but that there will be reason lest like wise for the other If this judging then Doe not ye judge those that are within be meant of ecclesiastical censure upon which such men are to be avoided then must this censure be the censure of excommunication For That censure by which men are excluded Christian Societie in general and not the Sacrament only is the censure of excommunication But such is this in the expresse words Keep not company with such It is not said only Eat not with such but Keep not company no not to eat explaining as I have said the extent thereof And then you may have still a text here if you will against Erastus to prove excommunication but here is nothing against me to prove Suspension as distinct from Excommunication If by judging Do not ye judge c. be meant only a judgment of private discretion and no Church-censure then must this keeping company and eating be meant only of common familiarity and those reasons before mentioned will certainly evince it upon that suppositiō For it is a most grievous and unreasonable thing that one private brother should avoid another in any one of the publick Ordinances or worship of God upon his own private judgement Privato cujusquam ar bitrio hunc vel illum defugiendum relinquere nihil aliud est quā schismatibus infinitis offendiculis januam aperire saies Beza De Presb. p. 91. and so Gillespie and others and then this text makes nothing for Suspension nor Excommunication neither There is but one thing here which all have can be urged and that is this If wee must avoid such a person at our own table in common familiarity then much more at the Lords table But this objection is sufficiently met withall in the laying down my matter It is true if this avoiding such be upon a Church-censure which then I say is excommunication not suspension the argument à minori ad majus may hold That censure that excludes a man from commō eating does much more exclude him from the Lords table if from commō familiarity then much more from sacred communion But if this avoiding such which is supposed in the pleading hereof be upon private discretion the argument is no waies valid because the denyal of common eating at our own table is in every mans private hands but the denial of eating at the Sacrament is in the Churches hands and for one private brother to take upon him to avoid another at the publick ordinance before Church-censure will not I hope be maintained by any that are not in love with Schism and separation Unto this text I might adde a fifth 2 Thess 3.14 which is a parallel to it If any man obey not our word by this Epistle Note that man and have no company with him that he may be ashamed Here we have the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I conceive the same difficulty For some do look on this Note here as private civil common only and some do take it to be Ecclesianical authoritative a Note of censure for which Austine Ambrose Chrysostom Theophylact Theoderet are quoted among the Fathers and the learned Anti Erastians of late do all go this way For my part therefore without determining that which is dubious and having no need to determine it I should answer to this text as to the last If this Noting be private onely then does the Apostle command us onely not to keep common company or familiarity with disorderly persons and so the text concerns not the Sacrament at all If this Note be Ecclesiastical then does the Apostle command us to excommunicate such persons and so the texts concerns the Sacrament as a part of company in general and no otherwise which is most plain and undeniable in that there is not a tittle in the chapter to point out to us this Sacrament in particular For the former interpretation there may be these reasons 1. The persons to be noted are the disorderly in the verses before that went about idle and would not work for their living Now the bare denying such persons entertainment in their houses and not keeping them company seems a direct and sufficient course alone to reclaim them herein and set them to work especially when they knew the Apostles precept That if any would not labour neither should he eat v. 10.2 These words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may refer to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and be thus construed Hunc notum facite per epistolam signifie that man by an epistle to wit that he may be censured if the case require and not to be understood as already under censure 3. The person that is under censure is to be accounted as an Heathen Matt. 18.17 but this person here is not to be accounted as an Heathen for so the word Enemy probably signifies as in Rom. 11.28 Eph. 2.16 but admonished as a brother v. 15. For the other interpretation there may be these reason 1. The person to be noted is not only disorderly v. 11 but seems here also to be refractory If any man obey nor or will not obey 2. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is judged more than a bare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeed signifies barely indico but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notam imprimo 3. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I desire may be most observed Keep not companie as in the text before is general and indefinite comprehending all society both sacred and civil and there is nothing to limit the same in the text Now to avoid a person so far as to have no company in general with him is not to be supposed but upon an ecclesiastical censure 4. The end wherefore the person is Noted is the same with excommunication to wit that the man be brought to shame or repentance I must confesse to deal ingenuously If I were to chuse out an argument to prove Suspension I should pick out this text chiefly which yet Mr. Coll fore-quoted hath not produced for one amongst these others And I would urge it thus Here is a Noting of a person to this end that he may be ashamed which is probably a Church-censure But this censure is not excommunication because the excommunicate is to be counted as an heathen Mat. 18. but this person is still to be accounted as a brother v. 15. which reason is not the least amongst the rest now mentioned therefore must this censure be an Exclusion from the Sacrament only or Suspension And this argument I suppose were more to the point than any of those I read in this reverend Brother which generally doe labour still in this one fault that they prove Suspension by Excommunication when they should prove the same as distinct from it Yet were not this argument neither to be thought sufficient and convincing 1. Because the ground on which it stands is at most but probable We are not sure this Noting here is ecclesiastical 2. Because those Divines
est favor numinis quo Deus pater nos propter Christum complectitur et donis instruct Now in the Scripture there is two-fold grace General grace and Special grace God is said to love all that he would have all to be saved yet elect some Christ is said to dye for all and to dye for his sheep Both these are true whatsoever men contend the Scripture must be beleeved and we must not argue from the one to the destruction of the other To define this sense orthodoxly how both are reconciled who is so wise to undertake One Cottier a grave French-Protestant Divine in an Epistle of his to one of their Provincial Assemblies and well approved of by them having studied this point long saies thus Ad haec respondemus non esse asystata quia gradu modo differunt Deum putamus posse magìs et minùs velle Par est majora magìs minora minùs velle Quod verò de Deo dicitur Christo etiam convenit Pro omnibus mortuus magis vero pro Electis Doctor Twisse saies thus often Fatemur et nos Christum-mortuum esse pro omnibus et singulis hoc sensu nempe ut inomnes singulos per mortem ejus redundet salus modò in ipsum credant Lib. 2. Crim. 4. Sect. 6. For my part I dare not be peremptory in determining this sense of General grace it suffices me that there is some sense thereof according to the word of truth and I shall only observe this one thing that in the Scripture this General grace belonging to all in some Orthodox sense whatsoever it be is often appropriated to the visible Church who are said to be redeemed to be in Christ and sanctified with his blood in way of distinction from the world when some of them are reprobates and perish with it 2 Pet. 2.1 Jo. 15.2 Heb. 10.29 And herein I do conceive we may see how the covenant of grace in this latitude to the whole Church may stand upon a real and not an aequivocal foundation and that will be if we doe not reckon the unregenerate and non-elect to be in covenant in reference to special grace as Christ is said to dye for his sheep and elect whereof these cannot partake indeed only in the account of men which is nominally only but in reference to General grace as Christ is said to dye for all and that not nominally aequivocally in the account of men only but really so that the tender and offer of Christ to all is serious and real as it is appropriated to the Church that receives it with distinction of priviledge from the heathen or world that doe not receive this grace and Gospel but deny it And this by the way I shall humbly offer for the removing some grand objections which stick with many For instance The Sacraments are signes of grace instituted to testifie the being and having the thing saies Gillespie Aar rod blos B. 3. c. 13. Therefore they belong to the regenerate only Again It is not credible that Christ should say This is my body broken for you and my blood shed for you if Judas were amongst the other disciples B. 3. c. 8. Again The Sacrament is the communion of the body blood of Christ with the like I answer The Sacraments are signs directly of this general Grace as it is appropriated in Scripture to the Church and they do testifie to every nember the being and their having thereof by way of advantage and distinction from the world And thus as it is credible that Christ should say there are some branches in him that yet are fruitlesse that Peter should say some are bought by the Lord that deny him and Paul that some are sanctined by the blood of the covenant that trample upon it according to the texts fore-quoted So is it credibse that Christ should say these words This is my body broken for you to Judas among the rest and in the same sense is there a communion of Christs body and blood to all within the Church even as Moses saies to all the people Rehold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you Ex. 24.8 Heb. 9.19.20 though some of them be professors only Two things here may be demanded 1. How can this General grace of the covenant be appropriated to the Church which belongs to all the world I answer It belongs to the world only in regard of publication tender and a kind of potential interest if they come in but it belongs to the Church by way of actual interest as already come in See my Rejoynd p. 202. so that one is said to be in covenant and the others yet aliens from it Eph. 2 12.2ly What is that then which brings a man into this outward actual interest in the covenant whereby this General grace thereof belongs to him by way of priviledge now when as yet he is no more partaker of the Special grace thereof than before I answer with Mr. Hudson Vind. p. 8. There are two Sieves which God useth the first is to sift the world into a visible ecclesiastical body The second is to sift this visible ecclesiastical body into a spiritual invisible body The one Sieve is managed by the hands of the Minister the other is in the hands of God only Into the one a man is brought by the outward call of the Minister and his own answering that call in receiving the doctrine of Christ and subjection to the Ordinances Into the other a man is brought only by election and regeneration 13. Lastly The covenant under the New Testament is said to be better than under the Old Heb. 7.22 8.6 But to account this priviledge of Ordinances which was in common to the Jews as is proved before to belong now only to the regenerate is to make it worse under the New testament than under the Old which is injurious to doe Arbitrari saies Calvin Inst l. 4. c. 16. Sec. 6. Christum adventu sno patris gratiam immiouisse aut decurtasse execrabili blasphemia non vacat I know some do make this difference between the New and Old Testament that the Jews were all called Gods people and reckoned in covenant though many of them were wicked but it is not so now say they under the New Against these I shall oppose only those two plain texts 1 Cor. 5.11 12. there are scandalous persons enumerated a Fornicator covetous drunkard yet within that is within the Church and covenant yet a brother So 2 Thess 3.15 There is the disorderly person yet count him not as an enemy that is happily considering the word in other places as Rom. 11.28 Eph. 2.16 count him not as one out of the Church an Unbeleever or Heathen but admonish him as a brother And indeed unless such be looked on as brethren and as within how can there be any excommunication for what have we to doe to judge those that are without I know that
Word that accompanies the Sacrament especially in things of the Sacrament as well as by that which goes before or after it And by the way as for the younger sort come out of their childhood my judgement is with Aquinas Quando pueri incipiunt aliqualem usum rationis habere ut possint devotionem hujus Sacramenti concipere tunc potest eis hoc Sacramentum conferri Part 3. Quaest 80. Art 4. For the Scandalous in the next place I would have some to know or consider that the Sacrament is an ordinance wherein the curse and wrath of God against sin is held forth in the sufferings of Christ as well as pardon upon repentance Herein is the joynt strength of the Law and Gospel applyed in power to the understanding and a most high-aggravating of sin upon the conscience saies Mr. Blake in his late Book called The Covenant sealed in reference to his former The Covenant opened ch 7. Sect. 13. Arg. 3. 4. A sin-aggravating heart-breaking soul-humbling ordinance as he calls it is a means to reclaim even a scandalous sinner Reader I speak not these things on the one hand to hinder Catechism Examination and any means of private conference for the bringing our people unto knowledge Nay I am not against a prudential making use of this season to this end but only in regard that few Ministers doe or can go to all their people and their people will not come to them I doe conceive it may be satisfactory to their spirits in doing their office that though some persons be ignorant yet coming to the Supper and hearing the nature and use of the Sacrament laid open there is hope through Gods grace that they may receive at the very time competent information to be edified and wrought on by it I will speak plainly they may receive instruction for the knowing according to their modell the wretchednesse of sin that Christ is the Son of God through whose name alone we can be saved and that he is held forth as crucified in the elements and tender'd to beleevers which is as much as Mr. Blake saies he dares require to admittance Cov. Seal p. 233. Again on the other hand I speak not neither to favour the scandalous my doctrine is rather too harsh in the casting them out yet am I not so far gone as to think that it is not possible for such a person not yet under censure to be wrought on or edified by this ordinance No let but a right application of what is held forth herein be made by every receiver according to the state of his soul and what can be more effectual through the word to break his heart Let the man which is most keen against sin consider what I have proposed in my Rejoynder p. 37 39 40 75 76. 112 113.235 236 237 238 239 255. and he will see this is no loose doctrine I have taught Neither may they say this is no means to work grace or repentance but confirm it this is not an ordinance for conversion but for edification For I say otherwise It is a means of edification and salvation and therefore unto some likewise of conversion The whole exercise of Christs officers in dispensing the word seales and all other ordinances of Christ say the London Divines in their Jus Divin Reg. Ec. p. 36. is for the edifying the Church of Christ or the visible body Eph 4.11 12. with v. 4 5 6. 1 Cor. 12.11 12. From hence then I argue If the Lord hath appointed all his ordinances within the Church for the edification of the whole and there be some unregenerate within the Church then is the Sacrament appointed for some unregenerate mens edification and consequently their conversion for otherwise such cannot at all be edified unto salvation But the former is true therefore the latter Again The solemn application of the covenant to a mans self according to his estate to wit of salvation through Christ if he will beleeve and repent and of judgement from Christ if he continues in his sinnes and does not turn effectually to him is the very onely way whereby the Spirit usually worketh conviction and sincere conversion But actual receiving of the Sacrament is a solemn means of such an application Ergo. I pray see what I have written in the fore-quoted places for the clearing of this and compare it with the substance of what Mr. Blake hath put in since and it may be more cautiously exprest in the said place of his Cov Seal p. 204. 240. which hath much confirm'd me and I am perswaded when this matter is a litle more laid to heart that many will not only be ready to confesse with him ibid. p. 240. that there is more weight herein than personally hath been acknowledged but also that though it be objected against my doctrine that it strengthens the hands of the wicked Ez. 13.22 yet shall the godly find here a sword put in their hands for the smiting the wicked the secure and hypocrite up to the heart with this Sacrament it self while they are but taught to apply what is held forth to them according to their condition Indeed I conceive a forbearance sometimes for all this may be piously advised upon the account of prudence and the solemnitie of the ordinance to doe more good by it which I shall speak something of in the end to yield what may be to the satisfying the pious but this will not come up to a necessity All the disciples of Christ were ignorant in the fundamentals of Christs death and resurrection and Judas was scandalous See my Rejoynd page 15. yet Christ excluded neither of them at his Supper SECT 6. WEll now let thus much be considered that the Lord hath his Church in such a latitude to take into it whole Nations regenerate and unregenerate That the priviledge of ordinances belongs to this Church by way of distinction of it from the world That every member thereof therefore hath a right unto the ordinances devolved on him from this Church-covenant-relation While yet it is confessed that there are some which through their incapacity of reason cannot use the same The result of all will come to this that there is no person of discretion within the Church can be debarred any publick ordinance particularly the Sacrament before he be turn'd out of the Church with which this priviledge of ordinances is convertible and from it inseparable The Sacrament is the communion or token of our communion in Jesus Christ But every Church-member in statu quo is in Christ Jo. 15.2 and in some sense partaker of his blood so as to sanctifie him Heb. 10 29. and redeem him 2 Pet. 2.1 and therefore his right is good to that which is in the same sense the token hereof So long as he is in communion how can he be debarr'd the communion while he is in the body he may partake of the body The Church is the body of Christ and so
long as we are one body we are one bread and partakers of that one bread I must yet follow moreover if it cannot be proved that Jesus Christ hath given order for the casting out some from the Church so far that for the present they are thereby cut off their external covenant-Church-relation we must maintain a promiscuous communion in the largest way as learned Musculus and others before Erastus have done which yet I dare in no wise approve so far as it opposes an Ecclesiastical government distinct from the Civil within the Church It is my opinion therefore that the Lord Jesus hath set up a power of the Keyes under the Gospel distinct from the Magistrate whereby he hath taken order that if there be any persons within the Church that are scandalous and remain obstinate after due admonition that they are to be cast out by the censure of Excommunication which being such as turns them out from the Church Mat. 18.17 1 Cor 5.7 13. Io. 9.22.3 Io. 10. their right unto the ordinances must needs fall together with their Church-relation and then they are justly to be kept from the Sacrament So that I herein declare against an Erastian in-disciplinary promiscuous communion though I stand for an orthodox disciplinary Free-admission And here I will advance this one argument against Erastus which will stand I suppose when others will not and it is this If the Scripture does allow an exclusion of some from the Church in general or from her societie and communion in general then may some be excluded from the Sacrament because the Sacrament is a part of that communion But the Scripture does allow and command this Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. Purge out the old leven Keep no company Put away jrom among you such a person Let him be to thee as an heathen Therefore an exclusion from the Sacrament upon those grounds as do respect it onely as a part of Church-society in general is to be maintained against the Erastian by excommunication as an exclusion upon other grounds as particularly from the distinct nature of the ordinance is to be opposed against others that would have it without excommunication SECT 7 FOr the Excommunicate there is a received distinction of such that are so Either Ipso jure or De facto Those are accounted ipso jure excommunicate whose scandal and impenitency is evident to the Church that there need no tryal for their conviction Those are de facto excommunicate who have farther a legal sentence passed on them It must bee acknowledged that many Divines and Churches of God have allowed the Minister a liberty to withhold the Sacrament from persons Excommunicate ipso jure before sentence unto whose reverend authority I have ever judg'd with due limitation much is to be submitted so that upon their score I have exprest my self in my Rejoynd p. 21 26. so farre that supposing there are scandals 1. Notorious that they offend the Congregation 2. Open that they need no proof or debate 3. Actual or in the present fact that no repentance can be pleaded it may not matter much if you deal with such as excommunicate when you judge it like to doe good In extraordinary cases some extraordinary proceedings break no squares Neverthelesse ordinarily upon my farthest consideration I do believe it a thing more consonant to the scope of the Scripture and lesse lyable to opposition to resolve that an ecclesiastical judgement first passe upon a person before he be excluded any part of our Churches publick communion and therefore I doe own here that thing as fit and good which is noted by Mr. Collings Vind. Suspens Presb p. 36. That though I grant to the Minister thus much upon a pinch in case of some intollerable evil yet as to what is ordinarily to be done all my arguments are so framed as to conclude that a person must not be only de jure but also de facto excommunicate before he be debarred his admission My reasons are 1 Because the Apostle commanding the Corinths 1 Cor. 5. Not to keep company nor eat with those brethren that were fornicators drunkards railers and the like layes down expressly this proceeding For doe not ye judge those that are within v. 12. that is this not keeping company is intended no otherwise than upon a judgement foregoing This refusing to eat with such a one was by vertue of a judicial sentence saies Gillespie Aar rod. bloss p. 430. past against the scandalous person And Beza De Presb. p. 57. So in 2 Thess 3.14 If any obey not note that man and have no company with him The disorderly person is first to be noted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is according to our chief Anti Erastian Divines Beza Hammond Rutherford Gillespy Set a mark upon him or a censure and then withdraw from him Indeed it is a question whether this Note or Judging in these texts be authoritative or private only I must confess if they be not authoritative but of private discretion as Erastus holds then this will not reach the purpose nor this Have no company I suppose then reach to the Sacrament 2. Because it seems not reasonable that a penalty should be inflicted on a person before a judgement be given I will expresse this in the words of Reverend Bowles quoted by another out of his Evangelical Pastor Qui omnium pessimi usque dum ecclesia suâ sententiâ decretoriâ pro canibus et porcis habendos declaraverit non mihi cum illis ut canibus porcis agendum est Latronem qui mortem commeruit nullus jure de vitâ tollat usque dum judex et reum declaraverit et sententiam tulerit 3. Because there are like to follow many flippery and dangerous inconveniences upon the allowing the Minister power of doing otherwise insomuch as I find Beza in his book against Erastus very often and very earnestly me-thinks speaking to this purpose Etiamsi suis oculis minister quempiam viderit aliquid agentem quod coenae exclusionem mereatur jure tamen nec debeat nec possit nisi vocatum convictum legitimè denique secundum constitutum in ecclesia ordinem damnatum à mensa domini cum authoritate prohibere See p. 26. 23. 75 c. 4. Because Exclusion from the Sacrament according to my judgement is not to be allowed by any means upon those reasons which are most stood upon from the nature of the ordinance it self as distinct herein from others but upon the account of discipline only To exclude from the Lords Supper saies Scholastical Mr. Jeanes as the subject of his discourse upon this question which he hath strongly carried is a kind of Ecclesiastical punishment and therefore presupposeth an Ecclesiastical censure though men have deserved such a punishment yet it is not to be inflicted on them untill they be legally censured p. 118. Ed. 2. SECT 8. THat my mind here may be clearly understood the controversie between mee and those that
oppose me be more fully stated and some prejudice avoided I must crave pardon to use some more words it may be some more than enough upon this particular In my Vindication of Free-admission my first little book p. 33. for the explaining my conceptions I have laid down a distinction between discipline and worship The exercise of the keys as acts of discipline I would have accounted one thing and the use of the ordinances as acts of worship to be another Discipline to be in one element Worship in another I know if some list to be contentious they may confound these but docendi gratiâ at least for the expressing my self no equitable man can deny me thus to distinguish for my purpose Now there are two extreames I conceive concerning Free-admission to the Lords Supper On the one hand of such who are too large for it and the other of such as are too strict against it There are some then as hath been touched before that plead for free admission not only in regard of Worship but also in regard of Discipline disclaiming all exclusion from any of the publick Ordinances of God by the censures of the Church and indeed denying all Ecclesiastical government distinct froÌ„ the civil where the Magistrate is Christian There are others that plead against free admission not only in point of Discipline but also in point of Worship herein advancing the Sacrament above all other Ordinances that those who have a granted right to all other parts of Gods worship and Church-communion as baptised members are deni-to have any right unto the Sacrament though they be yet under Church-indulgence and not censured The Sacrament say they requires truth of grace in the receivers unlesse a man be regenerate on his own part he is forbidden to come and consequently unlesse upon trial and examination there be some evidence that he is visibly or probably such on the Churches part he must not be admitted In the middle between these extreames my opinion and the truth as I think without engaging others does lie Affirming against the former who are the Erastians that the Lord Jesus Christ hath set up a power of the keys in the Church as I have said before and that the Scripture is manifest for an exclusion of some persons to wit the scandalous and obstinate from Christian communion in general and so consequently from the Lords Supper as a part thereof Neverthelesse I doe assert likewise against the latter that there is no Scripture for the exclusion of any from this Sacrament without discipline but that administring and receiving the Lords Supper is as free and universal in the nature thereof to our members as other parts of Church-communion The same qualifications are required to effectual prayer and other parts of Gods worship as to the Sacrament and as the want hereof puts no barre to the one no more does it to the other It shall never be proved I believe that the Scripture hath advanced this difference between the Sacrament and other ordinances that herein alone it must be better to omit the matter and manner both than to do the matter if it be not done in such manner as it ought directly contrary to all other duty In short then neither the Erastian nor rigid Suspensioner must have their wills In point of Discipline Free-admission is to be denied against the one In point of worship Free-admission is to bee maintained against the other It is a thing very considerable in the holding any point upon what grounds it is we hold it Those that oppose me in my opinion are very hot for an exclusion from the Sacrament and I for my own part doe allow and uphold the same An exclusion it self neither of us do deny the very difference between us is upon what grounds or arguments we hold it Now all those arguments for this exclusion against Free-admission may be reduced to these two heads Either to such as do arise from the nature of the Sacrament as distinct herein from all other parts of church-Church-communion Or to such as do arise from the nature of discipline that respects the communion of the Church in general and so this Sacrament in common with the other parts thereof Arguments of the latter sort are those and those only which are from such texts Let him be to thee as an heathen Keep no company with such Puâ—ge out the old leven Avoid withdraw from them Put away from your selves such a person with the like The summ whereof comes to this briefly The Scripture commands Excommunication that is an exclusion from the Church and society in general therefore from the Sacrament also These arguments now I conceive are firm Free-admission as Erastus holds it I maintain not Arguments of the former sort are such as these The Sacrament is appointed only for the regenerate It is a seal of Faith and set to a blank if given to any others Every one else does but necessarily eat and drink damnation in the Apostles sense with the like Now these arguments I conceive are to be satisfied taken off as such as are both invalid and doe hurt Free-admission will stand for all them Alas were all such arguments conclusive and true what will become of the poor doubtfull Christian How shall he act in faith How shall the Minister himself act What will become of the Churches unitie and peace the command of Christ and the foundation of discipline If it be from the nature of the Sacrament and these grounds upon which men are to be excluded then must they be excluded if there were no discipline then must the keeping away of such not be an act of vindicative but distributive Justice As a godly Father shuts his stubborn son from prayers in his family and from his presence So does the Church as I conceive exclude her refractory children It is not because the coming to prayer is not the duty of such a child and is not a means to do him good No but because indeed it is so the Father would make him sensible hereby how highly he hath offended him and how much the more hainous is his evil to reclaim him A man hath enjoyed those priviledges and means of grace which should have done him good so long and he grows but the worse Well now the Church in her exclusion does as it were say thus to him I will teach you Friend 1 Tim. 1.20 to make better use hereof when I again admit you to them If the Sacrament were not a mans priviledge before and for his benefit then could not as I say Suspension be a judicial proceeding It were not a punishment but a deliverance That cannot be in way of punishment that is onely to preserve a person from that which is noxious and can be no wayes any good to him It is not upon such grounds therefore wee must stand the Scripture knows no such advancement whatsoever humane prudence may make of this Ordinance above her
fellowes in point of duty but for ought I know leaves every man free in the use of this as well as all other of his outward priviledges untill he bee legally deprived of the same by a juridical censure To this purpose farther It is a question Whether the debarring of persons from the Sacrament be an act specialis muneris of the power of order belonging to the Minister singly or of the power of Jurisdiction not belonging to him alone but in common with others that are rulers in the Church The School-men as Mr. Jeanes tells us p. 95. are of the former opinion who affirm that this denegation of the Sacrament if not to be considered as a judicial action or inflictive of punishment but only as a prudent and faithfull administring of the ordinance Suarez in part 3. Thom. Tom. 3. Disp 67. Sect. 3. p. 856. and so belonging to every private Minister alone by vertue of his office Now let this be well considered and if any of the arguments of the former sort last mentioned be binding that is if it can be proved that the nature of the Sacrament be such that those who have a full right and are in actual possession of all other parts of Church-communion have yet no right hereunto and upon this account are to keep and be kept away from it then must these School-men in all reason be in the right and the denegation thereof to such be requisite to the faithfull administring the ordinance which is the office no doubt of the single Minister But the reverend Presbyterians generally disliking that such a power should be left to every single Minister wisely considering the dangerous consequents thereof also determine that this same exclâ—… from the Sacrament does belong to the power of Jurisdiction and consequently if they will be consonant to themselves they should deny that any of those arguments which arise from the nature of the ordinances alone as distinct from others are cogent and stand upon those only that arise from discipline As for the Schoolmen by the way it wil be no wonder if they stand uâ—… those arguments from the nature of the Sacrament as herein transcending all other ordinances whose superstitious conceit of Christs corporal presence in the Sacrament could not chuse but induce them to it as may appear upon their solutions of such questions as these Utrum peccator sumens corpus Christi Sacramentalitèr peccet Videtur quod non Quia Sicut hoc Sacramentum semitur gustu tactu ita visu At peccator non peccat videndo Respondeo Quòd per visum non accipitur ipsum corpus Christi sed solum Sacramentum ejus Sed ille qui manducat non solum sumit species Sacramentales sed etiam ipsum Christum qui est sub eis Aquinas Part 3. Quaest 80. Art 4. Upon such answers as these I am the â—â—…e moved with their thoughts about this matter as also with some passages often quoted out of some of the Fathers Of whom I doe observe that those out of whose writings the Papists usually have most for them are most harsh and high flowen in their expressions about keeping of sinners from the Sacrament as Chrysostome a man of a hot spirit according to his life Soc Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 14 16. and those whose writings are quoted as most clear on our side as Augustine are more solute and open in their speeches about admission SECT 9. THese things laid down the substance of the controversy between me and others about Free-admission will amount to these two questions 1. Whether there be any argument from the nature of the Sacrament without discipline that remains binding according to Scripture for the necessary exclusion of such from the same who are yet rightly impriviledg'd and actually possessed of all other parts of Church-communion being baptized intelligent members I put in the word Necessary because prudentially by way of advise something may be granted and wished 2. Whether there be any such juridical proceeding or censure in discipline to be proved either expresly or by consequence from Scripture as Suspension distinct from Excommunication SECT 10. FOr the former of these questions It seems to me as is before said that were the Presbyterian judgement right and uniform to its self I should not need to have any dispute with them for if Suspension or exclusion from the Sacrament be no other than a juridical action which those that are for Ruling Elders do and ought to maintain then can no argument from the distinct nature of this ordinance that would conclude this exclusion though there were no discipline be of sufficient force for it It there be one such then is this exclusion thereby proved to belong to the Ministers office in his faithfull administration of the Ordinance as before and not to the power of jurisdiction Neverthelesse for ought I see when they come to dispute it is these arguments mainly they stand upon And therefore for my own part upon consideration of those perplexities which arise from hence on tender consciences together with the injury that is hereby offered to the Church in laying the ground of all her divisions and separations and upon no other interest of parties I profeâ—â—e in the world I have thought good to do my endeavour for the answering and taking off those arguments in what I have formerly written and I hope I have in some measure done it especially in my Rejoynder to some mens satisfaction For 1. let but a candid interpretation be given on that Chapter 1 Cor. 11. laying no more stresse on the words than the purport of the contents will bear and so those objections that arise from thence be allayed which sink deepest For which I humbly offer that 4th Section in my Rejoynder p. 29. to 44.2 Let the covenant be layed down in that latitude as the Scripture does and so those objections from the Sacrament being a seal be satisfied seeing the seal Quoad jus must be as large as the covenant For which read p. 170. to 180. 3. Let the Sacrament with all the ordinances be look'd upon as instituted for the visible Church which consists of the unregenerate as well as the regenerate and consequently that it is both the duty and a means subordinate to the word for edification of the one as well as the other whereby that objection that the Sacrament is for confirmation and not conversion is taken off For though this ordinance is no converting ordinance to the Heathen it hinders not but it may beget grace in a Christian And I must confesse I sometimes wonder to see how this sticks upon the spirits of most at their first thoughts The Sacrament is no ordinance say they for the Heathen to convert them therefore it is no means of conversion whereas indeed the Sacrament is no ordinance for the Heathen not because it is not converting but because God hath appointed it only for his Church The Sacrament is
fateor quidem generaliter omnes censeri qui se tales esse testentur etiamsi reipsâ nihil minùs sunt quam Christiani 3. That they are so to be accounted of in regard of admission untill they are orderly convicted and sentenc'd Deinde pro non detectis haberi qui tales esse non fuerint eo quem Deus in ecclesiâ constituit ordine convicti pro rebellibus damnati So pag. 27. Christus inquit D. Erastus jussit omnes edere illum panem et ex poculo illo bibere Ergo neminem vult excludi qui se suum discipulum profiteatur Id verò concedimus adeò quidem ut ipsos etiam hypocritas quamdiu vel penitus sunt tecti vel neque authoritate publico convicti et damnati inter discipulos numeremus I know some of our Divines of late but not of the gravity and moderation of Beza as Mr. Collins p. 41. Gillespy Mr. D. and others are more bold with the command of Christ and taking up Beza for granting thus much do restrain it to the regenerate only But this reverend man who is much rather to be heard durst not do so but is plain you see and clear in these concessions upon which the substance of my whole opinion at least as to the Ministers part will stand For if the Sacrament be instituted for disciples and all that professe Christ are to be accounted such and none of them to be excluded until they be convicted and condemned for rebels in that order God hath appointed as he affirms then must that disciplinary Free-admission which hold before excommunication be good unless it can be provd that there is some other censure in the order God hath appointed whereby the said rebels are to be condemned besides excommunication which I deny And so you see to what a little point our difference draws Beza sayes they must be convict and sentenced first before they be excluded as well as I only he conceives there is a lesser censure to be first inflicted before the greater which I must confesse I find not And herein likewise Beza himself acknowledges thus far that there is seldome mention in the Scripture of any such lesser censure but the greater only Tantum abest ut major excommunicatio censeri possit praeter Dei verbum invecta ut contra rara sint in ipso verbo Dei expressa minoris excommunicationis exempla majoris autem multa p. 11. Now if here instead of rara he had said nulla I think he had delivered the very truth My reasons against the affirmative of this question are these 1. Because the Lord Jesus in that primitive institution under the Gospel Mat. 18.15 16 17. hath prescribed no other parts or order in discipline than admonition and excommunication After the offending partie is admonished privately then publiquely If he will not hear the Church sayes Christ let him be as an Heathen that is let him be excommunicate according to those that oppose Erastus Now if the Apostles have prescribed any other order of discipline than what is prescribed in this original pattern let it be produced If not then may this text be sufficient that there is no such middle thing in the order Christ hath appointed as Suspension between admonition and excommunication 2. Because the power of the Keyes are given for binding and loosing which I conceive is done not in regard of a persons being debarr'd or admitted any ordinance The Levitically unclean were kept from the ordinances during their uncleannesse yet were not their sins bound thereby for many times they might become unclean without sin Lev. 21.3 Numb 19.8 But in regard of that state and relation men have to the Church outwardly and Christ as visible members from which while they are excluded their sins are accordingly and no otherwise bound or retained because there is no remission out of the Church or out of Christ the visible herein clave non errante presenting the invisible as they are loosed by being received in again through repentance From whence I argue where the sins of men are not bound or retained there is no Church-censure Mat. 16.19 Io. 20.23 But it is not excluding men from the Sacrament but the excluding them from the Church and so Relatively from all its benefits in that sense as we say Extra quam non est salus aut remissio that does bind the sins of men upon earth Therefore suspension can be no Church-censure distinct from excommunication See my Rejoynd p. 145 150. As the being within the Church puts men into a state whereby every member Relatively though a Reprobate is said in Scripture to be in Christ redeemed sanctified to have communion of his body and bloud with the like so does the casting them out of the Church put them likewise into a contrary state or condition whereby they are Relatively to be said without Christ without God in the world without redemption remission salvation 3. Because the Scriptures wheresoever they speak of exclusion in point of discipline doe still speak in general Purge out the old leven Have no company Put away from among your selves such a person c. From whence my argument will be framed thus If there bee no place in Scripture to prove any exclusion at all but such as speaks of exclusion from the Church the whole lump society in general or the like then is it not possible to prove by the Scripture Sacramental exclusion as distinct from Church-exclusion Or If there be no other medium in Scripture-discipline I speak of the word Discipline all the way restrainedly as to this part of censure but excommunication it self for the proving a withholding any at all for moral uncleanness from any publick ordinance as may appear by any thing of weight in Gillespyes 14 Arguments for exclusion from the Passeover B. 1. c. 12. then cannot suspension be proved as distinct from but only as conjunct with excommunication The consequence here is apparent But the former is true therefore the latter In a word the Scripture knows no other exclusion that is disciplinary but a casting out of the Church and so from the Sacrament only as included in it SECT 12 ANd this I take to be so true full and convincing that I should hardly need any thing more for the answering even the whole of those arguments for juridical suspension which is of late put forth by Mr. Coll in that book of his upon this subject wherein I may truly say there is bestowed a good deal of reading only as it were to discover how little there is to be found in others and nothing from himself besides humane authority for his opinion I must confesse there are here Certain Scriptures and Reasons urged by him with so much pedantry that is more than enough and it will be necessary that I give my thoughts concerning the Scriptures though for what is mere formalitie ostentation or personal abuse it may passe I pray God teach
' Diodate our Assemblies annotations with the most upon the place From all which it will appear that though this text may be well urged as it is by Beza and his followers against Erastus to prove Excommunication yet here is nothing against me to prove Suspension as distinct from Excommunication which Mr. Rutherford acknowledges in his Divine right of Ch Gov p. 349. We contend not saies he that the debarring of men from any one Ordinance was signified by the putting away of the leaven but the putting a wicked person out of the church 1 Cor. 2. with v. 5 6 7 13. The Fourth Scripture is 1 Cor. 5.11 which with the words before is this I wrote to you in an epistle not to company with fornicators yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world for then must ye needs goe out of the world But now I have wrote to you not to keep company If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator or covetous or an idolater or a railer or a drunkard with such a one no not to eat In this text there is only one difficulty to our purpose and that is what is meant by this Company and Eating Dr. Hammond in his Power of the Keyes is something willing to take it of sacred communion only as others both of sacred civil upon the censure of excommunication Unto which as I have ever confest my self inclining so am I now no lesse than ever Notwithstanding there are these reasons may be produced for the contrary that it is to be taken only of common eating and ordinary familiarity without censure 1. Because the Apostle seems to bring in this as a new matter from that before which is more manifestly about excommunication though suitable to it I wrote to you in an epistle c. 2. Such as is the communion with these we are to avoid such is the eating because the one explains the extent of the other But that seems to be of ordinary familiarity Keep not company with them 3. That company and eating is permitted in this place to an heathen fornicator which is not to such a one called a brother But Sacramental eating or communion was not permitted to an Heathen therefore it is not Sacramental eating of which the place speaks 4. The manner of expression which is by way of explanation as to the extent how farre this not keeping company reaches with such keep no company no not to eat as it shews this eating to be of the same kind with companying so it seems plainly to hold it forth as a thing the most common or dinary and the least matter amongst them to be admitted to of any No not to eat But my opposers will hardly sure conceive thus of this sacred and solemn eating at the Sacrament If they will it being of old in common with their love-feasts and and mingled with them why should they scruple at free-admission as to this ordinance above other parts of Christian communion from which they exclude none before excommunication 5. There may be clear reason for a man to eat at the ordinance with such a person whom yet he is to avoid in his common familiarity because the one is necessary which he is bound to observe as part of the service of God but the other at least as to the nature of the thing in its self is arbitrary at his own liberty 6. This may be exemplified in the Pharisees who would not eat at their common table with any of the Publicans whom yet they could not debarre the Sacrifices Passeover or service of the temple many of them being not only Jews but devout men 7. There may very probably be a difference between this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in v. 11. and an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in v. 13. 2. It may be one thing to withdraw our selves from such a man and another to remove such a man from amongst us The one may respect Church-censure and not the other Upon these reasons I confesse for my own part before I read Erastus which to say the truth I had not done nor yet seen him till after my Rejoynder was abroad I have been swayed to this opinion But since I have read him and some of hiâ— opposers I am more indifferâ—nt â—oward the other 1. Because the most Commentators I see and the ablest of Erastus antagonists do go that way making these verses as the rest of the Chapter serve for excommunication and I have no mind to approve of the taking away of Church-censure which this text as well as others may help to maintain 2. Because the Apostle speaks of keeping company in general and eating in general and I begin to fear a man may be too bold to limit it to common familiarity onely as to sacred only Yet as to the limitations of that old verse Utile lex humile res ignorata necesse I count these words in v. 10. will bear them out by way of proportion to wit Yet not altogether for then must you needs goe out of the world 3. Because these reasons I have laid down doe indeed seem to me cogent at least some of them for the proving that common society and eating must be understood here inclusively but I think them not so cogent to prove it exclusively that sacred communion and eating may not be meant here also 4. Because I question whether a man be bound to avoid every scandalous sinner in civil communion or ordinary eating unleâ—â—e in case of partaking in their sins by acting with them connivance or the like until he is censured by the Church and so this precept may be perhaps to be understood only upon supposition that there is a precedent ecclesiastical judging and declaring him to be avoided for it seems a grievous thing to think I may not eat with a covetous person or the like in our neighbouring invitations yet indeed I may be bound not to chuse such for my Companions in intimate familiarity However as unbyassed herein and not more peremptory than the matter will afford It shall suffice me to speak to the text so far as it concerns my self To do which partially we must have recourse to the following verse ver 12. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without doe not ye judge them that are within The Illative for plainly brings the matter before to be concerned here and the meaning of the words I take to be this The Apostle may be said to judge such by prescribing rules or giving precepts concerning avoiding them and the Church may be said to judge them by doing answerable to his prescriptions Whether that must be necessarily understood in their Elders meeting together according to Order for the excluding such by ecclesiastical censure Or the people only every one avoiding such by a judgement of private discretion I cannot determine but rather doubt whether any reasons can be so manifestly laid down on the one side
that do understand this text as well as Mat. 18. of Excommunication do reconcile them both pretty well together Some say the Excommunicate is not as a man quite dismember'd but as a diseased member under cure It is not said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Some say he is cast out quoad us in se not quoad jus ad rem Others say he is indeed cast hereby out of the Church but this is conditionally he is not as an heathen absolutely but that such an expression may be used I will adde A man may be Relatively put into the state of a heathen through some misdemeanour when yet Really he may be a Saint and a true child of God 3. If this does not satisfie but that you think here is a censure and that not so high as excommunication it will not follow for all this that it must be necessarily this suspension because it may be any thing else as well unlesse there was something in the place to discover that the Apostle had some aim here in particular at the Sacrament which being a vain thing to affirm if you should frame twenty kinds of keeping not company or exclusions as well as from the Sacrament and should say the Text means one of them you would have quite as much from the place to prove the one as well as the other To conclude then these Scriptures about which I have been something long Mr. Col. argues thus still in the main and in particular p. 87. It is the duty of Church Officers to keep the fellowship of the Church pure for to this end is the rod of Discipline put into their hands Therefore must such and such persons be excluded the Sacrament But he should say therefore they should be excluded Church-fellowship for to plead for suspension from this Ordinance only instead of casting them out of fellowship in general to this end that it may be kept pure is nothing else but to yeeld openly that Church-fellowship in other parts of it should remain polluted and impure And then will all these texts return most forcibly on himself and overwhelme him Christ does not say keep the Sacrament only from Dogs and swine but give no holy things at all to them Paul does not say Purge out the leaven from this ordinance only but from the lump He does not say Keep not company only in the Sacrament but Keep no company Put such a one from amongst you Let him be as an Heathen The summe then is this according to what hath been before If these very Scriptures which are alleadged for suspension do respect the Sacrament no otherwise but as a part of Church-communion that is if they doe not prove a man is to be excluded from communion in the Sacrament at all but only that they prove he is to be excluded communion in general we shall not need any stronger proof against Suspension then that there is not such a censure in Scripture as distinct from Excommunication SECT 13. THere are some other Divines of something more candid spirits that look upon Suspension only as a prudential pastoral duty and no juridical censure and so labour to maintain it For such as these I must acknowledge that those reasons of mine laid down before do not strictly meddle with them It may suffice me as for such that they have Beza with the Presbyterians directly against them and no Scripture for any Suspension at all I speak as to the Sacrament whereon to build such an opinion And as for that they have to say for it for that is the whole that the Apostle commands a man to examine himself and discern the Lords body upon which we granting that infants and distracted persons are not to be admitted by the Minister therefore say they likewise neither ignorant nor scandalous persons I conceive it too insufficient a ground alone to build a businesse of so much practical weight and trouble upon I will adde therefore two or three reasons more against this opinion 1. A regenerate person that can examine himself and discern the Lords body in the strictest sense yet may be scandalous and for that scandal deserve exclusion as Theodosius by Ambrose It is not therefore because the Apostle commands a man to examine himself and discern the Lords body that a scandalous person is excluded but because the Apostle commands other-where let such be censured Put away from your selves such a person The same ground or reason that will exclude an unregenerate man will exclude the regenerate and no other From whence likewise I shall take away this argument from the hands of my proper opposers If the keeping of persons from the Lords Supper upon this ground or account that the Apostle commands those that come hither should examine themselves and discern the Lords body be a pastoral duty as these think and indeed so far as it is done barely on this ground in infants and distracted persons who being not bound hereunto through incapacity of reason are refused it is no other Then must not exclusion of ignorant and scandalous persons stand upon this ground with the Presbyterians for that is an act that cannot be done according to them as Beza fore-quoted but by the power of jurisdiction This is what hath at large been said before Suspension from the Sacrament must not be held upon any argument from the nature of the ordinance but from discipline 2. It is manifest that the same grace is required of a person to be accepted of God in one part of Gods worship as in another The Scripture requires us expresly to pray in faith in love with understanding and the like when it does not expresly but by consequence command us so to receive and as for due preparation or self-examination and a right discernment of the Lord in his worship who will deny it to be required in every ordinance by the same consequence as in the Sacrament it is expresse It cannot therefore be said that the debarring of scandalous or ignorant persons from the Sacrament is a Scripture-result from the nature of that service and the requisites to it which is the whole can be pleaded to make this a pastoral duty any more than from prayer and other Ordinances It is true we may suppose according to the ratity solemnity of an Ordinance our addresses to it may and ought to be more solemn but yet is the Ordinance alike otherwise as to the nature and requisits to it and not to be preferred before others to the breeding such a superstitious conceit on the spirits of men that looks to me like to bowing at the name of Jesus and not at the name of Christ God and the Holy Ghost 3. It is not the part of Pastors to content themselves with keeping men away from the Sacrament without proceeding unto censure and debarring them other communion at least that of common familiarity to make them ashamed I know many happily may
be ready to think thus The Scripture commands such and such should be censured cast out of the Church and a voided Now seeing we cannot proceed so farre it is good to doe something towards it we will keep them from the Sacrament and that will be well But under favour I am perswaded this is a great mistake and evill in regard that hereby men doe place a virtue in a meanes of their owne to convert sinners from their evill wayes It is true when men are duly admonished convicted and censured as they ought then is there the virtue of an Ordinance which may be expected to reduce them for God hath appointed his Ordinance of discipline for this purpose to bring men to repentance On the contrary for men to make a businesse onely of keeping people away from this part of Gods service without discipline how can any such fruit be expected by it Can men ordain or set up themselves a reclaiming Ordinance If they doe How shall they give a power and promise to it for this effect Let those Ministers consider that have kept never so many away even whole congregations from the Sacrament for many years together what are the fruits they have reaped by it Are their people indeed ever the better for it Does it not rather serve only to breed indignation to themselves make their Suspension to be flighted the Sacrament it self to be neglected so that the most of their people care not at all to come thither If this indeed be the fruit then will I thus argue The Ordinances of God as exclusion from the Church and Sacrament is one are to be used only for Edification and not destruction But to exclude men the Sacrament without discipline without a due legal conviction and authority does not tend to their edification but in all this to their destruction Or thus The Lord Jesus commands us expresly not to give holy things to doggs and swine as before But to use suspension without discipline or a due authoritative sentence as should put a reverence on it is but likely to cast it to such as will trample upon it and turn again and rent the doer And consequently therfore unles Ministers will purposely goe about to make men dogs and swine that else would not be so in the sense of this text they are bound directly at least when they see plainly this is like to be the issue by this very precept of Christ which is that happily scruples them mainly to the contrary to forbear Suspension till they can use it to edification SECT 14. THese two questions being laid downe with my judgement thereof there will remain two things onely for the compleating my mind in this controversie The one is whereas I hold in the first question that no argument from the nature of the Sacrament alone without discipline will be of validity for Suspension it may be required that something be condescended to the tendernesse of most mens spirits and practice herein before censure The other is whereas I hold in the second question that those arguments alone are valid for exclusion from the Sacrament that respect it only as a part of Church-communion and consequently that a person must be excommunicate or excluded Church-communion in general or else he cannot be legally excluded the Supper it may be required that there be some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some salve found out here also for the abatement of so much rigor in censure that a person may be permitted some of the Ordinances as the Word while he is debarred the Sacrament and no breach be made on excommunication If these two things can but be done with reasonable satisfaction I hope it will serve to take away the prejudice of many sober and moderate spirits from my opinion the drift whereof is not at all to doe the pious Ministry any harm let not my brethren think so in obstructing their care and inspection over their flocks but to bind up their broken hearts with a grounded support that in what they do and cannot but do in admission of their people the most whereof are unregenerate persons and so in their sense unworthy they may do with a sure foot and safe conscience My great business I may say truly with pious Mr. Blake Cov Seal ch 7. sect 15. p. 247. in what I have written about this matter together with him hath been for their comfort and encouragement that give admittance that their benefiting is possible that are thus admitted And yet by the way I would not be taxed for the opinion of a promiscuous admittance which I do not own without the distinction thereof into Erastian and orthodox as before An Erastian promiscuous communion I declare against as much and I think something more than Mr. Blake but for an Orthodox Free-admission the end whereof is to advance discipline not depose it I confesse it is what I think should be maintained being bold to say this one thing in reference to that worthy man now named that an Anti Erastian free-admission will be found I believe at last to stand a great deal better both with the Churches peace and consonancy of Scripture than a kind of Erastian indisciplinary Suspension SECT 15 FIrst then for some condescension in the former question how farre those that are more tender in their spirits and practice may goe towards with-holding the Sacrament from such they conceive unqualified as ignorant or scandalous before censure I have touched at in my Rejoynder p. 82 83. 111 112. where distinguishing between what is to be condescended to as prudential and what to be yielded as necessary between what is done by way of advice and by way of compulsion between forbearance and exclusion I doe acknowledg it is a rule to be allowed in affirmative precepts that though they doe bind semper they do not bind ad semper at all times Upon which account I take it to be lawfull for a man that is obliged and hath a right to an ordinance to forbear the same upon a just occasion which I think may be as upon other matters Numb 9.10 so much more upon pious ends regarding preparation Mat. 5.24 Upon this same ground then I humbly conceive that a Minister looking into the state of his flock and finding some ignorant and scandalous amongst them though he cannot take upon himself to exclude them the Sacrament before censure he may proceed so far towards it that besides the rebuking of them sharply he may admonish or advise them to forbear the ordinance at present so long as he judges it in prudence to be a means to make them come the more prepared to the next Sacrament what hinders but the Minister may stretch himself even to the utmost end of his line of doctrin when he stands there and knows that he is still without the line of jurisdiction And this I conceive may satisfie the conscientious in this thing putting into their hands as much advantage as a single