MEEting with a Book called A Barre to free Admission to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, written by Doctor Drake, in answer to Mr. Humphrey, and having diligently read both, I finde that even good men are too apt to reprove one another in things controverted betwixt them; which ought not so to be. As for Mr. Humphreys vindication of free ad­mission (as he states, bounds and han­dles it) it seems to me more rationall and clear, then to deserve so many harsh expressions from the reverend Doctor, as he hath let slip; whether in haste, or more deliberately, I leave to himself to consider. Sure I am, some words might better have been spared, then so published in print to the world, [Page 2]it being not yet determined whether Mr. Humphreys discourse be untrue or no, though disputable with the Doctor (it seems) whether it be more full of words or untruthes, which is very uncharitable and unbrotherly dealing; but I forbear. Both the reverend Doctor and Mr. Hum­prey are Gentlemen I am altogether unacquainted with, whose gifts & lear­ned abilities I yet much reverence, and wish this poor distracted Church may never want such officers to rule and feed her in the Lord, as the meanest of them be. It's an unhappy controversie I confesse, and little cause there is to take content in these debates: yet as times are, it hath need of scanning and sifting; because much of the unity and welbeing of the nationall Church de­pends upon the right stating and clea­ring of this Question; our doubts and scruples concerning the holy Supper, having upon the matter un­setled all. Some mistakes about admis­sion thereto, have run thousands into faction, schisme, and separation, under a zeal of separating the Precious from the Vile, of withholding the childrens bread from dogs, of preserving the Ordi­nances pure, &c. The premises are good, [Page 3]conducing much to reformation, were they not misapplyed in respect of per­sons, and in respect of the right way, and means of putting them in executi­on, as things now stand, as I beleeve it will appear they are, by this follow­ing discourse; wherein I shall ende­vour to vindicate that little Tract of Mr. Humphrey from the Doctors un­brotherly dealing with him, according to my measure and meannesse. Not that I intend an orderly and exact reply to every particular (which nei­ther my capacity nor occasions of my laborious calling will bear) but to undermine his chiefest strength, passing by the rest.

And first of all, for the Text which Mr. Humphrey delivers his discourse upon, though he may be thought not so happy in his choice of it in order to what he insisteth on, (as having ra­ther a sound then a true and full sense of the question and point concluded) yet I doubt not but the discourse will (as to the substance thereof) be war­ranted by other Scriptures.

And for Judas his receiving or not re­ceiving, I look not upon it as clearly ar­gumentative [Page 2] [...] [Page 3] [...] [Page 4]one way or other. Nei­ther do I think that first president, with­out the supply of other Scriptures, would make much for or against us in this matter, they being Apostles only that then received, whose office in the Church is now ceased.

In short, I shall not go about to de­fend every quotation or assertion in Mr. H. Book, nor to clear him from some inconsistences pointed out by the reverend Doctor; it's sufficient that he hath made good the main thing asser­ted: namely, That all Church members of years, and under Church indulgence (not rightly excommunicated) may come freely to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.

His free Admission is limited with exceptions of infants, distracted, the excommunicated, and he might say, the drunk.

Now the Doctor saith, That by the same reason that he excepts these, we may may except the grosly ignorant and scandalous in the Church.

Concerning which this twofold in­quiry is made.

1. Whether Church members of years, having the exercise of reason, be­ing [Page 5]ignorant, be as uncapable of the Sacrament as Infants or distraught?

2. Whether scandalous members un­der Church indulgence, may be equally debarred this Church priviledge with the regularly excommunicated?

To the former of these the Doctor saith, That the grosly ignorant are as un­capable to examine themselves, and discerne the Lords body as Infants, and therefore as justly to be excepted against: nay more, because Infants and distraught may have the grace of the covenant really, the other not.

To which I answer; what the secret working of the Spirit may be in such comes not within the Churches cognisance to inquire, but what is agreeable to the revealed will of God; and then if any of years, being baptized & professing the true religion be in the same incapacity as Infants or distracted; it's true there is the same exception against them, otherwise not. For mine own part, I never knew any of years but could take and eat and drink of the consecrated signes reverently and orderly according to the institution, as to the externals of that service, which the state of Infants is uncapable of.

And mad men would indanger the abuse of the holy signes, by their un­decent and unreverent demeanour in those necessary acts of communion and worship. And it must be granted that persons at years are not under that naturall incapacity that infants are, in order to the outward form of worship, Neither are Infants as such under the obligation of precepts of worship, as grown persons in the Church are. Nor can it be reasonably imagined, that such a state of persons in the Church should be admitted actually to receive, that in the discretion of the Church are no proper objects of Church censures, in point of offending, which grown persons in the Church are though never so ignorant. And what though the Doctor say, he can teach a childe of three or four years old, as much or more then some of our people at years have learned all their life time? A Parrat may be taught to speak words: but can he make such children rationally under­stand what they are taught, and exer­cise devotion from a principle of con­science, in reference to religious wor­ship? as in charity we may hope of grown ones according to that little [Page 7]they know; which may be conceived by their desires after it, and their de­meanour in the Sacramentall actions. Moreover, I doubt not but the Doctor or any other Minister of the Gospell, may in a short time, inform the igno­rant among their people, so as to make them capable of discerning the Lords body; and to eat and drink lawfully, in the Apostles sense, though not in the sense I shall give account of hereafter. All which being laid together, I con­ceive that Church members of years most ignorant are not so uncapable of the Sacrament, as Infants or mad men are: and therefore the same or like ground of excepting against the one, will not equally reach the other. And then the Doctors often retorting Mr. H. exception, doth rather discover weak­nesse, then adde any strength to the cause. This to the first inquiry.

As for the other, namely, whether the scandalous members under Church indulgence, may be equally debarred this Church priviledge with the regu­larly excommunicated, I do not finde the Doctors judgement so expresly de­livered: but he seems to debar such [Page 8]from the Sacrament. But sure to debar Church members scandalous their ex­ternall priviledge during Church in­dulgence, and toleration, they being under triall or otherwise, is contrary to the judgement and practise of the independent Churches, and seems ir­rationall and unjust to execute before a judiciall triall and sentence.

I confesse I am unsatisfied with their proceedings (as Presbytered) toward Church members of years admitted.

1. They set up an Eldership whose office is very doubtfull, too doubtfull to assume and exercise the keyes of Christs Kingdome (especially where there is no association of Churches) so that upon the matter the power of sentence is in the Pastour alone, or in those whom Jesus Christ never im­powered with the keys at all to binde and loose authoratively.

2. They set up such a way of triall and Church examination of native Church members in order to the Sacra­ment (the observance whereof is both their duty and their priviledge) as no word doth warrant, discouraging the most from indevouring after their duty [Page 9]and priviledge; so that upon the matter they are left out without any regular casting out.

3. They cause a carelesse forbearance of the Sacrament; and make their su­spension and excommunication upon the matter all one; and the Doctor al­lowes all presence at every ordinance, denying only the act of receiving to the worst.

4. They positively suspend Church members for ignorance and such like wants and comings short of what they should be to God; for which there is not the least warrant, either of rule or president, in divine writ.

5. They make excommunication lesse then it is indeed, in allowing the ex­communicate presence in the congrega­tion at every ordinance: and make it more then indeed it is, in dismembring Church members by it, it being ap­pointed as the last remedy to heal dis­eased members, not to destroy them. They are not thereby dismembred, but to be lookt upon (saith Mr. Cawdry) as diseased members under cure.

6. No more priviledge is allowed to Church members not approved of by [Page 10]the eldership (though not yet under any positive sentence) then is allow­ed to Heathens: and to the excom­municate as much of priviledge in the ordinances of the Church is allowed as to Heathens. All which upon triall will be found to be beside the rule, I think: and yet such are the conse­quences that flow from the Doctors own principles and premises, in his Bar to free admission to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.

In the next place, the Doctor de­clares his judgement concerning a scandalous member of a congregation impresbytered presuming to receive: what is to be done in such a case: As first, the Minister is to tell him of the sinne, and desire him to forbear; if that will not do, then to shew him the present danger of murdering Christ, and eating and drinking judgement to himself, and he hath done his duty.

But then it may be inquired, whe­ther he mean only in case of common fame, the scandall having been pub­lick: otherwise, I suppose it will not be a time to nominate any members sinne, or person in publique first.

Then secondly, I question whether a scandalous member doth necessarily murder Christ, and eat and drink judgement to himself in the Scripture sense, whether the person be regene­rate or unregenerate: For he may be Scandalous, and yet knowing, and able to put a difference between com­mon bread and the instituted signs, in order to their end. He might be drunk the week before, and yet sober, scrious and reverent in the act of re­ceiving, and not guilty of the body and bloud of Christ, nor eat and drink judgement to himself in the Doctors sense.

He often distinguishes of worthy Church members and unworthy, ac­cording to the judgement of visibility; accounting the regenerate in the Church only worthy of admittance, but not the other, they not having a per­sonall worthinesse, must necessarily eat and drink unworthily, and so judge­ment to themselves in the Apostles sense, &c.

Now because all his conclusions seem to be deducted from meer mistakes and misapplyings of the Apostles sense, [Page 12]1 Cor. 11.20, to the 34. to the great perill and danger of the visible Church of Christ, as causing rents and divisions therein, I shall therefore make bold to present to consideration these necessa­ry queries in reference to a discovery of the most probable sense of the place, humbly praying the Reader (when ever he think of me) to think seriously and impartially of them.

1. Enquiry is to be made whether the Apostle intends any such thing as personall worthinesse, or unworthi­nesse in order to the Sacrament.

2. Whether the unworthinesse the Apostle speaks to, were not meerly their miscarriages and actuall offending in or about the externals of Sacramentall actions and order.

3. What were those sins that provok'd the Lord so immediately to punish them for the present, and made them liable to be further punished for the future.

4. Whether they were chastised for unworthinesse of person or other sins they were guilty of, before they came together to celebrate the holy Sup­per.

5. What is the remedy the Apostle prescribes to that Church to pre­vent future judgement, and to enjoy present benefit.

6. Whether the unregenerate and most ignorant person professing and owning the true Religion among them, were not in a capacity so to use the remedy, as to prevent the judgement and receive benefit by the ordinance where God gave a blessing.

7. Whether the duty of self-examina­tion in order to the Sacrament is not to be restrained to the premises treated on in the context.

8. Whether a carelesse neglect or in­capacity of this duty of self-examina­tion before, do excuse and give a writ of ease from that precept of publique duty and service, Do this in remembrance of me.

9. Whether there be any thing in the institution, nature, end, language, acti­on of the Sacrament in the context, or elsewhere, incongruous to the re­ceiving of the unregenerate in the Church.

I doubt not but an ingenuous answer to these Queries would much moderate [Page 14]the unchristian rigour of these times about Sacramentall communion, if not to make the controversie to cease among sober godly men. And there­fore pardon my boldnesse in adventu­ring to present to publick view my confused apprehensions in answer to these queries, and that with as much brevity as I can. Something must be done; and if I can discover the truth or give occasion unto some more able to doe it, I shall blesse God, and think my labour well bestowed.

For the first, I conceive there is not the least hint or sound of unworthi­nesse of persons in the Church of Corinth spoken to by the Apostle, in reference to the Sacrament, nor are they blamed or punished for their reall unworthinesse as to God, visible to the Church, though it's probable they had such amongst them in that com­munion. For in the beginning of this Epistle, the Apostle gives them the titles of the Church of God, sanctified in Christ Jusus, called to be Saints, &c. And of those that were punished for profaning the ordinance, the Apostle speaks very hopefully, nay confident­ly, [Page 15]that their persons were justified; they were chastened of the Lord that they might not be condemned with the world.

But it may be said, Object. The Church of Corinth were all of them, at least visibly, worthy in respect of their persons; and therefore their free admission is no war­rant for us, seeing many of ours want that visible worthinesse. And if those that were visibly worthy, did through their miscarriage eat judgement to themselves, what may we think of ours, that have not so much as that visible worthinesse which they had?

1. I answer, Solution. If there be nothing against personall unworthinesse in persons professing the true religion, in the context, in order to the Sacrament, then unworthinesse of person in such can be no bar against them: but the former is true, therefore the latter is true also.

2. If the Apostle upon so weighty occasion meddle not with their un­worthinesse of person, in reference to their receiving, then neither need we to meddle with it: it is sufficient that those we admit be baptized, and of the [Page 16]true Religion, under Church indul­gence, to entitle them to all the ordi­nances which they are to use as means of their spirituall good; they being given to the visible Church to that very end.

3. If our Baptisme were rightly ad­ministred according to the Word, then ours of years that are of the same with them of the Church of Co­rinth, have as much externall priviledge in the Church, as they had, till either by Apostasie they fall off, or by the right exercise of Discipline they be put out. And had we the same charity the Apostle had, we would allow them the title of Saints, beleevers, brethren by profession and calling, as they did all along.

For the second and third Quere, I am sure the Text is clear for the affirmative, namely, that their unworthinesse was meerly their miscarriages and actuall offending about the externals of Sacra­mentall actions and order.

And they did eat and drink unwor­thily, not discerning the Lords body, and they profaned the holy Ordinance, in that they put no difference between [Page 17]their own supper and the Lords Sup­per; their own bread and the institu­ted signs: And for persons to make the consecrated signs, appointed by Jesus Christ to spirituall ends (as in the institution) a common or civill thing, to please and satisfie the outward man, must needs be a great evill; and was that high and provoking sin for which they are there punished, as well they might. For indeed it was a sin worse then carrying the Arke of the Cove­nant contrary to order; and yet for that the Lord made a breach upon them. And Nadab and Abihu were de­stroyed for offering strange fire which the Lord commanded not: so dange­rous a thing it is not to come up to, or to adde to, or to profane divine insti­tutions. Doubtlesse the Corinthians were very rude, unreverent and disorderly in the present observance; some were hungry, and some drunk; some had too much, and others could get none, or but little, as is intimated in the remedy or direction given to that particular case: To tarry one for another (as to order) and if any hunger, let him eat at home, & not make the holy Supper a meer bu­sinesse [Page 18]of eating and drinking; that they come not together to condemna­tion, for time to come, as they had done before.

To the fourth Query, I answer, They were not chastened for unworthinesse of person, or for any other sins they were guilty of before, but for unworthy actings in the act of receiving, or at that time. For this cause some are weak, and some are sick, and some are fallen asleep, that is, for eating and drinking un­worthily, contrary to order and decen­cy: the which word unworthily, re­spects their manner of doing, not their persons. It's no were said, Whoso ea­teth and drinketh being unworthy, is guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. And I think it is no where else the language of Scripture to require reall worthinesse of person, before they be sit to come under precepts of duty and service. Doth not Baptisme lay in­gagements upon all to observe all the commands of Christ? Mat 28.19, 20. And do this in re­membrance of me, is a precept for the bap­tized of years to observe (they being under Church indulgence) otherwise we shall be driven to question our Bap­tisme, [Page 19]and then our Church ministry; and run mad to the separations, or be­gin again if we could tell how.

In the mean time, how injurious to Church members doth our ungrounded rigour, and private interpretations cause us to be!

To the fift Querie, I say, The reme­dy is both by instruction and direction, by these waies the Apostle applies him­self to them for the cure of their ma­ladie. He repeats the first institution, comments upon it, the better to give them to understand the nature, end and use of the ordinance, which before they were ignorant of, or did not well con­sider. And having taught them the minde of Christ, in what was necessary to that service, then he gives direction what they must doe. First to examine themselves, whether they understand what these things of God did mean, as they had been taught; and then to tarry one for another, that the ordi­nance may be carryed on with order, decency and reverence, becoming wor­ship, and then he assures them they shall not be judged of the Lord.

To the sixth Querie, I answer, The Apostle intends the remedy to the good of the whole Church, which compre­hends every particular member of years that did actually receive, and offend therein. And he taught them not any thing, but what was easie to be under­stood by any reasonable man owning the true Religion among them. He directed them not to do any thing, but what was easie for them to do external­ly. And their offending was so obvi­ous and apparent, that they were easily convinced, and yeelded to the reproofe, Gods blessing concurring with the means: and indeed we read no more of their offending in that manner af­terwards; nor any other Christian Church.

But they were a Church consisting of members under better qualifications then ours; Object. therefore the same remedy which was sufficient for them, is not sufficient for most of ours.

1. Solution. I answer, The Apostle writing to them, That if any man that is called a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drun­kard, or an extortioner, with such they [Page 21]should not eat; intimates, that there were such among them that were as bad as ours.

But secondly, if we be a true Church, & our members we admit true Church members, even as theirs, then ours come under the same rules with them; un­lesse we can finde different rules for the same Church in the same things and respects: if not, then ours are under the same rule in reference to the Sacra­ment (untill they be legally ejected and cast out) and are bound to act ac­cording to those rules, and that order prescribed, in hope of a blessing, even the worst member among us.

To the seventh Querie, whether the duty of self-examination in order to the sacrament be not properly to be restrained to the premises treated on in the context; I answer, That whether it be to be extended in this place so farre as most do urge, in respect of their re­all state unto God, competent measure of knowledge in the many fundamen­tals of Religion, the having and acting every grace necessary to salvation, &c. or to be restrained to the particulars [Page 22]there mentioned; I dare not perempto­rily determine, though strongly incli­ned to beleeve the latter. Not because I think self-examination touching the former may carelesly be neglected by any; but I question whether the Apo­stle had any respect thereto in this place, in reference to the Sacrament: because I conceive the Apostle here sutes the remedy to the malady; and that unworthinesse of person was not any part of malady nor ignorance in the fundamentals of Religion; but their not discerning the Lords body, and that put them upon other unwor­thy carriages, as is shewed before. And therefore as examination is part of the remedy prescribed, it seems to me, most probable, that it properly refers to the rule of institution, and those other directions given in the con­text.

The eighth Querie is, whether a carelesse neglect of this private duty of self-examination before, do give a writ of ease, and excuse such negligent persons from the precept of publique duty and service, Do this in remembrance of me?

To this I say, I cannot conceive how the neglect of a private duty, can ex­cuse any in the neglect of publick wor­ship, that are Church members of years, under the obligation of all that Christ commands. The Apostles being sent to preach and baptize those that received their Doctrine (the Doctrine of the Gospell) and came under the baptisme of Christ, were bound to teach them to observe all things whatsoever Christ had commanded; and in so doing they had a promise of his presence, and bles­sing upon their endevours, And loe I am with you alwaies to the end of the world, Mat. 28.19, 20. What can be more plain, except we shall say the observance of the holy Supper, is none of his commands?

I think Christ commands nothing for the hurt of his visible subjects, they observing it according to their present capacity. Can an instance be given in the Old or New Testament, of any that came under Circumcision or Baptisme, whether proselyte or native of years, that as private members were admitted to all other ordinances in the Church; and yet were forbidden the use of the other Sacrament, the Passover or the [Page 24]Lords Supper? There is but one Law for the stranger and home-borne. If our Baptisme be the Baptisme of Christ, I say, if it be the baptisme of Christ, by which we are consecrated to Christ, why should any be exempted from any obedience and priviledge, being of years, and under Church indulgence at least, more then the circumcised under Moses, or the Baptized under the Apostles? Our not acting according to Scrip­ture presidents in this particular, will (I fear) in time unchurch us. We blame the Separations, when we our selves maintain the first principles of setting up distinctions and separations in the Church: But it is dangerous to be partiall in the lawes of Christ. Why may not the wofull neglect of Sacra­ments, visible pledges of divine love; be one thing that makes ministers be so contemptible and vile in the eyes of many as they are?

Well, but to return, I say this com­ming to the Sacrament is one of Christs commands, and he that breaks the least of his commands, and teaches men so, shall be called the least in the Kingdome of God. But I think Mr. H. hath said [Page 25]enough to this to satisfie any sober im­partiall Christian, to whom I must still referre the reader for further satisfacti­on herein. The Doctor hath many quillets about this particular, which are more like to puzzle then to satisfie the reader. He strives to put an in­closure to some duties, as not common to all, and he instances in relations and sex that come under the obliga­tions of the second Table; the which duties are common and universall to all of the same relations and sex. And what though it be not the duty of all Church members to preach and admi­nister Sacraments; yet it is the duty of all Ministers what ever so to do. But Mr. H. argument is, If all other service lie in common, it is an intrenchment upon the common liberty, to put an in­closure upon the Sacraments. And if the Sacrament come under the obli­gation of the first Table, as a part of Gods worship, it is equally binding to all, and so in common with the rest of worship, notwithstanding any thing yet made out to the contrary.

It is true, affirmative precepts do not binde to every moment of time; but [Page 26]that will not justifie a carelesse and wilfull neglect at any time. And where­as it is said, that Church members are not bid absolutely to come, but so to come, it seems strange to me: I had thought that all precepts of worship had been absolute to persons of years, in the Church of Christ. And do this in remembrance of me is absolute, and the principall duty, however the Do­ctor is pleased to call it carnall Divi­nity, and a setting up the form above the power of worship. For in every duty there is a forme, which is heed­fully to be observed; and it's impossi­ble there should be the power of god­linesse without the form. To obey the voyce of God in regard of the matter injoyned, seems to be the main, as re­specting reasonable man: and when there is an externall conformity to the commands of the Lord, such are said to walk in the waies of the Lord, failings in the manner there will still be; both good and bad are under a necessity of failings and miscarriages in every thing, which is to be imputed to the common frailty of man fallen But not [...] what God commands at all is [Page 27]voluntary rebellion, and that which the Scriptures most usually threaten severe judgements unto. But I hope the Doctor doth not mean that the ce­lebration of the Lords Supper is the form, and self-examination the pow­er; which yet he seems to do by his ex­ceptions against making receiving to be the principal, the other but an accessary.

To which exceptions, I say, First, that this duty of examination of our selves is a private duty, and the pri­vate is subordinate to the publick. Secondly, This duty was prescribed oc­casionally, as a remedy to that particu­lar case of making a breach upon the materials of divine institution and or­der; and therefore a means to further them in the right observance of the Supper: and we may most safely say, the end is most principall, the means lesse. Besides, where the duty ceaseth in some respects, it is not to be urged in those respects; but it's clear there is not the same reason, for point of of­fending in the Church of England, as there was at Corinth, about the Admini­stration of the Sacrament; the work of our congregations demeaning them­selves [Page 28]more reverently and orderly in a way sutable to the carrying on of that service in regard of the externall part, according to the rule of institu­tion.

And therefore that duty is not to be urged upon ours with the same necessi­ty of danger of eating and drinking unworthily, as to the Church of Co­rinth. It is true, their ignorance, and not discerning of the Lords body re­presented by the instituted signs, was the cause of all their other miscarriages.

But some may say, Object. Doth it not there­fore follow, that the ignorant amongst us do necessarily run upon the same danger of miscarriage?

I answer, Solut. we know they do not: for ours many of them rather erre on the other hand, by putting too much holinesse in the consecrated elements, then by using them as common things: such hath been the education of the most every where, that they conceive this Sacrament to be a most holy ordi­nance of God, appointed for the good of their souls. And therefore out of fear and reverence they do demean themselves orderly, and regularly con­form [Page 29]to the externals of the institution. Had the Corinthians come up to that conformity of Sacramentall actions, and order that ours generally do, we should not have read of their punish­ment for unworthy receiving (as I humbly conceive) nor of their being urged so to come: for that principall duty is not to be neglected, though through carelesnesse the other be.

But then (saith the Doctor) It is a sen to disswade men from doing their duty, Object. be they never so vile.

To which I say, Solut. the Doctor knowes there be other waies to reform such enormities. He instances in perswa­ding to forbear duties of homage and worship; but not only Mr. H. but ma­ny other sober Christians, Ministers, and others, judge that all the visible subjects of Christs Kingdome, are un­der the obligation of his commands? And do this in remembrance of me, is one not to be restrained to sex, suncti­on or any particular relations; but to be observed in common by all the bap­tized of years under Church indul­gence. And if the Doctor hath any thing further to say, that may give sa­tisfaction [Page 30]in that point, my self and others will be very thankfull.

9. And so I come to the last Querie propounded; namely, whether there be any thing in the nature, language, actions or end of the Sacrament, in that place of the Corinths, or elsewhere, incongruous to the actuall receiving of the unregenerate in the Church.

Before I come to answer directly to the Querie, I shall lay down these six propositions.

1. I conceive that Sacraments in ge­nerall, and this in particular were in­stituted for the spirituall good of the visible Church of Christ comprehen­sively taken, in which every particular member is included.

2. That the visible Church of Christ consists of persons regenerate and unre­generate, professing the true religion, and their seed.

3. That the unregenerate in the Church are the only proper and imme­diate objects of the most sundamentall promises in the Gospell Covenant, of the giving the first grace.

4. That the whole administration of the Covenant belongs to those in the [Page 31]Church, that are the immediate objects of the absolute promises in the Cove­nant; they being of years of discreti­on to use the same, in order to the Lords putting the promises into exe­cution and performance.

5. That whom the promises of grace do respect, to them the use of the Sa­craments do belong; Sacraments be­ing visible representations of the death and bloud of Christ, on which those promises of grace are founded, and by which they are confirmed.

6. That those in the Church and of years, whom we cannot exclude from covenant relation, we may not exclude from the Sacraments, they being visi­ble seales and pledges of Covenant love to that people that are in possession of Covenant administrations, of divine Ordinances, of worship, as ours are.

These being truths (as I conceive they all are) I think it will follow, that there is nothing in the Word a­gainst the receiving of the unregenerate in the Church, being of years of discre­tion, and professing the true Religion

The Doctor hath written very un­derstandingly and informingly con­cerning [Page 32]the Covenant, and the man­ner how it is sealed; and yet he fals off in his conclusions and applications, ex­cluding the unregenerate in the Church from the Sacramentall seals, whom yet he allowes to be objects of Covenant grace, saying that only the elect and persons effectually called are the ob­jects; and yet he intimates that the elect unregenerate are the object of ini­tiall grace; and that grace and faith be a part of the Covenant sealed by the Sacrament: and yet he would not have those receive that have not this faith and grace, though promised in the Co­venant and sealed in the Sacrament.

But if the elect before conversion be in the writing, and in the Church, then Sacraments seal to them: but doubt­lesse God hath his elect to call in the Church, else we cannot tell where they are; if not under the ordinary means of their calling. And therefore there can be no danger in sealing that part of the Covenant to such. And doth not the Doctor himself and others act ac­cordingly in administring the seal in Baptisme? Are they within the Co­venant then by vertue of a visible pro­fession [Page 33]in their parents, and upon that account sealed with the Sacrament of Baptisme; and yet grown to years de­nyed the same seal of the Supper? If they had right then; how comes it to passe they have none now? The Do­ctor saith, Because of their antifederall wickednesse, they prejudice themselves, and deprive themselves of covenant right: and that those that are in the state of nature, are out of the Covenant, and the grosly ignorant are such, &c. And therefore to be denied the sacramentall Seal.

To which I answer, It's hard to such, that any born in the Church of Chri­stian Parents, they continuing to up­hold an externall profession of the true Religion, are out of the Covenant, how ignorant or wicked so ever they be. For if there be a more immediate object of those promises of giving the first grace, in the Church, where the ordinary means of working that grace are, then persons in the state of nature, and unregenerate in the Church are the immediate object of those promises be­fore others out of the Church. But there is a present and immediate object of those promises in the Church, that [Page 34]are under covenant ordinances; except the day of Gods giving the first grace be past in the Church. Therefore those in the State of nature and unregenerate in the Church, are the present and most immediate object of those promises in the Covenant of Gods giving the first grace. As for those in the Church that have the first grace already, they cannot be the proper objects of it in the promise: and those that are out of the Church, not having the ordinary means of putting those promises into performance, cannot be the present and most immediate, or most likely objects.

For as touching the state of Paga­nisme, the Apostle intimates plainly, That they are strangers from the Covenants of promise, without hope, and without God in the world, Ephes. 2.12. Therefore the unregenerate in the Church, are the present and most proper objects of those promises, and consequently of Sacraments that seal to the truth of those promises. And for those that will not allow men in the state of nature and unregenerate, to be of the Church, they will allow the Covenant a full ob­ject in the Church. And for particu­lar [Page 35]sins and personall miscarriages in the Church, we are to make no dif­ference in the regenerate and unrege­nerate, there being the same rule to guide us in dealing with both. But let none mistake me, when I say the unregenerate in the Church are the immediate and proper objects of the promises of the first grace, I do not mean that all such in the Church must necessarily have that grace given them; but such there are in the visible Church, which by nature are as bad as any others, and in no consideration dif­fer from the worst of men considered in themselves; but are simple sinners wholly lost with the rest of fallen mankinde: That which makes the difference is out of themselves; it's the meer good will and pleasure of him that worketh all things after the counsell of his own will; giving grace to whom he will, of those that in all respects are equall in sin and mise­ry. So that when we shall come to judge of persons in the Church, un­der the most evident characters of un­regeneracy; yet we may not exclude them from being objects of covenant [Page 36]grace and mercy; nor from the seals and pledges of that grace and mercy, during their abode in the Church, and the Churches indulgence toward them. In a word, nothing excludes from co­venant relation, but the sin against the Holy Ghost (which I fear many of our blasphemous Sectaries are guil­ty of) and positive unbelief, such as was in the hardned and obstinate Jewes; who denyed the holy One, and true Messiah sent among them; obstinacy and Apostasie in the justly excommu­nicated, renouncing the Christian Re­ligion, hating to be reformed by the Churches censures; these things ex­clude, and nothing else. And this might suffice for answer to the Querie, but I shall adde two or three arguments more.

1. The very nature of the Sacra­ment of the Supper is a visible Gospell, representing Christ crucified to sight and all the other senses, by instituted signs, which more ordinarily is car­ryed to the ear by the word: but in this all the senses are made the inlets to the soul, carrying the knowledge of Christ crucified to the understanding [Page 37]heart and conscience. And I think the unregenerate in the Church, have as much need of being taught Christ cru­cified, by the visible signs, as any others: and they have as much need of the benefit and advantage of their outward senses, as the regenerate, and more, they being more dull and slow of spirit to understand or to be affected with the meaning and end of this ser­vice then they are.

2. The main end of this service, is to keep a continuall fresh remembrance of the death of Christ, and that satis­faction made by him; by which all the same blessings of the Covenant are procured to fallen man: Christs bloud was shed for many, for remission of sins; that he might gather into one the chil­dren of God, scattered abroad in all the world, and in all ages of the world, is the end of his death, Joh. 11.52. And the Sacrament is to be observed in remembrance of that by all those that professe hope of being saved through the merits of his death; which the unregenerate in the Church do, and cannot be excluded from the number of those many Christ shed his [Page 38]bloud for: and therefore it is proper for such to remember the death of Christ, in order to their spiritual good, whom we cannot exclude from being the sheep he died for.

3. The actions of taking, eating and drinking are naturall actions of the body, in reference to those spirituall ends the institution directs us to, the which actions the unregene­rate are in a naturall and rationall capacity to performe externally as the Word requires. Though the Doctor be pleased to judge them altogether uncapable, as not having a hand to take, he making faith the hand, which he saith they have not; which indeed is true of the unregenerate: but is he able to prove, that by the act of taking and eating exprest in the institution is meant the act of faith? I rather con­ceive it one thing among many others he takes for granted, which would give better satisfaction, to hear sound­ly proved by the Word, then to leave us meerly to credit the dictates of men.

4. The language of Sacraments runs in generall and indefinit termes, This [Page 39]cup is the New Testament in my bloud, shed for many for the remission of sins, drink ye all of it; so saith Matthew and Mark; indeed Luke and Paul re­strain the word many, to you, as be­ing a part of that many in the judge­ment of charity; and so Paul judges of the Corinthians.

I doubt not but if the Doctor exa­mine the institution well, he may finde enough to warrant a forbearance of that particular application in the de­livery of the Sacrament, which he so much urges in his Book. I cannot finde in Scripture language any such thing as he makes giving and recei­ving to be. Pag 4 [...]2. What danger is there of confirming the unregenerate in pre­sumption, if they take and cat in re­membrance of Christs death? Who have more need of remembring the death of Christ, then they that must perish for ever, dying without the sa­ving benefits thereof? Who have more need of those gracious tenders of life & favour, then such in the Church? For is not regenerating grace a benefit that comes by the death of Christ? And is not remission of sins a benefit that comes [Page 40]by the death of Christ? And is not Christ and all his benefits exhibited by those outward signs? And doth not that include or suppose a proper sub­ject of those benefits present; which the unregenerate and unpardoned in the Church are? What incongruity is there in all this? Besides, it sounds ve­ry harsh in the Church, to exclude this ordinance of Christ from being a renewing and a converting ordi­nance, or a means of renewing and con­verting grace to the unregenerate, they being the most proper objects of that grace, as it is held forth in the promises, for the putting of which into executi­on, all the ordinances seem to be sub­servient.

Again, that one main end of the work of the Ministry is the conversion of souls, none will deny; and I think none can exempt any essentiall part of that work from being a means sub­servient to this end; and if no essen­tiall part can be exempted, then not this of administring this Sacrament of the Supper, which none can deny to be an essentiall or necessary part of the Ministers work in reference to the good [Page 41]of souls. That ordinance in the Church that was instituted to shew forth the death of Christ till he come, is a means of conversion. But the Sacrament is an ordinance in the Church instituted to shew forth the death of Christ till he come. Therefore the Sacrament is a means of conversion. What may more strongly move a sinner to convert then the death of Christ, which sets forth the hainousnesse of sin, the wretched condition of the sinner in himself, without Christ, and yet a pos­sibility of salvation by Christ?

Thirdly, The word and prayer (con­fessedly means of conversion) are so ne­cessary to the right administration of the instituted signs, that without them there is no Sacrament; and therefore to deny the Sacrament to be a means of conversion, is to deny the Word and Prayer to be a means of conversion; un­lesse we shall say that the adding of the instituted signs to the Word and Prayer hinders the power and efficacy of them from their intended end; so that though the Word and Prayer be means of con­version out of the administration of the Sacrament, yet in it they are not.

And whereas the Doctor saith, There [Page 42]is no promise made to that Ordinance, in that respect: it is easily answered: for there is a promise of Christs presence in every ordinance, Mat. 28.20. Besides, Precepts and Promises are relatives; in Precepts we are to understand Pro­mises included, and in Promises Pre­cepts are understood. As sinners are to seek God while he may be found, and to call upon him while he is neer; so they must seek him where he will be found. As we may not exclude the mercifull presence of Christ from the Sacrament; so neither may we exclude sinners in the Church from seeking Christ there. We know not but that a wilfull or carelesse neglect of this one duty of worship and homage, may hinder a blessing from all the rest: as he that turns his ear from the Law, his prayer shall be abominable.

But when the Doctor cannot with any clearnesse answer the argument to satisfaction, he would evade it, by allowing all presence at the admini­stration which he saith is profitable, and answers the end pleaded for, &c.

1. And indeed in that his device Church members of years are beholding to him for his charity in allowing them [Page 43]as much priviledge in order to the Sacrament, as he allowes to infidels, and the excommunicated.

2. If that bare presence answer that end, then much more actuall recei­ving, having the advantage of more of their bodily senses, then meerly to be spectators: and I think that in yeelding this he hath granted the argu­ment; and his putting the question to actuall receiving, is not to any purpose; because the act of receiving abstracted from word and prayer, necessary es­sentials to the very being of the ordi­nance, is but a civill thing only: And therefore the whole must goe to­gether to make up that service; and his question is beside the question. It is sufficient to prove the argument, that the whole administration be bles­sed to that end; as Mr. H. states the question. But what devices do men finde out in pretence of advancing Sa­craments? Some exclude all Infants, others some Infants in the Church. The papists will give the Sacrament but in one kinde; many among us in neither kinde. The Doctor will al­low all presence at the Sacrament: [Page 44]they may hear and see, but they may not taste; they may not take and eat according to the Commandement.

But why will he allow all to be pre­sent? Why, because presence may convert, but actuall receiving not, because naturall men being present, may get good without that sinne which they are in danger of by unwor­thy receiving; but by their receiving they can receive no benefit; but do prejudice them­selves by their unworthy receiving, besides their being guilty of murdering Christ. And shall we think, that that act, wherein they eat and drink judgement to themselves, shall be so blessed of God, as to become a means of conversion to them, &c. And be­sides, because the committing of some grosse and scandalous sinne, is made by God an oc­casion of conversion; shall any take warrant therefrom to commit scandalous sins, &c.

To all which I answer, That all which he hath to that purpose is ar­gued from meer mistakes, he taking for granted all along, that the unre­generate in the Church, do necessari­ly eat and drink unworthily in the Apostles sense; whereas I conceive the contrary hath been already fully de­clared. And therefore it would be well, [Page 45]if he would see his mistake, and alter his judgement, that others might not be in danger of being misled by him. In the mean time what he hath char­ged Mr. H. with in point of excommu­nication untruly, may be retorted up­on himself justly, It is a cruell assertion, a bloudy tenent, &c. And that not only in his depriving many souls of the benefit and spirituall good of so bles­sed an ordinance; but in his detra­cting also from the goodnesse, grace and power of God in that ordinance; as if Christ had appointed it in the Church, rather for the hurt, then for the spirituall good of his visible sub­jects, they partaking thereof conformly according to their present capacity.

Object. But then (saith the Doctor) If it be a convering ordinance, we may administer the Sacrament to the Heathen to convert them to Christianity; for if it will convert those in the Church that have but the form, to the power of Religion, then it will sure convert the Heathen (at least) to the form: if it will do the greater, much more the lesser.

To this I answer, Solution. That an argument drawn from the greater to the lesser, [Page 46]must be of things of the same kinde, and so of men under an equall capacity, else it will not hold. I can throw a stone over a house, can I therefore throw a feather: this is lesse then the other, and yet though the same arme and strength be put forth, it will not do it. The fallacy of the argument lies in this, That there is not the same ca­pacity of receiving good by the Sacra­ment in both: the formall professing Christian is not in such an incapacity of receiving good by that ordinance as the Heathen are? We know that to Heathens, that never heard of Christ, or at least do not acknowledge him their redeeming Lord, so as to come under his Lawes, no not so much as Baptisme, the outward elements are but meer civill things. And they might be easily perswaded to take and eat of those elements of Bread and Wine, in order to the good of their bodies, but not for the good of their souls, before they own Christ to be their Lord, Redeemer and Saviour; till then they know not what these things mean. But those among us, educated in the true Religion, do ac­knowledge [Page 47]Christ their redeeming Lord; and they do know in some measure what these things of God mean: so that the Sacrament in an or­dinary way, may work some proper effect upon the one, but can have none upon the other without a miracle. Besides, it is clear enough, that as no uncircumcised persons were to enter in­to the Sanctuary, or to eat of the Passe­over; so no unbaptized person is to partake of the holy Supper in that Communion. Were there the like ground of denying the Sacrament to the ignorant and scandalous persons under Church indulgence, that there is of denying it to infidels; this con­troversie had been at an end before this time. It cannot be denyed, but ex­communication is appointed in the Church, to convert and reduce the ob­stinate and wilful sinners therein: doth it therefore follow, that we may ex­ercise this means of conversion to Hea­thens out of the Church? What can be more absurd? Nay, what have we to do to judge them that are without? 1 Cor. 5.12. The Doctor knowes well enough, that different premises will [Page 48]not bear the same conclusions: and the truth is, for want of making pre­mises equall, according to Scripture presidents, we have run upon false con­clusions: to instance in some.

1. Because we finde in Scripture the distinction of beleever and unbeleever, used to distinguish the Church from the World, how commonly is the same used to make a distinction in the Church amongst us who in Scripture sense are all beleevers: for it is evident, that an unbeleever? in the Scripture sense, is either a Pagan infidell, or an unbeleeving Jew that absolutely re­nounces Christ, under the notion of a false Christ, a deceiver, a devill, &c. refusing to obey his Lawes, or to ex­pect salvation by him.

2. Because we finde that these unbe­leevers are under wrath, Aliens from the common-wealth of Israel, strangers to the Covenants of promise, without hope, and without God in the world. Ephes. 2.12. Which was true of the Ephesians before they received the Gospell; that there­fore the unregenerate in the Church, are under the same condition, though they beleeve in a true sense (though [Page 49]not sincerely) and are under the Co­venant; and persons to whom the adoption, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God pertains, as once to the Jewes, Rom. 9.4, 34. fin­ding warrant in the word to separate from the Infidell and idolatrous world (especially in matter of worship) there­fore they conclude, we must separate our selves from the unregenerate in the Church.

4. Because we finde, that some be­leevers have by their unworthy and undecent behaviour, in time of admi­nistration, profaned the Sacrament to their own perill and judgement; there­fore we conclude, First, That those whose persons are unworthy (as not being regenerate) eat and drink un­worthily. Secondly, That some other unworthy actions of Christians com­mitted before their comming to the Sacrament, renders them uncapable of worthy receiving; and consequently renders them liable to judgement therein.

5. Because we finde in the Scripture, some excommunicated for foul and scandalous sins, and blasphemous opi­nions; [Page 50]therefore we conclude we may exercise Church censures for any sin, even for omission of such duties as are dubious whether injoyned in the word or no; but I have done with these false conclusions.

There is one objection more which the Doctor makes against Mr. H. Free Admission; to which I desire to speak something.

The objection is this. Object. That Mr. H. Free Admission strengthens the hands of the wicked, by promising them lies in the Name of the Lord: and makes sad the hearts of the righteous, whom God would not have made sad, by their profaning the ordi­nance, &c. And this he endevours to back with the language of the Sacrament, or words which the Minister uses in the deli­vering of the Sacrament to particular per­sons: by his words and action, giving and tendring Christ and all his benefits of grace and glory to the wicked, as well as to the godly; the which grace and glory the Sacra­ments are appointed to assure and confirm, &c. When as in the preaching of the word it is farre otherwise; the Minister therein not dispensing the same to all alike; but prea­ching comfort to whom comfort belongs, [Page 51]and terrour to whom terrour belongs, &c.

I shall in answer to this objection, Solut. promise severall things.

1. That Sacraments are of no other signification then what they are ap­pointed to signifie by the Word.

2. That what Sacraments signifie, that only they do necessarily teach, and nothing else.

3. That the subject of Sacramentall teaching, or that which they chiefly teach, is Christ crucified, together with all the benefits that come thereby to the visible Church, included in that particular blessing of remission of sinnes.

4. That the main end of the whole service, is to bear in our mindes a con­tinuall remembrance of the death of Christ; the meriting and procuring cause of all grace and glory bestowed upon baptized man.

5. That the Administration of the Sacrament, is appointed in the Church as well to be a means of grace, as a pledge to assure thereof.

To all this adde what hath been said before concerning the unregenerate, in order to the Sacrament; and then make [Page 52]it out he that can, that the language or administration of the Sacrament, to the wicked or unregenerate, remai­ning in the Church, doth strengthen the hands of the wicked more then the Word may do; or promise them lies in the name of the Lord. I grant that false conclusions and applications may be drawn from the truest premises in the Word: and so likewise from the use of the Sacrament, through mistake of our selves: but it doth not there­fore follow, that the Word or Sacra­ment promiseth lies to the hearer or receiver; when through an ignorant deceitfull heart, they misapply the Word or Sacrament. For there are generall truths held forth indefinitely to all in both, though all do not right­ly apply the same. And the very same that is said of the Sacrament, may be truly said of the Word, as to the par­ticular in hand, when rightly dispen­sed to men in the Church.

Is not this the great, and most true assertion of the Gospell, worthy to be received of all men, That Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, 1 Tim. 1.15. And also to seek and to save that which [Page 53]is lost, to call to repentance, to justifie the ungodly, and to die for enemies, who yet in other places are called sheep, his Church and friends, according to Gods electing love and gracious purpose? And is not this Gospell to be preached to every creature, in order to the wor­king and effecting these ends of grace and salvation in such as are sinners ab­solutely, and lost in themselves, and simply ungodly? And dare any say, this is to promise lies to the ungodly and sinners in the Church, and so to strengthen the hands of the wicked, that they may not return from their wickednesse? And what is the Sacra­ment given and received, but a visible representation of the death of Christ, and satisfaction made by him for sin­ners, to put us in remembrance of all this; and which opens a door of hope to all in generall, and a peculiar comfort to them that can from their experience of grace received (with Paul) apply this to themselves: Christ came into the world to save sinners, whereof I am chief. I know what is usual­ly put in against this generall assertion of the Gospell, limiting the same to [Page 54]penitent sinners, sensible of their being lost, and of being enemies, &c. But doubtlesse out of some mistake; and such as doth reflect somewhat upon the publick Ministery (to which I would not be any way in the least degree inju­rious) but because such like quotati­ons in Mr. H. are excepted against by the reverend Doctor; I shall crave leave to expresse some of my thoughts in vindication of him.

The Doctor saith, Christ came not to call the righteous, that is, such as think themselves so, but sinners to repentance, that is, saith he, such sinners that are sensible of their sinfulnesse, sick and lost, &c. But will not this then follow, that all na­turall men, dead in trespasses and sins, thinking themselves righteous, whole, and in the right way, and that they have need of nothing (with the Laodi­ceans) not knowing that they are wretched and miserable, poor, and blinde, and naked, are out of the num­ber Christ came to call; and so by consequence he came to call none at all; because all by nature are sinners under the forementioned Characters and black qualification of insensiblenesse of [Page 55]sin and misery, and high thoughts of themselves. And therefore the Doctors sense is not like to be the true sense and meaning. For we know what coun­sell Christ gives to the Laodiceans, who were such conceited senslesse sinners, Rev. 3.18. And how that he gives life to quicken them that are dead in sins and trespasses, Ephes. 2.1. And is sent to give repentance to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and remission of sins, Act. 5.31. For to say he gives repentance to the penitent, and life to the living, (as he doth if the Doctors sense be right) is not the sense of the Gospell, nor in­deed a truth in its proper sense, without the advancing of the power of nature too high. And therefore such supernatu­rall conditions or qualifications are not required to put persons into a capacity of receiving the benefits of the Gospell Covenant: it being the supernatural be­nefits and blessings of the Covenant that make any to be such. It's true, super­naturall grace precedes glory; and the first grace precedes the growth and in­crease therein: but it is naturall de­pravity, sinfulnesse and miscry that ne­cessarily precedes the first saving grace; so that that cannot be a condition of [Page 56]the first grace, that is either the first grace it self, or growth therein. The Covenant in this case is absolute and inconditionall: but then I conceive the Covenant to be conditionall in other respects, in an easie and favoura­ble sense thus. The tenour of the Gospell, to people that never yet im­braced nor owned the Doctrine and ordinances of the Gospell, runs thus, He that beleeves shall be saved; but the wrath of God abides upon those nations, peo­ple and persons, that either have not the Gospell in the tender of it, or being tendred receive it not. But those that upon the tender receive the Gospell, so as to cre­dit the truth thereof, and willingly come under the lawes and worship in­joyned, forsaking all false religions, and joyn with the professors of the true, such are reckoned for beleevers, and come under the promises of grace and glory upon that account. And therefore the Apostle sends salutations to all that in every place call upon the name of the Lord, both theirs and ours; and he applies that of the Prophet in this case, Whosoever shall call on the Name of the Lord, shall be saved, 1 Cor. 1.2. Rom. [Page 57]10.13. That is, such people are under the promises of salvation, in oppositi­on to those that call not upon the Name of Christ Jesus the Lord at all; as Jer. 10.25. Pour out thy fury upon the Heathen that know thee not, and upon the fa­milies that call not on thy Name. I look upon belief of the truth as the only means of ingraffing the unbeleeving Jew or Gentile into the true Olive or visible Church of Christ, out of which is no salvation; because they have not the ordinary means of attaining the same. And where the means is, the Word profits not, when it is not mixt with faith in them that hear it. The Jew beleeved not the truth of the Go­spell at all: And he that comes to God must beleeve in the first place, Heb. 11.6. that God is, and then, that he is a bountifull rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

And that leads me to the next thing, namely, to conceive of all those that are in externall convenant with God, in regard of their being in possession of the Divine oracles and ordinances, pre­cepts and promises, that all such are under all the commands of Jesus Christ: and the observance of those commands [Page 58]seems to me to be the condition of the Gospell, and the grace thereof to be attained unto in the use of instituted means, and wayes appointed by Jesus Christ in order to that end. And I do also conceive that not only half promi­ses, and it may bees, but whole pro­mises seem to respect persons in the Church, doing but the morall, reasona­ble and externall duties. Aske and ye shall receive, knock and it shall be opened unto you, seek and ye shall finde. If you that are evill know how to give good things to your children, much more will your heavenly Father give the Spirit to them that aske it, even to them that have it not? Hear ye deaf, and see ye blinde, that ye may see. Isa. 42.18. And again, hear and thy soul shall live. Isa. 55.3. Cease to do evill, learn to do well; and then come and let us reason together; though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Isa. 1.16, 17, 18. And after the Lord was pleased to express the greatest freeness of his grace to the house of Israel, in pro­mising to give to them a new heart, and to put his spirit in them, and to make them his people, he addes, yet will I be required of for this by the house of Israel to do [Page 59]it for them, Ezek. 36, 26, 27, 28, 37.

And as the Lord hath made many promises to the use of means, so the use of means is ordinarily successefull and blessed to attainment of grace. I do not say, that any by the use of means deserve grace, or that God is bound to give grace to all use of means, or that he gives grace to any for the use of means and reasonable serving of God. The blessing of grace is promised and also given freely according to the good plea­sure of Gods own will. And both the means & the blessing upon the means is a fruit of Christs purchase by his bloud.

The like may be said of those in whom the promises of the first grace are performed: they ought diligently to apply themselves to the use of all good means, and walk in all holy waies of Christian obedience, for further growth and increase therein. All men stand bound to imploy all their abilities, and to put forth themselves in all reall en­devours to improve their talents, ei­ther of common or generall endow­ments, or more peculiar blessings of su­pernaturall grace, according to the ad­vantages and opportunities given them, [Page 60]and shall be accountable to their Lord for them: this is the tenour of Scri­pture, and thus man is bound to do, whether God give the blessing or no: duties belong to man, the issue is the Lords: man is bound to him, but he is free to do whatsoever he pleaseth in heaven and in earth. And yet it's true also that the promises of eternall glo­ry and blessednesse, belong only to those that are actually justified and sanctified; and do patiently continue in weldoing, Rom. 2.7. And this I think is neither Antinomianism nor Pe­lagianism; but the tenour and scope of the Covenant of grace to man. So then if we consider men under sin and mise­ry, being in the Church, they are un­der the commands of the Gospel, which justifies their observance of those com­mands, in hope of a blessing. And ac­cording to promises in that particular case, the unworthy guesse in the para­ble, was not sentenced for his being un­worthy, and without the wedding gar­ment when he was commanded to come to the feast (for so were all that were bidden as well as he) but his par­taking of the Gospell, and having li­berty [Page 61]to sit down, and eat of every dish of that feast of fat things, and yet at the end of the feast, being found to be one not having a wedding garment; this was damning; and for this he was sentenced to be bound hand and foot, and to be cast into utter darkness, where shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, Mat. 22.11, 12, 13. This is a place usu­ally misapplyed: for it proves no more then this, That of those that have the advantage of Gospell admi­nistrations, some may and do perish, for not having the grace of the Gospell. Many are called, but few are chosen. But this by the way; I will return to the other part of the objection made by the Do­ctor against Mr. H. free admission, which is this, namely, That it makes sad the hearts of the godly, to see the ordinance profaned, &c.

To which I answer, Why should the hearts of the godly be made sad, because unregenerate persons join with them in duties of homage and worship, and are willing to join with them in the use of the Word and Prayer as well as the Sacrament, as means of a blessing? Why should any be grieved that wicked [Page 62]men and sinners are objects of Redem­ption, Covenant blessings and mercy? shall the eye of any be evill, because God is good, in sending Christ into the world to save sinners? Should not all remember that they themselves were such, though now through free grace they be washed, and sanctified and justi­fied. Christians that are partakers of this grace, are all this by vertue of Electing love, Redemption and Cove­nant grace. None of us by nature, were any better then our fellow sinners. It was the meer good pleasure of God in Christ, that hath made us to differ. And what have any that they have not received, and that in the use of the same ordinary means, you stomach at in o­thers your fellow sinners? Where would you have sinners to seek Christ Jesus but in the Temple? Where shall they finde him, but where he is? Christ bids all that will come and take of the true bread and water of life freely, Rev. 22.17. He doth no where discourage any from coming to him. O that Ministers would rather woo sinners, and seek by all fairnesse and love to draw them to wait upon Christ in the way of all his [Page 63]ordinances, in order to blessing; then causlesly, upon mistake, to discourage them, and take them off from endevou­ring after their duty of remembring the love of Christ, in his laying down his life for sinners! but I must contract.

But then saies the Doctor, If this be so, Object. let all come pell-mell, and then where is the reformation so much indevoured after of late?

To this I answer, Solut. That if by com­ing all pell-mell, be meant all, though they come to mock at, or openly to abuse the ordinance, I say it doth no way follow from what I have asserted, nor from any thing Mr. H. hath said. For he hath very well stated the questi­on, and excepted infants, distracted and justly excommunicated persons; and these being excepted, if he or I say, let all come that will, I think it neither to be absurd nor dangerous; seeing that Christ, when he offers himself, and the thing signified in the Sacrament, saith, Let him that is athirst come; and whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely, Rev. 22.17. Why may not we say of all of years, under Church indul­gence (whether Presbytered or not [Page 64]Presbytered) they offering themselves to receive, are not to be denyed the Sa­crament for supposed incapacity or un­worthinesse? Besides, Mr. H. hath given a rationall account of his own practise, to acquit himself from such reproachfull expressions, as are used against him, namely, That he hath done his utmost (de jure) that all come pre­pared: And that none may charge him with arrogance, he modestly and hum­bly breaks out into this patheticall expression.

But woe is me, if I justifie my self, who am a man of unclean lips, and dwell among people of unclean lips, eminent only in failings! By which words he doth not detract what he had said before, but only shewes, that though such were his frailty, that he (as all other) failed and came short in every duty, yet he had not willing­ly neglected or wholly omitted any duty in that respect, which Christ re­quires of him. And so whether Mr. H. or the Doctor favours most of pride and vanity, let the intelligent and sober judge.

Now to the other part of the ob­jection, namely, Where is the reformation [Page 65]so long indevoured after, if we allow of such a free admission.

I answer,

1. I would learned men did more study by the right means, and in the right way to reform a true Church la­bouring under some corruptions in Doctrine, worship and discipline; which is our case.

2. I would fain know whether the debarring of Church members of years, and not excommunicated from the Sa­crament be a means of reforming ap­proved in the Word.

3. Whether the want of discipline do justifie a totall neglect or suspension of Sacraments, in order to reformation.

4. Whether separation in the Church be a good expedient to further the re­formation of the whole.

5. Whether to abolish the essentials of Church discipline, in the use thereof, for some exorbitant abuses, be a good expedient to reform the thing.

6. Whether denying the Sacrament to those whom the Church cannot just­ly proceed against, the positive excom­munication be any furtherance to re­formation.

7. Whether there can be any refor­mation of the Church in that respect, untill discipline be restored, and uni­formly exercised in the same; and if so, whether the Sacrament must be suspen­ded till then, and whether it be any thing towards reformation so to doe.

8. Whether the very nature and be­ing of reformation in the visible Church, stands not only in the exter­nall conformity to the indisputable Lawes of Christ their head; constrai­ning all to an uniformity thereunto. When these few queries are answered ei­ther by the reverend Doctor, or any other that holds the Church of England a true constituted Church, as to its essentials and being; if I live, and God enable me thereto, I may take occasion to make a further and more direct answer to that latter part of the objection con­cerning reformation.

In the mean time I shall go on to vin­dicate Mr. H. in what he asserts touching excommunication, and censures of the Church. For what he hath asserted concerning these, is by the Doctor charged to be false, bloudy tenants, &c.

And here I shal first assert what I con­ceive is truth, and then answer to what the Doctor hath said.

1. I conceive that none are proper objects of excommunication, but such as are in the true Church of God, and in fellowship with the Saints in all acts of communication and worship pub­lick. For what have I to do to judge them that are without? them God judges, 1 Cor. 5.12.

2. That no one is to be excommuni­cated, but in case of violating some ma­nifest and known Law of Christ: and that violation peristed in to obstinacy; after a judiciall triall, conviction, and patient waiting of the Church, for his reformation.

3. That none may exercise the key of Ecclesiasticall Discipline, but such persons in office to whom all the keys of Christs Kingdome are committed, being appointed by him to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments as well as exercise discipline.

4. That no single pastour alone, but such as are so in an association, as to de­rive authority from the whole, can ex­ercise Church censures authoritatively; [Page 68]and that every Presbyter in generall is not to have a part in this power, but some in speciall chosen by the whole Church, which are more eminently qualified and fitted for the exercise of Ecclesiasticall rule and government.

5. That excommunication, when it is just, is a solemn ejecting or putting out of obstinate sinners in the Church, from all acts of communion and worship of God in the publick congregation; un­till by repentance they manifest both their shame and sorrow for their sin; and upon the manifestation of this, and publick promise of amendment, the Church ought to be satisfied therewith; and the penitent offender to be resto­red and regularly admitted to all ex­ternall Church priviledges again.

6. That those have much to answer for, that were the occasion of laying Gods vineyard waste, by throwing down the wall, and plucking up the hedge of discipline established, before they were agreed of another warranted by the Word, to be set up in stead thereof. By this time they may both see their folly and feel the smart of it in the evil effects and consequences.

Well, having laid down these pro­positions, let me a little apply them, and shew you what will follow upon the truth of them. And first, if the first be true (as I conceive it is) then those that never were admitted to the Lords Supper, are not in a capacity of these censures of the Church; nor to be amended by them, what ever their enormities be. If the second be true, then none in the Church may be censu­red for ignorance, or for the omitting of doubtfull duties; especially that of submitting to Church examination, in order to the Sacrament. If the third be true, then not only the common members, but the ruling Elders will be called in question for usurping the key of Discipline; they not having power to exercise the key of Doctrine and Sa­craments. If the fourth be true, then we may take notice how little of true discipline is practised in the Church of England; and in what an incapacity we are (for the present) of any true refor­mation; whatever some pretend. But the sixt and last I intend more especially to clear up in vindication of Mr. H.

And take it thus.

Excommunication is a delivering to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. It's a great thunder-bolt & punishment inflicted by the Church, as the last remedy to reduce the obsti­nate from the way of perishing Cal­vin saith, As Christ is in the Church, so Satan is out of the Church; to which condition the excommunicated are sen­tenced: but with a mercifull end; to reduce them to Christian obedience, where God gives the blessing. Other­wise it is the very beginning of hell, and eternall wrath; when the sentence is just; it being confirmed in heaven. Put out from among you that wicked person, 1 Cor. 5.13. He must be put out from among themselves, and so out of all communion. The same word seems to be Joh. 9.22. and 12.42. where it is said of some, that they durst not con­fesse Christ for fear of the Jews, for they had a greed, that if any did confesse him, they should be put out of the Syna­gogue. So that if the Apostle Paul in the censure of the incestuous person, have any reference to the practise of the Jewes, (as the Doctor seems to hint) [Page 71]why then doubtlesse he was put out of the Churches assemblies. For it is most certain, the Synagogues were places of case, where the Jewes publiquely assem­bled for divine worship, of prayer, reading, preaching, &c. Act. 13, 14, 15, 16. So that I say, if Paul followed the practise of the Jewes, or meant that the Corinthians should proceed ac­cording to their practise in this; then his meaning was, that they should put out that wicked person from their assemblies for communion and worship I professe I cannot but wonder the Doctor should be so tart with Mr. Humphrey in this thing; he having the very letter of the Text, and the practise of the Jewes Church to warrant what he hath as­serted in this point. For let me aske the reverend Doctor how he or any other of his opinion will reconcile that de­livering to Satan out of the Church, and allowing their presence in the con­gregation, in all acts of worship and spirituall communion, except actuall receiving of the Sacrament of the Sup­per? To put out that wicked person from among themselves: and at the same time to allow him presence among [Page 72]themselves; and to have communion with them in all acts of worship except the Supper, are altogether inconsistent. Neither doth that any thing at all help, which the Doctor so often urges in his book; Let him be as a Heathen or publican: But Heathens and publicans may be present at all the ordinances, 1 Cor. 14.24. And therefore the excommunicate may; because they are not to be unto the Church worse then a Heathen, &c.

For to this I have many words to say, which I think will answer the ar­gument.

1. It will appear that scandalous brethren are in some respect worse then infidels. If any provide not for his own, spe­cially for those of his own house; he hath de­nyed the faith, and is worse then an infidell, 1 Tim. 5.8. And it had been better for revolting Christians, never to have known the way of righteousnesse, 2 Pet. 2.21. And there was not such a thing so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his fathers wife, 1 Cor. 5.1. And when scandalous brethren are worse then Heathens, in sinning under such means of better obedience, that Heathens have not; there is reason they should be de­nied [Page 73]something of priviledge that Heathens may have.

2. It's clear that scandalous brethren are to be denied that priviledge in civill commerce and familiarity that Hea­thens are allowed to have with Christi­ans, and Christians with them, 1 Cor. 5.9, 10, 11. 2 Thess. 3.14. 1 Cor. 10.27. compared. Liberty is given to Christians to have civill and friendly familiarity with infidels, and fornica­tors of the world; which yet is abso­lutely to be denyed to scandalous and disorderly brethren; as a means to bring them to shame. And if scandalous brethren under triall or actuall censure, are to be debarred of some priviledge that heathens are allowed: it will somewhat weaken the strength of the Doctors argument.

3. The Apostles had direct and ex­presse commission (after Christs ascen­sion) to preach unto the Heathen; and therefore had warrant to admit of their voluntary presence to hear in any place where opportunity might give the advantage of converting them. But yet upon their rejecting the Gospel when it was faithfully tendred to them; [Page 74]the Apostles might shake off the dust of their feet against them; and leave them deeper under wrath. The un­beleeving Jewes were within the com­mission too; but when they rejected the words of eternall life, and abused the messengers of Christ, that preached this to them, it's said, they judged themselves unworthy of eternall life; and upon that ac­count the Apostles forsake them. Most terrible things are written against the disobedient to the Gospell. And I am sure, Christians that reject the Lawes of Christ (as the excommunicated are supposed to do) are worse then Infi­dels, that never had the means of know­ing and doing what Christ commands. As in respect of sin and eternall punish­ment, those that live under the Gospell, but refuse to submit to it, may be said to be worse then Heathens; so why not in point of externall Church privi­ledge likewise; they having forfeited all those priviledges of word, prayer, Sacraments, ingaging all powerfull means of their reformation, which heathens never had the advantage of. And it is supposed that Christ is reje­cted in all the ordinary means ap­pointed [Page 75]to reclaim the scandalous and obstinate in the Church, before this sentence of excommunication is pro­nounced and put in execution against them. And just it is, that they that obstinately reject all, should be banished from all; that they may either return to their duty by repentance, and there­by give satisfaction to the Church, and be again received into communion: or else adde to obstinacy apostasie; also be rejected for ever, that the Name of God be not evill spoken of, because of such scandalous members.

4. Let him be to thee as a Heathen or Publican: that is, let the excommunica­ted be as odious, and as abominable to thee as a Publican, or Roman officer sitting at the receit of custome, was to the Jewes: or as a Heathen was to the Jewes, during the present state of the Jewish Church (with respect to which Christ speaks) when the uncircumcised were an abomination to the Jewes; they being forbidden to let any stranger or uncircūcised in the flesh, come into Gods Sanctuary, or partake of any priviledge of worship, but upon being a Proselyte. And let the excommunicated be as such [Page 76]a one, and then what hath the Doctor and his party gotten?

Touching the practise of the Greek Churches urged: I say what is that to us, when it is not agreeable to the pra­ctise of the first Apostolicall Church of Christ? For upon the like ground on which they made four degrees of ex­communication, they might have brought in ten. And therefore not so much their practise, as the ground thereof is to be regarded in this point.

But then the Doctor addes, That if this admitting of the excommunicated to be present at all ordinances be an error, it is out of indulgence, and an errour on the right hand: for whereas he excludes from one or­dinance, he might exclude from all, according to Mr. H. tenent, &c.

1. To this I answer; right hand er­rours are evill as well as left, and to be taken heed of; and therefore not to be pleaded for, but to be reformed.

2. Suspension from the Sacrament only is no legall censure. 1. Because it hath no ground nor footing in the Word. 2. Because it is the same with excommunication, according to the [Page 77]Doctors own principles and practise. For he allowes presence at all the or­dinances in the Church in both; and his proceedings in order to both are the same. And he and the rest of his opinion and way, not coming up to the true nature of Church censures, do as much as in them lies, hinder the end of censures; which is, that the persons censured may either be ashamed and penitent, and so return to Christian obedience; or else renounce their pro­fession, and turn Apostates. Thus I humbly conceive, Mr. H. tenent is no bloudy tenent; but a most mercifull way and means set up in the Church, and left to be used as the last remedy, for the cure of the most desperate souls: And not to use this remedy according to its nature and true intent of Christ therein, is to deprive, the obstinate of­fendor of the only means left of his amendment and salvation; and so is indeed far from being an errour on the right hand. And yet by the way, to expresse my thoughts a little further: I hold that all unnecessarily friendly familiarity with scandalous disorderly brethren, that sin out of wilfulnesse, [Page 78]whether they be under Church indui­gence, triall, or censure, is to be de­clined according to that 1 Cor. 5.10, 11. which sense I humbly conceive comes neerer the meaning of the place, then to understand it of, or to inferre therefrom a suspension from the Sacrament.

The last thing that I shall speak to, is the Doctors exceptions against some of Mr. H. quotations of Scripture, concerning which I say; let him but allow Mr. H. the same liberty he takes himself in some of his own quotations, and then he will have little cause to finde fault for his impertinent allega­tions of Scripture. I have given ac­count of some of the Doctors already: I shall here take notice of two or three more.

1. He urges many texts of Scripture to prove that some in the Old Testa­ment were debarred the priviledges of worship for morall uncleannesse: but his proofs in that fal short of what they are brought to prove; being in cases that will not serve his turn. For such persons in the Jewish Church, came under the censure of the Judicial Laws, [Page 79]which were very severe against such offenders: and there is nothing ex­prest in Moses or the Prophets (that I know of) in reference to excommuni­cation. And in that Church, the por­ters charge concerning uncleannesse is to be understood of ceremoniall and Gentile uncleannesse.

Again, for that Tit. 1.15. brought by the Doctor to prove that some in the Church not excommunicated were un­clean. I deny that those the Apostle there speaks of, were of the Christian Church. Let him consult with the tenth verse, and he may easily see the Apostle means those vain talkers and deceivers that were especially of the circumcision: they professe they know God, (as other unbeleeving Jewes did) but in their works they deny him, being abomina­ble, and disobedient, and to every good work reprobate, vers. 16. They were either such as never were of the Chri­stian Church, or if they were once of it, yet now were revolted and become Apostates by their horrid opinions, and abominable impieties. And then what is this to members of a Christian Church, professing Christianity?

Again, for Church examination in order to the Sacrament, the Doctor al­ledges, 1 Pet. 3.15. Be ready alway to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you, with meeknesse and fear; having a good consci­ence, &c. The scope of the place is to shew what a Christians duty is when they are apprehended, and under the terrour of persecuting adversaries: which duty is to be so far from being affrighted from their Christian profes­sion; that in such case, they should be alwaies ready to give a reason of the hope that is in them with meeknesse and fear, &c. And the Apostle urges them to this duty of constancy from a great incouragement, If you suffer for righteousnesse sake, happy are ye, vers. 14. Now how impertinent is this place for Church examination, or examination by the Pastour or Elders before admit­tance to the Sacrament. If such kinde of proofs be sufficient to warrant that practise of examination, and suspension from the ordinance for neglect of it, men may prove any thing they have a minde to; and make every fancy of their own a necessary duty; and so make [Page 81]void the necessary Lawes of God by their traditions.

I shal instance in one quotation more, and then I have done: and it is 2 Pet. 3.5. For this they are willingly ignorant of, that by the Word of God the heavens were of old, &c. This the Doctor quotes to prove that grosse ignorance in Church members is a scandalous sin, for which the Church may proceed to censure them, and to suspend them from the Sacrament: but sure this is not very pertinent to his purpose, as will easily appear, if he con­sult with the Context. This second Epistle was written to stir up their pure mindes by way of remembrance, that they might be mindfull of the words spoken before by the holy Pro­phets, &c. and to arme them against those Scoffers that should come in the last daies: 2 Pet. 3.1, 2, 3. Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last daies scoffers, walking after their own lusts; and saying, Where is the promise of his coming, &c. Scoffers at the Promise; which notes the highest degree of defection from and renouncing of piety, so Psal. 1.1. of the three degrees of ungodly men the scoffers or scorners is the last, as being the worst. [Page 82]And by these are meant such as fell off and joined their selves with the perse­cuting Jewes, complying with them; and falling into all the villany in the world, exprest here by walking after their own lusts, that is, going on habi­tually as in a constant course, doing whatsoever seemed right in their own eyes, without any restraint of law, of nature, of Christ, &c. In the second chapter of this second Epistle, they are set forth in their colours; to be such as had escaped the pollutions that are in the world, through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and by apostasie were intangled again therein, and overcome, and so their latter end was worse then the begin­ning. They that have been converted from their heathen sins, by receiving the knowledge and faith of Christ, and then again relapse and turn to them again, this latter estate of theirs, this Christian Heathenisme is worse then their bare Heathenisme at first. They had knowledge enough to bring in damnable heresies, and wicked loose opinions; to wrest the Scriptures, to trouble the Church, and unsettle many: [Page 83]but they were willingly ignorant of the Word of God; they had the know­ledge of Scripture, but against their knowledge did pervert the same, and wrest all the Scriptures to their own destruction; as the learned Papists and our Apostate Sects do. But what is this to the simple ignorant among us, that out of carelesnesse meerly, or in­capacity and weaknesse are so; and yet adhere to the true religion by profes­sion amongst us? These are strange mistakes and applications of Scriptures: but I hope the Doctor is not willing­ly ignorant. By this he may see how severe he is against that in Mr. H. which he is more guilty of himself. But I have done with this, intreating him and all others into whose hands this shall come, to make a charitable sense and construction of what I have here written, and not to be offended, or prejudiced at the plainnesse of the matter or rudenesse of the expressions and method, because I want those ad­vantages that should help all this.

The Lord knowes that I herein in­tend plainnesse, and so farr as I know my own heart, I have thus declared my [Page 84]judgement in these things in upright­nesse and sincerity, hoping they may be a means of the Churches good, tending to her peace and unity; and I am per­swaded will be so if prejudice or some other thing do not hinder the serious consideration, right understanding and use of what I have here written. And so I have done with the reverend Do­ctor.

And I shall now from the grounds and principles laid down in the fore­going discourse, crave leave to hint a few things to the dissenting brethren of the Congregationall way: and the ra­ther, because if the Presbyterian way (as some do practise) will not hold and stand good, much lesse will the Inde­pendent novelty in point of separation, and gathering Churches out of Presby­terian congregations or others, and therefore give me leave (you that are for that way) to speak freely unto you in a few words.

If you judge the Ministry and the ordinances and particular congregati­ons lawfull as to the main, why do you separate from them, and gather out their best members from them? would [Page 85]you be content to be so served by other separated Churches? Doth not this sensibly insinuate to the world, that those gathered Churches are the only Churches of Christ, and so all other congregations (not after your moul­ding) thereby called into question whe­ther they be Churches of Christ or no? Are you for order and edification, and for the peace of the whole, or are you not? Do you intend the reformation of the whole, or of a part only? If you be only for the reformation of a part, and your desire be to draw up some to purity of ordinances and spirituall communion with Christ their head, and one with another, what must become of all the rest that are not of your minde, nor indeed in a capacity of admittance unto you, upon your termes and qualifications of members? what will you make of them that are not so qualified? will you account them members of the true visible Ca­tholick Church, and yet not fit to be of particular congregations, and enjoy communion with Christ in all his holy ordinances?

Are they by vertue of the holy Co­venant [Page 86]of grace, Church natives and members borne; and declared to be such by publick testimony on the Churches part in administring of Bap­tisme unto them, a great Church pri­viledge, of right belonging to none but such as are in externall Covenant with God at least, either by profession of faith in themselves, or by their pa­rents, and yet not fit to be owned, or received into communion by any par­ticular congregation? Why, what a case are we in then? Your selves were equall with the rest in your Baptisme, and under the same administration of worship and service that others were: and if you have found a blessing in your regeneration and effectuall cal­ling, keeping in that station, why doe you forsake it now? Hath the Cove­nant of grace, in the use of ordinary means, brought quickning grace and life to your souls (which is the main in order to eternall blessednesse) whi­ther will you go to mend your selves? Why should you be so offended at the presence of such as you your selves once were? Did such kinde of persons hinder the power and blessing of ordi­nances [Page 87]from doing you good before, that you are so zealous in separating from them now? Will not the effects of free grace which you have already received convince you, that it is good for you to keep your former station, and wait upon the same God in cove­nant for increase and compleating of what he hath begun? What fault can you finde with Word, Sacraments and Prayer (the main essentials of holy worship) they being the same both with us and you? only you are grie­ved that sinners should enjoy the bene­fit of all these, though you as bad as they have found good in the use of all these. Would you have Jesus Christ save no more then those that are alrea­dy saved, or in a saving state? Would you have the effects of Covenant love, flowing from a bleeding Saviour unto sinners now to cease? Had not meer grace and mercy prevented when you were sinners, you had been impenitent sinners still like to the worst. Will not the remembrance of what you once were beget some bowels of tendernesse toward such sinners? Is this your se­paration the way to draw on others [Page 88]that are weak ones, and to recover of­fending brethren? Is this the way to do their souls good, to rail and revile them with reproachfull speeches and slanders, calling them the World in op­position to the Church, and unbelee­vers, aliens, profane ones, dogs, and swine, and the like? Nay, is not this the way rather to cast stumbling blocks before the blinde, and to destroy many weak brethren whom Christ hath died for, by hardning them in an evill way? Is it not a means to make them aposta­tize from the true Religion, and turn Papists or any thing, to keep the name of Christians, rather then to be under that reproach of Infidels, Heathens, the profane world, &c. You would have them left to wander in their own waies, and so you make them objects of the threatnings, but not of the grace of the Gospell and promises; under the com­mands, but not under the promises made to Gospell administrations. I wonder at it, that such Ministers would be accounted the only men that patro­nize free grace, and the only Gospell Preachers; and yet forget that Christ came into the world to save sinners; [Page 89]and to give repentance and remission of sins; to seek and to save that which is lost, as all were and are untill he finde them and gather them to himself by a blessing of spirit and power in the use of his own ordinances. The Scriptures di­stinguish indeed between the Church and the World; but these men will be making a world in the Church, and a world out of the Church: and make Infidels of the baptized, and such as were born in the Church, and make a profession of faith, and that truly too an to the object at least, and yeeld ex­ternall conformity in the materials of worship and Christian obedience. But you that are so bold to unchurch Chri­stians, and to make spoile in Christs Kingdome; did you ever read any such thing approved in the Scriptures? I con­fesse these are bold times; but let not men make too bold with Jesus Christs interest; suffer him to have his full possessions and dominion over all his subjects that professe loyalty and ho­mage unto him in the world. Let us wish grace and peace to all that call on the name of the Lord Jesus both theirs and ours; and let us have uni­on [Page 90]with them and communion too in all the Lawes and ordinances of Jesus Christ. He hath spirit and grace suffi­cient to answer all the wants, to pre­vent all the evils of all that seek after him according to his own institutes. Oh brethren hinder none in seeking af­ter Jesus: discourage none because they are sinners from coming under the most ingaging ordinances to pre­serve Christian obedience; do not act so contrary to the Apostolicall daies. The Apostles did what they could to convert the world unto Christiani [...] and rejoyced in bringing sinners to the obedience of faith: and were all for the inlarging of Christs kingdome, for which end they put themselves upon the greatest hazards. And will many of you pervert Christianity into the world,' Christ into Belial, unchurch and unchristian such as the Apostles did generally imbrace, and receive to communion upon as slender grounds as ours are desired to be received? Did you over read that they refused any one that imbraced the Doctrine of faith, and was willing to be baptized? Did you ever read that they required [Page 91]more to breaking of bread, then they did to Baptisme? Did you ever read, that they called any in the Church Un­beleevers, Heathens, Belial, Dogs, &c. Did you ever read of this distinction of Church and World in any of those Churches the Scriptures speak of? I would you would prove a twofold world, one in the Church, another out of the Church: and a twofold King­dome in the visible Church of Christ, where men and women generally sub­mit to the Lawes and Ordinances of Jesus Christ. Will you confound things that so much concern the Lord Christs interest? can you put no difference be­tween the unregenerate under Covenant lations and administrations, and the infidel world that are left to wander from all these, and to sacrifice to the Devill, and not unto the true God at all? Will you allow them no better ti­tles and priviledges then you will al­low to Heathens? I wonder what rule you walk by, and judge by, and what spirit it is that you act so vigorously from. Suppose the Indians in America should generally embrace the Christian faith, and disavow their worshipping [Page 92]of Devils, and desire to imbody them­selves with those that professe the Chri­stian religion, would you not offer them Baptisme, and upon their coming under it, would you not admit them to all the ordinances of Christian profes­sion and communion? Whether you would or no, the Apostles have done it in the like case. Or suppose the in­fidell Jewes should be convinced of their mistake, and should now confesse that Jesus whom their fathers crucifi­ed, is the true Messiah and Saviour of the world; and upon that account re­nounce their errour, and desire the Bap­tisme of Christ, professing their resolu­tion to submit unto his administrati­ons, and come under Christian obedi­ence, would you refuse them and not baptize them untill they were so qua­lified as to come up to your termes of communion? I think you would not. And I pray then, why will you separate from the most of ours that are lawfully baptized, and come up to the same pro­fession, and are of no other religion but the Christian religion, and expect sal­vation by Christ alone? Is it because they have this by education and the [Page 93]helps of tradition, which in the other case is not so? I pray you do not un­dervalue any benefits and helps that are the consequences of the Covenant of grace. Remember how sadly the Apo­stle laid it to heart, when the Jewes by their infidelity in denying Christ to be the Son of God, did unchurch them­selves and apostatize, Rom. 10.1. and the 11. compared. It was not their being carnall and otherwise ignorant and wicked, but their not beleeving that Christ was the Messias promised unto their fathers, that did unchurch them and their posterity to this day: for that unbelief was the thing that barr'd them from his administrations, & so are said to be cut off, although by birth pri­viledge they were the only naturall branches or Church members. Were they refused by the Apostles, or cast off, or did they eject & cast out themselves from being branches of the true Olive? Christs coming in the flesh not discerned by them, was the occasion of their fall from being the Israel of God: he was the stumbling stone and the rock of of­fence, that made them fall from their Church state and relation. They would [Page 94]not own any other administration but that of Moses; and upon that account undid themselves and perished. What think you would have been the issue, had they owned Jesus Christ to be the true Messias, and so had come under the Gospell administrations, as ours are; and would not be under any other, that they should have been refused and separated from, as being none of the Church of Christ? I beseech you con­sider of it: did not thousands of the Jewes come in and offer themselves to Baptisme at the preaching of one short word or sermon, Act. 2. And can we imagine that they were all true Con­verts in your sense? was any refused that desired to be one in the Christian profession? Suppose that all the com­mon people in England were unbapti­zed (as some reproachfully and slan­derously report they are) and were sensible of that condition: and should come and desire Baptisme upon no other account then their present capa­city would admit of; confessing them­selves sinners, and promising obedience to the word of God; professing hope of mercy and happinesse through the [Page 95]merits of Jesus Christ (which all that have learned their Creed are capable to do) I would fain know whether you could lawfully refuse to baptize them at the present, without any long defer­ring of it, although they had been Hea­thens born. I would I did but under­stand your answer to this supposition. I conceive that all those that being of years, are in a capacity for Baptisme, are in a capacity also of all other Christi­an communion. I presume the Apo­stles baptized upon as easie termes, and so might you; except you have a dif­ferent commission, or understand the Apostles commission in some other sense then they themselves did. But I must contract my self, & aske you once again, whether you ever found any president in the Word for what you practise in this point? what Church under the administration of the Gospell will af­ford a president for your practise? Do you separate according to Apostolicall order and rule, or by vertue of some new commission or light the Scriptures ne­ver taught you? I pray you again consider: you had need be sure of good warrant to bear you out: for you have [Page 96]been the cause and means of our being without discipline, Sacraments, union and communion with other refor­med Churches: indulgence to you hath been the occasion of an unlimited To­leration, the misery of all those facti­ons, Schismes, Heresies, Blasphemies now abounding in every corner of the Land. Well, if your foundation be only the wisdome of the flesh, and a worldly interest, time will discover more of the Babel you are building: when the consequences of your prin­ciples, practise and design are come to full maturity. It may come to that passe (and it is much to be feared it will) that you would retreat if you could tell how. In the mean time the wilde beasts of the wildernesse come in­to Gods vineyard, and by heresies de­stroy the tender grapes: and many follow their pernicious wayes, by reason of whom the way of truth is evill spoken of. Men arise from among our selves speaking per­verse things to draw away Disciples after them, 2 Pet. 2.2. Act. 20.30. But mark them thut cause divisions and avoid them, Rom. 16.17.

But let me speak one word more in [Page 97]order to discipline, which as you were never yet willing to come under as to the reforming of the whole, so have your indevours been all along most fierce to obstruct and retard the disci­pline debated on in order to that end.

Again, when the fittest way in Christian prudence, according to rule was agreed upon as a means to reforme the whole; and confirmed by the supreme Autho­rity of this Nation: designs were dri­ven on to obstruct it, and such things attempted, as are the greatest scandals to the Protestant Religion that ever it suffered under.

And thirdly, notwithstanding many symptomes and sad omens of a carnall design tending to the confusion and ruine of the whole (and those the pro­per products of your own miscarri­ages) do already appear; yet you per­sist in your own contrivances, and will not retract, untill not only the Church, but also the flourishing state of the Common wealth be invol­ved in the same confusion and ruine. The very sinewes of the Common­wealth are the fear of God, and divine order in carrying on the same in all [Page 98]its parts uniformly: different parties and factions too much indulged do ever beget jealousies and fears, the common nursery of sedition and rebel­lion: And that which cannot be held without gratifying of all factions and parties, cannot in reason and policy hold long. Why may not men truly fear God, and carry on the power of godlinesse in their several functions and places, under an establishment of Do­ctrine, worship and order; the only way to honour God? And the best ex­pedient to preserve the whole unifor­mity in the Church is a good founda­tion of peace and tranquillity in the Common-wealth. And that is ever the best policy amongst Christians that is subordinate to true piety: and our greatest freedome desired, will be soo­nest attained in the way of religious­nesse, when sin will be a snare to any people. I confesse it is meerly occa­sionally that some things have drop­ped from my pen of this nature. I would not offend any, nor have I un­dertaken to meddle with the Indepen­dent way strictly taken; they have been sufficiently answered by divers [Page 99]learned and reverend Gentlemen: and the inconsistences, contradictions, ab­surdities and mistakes of their way discovered, and not y [...]t vindicated by any that ever I heard of. I only have hinted some things tending (as I con­ceive) to the Churches peace and uni­ty in vindicating Church members from reproach and slander, and infe­rence to the preceding discourse. And therefore I shall end with Mr. Humphreys wishes, adding some of mine own.

1. I wish we had a government esta­blisht in the Church, the nearest in Christian prudence that may be to the word of God.

2. I wish the duty of fraternall cor­reption, a watching over, and admo­nishing one another in love were bet­ter known and practised amongst us.

3. I wish that men would look more to their own consciences, and leave the judging of others spirits, heart and reins alone to the judgement seat of Christ.

4. I wish, though there may be some judging by the fruits, that wise reli­gious men would be more cautious of countenancing the separations in the visible Church, seeing upon the same [Page 100]ground that you go to gather a Church out of any mixt congregation, another will gather a separation out of your Church; and so continue (as I have intimated from our sad experience) an endlesse separating, untill this first se­paration shall in a few years be able to take up the saying of that greatest Grand-mother, unto those many Schismes shee shall see issuing as her naturall off-spring, out of her owne bowels, Rise up daughter, go to thy daughter, for thy daughters daughter has a daughter; for this separations separation has a separation; so farre Mr. Humfrey: I adde.

1. I wish that the distinction of be­leevers and unbeleevers, Church and world, Christ and Belial, holy and profane, worthy Church members, and unworthy, were used in the Church of God according to Scripture mean­ing, and with due caution, and no otherwise.

2. I wish that Sacraments were more clearly understood in respect of their nature and end, attributing unto them their due according to the Scripture, avoiding all humane boldnesse, either [Page 101]in adding to advance them, or in dimi­nishing them so as in the least degree to debase them.

3. I wish that the Lord Jesus may have the liberty and full scope of his own instituted ordinances given for the spirituall good of his Church; that he may use them as instruments of his Spirit in order to that end, up­on the spirits of all his subjects, accor­ding to their necessities and spirituall wants.

4. I wish that a godly care may be taken in the education of all borne in the Church, that being instructed in the plainest way of faith and obedience in the Christian religion, they may be prepared to profit by every ordinance in the Church when they come to years.

5. I wish that all of years may be made to understand their duties and Church priviledges and be incoura­ged unto Church communion in all the waies of Christ; that so they may come under Church discipline, the best remedy to reclaim the obstinate and wilfull offenders.

6. I wish the gifted brethren were [Page 102]better imployed, then in unchurching our Churches, and gathering Churches out of them: it were a work more pro­per and acceptable, either to be con­tent to exercise their gifts to the edify­ing and building up of that Church in which they received them; or else to goe into the infidell world (as the A­postles did) and preach the Gospel and plant Churches there.

REader, since I parted with what I had written in answer to Doctor Drake in the foregoing discourse; there came to my hand Mr. Humfreys Rejoy­ner in vindication of himself; a work very well performed by him: wherein the truth formerly by him asserted is better cleared, and confirmed, to the satisfaction of many souls fearing God, and breathing forth their ear­nest desires after the settlement, refor­mation and uniformity of the Church of God in England according to the Word of God. Be not prejudiced against his book by other learned men, who have and still do appear with much bitternesse and passion against him; more to affright with words and humane dictates meerly, then with mat­ter [Page 104]of grounded truth, according to the sense of the holy Scripture: witnesse that book put forth by some Mi­nisters of Glocester-shire, intituled, A Scripture Raile to the Communion Table. I confesse the title is good; for we do acknowledge there ought to be such a thing; but not in their sense, as I hope shall appear by the discovery made in this short discourse following, in which I shall wave what hath been al­ready written in answer to D. Drake, by Mr. Humfrey and my self, and take notice only of some things in the Scripture Raile which have not yet been spoken to, that I know of. And this I shall do as briefly as I can, be­cause I would not anticipate him whom it doth more nearly con­cern.

And first of all, because I would not leave the weak and incautelous Reader deceived with vain and groundlesse words in reading this Scripture Raile, let this be noted, that I take Scri­pture discipline to be the only Rail for the Communion Table; which (I hope) both the Author reproached, and [Page 105]my self earnestly desire may be set up; and all our indevours tend as condu­cible means to that end; as being assu­red that the first stone in the building of the reformation, (as to our case) is holy discipline: And whether their principles or ours tend most to that, I hope to make appear to sober and unprejudiced Christians. And the way I shall take, shall be to discover some of these Gentlemens unbrotherly dea­lings with Mr. Humfrey: first in per­verting his sense. Secondly, in setting up a Raile to the Lords Table, by per­verting Scripture, and so making that Raile to be a pretended discipline meerly.

1. They have damned and censured his Book to be an ungodly pamphlet, in which is a masse of perverting Scri­ptures, tending to destroy all Church reformation; little better then carnall and profane reasoning, sophistry, a heterodox piece, abomination, a vile piece, with divers other such hard cen­sures; language enough to affright any from ever looking into it, that have any care of their souls, to avoid their own destruction, in complying [Page 106]with that soul damning practise of maintaining mixt communion, as they call it.

I must confesse these men seem very confident in reproaching and censuring both the Book and the man: but in this their indeavour to make it thus vile and odious to the world, they have not the least evidence of truth or strength of reason to evince it, that I can finde in their Book: And it will so appear, if you minde what is Mr. H. scope and end in his discourse, and what are the principles upon which it is founded. As,

1. That the visible Church of Christ consists of men making a profession of faith in Jesus Christ, and so are Saints by calling, what ever they are in truth, while they so professe, and adhere to the true worship, the means and mat­ter of which are hearing the word, receiving the Sacrament, and prayer: and of these many are called and few are chosen.

2. That all of these of years come under the obligation of Christs com­mands, and are bound to do their duty & homage to Christ their Lord, as well [Page 107]as they can, according to Mat. 28.19, 20.

3. That all such ought to submit to Church discipline, and not to be ex­cluded from any observance, nor deny­ed any Church priviledge, untill they be judicially proceeded against, and debarred by vertue of positive excom­munication.

4. That Ministers by vertue of their function and office may lawfully ad­minister the Sacraments to Church members, though they be ignorant and scandalous, he doing his duty as well as he may in preparing them, in the want of Church discipline. These (I dare boldly affirme) are the main things asserted in that little despised piece; which with a sober spirit, the Author hath soberly discussed and cleared from the common exceptions made against it by men of different mindes: for which his pains first and last, I verily beleeve the Church of God in England have great cause to be thankfull to the Lord of the harvest, for sending such a faithfull plain-hearted labourer a­mongst us: the sweet temperature of his spirit, so adorned with wisdome, [Page 108]charity, and such a peaceable frame, be­speaks him taught of God the true sense of his will in his holy Scriptures, rather then his reproachers.

1. Touching the visible Church, what evill hath he done in asserting it, to consist of men making a profession of faith in Christ? Wherein doth he dis­sent from the most orthodox writers in all ages, in judging the Church of England a true Church? It is confessed by the adversaries; and also that a parochiall congregation where the Word is truly preached, and the Sa­craments administred according to or­der, being a part of the whole, is a true Church likewise. And this is al­so confessed by these Gentlemen; for they grant that our parochiall Chur­ches are true Churches in a large sense, and that is enough as to this; and so I hope there is no evill in this first po­sition.

2. For the next thing by him asser­ted, namely, that all of years in a pa­rish, being baptized, come under the obligation of all Christs commands; it is proved by the text before cited, Mat. 28.19, 20. And that in order to [Page 109]the Lords Supper, Do this in remem­brance of me, is a known duty belong­ing to every particular member of the Church in common with all other parts of the worship and service of God. And is it then profane reasoning to urge Church members to do their duty and homage, in this particular more then in all others? To this these Gentlemen have said but little (that I can finde) to take off what is urged by Mr. H.

As for that of the Passeover, Mr. H. hath the better end of the staffe; it be­ing the duty of all to observe it in the season under penalty of their lives up­on wilfull neglect. Numb. 9.13. And If any, by reason of legall uncleannesse, or being in a journey a far off, could not keep the Passeover the fourteenth day of the first moneth, they were to keep it the fourteenth day of the second moneth, and so nothing would excuse any in the not observing that ordi­nance, see vers. 10.11. And besides, that legall uncleannesse did not de­barre them from the Passeover more then from any other observance of communion sacred or civill.

It is pity these Gentlemen should be in such haste, that they could not in­force the many places of Scripture which have been brought by others (as they say pag. 28.) to prove that the Jewes were kept from the passeover for morall uncleannesse or scandalous sins; which they are confident neither M. H. nor all the world can ever answer. For my part I wonder what Scriptures those are, that I should never see nor read them in the Bible. These Gentle­men quote four texts (as I take it) to prove the same; to which I shall speak something particularly.

The first text is Numb. 15.30, 31. Where by Gods appointment, the soul sinning presumptuously was to be cut off from among his people; namely by death; and so from all other ob­servances as well as the Passeover. And for the unclean person that would not submit to the law of purification, he was to be cut off from the congregati­on of Israel; and therefore from all communion in worship, Numb. 19, 20.

And putting out of the Syna­gogue, Joh. 9.22. was to be put out of the Jewes and Gentiles, and so from [Page 111]all ordinances of worship; besides the Synagogues were not the place of kee­ping the feast of the passeover. And what then is there yet in all this to prove that for morall uncleannesse some were to be kept from the Passe­over only?

But let us come to the next place, which is Ezra 10.8. Where (they say) whosoever would not come to build the Temple within three daies, should be separated from the congregation, and consequently excluded from the passe­over. This place, that it might seem to be for their purpose, is corrupted by them, and falsly alledged. The words are part of that proclamation agreed upon by the heads of the people after their return from captivity to Jerusa­lem; concerning that great sin of ta­king strange wives, whosoever would not come within the three daies accor­ding to the counsell of the Princes and the Elders of the people, all his substance should be forfeited, and himself sepa­rated from the congregation, &c. Now was this to come to build the Temple? no, it was to confesse their sins, and to put away their strange wives, that the [Page 112]wrath of the Lord might be turned away. This Scripture will serve my turn her easter better then theirs now.

But the next Scripture they alledge is Ezek. 22.26. Her Priests have viola­ted my law, and have profaned my holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, the clean and the un­clean. Now by holy and profane (we know) is usually meant the circumci­sed and the uncircumcised; and so clean and unclean is to be taken in a legall sense: and then what is this to debarring from the Passeover for mo­rall uncleannesse and scandalous sins, more then from other observances?

But they say further, that the un­circumcised in heart were not to enter into the Sanctuary to pollute it; and for this they quote Ezek. 44.7, 9. where again they grosly abuse the Text, and that wilfully too, as one may think. And truly I cannot but wonder that men pretending to such purity of worship and discipline, dare make so bold with Scriptures, as purposely to pervert them to blinde the eyes of the reader that he may not understand the sense; telling him that such as did manifestly [Page 113]appear to be uncircumcised in heart, though they had received the circum­cision of the flesh, might not enter into the Sanctuary; and that the admitting of such into the Sanctuary, was the fault for which the Priests were punished, vers. 13. A most notorious falshood, and (if they did look upon the text) wilfully asserted to deceive their reader. The thing the Lord com­plained of in this place, was that they had brought into Gods Sanctuary, not Jewes, but strangers or aliens, uncir­cumcised in heart: and that we might be sure it is meant of Gentiles and not Jewes, there is added uncircumcised in the flesh to pollute the Sanctuary, con­trary to the Law; but this these men leave out, and conceal from the reader; which if they could also have dasht out of the Bible, I beleeve it would be the strongest place in the Bible for their purpose; but being as it is, it makes nothing at all for them or against Mr. H. And we may take notice of the just judgement of God upon these mens spirits, leaving them to miscarry them­selves, and that wittingly, in pervert­ing [Page 114]the Scriptures; the thing they un­justly charge that reverent man Mr. H. with.

But to leave their salfe glosses on these places and go on; they tell us further pag. 30. That this spoken of the Sanctuary is typicall in reference to the spirituall Sanctuary, the Church of Christ in Gospell times: but how they will prove that the Sanctuary was a type of the Church of God in our times, I confesse I know not; be­cause the Jewes were a Gospell Church and under the Gospell Covenant then, as well as we now. To them was the Go­spell preached as well as to us, Heb. 4.2.

But from those Scriptures they con­clude, that the Jews were kept from the Passeover for presumptuous and scan­dalous sins; for say they, If they were cut off from the congregation, then they came not to the Passeover; And one end of their cutting off was, that they might not defile the Passeover; and thence conclude that Mr. H. hath deluded the reader.

Answ. Let them for shame be more single hearted hereafter in their conclu­sions. [Page 115]This is their argument, some Jewes were to be cut off from the con­gregation by death for presumptuous and scandalous sins; therefore some were to be debarred the Passcover for morall uncleannesse: is this a good consequence? That by cutting off from the congregation we are (for the most part at least) to understand a cutting off by death, appears, Numb. 15.30, 31. Exod. 31.14. Again, they were cut off, stoned to death for their pre­sumptuous sins; therefore they were cut off that they might not defile the Passeover: This in plain termes is all that they say; and is this good and sound reasoning? Is not this a great discovery of Mr. Humsreys deluding the reader? And let me note surther, that if it could be proved that any were ex­cluded the Sanctuary for scandalous sins; the consequence will be no more but this, That for scandalous sins some may be excluded from all the parts of Gods worship, which is not denied but granted by Mr. H. provided it be done by the just censures of the Church: so that these Gentlemen may see, what a noise they make about no­thing.

But they go on and tell us what Ge­laspy saith on 1 Cor. 10. (in his Book called Aarons Rod budded) concerning those Israelites that did eat of the Man­na, and drank of the Rock that fol­lowed them, that they falling into ido­latry, whoredomes, murmurings, and the like, the wrath of God came upon them; hence they inferre, They did not eat of the Manna and drink of the Rock after the committing of those sins, and so were excluded for morall uncleannesse; as good a conse­quence as the former.

For first, I deny that all that were guilty of those sins were cut off from the congregation: for the whole con­gregation murmured, &c. yet were they not all destroyed; their carkasses fell in the wildernesse not all at once in one day, but by degrees for many years: and yet those that were spa­red did eat Manna, otherwise they must needs have perished with hun­ger.

Secondly, For those that were de­stroyed and cut off, was it that they might not eat Manna any more? What a strange, and absurd consequence is [Page 117]this; They were destroyed for their idolatry, whoredomes and murmur­ings, therefore they were cut off that they might not eat of that Sacramen­tall Manna. What a strange fancy is this? as if a malefactor were put to death, that he might not live to come to the Sacrament any more; me thinks it were more rationall to say, they were cut off by death, that they might not dishonour God by the committing of those sins of idolatry, whoredomes and murmurings any more.

In the same page, from the false and absurd premises (as they are already discovered to be) those Gentlemen urge Mr. H. with an argument; but it is so long, flat and false, that I shall passe it by, having already cut the legs it stands upon. And the truth is, the Author whom they reproach, hath said enough concerning this Scripture to stop the mouth of very malice and envie it self, if any thing would do it.

But let us remember what we are up­on. These Gentlemen have denied that all the Israelites were admitted to their Sacraments, especially the Passeover: and to prove this, they have brought [Page 118]some Scriptures: I have examined them (you see) and their interences and conclusions drawn from them: and all they have said and make a shew of a­mounts to no more but this; 1. That some were denyed the Passeover for a moneths space by reason of their le­gall uncle [...]nnesse. 2. That some have been cut off by death for morall un­cleannesse, or that some have otherwise been separated from the congregation, and so from all ordinances of divine worship, for scandalous sins. And all that can possibly be gathered hence, is no more then what Mr. H. hath all along granted: for he excepts the ex­communicate in his Free Admission to the Lords Supper: and this is by them yeelded unto, if he mean right accor­ding to the word, the matter is ended. So that one would think they granted this, and in another place, that our parochiall congregations are true Churches in a large sense, that the whole difference between Mr. H. and them were only in point of discipline: And if so, then the fault Mr. H. is charge­able with in this point, is his not setting up discipline, but exercising the ordi­nances [Page 119]of worship without it. But M. Joanes hath said enough to take off this, in urging and proving a necessi­ty of administring the Sacrament of the Supper, in congregations not Presby­tered. Thus we have considered the admission to the Passeover among the Jewes.

Now seeing there is such analogie between the Passeover and the Lords Supper; the admission to the one seems to be a good rule for admission to the other; and seems to be granted on both sides, in that it is urged by both. And therefore I shal assert some things from the law of the Passeover, for further confirmation and strengthning of the duty of free admission to the Lords Supper.

1. The Passeover was the same for substance with the holy Supper, signi­fying the same things.

2. It was a service commanded the whole Church, that whosoever should neglect it in his season should be cut off from his people.

3. The people of Israel were a mixt people, and many of them as uncapa­ble of making a spirituall use of [Page 120]the Passeover, as ours of the Sup­per.

4. The Church under the Gospell administration is under the same Co­venant, and is but added to or graffed into the Church of the Jewes, and their constitution, Rom. 11.18.

5. The Church of Christ, since the comming of Christ in the flesh, is un­der the same principles, and in some respects greater then under Moses and the Prophets. And therefore why should not admission to the Lords Supper be as free as the Passeover.

First I say the Jewes Passeover was the same for substance with our Sa­crament of the Lords Supper, both sig­nifie the same things?

1. The Paschal Lamb appointed for that holy service, was a lively type of the Lamb of God slain from the be­ginning of the world, to take away the sins thereof.

2. The offering of this Lamb whole without dismembring or breaking a bone of him, did shew that whole Christ must suffer, that his suffering might be sufficient to satisfie divine justice.

3. The bloud of the lamb was to be stricken on the lintels and side posts of every ones door, as a token upon those houses where the Israelites were; that when the Lord passed through the land of Egypt to destroy the first born both of man and beast, the plague might not smite those houses: which was to in­struct them, that this Lamb of God Christ Jesus, whose bloud was shed upon the crosse, was the only Savi­our of his Church and people from the wrath which the Egyptian world lies under: and not having any know­ledge of him, nor means of coming unto him, must needs perish. And all this concerning the Passeover was to be observed yearly at the time ap­pointed, through their generations for ever, for a memoriall of their delive­rance out of Egypt: which though it were but bodily and temporall, yet it was to lead them to the understanding of their spirituall and eternall delive­rance by the bloud of Christ. And hence it is that the Apostle saith, Christ our Passeover is sacrificed for us, 1 Cor. 5.7. We in the Supper have the signs of Christs own death, held out as al­ready [Page 122]accomplished; they in the type had him held forth as decreed and pro­mised to be accomplished; and both to be observed in that remembrance. And as it is well observed, that Christ having kept the last Passeover, did im­mediately institute the Sacrament of the Supper, that it might succeed in the room and stead of the Passeover. A change in the thing typified (Christ then to come and suffer death, now already come and suffered) was the cause of the change in the externals of this service.

Secondly, That the Law of the Passe­over, was of absolute force in respect of all the congregation of Israel, is so obvious and manifest, that I need not say any thing for proof thereof: Exod. 12. & Numb. 9. is without all gain­saying. And though the end of that observance were spirituall and the ser­vice it self mysterious; yet those that were most ignorant and carnall, were as much under the obligation of that holy service, as those that were rege­nerate and really holy: it concerned them all to conforme to the externals of that service upon their lives; no [Page 123]excuse would serve for the omission of it, but that of legall uncleannesse and being in a journey, and that but for the present only.

Thirdly, That the Church of the Jewes was a mixt people, in respect of reall goodnesse and badnesse, even as ours are, I know none will deny; and yet in respect of their relative state, in reference to the Covenant made with their fathers, they were all equals in the enjoyment of the externall pri­viledges and observances of the Cove­nant, and the Church of God, in or­der to that blessednesse promised to all that diligently observed the duties of the Covenant. And no people so happy and prosperous as they, while they adhered to Gods worship pre­scribed unto them: but when they for­sook the waies of God, and followed their own waies, and went after other gods, &c. then it ever went ill with them. I know the Lord required truth and power, as well as externall form in worship, yet they are not usually blamed for want of power, but for want of form in not doing what God commanded.

4. That the severall Churches of the Gentiles now, are under the same Co­venant of grace, and added to, or graf­fed into the Church of the Jewes and their Church constitution; I think can­not be denied. For though the admi­nistration of the Covenant now be different from what it was before Christ was exhibited; yet there is no more change of the Church properly and formally considered, then there is change of the Covenant; or change of the head Christ, the same yesterday, to day and for ever, on whom (as the chief corner stone) the Church in all ages hath been and still is built and founded. The same persons that by birth priviledge were born members of the Jewes Church, and beleeving in Christ kept their station, were alwaies members, they and their seed never ceasing so to be, even thousands of the Jewes. Jesus Christ had many Disci­ples, while he himself was a member and a Prophet of that Church, and conformed unto the ceremoniall Ad­ministration. The twelve whom he chose were before (most of them) mem­bers of the Jewish Church: and though [Page 125]not after the order of Aaron, yet after the order of Melchisedech (as being King and Lord of all) he gave them authority to preach and baptize and work miracles in the Jewish Church only, while he was conversant among them. And those that beleeved in him, and those that beleeved not, were all one Church, adhering to the same worship and order of that Church un­till Christ was raised from the dead; and had compleated the work of mans redemption: then all those carnall or­dinances were abolished; he put an end to them all: and those that never did beleeve that he was the true Messias, did then unchurch themselves and their seed. For they still adhering unto Moses, and looking upon Christ as a false Christ, refused to submit to the administration of the Lord Jesus; and so lost their station in the Church: but so many as were convinced that he was the true Messias, adhered unto the Apo­stles Doctrine, and came under all Church administrations: so that for a good space of time the Apostles prea­ched the Lord Jesus in Jury only, be­fore they preached to the Gentiles; so [Page 126]that there was I beleeve many thou­sands of souls of the newly reformed Church of the Jewes, before there were any particular Churches of the Gentiles. And where it is said, they were added to the Church, it is not to be understood, that here was now a new Church constituted where was none before; but still the same Church under a different administration: And the Jewes that were of the Church be­fore, beleeving in Christ, as in him that was promised should come, are now by the preaching of the Apostles convinced, that Jesus whom their Ru­lers crucified, is the Christ already come. And this beleeving of theirs was no new faith, but the same which they had before in respect of the ob­ject, though under another considera­tion. And for those Jewes which be­leeved and adhered to the Apostles Do­ctrine, many of them for a great while would not be taken off from their for­mer customes and observations. It is said, that salvation is of the Jewes, Joh. 4.22. Out of Sion shall go forth the Law, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem, Isa. 2.3. After Christs ascension, the [Page 127]Apostles were to preach the God to all nations, but beginning first at Je­rusalem, Luk. 24.47. And they that were scattered abroad upon the persecu­tion that arose about Stephen, travelled as far as Venice and Cyprus and Antioch, preaching the Word to none but the Jewes only, Act. 11.19.

Certainly the Jewes were the first that came under the Gospell Ministry; and although some of them did not be­leeve, yet that did not make the faith of God of none effect; that did not deprive the beleevers of their Church state, nor make void the promises of God made to them, Rom. 3.3. The faith­fulnesse of God appeared in the effects of great Covenant love to that people, in opening the eyes and hearts of so many thousands to receive the Go­spell. There were but some of the branches that were broken off, and not all, Rom. 11.17.

Besides, the Gentiles received all from the Jewes; they were the only instruments of their conversion: there being few or none in authority to preach but such as were Jewes by nati­on at first. All this being so, it must [Page 128]needs follow, that the beleeving Gen­tiles were but added to, or graffed into the Church of the Jewes; and baptized into the same body, and so made par­takers of the same hope and calling, be­ing made the children of the same God; fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers with them of his promise in Christ by the Gospel, Ephes. 3.6. Fellow citizens with the Saints (the beleeving Jewes) and of the houshold of God, Ephes. 2.19.

And true it is, that the Churches of the Gentiles had a very reverent esteem of the Church of the Jewes; and did readily conform to the directions of the Church at Jerusalem: and were care­full in their charity, to gather and di­stribute to their necessity; confessing themselves their debtors, having recei­ved from them their spirituall things, and that alone by their means, Rom. 15.26, 27. So that all make up but one Church; and all walk by the same rule; having one faith, one Lord, one Baptisme: All submitted themselves to the rule and order of the Apostles, they undertaking the care and order of all Churcher. All the Churches of the [Page 129]Gentiles were not only converted to the faith by the Apostles, but also put in­to an holy order and way by ordai­ning them officers to rule and feed them in the Lord. And as it was in the Jewes Church under Moses and the Prophets, there was a receiving of Pro­selytes, aliens converted, and they be­came Jewes by religion; so it was in the times of the Ap [...]stles; they made nations and cities and countreys pro­selytes, and they became Christians with the Jewes, and there was but one law, rule and way for all that w [...]e imbodied into the Church. And there was gra [...]ing int [...] [...] off from the same Church still all along to this day. I have been too long in this, but I will be shorter in the next.

Fifthly, that the Church of Christ since the coming of Christ in the flesh is under the same, and in some respects, greater [...]riviledges, then under M [...]ses and the Prophets. This will appear to be a truth., if we con [...]der th [...] Jesus Christ is and ever was the m [...]ting [...]ule of all blessings and privil [...]dges unto the Church in all times and ages of the world, that the Church hath [Page 128] [...] [Page 129] [...] [Page 130]ever been in possession or expectation of. On the account of his transaction with the Father, all the promises of cove­nant blessings of grace and glory, made to Abraham and his seed, are founded and thereby confirmed; and so con­sequently to all that are of his faith; for so saith the Apostle, They that are of the faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham; even all the Gentiles that receive the Doctrine of faith, so as to initiate them into that Church of which Abraham was the father; it being first formed up in his family, and the Govenant freely made with him, and sealed to him by the Sacrament of Circumcision: I say all that are of Abrahams faith are blessed with him. Hence it is that the Apo­stle to the Ephesians hath many expres­sions to the same purpose. Chap. 1.3. Blessed be God who hath blessed us with all spirituall blessings in Christ. And in the second chapter it is clearly intimated, that there was a time, while they were in their state of Paganisme. that they were Aliens from the Common wealth of Is­rael, strangers from the Covenants of pro­mise, without hope, and without God in the world: But now, saith he, you that were a­far [Page 131]off, are made nigh by the bloud of Christ, Ephes. 2.11, 12, 13. But now in Christ Jesus you are of the Commonwealth of Israel, children of the Covenants and Promises; and have as much inte­rest & hope of good from God through Christ, as the Jewes who by descent were the naturall seed of Abraham. And therefore were now no more strangers and foreiners, but fellow Citizens with the Saints and of the houshold of God, vers. 19. The reason of all is, Christ is the same yesterday and to day and for ever in spirituall things, as to the Church and their seed. And therefore he is said to be the Minister of circumcision, for the truth of God, to confirme the promises made to the fathers, and that the Gentiles might glorifie God for his mercies, Rom. 15.8, 9. as being made sharers in all those promises of free grace made to the fa­thers and their naturall seed. Nay, we may observe, how the Apostles do usually apply the severall promises in the Prophets to particular cases in the Churches of Christ in their times.

But it may be asked, Quest. what were the priviledges of the Jewes Church under Moses and the Prophets?

The Law of the Passeover did oblige all the congregation of Israel upon their lives to observe it in the season. Our Supper of the Lord is the same to us that the Passeover was to them, for the substance (as hath been proved) ha­ving the same meaning and end. The people of the Jewes as mixt as ours are, if not worse in respect of good and bad, regenerate and unregenerate: and so as uncapable to make a spirituall use thereof. The Church under the Law and the Prophets before the coming of Christ in the flesh and since the same; which Jesus Christ and his Apostles only reformed in point of externall administration, first owned by the Jewes: unto which Church so refor­med, all beleeving Gentiles are added, and graffed into it as the stock; and so partake of the same spirituall and ex­ternall priviledges with them, they and their seed, so long as they continue to adhere and cleave to the outward means of salvation, in order to that end: and from these premises will fol­low these conclusions.

First, that the same obligation lies now upon all Christians to observe [Page 135]the Ordinance of the holy Supper, that did lie upon the whole congregation of Israel to observe the Ordinance of the Passeover; and the Law of the Passeover may teach us so much; and in some respect is still in force. For so long as the equity and reason of a com­mand or law remains, the command and law it self remains for the sub­stance of it: but the equity and reason of that command concerning the Passe­over still remains in respect of the Lords Supper succeeding in the room of the Passeover; and therefore should guide and direct us in the administra­tion thereof, as touching the subjects or persons that ought to receive.

And then secondly, if all that were in the Church of the Jewes, came un­der the obligation of all the commands of God to that Church, respecting the members in common; and that both good and bad; then all that are grassed into the same Church, come under the obligation of all the Lawes given to the same Church, and respecting the members in common, now as well as then, even all good and bad.

Thirdly, the same exceptions that [...] [Page 138]which all (as he hath stated the thing) are bound to observe.

I need not stand upon this, Answ. because I have already been somewhat large up­on that Scripture, (where they say the Apostle requires such qualifications) in my former discourse, to which I re­serre the reader. Yet because these men have something which the Doctor hath not, I shall hint a little at something of theirs. I must confesse I judge the main stresse of the controversie to lie in that eleventh chapter of the first to the Corinthians. And there need be no que­stion but the Corinthians were injoyned by the Apostle to observe this ordi­nance of the holy Supper in remem­brance of Christ: for vers. 2. he com­mends them for remembring him in all things, and keeping the ordinances as he delivered them to them. So that their keeping and observing of this ordinance, as well as the other (as to the thing it self) was well done by them: but then when he speaks to their miscarriages about the manner of per­formance, he praises them not, but re­proves them, for their wofull abuse of the ordinance in their excesse, disorder­ly [Page 139]and unreverent behaviour in the ve­ry act of receiving, or while they were together for that end: They made a breach upon the very externals of that service; using the elements as common things to please the outward man, and not to that end for which the Lord Jesus appointed them. And these men (in a manner) confesse as much, that they being newly come out of idolatry, in imitation of their idolatrous feasts had their love-feasts, when they came to the Lords Supper, and that there was ex­cesse among them, though not precisely at the Lords Supper. These men are not willing to yeeld they were drunk at the administration precisely, but immedi­ately before; or if at the time of recei­ving, yet not with the wine consecrated for that holy and spirituall end, the re­membrance of the death of Christ. And therefore (as most Divines conjecture) their excesse was at their love-feast spo­ken of in Jude. But I conceive it is ve­ry uncertain whether they had any such feast or no; that place in Jude doth not determine it; much lesse the keeping of it immediately before the Lords Supper, or in the place where [Page 138]they met together for the celebration of that holy service. But whether they came drunk, or eat and drank unto ex­cesse of the elements liberally provided, it was such a profanenesse that neither [...] nor Mr. H. I hope shall never [...]: what ever these men charge [...] with in this respect, telling the [...], he [...] the admission of idolaters, drunkards and impenitents to the Sacrament, pag 32.33, 34. com­pared. But is this brotherly dealing (think you) to m [...]ke such a wilde in­ [...] a Minister shew what [...] was, [...]or which God so severely punished the C [...]int [...]an [...], but he must be reproached as [...]ne pleading for the admittance of idolaters, drunkards and impenitent [...] to the Sacrament? Hath not Mr. H. said enough in his Book to free himself from this crime? He said indeed there was nothing against their coming; for that was their duty, which these men deny, unlesse they be so qua­lisied: but he doth not only say they ought to come, but to come prepared: yet mens impenitency and unprepared­nesse doth not make void the comman­dement of God; neither is the princi­pall [Page 139]to be neglected for an [...] subservient thereto.

And I pray you, whom doth the A­postle set up to be judge of the [...] [...] [...] ­fications in the Church? What [...] hath he appointed for this? Is it not clear that every man is to examine himself, and judge himself, that he may not be judged of the Lord? Can men devise better waies to carry on Gods Ordinances with purity, th [...]n himself hath prescribed? The C [...]rinthians sin­ning, was in unworthy actions at the time of the administration: and I pray you who could foresee that to prevent it better then themselves? And as for their persons and reall worthinesse, the Apostle meddles not with it at all. Nei­ther may we denomin [...]te men such in person really, as some unworthy acts done by them do import: for if we do so, we shall condemn the generation of the just; righteous men may be over­taken with some unrighteous actions; for in many things we offend all, Jam. 3.2. And I grant this unworthy receiving was out of weaknesse and ignorance (as these Gentlemen plead) the Corinthians coming newly out of their heathenism: [Page 142]but what is this to them that are not guilty of their unworthy receiving at all? as for matter of order and reve­rent decorum in the observances, not one among a thousand offending there­in. And for unworthinesse of person, there is not one word in the Text, in reference to coming to the Sacrament, and yet that makes all the trouble, and causes many to run into a world of mischief in the Church. Hence they inferre that the unregenerate in the Church, receiving, eat and drink judge­ment to themselves, and therefore teach them to omit the duty; contrary to all rule both in the Old and New Testa­ment and all Scripture Churches. And hence they make schismes and separa­tions in the Church. And hence they make this the highest ordinance, as be­ing a communion for Saints only; and upon the matter the least of all in other respects; detracting from the wisdome, power and goodnesse of God, in deny­ing it to be a means of regenerating grace unto Church members. And hence they have invented suspension from the Lords Supper, with the losse or neglect of true discipline. And hence these [Page 143]tlemen have commended unto us, as the only expedient for reformation, to be­gin with the minor part, leaving out the rest (as judged to be excommunicable) without any tryall. Hence it is that many are afraid of being guilty in par­taking with others in their sins, in un­worthy receiving; especially in the sin of murdering Christ. And many other like errors they run into, by reason of this one error in taking that eating and drinking unworthily to be meant of unworthinesse of person. The holy Ghost intends the manner of eating, but they will have it to be intended of the worthinesse of the man that eats. And upon this error is grounded all that these men have to say against M. H. book. I could wish they would bet­ter consider of it. For still I say the Corinthians were commended for keep­ing this ordinance as well as any other in the Church; and reproved only for some great abuse in their manner of car­rying on that service: the which abuse did not lie in coming unworthily, nor in their other miscarriages which were many upon other occasions; but in this, their abusing of the holy signs [Page 142]unto c [...]nall and common ends: For this [...] and sickly amongst them, an [...]. So that this place cannot be urged against any that are Christians, and ex [...]nally (at least) comm [...] to the holy actions re­quired in this service: but against open abuses of the institution.

But these men will say of me, Object. as they do of M. H. pag. 88 That I know well enough, but that I would blinde poor souls that [Do this in remembrance of me] was spoken to the Disciples, such as were of Christs family, and not to all, &c.

I know sure enough, Answ. that this com­mand was spoken to the Disciples of Christs family, not to all: but then I know also (and so might they) that all that are born in the Church of Christ and baptized, and of years, and under Church indulgence, are Disciples of Christs family; and therefore that command is spoken to them; and they are bound to observe it, except they can produce some dispensation for the neg­lect of duty in this, more then in all other observances: for the baptized come under the obligation of doing all [Page 145]that Christ commands, Mat. 28.19, 20. And let the reader then judge, who are most guilty of blinding poor souls; they that teach them to observe and do all that Christ commands, or they that teach men to omit and neglect some ne­cessary duties of homage and service which Christ commands for the good of their souls; as these Gentlemen make very bold to do: but how they will answer it before their Master, I leave to themselves to consider. And when I say all ought to come, I do not mean the justly excommunicated, who while they are so, are out of Christs family; nor the unbaptized, as being against divine order; nor any that re­nounce the Christian Religion, casting off the yoke of Christ in defiance of him, or the like.

In the next place, I shall take notice how the Gentlemen do most notorious­ly abuse Mr. Humfreys sense in a passage of his Book, telling their reader, That Mr. Humfrey saith, those dreadfull ex­pressions of the Apostle of being guilty of the body and bloud of Christ; and eating and drinking judgement to themselves, were not to affright any [Page 146]from coming to the Sacrament: pag 39.

But whosoever shall but look into Mr. Humfreys Book, pag. 71. may easi­ly see what design these men have upon Mr. H. The truth is, be it right or wrong, they are resolved (if possible) to render him odious to the inconside­rate, who are apt to beleeve every thing they hear from men that can but speak smooth words, without further search. And who would think that men of such language, pretending so much to holinesse and power of religion, should dare to pervert and tear in pieces sen­tences, that they might have something to say against the Author, to render him odious to the worst of men. Mr. H. words are these: It is certain those dread­full expressions, of being guilty of the bloud of Christ, and eating and drinking damnation; are to make men take heed that they prepare themselves and come worthily: but (saith he) I cannot think they are to affright any from the Sacrament. This is the result of what went before, where he urges both the principall duty and the accessory: we are bound to come; and to come worthily: If a man fail in the one, and be not sufficiently prepared, I dare not [Page 147]say (saith he) that must keep him from the Sacrament: I am sure it will not excuse him from the other that is the principall duty. Besides, they should have remembred what Mr. H. laid down in stating his Free Admission, before they had made such an outcry against him. What not one, say they, what not an idolater, an incestuous person, a hater of the godly, a witch? &c. Why doth not Mr. H. after his urging the necessity of coming (and that with such strength of argument, as I beleeve will never be taken off by any) distin­guish between a profane and presum­ptuous coming to an ordinance, and a Christian coming in conformity to Gods worship? and he saith, Though it be better not to come, then to come in a profane way (that being rebellion and sin in the fact) yet it is better to come in a Christian way, though but in an outward conformity to Gods ser­vice, then altogether to neglect it: the which being granted, and practised of all, in all other duties; he thinks it but a begging of the question to deny it in the Sacrament, pag. 73, 74.

I professe the Gentlemen in their [Page 148]answer to what Mr. H. hath written, in three or four pages together, have done nothing but trifle; as if they were glad they could but shift their hands of what is urged against them, miserably begging the question in every thing they assert. But pag. 147. they aske if those do not come in a profane way, that come but in an outward conformity; and whether the most profane wret­ches do not so come, and think they have done enough: and they urge ma­ny places of Scripture against this, as Isa. 1.11. & 66.5. Jer. 6. & 7. chap. from whence they inferre that the di­stinction is abhorred of the Lord; and that whosoever comes in an outward conformity only, comes in a presum­ptuous and profane way.

I answer, that notwithstanding these Scriptures, Mr. Humsreys position is still a truth; namely, that it is better to come in a Christian way (though but in outward conformity to Gods ser­vice) then altogether to neglect it: For (as he saith) it is confessed by all in all other duties, & therefore it is but a beg­ging of the question to deny it in this.

And besides, these Scriptures do no [Page 149]more respect the Passeover then all o­ther parts of Gods worship and service. And I beleeve these Gentlemen will not deny but in other duties of Gods ser­vice, as prayer, hearing the Word, and singing of Psalmes, &c. externall con­formity is better and not so abhorred of the Lord who commands these du­ties, as wholly to neglect them.

But they say, Object. whosoever comes in a meer outward conformity, comes in a presumptuous and profane way.

Gods commands free such comers from presumption and profanenesse in that particular; Solut. as to the matter of obedience: and I know nothing in all the holy Scripture against this; but doubtlesse the want of outward con­formity unto the Lawes of God is ac­counted rebellion, and that which the Lord alwaies complained of in Israel of old, and punished them for too. And they had many promises and incou­ragements unto externall obedience: and it never went ill with them so long as they outwardly conformed to Gods own appointments; nay we know wicked men have been rewarded for outward obedience to the word of the Lord.

For that first of Isaiah; the scope of the chapter is to demonstrate and shew what a most horrible apostasie there was of the whole people of Judah at that time, but especially of the ru­lers and judges over them, vers. 21, 22, 23. in so much that vers. 10. they are called rulers of Sodom, and princes of Gomorrah, because they were so dege­nerate from what they should be accor­ding to divine appointment: and there­fore no wonder if the Lord do upbraid them with their sacrifices, new moons, sabbaths, and solemn meetings; and that the Lord regarded them not; why? their hands were full of oppression and bloud; there was no answerablenesse in other things to the duties of worship they did perform: and yet they thought because they had the worship of God amongst them, they might do all man­ner of abominations; and that was the use they made of former deliveran­ces. And yet it is hard to say that they had been lesse sinfull if they had alto­gether omitted the duties of worship, or that they were condemned because they did perform them. The Lord tels them, that if they would put away the evill [Page 151]of their doings, and cease to do evill and learn to do well; seek judgement, relieve the oppressed, judge the father­lesse, plead the cause of the widow (the which things they might do) then the Lord promises grace and favour, par­don of sin, and acceptance in his wor­ship: but the want of obedience in those particulars, made them not ac­cepted in the things of Gods comman­ded worship: yet they might not leave off the worship of God; neither is here any thing to affright them from it, but motives and argument used to make them more obedient in all other obser­vances answerable to that worship of God, as they expected good from him.

Now what is all this to them that yeeld an outward conformity (at least) in all or most things which God re­quires, to prove that it is no better for them to perform duties of worship then to omit them altogether; or that it is better for all unregenerate persons not to come to the Sacrament, then to come in a Christian way, though but in outward conformity only, which is the main thing now in question.

And the like may be said of that [Page 150] [...] [Page 151] [...] [Page 152] Isa. 66.3. He that killeth an oxe, is as if he slew a man, and he that sacrificeth a lambe, as if he cut off a dogs neck, &c. What is the reason of all this? Because they have chosen their own waies, and their soul delight­eth in their own abominations; therefore the Lord will also chuse their delusions, and bring their fears upon them, &c. vers. 3.4. The truth is, the fault lay not in doing those things, but in not doing all that the Lord required as well as they could; but they would do some things he commanded, and other things of their own chusing, even their own abomi­nations, like those spoken of Jer. 7. that cry, The Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord; and yet will steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsly, and burn incense to Baal, and walk after other gods; and come and stand before God in his house; and say, We are delivered to commit all these abominations. This is a profane pre­sumptuous coming to an ordinance of God; but to come in a Christian con­formity unto duties of worship, in hope of a blessing; being restrained from such enormities as are spoken of in these Scriptures, is a different thing; [Page 153]especially these places respecting natio­nall sins rather then of particular pri­vate persons.

But these Gentlemen judge, that this outward consormity in the duties of Christianity, according to the present capacity of persons in the Church, as they are able to performe, is a sweet bit for the Devill, and a means to keep up rotten formality still.

But I pray you, what is reformation in the Church, but to bring people to yeeld an outward conformity to the clear and undisputable Lawes which Jesus Christ hath set up in the Church? I wish with all my heart, the generality of Christs subjects in the Church of England, were reduced to that obedi­ence, though but meerly externall. I should then think we were very hap­py; and should much rejoice to see such daies and times in England: and I must confesse my desires and prayers unto the Lord are, that all our exor­bitances may be reduced unto unifor­mity of Christian obedience (though it were but in respect of the outward man) in doctrine, worship and disci­pline: that all might come under the [Page 154]ordinary means and waies of their sal­vation: and that we might teach our posterity in the way of holy profession and establishment of the true and live­ly oracles of God, in respect of which for the present, we are the most un­happy of all the reformed Churches in Christendome. For some men cannot indure to hear of such words as uni­formity in Religion, under the esta­blishment of Christian Lawes of the na­tion; nor of a form of godlinesse, and holy order in the Church of Christ: but in the Kingdome of Christ would (upon the matter) have every one left to his liberty, to do what seems good in his own eyes. But our God is the God of order, and not of confusion. And I doubt not but the Christian Ma­gistrate hath as much power to reform Religion in times of defection and apo­stasie, according to the manifest Lawes of Jesus Christ by whom they rule, as the Kings and rulers of the house of Ju­dah had; and ought to follow those glorious presidents, Josiah, Hezekiah, and Nehemiah who were carefull to reform Religion in all things according to the known Lawes of God: These examples [Page 155]are recorded for our learning, and for the incouragement of those whose hearts are warmed with the love of God, and zeal for his glory, to improve the advantages of power and opportu­nity, to bring both Ministers and peo­ple to a conformity in the externals of holy worship and order. And the memory of Queen Elizabeth in this Na­tion is blessed, because of her care to reftrain the Papists from their supersti­tion and cruelty, and to draw on the whole people of the Nation to the Pro­testant Religion: And the successe of this her care in reforming and resto­ring the true Religion, hath been very glorious in all reformed Churches abroad; and indeed was instrumen­tall of the greatest blessing that ever this nation was possessed of: for being put into a peaceable injoyment of cove­nant ordinances and godly order; we are still (by that means) a people in Covenant, and have the Lord for our God, yet not without our fears, lest the lukewarmnesse of all in the things of our God, especially in the matters of his worship, will in a short time dar­ken all our glory, and render us a peo­ple [Page 156]most despicable and odious to God and men, if not utterly unchurch and discovenant us, as some do slanderously report that we are already.

But I shall now come to the third thing propounded, namely, that all in the Church, and of years, ought to submit themselves to the discipline of the Church, not to be denyed any externall Church priviledge untill they be judicially proceeded against, and justly excommunicated. To omit what hath been already said in answer to the Doctor touching excommunicati­on; I shall propose some few things further to be considered for the stating and clearing of the true discipline: and then I shall examine whether that which these Gentlemen commend to their reader, be any thing like the di­scipline of Christ held forth in Scrip­ture, and practised by the primitive Churches of Christ.

1. That all that are baptized and of years, must of necessity come under the obligation of all the Lawes and Ordi­nances of Christ, of which Discipline is one, and therefore none may plead ex­emption from it: whosoever he be that [Page 157]is a brother and within, comes under the Church judgement and censure, Mat. 18.1 Cor. 5.

2. That although all ought to come under the discipline of that Church of which they are members, yet may not any be denied Church priviledges for the state of unregeneracy meerly, nor for barrennesse and unfruitfulnesse un­der the ordinary means of grace; or not coming up to the practise of such duties as are private, and more doubt­full then the duties of publick wor­ship are. For it is certain that Jesus Christ hath his elect ones, lost sheep, and children of God among the natu­rall seed of Christians, or to come of them, as he had among the Jewes: and these elect ones he is pleased more savingly to call, some at the third hour, others not untill the eleventh hour of the day of grace vouchsafed to them. And these being the speciall objects of redemption, included in the Gospell Covenant, to whom the promises of the first grace do properly belong; we must suffer Jesus Christ to have the liberty of his own appointments in the Church; as the only means of gathering in such [Page 158]unto himself; that they may have life in him, and live unto him according to the grace they have received from him.

3. That the scandalous in the Church are to be dealt with under the notion of offending brethren, whom they that are spirituall ought by private admo­nitions, and Christian counsell, and wise and seasonable reproofs, to restore in the spirit of meeknesse, Gal. 6.1. And the person or sin of any member not to be nominated in publick, while there is any reasonable hope (in chari­ty) of amendment by the private means: provided the offence be not already publick and infamous to all; in that case, I think, though the offender be penitent and ashamed, yet he ought to be rebuked before all that the rest may fear, and the congregation be satisfied. And that it is only in case of obstinacy, and hating to be reformed, notwith­standing all possible means used by the Church for their reformation, that the authoritative act of excommunication is to be issued out against any member. The Apostle did more often threaten and shake the rod then make use of it. [Page 159]The administration of publick censures should be carried on with that so­lemnness and mourning over the offen­der, that might shew a reall unwilling­nesse to put the same in execution; if any other means would humble and break the heart of an obstinate trans­gressor. And though there may be in the Church a readinesse to revenge all wilfull disobedience, yet a readinesse to forgive also, as they shall see cause.

4. That none ought to usurpe the power of the keyes of Christs visible Kingdome, or take upon them the power of stewards, and to be Judges of Christs subjects, that have not a clear warrant in the Word for the same, lest they be judged. For my part, I must confesse, I utterly reject as impious and against all rule and order for the com­mon members to claim an interest in the exercise of the keys, either of Do­ctrine, Sacraments or Discipline, save only to be obedient in declining fami­liarity with those that are justly excom­municated, and all communion with them in worship: and to be witnesses to attest what they know against an offending brother, when it is necessa­ry [Page 160]to prove the fact and conviction of his obstinacy. I professe I wonder that any acquainted with the holy Scri­ptures should plead for any other pow­er to be allowed to any of the com­mon members: I cannot see how this should be, but that some men drive on designes of their own factious framing, rather to hinder the setting up of di­scipline, then any way to advance it. What dismall divisions, separations and confusions, what prejudices, heart-burnings and bitternesse do such pra­ctises every where necessarily occasion between Pastours and their people? while the better part must withdraw from the rest, and set up Discipline among themselves; chuse their own officers, and use a language beyond the ordinary, and think they are in a fine posture: when (alasse) they are out of their station, and all they do is but erecting waies of their own chusing, and setting up altars to sin; some of Jeroboams craft to keep the people from worshipping at Jerusalem. And the truth is, members that separate from the bo­dy are not like to live long. What strange exorbitances very often are the [Page 161]consequences of such uncharitable zealous waies? And how can it be avoided, if the power of the keys re­side in the common brotherhood, but the major part of a parochiall congre­gation may chuse their own officers, set up Discipline, and judge in the Church? and what reformation is then like to follow, may easily be imagined. Doubt­lesse all Church members, as such, stand upon a levell in point of externall pri­viledges: for we do not finde different priviledges of those that are members of the same Church, planted together into the same visible body by baptism: and so by consequence women and children, ignorant and scandalous per­sons shall have power to judge the rest; nay they may create and ordain their own officers, and consequently take upon them all Gospell administrations: for if the keys reside in them original­ly, so that they may make Ministers &c. then they themselves are much more such, and may do the works they are to do. The effect cannot be greater then the cause.

But they will say, Object. the power of the keys resides not in all, but in worthy [Page 162]and compleat Church-members, or be­leevers that have the spirit of sanctifi­cation, &c.

I know no such distinction in the Word of God. Answ. Look upon the Church of the Jewes; they were a holy nation, a kingdome of Priests, a peculiar and royall people in generall without di­stinction of worthy and unworthy, compleat and incompleat. And doth not the Apostle Peter use the same words and apply them to the scattered stran­gers embracing Christianity? 1 Pet. 2.9. And doth not the Apostle give equall titles to all those to whom he writes, and to all in every place that call up­on the name of the Lord Jesus? 1 Cor. 1.1, 2, 3. If we never read of any such distinction in Moses and the Prophets; nor finde any such used by Christ or his Apostles, why should any plead for it in our congregations, but that they would see more then all that ever were before them?

But the keyes were given to the twelve as beleevers, Object. and that which is given to them as such, is given to the whole kinde of beleevers in the world. Solut.

That the twelve were impowered with [Page 163]the keyes of Christs Kingdom, is beyond all dispute, and that they were beleevers when they received that power, is as certain: but that the Lord Jesus gave the keyes to them as such, is denyed. And they might as well say, they were given to them as men; for they were men when they received them. But the truth is, that though there were many Disciples and beleevers beside the twelve; yet of his meer good pleasure, he gave the keyes of his Kingdome to the twelve only, not to the rest that beleeved as well as they. He hath set some in the Church, Apostles, Pa­stours and Teachers, not all. And we know the twelve, by vertue of that authority received, preached and bap­tized, and ordered all the affairs of Christs Kingdome, during their age: they planted severall Churches, and ordained them Elders and Deacons; they were the instruments for the pro­pagation of the Gospell in almost all places. Doubtlesse after Jesus Christ had received all power in heaven and earth, he put the twelve only in com­mission to build his Church; and they ordained Elders and Deacons, and gave [Page 164]order to some others, as Timothy and Titus to ordain; and directed them al­so to commit the same power to able and sit men, in after ages to teach o­thers, &c. And in the seven Churches of Asia, the Angell of every Church is writ unto, and blamed or commen­ded according as they demeaned them­selves in their places, in opposing er­rour or cleaving to the truth. But we never finde that the common brother­hood or membership were impowered with the keys, either by Christ or by his Apostles, or any that drived authority immediately from them: and therefore they have it not at all: and to in­trude themselves, and assume unto themselves things of such an high na­ture, is a most insolent boldnesse; and they may fear to perish in the gain­saying of Corah and his company.

5. I cannot conceive how there should be any true discipline practised in our Churches without the speciall assistance, countenance and power of the civill Magistrate, as the state of things are in England: For almost all of all sorts, are either carelesse, or im­patient, or erroneous, and not willing [Page 165]to come under discipline. And al­though these Gentlemen say it is our own fault; and why do we not set upon it, beginning with the minor part? yet this is very ill, nay absurdly advi­sed. For as I said before, I beleeve I shall never see true discipline exercised in the Church of England, untill the Lord so move upon the hearts of our Rulers, as to make them instrumentall to put the Church into that capacity: which ordinarily cannot be without a nationall assembly of learned, grave, moderate and godly Divines; chosen (if possible) by the whole; and car­ryed on without tumult. And that a profession of faith (if not already done) may be so clearly drawn up in respect of fundamentals in doctrine and wor­ship, according to evident rules of ho­ly Scripture, as may be established to be the publique profession of the Nati­on; which all whatsoever should with peaceable spirits submit unto. And also that the subjects of the keyes in a nationall Church may be more clearly determined, and liberty of con­science better stated and bounded; that the reformation of the whole may grow [Page 166]up together, at least in all the externals of Christian obedience. Otherwise how shall discipline be practised, if carnall and loose Christians shall be left at liberty, whether they will come under it or no? Now I say, while they are within the visible Church and King­dome of our Lord Jesus, and professe his Name in hope of eternall life, why should they not submit to all his Lawes, as the way and means appointed of that blessed end? And the same grounds that do warrant the restraining offen­ders from evill, and the forcing of them to do their duty in reference to some of the Lawes of Christ, do warrant the doing of the like in reference to all the rest of his royall Lawes. What is more sutable, then that they that reign and rule only by Jesus Christ, should put forth their power, and improve all their interest for the advancing of Christs Scepter over all?

I confesse these Gentlemen have some unhappy expressions, questioning our Church members; because (as they say) the main instruments of bringing them to the true Religion in England, were such as carryed it on by a civill [Page 167]power; when the outward calling ought to be by the word only, w ^ch the most of our common people never had, they say.

Answ. 1. I wish our Governours had that holy and grounded zeal for the re­formation of what is amisse now in the Church, that our first reformers ex­pressed in point of reformation in their generation.

2. We must distinguish of a twofold state of Church membership, or the way of bringing people to be Church members, 1. Aliens of years are to be discipled and called by the Word before they may be baptized and received into the Church: and so it was in the Apo­stles first planting of Churches. But 2. The seed of persons so called are by vertue of the Gospell Covenant mem­bers borne; and upon that account are baptized: and when they come to years are as much under the obligation of all holy observances, as those that are called by the word: So it was in the Church of the Jewes in respect of all that were circumcised: so that Church membership is and may be pleaded from birth priviledge, Gal. 2.15. We who are Jewes by nature, &c.

3. Our first reformers did not force [Page 168]Heathens to receive and professe the Protestant Religion; but reduced bap­tized erring Christians unto that obe­dience and reformation which their Baptisme and profession did oblige and ingage them unto: according to the ex­amples of godly Kings and Prophets amongst the Jewes, in case of defection and irregularity. I might produce di­vers instances of this holy and religi­ous care and zeal in reforming; but those that are acquainted with the Scripture can remember the histories of them. And orthodox Divines do gene­rally hold, that the Baptisme of a Pa­pist is valid,, and need not be repea­ted: And it need not be doubted, but upon that ground, the King of Spain or the French King, if the Lord should give them a heart throughly convin­ced of, and affected with the truth, might reduce their subjects (if they were able) to that conformity to the Lawes of Jesus Christ which their Baptisme doth oblige them to. Rome it self upon such a reformation, might become a true visible Church, without any repeating either of the ordination of their Ministers, or their Baptisme. [Page 169]Were all that superfluity of naughti­nesse, from time to time contracted, in Doctrine, worship and discipline purged out; and all administrations made conformable to the Lawes of Jesus Christ (as it was with them for some hundreds of years from the Apo­stles times) we could not tell what to object against them, but might have communion with them. Say that we heretofore were a member of Rome, & re­ceived all sacred ordinances from them; having now repented of the evils and abominations which the holy things of Christ were polluted with, and refor­med them according to the institution; what can be objected against us, though we were put in possession of the ordi­nances of Christ by means of the civill power?

4. If an argument drawn from suc­cesse be of any force in any case, surely in supernaturall and spirituall events above any other: and we are not left without innumerable evidences of the divine operations upon the souls of many in our Nation, through the blessing of the Lord upon the use of those holy administrations of the Co­venant, [Page 170]which our first reformers with zeal, care and power brought our fa­thers under; blessed be God for this unspeakable gift.

This for the fifth thing proposed concerning discipline.

6. The sixth and last is this, That ho­ly discipline is so to be ordered, that the edification of all may be best fur­thered and preserved, and the objects of Church censures may be healed rather then hurt by them. Sometimes the Church must rebuke some, that the rest may fear; and sentence some few, most notorious offenders, when many deserve the same punishment, rather then indanger the peace, union and edificati­on of the Church; punish and chastise what they can, with the health and safety of the whole: and with pati­ence bear and forbear, when the reme­dy is like to prove worse then the dis­ease. Lawfull things are not alwaies expedient, nor consist with charity.

It is a good saying of Cyprian menti­oned by Calvin, Let the Church merciful­ly correct what they can, and what they can­not, let them patiently suffer, and with love groan and lament it: And to the same [Page 171]purpose he brings in the advice of Au­gustine, touching the abounding of drunkennesse in Africa; this and the like evils (according to his judgement) are to be taken away, not roughly, nor after an imperious manner; but more by teaching then commanding; more by admonishing then by threatning; and that is the way to deal with a multitude of sinners; severity must be exercised on the sin of a few, &c. And he concludeth thus; The command of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 5.7. to cast out the wicked, is in no case to be neglected, when it may be done without perill of breaking the peace of the Church, In­stitut. lib. 4. cap. 12. Sect. 11.13.

And we may take notice, that where there is mention made of the Apostles exercising of Discipline, it is only up­on particular persons, and not upon a multitude: when he findes many guilty of evill practises, he reproves, admo­nishes, and threatens to come with the rod, 2 Cor. 12.20. & 13.21. 1 Cor. 4.21.

And truly, as the state of things now stands, I think it will be found a very difficult thing to get into possession of the true way of discipline, and to make [Page 172]that use of it, that the Churches peace and edification may be promoted and not prejudiced by it. For either the supposed unregenerate in the Church shall (on the one hand) be cast off and separated from, as in the Independent way and some others; or else (on the other hand) the dissenting brethren will be judged schismatical, for causing divisions and separations in the Church, contrary to the Doctrine of Jesus Christ. And therefore our con­dition is the more sad, in that Disci­pline which tends so much to the wel­being of the Church can so hardly be attained amongst us. Thus I have gi­ven you my judgement and apprehensi­ons in this point.

Now in the next place, Because these Gentlemen have commended a way of Discipline to the godly, I shall crave leave a little to examine it; whether it be such a one as godly men may safely receive and use as the discipline of Je­sus Christ; and not rather reject it, as having nothing of Christ in the rise and root of it, according to holy Scri­pture: and this I shall do very briefly, because I have said so much to the point already.

1. It's well they acknowledge our pa­rochiall congregations to be true Churches, though it be but in a large sense: for being such, they come under the same lawes and priviledges exter­nally, which belong to true Churches in the strictest sense; that is, unlesse they can finde a different rule in Scripture for true Churches, though not in the same degree of purity; which I believe they cannot, because I do not finde but Laodicea and Philadelphia, as they were both true Churches, so they were both under the same rule, &c.

2. They confesse that none but such as are already excommunicated, and such as ought to be excommunicated, are to be kept from the Sacrament: and in this Mr. H. and they seem to be a­greed, pag. 27. provided (say they) that Mr. H. mean such as of right ought to be excommunicated by the Church. For his meaning, they may be sure he doth not mean that Church members should be censured without regular tri­all, and that by a Church that is in a fit capacity to hear and judge, and sentence according to divine rule. But how will these gentlemen prove that [Page 174]the greater part in a parish are such as of right ought to be excommunicated, and never put it to the triall, whether their sinfulnesse be of that nature, for which excommunication may and ought to be inflicted? It is obstinacy and wilfull persisting in grosse sins, after private and publick admonition, that is to be pu­nished with excommunication; and how can they know that the greater part of a parish do so sin, when they never admonish them, either privately or publickly? Sure there must be a clear conviction of their sins, and all fair and amicable Christian means used to re­claim them, before they can judge any in their parish excommunicable; were they in a capacity thus authoritatively to deal with them, which I think they are not.

3. But they say, This is a most generally received truth, that every particular congre­gation hath power in it self to reforme it self, according to what shall be practicable to them, pag. 158. To which I shall oppose their own words, pag. 7.10. Where first they say, That the ignorant and profane must be withdrawn from, because it is clear, they can­not be regularly cast out by discipline, neither [Page 175]is there any way how they should be rightly ex­communicated; for that the major part of the Church is corrupt; and the same may be well supposed of most of the mixt parochiall con­gregations in England: and will not excom­municate, nor are fit to do so, nor to chuse officers to do it, pag. 9, 10.

Now is not this a strange thing? they condemn Mr. Humfrey for not setting up Discipline in his Church: and strongly assert, That every Congregation hath power to reform it self, and yet they say it is clear, that the ignorant and profane cannot be regu­larly cast out by Discipline, nor is there any way how they should be rightly excommuni­cated. Reader, Canst thou desire a bet­ter justification of Mr. Humfreys present practise in the matter of the Sacrament, then these mens own words? If he can­not reform in a right way, must he and others undergoe reproach, because they dare not exercise discipline in a wrong way, as these gentlemen do? There are many sober and godly Ministers that judge it better not to pretend to disci­pline at all; then to take up that way to which some give the name, when there is nothing of the nature of true discipline. If we cannot exercise [Page 176]it aright, why should any be censured for not exercising it wrong? To doe evill that good may come, the Apostle judges damnable: so rarely it is that good ends and evill means stand toge­ther.

But they say, Object. If they cannot regularly excommunicate the ignorant and scandalous that are excommunicable, then the Minister and those that are convinced of their duty to come up to a more close communion and fellow­ship in the Gospell, must withdraw from the corrupt majority; and wait for their coming in upon the same termes agreed upon by the minor part; and for this they commend to us Mat. 18.

1. Answ. It is very harsh to say, that the ig­norant in the Church are for that ex­communicable; they may expresse their desires to learn, and use the means ap­pointed to that end; and so not be ex­communicable, nor to be separated from. And for the scandalous, they are to be tryed, as was hinted before, and then excommunicated if there be just cause: else they shall be deprived of a speciall ordinance of the Church, intended as the last remedy to convert the obstinate sinner from his evill [Page 177]waies: And as it is a means of con­version (as these Gentlemen do confess) the Magistrate may constrain all in the Church to come under it, and submit to it.

They say, Iesus Christ should rule by the Word of his mouth, and not by the Magistrates compelling edicts: and yet they say, That in bringing all to converting ordinances (they humbly conceive) the Magistrate is to put forth his power, pag. 176. And then will it not hence follow, that as discipline is a means of conversion, the Magistrate is to put forth his power for the bringing of all under it. Yea, doubt­lesse, and to assist the Church in the setling, exercise and execution of it. And to withdraw without a judici­all proceeding, neither doth nor can attain the true end; but doth har­den and prejudice sinners a great deal more, and so makes them worse in stead of making them better. The end of withdrawing (according to the Scripture) is to bring the persons withdrawn from, to shame and re­pentance; and is this a likely way to attain that end, for a Minister and some ten or twenty of his people, to [Page 178]withdraw from three or four hun­dred (as in some places would be the case) they all professing the true Re­ligion? Do these men think the Apo­stle meant such a withdrawing, to bring sinners in the Church to shame? The rule is in reference to a disor­derly brother to bring him to shame; but in our times applyed to hundreds at once, by the minor part in a Church; and that very unfitly too; there being many in some such pla­ces, that as truly fear God, and live in Christian obedience beyond some of them that withdraw from them; who yet had rather be reckoned among sinners, then to joine with them, that by schisme break the peace of the Church.

Besides, grant that many of them should be excommunicable, doth that warrant a separation, when it is not in our power to do it regularly? It is ten to one that those that are so zea­lous for separating, did never deal with their offending brethren, so far as they lawfully may and ought, to amend them. If we should deal thus in the Kingdome of this world, as they [Page 179]do in the Kingdome of Christ, there would be but a sad accompt given of many subjects therein. If it were enough to say such are fellons and hangable by the Law, and thereupon never bring them to triall, but knock them on the head, and there's an end of them; How long think you would this Common-wealth stand, were such a confusion and barbarisme tole­rated?

Suppose these Gentlemen in Glocester­shire are run into a dangerous way of schisme in the Church, through error and mistake; would they be content (without any ordinary means used to convince them of their error, or war­ning and admonishing them to retract) to be forthwith sentenced by a Bench of Elders, as schismaticall persons, and upon that accompt suspended from their Ministry? I think they would not. And yet by what they appear by their Book to be, I think they are scarce qualified as Bishops ought to be, that undertake the rule of Christs Flock; and my prayer is, that their uncha­ritable practises may not be an oc­casion of destroying many weak [Page 180]brethren for whom Christ died.

As for Mat. 18. it comes now to be examined; that we may see how it is appliable to these new found models of Discipline hinted at by these men in the preamble of their Book. And it is most clear and certain that the main scope of our Saviour is to teach us these two things in generall.

First, That the meanest person coming to Christ and professing faith in him, is not to be despised.

Secondly, That not to deal with offen­ding brethren in the way and order by him there prescribed is to despise them. And then for the way prescribed by our Saviour, it ought to begin with pri­vate admonition in case of a brother offending, and if that prevail for his amendment, he is not to be put to pub­lick shame: but if that will not work upon him, then upon sufficient proof of the fact, he may and ought to be complained of to the Church, and the Church may convent him before them, admonish to confesse and reform his sin. But if out of obstinacy he stubbornly refuse to hear the Church, after first and second admonition, then to be cast out, not otherwise.

Now what is there in all this to fa­vour or warrant these Gentlemens practise? do they proceed after this manner with every offending brother in their severall parishes, before they deny them Christian communion in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper? If not, why will they urge a rule from Jesus Christ to others, which they themselves will not practise? Would they have others do that themselves neither will nor can do, as themselves confesse, where the greater part is cor­rupt? And this being the case of most Parishes in England, how shall we take up an establishment of discipline from this place? Why, they tell us, by with­drawing from the major part of the Church: But then it will be deman­ded, whether this Scripture do war­rant any such practise; and it must needs be granted it doth not. Thus you may see how sutable these new models are to those Scriptures alledged by themselves for proof thereof.

But to proceed a little further con­cerning this Scripture, Mat. 18. The greatest difficulty (as I conceive) lies in the word Church, when our Saviour [Page 180] [...] [Page 181] [...] [Page 182]bids tell the Church: I shall give my thoughts concerning that also, and leave them to the intelligent reader to consider.

1. I conceive our Saviours rules here given in this case, respected the present state of the Jewes Church, as well as the Christian Churches in after times; and was practicable in that present state of the Jewes Church.

2. According to the same rules and order his Disciples and their fol­lowers should act in after ages, as vers. 18. doth plainly shew.

Concerning the former of these, as the rule given by our Saviour respected the present state of the Jewes, and was practicable in that Church, we are to inquire whether the complaint were to be made to the whole Church consi­sting of rulers and ruled, assembled to­gether in holy worship; or to the Rulers and Officers of the Church on­ly, assembled in a Court of Judicature, for the hearing of complaints, and try­ing of offenders, and punishing evill manners.

To this I answer, That to one it seems very probable, that Church here [Page 183]is to be taken in the latter sense: be­cause the common people among the Jewes, never had any such authority in that Church, as to judge of manners, and censure according to the rule gi­ven by our Saviour in this Scripture. But it is clear that they had a Councell of Elders called the Sanhedrin, Mat. 5.22. that judged of manners, and pu­nished such as reviled their brother, intimated in these words, He that shall say to his Brother, Racha, shall be in dan­ger of the Councell or Sanhedrin. The Pha­risees and chief Priests were chief in that Councell, or it consisted wholly of them; for they undertook to cast out of the Synagogue, Joh. 9. & 12. And when Saul breathed out threatnings against the Saints, in zeal of reducing them to the Church from which they were departed and seduced, as he thought, he went to the chief Priests and all the estate of the Elders for his commission, and he received antho­rity from them, to bring both men and women unto Jerusalem to be pu­nished, Act. 22.15. And that estate of Elders in the originall is called a Pres­bytery, which also shewes that it was [Page 184]made up of chief Officers of the Church called Presbyters; some of which were chief Priests, the other Pharisees, and some subordinate Presbyters were joy­ned with them to make up that assem­bly, having authority to judge of manners according to the Lawes of God: however upon mistake they punished the true professors of the Christian Religion, yet not under the notion of professors of the true Reli­gion, but out of zeal to reduce the be­leeving Jewes to conformity to the old administration, as judging it still in force, as it was delivered by Moses.

If any make question whether this Presbytery (according to the Text) were the Church to whom complaint was to be made concerning stubborn offenders, I answer, that Councell or Presbytery was made up of the chief Officers of the whole Church, and so the Church representative, on whom alone all the authority of the Church was involved, for the punishing of sin, and preserving the peace of the whole. And for the word Church, they that are acquainted with the Original language, know it is used for any assembly, or [Page 185]congregation called together, whether to civill or sacred ends; and so these Elders and Rulers of the Jewes assem­bled together for the ends aforesaid are not unproperly called a Church.

And for the latter thing propounded before, namely that the Christian Chur­ches in after ages are to proceed by the same rule, and in the same order the Church of the Jewes then did, that is to say, by a Presbytery, seems to me very probable. For first of all there were in use in the Christian Church, in reference to the rule and govern­ment thereof, the same names that were in the Church of the Jewes, which is a sign that there was the same thing. Saint Paul who was well acquainted with the nature of the Presbytery at Je­rusalem, from whom he received authori­ty to trouble the beleeving Jewes, cals an assembly of Elders or Church officers a Presbytery, of which what better rea­son may be conceived then this, the resemblance that was between this El­dership and the great Councel in the Church of the Jewes? It is clear the Apostles themselves did order all things in the Church; ordained Elders, and [Page 186]authorized them in the Name of Christ to ordain others, &c. And they were as much Rulers and Officers over the Catholick Church, as the chief Priests and Elders were to the Jewes. And hence in the Apostolical Churches, Or­dination of Ministers was derived from them that were Officers to the whole Church; and in a most immediate man­ner, by Jesus Christ were constituted so to be: which makes me inclinable to beleeve, that those still that are or­dained Officers for the good and bene­fit of the whole, should be ordained by such a Presbytery that are intrusted with that power, by the Officers of the whole as much as may be. So farre am I from consenting to these men that take it for granted, that the common members of a particular society, may chuse and install their own officers. Now what is there in all this for that pretended way of discipline which these Gentlemen commend to their reader? here is not the least warrant for any to separate from the Church, or with­draw (for all is one) nor for the peo­ple to rule, and chuse their own Offi­cers, nor for imposing a Church Co­venant, [Page 187]explicitly to be professed in the congregation; and those that will not come up to this and such like termes, must not be admitted unto Sacramentall communion. Nor is here any warrant for sentencing Church members before a regular triall; nay here is no warrant for any single Mi­nister to set up discipline over his peo­ple, without the consent and conjun­ction of the reverent brethren of the Ministry with them. The key of di­scipline is not at all in one alone, but rather in the whole together.

A word more on that Scripture, as it is directed to the Apostles, vers. 18, 19, 20. and so in them to the officers of the Church in succeeding ages to the end of the world. Verily (saith our Saviour there) if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall aske, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven: for where two or three are gathered together in my Name, there am I in the midst of them. These words seem to have reference unto what was spo­ken before concerning the authority of the Jewes Church Officers; and our Saviour would have his Apostles to [Page 188]know, that though their authority may seem to the world, yea, and to themselves to be weak and contempti­ble in respect of that great bench of Elders, generally submitted unto by the Jewes, yet they should have as great authority to binde and loose as the other; nay two of them by the authority given them by the Lord of the Church, should be equivalent to their great authority: And we know it came so to passe. They had power to work miracles, and were inspired with an extraordinary spirit; and had some speciall promises peculiar to them alone, as well as gifts. They had power to give the holy Ghost by impo­sition of hands; and an extraordinary power in prayer, and power to punish and kill the bodies of men for sacri­ledge and hypocrisie. And we know the very Church it self is said to be built upon the foundation of the Pro­phets and Apostles, Jesus Christ him­self being the chief corner-stone. Now what is this to these Ministers in Glo­cester-shire? Dare two or three of them assume this power (for I sup­pose all the Ministers of the Coun­ty [Page 189]are not of their minde and way) to do as the Apostles did? Suppose they be Ministers of the Gospell, is the Church built upon them, or their Do­ctrine? Where have they any such pro­mise that they shall not erre; and whatsoever they shall agree to aske, shall be done for them of the Father of Je­sus Christ? They plead their serious and solemn seeking of God; and com­mend unto us their model of Discipline, as the result of their serious debates, and returns of their prayers: but that authority will not satisfie judicious Christians, when the thing it self is so inconsistent with the generall rules of the Word, as hath been shewed. Be­sides it is well known, that in many places the Ministers of the Gospell have used the like means in behalf of them­selves and their people, yet but few have run into their waies, but either fall into some association of Churches and Presbyteries, framing such expedi­ents, as (in a manner) bring in all un­der a capacity of Sacramentall commu­nion and discipline, as in Worcester­shire and other places; or else carry on the Ordinances of Jesus Christ by ver­tue [Page 190]of their office as well as they can without Discipline; as being convin­ced of their incapacity for the present so attain unto the true end and exercise thereof, notwithstanding all their search, disquisition, and indevours to satisfie one another therein. And the serious debates and seeking of God con­cerning this, should move to own and assent to what is concluded thereup­on; I conceive it more safe to adhere to the greater part of sober Divines that have been serious in the use of these and all other means, to satisfie themselves and others, as well as those men, and yet dare not in the least degree counte­nance their way and practise. I would aske them this question, whether they did ever read of any such practise, that a few particular Ministers, by their own authority, have had the boldnesse to withdraw from the greatest part of their flocks, and set up a way of Disci­pline of their own framing? and upon the matter unchurch the greatest part of their congregations, allowing them no other priviledge in the Church, then they would to Pagans. Did the Apostles ever make so bold with any [Page 191]Christian congregation that adhered to the Gospell administrations? or did they ever authorize ordinary Presbyters to do so? Nay, did any ordinary Pres­byter in the Apostles time, exercise Di­scipline but upon the command of the Apostles? or do we finde them any where blamed because they did not do it? I verily beleeve these Gentlemen may not assume such an interest in the exercise of the Key of Discipline as the Apostles had, and yet they are more bu­sie with the rod then ever any of the Apostles were. Alas! it's pity some care is not taken to restrain their impe­rious usurpation over their severall flocks. I think, since the ceasing of the Apostles office, it is more sutable to the Scripture alledged, and other Scri­ptures, to elect such Presbyteries to judge of manners in the Church, as were constituted in the Church of the Jewes, which our Saviour approved of; which yet would come short of being equall with the Apostles, in respect of the au­thority which they had in the Church of Christ; though they were in all pla­ces men of the best qualifications for Rule, that any attain to in our times; [Page 192]and so I have done with that Scripture, Mat. 18.

I will trouble the reader but with two or three passages more about their new modell: for I have a good minde to draw to an end; and my other oc­casions will not permit me to do much in these waies. Pag. 4. they tell us of the drawing up a profession of faith, wherein they acknowledge their for­mer Abominations in worship, professing their repentance before the Lord for them. Con­cerning which I say, It is a strange ex­pression of Christians, except they were such as came newly out of Paganisme, or Popery at least. What abominati­ons of worship have been established or practised in our Church since the re­formation of it? Is it not strange that the Ministers of the Church, who should be ready to defend the Church from the wicked slanders and reproaches of Ana­baptists and other Separatists, should thus publickly join with them, and that in such a publick way before the world too? How many powerfull and successefull Ministers of the Gospell, now with Jesus Christ in glory, have justified all the ordinary parts of Gods [Page 193]worship, as it was practised in our pub­lick assemblies all along, and conformed thereunto chearfully in respect of the substance of our worship? Indeed there were some needlesse ceremonies used about worship, which were declared by the Church to be no part of the wor­ship: now these were born as burthens which many of the godly desired to be eased of by their removall; but it ne­ver came into their thoughts, that they were guilty of abominations in wor­ship because of them. How doth Mr. Hildersham in his Lectures upon Joh. 4. justifie the Church of England as a true Church, and the severall parts of worship practised therein, as being according to the institution of the Lord? And how doth he from thence blame those that separated, or neglected the publick prayers of the Church; and yet himself was one of the old non-conformists? And Mr. Cotton that went into new England, writing an Epistle to that Book, doth therein highly commend the Author for many things; but in a speciall manner for confuting the separations of the Brow­nists: and he repeats what another re­ported [Page 194]of him, styling him the hammer of Schismaticks, commonly called Brownists.

Those Gentlemen talk of the Cove­nant established in Christ, into which they require a profession to enter, of those they admit to partake of the Seal of that Covenant, pag. 10.

Concerning this, I say it were well if they would act according to their own words: for 'tis certain all Church communion is sounded upon covenant relation; And those (whose admittance to the Sacrament we plead for) are sup­posed to have entred Covenant relati­on, either in their parents, or in their own personall profession of the true Religion that holy Scriptures teach, or both, and their voluntary adhering to the administrations of the Covenant, doth attest their entring the Covenant, and their continuing and abiding in that relation; let them say what they can to the contrary.

But they say, Object. Persons that have entred Covenant, may back-slide and so that relation cease, (and they instance in Simon Ma­gus) but those that brake bread were such as continued in the Apostles doctrin, Act. 2.42 [Page 195] And back-sliders are not to be admitted to sur­ther communion.

1. Answ. How do they know that Simon Ma­gus fell off rom the Christian profession, when the last we read concerning him, is his retracting his erroneous the uphts, desiring the Apostle to pray for him, that none of those evils might come upon him?

2. Suppose he did backslide and re­nounce his Baptisme and profession, would he then have desired Christian communion in the Ordinances of Christ? what more absurd?

3. We only plead for such to break bread, that continue in the Apostles Do­ctrine; which we say all do, that adhere to the administrations of Jesus Christ, set up in his Church, as the ordina­ry means of obtaining Covenant grace.

And for what they say concerning re­newing of our Covenant with God after defection from him, we heartily allow of it; provided it be done according to the Scripture, Deut. 29.10, 11, 12, &c. N [...]hem. 10.29. Where in the persons of the chief, the whole ingaged to walk in all the waies of the Lord; and to ob­serve and do all his commandements, [Page 196]and his judgement, and his statutes. This is contrary to these men, that would set up a Rail to hinder Christi­ans from observing all Gods Com­mands; nay rather to uncovenant a people in Covenant, then ingage them to renew Covenant, and walk wor­thy their Covenant relation, in their observance of all covenant Ordinan­ces, in hope of blessing. And I wish, that if the Church cannot, the Magi­strate would take down the high places, that hinder the Lords people from wor­shipping at the only place of wor­ship. If some have liberty to worship at Dan and Bethel, why should any be restrained from worshipping at Jerusa­lem, and doing their homage and ser­vice in remembrance of Christ who di­ed for sinners?

I had thought to have added a word concerning the fourth and last thing proposed in the beginning of this Exa­mination; as it was urged by Mr. Hum­frey; namely, that Ministers ought to do their duties as they are Ministers, though Discipline be wanting; and cannot well be attained as things stand: of which duties, the administration of [Page 197]the Sacrament is one, which by their office they are bound to performe; as they will answer the neglect thereof to Jesus Christ himself, who commands the observance of all his holy Or­dinances in the Church, for the fee­ding of his flock: And those that love him will make conscience in their places, to be faithfull to him that hath appointed them. But I fear I have been too tedious already. And Mr. Humfrey in his Rejoynder to Doctor Drake hath abundantly given satisfaction in the vindication of this and other truths as­serted in his former Book: And if he shall think these Gentlemen worthy of any further answer; I shall rather leave it to himself, then do any thing that may hinder the Church of God of the faithfull and profitable labours of him or any others.