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
Cameroes authority is here quoted but that grave and pious man Mr. Blake hath made it his businesse to confute this difference in the 27 28 and 29 Chapters of his Treatise of the Covenant wherein as I find Mr. Anthony Burgesse particularly in this point commending that Tract as solid and judicious in his second part of Justif after he had seen what hath been put in against it likewise Mr. Vines and others So doe I humbly judge his labours therein are worthy to be attested as very serviceable to the Churches peace SECT 3. VNto the Church under that notion as his Church or people the Lord hath vouchsafed his ordinances by way of priviledge and distinction from the world He shewed his word to Jacob his statutes and his judgements unto Israel he hath not done so to any nation as for his judgements they have not known them Ps 147.19 20. Ps 78.5 6 7. What advantage then hath the Jew Much every way chiefly because that unto theÌ„ were committed the oracles of God Rom. 3.12 To them pertaineth the adoption the convenants and the service of God Rom. 8.4 with Eph. 2.12 Upon this account do our Divines solidly as I think make the Ordinances the right administration of the Word and Sacraments under which a profession of the doctrine of Christ prayer and other worship is comprehended to be the notes or marks of the visible Church It is true indeed that the Gospel is to be preached unto every creature to bring men in unto the Church as the Jewes no doubt might use the Word to make proselytes neverthelesse the word of God as other ordinances cannot be said to pertain unto any out of the Church in the sense of the Scriptures now mentioned until they receive the doctrine thereof and externally subject themselves to the same For this same priviledge of ordinances or this donation of ordinances by way of priviledge to the Church in distinction from others is a thing to be stood upon as a matter very considerable both because if we let this advantage fall we shall presently level a Christian with an Heathen the Church of Christ with the Pagan world and also because the Lord hath appointed these his ordinances whereby the advantage of them does appear to be the ordinary means of bestowing his effectual grace which he hath indefinitely promised in the use thereof SECT 4. VPon this latitude of the convenant and this priviledge of ordinances belonging thus to the Church as a proprium quarto modo or an essential mark thereof it must follow that every member in statu quo must have a right â—evolved on him or flowing to him from that relation as a member Only here wee must observe two distinctions 1. We must distinguish between a Right unto the effectual benefits of Christ held forth in an ordinance as particularly the Lords Supper and a Right to the external ordinance The former right indeed belongs to none but the regenerate but the latter belongs to all within the Church to all alike that are Members Aliqui induunt Christum says Austin usque ad Sacramentorum receptionem aln ad vitae sanctificationem I know some chuse to distinguish here between an active â—ight in the Church to conferre the Seals and a passive right in a visible Member to receive a right in foro Ecclesiae and in foro Dei But for my part I think this former plain distinction of mine respecting an active and passive right in foro Dei Ecclesiae alike is rather for these two reasons see Sect. 2. to be used and in other terms may if you please be expressed thus The Sacraments may be considered either Complexly with the entire fruits and benefits of the Covenant unto which truth of Grace is necessarily required to the obtaining thereof Or precisely in the Ordinance it self and so it is Church-membership alone or external covenant-relation denominating the subjects Saints Beleevers Disciples Christians that gives men right unto the same See reverend Dr. Worths Inf Bap p. 16. It is one thing what is required of the receiver in his coming or that comes to the Sacrament as of the hearer and him that prays in their hearing and prayer and another thing what is requir'd to receiving so that else he must not come 2. We must distinguish between a Right and use of that right Though this right unto all the ordinances be in common It must be acknowledged for the use and actual partaking of some ordinances particularly the Lords Supper there is a difference to be put between such as are not of age or capacity but want the use of reason as Infants Idiots Distracted with the like and other members the direct and immediate ground hereof lying herein in that the use of a right is not of so large extent as the right is A man may have a right to a thing or to do a thing when it is impossible for him to use the thing or to doe it and the impossibility does disoblige and excuse him from the doing It is thus with infants and distracted persons in point of the Lords Supper it is not for want of a right they are not admitted any more than the infectious or sick they have a right nay a full plenary right let others use their own terms as they will as appears convincingly by the other Sacrament of baptisme where there being only a passive reception which they are capable of they do and must receive it But it is because they cannot use the same right here where such an activity is required as they are not capable of Even as in their estates they have a right to them but they do not manage them An heir in his infancy is Lord of all in respect of the one and yet differs not from a servant in respect of the other Gal. 4.1 SECT 5. FRom this concession of mine about Infants and the Distracted it cannot be argued à pari by my opposers for an exclusion of all ignorant unregenerate and scandalous persons 1. Because in the one they stand wholly on the point of Right but in the other we look only on the use of that tight The unregenerate say they have no right to the Sacrament and if they be visibly so through ignorance or scandal they must be excluded We say Infants and the distracted have a right but only they have not reason to manage their right as the other have so here is no parity The truth is it is membership as before that alone gives right so that though a person be unregenerate he may have a right to the ordinance and whether he be Infant Distracted Ignorant or Scandalous it is all one for that if he be a member this external right is the same in the one as in the other Now the right being the same in the use of the right must lie all the difference which between these is plain enough the one have the exercise of reason and are thereby
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
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
foundation for this Cannot we say is not a natural cannot but a logical cannot A cannot argumentative Ye cannot partake of this Sacrament saies the Apostle and of those meats sacrificed to Idols because there is no agreement between these things he explains his own cannot there is a plain inconsistency in reason between them for by the one we professe communion with Christ by the other with devils and I would not have you saies he v. 20. have communion with devils To this purpose that Note from Beza upon the word cup is pertinent that it is not said you cannot partake of the body and blood of Christ which would rather expresse this inward communion but you cannot partake of the cup and table which must intend the outward elements and not the things signified only the very drift reason and matter of the Apostle else is evacuated Not as Mr. Col. urges because Pauls argument is plainly to prove the unlawfulnes of their comming to this table while they were guilty of such sinnes which is indeed a plain untruth but because his argument is from their partaking of the Lords table as their duty being Christians to disprove their partaking of the meats offer'd to Idols with the Heathens I know some interpret this Cannot morally Id possumus solùm quod jure possumus You cannot that is in few words you ought not which might be admitted if they will apply it right to wit thus You cannot that is you ought not to goe to the Idol-temples who are according to your profession to bee partakers of the Lords table But for them to apply it quite contrary you go to the temple of Idols and so you cannot that is you ought not come to the Sacrament This I must tell them cannot be admitted Cannot in the sense of the Texts cannot that is cannot in any reason Let this cannot then here be understood not of a physical cannot nor a bare moral cannot but a logical cannot grounded if you will on a moral cannot on the one side yet so long as you shall not be able to deny the moral Can which the whole former part of the chapter enforces on the other here will be nothing at all for the adversarie The Apostle does not say any where before You partake of the table of Idols or have eaten of those meats I would not have you have felloship with Christ But he says plainly you partake of the Lords Table you are in communion with Christ and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils Thus then the main being clear I shall propose here four things 1. Whether it can be denied that this action of these Corinths in partaking of these Idol-tables was scandalous Scandalum being dictum vel factum minùs rectum praebens atteri occasionem ruinae 2. If it cannot how then can any man gather an argument from this place whatsoever they may do from others for the keeping away persons from the Sacrament for scandal when the Apostle himself pleads the general priviledge of these persons comming to the Sacrament as an argument to reclaim them from their scandall 3. Whether this argument here may not be irrefragably advanced Those that were by the A ostles reasoning engaged from partaking of the table of Idols partook of the Lords Supper for this is the ground upon which he proves they might not partake thereof But not only those Corinths that were more pious but those scandalous patricularly were hereby engaged and warned from partaking of those tables of devils Ergo these Corinths though scandalous were admitted to the Sacrament Thus much is not to be gain aid they were I adde and they ought to be tid excommunicate upon the same consideration because else you make a sinfull medium in the Apostles Argument 4. Whether many of our godly brethren that take occasion from these words to separate from us in our mixt communions are not a little mistaken in them seeing the Apostle here pleads not against the comming of divers persons good and bad to the same table but against the same persons going to diverse tables The third Scripture is 1 Cor. 5.8 Therefore let us keep the feast not with the old leaven c. For the meaning of these words we find in the beginning of the chapter the Apostle is speaking to these Corinths about their gathering together in an ecclesiastical way for the excōmunicating the incestuous person as appears especially from the last verse unto which with v. 7. and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in v. 5. what Erastus opposes I judge is strain'd and insufficient though what he urges upon the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were plausible otherwise For this now St. Paul gives his plain reason which yet he expresses metaphorically Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump that is one such evil example tolerated will bring a blot or infamy upon the whole Church besides the hurt it may doe through imitation Purge out therefore the old leaven that you may be a new lump that is Cast our of your society therefore this person For Christ our passeover is sacrificed for us that is as to the sense and matter agreeable to Tit. 3.14 Christ gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to be a peculiar people zealous of good works so that Christ being sacrificed for us is an argument to us as to purge out sin in our selves so to purge out the old leaven from the Church The word Old happily may signifie not every fresh sinner for one lapse or so but the veterate and obstinate therein For the manner of the expression it is plainly brought in by way of elegancy in pursuance of the Metaphor as likewise the text that follows therefore let us keep the feast The words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Igitur epulemur as the olo translation that is Itaque solennitèr vivamus or vitam presentem transeamus Let us live festivally or as the Margin of our English Bibles most properly Let us keep holy day to wit in our communion together as Christians Let us lead or passe our life which ought to be a perpetual celebration of our redemption Not with the old leaven or the leven of malice or wickednes but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth that is what the Israelites did typically for 7 days let us perform in the truth and thing signified all the days of our lives to wit purging out the leven both of imbred corruption and scandal from amongst us So that to make here a solemn enquiry what is this feast we are to keep in the text seems to me an injudicious and needless trouble the substantive Feast being not in the text but the Metaphor exprest only in one verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 manifestly borrowed to follow the allusion or to suit with the rest in the sense I have spoken according to Athanasius Chrysostome Theophilact Lyra Calvin Beza
pastor can have to the following them with instruction for the good of their souls which is that I suppose they only aim at in this matter and if it were any thing else it is fit they should never obtain it Only I must adde here that I suffer not in my principles It is not because I think receiving is no duty unto such for this I conceive were evil to hold Nor because I think it not appointed for edification unto such for those arguments that reverend Mr. Blake hath put in to prove the Sacrament a means of grace to the unregenerate within the Church Cov. Seal ch 7. sect 13. must needs reach and be cogent for these also as they are Church-members although he would not have them Nor because I think that such are in an utter incapacity to be edified by it as infants and the distracted are wherein the formentioned learned man places his whole ground of dissent he hath from me in this point seeing the Sacrament through the word and the word goes along with it doth teach as for the one and convince of sin as for the other as is said before and granted by him That it is a teaching Ordinance mediante verbo even at the present for the ignorant I pray let me but propose this one thing Were not those words of our Lord to his disciples This is my body broken for you This is the New Testament in my blood which was shed for remission of sinnes teaching words informing forming them of his death and mystery of our redemption Who can deny this And were not the disciples ignorant at that time of his death and mystery of our redemption Compare Mar. 9.31 32. Lu. 9.44 45. with Lu. 24. 7 8. Io. 20.9 and what then will follow for the ignorant is cleer That it is a sin-aggravating Ordinance and so a soul-humbling heart-breaking Ordinance for the sinner Mr. B. and I so well agree Rejoynd p. 235 236. with Cov. Seal p. 204. that it needs no argument and then what follows for the scandalous is as clear likewise It is not therefore I say for these causes that I allow thus much but it is indeed because I think that no lesse can be denied to belong to the Minister upon the score of prudence only That there is a possibility upon what is said of edification unto all intelligent Church-members though scandalous Cov. Seal p. 240. or ignorant p. 233. Mr. B. cannot ingenuously deny and that there is not that moral probability or likelihood hereof as upon their further instruction and preparation I do grant From both which then the plain reason will arise why such may in prudence be advised to forbear the Sacrament at present when yet it must be held fast that there is no necessity on the conscience simpliciter for the ir exclusion To speak a little more my thoughts freely I conceive it to be a Magnale in the wisdom of the Church which hath ever kept up some more solemn times for the putting in mind of her members to shrift or addresse their souls to God in a more peculiar manner at some seasons above others to make use of the Sacrament to this end insomuch that though the primitive Christians broke bread every week and sometimes daily yet hath it been the use of after Ages to celebrate this Ordinance more rarely that the solemnity and rarity those expressions in 1 Cor. 11. giving help hereunto might have this desired work upon the people Upon this same score I do conceive this condescension may take place in allowing that a forbearance of the Lords Supper be advised many times to unprepared unfit persons when we judge it in Christian prudence conducible through a more solemn address thereunto towards a farther improvement thereof for their souls And so may the same be asserted happily as I judge of it Ex quadam conveniontia Ob majorem reverentiam as the School-men speak in some other cases about this Sacrament When as I am perswaded otherwise there is the same outward priviledge aed the same inward qualifications held forth alike in the Scripture unto this and other Ordinances And this for my first concession SECT 16. SEcondly then for some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or condescension in the latter question that the excommunicate person may not be so turned out from all the Ordinances though he be turned out from them and that alike too from one as well as the other in a sort but that he may have admittance to some of them upon an account which may be justifiable for the gaining of his soul and yet without the introducing of this lesser censure of suspension into the discipline of man which is not in the discipline of Christ or the Scripture I have spoken more at large in my Rejoynd part 2. sect 1. See particularly p 87. 149. Where having shewn that Church-censure or Excommunication does reserre to Church-communion in general and consequently that a person excommunicate is cast out from every part thereof and so from all the Ordinances as well as the Sacrament I do humbly offer this distinction of a Real and Relative exclusion A real exclusion is an exclusion of a man from a thing so that he cannot by any means participate of the thing A relative exclusion is the exclusion of a man from his relation to a thing or his right of priviledge in it whether he yet otherwise possesses the thing or not Now that which we admit Heathen to in receiving them into the Church I think we cast them out from in excommunicating them But we admit not persons to an actual hearing the Word or participating such ordinances as they did and might attend before but we admit them into a state and relation whereby the ordinances belong to them with a difference of priviledge from the world and as they partook of them while they were without They were then indeed admitted to the Word and it may be Prayer to bring them in as they ought yet neither one nor the other Ordinance did belong to them by way of advantage Rom. 3.2 or propriety as externally in covenant in Christ redeemed sanctified c. as they doe being members Consequently therefore my thoughts are that though Excommunication cuts off a person Relatively from all the Ordinances from one alike as well as the other in the sense now spoken and does cut off a man really from that Ordinance the actual participation whereof is peculiar to that relation as the Sacrament Yet this Relative exclusion does not necessarily inferre a Real exclusion of a man from those other Ordinances as the Word and Prayer which may be partaken of out of that relation And so here will arise that which may give contentment to wit that upon this it shall be left in the Churches hands by way of Mitigation to admit the Excommunicate hereunto whether one or more or none of them as she sees it fit to use severity or
indulgence to bring the sinner to repentance It is manifest that the Primitive Christian Church was wont to permit an Heathen or those that were without to be present in their assemblies at the Word if not at Prayer and some other Ordinances for their conviction as appears 1 Cor. 14. According to this president it is my opinion then in short that a person excommunicate may be admitted to an Ordinance or Ordinances as an Heathen into which condition he is expresly cast Mat. 18. when yet he is cut off from all his priviledge and interest in them as a member And this I suppose will even serve the turn of my very adversaries and yet be no dishight or prejudice to that latitude of Excommunication which the truth dictates and must be maintained according to my opinion In fine two things are objected against me by my Opposers which methinks do even quite take off one another In the former question it is objected that my doctrine is loose in that it admits of every intelligent Church-member to the Sacrament before censure To which I answer That doctrine about admission that maintaines Excommunication in point of offending cannot be loose towards the offender and if a man have not offended I mean so far as to deserve censure the Minister can but admonish and advise he can go no further and here how much I allow upon the score of pastoral discretion is declared And why should any more be desired In the second question it is objected my doctrine is too severe bloody and cruel in that those persons which it cuts off from the Sacrament it cuts off from all other parts of Church-communion also To this I answer It is true it does do thus indeed according to the Scripture but let this be understood aright and candidly of this Relative exclusion here declared likewise and then I hope all will be reconciled and satisfied And thus I have now finished my purpose endeavouring to keep in a way of moderation that I might avoid the extremities of others I have not in any thing I suppose departed from the Scripture as my Guide and yet in every thing come up as near as I can to those that are against me to content them I do not know how it may be taken but it shall suffice me that I have in the sincerity of my intention so far as I can judg of my own heart proposed my thoughts leaving others to their own The Churches peace is the thing I have aimed at without hindring but happily furthering her reformation If I have done well and as is fitting to the matter it is that I desired if I have done but slenderly and meanly it is what I could attain unto Deo gloria J. H. FINIS A POST SCRIPT Courteous Reader THere are yet some things I shal make bold to trouble thee to read in this place because I would not have the Discourse it self to swel any bigger thā it has don If thou thinkst thē long thou mayest let them alone if thou wilt I know well that this controversie is not about any fundamental but that as brethren we may bear well enough with one another that differ in it nevertheless in regard of practice it is even necessary at least for most that are of the Ministry to be establisht concerning the same or else perhaps it might have been long enough before some should have thought it fit to meddle any more with it What I have done here in this last book I offer to them chiefly and thee that hast studied the point what I have done in my first book to the many 1. Whereas in my undertaking this Subject I chose those words Doe this Drink ye all of it And they all drank of it in that text Mar. 14. 23. for my ground which many think might have been more soundly chosen I desire the strength thereof may be laid in those two things which have been touched Sect. 10. but I am not satisfied without speaking a little farther thereof with thy leave to have it noted by such The first is that we have here as in the other Evangelists the institution of the Sacrament wherein there is a direct precept to the Church Doe this with the extent thereof expressed Drink ye all of ir The words are directed in general to the disciples as disciples and consequently all that are disciples suppose them in a capacity of reason to use it come under a right of Obligation to use the same It is objected By all is meant no more than All present But this is too overly the precept I hope does so concern the disciples present as that St. Paul makes these very words of the institution obtigatory to the Church of Corinth and to us all as a standing Ordinance till Christ come 1 Cor. 11. 26. It is manifest then that these words as the precept of Christ are delivered to the disciples in bebalf of the Church whereof themselves were a representative part Now then I ask whether as Representatives of the Church invisible or visible if you will say of the Church invisible to make the command only to the regenerate and elect it is unreasonable for all the Ordinances are delivered to the Church as visible Heb. 9.19 Rom. 3.2 and we suppose Judas was amongst them But if they were here Representatives of the Church as visible it must follow that all those who are of the visible Church and in capacity of the obligation are berchy obliged to this Ordinance It is not argumentative to say here none of these disciples were ignorant or scandalous which yet I think is untrue because they were representatives of the Church not as men unspotted with ignorance or scandal any more than as Apostles but as they were members thereof visible members disciples Christians Id veiò concedimus saies Bezs De Presb. Ex. p. 27. with 23. quòd Christus inter suos discipulos coenam instituens manifestè oftendìt coenae celebrationem illis convenire which is inciuded in solis illis qui Christi se discipulos profiteantur and Mr. Perkins Case cons B. 2. c. 10 laies this down for his first rule Every man of years living in the Church and being baptized is bound in conscience by the commandement to use the Supper Now whiles my adversaries are forced to fly off here and confine the precept to the regenerate only we may easily see both where our bottom lies and also how firm it is The second thing I build on in this text is That together with the precept we have the example of Iudas who is sat down with the twelve Mat. 26.20 and his hand at the table Luke 22.21 It is objected that Judas was a close hypocrite his villany secret and unknown and so this president will make nothing to our purpose But under favour such as say so are mistaken for though this answer should suffice which I think it does not as to the part of the
God All this is mere cavilling at the wisdom of God Ch. Gov. p. 288.283 c. But whether there be any ingenuity or righteousness in such replies those that read these contrary passages in his opposers will judge and see easily if men may have liberty to speak freely who they be herein if there be any that doe but cavill indeed and dispute with God As for my part I conceive that judgement which hath been given long since upon the dispute between Beza and Erastus is good that neither side is altogether in the right but that they have divided the truth between them which truth so far as concerns me in this controversie I have endeavoured to find and lay down impartially in the preceding she is let others doe the like in other things that shall concern them 7. Whereas it is doubted whether Judas was present at the Sacrament for which there is no argument commonly urged can be considerable this being matter of fact but that only from Jo. 13.30 where it is said he went out There are two things I conceive convenient to be asserted here in reference to the 6 Ch. of M. Coll. which he rightly styles a digression The first is That Jesus Christ according to the received opinion of the Latin Church did eat his Passeover on the same night with the Jews This is irrefragably proved by those texts Mat. 14.12 14 15. Mat. 26.14 Lu. 22.7 9 11 12. where I observe 1. It is said to be the first day of the feast of unleavened bread which Strictly began the night they kept the Passeover after Sun-set continuing til Sun-set the next day but Largely in our Saviors time they called the fourteenth day because it began at the evening therof ensuing the first day of the feast as the disciples speak here 2. It is likewise said expresly that it was the time the Passover ought to be killed was killed so that there is no room for evasion whereas those texts then Io. 18.28 and Io. 19.14 are objected that Christ was brought under Pilates judgment before the Passeover there must on necessity be some ambiguity in these Texts or the other But when Luke tells us it was the time the Passeover ought to be killed and Mat. and Mat. the time it was killed there can be no evasion here in the texts I have quoted without denyal of the truth thereof and therefore the ambiguity is in the other objected to wit the Passover there which they were then preparing is to be understood of the Passoever of the Herd or Bullock Deu. 16.2 2 Chr. 30.24 and 35.7 8. and not of the Lamb they had already eaten over night See Lyra on the place and Dr. Eightfoots Temple Service Chap. 14. Sect. 1. and Hand Glean out of Exod. sect 18.3 It is said the disciples on this day came to Jesus saying where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passeover Now how should this be if they punctually knew it not to be the day of the Jews 4. Those disciples he sends to town to prepare it find a guess chamber already furnished according to Christs word Now how should that good man of the house have his room already furnished prepared for the Passeover that knew nothing of Christs comming if it were not now the time thereof according to the Jews 5. It is said At the feast Pilate used to release to them a prisoner and he asked them if they would be should release Jesus therefore it was not before the feast but at the feast Mat. 27.15 Lu. 23.17 The second thing is that this being convinced it will follow that this Supper in Jo. 13. was not Christs last Passeover Supper for these reasons which I remember Dr. Lightfoot once shewed me in part of 0734 0 his Harmony yet in Manuscript or very much to this effect 1. Because it is expressly said so v. 1. Now before the feast of the Passeover 2. Because when Judas went out here the disciples thought he had gone out to buy something against the feast v. 39. and therefore it was not at the feast 3. Because when the even of that day was come it is said to be night here when Judas went out wherein they eat the Passover it was holy Ex. 12.16 there was then nothing to be bought or sold How then could the disciples think Judas had gon out to buy something against the feast if it were that night it self wherein nothing could be bought 4. The devil entred into Judas to set him on his villany while the Passeover drew near Lu. 22.1 2 3. that must needs be before the night it self but the devil entred Judas at the sop in this Supper Ergo the Supper in John was before Christs last Supper 5. Because there are many different passages though accounted the same at this supper in John and Christs last Supper in the other Evangelists which every one may easily multiply that will be pleased exactly to read them 6. Because there is not here one syllable mentioned of the institution of the Sacrament which was at Christs last Passeover Supper 7. Because the exact reckoning we may find in Scripture of Christs last week before the Passeover may do much to inform us herein which I conceive appeares thus Six dayes before it Jesus came to Bethany Jo. 12.1 On the next day he rides in triumph to Jerusalem v. 12. and returns to Bethany at night Mar. 11.11 On the morrow he went again thither to the Temple Mar. 11.12 15. When Even was come he comes back as before v. 19. In the morning next likewise he goes to Jerusalem v. 20.27 and at night returns to the Mount of Olives Luk. 21.37 where he lodges we may conceive in Bethany as he was wont for the next day being now two dayes before the Passeover we find him there comparing the Text following Luk. 22.1 2 3 4. with Matt. 26.2 14. and Mark 14.1 3. And hereabouts I conceive for the two dayes following he shelters himself in his addresses for death having departed purposely from the City to hide himself from them Joh. 12.36 Now during this time of his retirement whereof the other Evangelists record nothing we have the relation of John of this Supper and many heavenly passages in no less than 4. or 5. Chapters which cannot be thought one continued Speech or Sermon as is commonly said if the words in ch 14. v. ult with ch 18. v. 1. likewise ch 16.20 be considered These discourses then meditations transactions in ch 13 14 15 16 17. to proceed taking up these two dayes the Passeover comes Christ sends two disciples to the City to prepare it Luke 22.7 Himself follows with the Twelve Mar. 14.17 They all eat thereof v. 20. After the hymn they go out v. 26. Judas steals away to fetch the Officers v. 43. Christ is apprehended v. 46. The Jews sit up all night upon him consulting which appears by Peters Cocks crowing Early as