Certain disputations of right to sacraments, and the true nature of visible Christianity defending…

4. I conceive that an open Apostate needs no decisive sentential Excommunication, but only declarative. We cut off no man from Christ, but declare who they be that cut off themselves from that Christianity which they seemed to have.

5. Yet I conceive that an actual Apostate, that is not totally an Infidel, but renounceth only some parts of the essentials of Christianity, and is loath to confess himself no Christian, and will intrude into the communion of Christians, whether to avoid shame, or disquiet of conscience, or danger, &c. I say, such a One is the fittest object for the sentence of highest excommunication, even from the number of Christians, supposing him notoriously to be such. As if a man should call himself a Christian, and thrust into their communion, and yet maintain, that Christ is but a Prophet, such as Mahomet; or as the Arians, that he is not God, or that there is no Resurrection or Life to come, or that there is no Holy Ghost; or that Christ is not to be obeyed when the Flesh is against it; and that every man may live the life that best pleaseth his flesh; or that he himself will obey his flesh before Christ, or not let go his sin for the hopes of Glory, at the command of God. Among these I reckon a Notorious ungodly man, who will in words call himself a Christian, but by a more certain discovery make known that indeed he is none. Here the Church is not only to declare him none, but to sentence him none: For a mere Declaration supposeth not a Controversy, but a Sentence or Decision doth: and his vain pretence and unjust intrusion made it a Controversy, as between him and the Church, though to the Church the Case be notorious. This man then is cast out as No-Christian: when I conceive that such a man as David, Solomon, &c. (were they now with us) while they lay in that sin, should be removed from actual communion, as Lepers, or scandalous Christians, or (at most) as such as have given us reason to question their Godliness.

5. Yet I conceive that an actual Apostate, that is not totally an Infidel, but renounceth only some parts of the essentials of Christianity, and is loath to confess himself no Christian, and will intrude into the communion of Christians, whether to avoid shame, or disquiet of conscience, or danger, &c. I say, such a One is the fittest object for the sentence of highest excommunication, even from the number of Christians, supposing him notoriously to be such. As if a man should call himself a Christian, and thrust into their communion, and yet maintain, that Christ is but a Prophet, such as Mahomet; or as the Arrians, that he is not God, or that there is no Resurrection or Life to come, or that there is no Holy Ghost; or that Christ is not to be obeyed when the Flesh is against it; and that every man may live the life that best pleaseth his flesh; or that he himself will obey his flesh before Christ, or not let go his sin for the hopes of Glory, at the command of God. Among these I reckon a Notorious ungodly man, who will in words call himself a Christian, but by a more certain discovery make known that indeed he is none. Here the Church is not only to declare him none, but to sentence him none: For a meer Declaration supposeth not a Controversie, but a Sentence or Decision doth: and his vain pretence and unjust intrusion made it a Controversie, as between him and the Church, though to the Church the Case be notorious. This man then is cast out as No-Christian: when I conceive that such a man as David, Solomon, &c. (were they now with us) while they lay in that sin, should be removed from actual communion, as Lepers, or scandalous Christians, or (at most) as such as have given us reason to question their Godliness.