely believe by them who regu|larly admit him, (the governing Church or Mini&s;ter alone in &s;ome ca&s;es.) How incongruous would it be to &s;ay to a re|bell who was erewhile vi&s;ibly in Armes, and was breathing out trea&s;on again&s;t his Soveraign, and hath not yet vi&s;ibly recan|ted the &s;ame, and therefore is &s;till vi&s;ibly in the way of trea|&s;on, how incongruous would it be to &s;ay to &s;uch a one, If thou art a good &s;ubject, the King is thy friend? And it is ma|nife&s;t in part by what hath been before quoted from the Com|mon-prayer book, and Canons, that the Church of <HI>England,</HI> which u&s;ed that form of admini&s;tration, <HI>Christ died for thee,</HI> under&s;tood it as to be applied onely to the vi&s;ibly ju&s;tified be|lievers, becau&s;e they excluded the notoriou&s;ly di&s;obedient (though not fully excommunicated) and warned all to re|frain who lived and allowed them&s;elves wilfully in &s;ecret &s;ins, which the governors of the Church could take no cognizance of. Thus in the third Exhortation, after the warning of the wicked per&s;ons, that they come not to the Lords Table. In the invitation following, tho&s;e onely are called who are <HI>truly pe|nitent.</HI> To them it's &s;aid, <HI>Draw neer and take this holy Sacra|ment to your comfort.</HI> They never &s;eemed to call or encourage the prophane to come to be converted from that their wic|kedne&s;&s;e, although God may work &s;uch an effect by the Sacrament, even in an heathen if he were (though finfully) admitted.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="12" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 12.</HEAD>
<P>All Divines, I think, have held, that in the Sacrament there is an application of comfort to the communicants parti|cularly. As the Mini&s;ter is to give each their portion in due &s;ea&s;on, and &s;o is prudently to hold forth and apply the promi&s;es to tho&s;e he judgeth humbled, and capable of having them fitly and &s;ately applyed to them; and not to the vi&s;ibly impe|nitent in that &s;tare (except &s;o as to encourage them to re|pent, that they may be capable of them.) So in the mini&s;trati|on of the Sacrament, comfort is applied to the communicants, upon &s;uppo&s;ition of their being in &s;uch a capacity for it <HI>really,</HI> as to the Church they are <HI>apparently</HI></P>
<P>In &s;hort, if the delivering the Sacrament to a communicant in this form, <HI>Chri&s;t dyed for thee,</HI> or the like words, be an
<PB N="68" REF="55">application of the riche&s;t Go&s;pel-promi&s;e to him, at that in&s;tant for him to lay hold upon for his pre&s;ent comfort, and is &s;o intended by the mini&s;trator of the Sacrament to him, then he is &s;uppo&s;ed in the judgment of the Church which receives him, or in the prudentiall judgement of the Mini|&s;ter (where there is no governing Church to involve his particular judgement in theirs) that he is one who at pre&s;ent is in a capacity to believe that he hath &s;aving inrere&s;t in Chri&s;ts body and blood exhibited there unto him &s;acramen|tally and &s;ignally, which they mu&s;t judge of, not by his being a Church-member in the large&s;t &s;en&s;e, (from which excommunication doth not &s;imply cut him off) but by his being vi&s;ibly (to them) in the way of actuall obedience to the Go&s;pel he profe&s;&s;eth. So much for this Argument.</P>
<P>Before we pa&s;&s;e to the next, it will not be ami&s;&s;e to take a little repo&s;e in the fifth part of the 119 P&s;alm.</P>
<EPIGRAPH>
<Q><BIBL>PSALM 119. Part 5. <HI>E.</HI></BIBL>
<L N="33">33 <HI>Eternal God, teach me thy way!</HI></L>
<L><HI>Which I &s;hall keep to th'end.</HI></L>
<L N="34">34 <HI>Endue me with that wit I may,</HI></L>
<L><HI>Thy Law with whole heart tend!</HI></L>
<L N="35">35 <HI>Ever me guide in thy Lawes ble&s;t!</HI></L>
<L><HI>For therein I rejoyce,</HI></L>
<L N="36">36 <HI>E&s;trange not my heart from thy hests,</HI></L>
<L><HI>But from vile avarice!</HI></L>
<L N="37">37 <HI>Engage me not to &s;ee vain wo!</HI></L>
<L><HI>In thy way quicken me!</HI></L>
<L N="38">38 <HI>E&s;tabli&s;h now thy word, unto</HI></L>
<L><HI>Thy &s;ervant, who fears thee!</HI></L>
<L N="39">39 <HI>Early prevent my fear'd di&s;grace!</HI></L>
<L><HI>For good thy Indgements be.</HI></L>
<L N="40">40 <HI>Each word of thine I did embrace;</HI></L>
<L><HI>In ju&s;t grace quicken me,</HI></L></Q>
</EPIGRAPH>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="6" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="69" REF="55">
<HEAD>CHAP. VI.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 1.</HEAD>
<P>I Proceed to my fifth and chiefe Argument, in the manage|ment whereof we &s;hall derive cleere light from the holy Scriptures. And it may be thus framed; The Lords Supper ought not to be admini&s;tred to them who do vi&s;ibly and noto|riou&s;ly want that faith which is nece&s;&s;arily required to be vi&s;i|bly pre&s;ent in them who may be lawfully admitted thereunto. But &s;uch as are unbeleevers by notorious di&s;obedience to the Go&s;pel, do vi&s;ibly want that faith, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Therefore the Lords Supper ought not to be admini&s;tred to them. The <HI>Major</HI> is un|deniable: The <HI>Minor</HI> I thus confirme. Such as vi&s;ibly want that faith which is nece&s;&s;arily required, to be vi&s;ibly pre|&s;ent in the adult, who may be lawfully admitted to Bapti&s;me, do vi&s;ibly want that faith which is nece&s;&s;arily required to be vi&s;ibly pre&s;ent in them who may be lawfully admitted to the Lords Supper. But &s;uch as are unbeleevers by notorious di&s;|obedience to the Go&s;pel, do vi&s;ibly want that faith which is ne|ce&s;&s;arily required to be vi&s;ibly pre&s;ent in the adult, who may be lawfully admitted to Bapti&s;me. Therefore unbeleevers by notorious di&s;obedience to the Go&s;pel, do vi&s;ibly want that faith which is nece&s;&s;arily required to be vi&s;ibly pre&s;ent in them who may be lawfully admitted to the Lords Supper.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 2.</HEAD>
<P>The major propo&s;ition here is proved by the analogy (which divers have &s;hewed) betwixt the two Sacraments; there is the &s;ame Covenant &s;ealed in both, and the &s;ame benefits confer|red (at lea&s;t) on the adult in both. And if any make any difference herein, the advantage is given to the Lords Supper, and &s;o our argument is more &s;trong, <HI>a minori ad ma|jus.</HI> But I &s;hall not &s;iay on this; &s;ince the learned and inge|nuous Mt. <HI>Humphreys</HI> (the &s;tronge&s;t oppo&s;er of the &s;u&s;pen&s;ion our controver&s;ie is now about, that I have &s;eene) hath granted that <HI>Adult is eadem e&s;t ratio utriu&s;&abque; &s;acramenti.</HI> And in his ex|plication of that Rule (that it may &s;uit with his own <HI>hypo|the&s;es</HI> the better), and explicating him&s;elfe thereupon, <HI>Re|joynd. &s;ect.</HI> 5. <HI>p.</HI> 65. he &s;aith; <Q>You mu&s;t take the meaning thus: <HI>There is cadem ratio,</HI> but not <HI>in omnibus. It holds in the maine, that the &s;ame &s;aith which will admit one of age to be baptized, will al&s;o admit him to the Lords Supper;</HI> and that
<PB N="70" REF="56">is an hi&s;torical faith only in profe&s;&s;ion; yet as for making that confe&s;&s;ion, though it be needful in Bapti&s;me, in admit|ting them to be Church-members, &s;eeing we have Scripture for it; yet not at this Supper, where we have none. For when men are Church members already, their very coming is their profe&s;&s;ion. So he.</Q></P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 3.</HEAD>
<P>Here are indeed &s;ome pa&s;&s;ages I am far from con&s;enting to; as that <HI>Bapti&s;me admits per&s;ons to be Church-members,</HI> when as the great argument for the Bapti&s;me of children goes upon a contrary po&s;ition, <HI>viz. That Church-members</HI> (whom no bar|ring crime is charged upon) <HI>may be baptized.</HI> Therefore they are Church-members before Bapti&s;me; though in that their Church-member&s;hip is &s;olemnly &s;ignified and publiquely ac|knowledged. And his concluding it not needful to have this confe&s;&s;ion made before a per&s;on be (fir&s;t) admitted to the Lords Supper, as it was before per&s;ons adult were admitted to Bapti&s;me, will not hold: unle&s;&s;e he could &s;hew, where per&s;ons baptized in infancy, were (or ought to be) in Scripture ad|mitted to the Lords Supper, without a per&s;onal recognition of the Chri&s;tian faith. But becau&s;e this is not particularly deter|mined in any Scripture example, we mu&s;t needs argue by ana|logy to Bapti&s;me about it. There is the &s;ame rea&s;on for re|quiring a profe&s;&s;ion of faith from one baptized in infancy, be|fore he is fir&s;t admitted to the Lords Supper, as there is for re|quiring it from the adult for their Bapti&s;me; e&s;pecially &s;uch as <HI>Augu&s;tine</HI> and others, who were many years Chri&s;tians in profe&s;&s;ion before they came to be baptized; and the <HI>Jewes,</HI> who were Church-members before their being baptized. But to let the&s;e things pa&s;&s;e here. Mr. <HI>Humphreys</HI> grants the Rule, &s;o far as I intend now to make u&s;e of it, <HI>viz.</HI> that it <HI>holds in the maine, that profe&s;&s;ion of faith</HI> (hi&s;torical &s;aith he, but mo&s;t la|mentably wrong) <HI>is the Rule for admi&s;&s;ion to both Sacraments;</HI> only in the bapti&s;me of the adult it was verbal profe&s;&s;ion, and at receiving, he &s;aith, their very coming to receive is their profe&s;&s;ion. Though he maketh the manner of te&s;tifying the faith required in adult per&s;ons to be baptized, different from the manner requi&s;ite for te&s;tifying the faith required in him who is to be admitted to the Lords Supper; yet he grants (if I under&s;tand him) that what faith was the condition of applying Bapti&s;me, is the condition of admitting to the Com|munion; which is all I require. And therefore the vi&s;ible want
<PB N="71" REF="56">of that faith is a bar to his receiving, which would be a bar to the bapti&s;me of the adult.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 4.</HEAD>
<P>It now remaines that I prove the <HI>Minor</HI> which was this: Unbeleevers by notorious di&s;obedience to the Go&s;pel do vi&s;i|bly want that faith, which is nece&s;&s;arily required to be vi&s;ibly pre&s;ent, in them who may be lawfully admitted to Bapti&s;me; and the truth of it, is thus made out; If it were a vi&s;ibly actu|all ju&s;tifying and &s;aving faith, which was nece&s;&s;arily reqired in Scripture as the condition of per&s;ons adult, their admi&s;&s;ion to Bapti&s;me, then the la&s;t recited minor propo&s;ition is true. But the Antecedent is evident, therefore the Con&s;equent mu&s;t be granted. I &s;u&s;pect not that any will deny the con&s;equence; my work will lye in demon&s;trating the Antecedent; the which I &s;hall thus endeavour.</P>
<P N="1">1. Such a vi&s;ible faith as is joyned with a true and &s;aving vi|&s;ible repentance, is an actual ju&s;tifying faith vi&s;ibly. But the Apo&s;tles &s;o required &s;uch a vi&s;ible faith as is joyned with a true and &s;aving vi&s;ible repentance. Therefore they required a vi|&s;ibly actual ju&s;tifying faith, nece&s;&s;arily as the condition of ad|mi&s;&s;ion to Bapti&s;me. <HI>Acts</HI> 2.38. <HI>Repent and be baptized for the remi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins;</HI> that was the condition <HI>Peter</HI> tendred to them; and that it was vi&s;ibly clo&s;ed with by them is manife&s;t, upon which they were baptized. <HI>ver.</HI> 41. <HI>Then they who gladly received his word</HI> (e&s;pecially the doctrine of <HI>repentance</HI> he had preached to them, for their crucifying Chri&s;t, and of faith in Chri&s;t as the true Me&s;&s;ias) <HI>were baptized.</HI> Here is the appli|cation of Bapti&s;me to them, upon that condition &s;uppo&s;ed to be vi&s;ibly performed by them; which therefore excludes them who clo&s;e not vi&s;ibly with this condition. If any &s;ay (as its u&s;ually &s;aid) who can know a &s;incere beleever? Let them &s;ay how <HI>Peter</HI> could tell who repented, yea and not only who <HI>re|ceived the word,</HI> but <HI>gladly</HI> received it; &s;uch as vi&s;ibly did &s;o, he mu&s;t take for &s;uch, or deal with as &s;uch; who can honour a godly man to love him; or who repents to forgive him? Tho&s;e who are &s;uch apparently, mu&s;t be treated as &s;uch really, as hath been before &s;aid.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 5.</HEAD>
<P N="2">2. That which <HI>Philip</HI> required in the Eunuch as a nece&s;&s;ary prerequi&s;ite for his admi&s;&s;ion to bapti&s;me, is the nece&s;&s;ary con|dition of per&s;ons adult their admi&s;&s;ion to Bapti&s;me. But a vi&s;i|bly actual ju&s;tifying faith, was required by <HI>Philip</HI> to be in the
<PB N="72" REF="57">Eunuch as a nece&s;&s;ary prerequi&s;ite for his admi&s;&s;ion to Bap|ti&s;me, &s;ee <HI>Acts</HI> 8. where an expre&s;s account is given us of the bapti&s;mal termes, <HI>ver.</HI> 35, 36. <HI>Philip</HI> preached unto him Je&s;us; and as they went on their way, they came to a certain water. <HI>And the Eunach &s;aid, See, here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip &s;aid, If thou beleeve&s;t with all thy heart thou mai&s;t. And he an&s;wered and &s;aid, I beleeve that Je|&s;us Chri&s;t is the Son of God&mdash;and &s;o he baptized him.</HI> A reverend Divine hath objected two things; <Q>1. that <HI>Philip required more then was nece&s;&s;ary to Bapti&s;me;</HI> As we require all graces to be acted in Communicants, though yet we can|not deny them for coming &s;hort in &s;ome things they-ought to do. And (&s;aith he) <HI>we require in per&s;ons to be marryed, that they give up them&s;elves to the Lord, and marry in the Lord; yet cannot deny marriage to them for want of &s;aving grace.</HI> And 2. <HI>that the Eunuchs an&s;wer, in which Philip ac|quie&s;ced, &s;hews it was but a dogmatical &s;aith, which might be &s;hort of ju&s;tifying.</HI></Q></P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="6" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 6.</HEAD>
<P>To the&s;e I an&s;wer: 1. joyntly; That one of them de&s;troys the other. For if it were only dogmatical faith, the &s;ame Di|vine pleads, that that is nece&s;&s;ary for admi&s;&s;ion to Bapti&s;me, And then <HI>Philip</HI> required not acce&s;&s;ories be&s;ides nece&s;&s;aries; of nece&s;&s;ity therefore he mu&s;t renounce one of his exceptions before he can rationally pitch upon the other po&s;itively. Yet 2. I &s;hall an&s;wer &s;everally to them. And fir&s;t of the latter. <HI>Exc.</HI> 1. If thou beleeve <HI>with all thy heart,</HI> i. e. vi&s;ibly profe&s;&s;e&s;t &s;o to do [the heart was not &s;earched into by <HI>Philip</HI>]. The meaning of this &s;hould be according to this grave Divine (in one of his exceptions) <HI>q. d.</HI> if thou beleeve with <HI>all thy under|&s;tanding,</HI> with whole a&s;&s;ent, as he (explicating him&s;elfe) &s;aith the Divels do beleeve, really, upon cleere convictions.</P>
<P>I &s;hall con&s;ider the like phra&s;e u&s;ed el&s;where, whereby we may mo&s;t certainly di&s;cerne, whether it is to have that &s;en&s;e or no. <HI>Math.</HI> 22.37. Thou &s;halt love the Lord with <HI>all thy heart,</HI> and all thy &s;oul, and all thy mind; which is interpreted (and mu&s;t needs be &s;o) with the <HI>will,</HI> aftections, and under|&s;tanding. Here the <HI>whole heart,</HI> denotes the <HI>whol will,</HI> di&s;tin|gui&s;hed from the whole under&s;tanding. The &s;ame we have, <HI>Mark.</HI> 12.30. Love the Lord <HI>with all thy heart,</HI> with all thy &s;oul, with all thy mind, and with all thy &s;trength. This la&s;t clau&s;e being added to what was in <HI>Matthew,</HI> denoting the out|ward
<PB N="73" REF="57">endeavours in te&s;tification, and as a fruit of the inward bent and energy of the whol inward man, denoted by the three former. Here then againe the phra&s;e <HI>with all thy heart,</HI> denotes with <HI>all thy will,</HI> and di&s;tingui&s;hed from the phra&s;e, with <HI>all thy mind,</HI> denoting <HI>with all thy under&s;tanding.</HI> So al&s;o <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 33. the &s;ame phra&s;e is in like manner u&s;ed for the <HI>whole will;</HI> only in that ver&s;e, theres &s;ome alteration of the order be|fore u&s;ed; in &s;tead of <GAP DESC="foreign">, we have here <GAP DESC="foreign">; but that is all one as to my pre&s;ent pur|po&s;e, for which the text is quoted. In the &s;ame &s;ignification is the phra&s;e with <HI>all the heart,</HI> repeated <HI>Luke</HI> 10.27. And the&s;e <HI>are all the places,</HI> I take it, where the phra&s;e is u&s;ed in the new Te&s;tament do <HI>a thing with all the heart,</HI> be&s;ides the text under con&s;ideration. Therefore (&s;ure) it mu&s;t be taken &s;o here, un|le&s;&s;e there be &s;ome manife&s;t Rea&s;on in the context, to with|draw it from its u&s;uall, (and alwayes el&s;where u&s;ed) &s;ignifi|cation; which is not produced, nor I beleeve can be.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="7" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 7.</HEAD>
<P>Be&s;ides, If we look back to the original of the old Te&s;ta|ment, from whence this phra&s;e in the new Te&s;tament is fetch|ed; It will further appear, that to beleeve with <HI>the whole heart,</HI> is mo&s;t fitly interpreted of beleeving &s;incerely and affectionat|ly. The text the Go&s;pel refers to is <HI>Deut.</HI> 6.5. In ver&s;. 4. <HI>Heare O I&s;rael,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Ajin</HI> the la&s;t letter of the fir&s;t word, and <HI>Daleth</HI> the la&s;t letter of the la&s;t word in the ver&s;e, are extra|ordinary great letters in the Hebrew, to cau&s;e heed and atten|tion to the Commandement following, which is that called in the Go&s;pel <HI>the great Commandement;</HI> as noted by its great let|ters: and thence (by the way) mo&s;t fitly Chri&s;t repre&s;ents the le&s;s Commandements in the e&s;teem of the <HI>Jewes</HI> by pricks or tittles, &amp; lea&s;t peices of letters. But the Hebrew phra&s;e here u&s;ed an&s;wering to <GAP DESC="foreign">, or <GAP DESC="foreign">, is <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>Becol leb.</HI> which is ordinarily, if not con&s;tant|ly, applyed to the doing of a thing affectionatly, unfeinedly, willingly, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Deut. 13.13. <HI>That he may try you whether ye love the Lord with all your heart and &s;oul.</HI> The latine Interpre|tation of the Arabick ver&s;ion in our <HI>London</HI> Bibles &s;aith; <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> appareat utrum vos &s;itis amici &s;ui &s;inceri, ex cordibus et ani<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="2 letters">abus ve&s;tris,</HI> Deut. 26.16. <HI>&amp;</HI> 30.6. Jo&s;h. 25.5. 1 Sam. 12.20. <HI>Scrve the Lord with all your heart;</HI> further explained, <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 4. <HI>Serve him in truth with your whole heart.</HI> So to do any thing <HI>with the whole heart;</HI> is to do it willingly and &s;incerely; and ap|plyed
<PB N="74" REF="58">to duties, it denotes the doing them, <HI>in a right manner,</HI> as to <HI>prai&s;e the Lord with the whol heart,</HI> P&s;al. 86.12. <HI>to &s;weare with the whole heart,</HI> 2 Chron. 15.12. To <HI>&s;eek God with all the heart,</HI> 2 Chron. 15.12. <HI>&amp;</HI> 22.9. <HI>To turne to the Lord with all the heart.</HI> Deut. 16.10. 1 King. 8.48. Jocl. 2.12. <HI>To follow the Lord with all the heart,</HI> 1 King. 2.4. and &s;uch like. Now if the phra&s;e in the Hebrew u&s;ed there, do relate to the whole &s;oul, and therein e&s;pecially to the will, and the Greek phra&s;e coming from thence, not u&s;ed in the new Te&s;tament el&s;where, but manife&s;tly in this &s;en&s;e, then according to the &s;afe Rule of interpreting Scripture by Scripture, we mu&s;t take it here, to denote, &s;incere, affectionate beleeving, in a right or acceptable manner, which was required vi&s;ibly in the Eunuch, as a nece&s;|&s;ary prerequi&s;ite to his Bapti&s;me. And that the rather, becau&s;e of the Apo&s;tles explication of beleeving with, or in the heart, <HI>Rom.</HI> 10.8, 9, 10. of an undoubted &s;aving faith.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="8" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 8.</HEAD>
<P>Having thus &s;hewed (I thinke convincingly) that <HI>Philips</HI> propo&s;al of <HI>beleeving with all the heart,</HI> as a condition of Bap|ti&s;me, did intend more then a bare hi&s;torical, dogmatical faith, which may be, and is in Divels. Now, I thinke, it will not be bogled at, That the Eunuch his profe&s;&s;ion of faith, was appre|hended by <HI>Philip</HI> as coming up to that demand, and though the Divels often &s;aid the &s;ame or like words, as the Eunuch here expre&s;&s;eth his faith by, and wherein <HI>Peter</HI> made that glorious confe&s;&s;ion, which Chri&s;t &s;o much magnifies, <HI>Math.</HI> 16.16, 17, 18. and on which Chri&s;t will build his Church; Yet theres no doubt <HI>Peters</HI> faith in that, was more than dogmatical, and what might be in Divels: and the acknowledging of the (then) harde&s;t Article of the Chri&s;tian faith, to wit, that <HI>Je&s;us was the Christ or Me&s;&s;iah,</HI> was a probable te&s;timony, that the men who profe&s;&s;ed this, would not &s;tick at taking him for their Sa|viour. And therefore &s;uch a&s;&s;ent to Chri&s;tianity is &s;poken of in Scripture to denote, that intire faith which is ju&s;tifying and &s;aving, as in the Epi&s;tles of <HI>John</HI> and el&s;where.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="9" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 9.</HEAD>
<P>Thus much for an&s;wer to <HI>one of the exceptions</HI> made again&s;t the force of our pre&s;ent argument; <HI>The other is,</HI> that <HI>Philip re|quires more then was nece&s;&s;ary to his admi&s;sion to bapti&s;me,</HI> as hath been before explained. To this I an&s;wer. There are cleare te&s;timonies that <HI>Philip</HI> required <HI>this beleeving with all the heart,</HI> as a nece&s;&s;ary prerequi&s;ite condition of the Eunuchs
<PB N="75" REF="58">admi&s;&s;ion to bapti&s;me, if we will but allow <HI>Philips</HI> and the Eu|nuchs words to be the Interpreters of their own minds, with|out mi&s;erable torturing and forcing of them to abu&s;e their Ma&s;ters. For,</P>
<P N="1">1. The Eunuch &s;aith, <HI>What hinders me to be baptized?</HI> To this Que&s;tion <HI>Philip</HI> an&s;wers, <HI>If thou beleeve&s;t with all thine heart, thou may&s;t:</HI> Therefore in an&s;wer to the Que&s;tion is im|plyed, <HI>If thou dost not beleeve with all thy heart, thou may&s;t not;</HI> and then no more but nece&s;&s;aries are here required. (I have often enough explained this to be meant of vi&s;ible beleeving with all his heart.)</P>
<P N="2">2. The Eunuch &s;aith, <HI>Here is water, what hinders me to be baptized?</HI> He enquites therefore, if there were nay &s;uch de|fect now as &s;hould &s;o bar his being baptized, as the want of water would have done, if that had not been there then; therefore the Eunuch enquires, If there were any effectual bar now again&s;t his bapti&s;me.</P>
<P N="3">3. To which <HI>Philip</HI> an&s;wers as we have heard; <HI>If thou be|leeve&s;t with all thy heart, thou may&s;t,</HI> viz. <HI>be baptized: now there is water at hand, and Philip an Evangeli&s;t,</HI> (no doubt Commi&s;&s;ioned to di&s;pence this Sacrament) <HI>Theres nothing now to hinder, except there &s;hould be a want of a vi&s;ible &s;incere and hearty beleeving, and that &s;hould hinder thee. If this do not (but rather thou by thy profe&s;sion approvest thy &s;elfe thus to beleeve) thou mayst.</HI> I appeal to any Judicious Reader; whether this be not the genuine, faire&s;t and ea&s;ie&s;t &s;en&s;e of the words; and how tortured &amp; &s;trained is that the Exception puts upon them. As if a man coming to one authorized to marry people, &s;hould &s;ay; Sir, <HI>heres a fit match for me, what hinders me to be marryed;</HI> and then the Commi&s;sioner &s;hould &s;ay, If <HI>yee both are agreed with all your hearts yee may.</HI> Is not this their appearing &s;erious agreement, &s;ignified (whether they do inwardly and &s;incerely &s;o agree or no, the marrier looks not after,) the nece&s;&s;ary prerequi&s;ite condition, which being vi&s;ibly wanting, would hinder his attompt to marry them. And if he &s;hould &s;ay, (as the Reverend Objector &s;uppo&s;eth, paralel to this text) If ye feare the Lord, ye may marry; how un&s;utable would it be to the Que&s;tion propo&s;ed by them?</P>
<P N="4">4. If &s;uch plaine words as the&s;e <HI>[What hinders me to be bap|tized? If thou beleeve&s;t with all thy heart, thou mayst]</HI> may be expounded, <HI>q. d.</HI> [To that Que&s;tion of thine, <HI>What hinders me to be baptized?</HI> I an&s;wer, <HI>Though thou do not vi&s;ibly beleeve
<PB N="76" REF="59">&s;incerely, thou mayst</HI>]. I know not what &s;ecurity we &s;hall have for the &s;en&s;e of almo&s;t any Scripture; e&s;pecially where no ab|&s;urdity forceth us to depart from the manife&s;t genuine u&s;uall proper &s;en&s;e of the words.</P>
<P>I &s;hall leave it to the Readers &s;erious thoughts, whether I have not proved, that <HI>Philip</HI> required a vi&s;ible (beleeving with all the heart, or) ju&s;tifying faith, as the nece&s;&s;ary condi|tion of the Eunuchs admi&s;sion to Bapti&s;me; and then it fol|lows that a per&s;ons beleeving in re&s;pect of &s;uch a faith as con|notes vi&s;ible obedience to the Go&s;pel, is the Rule of admi&s;sion of the adult to Bapti&s;me, and by con&s;equence of &s;uch only to the Lords Supper, as are vi&s;ibly &s;o qualified. One thing more I &s;hall ob&s;erve, before I pa&s;s this, <HI>viz.</HI> that the Eunuchs Que|&s;tion was (as &s;eemes) directly and primarily an enquiry, upon what termes <HI>Philip</HI> would baptize him, and &s;o refers to his right to bapti&s;me <HI>in &s;oro eccle&s;iae;</HI> and therefore I have inter|preted the <HI>beleeving with all the heart</HI> in <HI>Philips</HI> an&s;wer, to be meant of a vi&s;ibly &s;incere beleeving, according to the Rules <HI>Philip</HI> was to judge by, who were to be treated as &s;incere belee|vers. And to refer it to the <HI>forum Dei,</HI> as di&s;tingui&s;hed from the <HI>&s;orum eccle&s;iae,</HI> is not (&s;o far as I can di&s;cerne) proved nor encouraged by the context.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="10" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 10.</HEAD>
<P>When I had di&s;patched thus much of this argument, and had con&s;idered &s;everal other texts to be annexed, proving the &s;ame thing, as <HI>Rom.</HI> 6.3, 4. <HI>Col.</HI> 2.11, 12, 13. <HI>Gal.</HI> 3.27. &amp;c. upon which I &s;hould and intended to have argued; At this time (I &s;ay) there came to my hands M^r <HI>Richard Baxter</HI> his late learned and accurate <HI>booke, containing five Di&s;putations about right to the Sacraments.</HI> Upon the peru&s;all whereof, I per|ceived he hath &s;o plenteou&s;ly by many arguments proved the vi&s;ibility of &s;aving faith to be the <HI>title</HI> on which only Bapti&s;me and the Lords Supper too may be admini&s;tred, That I &s;hall &s;pare the labour of adding any more here, but refer the Rea|der to receive (thankfully) that plentifull harve&s;t, there pre|pared for his further &s;atisfaction in this thing. I found indeed, he al&s;o had the texts I have made u&s;e of here, <HI>viz.</HI> Act. 2.38. <HI>&amp;</HI> 8.35, 36. Yet I let them &s;tand &s;till; hoping that my im|provement and management of them, &s;omewhat differing (though not di&s;&s;enting) from that Reverend Author, may be no prejudice to the cau&s;e, nor imputed for pre&s;umption and ar|rogance to my &s;elfe.</P>
<PB N="77" REF="59">
<P>I &s;hall now ha&s;ten to the third task I undertook in the me|thod above propo&s;ed, for the evincing that &s;uch Chri&s;tians as are unbeleevers in re&s;pect of their notorious di&s;obedience to the Go&s;pel, ought not to have the Lords Supper admini&s;tred to them. And that was to annex &s;ome Cautions for the further cleering and preventing mi&s;take in this doctrine; but this may have a di&s;tinct Chapter; and becau&s;e the matter is difficult let us paw&s;e upon it, and crave divine a&s;si&s;tance in the ejacu|lations of</P>
<EPIGRAPH>
<Q><BIBL>PSALM 119. the 6th part. <HI>F.</HI></BIBL>
<L N="41">41 <HI>Freely on me thy grace powre out!</HI></L>
<L><HI>Lord &s;ave me by thy Word!</HI></L>
<L N="42">42 <HI>For &s;o &s;hall I an&s;wer each flout,</HI></L>
<L><HI>My tru&s;t is in the Lord.</HI></L>
<L N="43">43 <HI>From me ne're take thy Truth, for I</HI></L>
<L><HI>Hop'd in thy Judgements &s;tore.</HI></L>
<L N="44">44 <HI>Flying all vice J'le keep truly</HI></L>
<L><HI>Thy Law for evermore.</HI></L>
<L N="45">45 <HI>Freedome is that ble&s;t path I tread,</HI></L>
<L><HI>While I thy precepts &s;eeke.</HI></L>
<L N="46">46 <HI>Feare not my &s;oul, Gods Lawes to &s;pread,</HI></L>
<L><HI>And of them to Kings &s;peake.</HI></L>
<L N="47">47 <HI>Fil'd with the love of thy Commands,</HI></L>
<L><HI>Therein my Joy I'le choo&s;e.</HI></L>
<L N="48">48 <HI>Ful gladly to them I my hands</HI></L>
<L><HI>Lift up, and on them mu&s;e.</HI></L></Q>
</EPIGRAPH>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="7" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. VII.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 1.</HEAD>
<P><HI>CAution</HI> 1. When I &s;peake of vi&s;ible &s;aving faith, which I explaine to be a vi&s;ible conformity or obedience to the Go&s;pel, I do not refer (primarily) to the habit of &s;aving faith, but the actual exerci&s;e thereof. And the vi&s;ible unbeleefe, on the contrary, refers not to the habit of it, but the prevailing pre&s;ent actings and fruits thereof. For we cannot judge every one hath not the habit of &s;aving or ju&s;tifying faith, who is at pre&s;ent vi&s;ibly in a way incon&s;i&s;tent with the exerci&s;e thereof.
<PB N="78" REF="60">But as in the Sacraments, e&s;pecially remi&s;sion of &s;ins is &s;ealed: &s;o tho&s;e are &s;uppo&s;ed at pre&s;ent capable of it, who are admitted unto them. Now as Remi&s;sion of &s;ins is promi&s;ed to us, (to us I &s;ay, not now con&s;idering what is promi&s;ed to Chri&s;t for us) only on the condition of faith and repentance; &s;o the continu|ance of remi&s;sion or ju&s;tification, may be expected only, on the &s;ame termes, According to our continued Petition, <HI>Math.</HI> 6.12. <HI>Forgive us our tre&s;pa&s;&s;es, as we forgive our debiers.</HI> Which our Saviour reiterates, <HI>po&s;itively,</HI> v. 14. <HI>If ye forgive men their tre&s;pa&s;&s;es, your Father will forgive you:</HI> and <HI>negatively,</HI> v. 15. <HI>But if yee</HI> (yee my Di&s;ciples, though at pre&s;ent ju&s;tified ones) <HI>forgive not men their tre&s;pa&s;&s;es, neither will your heavenly Father forgive you.</HI> So that judicious grave Divine <HI>Mu&s;culus</HI> &s;aith, <HI>loc. com. de remi&s;&s;ione. p. (mihi)</HI> 26.2. <HI>Ut remi&s;sio peccatorum &s;ine ver&acirc; re&s;ipi&s;centi&acirc; non obtinetur, ita obtenta &s;ine con&s;tanti illius cu&s;todi&acirc; non retinetur:</HI> and <HI>fru&s;tr&acirc; remittitur quod po&s;t remi&s;sio|nem iteratur.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 2.</HEAD>
<P>I confe&s;s upon this doctrine here occurres a great Que&s;tion; Whether <HI>David</HI> whiles actually impenitent under his gro&s;s &s;ins, was unpardoned, and &s;o unju&s;tifyed? &s;ince all pardon and the continuance thereof is to be expected only on the condition of faith and repentance. It mu&s;t be acknowledged, this is a point of great difficulty, to &s;peak to it clearly and con&s;i&s;tently: The ob&s;curity whereof hath occa&s;ioned different thoughts in the godly learned for the explication of the &s;ame.</P>
<P>Some have &s;aid, tho&s;e gro&s;s &s;ins do extingui&s;h grace, and are incon&s;i&s;tent with the very habit of faith, and &s;o null pardon; which they apply to the ca&s;e of <HI>Peter</HI> and <HI>David,</HI> till they did repent, and &s;o the work of regeneration was begun anew again in them, as it was in their fir&s;t conver&s;ion. To which they think that pa&s;&s;age, <HI>P&s;alm</HI> 51.10. affords &s;ome illu|&s;tration. <HI>Create</HI> in <HI>me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right &s;pirit within me.</HI> but although it may be &s;o to their &s;en&s;e, and the &s;ame omnipotent power of Gods grace is to be put forth for their recovery, as was for their fir&s;t conver&s;ion: (Which two rea&s;ons may be &s;ome account of the P&s;almi&s;ts expre&s;&s;ions;) yet I conceive, it's plain, that the feed of grace is never to|tally de&s;troyed in them, but is immortall, although it may as winter-corn, lye (we know not how) long under the clod. Others &s;ay, all the &s;ins of the godly are &s;ins of infirmity (the per&s;ons committing them, being not <HI>dead in &s;in,</HI> as an unro|generate
<PB N="79" REF="60">man is, but onely di&s;ea&s;ed and wounded, and be|cau&s;e they are not committed with full con&s;ent; The habi|tuall re&s;olution and frame of their &s;ouls, being again&s;t tho&s;e &s;ins which they are &s;ometimes over-born with. But this &s;eems contrary to many plain Scriptures, <HI>Ezek.</HI> 18.24, 26. <HI>Matth.</HI> 18.3. <HI>Rom.</HI> 8.13. 1 <HI>John</HI> 1.6, &amp;c.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 3.</HEAD>
<P>Between the&s;e two extreams &s;ome have laboured to find a middle way more &s;afe. I &s;hall al&s;o adjoyn my poor endeavours in the following particulars.</P>
<P N="1">1. I take it for certain, that there is in the godly a &s;eed, or habit of &s;anctifying grace, which (when they are at the lowe&s;t ebb, in regard of the fruits and acts of it) is never totally extingui&s;hed, <HI>Iohn</HI> 10.28. &amp; 17.20, 21. <HI>Luke</HI> 22.32. And this is an active principle, ready to put them on to actuall faith, repentance, love, and obedience. In regard whereof, the habitual frame of <HI>Davids</HI> heart was fot God more then for &s;in, even when his &s;in hindred the actings of grace, therefore he never cea&s;ed altogether to be a penitent and be|liever; and therefore was never altogether ca&s;t out of the &s;tate of pardon and ju&s;tification by tho&s;e &s;ins (though hai|nous) which he did not finally continue in.</P>
<P N="2">2. Notwith&s;tanding this their &s;tate of ju&s;tification and pardon continued, yet the godly may fall, and be under actuall guilt by gro&s;s &s;ins whiles not particularly repented of. And that not onely &s;uch guilt as may oblige them to temporal judgements, (which often are for the &s;ame inflicted on them, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11.29, 30, 31. 2 <HI>Sam.</HI> 12.14.) But al&s;o the pre&s;ent actuall guilt of eternall wrath and damnation. For he may fall into &s;uch &s;ins, wherein if he finally continue, he cannot expect to be &s;aved, but is bound to think he &s;hall peri&s;h con|tinuing therein, <HI>Matth.</HI> 18.3. and 2. wherein, afterward he repenting, acknowledgeth God might ju&s;tly have ca&s;t him off in his &s;in, and damned him for it; notwith&s;tanding his for|mer intere&s;t in Chri&s;t. Now the&s;e accu&s;ations of Con&s;cience are true, grounded upon the threatnings of the word of God again&s;t &s;uch as are (any while) particularly impenitent under &s;uch &s;ins. Therefore the guilt of con&s;cience charged on him, was really on him at that time.</P>
<P N="3">3. And he may fall into &s;uch &s;ins, as the Church may ju&s;tly retain and bind (as it is conceived the ince&s;tuous Corinthian was godly before,) and the&s;e <HI>are bound in heaven:</HI> therefore
<PB N="80" REF="61">their &s;ins at that pre&s;ent are not remitted in heaven.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 4.</HEAD>
<P N="3">3. How the&s;e po&s;itions (both which &s;eem manife&s;t in Scrip|ture) &s;hould agree together, and not contradict one another, is the great difficulty. That learned Divine (before named) mo&s;t happy in &s;olving of difficulties, though he ingenuou&s;ly confe&s;&s;e him&s;elfe much in the dark here; yet inclines to this an&s;wer, <HI>viz.</HI> That pardon belongs not onely to actuall re|pentance and faith, but to habituall. And &s;o <HI>David</HI> was actually pardoned on the condition performed of his habituall faith and repentance, which kept the intere&s;t of Chri&s;t, mo&s;t prevailingly in his &s;oul, when he was &s;o foiled by actuall wic|kedne&s;s. Which he is driven to hold, as he &s;aith, becau&s;e he &s;uppo&s;eth a godly man may die in gro&s;s &s;ins not particularly repented of. But then methinks, it would follow hereupon, that <HI>David</HI> after his ri&s;ing again by actuall repentance, was pardoned onely as to his &s;en&s;e, being really and actually par|doned before (even in the committing the crimes) on the condition of his habituall faith: which yet I think that <HI>Mallcus,</HI> and happy confuter of the Antinomians, will not grant.</P>
<P N="4">4. Some di&s;tingui&s;h of <HI>habituall</HI> and <HI>actuall pardon,</HI> accor|ding to their <HI>habituall</HI> and <HI>actuall faith and repentance.</HI> And &s;o <HI>David</HI> &s;hould have the former before he was recovered by re|pentance, not the later. But this di&s;tinction may not be gran|ted, becau&s;e though there be habits of <HI>&s;anctifying grace in&s;u&s;ed into,</HI> and inherent in us, di&s;tingui&s;hed from the actuall exer|ci&s;e thereof, yet <HI>grace justifying</HI> and pardoning, is wholly with|out us, and is Gods act; and therefore I &s;ee not how any can be &s;aid to have habitual pardon.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 5.</HEAD>
<P>I &s;hall now ca&s;t in my Mite for explicating this matter, by propounding, explaining, and applying the&s;e two di&s;tinctions.</P>
<P N="4">4. Di&s;tingui&s;h betwixt <HI>virtuall pardon,</HI> and <HI>the formall ap|plication of pardon.</HI> The terms of the di&s;tinction (after I had in my thoughts pitched on them) I found in <HI>Ames, Medul. lib.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 27. though he explain them in a &s;en&s;e different from what I intend to &s;ignifie thereby. <HI>Per formalem applicationem</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>remittuntur peccata praeterita, &s;utura autem virtua|ilter. Praeterita in &s;e, futura in &s;ubjecto vel per&s;on&acirc; peccante.</HI> The fore-prai&s;ed Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> al&s;o, in his <HI>Method for &s;etling Peace of Con&s;cience, p.</HI> 266. &s;peaks of <HI>virtuall justification,</HI>
<PB N="81" REF="61">which <HI>David</HI> did not lo&s;e, and <HI>actual,</HI> which he did at pre|&s;ent lo&s;e by his &s;in. And of (which comes to the &s;ame effect) <HI>imperfect</HI> and <HI>more prefect ju&s;tification.</HI> But I mean by <HI>virtuall pardon,</HI> and the <HI>formal application of pardon,</HI> an <HI>actual and potential pardon,</HI> not onely <HI>in potenti&acirc; remot&acirc;,</HI> but <HI>proxima.</HI> As the fruit is virtually contained in the &s;eed: &s;o where there is a &s;eed of habituall faith, there is a principle certainly (through Gods grace promi&s;ed) productive of actual particular repentance for particular gro&s;s &s;ins, in due time. The king|dom of heaven (true grace) is thus compared to a grain of Mu&s;tard &s;eed.</P>
<P>The virtuall or potentiall pardon is acquitting from &s;in on &s;uch a condition, which is inchoatly in the &s;inner, <HI>viz.</HI> in re|gard of the &s;eed of it, certainly productive of actuall particu|lar repentance for tho&s;e gro&s;s &s;ins: not onely as what &s;hall be in re&s;pect of Gods Decree (which hath no condition) to which <HI>Ames</HI> &s;eems to referre, (if there were &s;uch a pardon or ju&s;tifica|tion in re&s;pect of Gods decree to pardon, a man might be &s;aid to be ju&s;tified before he is born) but e&s;pecially, in that, there is that habituall faith and repentance in the &s;inner, which will certainly produce actuall before death. And thus <HI>David</HI> was virtually or potentially inchoatly pardoned, as to tho&s;e gro&s;s &s;ins not yet particularly and actually repented of; and &s;o he was not out of the &s;tate of ju&s;tification then (as out Divines expre&s;s it.) But yet he was not formally pardoned, till upon actuall repentance he had attained actuall recon|ciliation with God, e&s;pecially in reference to tho&s;e parti|cular &s;ins, whereby he was di&s;obliged from Gods wrath due to him for the &s;ame. For this forgivene&s;&s;e is not to be expected but upon actuall repentance, 1 <HI>John</HI> 1.7, 9. <HI>Prov.</HI> 28.13. And if it were otherwi&s;e, a godly man could not pre&s;ume.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="6" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 6.</HEAD>
<P N="2">2. Di&s;tingui&s;h the way <HI>God hath confined us to, wherein on|ly we may expect pardon, from the way God out of his Royall prerogative may take for pardoning a &s;inner.</HI> The way pre&s;cribed in the word, wherein onely we may expect pardon through Chri&s;t, is in performance of the Go&s;pel-condition of actuall faith and repentance, for all &s;ins in general, for more particu|lar gro&s;s &s;ins particularly; and in the continuance hereof Now God ties us, not him&s;elfe: If any of the elect &s;hould die before actuall particular repentance, they having not oppo|tunity
<PB N="82" REF="62">for &s;uch repentance, as in the ca&s;e of &s;elf-murder up|on a violent temptation, or the like, God may acquit them from the guilt of that particular &s;in upon their habituall repen|tance for it. But this we cannot expect, nor build upon, ha|ving no Rule for it, that God will do &s;o, though we cannot &s;ay he never will. Be&s;ides, we know not what actuall repen|tance God may give to &s;uch in the in&s;tant before death, &s;uch &s;ecret things belong not to us. And therefore as we can|not judge others, as to this, &s;o neither may we vary from the Rule of actuall faith and repentance, in order to our expect|ing the obtaining and continuance of pardon and ju&s;tification unto life and &s;alvation.</P>
<P>The Reader will (perhaps) &s;ay, To what purpo&s;e hath this perplexed que&s;tion about the &s;tate of a Chri&s;tian, under &s;ome notorious &s;ins, been here &s;poken of? I an&s;wer. Becau&s;e it is, as I &s;uppo&s;e, much conducing to the clearing of the caution we have in hand, that it is not the vi&s;ibility or probable ap|pearance of habitual faith primarily that is requited, which &s;hould authorize the Church or Mini&s;ters to admit a per&s;on to the Sacraments, but a vi&s;ible actuall faith &s;hewed (proba|bly) in a pre&s;ent conformity and obedience to the Go&s;pel. For &s;ince habitual faith &amp; repentance cannot (according to the rule we mu&s;t expect to be ordered by) entitle a per&s;on to actuall pardon, or the formal application of pardon; it followes that that habitual faith isnot enquired for primarily, in order to ad|mi&s;&s;ion to the Sacraments, which are in&s;tituted to &s;eal actu|all remi&s;&s;ion of &s;in, and are &s;o de&s;igned by the mini&s;trators thereof. It is true, where we require actuall faith, habituall is &s;uppo&s;ed: but habituall is not &s;ufficient, though we could be a&s;&s;ured thereof, being not &s;ufficient (in its kind as a con|dition) for the obtaining of pardon of &s;ins. And this leads us to the &s;econd Caution, which is this.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="7" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 7.</HEAD>
<P N="2">2. That a per&s;on is not judged by the Church, or Mini&s;ter, to be de&s;titute of grace, no not vi&s;ibly and <HI>apparenter,</HI> nece&s;&s;a|rily upon the account of their debarring him from the Sacra|ment; but onely that he doth not live in the vi&s;ible actuall exerci&s;e of faith, but walketh in wayes incon&s;i&s;tent therewith: And which therefore bring him under guilt at pre&s;ent; &s;o that his &s;ins are retained <HI>in heaven,</HI> that is, unpardoned as well as <HI>on earth</HI> in the Church. As by the preaching of the word they are retained <HI>in &s;oro interno,</HI> or <HI>poenitentiali;</HI> &s;o by the Church|cen&s;ures,
<PB N="83" REF="62">in <HI>foro externo &amp; juridicali, Matth.</HI> 16.19. &amp; 18.18. As in preaching (I &s;ay) the threatnings or comforts, mens conditions are manife&s;ted to their own con&s;ciences; &s;o in Church-cen&s;ures inflicted on offenders, and in Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall re&s;toring of them, there is a &s;olemn application of the threats or promi&s;es of comforts to particular per&s;ons, upon credible evidence of their &s;tates, being &s;uch as may require the &s;ame re&s;pectively, either the one or the other. Now a godly man may have need of having the threatnings applied to him, &s;uppo&s;ing his fall into any gro&s;s &s;in not particularly repented of. And &s;o may have his &s;ins retained by the Church, not onely he who hath the habit of &s;aving faith inwardly (and undi&s;|cernably, as to others;) but al&s;o he of who&s;e habituall ju&s;ti|fying or &s;incere faith, the Church or Mini&s;ters have probable hopes at that very time. As &s;uppo&s;e in <HI>Davids</HI> ca&s;e, one who had long known his former upright life, might by that have had more probable grounds whereupon to judge and e&s;teem him habitually holy, then from his pre&s;ent crimes to judge or e&s;teem him de&s;titute of true holine&s;s. The like is the ca&s;e of &s;ome few of the <HI>Quakers,</HI> and &s;uch notorious heretickes in our dayes, who upon the account of their former holy con|ver&s;ation a long time, are hoped to have a &s;eed of grace in them, which will in due time (through Gods mercy) exert it &s;elfe, for their conver&s;ion from their pre&s;ent bla&s;phe|mies (as it hath done in &s;ome.) Yet what &s;ober per&s;on can doubt that at pre&s;ent they are in &s;uch wayes of actuall infidelity and wickedne&s;s, as to be rejected (as they are) by our Churches.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="8" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 8.</HEAD>
<P>The third Caution that mu&s;t be here remembred, which was hinted before, <HI>viz.</HI> That it belongs primarily to the go|verning Church to judge what per&s;ons are &s;o unbelievers, in re&s;pect of their notorious di&s;obedience to the Go&s;pel, as that the Lords Supper may not be admini&s;tred to them; this being confe&s;&s;ed by all to be one in&s;tance of Eccle&s;ia&s;tical puni&s;hment, or rather ca&s;tigation; <HI>viz.</HI> in exclu&s;ion from the Sacrament. And then (where the Church is in &s;uch a capacity to judge) I humbly conceive the Mini&s;ter (while he is their Mini&s;ter) is to admini&s;ter according to their judgement, yea although their publick judgement thwart his own opinion. For in &s;uch a ca&s;e the que&s;tion is not, whether unbelievers by notorious di&s;obedience to the Go&s;pel, &s;hould be admitted; that he can|not
<PB N="84" REF="63">recede from to gratifie any: but whether this or that per|&s;on be &s;uch an unbleliever, which is regularly in a Church under Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall government to be determined by a pub|lick judgement, wherein particular per&s;ons are (and an Of|ficer con&s;idered as a &s;ingle per&s;on is) concluded, &s;o as it may not be re&s;i&s;ted by him alone, (though he hath the liberty of appeal as opportunity is offered.) As when a Judge acquits one upon the verdict of the Jury whom he thinkes ought not to be acquitted. The que&s;tion there is not, whether the guilty &s;hould be acquitted, that may not be done by him upon any terms, but whether that per&s;on is guilty; and here without any inju&s;tice he &s;ubmits his own opinion to the publick judge|ment of them whom the Law makes Judges (in &s;ome &s;ort) of the fact in &s;uch ca&s;es. I &s;aid while the Mini&s;ter continueth to be their Mini&s;ter, he is obliged thus to comply; but in &s;ome gro&s;s and palpable male-admini&s;trations, it is thought the Mini&s;ter (and &s;o the Judge in the former in&s;tance) &s;hould leave his place, rather then continue to execute the wicked determinations of the publick judgement afore&s;aid; As <HI>Hooker</HI> in the Preface to his Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall Polity &s;ayes, <HI>Calvin</HI> did in &s;uch a ca&s;e; preaching his farewell Sermon upon &s;uch a wrong judgement pa&s;&s;ed by the Con&s;i&s;tory of <HI>Geneva</HI> for the admi&s;&s;ion of a notorious offender to the Sacrament.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="9" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 9.</HEAD>
<P N="4">4. But when the Church is not in that capacity, there be|ing not a governing Church, nor can be procured, I &s;uppo&s;e it is devolved to the di&s;eretion and prudence of the Mini&s;ter for &s;u&s;pending his own act of delivering the Sacrament to &s;uch as are openly wicked and profane, and (as it were) <HI>ip&s;o jure</HI> excommunicate. For the proving hereof, or what is tan|tamount, that reverend Divine Mr. <HI>Blake</HI> hath given us his ren rea&s;ons in his <HI>Covenant &s;ealed, ch.</HI> 7. &sect;. 16. well worthy of con&s;ideration, and an&s;wered objections made by Mr. <HI>Jeanes</HI> again&s;t the &s;ame. To which, (if it would not be counted too much pre&s;umption) I would add. There is no one (I think) doubts, but a Mini&s;ter, if ca&s;t among heathens, to whom he preacheth the Go&s;pel, and they tender them&s;elves to bapti&s;in, might make u&s;e of his prudence and judgement of di&s;cretion to direct him in admini&s;tring or not admini&s;tring bapti&s;m to tho&s;e he di&s;cerns capable or incapable, who are fit Catechu|mens, and who not; who &s;eem to profe&s;&s;e the Chri&s;tian faith &s;eriou&s;ly, and who &s;aying the &s;ame words, do yet manife&s;tly
<PB N="85" REF="63">&s;corn what in words they profe&s;s. And where he hath no go|verning Church, to who&s;e publick judgment he &s;hould have re|cour&s;e; I &s;ee not but the ca&s;e as to this, is of the &s;ame exigence: either he is to admini&s;ter to all that come, or he mu&s;t di&s;cern and judge who are to be refu&s;ed and who embraced. Now there is no publick judgement for him to be guided by. But none (&s;ure) will &s;ay the former. The Mini&s;ter is greatly concerned to do his endeavour in keeping the manife&s;tly un|capable from participating even where there is a governing Church, much more where there is not, and &s;o agreater bur|den is ca&s;t upon him. <HI>Cyprian</HI> in his 54. Epi&s;tle <HI>Cornelio fra|tri,</HI> after advi&s;ing him to admit the penitent to the communi|on, &s;aith, <Q><HI>Si autem (quod Dominus avertat &agrave; fratribus nostris) aliquis lap&s;orum fefellerit, ut pacem &s;ubdole petat, &amp; impendentis praelii tempore communicationem, non praeliaturus accipiat, &s;eip&s;um fallit ac decipit, qui aliud corde occultat &amp; aliud voce pronunciat. Nos in quantum nobis &amp; videre &amp; judicare conceditur faciem &s;ingulorum videmus, cor &s;crutari, &amp; mentem per&s;picere non po&s;&s;umus. De his judicat occul|torum &s;crutator &amp; cognitor, cit&ograve; venturus, &amp;c.</HI></Q> And that by <HI>accipere communicationem,</HI> he means to receive the Lords Supper, is evident by his words a little before, where he ur|geth to entertain the lap&s;ed penitents, <Q><HI>Cum ad hoc fiat Euchari&s;tia, ut po&s;&s;it accipientibus e&s;&s;e tutela &mdash; Nam quomodo docemus aut provocamus eos in confe&s;&s;ione Nominis &s;anguinem fundere, &s;i eis militaturis Chri&s;ti &s;anguinem de|negamus? Aut quomodo ad Martyrii poculum idoneos facimus &s;e non eos prius ad bibendum in Eccle&s;i&acirc; poculum Domini jure communicationis admittimus?</HI></Q></P>
<P>And in his 61 Epi&s;tle <HI>Euchratio Fratri.</HI> <Q>To him who had enquired his judgement <HI>de hi&s;trione an talis debeat communi|care nobi&s;cum?</HI></Q> Cyrian an&s;wers; <Q><HI>Puto nee maje&s;tati divinae, nec evangelicae di&s;ciplinae congruere, ut pudor et honor Eccle&s;iae, tam turpi et infam&icirc; contagione &s;oedetur.</HI></Q> And Chry&s;o&s;lom, <Q><HI>Ad populum Antiochen. hom.</HI> 60. <HI>de &s;umentibus indigne divina et &s;ancta my&s;teria:</HI> &s;aith, <HI>Nos mini&s;trorum tenemus locum, qui ver &ocirc; &s;anctificat ea et immutat, ip&s;e e&s;t nullus ita&abque; Judas a&s;&s;i|&s;tat, nullus avarus; &s;i quis est di&s;cipulus ad&s;it. Nam tales men|&s;a non &s;a&s;cipit; ait enim, Cum di&s;cipulis me is pa&s;cha facio,</HI> &amp;c.</Q> And thats a famous place in <HI>Ju&s;tin Martyr,</HI> in his &s;econd de|fence of the Chri&s;tians, <HI>ad Antonium pium. (Johanne Lang q Interprete)</HI> where about a little after the middle, relating the
<PB N="86" REF="64">manner and order of the Chri&s;tians &s;ervice, and divine wor&s;hip or Liturgy; he &s;aith, <Q><HI>Porro, alimentum hoc, apud nos ap|pellatur Euchari&s;tia, quod nulli alij participare licitum est (<GAP DESC="foreign">) quam veram e&s;&s;e doctrinam no&s;tram credenti, et lavacro propter remi&s;&s;ionem pec|catorum, &amp; regenerationem abluto, &amp; ita ut Chri&s;tus tradidit viventi.</HI></Q>&mdash;And then that the Lords Supper be not admi|ni&s;tred to the appatently &s;candalous, (as the&s;e quotations &s;ay it ought not) &s;hould be the &s;pecial care of them who are to di&s;pence the &s;ame. Let a Mini&s;ter thinke with him&s;elfe, if he &s;hall neglect to reprove a wicked man appearing &s;uch, whether he thinke he may &s;afely excu&s;e him&s;elfe before the Lord with &s;aying, There was no governing Church where I was Mini&s;ter, by who&s;e &s;entence he might have been declared a wicked man, If there had, I would have reproved him as &s;uch? and then &s;ee whether the u&s;ing a notorious wicked per&s;on in the Sacrament as if he were an orderly Chri&s;tian, will be excu&s;ed with, &s;aying, I wanted Prelates, or a Cla&s;&s;is, or an Elder&s;hip, by any of who&s;e authoritative judgement he &s;hould have been declared a wicked liver? And if this were well weighed, what a mighty burthen lyes on the Mini&s;ter in this thing, where there are no Church-governours be&s;ides; I thinke it would quicken Mini|&s;ters in more &s;erious labouring for a&s;&s;i&s;tance in the work.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="10" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 10.</HEAD>
<P N="5">5. La&s;tly. I would by way of caution note, that though the Rule for non-admi&s;&s;ion or &s;u&s;pen&s;ion before a&s;&s;erted may not be infringed; yet there ought to be much charitable candor, renderne&s;&s;e, and wi&s;dome in the application of it to particu|lar per&s;ons.</P>
<P>I &s;hall not take upon me to give particular Directions in this matter, what crimes may now denominate one &s;candalou&s;ly prophane, that is, in wayes of wickedne&s;s and unbeliefe, incon|&s;i&s;tent vi&s;ibly, with any exerci&s;e of &s;aving faith. Only in gene|rall I &s;hall &s;ay, It is my opinion. 1. That &s;uch mi&s;carriages as are not more hainous and &s;candalous, than tho&s;e are which are generally acknowledged to be incident to the godly, (I mean to them who walk godly) will not be marks to us of any particular per&s;ons unbeliefe in the &s;en&s;e afore&s;aid. I will not be particular here in making compari&s;ons betwixt neglect of ad|menition, and neglect of ordinary family duty, betwixt back|biting cen&s;oriou&s;ne&s;s, and &s;ome vaine words, containing in them an unnece&s;&s;ary atte&s;tation, by faith, truth, and the like.
<PB N="87" REF="64">But the judicious Reader may (if he plea&s;e ea&s;ily) bethinke him&s;elfe of many &s;uch In&s;tances to be compared. 2. Tho&s;e crimes which are vi&s;ibly incon&s;i&s;tent with the exerci&s;e of faith at &s;ometimes, may not be &s;o at other times; as <HI>polygamy</HI> in the old Te&s;tament, compared with the New Te&s;tament times. 3. The like variation may be rationall in re&s;pect of per&s;ons, con&s;idering the difference betwixt one and another, in re&s;pect of temptations, helps, warnings, convictions, company, and the like. 4. Where a multitude are enwrapped in &s;ome crime, commonly the Ringleaders are much more deeply guilty than the re&s;t, drawn in by the company, example, per&s;wa&s;ions of their leader.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="11" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 11.</HEAD>
<P N="5">5. To conclude, <HI>in point of ignorance</HI> I thinke few can be thus judged of, where the Mini&s;ters do what they may for their in&s;truction. Fundamentalls are very few and plaine. And I hope upon good encouragement in &s;undry Pari&s;hes in my neighbourhood, we &s;hall not have one debarrable upon the account of ignorance, as indeed I thinke there are few, very few (comparatively) already, through Gods ble&s;&s;ing upon our endeavours for private and per&s;onal in&s;truction; which oh that all Mini&s;ters would &s;et upon! We finde great encouragement, even among tho&s;e aged people we &s;u&s;pected would have been mo&s;t aver&s;e. They generally thanke us, when we come to their hou&s;es, or el&s;where conferre with them. Which I mention that none may di&s;courage them&s;elves with &s;uppo&s;ed feares of the untractablene&s;s of any, whom they have not fir&s;t tryed, af|ter a loving, tender, and gentle application of them&s;elves to them for their in&s;truction. Much wi&s;dome is needfull, herein (oh that God would give us a greater mea&s;ure of it!) but the de&s;igne is of noble tendency; and I hope many a &s;oule will and doth ble&s;s God for the zeale of that <HI>Worce&s;ter&s;hire burning and &s;hining light,</HI> and his A&s;&s;ociates, which have provoked ma|ny to this unque&s;tionable good work. And in point of practi|cal mi&s;carriages, we have Directions given us in the <HI>Ordinance of Lords and Commons, after advice had with the A&s;&s;embly;</HI> which may ju&s;tly beare &s;ome &s;way with us, as to the di&s;cerning what per&s;ons are debarrable upon their notorious mi&s;carriages vi&s;ibly incon&s;i&s;tent with the exerci&s;e <HI>of &s;incere faith.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="12" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 12.</HEAD>
<P>Upon the whole matter I conclude that there are few (com|paratively) in the Pari&s;hes I am acquainted with, who may
<PB N="88" REF="65">lawfully be judged by us, to be in &s;uch wayes of wickedne&s;s, as are incon&s;i&s;tent with the exerci&s;e of godline&s;s; either becau&s;e (through Gods mercy) &s;uch wickedne&s;&s;es do not notoriou&s;ly appeare, (and <HI>de occultis non judicat eccle&s;ia</HI>) or becau&s;e, upon their being admoni&s;hed thereof, they are ready to condemn them&s;elves, and profe&s;&s;ing repentance to promi&s;e reformation. The maine ob&s;tacle lying in this is that &s;ome notoriou&s;ly guil|ty of wickedne&s;s publiquely known (through the nature of the crime it &s;elfe they have committed) are unwilling to profe&s;s publiquely their repentance for the &s;ame. And yet in my expe|rience this doth rarely happen. And I humbly conceive, that learned Gentleman M^r <HI>Maurice,</HI> hath done an acceptable &s;er|vice to the Church of God, in oppo&s;ing the practices of &s;ome Mini&s;ters in his neighbourhood, who a&s;&s;ociated with &s;ome few of their members in one Church, to admini&s;ter the Sacrament there; neglecting it wholly in their own proper Churches. Its better to be too charitable (if I may &s;o &s;peake) in judging them capable who are not, then too cen&s;orious in judging them not capable who are &s;o. Better it were that &s;ome have what belongs not to them, than any &s;hould be deprived of their due. I conjecture by the places I know, that there are few places in <HI>England,</HI> where a Mini&s;ter can &s;ufficiently excu&s;e him&s;elf in neglect of admini&s;tring the Sacrament to his charge; by the pretence of want of a competent number of vi&s;ibly ca|pable Communicants. And that the want of Elders is no plea &s;ufficient, hath been proved by many pens, which I heartily a&s;&s;ent unto; and therefore would earne&s;tly de&s;ire Mini&s;ters not to neglect the celebration of the Sacrament in their owne places, upon &s;uch pretences, although in &s;uch want of govern|ment a greater burthen mu&s;t needs lye upon their own &s;houl|ders. In &s;hort, <HI>I would be as charitable as might be in judging and di&s;cerning who are in wayes of wickedne&s;s, vi&s;ibly incon&s;i|&s;tent with any exerci&s;e of faith,</HI> (And yet to prevent abu&s;e of this doctrine, it mu&s;t be remembred, that we are to judge our &s;elves by a &s;tricter Rule in di&s;cerning of our conditions, than others may make u&s;e of in probable di&s;cerning concerning us. And 2. we may have &s;trong &s;u&s;pitions and jealou&s;ies concern|ing others, (&s;o as to admoni&s;h them &s;harply) whom yet we can|not judge eccle&s;ia&s;tically (and u&s;e) as &s;uch whom we feare them to be. <HI>But that &s;uch as are notoriou&s;ly thus wicked, have any right, or may be regularly admitted to the Sacrament, I flatly d<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">ny, upon the Grounds and Rea&s;ons before memioned.</HI></P>
<PB N="89" REF="65">
<P>But its now high time to take our refre&s;hing.</P>
<EPIGRAPH>
<Q><BIBL>PSALM 119. part 7^t^h. <HI>G.</HI></BIBL>
<L N="49">49 <HI>Grant to thy &s;ervant that good word,</HI></L>
<L><HI>Whereon I hope by thee!</HI></L>
<L N="50">50 <HI>Great joy this doth in &s;traits afford;</HI></L>
<L><HI>For thou ha&s;t quickned mee.</HI></L>
<L N="51">51 <HI>Gracele&s;s proud men in &s;coffes waxt hold,</HI></L>
<L><HI>Yet kept I thy Law &s;ound.</HI></L>
<L N="52">52 <HI>Good Lord, I minde thy Judgements old,</HI></L>
<L><HI>And therein comfort found.</HI></L>
<L N="53">53 <HI>Grim horrours &s;ea&s;'d on me, becau&s;e</HI></L>
<L><HI>Men breake thy Statutes &s;age.</HI></L>
<L N="54">54 <HI>Glad &s;ongs to me have been thy Lawes,</HI></L>
<L><HI>In th' hou&s;e of pilgrimage.</HI></L>
<L N="55">55 <HI>Grave thoughts I had of thy Name, Lord,</HI></L>
<L><HI>By night, and thy Law kept.</HI></L>
<L N="56">56 <HI>Guiding my &s;teps after thy Word:</HI></L>
<L><HI>This ble&s;t fruit I have reap't.</HI></L></Q>
</EPIGRAPH>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="8" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. VIII.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 1.</HEAD>
<P>THe&s;e three la&s;t Chapters being duely weighed by the at|tentive Reader, and compared with M^r <HI>W.</HI> his di&s;cour&s;e from <HI>pag.</HI> 47. to 62. I hope he &s;hall not want an an&s;wer for mo&s;t there alledged, pertinently to the matter we are upon. Extravagancies we &s;hall not now deale with. Yet &s;ome more particular An&s;wer &s;hall be given to what remaines any thing con&s;iderable in tho&s;e pages of his.</P>
<P>He often <HI>harps</HI> upon one <HI>ba&s;e. You mi&s;-judge</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>in judging the morbid members of our parochial A&s;&s;emblies to be In|fidels and unbeleevers po&s;itively as Pagans,</HI> p. 50. <HI>Give over your herterodoxall browni&s;me</HI> (&s;uch words as this and <HI>mormo,</HI> and <HI>mormonize,</HI> fill his mouth compleatly) <HI>and honour the Chri&s;tian Religion, by putting a divinely po&s;itive difference, between the un|beleevers among us, and the unbeleevers of Pagans,</HI> p. 53. And (I know not how) many times over doth he in &s;uch like ex|pre&s;&s;ions informe our dulne&s;&s;e, that there is a difference be|twixt
<PB N="90" REF="66">our unbeleevers; and Pagans; and with great vehemen|cy per&s;wades us to beleeve that Pagans were not baptized, nor do they profe&s;&s;e the Chri&s;tian faith as ours do. As <HI>Augu&s;tine</HI> &s;aid to <HI>Cre&s;conius, l.</HI> 2. <Q><HI>contra Cre&s;conium Grammaticum, ne qui&s;quam vel nimis acutus, id quod &s;emel breviter&abque; dixi&s;&s;es interpretari aliter conaretur: etiam obtu&s;is auribus et cordibus tuam cura&s;ti immergere at&abque; inculcare &s;ententiam.</HI></Q> One would be apt to thinke I had denied this which he urgeth &s;o hotly; or els that he hath &s;uch a &s;tomack to confute me, he will beat a brat that no body owns on my back. Did ever any one de|ny to put a difference betwixt baptized per&s;ons, and unbapti|zed, yea tho&s;e who are but catechumens? But if the Que&s;tion be whether <HI>Unbeleever,</HI> is a name applicable (by Scripture warrant) to &s;ome baptized per&s;ons, I have an&s;wered it alrea|dy, (when I routed his &s;orry di&s;tinction) and &s;hewed that it is, in divers In&s;tances. And if further the Que&s;tion be, what kinde of beleeving is the condition of vi&s;ible title to &s;acra|mental admi&s;&s;ion? I have &s;hewed that it is that beleeving which doth connote vi&s;ible actual &s;aving faith and repentance. And that the due admini&s;tration of the Sacraments doth ne|ce&s;&s;arily &s;uppo&s;e in the judgement of the Church or Mini&s;ter, that the per&s;on to whom they are di&s;pen&s;ed is a &s;incere belee|ver, and a converted per&s;on, is a po&s;ition wherein I thinke I &s;hall never &s;ee M^r <HI>Baxter</HI> an&s;wered; though he have &s;o grave and learned an Antagoni&s;t engaged again&s;t him therein. And indeed M^r <HI>W.</HI> and I might well have been &s;ilent, to have heard our Betters argue the matter. Thats my opinion, I cannot &s;ay it was his.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 2.</HEAD>
<P><HI>P.</HI> 50. M^r <HI>W.</HI> will needs &s;hew us how they who are igno|rant and di&s;orderly can be beleevers; and &s;aith, <HI>The very be&s;t of us are &s;inners and Saints but in a diver&s;e re&s;pect;</HI> &s;inners <HI>ex peccato remanenti,</HI> Saints <HI>ex grati&acirc; renovantis;</HI> or &s;inners <HI>quoad reliquias vetu&s;tatis,</HI> Saints <HI>quoad primitias &s;piritus.</HI> i. e. (if I may engli&s;h his latine, becau&s;e he doth not) to this &s;en&s;e; we are &s;inners becau&s;e of &s;in in us, and Saints becau&s;e of grace in us.</P>
<P>Well now, what will he do with this di&s;tinction? he tells us; <HI>So our morbid Church members are in a divers re&s;pect beleevers and unbeleevers. Beleevers po&s;itively, as &s;oederally and profe&s;&s;ed|ly of the Chri&s;tian per&s;wa&s;ion. Unbeleevers negatively, as in works they practically deny the faith under which they po&s;itively
<PB N="91" REF="66">and profe&s;&s;edly &s;tand by bapti&s;me, and vi&s;ible &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion to the outward meanes of faith and reformation, not as aliens, but as of the hou&s;hold of faith, putting them&s;elves under the Churches cure, not justifying their mi&s;carriages, but coming to our &s;olemnities as to the meanes of better carriage, profe&s;&s;edly hoping in Chri&s;t for &s;alvation, and in no other.</HI> And then he &s;hews how &s;ome of the children of <HI>I&s;rael</HI> were <HI>Rulers of Sodom</HI> by their &s;inful practice, yet <HI>children of God, and of the Prophets, and the Church, a &s;eve|red and holy people, by the holine&s;s of the Covenant under which they profe&s;&s;edly &s;tood.</HI></P>
<P>Fir&s;t, for the &s;imilitude of one to the other compared. As we are &s;inners becau&s;e we have &s;in in us, and Saints becau&s;e of grace; &s;o &s;ome are Saints, or an <HI>holy people,</HI> though they have no holine&s;s in them, but only engaged po&s;itively to be holy. Wherein is the likene&s;s? As &s;ome having learning are learned, &s;o &s;ome engaged or profe&s;&s;ing to be learned are learned. Is not this good?</P>
<P>And then againe. As <HI>we are Saints and &s;inners in divers re|&s;pects, &s;o are per&s;ons beleevers and unbeleevers in divers re&s;pects.</HI> The compari&s;on &s;hould have been, of &s;ome who are <HI>Saints and no Saints,</HI> to have fitted <HI>beleevers and unbeleevers;</HI> the denomination is taken from the prevailing or predominant part.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 3.</HEAD>
<P>Then for the thing it &s;elfe. Fir&s;t, he de&s;cribes <HI>po&s;itively be|leevers, &s;uch who are &s;oederally and profe&s;&s;edly of the Chri&s;tian per&s;wa&s;ion.</HI> Well, and are not all the excommunicate, or mo&s;t of them &s;o? have not they a dogmatical faith? And 2. are they not foederally, po&s;itively engaged; no time nor condition can take off, or free them from their bapti&s;mal engagements.</P>
<P>Well, but in his explanation of his <HI>unbeleevers negatively,</HI> he addes more to the de&s;cription of his <HI>po&s;itively beleevers;</HI> as namely; 1. Vi&s;ible &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion to the outward meanes of faith and reformation, not as aliens but of the hou&s;hold of faith. 2. Not ju&s;tifying their mi&s;carriages. 3. But coming to our &s;olemnities. 4. Profe&s;&s;edly hoping in Chri&s;t for &s;alvation; and 5. in no other Saviour. And <HI>p.</HI> 57. he further de&s;cribes them thus. <HI>The baptized among us that frequent our A&s;&s;emblies, heare our doctrine with reverence and attention, joyne with us in our &s;olemnities, give us vi&s;ible te&s;timony of their a&s;&s;ent to our do|ctrine, to &s;uch we are to admini&s;ter as beleevers,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>Now 1. I would know what Rea&s;on Mr. <HI>W.</HI> can produce for
<PB N="92" REF="67">putting in the&s;e qualifications, into the de&s;cription of his po|&s;itively beleever, rather than, that he &s;hould in generall, walk according to his profe&s;&s;ion, which makes a vi&s;ible Saint, or ju&s;tified beleever? 2. If all the&s;e be nece&s;&s;ary to make up his po&s;itive beleever, who mu&s;t have the Sacrament then, if the&s;e or any of the&s;e be wanting vi&s;ibly, in a baptized per&s;on adult, and not excommunicate, he is not (or not enough) a po&s;itive beleever, and &s;o mu&s;t not be admitted to the Sacrament. It &s;hould &s;eeme then, its Mr. <HI>W.</HI> his doctrine, that if a per&s;on bap|tized and adult, either will not be reproved, is a de&s;perate &s;wearer, who as the dog turns againe to rent him, that (though never &s;o prudently and meekly) ca&s;ts the pearles of admonition before him; or if he frequent not (come not above twice or thrice a yeare to any publique, religious &s;olemnities) or if he do ju&s;tifie and plead for his mi&s;carriages; or if he know not whether Chri&s;t be God or no, whom he &s;aith he hopes in; or whether Chri&s;t be man too and dyed; yea or if he do not <HI>heare the word with reverence and attention,</HI> and give us vi&s;ible te&s;ti|mony of his a&s;&s;ent thereunto. In any of the&s;e ca&s;es (much more where all concurre) &s;u&s;pen&s;ion is allowed of; and I pre&s;ume Mr. <HI>W.</HI> would not have this per&s;on for any one of the&s;e offences excommunicated in his &s;en&s;e, <HI>viz.</HI> excluded all publique Ordi|nances. And yet whiles he grants all this, he pretends to ju|&s;tifie the po&s;ition I oppo&s;ed, <HI>viz.</HI> that no ignorant or &s;candalous baptized adult, and not excommunicated per&s;on &s;hould be de|bared the Sacrament; our Gentleman who is &s;o impatient of being contradicted by me, can calmly and contentedly contra|dict him&s;elfe, and that in &s;o many in&s;tances altogether.</P>
<P N="3">3. I would demand, where God hath promi&s;ed to him that beleeves dogmatically only, and profe&s;&s;eth &s;o, and that he is willing to receive, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> that he &s;hall have the Sacrament, ei|ther the bare &s;ignes, or the thing &s;ignified thereby? If he will forbeare to an&s;wer the&s;e &s;criblings (as his &s;everity calls my writings) till he have &s;ome cleere proofe for that, I thinke we &s;hall be no more honoured with his publique a&s;&s;aults. But I may not impo&s;e &s;uch hard conditions on him; his tongue and pen are his own.</P>
<P N="4">4. But if his po&s;itive beleever do truly profe&s;s the whole Chri&s;tian per&s;wa&s;ion, that is, to a&s;&s;ent to the doctrine of the Go&s;pel under&s;tandingly (for a man cannot be per&s;waded of what he under&s;tands not) and that he hopes in Chri&s;t, that is, in Chri&s;ts way; he is a ju&s;tified beleever. If he do but credi|bly
<PB N="93" REF="67">profe&s;s the &s;ame, no one doubts of his admi&s;&s;ion to the Sa|crament. But then the Que&s;tion will be, whether this word profe&s;&s;ion is credible, when his deeds do notoriou&s;ly contradict the &s;ame; of which we mu&s;t &s;peake beneath.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 4.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>W.</HI> addes, <HI>p.</HI> 51. And <HI>we read not of any debarring this had people</HI> (the <HI>I&s;raelites</HI>) <HI>from the &s;olemnity of the Pa&s;&s;eover. There were no &s;uch imperious Ma&s;ters of Reformation in tho&s;e dayes, which gathered pro&s;elytes of the better &s;ort into a faction, and excluded all the rest from Church fellow&s;hip, as the world, aliens, unbeleevers, and no Church members.</HI>&mdash;Likewi&s;e the Apo&s;tle &s;aith, <HI>We are Jewes by nature, and not &s;inners of the Gentiles; &s;o our people are Chri&s;tians by nature and birth, and not &s;inners of the Pagans, po&s;itively by the proper Rules of their very profe&s;&s;ion.</HI></P>
<P>This latter a&s;&s;ertion of our being Chri&s;tians by birth, as the <HI>Jewes</HI> were Church members borne I deny not. But thats no <HI>medium</HI> to prove the general admi&s;&s;ion he pleads for. The for|mer words of his are argumentative after a fa&s;hion. The argu|ment is gathered from comparing the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, with the Pa&s;&s;eover among the <HI>Jewes,</HI> and our Mini|&s;ters with the Jewi&s;h Governours then.</P>
<P>And here fir&s;t we have the flowers of his argument, <HI>Imperi|ous Ma&s;ters of Reformation; faction.</HI> He &s;hould remember he was to di&s;pute not revile now. But &s;ome mens mouthes do &s;o abound with the di&s;tillation of reproachfull termes, that they can hardly <HI>&s;peake vehemently, without &s;pitting abu&s;ively.</HI> 2. We have his fal&s;e intimations, that <HI>we gather pro&s;elytes into a fa|ction, excluding all the rest,</HI> &amp;c. This fal&s;hood runs almo&s;t through his book; that we gather new Churches, and di&s;|claime the old con&s;titution as null, lay another in examinati|on: notorious untruths! I &s;hall &s;ay no more to them now, but demand, whether the <HI>Con&s;titutions and Cannons eccle&s;ia&s;ticall, primo Jacobi,</HI> which Can. 27. enjoyned that all &s;hould kneel at the Communion, and that the Mini&s;ter &s;hould not deliver it to any if they did not kneele; were intended by the Impo&s;ers thereof (or did it amount in the nature of the thing it &s;elfe) to a new con&s;titution of the Church? Did they gather the kneelers into a faction as their pro&s;elytes. Mr. <HI>W.</HI> I thinke, will hereby cro&s;s his affection to the Prelatical Government, hinted in his <HI>p.</HI> 73.) &s;o as to &s;ay that was a factious de&s;igne. And then all excluding &s;ome-from the Communion in our
<PB N="94" REF="68">Churches (without excommunicating them from all Ordi|nances) yea though upon un&s;criptural grounds (for I am of opinion, their kneeling was not <HI>jure divino,</HI> no more than bow|ing at the name of Je&s;us) is not a demoli&s;hing of the former con&s;titution of the Church, and erecting a new one in a fa|ction. And I might ask, whether every time the people of the <HI>Jewes,</HI> were by their godly Magi&s;trates called to renew their Covenant with God, and &s;ometimes &s;o &s;trictly enjoyned here|unto, that he that refu&s;ed &s;hould be &s;everely puni&s;hed, yea &s;e|parated from the Congregation. (2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 15.9, 12, 13. <HI>&amp;</HI> 34.29, 31, 32. <HI>Ezra</HI> 10.3, 5, 7, 8.11, 12.19.) Whether (I &s;ay) then they pulled down the old con&s;titution of their Church, and made a new one in a faction?</P>
<P>But I keepe the Reader too long from the argument, the &s;trength whereof I &s;hall neither conceal nor decline, though its but &s;orrily here hinted by Mr. <HI>W.</HI> And becau&s;e this objecti|on again&s;t &s;u&s;pen&s;ion is the &s;tronge&s;t that I know of, I &s;hall take the occa&s;ion here offered to &s;peake more clo&s;ely, and yet largely unto it. But of this in the two following Chapters. Now to our Crums of comfort.</P>
<EPIGRAPH>
<Q><BIBL>PSALM 119. part. 8. <HI>H.</HI></BIBL>
<L N="57">57 <HI>High God, my portion; I have &s;aid.</HI></L>
<L><HI>I'le keep thy word most true.</HI></L>
<L N="58">58 <HI>Heartily I thy &s;avour prayd:</HI></L>
<L><HI>Thy promi&s;'d mercy &s;hew.</HI></L>
<L N="59">59 <HI>Heeding my pathes, I turn'd my way</HI></L>
<L><HI>Unto thy Testaments.</HI></L>
<L N="60">60 <HI>Hasting, I did no whit delay</HI></L>
<L><HI>To keep thy Commandments.</HI></L>
<L N="61">61 <HI>Hells wicked bands have robbed mee.</HI></L>
<L><HI>Thy Law to minde I call.</HI></L>
<L N="62">62 <HI>Humbly at midnight, Ple thanke thee,</HI></L>
<L><HI>Right are thy Judgements all.</HI></L>
<L N="63">63 <HI>He who &s;eares thee, walkes with me &s;till.</HI></L>
<L><HI>And who thy precepts keepe.</HI></L>
<L N="64">64 <HI>Here-all this Earth thy mercies fill.</HI></L>
<L><HI>Teach me thy &s;tatutes deepe.</HI></L></Q>
</EPIGRAPH>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="9" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="95" REF="68">
<HEAD>CHAP. IX.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 1.</HEAD>
<P>THe pa&s;&s;age wherein Mr. <HI>W.</HI> is plea&s;ed to in&s;inuate the ar|gument again&s;t &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, is this; <HI>We read not of any de|barring this bad people</HI> (the <HI>I&s;raelites</HI>) <HI>from the &s;olemnity of the Pa&s;&s;eover.</HI> The argument here intimated is this; All the people circumci&s;ed, though never &s;o bad, were admitted to the Pa&s;&s;eover, therefore &s;o mu&s;t all the baptized adult, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> be ad|mitted to the Lords Supper.</P>
<P N="1">1. I deny the con&s;equence as its here propounded, (and yet it is mo&s;t &s;trictly propounded, according to the fore-mention|ed pa&s;&s;age of our Friend, from which its framed) becau&s;e it proceeds from <HI>fact</HI> to <HI>right,</HI> which is not valid; if it were, he might by like rea&s;on prove polygamy lawfull, becau&s;e it was in &s;o many ages, and by the be&s;t &s;ort of men in tho&s;e ages practi|&s;ed in the old Te&s;tament.</P>
<P N="2">2. And if in &s;tead of [admitted] we put [rightfully ad|mitted] to the Pa&s;&s;eover: yet the con&s;equence is not cleere enough to determine our controver&s;ie. Becau&s;e the Ordinances of the Old Te&s;tament are not without limitations, Rules for the New, in the&s;e things. We grant an argument may be drawn from Analogy in &s;ome ca&s;es, <HI>viz.</HI> where we can prove the Analogy it &s;elfe by Scripture, or at lea&s;t that the ground of the Analogy is of equall concernment and latitude to us now, as to them in the old Te&s;tament, and that too not retrenched by any particular In&s;titution in the New.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 2.</HEAD>
<P>The &s;trength of that Argument from infant-circumci&s;ion for pedobapti&s;m, lies not in this immediately, that becau&s;e their children were circumci&s;ed ours mu&s;t be baptized; but becau&s;e it's evident by their circumci&s;ion, that they were Church-members: therefore our children are Church-members. Which con&s;equence holds firmly, unle&s;&s;e it could be &s;hewed, either that their Church-member&s;hip was typicall, and &s;o concerns not us, or el&s;e that that priviledge of Church-member&s;hip belonging to the children of the believing Jewes then, is now rever&s;ed in the New Te&s;tament, which we put the Ana|bapti&s;ts or Antipedobapti&s;ts to prove if they can. And then becau&s;e they (or mo&s;t of them) grant, that <HI>all Church-mem|bers</HI> (not forfeiting their priviledges as infan<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> cannot) <HI>may be
<PB N="96" REF="69">baptized,</HI> hence we conclude Infant-bapti&s;m. But now in this Argument from the Pa&s;&s;eover to the Lords Supper, (&s;up|po&s;ing at pre&s;ent but not granting the rightfull generall ad|m&s;&s;ion there pretended) there is not the like ground of Ana|logy to go upon. For we grant not to Mr. <HI>W.</HI> that all Church-members (whereof many forfeit their priviledges) may be admitted to the Lords Supper. This is the thing in que&s;tion between us. If he would have argued to purpo&s;e, he &s;hould have given in his <HI>Medium,</HI> whereby he would evince the like generality of the &s;ubjects recipient of the Lords Supper as of the Pa&s;&s;eover. Whether from the identity of nature, u&s;e, and &s;ignification of the Pa&s;&s;eover and the Lords Supper, or from what el&s;e, and then it would be con&s;idered.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 3.</HEAD>
<P N="1">1. That the Pa&s;&s;eover was a <HI>Sacrifice</HI> as well as a <HI>Sacra|ment. Mark</HI> 14.12. The fir&s;t day of unleavened bread, when they killed the Pa&s;&s;eover. <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>quando pa&s;cha immolabant, Deut.</HI> 16.2. thou <HI>&s;halt &s;acrifice the Pa&s;&s;eover</HI> un|to the Lord thy God <HI>of the Flock and of the Herd.</HI> By the way we may note, that this tran&s;lation in the la&s;t words mentio|ned [of the Flock and <HI>of the Herd</HI>] &s;eems to contradict <HI>Exod.</HI> 12.3. and other places, which &s;ay it mu&s;t be a <HI>Lamb onely</HI> or <HI>a Kid,</HI> how then of the <HI>Herd?.</HI> The mo&s;t learned Dr. <HI>Ralph Cudworth</HI> (the now worthy Profe&s;&s;or of Hebrew, and the great ornament of the Univer&s;ity of <HI>Cambridge,</HI> and the Ma|&s;ter of that flouri&s;hing Colledge there, to which I am mo&s;t ob|liged to wi&s;h happine&s;&s;e) in his di&s;cour&s;e called the <HI>true notion of the Lords Supper, p.</HI> 38.39. gives us this &s;olution. <Q>The words (&s;aith he) in the Hebrew, according to a &s;everall punctation, and &s;upplying of &s;omething that mu&s;t be un|der&s;tood, may be expounded divers wayes, any whereof is far better then that which our Engli&s;h tran&s;lators pitch up|on. <HI>Onkelos</HI> reads it, <HI>Thou &s;halt &s;acrifice the Pa&s;&s;eover be|fore the Lord thy God, of the &s;ons of the Flock, and the Peace offerings thereof of Oxen.</HI> Which may be confirmed from that of <HI>Jo&s;iahs</HI> Pa&s;&s;eover, 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 35, 7. <HI>And Jo&s;iah gave to the people of the Flock, Lambs and Kids, all for the Pa&s;&s;e|over-offerings, to the number of</HI> 30000, <HI>and</HI> 3000 <HI>Bullocks;</HI> Where the Bullocks, or the Herd, are divided from the Pa&s;&s;e-over-offerings. So <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 13. the&s;e were ro&s;ted.&mdash; but the other &s;od in pots. So that forenamed place, Deut. 16.2. is to be read thus: <HI>Thou &s;halt &s;acrifice the Pa&s;&s;eover
<PB N="97" REF="69">to the Lord thy God</HI> (and then the Verb being again repea|ted) <HI>thou &s;halt &s;acrifi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">e &s;heep &amp; oxen, or th&egrave; &s;tock and the herd,</HI> that is, one in the Pa&s;&s;eover, the other in Peace offerings.</Q> But I quoted the text onely to &s;hew that the Pa&s;&s;eover was a Sacrifice. It was indeed kild by the people, or might be. <HI>Exod.</HI> 12.6. Though the Levites kild it, 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 30.17. that was becau&s;e the people were unclean, and &s;o might not come into the Court to kill it. Which &s;peciall and peculiar rea&s;on &s;o ren|dred, &s;hewes that except in &s;uch a ca&s;e of uncleanne&s;&s;e, the people them&s;elves had kild the Pa&s;&s;eover. The &s;ame rea&s;on is rendred for the like purpo&s;e, <HI>Ezra</HI> 6. But this makes it not no Sacrifice properly &s;o called: For the people might kill other Sacrifices, as the Burnt-offerings, <HI>Levit,</HI> 1.4, 5. Peace|offerings, <HI>Levit.</HI> 3.2. and Sin-offerings, <HI>Levit.</HI> 4.24.</P>
<P>The Pa&s;&s;eover likewi&s;e was brought to the Tabernacle|dore, as Sacrifices were <HI>Deut.</HI> 16.2. <HI>compared with chap.</HI> 12.5. <HI>Numb.</HI> 9.7, 13.. <HI>compared with Exod.</HI> 29.42. It al&s;o agreed with the Sacrifices, in that the blood of the Pa&s;&s;eover was to be &s;prinkled by the Prie&s;t, and the fat to be burnt on the Al|tar, <HI>Exod.</HI> 23.18. &amp; 34.23, 25. 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 30.16. &amp; 35.11. Now the skilfull Jewes tell us, that <HI>the &s;prinkling of blood is the e&s;&s;ence of the Sacrifice.</HI> At the fir&s;t in&s;titution in <HI>Egypt</HI> there is &s;ome difference, for it was there kild in every private hou&s;e; but then al&s;o Sacrifices were not appointed to be offered by a peculiar order of men, as they were afterwards.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 4.</HEAD>
<P N="2">2. Again, concerning the thing &s;ignified in the Pa&s;&s;eover, we may con&s;ider, In the fir&s;t celebration of it, according to the in&s;titution, <HI>Exod.</HI> 12.17, 27. &amp; 34.18. <HI>Deut.</HI> 16.1. Two things are repre&s;ented therin as it was a token, 1. of Gods mer|cifull <HI>pa&s;sing over</HI> their hou&s;es, when the fir&s;t born of the Ae|gyptians were &s;lain in each of their hou&s;es. 2. Their <HI>pa&s;sing out</HI> of Aegypt. Some &s;peak of another <HI>Tran&s;itus</HI> denoted, <HI>viz,</HI> their <HI>pa&s;&s;age through</HI> the red Sea. But I find no Scrip|ture-ground for this in particular; onely as it was a part of their bringing out of Egypt, it was not excluded; yet not &s;peci|ally referred to, as the two former were; &amp; yet of the&s;e one (the later) &s;eems to be more intended then the other (the former.) My rea&s;on is, becau&s;e there was another ordinance in&s;tituted particularly, referring to this, <HI>viz.</HI> the giving up the fir&s;t born to God, <HI>Exod.</HI> 13.2, 13, 15. So there was not of that. No doubt too the Pa&s;&s;eover was a type of Chri&s;t, (as the
<PB N="98" REF="70">Manna and water of the Rock were, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10.3, 4.) by the right u&s;e wherof the godly were to be led to the meditation of the Me&s;&s;ias to be re&s;ted on. But as the Manna &amp; Water were communicated to them who were not capable of recei|ving a Sacrament as &s;uch, &s;o might the Pa&s;&s;eover al&s;o. Be|cau&s;e there were other ends and rea&s;ons of it, be&s;ides what were &s;acramentall. And then our Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not to be parallel'd with them in this generall ad|mi&s;&s;ion; where the receiving the Bread and Wine delive|red, is meerly &s;acramentall (not at all intended as a Meale for the body as tho&s;e were) referring onely to Chri&s;t, and &s;al|vation by him; not as theirs which was a commemoration of a temporall deliverance, which wicked men had a &s;hare in, as wel (and as to the deliverance con&s;idered in it &s;elf as much) as the be&s;t had. Nor is our Sacrament a Sacrifice, as their Pa&s;&s;e|over was. A Sacrament and a Sacrifice thus differing, &s;aith the renowned Bp. <HI>U&s;her</HI> (P. M.) <Q>In the former there is an <HI>offer made by God to us,</HI> in the later there <HI>is an offering to God. In the &s;acrifices Christ was &s;ignified as given for us, in the Sacrament as given to us. The Sacrifices only as &s;ignes, the Sacraments &s;eals al&s;o.</HI></Q> So he in his <HI>Body of Divinity, p.</HI> 404,</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 5.</HEAD>
<P N="3">3. Furthermore, if we have clear grounds in the New Te|&s;tament to deny the generall admi&s;&s;ion (pleaded for) to the Lords Supper, what&s;oever is urged from the old Te&s;tament, will have no con&s;equence in it to the New. But we have given &s;ome rea&s;ons before, to prove that in the New Te&s;tament &s;uch believing as connotes vi&s;ible actuall obedience to the Go&s;pel, is the onely rule for admi&s;&s;ion to the New Te&s;tament Sacra|ments. And as learned Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> &s;aith in his third Di&s;puti|on about right to the Sacraments. <HI>pag.</HI> 303. <Q><HI>It is certain that the fabrick of the Jewi&s;h Politie, e&s;pecially the grounds and rea&s;ons of all Gods in&s;titutions of tho&s;e times are &s;o im|perfectly known to us, that it is utterly unfit to reduce &s;o many clear Go&s;pel-arguments to one dark one from tho&s;e Lawes. For 'tis a mo&s;t nece&s;&s;ary Rule, that in all our Di&s;putations we mu&s;t</HI> reduce uncertainties to certainties. <HI>Our Arguments mu&s;t be</HI> A notioribus ad minus nota. <HI>Mr. Blake con&s;e&s;&s;eth it very dangerous to argue from meer Analogie, and profe&s;&s;eth he doth not &s;o but from the ground of the institution. And how dark are tho&s;e grounds in &s;ome ca&s;es to us?</HI></Q> So he.</P>
<PB N="99" REF="70">
<P>It is certainly a mo&s;t hard thing to give any con&s;i&s;tent ac|count about many concernments of the Pa&s;&s;eover, How all the Pa&s;chal Lambs &s;hould be kild (in the place where the Lord &s;hould choo&s;e) <HI>Deut.</HI> 16.5, 6. and the blood of each &s;prink|led on one Altar: And as &s;ome &s;ay, the fat &s;acrificed on the Altar too. How all the&s;e (many hundreds) could be &s;o kild in one place, in one evening (or betwixt the two evenings, as they called it) in a few hours &s;pace, is a thing to me hugely difficult to conceive. And whether <HI>Capellus</HI> his di&s;tinction of a <HI>private</HI> and <HI>publick immolation</HI> of the Pa&s;&s;eover, doth avail here, I dare not determine. How difficult is it to &s;hew how the Jewes might certainly know the Even of the fourteenth day (which &s;ome accounted to be the beginning of the fif|teenth) after the Moon had changed; e&s;pecially when the change of the Moon happened to be neer the end of one day, and beginning of another? And from this uncertainty mo&s;t probably came the variation of dayes, wherein Chri&s;t and the Jewes celebrated his la&s;t Pa&s;&s;eover; if there were &s;uch a dif|ference, which is (as I remember) denied by <HI>Tolet</HI> and <HI>Baro|nius,</HI> whom <HI>Cloppenburgius</HI> defends; but a&s;&s;erted by the illu|&s;trious <HI>Scaliger</HI> and <HI>Cau&s;abon.</HI> The Arguments of both parties are mar&s;halled by <HI>Capellus</HI> in his <HI><GAP DESC="foreign"> ad amicam inter &s;e &amp; Johannem Cloppenburgium epi&s;tolicam collationem de ultimo Christi Pa&s;chate.</HI> But if the Jewes, or at lea&s;t &s;ome of them, va|ried from the day Chri&s;t ob&s;erved for celebration of the Pa&s;&s;eover, whether it was on the account of a Tradition which &s;hould be ob&s;erved by the Jewes, that when the Pa&s;&s;e|over fell on the day before a Sabbath, they might put it off till the Sabbath; that the inconvenience of two Sabbaths coming together might be avoided, and then that Chri&s;t would not comply with them in this their frugality, or rather niggardline&s;s in Gods &s;ervice? But this Rea&s;on, though a&s;&s;er|ted by many, is confuted by the mo&s;t learned Doctor <HI>Cud|worth</HI> before prai&s;ed, in his di&s;cour&s;e concerning the <HI>true notion of the Lords Supper,</HI> who &s;hewes that the Jewes had no &s;uch cu&s;tome in our Saviours time, and that Kalender which now they u&s;e according to the <HI>Talmud,</HI> was not compleatly fi|ni&s;hed till about the five hundredth year of the Chri&s;tian <HI>Aera.</HI> Or whether the variation of dayes was from the un|certainty of knowing the right day, when the <GAP DESC="foreign">, or ap|pearance of the Moon was not &s;oon di&s;cerned after the change; which might occa&s;ion the ob&s;ervation of divers dayes, accor|ding
<PB N="100" REF="71">to &s;everall per&s;ons their per&s;wa&s;ion about the time of the Change, and as &s;ome &s;ay, <HI>Ob&s;ervare duos dies propter dubium?</HI> And whether Chri&s;ts Pa&s;&s;eover ws a true Legall Pa&s;&s;eover, or onely a Fea&s;t of unleavened bread, in a pri|vate imitation of the Pa&s;&s;eover? According to which the learned <HI>Hugo Grotius in Annot. ad Matth.</HI> 26. gives this di|&s;tinction of the <GAP DESC="foreign">, and &s;aith, this was not <GAP DESC="foreign">, but <GAP DESC="foreign">, &s;uch as the Jewes celebrate at this day; becau&s;e the Temple being down, all &s;acrifices are cea&s;ed. But this di&s;tinction is denied by others, and e&s;pecially a&s;&s;aulted by the fore prai&s;ed <HI>Capellus.</HI></P>
<P>Divers other difficulties there are about the Pa&s;&s;eover, which with the former mentioned, may confirm what Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> &s;o rea&s;onably a&s;&s;erted, <HI>viz.</HI> That it is utterly unfit to reduce &s;o many clear Go&s;pel-Arguments to one dark one from tho&s;e Ordinances about the Pa&s;&s;eover, if there were &s;uch an one. I &s;hall add al&s;o, That there is no &s;mall dif|ficulty in clearing who were the &s;ubjects to be partakers of the Pa&s;&s;eover, particularly whether children &s;o &s;oon as they were capable of eating fle&s;h, did not partake? I &s;hall not di&s;cu&s;s the point, it would be too long; onely I mu&s;t crave liberty to &s;ay, that I &s;ee no convincing-proofs of their exclu&s;ion, nor any ab&s;urdity following upon their reception; whiles I con&s;ider the Pa&s;&s;eover (as was before hinted) was not wholly and onely &s;acramentall; though I believe it was a Sacra|ment (as the Manna was al&s;o to &s;ome:) and the Scripture probabilities of their partaking, are more then I can finde alledged for the contrary. And if this Argument be further urged for admi&s;&s;ion of all &s;uch to the Lords Table, as were admitted, (or are &s;uppo&s;ed by &s;ome to have been admitted) to the Pa&s;&s;eover. It may be it will occa&s;ion a further and more exact con&s;ideration of that point, concerning their In|fants partaking of the Pa&s;&s;eover: Which. yet if a&s;&s;erted, will not (I think) inferre; that &s;uch children now mu&s;t partake of the Lords Supper: But will mo&s;t effectually over|throw the con&s;equence of the argument I am now an&s;we|ring to.</P>
<P>I &s;hould now proceed to a &s;econd an&s;wer to be given to this argument; which I &s;hall forthwith endeavour as &s;oon as I have taken my Cordiall following.</P>
<PB N="101" REF="71">
<EPIGRAPH>
<Q><BIBL>PSAIM 119. Part 9. <HI>I.</HI></BIBL>
<L N="65">65 <HI>Just Lord, thou with thy &s;ervant low,</HI></L>
<L><HI>well dealt, as thou had'&s;t &s;aid.</HI></L>
<L N="66">66 <HI>In&s;truct me right to judge and know;</HI></L>
<L><HI>for on thy Word I &s;taid.</HI></L>
<L N="67">67 <HI>I went a&s;tray whiles cro&s;sle&s;s mo&s;t,</HI></L>
<L><HI>but now thy Word I keep.</HI></L>
<L N="68">68 <HI>In thee dwells goodne&s;&s;e, good thou do'&s;t;</HI></L>
<L><HI>Learn me thy Statutes deep.</HI></L>
<L N="69">69 <HI>Impure proud men, 'gainst me have ly'd.</HI></L>
<L><HI>I &s;erve thee with heart right.</HI></L>
<L N="70">70 <HI>Jolly and fat as grea&s;e they bide.</HI></L>
<L><HI>In thy Law I delight.</HI></L>
<L N="71">71 <HI>It's good that I have felt thy Rod</HI></L>
<L><HI>to learn thy &s;tatutes just.</HI></L>
<L N="72">72 <HI>I count thy Law better, O God,</HI></L>
<L><HI>then thou&s;ands of gold du&s;t.</HI></L></Q>
</EPIGRAPH>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="10" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. X.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 1.</HEAD>
<P>THe la&s;t Chapter pre&s;ented what I judged &s;ufficient (at pre&s;ent) to an&s;wer to the con&s;equence of this argument, <HI>viz. If all the people of the Jewes circumci&s;ed, though never &s;o bad, were admitted to the Pa&s;&s;eover, then all &s;uch baptized, mu&s;t now be admitted to the Lords Supper.</HI> The Antecedent a&s;&s;umed is: <HI>But all the people (circumci&s;ed) were admitted to the Pa&s;&s;eover.</HI> Concerning which this Chapter will give an account of my apprehen&s;ions.</P>
<P>This <HI>generall admi&s;&s;ion</HI> (much more this rightfull generall admi&s;&s;ion) to the Pa&s;&s;eover, here a&s;&s;erted, is denyed not with|out many rea&s;ons given of the deniall of it by the learned M^r <HI>Gille&s;py,</HI> in his <HI>Aarons Rod blo&s;&s;oming, l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 9, 10. which I refer to the diligent peru&s;all of the judicious Reader who hath not read him already.</P>
<P>I &s;hall al&s;o humbly offer &s;omewhat in the following parti|culars, whereby the fore&s;aid a&s;&s;umption may be di&s;proved. I &s;hall meet with and &s;olve the mo&s;t colourable preten&s;ions that (I have &s;een) undertaking its protection.</P>
<PB N="102" REF="72">
<P N="1">(1) The command of celebrating the Pa&s;&s;eover is delivered in general termes, <HI>Exod.</HI> 12.3, 6, 43, 44, 45, 47. &amp;c. <HI>All the Cngregation of I&s;rael &s;hall keep it.</HI> And this reacheth cleerely thus far; that they all there &s;poken of were obliged to this <HI>as their duty,</HI> viz. to celebrate the Pa&s;&s;eover according to the or|dinances of it. But hence it follows not, that there might be no hindrances (and that through their own fault,) which might debar them <HI>in &s;tatu quo</HI> from doing what they were ob|liged unto. The obligation to a duty doth not ever warrant the performing of it, when theres a pre&s;ent incapacity and un|preparedne&s;s for it; but it &s;hould put on ever and provoke to a preparation and performance both.</P>
<P>And &s;o I &s;hould thinke all Chri&s;tian adult profe&s;&s;ors bapti|zed, are obliged to celebrate the Lords Supper, yea even the mo&s;t prophane, (&s;hall I adde, the ju&s;tly excommunicate al&s;o who are not di&s;obliged from, though debar'd from the Sacra|ment through their own default). A drunken profe&s;&s;or of Chri&s;tianity, whiles drunk at the time of divine &s;ervice, is not &s;ure di&s;obliged from Gods publique &s;ervice, no not from the Lords Supper, but yet, none doubts, he is then ju&s;tly debarr'd and excluded from the &s;ame. There are two &s;orts of hin|drances from the Sacrament. 1. When the per&s;ons hindred are wilfully acce&s;&s;ory to their own hindrance. 2. When they are hindred without their own fault. The fir&s;t hinders but doth not excu&s;e; the latter both hinders and excu&s;eth: of the former &s;ort we had an in&s;tance in the man who neglected to circumci&s;e his males, in which default, he was debarred, yet not excu&s;ed from celebrating the Pa&s;&s;eover, <HI>Exod.</HI> 12.48. Of the latter &s;ort &s;eeme tho&s;e mentioned, <HI>Numb.</HI> 9. in ca&s;e of ceremonial uncleanene&s;s. And yet if any did unnece&s;&s;arily and wilfully touch a dead body, or take a journey fifteene miles from the camp, or from <HI>Hieru&s;alem</HI> (as the <HI>Jewes</HI> interpret [a farr off] though they were hereby hindred, they were not excu&s;ed before God for their neglect.)</P>
<P N="2">(2) But in reference to the&s;e per&s;ons hindred from the Pa&s;&s;eover, <HI>Numb.</HI> 9. I &s;hall ob&s;erve the&s;e things.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 2.</HEAD>
<P N="1">1. That there was no expre&s;s exception of them in the for|mer generall commands, <HI>Exod.</HI> 12. <HI>That all I&s;rael &s;hould doe the Pa&s;&s;eover.</HI> For then there could have been no doubt about the&s;e in their ca&s;e; at lea&s;t <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> would not have been at a &s;tand about it, as he &s;eemes to be, <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 8.2. That yet it was
<PB N="103" REF="72">not thought (notwith&s;tanding that general command without exception expre&s;&s;ed) that all might keep the Pa&s;&s;eover with|out limitation of &s;ome preparedne&s;&s;e for the &s;ame. 3. That there was then an order, and care had, for keeping back &s;ome (even of the <HI>I&s;raelites</HI>) from the Pa&s;&s;eover. The&s;e two la&s;t ob&s;ervations are evident in <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 6, 7. Tho&s;e defiled &s;ay to <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> and <HI>Aaron, Wherefore are we kept backe; that we may not offer&mdash;among the children of I&s;rael?</HI> Which implyes that they tendred them&s;elves to partake, and complained that they were by &s;ome kept back. 4. That its manife&s;t here is not in|tended an enumeration of all impediments, no not of all tho&s;e impediments which excu&s;ed from doing the Pa&s;&s;eover, (as &s;ickne&s;s, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> not here mentioned) <HI>how much le&s;s of tho&s;e which excu&s;ed not; which I thinke this text doth not refer to.</HI> And therefore notwith&s;tanding this place, the <HI>Jewes</HI> thought other things barrs of their celebrating the Pa&s;&s;eover. <HI>John</HI> 18.20. <HI>They went not them&s;elves into the Judgement hall, lea&s;t they &s;hould be defiled, but that they might keep the Pa&s;&s;eover.</HI> They judged preparation for the Pa&s;&s;eover (for which they had a &s;o|lemne day) antecedently nece&s;&s;ary to the doing of the Pa&s;&s;e|over. And probably, in their judgement, a litigious action on an holy day, was accounted a moral &s;in, which they pretended to make &s;cruple of. There is little doubt, they hold excom|munication for moral &s;ins, as Mr. <HI>Gela&s;py</HI> hath copiou&s;ly &s;hew|ed. And yet neither are their excommunicates expre&s;ly ex|cepted in this text; &s;o that it &s;hould make again&s;t their ex|cluding the <HI>de facto,</HI> as well as the <HI>ip&s;o jure excommunicate.</HI> It cannot therefore be inferred from this text, that all did par|take of the Pa&s;&s;eover, except tho&s;e in a journey, or polluted by a dead body.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 3.</HEAD>
<P N="3">(3) It may further be con&s;idered, that there were tho&s;e &s;e|vere lawes again&s;t &s;in, as required the <HI>cutting off</HI> &s;uch as were notorious and &s;candalous offenders. I confe&s;&s;e its a mighty dif|ficult thing cleerly to determine the importance of that phra&s;e; Its applyed &s;o variou&s;ly; &s;ometimes as a puni&s;hment for &s;mall offences, the neglecting &s;ome ceremony, or the like. <HI>Exod.</HI> 30.38. <HI>Levit.</HI> 7.18, 20, 21, 26, 27. <HI>Numb.</HI> 19.13, 20. And &s;ometimes for notorious wickedne&s;&s;e. <HI>Exod.</HI> 31.14, 15. <HI>Levit.</HI> 20.6, 17. as for ince&s;t. Divers texts, particularly, the la&s;t men|tioned, &s;eeme to evince that it was <HI>putting one to death,</HI> which <HI>cutting off</HI> imported. And yet &s;ome of the&s;e &s;ins to be thus pu|ni&s;hed,
<PB N="104" REF="73">might be private, and not juridically or otherwi&s;e no|toriou&s;ly known; and therefore could not be puni&s;hed by man, with the cutting off by death. <HI>Ain&s;worth</HI> &s;aith on <HI>Gen.</HI> 17.14. <Q><HI>It is &s;ometimes &s;poken of Gods cutting off men by death for their &s;ins.</HI> Levit. 17.10. <HI>&amp;</HI> 20.3, 5, 6. <HI>And &s;o the Hebrewes under&s;tand it here, and in all other like places, that for wil|ling tran&s;gre&s;&s;ion in &s;ecret God would cut them off by untimely death.</HI></Q> (Which may be thus expounded, that the offender might expect Gods immediate vengeance in &s;uch ca&s;es, though the Lord had not (by his threatnings) tyed up him&s;elfe from exerci&s;ing patience and long-&s;uffering towards them.) <Q><HI>And if there be witne&s;&s;es of it, the Magi&s;trate is to puni&s;h or kill them. But for ignorant tran&s;gre&s;&s;ions, they were to bring the appoin|ted &s;acrifices;</HI></Q> &s;o he. Now the notorious ob&s;tinate offenders were adjudged by Gods Law, in that <HI>Theocracy</HI> of the <HI>Jewes,</HI> to <HI>be cut off,</HI> as appeares by many texts; &s;ee &s;uch as the&s;e; <HI>Exod</HI> chapt. 21. ver&s;. 15, 16, 17. <HI>&amp;</HI> 22.18, 19, 20. <HI>&amp;</HI> 31.14, 15. <HI>&amp;</HI> 32.26, 27, 28. <HI>&amp;</HI> 35.2. <HI>Levit.</HI> 24.15, 16, 23. <HI>&amp;</HI> 20.9 10. <HI>Deut.</HI> 13.5. <HI>&amp;</HI> 17.5, 6. <HI>&amp;</HI> 22.21. More gene|ral texts adjudging this cutting off to all manner of notorious wickedne&s;&s;e are, <HI>Deut.</HI> 17.12. <HI>&amp;</HI> 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 15.12, 13. Now if this were &s;o, Its &s;uppo&s;ed that the Magi&s;trate doing his duty (or if it referred to <HI>eccle&s;ia&s;tical cutting off,</HI> tho&s;e entru&s;ted in that, doing their duty) there &s;hould be none to partake of the Pa&s;&s;eover who were notoriou&s;ly &s;candalous. And its the le&s;&s;e &s;trange, if exceptions again&s;t &s;uch are not particularly and ex|pre&s;ly mentioned, although they might have no right to the Pa&s;&s;eover.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect; 4.</HEAD>
<P N="4">4. Againe. If we peru&s;e all the examples of their celebra|ting the Pa&s;&s;eover in the old Te&s;tament; therein we finde not any (I thinke) admitted under &s;uch notorious wickedne&s;&s;e as &s;hould then be judged vi&s;ibly incon&s;i&s;tent with true actual faith.</P>
<P>We may &s;oone view the places, they are not many. After the fir&s;t celebration upon the In&s;titution, <HI>Exod.</HI> 12. when they were under tho&s;e miraculous di&s;pen&s;ations which were apt to di&s;po&s;e the very wicked (in heart) and much more others to an out|ward good conformity.</P>
<P>The next and only In&s;tance while they were in the Wilder|ne&s;&s;e, was that of <HI>Numb.</HI> 9. which hath been already peru&s;ed by us. And then &s;oone after their entrance into <HI>Canaan,</HI> the Pa&s;&s;e|over
<PB N="105" REF="73">was celebrated, <HI>Jo&s;h.</HI> 5.10. immediatly after the circum|ci&s;ion of the adult, not circumci&s;ed in the Wilderne&s;&s;e before; which its no way probable they were compelled to receive, without being acquainted with, and having re&s;pect to the Co|venant they entred with God, and God with them, whereof circumci&s;ion was a &s;eale. And that the people (indefinitely) were then in a vi&s;ible beleeeving frame and obediential po|&s;ture, is gatherable from <HI>Chap.</HI> 1.16, 17, 18. which the mira|culous bringing them through <HI>Jordan</HI> al&s;o, (immediately be|fore this their celebration of the Pa&s;&s;eover) was apt to con|firme and e&s;tabli&s;h them in, <HI>Chap.</HI> 3. and <HI>Chap.</HI> 4.</P>
<P>During the time of the <HI>Judges</HI> we read of no Pa&s;&s;eover kept (I do not &s;ay there was none). And in the time of the <HI>Kings</HI> there are but two Pa&s;&s;eovers recorded in holy Scripture, <HI>viz.</HI> one during the reigne of <HI>Hezekiah,</HI> and the other of <HI>Jo&s;iah,</HI> tho&s;e two good Kings. <HI>Hezekiahs</HI> we have 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 30. where is mentioned (according to our tran&s;lation) the long inter|ruption of it, <HI>v.</HI> 6. <HI>That they had not done it of a long time, in &s;uch &s;ort as it was written.</HI> (In &s;tead whereof both the Syriack and Arabick ver&s;ions have, <HI>Becau&s;e their riches were much en|crea&s;ed</HI>). And there are here, not only no intimations of the vi&s;ible prophanene&s;&s;e of any who did partake, but great te&s;ti|mony is given to the contrary. They were indefinitly called by the King and Princes to <HI>turne againe to the Lord, and that they &s;hould not be &s;tiffaecked,</HI> v. 6, 7. and they an&s;wered that call, <HI>v.</HI> 11. Of &s;ome its &s;aid, that <HI>they humbled them&s;elves,</HI> (they <HI>were confounded,</HI> &s;aith the <HI>LXX, acquie&s;centes con&s;ilio,</HI> &s;aith the vulgar Latine: they <HI>were contrite in heart,</HI> &s;aith the Syriack, or <HI>they trembled in heart,</HI> as the Arabick) <HI>and they came to Hie|ru&s;alem.</HI> And of others its &s;aid, v. 12. <HI>God gave them one heart to do the commandment of the King and Princes by the word of the Lord;</HI> which was to <HI>turne to the Lord,</HI> as before. And that this was manife&s;ted in deeds and notable in&s;tances of real re|formation is &s;hewed <HI>v.</HI> 13. And then <HI>Hezekiah begged pardon,</HI> or <HI>acceptance for them</HI> (only) <HI>who had prepared their hearts to &s;eek God,</HI> v. 19. Which implyes that he took them (all inde|finitly) for &s;incere beleevers. The Syriack ver&s;ion hath it thus; <HI>The good God expiate for the whole people of I&s;rael, &s;eeing that we have prepared our hearts to pray to God,</HI> &amp;c. And the A|rabick &s;aith; <HI>The God of goodne&s;&s;e &s;pare the I&s;raliti&s;h nation, &s;ee|ing that he hath prepared our hearts to pray to God,</HI> &amp;c. And then <HI>v.</HI> 21. they kept the fea&s;t of <HI>unleavened bread with gladne&s;&s;e,</HI>
<PB N="106" REF="74">and the whole a&s;&s;embly took coun&s;el &amp; kept other &s;even dayes with gladne&s;&s;e, <HI>v.</HI> 23, 26.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 5.</HEAD>
<P>The other Pa&s;&s;eover was in the time of <HI>Jo&s;iah,</HI> recorded 2 <HI>King.</HI> 23.22, 23. <HI>&amp;</HI> 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 35.1, 2. &amp;c. where is to be ob&s;erved, that things being much out of order by the ill go|vernment of his Grand-father <HI>Mana&s;&s;eh,</HI> and his Father <HI>Amon, Jo&s;iah</HI> doth endeavour a reformation before its &s;tory'd that he called the people to a Pa&s;&s;eover; In the twelfth yeare of his reigne, he began to purge <HI>Judah</HI> and <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> from the high places, groves, and Images, 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 34.3, 4, 5, 6, 7. And then it followes, <HI>v.</HI> 8. <HI>Now in the</HI> 18th <HI>yeare of his reigne, when he had purged the Land and the hou&s;e,</HI> he took order to repaire the hou&s;e of God: and having found the book of the Law, he cau&s;ed it to be read to all the people, great and &s;mall, <HI>v.</HI> 30. he him&s;elfe being greatly humbled by the contents thereof; <HI>He</HI> v. 31. <HI>made a Covenant before the Lord, to walk af|ter the Lord, and to keep his Commandments, and te&s;timonies, and &s;tatutes, with all his heart and &s;oul, to performe the words of the Covenant which are written in this book.</HI> And <HI>v.</HI> 32, 33. <HI>he cau|&s;et<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> all pre&s;ent in Jeru&s;alem and Judah</HI> (all the people, <HI>v.</HI> 30.) <HI>to &s;tand to it. And the Inhabitants of Jeru&s;alem did according to the Covenant of God, the God of their Fathers. And Jo&s;iah took away all the abominations out of the Countryes that pertained to the children of I&s;rael; and made all that were pre&s;ent in I&s;rael, to &s;erve,</HI> even <HI>to &s;erve the Lord their God. And all his dayes they departed not from following the Lord, the God of their Fathers.</HI> And now having thus prepared the people (in this &s;ame 18th yeare of his reigne, 2 <HI>King.</HI> 23.23. 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 35.19.) he com|manded the people to keepe the Pa&s;&s;eover there recorded. What foot&s;teps are there here of any vi&s;ible prophane per&s;ons partaking of the Pa&s;&s;eover?</P>
<P>There is only one more example in the old Te&s;tament &s;to|ry'd, <HI>Ezra</HI> 6. It plea&s;ed God after a long captivity for the humbling <HI>Judah,</HI> to &s;tir up <HI>Cyrus</HI> to proclaime liberty of their returne to build the Temple, he encouraging and a&s;&s;i&s;ting them therein. Tho&s;e of <HI>them who&s;e &s;pirit God ray&s;ed to goe, Ezra</HI> 1.5. Clo&s;ed with the de&s;igne, attempted it, and pur&s;ued it, with a vi&s;ible frame of great humility, feare of the Lord, zeale for his &s;ervice; and to the utmo&s;t layd out them&s;elves in the &s;ame. <HI>Chap.</HI> 1.5. <HI>Chap.</HI> 2.68, 69. the whole third <HI>Chap. Chap.</HI> 5.5-11. (1 <HI>E&s;dras</HI> 5.44, 45, 53, 61, 63, 65.) <HI>Ezra</HI> 6.14,
<PB N="107" REF="74">15, 16, 17, &amp;c. And then is related their keeping the Pa&s;&s;eover, <HI>v.</HI> 19. <HI>viz.</HI> as is &s;hewed, <HI>v.</HI> 21. <HI>The children of I&s;|rael which were come againe out of captivity; and all &s;uch as had &s;eparated them&s;elves from the filthine&s;s of the heathen of the Land,</HI> to &s;ock the Lord God of <HI>I&s;rael,</HI> did eat and kept the fea&s;t of unleavened bread &s;even dayes with joy, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> The Syriack ver|&s;ion, hath it thus; <HI>And the I&s;raelites eat it, who came up from the Babylonian Captivity</HI> (viz.) <HI>all tho&s;e who were &s;eparated from the filthine&s;s of the Land.</HI> And &s;o it is al&s;o in 1 <HI>E&s;dras</HI> 7.13. making that &s;eparation to be the preparative qualification of all who did partake of the Pa&s;&s;eover. But if we take it as re|ferring to the Pro&s;elytes, it &s;uppo&s;eth the children of <HI>I&s;rael,</HI> to whom the Pro&s;elytes were &s;o joyned, were in like manner &s;eparated from the filthine&s;s of the nations. Upon a &s;trict view of all the&s;e examples; It appeares not, that any did partake un|der a vi&s;ible prophanene&s;&s;e, incon&s;i&s;tent with vi&s;ible actual faith and obedience; but the contrary.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="6" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 6.</HEAD>
<P N="5">(5) Let me adde, That when the people generally did keep the Pa&s;&s;eover, although &s;ome might be notoriou&s;ly wicked at home, it is not ea&s;ie to conceive how tho&s;e who admitted their pa&s;chal Lambs, and offered part thereof for them, and who had the charge of the holy things, could know their particular &s;candalous &s;ins, &s;o as thereupon to debar them. How could they know who was ceremonially uncleane by touch of a dead body, or who had not circumci&s;ed his males, and &s;o was mo|rally uncapable in that &s;tate? Yea though many thus obnoxi|ous might be knowne &s;o to be at home, yet it being not mani|fe&s;t to tho&s;e Governours, they could take no notice thereof. And yet hence it follows not, that they who thus thru&s;t in them&s;elves had a proper right to actual pre&s;ent participation of the Pa&s;&s;eover; as el&s;where is &s;hewed by us. But the ca&s;e is otherwi&s;e now, as to the Lords Supper; when Chri&s;tian people are gathered into particular Churches, under the In&s;pection of Guides and Officers, in a &s;pecial manner appropriated and de&s;igned to watch over them in the Lord.</P>
<P>However, this &s;eemes evident, that on the &s;ame Rea&s;on whereby they did gather the exclu&s;ion of tho&s;e <HI>otherwi&s;e cere|monially uncleane,</HI> from the particular expre&s;&s;e prohibition of the <HI>uncleane by a dead body:</HI> they might al&s;o inferre the right|full exclu&s;ion or ab&s;ten&s;ion of all notoriou&s;ly prophane and breakers of Gods Covenant, from the particular expre&s;&s;e pro|hibition
<PB N="108" REF="75">of him who circumci&s;ed not his males, <HI>Exod.</HI> 12.48, 49.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="7" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 7.</HEAD>
<P N="6">(6) To conclude (at la&s;t) this pont. The general com|mand for celebration of the Pa&s;&s;eover, is no larger then for circumci&s;ion: now as this &s;uppo&s;ed the Covenant to be vi&s;ibly entred into, with under&s;tanding, as <HI>Ain&s;worth</HI> &s;hews on <HI>Gen.</HI> 17. So that mu&s;t &s;uppo&s;e their continuance in that Covenant, as nece&s;&s;ary to enright them in a &s;acramental partaking of the Pa&s;&s;eover.</P>
<P>But its high time for me to crave the Readers pardon for &s;o long detaining him upon, and hindering his <HI>Tran&s;itus</HI> from this argument of the Pa&s;&s;eover. But if he thinke (as I doe) that its the &s;tronge&s;t objection, and that an&s;wering it, will e|nervate divers others (as that fetcht from 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10. concern|ing the <HI>Manna and rock,</HI> though indeed its much more ea&s;ie to an&s;wer tho&s;e, and they have been cleerly an&s;wered by others, and therefore I pa&s;s them) If my Reader (I &s;ay) con&s;ider the importance of this argument, I tru&s;t he &s;hal not complaine, I have provoked his patience, or abu&s;ed his lea&s;ure herein. If any will needs be pa&s;&s;ionate, I have <HI>Davids</HI> remedy for an ill &s;pirit.</P>
<EPIGRAPH>
<Q><BIBL>PSALM 119. part 10. <HI>K.</HI></BIBL>
<L N="73">73 <HI>Kned was I by thy hands, and made:</HI></L>
<L><HI>Learne me thy &s;tatutes ju&s;t!</HI></L>
<L N="74">74 <HI>Knowing mee &s;hall thy people glad:</HI></L>
<L><HI>For in thy Word I tru&s;t.</HI></L>
<L N="75">75 <HI>Known are thy Judgements right to mee:</HI></L>
<L><HI>In truth thou &s;mit'&s;t mee Lord:</HI></L>
<L N="76">76 <HI>Kindely me comfort, I pray thee,</HI></L>
<L><HI>According to thy Word.</HI></L>
<L N="77">77 <HI>Keep me alive, by grace from thee:</HI></L>
<L><HI>In thy Lawes joy I finde.</HI></L>
<L N="78">78 <HI>Knowing no cau&s;e, the Proud wrong'd mee.</HI></L>
<L><HI>Shame them! thy Word I minde.</HI></L>
<L N="79">79 <HI>Knit may they be to mee in love,</HI></L>
<L><HI>Who thee feare, thy Lawes know.</HI></L>
<L N="80">80 <HI>Keep my heart &s;ound 'ith truth to prove;</HI></L>
<L><HI>Least &s;hame mee overthrow.</HI></L></Q>
</EPIGRAPH>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="11" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="109" REF="75">
<HEAD>CHAP. XI.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 1.</HEAD>
<P>THe great quarrell he hath about Examination is ca&s;t in my way, <HI>p.</HI> 54. and often el&s;where. But though it ju|&s;tles uncivilly, and as a bold intruder ab&s;urdly pre&s;&s;eth in, when we are bu&s;ie about other matters, I am re&s;olved it &s;hall &s;tay for its an&s;wer, till its turne come among the Digre&s;&s;ions, and then I &s;hall deal candidly with it.</P>
<P>At <HI>p.</HI> 58. Mr. <HI>W.</HI> brings in this &s;yllogi&s;me, as if it contained my &s;en&s;e, and were &s;ome part of my argument, <HI>viz. Such as by Scripture characters are to be judged and taken to be unbeleevers, are unbeleevers. But all men baptized, adult, and of the Chri&s;tian per&s;wa&s;ion (if irregular in their conver&s;ations) are by Scripture characters to be judged and taken to be unbeleevers.</HI> Ergo, <HI>all men baptized, and adult, and of the Chri&s;tian per&s;wa&s;ion (if irre|gular in their conver&s;ations) are unbeleevers.</HI></P>
<P>He quarreld ere while with my in&s;erting parenthe&s;is in a &s;yllogi&s;me, but if I had put in &s;uch a parenthe&s;is as he here hath in his <HI>minor</HI> and <HI>conclu&s;ion,</HI> which being taken out, the &s;en&s;e is de&s;troyed in both propo&s;itions; I might have well de|&s;erved his cen&s;ure, which yet I li&s;t not to returne upon him&s;elfe here. But to the matter I an&s;wer. Did ever any one &s;ay, that any irregularities in conver&s;ation, were Scripture characters whereby we might judge of per&s;ons as unbeleevers? I a&s;&s;erted only that there are &s;ome &s;uch as would amount thereto. What tho&s;e are, was not our bu&s;ine&s;&s;e to enumerate. If I &s;ay &s;ome irregular in their conver&s;ations are to be excommunicated, will it hence follow, that all irregular per&s;ons (in any re&s;pect &s;uch) are to be excommunicated? What coherence is here? And yet this <HI>toy</HI> &s;eemes to tickle his phan&s;ie, and he plays with it againe and againe, <HI>p.</HI> 58, 59, &amp;c. And gravely as if in &s;o|ber &s;adne&s;s, thus delivers him&s;elfe; <HI>Some irregularities in mens lives we hold not unreconcilable with a true doctrinal per&s;wa&s;ion, nor with the habit of &s;aving faith neither. When &s;uch irregulari|ties become notorious, publique and &s;candalous, the parties &s;o of|fending are legally to be proceeded again&s;t. But for every private mi&s;carriage, a Pa&s;tor is not to debar a man at his plea&s;ure, upon the verbal information of &s;ome few in private; but deal gently by private conference with the party informed again&s;t, as a Father with his child.</HI>&mdash;And then he points his tale on me in the&s;e
<PB N="110" REF="76">words; <HI>This were more Chri&s;tian-like than your ra&s;h frequent and rigorous &s;u&s;pen&s;ions.</HI></P>
<P>In an&s;wer whereto I &s;ay.</P>
<P N="1">1. Neither the habit of &s;aving faith in per&s;ons, nor of dog|matical faith (as I have already &s;hewed) is directly enquired after by us, in order to admini&s;tring the Sacraments to them; but the vi&s;ible exerci&s;e thereof, which an habitually godly man may be de&s;titute of for a time.</P>
<P N="2">2. Who &s;aid any irregularities might debar one, except no|torious publique or &s;candalous?</P>
<P N="3">3. Some notorious mi&s;carriages need not any tryall for the proving them to be &s;uch as de&s;erve excommunication. But the offenders are <HI>ip&s;o jure</HI> excommunicate, having manife&s;tly and publiquely lo&s;t their right at pre&s;ent of actual admi&s;&s;ion to &s;ome Church Communion. 2 <HI>Epist. John,</HI> v. 10, 11. <HI>If there come any to your hou&s;e and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your hou&s;e, nor bid him God &s;peed.</HI> Where particular private Chri&s;tians as well as others were commanded, to deale with &s;uch as excommunicate in law; whether the governing Church upon a juridical tryall had declared them to be &s;uch or no. What need is there of witne&s;&s;es to prove an unmarryed woman who hath borne a childe is a <HI>fornicatre&s;&s;e,</HI> or of Judges to try and di&s;cerne whether this &s;in (without repentance manife&s;ted for it) de&s;erve excommunication. Is not 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5.11. a &s;ure Rule, unle&s;s pronounced by the Church-Governours, or any other?</P>
<P N="4">4. Yet its not unlawfull to take juridical cognizance of &s;uch plaine ca&s;es. <HI>(Abundans cautela non nocet)</HI> And upon good rea&s;on it may be judged meet and mo&s;t orderly where it may be.</P>
<P N="5">5. What meanes he by a <HI>Pa&s;tors debarring any at their plea&s;ure?</HI> Is not this an odious in&s;inuation? Do we pretend to arbitrary Government?</P>
<P N="6">6. Did any ever &s;ay that for any private mi&s;carriage one might be debarred?</P>
<P N="7">7. What quarrel hath he again&s;t <HI>verbal information?</HI> Is it un&s;ufficient on that account? or mu&s;t it needs be written?</P>
<P N="8">8. May not &s;ome private mi&s;carriage, that is, &s;ome grievous wickedne&s;&s;e privately committed, and known to two or three only, yet per&s;i&s;ted in, after the procedure mentioned <HI>Math.</HI> 18. be a cau&s;e of excommunication, as well as a publique offence notorious in its own nature, without all &s;uch previous admoni|tion, according to 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5.</P>
<PB N="111" REF="76">
<P N="9">9. What means he by <HI>[the information of &s;ome few in pri|vate?]</HI> Is the information taken before per&s;ons cho&s;en by the Pari&s;h for the congregationall government thereof, an in|formation taken before &s;ome few in private? What, would he have it before all the Congregation? or before how many of them? What rambling exceptions are here?</P>
<P N="10">10. I doe hereby provoke M^r <HI>W.</HI> to prove that any have been &s;u&s;pended or excommunicated in the Pari&s;h I mini&s;ter to, except for gro&s;&s;e offences, notorious through the nature of their crimes, or the publickne&s;s of their committing them, or by a juridicall receiving the te&s;timony of &s;ufficient wit|ne&s;&s;es thereupon. And tho&s;e offences too vi&s;ibly continued in without repentance after admonition. And the&s;e <HI>Ca&s;es</HI> have been very rare with us: not &s;o many I think, as the years have been of my &s;erving the Church here. And then commonly the i&s;&s;ue hath been comfortable, and upon their profe&s;&s;ion of repentance they have been re&s;tored with great joy, and that &s;hortly; we admini&s;tring the Sacramens in a con&s;tant fre|quent cour&s;e. I confe&s;&s;e &s;ome few have been de&s;ired to refrain for one time, or perhaps two upon &s;everall grounds re&s;pecting them&s;elves and others), when yet it hath been then &s;ignified to them that they were not &s;u&s;pended, nor &s;hould be debarred by us. And yet Mr. <HI>W.</HI> (&s;o far is he from the <HI>timerou&s;ne&s;s</HI> he cen&s;ures me for) dare tell the world in print of <HI>my ra&s;h, fre|quent, and rigorous &s;u&s;pen&s;ions.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 2.</HEAD>
<P>At <HI>p.</HI> 60. M^r <HI>W.</HI> is plea&s;ed to add, <HI>By our admini&s;tring to believers is meant to &s;uch believers as we may have certainty that they are believers. But of mens faving faith (which lies invi&s;i|bly in the hearts of the havers thereof) we can have but a conjecture or charitable hope, of their bapti&s;me, and of their true doctrinall confe&s;sion of &s;aith, we may have certainty. And their vi&s;ible conformity to the means of faith, &amp; &s;olemnities of the Chri&s;tian Religion, with their brethren in the publick ordinances of wor&s;hip, is a vi&s;ible te&s;timony of their owning the Christian Religion. And the outward admini&s;tration to them as to vi&s;ible believers, is equally their outward right, with the &s;tricte&s;t livers. For Mini&s;ters are but the outward mini&s;trators of the elements in the Lords Supper; the Spirit is the inward administrator of the invi&s;ible grace.</HI></P>
<P>Whereunto I return, 1. That we mu&s;t have a certainty tho&s;e are believers (that is, vi&s;ibly &s;uch) to whom we admini|&s;ter,
<PB N="112" REF="77">I readily grant. 2. That we can have any more certain|ty of a per&s;ons dogmaticall faith, then of his ju&s;tifying faith, I have before denied, and do &s;till; upon the grounds above mentioned. He that pretends to know who is really a dog|maticall believer, mu&s;t pretend to know the heart immediatly. Mens dogmatical, or doctrinal. as wel as their &s;aving or ju&s;tify|ing faith, <HI>(which lies invi&s;ibly in the hearts of the havers thereof) we can have but a conjecture,</HI> or charitable hope of. Yea, let me add, It is as difficult (if not more) for a Chri&s;tian to di&s;cern in him&s;elf, whether he hath a true dogmaticall faith. <HI>i. e.</HI> whether he doth a&s;&s;ent to the truths he profe&s;&s;eth, as to know whether he con&s;ents to the &s;ame, receiving them in love. And who that hath been acquainted with the troubled &s;pirits of the godly, and their temptations, hath not had ex|perience of tho&s;e dangerous doubtings about believing or a&s;|&s;enting to the great points of Chri&s;tianity, concerning Chri&s;t, the Scriptures, &amp;c. I know a Mini&s;ter would give much to be con&s;tantly a&s;&s;ured that he believes the doctrines he preach|eth concerning tho&s;e common and great points of the la&s;t judgement, heaven and hell, and the like. Yea, do not all doubts about our ju&s;tifying faith, recurr to the doubting about our doctrinall faith, as the ground thereof? Doth not the &s;oul thus argue? Could I love God &s;o little, and the World &s;o much, be &s;o mindle&s;s of Gods &s;ervice, &s;o &s;luggi&s;h, &s;o care|le&s;s of my &s;oul, if I did really believe the truth of Gods pro|mi&s;es, the immortality and pretiou&s;ne&s;s of my &s;oul, the va|nity of the world, the danger of Gods di&s;plea&s;ure, and that now is the day of grace offered to me, the continuance where|of I have no a&s;&s;urance for an houre longer? If a man pro|mi&s;e to poor beggars, that if they will but come to &s;uch a Prince a few miles off, they &s;hall there have great riches, &amp;c. and yet they &s;it &s;till and &s;tirre not, would not another &s;u&s;pect, and may not they &s;u&s;pect them&s;elves, that they believe not there is truth in the propo&s;ition and motion made unto them? <HI>Quis enim Domino mente credit, &amp; facultate non credit? Quis Deo animam &s;uam mane pat, &amp; pecuniam negat? Quis pro|mi&s;&s;is coelestibus fidem commodat, &amp; non agit ut e&s;&s;e po&s;sit parti|ceps promi&s;&s;ionum? Et ideo cum</HI> videamus homines haec non a|gere, cogimur non credentes palam &amp; evidenter agno&s;cere. <HI>Salvian ad Eccl. Cathol. l.</HI> 2.</P>
<P>And I think the great (<HI>Phy&s;ical</HI> if I may &s;o call it) work of conver&s;ion, lies in illumination of the under&s;tanding,
<PB N="113" REF="77"><HI>Eph.</HI> 1.17, 18, 19, 20. And the will is &s;weetly moved, accor|ding to the nature of &s;uch a faculty (yet nece&s;&s;arily in re&s;pect of the event) to clo&s;e with &s;uch through convictions. A man may profe&s;s a dogmaticall faith, (and &s;o al&s;o a ju&s;tifying faith) who hath it not. And we mu&s;t believe his credible pro|fe&s;sion. But I think that man who&s;e under&s;tanding is &s;o farre enlightned with Go&s;pel-truth as a &s;incere believers is, is a &s;in|cere and ju&s;tified believer; that predominat a&s;&s;ent being in&s;e|parably joyned with con&s;ent al&s;o.</P>
<P>This con&s;ideration I have the more in&s;i&s;ted on, that it might be an an&s;wer to that Objection, <HI>viz.</HI> If <HI>ju&s;tifying faith onely intitle to the Sacrament, then none may receive who want a&s;&s;u|rance.</HI> Let tho&s;e who hold dogmaticall faith intitles to the Sacrament, an&s;wer, and &s;ay, what he mu&s;t do who doubts (and wants a&s;&s;urance) of his dogmaticall faith; and it will &s;erve to direct him, who doubts concerning his ju&s;tifying faith: the ca&s;e is the &s;ame in both.</P>
<P N="3">3. Mr. <HI>W.</HI> here in&s;inuates (if I under&s;tand him) how we mu&s;t have a certainty of their being believers, whom we admi|ni&s;ter to, <HI>viz.</HI> by our having a <HI>certainty of their bapti&s;me, and their true doctrinall con&s;e&s;sion of the Faith.</HI> This will ratio|nally put an end to the Controver&s;ie about (that which is cal|led) Examination before admi&s;&s;ion to the Sacrament. But that is not now to be in&s;i&s;ted on.</P>
<P N="4">4. I grant, after they have once given a certainty that they have in their own per&s;ons made a true doctrinall confe&s;&s;ion of the Faith, with profe&s;&s;ed con&s;ent thereunto, their right to the Lords Supper is not to be denied, till they do by notori|ous wickedne&s;s (as before hath been declared) incurre Eccle&s;i|a&s;ticall cen&s;ure.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 3.</HEAD>
<P N="5">5. I know not well what Mr. <HI>W.</HI> means by <HI>vi&s;ible confor|mity to the means of Faith,</HI> and <HI>&s;olemnities of publick wor&s;hip,</HI> which he &s;aith, <HI>is a vi&s;ible te&s;timony of their owning the Chri|&s;tian Religion.</HI> If he mean that their conver&s;ations are not notoriou&s;ly oppo&s;ite to the faith they have profe&s;&s;ed, I con|curre. If <HI>their coming to Church,</HI> what ever their lives be o|therwi&s;e, then I demand whether a Chri&s;tian may be cen&s;u|red for no mi&s;demeanour, unle&s;s he neglect coming to Church? And if he may, then his coming to Church is not a &s;ufficient te&s;timony that he is &s;uch a vi&s;ible believer who hath right to the Sacrament,</P>
<PB N="114" REF="78">
<P N="6">6. That &s;hould &s;eem to be intended as an argument which Mr. <HI>W.</HI> adds, <HI>viz. [For Ministers are but the outward Mini&s;tra|tors of the Elements,]</HI> and then it would be to this purpo&s;e, If Mini&s;ters are but outward Mini&s;trators of the Elements in the Lords Supper, then the outward admini&s;tration to them who are baptized and come to Church, though notoriou&s;ly pro|phane in their lives, is equally their outward right, with the &s;tricte&s;t livers. But, <HI>Ergo.</HI> I deny the con&s;equence, nei|ther is there any &s;emblance of connexion in it. If the gover|ning Church do retain prophane per&s;ons in their &s;acramen|tall communion, that might have &s;ome more probability of inferring the Mini&s;ters duty to admini&s;ter to them. But what is that to our ca&s;e?</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 4.</HEAD>
<P N="7">7. Whereas Mr. <HI>W.</HI> further adds, <HI>therefore as long as the Church holds [men baptized and grown to years] in her out|ward communion, in other ordinances, &s;o long doth &s;he hold them in the outward wor&s;hip of celebrating the Lords Supper with her members as their due and duty.</HI></P>
<P>I an&s;wer, Nay rather from what was before a&s;&s;erted, whence this is inferred by Mr. <HI>W. viz. That Ministers are but Mini&s;tra|tors,</HI> it follows, that they are to mini&s;ter and officiate to them as in the Churches communion only &s;o far as the Church retains them in her communion. And therefore if the go|verning Church exclude any from the Sacrament, though not &s;ome other Ordinances; the Mini&s;ter an&s;werably may of|ficiat to them in other ordinances, but not in that.</P>
<P N="8">8. Whether the governing Church may exclude &s;ome from communion in the Lords Supper, who are retained in other Ordinances, I know is que&s;tioned; and perhaps Mr. <HI>W.</HI> may aim at &s;uch a thing here. But I &s;ee not how his words do &s;ig|nifie it; I &s;hall not therefore here &s;tand upon it, having laid down tho&s;e grounds before, upon which the que&s;tion may be determined in the affirmative.</P>
<P>And thus have I adventured, more particularly than other|wi&s;e I &s;hould have thought needfull to an&s;wer Mr. <HI>W.</HI> his Pre|ten&s;ions in this thing; becau&s;e that in his confidence of my weakne&s;s, he here &s;o vauntingly vapours and concludes in the&s;e words, <HI>p.</HI> 62. <HI>In your next let me under&s;tand what you can pro|duce and offer for refutation hereof, which I believe you neither will do, nor can do.</HI></P>
<PB N="115" REF="78">
<EPIGRAPH>
<Q><BIBL>PSALM. 119. Part 11. <HI>L.</HI></BIBL>
<L N="81">81 <HI>Longing for thy heart faints my heart.</HI></L>
<L><HI>In thy word I hope Lord.</HI></L>
<L N="82">82 <HI>Looking thou &s;houldst comfort impart.</HI></L>
<L><HI>Mine eyes fail for thy word.</HI></L>
<L N="83">83 <HI>Like to &s;moak't Bottles I am now.</HI></L>
<L><HI>Thine He&s;ts I'le not forget.</HI></L>
<L N="84">84 <HI>Let me my dayes-count know, when thou.</HI></L>
<L><HI>wilt pay my Foes their debt.</HI></L>
<L N="85">85 <HI>Leud men have digged pits for me</HI></L>
<L><HI>in pride, 'gain&s;t thy word true.</HI></L>
<L N="86">86 <HI>Lawes made by thee all faithful bee;</HI></L>
<L><HI>help me when Foes pur&s;ue.</HI></L>
<L N="87">87 <HI>Loe, they on earth almost me &s;pent,</HI></L>
<L><HI>but I left not thy Law.</HI></L>
<L N="88">88 <HI>Let thy</HI> kind love <HI>my dulne&s;s rent:</HI></L>
<L><HI>Ple keep thy word with aw.</HI></L></Q>
</EPIGRAPH>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="12" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. XII.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 1.</HEAD>
<P>HAving cleared and confirmed, that tho&s;e who are vi&s;ibly in a notorious way of wickedne&s;s incon&s;i&s;tent with the exerci&s;e of true faith, are on that account &s;uch unbelievers vi|&s;ibly, as have no immediate right to the Lords Supper, and &s;o ought not to have it admini&s;tred unto them. The A&s;&s;umpti|on follows at numb. 25. in my M. S. That <HI>tho&s;e who by word openly refu&s;e the Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t, are vi&s;ibly &s;uch unbelievers,</HI> and therefore they are &s;uch vi&s;ibly to whom the Lords Supper ought not to be admini&s;tred. This a&s;&s;umption I thus confir|med (numb. 27.) hecau&s;e to profe&s;s to renounce Chri&s;t, is to profe&s;s not to believe; now he who &s;eems &s;eriou&s;ly to pro|fe&s;&s;e his not believing, that is, his renouncing Chri&s;tianity, cannot be by any (rightly) judged and taken to be a believer. that is, &s;uch a believer as afore&s;aid.</P>
<P>I here gave an in&s;tance of one uncapable of rightfull admi&s;|&s;ion to the Sacrament, and therefore not to be admitted, though he be baptized, adult, and on whom the &s;entence of
<PB N="116" REF="79">the Church may not (perhaps) have pa&s;&s;ed for excommuni|cation. (The In&s;tance was of one who doth in words renounce Chri&s;tianity. I added <HI>[&s;eriou&s;ly]</HI> not in oppo&s;ition to madne&s;s or di&s;traction, (as M^r <HI>W.</HI> trifles, <HI>p.</HI> 63.) For then the In&s;tance would not have fitted the Que&s;tion; Mr. <HI>W.</HI> him&s;elfe excludes the unintelligent, <HI>p.</HI> 34. but in oppo&s;ition to both. 1. Ironicall uttering of words, which then &s;ignifie not what otherwi&s;e they would; as tho&s;e words are u&s;ually interpreted, <HI>Gen.</HI> 3.22, <HI>Behold he is become like one of us.</HI> And 2. a que&s;tioning or doubt|ing uttering of words, which though in forme a&s;&s;ertive, yet are otherwayes manife&s;t to be intended not as a&s;&s;ertive but proba|tional. So <HI>Jo&s;ephs</HI> &s;peech is fairely interpreted, <HI>Gen.</HI> 42.9, 16. <HI>By the life of Pharaoh, yee are all &s;pyes.</HI> So <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 73.13. <HI>Verily I have clean&s;ed my heart in vaine,</HI> but after he cleeres his mean|ing, was only a que&s;tioning or doubting of it, <HI>v.</HI> 15. <HI>If I &s;hould &s;ay thus, I &s;hould offend again&s;t the generation of the just.</HI></P>
<P>Now &s;uch an one as thus in words &s;ignificative of a renoun|cing of Chri&s;tianity (where the circum&s;tances of uttering them, declare the meaning of the &s;peaker is not ironical, nor proba|tional only) doth profe&s;s to renounce Chri&s;tianity, I &s;aid, is not in a capacity of rightful admi&s;&s;ion to the Sacrament. And by this <HI>one Affirmative,</HI> I overthrew their <HI>univer&s;al negative;</HI> they &s;ay <HI>none</HI> adult baptized, not put off from other ordinances, may be &s;u&s;pended or debarr'd the Sacrament: I &s;ay, &s;uch an one as we have mentioned may; therefore their univer&s;al ne|gative propo&s;ition is fal&s;e except further limited.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 2.</HEAD>
<P>I thinke now, there are few who under&s;tand any thing con|cerning di&s;putation. but would expect, Mr. <HI>W.</HI> &s;hould have an|&s;wered, either by affirming that this word renouncer of Chri|&s;tianity &s;hould be admitted to the Sacrament, if he tender him|&s;elfe to partake; or els <HI>by di&s;tinction,</HI> have put &s;ome limitation on the univer&s;al negative I a&s;&s;ault, whereby it might have ap|peared, that &s;uch an in&s;tance as this was not comprehended in it. But (to admiration) he can an&s;wer (and doubts not to refute mee) <HI>without denying or di&s;tingui&s;hing:</HI> as followes.</P>
<P N="1">1. He &s;aith; The whole depends upon a meere &s;uppo&s;ition. <HI>It is rather a thing imagined, than a cau&s;e likely to happen in the Church.</HI> This exception I made my &s;elfe, and an&s;wered it, which an&s;wer of mine Mr. <HI>W.</HI> endeavours to take off beneath; where I &s;hall make my reply.</P>
<P N="2">2. He &s;aith; <HI>But if &s;uch a ca&s;e &s;hould fall out,</HI> viz. <HI>That a
<PB N="117" REF="79">man in the Church &s;hould profe&s;&s;edly renounce Christianity, then he renounceth the Lords Supper too. And &s;o your &s;u&s;pen&s;ion in this ca&s;e would be needle&s;&s;e.&mdash;There is no need of &s;u&s;pending or excommunicating, &s;uch a wilfull renouncer of Christianity.</HI></P>
<P>I an&s;wer, by di&s;tingui&s;hing, 1. Betwixt renouncing of all the e&s;&s;ential parts, and &s;ome e&s;&s;ential part of Chri&s;tianity. 2. Between his renouncing the Lords Supper in particular, as to his u&s;ing it for the end and u&s;e Chri&s;t hath appointed it for; and, renouncing it altogether, upon all accounts what&s;oever. And 2. now I &s;ay. 1. To renounce an e&s;&s;ential part of Chri|&s;tianity, is to renounce Chri&s;tianity, though a man profe&s;s not to renounce all the e&s;&s;ential parts of Chri&s;tianity. It is e&s;&s;en|tial to Chri&s;tianity, that Chri&s;t be accepted, embraced and &s;ubmitted to, as Lord and Saviour; to &s;ave us from &s;in, <HI>Math.</HI> 1.21. as well as from puni&s;hment; therefore to reject Chri&s;t as Lord, is to reject Chri&s;tianity. He that &s;aith, <HI>I beleeve Chri&s;t dyed for me to redeeme me from hell,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>But I will not obey him, he &s;hall not reigne over me, I neither will nor can &s;pare my lu&s;ts (at lea&s;t not yet)</HI> &amp;c. <HI>doth renounce an e&s;&s;ential part of Chri&s;tia|nity, and &s;o by Con&s;equence, Chri&s;tianity it &s;elfe.</HI> For any e&s;&s;enti|al parr of a thing being removed, the thing it &s;elfe is removed. I may &s;ay of our accepting Chri&s;t as King and Saviour, as the Epigrammati&s;t &s;pake of his two poy&s;ons; <HI>Dividat haec &s;i quis, faciunt di&s;creta venenum: Antidotum &s;umet, qui &s;ociata bibet.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. He who thus renounceth Chri&s;tianity, renounceth al&s;o (expre&s;ly or by con&s;equence) the Lords Supper, as to a maine end and u&s;e Chri&s;t hath appointed it, <HI>viz.</HI> for the en|gaging the &s;oul neerer to Chri&s;t, and re&s;igning it up, in grate|ful and holy obedience to him, <HI>who is the author of &s;alvation to them who obey him.</HI> But yet he may not renounce it, as to all other re&s;pects; he would do as others do in the outward work, &amp;c.</P>
<P>And therefore there <HI>is need,</HI> yea a nece&s;&s;ity <HI>of &s;u&s;pending or excommunicating &s;uch a wilful renouncer of Christianity.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 3.</HEAD>
<P N="3">3. Mr. <HI>W.</HI> tells us, <HI>this</HI> (&s;uppo&s;ed renouncing Chri&s;tianity) <HI>cannot aboli&s;h his po&s;itive e&s;tate, which &s;tands on the free grace of God by Bapti&s;me&mdash;and &s;o he is a beleever for his po&s;itive e&s;tate in point of Religion, by vertue of his con&s;ecration, unto the Chri&s;tian faith in Bapti&s;me&mdash;and God will judge him as a Chri&s;tian, if he continue in his revolt till death; not as a Pagan Infidel,</HI> p. 63, 64, 65.</P>
<PB N="118" REF="80">
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Who ever &s;aid his wickedne&s;s di&s;obliged him from his bapti&s;mall engagements? 2. Mr. <HI>W.</HI> confe&s;&s;eth, that this renouncer of Chri&s;tianity, is a Chri&s;tian and beleever (by ver|tue of his Bapti&s;me) at the day of Judgement, when condem|ned. And doth he thinke &s;uch a Chri&s;tianity as is in hell, gives right to the Sacraments here? Who then can be exclu|ded? A damned Chri&s;tian is a baptized per&s;on, con&s;ecrated to Chri&s;tian duties, and not wholly di&s;obliged from the &s;ame. 3. And yet Mr. <HI>W.</HI> &s;aith, <HI>p.</HI> 63. <HI>I &s;hould judge of him rather by his continuance, or non-continuance in this &s;uppo&s;ed abrenuncia|tion.</HI> What would he judge of him? to be a Pagan Infidel<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">e So he is not when damned, therefore cannot &s;o be judged of by his fore&s;aid abrenunciation here and continuance therein, or will he judge him to be an unbeleever as de&s;titute of habi|tual &s;aving grace? that belongs not to us to judge of, but to God alone who knows the heart; or mu&s;t he be judged an un|beleever, as lying under notorious wickedne&s;s, incon&s;i&s;tent with the exerci&s;e of faith? that indeed we may judge of; But then to what purpo&s;e doth he thus judge of him, in reference to his &s;acramental claime? If to allow it, and admit him, then its all one as to this, as if he were not &s;o judged of. If to exclude him; then I have what I contend for; unle&s;s there be no judging of a man till he be dead, and then no man can be excommu|nicated for any crime what&s;oever. For (I am of opinion) there <HI>is no need of excommunicating or &s;u&s;pending</HI> a man after he is dead, nor of judging of him in order thereunto.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 4.</HEAD>
<P N="4">4. Mr. <HI>W.</HI> tells us, <HI>Papi&s;ts are Chri&s;tians &mdash; But we need not &s;u&s;pend them from the Lords Supper; their phan&s;ie of tran|&s;ub&s;tantiation, and other heretical Mormoes, &s;ave us the labour.</HI> I know not why Papi&s;ts may not without de&s;troying their principles tender them&s;elves to receive with us, unle&s;s the ne|ce&s;&s;ity of their obedience to the Popes prohibition, hinder them; and yet that is not a principle to the <HI>French</HI> Papi&s;ts. But if a Papi&s;t remaining &s;uch, and owning tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, Popi&s;h Indulgencies, merit in the Je&s;uits &s;en&s;e, prayers to Saints, religious adoration, or wor&s;hipping of Images, &amp;c. tender him&s;elfe to receive, will Mr. <HI>W.</HI> admit him? why them doth he not plainly &s;ay he would? as indeed his doctrine leads him to admit him, if the Papi&s;t be not excommunicated in &s;uch &s;en&s;e as I thinke none in <HI>England</HI> are. But tho&s;e words of his <HI>[&s;ave us the labour]</HI> I &s;uppo&s;e intimate, that if they did not
<PB N="119" REF="80">withdraw them&s;elves from our Communion, but &s;hould ten|der them&s;elves to receive, we &s;hould be at the labour of &s;u&s;|pending them. And yet Papi&s;ts are not forbidden to come to Church, nor &s;eparated from all other Ordinances in the Church. And then the univer&s;al negative Mr. <HI>W.</HI> pretends to defend [that no baptized per&s;on adult, intelligent, not excom|municated, may be debarred the Lords Supper, if he tender him&s;elfe] is againe battered by another In&s;tance which his own pen hath afforded. May not a Papi&s;t be baptized adult, intelligent, and not excommunicated the publique Congrega|tions, if he exclude not him&s;elfe, (as &s;ome others doe). And yet I thinke Mr. <HI>W.</HI> grants he may be kept back from the Lords Supper, whiles he profe&s;&s;edly remaines a Papi&s;t: and its to my admiration, that this Gentleman can &s;o confidently defend the &s;aid <HI>univer&s;al negative</HI> before mentioned, and yet overthrow it by divers &s;uch conce&s;&s;ions, as this in his booke.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 5.</HEAD>
<P N="5">5. Mr. <HI>W.</HI> tells me, I <HI>delude men with the contracted notion of &s;aving faith;</HI> and I may tell him, 1. that he doth as much de|lude men with the contracted notion of doctrinal or dogmati|cal faith. 2. And that its not the notion of &s;aving faith, but the re&s;ting in a common verbal profe&s;&s;ion of Chri&s;tianity, cry|ing, Lord, Lord, which will be found to be the great deluder of men, when the day of trying all things &s;hall come. And then he informes us, that <HI>Sacraments are not &s;eales of a per&s;onal and inward faith only. They are vi&s;ible &s;cales of the righteou&s;nes of faith.</HI> i. e. <HI>of the doctrine of faith in Chri&s;t, unto justification in the &s;ight of God, without the workes of the Law.</HI> From whence he inferres; <HI>And why &s;hould not all baptized per&s;ons, adult, and not excommunicated, per&s;onally te&s;tifie their a&s;&s;ent to this doctrine, by taking the con&s;ecrated bread and wine into their hands, as the vi&s;ible &s;imilitudes of the body of Chri&s;t &s;acrificed for us?</HI> &amp;c. To which I reply; Who hath &s;aid that they are &s;eales of a <HI>per&s;onal faith only?</HI> But doth not Mr. <HI>W.</HI> here grant (as well he may) that they are &s;eales of a per&s;onal inward faith, though not only? Sacraments are con&s;idered; 1. in re&s;pect of the In&s;titutor and Author; 2. of the Receiver; both wayes they are &s;eales, In re&s;pect of the Author they &s;eale his tender of the Covenant of grace, wherein &s;alvation is freely promi&s;ed to all that beleeve: In re&s;pect of the Receivers, they are in&s;ti|tuted and appointed by God for their &s;olemn &s;ealing or te&s;tify|ing their beleeving, and obediential embracing of the Cove|nant
<PB N="120" REF="81">of grace in the blood of Chri&s;t. And as the Admini&s;trator is to attend both; &s;o in &s;ub&s;erviency to his Ma&s;ter, both the&s;e are to be de&s;igned by him in the celebration of the holy my|&s;teries. <HI>The &s;eales</HI> (as is often &s;aid) <HI>are commen&s;urate with the Covenant &s;ealed.</HI> If a &s;ingle covenant or meere promi&s;e tende|red to all <HI>who will beleeve, that they &s;hall be &s;aved,</HI> might be &s;ea|led with the Sacraments, there were nothing in the nature of the Sacraments, which &s;hould hinder the admini&s;tring of them to heathens remaining &s;uch; to whom this Go&s;pel is to be preached, <HI>Mark.</HI> 16.15. <HI>John</HI> 3.16. But its manife&s;t, the&s;e &s;eales can be admini&s;tred only where there is vi&s;ibly a mutual covenant, <HI>viz.</HI> God promi&s;ing ju&s;tification on the condition of faith, to the Communicant, and the Communicant vi&s;ibly clo|&s;ing with that condition of beleeving to ju&s;tification. This is manife&s;t in that famous text Mr. <HI>W.</HI> relates to; which is, <HI>Rom.</HI> 4.11. concerning <HI>Abraham</HI> his receiving Circumci&s;ion, as a &s;eale of the righteou&s;ne&s;s of faith.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="6" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 6.</HEAD>
<P>This text requires our mo&s;t &s;erious peru&s;all. And here I &s;hall ob&s;erve; That though Gods &s;ealing or confirming his promi&s;e or &s;ingle covenant of grace is not excluded, yet this text doth very eminently refer to the &s;ealing or confirming of <HI>Abrahams</HI> per&s;onal faith; and that not only a dogmatical, but ju&s;tifying and &s;aving faith, profe&s;&s;ed by him in receiving Circumci&s;ion. The Que&s;tion <HI>Paul</HI> di&s;putes in the context is, whether a man may be ju&s;tified without the works of the Mo&s;aical Law as &s;uch? and he proves our affirmative in the example of <HI>Abra|ham. Abraham</HI> was a righteous per&s;on, and ju&s;tified by faith, his faith was imputed to him for righteou&s;ne&s;s; that is, God dealt with him, and accepted of him through Chri&s;t, as if he had been perfectly righteous in him&s;elfe. (having pardoned his &s;ins, as the phra&s;e is explicated, <HI>v.</HI> 6, 7, 8.) That this is the cleere and ea&s;ie importance of the phra&s;e of <HI>imputing a thing</HI> to another, I thinke I fir&s;t learned from our learned <HI>Wotton,</HI> on <HI>John</HI> 1.12. (a notion much better than fine gold) which is demon&s;trated by two places of this Epi&s;tle, where the &s;ame manner of &s;peech is u&s;ed; <HI>Rom.</HI> 2.26. <HI>If the uncircumci&s;ion keep the Law, &s;hall not his uncircumci&s;ion be counted for circum|ci&s;ion.</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">; that is, he &s;hall fare no wor&s;e than if circumci&s;ed; &s;o <HI>Rom.</HI> 9, 8. Now that <HI>Abraham</HI> was thus ju&s;tified without tho&s;e Mo&s;aicall works, the Apo&s;tle proves; 1. In that he was ju&s;tified before the workes of the
<PB N="121" REF="81">Law as &s;uch, were in force. For he was ju&s;tified before he re|ceived Circumci&s;ion (one u&s;e whereof afterwards was to en|gage the receivers thereof to all the Mo&s;aical Law, <HI>Gal.</HI> 5.3.) 2. In that Circumci&s;ion in its de&s;igne and intendment (and to <HI>Abraham</HI> effectually) was to be a &s;eale of the righteou&s;ne&s;s of faith before received: and hence (as well as from other texts) Divines &s;o unanimou&s;ly conclude, that the Sacraments are not in&s;tituted for the unconverted, but converted. (I &s;ay <HI>in&s;titu|ted.</HI> For its vaine to &s;peake of the po&s;&s;ibility of conver&s;ion in the event, by or at the Sacrament, as thence to inferre the manife&s;tly prophane and unconverted may be admitted. For no one can &s;ay of an heathen or excommunicated per&s;on, if he be &s;infully pre&s;ent and partake, that he &s;hall not, may not be converted at, or by that &s;infull partaking. The &s;pirit bloweth where it li&s;teth.) The concurrent judgement of Divines, <HI>Eng|li&s;h</HI> and Forreine, Epi&s;copal and Presbyterian, herein; that man of va&s;t and dige&s;ted reading, the <HI>learned Baxter,</HI> hath de|mon&s;trated at large in &s;ixty Te&s;timonies, produced in the &s;e|cond of his <HI>five di&s;putations concerning Right to the Sacraments.</HI> Sundry of which Te&s;timonies have many in them, being the judgement of many Churches, and many learned men therein. And many more might be ea&s;ily brought forth. I &s;hall take leave to mention only two or three in reference to this text in &s;pecial, not cited by him.</P>
<P><HI>Oecumenius in locum,</HI> (Maximo Florentino Interp.) &s;aith; <Q><HI>Nullam aliam ob rem, circumci&s;us &s;uit (Abraham) quam ut pro &s;igno ac demon&s;tratione ip&s;am circum&s;erret circumci&s;ionem ju|&s;titiae illius, quae in praeputio &s;ub&s;titit ip&s;i Abrahae. Si ver&ograve; &s;igno|rum ac &s;igilli loeo accepit circumci&s;ionem, nihil ip&s;i ad ju&s;titiam pro&s;uit, &s;ed h&acirc;c &s;olumodo ratione justificatum e&s;&s;e &s;ignificavit, hoc e&s;t, quod cum in praeputio e&s;&s;et, adhuc ju&s;titi&acirc; dignus habi|tus fuit. Arctins in loc:</HI> &s;aith, <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>autem (circumci&s;io) proprie fuit re&s;pectu electorum, nam in his geminum u&s;um reti|nuit, &s;cilicet, ob&s;ignare justitiam eis collatam. Pareus</HI> quotes <HI>Lyra</HI> expounding it thus; <HI>Accepit &s;ignaculum ju&s;titiae fidei, hoc est, ut e&s;&s;et &s;ignaculum ju&s;titiae fidei latentis in mente.</HI> When the Rhemi&s;ts on this place had &s;aid; the heretiques (that is, the Prote&s;tants in their language) would hereby &s;hew, that the Sacraments of the Church, give no grace or ju&s;tice of faith; but that they be notes, markes and badges only of our remi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins had by faith before, becau&s;e <HI>A|braham</HI> was ju&s;t before, and took this Sacrament for a &s;eale
<PB N="122" REF="82">thereof only, &amp;c. The&s;e Rhemi&s;ts are thus an&s;wered here|in by our learned <HI>Cartwright: S^t Paul</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>doth not only call Circumci&s;ion a &s;igne but a &s;eale, whereby it is evident, that God &s;o wrought by this &s;igne, that thereby he came to a further a&s;&s;urance of his righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e, which he had before the &s;etting to of the &s;eale.&mdash;And whereas they</HI> (the Papi&s;ts) <HI>would have this righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e, which was before the &s;eale thereof, to be peculiar unto Abraham; and that in others the righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e is not before the &s;eale, but with it! It is directly contrary to the whole di&s;cour&s;e of the Apo&s;tle</HI>&mdash;2 <HI>Then, It is ab&s;urd, that thus the &s;eale is &s;uppo&s;ed to be put before the ju|&s;tice, whereof it is the &s;eale. And thus the Lord (which for mens better understanding borroweth his Sacraments from the common u&s;age of their compacts and Covenants as neere as may be) is brought fir&s;t to &s;eale, and then to write that which he &s;ealeth, cleane contrary to that u&s;age of men, from whence he draweth the re&s;emblance of his Sacraments,</HI> &amp;c.</Q></P>
<P>Behold here the old Prote&s;tant Doctrine a&s;lerted in oppo&s;i|tion to the Papi&s;ts, <HI>viz.</HI> that a per&s;onal faith or ju&s;tice is ac|cording to this text &s;ealed or confirmed, and &s;uppo&s;ed to be ex|i&s;tent in one before he comes to partake of the Sacrament. Which de&s;ignes the &s;ealing of his righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e upon his be|leeving &s;uppo&s;ed: And that the contrary opinion is ab&s;urd. Now alas, what impudent times are we fallen into, when men have the confidence to tell us (again&s;t our owne eyes) that It is a noveli&s;me and heterodox up&s;tart doctrine, now among us, that Sacraments are in&s;tituted and de&s;igned only for the converted, and for the confirming (not working of faith); when as I thinke, it will be hard for them to produce &s;o much as a Prote&s;tant Catechi&s;me which a&s;&s;erts not the &s;ame. This booke of <HI>Cartwrights</HI> I have quoted &s;o largely, was written (as the Title and Preface &s;hew) by order of the chiefe In&s;truments of Queene <HI>Elizabeth,</HI> and the State, at the &s;pecial Reque&s;t of many mo&s;t famous and eminent Divines, <HI>Goad, Whitaker, Fulk,</HI> and &s;undry others.</P>
<P>Furthermore, that this text doth point to <HI>Abrahams</HI> faith, as that which was &s;ealed by the Sacrament, (and not only Gods promi&s;e) may be &s;hewed from &s;everall hints thereof in the text and context: As, 1. It was the &s;eale of the <HI>righteou&s;|ne&s;&s;e he had before Circumci&s;ion,</HI> which (at lea&s;t according to our tran&s;lation) denotes an inherent qualification in him, which he received a &s;eale of, by &s;ubmitting to that ordinance
<PB N="123" REF="82">of God, appointed for the te&s;tifying of his faith and obedience.</P>
<P N="2">2. That faith was &s;ealed, in re&s;pect whereof he is the <HI>Father of them who beleeve;</HI> now that was a faith inherent in him, and not only the doctrine of faith revealed to him, and others al&s;o in common. And they are <HI>Abrahams children</HI> in the &s;en&s;e of the text, who walk in the &s;teps of our Father <HI>Abraham,</HI> v. 12. And Chri&s;t tells many of the <HI>Jewes</HI> flatly (who yet had the &s;ame doctrine of faith revealed to them as <HI>Abraham</HI> had) <HI>If ye were Abrahams children, ye would do the works of Abraham, John</HI> 8.39. Although he acknowledgeth them <HI>Abrahams &s;eed too, after the fle&s;h,</HI> v. 37.</P>
<P>Let me la&s;tly In&s;ert, D: <HI>Hammonds</HI> Paraphrafe on the text, <HI>Rom.</HI> 4.11. <Q><HI>And Abraham being ju&s;tified after this Evangeli|cal manner, upon his &s;aith, without and before Circumci&s;ion, he received the Sacrament of Circumci&s;ion, for</HI> a &s;eale on his part, <HI>of his performing tho&s;e commands of God given him; his walking before him &s;incerely,</HI> Gen. 17.1. <HI>(upon which the Covenant is made to him, and thus &s;ealed,</HI> v. 2, 4, 10.) <HI>and on Gods part</HI>&mdash;&amp;c.</Q></P>
<P>I conclude therefore according to this text, the Sacraments are &s;eales of the mutual covenant (which only indeed is a covenant properly and &s;trictly) <HI>viz.</HI> not only of Gods ten|der of grace to us through Chri&s;t upon the condition of faith; but al&s;o &s;eales whereby according to Gods in&s;titution, we are to ratifie our accepting of tho&s;e Go&s;pel termes for ju&s;tification in Chri&s;ts blood; and in &s;o doing receive a further confirmati|on of Gods love towards us, (in &s;uch degree as we are capable of the &s;en&s;e of it). And though God requires all them to whom the Go&s;pel is revealed to &s;eale their acceptance thereof, yet God requires no man to &s;eale he doth what he doth not, nor hath he any proper vi&s;ible right to the Sacraments, who vi|&s;ibly rejects the&s;e Go&s;pel termes.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="7" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 7.</HEAD>
<P N="6">6. Mr. <HI>W.</HI> tells us, <HI>God makes men beleevers by Bapti&s;me,</HI> p. 66. If he meane they are &s;olemnly to &s;ignifie the &s;ame herein, I grant it. But if that they are not Chri&s;tians before, I deny it upon evident Rea&s;on.</P>
<P N="1">1. For they are baptized becau&s;e Chri&s;tians, not forfeiting the priviledges of &s;uch, therefore they are Chri&s;tians before. I &s;hall here only refer to <HI>Peter Martyr</HI> (the Author Mr. <HI>W.</HI> &s;o often mentions with honour in his booke, as well he may) <HI>loc: com: cl.</HI> 4, <HI>cap.</HI> 8. &sect;. 3. <HI>et</HI> 7. &amp;c. <Q>Where he gives an ac|count
<PB N="124" REF="83">of the baptizing Infants of Chri&s;tian parents, upon the Churches hope of their election, as being the &s;eed of the ho|ly. <HI>Neque parvulos baptizaremus, ni&s;i jam eos ad eccle&s;iam et ad Chri&s;tum arbitraremur pertinere.</HI> And he &s;aith; Tho&s;e are not to be heeded who move a &s;cruple in this matter, and &s;ay, What if the Mini&s;ter be deceived, what if the child be no &s;on of the promi&s;e, nor of the divine election and mercy? For the &s;ame cavil may be about the adult; <HI>Nam de illis quoque ignoramus ficte necne accedant, an ver&ograve; credant; an filij praede&s;tinationis an perditionis; An Chri&s;ti gratiam habe|ant, an ill&acirc; &s;int de&s;tituti, et mendaciter dicant &s;e credere. Yet we baptize them upon their external profe&s;&s;ion (quam &s;i menti|antur</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>me&acirc; non refert).</HI> And on 1 <HI>King.</HI> 8. the &s;ame <HI>Peter Martyr</HI> &s;aith; <HI>Ju&s;tificatio ex bapti&s;me non pendet &s;ed antecedit. Obj. Coeterum forte~ dixeris, quor&s;um bapti&s;mus ijs traditur, &s;i ante rem bapti&s;mi habuerunt? An illis luditur opera? minime; quia deo paremus, qui bapti&s;mi opus nobis praeceperit.</HI> 2. <HI>Deinde promi&s;&s;ionem et donum quod accepimus, ob&s;ignamus.</HI> 3. <HI>Praeterea, ibi a &s;piritu &s;ancto per verbum et externa &s;ymbola fides confirmatur.</HI></Q> In which doctrine of this learned man, may be &s;eene (as the orthodox Prote&s;tants ge|nerally I thinke do agree) that all are &s;uppo&s;ed actually in Gods favour, and made partakers of remi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins, before they are admitted to Bapti&s;me. And from this and divers &s;uch pa&s;&s;ages in him, may be &s;trongly inferred the doctrine of &s;u&s;|pen&s;ion I am treating upon. (What&s;oever Mr. <HI>W.</HI> pretends of this Authors opinion to the contrary.) For if we baptize men adult, becau&s;e we beleeve their profe&s;&s;ion, then we cannot bap|tize them, when either they make no profe&s;&s;ion, or if a verball one, which is not credible to us; and then we admit men to the Lords Supper, on the &s;ame account, <HI>viz</HI> becau&s;e we take them to be beleevers, and that <HI>non mendaciter dicentes &s;e cre|dere,</HI> but as to us and our hope of them, really and &s;avingly.</P>
<P N="2">2. Againe; If <HI>Bapti&s;me did make men Chri&s;tians,</HI> it were as nece&s;&s;ary to &s;alvation, (not only <HI>nece&s;&s;itate praecepti,</HI> but <HI>medij</HI> al&s;o) to be baptized, as to be a Chri&s;tian, and then all un|baptized (at lea&s;t of the adult) mu&s;t be damned. For no one can be &s;aved, who is not a Chri&s;tian, as to the e&s;&s;ence of Chri|&s;tianity.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="8" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 8.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>W.</HI> tells us over, and over, and over againe, that they are po&s;itive beleevers, who are baptized, whereby they are di|&s;tingui&s;hed
<PB N="125" REF="83">from the unbaptized, or Pagans, and that their obligation by bapti&s;me, cannot be removed by their per&s;onal vitio&s;ities.&mdash;And at la&s;t concludes in this chiding &s;traine; <HI>Who are you then, that deny them the title (being the proper cog|nizance of their obligation to Christ) and di&s;charge them from the vi&s;ible &s;ervice of Chri&s;t in the celebration of this holy Supper; un|der pretence, that they are no vi&s;ible beleevers, becau&s;e of &s;ome wants and deformities in their lives?</HI> &amp;c. p. 66.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> He &s;aid before this title agreed to Papi&s;ts, and he can|not deny in his &s;en&s;e, it agrees to the greate&s;t Apo&s;tates that ever lived upon the earth; they are his <HI>po&s;itive beleevers,</HI> that is, con&s;ecrate to the Chri&s;tian faith in their bapti&s;me, and their bapti&s;mal obligations &s;till lye on them, whereby they are di|&s;tingui&s;hed from men of other religions, or rather from men who never were engaged in the profe&s;&s;ion of the Chri&s;tian Re|ligion. And then I thinke it will be no great honour to have &s;uch a title in &s;uch a &s;en&s;e only; when the thing of Chri&s;tiani|ty is wanting. 2. But I have told him before, that I acknow|ledge them Chri&s;tians and Beleevers in his &s;en&s;e, that is, they are po&s;itively obliged to Chri&s;t, and to beleeve in Chri&s;t: but that alone entitles them not to the Sacrament; for then none might be debarr'd who had ever been baptized. 3. And I ne|ver di&s;charged them from celebrating the Lords Supper, no more then he doth the drunke, who yet are ju&s;tly hindred from it; they &s;in in not receiving, becau&s;e their hindrance is by their own fault, and yet they ought to be debarred, as hath been &s;hewed before. Yea, Its manife&s;t that <HI>Heathens</HI> to whom the Go&s;pel is preached, are <HI>as truly obliged to be baptized as the&s;e baptized</HI> per&s;ons now &s;poken of, <HI>are obliged to</HI> receive the Lords Supper. Let Mr. <HI>W.</HI> an&s;wer how a Mini&s;ter can debar an hea|then coming to bapti&s;me (which he is bound to do) for want of profe&s;&s;ion of his a&s;&s;ent and con&s;ent to the doctrines of Chri|&s;tianity, and yet not be guilty of di&s;charging him from his du|ty? And I doubt not the &s;ame an&s;wer (if oppo&s;ite to this) will &s;erve to an&s;wer that concerning the Lords Supper. The thing hath been explained already, therefore I &s;hall not here repeat it. 4. Mr. <HI>W.</HI> here againe in&s;inuates, as if I a&s;&s;erted per&s;ons vi|&s;ibly &s;uch unbeleevers as have no rightful claime of admi&s;&s;ion to the Sacraments, <HI>becau&s;e of &s;ome wants and deformities in their lives:</HI> as if any wants or deformities were affirmed by me to be &s;ufficient to prove per&s;ons vi&s;ibly, actual unbeleevers, whereas I &s;ay it only of &s;uch as <HI>are incon&s;i&s;tent with the exerci&s;e
<PB N="126" REF="84">of faith:</HI> Concerning which I have adventured to give in my thoughts, <HI>Chap.</HI> 7. &sect;. 10. and &sect;. 12.</P>
<P>The &s;um of the argumentation we have had before us here, is this, Such as in word renounce an e&s;&s;entiall of Chri&s;tiani|ty, may be debarred the Sacrament though adult baptized, and not by the &s;entence of the Church excluded other ordi|nances; therefore &s;ome baptized per&s;ons adult, and not &s;e|cluded from other ordinances, may be debarred the Sacra|ment. Mr <HI>W.</HI> hath an&s;wered hereunto, as you have heard, without denying that &s;uch &s;hould be debarred, or di&s;tin|gui&s;hing thereupon. But what he wants in rationall an&s;we|ring, he makes up (as he is wont) in confident concluding, and &s;aith, <HI>p.</HI> 67. <HI>We are rather confirmed than any wayes confu|ted. Proceed to the Exceptions which you &s;eem to alledge as ours again&s;t your pretended a&s;&s;ertion, and withall let us hear you take them off, and then give us leave to maintain them as far as ours.</HI> Such a maintenance will &s;tarve the incumbent upon it, unle&s;s an augmentation can be procured. But of this in the following Chapters. Here we take up at pre&s;ent, and return to our repa&s;t.</P>
<EPIGRAPH>
<Q><BIBL>PSALM 119. Part 12. <HI>M.</HI></BIBL>
<L N="89">89 <HI>Mighty Lord, thy word &s;etled is.</HI></L>
<L><HI>The Heav'n by thee doth &s;tand.</HI></L>
<L N="90">90 <HI>'Mongst men is &s;een thy faithfulne&s;s.</HI></L>
<L><HI>The Earth bides by thy hand.</HI></L>
<L N="91">91 <HI>Made they remain, this day, by thee.</HI></L>
<L><HI>For all obey thy might.</HI></L>
<L N="92">92 <HI>My &s;treights e're this had cru&s;hed mee,</HI></L>
<L><HI>But for thy Lawes delight.</HI></L>
<L N="93">93 <HI>My mind thy Lawes fa&s;t holds, for I,</HI></L>
<L><HI>quickned by them, am taught.</HI></L>
<L N="94">94 <HI>Me &s;ave who am thine, thine wholly,</HI></L>
<L><HI>for I thy Precepts &s;ought.</HI></L>
<L N="95">95 <HI>Men vile have waited me to rend,</HI></L>
<L><HI>But Ile thy judgments mind.</HI></L>
<L N="96">96 <HI>Mine eyes have &s;een perfections end.</HI></L>
<L><HI>Thy Law mo&s;t bread I find.</HI></L></Q>
</EPIGRAPH>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="13" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="127" REF="84">
<HEAD>CHAP. XIII.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 1.</HEAD>
<P>THe Reader may be plea&s;ed to know, that when I had drawn up the argument before in&s;i&s;ted on, I (as my manner is) &s;tudied to oppo&s;e it my &s;elf. And as I know not that the argument hath been thus made u&s;e of about admi&s;&s;i|on to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; &s;o I knew no ex|ceptions that any had made again&s;t it. But I faithfully &s;et down what in my own thoughts &s;eemed con&s;iderable; and therefore alledged them not as my Antagoni&s;ts exceptions, as M^r <HI>W.</HI> in&s;inuates. Yet I do not &s;ee that he him&s;elf hath any thing &s;o materiall to object, as I had before objected to my &s;elf in the&s;e exceptions, which he labours (but in vain) to make good again&s;t my argument.</P>
<P>The fir&s;t exception was (at numb. 28.) that no baptized per&s;on adult and not fully excommunicate, tendring him&s;elf to communicate, will, or doth ever &s;o openly in word re|nounce Chri&s;t. To which I an&s;wered, (at numb. 29) <HI>the ca&s;e may yet be &s;uppo&s;ed,</HI> yea it <HI>may happen.</HI> And that is a reall power for cen&s;ure which may be exerci&s;ed upon an occa&s;ion which may po&s;&s;ibly occurre, whether it doth actually occurre or no. In reply hereunto, he pretends not to deal with the &s;ub&s;tance of my an&s;wer, but promi&s;es to con&s;ider it in the fourth Exception. But he hath by bu&s;ine&s;&s;es enough in the interim, to engage in, whereby the unwary Reader might be drawn away from the poynt we are upon. As the Lapwing makes a great cry to draw the pa&s;&s;enger from her ne&s;t.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect; 2.</HEAD>
<P N="1">1. He is &s;till angry at the di&s;tinction of <HI>fully</HI> and <HI>not fully excommunicate,</HI> and &s;aith, <HI>You grant a degree of excommunica|tion to lye upon the party debarred by your &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, and there|fore your &s;u&s;pen&s;ion is e&s;&s;entially excommunication, for things that differ gradually are e&s;&s;entially the &s;ame.</HI> p. 69.</P>
<P N="1">1. I do grant a degree of excommunication on him who is properly &s;u&s;pended from the Lords Supper; and therefore I told him, the que&s;tion ought not &s;o to be &s;tated, Whether one qualified as afore&s;aid, and not at all excommunicated, may be debarred the Sacrament. For all Divines, I think, who hold
<PB N="128" REF="85">&s;u&s;pen&s;ion, do acknowledge it to be a degree of excommuni|cation: But whether &s;uch an one as afore&s;aid, not debarred all publick ordinances (according to our Antagoni&s;ts &s;en&s;e of excommunication) may be debarred the Lords Supper. But this plain &s;en&s;e will not &s;ink into his head, and therefore he goes on thus: <HI>Your pretended Antagoni&s;ts propound their ca&s;e candidly, clearly, and ingenuou&s;ly</HI> (&s;ee Mr. <HI>W.</HI> can give good words when he hath a mind) <HI>and &s;ay [not excommunicated] removing excommunication altogether from the parties they admit, &amp; look upon them as in Church-fellow&s;hip and communion.</HI> And do not we do &s;o al&s;o to them we admit? The que&s;tion is not of them we admit, but of tho&s;e not admitted. <HI>But you</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>lay down your ca&s;e ob&s;curely, fraudulently and captiou&s;ly, as if you meant no fair dealing.</HI> And why alas? but becau&s;e I will not trifle in the que&s;tion, to enquire whether one not excommunicated may not be &s;u&s;pended, that is in our &s;en&s;e excommunicated? or go from my own principles, and the principles of our reformed Divines, who &s;o generally hold juridicall &s;u&s;pen&s;ion to be an excommunication.</P>
<P N="2">2. Things which differ <HI>Phy&s;ically</HI> onely in degree, may differ <HI>Morally</HI> in kind; to be adjudged to have a &s;mall &s;carre in the fle&s;h, and to have the head cut off, differ gradually, as a greater or le&s;&s;er wound: yet they are puni&s;hments of a dif|ferent kind and nature; the one capitall, and the other not. The re&s;idue of his an&s;wer to the exception, is almo&s;t all a bundle of untruths: one of the mo&s;t eminent whereof is this, That none with us are Church members till admitted after our examination and triall of them. And this in &s;en&s;e divers times repeared, <HI>p.</HI> 70. And he hereupon tells us, <HI>how we pre|pare our people for Anabapti&s;me.</HI> Be it known to him; the truly learned M^r <HI>Blake</HI> and <HI>Baxter,</HI> are as likely to under&s;tand what is of tendency to Anabapti&s;me as he, (no di&s;paragement to him neither,) and yet they both hold the lawfulne&s;s of &s;u&s;|pen&s;ion of &s;ome of the per&s;ons mentioned in our Que&s;tion. And though they have &s;ome differences among them&s;elves, yet they both agree again&s;t M^r <HI>W.</HI> his doctrine.</P>
<P>A &s;econd thing I added, was, The ca&s;e of &s;ome &s;uch per|&s;ons (qualified as afore&s;aid) their renouncing Chri&s;t, is &s;up|po&s;eable not onely as po&s;&s;ible, but probable to occurre (at numb. 30.) if (as under the Epi&s;copal government) all bap|tized per&s;ons adult, &s;hould be required under a pur&s;e-penalty, to communicate once or twice a yeare: then many open reje|cters
<PB N="129" REF="85">of Chri&s;tianity, and who averre there is no Chri&s;t with|out them, might to e&s;cape the penalty, tender them&s;elves to receive. The &s;ame may be &s;aid of hundreds, who account the Sacraments meer carnall things in our times.</P>
<P>To this Mr. <HI>W.</HI> &s;aith, 1. This is my <HI>malicious &s;lander</HI> of the Prelaticall government. If it be a &s;lander, doth he know it to be malicious too? Hath he dived into my brea&s;t? Good words I pray: Whence is all this heat? He tells us the 21 <HI>Canon of the Church of England,</HI> (1. Jacobi) <HI>enjoyned Mini&s;ters &s;o to order matters, that every pari&s;hioner might communicate at lea&s;t thrice in the year; but not a word of forfeiting any &s;um of money in ca&s;e they did not.</HI> But he tells us not of a 22. Canon next en&s;uing, which requires all to receive the Sacrament thrice a year, <HI>under the penalty and danger of the Law.</HI> But wil Mr. <HI>W.</HI> go about in this age to per&s;wade people, that they were not puni&s;hed by pur&s;e-penalties, when pre&s;ented in the Prelaticall Courts for not receiving? and accu&s;e them as ma|licious &s;landerers, who &s;ay they were? Mr <HI>W.</HI> talked of <HI>one following truth &s;o clo&s;e that it da&s;h out his teeth.</HI> This is not Mr. <HI>W.</HI> he hath not lo&s;t his teeth, he can bite deep enough I am &s;ure. But I am afraid his forehead is in more danger, when he can &s;et a face on &s;o notorious a bad bu&s;ine&s;&s;e. Were not they required under a pur&s;e-penalty to communicate, who were commanded to receive under the penalty and danger of the Law, and felt that penalty was chargeable to their pur&s;es.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 3.</HEAD>
<P N="2">2. In an angry dialect he &s;aith, that tho&s;e in&s;tances I men|tioned of &s;uch as might deny the e&s;&s;entials of Chri&s;tianity, and yet probably to avoid an externall penalty, might come to communicate, <HI>do no way make for me.</HI> But he is too wi&s;e to tell us why they do not; Is there not a po&s;&s;ibility, yea probabi|lity, &s;uch, in &s;uch a ca&s;e would tender them&s;elves to communi|cate? And did not that take off the exception, which &s;aid, none &s;uch would come to the Sacrament.</P>
<P N="3">3. In the next place he &s;eems to have a mind to extol the <HI>Epi&s;|copal government.</HI> And it is not my bu&s;ine&s;s to di&s;parage it; yet I doubt not the Presbyterian government is lawful according to Scripture. But the Rea&s;on he gives for the excellency of the Prelaticall government as it was in <HI>England</HI> formerly, above the pre&s;ent Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall government (e&s;tabli&s;hed by the State, <HI>Aug.</HI> 29. 1648.) <HI>becau&s;e under that government &s;uch
<PB N="130" REF="86">mon&s;ters durst not appear and pro&s;e&s;&s;edly &s;hew them&s;elves, as now &s;warm every where without controul.</HI> I &s;ay, this Rea&s;on is not valid. For the State-a&s;&s;i&s;tance then was afforded, which is not now &s;o effectually, as to the execution of our government. If the State had left men to their liberty then, as much as now, it might have been even in that re&s;pect as bad as it is now with us, as in other re&s;pects it was far wor&s;e.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 4.</HEAD>
<P N="4">4. He ends with a continuall &s;train of provoking lan|guage, which I pa&s;s over and neglect, and he concludes all goes on his &s;ide, &s;aith, <HI>Well, this first exception &s;tands good a|gain&s;t your a&s;&s;ertion;</HI> and why? Becau&s;e he &s;aith, <HI>Nothing I alledged hath proved, that any will or doth by word renounce Chri&s;t, who tenders him&s;elf to the Sacrament.</HI> But I told him, It was not nece&s;&s;ary to de&s;troy the exception, to prove any will or doth; but that it's po&s;&s;ible, yea probable, there might be &s;uch an one as would perpetrate &s;uch wickedne&s;s, which can|not be denyed, I would be content to lo&s;e my argument that it could. Who can prove that any one wil commit fornicati|on, and continue ob&s;tinately under the guilt thereof vi&s;ibly in &s;ome particular Church? And yet it followes not thence, that &s;uch wickedne&s;s if committed, and be notorious, is not a &s;uffi|cient cau&s;e of Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall cen&s;ure. And our pre&s;ent ca&s;e, as to the probability of its occurring, is the like.</P>
<EPIGRAPH>
<Q><BIBL>PSALM 119. Part 13. <HI>N.</HI></BIBL>
<L N="97">97 <HI>Nothing I love as thy law high,</HI></L>
<L><HI>which I mind all the day.</HI></L>
<L N="98">98 <HI>None of my Foes are wi&s;e as I.</HI></L>
<L><HI>'Cau&s;e thy He&s;ts with me &s;tay.</HI></L>
<L N="99">99 <HI>Norknow my Guides that which I do,</HI></L>
<L><HI>For all thy lawes I mind.</HI></L>
<L N="100">100 <HI>Nay more than th' Ancients I do know,</HI></L>
<L><HI>when me thy &s;tatutes bind.</HI></L>
<L N="101">101 <HI>Naughty wayes I have &s;hun'd all,</HI></L>
<L><HI>That I may keep thy word.</HI></L>
<L N="102">102 <HI>Nor from the judgements turn I &s;hall,</HI></L>
<L><HI>For thou hast taught me Lord,</HI></L>
<PB N="131" REF="86">
<L N="103">103 <HI>Nothing &s;weet as thy word I ta&s;t,</HI></L>
<L><HI>no not the hony pure.</HI></L>
<L N="104">104 <HI>Noon-light beams they on me cast.</HI></L>
<L><HI>All fal&s;e wayes I abjure.</HI></L></Q>
</EPIGRAPH>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="14" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. XIV.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 1.</HEAD>
<P>A Second Exception I laid in again&s;t my Argument, was this, (at numb. 32.) That &s;uch per&s;ons as afore&s;aid, ten|dring them&s;elves to receive, cannot openly at that time pro|fe&s;s their rejecting Chri&s;t, becau&s;e in the tender of them|&s;elves to this Ordinance, they offer to profe&s;s the contrary, <HI>viz.</HI> their owning of Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>To the which I an&s;wered, 1. That the ca&s;e under our pre|&s;ent con&s;ideration, &s;uppo&s;eth him at the &s;ame time, when he tenders him&s;elf to be admitted to the communion, to profe&s;s (being asked) again&s;t his owning of Chri&s;t, <HI>q. d. I de&s;ire to do as others do in receiving; but I am re&s;olved at pre&s;ent I will not &s;ubmit to the commands of Chri&s;t, nor part with my lu&s;ts which he bids me flye from.</HI></P>
<P>Mr. <HI>W.</HI> now to take off this an&s;wer, be&s;ides uncivil chi|dings here both in the Preface and Epilogue, hath onely one thing (which I hope was but a mi&s;take in him) to alledge. <HI>Is it your practice</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>to provoke men in the open face of the congregation, by asking them que&s;tions, when they come hum|bly and reverently to celebrate the Lords Supper with their bre|thren?</HI></P>
<P>It is our practice to know tho&s;e who communicate before the time of celebration come, and then when they &s;ignifie their intention to receive (e&s;pecially &s;uch as have not joyned with us before) is a &s;peciall &s;ea&s;on we lay hold on, if any notori|ous wickedne&s;s in one who tenders him&s;elf give occa&s;ion, to admoni&s;h him concerning the &s;ame. And then is the time for &s;u&s;pen&s;ion if there be ju&s;t cau&s;e, not in the moment of ce|lebration, (there would be the execution of &s;u&s;pen&s;ion if one &s;u&s;pended &s;hould thru&s;t in thither, by refu&s;ing to admini&s;ter to him.) We have no &s;uch que&s;tioning there; the ca&s;e had no reference to it. But it was thus, as for example, If a per&s;on notoriou&s;ly known to live in whoredome, and keeping a &s;trumpet in his hou&s;e, &s;hall tender him&s;elf &s;ome convenient time before the day of celebration of the Sacrament; and then be asked, Whether he will leave his wanton? and he
<PB N="132" REF="87">an&s;wer, No, he cannot leave that vice, he hopes God will be mercifull to him notwith&s;tanding, and yet he de&s;ires to receive as others do; will Mr. <HI>W.</HI> &s;ay it was unlawfull or un&s;ea&s;onable then to ask him that que&s;tion? and doth not the &s;aid vicious per&s;on by profe&s;&s;ed refu&s;ing to repent of, and leave his lu&s;t, re|nounce an e&s;&s;entiall of Chri&s;tianity, and therefore renounceth Chri&s;t, notwith&s;tanding his tendring him&s;elf to be admitted to the communion drawing on. And was not this according to the order formerly appointed in the Church of <HI>England?</HI> See the Rubrick before the communion, where it is thus ordered. <Q><HI>So many as intend to be partakers of the holy communion, &s;hall &s;ignifie their Names to the Curate over night, or el&s;e in the morning before the beginning of morning Prayer, or imme|diatly after. And if any of tho&s;e be an open and notorious evil liver, or have done any wrong to his neighbour in word or deed: the Curate having knowledge thereof, &s;hall call him and adverti&s;e him, in any wi&s;e, not to pre&s;ume to the Lords Table, untill, &amp;c.</HI></Q></P>
<P>This mi&s;take being di&s;covered, I &s;hall not need to in&s;i&s;t on the an&s;wering divers other pa&s;&s;ages Mr <HI>W.</HI> hath after in his Book, which are grounded on this unrea&s;onable catch.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 2.</HEAD>
<P N="2">2. My &s;econd an&s;wer to this &s;econd Exception was, It's not impo&s;&s;ible for &s;uch a man to profe&s;s contradictions, &s;o that you cannot conclude he profe&s;&s;eth not again&s;t Chri&s;t, becau&s;e he profe&s;&s;eth for Chri&s;t, at the &s;ame time, or in one breath. Mr. <HI>W.</HI> replie, <HI>Yea we can and ought in the judgment of charity &s;o to conclude:</HI> and he would put me off with this &s;lurre, <HI>&s;hould we &s;ay it's not impo&s;&s;ible for you to profe&s;&s;e contradictions, you would rather laugh at our folly, then conceive your &s;elfe guilty. Give us leave then to judge you none of the wi&s;e&s;t, for this ridiculous elu&s;ion.</HI></P>
<P>Some prove them&s;elves men by their <HI>vi&s;ibility</HI> rather than <HI>rationality,</HI> they will laugh you out an argument of their manhood, &s;ooner then give you a rea&s;onable demon&s;tration of it. What ridi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">ulous matter our brother hath here got to make him&s;elf merry with, I &s;ee not, if he keep clo&s;e to the ca&s;e we are con&s;idering of. If I &s;ay I do accept Chri&s;t as tendred in the Go&s;pel, and yet in the &s;ame breath, &s;ay, Chri&s;t &s;hall not reign over me, I think I &s;hould profe&s;&s;e contradictions, and my profe&s;&s;ion of the former, is no evidence that I do not profe&s;s the later. He may turn his tune, change his ha! into
<PB N="133" REF="87">ah! and in &s;tead of laughter &s;ee ju&s;t cau&s;e of lamentation, that &s;uch contradictory profe&s;&s;ions are too frequent. An <HI>Ari|an</HI> &s;aith, <HI>I believe the Scriptures to be true, yet I believe Christ is but a meer Creature.</HI> The <HI>Socinian</HI> &s;aith, <HI>I take him for my Sa|viour and Redeemer, yet in a proper &s;en&s;e he never redeemed me, paid no price, never was accur&s;ed &s;or me, &amp;c.</HI> Tho&s;e mentio|ned by Chri&s;t in the Go&s;pel, <HI>Matth.</HI> 21.38. &s;aid, <HI>This is the heir, come let us kill him.</HI> They acknowledged him <HI>heir,</HI> and &s;o their Lord and Ma&s;ter, and yet profe&s;&s;e they <HI>would kill him,</HI> was not here a contradiction in one breath profe&s;&s;ed a|greeable to our pre&s;ent ca&s;e?</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 3.</HEAD>
<P>A third an&s;wer to this &s;econd Exception I &s;ugge&s;ted thus, (at numb. 34.) he then denies Chri&s;t expre&s;ly, he profe&s;&s;eth to receive Chri&s;t onely by con&s;equence, from the nature of the ordinance he de&s;ires to joyn in; although perhaps he under|&s;tands it not, or doth plainly reject his owning of that con&s;e|quence.</P>
<P>The Exception to which this third an&s;wer was fitted, mu&s;t be remembred to be this, <HI>viz.</HI> That a per&s;on baptized, &amp;c. and tendring him&s;elf to receive, cannot openly at that time profe&s;s his rejecting Chri&s;t, becau&s;e that in this tender of him&s;elf to this ordinance, he offers to profe&s;s the contrary, <HI>viz.</HI> his owning of Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>Now in reply to my &s;aid third &s;olution of this objection, the le&s;s Mr. <HI>W.</HI> hath of weight and pertinent, the more doth he powre out gall and bitterne&s;&s;e, <HI>p.</HI> 80, 81, 82, 83. And, 1. He &s;aith; My <HI>an&s;wer is not &s;o large as the exception. The ca&s;e is</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>concerning a baptized per&s;on [adult, intelligent, and unexcommunicate] tendring him&s;elfe to receive the Lords Supper; the Query is this,</HI> viz. <HI>Whether &s;uch a per&s;on at that time in the tendring him&s;elfe can be &s;aid herein, to reject Chri&s;t or Chri&s;ti|anity.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. Heres the mi&s;take continued I before di&s;covered, taking the time of actuall celebration of the Sacrament, in &s;tead of the time of tendring him&s;elfe to be admitted to the &s;acramen-approaching. 2. He &s;eemes to intimate that I had &s;aid, the very tendring him&s;elfe to communicate was a renouncing of Chri&s;t; which no word of mine ever &s;ignified, and I am apt to thinke Mr. <HI>W.</HI> him&s;elfe hath &s;o much charity towards mee as to hope that ab&s;urdity never entred my thoughts. 3. If there were a defect in what I here propounded, it was in delivering
<PB N="134" REF="88">of the exception, not in the an&s;wer thereunto. The an&s;wer is manife&s;tly as large as the exception; and though The exception only mentioned a per&s;on baptized, the other limitations of [adult, intelligent, and unexcommunicate] were excluded, according to the former explications given, in &s;tating the Que&s;tion, not nece&s;&s;ary ever and anon to be repeated at large, 4. Yet as to the particular matter we are now upon, Its all one whether all the&s;e limitations be taken in or no; our pre&s;ent Query is, whether he that tenders him&s;elfe to be admitted to the Communion, can at that time (not in that act of tendring him&s;elfe, as Mr. <HI>W.</HI> wildly layes it) profe&s;&s;ed|ly renounce Chri&s;t? The which I &s;ay he doth who renounceth profe&s;&s;edly any e&s;&s;ential of Chri&s;tianity, notwith&s;tanding his tendring him&s;elfe to receive. And as to this particular, its all one whether he were before excommunicate or not.</P>
<P>And yet Is it not a very good Je&s;t, that whiles Mr. <HI>W.</HI> thus indu&s;triou&s;ly &s;eekes for flawes where there are none, but what his greedy de&s;ire of finding &s;ome hath imprinted in his own phan&s;ie; he yet here &s;aith, <HI>he mu&s;t winke at &s;mall &s;aults in mee.</HI> He may winke at my faults, I grant, but I thinke then, he winkes not clo&s;e, but only contracts his peepers, that his eyes may &s;ee, and <HI>his eyelids too may try my failings;</HI> or if per|haps he winke clo&s;e, its but with one eye, and that the right, that with the left, he may take a &s;ini&s;ter aime at, and more peircingly pry into my &s;uppo&s;ed defects.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 4.</HEAD>
<P N="2">2. Upon my &s;uppo&s;ition, conceiving the per&s;on &s;poken of, that he doth profe&s;s to receive Chri&s;t by con&s;equence from the nature of the ordinance which he de&s;ires to joyne in; Mr. <HI>W.</HI> inferres; <HI>How then can &s;uch an one then and therein be &s;aid to deny Christ expre&s;&s;ly?</HI> Marke tho&s;e words [then and therein] and &s;ee how he abu&s;eth mee; where did I &s;ay that not only <HI>then</HI> but <HI>therein</HI> (in tendring him&s;elfe to receive) <HI>he may be &s;aid to deny Chri&s;t</HI> (at all, much le&s;s) <HI>expres&s;ly?</HI> And yet when he hath made to him&s;elfe this man of &s;traw, and &s;cuffled with it a while very valiantly; he in&s;ults amaine, and paratragoe|diats wonderfully; and is ill a&s;hamed of his match, he de&s;cend|ed to graple with; and is now &s;o very ba&s;hfull, that he tells us, <HI>he is a&s;hamed that ever a mother in our I&s;rael &s;hould breed &s;uch a &s;on,</HI> as he hath phancy'd me to be; To which I al&s;o am a&s;ha|med to returne any reply; and &s;o we are both like to be a&s;ha|med together. <HI>Didicit ille maledicere et ego contemnere,</HI> as he &s;aid
<PB N="135" REF="88">in <HI>Tacitus.</HI> I de&s;pi&s;e the&s;e his in&s;ultations, <HI>maledicta haec, quae in me iratior quam con&s;ideratior evomuit,</HI> as <HI>Augu&s;tine</HI> &s;aid of <HI>Petilianus,</HI> l. 3. <HI>contra Ip&s;ius Petiliani &s;cripta perver&s;a.</HI> The good man is a&s;hamed of mee; and indeed though I judge his an|&s;wers &s;ufficiently ab&s;urd and indi&s;creet, yet I mu&s;t confe&s;&s;e I &s;ee more rea&s;on to be a&s;hamed of my &s;elfe (when I look into my &s;elfe) then of him; though in that in&s;cript, he hath thummed &s;o uncivilly; upon a &s;trict peru&s;all and review of it, I di&s;cerne no rea&s;on which &s;hould invite me to recant the &s;en&s;e of any one &s;entence therein. The terme [Admi&s;&s;ioni&s;ts] which for brevity &s;ake in that private <HI>M S.</HI> I had in&s;erted, I could wi&s;h had been omitted, and in &s;tead thereof &s;uch a peri|phra&s;is as this, [our brethren for the general admi&s;&s;ion plead|ed for] had been placed. And &s;ome pa&s;&s;ages be&s;ides I thinke might have been more conveniently expre&s;&s;ed, and probably would have been, if I had &s;u&s;pected their publication.&mdash; But I am afraid it was anger, rather than mode&s;ty which brought the red into his face on this occa&s;ion; or having en|deavoured to murther my good name, with the blood thereof, he dyes his checkes, and would be accounted &s;hamefa&s;t. &mdash;</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 5.</HEAD>
<P N="3">3. He excepts again&s;t that clau&s;e [though perhaps he un|der&s;tand it not, or doth plainly reject his owning of that con&s;e|quence]. The &s;umme of his exception, (laying a&s;ide his in&s;i|pid &s;cornes, mingled therewith) is <HI>perhaps he well under&s;tands, what he goes about, and perhaps he ownes the con&s;equence, and doth not reject it at all. Our [perhaps] is more charitable then yours, and bottom'd upon a better foundation of hoped grace. &mdash; When an evill again&s;t a man can be but &s;uppo&s;ed, and good may be hoped, true Chri&s;tianity will rather hope the be&s;t, then &s;u&s;pect the wor&s;t.</HI></P>
<P>Let the Reader judge, who&s;e [perhaps] here is more cha|ritable; when he hath well weighed, whether is the le&s;s crime in one to profe&s;s contradictions not under&s;tood &s;o to be, or when he knows they are &s;o, and ownes the &s;ame; my [per|haps] was of the former, his was of the latter. And now let the Reader al&s;o judge, whether Mr. <HI>W.</HI> hath in the lea&s;t inva|lidated my an&s;wer, and proved that a man cannot be &s;uppo&s;ed to profe&s;s contradictions, when he profe&s;&s;eth one thing in ex|pre&s;s termes, and the contrary, by nece&s;&s;ary con&s;equence, which de&s;troys and contradicts the former; the which if Mr. <HI>W.</HI> could prove (for his encouragement in &s;uch a de&s;igne he may be a&s;|&s;ured)
<PB N="136" REF="89">it would thence follow, that the mo&s;t notorious here|tique by tendring him&s;elfe to receive &s;hould <HI>(ip&s;o facto)</HI> become Orthodox this tendring him&s;elfe to receive, &s;hould quit him of Arriani&s;me, or any other bla&s;phemy, which yet on all <HI>occa&s;ions</HI> he profe&s;&s;edly a&s;&s;erts and maintaines.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="6" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 6.</HEAD>
<P>The third Exception I mentioned was this (at <HI>numb.</HI> 35.) Some may &s;ay, that &s;uch an one, &s;hould be fully excommunica|ted: to which I an&s;wer (at <HI>numb.</HI> 36.) by hinting &s;ome Rea|&s;ons to the contrary (which are &s;trengthened and enlarged by the di&s;cour&s;e concerning excommunication, and the degrees thereof, which we treated upon above, <HI>Chap.</HI> 3.) But Mr. <HI>W.</HI> counts that labour impertinent. It &s;ufficeth him to confute all, by &s;aying <HI>I prove not the ca&s;e but only &s;uppo&s;e it:</HI> and &s;o he pro|ceeds to the 4^t^h Exception. This Reply of his, hath twice or thrice already occurred; and yet becau&s;e Mr. <HI>W.</HI> in his an|&s;wer to my &s;olution of the fir&s;t exception, then pa&s;&s;ed it over with naming it, and promi&s;ed to &s;peake to it more fully on the 4^t^h Exception. I have hitherto delayd to confirme my argu|ment again&s;t him. But now looking forward into his animad|ver&s;ions on the 4^t^h Exception, and finding him &s;peaking little there clo&s;e to this matter, I &s;hall here take occa&s;ion to make my defence in it. But that may furni&s;h another Chapter.</P>
<EPIGRAPH>
<Q><BIBL>PSALM 119. part. 14. <HI>O.</HI></BIBL>
<L N="105">105 <HI>Of all Lampes thy word bright'st doth burne;</HI></L>
<L><HI>Its to my &s;eet a light.</HI></L>
<L N="106">106 <HI>Obey will I, what I have &s;worne,</HI></L>
<L><HI>To keep thy Judgements right.</HI></L>
<L N="107">107 <HI>O Lord, afflictions &s;ore me &s;ting;</HI></L>
<L><HI>By thy words quickning reach!</HI></L>
<L N="108">108 <HI>Oh! accept my pray&s;e-offering!</HI></L>
<L><HI>And mee thy Judgements teach!</HI></L>
<L N="109">109 <HI>Often my &s;oulis in my hand,</HI></L>
<L><HI>Yet to thy Law I cleave</HI></L>
<L N="110">110 <HI>Od'ous men &s;ought to &s;nare me, and</HI></L>
<L><HI>Thy precepts I'de not leave.</HI></L>
<L N="111">111 <HI>Of old my heritage hath bin,</HI></L>
<L><HI>Thy Lawes, which gladne&s;&s;e &s;end.</HI></L>
<PB N="137" REF="89">
<L N="112">112 <HI>Order'd my heart is to walk in,</HI></L>
<L><HI>Thy &s;tatutes to the end.</HI></L></Q>
</EPIGRAPH>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="15" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. XV.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 1.</HEAD>
<P>THe Reader may be plea&s;ed to remember, that the Que&s;ti|on is whether any &s;uch qualifi'd, as afore&s;aid, may be de|barred the Sacrament? I &s;uppo&s;ed the ca&s;e of one by word re|nouncing Chri&s;tianity (or &s;ome e&s;&s;ential part thereof) who, I &s;aid, though &s;o qualified as the Que&s;tion puts him, (to wit, baptized, adult, intelligent, and not fully excommunicate) may be debarred; and if &s;o, then their univer&s;al negative, <HI>that none &s;o qualified might be debarred,</HI> is manife&s;tly fal&s;e. Mr. <HI>W.</HI> often hath an&s;wered; that he excepts again&s;t the ca&s;e. I no where finde him &s;aying that in &s;uch a ca&s;e this per&s;on &s;hould not be debarred; but he &s;aith, <HI>p.</HI> 83. <HI>Our exception lyes a|gain&s;t that very &s;uppo&s;ition, and you do but repeat your own ca&s;e, again&s;t which we except.</HI> And often el&s;where, he &s;aith this &s;ame thing. But not any where can I &s;ee him offering any Rea&s;on of that his exception? I &s;hall now offer my rea&s;on again&s;t it.</P>
<P>If it be a valid exception again&s;t an argument which makes &s;uppo&s;ition of the pre&s;ent ca&s;e &s;uppo&s;ed, to &s;ay that ca&s;e ought not to be &s;uppo&s;ed; It is either becau&s;e the ca&s;e &s;uppo&s;eth whats impo&s;&s;ible, or what never was, is, nor &s;hall be exi&s;tent; or for &s;ome of the&s;e, or &s;ome other Rea&s;on. But as I know no other Rea&s;on to be pretended, (when I do, it may be con&s;ide|red) &s;o the&s;e here enumerated, are either not applicable to our pre&s;ent ca&s;e, or are not valid again&s;t it.</P>
<P>The fir&s;t is not applicable to it. Its not impo&s;&s;ible that a man who tenders him&s;elfe to be admitted to the communion, &s;hould profe&s;&s;edly in words renounce Chri&s;tianity, or (which is tan|tamount here) an e&s;&s;ential part of Chri&s;tianity. Its neither im|po&s;&s;ible, <HI>impo&s;&s;ibilitate ab&s;olut&acirc; &amp; ex parte rci, quae &s;ita est in implicatione terminorum, qui &s;e mutu&ograve; evertunt; ne&abque; impo&s;&s;ibili|tate relativ&acirc; &amp; ex parte at&abque; re&s;pectu alicujus potentiae.</HI> Its not &s;o impo&s;&s;ible as it is for God to deny him&s;elfe, or for ye&s;terday to be to day; nor as it may be impo&s;&s;ible for &s;ome one who is blind to &s;ee, (I meane <HI>in &s;en&s;u divi&s;o,</HI> for <HI>in &s;en&s;u compo&s;ito,</HI> this is impo&s;&s;ible with the ab&s;olute impo&s;&s;ibility before men|tioned). This therefore is not applicable to our pre&s;ent ca&s;e &s;uppo&s;ed. And yet if the latter kinde of impo&s;&s;ibility were, it
<PB N="138" REF="90">were no valid rea&s;on again&s;t our argument. For we finde in Scripture arguings upon &s;uch things or ca&s;es &s;uppo&s;ed. Its a ra|tional ob&s;ervation which the learned <HI>Amyraldus</HI> hath, <HI>Specim.</HI> <Q><HI>Animadver&s;: &s;pecial: par.</HI> 3. <HI>erot.</HI> 5. <HI>Licet</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>&s;uppo|nere eum e&s;&s;e fidelem</HI> (I may &s;ay al&s;o <HI>infidelem,</HI> in the &s;en&s;e op|po&s;ite to that wherein he there takes <HI>fidelis</HI>) <HI>qui actu non e&s;t talis, ne&abque; ver&ocirc; e&s;&s;e pote&s;t: nam &amp; Paulus &s;upponit ju&s;titiam e&s;&s;e per legem, quod fal&s;um est, &amp; ex e&acirc; &s;uppo&s;itione deduxit Chri&s;tum e&s;&s;e mortuum</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>quod e&s;t adhuc fal&s;ius; ut o|&s;tenderet, quod e&s;t longe veri&s;&s;imum, justificationem non ex le|ge, &s;ed ex evangelio con&s;tare: &s;ic Chri&s;tus dicit, &s;i dixerim me non no&s;&s;e patrem, mendaxero,</HI> &amp;c.</Q></P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 2.</HEAD>
<P>As for the other Rea&s;ons pretended again&s;t the validity of my arguing upon the &s;uppo&s;ition afore&s;aid, <HI>viz</HI> becau&s;e the ca&s;e &s;uppo&s;ed, neither hath been, is, nor &s;hall be exi&s;tent; or becau&s;e at lea&s;t &s;ome of the&s;e may be &s;aid of it; I &s;hould re|turne as followes. If the non-pre&s;ent exi&s;tence of the ca&s;e, were valid again&s;t the arguing on it, then we could never prove by argument the Rule in general that any notorious Adulter|er were to be cen&s;ured, in any particular Church, where there is not &s;uch a notorious Adulterer exi&s;tent among them. And if the non-former exi&s;tence were valid as afore&s;aid, then no new kinde of crime could be new cen&s;ured. The con&s;equence of both the&s;e, is manife&s;tly &s;ound and rational. But the con&s;e|quents in both are plainly fal&s;e, therefore the Antecedents are not true. And the futurition of &s;uch crimes cannot certainly be foreknown by natural meanes; therefore if the non futurition were a bar to the &s;uppo&s;ing &s;uch ca&s;es, there could be no &s;up|po&s;ition of any crime not pre&s;ent or pa&s;t; which is al&s;o mo&s;t fal&s;e. For all penal Lawes &s;uppo&s;e an offence to be committed, upon which the execution of them takes effect.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 3.</HEAD>
<P N="2">2. Againe; If that might not be &s;uppo&s;ed, which, neither is, was, nor &s;hall be exi&s;tent, then the holy Scriptures make not right &s;uppo&s;itions. For &s;uch are frequent there, <HI>Gal.</HI> 1.8, 9. <HI>If we or an Angel from heaven preach another Go&s;pel, let him be accur&s;ed.</HI> We may make &s;uppo&s;ition of an Angel from heaven (&s;ince the fall of man) preaching a fal&s;e doctrine, and that he &s;hould be accur&s;ed; neither of which happen; yet we may argue, if he do &s;o, he is accur&s;ed: even as I &s;uppo&s;ed a bapti|zed per&s;on, &amp;c. his word-renouncing of Chri&s;tianity, and his
<PB N="139" REF="90">being &s;u&s;pended: whether either of the&s;e happen or no? I might argue, that, if he do &s;o, he is &s;o to be dealt with. Mul|titudes of other &s;uch &s;uppo&s;itions, of things which never were, nor are, nor &s;hall be, we finde in Scripture, and arguings thereupon; &s;ee many together, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 15.13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. &s;o el&s;where, <HI>Math.</HI> 6.15. <HI>John</HI> 8.39. <HI>&amp;</HI> 16.7. <HI>&amp;</HI> 18.23. <HI>Gal.</HI> 2.21. <HI>Ezek.</HI> 18.24, 26, &amp;c.</P>
<P><HI>Augustine</HI> in his booke <HI>de fide et operibus,</HI> thus di&s;puteth a|gain&s;t them who would admit notorious unclean per&s;ons to Bapti&s;me, <HI>Cap.</HI> 12. He &s;uppo&s;eth to them that an Idolater &s;hould come without renouncing his Idolatry, and asks them whether they would admit him to Bapti&s;me, (though perhaps this ca&s;e never occurred) and thence he argues again&s;t their admitting of notorious fornicators, without renouncing that their wickedne&s;&s;e before. <Q><HI>Profect&ograve;</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>dicturi &s;unt homini, Templum Dei futurus es, cum bapti&s;mum acceperis. Dicit autem Apostolus Quae compo&s;itio Templi Dei cum Idolis? Quare ergo non vident &s;imiliter dicendum, membrum Chri&s;ti futurus es, cum acceperis bapti&s;mum non po&s;&s;unt membra Chri|&s;ti e&s;&s;e membra meretricis&mdash;Cur ergo ad bapti&s;mum Idolis &s;ervientes non admittimus, &amp; fornicatores admit tendos puta|mus. Cur &amp; his &amp; caeteris malis dicat, &amp; haec quidem &s;ui&s;tis; &s;ed abluti e&s;tis, &s;ed &s;anctificati e&s;tis, &s;ed ju&s;tificati estis, in no|mine Domini Je&s;u Chri&s;ti, &amp; in &s;piritu Dei nostri? Quid igi|tur cau&s;ae e&s;t, ut cum pote&s;tas pateat utrum&abque; prohibendi, veni|entem ad bapti&s;mum permittam fornicarium permanere, &amp; non permittam Idolis &s;ervientem: cum &amp; illis &amp; his dici audiam, &amp; haec quidem &s;uistis &s;ed abluti e&s;tis.</HI></Q> (It &s;hould &s;eeme by the way, that tho&s;e words of 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 6.11. were &s;poken to the bap|tized, which manife&s;ts they in tho&s;e times took all the bapti|zed to be &s;avingly ju&s;tified per&s;ons.) Thus we &s;ee how from a ca&s;e which perhaps never occurred, he argued in reference to a ca&s;e frequent among them: there being the &s;ame Rea&s;on of both, in the thing wherein he compares them. Would it not have been a &s;orry and &s;illy An&s;wer for <HI>Caecilianus</HI> to have re|turned to this Argument of <HI>Austines; Why but none not renoun|cing their Idolatry do, or will de&s;ire to be baptized, I except again&s;t the ca&s;e &s;uppo&s;ed?</HI> All know that the truth or fal&s;hood of an hypotheticall propo&s;ition, depends only on the right or wrong connexion of the parts of it, not on the parts them&s;elves whe|ther one or both of them.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<PB N="140" REF="91">
<HEAD>&sect;. 4.</HEAD>
<P N="3">3. Be&s;ides the ca&s;e I &s;uppo&s;ed, was at lea&s;t po&s;&s;ible to oc|curre, yea probable, as hath been before &s;hewed; and there|fore is further removed from the Exception.</P>
<EPIGRAPH>
<Q><BIBL>PSALM 119. part 15. <HI>P.</HI></BIBL>
<L N="113">113 <HI>Perfectly all vaine thoughts I hate,</HI></L>
<L><HI>But love thy Lawes O Lord:</HI></L>
<L N="114">114 <HI>Pre&s;erv'd under thy &s;heild I &s;ate,</HI></L>
<L><HI>I do tru&s;t in thy word.</HI></L>
<L N="115">115 <HI>Part yee from me who evill doe;</HI></L>
<L><HI>For I'le keep Gods Lawes just.</HI></L>
<L N="116">116 <HI>Pre&s;erve mee by thy word, I &s;o,</HI></L>
<L><HI>Shall live, and boldly tru&s;t.</HI></L>
<L N="117">117 <HI>Propt by thine armes I &s;afe &s;hall bee,</HI></L>
<L><HI>And &s;till thy precepts eye.</HI></L>
<L N="118">118 <HI>Pluckt down the lawle&s;s are by thee.</HI></L>
<L><HI>For their fraud is a lye.</HI></L>
<L N="119">119 <HI>Put back from thee dro&s;s-earthlings bee,</HI></L>
<L><HI>I love thy he&s;ts therefore.</HI></L>
<L N="120">120 <HI>Poor fle&s;h! I quake for feare of thee,</HI></L>
<L><HI>I dread thy Judgements &s;ore.</HI></L></Q>
</EPIGRAPH>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="16" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. XVI.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 1.</HEAD>
<P>ANd now I &s;hall wait on Mr. <HI>W.</HI> in his animadver&s;ions on the 4^t^h exception I &s;et down again&s;t my Argument, and my &s;olution thereof. The exception was (at <HI>numb.</HI> 37.) That there is no &s;uch in&s;tance in our times of a word-renouncer of Chri&s;tianity, when he tenders him&s;elfe to be admitted to the Communion. And therfore we need not perplex our &s;elves, with foreca&s;ting what might be done in &s;uch an extraordinary ca&s;e. But the pre&s;ent controver&s;ie is concerning &s;uch as in word pro|fe&s;s to own Chri&s;t, when they tender them&s;elves to co~municate, although there be vi&s;ible te&s;timony that their lives are not hi|therto agreeable to their profe&s;&s;ion. My &s;olution hereof was (at <HI>numb.</HI> 38, 39. &amp;c) The &s;umme whereof is; Its no need|le&s;&s;e point of wi&s;dome, to labour to fore&s;ee, the nece&s;&s;ary ill
<PB N="141" REF="91">con&s;equents. which may en&s;ue upon the receiving a principle, although at pre&s;ent there is not opportunity for the exi&s;tence of them.&mdash;And tho&s;e evince the principle not &s;ound. If &s;u&s;pen&s;ion then in the ca&s;e propo&s;ed, cannot be denied, then it mu&s;t not be univer&s;ally rejected.</P>
<P>Now Mr. <HI>W.</HI> in his reply hereto; 1. affixeth on mee, as if I owned what was put in the exception, <HI>viz.</HI> that the ca&s;e &s;up|po&s;ed was an extraordinary In&s;tance, and that the pre&s;ent controver&s;ie is concerning &s;uch as in words profe&s;s Chri&s;tiani|ty: and &s;o he thinkes to beat me with my own conce&s;&s;ions. Is not this brave di&s;puting, that what I brought in as an ob|jection again&s;t my argument, &s;hould be taken for my own a&s;|&s;ertion? Yet this he takes for a confutation of me, <HI>p.</HI> 86, 87. and doth &s;o far pre&s;ume on the &s;illine&s;s of his Readers, as to tell them hereupon, <HI>that I am in a wood, and know not which way to get out.</HI> I came indeed among briars and thornes when I fell into Mr. <HI>W.</HI> his hands, and I &s;hall hardly get out without receiving &s;ome markes of his &s;harpne&s;&s;e. But that may &s;eeme to &s;ome (e&s;pecially mine Antagoni&s;t) an extraordina|ry In&s;tance, which is not &s;o.</P>
<P>Againe; I would di&s;tingui&s;h, a ca&s;e may be &s;aid to be ex|traordinary in a twofold re&s;pect; 1. in re&s;pect of the rare and &s;eldome occurring of it; &s;o of ince&s;t or parricide, the In&s;tances may be extraordinary. Or 2. in re&s;pect of the Rule whereby a ca&s;e is to be di&s;cerned and judged of, which may differ from the ordinary Rule. As the ordinary Rule determines ince&s;t unlawfull, but an extraordinary temporary Rule made it law|full for <HI>Adams</HI> immediate children to marry together. And now whereas Mr. <HI>W.</HI> &s;aith, <HI>Extraordinary In&s;tances happening in the cour&s;e of Gods extraordinary providence, cannot infringe the truth of a general Rule, true in the cour&s;e of Gods ordinary providence.</HI> And addes; <HI>This is a Rule that be&s;t Divines walk by, notwith&s;tanding your pretended skill in Logick.</HI></P>
<P>What pretended skill in Logick did I ever boa&s;t of? What an impotent &s;coffe is this? how iucoherently and abruptly brought in? If I might an&s;wer Mr. <HI>W.</HI> in his own way I &s;hould &s;ay, perhaps he may pre&s;ume of his artificial Logick, e&s;pecially in the fir&s;t part, <HI>both of the peripatetick,</HI> for he is good at &s;uch <HI>&s;imple termes,</HI> as <HI>mormo, mormonize,</HI> and the like, <HI>and the Ra|mi&s;tical;</HI> one would be apt to thinke his <HI>Invention</HI> is too great, by the figments he hath publi&s;hed concerning mee. But a lit|tle more natural Logick, its humbly conceived, would not
<PB N="142" REF="92">make him (no more then me) an overplus. For I thinke the Preface he printed before his fir&s;t Errata Table to this booke, argues no overflowing of his di&s;cretion; the Preface was this; <HI>Chri&s;tian Reader, my remotene&s;s from London, and the mi&s;carri|age of my Letters by the Post, have cau&s;ed many over&s;ights to pa&s;s (in this impre&s;&s;ion) without timely correction. And that now I may not be di&s;appointed, I have committed my bu&s;ine&s;s to hone&s;t</HI> Randal Fo&s;ter, <HI>Carrier of</HI> Leek, <HI>who is &s;ure and tru&s;ty, though but &s;low in his motion.</HI> But to the thing I an&s;wer, by applying the former di&s;tinction, and &s;ay the Rule mentioned is true be|ing under&s;tood in the latter &s;en&s;e not in the former. Now our ca&s;e if it may be called <HI>extraordinary,</HI> its &s;o only in re&s;pect of the &s;eldome occurring of it, not in re&s;pect of any extraordinary Rule appointed for the judging of it, differing from the ordi|nary Rule, which determines that unbeleevers in the &s;en&s;e a|bove explained, are not to be admitted to the Sacraments.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 2.</HEAD>
<P N="2">2. He &s;aith, <HI>p.</HI> 89, 90 <HI>Why must wi&s;e men be of &s;uch a long provi&s;o, to provide &s;o long before-hand, again&s;t &s;uppo&s;ed evils of future contingency, which haply may never fall out? or if they come to pa&s;s, &s;hall it be imputed to their folly, that they had not provided them&s;elves with remedies against unknown evils, which po&s;&s;ibly may come to pa&s;s? What fools then were the primitive Fa|thers of the Church, that they could not fore&s;ee the evil of here&s;ies; but mu&s;t a&s;&s;emble in Councils after they aro&s;e, and had no in&s;tan|taneous remedy to put a &s;udden check thereunto. Nay, what fooles were the very Apo&s;tles, that they did not fore&s;ee the evill of Ju|daizing, that they mu&s;t goe up to Jeru&s;alem to con&s;ult about a Remedy after the evill aro&s;e? Doubtle&s;s, all the&s;e wanted &s;ome of your &s;u&s;pen&s;ion wi&s;dome. Tho&s;e old times did not afford men of &s;uch a prudential forecast, as the pre&s;ent age doth.</HI>&mdash;</P>
<P N="1">1. The Ranting Language I'le skip over, as a dirty puddle in my way. 2. The contingency of the offences happening, doth not make that a Rule &s;hould not be nece&s;&s;ary for the ordering of them. For there is a contingency in the hapning of adultery, drunkenne&s;s, or any &s;uch offence, for which Ex|communication is to be inflicted on an offender, according to 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5. And the&s;e in the nature of the things them&s;elves, are as much contingent and ca&s;uall events, as that our pre&s;ent ca&s;e &s;uppo&s;ed of a word-renouncing of Chri&s;tianity. And the Rule for exclu&s;ion reacheth this as well as tho&s;e. 3. Hence it fol|lows, we are to admit no principle contrary to this Rule, in
<PB N="143" REF="92">this no more than tho&s;e. If I hold &s;uch a Principle as doth ne|ce&s;&s;arily inferre, That no ince&s;tuous per&s;on may be debarred, the not occurring of &s;uch an offence doth not make the prin|ciple to be true. And therefore I am to renounce that prin|ciple, whether ince&s;t be ever committed or no.</P>
<P N="4">4. The examples Mr <HI>W.</HI> pretends to the contrary, are whol|ly impertinent. They concern either fir&s;t, the fore&s;eeing of offences which after did occurr, whereas the point we are upon, is the fore&s;eeing an irregularity which would follow upon a principle in ca&s;e &s;uch offences do occurre: the former we are not bound to fore&s;ee, the later we are. Or &s;econdly, they con|cern the execution of a Rule before known, in &s;uch manner as may be mo&s;t for the edification of the Church; in reference to which there will be continuall need of new con&s;ultations as long as the world &s;tands; becau&s;e of the varying circum|&s;tances of places, times and per&s;ons, and the exigencies there|of. Councils now do not make new principles, when a new ca&s;e occurres, but con&s;ult for the better improvement and ap|plication of principles already received, in reference there|to. The very edge therefore of Mr. <HI>W.</HI> his Similies turnes, and &s;o will not at all touch the nerves of this my fir&s;t Solution, given by me to the fourth exception pro|pounded.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 3.</HEAD>
<P>My &s;econd an&s;wer to the exception of the extraordinarine&s;s of this ca&s;e I had &s;uppo&s;ed (at numb. 39.) was, <HI>That though this ca&s;e &s;eem &s;o rare and extraordinary</HI> (which explication of <HI>rare</HI> by extraordinary, &s;hewed, I meant thereby rarely or &s;eldome occurring as before) <HI>yet by nece&s;&s;ary con&s;equence it concludes</HI> (not includes as Mr. <HI>W.</HI> prints me) <HI>other instances of daily and ordinary incur&s;ion.</HI> For if he who in words rejects Chri&s;t, may be debarred, then he who by &s;ome notorious deeds rejects Chri&s;t (though not in words) may be debarred, though he be a per&s;on baptized, adult, and not fully excommunicate. The further Mr <HI>W.</HI> goes on, the more doth he go out, and extra|vagate: and where he hath (as appears to me) lea&s;t colour of argumentation, and lea&s;t pincheth my papers, there is he mo&s;t confident and cen&s;orious. I &s;hall meddle as little with &s;uch &s;tuff as I can, but &s;ome is &s;o interwoven with what &s;eems more materiall, that it wil not be &s;undred. But to the matter I would de&s;ign my Reply. And</P>
<P N="1">1. He &s;aith, <HI>p.</HI> 94. <HI>Few would have imagined how rare and
<PB N="144" REF="93">extraordinary &s;hould by nece&s;&s;ary con&s;equence have concluded daily and ordinary.</HI> This cavill is an&s;wered in the la&s;t chap|fer, by di&s;tingui&s;hing of the word <HI>ordinary.</HI> From the Rule of &s;ome things which &s;eldome occurre, conclu&s;ions may be drawn in reference to things which frequently occurre. From <HI>Abra|hams</HI> being ju&s;tified in believing that &s;ingular promi&s;e, that <HI>in his &s;eed &s;hould all the nations of the earth be ble&s;&s;ed,</HI> is conclu|ded ju&s;tification by faith in generall of all them who are ju|&s;tified, <HI>Rom.</HI> 4. From the promi&s;e made to <HI>Jo&s;hua, to be with him</HI> (e&s;pecially in conquering Canaan, which was an extraor|dinary and rare ca&s;e, is concluded, that God will be with his people in ordinary ca&s;es of daily incur&s;ion. <HI>Heb.</HI> 13.5. compa|red with <HI>Jo&s;h.</HI> 1.5. Divers &s;uch examples there are in Scripture. Our Prote&s;tant Divines di&s;puting again&s;t ju&s;tification by works in the Popi&s;h &s;en&s;e, &amp; their doctrine of Purgatory from the &s;in|gular in&s;tance of the Thief on the Cro&s;s, who went immediatly to heaven, <HI>Gerrard</HI> ob&s;erves, <HI>Harm. Evang. de pa&s;sione, cap.</HI> 15. <HI>p.</HI> 183. that the Papi&s;ts would &s;eek &s;uch an eva&s;ion as Mr <HI>W.</HI> here doth. <Q><HI>Tandem igitur</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>eo abeunt, quod privi|legia paucorum non con&s;tituunt nec evertunt Regulam.</HI> To which he an&s;wers, <HI>Atqui cum e&s;t omnium piorum coram Deo ju&s;tificatio gratuita, &s;cilicet ex fide in Chri&s;tum Medin|torem, id quod Apostolus clare ostendit, quando</HI> Rom. 4. <HI>v.</HI> 1. <HI>&amp;c. Ex particulari Abrahae ju&s;tificati exemplo, generalem ju&s;tificationis formam ac modum probat. Quod ergo anima conver&s;i Latronis &s;ine Purgatorii ignis interventu, rect&acirc; in Pa|radi&s;um e&s;t &s;ublata, id non e&s;t per&s;onale privilegium, &s;ed gene|rale exemplum, &amp;c.</HI></Q></P>
<P>Yea, let me add further, that it's u&s;uall in Scripture to &s;up|po&s;e Ca&s;es, which (for ought we know) never were nor &s;hall be exi&s;tent, and from thence to conclude matters of ordi|nary and frequent incur&s;ion. <HI>Nathan the Prophet,</HI> 2 Sam. 12. &s;uppo&s;eth the ca&s;e of a rich man taking the poor mans Ewe for his gue&s;t, and the grievou&s;ne&s;s of that offence &s;o &s;uppo&s;ed, being granted, he thence concludes the hainou&s;ne&s;s of <HI>Davids</HI> wickedne&s;s committed by him in the point of <HI>Uriah.</HI> This was an u&s;uall way of arguing with Chri&s;t Je&s;us, for the conviction of the Jewes: there are many in&s;tances thereof in the Go&s;pels: there are two of this nature, <HI>Matth.</HI> 21. He there &s;uppo&s;eth a man who had two &s;ons, and he commanding them to go and work in his vineyard, the one &s;aid, I go Sir, and went not; the other &s;aid he will not go, and yet went.
<PB N="145" REF="93">And thence concludes, that the Publicans and Harlots enter into the kingdome of heaven before many of the Jewes. So likewi&s;e he &s;uppo&s;eth an Hou&s;holder planting a Vineyard, and letting it out to Husbandmen, and how injuriou&s;ly and trea|cherou&s;ly they dealt with his &s;ervants and &s;on, and how &s;everely they were puni&s;hed; and thence concludes again&s;t the Jewes for their abu&s;ing the Prophets, and rejecting Chri&s;t him&s;elf; as they them&s;elves perceived, ver&s;e 45. The force of &s;uch arguments lies not in the exi&s;tence of the ca&s;e &s;uppo&s;ed, but in the merits of the cau&s;e &s;uppo&s;ed, and in the parallel and likene&s;s betwixt the ca&s;e &s;uppo&s;ed, and their ca&s;es whom he deals with. <HI>Comparata etiam ficta arguunt fidemque faciunt.</HI> as <HI>P. Ramus</HI> rightly ob&s;erves, and gives many examples there|of, <HI>Dialect. l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 18. So here, whether word-renouncer of Chri&s;tianity be exi&s;tent or no, if he be to be debarred the Sacrament, and the ca&s;e of one who in deeds rejects Chri&s;t, be parallel to that, as to a vi&s;ible renouncing of Chri&s;t, the Argument is valid from the former to the debarring of the later.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 4.</HEAD>
<P N="2">2. Another exception Mr. <HI>W.</HI> makes again&s;t the expre&s;&s;ion (he &s;aith is mine) of <HI>quotidian and ordinary rejectings of Christ.</HI> This expre&s;&s;ion (&s;aith he) <HI>is &s;omwhat har&s;h and rigorous, p.</HI> 96. &amp; the like he hath, <HI>p.</HI> 103. But expre&s;&s;ions warranted by Scrip|ture, are not too har&s;h nor rigorous; but &s;uch is this: For the Scripture frequently puts this language on the notorious acts of di&s;obedience, even among&s;t Gods people by dedication and verball profe&s;&s;ion, 1 <HI>Sam.</HI> 8.7. &amp; 10.19. &amp; 15.23, 26. 2 <HI>King.</HI> 17.15. <HI>Jerem.</HI> 16.19. &amp; 8.9. <HI>Ho&s;ea</HI> 4.6. And Chri&s;t Je&s;us makes the&s;e two phra&s;es of <HI>rejecting him,</HI> and <HI>not receiving his word,</HI> of equall importance, <HI>John</HI> 12.48. And would to God this were not too ordinary and frequent!</P>
<P N="3">3. Mr. <HI>W.</HI> adds, <HI>p.</HI> 96, 97. <HI>Perhaps &s;ome of your reverend Pa&s;tors &amp; grave Elders, may po&s;sibly be involved in the crime. It is &s;up|po&s;eable, nay po&s;sible (to u&s;e your own weapon) that &s;uch may be word- or deed-rejecters of Chri&s;t in your &s;en&s;e. If &s;uch an ex|traordinary emergent as this appears, who then &s;hall &s;u&s;pend the Pari&s;h Pope, or his Ve&s;try Cardinals? They will haply have a privat Ma&s;s, though none of the Congregation wil joyn with them. In this &s;uppo&s;able ca&s;e which po&s;sibly may occur, though it doth never actually occur, what in&s;tantaneous Remedy have you? Me|thinks &s;uch wi&s;e men as you &s;hould fore&s;ee the evill, and be fur|ni&s;hed
<PB N="146" REF="94">with an instantaneous Remedy against it, when &s;uch a ca&s;e &s;hall occur, though it never actually doth occur. Shall I retort upon you this Counter-buff,</HI> viz. <HI>That God hath placed a power &s;omewhere in his Church for the in&s;tantaneous checking of this &s;uppo&s;able evil? or el&s;e must you renounce your principle, which upon a clo&s;e pur&s;uit will ca&s;t you on this rock? We onely here improve your Argument to &s;uch further u&s;efulne&s;&s;e as you never expected; and the improvement is rather good against you than again&s;t us, becau&s;e it is your own argument.</HI></P>
<P>De&s;pi&s;ing his &s;cornfull language, I an&s;wer. 1. Mr <HI>W.</HI> doth here manife&s;tly abu&s;e me. For in his <HI>Counter-buffe</HI> (as he calls it) he puts this Pofition down in a different Character, as if it had been mine a&s;&s;ertion and words, <HI>viz. That God hath placed a power &s;omewhere in his Church, for the in&s;tanta|neous checking of this</HI> &s;uppo&s;able evill. The pa&s;&s;age of mine he alludes to, was in the beginning of the Argument, where one propo&s;ition in my Syllogi&s;me was, Tho&s;e who are vi&s;ibly &s;uch as the Lord hath in his word, declared to be per&s;ons, to whom he would not have the Lords Supper admini&s;tred, may be &s;u&s;pended from the Lords Supper. And this I &s;aid, is clear; becau&s;e <HI>God hath placed a power &s;omewhere in his Church for the managing his Ordinances &s;o, as they may not be di&s;pen&s;ed to &s;uch as he hath declared in his word, he would not have them admini&s;tred unto.</HI> And I had before limited the Que&s;tion thus, That we are not now enquiring by what power any may be &s;u&s;pended, but only concerning the lawfulne&s;s of the act of &s;u&s;|pending the per&s;ons mentioned in the que&s;tion, by any per|&s;on or per&s;ons what&s;oever, in what&s;oever capacity they are, or by what&s;oever kind of power it may be exerted by them, or any of them. So that if it were lawfull for a Generall Council to &s;u&s;pend, it proved the a&s;&s;ertion &s;ufficiently which I undertook. You &s;ee then, 1. that the expre&s;&s;ion of an <HI>In|&s;tantaneous remedy</HI> he talkes on, was not mine, but his own. 2. Be&s;ides, we may di&s;tingui&s;h of debarring, 1. by a Rule for debarring: and 2. by the execution of that debarring the Rule appoints. In the former &s;en&s;e, there's an <HI>Instantaneous remedy</HI> (as he &s;peakes) in the ca&s;e propounded by him; to keep the ordinances from being di&s;pen&s;ed to &s;uch as have no actuall right thereunto: For the word of God &s;o debarres them, that they ought not to approach to the &s;eal of the Covenant, without their reall and pre&s;ent accepting of the Covenant-terms, which they cannot do, whiles they lye under notori|ous
<PB N="147" REF="94">wickedne&s;s unrepented of. In the later &s;en&s;e there may not be ever an in&s;tantaneous remedy to execute the Rule effe|ctually. But we are not di&s;puting what men do, but what they ought to do according to Scripture-Rule. He might in the &s;ame manner trifle about &s;u&s;pending the unclean from the Pa&s;&s;cover, and &s;ay, But what if the Prie&s;ts and Governours were to keep back the Legally unclean, were &s;o unclean them|&s;elves, who mu&s;t &s;u&s;pend them? and hence argue, that they might not debarre others, becau&s;e there was none to debarre them, or not in&s;tantly; when as yet the Rule debarred them as well as others; and they &s;inned in not complying with it them&s;elves, as well as in not executing the &s;ame for the de|barring of others.</P>
<P>And thus the Reader may perceive our Gentlemans Coun|ter-buffe, is but the blind-mans-buff, and fitter for an hood|winkt boy than a learned cen&s;urer of others Logick. But, O my &s;oul, &s;top here; re&s;train, yea, extingui&s;h the ri&s;e of a &s;ee|ming ju&s;t indignation by attending wholly to the divine and calming meditation of,</P>
<EPIGRAPH>
<Q><BIBL>PSALM. 119. Part 16. <HI>Q.</HI></BIBL>
<L N="121">121 <HI>Quietly I do judgement ju&s;t.</HI></L>
<L><HI>Save me from Tyranny.</HI></L>
<L N="122">122 <HI>Qua&s;ht let me not be by proud du&s;t!</HI></L>
<L><HI>For good be my &s;urety!</HI></L>
<L N="123">123 <HI>Quite fail mine eyes for thy goodne&s;s;</HI></L>
<L><HI>and for thy right'ous word:</HI></L>
<L N="124">124 <HI>Quickly to me mercy expre&s;s!</HI></L>
<L><HI>Teach me thy Statutes Lord.</HI></L>
<L N="125">125 <HI>Qualifie me with grace to know</HI></L>
<L><HI>thy Te&s;timonies right!</HI></L>
<L N="126">126 <HI>Quickly Lord work! It is time now,</HI></L>
<L><HI>For men thy Law null quite.</HI></L>
<L N="127">127 <HI>Que&s;tionle&s;s therefore I do love</HI></L>
<L><HI>Thy Truth above gold be&s;t.</HI></L>
<L N="128">128 <HI>Que&s;tionle&s;s thy Lawes right I prove,</HI></L>
<L><HI>and each fal&s;e way dete&s;t.</HI></L></Q>
</EPIGRAPH>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="17" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="148" REF="95">
<HEAD>CHAP. XVII.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 1.</HEAD>
<P>THe con&s;equence in my argumentation (at <HI>numb.</HI> 41.) If word rejecters of Chri&s;tianity, though baptized, adult, and not fully excommunicate, may be debarred the Sacrament, then al&s;o &s;ome &s;uch deed-rejecters of Chri&s;tianity may be de|barred, my paper proved (at <HI>numb.</HI> 42.) as is related by Mr. <HI>W.</HI> p. 98, 99. Which we &s;hall have occa&s;ion anon to repeat.</P>
<P>I &s;hall now gather up the &s;umme of what Mr. <HI>W.</HI> an&s;wers for the enervating thereof, and then having compared my argu|mentations with the pretended &s;olutions he returnes thereun|to, I &s;hall make my Reply to them &s;everally, and then adde more proofe for the confirmation of my Con&s;equence afore|&s;aid.</P>
<P N="1">1. Mr. <HI>W.</HI> &s;aith, <HI>p.</HI> 99. <HI>We begin now to feare the feverity of your Church Officers: But our comfort is, that neither</HI> Titus 1.16. <HI>nor</HI> 1 Cor. 5. <HI>nor</HI> Math. 18.15, 16. <HI>nor</HI> Rev. 2.2. <HI>doe e|&s;tabli&s;h your &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, nor command us to &s;ubmit to your Church Officers.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>That</HI> Tim&s;on <HI>calls them intruded Elders,</HI> p. 99, 100.</P>
<P N="3">3. <HI>The Que&s;tion now in agitation with us is, Whether open &s;candalous and pre&s;umptuous offenders in the Church, are to be puni&s;hed by the di&s;cipline of the Church? We affirme po&s;itively that they are</HI>&mdash;&s;uch offenders <HI>in words or deeds.&mdash;The cor|rection of the&s;e do fall properly under Eccle&s;iastical di&s;cipline; yet not &s;o as the Chri&s;tian Magi&s;trate is to be excluded&mdash;And yet all this doth not inferre the nece&s;&s;ity of your &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, as a cen|&s;ure distnct from excommunication;</HI> viz. <HI>that every Pari&s;h Prie&s;t with his Elders (after his own humour) &s;hould be Judge in his own cau&s;e, u&s;e partiality, exclude men from the Lords &s;er|vice, meerely at his plea&s;ure, for not &s;ubmitting to his Examinati|on, though otherwi&s;e judicious and of good example, albeit the cry be against men ignorant, and of gro&s;s behaviour!</HI> &mdash; And then tells us, <HI>Its fit the correcting di&s;cipline &s;hould lye in indifferent and impartial hands, more publique then the Pari&s;h Prie&s;t and his Elders.&mdash;And oft-times it will fall out, that a Pastour and his Elders will be Judges in their own cau&s;e, and then &s;u&s;pen&s;ion was become private revenge, and parties will be|come Judges;</HI> All this, <HI>p.</HI> 101, 102.</P>
<PB N="149" REF="95">
<P N="4">4. He askes; <HI>Is your Parochial &s;u&s;pen&s;ion with your Cla&s;&s;ical power in being (by toleration civil) an univer&s;al Remedy again&s;t all the Errours that belong to Eccle&s;ia&s;tical cognizance? As yet you have no place for publique Judicature allowed by the State, no Power to i&s;&s;ue out Warrants for the legall &s;ummoning in of offenders. And therefore your proceedings in &s;u&s;pen&s;ion are with|out all form of Law,</HI> p. 103.</P>
<P N="5">5. <HI>I &s;ee that</HI> (ip&s;o facto) <HI>men must be &s;u&s;pended (by you) for their former mi&s;carriages, and pre&s;ent words of &s;orrow, and of promi&s;ing obedience for the future, mu&s;t not &s;erve the turne.</HI> This he in&s;i&s;ts on in many words, <HI>p.</HI> 103, 104, 105, 106, 107. and labours to confute mee by <HI>Luk.</HI> 17.4. and askes, <HI>Whether the Church, (which is</HI> coetus mi&s;ericors, <HI>and deales not against men in rigour of Ju&s;tice, but with bowels of mercy) may not take mens pre&s;ent words of repentance for a reall di&s;&s;enting from their former evill deeds, and beleeve in charity, that their word-Te&s;ti|monies of Repentance are &s;erious Retractations of their former evil deeds?</HI></P>
<P>And now I de&s;ire the Reader to do him&s;elfe, Mr. <HI>W,</HI> and me that right, as to compare the&s;e five an&s;wers &s;everally and joynt|ly with my argumentation, which &s;hould be confuted by them; and let him try his be&s;t skill to fit them thereunto. My rea&s;on|ing for the confirmation of my Con&s;equence, recited in the be|ginning of this Chapter, (which Mr. <HI>W.</HI> here a&s;&s;aults) thus proceeded; If the above mentioned Con&s;equence (from the &s;u&s;pen&s;ion of word-Rejecters of Chri&s;t, to the &s;u&s;pen&s;ion of &s;ome deed-Rejecters of Chri&s;t) do not hold, it is either becau&s;e no deed-rejection of Chri&s;t is &s;o manife&s;t, vi&s;ible and hainous a rejection of Chri&s;t, as word-rejecting of Chri&s;t is; or els be|cau&s;e the Officers in the Church, have &s;ome good Rule accor|ding to which they may di&s;pen&s;e with, or not deny the Sacra|ment for deed-rejecting of Chri&s;t, rather then word rejecting of Chri&s;t, or for &s;ome other Rea&s;on. But neither of the&s;e do enervate the Con&s;equence, nor any other Rea&s;on, therefore its good and valid: not the latter, becau&s;e no &s;uch Rule can be produced, but rather the contrary, <HI>Titus</HI> 1.16. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5. <HI>Math.</HI> 18.15, 16, 17, <HI>Rev.</HI> 2.2. Not the former, becau&s;e, &amp;c.&mdash; which may be peru&s;ed (at <HI>numb.</HI> 44, 45.)</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect; 2.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>W.</HI> in an&s;wering hereof, doth neither a&s;&s;ert, that either of the Rea&s;ons mentioned, doth enervate my Con&s;equence, nor fault the enumeration of ob&s;tructive Rea&s;ons which might
<PB N="150" REF="96">enervate it, nor a&s;&s;igne any other. And yet his fore&s;aid re|turnes mu&s;t &s;erve for &s;olutions, and he in the &s;trength of them thus flouri&s;heth it out, and &s;hews his mettle, <HI>p.</HI> 108. <HI>The proofe of your Con&s;equence we have examined at large, we have &s;hewed Cau&s;es, why we cannot approve of it; You may take time to con|&s;ider, and reply if you have any &s;tomack to the undertaking. But (I feare me) you will con&s;ider of it ten times, before you will un|dertake it once.</HI></P>
<P>Truly I may con&s;ider it twenty times, before I can finde any thing herein pertinent, for me to reply unto: &s;uch an adver|&s;ary may &s;afely challenge and provoke to Di&s;putation. Did e|ver any <HI>Quaker</HI> returne a more impertinent pretended &s;olu|tion to an Argument? And yet they will be as bold as Mr. <HI>W.</HI> him&s;elfe hath attained to be, and tell you, no body dare or can an&s;wer them. And under the &s;helter of that their irrational impudence, they often e&s;cape Replyes to them. And &s;o might Mr. <HI>W.</HI> for mee, if others Judgement had not prevail'd again&s;t my owne for this once; hereafter I hope my Friends will not urge me in this kinde any more.</P>
<P>But though the&s;e his five Rea&s;ons again&s;t my Con&s;equence, (&s;o you &s;ee he calls them, el&s;e I had wanted a name for them; as the Painter that wrote <HI>[This is a Lyon]</HI> over the picture he had drawne, that no body &s;hould take it for a Bull) though I &s;ay the&s;e his an&s;wers are manife&s;tly <HI>nihil ad Rhombum,</HI> yet be|cau&s;e it may be thought, he may, like a &s;quinting Fencer, wound me &s;ome where els by them, though he touch not the place he makes a &s;hew to aime at; I &s;hall therefore &s;atisfie his importunity this once, as I have &s;ometimes gratified the <HI>Qua|kers,</HI> to make &s;ome reply to them &s;everally; and then I &s;hall (as I promi&s;ed) confirme my own argumentation.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 3.</HEAD>
<P>To his fir&s;t; Its plaine I cited not tho&s;e texts to prove &s;u&s;|pen&s;ion immediately; I brought them to prove that Church Officers have no good Rule according to which they may di&s;|pen&s;e with deed rejecting of Chri&s;t, any more then with word-rejecting of Chri&s;t, in point of &s;acramental admini&s;trations, thus; If there be a deed rejecting of Chri&s;t, for which Eccle|&s;ia&s;tical Cen&s;ure is to be inflicted, as wel as for a word reject|ing of Chri&s;t; then the Church Officers have no Rule to di&s;|pen&s;e with or not deny the Sacrament for the former rather than the latter. The Antecedent is proved by the texts quo|ted; <HI>Titus</HI> 1.16. <HI>In words they profe&s;s Chri&s;t, in deeds they
<PB N="151" REF="96">deny him:</HI> And the other texts proved a deed-rejecting of Chri&s;t, (yea when in words Chri&s;t is owned) to be cau&s;es of Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Cen&s;ure, and therefore as truly as word rejecting of Chri&s;t is.</P>
<P>To his &s;econd, I &s;ay, Mr. <HI>W.</HI> it &s;eemes hath found one man, as bold as him&s;elfe, to reproach Elders without offering any Argument again&s;t them, or invalidating tho&s;e produced for them. A confident man as I have lightly met with, who though then a private Chri&s;tian, as he &s;tiles him&s;elfe, without blu&s;hing, tells us in his Epi&s;tle to the Reader before his <HI>Bar removed; I looke to be cen&s;ured for this my pre&s;umption, in di&s;&s;enting from the common interpretation of &s;everal Scriptures, and a&s;&s;erting &s;ome things again&s;t the judgement of many, or mo&s;t Divines and godly Chri&s;tians,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P><HI>A&s;&s;ault Humphreys and Tim&s;on,</HI> crys Mr. <HI>W.</HI> p. 48. <HI>The men like Ingenuous Worthyes appeare in print,</HI> &amp;c. Its pitty that &s;uch a learned and ingenuous Divine as Mr. <HI>Humphreys</HI> appeares to be, &s;hould be yoakt &s;o un&s;utably with Mr. <HI>Tim&s;on.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hum|phreys</HI> wants not a&s;&s;aulting, Mr. <HI>Tim&s;on</HI> (as to our controver&s;ie) will not I thinke de&s;erve an a&s;&s;ault; untill now (in his pub|lique capacity Mr. <HI>W.</HI> intimates) he gaine the repute of le&s;&s;e arrogance and more learning than his former writings (&s;o far as they reach our ca&s;e) have di&s;covered. If &s;uch a man as M^r <HI>Humphreys,</HI> will pick out that which lookes as con&s;iderable in this controver&s;ie in <HI>Tim&s;on,</HI> it would &s;ooner be an&s;wered. But I wonder not Mr. <HI>W.</HI> and <HI>Tim&s;on</HI> &s;o well agree; For they are both good at provoking words; and its a jolly Champion who&s;e name Mr. <HI>W.</HI> hath mentioned 26 times (I take it), in his booke. When I have little els to doe I may perhaps an&s;wer him as Mr. <HI>W.</HI> challengeth mee. But I hope to be better im|ployed. And the truth is, I agree with him and Mr. <HI>Humphreys</HI> in &s;o many things (they treat of) for &s;ub&s;tance, that the &s;er|vice of an&s;wering them is not &s;o proper for me as their pecu|liar Antagoni&s;ts. But &s;ee what an an&s;wer this is: <HI>Tim&s;on</HI> is again&s;t Elders, <HI>Ergo</HI> theres no con&s;equence from the &s;u&s;pen&s;ion of word rejecters of Chri&s;t, to the &s;u&s;pen&s;ion of deed-rejecters of Chri&s;t. <HI>Samp&s;ons</HI> new withes will not tye the&s;e together. This is to di&s;pute at a low rate indeed.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 4.</HEAD>
<P N="3">3. To his third, I &s;ay, 1. Our que&s;tion was not whether open &s;candalous and pre&s;umptuous offenders in the Church are to be puni&s;hed by the di&s;cipline of the Church? I wonder he hath
<PB N="152" REF="97">the face to &s;ay it was, and tell the Reader &s;o, who hath the Que&s;tion &s;tated before him otherwi&s;e. But whether any of the&s;e might be debarred the Sacrament, though not fully ex|communicated. Therefore Mr. <HI>W.</HI> his debate here is not only impertinent to the pre&s;ent argumentation he pretends to an|&s;wer to, but al&s;o to the whole controver&s;ie in hand. 2. His o|dious In&s;inuations of every Pari&s;h Prie&s;t, after his own hu|mour, u&s;ing partiality with the re&s;t of that riff raff; have been an&s;wered before. 3. But that which <HI>ad ravim u&s;&abque;</HI> he talkes on, is &s;u&s;pending for non-&s;ubmi&s;&s;ion to Examination, and that of per&s;ons otherwi&s;e judicious and of good example. Our Que|&s;tion was, whether for any cau&s;e any might be &s;u&s;pended, not for what cau&s;es? Yet this Digre&s;&s;ion I intend to &s;ay &s;omewhat to, when it comes among the Digre&s;&s;ions at the latter end; to which I refer it. 4. If it were not fit the correcting di&s;cipline &s;hould lye in the hands he excepts again&s;t, becau&s;e of their co|habitation with them who &s;hould be corrected, which may cau&s;e partiality; then the <HI>Corinthian</HI> Officers &s;hould not have had in their hands the correcting di&s;cipline wherewith to cen|&s;ure the Ince&s;tuous per&s;on, becau&s;e (for&s;ooth) he was among them; and they might (if Mr. <HI>W.</HI> had been their prompter) have evaded the Apo&s;tles objurgation for neglect of di&s;ciplin|ing him, and have &s;aid, It was not fit for us, who live with him, to cen&s;ure him; &s;ome body els more remote, (who might be pre&s;umed more impartial) &s;hould have taken him in hand. And belike the &s;ame Rea&s;on would as well per&s;wade Ju&s;tices of peace, that its not fit for them to take cognizance of offen|ces among their neighbours; they are fit to mini&s;ter Ju&s;tice to tho&s;e who are remote from them, not to them who cohabite with them, in the &s;ame Hundred or Pari&s;h. And yet though Mr. <HI>W.</HI> talkes thus <HI>con&s;ideratly,</HI> (as he &s;aith him&s;elfe, <HI>p.</HI> 103.) yet a while agoe he &s;eemed to have a better mind to exerci&s;e di&s;cipline among his neighbours, if the State would enough a&s;|&s;i&s;t him therein. <HI>For,</HI> &s;aid he, <HI>p.</HI> 90. <HI>we have ordinary ca&s;es e|nough in being for the full exerci&s;e of Eccle&s;ia&s;tical di&s;cipline, had we power from the Chri&s;tian Magi&s;trate to convent offenders before us authoritatively, and to inflict puni&s;hments upon them (after their legal conviction) according to the quality of their crimes; and &s;hould not rather be a ludibrium to bold offenders, then any way reform them.</HI></P>
<P>To the former part whereof I an&s;wer; Did he never &s;ee the <HI>Ordinance</HI> of Lords and Commons of <HI>March</HI> 29, 1648. en|tituled,
<PB N="153" REF="97"><HI>The Form of Church Government to be u&s;ed in the Church of</HI> England <HI>and</HI> Ireland, <HI>agreed upon by the Lords and Commons a&s;&s;embled in Parliament, after advice had with the A&s;|&s;embly of Divines?</HI> Is that but a toleration? or was it ever re|pealed? But &s;ome Mini&s;ters and others pretend ignorance of &s;uch an <HI>Ordinance,</HI> and wonder when its &s;hewed them; and well they may, that they &s;hould no more regard the affaires of the Church. Others have pretended, It was <HI>but</HI> an <HI>Ordinance,</HI> and therefore not valid after the di&s;&s;olution of the <HI>Parliament</HI> who made it, and yet in the meane time, have &s;ued for their tithes upon an Ordinance built upon the &s;ame Authority.</P>
<P>To the latter part I returne <HI>Cyprians</HI> an&s;wer, <HI>Epist.</HI> 55. <HI>ad Cornelium; Quod &s;i ita res e&s;t, frater chari&s;&s;ime, ut nequi&s;&s;imo|rum timeatur audacia; &amp; quod mali jure at&abque; aequitate non po&s;|&s;unt, temeritate ac de&s;peratione perficiant, actum est de Epi&s;copa|tus vigore, &amp; de eccle&s;iae gubernandae &s;ublimi ac divin&acirc; pote&s;tate; nec Chri&s;tiani ultr&acirc; aut durare, aut e&s;&s;e jam po&s;&s;umus, &s;i ad hoc ventum e&s;t, ut perditorum minas at&abque; infidias pertime&s;camus.</HI>&mdash; And after, <HI>Non id circo frater chari&s;&s;ime, relinquenda e&s;t eccle&s;i|a&s;tica di&s;ciplina, aut &s;acerdotalis &s;olvenda cen&s;ura, quoniam con|vitijs infe&s;tamu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">, aut terroribus quatimur,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 5.</HEAD>
<P>To his fourth, I an&s;wer; Its mo&s;t of it an&s;wered in what was lately mentioned, whereby it appeares, if Mini&s;ters were not the greate&s;t hinderers of <HI>Church Order,</HI> they might &s;ee that <HI>presbyterated Churches have power from the State, authoritative|ly, to &s;end for offenders, yea to give Oath if need require.</HI> But as long as the Magi&s;trate doth not compel them to do their duty herein, (by depriving them of their maintenance for neglect hereof, as well as for total neglect of preaching) they cannot &s;ee &s;ufficient authority for their acting herein. That Que&s;tion Mr. <HI>W.</HI> here propounds, whether Parochial &s;u&s;pen&s;ion with Cla&s;&s;ical power in being (by toleration civil) be an univer|&s;al remedy again&s;t all the evils that belong to Eccle&s;ia&s;tical cognizance? Lan&s;wer negatively; Who &s;aid it was? But doth Mr. <HI>W.</HI> thence evince the con&s;equence of my fore-recited argu|ment to be invalid? Good Reader, <HI>Re&s;pice titulum;</HI> Look to what M^r <HI>W.</HI> is an&s;wering to all along, and then judge whether it was hand&s;ome, he (of many) &s;hould have told the world, how he <HI>feares my braines are almo&s;t marred,</HI> as he doth, <HI>p.</HI> 89. I am beholding to him for his care of me; But I cannot de|&s;ire he &s;hould be fo &s;ollicitous about mine, as &s;o pittifully in the interim to neglect his owne?</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="6" TYPE="section">
<PB N="154" REF="98">
<HEAD>&sect;. 6.</HEAD>
<P>His fifth An&s;wer or Rea&s;on again&s;t my fore&s;aid con&s;equence, is a meere fiction, the product (I thinke) of an extravagant phan&s;ie, and too fruitfull an invention, ratified and excited by a pa&s;&s;ionate heat. I never &s;aid that former acts of wickedne&s;&s;e, though amounting to a rejecting of an e&s;&s;ential of Chri&s;tiani|ty, nor yet word-rejecting of Chri&s;t, when retracted by a vi&s;i|ble repentance, &s;hould debar any from the Sacrament. They are then cancelld and blotted out, when repented of, and are no more to be mentioned again&s;t the offender. As <HI>Cyprian</HI> &s;aith, <HI>Epi&s;t.</HI> 55. <HI>Cornelio fratri.</HI> <Q>Primus foelicitatis gradus e&s;t non delinquere, &s;ecundus delicta cogno&s;cere. <HI>Illic currit in|nocentia integra &amp; illibata quae &s;ervet, hic &s;uccedit medela quae &s;anet.</HI></Q> But as in the beginning of the argument I &s;pake all along of a word-rejecting Chri&s;t, which a per&s;on is found in, when he tenders him&s;elfe to communicate; &s;o here the deed rejecting of Chri&s;t was &s;uch as he was then vi&s;ibly <HI>&s;till</HI> guilty of; which he is not, when he hath &s;eriou&s;ly retracted it by repen|tance and promi&s;e of Reformation. And yet where this Gen|tleman is mo&s;t ami&s;&s;e, he is u&s;ually mo&s;t confident, and (if I may u&s;e <HI>Che&s;hire</HI> language) <HI>threapes</HI> me down thus, <HI>p.</HI> 104. <HI>You cannot &s;ay I mi&s;conceive your meaning;</HI> no, by no meanes. If he &s;ay white is black, he mu&s;t not be contradicted, no not when he pretends to know my thoughts, &s;o infallible is he; the &s;even Hills a&s;pire not to this Elevation I trow. <HI>Mar&s;ilius Ficinus,</HI> who interprets <HI>Plato,</HI> &s;aith, <HI>Platonis quidam familiaris vir doctus, edidit librum cujus in&s;criptio fuit</HI> Contradicendum non e&s;&s;e, <HI>eidem de eo Platonem con&s;ulenti, re&s;pondit Plato, Cur me con&s;ulis, &s;i tibi prohibes contradici.</HI> I &s;hall leave him in his confidence, and returne to the Ark of my tru&s;t.</P>
<EPIGRAPH>
<Q><BIBL>PSALM 119. part. 17. <HI>R.</HI></BIBL>
<L N="129">129 <HI>Right wondrous are thy &s;tatutes bright,</HI></L>
<L><HI>My &s;oul keepes them therefore.</HI></L>
<L N="130">130 <HI>Receiving of thy words give light.</HI></L>
<L><HI>Th'&s;imple with knowledge &s;tore.</HI></L>
<L N="131">131 <HI>Re&s;tle&s;&s;e I cal'd and pant, for I</HI></L>
<L><HI>Longing thy precepts crave.</HI></L>
<L N="132">132 <HI>Regard me with that rich mercy</HI></L>
<L><HI>Which doth thy lovers &s;ave.</HI></L>
<PB N="155" REF="98">
<L N="133">133 <HI>Regulate my &s;teps in thy Word!</HI></L>
<L><HI>Let no &s;in rule o're mee.</HI></L>
<L N="134">134 <HI>Re&s;cue mee from mans wrongfull &s;word!</HI></L>
<L><HI>So I'le thy Lawes keep free.</HI></L>
<L N="135">135 <HI>Rayes from thy face &s;hine on me now!</HI></L>
<L><HI>Teach me thy word to awe!</HI></L>
<L N="136">136 <HI>Rivers of teares from mine eyes &s;low,</HI></L>
<L><HI>Becau&s;e men breake thy Law.</HI></L></Q>
</EPIGRAPH>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="18" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. XVIII.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 1.</HEAD>
<P>ANd now having an&s;wered Mr. <HI>W.</HI> his Rea&s;ons (as he cal'd them) The Reader may di&s;cerne how my argumentati|on concerning deed-rejecters of Chri&s;t their &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, re|maines untouched by him, much more unwounded and &s;afe. But becau&s;e the point is of great influence into the pre&s;ent con|trover&s;ie, I &s;hall adde &s;omewhat more hereunto, to prove that <HI>notorious gro&s;s wickedne&s;&s;e</HI> (continued in, without vi&s;ible re|pentance of it) <HI>is and ought to be taken</HI> (in the judgement of the governing Church, or where there is no governing Church in the judgement of the Mini&s;ter officiating) <HI>as equivalent to word-Rejecting of Christ; and therefore equally renders a per&s;on uncapable of having the Lords Supper administred unto him.</HI></P>
<P>The argument I before propounded (at <HI>numb.</HI> 44, 45) was to this purpo&s;e; If words are no otherwi&s;e te&s;timonies, then as they &s;ignifie the mind of the &s;peaker; then words of profe&s;&s;ion for owning Chri&s;tianity, are not &s;ignificative of the mind in that profe&s;&s;ion, when there are &s;ome &s;uch deeds at pre&s;ent owned which do more probably &s;ignifie the mind to the con|trary. This con&s;equence is cleere, becau&s;e the u&s;e of words is to be &s;ignes of things; when they manife&s;tly are not &s;o, they cea&s;e to have the u&s;e of &s;ignifying the mind in the thing &s;po|ken of. <HI>Verba quid audio facta cum videam? Cyprian de uni|tate eccle&s;iae catholicae,</HI> &s;aith <HI>Credere &s;e in Chri&s;tum quomodo dicit, qui non facit quod Christus &s;acere praecipit.</HI></P>
<P>The Antecedent al&s;o is manife&s;t. For,</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 2.</HEAD>
<P N="1">1. In other matters &s;ome deeds practiced and continued in, render words to the contrary incredible; and there is the &s;ame rea&s;on of them and this ca&s;e, as to the thing wherein I now
<PB N="156" REF="99">compare them. The command is to <HI>Give to him that needeth;</HI> but every one who &s;aith he needeth, is not to be taken for a needy per&s;on, when as the contrary other wi&s;e appeares to us, by his abundance vi&s;ibly under his hand, and his large and un|nece&s;&s;ary expences. So he that <HI>repents is to be forgiven,</HI> but he that &s;ays <HI>he repents</HI> is not to be beleeved, when actually and vi|&s;ibly he continues in the wickedne&s;&s;e he &s;aith <HI>he repents of: Non remittitur peccatum ni&s;i re&s;tituatur ablatum,</HI> and that before God or men. If a theefe rob me of my pur&s;e, and then &s;ay he is &s;orry for my lo&s;s, and that he hath &s;o injur'd me, yet will not re&s;tore my pur&s;e to mee; Is his &s;aying I repent, a probable in|dication of his mind? Is that a credible profe&s;&s;ion? St <HI>John</HI> &s;hewes, 1 <HI>John</HI> 3.17. compared with <HI>Chap.</HI> 4.20. <HI>If a man &s;ay he love God, or his neighbour,</HI> and yet &s;o manife&s;t his ha|tred, that he will not relieve his brother in di&s;tre&s;&s;e, he <HI>is a ly|ar;</HI> and therefore &s;o mu&s;t be judged of, by that manife&s;tati|on of his deeds contrary to his words. Was not the enmity of the <HI>Jewes</HI> Adver&s;aries as to <HI>building the Temple,</HI> &s;ignified by their practi&s;ing again&s;t the &s;ame, more then their friend&s;hip was by their good words, <HI>Ezra</HI> 4.2. <HI>Let us build with you, for we &s;eeke your God as ye doe,</HI> &amp;c. So <HI>Jer.</HI> 8.8, 9. <HI>How do ye &s;ay ye are wi&s;e &mdash; they have rejected the word of the Lord, and what wi&s;dome is in them.</HI> 1 John 2.4. <HI>He that &s;aith I know him and keepeth not his Commandments, is a lyar, and the truth is not in him.</HI> 1 John 1.6. <HI>If we &s;ay we have fellow&s;hip with him, and walke in darkne&s;&s;e, we lye and doe not the truth.</HI> Now &s;ure a <HI>lye</HI> manife&s;ted to be &s;o, is not credible, nor a &s;ignificative te|&s;timony of what in words is a&s;&s;erted. When the Pythoni&s;&s;e maide, <HI>Act.</HI> 16.16, 17, 18. gave te&s;timony to <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Sylas</HI> verbally, &s;aying, <HI>The&s;e men are the &s;ervants of the mo&s;t high God, which &s;hew unto us the way of &s;alvation:</HI> Was that a credible profe&s;&s;ion or te&s;timony? <HI>Augu&s;tine libro de Mendacio ad Con|&s;entium,</HI> &s;aith, <HI>Ille mentitur, qui aliud habet in animo, &amp; aliud verbis, vel</HI> quibu&s;libet &s;ignificationibus <HI>ennnciat.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 3.</HEAD>
<P N="2">2. Words are more apt to be counterfeit then &s;ome deeds, therefore &s;ome deeds may be more credible te&s;timonies of the mind, then words contrary thereunto. When <HI>Saul</HI> &s;aid to <HI>Sa|muel,</HI> 1 Samuel 15.13, 14. <HI>Ble&s;&s;ed be thou of the Lord, I have performed the Commandment of the Lord. Samuel</HI> &s;aid; <HI>But what meaneth this bleating of the &s;heep in my cares, and the lowing of the oxen which I heare?</HI> And <HI>Sauls</HI> di&s;obedient deeds of &s;pa|ring
<PB N="157" REF="99"><HI>Agag</HI> and the be&s;t of the <HI>Amalekiti&s;h</HI> flock, (though pre|tended for &s;acrifice) was a more credible &s;igne of <HI>Sauls</HI> di&s;o|bedience, then his word-profe&s;&s;ion of obedience was to the contrary. Was not <HI>Judas</HI> his betraying <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> into the hands of the <HI>Jewes,</HI> a more credible &s;ignifier of his trea&s;on, then his good words <HI>[haile Ma&s;ter]</HI> at the &s;ame time was of his duti|ful &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion? And were it any uncharitablene&s;&s;e in judging concerning <HI>Judas</HI> at this time, to take in the cro&s;s-witne&s;&s;e of his deeds, again&s;t his words. One would thinke this matter were &s;o plaine, there &s;hould be no need of arguments or In|&s;tances to prove it.</P>
<P N="3">3. If &s;ome deeds of wickedne&s;&s;e committed after the pro|fe&s;&s;ion of godline&s;s, do evince that profe&s;&s;ion to have been fal&s;e, and &s;o now not credible: then &s;ome deeds of wicked|ne&s;s committed and vi&s;ibly continued in at the time of the &s;aid profe&s;&s;ion, do much more invalidate it, and render it non-cre|dibly &s;ignificative of the mind of the &s;peaker. But the former is true. The Prophet thus convinceth the <HI>Jewes</HI> of their fal&s;|hood and di&s;&s;imulation; <HI>Jerem.</HI> 42.20, 21. <HI>Ye have di&s;&s;em|bled in your hearts, when ye &s;ent mee unto the Lord your God, &s;aying, Pray for us, and according to all the Lord &s;hall &s;ay, we will doe. And now I have declared it unto you, but ye have not obeyed,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 4.</HEAD>
<P N="4">4. Our Saviour &s;hews the mans unwillingne&s;&s;e to goe and work in the Vineyard, though <HI>he &s;aid</HI> readily, <HI>I go &s;ir,</HI> in that <HI>he went not,</HI> Math. 21. therefore his <HI>not going</HI> was a more cer|taine &s;ignification of his <HI>unwillingne&s;s</HI> to goe, then his <HI>verbal profe&s;&s;ion</HI> that he would go, was of <HI>willingne&s;s</HI> to goe. So the P&s;almi&s;t from the <HI>tran&s;gre&s;&s;ion of the wicked</HI> (what ever they may profe&s;&s;e to the contrary, concludes <HI>the feare of God is not before them,</HI> P&s;al. 36.1. Therefore its evident what the lear|ned Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> hath 3. <HI>di&s;put. about right to the Sacraments, p.</HI> 277. viz. <HI>That verbal profe&s;&s;ion, if it be not a probable &s;igne of the thing profe&s;&s;ed, its not to be taken for a valid profe&s;&s;ion. But words contradicted by the notorious tenour of the life, are no pro|bable &s;ignes, but the&s;e workes are a more certaine &s;igne of the con|trary. &mdash;If an affirmation pre&s;ently contradicted by words as expre&s;s and certaine, be not to be taken for a valid profe&s;&s;ion, then much le&s;&s;e is an affirmation more certainly contradicted by the te|nour of the life, yea and too oft by profe&s;&s;ed impenitency,</HI> &s;o he. If Mr. <HI>W.</HI> be entertained to officiate to a people upon their pro|mi&s;ing
<PB N="158" REF="100">him an honourable maintenance, I would willingly know, whether he will continue his pains among them, upon condition of <HI>their promi&s;ing him his &s;alary,</HI> though they <HI>do not pay it,</HI> or upon the condition of their <HI>performing what they promi&s;ed.</HI> If their deed non-payment be not to prevail again&s;t their word-paiment, or verball promi&s;e of payment, an ea&s;ie thing will content him.</P>
<P>But I am of opinion, if they &s;hould &s;o abu&s;e him, he would tell them (as well he might) that their word-payment &s;tands for nothing, when contradicted by their non-payment in deed; he would not take their being <HI>po&s;itively</HI> his pay-ma&s;ters &s;uffi|cient to engage him, whiles they are <HI>negatively</HI> no pay-ma&s;ters to him; if I may &s;o u&s;e the di&s;tinction he layes &s;o much weight upon, in this Controver&s;ie of <HI>po&s;itively believers,</HI> which &s;hould enright them to the Sacraments, though they are <HI>nega|tively unbelievers,</HI> that is, engaged to believe, though they do not.</P>
<P>I will conclude this with a pa&s;&s;age of <HI>Salvian. de gubern. Dei l.</HI> 4. (<HI>p. mihi,</HI> 143.) where &s;peaking how Pagans are &s;can|dalized by the wicked lives of &s;uch as profe&s;&s;e them&s;elves Chri|&s;tians, he adds, <HI>Et cur hoc ita? Cur utique ni&s;i ob eos</HI> qui Chri&s;tiani e&s;&s;e dicuntur, &amp; non &s;unt, <HI>qui per flagitia as turpi|tudines &s;uas, nomen religionis infamant; qui ut &s;criptum e&s;t, Ore fatentur &s;e no&s;&s;e Deum, factis autem negant, cum &s;int abomina|biles &amp; increduli, ad omne autem opus bonum reprobi, per quos ut legimus via veritatis bla&s;phematur, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<EPIGRAPH>
<Q><BIBL>PSALM 119. Part. 18. <HI>S.</HI></BIBL>
<L N="137">137 <HI>Surely thou right'ous art O Lord,</HI></L>
<L><HI>Upright thy judgements are.</HI></L>
<L N="138">138 <HI>So are the Statutes of thy Word,</HI></L>
<L><HI>all faithfull, right and rare,</HI></L>
<L N="139">139 <HI>Sharp zeal con&s;um'd and cut me &s;ore,</HI></L>
<L><HI>when foes thy word forget.</HI></L>
<L N="140">140 <HI>Solely pure is thy word, therefore</HI></L>
<L><HI>my &s;oul &s;o loveth it.</HI></L>
<L N="141">141 <HI>Small though I am, and &s;corn'd, I ca&s;t</HI></L>
<L><HI>not thy will out of mind.</HI></L>
<L N="142">142 <HI>Stable thy Righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e doth la&s;t,</HI></L>
<L><HI>Thy Law the Truth I find.</HI></L>
<PB N="159" REF="100">
<L N="143">143 <HI>Surpriz'd I am with grief and pain,</HI></L>
<L><HI>Thy Commands me delight.</HI></L>
<L N="144">144 <HI>Setled thy ju&s;t Lawes aye remain.</HI></L>
<L><HI>Give me Truth's living light!</HI></L></Q>
</EPIGRAPH>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="19" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. XIX.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 1.</HEAD>
<P>ANother Rea&s;on my paper added at numb. 46. which Mr. <HI>W.</HI> &s;ets down, <HI>p.</HI> 108. and it was thus: Further|more, if the deed-rejecting of Chri&s;t were not of as certain credible &s;ignification concerning a per&s;ons unbelief, as the word-rejecting is; then no per&s;on who denies not Chri&s;t in words, may be fully excommunicated; e&s;pecially if he de&s;ire to communicate, and that earne&s;tly: which the&s;e men &s;ay is a te&s;timony of his &s;eriou&s;ne&s;s, which we may not refu&s;e in his profe&s;&s;ion to believe. And doubtle&s;s, <HI>&amp;c.</HI>&mdash; the re&s;t &s;ee at numb. 47, 48. This Mr <HI>W.</HI> de&s;ignes to an&s;wer and confute, <HI>p.</HI> 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116. In all which, if neither vain confidence (his <HI>primum, &s;ecundum</HI> and <HI>ter|tium,</HI>) nor calumniating fal&s;hoods, nor impertinent digre&s;&s;i|ons may &s;erve for rea&s;ons again&s;t me, I doubt not my pre|&s;ent argumentation will remain &s;afe enough for ought Mr. <HI>W.</HI> hath to produce again&s;t it. Indeed if a Di&s;putation were to be managed in the <HI>pa&s;sionate mood,</HI> and the <HI>Crab'd Figure,</HI> (&s;uch as the Pythagoreans accounted the number 2.) he is hard enough for any man I know, (unle&s;&s;e the Quakers might go neer to match him.) I mu&s;t confe&s;s I dare not vie &s;coffs (Iro|ny's I can dige&s;t well enough) nor foul language nor fal&s;hoods with him. If this be the victory he &s;eeks, he may take it for me. But it may be the Reader who hath not &s;een his Book, will hardly believe &s;o many pages &s;hould be blotted with &s;uch &s;tuff; but will expect I &s;hould give him a more particular ac|count of them. I am &s;orry &s;o to &s;pend time, yet if it will not be helpt, I mu&s;t be content, and he al&s;o.</P>
<P>(1. At <HI>p.</HI> 109. he tells us in 8 or 9 lines, 4 or 5 times over, that his cau&s;e is good, and mine bad. <HI>In all this</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>there's little afforded con&s;iderable, that hath not been before an|&s;wered. Here's no convincing new evidence, that any wayes di&s;proves our po&s;ition. The imbecillity of all your Allegations again&s;t us, and the mi&s;erable &s;hifts you are put to in colouring ever your own, confirm us the more &s;trongly in what we hold,
<PB N="160" REF="101">and against what you pretend to. And the longer you argue, the more apparently do we &s;ee your imbecillity, and the goodne&s;&s;e of our own cau&s;e.</HI></P>
<P>Oh expedite and cleaver confutation! But Reader, I am a|fraid he &s;u&s;pects thou wilt &s;carce believe his tale once told, that he tells it thee &s;o many times over, and that altogether too. But look back and &s;ee whether this rea&s;on of mine he a&s;&s;aults, was at all mentioned, much le&s;&s;e an&s;wered before in the di&s;|pute; thy two eyes will give thee better information herein, than his tale twice two times told.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 2.</HEAD>
<P N="2">2. In the next place he &s;aith, <HI>You know we are not again&s;t the excommunicating of &s;candalous notorious and &s;tubborn delin|quents &mdash; but before &s;uch excommunication we maintain their externall right unto the Lords Supper, and their right of free acce&s;&s;e thereunto. And a Ministers admi&s;sion of them is not con&s;iderable in the pre&s;ent ca&s;e. They come not thereunto upon his courte&s;ie (as if he had power to admit or not admit). This is extrin&s;ecal to the matter in hand. But they come upon their own proper and internal right,</HI> i. e. <HI>their bapti&s;mal interest as Chri|&s;tians to perform vi&s;ible homage to their Lord and Saviour. And he that debars them as long as they are in vi&s;ible communion with Christians in other ordinances of equal &s;anctity, is injurious to God and to them al&s;o!</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. Reader, &s;uppo&s;e all this true, and &s;ee whether it wound my Rea&s;on he is an&s;wering. Will it hence follow, that <HI>&s;ome deeds of wickedne&s;s are not as &s;ignificative of a per&s;ons re|jecting Christ, as words are,</HI> (which was the propo&s;ition by me to be proved,) or that if <HI>this were not &s;o, no man who in words did not renounce Chri&s;t, might be fully excommunicated?</HI> (which was my Rea&s;on to prove the fore&s;aid propo&s;ition by.)</P>
<P N="20">20 To the things he mentions, though impertinent to this place, I &s;hall al&s;o make &s;ome reply. 1. Though mine Antagoni&s;ts do not &s;imply deny excommunication, yet they (&s;ome of them at lea&s;t) &s;o lay their train, as to deny excommunication among us in <HI>England</HI> in the&s;e times. For they quarrell with any power claiming to manage it. <HI>Congre|gational Independent power</HI> will not &s;ure be allowed by them; and <HI>Cla&s;sical Presbyterial power</HI> is the object of their &s;corns and contempt. And unle&s;s we could have Bi&s;hops again, and tho&s;e a&s;&s;i&s;ted by the State, I &s;ee not how they would allow of excommunication here in <HI>England.</HI> In <HI>England,</HI> I &s;ay,
<PB N="161" REF="101">For I hope to the reformed Churches beyond Seas they will be more favourable than to deny them the u&s;e of Church cen&s;ures for want of Prelates. But if they are impar|tial, and will take in them too, who&s;e ca&s;e (to &s;ay truth) dif|fers not from ours; then &s;hall excommunication be owned by them in all Europe no where, or onely among the Papi&s;ts, who &s;till have Prelates. And are not the&s;e Gentlemen very libe<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">all now (that they &s;hould tell us of it them&s;elves) for granting excommunication on this fa&s;hion.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 3.</HEAD>
<P N="2">2. I hold al&s;o that after a per&s;on is regularly admitted to the participation of the Lords Supper (that is after a &s;olemne per&s;onall owning of his bapti&s;mall engagements) he is not to be debarred the Lords Supper, before he fall under &s;ome ex|communication, <HI>viz.</HI> either <HI>jure</HI> or <HI>facto, le&s;s</HI> or <HI>greater.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. One while M. <HI>W.</HI> &s;peaks of their <HI>externall right to the Lords Supper,</HI> as if he a&s;&s;erted onely their external right. But &s;oon after he &s;aith, <HI>They come upon their own proper and inter|nal right,</HI> i. e. <HI>their bapti&s;mall intere&s;t, &amp;c.</HI> 1. We &s;hould here di&s;tingui&s;h of, 1. a <HI>direct</HI> and <HI>proper right,</HI> they may have by Gods grant to them, to receive the Lords Supper, and the benefits repre&s;ented therein. 2. an <HI>improper right,</HI> and colla|teral, by Gods authorizing the Mini&s;ters to admini&s;ter to them, whiles they vi&s;ibly appear &s;uch as have intere&s;t in tho&s;e benefits. Many may have right in the later &s;en&s;e externally, or before the Church (i. e. <HI>Eccle&s;ia judice</HI>) who have not right in the former &s;en&s;e internally and properly. A man who onely &s;eems to be poor and di&s;tre&s;&s;ed, may have an external, im|proper collaterall right to my almes before men, as I am bound to relieve him, and &s;in if I do not, <HI>Prov.</HI> 3.27. <HI>With|hold not good from him to whom it is due,</HI> (that is, the <HI>Needy,</HI> as the LXX. turns it) <HI>when it is in the power of thine hand to do it.</HI> Yet if he do but counterfeit poverty and di&s;tre&s;s, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> hath no inward proper right to my almes. The&s;e two ther<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">|fore &s;hould not have been confounded and jumbled together, as they are here by our Authour.</P>
<P N="4">4. If &s;uch as we have &s;poken of, have no right to be ad|mitted, and do vi&s;ibly &s;o appear, I think the Mini&s;ter is con|cerned in the admi&s;&s;ion or debarring of them, if he will ap|prove him&s;elf a faithfull <HI>Steward of the divine My&s;teries, &amp; that it lyes wholly in him</HI> where there is no governing Church, but
<PB N="162" REF="102">where there is, it lies on him <HI>joyntly with others</HI> in&s;tructed by the Church.</P>
<P>As for that pa&s;&s;age (often before) of the Mini&s;ters courtefie in admi&s;&s;ion, it hath been once and again repelled as an o|dious and wretched, impertinent and fal&s;e in&s;inuation: he mu&s;t admit according to the Rule pre&s;cribed him by his ma&s;ter (to whom he mu&s;t give account) without being &s;wayed awry ei|ther by ba&s;e fear and pa&s;&s;ion, or partiall re&s;pects. I think <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome</HI> was of this mind when in his 60. Homily <HI>ad Pop. Antioch. de &s;umentibus indign&egrave;, &amp;c.</HI> he &s;aith, <HI>Let no cruell un|mercifull man approach, no impure one any way. The&s;e things I would have &s;poken as well to you who communicate, as to you who mini&s;ter &mdash; No &s;mall puni&s;hment hangs over your head, if ye permit any to partake of this Table whom you know to be held with any wickedne&s;s, for his blood &s;hall be required at your hands, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="5">5. Their bapti&s;mall engagement to celebrate the Lords Supper, doth not hinder their being ju&s;tly debarred (in the ca&s;e under con&s;ideration) no more than a Heathen (who hears the Go&s;pel preached to him) his engagement to be bap|tized, doth hinder his being ju&s;tly debarred bapti&s;me for want of &s;crious profe&s;&s;ion of the Chri&s;tian faith, antecedently ne|ce&s;&s;ary to bapti&s;me (as all I think do grant.) Let M^r <HI>W.</HI> &s;hew the contrary if he can. I &s;ay the one is <HI>aeque</HI> though not <HI>aequa|liter</HI> engaged as the other; as truly, though not &s;o &s;olemnly, and multifariou&s;ly. A man is as truly obliged to obey God, who hears his will clearly revealed, as he is who hath by his own profe&s;&s;ion further po&s;itively bound him&s;elf to obey.</P>
<P N="6">6. The learned and ingenuous Mr <HI>Humphreys</HI> (a Gentle|man worthy indeed to be an&s;wered) acknowledgeth (as we have &s;een above) that as <HI>an heathen, &s;o an excommunicate may be admitted both to the prayers and hearing of the word prea|ched, in the Church;</HI> and the thing is manife&s;t in it &s;elfe, as h<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">th been &s;hewed. And yet &s;aith this our confident Authour, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="3 letters">ou hear, <HI>He that debars them as long as they are in vi&s;ible communion with Christians in other ordinances, is injurious to God, and to them al&s;o.</HI> What he will &s;ay he means by vi&s;ible communion in other ordinances, I know not. But they may be pre&s;ent with them in the Congregation, and that in a con|&s;tant cour&s;e, and that as doing their dutie there, as well as o|thers; and they may account them&s;elves, and &s;o be lawfully owned by others as Church-members, though &s;u&s;pended or excommunicate.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<PB N="163" REF="102">
<HEAD>&sect;. 4.</HEAD>
<P>I know no difficulty here, but that concerning receiving their children to bapti&s;m. But that I find not mentioned by Mr <HI>W.</HI> And if their children &s;hould be debarred bapti&s;m, that is no argument again&s;t debarring them the Lords Supper; Its no good rea&s;on that nothing &s;hould be done in a bu&s;ine&s;s, becau&s;e all is not done which &s;ome think (and &s;uppo&s;e rightly) &s;hould be done. So far we are &s;atisfied that the parents being &s;o notori|ou&s;ly wicked as afore&s;aid, &s;hould be debarred the Lords Ta|ble; Whether al&s;o their children mu&s;t be debarred bapti&s;m. is another thing to be enquired into. This Controver&s;ie is weighty and large, and I &s;hall not pre&s;ume to de&s;igne a ju&s;t di&s;cu&s;&s;ion of it here, yet may I not wholly omit it. Concern|ing the baptizing of the children of both parents notori|ou&s;ly ungodly, and &s;u&s;pended or excommunicate, I would briefly hint the&s;e few things.</P>
<P N="1">1. Some &s;olve the difficulty, by &s;aying, We receive their children to bapti&s;m on other accounts than on their right from their immediate parents, as Mr <HI>Drake</HI> an&s;wered Mr <HI>Hum|phreys</HI> on this point.</P>
<P N="2">2. But by the immediate (though notoriou&s;ly ungodly &s;u&s;pended or excommunicate) parent, I humbly conceive a right is conveighed for the bapri&s;m of his infant. (Suppo&s;ing that the parent de&s;ire it; otherwi&s;e none can meddle with the dedicating of his Infant, which is <HI>parentum juris,</HI> at the parents di&s;po&s;al.) For,</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 5.</HEAD>
<P N="1">1. All Pedobapti&s;ts u&s;e this Argument, Church-members may be baptized. Some children are Church-members-. <HI>Ergo.</HI> And doubtle&s;s they under&s;tand their Major propo&s;ition here of Church-members not &s;infully debarring them&s;elves. For a &s;on of a believer, who hath not been baptized in infancy, though he be a Church-member, may when he is adult by his &s;candalous life, hinder him&s;elfe of receiving bapri&s;m, as well as one baptized may of the Lords Supper. Now the child of a notoriou&s;ly ungodly, and &s;u&s;pended or excommunicated pa|rent is a Church-member, and doth not &s;infully hinder, or put a bar to his own bapti&s;m. That he is a Church-member is proved; If the parent be a Church-member, then &s;o is the infant, (this con&s;equence I think none I have to deal with will deny). But that he is a Church-member &s;till hath been proved above, <HI>chap.</HI> 3. &sect;. 6.</P>
<PB N="164" REF="103">
<P>That this child doth not put a bar to his own bapti&s;m, I need not prove. Upon this ground I add,</P>
<P N="2">2. The child is not to be puni&s;hed for the fathers &s;in; which yet he were, if he &s;hould not be baptized. 1. Admit the pa|rent be vi&s;ibly a believer when his child is born, or rather when the child is begotten, according to 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 7.14. (which is &s;aid to de&s;cribe the childs <HI>birth-priviledge,</HI> as it is called, though it &s;eems rather to be a <HI>generation-priviledge</HI>) and that he delay the baptizing his child a month (perhaps longer) and in the mean time he for &s;ome notorious wickedne&s;&s;e is &s;u&s;pen|ded or excommunicated. Certainly his infant had a right to bapti&s;m (at lea&s;t <HI>coram Eccle&s;ia</HI>) and &s;uppo&s;ing the parent to have true grace (<HI>coram Deo</HI> too) after it was born, and there|fore it cannot be &s;aid, that to deny it bapti&s;me is no puni&s;h|ment, as not depriving it of any right it ever had: and there|fore the denying it bapti&s;me now, is to cut it off from what it had, and lo&s;t not by its own default.</P>
<P N="2">2. It will not I think be denied, that it is a priviledge and great mercy which the gracious providence of God hath di&s;po|&s;ed unto this infant, that it hath or had right to bapti&s;me. If it were onely the priviledge of the parent, that he might have his child baptized, it were more imaginable how his child might be debarred upon his forfeiture. But &s;ince it is a priviledge to the child, it cannot be debarred, but it mu&s;t be pu|ni&s;hed as well as its parent and that for its parents per&s;onall mi&s;carriage. He him&s;elfe indeed may keep it from bapti&s;me; but as in that he &s;ins and doth it wrong, &s;o &s;hould they who refu&s;e to do their office for the baptizing of it, upon the parents defire.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="6" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 6.</HEAD>
<P N="3">3. It is not nothing that the Jewi&s;h children were to be cir|cumci&s;ed the eighth day, although the parents by legall (or moral) uncleanne&s;s might be debarred the Pa&s;&s;eover, or ex|communicated; which it &s;hould &s;eeme would not have been, if the cen&s;ure upon the parents had reached any further then to the &s;u&s;pen&s;ion of him from &s;ome per&s;onal priviledges, where|by he was as an heathen in &s;ome re&s;pects; and did not extend to make his child as an heathen in any re&s;pect; particularly, that it &s;hould be debarr'd circumci&s;ion as the child of an hea|then &s;hould; though the parent were debarr'd the Pa&s;&s;cover, and &s;o dealt with in that re&s;pect as though he had been an Heathen.</P>
<PB N="165" REF="103">
<P N="4">4. He may be admitted to Bapti&s;me who is holy by con&s;e|cration, and being rightly devoted to Chri&s;ts &s;ervice, doth no way reject the &s;ame. But &s;uch is the condition of the child of a notoriou&s;ly &s;candalous Chri&s;tian, yea excommunicated. <HI>Ergo,</HI> he may be admitted to Bapti&s;me. Of the fir&s;t there is no que|&s;tion I thinke. The latter propo&s;ition is cleere in both its parts. 1. This child is holy by con&s;ecration, and being right|ly devoted to God. For when the parent entred, or &s;eemed to enter Covenant with God; as therein God tendered him&s;elfe his God, and <HI>the God of his, or his &s;eed;</HI> So his re&s;tipulation was an&s;werable thereunto. that he <HI>and his, his &s;eed &s;hould be the Lords people.</HI> Whether this parent was &s;incere in this co|venanting or no; he and his are engaged thereby; and &s;o <HI>his &s;eed is a &s;eed holy by con&s;ceration,</HI> and being rightly devoted to God, and the &s;ervice of Chri&s;t: and as he him&s;elfe is to be ac|counted really ju&s;tified, or dealt with as &s;uch, till he notori|ou&s;ly contradict his profe&s;&s;ed engagements to Chri&s;ts &s;ervice, (<HI>Deut.</HI> 26.17.) &s;o al&s;o is his &s;eed (which in devoting him&s;elfe he al&s;o devoted to God (<HI>Deut.</HI> 29.11, 12.) to be treated as holy ones, and as ju&s;tified ones are to be dealt with, till that they by notorious di&s;obedience contradict the engagements which lye on them. And thus the children which &s;ome wick|ed <HI>Jewes</HI> offered to Idols, God claimes as his in a &s;pecial and peculiar &s;en&s;e, as having been devoted to him, and his &s;ervice, <HI>Ezek.</HI> 16.20, 27. <HI>&amp;</HI> 23.27.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="7" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 7.</HEAD>
<P N="5">5. Although the learned and worthy Mr. <HI>Baxter in his third di&s;putation about Right to the Sacraments;</HI> a&s;&s;erts and copi|ou&s;ly labours to defend <HI>that the Infants of notoriou&s;ly ungodly parents have no right to Bapti&s;me,</HI> (In an&s;wering of whom, this controver&s;ie might have its ju&s;t di&s;qui&s;ition, which it cannot be expected I &s;hould undertake) yet in that &s;ame di&s;putation, <HI>p.</HI> 264, 265. he mo&s;t rea&s;onably a&s;&s;erts; <HI>That all God requi|reth in the free univer&s;al Covenant of grace, to our participation of his benefits, is our con&s;ent. And children do con&s;ent by tho&s;e, who&s;e they are: For they that owe them, or who&s;e they are, have the di&s;po&s;all of them, and &s;o of their wills interpretatively, and may among men make any Covenant for them. which is for their good (at least) and oblige them to a performance of conditions.</HI></P>
<P>Now upon this ground I would propo&s;e it to con&s;ideration, whether a notoriou&s;ly ungodly parent, yea excommunicate, (who in words profe&s;&s;eth a&s;&s;ent to the Chri&s;tian faith, and
<PB N="166" REF="104">knows what the Chri&s;tian faith is, as to the fundamentalls of it) may not ju&s;tly and fairly be pre&s;umed by the Church and Mini&s;ter, heartily to con&s;ent to dedicate his child to God in Gods way, although he him&s;elfe is &s;o bewitched with and en|&s;laved to his lu&s;ts, that he doth not con&s;ent (as it appeares by his contradictory deeds) to give up him&s;elfe to God in his way; For my part I doe verily thinke, many a drunkard would have his child &s;ober and temperate; and many a wanton de|&s;ires his child may be cha&s;t, &amp;c. And in general many a wick|ed parent appears cordially to rejoyce in the towardline&s;s and godline&s;&s;e of his children, &amp;c. And then according to the fore|&s;aid po&s;ition of this accurate and pious Author, the child of &s;uch a wicked parent <HI>may be admitted to enter,</HI> and therefore to &s;eale his entrance into <HI>Covenant with God</HI> in Bapti&s;me; he con&s;enting under&s;tandingly for him upon Go&s;pel termes, <HI>who&s;e he is,</HI> and in <HI>who&s;e will the childes will is interpretatively invol|ved.</HI> Yet becau&s;e the &s;candalou&s;nes of the &s;aid parent gives ju&s;t occa&s;ion to the Church of &s;u&s;pition, feare and jealou&s;ie, lea&s;t he &s;hould alter his will and de&s;ire now &s;ignified to have his child truly a Chri&s;tian and godly, and &s;o faile in u&s;ing nece&s;&s;a|ry meanes for his childes in&s;truction (during its non-age) in the Chri&s;tian faith; Its but equitable the Church &s;hould de|mand &s;ureties for the &s;ame; according to <HI>Ames</HI> <Q>his re&s;olution of the ca&s;e; <HI>de con&s;cienti&acirc; lib.</HI> 4. <HI>qu.</HI> 1. <HI>Re&s;p.</HI> 8. <HI>Excommu|nicatorum contumacium liberi, non expedit baptizari ni&s;i &s;pon|&s;orum idonco<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">um interventu.</HI></Q> I mu&s;t beg the Readers pardon for this excur&s;ion which I fell into almo&s;t unawares; and ha|ving engaged in it, of &s;ome I &s;hall have cau&s;e to crave their excu&s;e for &s;aying &s;o much, and of others for &s;aying no more; the point indeed de&s;erveth a larger di&s;qui&s;ition. But mine apo|logy to the former &s;hall be, that Mr. <HI>W.</HI> his exception I was an&s;wering did in the latitude of it comprehend this, and there|fore I would not wholly pa&s;s it by; and to the latter, that his words do not cleerly import he had any &s;pecial reference to this point, and therefore I thought the le&s;s might &s;erve to note concerning it, in my Reply unto him.</P>
<EPIGRAPH>
<Q><BIBL>PSALM 119. part. 19. <HI>T.</HI></BIBL>
<L N="145">145 <HI>This whole heart cryd to thee, Lord heare!</HI></L>
<L><HI>Thy &s;tatutes I'le fulfill.</HI></L>
<PB N="167" REF="104">
<L N="146">146 <HI>To thee I cal'd; &s;ave me mo&s;t deare,</HI></L>
<L><HI>Thine he&s;ts I &s;hall keep &s;till.</HI></L>
<L N="147">147 <HI>The day-break my cryes do prevent;</HI></L>
<L><HI>Trusting thy word I waite.</HI></L>
<L N="148">148 <HI>The night too, mine eyes are intent,</HI></L>
<L><HI>Thy truth to meditate.</HI></L>
<L N="149">149 <HI>To my voice heark in kindne&s;&s;e true!</HI></L>
<L><HI>Thy Judgements quicken mee!</HI></L>
<L N="150">150 <HI>They draw nigh who mi&s;cheife pur&s;ue.</HI></L>
<L><HI>Far from thy Lawes they bee.</HI></L>
<L N="151">151 <HI>Thou Lord art neere, and very true,</HI></L>
<L><HI>Are thy Commandments &s;ure.</HI></L>
<L N="152">152 <HI>Thine he&s;ts thou ha&s;t (of old I knew)</HI></L>
<L><HI>Founded aye to endure.</HI></L></Q>
</EPIGRAPH>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="20" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. XX.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 1.</HEAD>
<P>I Shall now proceed to what remaines. (3) In the next place Mr. <HI>W.</HI> an&s;wers my forementioned Rea&s;on, to this purpo&s;e, <HI>p.</HI> 110, 111. <HI>If the man</HI> (&s;uppo&s;ed in the ca&s;e) <HI>comes and de|&s;ires to communicate,</HI> and that <HI>earne&s;tly,</HI> this Mr. <HI>W.</HI> &s;aith is right|ly <HI>affirmed (by mine Antagoni&s;ts) to be a Testimony of his &s;eri|ou&s;ne&s;&s;e, which we may not, upon his profe&s;&s;ion thereof, refu&s;e to beleeve.</HI> And this Mr. <HI>W.</HI> proves in the&s;e words; <HI>For, Sir, if you grant the ca&s;e,</HI> viz. <HI>that he de&s;ires to communicate, and that ear|ne&s;tly; then &s;hew a Rea&s;on (if you can) why all godly minded Chri&s;tians &s;hould not (in charity) believe (upon his profe&s;&s;ion hereof) that this is to us</HI> (in foro externo) <HI>a credible testimony of his &s;eriou&s;ne&s;s? Nay, you adde moreover, that [who makes a credible &s;erious profe&s;&s;ion of his faith and willingne&s;s to &s;ub|mit to the Lord Je&s;us Christ] the Church ought not to excom|municate. Nay, you adde [doubtle&s;&s;e the Church ought not]. And we adde, that [doubtle&s;&s;e] the Church ought not to deny &s;uch an one the Lords Supper, or &s;u&s;pend him from it. What a &s;chi&s;me will do we know not,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>The Reader may be plea&s;ed to beare in memory, that after I had evinced that a man baptized at yeares and not fully ex|communicate, might be debarred the Sacrament, if at the time when he tenders him&s;elfe to be admitted (when the time
<PB N="168" REF="105">of celebration begins to draw neere) he in words renounce Chri&s;t, or an e&s;&s;ential of Chri&s;tianity, (which is not (that I finde) denied by Mr. <HI>W.</HI>) In the procedure of my argument I added; that if &s;uch word rejecting of Chri&s;t, as before-&s;aid, may debar the per&s;on afore&s;aid, then &s;ome deed-rejecting of Chri&s;t may al&s;o. Becau&s;e that by &s;ome deeds of wickedne&s;&s;e, there is as credibly a &s;ignification of a mans rejecting Chri&s;t, as in words. And this was proved as by other arguings, &s;o by this under our hand at pre&s;ent, <HI>viz.</HI> If &s;ome deeds do not as credibly &s;ignifie a per&s;ons rejecting of Chri&s;t, as words might doe; then none could be excommunicated for &s;infull deeds, whiles they renounce not Chri&s;t in words, but in words profe&s;s their earne&s;t de&s;ire to be admitted to the Sacrament. This con|&s;equence is valid, at lea&s;t <HI>ad hominem,</HI> becau&s;e mine Antagoni&s;ts intimate, that he who verbally profe&s;&s;eth his de&s;ire to receive, mu&s;t be by us accounted a &s;erious profe&s;&s;or of faith (what ever his works are.) And I averre that no vi&s;ibly &s;erious profe&s;&s;or of faith is to be exco~municated. For then one in the way of a vi&s;i|ble exerci&s;e of faith and true repentance &s;hould be excommuni|cated; which none &s;ure will affirme. And this Con&s;equence I cannot &s;ee that Mr. <HI>W.</HI> &s;ticks at. But now whereas I &s;hould a&s;|&s;ume; <HI>But &s;ome may be excommunicated for &s;infull deeds, not|with&s;tanding that in words they renounce not Chri&s;t, but verbally profe&s;&s;e their carnest de&s;ire to be admitted to the Sacrament.</HI></P>
<P>This I thinke Mr. <HI>W.</HI> denies; I am not certaine; look over his words thy &s;elfe Reader, and u&s;e thine owne judgement to gue&s;s what he drives at. But this I am certaine of, either he denies this, or he &s;aith nothing of a contradictory tendency to my argumentation which here he pretends to enervate. And if he do deny the fore&s;aid A&s;&s;umption, as I conceive his words import taken together, It may be imputed to his ha&s;t, that he &s;hould hold what is &s;o manife&s;tly fal&s;e, <HI>viz.</HI> That none may be excommunicated for &s;infull deeds, though never &s;o hainous and notorious, if he renounce not Chri&s;t in words, and profe&s;&s;e verbally his earne&s;t de&s;ire to communicate.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 2.</HEAD>
<P>But becau&s;e M. <HI>W.</HI> bids me &s;hew a Rea&s;on (if I can) for the contrary. I mu&s;t prove that the Sun &s;hines at noone day. And, 1. If this his a&s;&s;ertion be true, then not profe&s;&s;ing earne&s;t de|&s;ire to communicate, in the only crime &s;ufficient to cau&s;e ex|communication. But a man may be excommunicated for other wickedne&s;s, without re&s;pect to this, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5.11. A whore mon|ger,
<PB N="169" REF="105">or drunkard, &amp;c. notoriou&s;ly &s;uch, may profe&s;s his earne&s;t de&s;ire to receive, and yet that makes him not, no whoremonger, and no drunkard. 2. Then al&s;o, the Church may look for no further &s;atisfaction in order to re&s;toring of an excommunicate, then his verbal profe&s;&s;ion of earne&s;t de&s;ire to receive the Sa|crament. For that which &s;hould prevent their excommunica|ting of him, mu&s;t be avaylable to re&s;tore him. But the Church in many ages hath required particular confe&s;&s;ion of notorious &s;ins, and expre&s;&s;e profe&s;&s;ion of repentance for them, (and not only profe&s;&s;ion of earne&s;t de&s;ire to receive) as antecedently nece&s;&s;ary to the ab&s;olution of an excommunicate, in analogy to that, <HI>Levit.</HI> 5.4, 5, 6. where he who was to bring his tre&s;|pa&s;s offering for a fal&s;e oath (though through ignorance) was to <HI>confe&s;&s;e that he had &s;inned in that thing,</HI> and then he is allow|ed to <HI>b<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">ing his tre&s;pa&s;s-offering to the Lord, and the Prie&s;t &s;hall make an attonement for him, concerning his &s;in.</HI> So more gene|rally, <HI>Numb.</HI> 5.7. on which &s;aith <HI>Ain&s;worth</HI> out of <HI>Maimoni|des;</HI> <Q><HI>The Hebrewes &s;et down this duty thus &mdash; This con|fe&s;&s;ion is with words: and its commanded to be done. How do they confe&s;&s;e? He &s;aith, Oh God! for I have &s;inned, I have done perver&s;ly, I have tre&s;pa&s;&s;ed before thee, and have done thus and thus; and loe, I repent, and am a&s;hamed of my doings, and I will never do this thing againe. And this is the founda|tion of confe&s;&s;ion. And who &s;o maketh a large confe&s;sion, and is long in the thing, he is to be commended. And &s;o the owners of &s;in-and tre&s;pa&s;s-offerings, when they bring their oblations for their ignorant or pre&s;umptuous &s;ins; attonement is not made for them by their oblation, untill they have made Repentance and confe&s;sion, by word of mouth. Likewi&s;e all condemned to death by the Magi&s;trates, or condemned to &s;tripes, no attonement is made for them by their death, or by their &s;tripes, until they have epented and confe&s;&s;ed. And, &s;o, he that hurteth his neighbour, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> doth him damage, though he pay him what&s;oever he owe him, illonement is not made for him, til he confe&s;s and turn away from doing &s;o againe for ever.</HI></Q></P>
<P>Now it may be M^r. <HI>W.</HI> could have taught them a more ex|peite and ea&s;ie way of &s;atiffactory confe&s;&s;ion, <HI>viz.</HI> if the offen|deiprofe&s;s verbally, his earne&s;t de&s;ire to partake of the Pa&s;&s;e|ove, that &s;hall quit all &s;cores.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 3.</HEAD>
<P>() Mr. <HI>W.</HI> further addes; <HI>As for your [fully and not fully] excommunicate] wee look not on them as con&s;iderable in this pre|&s;ent
<PB N="170" REF="106">controver&s;ie, they are your own mi&s;erable &s;hifts,</HI> &amp;c. Whats the conclu&s;ion? <HI>Ergo,</HI> my fore mentioned Rea&s;on is not &s;ound? Wonderfull hap he hath, if he can draw this inference from &s;uch premi&s;es. This di&s;tinction of excommunication hath been proved before, (at <HI>Chap.</HI> 3.) and I wonder not if he would &s;o faine &s;hift it out of his way if he could, it &s;o fully enervates the Rea&s;ons of his Champion Mr. <HI>Tim&s;on,</HI> and &s;hewes his mi&s;car|riage in the very &s;tating of the Que&s;tion. If that third <HI>Chap.</HI> afore&s;aid &s;tand good, particularly the &s;ixth &sect;, that excommu|nicates are Church-members, and are not by excommunicati|on cut off from all ordinances, (although accidentally that may &s;ometime <HI>coincidere,</HI> and often did fall in, in the primitive times.) The title of his booke is bla&s;ted, which over each leafe is this, <HI>to receive the Lords Supper is the actual right of all Church members;</HI> but in the fir&s;t page, is thus; <HI>To receive the Lords Supper the actual Right and duty of all Church members of yeares not excommunicate.</HI> Which is &s;orrily propounded. For 1. here and in his book he confounds <HI>Right</HI> and <HI>duty,</HI> as if the&s;e were of the &s;ame latitude; as if becau&s;e its an heathens duty to be baptized, or a Chri&s;tians duty when drunk on the Lords day, to &s;anctifie the Sabbath in publique Ordinances, yea or an Excommunicats duty to receive, (all which are manife&s;tly their duty, which they are obliged to) that therefore it were the heathens right to be baptized, without any more adoe, or the drunken Chri&s;tians to be admitted into the A&s;&s;embly while drunke, or the excommunicate had actual right to the Lord Supper, while excommunicate. 2. And that all excommun|cation turnes our of Church-member&s;hip Mr. <HI>Humphreys</HI> hol|eth, <HI>Rejoynd. p.</HI> 155. where he &s;aith, <HI>Su&s;pen&s;ion is null withot di&s;member&s;hip.</HI> To what purpo&s;e then &s;hould Mr. <HI>Tim&s;on</HI> hae added [not excommunicate] but to in&s;truct us in this le&s;&s;o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">; <HI>That to receive the Lords Supper is the actuall right and duty of all Church members</HI> (at yeares) <HI>who are not no Church member.</HI> This is the Warriour who&s;e <HI>Herald</HI> Mr. <HI>W.</HI> is plea&s;ed to m<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="2 letters">e him&s;elfe; and he once and againe provokes me to graple with him. But if I have made good this one argument again&s;t Mr. <HI>W.</HI> theres none (I thinke) can rea&s;onably thinke, theres any need of an&s;wering Mr. <HI>Tim&s;on</HI> in print. Mr. <HI>W.</HI> hath much of his &s;en&s;e and language too, where he could bring it in. But his di&s;tinction of <HI>fully and not fully excommunicate,</HI> I &s;u&s;pect the more angers him, becau&s;e it makes the weapons of his <HI>ious</HI> brave <HI>man,</HI> un&s;erviceable in this conte&s;t with me in this: gu|ment.</P>
<PB N="171" REF="106">
<P>But I have &s;hewed, there is an excommunication by the Of|ficers of the Church, or Mini&s;ter alone, &amp; by the people alone, though the Officers refu&s;e to joyne: and there is an excommu|nication wherein the Officers and people of the Congregation (and neighbourhood too perhaps though thats not e&s;&s;ential) do concurre, which is a fuller excommunication then either of the former.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 4.</HEAD>
<P N="5">5. In the 5^t^h place Mr. <HI>W.</HI> an&s;wers and confutes (as he pretends) my Rea&s;on, by &s;aying; <HI>As for your Excommunica|tion you give us a very quaint account thereof,</HI> and in a taunt he &s;aith, <HI>Schollers may do well to furni&s;h their note bookes with it.</HI> And in &s;tead of better An&s;wers <HI>(furor arma mini&s;trat)</HI> he fits downe in the chaire of the &s;corners, and thus acts his part. <HI>It &s;hould &s;eeme</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>that your [full excommunication] is a very &s;hrewd thing, when you can be at lei&s;ure to meet in a full Cla&s;&s;is, and &s;o have your &s;evere Rabbies of di&s;cipline &s;it in &s;tate, with the rest of your grave Benchers, then the ca&s;e of a poore &s;in|ner is put upon the debale, and after that your Elders have well &s;troaked their beards, and nodded in their votes, the decree is that the &s;inner arraigned is to be excommunicated fully, and that with full excommunication compleatly. The &s;umme whereof is, that &s;uch a man found and judged guilty of &s;uch mi&s;demeanours, is de|clared to be as an heathen Infidel, and do &s;uch an one to be lookt upon, and dealt with by all our Church members,</HI> i. e. <HI>to he coun|ted as an enemie, and not to be admoni&s;hed as a brother.</HI></P>
<P>Here are learned arguments, apodictical demon&s;trations, but be like all in <HI>Bocardo.</HI> Here are <HI>formulae oratoriae</HI> for the cupping crew, who may probably applaud the Author, and quaffe his health round for them. I'le confe&s;&s;e they are not to be an&s;wered by me. <HI>Ego poenitere tanti non emam,</HI> (as <HI>Demo&s;t|henes</HI> &s;aid to the Corinthian <HI>Lais</HI>) I dare not an&s;wer accor|ding to this folly. No wonder if he crow over me, as <HI>wanting &s;tomack,</HI> and not being &s;tomackfull enough (<HI>p.</HI> 108, 118.) for &s;uch doughty di&s;putings. He makes it appeare (though unmannerly) what a <HI>full &s;tomack</HI> he hath, by his continuall cructations of &s;uch putrid and adu&s;t choler. For after all this, he is rifting again in this very place, and afterward, as &s;owrely as if he had had no vent before, and at la&s;t (<HI>p.</HI> 114.) brings up that crude calumny (which he for the once belcheth forth) to be&s;mear me with it, <HI>viz. the denying the Pope to be Antichri&s;t..</HI> I &s;ee its parlous to be neer a man in his ca&s;ting
<PB N="172" REF="107">fits, or that owing one a &s;pite, hath the trick of the <HI>new organon &s;alutis,</HI> and can with his <HI>provang</HI> unload his &s;to|mack at his plea&s;ure. And this he u&s;hers in with a <HI>parturiunt montes,</HI> and &s;aith, <HI>you know my meaning.</HI> I know indeed what followes, and thence conclude, M. <HI>W.</HI> is content to be a <HI>Mou&s;e|trap,</HI> that my paper may &s;eeme <HI>ridiculous.</HI> But if he remember the &s;tory Sir <HI>Walter Rawleigh</HI> hath out of <HI>Herodotus,</HI> it may le&s;&s;en his confidence of vanqui&s;hing the Mou&s;e he laughs at. <Q>The &s;tory is thus in Hi&s;tory of the world, <HI>p.</HI> 612. <HI>Herodotus</HI> &s;aith, <HI>Senacheribs</HI> great hoa&s;t which he had when he threa|ned <HI>Hezekia</HI> by <HI>Rab&s;heca,</HI> was intended again&s;t <HI>Aegypt;</HI> But a great multitude of feild mice entring the Camp of <HI>Se|nacherib</HI> by night, did &s;o gnaw the bowes, quivers, &s;trings and &s;traps of his mens armour, that they were faine the next day to fly away in all ha&s;t, finding them&s;elves di&s;armed. In memory whereof (&s;aith <HI>Herodotus</HI>) the &s;tatue of this King is &s;et up in the Temple of <HI>Vulcan,</HI> holding a mou&s;e in his hand, with this In&s;cription, <HI>Let him who beholds mee &s;erve God.</HI></Q> I'le not apply the particulars, but only thus; <HI>The mou&s;e Mr.</HI> W. <HI>de&s;pi&s;eth, if it may have faire play (I doubt not) will di&s;arme this warriour, and cut in &s;under the nerves of his arguments.</HI> But the <HI>[parturiunt montes]</HI> I thinke may be more fitly applyed to his <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="3 letters">ving</HI> and <HI>groaning</HI> to be delivered of that <HI>flatulent fal&s;hood,</HI> that <HI>Mola,</HI> or mon&s;trous birth of the Antichri&s;tian lye, which at la&s;t he brings forth, and expo&s;eth to the view of the world. And let the world (at his own in|&s;tance and de&s;ire) behold how he travaileth with iniquity, hath conceived mi&s;chiefe, and brought forth fal&s;hood. But this filth I &s;hall wipe off beneath. For I am afraid of di&s;plea&s;ing the Reader, by having too much of the&s;e per&s;onal fooleries toge|ther. I &s;hall therefore leave them, and &s;peak only to the thing remaining, which Mr. <HI>W.</HI> hath here touched upon, namely, concerning the <HI>de&s;cription of Excommunication</HI> (which he pre|tends to gather out of &s;ome expre&s;&s;ions of mine) <HI>to be a decla|ring of a per&s;on to be as an heathen, and &s;o to be dealt with.</HI></P>
<P>If he had peru&s;ed <HI>Math.</HI> 18.17. <HI>Let him be to thee as an hea|then and publican,</HI> &s;ure he dur&s;t not have &s;coft at that. He that is to be to us an heathen, is to be judged as an heathen, and &s;o to be dealt with, that is, in &s;ome re&s;pects; <HI>viz.</HI> in tho&s;e wherein he is to be to us as an heathen. Neither the Scripture, nor my paper here &s;aid <HI>he was to be judged</HI> an <HI>heathen</HI> &s;imply. But it &s;aith, let him be <HI>to thee as an heathen:</HI> with which man|ner
<PB N="173" REF="107">of expre&s;&s;ion my <HI>&s;criblings</HI> (as Mr. <HI>W.</HI> fitly calls them) did wholly comply. And what now hath our learned Gentleman to oppo&s;e hereunto? that you may &s;eeke for &s;ome where el&s;e; unle&s;&s;e this may be allowed the place and honour of an obje|ction in &s;tead of a better, which skulkes in an implicit Ambu&s;|cado, namely, the interpretation he puts on my expre&s;&s;ions a|fore&s;aid; <HI>that is</HI> (&s;aith our learned Expo&s;itor) <HI>to be counted as an enemy, and not to be admoni&s;hed as a brother.</HI> But if <HI>Paul</HI> be not again&s;t his Ma&s;ter, this will do us no hurt. Even an hea|then, (any neighbour as &s;uch) is to be admoni&s;hed as a Bro|ther, in &s;ome &s;en&s;e, and not counted an enemy &s;imply. (<HI>Eph.</HI> 5.11. <HI>Levit.</HI> 19.17. <HI>&amp;</HI> 10.36. <HI>Mark</HI> 12.33.) And a Chri&s;tian excommunicate ought to be admoni&s;hed, though in &s;ome re|&s;pects he is to be to us as an Heathen. The reconciliation is ea&s;ie. Take it in the learned <HI>Zanchius</HI> his words on 2 <HI>The&s;&s;.</HI> 3. <Q><HI>Obj. Videtur &s;ibi contrarius Apo&s;tolus; praecipit, ne commercium habeatis cum eo (excommunicato) &amp; tamen habete eum pro fratre. Re&s;p. Prohibet familiaritatem non nece&s;&s;ariam pericu|lo&s;am, noxiam, qu&acirc; indulgeamus eorum vitijs, aut &s;altem conni|veamus, non edentes ullam &s;ignificationem odij &amp; improbationis peccatorum, qu&acirc; deni&abque; in &s;imilia peccata induci &amp; ip&s;orum &s;ca|biae inquinari po&s;&s;imus:</HI></Q> or as <HI>Zepperus</HI> thus; <HI>Although no one ought to joyne him&s;elfe in &s;tricter familiarity and private offices to the excommunicate; yet charity &s;hall be exerci&s;ed towards him, in publique and private prayers to God, and frequent admonitions.</HI> (<HI>de polit. eccle&s;i&acirc;.</HI> p. 164, 165.) <HI>But the excommunicate are not to be driven away from the publique A&s;&s;emblyes of the Church, to heare Gods word, lea&s;t they &s;hould grow hopele&s;&s;e, and the doores of repentance be &s;hut to them.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 5.</HEAD>
<P N="6">6. The Re&s;t Mr. <HI>W.</HI> hath (be&s;ides per&s;onal vagaries) is the old bu&s;ine&s;s of <HI>Examination,</HI> p. 113, 114. and his <HI>Question</HI> what difference we make betwixt &s;u&s;pen&s;ion and full excom|munication, hath been an&s;wer'd before. And now let the Reader u&s;e his own eyes and judgement, whether any or all the&s;e &s;ix an&s;wers do in the lea&s;t infringe my argument he pre|tends to evervate hereby. Which was this, If deed rejecting of Chri&s;t may not be a cau&s;e of Excommunication, where theres a de&s;ire &s;ignified to receive the Sacrament; then none who de|&s;ire to receive may be excommunicated. The latter is fal&s;e, therefore &s;o is the former. Fit now his an&s;wers to this mark; and then determine of them as Rea&s;on directs. I mu&s;t crave
<PB N="174" REF="108">thy excu&s;e for holding thee &s;o long in the examination of Mr. <HI>W.</HI> preten&s;ions on this point. Wee will now the more greedily and eagerly drinke of tho&s;e cordial waters of the Sanctuary.</P>
<EPIGRAPH>
<Q><BIBL>PSALM 119. Part 20. <HI>V. &V;.</HI></BIBL>
<L N="153">153 <HI>View thou my &s;traites, &s;ave me! thy Lawes</HI></L>
<L><HI>I forget not O Lord.</HI></L>
<L N="154">154 <HI>Unloo&s;e my bonds! plead thou my cau&s;e!</HI></L>
<L><HI>Quicken mee by thy Word!</HI></L>
<L N="155">155 <HI>Vile men are from &s;alvation farre;</HI></L>
<L><HI>Who &s;eek not thy command.</HI></L>
<L N="156">156 <HI>Very great, Lord, thy mercies are:</HI></L>
<L><HI>Life by thy Judgements &s;end.</HI></L>
<L N="157">157 <HI>Various foes &s;trive mee to oppre&s;&s;e.</HI></L>
<L><HI>Thine he&s;ts I'le not for&s;ake.</HI></L>
<L N="158">158 <HI>Viewing Tran&s;gre&s;&s;ours greiv'd I was,</HI></L>
<L><HI>When they thy &s;tatutes brake.</HI></L>
<L N="159">159 <HI>Vouch&s;afe to &s;ee, thy Law I love,</HI></L>
<L><HI>Lord, kindly quicken mee!</HI></L>
<L N="160">160 <HI>Very true I thy Word long prove.</HI></L>
<L><HI>Thy Judgements la&s;ting bee.</HI></L></Q>
</EPIGRAPH>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="21" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXI.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 1.</HEAD>
<P>BE of good cheer (my Reader) Mr. <HI>W:</HI> now &s;aith, <HI>I pray let us come to an end.</HI> I hope he is &s;omewhat neer (for this time) an end of his revilings, and impertinencies. How-ever having, tyred thy patience &s;ufficiently whiles I have in&s;i&s;ted too long on his extravagancies in the la&s;t chapter, I'le promi&s;e thee to touch them more lightly here.</P>
<P>That which remains for M^r <HI>W.</HI> to an&s;wer to, is onely a re|collection of the argumentative procedure before had and ma|naged in my paper, which was thus, (as may be &s;een at numb. 49. If it be granted that one, though formerly baptized, and yet not fully excommunicated, yet now being an openly by word profe&s;&s;ed Infidel, may be &s;u&s;pended in any ca&s;e, where there is a bar again&s;t his then full excommunication, then, at lea&s;t in the like ca&s;e &s;ome &s;candalous livers in the Church
<PB N="175" REF="108">may be &s;u&s;pended; and then I concluded with &s;ome pa&s;&s;ages of <HI>Salvian</HI> and <HI>Tertullian</HI> thus: I remember I have read &s;omwhere in <HI>Salvian, qui Christiani nominis opus non agit, Chri|&s;tianus non e&s;&s;e videatur.</HI> And <HI>Infidelis &s;it nece&s;&s;e e&s;t qui fidei commi&s;&s;a non &s;ervat.</HI> Agreeable whereunto is what I find quo|ted from <HI>Tertullian Apol. cap.</HI> 44. &s;peaking of the Heathens pri&s;ons he &s;aith, <HI>Nemo illic Chri&s;tianus ni&s;i plan&egrave; tantum Chri|&s;tianus, aut &s;i &amp; aliud jam non Chri&s;tianus.</HI></P>
<P>To this &s;hort repetition of mine argument, Mr <HI>W.</HI> &s;trenu|ou&s;ly rambles one continued long chide in nine pages (oh the Art of that man!) without bringing any thing new which hath a colour of rea&s;onable oppo&s;ition to it; or old which hath not been already an&s;wered by me. He talkes of <HI>Examination and my patcht piece,</HI> and braggs as for a wager, <HI>p.</HI> 118. in the&s;e words: <HI>You &s;hall uunder&s;tand how con&s;iderable I am, before you and I part, if you have any &s;tomack or courage in the pre&s;ent controver&s;ie.</HI> He tells us of his <HI>call to his place. p.</HI> 119. Of <HI>his &s;etting Dog</HI> once and again and again, <HI>p.</HI> 120.121. <HI>Of our</HI> (as he fal&s;ly pretends) <HI>rejecting the &s;u&s;pended from our Pastoral care.</HI> And mo&s;t audaciou&s;ly cracks out this notorious calumny, <HI>When they are &s;u&s;pended, you look after them no longer, unle&s;s it be for your Tythes and Church dues.</HI> And talks of Browni&s;me wildly, <HI>p.</HI> 122.123. acquaints us (as if he were a profe&s;&s;ed Quaker, or at lea&s;t as if he had never writ again&s;t the Anabapti&s;ts) that <HI>he lookes on no deductious from Scripture as obligatory, unle&s;s he have &s;ome clear revelations for &s;uch deductions.</HI>&mdash; And (which &s;ome of the Papi&s;ts, much more the Prote&s;tants wil &s;tick at) that <HI>for the &s;en&s;e of ob&s;cure places of Scripture, he prefers Catholick expo&s;itious before any mans private &s;en&s;e or interpretation. p.</HI> 124. he <HI>dreams</HI> about the <HI>fruitle&s;ne&s;s of &s;u&s;pen&s;ion. p.</HI> 125. And what not? Truly I do not &s;ee how he can be out of his way, who&s;e ordinary road is &s;ome digre&s;&s;ion or other. Some of the&s;e may perhaps be con&s;idered among the Digre&s;&s;ions beneath, at pre&s;ent we &s;hal not &s;tay on them; onely (me thinks) it is not hand&s;ome for him to quarrell with a patch, who &s;olemnly thus dates his Epi&s;tle to the Reader. <HI>Given at my poor hou&s;e at Leeke, July</HI> 25. And it is &s;omewhat &s;u&s;pitious he carries a <HI>Dogg &s;et in his bo&s;ome,</HI> who hath the <HI>&s;etting-dogg &s;o often in his mouth.</HI> I now wonder not he is &s;o ready in his <HI>facundia canina,</HI> his <HI>curri&s;h eloquence.</HI> If he have not <HI>bos in lingua,</HI> be &s;ure he hath <HI>canis in lingua,</HI> which may keep him from being mute, or
<PB N="176" REF="109">meal-mouthed, e&s;pecially while he &s;its under the <HI>influence</HI> of the <HI>Canicular</HI> and &s;narling <HI>con&s;tellation.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 2.</HEAD>
<P>But now at the middle of the 125 page he begins to di&s;|cour&s;e more &s;oberly, and &s;o holds on too for divers leaves to|gether. And in earne&s;t, I would not have him mi&s;&s;e the Rea|ders ju&s;t commendation for it. It is not &s;o ordinary (for ought I &s;ee) with him &s;o to do, as that it &s;hould not now be particu|larly ob&s;erved to his prai&s;e. And therefore though it looks nothing like a <HI>Refutation</HI> of the &s;um of the argument he &s;hould be dealing with, I &s;hall the more willingly touch (but briefly) the main contents thereof.</P>
<P N="1">1. He &s;hewes the excellency of the Lords Supper, as in other re&s;pects, &s;o for the <HI>ocular in&s;truction of the meanest, and as an effectual means to convince men, and take them off from gro&s;&s;e&s;t &s;ins,</HI> p. 125, 126.</P>
<P>I &s;uppo&s;e in this he aimes at that trite argument again&s;t &s;u&s;|pen&s;ion, that the <HI>Lords Supper is a converting Ordinance.</HI> And I grant it may be &s;o, and hath a probable aptitude as a means (taking the whole celebration together) to convert, even an heathen (or unbaptized Catechumen) who hath &s;ome know|ledge of Chri&s;tianity before, if he &s;hould (though &s;infully as all grant) be admitted thereunto. No one can &s;ay he &s;hall not be converted thereby. But what's that to the purpo&s;e? If Gods revealed in&s;titution de&s;ign it not to the notoriou&s;ly pro|phane, no more than to them, or &s;uch as are fully excom|municate? We mu&s;t not be wi&s;er than God, nor invent means of good to others unwarrantably, we may not do evill that the greate&s;t good may come thereby. Yet becau&s;e it mu&s;t be &s;up|po&s;ed, that there will be clo&s;e hypocrites in the Church, who yet have an improper collaterall right to the Sacrament, in that Mini&s;ters may rightfully mini&s;ter unto them (though they have no proper right directly to the Sacrament.) God in his infinite wi&s;dome and goodne&s;&s;e hath &s;o ordered it, that it may be hopefully u&s;efull for their conver&s;ion to &s;incerity, and therefore &s;o it may be de&s;igned by the mini&s;trator, upon that &s;uppo&s;ition afore&s;aid.</P>
<P N="2">2. Mr. <HI>W.</HI> &s;hewes (and rightly) how the Apo&s;tle, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10.14, 15, 16, 17, 21. to take off the Corinthians from Idolatry, alledgeth their u&s;e of the Lords Supper,&mdash; &s;ay|ing, ye cannot <HI>partake of the cup of the Lord, and the cup of Divels: he doth not herein, and for their evill di&s;charge them from
<PB N="177" REF="109">the Lords Supper, but convinceth their rea&s;on of the incon&s;i&s;tencie of &s;uch criminal liberty with the u&s;e of the Lords Supper.</HI> And here Mr. <HI>W.</HI> is plea&s;ed to honour the Apo&s;tle with his com|mending him for a <HI>Rational Churchman,</HI> p. 127.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 3.</HEAD>
<P N="3">3. And then he &s;hewes (and rightly too) that the Apo&s;tle his &s;peech, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11.28. commands all Church-members a|dult to receive. &mdash; And <HI>p.</HI> 128. an&s;wering the objection, that all cannot examine them&s;elves, &s;aith, <HI>That &s;uch per&s;ons are bound in con&s;cience, immediatly to labour for knowledge, and to break off their prophane cour&s;es, that they may be able to exa|mine them&s;elves, and to come to the Lords Table. But in the mean while their ignorance and prophane&s;&s;e takes not off the Di|vine obligation that lies on their con&s;ciences.</HI> And this he pro|fitably in&s;i&s;ts upon, <HI>p.</HI> 128, 129. But at the later end, as if he had wounded our cau&s;e to the quick (though alas! he ne|ver toucheth it) he adds, <HI>And thus you &s;ee what the convi|ction of the double obligation will work men unto, if pur&s;ued and followed rigorou&s;ly. A thing that lies on the Mini&s;ters of the Go&s;pel to do, and not to ca&s;t off the people by a childi&s;h or chur|li&s;h &s;u&s;pen&s;ion.</HI></P>
<P N="4">4. Then he &s;hews how <HI>by bapti&s;me Christians are under this double obligation to examine them&s;elves and to come to the Lords Table, deny it</HI> (&s;aith he with vehemency) <HI>who will, or can.</HI> When alas! I deny it not, nor doth the defence of my <HI>hypothe|&s;is</HI> require I &s;hould. There are &s;ome other pa&s;&s;ages of his mixt with the&s;e I have related, I cannot dige&s;t, which have been an&s;wered el&s;ewhere; and I am not willing to quarrell with them here, as long as the main of his di&s;cour&s;e hereon, &s;eems &s;uch as I do comply with. I will not compare with Mr. <HI>W.</HI> nor any other in rigorous pre&s;&s;ing of doctrines, this in &s;peciall for mens conviction and reformation. But I do en|deavour it according to my poor mea&s;ure; and I think here's nothing for &s;ub&s;tance of the&s;e things, which hath not been heard from me. But the knot lies not here, whether they are obliged <HI>both to labour</HI> for knowledge, and leave prophane&s;&s;e, &amp; <HI>&s;o to come?</HI> But in this, whether they may not be debarred the later, for their vi&s;ible want of the former? And he may be plea&s;ed to remember, that the <HI>Fallacia divi&s;ionis,</HI> is as ill <HI>Logick</HI> as the <HI>Fallacia compo&s;itionis,</HI> to argue <HI>&agrave; bene conjunct is ad mal&egrave; divi&s;a,</HI> is as con&s;equent, as <HI>&agrave; bene divi&s;is ad mal&egrave; con|juncta,</HI> which he minds us of, <HI>p.</HI> 128. and I have explained
<PB N="178" REF="110">my &s;elf on this point before, <HI>ch.</HI> 10. &sect;. 1, 2. and el&s;ewhere. I &s;hewed that obligation to duty doth not ever give or argue a right of admi&s;&s;ion to the performance thereof &s;imply, without any more a-doe. A drunken Chri&s;tian is not di&s;obliged from the publick &s;ervice of God while &s;uch, nor doth any excom|munication di&s;oblige from the Lords Supper; they both &s;in, in both not waiting on God in his ordinances, and hindring them&s;elves by their own default. That <HI>divers things debar from the performance of duties, which do not excu&s;e nor di&s;|oblige from them,</HI> is a truth &s;o plain, that he that runs may read it.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 4.</HEAD>
<P N="5">5. Mr. <HI>W. p.</HI> 131.132. an&s;wers the Query, how infants are not obliged to receive, 1. By <HI>Analogie to the Infants a|mong the Jewes in reference to the Pa&s;&s;cover.</HI> (but that point de&s;erves a more accurate con&s;ideration.) 2. By &s;hewing that his <HI>A&s;&s;ertion is con&s;ined to baptized per&s;ons adult, they are bound immediately to examine them&s;elves, and to come to the Lords Table; and they &s;in again&s;t knowledge and con&s;cience by negle|cting the&s;e duties being urged upon them, and made known to them: and they cannot be &s;o urged and made known to infants, by rea&s;on of their incapacity, &amp;c.</HI> But this la&s;t rea&s;on is not valid: For if their incapacity of knowing and having <HI>Bapti&s;me</HI> urged on them, hinders them not from being baptized, why &s;hall this alone hinder them from the Lords Supper? They may be brought to one as well as the other, when two or three years old, and therefore are no more incapable of the one than the other upon this account.</P>
<P N="6">6. Mr. <HI>W.</HI> &s;hewes the <HI>incongruity of denying children their board, and not bed;</HI> belike to teach us, that none in the Church &s;hould be denied the Sacrament. But that I have re|futed, <HI>ch.</HI> 3. at the later end of the &s;ixth Section.</P>
<P>The&s;e are the Returns he hath given for the confuting the &s;um of my fore&s;aid argument, which have as much influence into that de&s;ign, as <HI>Tenterton &s;teeple hath for the cau&s;ing of Goodwin &s;ands;</HI> according to the &s;tory I remember Father <HI>La|timer</HI> hath in one of his Sermons.</P>
<EPIGRAPH>
<Q><BIBL>PSALM 119. Part. 21. <HI>W.</HI></BIBL>
<L N="161">161 <HI>Without a cau&s;e Princes wrong'd me.</HI></L>
<L><HI>But thy word awes my mind.</HI></L>
<PB N="179" REF="110">
<L N="162">162 <HI>Words &s;acred joy my &s;oul, as he</HI></L>
<L><HI>joyes, who great &s;poyls doth find.</HI></L>
<L N="163">163 <HI>Wretched lies I abhor alwayes.</HI></L>
<L><HI>But love thy commandments.</HI></L>
<L N="164">164 <HI>Within th' day &s;ev'n times I thee prai&s;e</HI></L>
<L><HI>for all thy right Judgments.</HI></L>
<L N="165">165 <HI>Who love thy Law, great peace procure,</HI></L>
<L><HI>nothing &s;hall them offend.</HI></L>
<L N="166">166 <HI>Waiting I hop'd for thy Law &s;ure,</HI></L>
<L><HI>and did thy will attend.</HI></L>
<L N="167">167 <HI>With my &s;oul I have kept thy word,</HI></L>
<L><HI>and truly love it mo&s;t.</HI></L>
<L N="168">168 <HI>Well have I mark't thy precepts, Lord,</HI></L>
<L><HI>For all my wayes thou know'st.</HI></L></Q>
</EPIGRAPH>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="22" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXII.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 1.</HEAD>
<P>THere is nothing further to exerci&s;e thy patience (good Reader) but &s;ome de&s;cants on the pa&s;&s;ages I quoted from <HI>Salvian</HI> and <HI>Tertullian.</HI> And fir&s;t again&s;t tho&s;e of <HI>Salvian,</HI> Mr <HI>W.</HI> hath divers <HI>Exceptions,</HI> as 1, that I tell him not where in <HI>Salvian</HI> to find them. 2. That I quote a broken piece, con|cealing what follows, adding <HI>an &amp;c. as a veil under which to hide his &s;en&s;e.</HI> 3. That I quoting two pa&s;&s;ages in &s;everall books, put them together, which he &s;aith is not fair dealing, <HI>p.</HI> 134. 4. And la&s;tly, that the thing quoted is perverted to a &s;en&s;e not intended by the Author.&mdash;To the&s;e his Excep|tions I return, 1. to the fir&s;t. When I fini&s;hed that <HI>pri|vate</HI> paper he hath <HI>publickly</HI> a&s;&s;aulted, I had not my <HI>Salvian</HI> with me, el&s;e it had been ea&s;ie to have turned to the Book and page. Every private paper needs not the exactne&s;&s;e (in the&s;e things) of a publick plea. Doth Mr <HI>W.</HI> in every Sermon or Lecture, when he quotes any pa&s;&s;age from an Author, name the Chapter, Book and page? If he do, I think it is a needle&s;&s;e exactne&s;&s;e; when as any one who doubts of, or peru&s;eth the quotation, may ea&s;ily have recour&s;e to him, for the place where it is to be found.</P>
<P N="2">2. His &s;econd exception is frivolous, unle&s;s the words fol|lowing tho&s;e I quoted, did turn the &s;en&s;e of the former word:
<PB N="180" REF="111">to another intent than that was for which I quoted them; which they do not, but rather confirm it, as &s;hall be &s;hewed in an&s;wering his &s;ourth exception.</P>
<P N="3">3. The third exception is removed by what I have &s;aid to his fir&s;t, neither is <HI>Salvians</HI> &s;en&s;e at all injured; he &s;peakes to the &s;ame purpo&s;e in both places, as &s;hall appeare immediately. And I did not &s;ay they were joyned together in <HI>Salvian;</HI> but named them as two &s;everall pa&s;|&s;ages, not quoting the book wherein either of them was to be read.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 2.</HEAD>
<P N="4">4. To his 4^t^h Exception, (which is mo&s;t material, the re&s;t are toyes &s;utable for him that abounds in lei&s;ure for them) I an&s;wer. I quoted not <HI>Salvian</HI> (nor yet <HI>Tertullian</HI> neither) <HI>to prove &s;u&s;pen&s;ion</HI> immediatly, as Mr. <HI>W.</HI> pretends, <HI>p.</HI> 136. <HI>Your intent</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>in alledging his words is to ju&s;ti&s;ie your debarring men from the Lords Table.</HI> Mr. <HI>W.</HI> hath ill hap in tel|ling my intents, and yet he will not adone with it. <HI>But</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>whether</HI> Salvian <HI>intended any &s;uch thing, let the Reader judge. Reade him againe, he is</HI> Minimus patrum, <HI>and its no great labour to read him over.</HI> If <HI>Minimus patrum</HI> referre to the qua|lity of his writings, and that he is of lea&s;t account; how comes Mr. <HI>W.</HI> to be the Judge and Cen&s;or of the Fathers? If to the quantity, as the words following [its no great labour to reade him over] doe intimate, I pre&s;ume Mr. <HI>W.</HI> in that hath taken his aime ami&s;&s;e. There are other Fathers of who&s;e workes and writings extant, the quantity is le&s;&s;e then <HI>Salvians;</HI> as the <HI>Clement</HI> about the yeare 93. <HI>Polycarpus, Ignatius, Minutius Faelix,</HI> &amp;c. I know no &s;uch controver&s;ie mentioned in <HI>Salvian</HI> as that is we are now di&s;cu&s;&s;ing, to wit, about &s;u&s;pen&s;ion. What he intended or fore&s;aw the arguments and matter he treated upon might reach to, neither Mr. <HI>W.</HI> nor his reader can judge. But I quoted him, and the other, for illu&s;tration (rather then proo&s;e) of that which I before mo&s;t in&s;i&s;ted up|on, <HI>viz.</HI> That <HI>meas rejecting of Chri&s;t in notorious deeds of wick|edne&s;s, was a more credible Te&s;timony and manifestation, that they are not really beleevers or Chri&s;tians, then their bearing and owning the name of &s;uch, is that they are.</HI> And hence I inferred, that &s;uch are not to have the Sacrament admini&s;tred to them, which is properly the portion only of reall beleevers and Chri|&s;tians. And now let the Reader judge (at mine as well as Mr. <HI>W.</HI> his in&s;tance and de&s;ire) whether my quotations were per|tinent or no.</P>
<PB N="181" REF="111">
<P>The fir&s;t pa&s;&s;age I quoted from <HI>Salvian</HI> was, <HI>that l.</HI> 4. <HI>de gu|bernatione Dei;</HI> where he &s;aith; <Q><HI>Since that as we have &s;aid, this is the faith of a Chri&s;tian, faithfully to keepe Chri&s;ts Com|mandments; It is without doubt, that he hath not faith, who is unfaithfull, nor doth he beleeve in Chri&s;t, who treads under foot Chri&s;ts Commandments, and the whole comes to this, that,</HI> qui Chri&s;tiani nominis opus non agit, Chri&s;tianus non e&s;&s;e videatur, nomen enim &s;ine actu at&abque; officio nihil e&s;t.</Q> The former clau&s;e (which I have Engli&s;hed he &s;peakes to al&s;o in his 3. booke, <HI>de gubernat. dei.</HI> (p. 67.) <Q><HI>Quid e&s;t igitur cre|dulitas, &s;eu fides! opinor fideliter hominem Chri&s;to credere, id e&s;t, fidelem deo e&s;&s;e, hoc est, fideliter Dei mandata &s;ervare.</HI></Q> The latter part of the quotation, containes the matter he much in&s;i&s;ts upon el&s;where, and aggravates it greatly, <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>de gub. dei.</HI> at the end. <Q><HI>Quo &s;it ut etiam nos qui nos Chri&s;tianos e&s;&s;e dicimus, perd<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">mus vim tanti nominis, vitio pravitatis. Omnin&ograve; enim nihil prodest nomen &s;anctum habere &s;ine moribus; quia vita a profe&s;&s;ione di&s;cordans, abrogat illu&s;tris tituli honc|rem, per indignorum actuum vilitatem.&mdash;Cum uti&abque; hec ip&s;o magis per nomen &s;acrati&s;&s;imum rei &s;imus, qui a &s;ancto ne|mine di&s;crepamus; nam &amp; ideo plus &s;ub religionis titulo De|um ludimus, quia po&s;iti in religione peccamus.</HI> &amp; lib. 4. (p. 127. edit. Oxon. 1633.) <HI>An meliores &s;umus barbaris? Jam vide|bimus; Cert&egrave; quod non est dubium, meliores e&s;&s;e debemus; ex hoc ip&s;o uti&abque; deteriores &s;umus, &s;i meliores non &s;umus, qui me|liores e&s;&s;e debemus.</HI> And after in the &s;ame booke. <HI>Quae cum ita &s;int, magna videlicet nobis praerogativa de nomine Chri&s;tia|nitatis blandiri po&s;&s;umus, qui ita agimus ac vivimus, ut hoc ip|&s;um, quod Chri&s;tianus populus e&s;&s;e dicimur, opprobrium Chri&s;ti e&s;&s;e videatur.</HI> And p. 145. <HI>Et ideo hoc ip&s;o Chri&s;tiani dete|riores &s;unt, qui meliores e&s;&s;e deberent; non enim probant quod fatcntur, &amp; impugnant profe&s;&s;ionem &s;uam moribus &s;uis; ma|gis enim damnabilis est malitia quam titulus bonitatis accu&s;at; &amp; reatus impij e&s;t pium nomen.</HI> And in his Epi&s;tle to <HI>Salo|nius</HI> before his, <HI>Epi&s;t. ad Cathol. Eccle&s;. Parum &s;unt rerum vocabula ip&s;as res non habentia, &amp; nihil virtutum verba &s;ine viribus.</HI></Q></P>
<P>I have mentioned the&s;e &s;ayings of his, not only for the ex|cellency of them, but that the Reader may &s;ee I catcht not at one pa&s;&s;age let fall from <HI>Salvian,</HI> concerning the meaning whereof there might be &s;ome doubt, but that it is agreeable to other places in this zealous Author; wherein he &s;hewes how
<PB N="182" REF="112">little account is to be made of mens names, and their words, when they are manife&s;tly contradicted by their notorious wic|kedne&s;&s;e. But I will waite on Mr. <HI>W.</HI> in his ob&s;ervation upon the pa&s;&s;ages of <HI>Salvian,</HI> quoted <HI>p.</HI> 135, 136, 137.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 3.</HEAD>
<P N="1">1. He &s;aith, and ob&s;erves; <HI>That the party he &s;peakes of was a Chri&s;tian, for he yeilds unto him,</HI> nomen Chri&s;tianum. 1. I grant he may be called a Chri&s;tian in regard of his po&s;itive engagement to Chri&s;tianity. But thats not the &s;en&s;e we have here to deale with. For &s;o is an excommunicate, yea the mo&s;t notorious Apo&s;tate to Turci&s;me or Judai&s;me, a Chri&s;tian &s;till. 2. But in <HI>Salvians</HI> &s;en&s;e (which is ours) Mr. <HI>W.</HI> cannot ga|ther, one is a Chri&s;tian, becau&s;e he is named a Chri&s;tian, as in part appeares from pa&s;&s;ages before mentioned out of <HI>Salvian, de guber. Dei. l.</HI> 4. <HI>p.</HI> 142. <HI>Intelligere ergo po&s;&s;umus aut quales e&s;&s;e pagani crediderint Chri&s;tianos, qui talibus &s;acrificijs Deum colerent, aut qualem &s;ollicitent Deum ip&s;um, qui haec &s;acra d<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">|cui&s;&s;et. Et hoc cur ita? Cur uti&abque; ni&s;i ob cos qui</HI> Chri&s;tiani e&s;&s;e dicuntur &amp; non &s;unt, <HI>qui per &s;lagitia at turpitudines &s;uas no|men religtonis infamant; qui ut &s;criptum e&s;t, ore fatentur &s;e no&s;&s;e Deum, factis autem negant.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. Mr. <HI>W.</HI> his &s;econd ob&s;ervation is; <HI>That there is</HI> opus no|minis Chri&s;tiani, quod e&s;t agendum. <HI>An employment pre&s;cribed and proper to men of that name and profe&s;&s;ion, by the exerci&s;e whereof, they &s;hould make it vi&s;ibly and really appeare, that they are men of that honourable profe&s;&s;ion.</HI>&mdash;As he in&s;tanceth in Divines, Phy&s;itians, and Lawyers, <HI>otherwi&s;e they give no vi&s;i|ble te&s;timony of their being of &s;uch profe&s;&s;ions.</HI>&mdash;</P>
<P>Reader, I pray thee, con&s;ider for whom this ob&s;ervation makes: wilt thou take him for a Phy&s;itian, and make u&s;e of him as &s;uch, who hath no skill in it, and practiceth no cures? The &s;ame may be &s;aid of the Lawyer without skill in Law, if that appeare to thee, &s;hall the one be thy Lawyer, or the other thy Phy&s;itian, becau&s;e they have gotten them gownes with great button'd &s;leeves, and one calls him&s;elfe and is called a Doctor in Phy&s;ick, and the other a Lawyer? Even <HI>&s;o</HI> (&s;aith Mr. <HI>W.</HI>) <HI>men of the Christian profe&s;&s;ion mu&s;t act accordingly;</HI> they mu&s;t and &s;hould, but what if they do not? mu&s;t not then the Chri&s;tian without exerci&s;ing Chri&s;tianity, be accounted as the Phy&s;itian not ver&s;ed in <HI>Phy&s;ick,</HI> or the Lawyer not imploy|ing him&s;elfe in the <HI>Law?</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. Mr. <HI>W.</HI> in the la&s;t place ob&s;erves; <HI>He doth &s;ay, that</HI> [Qui
<PB N="183" REF="112">Chri&s;tiani nominis opus non agit, Chri&s;tianus non e&s;&s;e videa|tur] <HI>and of this negative</HI> (which might have been (if Mr. <HI>W.</HI> had plea&s;ed) another ob&s;ervation like the former) <HI>he gives this convincing Rea&s;on; viz.</HI> [Nomen enim &s;ine actu at&abque; of|ficio &s;uo nihil e&s;t]. <HI>He doth not &s;ay, that &s;uch an one is no Christian; but he cannot</HI> be &s;eene of others to be a Chri&s;tian, <HI>nay, nor conclude unto him&s;elfe that he is a real Chri&s;tian, becau&s;e he rejects the Chri&s;tian employment, and doth not act as a man of that holy profe&s;&s;ion,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>Thus Mr. <HI>W.</HI> expounds <HI>Salvian;</HI> and truly as much for my advantage as I &s;hould have done my &s;elfe. I &s;hould have taken <HI>[Chri&s;tianus non e&s;&s;e videatur]</HI> to &s;ignifie he may &s;eeme to be a Chri&s;tian; that is, he is no Chri&s;tian: <HI>videtur</HI> being u&s;ual|ly an expletive word with <HI>Tully</HI> and other <HI>Latini&s;ts</HI> (according to the u&s;ual Hebrai&s;me u&s;ed in Scripture [to be called] is [to be] (<HI>I&s;a.</HI> 9.6. <HI>Luk.</HI> 1.32, 36. <HI>Math.</HI> 5.19. <HI>Mark.</HI> 11.17.); and <HI>Salvian</HI> him&s;elfe having &s;o expounded him&s;elfe in the point he &s;peakes to el&s;where, as we have &s;eene. <HI>[Christiani e&s;&s;e dicuntur, &amp; non &s;unt.]</HI> But as Mr. <HI>W.</HI> takes it, <HI>[he may not be &s;eene by others nor him&s;elfe to be a Chri&s;tian],</HI> it well fits our turne, and is according to what <HI>Salvian</HI> hath, <HI>ad eccl. cathol. l.</HI> 2. <Q><HI>Quis promi&s;&s;is caele&s;libus fidem commodat, &amp; non agit ut e&s;&s;e po&s;&s;it particeps promi&s;&s;ionum? &amp; ideo Cum videamus ho|mines haec non agere, cogimur non credentes pal&acirc;m &amp; evidenter agno&s;cere.</HI></Q> Doth not this reach to what I had &s;aid, <HI>viz.</HI> That a deed-Te&s;timony may prevaile above a word-Te&s;timony? and therefore if we may debarre him who in words rejects Chri&s;t, then al&s;o him who by &s;ome notorious deeds of wick|edne&s;&s;e, doth as manife&s;tly reject Chri&s;t. Yea doth not M. <HI>W.</HI> &s;ay the &s;ame here in effect? Mr. <HI>W.</HI> before affirmed that we mu&s;t certainly know tho&s;e are Chri&s;tians and beleevers whom we admini&s;ter to; and here he confe&s;&s;eth (in expounding <HI>Salvian</HI>) that a notorious &s;candalous profe&s;&s;or of Chri&s;tianity, who doth not the act and duty of a Chri&s;tian, <HI>cannot be &s;eene of others to be a Chri&s;tian;</HI> how then will he admini&s;ter to him? he will &s;ay, (as I gue&s;&s;e) 1. <HI>he &s;ees him to be a word-profe&s;&s;or of Chri&s;tianity;</HI> that is, he &s;ees him to lye, and for his lyes &s;ake notoriou&s;ly appearing to be &s;uch, he will admit him. Oh pro|digious termes of admi&s;&s;ion! or 2. <HI>that he is &s;ure he is baptized, and &s;o engaged to Christianity.</HI> But if that be &s;ufficient, no A|po&s;tate what&s;oever may be rejected; as hath been hinted be|fore. And yet the man among all the&s;e weakne&s;&s;es he mani|fe&s;ts,
<PB N="184" REF="113">is &s;trong in uncivil language, and cryes, <HI>Abu&s;e not Anti|quity to palliate your follies.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 4.</HEAD>
<P N="4">4. His 4^t^h ob&s;ervation is; <HI>That Salvian in another place and book</HI> &s;aith, <HI>Infidelis &s;it nece&s;&s;e e&s;t qui fidei commi&s;&s;a non &s;ervat.</HI> And here he goes to his Dictionary, to teach us that <HI>Infidelis</HI> is an Adjective, and then &s;aith; <HI>Salvian here takes not the word</HI> [Infidelis] <HI>in the rigid notion of an</HI> [Infidel] <HI>for a man with|out the Church, which directly denieth, and utterly rejecteth the principles of Chri&s;tianity, but for a man untru&s;ty within the Church; un&s;aithful to him who hath committed the things of Chri&s;tianity to his trust. And we &s;ay &s;o too.</HI> And I &s;ay &s;o too. <Q>Well met then &s;ometime. The place quoted is in <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>de guber. Dei. p.</HI> 68. <HI>Cum ergo i&s;ta &s;int omnia, per quae fides constat, videa|mus, quis tanta haec fidei &s;acramenta cu&s;todiat, ut fidelis e&s;&s;e videatur:</HI> (where <HI>videatur</HI> is only an <HI>expletive</HI> as I take it in the former quotation) <HI>quia Infidelis, ut diximus, &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="2 letters">, ne|ce&s;&s;e e&s;t, qui &s;idei commi&s;&s;a non &s;ervat.</HI></Q> And &s;o we are to ac|count of him, as to &s;ome re&s;pects; according to what this Au|thor &s;aith in the place before mentioned, <HI>Eccl. Cathol. l.</HI> 2. <Q><HI>Cum videamus homines haec non agere, cogimur</HI> Non Creden|tes <HI>paldm &amp; evidenter agno&s;cere:</HI> to which he addes; <HI>Non lice! ut cos nos Deo fidem putemus adhibere, cum illi &s;e rebus cla|ment negare.</HI></Q> Doth not this teach us, that he who &s;aith he beleeves, is not for his &s;aying &s;o, to be taken for a beleever, (or a beleeving per&s;on) when his deeds manife&s;t his unfaith|fulne&s;s? and then &s;ure its pertinent to my argument prece|ding. <HI>But</HI> (&s;aith Mr. <HI>W.</HI>) <HI>this proves not that our unfaithfull and earcle&s;s Brethren</HI> (as Pagan Infidels) <HI>are to be kept from the Lords Supper, becau&s;e of &s;ome unfaithfulne&s;&s;es and negligences, before legally convented and convicted.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. It proves this as much as, that they are to be debarred, for any wickedne&s;&s;e after legal convention and conviction. I beleeve <HI>Salvian</HI> had re&s;pect to neither. 2. What he meanes by [legal convention and conviction] I know not; but if he referre to what is done by, or before the civil Magi&s;trate, or by his po&s;itive directions; 1. there was no legal proceeding un|der heathen Magi&s;trates for &s;ome hundreds of yeates after Chri&s;ts a&s;cen&s;ion: and 2. he reacheth not us who have the directions of the Magi&s;trate in Church Cen&s;ures, particularly in this of &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, as hath been &s;hewed above. 3. It is not every un&s;aithfulne&s;s or negligence <HI>Salvian</HI> here makes the cha|racter
<PB N="185" REF="113">of his unbeleever; no more do we of &s;uch unbeleevers as ought to be debarred the Sacrament. This odious infinua|tion hath bin repelled more then once before. 4. The words of <HI>Salvian</HI> alledged, prove (or rather a&s;&s;ert, I brought them not as a proofe) that he appeares to be an unbeleever, who is no|toriou&s;ly unfaithfull to his bapti&s;mal engagements: and from that I had before inferred, that he is not to be admitted, whiles &s;uch, to the Lords Supper.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 5.</HEAD>
<P>As for the di&s;cour&s;e Mr. <HI>W.</HI> here falls into about the diffe|rence there is betwixt a pagan Infidel unbaptized, and a bap|tized unfaithful Chri&s;tian, <HI>p.</HI> 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144. It hath nothing in it which colourably makes a|gain&s;t us (&s;ave two pa&s;&s;ages) which hath not been an&s;wered before; The de&s;cription of excommunication he would gather from <HI>Tertullian,</HI> viz. <HI>That it is a bani&s;hment of a Delinquent from communication of prayer, A&s;&s;embly, and of all holy commu|nion with Christians,</HI> hath been particularly &s;poken to, <HI>Chap.</HI> 3. &sect;. 10. One of Mr. <HI>W.</HI> his pretentions which beares the &s;hew of an objection is this, (<HI>p.</HI> 141, 142. where he &s;aith,) <HI>In our Eccle&s;ia&s;tical di&s;cipline we proceed not again&s;t men, as no Christi|ans, as no beleevers, (therein you are mi&s;taken) For what have we to do to judge them that are without? We leave &s;uch to Gods own immediate &s;everity and di&s;po&s;al. In our di&s;cipline we proceed again&s;t men as Chri&s;tians, and as profe&s;&s;ed beleevers, as within, as of ours, and of us, which have tran&s;gre&s;&s;ed the law of faith, or violated the holy Rutes of Chri&s;tianity, and refu&s;e to &s;ubmit and make publique &s;atisfaction when legally convented and convicted. Now if you judge and take our men (when you juridically &s;u&s;|pend) to be no Chri&s;tians, no beleevers, not within, none of yours, nor of you, what talk you of either of &s;u&s;pending or excommunica|ting of them? of no Chri&s;tians and no beleevers, they mu&s;t be made Chri&s;tians and Beleevers by Bapti&s;me, not your examination and approbation of them.</HI></P>
<P>The ground of this his objection hath been removed in the place la&s;t referred unto; and in <HI>Chap.</HI> 5. &sect;. 6. (and <HI>Chap.</HI> 19. &sect;. 5, 6.) where hath been acknowledged by us, that not only flagitious baptized per&s;ons, but al&s;o excommunicates are Church-members, and therefore within, and &s;o are not to be rebaptized when re&s;tored. In this the Reader may &s;ee who&s;e way is more <HI>rigorous,</HI> Mr. <HI>Ws.</HI> or mine. His a&s;&s;ociates take ex|communicates for no Church-members, &s;o do not I; and yet
<PB N="186" REF="114">they re&s;tore them not by bapti&s;me, when they alledge again&s;t mee, that <HI>&s;uch as are not within, mu&s;t be taken in by Bapti&s;me,</HI> as we heard Mr. <HI>W.</HI> &s;peake. According therefore to what we have before delivered, we di&s;tingui&s;h with Mr. <HI>W.</HI> and &s;ay; 1. Some per&s;ons are, and are called Chri&s;tians, beleevers, &amp;c. only upon the account of their being po&s;itively and &s;olemnly engaged to Chri&s;tianity, and the Chri&s;tian faith. And 2. &s;ome are, and are called Chri&s;tians and beleevers, not only on the account of their being &s;o engaged as afore&s;aid, but of their vi&s;ible conformity to tho&s;e Chri&s;tian engagements. All who are Chri&s;tians in the former re&s;pect, are Church-members, (whiles alive) and <HI>[within]</HI> in the Apo&s;tles &s;en&s;e, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5.12. (that phra&s;e <HI>[of us]</HI> Mr. <HI>W.</HI> in&s;erts too, if it referre to, 1 <HI>John</HI> 2.19. is difficult to be under&s;tood, and its a great que&s;tion whether it be equipollent, to the [<HI>within,</HI> 1 Cor. 5.12.] &s;o I &s;hall omit it here). A di&s;ciple or &s;ervant is &s;ome|times denominated from his being entred into a School, having covenanted with his Ma&s;ter to &s;erve him, and therefore the&s;e are lyable to Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Cen&s;ures. And yet they may be no Chri&s;tians, nor beleevers vi&s;ibly, upon the account of the latter re&s;pect, and therefore cannot claime the priviledges belonging to di&s;ciples who learne, and &s;ervants who obey their Ma&s;ters, whiles they notoriou&s;ly refu&s;e to learne and obey Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>And this mindes me of the &s;econd thing Mr. <HI>W.</HI> hath in the fore-mentioned pages, which &s;eemes to need an an&s;wer here. Its page 139. where he &s;aith; <HI>A man undeniably without, and utterly uncapable of the Lords Supper, may have the Scripture characters of faith in your &s;en&s;e,</HI> i. e. <HI>he may be in&s;tructed in the Chri&s;tian faith, be able to give an account (yea a true account) of his faith, &s;ubmit unto your Church order of examination, and be of Chri&s;tian behaviour without exception in his private carri|age, and yet be &s;uch a vi&s;ible unbeleever (to us) as the Lord in his word would not have the Lords Supper administred unto.</HI>&mdash; viz. <HI>becau&s;e not baptized,</HI> &amp;c. yea <HI>though</HI> as he before &s;aid, <HI>he may be regenerated.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. Sometimes Mr. <HI>W.</HI> makes <HI>to be within,</HI> and to be <HI>a Chri&s;ti|an or beleever</HI> of equal latitude; as in his la&s;t exception, I have an&s;wered. Here he acknowledgeth one not <HI>within,</HI> to be a true and reall beleever; and therefore I &s;hould conclude a true Chri&s;tian, though not &s;o &s;olemnly. For I am of opinion none can expect to be &s;aved but true Chri&s;tians; and the&s;e Mr. <HI>W.</HI>
<PB N="187" REF="114">&s;aith, may be truly regenerate and goe to heaven. 2. But whereas he tells us this <HI>catechumen</HI> or <HI>heathen Pro&s;elyte</HI> may be, without exception, of Chri&s;tian behaviour, in his private car|riage, and yet not be capable of the Lords Supper. I utterly deny this. For if he were of Chri&s;tian behaviour, without ex|ception, he would &s;ubmit to Bapti&s;me (the contempt whereof all acknowledge to be a damning &s;in,) and then in the &s;ame day (and houre for ought I know) he might communicate. And if he have opportunity to de&s;ire the Communion, he hath opportunity to be baptized, and therefore cannot be excu&s;ed in the neglect of it, nor then be accounted in that neglect <HI>a beleever in re&s;pect of vi&s;ible complyance with and obedience to the Go&s;pel.</HI> Who only hath a vi&s;ible right to the Lords Supper. <HI>And now Sir</HI> (&s;aith Mr. <HI>W.</HI> p. 145.) <HI>to your Allegation out of Tertullian,</HI> viz. [<HI>Nemo illic Chri&s;tianus,</HI> &amp;c.].</P>
<P>This al&s;o was quoted by mee, for the &s;ame purpo&s;e as the pa&s;&s;ages of <HI>Salvian</HI> were, <HI>viz.</HI> that the name or word profe&s;&s;i|on of Chri&s;tianity is no argument nor te&s;timony he is a Chri|&s;tian, who&s;e deeds do notoriou&s;ly contradict the &s;ame. And my paper they expre&s;&s;ed it (at <HI>numb.</HI> 50.) [Agreeable whereun|to is what I finde quoted from <HI>Tertullian, Apolog. cap.</HI> 44. &s;peaking of the Heathens pri&s;ons; <HI>Nemo illic Chri&s;tianus ni&s;i plan&egrave; tantum Chri&s;tianus, aut &s;i &amp; aliud jam non Chri&s;tianus.</HI>] Now Mr. <HI>W.</HI> hath left out the word [pri&s;ons] in the copy he hath printed as mine, and when he hath &s;o done, takes paines from the context in <HI>Tertullian</HI> to informe mee, that the Father &s;peakes of the Chri&s;tians &s;ufferings <HI>in pri&s;ons;</HI> as if I had not under&s;tood it before. Is not this a brave confutation to be boa&s;ted of? He excu&s;eth his Tran&s;criber of my paper, <HI>p.</HI> 115. And whether he mu&s;t take this non-&s;en&s;e to him&s;elfe he hath printed as mine, or on whom el&s;e he will lay it, I know not; I li&s;t not to upbraid him with <HI>frauds, impo&s;ture,</HI> and <HI>cheating,</HI> &amp;c. which yet he u&s;ually puts on mee, &s;o wonderful civil and well manner'd is hee.</P>
<P N="2">2. Mr. <HI>W.</HI> addes; But why &s;hall I trouble you with the&s;e things, <HI>&s;eeing you are &s;o ingenuous as to acknowledge that you act herein but by vertue of another mans Quotation.</HI> He had before &s;aid to mee, <HI>p.</HI> 60. <HI>I finde no ingenuous dealing in all your pa|per.</HI> And here to do me a &s;pite he will <HI>contradict him&s;elfe,</HI> (like as el&s;where he complaines of the ob&s;curity of my paper, <HI>p.</HI> 80, 82, 88. <HI>as if he could not know what I would have;</HI> and yet begins his Po&s;t&s;cript with the&s;e words; <HI>Sir, after all this,
<PB N="188" REF="115">I returne you thankes for this plaine declaration of your minde in this peice of yours.</HI>) But (by <HI>his favour</HI>) he is too ha&s;ty in con|cluding I had not peru&s;ed <HI>Tertullian</HI> my &s;elfe (and the &s;ame may be &s;aid of his cen&s;uring my <HI>childi&s;hne&s;&s;e</HI> for referring to divers Authors as mentioned by <HI>Zepperus</HI>) becau&s;e I &s;aid <HI>[I finde Tertullian thus quoted]</HI> there being other cau&s;es of &s;uch references, <HI>viz.</HI> 1. When we have peru&s;ed Authors, not now with us, and &s;o the reference at &s;econd hand helps us only to the place where that is, which we would quote. And 2. When the reference to &s;uch later learned Writers who have quoted tho&s;e Authors for the &s;ame intents as we would make u&s;e of them, doth adde weight to the quotation, by affording a pro|bable proofe, that the pa&s;&s;ages quoted are rightly under&s;tood and interpreted to the true and genuine &s;en&s;e of the original Authors.</P>
<P N="3">3. After his telling us of <HI>his favour</HI> in mentioning another pa&s;&s;age of <HI>Tertullian</HI> for our advantage, (and his favours are not &s;o ordinary and common, that I &s;hould reject any of them, though it &s;hall appeare beneath, <HI>I act not by vertue of his quo|tation</HI>) He falls foul on <HI>Tertullian;</HI> and as &s;coldes when one in any thing di&s;plea&s;eth them, rake in all old fores, and rec|kon-up all the faults they can really, or upon uncharitable &s;u&s;|pition, charge him with: &s;o becau&s;e <HI>Tertullian</HI> hath the hard hap to cro&s;s Mr. <HI>W.</HI> as him&s;elfe conceives, and to favour mee, the world &s;hall now be told what failings he had (or he was thought by &s;ome to have had) other wayes: But what if there were &s;ome called <HI>Tertulliani&s;ts</HI> accounted <HI>heretiques</HI> (when yet the name <HI>heretique</HI> was very rife) <HI>who denied &s;econd marriages, and &s;aid that the &s;ouls of wicked men became Divels after their departure out of this life, and that the &s;oule is continued by going from one into another, as much as to &s;ay by carnal de&s;cent and &s;ucce&s;&s;ion,</HI> as Doctor <HI>Meredith Hanmer</HI> in his Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Chronographie, reckons up their tenents out of <HI>Augustine?</HI> What are any of the&s;e to the pre&s;ent controver&s;ie betwixt Mr. <HI>W.</HI> and mee? And what are <HI>Montanus,</HI> and his <HI>two</HI> [fal&s;e] <HI>Prophete&s;&s;es, Pri&s;cilla</HI> &amp; <HI>Maximilla,</HI> and their phanatique cour|&s;es, mentioned <HI>by Eu&s;ebius in his Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Hi&s;tory. l.</HI> 4. <HI>cap.</HI> 26. and <HI>lib.</HI> 5. <HI>cap.</HI> 3. <HI>&amp;</HI> 14. (What are the&s;e I &s;ay) to the point quoted from <HI>Tertullian?</HI> What if the advi&s;e given be commendable; &s;o to read <HI>Tertullian,</HI> as that <HI>bona ejus reci|pientes mala re&s;puamus,</HI> we take not in the bad with the good? May not the &s;ame coun&s;ell be given in reading others of the
<PB N="189" REF="115">Fathers al&s;o? But are they therefore not to be made u&s;e of in any thing? Is <HI>Cyprian</HI> of no u&s;e, becau&s;e he would have <HI>here|tiques</HI> rebaptized? nor tho&s;e of the Fathers, who held the Millenary opinion? nor <HI>Augu&s;tine,</HI> with many others, who held Infants &s;hould communicate? nor <HI>Origen,</HI> who had many errours? All my bu&s;ine&s;&s;e remaining here is to &s;hew that the pa&s;&s;ages quoted from <HI>Tertullian</HI> are not accounted erroneous; That they cannot be reduced to <HI>Montani&s;me,</HI> nor <HI>Tertullia|ni&s;me,</HI> I thinke is manife&s;t already, to which yet Mr. <HI>W.</HI> &s;hould &s;eeme to have re&s;pect in his mentioning them here, for the di&s;paragement of <HI>Tertullians</HI> authority. I pre&s;s not his au|thority further then the rea&s;on and weight of his words them|&s;elves afford us good credentials. But that in this quoted he &s;peaks truth, and is nothing to be blamed I &s;hall &s;hew; 1. from the <HI>Notes</HI> and <HI>Ca&s;tigations</HI> of that learned man <HI>Franci&s;cus Ju|nius</HI> on <HI>Tertullian:</HI> 2. From the con&s;ent of other Fathers with <HI>Tertullian. Junius</HI> in his <HI>Paraphra&s;e</HI> upon <HI>Tertullians fifty Apologeticks adver&s;us Gentes;</HI> on that pa&s;&s;age, <HI>Apol.</HI> 44. <Q><HI>Ait &s;i &amp; aliud jam non Chri&s;tiani,</HI> &s;aith; <HI>Nam &s;i quo praeterea eulogio in&s;ignirentur, ut furti &amp; homicidij, jam Chri&s;tiani non &s;unt, ne&abque; huju&s;modi homines in talem amplius &s;ectam recen|&s;entur.</HI></Q></P>
<P>So upon that in Apol. 46. <HI>Sed dicet aliquis, etiam de no&s;tris excedere quo&s;dam &agrave; regula di&s;ciplinae; de&s;inunt tum Chri&s;tiani haberi penes nos philo&s;ophi vero illi cum talibus factis in nomine &amp; honore &s;apientiae per&s;everant.</HI> Whereupon the fore&s;aid Paraphra&s;t &s;aith, that <HI>Tertullian</HI> an&s;wers that objection. But &s;ome of your Chri&s;tians do erre from their Rule, as well as &s;ome Philo&s;ophers. <HI>Verum hoc, inquit, e&s;t, &s;ed ratio diver&s;a &s;uccedit.</HI> He an&s;wers, this is true, but with much difference from wicked Philo&s;ophers. <HI>Philo&s;ophus enim licet aberravit, ejus nominis autoritatem non amittit.</HI> The Philo&s;opher tran&s;|gre&s;&s;ing, lo&s;eth not the authority of his name. <HI>Diogenes enim Zeno, &amp; Aristoteles inter Principes Philo&s;ophorum nihilo|minus habentur. Christianus ver&ocirc;, &s;imulac &agrave; di&s;ciplin&acirc; declinat, ex albo Christianorum eraditur, neque ullo modo eo dignatur no|mine aut cen&s;u.</HI> But the exorbitant Chri&s;tian is put out of the catalogue of Chri&s;tians, nor is he any way accounted wor|thy of that name or e&s;timation. The corrector of <HI>Tertullian</HI> we &s;ee corrects not the&s;e pa&s;&s;ages, but illu&s;trates them with his Co~|mentary upon them. Yet they need not be under&s;tood in the vigorous &s;en&s;e Mr. W. puts upon them, as if the&s;e exorbitant
<PB N="190" REF="116">or di&s;orderly Chri&s;tians &s;hould in no &s;en&s;e be Chri&s;tians, nor Church-members, nor as if they might not be re&s;tored to the honour and priviledge of orderly Chri&s;tians upon their repen|tance and reformation. But onely that they are not honoured and re&s;pected as Chri&s;tians whiles vitious, as <HI>Tertullian</HI> obje|cted to the Heathens, their Philo&s;ophers were as chief Philo|&s;ophers, notwith&s;tanding their vitiou&s;ne&s;s.</P>
<P N="2">2. And &s;uch like expre&s;&s;ions we find in others of the Fathers, which further demon&s;trates no &s;ingular errour of <HI>Tertullian</HI> is contained in the pa&s;&s;ages quoted.</P>
<P><HI>Ignatius Epi&s;t. ad Ephe&s;.</HI> (<HI>anno Chri&s;ti</HI> 100.) <Q><HI>Solent enim</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>nonnulli malo dolo nomen quidem Chri&s;ti circum|ferre, &s;ed patrant quaedam indigna Deo, quos oportet ut feras evitare. Sunt enim canes rahidi clam mordentes, quos vitare oportet, ut morbo difficulter curobili laborantes.</HI></Q> <HI>Justin. Martyr</HI> (A. C. 130.) <HI>pro Chri&s;tianis Defen&s;.</HI> 2. <HI>ad Antonium pium.</HI> (Johanne Lango interprete) a good way from the be|ginning, &s;aith, <Q><HI>At enim qui non ita vivere comperiuntur, &s;i|cut ille (Chri&s;tus) docuit,</HI> Certum id documentum e&s;t, non e&s;&s;e Chri&s;tianos, quamvis doctrinam Chri&s;ti lingu&acirc; profi|teantur. <HI>Non enim profitentes tantum, &s;ed operibus &s;imul profe&s;&s;ionem confirmantes &s;alvatos iri dicit. Sic enim dicit, Non qui&s;quis mihi dicet, Domine, Domine, introibit in regnum coelorum. &mdash; Caeterum eos qui</HI> minus con&s;entaneam preceptis ejus vitam agunt, Chri&s;tiani&abque; tantummodo dicun|tur, &agrave; vobis quoque puniri rogamus.</Q></P>
<P><HI>Origen comra Cel&s;um</HI> (A. C. 206.) <HI>lib.</HI> 4. a good way from the beginning, <HI>Sigi&s;mundo Geleno interprete</HI>) where he an&s;wers the reproaches the Jewes ca&s;t on the Chri&s;tians, calling them worms, &amp;c. he &s;aith, <Q><HI>Tacco reliqua hominum vitia, &agrave; quibus non facile reperias immunes, ne i&s;tos quidem qui ha|bentur pro philo&s;ophis: &s;unt enim multi adulterini philo&s;-ophi. Atque his obnoxii &s;unt homines profe&s;sione nec Judaei nee Chri&s;tiani. quae autem</HI> Non &s;unt inter Chri&s;tianos &s;i pro|pri&egrave; Chri&s;tianum accipias, &amp;c.</Q></P>
<P><HI>In Minutii Felicis Octau</HI> (A. C. 212.) <HI>po&s;t medium,</HI> there are found almo&s;t <HI>Tertullians</HI> very words. <Q><HI>Denique de nostro numero carcer exae&s;tuat: Christianus ibi nullus, ni&s;i aut reus &s;uae religionis aut profugus.</HI></Q></P>
<P><HI>Cyprian, de unitate Eccle&s;iae cathol.</HI> &s;peaking of a Schi&s;ma|tick, he &s;aith, <Q><HI>Sic &s;e Christianum e&s;&s;e profitetur, quomodo &amp; Chri&s;tum Diabolus &s;aepe mentitur ip&s;o Domino praemonente &amp;
<PB N="191" REF="116">dicente, Multi veniunt in nomine meo dicentes, Ego &s;um Chri|stus, &amp; multos fallent. Sient ille Chri&s;tus non e&s;t, quamvis fallat in nomine ip&s;ius, ita nec Chri&s;tianus videri pote&s;t, qui non permanet in Evangelii ejus &amp; fidei veritate</HI> &mdash; And after. <HI>Confe&s;&s;or est, &s;it humilis &amp; quietus, &s;it in actu &s;uo cum di&s;ciplina mode&s;tus, ut qui Chri&s;ti confe&s;&s;or dicitur, Chri&s;tum quem confitemur, imitemur.</HI></Q></P>
<P>Now Mr. <HI>W.</HI> may go on, and talk his plea&s;ure (to his ten|der con&s;ciences) of my <HI>abu&s;ing antiquity to palliate my own fol|lies, p.</HI> 137. and he may jumble heaven and earth together in rating <HI>Tertullian</HI> for Here&s;ie and Schi&s;me, and all upon his &s;aying but this in &s;en&s;e, <HI>That whereas heathen Philo&s;ophers were honoured though never &s;o vitious, Chri&s;tians lo&s;e the honour and e&s;teem worthy of the Chri&s;tian name, by their wicked|ne&s;s.</HI> And let him al&s;o make them believe (who will &s;ee with his eyes) that my quotations were not pertinent for the illu&s;trating of what I had before otherwi&s;e proved (though he in&s;inuates the&s;e were all my proofs: and in an exuberancie of wit, cryes, <HI>p.</HI> 252. <HI>Must humane testimonies be all your proofe at la&s;t? viz.</HI> That a bearing the name (&amp; by word profe&s;&s;ing of Chri&s;tianity, or faith is no credible te&s;timony that he is a true Chri&s;tian believer, who&s;e notorious wicked practi&s;es contradict his word-profe&s;&s;ion. And that the Lords Supper mu&s;t be ad|mini&s;tred to &s;uch <HI>as appear to be no reall Chri&s;tians,</HI> no <HI>true be|lievers.</HI> I will believe when he or any el&s;e can &s;hew me one Scripture-evidence for it.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>W.</HI> now di&s;mi&s;&s;eth me, <HI>p.</HI> 151 in his proper language, thus, <HI>Put up your bagpipes &amp; whistle at home.</HI> And let him cry aloud <HI>Montibus &amp; &s;ylvis</HI> that if there be any idle eccho there, he may procure from it an an&s;wer to &s;uch another book as his <HI>Su&s;pen&s;ion di&s;cu&s;&s;ed</HI> is. But by his leave I'le take <HI>Davids</HI> Harp, and on it thus conclude;</P>
<EPIGRAPH>
<Q><BIBL>PSALM. 119. Part 22. <HI>Y. Z.</HI></BIBL>
<L N="169">169 <HI>Yeild to my cry thy pre&s;ence neere,</HI></L>
<L><HI>From thy word light I crave.</HI></L>
<L N="170">170 <HI>Yeild to my &s;uit thy ready eare!</HI></L>
<L><HI>After thy word me &s;ave!</HI></L>
<L N="171">171 <HI>Yee lips of mine &s;hall prai&s;e the Lord,</HI></L>
<L><HI>who taught me his Truth &s;ure.</HI></L>
<PB N="192" REF="117">
<L N="172">172 <HI>Yea, my tongue &s;hall boa&s;t of thy word,</HI></L>
<L><HI>For thy Lawes are right pure.</HI></L>
<L N="173">173 <HI>Yoak't in thy Lawes I choo&s;e to be.</HI></L>
<L><HI>Let thine hand help afford!</HI></L>
<L N="174">174 <HI>Young fre&s;h delights thine Hests give me.</HI></L>
<L><HI>I long'd for thine aid, Lord.</HI></L>
<L N="175">175 <HI>Zealou&s;ly to prai&s;e thee I list,</HI></L>
<L><HI>whiles life lasts, ju&s;t help &s;end!</HI></L>
<L N="176">176 <HI>Zion path I, stray &s;heep, have mist;</HI></L>
<L><HI>Seek me! thy Lawes I'le tend.</HI></L></Q>
</EPIGRAPH>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="reply">
<PB N="193" REF="117">
<HEAD>A particular An&s;wer to twenty-two <HI>Digre&s;sive pa&s;&s;ages</HI> in M^r <HI>W^s</HI> Booke, entituled, <HI>Su&s;pen&s;ion Di&s;cu&s;&s;ed.</HI></HEAD>
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>(1)</HEAD>
<P>_IN his Epi&s;tle to the Reader he &s;aith (&s;peaking of us) <HI>Although &s;ome things of the ancient Fa|thers, they have &s;ometimes in their mouthes; yet they will allow the authority of the ancient Fa|thers, no further then will &s;erve their owne turnes,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>The like complaint the Papi&s;ts &s;illily make again&s;t the Pro|te&s;tants, &s;o <HI>Cani&s;ius</HI> barkes in the Preface of his <HI>Opus Catcchi|&s;ticum,</HI> again&s;t <HI>Luther, Calvin,</HI> and <HI>Melancthon.</HI> Is any one &s;o &s;tupid as to allow the authority of the Fathers in tho&s;e things he thinkes they erred? Mr. <HI>W.</HI> (as we have &s;eene above) honourably quotes <HI>Tertullian</HI> for him, <HI>p.</HI> 141. and lamentably falls out with him as a Ring-leader of Heretiques, <HI>p.</HI> 147, 148. and &s;aith, <HI>p.</HI> 149. <HI>We &s;hal honour Tertullian in yeilding to his A&s;|&s;ertions, wherein he is orthodoxall, but we &s;hal believe neither him nor you, wherein you are ami&s;&s;e.</HI> And doth not Mr. <HI>W.</HI> u&s;e his own judgement to di&s;cerne wherein he is <HI>orthodoxal,</HI> and where not; and &s;o reject his authority in the latter, as he owns it in the former? Was not this then an irrationall and &s;elfe-con|demning <HI>Exception?</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>(2)</HEAD>
<P>Your <HI>Pari&s;h Pope or his vestry Cardinals,</HI> cryes Mr. <HI>W p.</HI> 98.</P>
<P>The Pope is not formidable, but with his <HI>Bull.</HI> And here Mr. <HI>W.</HI> would &s;care us with his <HI>Bull</HI> again&s;t us. For <HI>[Pari&s;h Pope]</HI> is a flat contradiction, according to the &s;en&s;e wherein
<PB N="194" REF="118">[Pope] is now taken. But with &s;uch a <HI>Bull</HI> he &s;hall ride none but <HI>calves.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>(3)</HEAD>
<P><HI>Examination</HI> of per&s;ons in order to their admi&s;&s;ion to the Lords Supper, is a maine ground of Mr. <HI>W.</HI> his many com|plaints and invectives in his booke, <HI>p.</HI> 3, 4, 9. <HI>Though you</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>delude the Country with a loud cry, as if your quar|rell lay only again&s;t the ignorant and &s;candalous, yet your de&s;igne is to bring all men under your Examination, as divinely and &s;crip|turally nece&s;&s;ary unto acceptable celebration of the Lords Supper, let their parts be never &s;o eminent, and their lives never &s;o regu|lar.</HI> The &s;ame Coleworts are &s;erved in againe and againe, over and over, <HI>p.</HI> 21, 27, 28, 38, 54, 56, 60, 88, 95, 96, 113. <HI>This di&s;h coming in &s;o often</HI> (as the learned <HI>Cartwright</HI> on 1 <HI>John</HI> 4.3. &s;aid to the <HI>Rhemi&s;ts</HI> on a like occa&s;ion) <HI>argues either an hungry guest, or a needy Hoste.</HI></P>
<P>Concerning this (which is called) <HI>Examination,</HI> (that is, a taking cognizance of adult per&s;ons, their under&s;tanding own|ing and profe&s;&s;ion of the Chri&s;tian faith, which in infancy they were baptized into) in order to their admi&s;&s;ion to the Com|munion: I &s;hal deliver my apprehen&s;ions in the en&s;uing Con|&s;iderations.</P>
<P N="1">(1) I con&s;ider, that the Scripture mentions not any In|&s;tances of &s;uch who having been baptized infants, were after|wards when adult admitted to the Supper, as expre&s;sly di&s;tin|gui&s;hed from them who were baptized adult, or at yeares: nor doth it, in expre&s;&s;e Rules or patternes de&s;cribe how or in what manner, &s;uch baptized in infancy, were admitted, or are to be admitted to the Lords Supper.</P>
<P N="2">(2) Yet from what the Scripture informes us in, concern|ing the prerequi&s;its in the adult to Bapti&s;me, and the nature of the Lords Supper in it &s;elfe: Some Directions may be gathe|red concerning this matter; particularly, That there may be required from per&s;ons when they fir&s;t tender them&s;elves to re|ceive, that they make a &s;erious profe&s;&s;ion of their a&s;&s;ent and con&s;ent to the Chri&s;tian faith, they have been baptized into. (Whether this be by a continued &s;peech, or catechi&s;tically, is not at all &s;tood upon.)</P>
<P>For 1. There is the &s;ame Rea&s;on for requiring this here, as there is for (that which none deny) the requiring it from per&s;ons adult in order to their Bapti&s;me; although they be ne|ver &s;o learned and regular in their conver&s;ations before: As
<PB N="195" REF="118"><HI>Augu&s;tine, Ambro&s;e,</HI> and others have been; and &s;uch as Mr. <HI>W.</HI> acknowledgeth, (<HI>p.</HI> 139.) were in a &s;alvable condition) be|fore their bapti&s;me, and therefore did vi&s;ibly appeare &s;o to be. The vi&s;ible under&s;tanding owning of the Covenant, whereof the Sacraments are &s;eales, is as requi&s;ite in the fir&s;t admi&s;&s;ion of the former to the Lords Supper, as in the latter to Bapti&s;me; all things being equall on both parties, &s;ave only that one is baptized, not the other: but this alters not the thing in de|bate; becau&s;e his being baptized in infancy, is no te&s;timony of his per&s;onal or vi&s;ible owning the Covenant, which is required in the adult for the participating of the Lords Supper. 2. There is no Rule (I know of) to direct us at what yeares any one baptized in infancy, may be admitted to the Communion, but according to his &s;ooner or latter under&s;tanding profe&s;&s;ion of his bapti&s;mal engagements. Why may not a child of &s;ix or &s;e|ven yeares old be admitted (who may be taught to repeat a Catechi&s;me, and to &s;ay he de&s;ires to communicate) but be|cau&s;e he is not then judged in a capacity under&s;tandingly to con&s;ent to the Covenant termes? And how can another though of twenty yeares be judged under&s;tandingly to own the Cove|nant, who doth not &s;o profe&s;s the &s;ame before &s;ufficient wit|ne&s;&s;es? For <HI>de non existentibus &amp; non apparentibus idem est ju|dicium.</HI> Therefore this verbal profe&s;&s;ion may be required to be made by a per&s;on adult (baptized in infancy) in the pre|&s;ence of competent witne&s;&s;es, before he is admitted to the Lords Supper. 3. Mr. <HI>W.</HI> him&s;elfe tells us, <HI>p.</HI> 56. that <HI>know|ledge of [who are beleevers] and of [who are not beleevers] mu&s;t be the load&s;tar of our admini&s;tring or not administring the Lords Supper.</HI> And <HI>p.</HI> 59. he &s;aith, <HI>In our admini&s;tration of the Lords Supper to others, we are to be guided by the Scripture Cha|racters of a doctrinal faith. And of this we may have infallible certainty, when we know the parties are baptized, and heare them &s;ay the Creed, and testifie their belee&s;e of every Article therein con|tained. And hence we connclude infallibly, that they are</HI> (he &s;hould have &s;aid vi&s;ibly appeare to be) <HI>of a right faith, and doctrinally true beleevers.</HI> And againe, &s;aith he, <HI>p.</HI> 61. <HI>By our admini&s;tration to beleevers, is meant &s;uch beleevers, as we may have a certainty that they are beleevers.</HI> Now if we mu&s;t know them to be beleevers by hearing them &s;ay the Creed, and te|&s;tifying their beleefe of every Article therein, before we can have a certainty they are beleevers capable of admi&s;&s;ion to the Supper; then they mu&s;t give an under&s;tanding (vi&s;ible) ac|count
<PB N="196" REF="119">of their faith, in order to their admi&s;&s;ion. Their having been baptized in infancy is no demon&s;tration (and le&s;s then demon&s;tration will not &s;erve for the infallible certainty Mr. <HI>W.</HI> requires) of their per&s;onall doctrinal faith: this doctrinal faith they cannot be expected to have without in&s;truction preceding: and the meanes of in&s;truction afforded to them, is no proof of their proficiency; therefore according to Mr. <HI>W.</HI> his own con|ce&s;&s;ions, they mu&s;t give an account of their proficiency under the meanes of in&s;truction they have had, for the attaining this indi&s;pen&s;ably nece&s;&s;ary doctrinal faith, (which we mu&s;t, &s;aith he, have an infallible certainty of) before we admini&s;ter unto them.</P>
<P N="4">4. The &s;ame Rea&s;on which will ju&s;tifie the requiring a Pa|rents renewing his profe&s;&s;ion of faith, and renouncing what is contrary thereunto, when he pre&s;ents his childe to bapti&s;me, will as effectually prove, that he &s;hould per&s;onally profe&s;&s;e the faith, before he was admitted to the Lords Supper. And there|fore whereas an ancient Divine in this Country (as I am in|formed) at the celebration of a Bapti&s;me, having asked the Parent the u&s;uall Que&s;tions, then offered to his Brethren, <HI>Why that parent might not be admitted to the Lords Supper, without any further Examination before Mini&s;ter or Elder&s;hip, &s;ince he had now made an open profe&s;&s;ion of his faith at the bapti&s;me of his child?</HI> It may be an&s;wered. 1. That if he plea&s;e to give a rea|&s;on to warrant his demanding that profe&s;&s;ion from the Pa|rent, before the infant &s;hould be baptized; the &s;ame will &s;hew what he de&s;ired. (He may try at his lea&s;ure to give a Rea&s;on for the one, which will not as effectually reach the other). 2. Yea much more &s;trong will it be in the latter than former ca&s;e; In his <HI>datum</HI> than <HI>quae&s;itum;</HI> &s;uppo&s;ing the parent had been (upon a per&s;onall owning the Covenant engagements) admitted before that time to the Lords Supper. 3. I &s;hould readily grant if this parent have not (or not upon a per&s;onal confe&s;&s;ion of the faith) been admitted to the Lords Supper be|fore, that this profe&s;&s;ion he was occa&s;ioned to make at the bap|ti&s;me of his infant, may &s;o far as it goes, &s;erve without renew|ing of it, at his admi&s;&s;ion to the Lords Supper. But then it &s;hould be con&s;idered, whether the an&s;wering in that forme, <HI>I beleeve, I renounce, for &s;ake,</HI> &amp;c. may be rea&s;onably judged an under&s;tanding owning of the Covenant, where it appeares not (by previous conference with him, or a pre&s;ent more full ex|plication of him&s;elfe, or &s;ome other probable way) that he
<PB N="197" REF="119">doth under&s;tand what he an&s;wers unto. 4. La&s;tly, I an&s;wer, That the parent who is to be admitted to the Lords Supper, ought not only under&s;tandingly to own the Covenant and bapti&s;me as one &s;eale thereof (which he makes profe&s;&s;ion of at the bapti&s;me of his infant) but al&s;o particularly the ordi|nance of the Lords Supper, the &s;ignification of the &s;acramental elements and actions therein, and the end of celebrating the &s;ame, that he may be in a vi&s;ible capacity of di&s;cerning the Lords body; And therefore there is manife&s;t rea&s;on why he &s;hould make a further profe&s;&s;ion (&s;uppo&s;ing he hath not done it before) for his own admi&s;&s;ion to the Communion, then was required from him at the admi&s;&s;ion of his Infant to bapti&s;me. And &s;o much in an&s;wer to this propo&s;all of the Mini&s;ter afore|&s;aid, of which I de&s;ire his candid acceptance. Some other pa&s;|&s;ages mentioned by him at the &s;ame time I neglect, as &s;avour|ing of calumny and pa&s;&s;ion. The tide may turne, and the <HI>brooke</HI> therewith; I grudge him not the liberty of <HI>Retract on;</HI> but then it were &s;eemly to be without <HI>detraction</HI> from others who &s;till own the opinion he was lately mo&s;t zealous for. I now proceed.</P>
<P N="3">(3) It makes no alteration as to the matter in hand, whe|ther this under&s;tanding profe&s;&s;ion of the faith, be immediately before a per&s;ons fir&s;t admi&s;&s;ion to the Sacrament, or a longer time before, &s;o that the thing be done. And therefore where <HI>Confirmation</HI> was in u&s;e, and &s;eriou&s;ly managed, that might &s;erve this purpo&s;e &s;ufficiently; according to the direction of the Common prayer book, before recited, <HI>Ch:</HI> 4. &sect;. 3.</P>
<P N="4">(4) If per&s;ons have been unduely admitted to the Lords Supper, without making this under&s;tanding profe&s;&s;ion of the Chri&s;tian faith before; that excu&s;eth them not from being now called to make it, in order to their pre&s;ent admi&s;&s;ion: this will &s;tand good, till it can be evinced that a neglect excu&s;eth from duty; that that mu&s;t never be done which hath been &s;infully left undone, and that becau&s;e of that irregular omi&s;&s;ion; al|though as fit an opportunity is againe afforded for the doing of it, as that was which formerly was not taken hold of (as it &s;hould have been) for the &s;ame. And indeed, (as the <HI>Pro|vincial Synod of London</HI> in their <HI>Vindication</HI> hath ob&s;erved) The great Odium ca&s;t upon the Presbyterial way, is occa&s;io|ned by the &s;hameful neglect formerly, of the Rules then ap|pointed for Examination of all, before they &s;hould have been admitted to the Lords Table: And now the Reformation en|deavoured
<PB N="198" REF="120">in this thing, is not &s;o much for the amending the Rule which before was pre&s;cribed, as in calling people up to a &s;tricter ob&s;ervation of the &s;ame Rule for matter and &s;ub|&s;tance.</P>
<P N="5">(5) It hath bin already &s;hewed, that the <HI>Presbyterian Govern|ment</HI> (which is that confirmed by the <HI>Parliament</HI> after advice had with the <HI>A&s;&s;embly of Divines,</HI> not what &s;ome Presbyteri|ans may hold) doth not require all per&s;ons now &s;hould be a|gaine examined, who have formerly upon the due profe&s;&s;ion of their faith, been admitted to the Sacrament; But it forbid|ding the ignorant to be admitted, only inferres, that &s;uch as hitherto have not under&s;tandingly owned the Covenant of grace, &s;hould now be called to do it, if they would partake of the Sacrament. And therefore where any have formerly per|formed that in &s;ub&s;tance which is now required from them who are to be fir&s;t admitted to the Supper, and can make it ap|pear, there is no nece&s;&s;ity according to Presbyterian principles, for their rene wall of it, as to their pre&s;ent communicating.</P>
<P N="6">(6) This profe&s;&s;ion mu&s;t be made before &s;ufficient and comperent witne&s;&s;es (el&s;e it cannot be a &s;atisfactory profe&s;&s;i|on); But who tho&s;e mu&s;t be, is a con&s;ideration of another na|ture. For this may vary according to the different circum&s;tances of per&s;ons, times, and places, (and the judgement of the Church thereupon, or of tho&s;e who are mo&s;t eminently concerned in the management of &s;uch things pertaining to the prudential order thereof) &s;o that the end be attained for the good of the per&s;ons admitted, and the &s;atisfaction and edification of the Church. I am informed, by a Manu&s;cript Copy I have of the <HI>Re&s;olves of a Provincial Synod held at Pre&s;ton in Lanca&s;hire, Novemb.</HI> 14. 1648. that the &s;aid <HI>Synod</HI> among other things <HI>re&s;olved</HI> in their &s;ixt particular. <Q>That there is not only one way pre&s;cribed or warranted by the word of god, for the Elder&s;hips &s;atisfying them&s;elves of the &s;ufficiency in point of knowledge of per&s;ons that are members of their Congrega|tions re&s;pectively, that they may be admitted to the Lords Supper. 7. That it is not lawfull for the Elder&s;hips to tye them&s;elves to one way as afore&s;aid, (&s;uppo&s;e it be exami|nation before them) when that one attaines not the end, and another may probably doe it.</Q> So they. In the bu&s;ine&s;&s;e of Marriage its nece&s;&s;ary the con&s;ent of the parties &s;hould be expre&s;&s;ed before competent witne&s;&s;es; but the Chri&s;tian Magi|&s;trate may determine who &s;hall be competent witne&s;&s;es; whe|ther
<PB N="199" REF="120"><HI>a Ju&s;tice of peace,</HI> or a Mini&s;ter &s;hall be pre&s;ent to take and record the &s;ignification of their con&s;ent. Yet no &s;ober man cryes out, <HI>Why are un&s;criptural conditions put upon per&s;ons to be marryed?</HI> The like may be &s;aid concerning the pre&s;ent point. Yet in this ca&s;e (methinkes) that &s;hould &s;way mo&s;t for our direction herein at pre&s;ent, which is commended to us by both Hou&s;es of Parliament (after their removal of the Common prayer book) with the advice of the Reverend A&s;&s;embly. <HI>Form of Church Government to be u&s;ed in the Church of England and Ireland;</HI> (of <HI>Aug.</HI> 29. 1648.) <HI>p.</HI> 30. But if people in &s;ome Congregations will not be gotten to comply with that direction in the letter of it; I know not, but there may be &s;ome variati|on without offence, as the Mini&s;ter or Elder&s;hips of particular Churches (with advice of their Cla&s;&s;is if extant) may judge expedient for the &s;atisfaction and edification of the Church. See M^r <HI>Blake, Covenant &s;ealed.</HI> Ch. 7. &sect;. 14. <HI>p.</HI> 230, 231, 232, 233. and &sect;. 16, <HI>p.</HI> 272, 273. I am afraid I have been too long on this <HI>Digre&s;&s;ion.</HI> The urgency, and mi&s;repre&s;entations of the thing here handled mu&s;t be my excu&s;e. I humbly &s;ubmit it to the judicious peaceable Reader, who will con&s;ider how to &s;hew a cleerer way, before he cen&s;ure this. And I &s;hall ea&s;ily neglect di&s;contented, furious, uncivil Wranglers, who&s;e bu&s;ine&s;&s;e is to carp at others, but build nothing con&s;i&s;tently of their own in this matter.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>(4)</HEAD>
<P><HI>Your pretended Church order</HI> (&s;aith Mr. <HI>W.</HI> p. 4.) <HI>requires an account of mens &s;aith auricularly.</HI> And <HI>p.</HI> 28. <HI>You deny the Lords Supper to &s;uch as will not give an auricular account to you, or your Elders,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P><HI>Auricular confe&s;&s;ion</HI> is a phra&s;e u&s;ed to denote, that which is required among the Papi&s;ts, 1 <HI>viz.</HI> that every one do confe&s;&s;e all his &s;ins (though private) to the Prie&s;t alone, whi&s;pering the &s;ame into his eare. Now what a &s;hameful &s;lander is that Mr. <HI>W.</HI> puts on us, in the application hereof to the profe&s;&s;ion of faith required among us, cannot but be manife&s;t to every ob|&s;erver. 1. We require no confe&s;&s;ion of private &s;ins, but abhorre it unfeinedly. 2. Who knows not, the great quarrel many have again&s;t the Presbyterial Government, is becau&s;e it al|lowes not the Mini&s;ter alone of his own head to &s;eclude the o|ther Officers cho&s;en by the people, from joyning with him in receiving this confe&s;&s;ion of faith required? But let the Reader here &s;ee what cau&s;e he hath on this occa&s;ion to accompany me
<PB N="200" REF="121">in a &s;erious lamentation, that envious animo&s;ities &s;hould &s;o farre prevaile upon any, as to hurry them on to &s;uch calumnies, as malice it &s;elfe could not devi&s;e more impudent.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>(5)</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>W.</HI> addes, <HI>p.</HI> 4. <HI>Which very</HI> (auricular) <HI>account is the ba&s;is of your new model, or pretended Church con&s;titution.</HI> And <HI>p.</HI> 9. <HI>Tho&s;e you refu&s;e to canonize by your ghostly approbation, though baptized, them you look upon as the world,</HI> &amp;c. The like he hath over and over, <HI>p.</HI> 11, 21, 22. <HI>Such are no Church-members with you.</HI> p. 60, 61, 88, 113, &amp;c.</P>
<P>To name the&s;e things is to confute them; I have &s;poken of their untruth in the Treati&s;e, <HI>Ch.</HI> 8. &sect;. 4. &amp; <HI>Ch.</HI> 21. &sect;. 1. and need to adde no more in &s;o palpable a fal&s;hood.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="6" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>(6)</HEAD>
<P>But he addes to this &s;ad heap of fal&s;hoods, when he &s;aith, <HI>p.</HI> 124. <HI>Let men be &s;u&s;pended by you, do what they will after|wards; let them be Atheists or of what &s;ect they will afterwards, you regard not.</HI> The like he hath, <HI>p.</HI> 122. And woe be to us if this be truly charged on us; But I defye him and the Accu&s;er of the Brethren to boot, to prove the charge.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="7" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>(7)</HEAD>
<P>And the language of envy powres out it &s;elfe further, <HI>p.</HI> 123. <HI>When they are &s;u&s;pended you look after them no longer, unle&s;s it be for your Tithes and Church dues.</HI> It may be the man who af|fected to date his Epi&s;tle from his poor hou&s;e at <HI>Leek,</HI> grudg|eth others their Tithes. His neighbours may do well to con&s;i|der his complaint. But a man &s;hould carry him&s;elfe hone&s;tly, though in a poor hou&s;e, and then he would forbeare the&s;e cri|minations, which our cour&s;e of per&s;onal in&s;truction may mani|fe&s;t to be fal&s;e, even to a proverb.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="8" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>(8)</HEAD>
<P>He tells me, <HI>p.</HI> 124. <HI>Debarring from the Lords Supper with you is the comprehen&s;ive of all Di&s;cipline; and that power to de|bar being granted you are content.</HI> And who told Mr. <HI>W.</HI> this tale? perhaps he is not &s;o ill provided as to be de&s;titute of &s;ome body or other to father it upon; no more then he was for that &s;tory he tells the world in his <HI>Apology,</HI> about his Antagoni&s;ts de&s;igne to ob&s;truct the impre&s;&s;ion of his book (which I could never learne any thing of to this day). But we are for admonition before &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, and for a further excommunication (or withdrawing Communion) after &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, as opportunity may be offered, and the ca&s;e require (&s;ee <HI>Form of Church Go|vernment,</HI>
<PB N="201" REF="121">p. 18, 39, 40.) Let Mr. <HI>W.</HI> tell what figments he plea&s;e to the contrary. Certainly he is no child, but he doth what children doe, when he is &s;o bu&s;ie in rai&s;ing bubbles made of his own froth, and then &s;houting aloud, to&s;&s;eth them about with that breath which fir&s;t rai&s;ed them.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="9" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>(9)</HEAD>
<P>In the &s;ame page la&s;t mentioned, he further gives his word again&s;t us; <HI>You</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>make your Brethren your &s;laves.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="10" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>(10)</HEAD>
<P><HI>And by your uncontroulable power of &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, you a&s;&s;ume to your &s;elves more authority over the people, then ever did the mo&s;t domineering Prelate among us, in making poor people &s;land to your courte&s;ie for the Lords Supper.</HI></P>
<P>To both the&s;e joyntly I an&s;wer. 1. How is that <HI>an uncon|troulable power</HI> (to make our <HI>Brethren &s;laves</HI> with) or <HI>at our courte&s;ie;</HI> (1) which is limited by the Ordinance of Parlia|ment, &s;o that we may not adde of our own heads to the enu|meration of the meritorious cau&s;es of &s;u&s;pen&s;ion? <HI>Form of Church Government,</HI> p. 30, 31, 34, 35. &amp;c. And (2) when any may appeale from a Congregational Elder&s;hip to high|er Judicatories, in ca&s;e of wrong done them, according to the con&s;titution of the Presbyterian Government? <HI>Form of Church Government,</HI> p. 15.</P>
<P N="2">2. How do we <HI>a&s;&s;ume that to our &s;elves,</HI> which by the &s;aid <HI>Form of Church Government</HI> we are required to doe? (not to mention here what hath been di&s;cu&s;&s;ed before, concerning the Mini&s;ters duty in point of con&s;cience.)</P>
<P N="3">3. How do we take more authority to our &s;elves <HI>then the Pre|lates did?</HI> Not to rake into other old &s;ores, that which the Prelates did in &s;u&s;pending all who would not kneel at the Com|munion, and requiring Mini&s;ters &s;hould not deliver it to them (as hath been recited in the Treati&s;e above. <HI>Ch.</HI> 4. &sect;. 4.) doth cleerely manife&s;t the fal&s;ene&s;s of this, which Mr. <HI>W.</HI> (or rather his pa&s;&s;ion, I hope its not him&s;elfe) would affix on us.</P>
<P N="4">4. But yet more, his di&s;temper &s;wells above ordinary bounds, when he flatly determines our u&s;urping power of &s;u&s;pen&s;ion to be &s;uch, as that we a&s;&s;ume more power to our &s;elves over the people, <HI>then the</HI> (1) <HI>most domineering Prelate</HI> (2) <HI>ever did, among us.</HI> Belike Bi&s;hop <HI>Bonner</HI> him&s;elfe not excepted. Il'e &s;ay nothing here in our own Apology, but rather for Mr. <HI>W.</HI> who more needs it, I con&s;ider, That as of fal&s;e Dials, that's be&s;t which is mo&s;t fal&s;e, becau&s;e it will deceive fewe&s;t: &s;o it was a
<PB N="202" REF="122">favour to us that Mr. <HI>W.</HI> when he would traduce us, hath done it &s;o palpably and gro&s;sly.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="11" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>(11)</HEAD>
<P>He is pur&s;uing the de&s;igne of his book, <HI>viz.</HI> again&s;t us, when he &s;aith, <HI>p.</HI> 91. The <HI>&s;candal</HI> of &s;uch as depart from us, <HI>ca&s;ting &s;uch an odium upon the publique Mini&s;ters and proper meanes of grace, de&s;erves the &s;everity of Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Di&s;cipline more by farre, then the private mi&s;carriages of our men, (in publique unitie with us in matters of Religion) po&s;&s;ibly can: and yet you let the&s;e alone. And here the Chri&s;tian Magi&s;trates meere tolerati|on, re&s;traines your con&s;ciences,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>W.</HI> here &s;eemes to in&s;inuate that the Magi&s;trate doth &s;o tolerate the&s;e enemies of the meanes of grace, as that Eccle&s;ia|&s;ticall Cen&s;ures might not be inflicted on them, without of|fending him. Whereas The toleration of &s;ome &s;uppo&s;ed to be erroneous, yea &s;chi&s;matical and heretical, is in reference to the forbearance of laying corporal or pur&s;e-penalties on them for the &s;ame; not laying re&s;traint on the Churches in exerci&s;ing of &s;piritual Cen&s;ures. And if Mr. <HI>W.</HI> be &s;o bold as to &s;lander the State thus openly, Its the le&s;s to be wondred at, that again&s;t our profe&s;&s;ed judgements &amp; pre&s;ent practice, he tells the world, that we let the&s;e exorbitant per&s;ons (being our Church mem|bers) alone; that is, that we dare not cen&s;ure them Eccle&s;ia|&s;tically as opportunity is afforded unto us. Mr. <HI>W.</HI> is &s;o much at lea&s;ure as to tell me, <HI>p.</HI> 151. <HI>About</HI> 19 <HI>times you have ala|rum'd us with the bagpipes of your [fully] and [full].</HI> I might count his Untruths here (I will not &s;ay <HI>Full lyes</HI> to an&s;wer my <HI>fullies</HI>) But I have &s;omewhat el&s;e to doe.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="12" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>(12)</HEAD>
<P>But he hath another confutation of our &s;u&s;pen&s;ion (like the re&s;t) <HI>p.</HI> 114. in the&s;e words: <HI>You are a man mightily cry'd up, and wonderfully admired by &s;ome; and one (a prime friend of yours) in my hearing &s;pake of you by way of admiration, &s;aying [O that man!]. And that for which he &s;o de&s;ervedly extoll'd you was the great good &s;ervice, you did for the honour and credit of the Popes holines, acquitting him from a gro&s;&s;e a&s;per&s;ion ca&s;t upon his holine&s;s by &s;ome Protestant Divines, charging him to be Antichri&s;t. Now you by your skil and authority di&s;charged his holine&s;s by open Proclamation or preaching from the crime obje|cted; And whether for the like good &s;ervices, others (your Ad|mirers) cry you up, time will manifest: But me thinkes, in this piece of yours I can finde little that &s;avours of Divinity, or of any other good &s;cience.</HI></P>
<PB N="203" REF="122">
<P>I &s;hall not &s;tand expo&s;tulating about the publication of this he pretends to have heard, (For I grudge every word I &s;hall write for my vindication herein, and indeed was apt to have contemned it in &s;ilence, if &s;ome others had not urged mee to take notice of it publiquely). But I flatly deny the words he chargeth on me, and any other equivalent thereunto. The Ser|mon from which this reproach hath (as I under&s;tand) taken its pretence, was preached on 1 <HI>John</HI> 2.18. which text was not of my own choo&s;ing, but fell to my lot in the exerci&s;e wee have in the&s;e parts, which handleth that whole Epi&s;tle in or|der. 1. I have the witne&s;&s;e of my own con&s;cience that I never harboured that opinion which is here put on me. 2. I have the te&s;timony of a godly Divine (Mr. <HI>Thomas Edge</HI>) to whom I communicated the notes of that Sermon before I preached it, that I de&s;igned to profe&s;s again&s;t it: the which he hath gi|ven me under his hand. 3. I have my notes yet to &s;hew, which al&s;o I brought to our Cla&s;&s;is, that they might &s;ee, how therein I affirmed that it was my opinion, the Pope (with his party) are the great Antichri&s;t of the latter times. 4. There were &s;ix or &s;even Mini&s;ters my Auditors, &s;undry of whom wrote my Sermon, who all would unanimou&s;ly te&s;tifie (if I de&s;ired it) again&s;t what Mr. <HI>W.</HI> taxeth me with. Three of them, <HI>viz.</HI> Mr. <HI>Newcome,</HI> Mr. <HI>Martindale,</HI> and Mr. <HI>Edge</HI> did long agoe &s;end me in their Te&s;timonies in this matter: but they are too large to be here in&s;erted fully; and &s;ome pa&s;&s;ages therein may not wel become mine own pen to tran&s;cribe and publi&s;h. Yet &s;ome one of them I &s;hall here recite; becau&s;e Calumniators mouthes are not ea&s;ily &s;topped.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>Martindale</HI> his Te&s;timony runs in the&s;e words.</P>
<P><Q>Having lately read in the 14 page of a little book called <HI>Su&s;pen&s;ion di&s;cu&s;&s;ed,</HI> an invective pa&s;&s;age again&s;t my deare Brother Mr. <HI>Samuel Langley,</HI> Authour of the <HI>Manu&s;ript</HI> pre|tended to be an&s;wered in the &s;aid booke, charging him to have acquitted the Pope by open Proclamation or preaching from the crime of Antichri&s;tiani&s;me objected again&s;t him by &s;ome Prote&s;tant Divines; I account my &s;elfe a debtor both to the truth, and al&s;o to the good name of&mdash;a Mini&s;ter of Je&s;us Chri&s;t, to give this true and impartial te&s;ti|mony of him, <HI>viz.</HI> That upon the 8^t^h day of <HI>May</HI> la&s;t, I heard an elaborate Sermon, preached by the Gentleman accu&s;ed, upon 1 <HI>John</HI> 2.18. (which is in all probability the very Sermon that the Accu&s;er aimes at), wherein he was &s;o
<PB N="204" REF="123">farre from denying the <HI>Pope to be Antichri&s;t,</HI> that he profe&s;|&s;edly a&s;&s;erted that the <HI>Pope</HI> (called el&s;where in Scripture the <HI>man of &s;in</HI>) is, and may properly be called <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>the Antichrist, great Antichri&s;t of the&s;e latter dayes.</HI> And that <HI>John</HI> in u&s;ing the terme <HI>Antichri&s;t</HI> may probably allude to &s;uch a thing. Though he mode&s;tly propo&s;ed his judgement (with &s;ubmi&s;sion) that the&s;e words [Antichri&s;t] and [Anti|chri&s;ts] in the Epi&s;tles of <HI>John,</HI> did mo&s;t properly, and in their primary and immediate &s;ignification, refer to the fal&s;e teachers of tho&s;e dayes. Adding al&s;o his grounds, and divers Cautions, to have prevented mi&s;under&s;tanding and mi&s;re|pre&s;entations, if it would have been. What I have here &s;aid I am ready as occa&s;ion &s;hall be given (by oath if lawfully required) to own and ju&s;tifie: which if I &s;hould refu&s;e, not only my con&s;cience, but al&s;o my hand hereunto &s;ub&s;cribed, would beare witne&s;s again&s;t me.</Q></P>
<P><HI>Roth&s;terne,</HI> Janu: 27. 1656. <HI>Ad: Martindale.</HI></P>
<P>Mr <HI>Newcome</HI> and Mr <HI>Edge</HI> &s;everally te&s;tifie the &s;ame in &s;ub|&s;tance, and &s;peak of &s;ome particulars more largely, out of their written Notes they took of my Sermon, I &s;hall onely add one pa&s;&s;age from Mr. <HI>Newcome,</HI> becau&s;e it is thought Mr. <HI>W.</HI> would father his Story on him, Speaking of me, he &s;aith, &mdash; <Q>&mdash;He did over and over a&s;&s;ert, that the <HI>Pope</HI> was the <HI>Man of Sin,</HI> the <HI>Whore of Babylon,</HI> and properly &s;o called the <HI>An|tichri&s;t</HI> of the later times, both as <HI>Antichri&s;t</HI> &s;ignifies <HI>Vica|rius Dei,</HI> and <HI>one oppo&s;ite to Chri&s;t:</HI> And that the Apo&s;tle might refer and allude to this <HI>Antichri&s;t of the later times,</HI> in what he di&s;cour&s;es of the <HI>Antichri&s;t</HI> in that place <HI>of tho&s;e times.</HI> This was the &s;ub&s;tance of what was delivered. If therefore Mr. <HI>W.</HI> referres to any di&s;cour&s;e of mine, as the ground of this reproach that he ca&s;ts upon Mr. <HI>Langley,</HI> I do hereby witne&s;s the <HI>contrary to</HI> what he &s;ayes of him in this thing: which if he had not meant to abu&s;e him&s;elf, he might further have enquired into, and have under&s;tood be|fore he had &s;o far engaged in &s;uch a gro&s;&s;e untruth.</Q></P>
<P><HI>Henry Newcome.</HI></P>
<P>In &s;hort, my judgement was and is this: He was primarily and directly the Antichri&s;t &s;poken of in <HI>Johns</HI> Epi&s;tles, to whom tho&s;e Characters of Antichri&s;t, 1 <HI>John</HI> 4.2, 3. and 2 <HI>John</HI> 7. did primarily and directly agree: And tho&s;e were
<PB N="205" REF="123">the Antichri&s;ts of tho&s;e dayes, the fal&s;e Chri&s;ts, <HI>Matth.</HI> 24.24. He is &s;econdarily and by con&s;equence (even in <HI>Iohns</HI> &s;en&s;e) the Antichri&s;t to whom tho&s;e Characters do &s;econdarily and by con&s;equence agree; and this is the <HI>Man of Rome.</HI> (upon which I vindicated our Prote&s;tant Writers in their referring to <HI>Rome</HI> in their Commentaries on the&s;e Epi&s;tles; &s;o far was I from cla&s;hing with them.) And this man of <HI>Rome</HI> is pro|perly the Antichri&s;t of the latter times, directly deciphered, 2 <HI>The&s;&s;.</HI> 2. and 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4. and in the <HI>Revelation,</HI> under the Titles of <HI>the Man of Sin, Whore of Babylon, &amp;c.</HI> though the holy Gho&s;t doth never directly and in the primary &s;en&s;e of any place where [Antichri&s;t] is mentioned in Scripture (it be|ing never u&s;ed but in the Epi&s;tles of St. <HI>Iohn</HI>) affix the &s;ame on them of <HI>Rome,</HI> but by con&s;equence onely. Alas! good Reader, I am very &s;orry this Antichri&s;tian bu&s;ine&s;s hath held thee &s;o long. I would make an Apology, but that would need another for &s;taying the with it. I will therefore pa&s;&s;e on to the next.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="13" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>(13)</HEAD>
<P><HI>But your &s;elf</HI> (&s;aith Mr. <HI>W. p.</HI> 77.) <HI>are not over-confident that this an&s;wer is &s;ufficient; and &s;o you add more. Let us have your &s;econd.</HI></P>
<P>The <HI>Over-confidence</HI> I willingly yeeld to him&s;elf the very center thereof. But what a &s;illy Rea&s;on is this, after one an|&s;wer given to an objection, I add a &s;econd, therefore I di&s;tru&s;t the fir&s;t. Wonderfull witty!</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="14" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>(14)</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>W.</HI> tells us, <HI>p.</HI> 11, 12, of parties known to be Chri&s;tianly judicious, and of blamele&s;s behaviour, who yet purpo&s;ely re|fu&s;e our examination upon the account of our divine right; ju|diciou&s;ly di&s;cerning the way and de&s;ign to be Browni&s;ticall, and not Scriptural. <HI>And &s;o</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>the&s;e la&s;t mentioned may judiciou&s;ly refu&s;e, that they might not countenance &s;uper&s;ti|tion.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. To whom are the&s;e parties known to be Chri&s;tianly ju|dicious? If to all the Church-officers, I do not think they would debar them; if they do, I di&s;own their practice.</P>
<P N="2">2. And I know none who require them nece&s;&s;arily by divine right to renew the profe&s;&s;ion of their faith in order to their communicating, who are already &s;ufficiently known to be (not onely judicious but) <HI>Christianly judicious,</HI> as Mr. <HI>W.</HI> &s;peaks.</P>
<P N="3">3. And if any Church did &s;o require it, none do engage
<PB N="206" REF="124">the parties &s;poken of to believe they mu&s;t needs &s;ubmit on that account to this examination that they may be capable of the Sacrament.</P>
<P N="4">4. The word <HI>[Browni&s;ticall]</HI> is often taken up to di&s;grace the Presbyterian way, as it was formerly again&s;t the old Pu|ritans. If Mr. <HI>W.</HI> had that of <HI>a Man</HI> in him he finds de&s;i|derated in me (<HI>p.</HI> 154.) he might have told his Reader of <HI>Browns</HI> opinions condemned (and then it would appear whe|ther the Presbyterian Principles were guilty thereof) and not fight again&s;t us with the Rattles of meer names. But take the&s;e <HI>Clackes</HI> from him of <HI>[Brownists, Anabaptists, Mormoes, &amp;c.)</HI> and you half &s;poil him.</P>
<P N="5">5. If Mr. <HI>W.</HI> can make that out, that the parties he &s;peaks of may lawfully &s;eparate from our communions, becau&s;e of ex|amination required (yea &s;uppo&s;e ami&s;s:) I will undertake upon the &s;ame ground to evince that his people may judiciou&s;ly &s;e|parate from his &s;acramentall communion, le&s;t they &s;hould countenance prophane&s;&s;e. And if any do withdraw from him upon the later account, he may thank him&s;elf for giving them &s;uch a weapon to defend them&s;elves again&s;t him with. But for my part, although I think the one as ju&s;tifiable as the other, I mu&s;t profe&s;s I ju&s;tifie neither. I think this is a main thing of <HI>Browni&s;me</HI> and <HI>Donati&s;me,</HI> to hold that we may lawfully &s;eparate from the ordinances of God in Churches holding the fundamentals, becau&s;e of &s;ome (&s;uppo&s;ed) male-admini&s;trations therein, which we are not nece&s;&s;itated in our joyning with them to approve of. And yet this Mr. <HI>W.</HI> hath a&s;&s;er|ted by clear con&s;equence, when he &s;aid, that per&s;ons may judi|ciou&s;ly &s;eparate from our communions, becau&s;e of a &s;uppo&s;ed mi&s;carriage in the Church-officers in requiring examination; who yet never require the per&s;ons examined &s;hould profe&s;&s;e their beliefe of the nece&s;&s;ity <HI>jure divino,</HI> of the &s;aid examina|tion, as a condition prerequi&s;ite to their admi&s;&s;ion. <HI>Augu&s;tine,</HI> (the mall of the Denati&s;ts) <HI>contra Parmen. l.</HI> 3. glo&s;&s;ing on tho&s;e words, 1 Cor. 5. <HI>[au&s;erte malum ex vobu]</HI> (whether in the &s;trict &s;en&s;e of the place or no I now di&s;pute not) <Q><HI>Per ma|lum &s;uum malis qui&s;que con&s;entit. Si autem ex &s;cip&s;o au|&s;erat malum, alieno malo non e&s;t unde con&s;entiat. Quaprop|ter, qui&s;&abque; etiam contemp&s;crit Eccle&s;iae Dei di&s;ciplinam, ut malos cum quibus non peccat, &amp; quibus non favet, de&s;i&s;tat monere, corrigere, arguere; &s;i etiam talem gerit per&s;onam, &amp; pax Eccle&s;iae patitur, ut etiam &agrave; &s;acramentorum participatione
<PB N="207" REF="124">quempiam po&s;&s;it &s;eparare, non alieno male peccat &s;ed &s;uo. Ip&s;a quippe in tanta re negligentia grave malum e&s;t, &amp; ideo &s;icut Apo&s;tolus admonet, &s;i auferat malum a &s;c&iacute;p&s;o, non &s;olum au|ferat audaciam committendi, aut pe&s;tilentiam con&s;entiendi, &s;ed etiam pigritiam corrigendi adhibita prudentia &amp; obedien|tia in eo quod praecipit Dominus, ne frumenta laedantur.</HI></Q> And this I take to be the right mean betwixt unwarrantable either &s;eparation or admi&s;&s;ion.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="15" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>(15)</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>W. p.</HI> 123, 124, &s;aith, <HI>He looketh upon no deductions from Scripture as obligatory, unle&s;s we have &s;ome clear revela|tions for &s;uch deductions: For</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>clear revelations of holy Scripture, are the genuine principles into which our faith is re&s;olved.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. If by <HI>[clear revelations]</HI> he mean the light of &s;olid Rea&s;on, he &s;aith here no more but this, q. d. we look on no deductions from Scripture as obligatory to us, unle&s;s we doe rationally di&s;cern that they are right deductions. And this &s;uits with a pa&s;&s;age he hath a little after; <HI>The Scriptures</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>were given as a &s;ufficient and infallible Rule for the government of the whole Church, &s;o that any deduction not conformable thereunto, mu&s;t either be rejected as erroneous, or &s;u&s;pected as impertinent and needle&s;&s;e.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. But I &s;ubmit it to the impartial Reader, whether his for|mer words do not fairly intimate, <HI>q. d. That we are not obliged by con&s;equential deductions from Scripture, unle&s;s the Scripture al&s;o cleerely reveale that con&s;equence</HI> (and then indeed it cea|&s;eth to be a deduction only). For he explaines him&s;elfe in the next words, viz. <HI>[For cleere Revelations of holy Scripture are the genuine principles into which our faith is re&s;olved],</HI> that by [cleere Revelations] he meanes [the revelations of holy Scripture] not [the rea&s;on whereby we draw ju&s;t deductions from the Scripture]. I de&s;ire the Reader to take Mr. <HI>W.</HI> in the mo&s;t favourable &s;en&s;e his words are capable of. But I thought meet to di&s;claime this latter &s;en&s;e, lea&s;t the <HI>Quakers</HI> &s;hould thinke we complyed with them in denying con&s;equen|ces from Scripture to be obligatory to us. And the rather, be|cau&s;e I find that was a &s;tudied trick the Papi&s;ts have long &s;ince taught their di&s;ciples to put upon us, <HI>viz</HI> to require us to prove all we held by expre&s;&s;e Scriptures, becau&s;e we ground all the points of our Religion upon the Scriptures, and not on the authority of the Church. And by &s;uch like crotchets of denying
<PB N="208" REF="125">&s;yllogi&s;mes, di&s;puting by Queries, &amp;c. Some of the Papi&s;ts have bragged, they <HI>would undertake to make a Cobler able to put the mo&s;t learned Mini&s;ters of</HI> France <HI>to a non plus.</HI> As may be &s;eene, with the whole Popi&s;h plot (now acted in <HI>England</HI> with a little nece&s;&s;ary variation of the method) di&s;covered in that little but very learned tract of D. <HI>Chaloner,</HI> then Principal of <HI>Alban Hall</HI> in <HI>Oxford,</HI> entituled, <HI>Credo Eccle&s;iam &s;anctam Catholicam,</HI> Printed at <HI>London</HI> 1638. (long before the name of a <HI>Quaker</HI> was heard of in <HI>England,</HI> and therefore appeares not devi&s;ed to make them odious. <HI>p.</HI> 134, 135, 160, 161, 162, &amp;c. Where he &s;hewes the Popi&s;h de&s;igne (out of their own Re|cords) agreed upon, <HI>viz.</HI> to &s;end <HI>Mi&s;&s;ionaries</HI> (as they them|&s;elves called them) culd out of all orders and Univer&s;ities, who di&s;per&s;ing them&s;elves, &s;hall after Sermon ended, by this method blanke the Mini&s;ters of the reformed &s;ide. The which may not be unprofitable to have ob&s;erved in reference to our pre&s;ent times and the behaviour of divers under the names of <HI>Quakers, Seekers,</HI> &amp;c. among us.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="16" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>(16)</HEAD>
<P>M. <HI>W.</HI> addes, in the page la&s;t quoted; <HI>And for the &s;en&s;e of ob&s;cure places of Scripture, we pre&s;crre Catholique Expo&s;itions be|fore any mans private &s;en&s;e or Interpretation, accommodated or applyed to favour his own, or his modern parties preten&s;ion.</HI></P>
<P>For an&s;wer to this, &s;ee the la&s;t quoted Author; <HI>Credo Eccle|&s;iam &s;anctam,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>part.</HI> 1. &sect;. 7. <HI>p.</HI> 150, 151. And <HI>Bi&s;hop U&s;her in his an&s;wer to a challenge made by a Je&s;uite in Ireland.</HI> Edit. <HI>London.</HI> 1625. <HI>p.</HI> 32, 33, 34. Where he &s;hewes that divers of the Papi&s;ts them&s;elves grant (what they blame in us) that a man may without arrogance di&s;&s;ent in interpretation of Scrip|ture from what is given by the mo&s;t of the Doctors before. He quotes <HI>Fi&s;her the Je&s;uite</HI> confe&s;sing, <Q>that it cannot be ob|&s;cure to any, that many things as well in the Go&s;pels, as in the re&s;t of the Scriptures, are now more exqui&s;itly di&s;cu&s;&s;ed by latter wits, and more cleerly under&s;tood then they have been heretofore. And <HI>Cardinal Cajetan in the beginning of his Com|mentaries upon Mo&s;es,</HI> advi&s;ing the Reader not to loath the new &s;en&s;e of the holy Scripture; for this, that it di&s;&s;enteth from the ancient Doctors; but to &s;earch more exactly the text and context; and if he finde it agree, to prai&s;e God, that hath not tyed the expo&s;ition of the Scriptures to the &s;en&s;es of the ancient Doctors.</Q> As for that pa&s;&s;age Mr. <HI>W.</HI> addes, <HI>[Accommodated to favour his own, or his modern parties pre|ten&s;ion],</HI>
<PB N="209" REF="125">its only a begging the thing in que&s;tion. All acknow|ledge that its a wrong to interpret the Scripture in favour of an old or new errour; But none will grant, his own inter|pretation is accommodated to an errour. But if Mr. <HI>W.</HI> would have kept to his own Rule he hath here given, he would not have &s;et 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 9. 3, 4. upon the rack in his <HI>Title page,</HI> for the countenancing the de&s;igne of his di&s;cour&s;e following. When as tho&s;e words he there &s;ets downe [Mine an&s;wer to them that examine me, is this] are by the &s;tream of Interpreters (I have &s;eene) referred to the preceding words, <HI>v.</HI> 3. <HI>q. d.</HI> mine apo|logy to them who que&s;tion my Apo&s;tle&s;hip is this; <HI>Am I not an Apo&s;tle?&mdash;to you, doubtle&s;s I am, For the &s;eale of my Apostle|&s;hip are yee in the Lord.</HI> Not to the following words, as he hath, by corrupting the text with his <HI>[viz.]</HI> in&s;erted before <HI>[Have we not power to eate and to drinke?]</HI> And if it &s;hould referre to the &s;ub&s;equent words; <HI>Mine apology to them who examine mee is this, have we not power to eat and to drinke, have we not power to lead about a &s;i&s;ter a wife as well as other Apo&s;tles,</HI> &amp;c? What then is that pa&s;&s;age <HI>[Have we not power to eat or to drinke]</HI> to <HI>&s;acramental eating or drinking?</HI> Like as much as <HI>[paveant illi]</HI> had to the excu&s;ing the Prie&s;t from paving. Over the head of this quotation he tells us, he <HI>publi&s;hed</HI> his book <HI>for the &s;atisfaction of weaker con&s;ciences.</HI> But what ever he thought of their con&s;ciences, me thinkes he pre&s;umed of their &s;trong &s;tomacks and &s;harp &s;et, that he can proffer them &s;uch a crude mor&s;el in the fir&s;t me&s;&s;e: a bad <HI>omen</HI> its counted <HI>to &s;tum|ble at his own thre&s;hold;</HI> and it brings to minde what D. <HI>Whita|ker</HI> Regius profe&s;&s;or &s;ometimes of <HI>Cambridge,</HI> in his defence of his An&s;wer to <HI>Campions</HI> Rea&s;ons, &s;aid to <HI>Duraeus. lib.</HI> 1. <HI>de &s;a|cris literis. Nihil e&s;t quod metuam, me tu mihi &s;cripturarum po&s;|&s;e&s;&s;ionem cripias, prae&s;ertim cum &s;cripturis aut rar&ograve; admodum uta|ris, aut imperit&egrave; ac pueriliter abutaris.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="17" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>(17)</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>W.</HI> it may be, will not take it well if I &s;hould neglect the ornaments of his book, rather then we &s;hould fall out about this, I will adventure upon the Readers patience to in&s;ert &s;ome of them here; e&s;pecially the fine liveries he is plea&s;ed to cloath me (his meane&s;t &s;ervant) with. <HI>Magi&s;terial ra&s;hne&s;s, p.</HI> 8. <HI>You delude the Countrey with a loud cry,</HI> p. 9. <HI>Specious cheat,</HI> p. 21. <HI>And thus you may &s;ee what con&s;cience it is that you pretend to,</HI> p. 22. <HI>Majestical &s;everity. Bead roll of words, as if you would charm the &s;en&s;es of the vulgar, with your rare skill in
<PB N="210" REF="126">Logick,</HI> p. 30. <HI>A meere &s;ophister,</HI> p. 46. <HI>Your heterodoxal brow|ni&s;me,</HI> p. 53. <HI>Your malicious &s;lander,</HI> p. 72. <HI>None of the wi&s;e&s;t for this ridiculous allu&s;ion,</HI> p. 78. <HI>I am a&s;hamed that ever a mo|ther in I&s;rael &s;hould breed &s;uch a &s;on,</HI> p. 81. <HI>A meer crack,</HI> p. 94. <HI>Your clande&s;tine &s;criblings,</HI> p. 48. <HI>Whi&s;per, peep, mutter,</HI> p. 48. (as if he would prove me a Conjurer from <HI>I&s;a.</HI> 8.19.) <HI>Your brethren of the Anabapti&s;ts,</HI> p. 113. <HI>A fugitive in the land of Nod,</HI> p. 118. <HI>Cum multis alijs.</HI> This part of Mr. <HI>W.</HI> his book I acknowledge is unan&s;werable by me: he hath quite non plu&s;t me at &s;coulding: Let him have his Triumphs for this glorious victory; <HI>Sed mal&egrave; vincit is quem poeniteat victoriae.</HI> But I begin now to que&s;tion with my &s;elfe. whether it were not good to blot out all this Catalogue, lea&s;t it fall into the hands of &s;ome <HI>Quaker,</HI> who may u&s;e it for a <HI>Calcopy,</HI> and raile by authority of a Mini&s;ter. But for my &s;elfe, I am not prickt with this crown of thornes he hath &s;et on my head, nor do I fret that he hath expo&s;ed it to the world.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="18" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>(18)</HEAD>
<P><HI>In your next</HI> (&s;aith Mr. <HI>W.</HI> p 95.) <HI>prove this,</HI> viz. <HI>that refu|&s;ing to come under your gho&s;tly Inqui&s;ition is a deed-rejecting of Christ.</HI></P>
<P>But fir&s;t he &s;hould &s;hew where I affirmed, it was either di|rectly or by con&s;equence. All I undertooke in the Manu&s;cript &s;heet he deales with, was to prove that &s;ome ignorant or &s;can|dalous per&s;ons baptized and not fully excommunicated, may be debarred the Communion. Now how doth this or the defence of it, nece&s;&s;itate me to take up what he here would have me? But if he could &s;oberly propound, whether one who never gave an account of his faith to competent witne&s;&s;es thereof, may be debarred for refu&s;ing to do it? I have proved the affirmative in the third Digre&s;&s;ion above. If others may be orderly ap|pointed to take this tryall (which he odiou&s;ly calls an Inqui|&s;ition,) neither I nor my brethren I thinke &s;hould be cro&s;&s;ed thereby in our affections, but rather &s;hould gladly be di&s;char|ged of it, if &s;o it might be.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="19" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>(19)</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>W.</HI> thus &s;peaks, <HI>p.</HI> 144. <HI>The Lords Supper is the mini|&s;tration of the Spirit, that giveth life, as part of the Go&s;pel mini|&s;tration, deny it if you can. A gla&s;&s;e wherein the glory of the Lord is to be beheld with open face, effectuall to change men into the image of God by the Spirit, as wel as any other Go&s;pel ordinance; deny it if you can, or di&s;pute what you can again&s;t it. Say (if you
<PB N="211" REF="126">plea&s;e) that then, an heathen is to be admitted to the Lords Sup|per. He is,</HI> in &s;en&s;u divi&s;o, <HI>he is not</HI> in &s;en&s;u compo&s;ito. Incom|modum non &s;olvit Argumentum. <HI>But the Apostle gives you the Rule,</HI> viz. [<HI>We know, that what things &s;oever the Law &s;aith, it &s;aith to them who are under the Law,</HI> Rom. 3.19.] <HI>The pro|portion of which Rule is this,</HI> viz. <HI>[We know, that what things &s;oever the Go&s;pel &s;aith, it &s;aith to them who are under the Go|&s;pel.] And this may &s;top your mouthes.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="20" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>(20]</HEAD>
<P>He goes on and &s;aith; <HI>Repentance and conver&s;ion is the de|&s;igne of the whole Go&s;pel mini&s;tration to them that are under the Go&s;pel. Let heathens be once brought under the outward Regi|ment of the Go&s;pel, by in&s;truction and bapti&s;me, and then the whole Go&s;pel mini&s;tration would tend to their repentance and conver&s;i|on [termes aequipollent] and effect the &s;ame, unle&s;s the fault were their own. The proper intent of Go&s;pel mini&s;trations, is the conver&s;ion of &s;uch as live under the &s;ame.</HI></P>
<P>Though there are (at lea&s;t) two di&s;tinct things to be &s;po|ken to in the&s;e Digre&s;&s;ions, I put them together, becau&s;e the &s;ame an&s;wer will &s;erve &s;ome pa&s;&s;ages in both. My return is as followes. 1. How far the Lords Supper is to be acknowledged a converting ordinance, I have before &s;hewed, <HI>Chap.</HI> 21. &sect;. 2. 2. But here Mr. <HI>W.</HI> would an&s;wer an objection he &s;uppo&s;eth I &s;hould make again&s;t him, by inferring <HI>that then Heathens &s;hould be admitted.</HI> But I would not make that inference from the &s;uppo&s;ing the Sacrament were (in &s;ome &s;en&s;e) a converting ordinance, no more then that an excommunicate &s;hould be ad|mitted. We mu&s;t not admini&s;ter ordinances to any but tho&s;e the Lord hath warranted us to admini&s;ter unto, although we might conceive a probable aptitude in tho&s;e ordinances (as meanes) for the &s;pirituall good of &s;uch as are &s;infully admit|mittted thereunto. 3. Yet if I &s;hould make that objection Mr. <HI>W.</HI> here puts upon me, it would (for ought I &s;ee) remaine in force for all he hath here brought for the &s;olution of it. He tells us, 1. He is to be <HI>admitted in &s;en&s;u divi&s;o, not com|po&s;ito.</HI> But if the Lords Supper he de&s;igned and appointed to be u&s;ed by us as much and primarily for conver&s;ion as preach|ing the Go&s;pel, there appeares no rea&s;on in the nature of the ordinance it &s;elfe (Mr. <HI>W.</HI> is treating of), why it &s;hould not be di&s;pen&s;ed to an heathen whiles an heathen, as well as prea|ching is. 2. He abu&s;eth that Scripture, <HI>Rom.</HI> 3.19. I hope I &s;hall not wrong the Reader by in&s;erting a few words for the
<PB N="212" REF="127">cleering of its meaning, whereby will appeare the ab&s;urdne&s;s of Mr. <HI>W.</HI> his application thereof.</P>
<P>The propo&s;ition the Apo&s;tle re&s;umes further to prove, is in the 9^t^h ver&s;e; That <HI>both Jewes and Gentiles are all under &s;ia,</HI> and &s;o liable (in them&s;elves without the grace of the Go&s;pel) to condemnation. And this he proves by &s;undry Quotations out of the old Te&s;tament, <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 10, 11, &amp;c. to the end of <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 18. <HI>As it is written, There is none righteous, no not one,</HI> &amp;c. The&s;e Scriptures quoted mu&s;t reach the thing for which they are quoted, to wit, the depravation of mans nature in generall, as <HI>Calvin</HI> &s;peakes of them, <HI>Nihil impedit quo minus ri<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">&ecirc; ac ver&egrave; in humanam naturam congerantur.</HI> And its evident that the in|ju&s;tice, cruelty, fearle&s;sne&s;s of God, therein &s;poken of, were &s;ins again&s;t the light of nature; which rendred the Gentiles as wel as Jewes obnoxious to condemnation upon that account: as al&s;o upon the account of the po&s;itive revelation of the hay|nou&s;ne&s;&s;e of the&s;e &s;ins, to the Jewes, and to &s;uch of the Gen|tiles to whom the &s;aid po&s;itive revelation was or &s;hould be made known. And therefore the following words, <HI>ver.</HI> 19. which Mr. <HI>W.</HI> quotes, are not brought to &s;hew that the Jewes only were under the precepts and prohibitions of the written Law. But the Apo&s;tle here makes a particular Application of tho&s;e quo|tations, which &s;hewed the depravedne&s;&s;e of men in generall, to the Jewes in &s;pecial; that they might not exempt them&s;elves, or thinke them&s;elves better by nature than the Gentiles: as they had been brought in pleading again&s;t the Apo&s;tle, in the beginning of the 9^t^h ver&s;e, And <HI>now</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>we know, that what&s;oever the Law &s;aith,</HI> (the old Te&s;tament Scripture,) <HI>it &s;aith to them that are under the Law.</HI> So we reade it; but the Original is <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>it &s;aith to them that are in the Law.</HI> Now <HI>Rom.</HI> 2.12. <GAP DESC="foreign"> is oppo&s;ed to <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>[Being without the Law]</HI> that is, [not having the po|&s;itive revelation of the Law made known to them.] And the &s;trength of the Apo&s;tles applicatory conviction of the Jewes here, &s;eemes to lye mainly in this; that &s;ince they not only had the light of nature to convince them of their &s;infulne&s;&s;e, as tho&s;e Gentiles had who were without the Law; but al&s;o the po&s;itive revelation of the Scriptures made known to them, and &s;o were <HI>in</HI> or <HI>with the Law:</HI> therefore they e&s;pecially &s;hould not be unacquainted with this point the Scripture did &s;o fully and frequently treat of, as was &s;hewed in the places before quoted. And indeed it cannot be &s;aid (as &s;ome Interpreters
<PB N="213" REF="127">&s;en&s;e the words, though with no advantage to Mr. <HI>W.</HI>) <HI>that what ever the Law &s;aith, it &s;peakes of the Jewes to whom it was given.</HI> For it &s;peakes often of the Gentiles. But this is cleere, what it &s;aith, it &s;aith to them to whom it is made known, and therefore their mouthes, (together with the Gentiles) &s;hould be &s;topped from pleading for ju&s;tification, by their obedience to the Law, which none of them had perfectly obeyed.</P>
<P>Now how can this text be applyed <HI>by proportion</HI> to inferre that the heathens mu&s;t be baptized before they come under the commands of the Go&s;pel; as Mr. <HI>W.</HI> would have it, <HI>q. d.</HI> As the Jewes were particularly concerned to take notice of the corrupt nature of man, which made ju&s;tification by workes to be impo&s;&s;ible, either to Jewes or Gentiles, and to take notice of what ever the Law &s;aith to (or of) them: So (what &s;hall I &s;ay?) Heathens under the times of the New Te&s;tament are not obliged to receive the Lords Supper till they are baptized, and po&s;itively engaged to Chri&s;tianity. Where's the <HI>propor|tion,</HI> which Mr. <HI>W.</HI> is &s;o confident of, that &s;hould &s;top the ob|jectors mouth? Such a Rule of proportion as this &s;hould ra|ther be called the <HI>Leaden</HI> then <HI>Golden Rule.</HI> It may be a truth (though not gathered from this text) that Heathens to whom the Go&s;pel is not revealed, &s;hall not be condemned for &s;inning again&s;t the po&s;itive Rules of Chri&s;tianity. But if Chri&s;tianity be revealed to them, they are bound immediately to clo&s;e therewith; and &s;o to be baptized and communicate, as oppor|tunity is offered. They are <HI>in the Go&s;pel</HI> now, according to the proportion of <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>Rom.</HI> 2.12. though not <HI>&s;ub lege,</HI> ha|ving not profe&s;&s;ed their &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion thereunto. And the neg|lect of this latter doth not excu&s;e their di&s;obedience to the po|&s;itive Rules of Chri&s;tianity concerning Bapti&s;me and the Lords Supper: I meane their not being under the Go&s;pel by pro|fe&s;&s;ed &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion thereunto, excu&s;eth them not, who are in the Go&s;pel, or are not without the Go&s;pel revealed unto them.</P>
<P N="4">4. To the maine of the 20^t^h Digre&s;&s;ion, wherein Mr. <HI>W.</HI> &s;aith; <HI>The proper intent of the Go&s;pel mini&s;tration is the conver&s;i|on of &s;uch as live under the &s;ame:</HI> I an&s;wer. But what meanes he by <HI>[being under it?]</HI> Tho&s;e who have &s;ubmitted profe&s;|&s;edly thereunto, and te&s;tified the &s;ame by receiving Bapti&s;me: &s;o his other words manife&s;tly lead us to under&s;tand him. But then what a wild po&s;ition hath he given us to no purpo&s;e? When Chri&s;t gave Commi&s;&s;ion to his Mini&s;ters to <HI>di&s;ciple all
<PB N="214" REF="128">nations,</HI> Gentiles as wel as Jewes, and then <HI>to baptize them;</HI> and <HI>to preach the Go&s;pel to every creature:</HI> mu&s;t the &s;cope of their Mini&s;try be properly to bring them only to an external profe&s;&s;ion of &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion to the Go&s;pel, that they might receive Bapti&s;me, and not properly intend their &s;aving conver&s;ion, till after they were baptized? I had thought the <HI>proper intent</HI> of the Go&s;pel mini&s;tration to the Heathens, when it was fir&s;t preached to them, had been to convert them &s;incerely, <HI>to turne them from darkne&s;&s;e to light,</HI> and <HI>from the power of Satan to God,</HI> to <HI>receive forgivene&s;&s;e of &s;ins, and an inheritance among them who are &s;anctified by faith in Christ,</HI> Act. 14.15. <HI>&amp;</HI> 26.18. and not <HI>properly</HI> fir&s;t to make them hypocrites, only dogmatical profe&s;&s;ors; re&s;erving the proper intent of the Go&s;pel mini|&s;tration for their &s;aving conver&s;ion, till after they were bap|tized.</P>
<P>But if Mr. <HI>W.</HI> meane by <HI>[being under the Go&s;pel]</HI> &s;uch as heare the Go&s;pel, then he &s;aith true. The intent of the Go|&s;pel mini&s;tration is to convert them who heare it, as Heathens doe, when it is fir&s;t preached to them, as well as borne Chri|&s;tians. But this is impertinent to the &s;cope of Mr. <HI>W.</HI> his pre|&s;ent di&s;cour&s;e, and the pretended &s;olution of the objection he is now dealing with.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="21" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>(21)</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>W.</HI> in &s;undry places &s;peakes of the ri&s;e and publi&s;hing of my paper, with his an&s;wer thereunto. In his Epi&s;tle, having told us the difference happening betwixt him&s;elfe and &s;ome of his Pari&s;h (e&s;pecially) in the point of &s;u&s;pen&s;ion; <HI>thereupon</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>in all likelihood the Authour of the Manu&s;cript was &s;ought unto, to declare his thoughts concerning the Controver&s;ie. &mdash;At length, the long lookt for piece came, was cordially em|braced of the Affectors of the di&s;cipline &s;tood for; and being jud|ged and taken by him to be &s;atisfactory, and a total rout thereby given to our party; the Authour thereof was plea&s;ed to give way, that I &s;hould have the &s;ight and peru&s;all thereof, and to declare my thoughts concerning it. &mdash; I went to the Gentleman (to whom it was pretended to be &s;ent for his &s;atisfaction) and de&s;i|red a copy thereof, though there were no name to it, and I obtained my de&s;ire without reluctancy.</HI> And <HI>p.</HI> 116. Mr. <HI>W.</HI> &s;aith; <HI>The &s;ubject matter hereof is of more general concernment, then mine or your particular, and therefore I print it, for a publique benefit.</HI> And <HI>p.</HI> 73. <HI>Surely you never intended this for the publique light, but the mi&s;chiefe you have done by your clande&s;tine dealing, and
<PB N="215" REF="128">the high opinion that &s;ome men have conceived of your learning and integrity, makes me print you, that men of blind credulity may &s;ee what you are, and what the men of your preten&s;ion and prac|ti&s;e, have for the ju&s;tifying of their new Modell.</HI></P>
<P>I &s;hall give a plaine but briefe Narrative of the tran&s;action of this bu&s;ine&s;&s;e. I was &s;undry times earne&s;tly &s;olicited by a Mini&s;ter (Mr. <HI>N.</HI>) to let him have an account of my judge|ment concerning &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, which he de&s;ired on the behalfe of Mr. <HI>M.</HI> (the Gentleman Mr. <HI>W.</HI> mentioned) an endeared friend of the &s;aid Mini&s;ter. I told him I had nothing written about it, but &s;ome &s;hort animadver&s;ions I had long agoe made for my own u&s;e, upon Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his fir&s;t piece on this &s;ubject. Which upon entreaty I lent to him: and it &s;hould &s;eeme by what Mr. <HI>W.</HI> &s;aith, <HI>p.</HI> 115. they were communicated to the Gentleman afore&s;aid, and without my knowledge to Mr. <HI>W.</HI> Being againe and againe, importunately moved by the Mini&s;ter afore&s;aid, to &s;tate the Que&s;tion, and give in my opinion thereon, more di&s;tinctly; I at la&s;t con&s;ented to en|deavour &s;omewhat therein; the which I fini&s;hed at the hou&s;e of the &s;aid Mini&s;ter, being occa&s;ionally there one night. Upon his further de&s;iring that with my leave, this paper might be communicated to Mr. <HI>W.</HI> I permitted the &s;ame, if by the Gen|tleman afore&s;aid, it &s;hould be thought fit; being certified that upon Mr. <HI>M.</HI> his repre&s;enting to his Mini&s;ter Mr. <HI>W.</HI> how he was un&s;atisfied in the doctrine of the general admi&s;&s;ion con|tended for; Mr. <HI>W.</HI> for the &s;atisfaction of his Pari&s;hioner had &s;hewed him&s;elfe <HI>willing and de&s;irous</HI> to admit of a collation with &s;ome Mini&s;ters of a different judgement from him there|in. (as I have to &s;hew under the hand of Mr. <HI>M.</HI> the Gentle|man afore&s;aid.)</P>
<P>And indeed I was cordially de&s;irous to have the controver|&s;ie &s;earch't into to the very bottome, as being of great mo|ment, and my &s;elfe &s;ufficiently inclinable (if I know mine own heart) to receive any convictions Mr. <HI>W.</HI> might afford ra|tionally to &s;way me to his part, as the mo&s;t de&s;irable upon ma|ny outward accounts, if it could but appeare to be warrant|able; which made me the more willing to con&s;ent to the Re|que&s;ts afore&s;aid. Now when this Paper of mine by <HI>Mr. M.</HI> was communicated to <HI>Mr. W. Mr. M.</HI> hath certified me under his hand. that <HI>Mr. W.</HI> (in &s;tead of returning a private an&s;wer as was expected for a candid brotherly impartiall di&s;|cu&s;&s;ion of the point) <Q><HI>as if he had gotten &s;ome mighty advan|tage,</HI>
<PB N="216" REF="129"> <HI>with abundance of triumphing and in&s;ulting expre&s;&s;ions, gave out he would print it.</HI> And further, Mr. <HI>M.</HI> atte&s;ts un|der his hand in the&s;e words, And <HI>whereas &s;ome of</HI> Mr. <HI>W. his friends had given out on his behalf, that the rea&s;on why he an&s;wered this paper of</HI> Mr. Langleys <HI>in print, was, becau&s;e &s;e|veral Copies were di&s;per&s;ed of it in his pari&s;h, and he had no way to meet with them, but this of printing his an&s;wer, I doe hereby declare that this is utterly untrue, I was &s;o far from giving or &s;uffering Copies to be taken of it that to my knowledge I never &s;hewed the paper to any in the pari&s;h but him&s;elf; and there were no Copies of it extant among us (I my &s;elf not &s;o much as re&s;erving a Copy) but that which was in his own hands, till they were printed and publi&s;hed by him.</HI></Q> T.M.</P>
<P>Many other pa&s;&s;ages <HI>Mr. M.</HI> hath te&s;tified under his hand, but I &s;hall omit in&s;erting the &s;ame here, in re&s;pect to Mr. <HI>W.</HI> who&s;e di&s;paragement I &s;eek not, to the Reader, to whom per|&s;onall matters I know will be tedious, and to the cau&s;e it &s;elfe I defend, which needs not the infirmities of its oppo&s;ers to rai&s;e it &s;elfe by. When I had intimation of the re&s;olution for printing my paper, I &s;aid I would not lift up my lip to de&s;ire a forbearance: I think I could have been content to have &s;een my &s;elf rationally confuted. But when I &s;aw the an&s;wer, and how in &s;tead of clo&s;e an&s;wering the argument before him, he did &s;o pitifully extravagate, and &s;o &s;edulou&s;ly &s;eemed to endeavour the di&s;grace of my per&s;on, rather than the confu|tation of my cau&s;e, I was much confirmed thereby in the opi|nion I had a&s;&s;erted. Let the equall Reader freely judge herein.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="22" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>(22)</HEAD>
<P>Mr W. &s;aith, <HI>p.</HI> 150. <HI>Truly I have not done pious and renow|ned</HI> Tim&s;on <HI>the honour I &s;hould, in omitting the many and ma|terial pa&s;&s;ages that I find in his Epi&s;tle to the Reader, and every where &s;o exactly &s;et forth in his excellent Book.</HI> It were pity but he &s;hould honour <HI>Mr. Tim&s;on</HI> as the Scholar did <HI>Zabbarel,</HI> who being &s;et to epitomize him, tran&s;cribed every word, &s;aying, all was &s;o &s;weet he could leave out none. But &s;ome <HI>Palates</HI> count mouldy chee&s;e the be&s;t: and the material pa&s;&s;ages Mr. <HI>W.</HI> hath honoured his renowned <HI>Tim&s;on</HI> with the quotation of, are &s;o un&s;avoury and tainted, as will di&s;grace the judgement of the Author and Citer of them, <HI>p.</HI> 37, 38, 99, 100. <HI>He calls your Church-officers</HI> (&s;aith <HI>M. W.</HI>) <HI>Intruded Elders, &amp;c.</HI> This for|&s;ooth is an honourable quotation.</P>
<PB N="217" REF="129">
<P>It is not my bu&s;ine&s;s now to di&s;cu&s;s the Controver&s;ie; whe|ther any per&s;ons but Mini&s;ters or preaching Presbyters may be cho&s;en and de&s;igned by the Church, to joyn with the mini&s;ters in the Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall externall government thereof? If I &s;hould &s;peak any thing concerning it (in this la&s;t Digre&s;&s;ion) I &s;hould premi&s;e a di&s;tinction to be put betwixt what is appoin|ted in Scripture by divine in&s;titution, and command for all Churches at all times to ob&s;erve, and what is gatherable from Scripture precedents and pa&s;&s;ages, to have then been lawfully u&s;ed in the Church of God, and therefore may &s;till lawfully be imitated. Of this later &s;ort are <HI>Lords-dayes, Collections,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 16.1.2. Pa&s;tors and Teachers, as di&s;tinct offices allot|ted to &s;everall per&s;ons, <HI>Rom.</HI> 12.7, 8, &amp;c. Of which &s;ort al&s;o I humbly conceive the Station of &s;uch as are now called Ru|ling Elders, is to be accounted; not meerly &s;o an excogitati|on of prudence, as if it had no foot&s;teps in Scripture paterns, nor yet &s;o ab&s;olutely by divine appointment, as that all Chur|ches &s;in, who in any times have not made u&s;e of them. And this I take as a <HI>mean</HI> betwixt two extreams.</P>
<P>I &s;hall not &s;o much as name the Arguments commonly produced for the Scripturalne&s;&s;e and Rea&s;onablene&s;&s;e of their Office. I &s;hall onely crave leave to offer one Scripture, which is not &s;o much taken notice of as I think it &s;hould be for the clearing this point, (having before warned the Reader that it is not the name but thing I aim at.)</P>
<P>Acts 15. The Synod there mentioned, wrote Decretall Let|ters, <HI>after this manner,</HI> v. 23. <HI>The Apo&s;tles, and Elders, and Bre|thren &s;end greeting unto the Brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia, &amp;c.</HI> And then the Decree it &s;elf is recorded in the following ver&s;es. That which I would have here ob&s;erved, relating to the point in hand, is, that &s;ome un|der the name of <HI>Brethren,</HI> are joyned with the <HI>Elders,</HI> or Pa|&s;tors, from whence ari&s;eth this Argument, <HI>viz.</HI></P>
<P><HI>If the&s;e</HI> (called) <HI>Brethren acted authoritatively in this Eccle|&s;ia&s;ticall Decree, and yet were not privat Chri&s;tians, the Di&s;ciples or Members of Jeru&s;alem Church; then &s;ome &s;elect per&s;ons, not Mini&s;ters did act authoritatively in Eccle&s;iasticall government. But the former is true: Therefore the later.</HI> In the <HI>Con&s;equence</HI> of the <HI>Antecedent</HI> I &s;ee nothing likely to be denied. The <HI>Mi|nor</HI> I &s;hall endeavour to prove in its two parts.</P>
<P N="1">1. That the&s;e <HI>brethren acted authoritatively in this Eccle&s;ia|&s;tical Decree,</HI> is evinced by many of the&s;e &s;trong Rea&s;ons,
<PB N="218" REF="130">whereby <HI>the Reverend A&s;&s;embly</HI> (in their An&s;wer to the Rea|&s;ons of the Di&s;&s;enting Brethren, concerning Presbyterial Go|vernment, pre&s;ented to the <HI>Honourable Hou&s;es of Parliament, p.</HI> 65.) do prove that the <HI>Elders</HI> did act authoritatively as well as the <HI>Apostles:</HI> the which are further improved by the <HI>London Mini&s;ters</HI> in their <HI>Jus Divinum Reg: Eccle&s;iastici,</HI> p. 224. to evince that both <HI>the Elders and Brethren</HI> acted authorita|tively as well as the <HI>Apo&s;tles.</HI> <Q>The <HI>Elders</HI> and <HI>Brethren</HI> (&s;ay the <HI>London</HI> Mini&s;ters) who were as authoritatively members of the Synod as the <HI>Apo&s;tles,</HI> did in all points as authorita|tively act as the <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI> them&s;elves.</Q></P>
<P>For 1. The letters containing the Synodical Decrees and Determinations, were written in the name of the <HI>Elders</HI> and <HI>Brethren,</HI> as well as in the name of the <HI>Apostles,</HI> ver&s;. 23.</P>
<P N="2">2. The <HI>Elders</HI> and <HI>Brethren</HI> as well as the <HI>Apo&s;tles,</HI> brand the fal&s;e Teachers for troubling the Church, <HI>&s;ubverting of &s;oules,</HI> declaring that they gave the fal&s;e Teachers <HI>no &s;uck Commandment</HI> to preach any &s;uch doctrine, <HI>v.</HI> 24.</P>
<P N="3">3. The <HI>Elders</HI> and <HI>Brethren</HI> as well as the <HI>Apostles</HI> &s;ay, <HI>It &s;eemed good to the holy Gho&s;t, and to us,</HI> v. 28.</P>
<P N="4">4. The <HI>Elders</HI> and <HI>Brethren</HI> as well as the <HI>Apo&s;tles did im|po&s;e upon the Churches no other burthen then the&s;e nece&s;&s;ary things,</HI> v. 28.</P>
<P>In all which its manife&s;t the proof is as &s;trong for the joynt authoritative acting of the <HI>Brethren</HI> here, as it is for the <HI>Apo|&s;tles</HI> and <HI>Elders.</HI> I &s;peak of a joynt act in the &s;ame <HI>kinde of power:</HI> how farre the <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI> might excell the <HI>Elders,</HI> or the <HI>Elders</HI> the <HI>Brethren</HI> in the <HI>degree of power</HI> in each re&s;pectively, is not now enquired for.</P>
<P>All (I can thinke of) which may be objected again&s;t this proof is;</P>
<P N="1">(1) That in divers places the Authors of this &s;ynodical Decree are mentioned under the name of the <HI>Apostles</HI> and <HI>El|ders,</HI> without joyning the <HI>Brethren</HI> with them. As, 1. The An|tiochian Delegates are in their In&s;tructions directed to make their addre&s;s to the <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI> and <HI>Elders</HI> about their Que&s;tion, <HI>v.</HI> 2. And 2. the <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI> and <HI>Elders</HI> came together to con&s;ider of this matter, <HI>v.</HI> 6. And 3. the <HI>Decrees</HI> of this <HI>Synod</HI> are &s;aid to be &s;uch as were ordained by the <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI> and <HI>Elders,</HI> which were at <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> Act. 16.4.</P>
<P N="2">(2) That the <HI>Brethren</HI> may be named here, no otherwi&s;e then as in <HI>Pauls Epi&s;tles Timothy,</HI> or <HI>So&s;thenes,</HI> and &s;ometimes
<PB N="219" REF="130">all the <HI>Brethren with him,</HI> are; which denotes only their con|&s;enting thereunto.</P>
<P>To the fir&s;t of the&s;e I an&s;wer. 1. That its ordinary to name the whole from the predominant, leading &amp; more noble part. 2. The&s;e Scriptures do not &s;ay, the <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI> and <HI>Elders only,</HI> excluding others were Authours of this Synodical Determina|tion; and therefore they are no prejudice to tho&s;e other Texts, which put in the <HI>Brethren</HI> with them.</P>
<P>To the &s;econd, I &s;ay, Though <HI>Paul</HI> joyne others with him in his Epi&s;tles &s;ometimes, yet, 1. the title of tho&s;e Epi&s;tles beare his name only. 2. He manife&s;ts in the Epi&s;tles them|&s;elves, that they are his only, &s;peaking in the fir&s;t per&s;on there|in. <HI>Gal.</HI> 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, &amp;c. 1 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 5.27. 2 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 3.17. <HI>The &s;alutation of me Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every Epi&s;tle, &s;o I write.</HI> 3. If we had no &s;uch cleere Rea&s;ons el&s;where to prove <HI>Paul</HI> only the Authour (under the Holy Gho&s;t) of &s;uch Epi&s;tles, the joyning others with him in the Preface would be a &s;ufficient ground of our taking them who are &s;o mentioned in the Preface, to have been joynt Authours with him thereof. But now here's nothing can be &s;hewed to invalidate the title of the Synodicall Decree, in its &s;tricte&s;t &s;en&s;e. <HI>Act.</HI> 15.23. 2. The Decree &s;peakes all along in their names which are prefixed thereunto. 3. <HI>Decrees</HI> and <HI>Lawes</HI> &s;peake mo&s;t &s;trictly and properly; e&s;pecially in the Titles and Prefaces thereof, which declare the power whereby they are made and promulgated (as a Law made by Kings, Lords, and Commons:) Although in familiar Epi&s;tles, there's ordinarily more liberty of a larger expre&s;&s;ion.</P>
<P N="2">2. The latter part of the <HI>Minor</HI> propo&s;ition, in the Argu|ment I am upon, is this, <HI>viz. That the&s;e Brethren were not pri|vate Christians, the Di&s;ciples or Members of the Jeru&s;alem Church.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. This (I beleeve) will not be denied by our Brethren, either of the Epi&s;copall or Presbyterian judgement, if they be convinced that the&s;e <HI>Brethren</HI> acted authoritatively in the Sy|nod. (Which I thinke is cleerly proved above.) For no pri|vate Chri&s;tian is allowed by them, <HI>as &s;uch,</HI> to have right of au|thoritative &s;uffrage in Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Councils.</P>
<P N="2">2. I have only here again&s;t me, the Brethren of the Con|gregational way, who (though from other Scriptures they own the Officers I di&s;pute for, yet) here &s;ay, that the&s;e <HI>Bre|thren</HI> were the members of the <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> Church, as &s;uch.
<PB N="220" REF="131">But that I humbly conceive cannot be. The <HI>Apo&s;tles, Elders,</HI> and <HI>Brethren,</HI> v. 23. are the &s;ame with the whole multitude, <HI>v.</HI> 12. And <HI>the Apo&s;tles and Elders with the whole Church, v.</HI> 22. Now this <HI>whole Church,</HI> and <HI>whole multitude,</HI> mu&s;t ei|ther referre <HI>to the whole Church of Jeru&s;alem,</HI> or to the <HI>whole &s;ynodical A&s;&s;embly only</HI> of that and other Churches there met together, (which the Reverend Mr. <HI>Cotton</HI> in his book of the Keyes, (<HI>p.</HI> 54, 59.) is plea&s;ed to call a <HI>Synod of Churches,</HI> or <HI>a Congregation of Churches,</HI> yea <HI>a Church of Churches.</HI>) It can|not referre to the <HI>whole Jeru&s;alem Church,</HI> becau&s;e neither that whole Church, nor the greater part thereof, could meet in one hou&s;e (much le&s;s a private hou&s;e, as its probable this was,) to manage the &s;ynodical affaires orderly; as appeares by the great numbers of that Church recorded upon count, 120, <HI>Act.</HI> 1.15. 3000, <HI>Act.</HI> 2.41. 5000 men, <HI>Act.</HI> 4.4. here are above 8000; and multitudes be&s;ides, <HI>Act.</HI> 2.42. <HI>&amp;</HI> 5.14. <HI>&amp;</HI> 6.7. as is more largely &s;hewed by the <HI>London</HI> Mini&s;ters, and mo&s;t excellently by the <HI>Reverend A&s;&s;embly</HI> in their <HI>An&s;wer to the Rea&s;ons of the di&s;&s;enting Brethren,</HI> where they undoe the Exceptions made again&s;t it, &s;o &s;olidly, learned|ly, and per&s;picuou&s;ly, that they &s;eeme to have left no place for a colourable Reply. (Whereby (among other Arguments) they demon&s;trate that the <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> Church was a cla&s;&s;ical Church, or a Church by a&s;&s;ociation of &s;undry particular Con|gregations, called one Church, <HI>Act.</HI> 8.1. <HI>&amp;</HI> 11.22. <HI>&amp;</HI> 15.4.) It remaines therefore that the <HI>whole Church</HI> and <HI>multitude, Act.</HI> 15. mu&s;t be the <HI>&s;ynodical A&s;&s;embly</HI> of the Apo&s;tles, Elders and Brethren, which <HI>Brethren</HI> mu&s;t needs be the Delegates of the Brethren, or tho&s;e who repre&s;ented the Brethren, mem|bers of &s;everal Churches. The Delegates of <HI>Antioch</HI> are ex|pre&s;sly mentioned, <HI>v.</HI> 2. and probably there were &s;ome from <HI>Syria</HI> and <HI>Cilicia,</HI> v. 23. who were as much concerned in the bu&s;ine&s;&s;e con&s;ulted about as <HI>Antioch</HI> was.</P>
<P>Thus farre its evin<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">ed, that &s;ome of the Brethren (not preaching Elders) being delegated and appointed by the Church, may according to Apo&s;tolical patterne, <HI>authoritative|ly</HI> joyne with preaching Elders in acts of external government of the Church. And then, if Presbyters with &s;uch delegated brethren, may be the &s;ubject of Church power in higher A&s;|&s;emblyes and matters; it will ea&s;ily thence follow, &s;uch bre|thren may have and exerci&s;e a proportion of Eccle&s;ia&s;tical power, in lower matters and A&s;&s;emblyes. This Argument I
<PB N="221" REF="131">humbly &s;ubmit, (with all el&s;e I have written) to the peacea|bly judicious. I &s;hall conclude with the 34^t^h <HI>P&s;alme,</HI> that the&s;e 22 Digre&s;&s;ions may be attended with a refre&s;hment pro|portionable to the 22 Chapters of the Treati&s;e above.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="subsection">
<P>The 34^t^h <HI>P&s;alme</HI> (in the original whereof the ini|tiall Letters of the Ver&s;es proceed <HI>Alphabetically,</HI> &s;ave only that the 5^t^h Yer&s;e beginning with <HI>He,</HI> ends with <HI>Vau</HI> the next Letter, and &s;o the P&s;almi&s;t omitting <HI>Vau</HI> in the beginning of the next Ver&s;e, goes on with <HI>Zain,</HI> &amp;c. whereby it comes to pa&s;s, that the 22 Hebrew Letters being gone through and ending in the 21^&s;^t Ver&s;e, the la&s;t ver&s;e of the <HI>P&s;alme</HI> is <HI>&s;uper-numerary</HI>) rendred according to the Acro&s;ti|call conceipt of the Original.</P>
<EPIGRAPH>
<Q><L N="1">1 <HI>At all times I the Lord will ble&s;&s;e:</HI></L>
<L><HI>my mouth &s;hal prai&s;e him deare.</HI></L>
<L N="2">2 <HI>Boa&s;ting my &s;oul &s;hal God confe&s;&s;e:</HI></L>
<L><HI>which meek ones glad &s;hal heare.</HI></L>
<L N="3">3 <HI>Come, magnifie with mee the Lord;</HI></L>
<L><HI>joyntly exalt his Name.</HI></L>
<L N="4">4 <HI>Duely I &s;ought the Lord: he heard,</HI></L>
<L><HI>And all my feares ore'came.</HI></L>
<L N="5">5 <HI>Eyeing him men received light:</HI></L>
<L><HI>their face no &s;hame did &s;ee.</HI></L>
<L N="6">6 <HI>For this poor man cry'd, and Gods might</HI></L>
<L><HI>from troubles &s;et him free.</HI></L>
<L N="7">7 <HI>Gods Angel round encampes them who</HI></L>
<L><HI>him feare, and gives them re&s;t.</HI></L>
<L N="8">8 <HI>How God the Lord is, ta&s;t and know:</HI></L>
<L><HI>who tru&s;t in him are ble&s;t.</HI></L>
<PB N="222" REF="132">
<L N="9">9 <HI>In feare, &s;erve God the Lord, each Saint:</HI></L>
<L><HI>who feare him he'le not &s;cant.</HI></L>
<L N="10">10 <HI>Known may be hungry Lyons faint:</HI></L>
<L><HI>who &s;eek God, no good want.</HI></L>
<L N="11">11 <HI>Learn of mee, children, come to mee;</HI></L>
<L><HI>I'le teach you the Lords feare.</HI></L>
<L N="12">12 <HI>Man, if thou life love, and to &s;ee</HI></L>
<L><HI>Dayes which much good do beare;</HI></L>
<L N="13">13 <HI>Ne're faile to keep thy Tongue from ill,</HI></L>
<L><HI>thy lips from words untrue:</HI></L>
<L N="14">14 <HI>Omit no good, no lu&s;t fulfill:</HI></L>
<L><HI>&s;eek peace, and it pur&s;ue.</HI></L>
<L N="15">15 <HI>Plea&s;ing to Gods eyes ju&s;t ones are;</HI></L>
<L><HI>And their cry to his eares.</HI></L>
<L N="16">16 <HI>Quite contrary ill doers fare;</HI></L>
<L><HI>from earth their name God teares.</HI></L>
<L N="17">17 <HI>Right'ous men God heares, when they cry,</HI></L>
<L><HI>and pre&s;erves them from ill.</HI></L>
<L N="18">18 <HI>Soft hearts the Lord have to them nigh:</HI></L>
<L><HI>he &s;aves the contrite &s;till.</HI></L>
<L N="19">19 <HI>The Rigt'ous under griefes may groane;</HI></L>
<L><HI>God brings them out of all</HI></L>
<L N="20">20 <HI>Verily, he keepes ev'ry bone,</HI></L>
<L><HI>that not one broken fall.</HI></L>
<L N="21">21 <HI>Woe &s;layes the vile: who, wi&s;h th' ju&s;t ill</HI></L>
<L><HI>X times more them&s;elves have.</HI></L>
<L N="22">22. <HI>Yet God keepes his: who tru&s;t him &s;till</HI></L>
<L><HI>Zions King them &s;hal &s;ave.</HI></L></Q>
</EPIGRAPH>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
<BACK>
<DIV1 TYPE="errata">
<PB REF="132">
<OPENER><SALUTE>Reader,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>THine ingenuity is not &s;o much &s;u&s;pected, as that it &s;hould be counted needful to give notice here of every mi&s;chance in &s;ome letters points or Accents. Its hoped that tho&s;e which might hinder or retard thine under&s;tanding of the Authours meaning, are here corrected.</P>
<P>In Ep. Dedic. page 5. l. 18. read <HI>debarred. Of</HI> p. 13. l. 33. r. <HI>if we.</HI> p. 23. l. 32. r. <HI>chri&s;tianarum.</HI> In th&egrave; Book, p. 2. &amp; p. 4. dele the marks ' ' ' in the margin. p. 6. l. 37. for <HI>there,</HI> r. <HI>then.</HI> p. 25, 27, 28, 73. for <GAP DESC="foreign">, r. <GAP DESC="foreign">. p. 13. l. 6. for <HI>nor,</HI> r. <HI>or.</HI> p. 24. l. 7. r. <HI>proportion.</HI> l. 23. dele <HI>it.</HI> p. 27. l. 14. r. <HI>con&s;ortio.</HI> l. 29. for <HI>none,</HI> r. <HI>now.</HI> p. 28. l. 22. for <HI>word,</HI> r. <HI>world</HI> p. 32. l. 19. dele the note of a parenthe&s;is. p. 35 l. 34 r. <HI>but requires time.</HI> p. 36. l. 3. for <HI>their,</HI> r. <HI>the.</HI> p. 36. l. 29. for <HI>quare,</HI> r. <HI>quam.</HI> p. 37. l. 11 for <HI>not what,</HI> r. <HI>not of what.</HI> p. 39. l. 9. r. <HI>contaminet.</HI> l. 10. r. <HI>laelantur.</HI> l. 24. for <HI>vel plebe,</HI> r. <HI>ut plebe.</HI> p. 42. l. 33. for <HI>there,</HI> r. <HI>here.</HI> p. 56. l. 32. for <HI>each,</HI> r. <HI>earth.</HI> p 58. l. 33. r. <HI>perhaps believers, and &s;uch like tules may be attributed.</HI> p. 63. l. 41. r. <HI>&s;ignum.</HI> p. 64. l. 23. for <HI>to as,</HI> r. <HI>to them as.</HI> p. 66. l. 6. for <HI>there,</HI> r. <HI>thine.</HI> l. 38. for <HI>thee,</HI> r. <HI>the.</HI> p. 71. l. 34. for <HI>honour</HI> r. <HI>know.</HI> p. 79. l. 38. dele <HI>of.</HI> p 80. l. 34. for 4. r, 1. p. 85. l. 28. for <HI>&s;c,</HI> t. <HI>&s;i.</HI> l. 37. r. <HI>ip&s;e e&s;t. Nullus.</HI> p. 93. l. 40. for <HI>wil hereby.</HI> r. <HI>wil not hereby.</HI> p. 95. l. 28. for <HI>that,</HI> r. <HI>the.</HI> p. 103. l. 23. for <HI>had,</HI> r. <HI>hold.</HI> p. 109. l. 17. r. <HI>paren|the&s;es.</HI> p. 115. l. 2. r. <HI>thy help.</HI> l. 13. for <HI>when,</HI> r. <HI>whom.</HI> p. 116. l. 39. r. <HI>made to my.</HI> p. 120. l. 27. for <HI>our,</HI> r. <HI>the.</HI> p. 127. l. 34. r. <HI>appo&s;itc.</HI> p. 129. l. 12. for <HI>a,</HI> r. <HI>the.</HI> p. 130. l. 9. r. <HI>continued.</HI> l. 10 r. <HI>and concluding.</HI> l. 34. r. <HI>&s;hunned.</HI> p. 131. l. 3. r. <HI>Noon light beams thy laws on me ca&s;t.</HI> p. 132. l. 33. for <HI>vi&s;ibility,</HI> r. <HI>Ri&s;ibility.</HI> p. 134. l. 4. for <HI>excluded,</HI> r. <HI>included.</HI> l. 27. r. <HI>concerning.</HI> p. 135. l. 7. for <HI>in&s;cript,</HI> r. <HI>manu&s;cript.</HI> p. 141 l. 33. add <HI>I reply.</HI> p. 142. l 2. for <HI>this,</HI> r. <HI>his.</HI> p. 147. l. 6, 7. r. <HI>governours who were.</HI> p. 148. l. 38. for <HI>was,</HI> r. <HI>will.</HI> p. 152. l. 31. r. <HI>con&s;iderably.</HI> p. 162 l. 1. r. <HI>entru&s;ted.</HI> p. 177. l. 41. for <HI>con&s;equent</HI> r. <HI>incon&s;equent.</HI> p. 179. l. 35. for <HI>or peru&s;eth,</HI> r. <HI>or would peru&s;e.</HI> p. 181. l. 15. for <HI>&s;it,</HI> r. <HI>fit.</HI> p. 183. l. 12. for <HI>&s;eem to be,</HI> r. <HI>&s;eem not to be.</HI> p. 184. l. 20. r. <HI>ad Eccl.</HI> p. 185. l. 29. for <HI>when,</HI> r. <HI>whom.</HI> p. 187. l. 20. for <HI>they,</HI> r. <HI>thus.</HI> p. 189. l 19 for <HI>Ait</HI> r. <HI>Aut.</HI> p. 191. l. 7. r. <HI>con&s;itetur, imitetur.</HI> l. 20. r. <HI>at la&s;t?</HI>) <HI>viz.</HI> l. 28. for <HI>cry,</HI> r. <HI>&s;ing.</HI> p. 204. l. 26. for <HI>Dei,</HI> r. <HI>Chri&s;ti.</HI> p. 205. l. 17. for <HI>&s;taying the,</HI> r. <HI>&s;taying thee.</HI> p. 217. l. 11. r. <HI>Lords dayes collections.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
</BACK>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
