c. notoriously such may profess his earnest desire to receive and yet that makes him not no whoremonger and no drunkard 2. Then also the Church may look for no further satisfaction in order to restoring of an excommunicate then his verbal profession of earnest desire to receive the Sacrament For that which should prevent their excommunicating of him must be avaylable to restore him But the Church in many ages hath required particular confession of notorious sins and expresse profession of repentance for them and not only profession of earnest desire to receive as antecedently necessary to the absolution of an excommunicate in analogy to that Levit. 5.4 5 6. where he who was to bring his trespass offering for a false oath though through ignorance was to confesse that he had sinned in that thing and then he is allowed to bâ—ing his trespass-offering to the Lord and the Priest shall make an attonement for him concerning his sin So more generally Numb 5.7 on which saith Ainsworth out of Maimonides The Hebrewes set down this duty thus This confession is with words and it s commanded to be done How do they confesse He saith Oh God! for I have sinned I have done perversly I have trespassed before thee and have done thus and thus and loe I repent and am ashamed of my doings and I will never do this thing againe And this is the foundation of confession And who so maketh a large confession and is long in the thing he is to be commended And so the owners of sin-and trespass-offerings when they bring their oblations for their ignorant or presumptuous sins attonement is not made for them by their oblation untill they have made Repentance and confession by word of mouth Likewise all condemned to death by the Magistrates or condemned to stripes no attonement is made for them by their death or by their stripes until they have epented and confessed And so he that hurteth his neighbour â— doth him damage though he pay him whatsoever he owe him illonement is not made for him til he confess and turn away from doing so againe for ever Now it may be Mr. W. could have taught them a more expeite and easie way of satiffactory confession viz. if the offendeiprofess verbally his earnest desire to partake of the Passeove that shall quit all scores §. 3. Mr. W. further addes As for your fully and not fully excommunicate wee look not on them as considerable in this present controversie they are your own miserable shifts c. What 's the conclusion Ergo my fore mentioned Reason is not sound Wonderfull hap he hath if he can draw this inference from such premises This distinction of excommunication hath been proved before at Chap. 3. and I wonder not if he would so faine shift it out of his way if he could it so fully enervates the Reasons of his Champion Mr. Timson and shewes his miscarriage in the very stating of the Question If that third Chap. aforesaid stand good particularly the sixth § that excommunicates are Church-members and are not by excommunication cut off from all ordinances although accidentally that may sometime coincidere and often did fall in in the primitive times The title of his booke is blasted which over each leafe is this to receive the Lords Supper is the actual right of all Church members but in the first page is thus To receive the Lords Supper the actual Right and duty of all Church members of yeares not excommunicate Which is sorrily propounded For 1. here and in his book he confounds Right and duty as if these were of the same latitude as if because its an heathens duty to be baptized or a Christians duty when drunk on the Lords day to sanctifie the Sabbath in publique Ordinances yea or an Excommunicats duty to receive all which are manifestly their duty which they are obliged to that therefore it were the heathens right to be baptized without any more adoe or the drunken Christians to be admitted into the Assembly while drunke or the excommunicate had actual right to the Lord Supper while excommunicate 2. And that all excommuncation turnes our of Church-membership Mr. Humphreys holeth Rejoynd p. 155. where he saith Suspension is null withot dismembership To what purpose then should Mr. Timson hae added not excommunicate but to instruct us in this lessoâ— That to receive the Lords Supper is the actuall right and duty of all Church members at yeares who are not no Church member This is the Warriour whose Herald Mr. W. is pleased to mâ—â—e himselfe and he once and againe provokes me to graple with him But if I have made good this one argument against Mr. W. there 's none I thinke can reasonably thinke there 's any need of answering Mr. Timson in print Mr. W. hath much of his sense and language too where he could bring it in But his distinction of fully and not fully excommunicate I suspect the more angers him because it makes the weapons of his ious brave man unserviceable in this contest with me in this gument But I have shewed there is an excommunication by the Officers of the Church or Minister alone by the people alone though the Officers refuse to joyne and there is an excommunication wherein the Officers and people of the Congregation and neighbourhood too perhaps though that 's not essential do concurre which is a fuller excommunication then either of the former §. 4. 5. In the 5th place Mr. W. answers and confutes as he pretends my Reason by saying As for your Excommunication you give us a very quaint account thereof and in a taunt he saith Schollers may do well to furnish their note bookes with it And in stead of better Answers furor arma ministrat he fits downe in the chaire of the scorners and thus acts his part It should seeme saith he that your full excommunication is a very shrewd thing when you can be at leisure to meet in a full Classis and so have your severe Rabbies of discipline sit in state with the rest of your grave Benchers then the case of a poore sinner is put upon the debale and after that your Elders have well stroaked their beards and nodded in their votes the decree is that the sinner arraigned is to be excommunicated fully and that with full excommunication compleatly The summe whereof is that such a man found and judged guilty of such misdemeanours is declared to be as an heathen Infidel and do such an one to be lookt upon and dealt with by all our Church members i. e. to he counted as an enemie and not to be admonished as a brother Here are learned arguments apodictical demonstrations but be like all in Bocardo Here are formulae oratoriae for the cupping crew who may probably applaud the Author and quaffe his health round for them I 'le confesse they are not to be answered by me Ego poenitere tanti non emam as Demosthenes said to the
to whom the Lords Supper ought not to be administred This assumption I thus confirmed numb 27. hecause to profess to renounce Christ is to profess not to believe now he who seems seriously to professe his not believing that is his renouncing Christianity cannot be by any rightly judged and taken to be a believer that is such a believer as aforesaid I here gave an instance of one uncapable of rightfull admission to the Sacrament and therefore not to be admitted though he be baptized adult and on whom the sentence of the Church may not perhaps have passed for excommunication The Instance was of one who doth in words renounce Christianity I added seriously not in opposition to madness or distraction as Mr W. trifles p. 63. For then the Instance would not have fitted the Question Mr. W. himselfe excludes the unintelligent p. 34. but in opposition to both 1. Ironicall uttering of words which then signifie not what otherwise they would as those words are usually interpreted Gen. 3.22 Behold he is become like one of us And 2. a questioning or doubting uttering of words which though in forme assertive yet are otherwayes manifest to be intended not as assertive but probational So Josephs speech is fairely interpreted Gen. 42.9 16. By the life of Pharaoh yee are all spyes So Psal 73.13 Verily I have cleansed my heart in vaine but after he cleeres his meaning was only a questioning or doubting of it v. 15. If I should say thus I should offend against the generation of the just Now such an one as thus in words significative of a renouncing of Christianity where the circumstances of uttering them declare the meaning of the speaker is not ironical nor probational only doth profess to renounce Christianity I said is not in a capacity of rightful admission to the Sacrament And by this one Affirmative I overthrew their universal negative they say none adult baptized not put off from other ordinances may be suspended or debarr'd the Sacrament I say such an one as we have mentioned may therefore their universal negative proposition is false except further limited §. 2. I thinke now there are few who understand any thing concerning disputation but would expect Mr. W. should have answered either by affirming that this word renouncer of Christianity should be admitted to the Sacrament if he tender himselfe to partake or els by distinction have put some limitation on the universal negative I assault whereby it might have appeared that such an instance as this was not comprehended in it But to admiration he can answer and doubts not to refute mee without denying or distinguishing as followes 1. He saith The whole depends upon a meere supposition It is rather a thing imagined than a cause likely to happen in the Church This exception I made my selfe and answered it which answer of mine Mr. W. endeavours to take off beneath where I shall make my reply 2. He saith But if such a case should fall out viz. That a man in the Church should professedly renounce Christianity then he renounceth the Lords Supper too And so your suspension in this case would be needlesse There is no need of suspending or excommunicating such a wilfull renouncer of Christianity I answer by distinguishing 1. Betwixt renouncing of all the essential parts and some essential part of Christianity 2. Between his renouncing the Lords Supper in particular as to his using it for the end and use Christ hath appointed it for and renouncing it altogether upon all accounts whatsoever And 2. now I say 1. To renounce an essential part of Christianity is to renounce Christianity though a man profess not to renounce all the essential parts of Christianity It is essential to Christianity that Christ be accepted embraced and submitted to as Lord and Saviour to save us from sin Math. 1.21 as well as from punishment therefore to reject Christ as Lord is to reject Christianity He that saith I beleeve Christ dyed for me to redeeme me from hell c. But I will not obey him he shall not reigne over me I neither will nor can spare my lusts at least not yet c. doth renounce an essential part of Christianity and so by Consequence Christianity it selfe For any essential parr of a thing being removed the thing it selfe is removed I may say of our accepting Christ as King and Saviour as the Epigrammatist spake of his two poysons Dividat haec si quis faciunt discreta venenum Antidotum sumet qui sociata bibet 2. He who thus renounceth Christianity renounceth also expresly or by consequence the Lords Supper as to a maine end and use Christ hath appointed it viz. for the engaging the soul neerer to Christ and resigning it up in grateful and holy obedience to him who is the author of salvation to them who obey him But yet he may not renounce it as to all other respects he would do as others do in the outward work c. And therefore there is need yea a necessity of suspending or excommunicating such a wilful renouncer of Christianity §. 3. 3. Mr. W. tells us this supposed renouncing Christianity cannot abolish his positive estate which stands on the free grace of God by Baptisme and so he is a beleever for his positive estate in point of Religion by vertue of his consecration unto the Christian faith in Baptisme and God will judge him as a Christian if he continue in his revolt till death not as a Pagan Infidel p. 63 64 65. Ans 1. Who ever said his wickedness disobliged him from his baptismall engagements 2. Mr. W. confesseth that this renouncer of Christianity is a Christian and beleever by vertue of his Baptisme at the day of Judgement when condemned And doth he thinke such a Christianity as is in hell gives right to the Sacraments here Who then can be excluded A damned Christian is a baptized person consecrated to Christian duties and not wholly disobliged from the same 3. And yet Mr. W. saith p. 63. I should judge of him rather by his continuance or non-continuance in this supposed abrenunciation What would he judge of him to be a Pagan Infidelâ—e So he is not when damned therefore cannot so be judged of by his foresaid abrenunciation here and continuance therein or will he judge him to be an unbeleever as destitute of habitual saving grace that belongs not to us to judge of but to God alone who knows the heart or must he be judged an unbeleever as lying under notorious wickedness inconsistent with the exercise of faith that indeed we may judge of But then to what purpose doth he thus judge of him in reference to his sacramental claime If to allow it and admit him then its all one as to this as if he were not so judged of If to exclude him then I have what I contend for unless there be no judging of a man till he be dead and then no man can be excommunicated for any crime
another Scriture phrase referring to the casting of a person out of the communion of the Church In the 2 Thess 3. There are two other phrases both relating to the denying some communion to disorderly Christians Many think these especially the first of these belong not to any authoritative sententiall excommunication pronounced and declared by the Officers of the Church but shew the duty lying on all Christians to use their own discretion to discern and seperate from these offenders so far as concerned them in their places and stations The first of them is at verse 6. We command you brethren to withdraw your selves from every brother that walketh disorderly And the later is at verse 14. If any man obey not our word by this Epistle note that man and have no company with him that he may be ashamed yet count him not as an enemy c. That also is a denying of some Christian communion which the Apostle exhorts to in the third Epistle of John verse 10 11. If there come any to you and bring not this doctrine that is a doctrine contrary to the doctrine they had received before mentioned receive him not into your house nor bid him god speed For he that biddeth him god speed is partaker of his evill deeds the which Doctor Hammond interprets of the wicked and Apostatizing Christian Gnosticks who taught men to deny Christ in time of persecution §. 6. From these hints the Scripture gives us about withdrawing communion from wicked Christians duely perused we may gather 1. That Excommunication is no Scripture word but is used by the Church to signifie all that just Ecclesiastical severity which over and besides admonition is to be used towards a wicked brother in respect of the Churches behaviour towards him for the reclaiming of him ond freeing the Church from the pollution of his intimate society For this description doth agree to the texts before mentioned as is manifest and therefore if excommunication do signifie what is the sense of those texts we shall not in the description aforesaid misconceive the importance of it That it is a part of Ecclesiasticall severity no one doubts all the texts mentioned do evince that That it is all that Ecclesiasticall severity the Church and members thereof do make use of besides admonition will not I think be questioned because so generally Authors do make Admonition and Excommunication the only divident members of Church censures in generall and because also neither the texts quoted nor any other do give ground for adding a third part of Ecclesiasticall censure distinct from these The rest of the description also is so plain in the texts that I shall not insist upon any of the particulars thereof viz. that the object of Excommunication is a wicked Brother that it is inflicted by the Church and the members thereof and that for the ends mentioned It is implyed in just Ecclesiasticall severity that it is done according to the appointment of Jesus Christ 2. Excommunication is nothing else but a Suspension of a person at present from personal priviledges not a cuttig him off simply from the Church But as I said a suspending him from the priviledges which as an orderly Church-member he might rightfully enjoy Mr. W. renders extra communionem ejectio an ejection out of the common union p. 15. But though some excommunicate persons are to be dealt with in some eminent respects as if they were cut off from and were none of the Church in reference whereto it is ordinary for Divines to speak of them as cut off Yet they are not simply cut off from all union with the Church thereby nor are so to he reputed which may be evinced from the forementioned Scriptures For 1. he that is most excommunicate according to those Scriptures is to be but as an heathen therefore not an heathen Simile quâ simile non est idem Now if he were simply cut off he should be an heathen and not onely as an heathen 2. Some excommunicate are to be accounted as Brethren 2 Thess 3.15 Therefore they are not reputed no Church-members 3. The Pastors are to have a pastorall care over the excommunicate and they and other Church members are still to admonish him as a brother 4. He is onely as a sick person under cure and Church remedies in order to his recovery 1 Cor. 5.5 Mat. 18.15 1 Tim. 1.20 Now there is no physicking of a member simply cut off 5. He is obliged to hear the word as a Church-member and to receive admonitions in publick and private For he is tied by vertue of the baptismall Covenant he hath professedly entred into to exercise himself in all the ordinances of Christ he hath opportunity for as he hath for hearing the word as well as an heathen with hope of receiving good thereby and for some other ordinances it is said that he looseth at present possessionem rather then jus as Mr Rutherford expresseth it and explains it by the similitude of a man having three houses who is for some offence confined to some one of them and sequestred from the other so as he may not make use of them 6. If he were made no Church-member by excommunication he should upon his repentance be rebaptized and so the Donatists rebaptized those who came into their Societies which was reasonable enough upon supposition that they were before no members of the visible Church as Mr. W. speaks pag. 22. 23. and passim alibi But the excommunicate when readmitted are not to be rebaptized therefore they were not reputed simply no Church-members whiles they were excommunicate 7. All say they are cut off but conditionally if they do not repent therefore they are not cut off till that condition be fulfilled which cannot be before their death for ought we know the sin against the Holy Ghost or the sin unto death I suppose can hardly if at all be known to be committed by any individuall person so as that the Church should conclude him absolutely irrecoverable To say a person is cut off conditionally includes he is not simply and absolutely cut off whiles that condition of his finall impenitency is not existent and accomplished Doctor Ricard Field of the Church lib. 1. ch 13 14 15. shewes how those three sorts of men who go out of the Church viz. Schismaticks Hereticks and notoriously wicked persons who are excommunicate do yet all of them remain still parts of the Church of God And concerning the last of them he thus speaks ch 15. Excommunication doth not wholly cut off the excommunicate from the visible Church of God For they may and often do retain the intire prosession of saving Truth together with the Character of Baptisme which is the mark of Christianity and so far forth notwithstanding their disobedience still acknowledge them to be their lawfull Pastors and Guides by whose sentence they are excommunicate that they would rather endure and suffer any thing then schismatically joyn themselves to
are apostates from the Covenant they have professedly entred into whether in respect of doctrine or practice Christ speaking to the rebellious Jewes saith John 8.54 It is my Father that honoureth me of whom ye say that he is your God when yet he had told them before that they were neither Abrahams children nor had God for their Father nor were of God as they pretended vers 39 41 42.47 The branches broken off visibly from the olive in some respects are thus holy still Rom. 11.16 17. and so are such as are excommunicated and suspended from the personal priviledges of orderly and uncensured Church-members They are brethren in this sense still 2 Thes 3.15 A Church-member really is one who is sincerely devoted to Christ and we must account all such against whom we cannot prove that they never were so sincerely devoted to Christs call And then I thinke none alive must be rejected absolutely from being Saints beleevers Christians Disciples and Church-members who have been positively engaged to Christ unless we could tell who had committed the sin against the Holy-Ghost or had sinned unto death in St. Johns sense the which is so difficult if not impossible to discerne in particular persons that I need not have much respect thereto in this matter 4. In this last sense its true we may be certain in reference to many or most who are beleevers and who are not But that this is not the character and Rule of admission to the Sacraments will appeare in the ensuing arguments which I now hasten to §. 7. In the second place I designed to prove this Conclusion That to those who are unbeleevers in respect of actuall notorious disobedience to the Gospel whiles such the Lords Supper ought not to be administred 1 And my first Argument shall be grounded on Mr. W. his concession and the Introductory considerations before evinced Mr. W. grants that beleeving is the Rule for admission p. 56 57. You say saith he that knowledge who are beleevers or who are not beleevers must be the loadstar of our administring or not administring the Lords Supper We say in thesi the same And I have proved that neither a persons being a beleever habitually is the Rule of admission for that cannot certainly be known nor yet his being a beleever in respect of positive obligation layd on himselfe to beleeve though that may certainly be known for then none could be debarr'd who have ever been baptized yea or who otherwise have entred into a positive engagement to Christianity For the Jewes were Gods people and holy not only by Circumcision but by the renewing of that Covenant afterwards to take the Lord for their God Deut. 26.17 18 19. 29.10 11 12 13. Now hence it cleerly follows that the knowledge who are visibly in the way of beleeving or obedience to the Gospel they have positively especially by Baptisme obliged themselves unto is the Rule of admission to the Sacrament For the two former being removed no other but this can be assigned that I know of And then none can doubt that to those who are unbeleevers in respect of notorious disobedience to the Gospel the Lords Supper ought not to be administred §. 8. 2. If such were to be excluded the Passeover who were in visible notorious disobedience to the Law they were debtors positively unto by their Circumcision and other obligations then the Lords Supper ought not to be administred to them who are in a visible notorious disobedience to the Law they are debtors to by Baptisme and other obligations But the former is true therefore the latter also The Consequence at least ad hominem to the men concerned in this dispute holds firmly The Assumption shall be proved by Instance of the parent-Proselyte who though circumcised himselfe yet might not eat the Passeover lawfully if he wilfully neglected his duty in circumcising his males And this was not such a meerly ceremonial bar as is pretended to have been the only bar among the Jewes from the Passeover The place is Exod. 12.48 When a stranger shall sojourne with thee and will keep the Passeover to the Lord Let all his Males be circumcised and then let him come neere and keepe it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 veaz et tunc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the LXX a phrase of like importance with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 11.28 the Syriack reads it After that all his males are circumcised then shall he come neere and keep it And he shall be as one that is borne in the Land For no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof By the geer here is not meant the advena vers 45. but the stranger within the Covenant distinguished from thè stranger within the gate only who did but dwel among them as Ains worth shews and so the LXX render it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latine version of the Chaldee Paraphrast hath aliquis proselytus Now he was not a Proselyte but by Circumcision and yet we see before he might be permitted to eat the Passeover all his males must be circumcised Both were his duty yet the neglect of circumcising his males barr'd him the Passeover For saith Ainsworth he was yet in his sin whiles his children were through his default uncircumcised Gen. 17.12 13 14. Exod. 4.24.26 And thus saith he out of Maimony the Jewes have interpreted this place that as the circumcision of himselfe if it be omitted debarreth him from doing the Passeover so doth the circumcision of his sons and of his servants c. and if he kill it before he doth circumcise them it is unlawfull It s added in the Text For no uncircumcised person shall eat hereof I confesse it may be rendred And no uncircumcised person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vecol et omnis praeputiatus with which agree the Chaldee Paraphrast and the Latine Interpretation of the Syriak version and the LXX leave out And and saith only No uncircumcised person shall eat it But if it have reference to the preceding part of the verse as our Translators seeme to have conceived and doubtless vau is frequently used as a causal or rational conjunction as Schindler shewes in Pentaglott and so is rendred Psal 60.11 For vaine is the help of man Esa ' 64.5 Behold thou art wroth for we have sinned And then I do not see how it can be accommodated thereunto unlosse we conceive that uncircumcised is here taken for one notoriously disobedient to the Laws which his circumcision had obliged him unto as in special in this of circumcising his males and that not only in regard of the disobedience in this neglect considered in it selfe but as it argued other disobedience accompanying the same as we heard out of Ainsworth he was yet in his sin while his children were uncircumcised This accords with those words vers 43. of this 12 Chap. No strdnger shall eat thereof as the Chaldee Paraphrast renders it Omnis filius Israel qui fuerit Apostata non
peices of letters But the Hebrew phrase here used answering to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Becol leb which is ordinarily if not constantly applyed to the doing of a thing affectionatly unfeinedly willingly c. Deut. 13.13 That he may try you whether ye love the Lord with all your heart and soul The latine Interpretation of the Arabick version in our London Bibles saith 〈◊〉 appareat utrum vos sitis amici sui sinceri ex cordibus et aniâ—â—abus vestris Deut. 26.16 30.6 Josh 25.5 1 Sam. 12.20 Scrve the Lord with all your heart further explained verse 4. Serve him in truth with your whole heart So to do any thing with the whole heart is to do it willingly and sincerely and applyed to duties it denotes the doing them in a right manner as to praise the Lord with the whol heart Psal 86.12 to sweare with the whole heart 2 Chron. 15.12 To seek God with all the heart 2 Chron. 15.12 22.9 To turne to the Lord with all the heart Deut. 16.10 1 King 8.48 Jocl 2.12 To follow the Lord with all the heart 1 King 2.4 and such like Now if the phrase in the Hebrew used there do relate to the whole soul and therein especially to the will and the Greek phrase coming from thence not used in the new Testament elswhere but manifestly in this sense then according to the safe Rule of interpreting Scripture by Scripture we must take it here to denote sincere affectionate beleeving in a right or acceptable manner which was required visibly in the Eunuch as a necessary prerequisite to his Baptisme And that the rather because of the Apostles explication of beleeving with or in the heart Rom. 10.8 9 10. of an undoubted saving faith §. 8. Having thus shewed I thinke convincingly that Philips proposal of beleeving with all the heart as a condition of Baptisme did intend more then a bare historical dogmatical faith which may be and is in Divels Now I thinke it will not be bogled at That the Eunuch his profession of faith was apprehended by Philip as coming up to that demand and though the Divels often said the same or like words as the Eunuch here expresseth his faith by and wherein Peter made that glorious confession which Christ so much magnifies Math. 16.16 17 18. and on which Christ will build his Church Yet there 's no doubt Peters faith in that was more than dogmatical and what might be in Divels and the acknowledging of the then hardest Article of the Christian faith to wit that Jesus was the Christ or Messiah was a probable testimony that the men who professed this would not stick at taking him for their Saviour And therefore such assent to Christianity is spoken of in Scripture to denote that intire faith which is justifying and saving as in the Epistles of John and elswhere §. 9. Thus much for answer to one of the exceptions made against the force of our present argument The other is that Philip requires more then was necessary to his admission to baptisme as hath been before explained To this I answer There are cleare testimonies that Philip required this beleeving with all the heart as a necessary prerequisite condition of the Eunuchs admission to baptisme if we will but allow Philips and the Eunuchs words to be the Interpreters of their own minds without miserable torturing and forcing of them to abuse their Masters For 1. The Eunuch saith What hinders me to be baptized To this Question Philip answers If thou beleevest with all thine heart thou mayst Therefore in answer to the Question is implyed If thou dost not beleeve with all thy heart thou mayst not and then no more but necessaries are here required I have often enough explained this to be meant of visible beleeving with all his heart 2. The Eunuch saith Here is water what hinders me to be baptized He enquites therefore if there were nay such defect now as should so bar his being baptized as the want of water would have done if that had not been there then therefore the Eunuch enquires If there were any effectual bar now against his baptisme 3. To which Philip answers as we have heard If thou beleevest with all thy heart thou mayst viz. be baptized now there is water at hand and Philip an Evangelist no doubt Commissioned to dispence this Sacrament There 's nothing now to hinder except there should be a want of a visible sincere and hearty beleeving and that should hinder thee If this do not but rather thou by thy profession approvest thy selfe thus to beleeve thou mayst I appeal to any Judicious Reader whether this be not the genuine fairest and easiest sense of the words and how tortured strained is that the Exception puts upon them As if a man coming to one authorized to marry people should say Sir here 's a fit match for me what hinders me to be marryed and then the Commissioner should say If yee both are agreed with all your hearts yee may Is not this their appearing serious agreement signified whether they do inwardly and sincerely so agree or no the marrier looks not after the necessary prerequisite condition which being visibly wanting would hinder his attompt to marry them And if he should say as the Reverend Objector supposeth paralel to this text If ye feare the Lord ye may marry how unsutable would it be to the Question proposed by them 4. If such plaine words as these What hinders me to be baptized If thou beleevest with all thy heart thou mayst may be expounded q. d. To that Question of thine What hinders me to be baptized I answer Though thou do not visibly beleeve sincerely thou mayst I know not what security we shall have for the sense of almost any Scripture especially where no absurdity forceth us to depart from the manifest genuine usuall proper sense of the words I shall leave it to the Readers serious thoughts whether I have not proved that Philip required a visible beleeving with all the heart or justifying faith as the necessary condition of the Eunuchs admission to Baptisme and then it follows that a persons beleeving in respect of such a faith as connotes visible obedience to the Gospel is the Rule of admission of the adult to Baptisme and by consequence of such only to the Lords Supper as are visibly so qualified One thing more I shall observe before I pass this viz. that the Eunuchs Question was as seemes directly and primarily an enquiry upon what termes Philip would baptize him and so refers to his right to baptisme in soro ecclesiae and therefore I have interpreted the beleeving with all the heart in Philips answer to be meant of a visibly sincere beleeving according to the Rules Philip was to judge by who were to be treated as sincere beleevers And to refer it to the forum Dei as distinguished from the sorum ecclesiae is
clear Gospel-Arguments to one dark one from those Ordinances about the Passeover if there were such an one I shall add also That there is no small difficulty in clearing who were the subjects to be partakers of the Passeover particularly whether children so soon as they were capable of eating flesh did not partake I shall not discuss the point it would be too long onely I must crave liberty to say that I see no convincing-proofs of their exclusion nor any absurdity following upon their reception whiles I consider the Passeover as was before hinted was not wholly and onely sacramentall though I believe it was a Sacrament as the Manna was also to some and the Scripture probabilities of their partaking are more then I can finde alledged for the contrary And if this Argument be further urged for admission of all such to the Lords Table as were admitted or are supposed by some to have been admitted to the Passeover It may be it will occasion a further and more exact consideration of that point concerning their Infants partaking of the Passeover Which yet if asserted will not I think inferre that such children now must partake of the Lords Supper But will most effectually overthrow the consequence of the argument I am now answering to I should now proceed to a second answer to be given to this argument which I shall forthwith endeavour as soon as I have taken my Cordiall following PSAIM 119. Part 9. I. 65 Just Lord thou with thy servant low well dealt as thou had'st said 66 Instruct me right to judge and know for on thy Word I staid 67 I went astray whiles crossless most but now thy Word I keep 68 In thee dwells goodnesse good thou do'st Learn me thy Statutes deep 69 Impure proud men 'gainst me have ly'd I serve thee with heart right 70 Jolly and fat as grease they bide In thy Law I delight 71 It 's good that I have felt thy Rod to learn thy statutes just 72 I count thy Law better O God then thousands of gold dust CHAP. X. §. 1. THe last Chapter presented what I judged sufficient at present to answer to the consequence of this argument viz. If all the people of the Jewes circumcised though never so bad were admitted to the Passeover then all such baptized must now be admitted to the Lords Supper The Antecedent assumed is But all the people circumcised were admitted to the Passeover Concerning which this Chapter will give an account of my apprehensions This generall admission much more this rightfull generall admission to the Passeover here asserted is denyed not without many reasons given of the deniall of it by the learned Mr Gillespy in his Aarons Rod blossoming l. 1. c. 9 10. which I refer to the diligent perusall of the judicious Reader who hath not read him already I shall also humbly offer somewhat in the following particulars whereby the foresaid assumption may be disproved I shall meet with and solve the most colourable pretensions that I have seen undertaking its protection 1 The command of celebrating the Passeover is delivered in general termes Exod. 12.3 6 43 44 45 47. c. All the Cngregation of Israel shall keep it And this reacheth cleerely thus far that they all there spoken of were obliged to this as their duty viz. to celebrate the Passeover according to the ordinances of it But hence it follows not that there might be no hindrances and that through their own fault which might debar them in statu quo from doing what they were obliged unto The obligation to a duty doth not ever warrant the performing of it when there 's a present incapacity and unpreparedness for it but it should put on ever and provoke to a preparation and performance both And so I should thinke all Christian adult professors baptized are obliged to celebrate the Lords Supper yea even the most prophane shall I adde the justly excommunicate also who are not disobliged from though debar'd from the Sacrament through their own default A drunken professor of Christianity whiles drunk at the time of divine service is not sure disobliged from Gods publique service no not from the Lords Supper but yet none doubts he is then justly debarr'd and excluded from the same There are two sorts of hindrances from the Sacrament 1. When the persons hindred are wilfully accessory to their own hindrance 2. When they are hindred without their own fault The first hinders but doth not excuse the latter both hinders and excuseth of the former sort we had an instance in the man who neglected to circumcise his males in which default he was debarred yet not excused from celebrating the Passeover Exod. 12.48 Of the latter sort seeme those mentioned Numb 9. in case of ceremonial uncleaneness And yet if any did unnecessarily and wilfully touch a dead body or take a journey fifteene miles from the camp or from Hierusalem as the Jewes interpret a farr off though they were hereby hindred they were not excused before God for their neglect 2 But in reference to these persons hindred from the Passeover Numb 9. I shall observe these things §. 2. 1. That there was no express exception of them in the former generall commands Exod. 12. That all Israel should doe the Passeover For then there could have been no doubt about these in their case at least Moses would not have been at a stand about it as he seemes to be vers 8.2 That yet it was not thought notwithstanding that general command without exception expressed that all might keep the Passeover without limitation of some preparednesse for the same 3. That there was then an order and care had for keeping back some even of the Israelites from the Passeover These two last observations are evident in vers 6 7. Those defiled say to Moses and Aaron Wherefore are we kept backe that we may not offer among the children of Israel Which implyes that they tendred themselves to partake and complained that they were by some kept back 4. That its manifest here is not intended an enumeration of all impediments no not of all those impediments which excused from doing the Passeover as sickness c. not here mentioned how much less of those which excused not which I thinke this text doth not refer to And therefore notwithstanding this place the Jewes thought other things barrs of their celebrating the Passeover John 18.20 They went not themselves into the Judgement hall least they should be defiled but that they might keep the Passeover They judged preparation for the Passeover for which they had a solemne day antecedently necessary to the doing of the Passeover And probably in their judgement a litigious action on an holy day was accounted a moral sin which they pretended to make scruple of There is little doubt they hold excommunication for moral sins as Mr. Gelaspy hath copiously shewed And yet neither are their excommunicates expresly excepted in this text so that it should make against
the Minister be deceived what if the child be no son of the promise nor of the divine election and mercy For the same cavil may be about the adult Nam de illis quoque ignoramus ficte necne accedant an verò credant an filij praedestinationis an perditionis An Christi gratiam habeant an illâ sint destituti et mendaciter dicant se credere Yet we baptize them upon their external profession quam si mentiantur saith he meâ non refert And on 1 King 8. the same Peter Martyr saith Justificatio ex baptisme non pendet sed antecedit Obj. Coeterum fortē dixeris quorsum baptismus ijs traditur si ante rem baptismi habuerunt An illis luditur opera minime quia deo paremus qui baptismi opus nobis praeceperit 2. Deinde promissionem et donum quod accepimus obsignamus 3. Praeterea ibi a spiritu sancto per verbum et externa symbola fides confirmatur In which doctrine of this learned man may be seene as the orthodox Protestants generally I thinke do agree that all are supposed actually in Gods favour and made partakers of remission of sins before they are admitted to Baptisme And from this and divers such passages in him may be strongly inferred the doctrine of suspension I am treating upon Whatsoever Mr. W. pretends of this Authors opinion to the contrary For if we baptize men adult because we beleeve their profession then we cannot baptize them when either they make no profession or if a verball one which is not credible to us and then we admit men to the Lords Supper on the same account viz because we take them to be beleevers and that non mendaciter dicentes se credere but as to us and our hope of them really and savingly 2. Againe If Baptisme did make men Christians it were as necessary to salvation not only necessitate praecepti but medij also to be baptized as to be a Christian and then all unbaptized at least of the adult must be damned For no one can be saved who is not a Christian as to the essence of Christianity §. 8. Mr. W. tells us over and over and over againe that they are positive beleevers who are baptized whereby they are distinguished from the unbaptized or Pagans and that their obligation by baptisme cannot be removed by their personal vitiosities And at last concludes in this chiding straine Who are you then that deny them the title being the proper cognizance of their obligation to Christ and discharge them from the visible service of Christ in the celebration of this holy Supper under pretence that they are no visible beleevers because of some wants and deformities in their lives c. p. 66. Ans He said before this title agreed to Papists and he cannot deny in his sense it agrees to the greatest Apostates that ever lived upon the earth they are his positive beleevers that is consecrate to the Christian faith in their baptisme and their baptismal obligations still lye on them whereby they are distinguished from men of other religions or rather from men who never were engaged in the profession of the Christian Religion And then I thinke it will be no great honour to have such a title in such a sense only when the thing of Christianity is wanting 2. But I have told him before that I acknowledge them Christians and Beleevers in his sense that is they are positively obliged to Christ and to beleeve in Christ but that alone entitles them not to the Sacrament for then none might be debarr'd who had ever been baptized 3. And I never discharged them from celebrating the Lords Supper no more then he doth the drunke who yet are justly hindred from it they sin in not receiving because their hindrance is by their own fault and yet they ought to be debarred as hath been shewed before Yea It s manifest that Heathens to whom the Gospel is preached are as truly obliged to be baptized as these baptized persons now spoken of are obliged to receive the Lords Supper Let Mr. W. answer how a Minister can debar an heathen coming to baptisme which he is bound to do for want of profession of his assent and consent to the doctrines of Christianity and yet not be guilty of discharging him from his duty And I doubt not the same answer if opposite to this will serve to answer that concerning the Lords Supper The thing hath been explained already therefore I shall not here repeat it 4. Mr. W. here againe insinuates as if I asserted persons visibly such unbeleevers as have no rightful claime of admission to the Sacraments because of some wants and deformities in their lives as if any wants or deformities were affirmed by me to be sufficient to prove persons visibly actual unbeleevers whereas I say it only of such as are inconsistent with the exercise of faith Concerning which I have adventured to give in my thoughts Chap. 7. § 10. and § 12. The sum of the argumentation we have had before us here is this Such as in word renounce an essentiall of Christianity may be debarred the Sacrament though adult baptized and not by the sentence of the Church excluded other ordinances therefore some baptized persons adult and not secluded from other ordinances may be debarred the Sacrament Mr W. hath answered hereunto as you have heard without denying that such should be debarred or distinguishing thereupon But what he wants in rationall answering he makes up as he is wont in confident concluding and saith p. 67. We are rather confirmed than any wayes confuted Proceed to the Exceptions which you seem to alledge as ours against your pretended assertion and withall let us hear you take them off and then give us leave to maintain them as far as ours Such a maintenance will starve the incumbent upon it unless an augmentation can be procured But of this in the following Chapters Here we take up at present and return to our repast PSALM 119. Part 12. M. 89 Mighty Lord thy word setled is The Heav'n by thee doth stand 90 'Mongst men is seen thy faithfulness The Earth bides by thy hand 91 Made they remain this day by thee For all obey thy might 92 My streights e're this had crushed mee But for thy Lawes delight 93 My mind thy Lawes fast holds for I quickned by them am taught 94 Me save who am thine thine wholly for I thy Precepts sought 95 Men vile have waited me to rend But I le thy judgments mind 96 Mine eyes have seen perfections end Thy Law most bread I find CHAP. XIII §. 1. THe Reader may be pleased to know that when I had drawn up the argument before insisted on I as my manner is studied to oppose it my self And as I know not that the argument hath been thus made use of about admission to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper so I knew no exceptions that any had made against it But I
But look back and see whether this reason of mine he assaults was at all mentioned much lesse answered before in the dispute thy two eyes will give thee better information herein than his tale twice two times told §. 2. 2. In the next place he saith You know we are not against the excommunicating of scandalous notorious and stubborn delinquents but before such excommunication we maintain their externall right unto the Lords Supper and their right of free accesse thereunto And a Ministers admission of them is not considerable in the present case They come not thereunto upon his courtesie as if he had power to admit or not admit This is extrinsecal to the matter in hand But they come upon their own proper and internal right i. e. their baptismal interest as Christians to perform visible homage to their Lord and Saviour And he that debars them as long as they are in visible communion with Christians in other ordinances of equal sanctity is injurious to God and to them also 1. Reader suppose all this true and see whether it wound my Reason he is answering Will it hence follow that some deeds of wickedness are not as significative of a persons rejecting Christ as words are which was the proposition by me to be proved or that if this were not so no man who in words did not renounce Christ might be fully excommunicated which was my Reason to prove the foresaid proposition by 20 To the things he mentions though impertinent to this place I shall also make some reply 1. Though mine Antagonists do not simply deny excommunication yet they some of them at least so lay their train as to deny excommunication among us in England in these times For they quarrell with any power claiming to manage it Congregational Independent power will not sure be allowed by them and Classical Presbyterial power is the object of their scorns and contempt And unless we could have Bishops again and those assisted by the State I see not how they would allow of excommunication here in England In England I say For I hope to the reformed Churches beyond Seas they will be more favourable than to deny them the use of Church censures for want of Prelates But if they are impartial and will take in them too whose case to say truth differs not from ours then shall excommunication be owned by them in all Europe no where or onely among the Papists who still have Prelates And are not these Gentlemen very libeâ—all now that they should tell us of it themselves for granting excommunication on this fashion §. 3. 2. I hold also that after a person is regularly admitted to the participation of the Lords Supper that is after a solemne personall owning of his baptismall engagements he is not to be debarred the Lords Supper before he fall under some excommunication viz. either jure or facto less or greater 3. One while M. W. speaks of their externall right to the Lords Supper as if he asserted onely their external right But soon after he saith They come upon their own proper and internal right i. e. their baptismall interest c. 1. We should here distinguish of 1. a direct and proper right they may have by Gods grant to them to receive the Lords Supper and the benefits represented therein 2. an improper right and collateral by Gods authorizing the Ministers to administer to them whiles they visibly appear such as have interest in those benefits Many may have right in the later sense externally or before the Church i. e. Ecclesia judice who have not right in the former sense internally and properly A man who onely seems to be poor and distressed may have an external improper collaterall right to my almes before men as I am bound to relieve him and sin if I do not Prov. 3.27 Withhold not good from him to whom it is due that is the Needy as the LXX turns it when it is in the power of thine hand to do it Yet if he do but counterfeit poverty and distress 〈◊〉 hath no inward proper right to my almes These two therâ—fore should not have been confounded and jumbled together as they are here by our Authour 4. If such as we have spoken of have no right to be admitted and do visibly so appear I think the Minister is concerned in the admission or debarring of them if he will approve himself a faithfull Steward of the divine Mysteries that it lyes wholly in him where there is no governing Church but where there is it lies on him joyntly with others instructed by the Church As for that passage often before of the Ministers courtefie in admission it hath been once and again repelled as an odious and wretched impertinent and false insinuation he must admit according to the Rule prescribed him by his master to whom he must give account without being swayed awry either by base fear and passion or partiall respects I think Chrysostome was of this mind when in his 60. Homily ad Pop. Antioch de sumentibus indignè c. he saith Let no cruell unmercifull man approach no impure one any way These things I would have spoken as well to you who communicate as to you who minister No small punishment hangs over your head if ye permit any to partake of this Table whom you know to be held with any wickedness for his blood shall be required at your hands c. 5. Their baptismall engagement to celebrate the Lords Supper doth not hinder their being justly debarred in the case under consideration no more than a Heathen who hears the Gospel preached to him his engagement to be baptized doth hinder his being justly debarred baptisme for want of scrious profession of the Christian faith antecedently necessary to baptisme as all I think do grant Let Mr W. shew the contrary if he can I say the one is aeque though not aequaliter engaged as the other as truly though not so solemnly and multifariously A man is as truly obliged to obey God who hears his will clearly revealed as he is who hath by his own profession further positively bound himself to obey 6. The learned and ingenuous Mr Humphreys a Gentleman worthy indeed to be answered acknowledgeth as we have seen above that as an heathen so an excommunicate may be admitted both to the prayers and hearing of the word preached in the Church and the thing is manifest in it selfe as hâ—th been shewed And yet saith this our confident Authour â—â—â—ou hear He that debars them as long as they are in visible communion with Christians in other ordinances is injurious to God and to them also What he will say he means by visible communion in other ordinances I know not But they may be present with them in the Congregation and that in a constant course and that as doing their dutie there as well as others and they may account themselves and so be lawfully owned by others as Church-members
defence of my hypothesis require I should There are some other passages of his mixt with these I have related I cannot digest which have been answered elsewhere and I am not willing to quarrell with them here as long as the main of his discourse hereon seems such as I do comply with I will not compare with Mr. W. nor any other in rigorous pressing of doctrines this in speciall for mens conviction and reformation But I do endeavour it according to my poor measure and I think here 's nothing for substance of these things which hath not been heard from me But the knot lies not here whether they are obliged both to labour for knowledge and leave prophanesse so to come But in this whether they may not be debarred the later for their visible want of the former And he may be pleased to remember that the Fallacia divisionis is as ill Logick as the Fallacia compositionis to argue à bene conjunct is ad malè divisa is as consequent as à bene divisis ad malè conjuncta which he minds us of p. 128. and I have explained my self on this point before ch 10. § 1 2. and elsewhere I shewed that obligation to duty doth not ever give or argue a right of admission to the performance thereof simply without any more a-doe A drunken Christian is not disobliged from the publick service of God while such nor doth any excommunication disoblige from the Lords Supper they both sin in both not waiting on God in his ordinances and hindring themselves by their own default That divers things debar from the performance of duties which do not excuse nor disoblige from them is a truth so plain that he that runs may read it §. 4. 5. Mr. W. p. 131.132 answers the Query how infants are not obliged to receive 1. By Analogie to the Infants among the Jewes in reference to the Passcover but that point deserves a more accurate consideration 2. By shewing that his Assertion is consined to baptized persons adult they are bound immediately to examine themselves and to come to the Lords Table and they sin against knowledge and conscience by neglecting these duties being urged upon them and made known to them and they cannot be so urged and made known to infants by reason of their incapacity c. But this last reason is not valid For if their incapacity of knowing and having Baptisme urged on them hinders them not from being baptized why shall this alone hinder them from the Lords Supper They may be brought to one as well as the other when two or three years old and therefore are no more incapable of the one than the other upon this account 6. Mr. W. shewes the incongruity of denying children their board and not bed belike to teach us that none in the Church should be denied the Sacrament But that I have refuted ch 3. at the later end of the sixth Section These are the Returns he hath given for the confuting the sum of my foresaid argument which have as much influence into that design as Tenterton steeple hath for the causing of Goodwin sands according to the story I remember Father Latimer hath in one of his Sermons PSALM 119. Part. 21. W. 161 Without a cause Princes wrong'd me But thy word awes my mind 162 Words sacred joy my soul as he joyes who great spoyls doth find 163 Wretched lies I abhor alwayes But love thy commandments 164 Within th' day sev'n times I thee praise for all thy right Judgments 165 Who love thy Law great peace procure nothing shall them offend 166 Waiting I hop'd for thy Law sure and did thy will attend 167 With my soul I have kept thy word and truly love it most 168 Well have I mark't thy precepts Lord For all my wayes thou know'st CHAP. XXII §. 1. THere is nothing further to exercise thy patience good Reader but some descants on the passages I quoted from Salvian and Tertullian And first against those of Salvian Mr W. hath divers Exceptions as 1 that I tell him not where in Salvian to find them 2. That I quote a broken piece concealing what follows adding an c. as a veil under which to hide his sense 3. That I quoting two passages in severall books put them together which he saith is not fair dealing p. 134. 4. And lastly that the thing quoted is perverted to a sense not intended by the Author To these his Exceptions I return 1. to the first When I finished that private paper he hath publickly assaulted I had not my Salvian with me else it had been easie to have turned to the Book and page Every private paper needs not the exactnesse in these things of a publick plea. Doth Mr W. in every Sermon or Lecture when he quotes any passage from an Author name the Chapter Book and page If he do I think it is a needlesse exactnesse when as any one who doubts of or peruseth the quotation may easily have recourse to him for the place where it is to be found 2. His second exception is frivolous unless the words following those I quoted did turn the sense of the former word to another intent than that was for which I quoted them which they do not but rather confirm it as shall be shewed in answering his sourth exception 3. The third exception is removed by what I have said to his first neither is Salvians sense at all injured he speakes to the same purpose in both places as shall appeare immediately And I did not say they were joyned together in Salvian but named them as two severall passages not quoting the book wherein either of them was to be read §. 2. 4. To his 4th Exception which is most material the rest are toyes sutable for him that abounds in leisure for them I answer I quoted not Salvian nor yet Tertullian neither to prove suspension immediatly as Mr. W. pretends p. 136. Your intent saith he in alledging his words is to justisie your debarring men from the Lords Table Mr. W. hath ill hap in telling my intents and yet he will not adone with it But saith he whether Salvian intended any such thing let the Reader judge Reade him againe he is Minimus patrum and it s no great labour to read him over If Minimus patrum referre to the quality of his writings and that he is of least account how comes Mr. W. to be the Judge and Censor of the Fathers If to the quantity as the words following its no great labour to reade him over doe intimate I presume Mr. W. in that hath taken his aime amisse There are other Fathers of whose workes and writings extant the quantity is lesse then Salvians as the Clement about the yeare 93. Polycarpus Ignatius Minutius Faelix c. I know no such controversie mentioned in Salvian as that is we are now discussing to wit about suspension What he intended or foresaw the arguments and matter he treated
called is to be Isa 9.6 Luk. 1.32 36. Math. 5.19 Mark 11.17 and Salvian himselfe having so expounded himselfe in the point he speakes to elswhere as we have seene Christiani esse dicuntur non sunt But as Mr. W. takes it he may not be seene by others nor himselfe to be a Christian it well fits our turne and is according to what Salvian hath ad eccl cathol l. 2. Quis promissis caeleslibus fidem commodat non agit ut esse possit particeps promissionum ideo Cum videamus homines haec non agere cogimur non credentes palâm evidenter agnoscere Doth not this reach to what I had said viz. That a deed-Testimony may prevaile above a word-Testimony and therefore if we may debarre him who in words rejects Christ then also him who by some notorious deeds of wickednesse doth as manifestly reject Christ Yea doth not M. W. say the same here in effect Mr. W. before affirmed that we must certainly know those are Christians and beleevers whom we administer to and here he confesseth in expounding Salvian that a notorious scandalous professor of Christianity who doth not the act and duty of a Christian cannot be seene of others to be a Christian how then will he administer to him he will say as I guesse 1. he sees him to be a word-professor of Christianity that is he sees him to lye and for his lyes sake notoriously appearing to be such he will admit him Oh prodigious termes of admission or 2. that he is sure he is baptized and so engaged to Christianity But if that be sufficient no Apostate whatsoever may be rejected as hath been hinted before And yet the man among all these weaknesses he manifests is strong in uncivil language and cryes Abuse not Antiquity to palliate your follies §. 4. 4. His 4th observation is That Salvian in another place and book saith Infidelis sit necesse est qui fidei commissa non servat And here he goes to his Dictionary to teach us that Infidelis is an Adjective and then saith Salvian here takes not the word Infidelis in the rigid notion of an Infidel for a man without the Church which directly denieth and utterly rejecteth the principles of Christianity but for a man untrusty within the Church unsaithful to him who hath committed the things of Christianity to his trust And we say so too And I say so too Well met then sometime The place quoted is in l. 3. de guber Dei p. 68. Cum ergo ista sint omnia per quae fides constat videamus quis tanta haec fidei sacramenta custodiat ut fidelis esse videatur where videatur is only an expletive as I take it in the former quotation quia Infidelis ut diximus sâ—â— necesse est qui sidei commissa non servat And so we are to account of him as to some respects according to what this Author saith in the place before mentioned Eccl. Cathol l. 2. Cum videamus homines haec non agere cogimur Non Credentes paldm evidenter agnoscere to which he addes Non lice ut cos nos Deo fidem putemus adhibere cum illi se rebus clament negare Doth not this teach us that he who saith he beleeves is not for his saying so to be taken for a beleever or a beleeving person when his deeds manifest his unfaithfulness and then sure its pertinent to my argument preceding But saith Mr. W. this proves not that our unfaithfull and earcless Brethren as Pagan Infidels are to be kept from the Lords Supper because of some unfaithfulnesses and negligences before legally convented and convicted 1. It proves this as much as that they are to be debarred for any wickednesse after legal convention and conviction I beleeve Salvian had respect to neither 2. What he meanes by legal convention and conviction I know not but if he referre to what is done by or before the civil Magistrate or by his positive directions 1. there was no legal proceeding under heathen Magistrates for some hundreds of yeates after Christs ascension and 2. he reacheth not us who have the directions of the Magistrate in Church Censures particularly in this of suspension as hath been shewed above 3. It is not every unsaithfulness or negligence Salvian here makes the character of his unbeleever no more do we of such unbeleevers as ought to be debarred the Sacrament This odious infinuation hath bin repelled more then once before 4. The words of Salvian alledged prove or rather assert I brought them not as a proofe that he appeares to be an unbeleever who is notoriously unfaithfull to his baptismal engagements and from that I had before inferred that he is not to be admitted whiles such to the Lords Supper §. 5. As for the discourse Mr. W. here falls into about the difference there is betwixt a pagan Infidel unbaptized and a baptized unfaithful Christian p. 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144. It hath nothing in it which colourably makes against us save two passages which hath not been answered before The description of excommunication he would gather from Tertullian viz. That it is a banishment of a Delinquent from communication of prayer Assembly and of all holy communion with Christians hath been particularly spoken to Chap. 3. § 10. One of Mr. W. his pretentions which beares the shew of an objection is this p. 141 142. where he saith In our Ecclesiastical discipline we proceed not against men as no Christians as no beleevers therein you are mistaken For what have we to do to judge them that are without We leave such to Gods own immediate severity and disposal In our discipline we proceed against men as Christians and as professed beleevers as within as of ours and of us which have transgressed the law of faith or violated the holy Rutes of Christianity and refuse to submit and make publique satisfaction when legally convented and convicted Now if you judge and take our men when you juridically suspend to be no Christians no beleevers not within none of yours nor of you what talk you of either of suspending or excommunicating of them of no Christians and no beleevers they must be made Christians and Beleevers by Baptisme not your examination and approbation of them The ground of this his objection hath been removed in the place last referred unto and in Chap. 5. § 6. and Chap. 19. § 5 6. where hath been acknowledged by us that not only flagitious baptized persons but also excommunicates are Church-members and therefore within and so are not to be rebaptized when restored In this the Reader may see whose way is more rigorous Mr. Ws. or mine His associates take excommunicates for no Church-members so do not I and yet they restore them not by baptisme when they alledge against mee that such as are not within must be taken in by Baptisme as we heard Mr. W. speake According therefore to what we have