supposes faith It 's sufficient for our opinion because all in the Church doe accept of the Covenant and have faith And we doe not plead for Heathens untill they believe and come under baptism But surely the death of Christ confirmed the everlasting Covenant out of which faith with the fruits thereof freely flow And I think Sacraments are no other wayes seals then they are signs of his death as it is said This cup is the new Covenant in my bloud the cup was not really the new Covenant but a sign thereof representatively as I have hinted before Yet surely saith Mr. Collins those that are in a state of unbelief are not in Covenant though they may be objects of Gods first free grace Answ If they be not in the everlasting Covenant they cannot be said to be objects of Gods first free grace for doubtlesse God gives grace to none that are out of that Covenant himself grants that the elect are enrold in the everlasting Covenant and many of them may be in the Church I hope though in a state of unbelief in his sense and doubtlesse it is for the elects sake that we have an external administration a Church consisting of most bad that his elect may be gathered out of all sorts of sinners and others left without excuse is this wise contrivance of the ever blessed God And hence this mingled state of good and bad must grow together untill the harvest experience doth tell us what precious wheat hath sprung out of the roots of wicked tares And wicked tares have sprung out of the roots of the choycest wheat let that convince us Mr. Collins saith That argument about baptism hath been answered again and again The argument is this If parents that are ignorant and scandalous in the Church be so much in Covenant as to give their children right unto holy baptism a seal of the Covenant then themselves have right to the holy Supper it being but the seal of the same Covenant The antecedent is granted by Mr. Collins and all that are friends to his judgement and yet they deny the consequence because they say more is required to the Lords Supper then unto Baptism Unto this I answer It cannot be proved that in in the Apostles days more was required unto the Supper then to baptism of persons of years it 's clear enough that which prepared them for baptism brought them into the Church And that being once within they had the priviledges of the Church accordingly is without question Lesse is required unto Covenant seals of persons born in the Church they being free born to all the priviledges of this spiritual Corporation then of those that are aliens and strangers by birth these obtain their freedom upon the terms of faith and repentance The ignorant and scandalous are in as good a capacity of the Supper of the Lord as their children are of the baptism of the Lord they being under Church indulgence First They are in an active capacity of exercising the understanding heart and conscience memory with all the externals required unto that service their children are meerly passive for the other Secondly Parents are in possession of the feals of themselves but their children before baptism are not Parents in the Church derive as much right from their Ancestors as their children doe untill they be discovenanted if not more as being a generation neerer that right If parents Covenant relation be sufficient to give right to the seals for his childe then surely for himself Besides the contradiction in the other opinion of Mr. Collins as first he pleads the Covnaâ—nt for the parents unto their childrens baptism and then disputes them out of Covenant in his admission unto the holy Supper They shall be accounted believers as to the one but unbelievers as to the other The promise is to them and their children in order unto baptism but then in order to the holy Supper there is no more promise belongs unto them then unto Pagans And there is no promise made to any that have not faith to apply them and so exclude children from the promise too at last for they have not such a faith as to apply the promises Thus you may see he is a Presbyterian in practice and an Anabaptist in opinion For if his judgement be true about baptism then it 's false about the holy Supper if his judgement be true about the Supper then it 's false about baptism for both are the same seal of the same Covenant exhibited only by different figns People had need be well setled and satisfied of themselves in these times that keep their station in the Church where they have such Teachers and meet with such opinions that destroy all The truth is our straightnesse in the one and largenesse in the other doth destroy it self and doth occasion most intelligent Christians either to fall off from Infant baptism or else to restrain it to those that are judged fit to be received into holy Communion in the Lords Supper Had it not been for our own scruples about admitting to the Supper casting off the most of Church-members from Communion under the notion of ignorant and scandalous we had never known of these exorbitances in the Church which now we suffer under by the separations It is an easie thing for Mr. Collins to say the argument is answered again and again not telling us by whom nor how But if it be not better answered then he hath done it in his answer to Mr. Barksdel he must answer it again or else it must be unanswered and cleave close unto him still as such a Church-rent that he will never free himself of unlesse he alter his judgement which he will finde the readiest way of the two In his 15. pag. to Mr. Barksdels 10. argument for free admission he puts in three exceptions He grants children are baptized in their parents right but yet can see no reason why it should necessarily be the immediate parent True for sometimes it may fall out Answ that both parents may be excommunicate or turn'd Apostates in these cases it 's not necessary but otherwise being of the true Christian Church and faith the ignorant and scandalous being in actual Church-membership and baptized give as true a legal right to their childs baptism as any other member what ever so long as their own right holds their childs right doth also and that immediately from them is to the sober unquestionable Indeed if parents be never so really godly and unbaptized their childrens right to baptism must either be derived from Ancestors or else have none at all a visible peofession of faith in persons baptized gives a true right for their childe to the Sacramental seal and consequently for themselves to the same seal of the Supper there was the same danger for the neglect of the Passeover as for circumcision He saith further There is no self-examination prerequired unto baptism but to the Supper a man must
distinction above We know in the Church Not the hearers of the Word but the doers thereof shall be blesied in their deed persons in the Church are bound to observe and doe all that Christ in his Word hath commanded upon that account they have the promise of his gracious presence and if the Sacrament be an Ordinance of Christ for the good of his Church why may we not exspect the presence of Christ in blessing this for the spiritual good of his Church as all the rest Mr. Collins must give stronger reasons to deny it a converting Ordinance then these or else he had better have said nothing me thinks Mr. Gillespie might have furnished him with a greater strength then so Next he saith Either the Word alone read at the administration is to convert or Word and signes making up the Sacrament if the Word only he thinks wicked men may stay and hear that if we say more we must prove it This Answ as it is no argument to prove the negative so it need not be answered for his main thing in this is to bid us prove that the Sacrament is a converting Ordinance in the Church the which I conceive is clearly done already And when Mr. Collins is able to exclude the Sacrament from the work of the Ministry in the Church and exclude Word and Prayer in order to the Sacrament from that work and end of converting in the Church and can exclude this Ordinance from being a spiritual instrument in the hand of the Spirit of Christ to quicken whom he will and can exclude the unregenerate from Covenant relation and membership and allow them no other priviledge in the Church for their spiritual good then unto Infidels c. I say when he hath performed this task soundly and substantially it 's possible he may make the vanity of our opinion that are for the affirmative to appear and put us upon further proof untill then let the Judiclous Reader judge of the arguments between us whether ours or his be most rational and satisfactory as they are deducted from general rules of Scripture and reason And by this time I have given you an account of all that Mr. Collins hath excepted against the first part of my book I doe not know of any material thing I have omitted to answer in particular but indeed not so much for any great cause I had thus to doe in what he hath said to loosen the foundations and principles upon which my whole building stands but from a desire further to clear up the thing in controversie and to reduce the controversie into a narrower compasse In the close of Mr. Collins answer he collects about seven rotten pillars as he cals them out of the whole of mine and pens them down as he pleaseth and then bids others judge of them taking it for granted that he hath discovered them to be rotten and false And that my Book hath not much truth in any one page of it It 's possible that there may be some things in my Book that are doubtful Answ 1 and that upon the piercing tryal of some grave Divines of deeper Judgements may be discovered unsound or rendered weak but I am confident that Mr. Collins hath made no such discovery in any one thing that he hath excepted against I humbly conceive that whosoever undertakes to answer the main grounds and principles I build upon for free admission to the Sacrament they must deny our Church and Baptism or else destroy themselves by their own inconsistences let their parts be what they will And I wonder that any of the Presbyterian judgement should contend with me for they doe but discover their own nakednesse and give occasion unto Brownists and Anabaptists to reproach us so that I professe I am afraid to speak what I should in some things I shall give you a breviate of the principles I build upon in the managing of this in controversie That the Eternal God hath created all mankinde for himself and hath decreed the blessed and everlasting happinesse of some with all the wayes and means for that end with his eternal purpose not to give special grace unto the rest but in his wisdome and providence doth so order and dispose of the means effectually in respect of sin and the punishment thereof to the infinite glory of his Justice in the just condemnation of the wicked world That for the Elects sake Christ was promised after the fall and came into the world as the only means of Gods putting into execution his eternal purposes concerning their salvation the whole creation and race of mankinde is preserved successively in their generations for the being and gathering of Gods Elect unto grace and glory That Jesus Christ is the only meriting and procuring cause of the Gospel Covenant freely made and published unto some of mankind of free choice That this Covenant of grace is of a large comprehensive extent including the parents and their children in their generations for ever to them that have entred into it by profession and baptism and doe not renounce iâ— or apostate from it That the Covenant of Grace consists it promises of giving the first regenerating grace Secondly in promises of growth in grace Thirdly In promises of rewarding graces with comfortable blessings temporal and spiritual in this life and with eternal glory iâ— the world to come That the Church of God on earth is so constituted by the will and pleasure of God that in it might alwayes be sutable objects oâ— those different promises included in the Gospel Covenant unto which the natural issue of Christians in the visible Church doth well agree That Sacraments as they represent the death of Christ are seals confirming the truth of the whole Covenant of grace made and published to the visible Church only That Sacraments are instituted and intended only for the Churches use in order to the spiritual good thereof in general which includes the use of every one in particular That all in the Church come under the the obligation of all instituted worship prescribed of which Sacraments are a principal part That Covenant relation is either personal or parental the former founded upon profession of faith and holy baptism the later derived really and wholly by succession That a positive profession of faith explicitely is necessity unto admission unto Church-membership of those that are Heathens born but Church-membership is the birth priviledge of all born of Christian parents in the Church That to be Saints Believers Disciples a Brother and within is understood by Church-membership That during the state of Church-membership every member ought to enjoy the external priviledges of that Church whereof he is a member in particular untill he voluntarily fall away by final apostasie or be justly cast out of all Church Communion by an authoritative act of Church censures That those that derive their Church-membership from that great Charter of Covenant relation with the Church and have it confirmed
out of the Church we should reprove instruct admonish and warn every sinner to flye the wrath to come And this we ought to doe towards all in our places and callings as private Christians And hence I conceive that Mr. Collins is hugely mistaken that stretcheth the metaphor of dogs to any kinde of sinners that the Scriptures compare to dogs for other kinde of properties of dogs as worthlesnesse greedinesse barking or licking up their vomit c. the text is of such dogs that will tear and scorn you for the best counsel you can give them for the good of their souls And me thinks that the same ground Mr. Collins goes upon to allow all the other holy things unto Heathens the Excomunicate c. might satisfie him as rationally to allow the Sacrament unto the ignorant and scandalous in the Church all that he pleads to the other is from some other Scripture warrant and I appeal unto the Impartial to judge between us whether Pastors and Teachers of their respective flocks be not as much bound by Christs command to administer the holy Supper unto their particular flocks consisting of Church-members disciples baptized and not excommunicated as to administer the other holy Ordinances unto Heathen the Excommunicate c. I think I have said enough as to the former from Mat. 28.20 to give full satisfaction Let me tell our Author and the world that although it be sufficiently taught in the holy Sciptures to deny the unbaptized and Excommunicate the holy Supper yet this text in debate doth not forbid it at all to those that are without or under Church censures much lesse doth it forbid the Sacrament to those that are within which is the thing Mr. Collins quotes it to prove And thus in short I have answered to the main of Mr. Collins strength as touching this place And I humbly conceive have broke his argument drawn from this text to make good his principal Syllogism pag. 4. That there may be some baptized persons in the Church not cast out to whom the Sacrament may not lawfully be given And he must quit himself a great deal better then in his book to make good his two propositions from this text before he can conclude any thing for his purpose And truly I think it was an acceptable service both to God and the poor Church in Mr. Boteman who so presently addrest himself to redeem a captive text so wofully wrested to perplex and disturb the poor Churches peace in seting up an invention of men which Jesuâ— Christ commanded not And for his assumption That the Sacrament is a holy thing and a Pearl and there may be some in the Church not cast out who in Scripture phrase are Dogs and Swine Ergo c. It 's true Answ 1 the Sacrament is a holy thing but it doth not therefore follow that it iâ— that which is holy meant in the Text nor forbid to be given upon that reason our Saviour gives for fear of being rent c. And though it be granted that there are some in the Church that are such kinde of dogs that are irreproveable that will not endure a private reproof it will not follow that therefore they are not to be reproved Ministerially by persons in Office in their publick preaching nor that they may not authoritatively be reproved and admonished and censured by the Church Juridically for their desperate rayling dogged miscarriages if there be any such offending brethren why are they not dealt withall according unto the right rule Matth. 18. 1 Cor. 5. If any persons in the Church be objects of Excommunication I judge such are and then judge whether Suspension be sufficient where Excommunication should and ought to take place provided they be obstinate otherwise Church admonition may be a sufficient remedy to reform such scandalous sinners Hence judge how pertinent this text is made use of to prove suspension of some from the Sacrament that as members of the Church may be allowed Communion with the Church in all other spiritual acts of worship How this proves Suspension of some distinct from Excommunication I leave to the freedome of your own Judgements to judge of In the next place without any wrong to the Author I shall examine his third Scripture argument deducible from 1 Cor. 5. rather choosing to follow the Apostles order in this Epistle because by answering of this first it will save me some labour in my answer to his second 1 Cor. 10.17 His Argument is this It is unlawfull for the Officers of the Church to give the Sacrament to such with whom it is unlawful for themselves or their brethren to eat But there may be some in the Church not cast out with whom it may be unlawful for the Church to eat Ergo. I question the truth of his first proposition Answ 1 by distinguishing of a friendly familiar unnecessary eating and of a true necessary eating Now in a civil sense I may not have friendly unnecessary familiarity with scandalous brethren though not cast out but may withdraw from all friendly unnecessary familiarity from such as a means to bring them to shame but it does not follow therefore that I upon my necessary occasions in my Calling must shun such but that I may set such a one a work and admit him to my Table he being not cast out though scandalous or a poor man may work for a scandalous rich man and eat at his Table with him c. or upon a journey and divers such cases with relations c. Therefore the same persons that I may not eat with the same persons I may eat with so that if the Apostle in 1 Cor. 5.11 mean but civill eating his first proposition is not good nor very clear which he would have his Reader to believe without any doubt or proof If we may eat with a scandalous brother not legally cast out as before then we may have company and eat with such at the Sacrament because giving and receiving at the Sacrament is our necessary duty as professing Christians and Church-members which I have sufficiently proved before the which the worst offenders in the Church may not carelessely neglect so long as they are in a Church capacity to receive and that capacity remains untill the Church authoritatively have put them out of Church Communion as Members And then and not until then are scandalous brethren disobliged from publick duties of worship and hence his argument that he draws from the lesser to the greater is fallacious and that must needs be the bottome of his argument For there is but few Interpreters otherwayes expound it but of a civil eating And himself seems most confident in that argument in its place And therefore he should have proved his main proposition namely That it is unlawful to give the Sacrament to those in the Church not Excommunicate with whom in some cases it is unlawful to eat in a civil sense And for to take it for not
sufficiently proved that to be their necessary duty which will not be answered these two dayes And untill that be answered the argument doth reflect upon themselves not only by being accessories of their peoples neglects of institute worship but being principals of inforcing those neglects of necessary worship groundlesly hindering those that would 1. You must prove that the baptized rational members of the Church if ignorant and in some things offensive are forbid the Lords Supper and yet stand bound as members to all other observances of worship 2. That a scandalous member indulged leavens the Church by doing lawful and religious actions commanded 3. That the prime end in casting out the scandalous obstinate is to keep them from the Sacrament mainly I say that which leavens a Church is to connive at the scandalous by not doing what they are in a capacity to doe in acts of severe censures to reform them it being far from my heart to think that the good actions of a scandalous brother indulged doth leaven the whole but his evill actions not punished with severity of discipline according unto rule But why the Church should be leavened more by the admission of such to the Sacrament theâ— to holy prayer c. is to me a mysterie because the Scriptures are clear both in commanding spiritual qualifications in order to prayer and forbidding the evill and yet are silent as to these in order to the Sacrament 2. It cannot be denyed but the Sacraments are the most carnal Ordinances in the Gospel Church consisting of external matter that more suites with our bodily senses then any other And lastly the weaknesse of their argument that cry up the holy Supper above her fellows in the Church with the mischievous effects that follow thereupon inevitably Yet notwithstanding to prevent mistake I judg the Lords Supper equal in dignity and holinesse with the rest of holy appointments in the Church as being holy in respect of the holinesse of the Author institution use and ends requiring as much of preparation reverent approaches and divine adoration in this part of sacred Worship as any other part of worship prescribed His eight and ninth proofs are Heb. 13.17 1 Pet. 3.15 pag. 151. Obey them that have the rule over you c. be ready to give an answer to every one that asketh a reason of the hope that is in you The sum of that in Peter is but this he saith If this were to be given before an enemy then much more and easier is it to be made before friends such as desire to be helpers of mens faith not upbraiders of their weaknesse The Author shews some ingenuity upon this text Answ as if he were tender of wresting the sense he yeelds it concerns Christians under the tyranny of persecutors to be constant in their profession and therefore waves the consequence he had a minde to He doth not say if to enemies then much more it 's your duty as Christians to make profession of your faith and hope before friends as necessary to admission to the Sacrament Which he should had the text been for his purpose But he saith if this were to be given before an enemy then much more and easier is it to be made before friends So that here he insinuates by way of motive as helping their faith c. and I dare say it will be sooner yeelded unto upon that score then upon the account of a necessary duty and I shall highly honour those that are endeavouring to their utmost to draw on all their people to some profession of faith or other provided they doe it to no other ends but to help forward the weak and ignorant in faith and knowledge without the least infringement of the priviledges of the Ordinances in the Church they stand bound to observe as they are professing Christians But for men to urge it as a necessary duty in the name of Christ when he never commands it at all to any such â—nd they pretend that is in order to admission to and exclusion from the Sacrament is that which I think my self bound to oppose as superstitions pernicious and tyrannical in the Church of Christ And I doubt not but to make it good against all those that will acknowledge the constitution and form of our Church to be true at present though in some things out of order I confesse my expressions may be judged too harsh but I hope you will a little bear with my zeal it being in the behalf of the Church defending their just rights against those that thing they doe well to degrade them of the same That of Heb. 13.17 doth now come to be spoken to Mr. Saunders observes 1. That the people under them must be ruled and governed by them 2. Ministers must give an account of them which cannot be well done without taking knowledge of their estates 3. They must not only preach and exhort but doe all else which may conduce to the peoples salvation 4. If people obey not their Rulers in the Church they hurt themselves two wayes 1. By sinning against this command 2. By sadding their Pastors hearts and so lessening their profit by his Ministry All these are applicable to our purpose urging activity on the Ministers as well in discipline as in preaching calling for compliance from the people To his 1. where a Church is so happy Answ 1 as to have regular Rulers chosen by the whole and set a part to exercise holy discipline Authoritatively I grant that not only the people but every Minister ought to be ruled and governed by them in all lawful and profitable things but I deny that in the want of such Rulers and government any Minister or Ministers by vertue of that Function alone may assume to themselves an authoritative power to exercise acts of Jurisdiction over their people although the people out of ignorance should desire it I grant that the people should be obedient to their Ministers in the religious carrying of that Ministerial work accordingto Gospel rule but I deny that the Apostle intended the peoples obedience to every fancy that some have the boldnesse in these times to urge upon their people to their great prejudice and spiritual hurt in debarring them some necessary duty and Covenant blessing Therefore as children unto parents so people unto their Pastors must be obedient in all things but with this restriction in the Lord for this is right Ephes 6.7 To his second Ministers must give an account of them which cannot well be without taking knowledge of their estates Answ 1. He doth not keep to the tearms of the text The Apostle doth not say that Ministers must give an account of their people whether they be good or bad profitable or unprofitable but he saith for they watch for your souls as they that must give an account that they may doe it with joy and not with grief c. The sense is this they must perform all necessary duties
to their way of gathering they meddle not with at all nor is it proper so to doe in the way they have designed their way being rather to admit unto membership then the exclusion of Church-members from the priviledges of the Church they have formed But Sir how doubtfully doe you expresse your self at last as if your self were in some doubt whether these texts make for your way or not What they may doe who knowes and yet in the beginning of the same sentence you say they conclude positively for your practise I may well assure you Sir that it 's a grief to my Spirit that such sober godly moderate Gentlemen as your self seems to be should ingage in a practice before you could tell how to make it out by the authority of holy Scriptures against all the world Had you been so happy as first to have seen an undoubted warrant before you had ingaged in this separation you should never have been one in that society whilest you had lived How an ingenuous and rational head can withstand such plain demonstrations that by the assistance of the Lord I have expressed my self in in opposing yours and indeavouring to give the true sense of the Scriptures in debate I cannot tell I must and doe commend all that is written to the powerful working of the Spirit of Truth and Grace to perswade and incline the hearts of the godly to see where truth and the Churches peace and reformation lies according to plain and evident rule I doubt not but your own heart will bear me witnesse that I have rationally discovered the most if not all your consequences and conclusions as applyed to desend your practice to be meer mistakes and impertinent I beseech you consider seriously how ever you will be able to give the Church of God sat is faction for running into such a needlesse separation that is altogether without Scripture warrant Nay doe but think how you will answer your Lord for breaking the peade and union of your particular Congregations raysing prejudices bringing your persons and Ministry into contempt by making such a groundlesse rent and schism in his Church and that to the great prejudice of his visible subjects setting up laws of your own chusing urging them upon your people as necessary or else must be excluded as to you the necessary Laws of Jesus Christ their absolute Lord. You say well as every conscionable sober serious Christian should that you are ready to stand or fall as the authority of Scriptures shall determine In charity I am bound to believe that you intend no lesse then what you have soberly published Gods providence hath so over-ruled the action that one that is a meer stranger unto you I not so much as hearing of your quality no otherwise then I can gather by your Book to give you a sudden answer wherein you are now upon the tryal of your ingenuity and honesty there to make good your practice you are acting vigorously in or to return to your own flock and withhold nothing that is from them If you seriously search into the conditions of your people I believe you may see cause to confesse that you have lost more in your respective flocks then you are like to recover while you live at least some of you Please not your selves with what is so much pretended in this giddy age Namely to act in reforming in some pure and stricter way For many have run them out of all under such like pretences Be holy and strict as it is written according to the known and undoubted rule of Scripture Canon and be assured that that 's the purest way for you know not our own way be it never so specious but the way of the Lord is the straight way that leads to life in glory and if you return and be saithful in dispensing the things of God as you are obliged by the Word that 's the way that God will own the way of the Churches peace and edification the way to make Ministers a blessing to their people and their people a blessing unto them and the only way both to unite and to reform the whole The Lord give you a heart to be serious and searching after the safest way in the further discharge of those relative duties as Pastor of a Congregation whom you are set to watch over and warn and feed also in the Lord. I must confesse unto you that I have been something more round and rude in my answer then is so well becoming considering the moderate temper of our Author But the Lord is my record that I have not any slight esteem of his person but am verily perswaded he is a precious able sober Divine that expresses much of true godlinesse in him It is partly the want of some easier smoother expression partly my zeal of the Churches peace so miserably plunged into divisions and separations the great impediments to reformation partly because I would provoke to more searching into this Controversie about admission to exclusion from the Sacrament for I see that our over rigid principles in this doe run us upon other dangerous rocks Partly to vindicate my self and those of the same perswasion from what we are censured for by Mr. Manton But if any thing be inexcuseable that your charitable construction cannot moderate I beg your pardon for I affect not to be bitter nor would I be guilty of any incivility towards any godly Ministers of the Gospel But I shall go on and come to examine his convincing arguments laid down as seconds to the Scriptures alleadged pag. 156. and the first is this Because the holy Supper belongs to godly ones real believers men have a right in Gods sight only as such They that have no true grace have a seal set to a blanck Men stand in the visible Church as they are apprehended to belong to the invisible all this he saith is soundly proved by our Saviour adminstring to Disciples only Matth. 26.26 not to Disciples in the largest acceptation for many professed besides but to such as were more peculiar was it given And his practise is to be a rule to the Church All Mr. Saunders strength in proof of this argument stands in two things Answ 1. In his asserting several things that are usually taken for granted without any special proof 2. In urging the practise of our Saviour in the first administration Matth. 26.26 as proving soundly all the particulars asserted in the argument he denying that this was an accidental circumstance but was fore-determined by Christ so to have it but his enumeration of particulars are meerly begged and argued against in my answer to Mr. Collings unlesse it be this that men stand in the visible Church as they belong to the invisible I know not any ground why we should apprehend that all in the visible Church doe belong to the invisible of Gods Elect for in the Church amongst them that are called it 's said that many
Church But Reader I will detain thee no longer in the porch only let me intreat a candid and charitable conceiving of my sense drift and end in what I have written I would provoke none but leave the probability of what I have asserted from Scripture and reason to the consideration of all Only this let me tell thee by the way That Suspension as it 's stated by Mr. Collins I judge to be sufficiently confuted in the latter part of this Book What himself or any other may doe further in stating it and proving it by Scripture or reason deduced thence I know not I think whosoever undertakes it will finde it a hard task to make this good That some Church-members of years and indued with reason shall and ought to be denyed the Communion of the Lords Supper and yet be allowed the liberty of all other Communion in acts of worship as Church members at that present And though I doe not in plain terms prove it an invention of men yet I conceive I have so removed the arguments and reasons it 's pretended to be built upon that it doth not yet appear to be the Ordinance of Christ and so by consequence that it is but a Tradition of men Jesus Christ commands all that are Disciples Church-members to observe all his commands from which none that are baptized can be excluded without equal authority to that of Christ Suspension from the Sacrament only must first be proved an Ordinance of Christ before any may be suspended from it For no authority on earth can disoblige from actual duty but the same that doth oblige to duty I mean no authority can doe it but that of Christ in giving the power of the keys of the Church to binde and loose authoritatively To conclude let none deceive themselves in reading this Book as if it were intended for defence of promiscuous Communion for what I intend therein is to justifie a lawful Communion in the Lords Supper according unto the rules of the Law and Gospel and sure that is the most pure Communion that is most agreeable to rule as the case now stands in our Church Mixt Communion properly is to admit an Infidel Jew or Pagan unbaptized to the Sacrament that denyes or knows not that Christ is come in the flesh or to admit the Excommunicate before they have given satisfaction to the Church by their repentance and amendment of life If I should plead for such a Communion then it would reflect upon me to my reproach shame But I plead not for this but for Church discipline to reform the disorderly in the Church Juridically I would have the Church still to preserve the form of all necessary duties of worship though they cannot bring up all to the power of godlinesse as is desirable Better to keep up Religion though but in the right form then not at all What reason can any have to discourage from any religious form of true worship under this pretence that they come not up to the inward power which is undiscernable for the most part Form and power are inseparable in the true Religion where the Lord gives his blessing That place of Timothy is usually misunderstood in our times for it is clear they had not so much as the external form of true Christian Doctrine and Worship but such a form of godlinesse as Heathens have or may have for it was spoken of false teachers and seducers that usually make pretences of a form of godlinesse of their own devising and deny or be enemies to the form of godlinesse which is according to truth commanded of God for they are such as resist the truth men of corrupt mindes reprobate concerning the doctrine of faith God never blesses false forms of worship with his powerful presence working grace in them that out of strong delusion have invented those forms but forms of his own prescribed worship are the power of God to salvation to whom he will Now I crave pardâ—n of all sober men for this my so bold attempt to clash with so many able solid Divines as I shall be judged to do I reverence all and should patiently wait and without contending submit to all were the Church in a setled state but we having run into such endless divisions and separations it concerns every one to study and indeavour the regaining of the settlement peace and edification of the whole And I could wish that men of â—ober principles who have an eye at the same end would be more serious in weighing the grounds we build upon and the weapons we fight with in managing this controversie I could wish that able and learned men would throughly search and more deeply dive into this controversie for I know that unlesse a great deal more can be said against Free Admission as it is stated then I could as yet ever hear of contrary mindes will be forced either to yeeld or else they will run themselves upon such rocks as will quite break the constitution of our Church But prove all things and impartially incline to own and imbrace that which brings the fullest and nearest evidence of truth and solid reason to thy understanding And the Lord give us at least to see where the truth and the Churches peace lies and establish the same among us which is and shall be the prayer of him that longs to see that day John Timson The most principal things handled in this Controversie are contained in these few questions 1. WHether all Church-members of years not Excommunicate have a true right to the Lords Supper or no. 2. Whether any Church-members may lawfully be denyed the Lords Supper for ignorance and state of unregeneracy according unto Gospel rule 3. Whether Church-members as such in relation to the Covenant be not personally worthy during their abode in the Church and in that sense worthy receivers though otherwise they be actually unworthy 4. Whether it is the duty of all Church-members of years to receive the Lords Supper as to hear pray read sing c. 5. Whether the promises of first grace be not included in the Gospel Covenant which Sacraments seal And the unregenerate in the Church be the only objects of those promises 6. Whether the Church is to judge of her members worthinesse or unworthinesse in order to admitting to the Lords Supper more then to all other acts of publick worship 7. Whether the Sacrament can be denyed to be a converting Ordinance in the Church 8. Whether Juridical Suspension be an Ordinance of Christ or an invention of man ERRATA Reader among many lesser faults which have escaped in the printing by reason of the Authors absence there is one great fault pag. 143. in 12 13 14. The distinction there mentioned is this Hearing of faith preached was and is the ordinary means of the faith of Heathens but the whole work of the Ministry is the ordinary means of sincere believing in the Church And p. 239. l. 10. after probable
are known to be scandalous in some actual offendings and doth not give such satisfaction of their amendment as is required shall the Eldership tell such persons they must not come to the Sacrament for if they doe they will eat and drink their own damnation be guilty of the bloud of Christ in the Apostles sense when they may be knowing persons and able to discern the Lords body and to carry themselves conformly as to the prescription of all Sacramental actions appertaining to that service it doth not follow I easily grant in this case that any sin indulged in a mans self or in the Church may hinder Gods blessing upon his own Ordinances For he that regardeth iniquity in his heart God will not hear his prayers and the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination unto the Lord but it will not hence follow that such must not pray nor offer sacrifice at all but they ought to reform the evill as well as doe the good if they expect that God should hear them I grant also that every scandalous sinner in the Church should be dealt withall according to divine rule the neglect thereof as it respects private members or the publick Officers either of Church or Commonwealth doth leaven accordingly but yet I deny that such sinners are to be debarred their necessary duties of worship untill they be juridically proceeded against by a lawful Court of Judicature I grant again that every scandalous sinner in Church is lyable to the judgements of God for his sinful enormities but yet I deny that those sinful enormities of swearing drunkennesse uncleannesse lying cousenage dishonesty c. is eating and drinking the body and bloud of the Lord unworthily which the Corinthians were punished for I grant again that such scandalous sinners continuing impenitent cannot communicate in the Supper without sin and it is unsutable and inconsistent with their Christian profâ—ssion and that which God upbraids sinners oft with in Scriptures but yet this doth not reach the Corinthians sinning at the time of the administration of the Supper but is applyable to all other worship as well as to the Sacrament For my part I cannot yet see one Scripture alleadged by any that doth prove that the moral unclean in the Church were debarred the Passeover or Supper more then the other parts of publick worship which is a thing of necessity to be proved by those that venture to debar from the one and yet allow them the liberty to enjoy the other What the Doctor hath said as to that hath been answered and what Mr. Ward hath said hath been answered also and what Mr. Collins hath said or can say aâ— to that I doubt not in the least but will be easily answered too And to this purpose 〈◊〉 shall take leave to examine some of Mr. Collins quotations pag. 101. Ezra 6 21. And the children of Israel which were come again out of the captivity and all such as had separated themselves unto them from the filthinesse of the Heathen of the land to seek the Lord God of Israel diâ— eat and kept the feast of unleavened bread seveâ— dayes c. How this proves that the morally unclean were debarred the Passeover 〈◊〉 know not he might have told us how that all that were returned from their captivity that were of the true Church and all such that separated from Heathenish idolatry and mixtures to the Church did eat the Passeover is true this implyes that those that would not seek the Lord God of Israel continued in Idolatrous practices and would not keep the Passeover Can Mr. Collins prove that some of the children of Israel that returned from their captivity was debarred the Passeover for their moral uncleannesse or can he prove hence that they were all free from that uncleannesse doubtlesse if he take notice of what follows in the 9.10 chap. he must acknowledg there were many guilty of moral uncleannesse and yet all kept the Passeover so that you may easily discern how pertinent this is for his purpose The next quotation is 2 Chron. 23.19 And he set the porters at the gates of the house of the Lord that none which were unclean in any thing should enter in From this Scripture he cryes up a suspension of some from some Ordinances that were not excommunicated c. but he cannot tell it seemes whether from the Passeover or no and then what is this for his purpose I think we never read of any other uncleannesse in Scripture but Heathenish uncleannesse and legal uncleannesse that were not to enter into Gods House or Sanctuary and as for Moral uncleannesse either it was such as was punished by the Judges according to their Judicial laws or such as they were cleansed from externally by their continual course of Sacrifices and offerings and hence there was no such thing at all nor were any ever bar'd from the Passeover upon any such account that I could ever finde in the Book of God and well might the Porters charge be to keep out those that were unclean in any thing because we know there were several kindes of personal uncleannesses that were legal besides the uncircumcised Heathen that might not enter into the Sanctuary Ezek. 44.7 8. nor eat of the Passeover Exod. 12. And the main reason why those that were but legally unclean might not eat the Passeover nor come to the Tabernacle to offer his Sacrifice as others in their season did and were accepted was this because the person that was unclean made every thing he toucht unclean too and he that neglected his time for cleansing and concealing it that soul was to be cut of from the Congregation he hath defiled the Lords Sanctuary Numb 19.13 20. That of Hag. 2.14 proves the same But I have answered his other quotations in my examine of the Scripture rule I need not insist upon these any longer for they are too triflingly urged to require any further answer Why doth he not shew us some Scripture to prove that some have bin suspended from the Passeover for moral uncleanness and allowed the liberty of all other publick worship the which is the whole subject of his great Book almost Yet I am certain he can finde nothing for his turn in Moses and the Prophets And I think he hath as little from Christ and his Apostles for the foundation of his suspension from the Sacrament only which is the question I should speak unto next But I shall let it alone unill I come in short to examine the quotations alledged in the New Testament to prove the affirmative by Mr. Collins in the main body of his last Book I shall now go on with answering to what he saith to mine My fift and sixt queries are 1. What is the remedy the Apostle prescribes to that Church to prevent future judgement and to enjoy present benefit 2. Whether the unregenerate and most ignorant person professing and owning the true Religion among them were not in some capacity
and good order beseeming Gods worship externally I would gladly know wherein the Eldership is any further concerned 2. What though an incapable neglect of the private doth hinder the profitable use of the publick and that it cannot without sin be performed doth it therefore follow that such persons in the Church may neglect the publick worship without sin if not whether is the greatest to obey and doe as well as they can with sin or to cast off all care oâ— duty wholly it's easily answered in all other duties and but a meer begging the question to deny it in this of the Sacrament aâ— to that instance of his Cleansing was the unclean persons private duty yet till it was done he might not eat the Passeover 1. Answ It 's a question whether cleansing were a private duty only could an unclean perâ—oâ— make himself clean by what law is a query Numb 6.9 10 11. 19.19 speak the contrary 2. Grant it were might they enter into the gates of the Sanctuary to offer unto God any other sacrifice until they were cleansed In Hezekiahs Passeover of the 2. month many did eat the Passeover that was not clean and were accepted We know they might not for it was accounted a defiling the Sanctuary a thing threatned with death or perpetual banishment from the Congregation His instance doth rather prove that the justly excommunicate ought not to be admitted to the publick Ordinances of Worship untill they be lawfully admitted upon their satisfying the Church by repentance Then to prove persons in the Church not excommunicate may not take the Sacrament untill they have performed that private duty of examination I have said enough to prove that the neglect of this private duty of examination in order to receiving doth not reach the neglect of that duty of cleansing in order unto the whole worship of God In his 32. pag. he is nibling at my next thing wherein I would have this private duty of examination occasionally prescribed as a remedy or a means to that particular case of offending And therefore they were to approve themselves according to the rules of institution and good order and so come in doing the good and declining the evill they had been punished for c. To this purpose I said the end is more principal the means lesse Unto this Mr. Collins saith No man can receive the Sacrament without sin neglecting the due means to make him a worthy receiver He had thought due means must be necessarily supposed to the end Who will deny what he saith to this Answ But what is this to answer the thing May the main duty of publick worship be neglected unlesse a man be able to use all due means in order to a more comfortable and profitable receiving If not let them so come as well as they can rather then the main of Gods worship shall be omitted By this which hath been answered unto Mr. Collins his weak exceptions I hope the impartial Reader may clearly judge upon what bottome we infer free admission namely the authority of Christs command Besides you may take notice of the pitiful shifts that our adversaries are put unto to dispute against the authority of Christs commands Let them consider He that breaks the least of his commands and teacheth men so shall be accounted least in the Kingdom of Heaven Nay if they shall wittingly thus offend in one they are guilty of all My last query is Whether there be any thing in the Nature language actions or end of the Sacrament in 1 Cor. 11. or elsewhere incongruous to the unregenerate receiving in the Church Mr. Collins saith Whether in 1 Cor. 11. there be any thing or no he will not dispute it is enough he findes it elsewhere and he conceives there is something contrary to the receiving of the ignorant and scandalous which is the question for the Church judgeth not of secret things What he hath said to this Answ hath been sufficiently answered already he hath nothing new but the old taken for granted which hath been denyed according to the stating of the question I am glad he is so sober as to say the Church judgeth not of secrets then I hope he will not proceed to censure any of his people but for scandalous sins persisted unto obstinacy if he or his Eldership doe they undertake to judge of secrets But then he comes more particularly to the question As first Touching the institution for saith he Christ gave it to none such he means Christ gave it to none that were ignorant or scandalous 1. Christ gave it to none but the twelve that were impowered with Commission to Preach and baptize heal the sick and to cast out Devils c. What then must none but such be admitted this would be a good argument to deny not only the cup but the whole administration from the Laity But 2. The question is whether the Apostles in their ordering of particular Congregations gave any direction to exclude any that came under Baptism from the holy Supper and yet allowed them the priviledge of all other Ordinances in the Church The Scripture speaks of thousands that submitted unto baptism and continued stedfast in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers which are the main essentials of worship and this is spoken of the whole assoon as they were baptized Act. 2.32 And the Church of Corinths are commended for keeping the Ordinances It was a profaning of this of the Supper they were blamed and punished for And for grosse ignorance amongst them we need not doubt of it and other scandalous and disorderly conversation but what is this of his but â—o insinuate unto the world that the bapâ—ized in the Church that are either ignorant or in some things scandalous are not of the Church the old road of Brownism But then he saith secondly The Sacrament is contrary to such in the nature of it for it is strong meat and the seal of the righteousnesse of faith That it is strong meat onely Answ we deny it remains for him to prove if he can his say so is no proof yet that 's his great argument He had need commence Doctor before we credit his bare word but he gives his reason for it in his Book pag. 104. Strong meat belongs to men of age who by reason of an habit have their senses exercised to discern good and evil Heb. 5.13 14. But the Sacrament is strong meat therefore it doth not belong to those that are babes in knowledge But I deny his minor he saith it's evident he gives his reason That meat which is of haâ—dest digestion and concoction and which not duly digested proves most pernicious to the body is strong meat but such is the Sacrament of the Lords Supper I deny his minor again he proves it 1 Cor. 11.28 and tels us This meat is not tasted nor digested well without the knowing of the greatest mysteries of
promises of the first grace are not only free but absolute not so depending upon condition of faith in a strict sense as many other promises doe yet not so absolute but that the ordinary means of salvation ought to be observed diligently in order â—o attainment of the first grace for God will â—e enquired after by the house of Israel for the grace of the New Covenant Ezek. 36. My fourth proposition is That the whole â—dministration of the Covenant belongs to those in he Church that are the immediate objects of the â—bsolute promises in order to the Lords putting these â—romises into execution Mr. Collinâ— saith If the argument be good it 's â—etcht from the right which an interest in the Coâ—enant promises gives one to the seals of it And â—hen it must hold universally and if the unregeneâ—ate world without be as much objects of the first â—ace as those within there is no reason for that â—striction It seems Mr. Answ Collins would not have the â—romises of first grace be limited unto the Church but would have the unregenerate â—ut of the Church as much objects as those within for indeed he is ready at every pinch â—o level the unregenerate in the Church to the â—n fidel world Therefore I shall endevour to clear unto you the difference in this particular briefly â—t may be I may publish more of this hereafâ—er It is evident that the whole Covenant of grace is made unto the Church in general terms without any exception of persons in â—t as is clear Jer. 31. Heb. 8. Ezek. 36. A â—ew Covenant I will make with the house of Judah and Jerusalem in which Covenant thâ— promise of the first grace is most expresse anâ— full the state of the Jews Church consâ—â—ing most of carnal members that were proper objects of the promises of first grace Why the Gentile world as carnal and bâ—miserable yet this Covenant containing thâ— first grace was never made to them at all bâ— upon condition of faith and grafting them selves into the same visible body as they aâ— Infidels and without They are aliens from 〈◊〉 Common wealth of Israel strangers to the Covenâ— of promises and without all hope and withâ—â— God in the world Ephes 2.12 How can the be said to be as much objects of the promiâ— of the first grace that are without as theâ— that are within when they are alienatâ— from all during that Infidel state It 's tâ—â— there is a promise that all the Nations 〈◊〉 the earth shall be blessed in Abraham but iâ— runs in conditional tearms as they are iâ— him they must first be brought into him and be of the true Church that Abraham waâ— father of before they can be blessed in him and so the Apostle expounds it They that aâ—â— of faith are blessed with him and ye are all eveâ— the whole Church Jews and Gentiles thâ— children of Abraham by faith in Christ Jesus And not any others in the world that remained in their infidel estate This difference is clearly intimated by the Apostle Peter Act. 2.39 when he speaks of the Jews that were of the Church by nature as descended from Abraham he tels them plainly The promise is to them and their children speaking in the present tense But then speaking of the Gentiles he saith the promise is intended unto them also but with another restriction then to the Jews even unto as many as it shall please the Lord our God to call of them at any time for the future and to none else they of the infidel world must be externally called at least and planted into the visible Church of Christ by baptism before they and theirs can be children of the promise and in Covenant relation As the Pagan world is without the promise of the first grace so we know they are without the ordinary means of working that grace if they be as much objects of the promise of first grace as the unregenerate in the Church What 's the reason the Lord denyes them the ordinary means of putting them into execution The Apostle saith If our Gospel be hid or withheld from persons or people it 's hid to them that perish Our own experience will convince us that those that are without are not so much objects of the promise of first grace as them within because we see the fruit of it in the Church in every age and time in the conversion of many but scarse any age of a hundred generations we have heard of any conversions in some part of the Pagan world Hence I judge there is a real difference between the Church and the Pagan world in respect of the one they are objects of the promises the other without promise and hope and God in the world and me thinks Mr. Collins and the friends of his judgement they being godly sober Orthodox Divines should be satisfied with this difference I have only hinted at in short for my part I think there is nothing more clear and easie to be made out from holy Scriptures were not men of his judgement too much learned with Brownism destroying that which our firâ— reformers have planted I must confesse it 's nothing becoming my calling and abilities to challenge any learned reverend men yet I doubt not but through the assistance of Gods grace to maintain this difference I have in short laid down against all the contradiction of sober Orthodox men provided they will dispute it from the authority of holy Scriptures and what may be clearly and rationally deducted thence Next Mr. Collins is pleased to put my proposition into form pag. 34. Those to whom the absolute promises of the Covenant belong to those the whole administration of the Covenant and so the seals belong But to the unregenerate in the Church and of years the promises belong Ergo. He saith Let but belong in each proposition be understood in the same sense and the answer is easie and the argument weak c. I will yeild him that which he desires Answ and take it in that sense which is most large namely that the promises of first grace belong to the unregenerate in the Church then he denies the major and saith That by this argument Heathens may come to the Sacrament I say no unlesse Mr. Collins can prove that the Heathen are as much objects of the absolute promises in the Covenant as the unregenerate in the Church I think when he hath performed that task soundly and undeniably I shall yeild the argument weak and think the worse of my cause but untill then he must give me leave to think the argument strong for any thing he hath yet said in answer of it He only saith it That no promise doth so belong to any unregenerate man as his portion which he may cleare and make use of it in his unregeneracy What thinks Mr. Collins then of the baptizing the Infants of such Answ 1 the usual practise of our Church How can he perswade such to offer
Church in that remembrance And I doubt not but Christ has a great number of his Elect alwayes of the unregenerate in the Church What incongruity in all this Besides some other things I said It sounds very harsh in the Church to exclude this Ordinance of Christ from being a means of converting the unregenerate in the Church they being the most proper objects of converting grace as held out in in the promises for the putting of which into execution all the Ordinances in the Church seeme to be subservient And I verily believe this Ordinance of the holy Supper had never been denyed to convert in the Church had not Divines run themselves upon such great mistake about habitual unworthinesse from 1 Cor. 11. That very mistake hath occasioned this for if the unregenerate eat and drink unworthily as the Corinths did and were punished for of necessity then it were rational to deny it a converting Ordinance for as the Reverent Doctor argues rationally from that thus Natural men are guilty of the bloud of Christ and eaâ— and drink judgement to themselves and shall we think that that sinful act in unworthy receiving shall be so blest of God as to become a means of conversion to them c. This must needs be a consequence of the other mistake That being removed men will easily yeeld the other Mr. Collins tels us of twenty arguments of Mr. Gillespy that it is not for conversion the which he sayes I have not yet answered I must confesse it neither doe I know what they are for I have not his Book My friend Mr. Humfrey hath promised to answer those arguments Which I believe will be easie enough to doe unlesse they be stronger then the strongest of Mr. Collins in his answer to Mr. Barsdale upon the same argument pag. 14. the latter end of his Book the which argument of his I shall examine anon Let us first see what he hath excepted against mine Which I think are so much for the probability of the affirmative that the negative must remain doubtful unto the impartial intelligent Reader That one special end of the work of the Ministery in general is for conversion of the unregenerate in the Church will hardly be denyed But to the administration of the Sacrament the main essentials of that work of the Ministery in the Church are of necessity as Word and Prayer and breaking of Bread Act. 2.42 Therefore one special end of the Sacrament as it is an essential part of that work is for the converting the unregenerate in the Church The major proposition is bottomed from Ephes 4.8 10 11 12 13 verses Christ ascended far above the heavens that he might fill all things And he gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers for the gathering of Saints for the work of the Ministery for the edifying of the body of Christ till we all come into the union of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulnesse of Christ 1. Here it is plain that God hath ordained the work of the Ministry in the hands of Pastors and Teachers in the Church to edifie the body of Christ untill the whole number of his elect be united to him and made compleat c. And we know there is alwayes in the Church objects of conversion as well as of the promises to which the work of the Ministry is intended to unite them unto Christ c. And this is to be done by the work of the Ministry in general without any distinction of parts the whole work together without exception of any part is for conversion in the Church as is clear from this place Now unlesse Mr. Collins or any other what ever can give us some clear Scripture to exclude a part of this work from that end of conversion they must allow this end of conversion to the work of the Ministry in general but as that was never performed as yet so I think never will by any only men take the boldnesse to separate that which the holy Ghost doth joyn together upon meer mistake about unworthy receiving And it is a rule that Mr. Collins doth justifie from Matth. 7.6 Where the Scriptures dâ— not distinguish we must not distinguish If a principal end of the work of the Ministry in the Church be intended for conversion in general then the particular parts of that work for the particulars are included in the general And the most comprehensive sense iâ— to be taken of all Scripture-expressions unlesse some other Scriptures put some limitations of that sense and when any man caâ— shew me a Scripture that excludes the administration of the Sacrament from this principal end of conversion in the Church I will have done with this Argument And untill then the Argument is of more force then all the authority of men meerly can in the least overthrow We should distinguish of preaching the Gospel unto Pagans that are aliens to the Common-wealth of Israel and of the work of the Ministry consisting of the whole administration of the Gospel intended only for the spiritual good of the visible Church of Christ unto Infidels the preaching of the Gospel is appointed the ordinary way and means to convert them unto the faith and bring them into the Church but those that are in the Church as they are objects of the promises and under the obligation of all observances which Infidels are not so they are under greater advantages of converting them unto sincerity of faith and the power of godlinesse by the work of the Ministry in general of which Infidels are allowed but a part The minor proposition is evident that to the administration of the Sacrament it 's necessary that the main essentials of the work of the Ministry in the Church be performed as publishing not only the Word of institution but the History of Christs death and passion with exhortations sutable to the Ordinance in hand according to the practise and custom of our own Church with solemn prayers and praises considerably meet for so waighty an Ordinance unto which are adjoyned instituted signes to be given and taken in remembrance of the death of Christ all which concurring together in the act of administration doth comprise upon the matter the main essentials of publick worship wherein the work of the Ministry doth chiefly consist so that I cannot conceive how the premises can be denyed by any therefore the conclusion doth necessarily follow That the Sacrament as it is an essential part of the work of the Ministry is for conversion in the Church But Mr. Collins saith This argument is worth nothing But why did he not shew the weaknesse of it then his bare say so is no answer But he sayes Let it be proved that therefore Christ hath appointed it for conversion if it were doubtlesse the excommunicate should not be debarred I have made good the
from the Sacrament only Nay the Church is not blamed for their giving the Sacrament to that incestuous member but for not punishing him for his sin by excommunication hence we may doe things that are commanded and lawful with scandalous brethren not cast out by Excommunication Although this incestuous person was in Church Communion and fellowship with them in all the Ordinances yet the Apostle in the 10. chapter tels them vers 17. We being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of that one bread meaning the Sacrament and the incestuous person was one of that all and they were commended for keeping the Ordinances of the Church chap. 11.2 and not blamed nor punished for any such cause as their admitting of an incestuous person nor was he punished with others that the Lord was angry with for the profaning his Ordinance in the very time of that observance therefore it 's not well doing in one that is scandalous and not cast out that doe leaven the whole but his doing and living in that which is wicked and being let alone through Church negligence that leavens the lump The Apostle no where saith if one that is called a Brother be an ignorant person or unregenerate or one that cannot pray ex tempore c. with such doe not eat but he instances in scandalous sins only I confesse Mr. Collins hath a great many words about this no not eat with such which had he applyed to a Brother Excommunicate it would be yeelded him but his argument is a different thing for it 's of a Brother not cast out by Excommunication 1. Can any disoblige a brother from his necessary duties of instituted Worship that is not under the binding power of the keyes of Christs Kingdome 2. Are we as much to decline friendly familiarity to a scandalous brother within and not so much as brought to his tryal as to one that is cast out for continuing obstinate in his sin 3. As the case doth not hold so much as to necessary company and civil eating as hath been hinted much lesse will it hold in duties of commanded worship Christs commands are of more force to oblige his visible subjects then the private prohibitions of a single Pastor with his intruded Elders It 's true they can excommunicate as well as suspend from the Sacrament but I humbly desire such to be sure that they are intrusted with the exercise of Church Discipline of binding and loosing before they put it into execution Now I shall examine what he hath drawn from 1 Cor. 10.21 to prove suspension distinct from Excommunication his argument is this It is unlawful to give the Sacrament to those that cannot eat or drink it but there may be some in the Church not excommunicated who cannot drink of the Lords Cup. Ergo. In his explaining the tearms he understands cannot eat in a moral sense and then the sense is you cannot lawfully and warrantably eat and drink the Cup of the Lord and the cup of Devils the sum of all is 1. Such as God hath forbidden to come to that Ordinance Or 2. Such as if they rush upon the Ordinance yet can have no Communion with Christ no benefit by it this he makes to be the sense and then doubts not but he shall make good his argument pag. 27 28 29. Give me leave to search into the Apostles sense and then examine how Mr. Answ 1 Collins and the holy Apostle doe agree in the sense of this Text 1 Cor. 10.21 I have said something unto this already upon another account I will be as brief as I can This is the fourth publick fault the Apostle deals with the Corinthians about First he chides them for their factious respect had about their Ministers upon which they ran into divisions and making of parties chap. 1.3 Secondly he chides them for indulging and tolerating a known member amongst them in an incestuous marriage which hath been largely handled chap. 5. Thirdly he chides them for their unnecessary suits of Law Brother with Brother in Infidel Courts before Heathen Judges Fourthly he blames them for eating of things offered in Sacrifice unto Idols at their Idolatrous Festivals in the Idol Temple chap. 8. And to that end he might reform them and take them off that were guilty as in the other different faults he applyed himself unto them with different remedies and means of reforming which would be too tedious to speak unto so here in this as it is a different fault he deals with the offenders in a different way to the former His concession with them that the thing it self to them that had knowledge was not simply a sin for an Idol was nothing and unto them there was but one God and meat commends not unto God though they had this knowledge and stood upon their liberty he tels them If you doe eat you are not the better if you doe not eat you are never the better vers 4.8 But then he tels them that this practice was dangerous and of evill consequence in respect of some circumstances 1. In respect of the Heathen that out of conscience eat it as a thing offered unto the Idol the presence of Christians emboldened them in their Idolatry 2. In respect of weak Brethren that have not that clear knowledge in the nature of the thing it self as some had which upon such Precedents was ready to venture upon the same practice and not having knowledge of himself his conscience were defiled by the liberty and practice of the other v. 10. and so by consequence it became a sin unto the strong vers 12. c. 3. Then he comes to perswade with them to forbear that practice upon several considerations and reasons 1. He urges Christian Charity in order unto the edification of others before knowledge in their liberty so as to use it to the prejudice of the weak 2. Tels them his own tendernesse in such a case rather then he by meat should make his brother to offend he would eat no flesh while the world stands 3. Then commends unto them himself and Barnabas for an ensample in another case ch 9. That although they had power as well as other Apostles to marry require maintenance from them which was no more then Christ had ordained and appointed for the Preachers of the Gospel yet they used not this power nor required any such maintenance from them and though he was free from all yet he became servant unto all to the Jew he became a Jew to the weak he became as weak that he might save some and this he did for the Gospel sake c. and then applyes it Know ye not that they which run in a race run all even so run that you may obtain even as himself denyed himself in many things which he might have lookt after for their sakes and the Gospels looking for a better prize or reward hereafter so he would have them to deny themselves
civil and necessary occasions if they bought any such meat at the shambles they might lawfully eat it without scruple of conscience nay further if an unbeliever should bid a Christian to a civil feast he leaves them to their own liberty to goe and eat whatsoever was set before them But I have been too long already yet I was willing to search after the true sense of the place which is not easily discerned unlesse we minde heedfully the scope especially when a thing is in an intricate case and so much reasoning largely held out proving that to be evill by consequence as cloathed with some circumstances which in it's self in its own nature is lawful and good as here Now I shall examine Mr. Coll. argument what bottome it stands on his argument is It 's unlawful to give the Sacrament unto those that cannot eat it But there may be some in the Church not Excommunicate who cannot drink of the Lords cup Ergo c. His Major he saith is proved vers 21. I will confess that in this place we have the Sacrament spoken of and that those that the Apostle blames for drinking the cup of Devils were not Excommunicate but yet I deny that it was unlawful to give the Sacrament to such For 1. it 's a great question and will require some time for Mr. Collins to prove That eating of things offered unto Idols was a sin that came within the verge of the Church to punish with putting such out of Sacramental Communion In the 5. chapter as I take it those that the Apostle deals with in the 10. Chapter are not in that particular list vers 11. which the Church was to judge doubtlesse if they had been such Idolaters that in the 5. chap. 11. he speaks of he would have threatned the rod and given order unto the Elders of the Church to put out of their Communion such Idolaters for their connivence at Idolaters would leaven the lump as well as an incestuous person but herein not a word of any such thing But he will be ready to say The Apostle spoke of putting out of Comâ—union before in the 5. chap. therefore it was not necessary to repeat it again in the 10. I but how will these things hang together 1. To give a charge to the Church to cast out Idolaters and then himself using such mildnesse of speech and variety of argumentation as I have shewed to convince them that it was a sin granting the thing in it self lawfull but evill in respect of some circumstances 2. The main argument to prove their eating and drinking in the Idol Temple to be a sin was drawn from the nature of the Sacrament in which themselves as Christians are said to have Communion with Christ by being partakers of the cup and bread consicrated for to represent the body and bloud of Christ in like manner they were said to have Communion with Devils by being partakers of the cup and meat in the Idol Temple that was consecrated and offered unto Idols and hence the Apostle would not have them to have Communion with Devils as all his other reasons so this tends solely to reform them in that particular of eating in the Idol Temple and not a word of forbidding any such the Sacrament as Mr. Collins would have it when he saith The sum is they who cannot drink the cup of the Lord are either 1. Such as God hath forbidden coming thither 2. Or those that can have no Communion with Christ nor benefit by this Ordinance Those that give credit to that sense Answ must be such as adhere more to Mr. Collins fancy then the sense of holy Scriptures what are any of those two to the text in hand was any forbid the Sacrament that eat of things offered unto Idols 2. Doth not the Apostle affirm that they all had Communion with Christ in partaking of the cup of blessings Is not that the very medium of his argument the Apostle argues from their Sacramental Communion as Christians to decline Communion with Idolaters Mr. Collins argues from their Communion with Idols to a none Communion as Christians And thus the Judicious Reader may easily judge of the soundation of his argument who out of an inconsiderate rashnesse most grossely runs upon mistake and thence forms a silly syllogism pag. 29. I grant it a sin to deliver the Sacrament to those whom we know God hath forbid it But I deny that these of Corinth spoken of are in the least so much as blamed or in the least tittle forbid the Sacrament the Apostle proves they all took it and had Communion in Christ in it I wonder that ever a man pretending unto sober principles should be so fond as to think that those that the Apostles writes to as Saints sanctified in Christ Jesus his dearly beloved Brethren and writing unto them as wise men and such that had great gifts and largenesse of knowledge in their liberties by Jesus Christ that knew an Idol was nothing in the world and that which was offered was never the worse every creature of God was good and not to be resused c. as the Apostle yeelds I say how he comes to think that these should be forbidden the Sacrament and to be such as could not have Communion with Christ makes me wonder if Saints and the Apostles dearly beloved Brethren whom he argues so friendly with were not under Christs command of this necessary observance in the Church then here is not any that are but I have said enough to this already and all that he saith to this text is most irrational and impertinent to prove that some in the Church not excommunicated ought to be denyed the Sacrament this place proves that they did all partake of that one Sacramental bread 1 Cor. 10.17 and puts the thing past questioning He hath more things in making good his argument but having pluckt up his ground work it 's too tedious both for me to write and you to read the confutation of the rest for it will fall of it self you must grant him what he sayes to be true because he sayes it for he is not able in the least to bring any one argument from Scripture to prove suspension distinct from Excommunication as himself states it I will trouble you but with two things more of his in this argument for now I intend brevity in all he has further to say in defence of Suspension for I know not any one thing more much material that I have not fully answered in the former discourse in order to his several exceptions against the Bar removed He sayes He hopes we have all too reverend thoughts of the wisdome of God to think that he should lay an obligation upon his Ministers to give this Ordinance unto them whom he hath warned upon pain of damnation not to take it What is this but to beg the question Answ and thence insinuate upon us an absurdity let him first prove that a
The substance of this is much to be doubted of Answ unlesse our common people were more ignorant then the common people in Rome or Italy who are taught that Ignorance is the Mother of Devotion and I think the most of Orthodox Protestants were more grieved about the gesture determined by the Church and those superstitious rails and turning the Table Altarwise and the insufficient administrators then at our free admission of Church-members Suppose all he saith were true is there no way to reform but to remove the foundations of the Churches established doctrine worship and discipline and innovate wayes of our own politick choosing different to all other setled reformed Churches as himself confesses Say our malady in a great part was ignorance could not they begun reformation with a more then ordinary diligence in teaching and instruction and friendly admonition in the carrying on all Gods ordinances in love reverence and unity taking all advantages to promote knowledg in which in time we might have hoped to see some good proficiency in the growing up of the whole together by the goodnesse and blessing of the Lord. For it 's certain that the Scriptures teach not any thing about the censuring of Church-members for ignorance simply and to deprive Church-members of the benefit of Gods Ordinances for causes lesse then the Scriptures do warrant is no reformation but rather an usurpation upon the priviledge and right of a Church-member Say again that loose and scandalous members was another part of our malady is the denying the Sacrament to a multitude of such sinners the only way to reform them What care such for the Sacrament so long as it 's the ordinary case of most and they may have the liberty of all the other Ordinances in the Church as members How is this like to reform their persons when they may be let alone to be loose and profane if they doe but keep away from the Sacraments Such a kinde of reforming that was never read of in holy writ nor in any Orthodox Authors Had it not been better to reform according to Scripture rules and precedents we judging all in the Church adhering to the Protestant Religion Church-members to have prest them unto all Christian observance and to have dealt with them as those that are within and to have proceeded against some unto the like admonitions and excommucation Juridically Gods way is alwayes best and we may groundedly hope to have his way attended with a blessing of successe in the amendment of the worst sinners amongst us It 's a pitiful shift to prevent our strictest professors from running into the Brownists Congregations to practise their principles and so become like them in making admission to the Lords Supper upon a publike profession of faith the only ground to unite and imbody the visible Church into Ecclesiastical Communion and so in gratifying some few in their error require such terms unto actual receiving of necessity that the baptized in the Church of years are no where bound to submit unto nor in a capacity to come unto And yet are under the obligation of actual receiving unlesse in plain tearms you will unchurch them and so unduty them and speak out as the Brownists do But I think enough hath been said already as to this and therefore I shall now take my leave of my Reader having done with the main things in Mr. Collins late Book as it opposes free admission to the Lords Supper And I hope Mr. Collins may seriously conceive himself soberly and rationally answered as to Juridical Suspension distinct from Excommunication as himself hath stated it He hath taken some pains to prove it in the power of a single Minister to suspend from the Supper but I think it needlesse to examine him or answer him in that for I know that Mr. Collins will have work enough to maintain that Suspension from the Lords Supper which he cals Juridical he might first have tryed how he could have come off with this before he had shewed himself so forward to goe about to prove that which is so denyed by all that are Orthodox and sober And I know were there any thing in what he hath said of private Suspension considerable and worthy of a consutation that learned Reverend Gentleman Mr. Joanes whom he attempts to answer would call him to an acount of his forwardnesse of Spirit to Lord it over Gods heritage and to be a Pope in his own Congregation FINIS A BRIEF ANSWER TO THE ANTIDIATRIBE WRITTEN By Mr. Saunders Minister of Hollesworth in Devonshire Wherein his chief Strength in Defence of Separation in a Church and Examination in order to admitting To the LORDS-SVPPER Is Examined and the way he defends proved to be SCHISMATICAL LONDON Printed by E. Cotes for William Tomson at Harborough in Leicestershire 1655. ABRIEF ANSWER To Mr. SAUNDERS ANTIDIATRIBE IN the midst of these unhappy and dividing times in the Church of God I know not how such a worm as I should improve a few hours better after redious lâ—bor in my honest calling then by remembring the happy and ever to be desired Peace and Reformation of renowned Zion As it is my daily prayer so it is a part of my dayly care and study to endeavour that the Churches peace and truth may meet in one And hence it is that I so often appear against those who upon dangerous mistakes destroy and pluck up the main principles and foundations on which the Churches peace and reformation should stand and consist in How sad are our miseries like to be in the end when those that are our professed friends are ever hatching of new unheard of wayes of Separation and Schism Amongst others this unhappy Author doth bear his share by defending such a way that is rarely met withall and yet cryed up to be the way of truth and reformation according unto Gospel rule The way he defends in brief is this some certain Ministers and Christians have agreed to form up a Church in the choyce of a Pastor Officers and members in some one place The tearms agreed on unto admission to and exclusion from the sacred Communion of this Church as to the holy Supper is either a publick profession of faith or submitting to a Church examination in giving an account of their knowledge and faith unto satisfaction c. and so likewise as to practise they require not only a freedome from things scandalous but some real demonstrations of the faith of holinesse unto admittance This way it appears hath been rigorously carryed on against the consent of some able Ministers in those parts And something is excepted against their way by a solid reverend Gentleman I judge with several demands and queries and objections for them to answer and clear in defence of their way and practise Mr. Saunders in behalf of the rest hath taken some pains to give satisfaction unto others professing himself ready to stand or fall as the truth is with him or against
baptized people to make out their argument and own invented way against such manifest demonstration which cannot otherwise be answered and yet for the zeal of the Churches peace and priviledges we defend in behalf of her members we are counted the greatest enemies to the Church none deserve worse of the Church then we no not Ranters Quakers Antitrinitarians Anabaptists Brownists that destroy all the Church is in possession of through the gift of his grace for there are some amongst all others that deserve bad enough sure but we deserve worse then all these if this good man say true As for looking at a worldly interest he hints at I have as little cause as ever had any man I have what I lookt for before I ingaged to have many tongues and pens against me even of them I esteem my very good friends which thing I have put my self upon with no small reluctancy of spirit what the Lord intends by it for good or hurt I am not certain but content to submit to his pleasure and further guidance in the Controversie being well assured of this that I shall not loose my labour of zeal and love for the Churches peace and edification I shall speak one word more to vindicate my self and friends from this heavy censure The question shall be put to the judgement of the learned and sober in the Church of England Whether Mr. Saunders himself gives approbation of or Mr. Humfry or my self deserves worse of the Church of God If we doe not deserve worse of the Church then the Author himself approves of I hope the judicious Reader will forgive us the wrong and what himself hath published will acquit us And I doubt not but when our principles and theirs are laid together and compared impartially as I have given some discoveries in these followings sheets it will not be very difficult to judge whether they or we deserve worse of the Church of God And so I will leave Mr. Mantons hard censure to himself and others that shall read both to judge between us I should hardly have troubled you with these sheets had not that passage much provoked me nor would I hinder that reverend Gentleman ingaged he may rejoyn more deliberately if he see cause I think I have done enough to caution the Reader of lesse judgement from being taken with this Author with whose smoothnesse of expression and plausible pretences his Reader may quickly be intangled and carryed away with a sound of enticing words that have no truth nor solid reason in them I shall now upon the sudden come to examine the main of his Book And my way will be first to examine what himself relates of their way Secondly I shall examine the state of the question and the proofs urged to defend it answer his arguments queries and motives and then conclude Mr. Saunders tels us what their way is There is a Church formed in one of our Congregations according to the rule of the Word In the choyce of a Pastor Officers and Members other Ministers and people are joyned to this society in which we are like to walk till we can see truth or reason against us pag. 121. To this something may be yeelded Answ 1 as namely that where a people is destitute of a faithful Pastor they may choose one that is qualified for the carrying on the whole work of the Ministery in the Church And the people to submit unto him as ruling over them in the Lord I mean so far as his Office and Function doth authorize him according to rule to admonish warn rebuke and command Then something is to be denyed untill further proof of their practice appear As namely 1. That he that is a Pastor of a particular Congregation and Church or flock unto which he was either lawfully sent and inducted by the Church or came in by the consent of the people over whom he is I say for such a one to joyn himself to another Church as a common member and to hold constant Communion in the Sacrament with that Church and altogether neglect the administring of the Lords Supper to that people he is Pastor of I utterly reject as that which the Scripture doth no where allow but is contrary to reason order peace and edification of his people if it doth not imply a forsaking his Pastoral relation and duties 2. I would gladly see it made out by Scripture that one that is a Pastor of a Church already may be chosen a Pastor again either by the people he is Pastor unto or by others that have lawful Pastors over them already if this practice be permitted in those that are confessed by the Author to be true Churches which they dare not separate from What a deluge of disorder confusion must necessarily follow Can a man be a Pastor of a select company out of several Churches and a Pastor to his own people in general he was first related unto denying the Lords Supper to them that are properly his own flock give it as Pastor to other mens flocks and charge Or can a man be Pastor of a true Church and an Officer of another Or a particular private member in constant Communion with another in acts of worship These things have need of sugred words indeed to make them passe yet this is represented unto all with the common guise of every Sect to be according to the rule of the Word when Mr. Saunders hath given us his proof to make good these paradoxes hinted at and further declared and explained their way we may have occasion more strictly to examine it in all the particulars of it In the mean time I can conceive no lesse of their way but that it makes such a rent in their several Congregations that most properly and justly is called Schism pleading necessity will not help you especially when it 's of your own makeing running upon sundry mistakes and taking principles upon trust for truth that the holy Scriptures no where teach brings most knowing men under these straights overwhelming the Church with distraction division and confusion Besides there is no necessity to sin upon pretence of reforming that Reformation that is begun by sinfull means is not of God nor can never tend to the Churches good Arguments drawn from pretended necessities are of little strength in a sober rational dispute however prevalent they are conceived to be when accompanyed with the sword How can those Ministers think they have done their duty in administring the holy Supper to their respective Congregations by drawing a few of their own members with them to receive it in another mans Congregation They may as well think they have done their duty in preaching to their own Congregation by a constant drawing a few of their people with them to hear another man preach and if the other be their Pastor as to some in the way they are in cannot be denyed why should not such members constantly attend him in all
publick administrations as their duty And with what conscience can such live upon the Churches maintenance that forsake their function and duty to their Congregations And if they make the Sacrament the distinguishing Ordinance between the Church and the world as the Author cals it some where then no wonder they are so tender who they admit into the Church and thus upon the matter they look upon the greatest part of their Congregations as Heathens unbelievers whom the duties of Christianity doe not concern In another place he saith an unregenerate person is far from being a disciple c. and therefore not a Christian for the Disciples were first called Christians at Antioch And hence they devise ways and bars to keep them from the Lords Table equall unto a Heathen But me thinks they might easily perceive their mistake for baptism of old was accounted the only distinguishing Ordinance as circumcision between the Church and the world and the only separating and distinguishing Ordinance in the Church is Juridical Excommunication which they make no use of for Mr. Saunders saith they Excommunicate none if they judge their people Church-members and within if they have any scandalous crime against them why do they not begin reformation by casting out the obstinate according to rule they are all for admission of members when they should be for ejecting in the work of reforming If they be for admission into Church Communion they must begin with baptism and I think the tearms they stand upon in order to the Supper will sooner be made good in order to baptism of grown ones then to those that are initiated into the Church already by lawful baptism I have writ enough to this already the truth is if my judgment fail not Mr. Saund. doth but shuffle when he speaks of our Assemblies to be true Churches some of them one while they are true Churches and have both matter and form which are the main essentials of true Churches agreed upon by al only he saith but not without great disorder at present Discipline being interrupted as I suppose he means And he must needs speak this in behalf of our Parochial Churches for he makes mention of the Churches of England of which some he will undertake to prove to be true Churches against those that deny all for matter and form to be true pag. 127. And yet in the very same page he contradicts himself in saying We doe not say our Assemblies are Churches as Parishes but that they are Churches in Parishes and in that sense Parish Churches and in the page before he thinks the truth of some of our Churches as to their Essence he can prove A Church may be in a Parish as well as in a Country or City as Ephesus Corinth yea as well as in the World By this you may conceive what a good friend he is like to be to our Parish Churches against Anabaptists and Brownists that although he accounts them rigid Separatists they will grant that there are some Parishes in England that some that are godly and real members of Christ dwell in them which they will confesse are the matter of a true Church Nay there may be a rigid separate Church in fellowship and order in a Parish as well as in a Countrey City World And in this sense they are Parish Churches What shifts are these but why doth he not speak plain to the case in question and clearly speak his judgement of our Parochial Congregations as they are baptized and adhere to the publick Ministry in general consisting of good and bad nay the most very ignorant and in some thing or other either scandalous offensive or remisse Will he prove such Parishes in their Precincts and outward bounds to have both the matter and form of true Churches If he would doe so I shall imbrace him as friend of the Church And one would think in his 128. page that is his sense by what he infers for baptism saying That all Infants born in our Churches are to be baptized for Congregational Churches as they are called baptized all their Infants and then If it be objected that sundry of the parents are ungodly whose children we baptize he asks whether they can deny baptism to the childe of any member how offensive soever before the sentence of cutting off passe upon him So he answers of ours These supposed wicked ones whether as carnall or profane are not excommunicated what therefore should hinder their childrens baptism Hence he owns all in our Churches that are baptized members Christians and within for I suppose he would not plead the baptizing of the children of those that are Infidels and without that are no objects of Excommunication And yet in other places they are far from being Disciples Church-members c. Nay he saith as to baptism we suppose our Churches to be true but sick and corrupt pag. 126 but wherein corrupt if all be true you publish 129. pag. wherein you adde to what you said before Besides the children are not baptized in their Parents right alone but in the Churches where the childe is born a member being holy federally by birth and therefore to be baptized You prove the Subjects of our baptism lawful the Ministâ—â— and baptism it self for matter and manner I presume wherein is it sick and corrupt then I could wish you were more steddy in your judgement consonant to your self and honest to your Reader But to reply upon your own grants if all children born in the Church he holy foederally by birth then it follows that all parents in the Church of whom they are so born are believers for the Apostle affirms that only of the children of believers 1 Cor. 7.14 And then if all parents in the Church be believers why doe you not administer the Lords Supper to them for actual receiving is the undoubted duty of all believers how you will deny the consequence I cannot tell I pray you consider well of my Answer unto Mr. Collings for I must be very brief to yours Again if our Churches be true Churches and all it consists of lawfully admitted into it Then it will follow 1. That while they are within they are to enjoy all external priviledges of our Church according unto Gospel rule which is one and the same unto all Church-members as such This is so rational and clear that all that separate from us own and practise it untill a member by Apostasie fall off or be Juridically cast out of Church priviledges 2. That Pastors of true Churches are to attend their several flocks in a constant exercise of the whole ministerial work they are designed unto by the Church that ordained them such 3. That forming a Church in the choyce of a Pastor and Officers members in a true Church already formed according unto rule as to the essentials thereof at least is a work not only superfluous and absurd but Schismatical and pernicious breaking the peace and union of that
prepared in order unto the exercise of discipline I doubt not but when our principles are more the minde of Scriptures in regard of the blessed and priviledged state of the whole visible Church in Covenant relation with God the Lord will favour us in his great kindenesse by putting the poore despised Church of the Nation into a possession of that discipline that is most the minde of Jesus Christ revealed in the Word In the mean time we have all need to pray much for we are under an hour of temptation and many are scared by it I come to his seventh proof pag. 148. 1 Tim. 5.22 Neither be partakers of other mens sins The sum of what he saith to this was not enough for a Minister to give the unworthy warning of the danger or to reprove and denounce Gods judgements against the impenitent to free him from other mens sins This may clear him as a Preacher but not as a Ruler or Steward for if the same Minister shall loose the same men by giving them the seals of the New Covenant which is to tell them that they are interessed in Gospel priviledges and promises he fears that the guilt that was thrust out of the fore doore comes in again at the back doore 1. The main of the question lies in this Answ whether the Minister admits any such who are by the Authority of Scriptures forbid to come he not doing what he regularly may to exclude them I shall easily grant that a Minister through carelesnesse and unfaithfulnesse may be involved in the guilt of their peoples sins as touching the Sacrament but the question is when a Minister hath laboured to instruct his people and hath given warning of the danger of eating and drinking unworthily and hath stirred them up to come reverently and orderly carrying themselves sutable to the external actions there required hath not done his duty in an Evangelical sense as to that of his that every Minister is a Ruler and therefore to urge upon them acts of discipline and Jurisdiction as a Ruler when the whole Church is without discipline is such a boldnesse that never any pretending to sober principles assumed untill these exorbitant times we are fallen into for want of holy discipline But he grants that in respect of all the Minister doing his duty as before is clear as a Preacher And that is sufficient from his own mouth to justifie those that dare assume no other power in the Church at present but what they have by vertue of their Ministerial Office And as Stewards they are bound to be faithful in the dispensing of that leaving the issue to the blessing of their Master And it concerns Mr. Saunders to prove himself a Ruler and impowered with the actual exercise of the Keyes of Jurisdiction in his Church before he take upon him to binde and loose at his pleasure if he be so impowered why doth he not reform his own Congregation and administer all the Ordinances in his own Church Why doth he not by his authority convent the scandalous before him and admonish rebuke Excommunicate without any fear or scruple and practise all Church Communion in all the Ordinances to the other not at all under his censure Will he blame another in that which he neglects himself If there be none in his Congregation over whom he rules lyable to his censures to amend them why doth he neglect to administer the holy Sacrament unto them If there be scandalous members in his Church why doth he connive at their wickedness and suffer himself to be leavened by his carelesse indulgence towards them partaking of their sins forasmuch as he neglects the only means to reform them by Juridical Excommunication 1 Cor. 5. If he say he keeps them from the Sacrament I answer But the Church of Corinth were commanded to do more Was it ever read of in the Scripture that a Pastor refused to administer the holy Suppeâ— to his flock to keep the scandalous from communicating with them What though you plead but for Suspension ought not that to be Juridical as you are a Ruler impowered so to act And have you so proceeded with all your people that are excluded the holy Supper I pray you Sir satisfie me in these things either by some Scripture grounds or by your Reformation as you are a Christian and a Minister of the holy Gospel As to the rest of this Paragraph I wish you would better study the nature of the New Covenant and whom it respects And how the Sacraments may be said to be seals thereof and what they seal to in the Covenant which things I have insisted somewhat upon in my other writings both in answer to Dr. Drake and Mr. Collins whither I refer you intending hast at present In his next Paragraph he speaks to the text in hand The Apostle speaks of Ordination of Ministers wherein by not examining the persons to be ordained guilt is contracted ordaining without proving as 1 Tim. 3.10 is too sudden so likewise the giving of the Sacrament is sudden and guilty though but once in a year where no difference or tryal is made of them that come but he that will though of the basest of the people may be a guest at the Lords Table Men may put all this off by thinking the fault is not theirs while the act is others mens but others mens sins may be ouâ—s As incivil Judicatories there are principals and accessories So before God there will be too and non-examiners are accessories before the fact thus far he p. 150 This text is quoted either for illustration Answ or probation of the thing in question If but for illustration then it 's not argumentative and the inference but begged If for proof of the thing in question the consequence must be this as the Presbytery is guilty of others mens sins when they ordain into the Ministry suddenly without tryal of their gifts and life so in like manner those Ministers are guilty of others mens sins that receive al to the Sacrament without Examination To this I answer by pleading non-sequitur it remains for him to prove the necessity of the latter equal with the former let the like proof and reason be given for the one as the other they being of themselves things distinct to each other and different things in the premises will not bear the same conclusions And therefore that which the text intends I grant but deny the other untill further proof And for his distinction in principals and accessories in sin And non-examiners are accessories before the fact Still the question is but beg'd it 's still to prove that examination is the duty of every Minister in order to excluding the ignorant c. his distinction holds only in those sins or actions that are absolutely forbid in that which iâ— sin in its own nature but I deny that giving and receiving the Sacrament is so to baptized Christians of years and of the Church I have
belonging to their Office towards you as such that must give an account to God of their being diligent and faithful in the work they are sent to perform therefore he would have the people to be willing and obedient unto them for their incouragement in the work that they may do it with joy c. 'T is certain both Minister and people must give an account to God The Minister of his faithful discharge of his duties in relation to his people and the people of theirs accordingly For if souls miscarry for his unfaithfulnesse in not warning them of the danger they make themselves guilty of the bloud of souls otherwise doing their duty faithfully they are free from the bloud of all But Mr. Saunders would have it thus That Ministers must give an account of the state and condition of their people I think or if he mean they must take knowledge of their spiritual estates that they may know how to apply themselves toward them both in private and publick with seasonable words c. in reference to their own account I see no great hurt in that nor doth it prove any such thing the text is quoted for But if he should argue as some others doe from this text Ministers must give an account to God of their people therefore the people must give an account of themselves to their Ministers Answ 1. As before by denying the antecedent as respecting their personal condition whether regenerate or not or whether they have profited or not but of their own duty in respect of their peoples good 2. Grant it as themselves would the consequence is not clear because a Ministers account unto God and a peoples account to their Minister stand at so great a distance so wide a difference But why should this be required of the people more in order to the Sacrament then Prayer or in respect of their Salvation Prove that the Minister is to give an account to God only how he prepares and whom he admits to the Sacrament restraining the Text to that particular only But the text he saith is for their purpose Because it urgeth to activity in discipline as in preaching aâ—d calling aloud for compliance from the people 1. Answ Grant it true what he saith it urgeth to activity in discipline then it must be supposed that the Church thus writ unto was in actual possession of Ecclesiastical Rulers and holy discipline But doth it hence follow that they themselves are such Rulers and impowered with the exercise of holy discipline I think no without better proof Try how you can prove that the exercise of discipline is an inseparable power of every Minister and that he is as much bound to draw out this power into act at all times as his preaching power if so 1. Then the Church cannot be said to be undisciplined at all so long as she hath Ministers but all the fault lies in this the Ministers negligence in not exercising acts of Jurisdiction as he is bound to doe and impowered with 2. Then a Minister is absolute and independent of himself and not accountable to any Church power in his male-administrations of that power but to Jesus Christ alone 3. Then all have this power that are Ministers and so at liberty to act as their several humors move them and must be left to this liberty as they are Ministers being once ordained but who can be so blinde as not to see into what a gulf of division tyranny and confusion that error if put into practice would involve the whole And most miserable is the condition of those people that are oppressed with Ministers of such impudent insolent principles when drawn into act It concerns the Christian Magistrate to relieve such a people But to proceed to his next called the 11 12 13 14 15. proofs pag. 153. from Levit. 13.5 2 Chron. 23.19 Joel 3.17 Nahum 1.15 Zach. 14.21 For the two first he pleads an equity in them which is argumentative The three last he saith are against the impure and horrid mixtures which in our dayes are without sufficient check in most Assemblies Do but read read over his quotations Answ and you will be able to answer him your selves His 1. speaks of the uncleannesse of Leprofie and how he was to be shut up seven dayes now during this time he could come to no Ordinances therefore ignorant persons in the Gospel Church must not come to the Sacrament a goodly equitable consequence indeed But I have been large in confuting the same in my answer to Mr. Collings whither I refer the Reader as also his 2. Is there fully spoken to His last three are so impertinent that it is but lost labour to repeat the texts for they are special promises peculiar to the Jews upon their return from the Babylonish captivity 1. The Temple should be built again and no more be defiled with the uncircumcised Heathen And this he applyes to us as if the unregenerate ignorant and offending brethren that are of the Church were meant to be these uncircumcised Heathens aliens and strangers that pollute the Churches Communion now as they the holy Temple and Sanctuary then though himself doth grant ours to be within and of the Gospel Church and their children holy federally by vertue of the Covenant but this is so absurd that it tires me I having spoke so much to this already But he saith God hath promised this happinesse unto his people under the Gospel that there shall come no more in to them the uncircumcised and unclean Now if strangers men of Belial not enduring the yoke of Christ shall still be mixed with Gods people How is this promise made good he asks This promise Isai 52.1 Answ was made directly to the Jews Church after their return from their captivity and by the uncircumcised and unclean is meant Heathenish uncleannesse they should no more invade their land and defile holy things as before But I never was acquainted with any such promise as himself tels his Reader of made to Gospel times that there should be no strangers in his sense and meaning that is no scandalous sinners in the visible Church no tares among wheat no mixture of good and bad I would have him shew us such a promise as that and that it respects the Gospel Church at all times and in every place where God hath his Church which is necessary to make good or else how can our Author apply it to this period of time and to our Church in particular Besides 1. How doth it call into question all Churches of the Gospel that ever were for there were scandalous and wicked persons in them all 2. It 's inconsistent with the wisdom and pleasure of God who hath constituted the Church in such mercy and grace that all that are born in the Church are of the Church and is it likely that such admission did intend such a purity all being so corrupt by nature as the Church maintaines 3.
precedent And yet the same men will except against the Analogy of the Passeover notwithstanding we have clear precept and precedent in the New to warrant the baptized of years to receive the Lords Supper If the same men should be as exceptions against the Analogy of Circumcision to Baptism as of the Passeover to the Lords Supper they would utterly throw away the cause and run to the tents of our adversaries both weak and worthlesse is that of Mr. Saunders in reply to Mr. Humfry upon the Analogy of the Passeover pag. 185. The Passeover had an external benefit which all did partake of therefore a right to that Ordinance so far as external but the Lords Supper is a more spiritual Ordinance no type The wicked were tearmed Gods people then not so in the New See Camero 1. Answ Doe not the Anabaptists say the same of Circumcision it was more carnal then baptism more typical and annexed to external promises and so would spoyl the Analogy and may we not say of this Author that his hath been sharpened at their forge 2. It concerns the Author to make good the first thing asserted That all had an external benefit by it more then what was eaten and drunk to the satisfying of nature for all that came under the Law of the Passeover were not in Egypt to partake of that benefit of preservation when the first born of the Egyptians were slain What think you of the generations that were then to come successively untill Christ Nor were all the Egyptians smitten with that death but the first born only Besides what external benefit were this to the Aliens and strangers that were Proselytes and came under Circumcision they were as much under the Law of the Passeover as the Israelites and yet did not partake of that external benefit and therefore that was not the thing that gave them right as he pretends And whereas he saith the Lords Supper is more spiritual it is to be proved the Passeover having the same Author appointing it for the same spiritual use and ends in the Church with the holy Supper The external Ceremonial part of the one and of the other both alike carnal and his granting that both are the same for substance as to the use and end doth crosse and contradict this of his here let it be proved that the unregenerate and wicked in the Church are not to be tearmed Gods people now Doe not the Apostles give equal titles to all in the Church calling them Saints and such as were brethren and within although scandalous and stubborn and if the unregenerate and wicked in the Church are not to be tearmed Gods people how are their children holy federally that being affirmed only of the children of believers which himself grants which is crosse to Camero And the truth is the arguments we urge from the Passeover Covenant relation state of the Jews Church Gospel precept and precedents the right of membership the love of Christ to sinners are so solid and full of strength that all that oppose us will be ashamed at last There is no need of any further examining of what is writ by this Author in answer to Mr. Humfry for had he consulted with what was written of late before his came out he might have spared that part as unnecessary he having but little that's new considerable in the controversie If the Author want work let him answer Mr. Humfreys rejoynder or the last part of my first Book not yet answered or make good his own so clearly confuted if he can Or else return to the Church in feeding his own flock and be quiet endeavouring to heal the breach which by an unnecessary separation he hath sinfully made in his Church I shal now take my leave of my Reader and end with some Apologizing reasons why I have appeared so stiff in opposing of these petty irregular reformings 1. Because they have no foundation to stand upon from the Scriptures 2. Because they hinder and obstruct the Reformation of the whole Who will desire or endeavour after a uniformity of true discipline if these private petty wayes will attain the end without it 3. Because Suspension and Separation makes void Juridical Excommunication the only separating Ordinance in the Church and now upon the matter is wholly lost in Church 4. Because these new contrivances tend to wicked division and schism in the Church and a complying with that wilde Principle of tolerating every Sect and way to the scandal of the whole 5. Because these groundlesse partial reformings do make us insensible of our malady and so carelesse of the right remedy 6. Because this groundlesse pretended discipline runs private Ministers upon intruding the power of Jurisdiction which as private Ministers they are not impowered with at all untill the Church have chose and designed them unto Ecclesiastical rule and Jurisdiction for all are not competent for that work nor is it necessary that all should bear a share in the exercise of Church censures and policies I confesse I judge that not any Minister in the Church can justly assume an authoritative power of Jurisdiction in his Church by vertue of his Ordination and Induction And lastly what Reformation can be rationally expected when those that should be intrusted with the exercise of discipline are wryed in their judgements about the censures of the Church and in what cases to correct and who should have the exercise thereof Whether every Presbyter in general or some peculiarly chosen and set apart for Ecclesiastical rule and order only What work would have been made in the Church by this if the Presbyterian principles had been put into execution We should have had but few Communicants in many of our Churches had that rigid way of Examination and power in the Eldership to suspend upon pleasure gone on When the Lord of his Church is pleased to blesse this poor distracted English Church with so great a blessing as true and holy discipline is he will both qualifie and furnish us with instruments fit for that work in the mean time let us pray and wait and use all good means we can to possesse so great a mercy as may truly tend to the Reformation of the whole without the hurt or prejudice of any part of Christs visible Church FINIS Books that are to be sold by Thomas Williams at the Bible in Little Brittain A Chronicle of the Kings of England from the Romans Govrnment unto the raign of King Charles containing all passages of Church and State with all other observations proper for a History the second Edition enlarged with notes and a large Table A compleat Christian Dictionary shewing the Interpretation of the proper names the several significations and several acceptations of all the words in the Bible with the addition of above four thousand words and phraseâ— with a description of the properties of Beasts Fowls Hearbs Trees c. A book of great use unto Ministers Masters of families all private Christians the sixt Edition The Art of Distillations with the choycest preparations performed by way of Distillations with a description of the best Furnaces and vessels used by ancient and modern Chymists also divers Spagerical Experiments and Curiosities the anatomy of gold and silver with their preparations and vertues the second Edition to which is added the London Distiller shewing the way to draw all sorts of Spirits and Strong waters The New Light of Alchymy by Sandevogius with nine Books of Paracelsus of the nature of things with a Chymical Dictionary Glaubers Philosophical Furnaces or a New way of distilling in five parts with the tincture of Gold and Aurum Potabile the first part of his Mineral work Spots discovery of Witcheraft shewing the power of Witches contracting with Devils Spirits or Familiars and their power to kill torment and consume the bodies of Creatures with the knavery of Conjurors Inchanters Figure-casters Astrologers the vanity of dreams with all tricks of Jugling and Legerdemain and many other secrets Vade Mecum A companion for a Chirurgeon shewing the use of every instrument belonging to a Chirurgeon with the cure of all green wounds the vertue and quality of all medicines useful with the way to make them with directions for Crowners how to make Reports with a treatise of Bleeding A Vindication of Mr. Humfreys free Admission to the Sacrament being an answer to Dr. Drakes Bar done by John Timson
TO RECEIVE THE LORDS SUPPER The Actual Right and Duty of all Church-Members of Years not EXCOMMUNICATE MADE GOOD Against Mr. COLLINS his Exceptions against The Bar Removed written by the Author And what Right the ignorant and scandalous tolerated in the Church have to the Lords Supper declared Many things belonging to that Controversie more fully discussed tending much to the peace and settlement of the Church AND ALSO A ful Answer to what Mr. COLLINS hath written in defence of Juridical Suspension wherein his pretended arguments from Scripture are examined and confuted To which is also annexed A brief Answer to the Antidiatribe written by Mr. Saunders By JOHN TIMSON a private Christian of Great Bowdon in Leicestershire Those members of the body which we think lesse honorable upon those we bestow more aboundant honor That there should be no Schism in the Body 1 Cor. 12 23 25. London Printed by E. C. for Tho. Williams at the Bible in Little-Britain and Will. Tomson at Harborough in Leicestershire 1655. The Authour to the Reader HOw weak and unable I am for the managing of the least truth and how unfit to appear in publick in its defence I am very sensible and filled with fears and perplexing thoughts in my very soul lest I should do any thing but for the Truth and for the peace of our unsetled Church or should be injurious to so good a cause which I am drawn out I doe not well know how to vindicate Who is sufficient to defend the Truth I tremble to think how many precious and choyce Servants of the Lord and faithful Labourers in his Vineyard are against me in what I publish I reverence and esteem those of the Presbyterian judgement above others in some considerable respects and verily judge them conscientious men and such as I look upon as best qualified for promoting the Gospel truth and the Churches peace And although my returns to Mr. Collins be somewhat round yet I hope I doe not much reflect upon most of the Presbyterian judgement notwithstanding his seeming to write in the name of all of that perswasion I do professe my study was to speak my very heart in this Controversie and to provoke different mindes to give some stronger grounds for their opinion and practice assuring my self that a great deal more must be said against that Free Admission to the Sacrament which I plead for then any of late have said before either Mr. Humphrey or my self will be answered and many thousands in the Nation which I hope fear God will be satisfied I may safely say with a good conscience it is more the clear conviction of my judgement and conscience that perswades me to appear in this controversie then any private interest or affectation of opinion or spirit of contradiction or basenesse of that spirit either â—o humor or flatter the common multitude I am perswaded it is the very simplicity of holy Truth which I have undertaken to defend leading directly to the Churches Peace and Reformation Truth seeks no corners but is invincible and intire in it self it may be over-born at a push but will recover again and vanquish all the dark parts of man O that we had such impartial and unbyased spirits as to receive all truth in the love of it Let me intreat my Reader to weigh things met with in this controversie deliberately and then I doubt not but of whatsoever judgement he be he will confesse my principles and arguments are rational and much the drift and scope of plain Scriptures And if he will but grant me Infant Baptism he will finde it a hard task to overthrow any of my building as it is stated He may see with what clearnesse and ease I have answered to what is excepted against my first book in the reading of this and also to what is brought in defence of Suspension as distinct from Excommunication as it is stated by Mr. Collins Indeed he pleaseth himself with telling his Reader my principles are both large and rotten but if he think to goe but an inch narrower he will finde it a most difficult task to free himself of that charge laid against the Pharisees the making void the Commandements of God by their Traditions He cannot go a jot narrower but he must uncovenant undisciple and unduty those which he cals Church members the doing of which plucks up all that the Church stands upon and levels Christians not Excommunicate with the Pagan world in point of right and actuall duty of receiving This is so irrational that it stands Mr. Collins upon to doe his utmost to give some satisfaction therein which if he doe he must make good from the Scriptures those things which he so often begs As 1. That the Lords Supper is strong meat only 2. A seal to justifying faith only 3 And that every unregenerate person in the Church that receives eats judgement to himself more then in any other Ordinances of Word and Prayer he doing in each what he can to decline and avoid profanenesse 4. That a Church-member of years under Toleration of the Church is no believer or disciple under actual duty as a Christian 5. That to the different state of the Church as consisting of regenerate and unregenerate is under different rules and duties as to publick worship 6. That more knowledge and holinesse is required to the Lords Supper then to Baptism in persons of years 7. He must prove Suspension distinct from Excommunication a Church censure and for what sins 8. That some baptized of years mentioned in the Scripture have been denyed the Sacrament of the Supper for ignorance or for not having fruits of holinesse answerable to the Christian Profession and yet allowed the liberty of all other Ordinances in the Church as members 9. He must prove a Pastoral or Church tryal by examination of Church-members fitnesse or unfitnesse necessary to admitting to the Sacrament and more such like things before he can justly debar any from the Sacrament more then from the rest of Church priviledges and duties If he can make good all or any of these things by the Scriptures so as to take off what we have excepted against them then he may doe something towards giving satisfaction in this Controversie otherwise in plain terms I would have him to sit still and let others who may think to doe somewhat in order to it put forth their strength For I am willing my grounds and principles should be tryed to the utmost I had rather be put to shame a thousand times then upon mistake in any thing I should dissent from godly men and draw any into errour But yet I would have you to know that these grounds and principles on which my judgement is built have been so long received and chewed upon and examined and tryed by general rules of Scripture and Reason that I shall not easily be removed For I dare boldly say the substance of what I write I received not from Erastus
Mr. Prinne nor Mr. Humphrey my judgement was setled and satisfied in these things long before I heard of these Authors And besides what reason hath Mr. Collins to charge us with this that we are Erastus his scholars when he findes us so point blanck against him in defending the Juridâ—cal censures of the Church I cannot say that ever I read any Author that came up to my opinion or judgement in these things in any measure til now of late I saw Mr. Humfreys Vindication of free Admission So that whether my grounds be new or old I have made but little acquiry in respect of humane authority this I am satisfied in that my grounds are such as accord with the Gospel Covenant and the state of the Visible Church of Christ as it is constituted in Parents and children good and bad called and chosen And I finde that men of different judgements run themselves upon dangerous rocks of Schisms Separations and needlesse divisions in the Church besides their interferings contradictions of themselves and detracting unworthily from Covenant-relation Church-membership Sacraments signs and pleadges of Covenant love to the whole Church in general And therefore I hope though I have endeavoured to remove an unnecessary Bar yet it will appear that I am not guilty of that sin and curse that Mr. Collins intimates in saying Was it our grief formerly that we had no Bar and is it our work now to remove the Bars yea the Lords and the Churches ancient Land-marks But who are most faulty in this they that plead for the Churches Land-marks and rights or they that unjustly defraud the Church thereof laying the Church common with the world judge ye or who are most for Reformation according unto Scripture Canon they that presse to all Scripture obedience or they that exempt Christians from some necessary duties of Worship they that would have all in the Church dealt with as members in a Juridical way to their amendment or they that unchurch them undisciple them and so unduty them and level them with the Pagan World Mr. Collins pretends much zeal in his Epistle prefixed to his Book but I could wish he had more sound judgement and knowledge in these things to abate the inconsiderate noise he makes and the passion which he shews therein First he tels us that it was a burden that lay upon our souls that in the Prelates dayes there was no bar but one which Suâ—peâ—â—on made And then about six lines after he saith the Prelatical party may rise up in judgement against us and say Lord we gave the Minister authority to keep any from the Sacrament for notorious sins c. First he saith there was no Bar and then he saith that there was a Bar and such a one as I thinkâ— might have satisfied men of his perswasion The truth is both Presbyterian and Brownists make such a slender thing of Covenant relation the ground of baptism in the Church that it will not bear up what they should build upon it afterwards for they make it upon the matter but a meer titular or nominal thing restraining the Gospel Covenant to believers only in a strict sense making Sacramental Seals invalid if they doe not so believe conceiving that if persons in the Church by their actual offending discover themselvs to be in an unregenerate state after baptism that then they are out of Covenant and so by consequence have forfeited their actual right to Sacramental seals thereof making no difference between such and the Pagan world But if we hold to the Covenant made to the Church and their seed as it was published and declared to Abraham and all along to the Church of the Jews and look upon the Christian Church as graffed into them and equally children of Abraham by profession of faith and Baptism as the Jew by nature and Circumcsiion presse all to walk up to their profession as Christians according to Gospel observances being bound to observe all things as the Jews were then should we build upon such a foundation of truth that would be immoveable and bear up as much as we now plead for But I have exprest my self more largely in this ensuing discourse and may not now insist upon the largenesse of the Gospel Covenant In short then I conceive that it is a very great mistake to narrow the Gospel Covenant unto this He that believes shall be saved but he that believes not shall be damned I grant 1. That this is a truth as taken in the usual sense but then I deny that it is the whole Covenant of grace made unto the Church and their seed 2. I grant it a conditional proposition used in the first tender of the Gospel unto Infidels to move them to accept of Christ and so to bring them into the visible Church but I deny that this in like manner was or is to be preached unto the visible Church that professe their acceptance of Christ and all observances appointed by him 3. I grant that actual believing and profession of faith was the only thing that fitted a Pagan for Baptism and graffing into the Gospel Church in which the promises of grace and glory belong to the whole indefinitely but yet I deny that there is any promise of grace in those words He that believes shall be saved it is true there is the promise of being saved upon condition of sincere believing but there is no promise in that to give a sinner grace to believe So that this conditional part of the Covenant in a strict sense as it is usually urged alone without the absolute renders unregenerate sinners uncapable of any good news by the Gospel it not being in the power of any of himself so to believe And to make the death of Christ a seal to confirm this conditional part of the Covenant only as being that which the Sacraments hold forth is to make the death of Christ a seal to confirm a Covenant of works in the Church derogatory to the Gospel mercy and grace Therefore we are to conceive of the Covenant as it 's held out to the Church by the Prophets and Apostles the Church being built upon both Gen. 17. Jerem. 31. Ezek. 36. it is largely laid down and applyed by the Apostles to the Church in Gospel times Act 2.39 Heb. 8. Act. 3.25 26. 5.31 Rom. 15.8 9. 2 Cor. 6.16.18 7.1 compared These Scriptures prove that the Apostles did usually apply those old free grace promises with the end of Christ coming into the world to confirm them to the Gospel Church But if any please to enter their exceptions against these my notions about the Covenant I shall be glad both of an occasion and opportunity to insist more largely upon them For I must confesse I think there are not many that are very right about the nature and largenesse of the Gospel Covenant made to the Church and that straitning the Covenant too much occasions very much division and schism in the
supply means of instructing them in the. PAg. 4 lin 7. read unto p. 13. l. 27. r. privative p. 1â— l 6. r. reaching p. 29. l. 8. for il r for it p. 31. l. 12. r. Vzzahs p. 31. l. 14. r. answer p. 50. l. 10. r. undvoidable p. 64. l. 15. r. examen p. 71. l. 1 3. r. a knowledge p 89. l. 14. r. propositions p. 98. l. 12. r. leavened p. 99. l. 21. r. chain p. 100. l. 27. r. visible p. 116. l. 2. r. adjourned pag. 138. l. 28. supply in after doth p. 156. l. 9. r. uneldered l. 30. supply of the whole Church after settlement p. 161. l. 9. r. privative p. 166. l. 2. f. examination r. argument p. 170. l. 2. r. irreproveable p. 189. l. 7. supply an ordinance of after give p. 199. l. 6 dele it p. 216. l. 3. f. first r. fift p. 249. l. 15. f. power r. prevalency p. 275. l. 21. r. suspition p. 280. l. 1. f. know r. how p. 286. l. 27. f. which r. when p. 298. l. 32. r. to persecutions p. 312. l. 29. r. think p. 327. l. 8. put in profitable after that is l. 16. r. themselves To Receive the Lords Supper the actual Right and Duty of all Church-Members of years not Excommunicate BEloved Christian friends Although I judge that I am not as yet answered by Mr. Collings there being enough in my Book to answer him and vindicate it self from whatsoever is as yet objected against it to the Judicious and impartial Reader yet with respect unto Mr. Collings who is esteemed a Gentleman learned and worthy according unto his title and some profitable labours for the Churches good And also for the further satisfying both of the weak and plain minded Christians As also the confirming of those my friends that cordially imbrace my Book and adhere to the truth asserted therein And that the controversie it self may come to some clearer issue and something more may be discovered in order unto peace and truth and reformation in the Church of God in all humility and respect unto different mindes I crave leave once more soberly and freely to present my thoughts unto further consideration for I judge that Mr. Collings hath been too hasty in concluding that my main principles are rotten that I have made the ground of my discourse by what he hath said in answer thereunto for the truth is he hath not in the least disabled any one main thing I have asserted nor is willing to keep to the question as it 's stated nor answer to any purpose where the main stresse of Controversie lies but trifles about Infants and distracted and Pagans and the excommunicate the admitting of which aâ— such not any in our times plead for And therefore he might have said lesse to these and more to those that the thing in controversie concerns namely Whether the unregenerate or ignorant and scandalous members in the Church being baptized and of years not excommunicate may be debarred the Lords Supper they expressing their desires to receive and proffering themselves I answer in the negative all along that they may not be put by Mr. Collings seems to be offended with my charging the Reverend Doctor with unbrotherly dealing A thing saith he that my self am more guilty of which I think is hardly so unlesse the worthinesse of the person my opinion strikes at doth so much the more aggravate the thing As for my not taking notice of Mr. Humfreys reflections as he cals them it may be better excused as to my self and friend then the other can 1. Because that part of the Book which concerned the Doctor was finished and gone from me towards the Presse before ever I knew of Mr. Humfreys rejoinder 2. When I did read it over I thought his returns to such bitter censures and invectives against him were very pathetical yet humble and melting and well becoming a sober charitable Christian and fellow-labourer with the other in the holy Gospel 3. I have heard many godly and learned in the Ministery acknowledge that his returns are humble and charitable and yet quick and rational As to Mr. Collings quotation of the two last pages of his rejoynder I conceive that Mr. Humfrey little thought that any would be so uncharitable as to take his Allegorical reproof and caution in that unfeemly sense that Mr. Collings will force upon it there being not any Scripture uncapable of a rational application And those that are impartial and sober can judge no lesse of that And for those six or seven dissatisfactions of mine concerning the practice of some Presbyterians unassociated I know not how I should have expressed my self more modestly then by professing my self unsatisfied giving so many hints as I have clearly done against those things I charge them with And I am sure if the main principles in my Book stand firm as I think they will for any thing yet said against me Mr. Collings will not be very zealous for ruling Elders nor Suspension distinct from Excommunication Church examination of her members into actual receiving nor leaving out without any judicial proceedings But to the matter it self let us see what he hath said against that First his demand is What it is that gives one right to the Sacrament of the Supper he knows the answer will be Church membership either this alone or something else if this alone then Infants and mad men and drunkards must come say what they can if they say not Church-membership alone doth give a full right then many of their arguments fail 1. Answ That Church membership alone gives one a legal right to the Lords Supper according unto Gospel rules the which right is a true right and that sufficient unto free admission of all in the Church but then this right is to be distinguished into a real right in point of title and a right of actual possession and injoyment the former right respects all Infants born of Christian Parents the latter right belongs unto all Church-members of years that are baptized and in a rational and Church capacity actually to enjoy their right An heir in his infancy hath as true a right unto his Fathers land he being dead as an heir at full age but yet it doth not follow that a childe under age shall be left actually to manage his right himself in that state as an heir at one and twenty We know the Apostle saith it An heir under age differs not from a servant though he be Lord of all Yet such is the the consequence of Mr. Collings touching Infant Communion if we grant them a true right as members in point of title and a remote right actually to injoy assoon as they are in a natural and rational capacity then saith he they as members must come say what we can to the contrary Although Mr. Humfrey and my self have shewed a clear difference between Infants and distracted and the ignorant at age in several particulars The
clear upon sufficient proof the Christian Magistrate hath to doe with them those things being punishable by death in our Law And such malefactors cannot ordinarily escape the penalty of the Law if the Magistrate will nâ— doe his duty The Church may assooâ— judicially excommunicate as suspend suâ— And it 's a question that wiser men then I haâ— need to answer Whether such scandaloâ— sinners as Mr. Collings speaks of ought noâ— most properly to be punished by the Judge in a Christian Common-wealth according to the penalties the Law of God directs iâ— such cases And whether the Church has 〈◊〉 doe at all with such or no in point of censures is a question as for other forts of sinners that the Laws of this Common-wealth doth more indulge the Churches cognisance in point of discipline may reach 〈◊〉 she be in that capacity otherwise she caâ— but instruct the ignorant warn the unruly reâ—buke in publick the open offender admonish all anâ— have patience towards all men Every Christian in his place to doe what in them lyes to reform themselves and not suffer sinne to lye upon their brother But as for that knack of excommunicable and meerly upon that account keep members back without any tryal whether their offendings bâ— out of weaknesse or wilfulnesse or without any legal proceedings in order to their amendment is a very bold part Such precedents are of pernicious consequence in these times where we have none to make our appeal unto knowing how that Brownism hath too much leavened the greatest part of the most knowing men Ministers and others in the Church of England Well let not any presume upon sin themselves in pretence of punishing sin in others If you cannot act orderly according to clear rule make not such haste to reform as to goe about it in an unwarrantable way as for Church-members that are in possession of their right according to law doe not dispossesse them untill the Church authoritatively hath given out judgement against them Let not our Church-men be more irrational then our Lawyers for subjects in the Common-wealth And as for that he saith Church-members not knowing whether Christ were a man or a woman I am sorry that any should be so grossely ignorant I thank God I never have known any such if Mr. Collings have I hope not in his Parish And I cannot but judge it a reproach of our Church and Ministry if any such can be found amongst us But it 's a lamentable thing notwithstanding our scruples about Sacramental Communion so many years together but few that have prepared their people ever the more by doubling their diligence in catechizing of them plainly and familiarly in publick and private Which I fear some that appear forward for a purer Communion in seven years time never did so much as in a friendly way spend so much as an hour with their poor ignorant people in private to inform them better and to know their conditions and incourage them to learn the things of God in order to their better profiting in publick administrations How long is it that we have been excepting against poor ignorant brethren and yet not ordinary means used to prevent it more then heretofore if so much for in the Bishops times care was taken that all did learn the Lords Prayer the Creed and the ten Commandements with the explanations of them and other parts of the Churches Catechising we had our set Prayers that people were apt to learn but now in many places people never hear the Lords Prayer Creed nor Commands scarse in the year nor have in use any common plain Catechism c. Ah poor souls that care is not towards them I verily judge as good Shepheards have of their Masters dumb sheep who will see to every particular one that it be kept in order and that nothing obstruct its growth and feeding and if any sheep goe astray he diligently seeks it and bringeth it to his fellows and when either flye or scab doth hinder its prosperity he will not let it alone untill the poor sheep come to him though he should call it but he will goe to it and gently catch it although it's so silly to flee from him and mercifully help it he will not let them goe till they be infectious and then separate the broken from the whole but endeavour to keep every one in that order that all may fold together Act. 20.28 Take heed therefore unto your selves and to all over the which the holy Ghost hath made you overseers to feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own bloud If you have that love to your Lord and Master as you should you will feed his sheep and lambs that they may fold together Reverend Elders we are fallen into carelesse times in respect of the Worship of God little or no care is taken that our people constantly frequent the publick assemblies ignorant persons are left to watch to themselves you have the more cause to apply your selves to them in private even from house to house and be tender unto them as a nurse cherisheth her children to insinuate your selves in a friendly familiar way into them will gain in them a reverent esteem of you in their hearts which will give you the advantage of perswading them to receive instruction from you both in publick and private It 's an easie businesse to make a separation in your flocks and to cast off the relation of Pastor and people and to neglect relative duties and to fill your people with prejudices divisions and discontents and to break the peace and union of the whole but a work of commendable difficulty when with care prudence and diligence you so apply your selves unto all as they that must give an account unto God of every particular soul committed to your charge Remember the bloud of souls and judge your selves bound to deal with the worst of your people as members of the body of Christ while they remain children of the Kingdom and not reckon them dogs and Swine untill they be legally put out of Church-Communion and hate to be reformed by the Churches censures Mr. Pag. 24. Collings urgeth against my principles thus He must be able to discern the Lords Body from commâ—n bread But many men may be Church members and rational and yet not able to doe this therefore something else must he added The Minor wants prof Answ and so is but a reproach to Church-members reflecting upon our Teachers that have opportunity enough to inform the meanest capacity of years more then so And that reverent and trembling approaching generally every where doth prove that they judge otherwise of the consecrated signes then of common bread why should Mr. Collings be so uncharitable to any that professe their desires and offer themselves reverently in conscience of this service he knowing that there is enough in the words of institution consecration by Word and Prayer the words used in the
act of giving and receiving sufficiently to inform the meanest person that the elements are signs of the body and bloud of Christ and that they eat and drink in remembrance of Christ for remission of sins c. His Conclusion is false because his Minor wants proof Again He brings in a childe of five or six years old as able to exercise reason and so is a Church-member if baptized and if these two things give a plenary right such ought to be admitted Children minde childish things ordinarily and nothing else Answ and they come not under the obligation of worship as men of age that have put away childish things And what if it be granted him that they have some childish reason doth it follow that they have religious devotion from a principle of conscience as men of age ordinarily expresse in most solemn sacred worship Let him answer to what hath been said already as to this particular before he concludes as he doth That what he hath said is sufficient to shew the vanity of this conceit as he is pleaseed to call it that meer Church membership with years of discretion gives one a full right to the Lords Supper What he means by full right he may doe well to explain himself I have told him plainly enough that Church-membership having its rise from Covenant relation gives a true right unto all external Church-priviledges during that relative state of actual membership I know that their real state of spiritual interest in Christ doth put members into a higher capacity to improve their right for their spiritual advantage then those that are but in that relative state only of visible members in a large sense Yet the good improvement of the one doth not hinder nor take away the just right of the other An ill husbands right in law is as good as the best husbands in the world untill by law his right be taken away And an evill member in the Common-wealth hath as much priviledge in respect of the benefit of the law while he is a member as any other of the same kinde though never so good The best subject is but a subject and the worst subject is a subject untill he be out-lawed or convicted of treason So I say in the Church the best and holyest man that lives is but a Church-member and the worst that lives he being baptized and adhering to the true religion and under Church indulgence is a member also of the same visible Church and in respect of his relative state his right is as good to the Sacrament as the other in a legal sense for the one is as much under observance as the other all are Covenanters and have entred it at least and hence stand bound to the tearms of Christian obedience There is but one Law and rule for good and bad the one hath received the Spirit of the Covenant that makes his service sweet and easie the other is notwithstanding under the letter of administrations in a waiting for a blessing and may not be released Such have the right of precept which is a sufficient warranty for their observance of the Supper The other not only that but the right of spiritual priviledge and blessing through the real union and communion with Jesus Christ And Mr. Collings his superadded qualifications to membership or Covenanters to give a right to precepts of worship is so flat by this time he urging it so often that I shal trouble my reader with it no more only take notice that upon the matter he makes membership a meer nothing for doe but superadde a knowledge of the things of God conjoyned with faith in Christ evidenced by the fruits of holinesse unto a Turk or any other Pagan or Jew in the Infidel world it would give them the right of membership and Sacraments and therefore at once you may see what clear conceptions Mr. Collings hath of the priviledges of Church-membership In this page Mr. Collings conceives Pag. 25. That I have dealt more unbrotherly with the friends of Presbyterian Discipline even some hundreds of them both learned and reverend men as I charge the Doctor to have done with Mr. Humfrey and that by entring some exceptions against that discipline Bar removed pag. 8 9 10. I have spoke to this already Answ I am sorry that such groundlesse consequences I observed from the reverend Doctor should reflect upon some hundreds of learned reverend friends to the Presbyterian discipline I had thought the most of the things I am unsatisfied in as being meerly groundlesse would not have been owned by some hundreds of such learned men I spoke chiefly of them that are Congregations unassociated and when Mr. Collings or any other can clear themselves of what I charge them with I shal either make good my charge if you take it so or else submit unto you and acknowledge it my weaknesse to be unsatisfied of the truth of what I pointed at in those 8 9 10 pages of my Book In the mean time Mr. Collings being the first that I have heard of that hath put so hard a sense of my dissatisfactions notwithstanding I have many Presbyterian friends learned and reverend it makes me something question whether many will charge it on me for unbrotherly dealing or no. I being but a private Christian might do it in order to my own and divers others satisfaction that are in no such way nor dare attempt any such practices although we have made after the search of warrant for those wayes as well as other men we not knowing how to know the minde of Christ better then by his Word in these things nor how to know the simplicity of truth then by seeking of God by prayer and humiliation for guidance and direction in our free and serious debates in the presence of the Lord amongst our selves in order unto practice the which we of great Bowden have carefully done even a considerable number of us with our Minister before we did communicate together in the holy Supper And we hope the Lord was with us in the whole we are fully satisfied and not ashamed to publish unto others of our Christian brethren the grounds and principles we act from Our greatest grief is that we observe too great a carelesnesse in our people to worship God with us in this great engaging Ordinance of holy Communion in the Sacrament of the holy Supper And this we shall further declare that although our Minister were and is one of our old Non conformists and did indevour to draw us into another way of Communion yet such was our answers and grounds that he was satisfied therewith And doth administer Sacraments freely with a setled satisfied judgment we blesse and praise our God for it Let others judge of us what they please we judge that we act according to the minde of Christ considering that present capacity we are in In this 26. page he is pleased to examine my queries upon 1 Cor.
11. and that the rather it seems because as he sayes all my superstructure stands upon the foundation that I have there laid page 23. at latter end I confesse I judge the stresse of all the controversie hath been occasioned upon mistake of the Apostles scope sense in that chapter and therefore have endeavoured by severa queries upon the place Answ with my answer to them conjoyned pag. 14 15 16 17. of my Book to give you the sense of the place Which I hope hath and will satisfie many distressed consciences which have beeâ— perplexed too much through some mistakâ— of our latter Divines former ages anâ— Churches as some of my friends have tokâ— me since do much favour the sense that have given of the place And it seems tâ— me that Mr. Collings is put to a stand whâ—â— to say to it as for that great thing of applying the danger to unworthinesse of persons Mr. Coll. whiâ—â— troubled us all he confesses he sees no great hanâ— is like to come of it if it be granted that thâ— Apostle there doth not primarily speak of personâ— unworthinesse but actual And again he saith 'T is not much material to dispute whether thâ— Apostle there spake of habitual unworthinesse â— only actual That there is a personal unworthinesse himself must grant he saith or else Turkes an excommunicated persons cannot be excluded Here you may see a very fair concession from Mr. Answ Collings I would we had found him as ingenuous in other things that we might have been all of a minde but though thiâ— place doth not prove it he would have uâ— conceive that some other places doe in order to the Sacrament And it is a thing that I must grant else Turks and the excommunicate cannot be excluded I will examine his Scriptures anon and shall first deny that which he will force me to grant his reason is worth nothing or else Turks c. I grant that there is a personal unworthinesse in Turks and Pagans and in the excommunicate also conditionally but doth it therefore follow that there is a personal unworthinesse in the Church that professe themselves a people in Covenant with God and have the Lord for their God Here you may observe again how Mr. Collings is levelling Church-members with the infidel world it 's strange to me that a Batcheler of Divinity should not be able to make difference between a Pagan and a Christian What 1 Cor. 7.14 did he forget that foederal holinesse that differenceth the clean from the unclean He queries Whether every unregenerate man as such be personally unworthy he believes he is I seeme to doubt he saith Without doubting that there is no personal unworthinesse in the unregenerate in the Church simply considered in it self Answ for all such are in Covenant relation the which relation is personal they are a consecrate people to the Lord and are in that sense holy in opposition to the infidel world that still lyes in profanenesse those whom God hath chosen to bear his name and are entred into Covenant with God Let no man account common and uncleaâ— commonizing such a called professing peoplâ— with the Pagan world c. as is the humor and sin of these times for personâ— unworthinesse cannot be in the Church 〈◊〉 long as a persons relative worthinesse remains Indeed we may distinguish of a persons worthinesse in the Church it is either relative meerly or else real and relativâ— together The former is sufficient for thâ— acceptance of the Church unto all Gospeâ— Ordinances the latter is that which hatâ— its praise of God it being called the ciâ— cumcision of the heart c. the other but oâ— the letter only Rom. 2.20 But Mr. Colling saith there is no need of disputing this Although I know the main cause of this conâ— troversie occasioned by this very thing Tâ— what end is your Bar but to exclude the unworthy Why have you devised such strange things as to make it strong meat 〈◊〉 seal to faith a strengthening and a nourishing Ordinance c. contradistinct from all the rest in the Church excluding it from being a means of conversion which you allow to all the other Ordinances in the Church To what end is your suspension and hindring persons more from this then any other To what end are your proving and trying of such that generally professe the same religion your selves preach though harmlesse and honest as to men yet may not be admitted I say to what end is all this but that you are afraid of personal unworthinesse And it is the only thing to be disputed for we are all agreed about actual unworthinesse that let a man be a godly man yet if he sin scandalously he is to be censured it and so of the unregenerate if they be obstinate our difference about actual unworthinesse will be in what cases the Church may exercise the rod for what sins but he tels us pag 27. That every Church member is by us to be lookt upon as habitually worthy unlesse by some actual miscarriage he declares himself actually unworthy But the question is Answ whether Mr. Collings will grant that those in the Church that they finde by their miscarriages to be actually unworthy they judge to be habitually worthy and let him tell us plainly that they keep back no man from the Sacrament for habitual unworthinesse if he can and say truth but for actual miscarriages onely Let him plainly answer me in that and then I may tell him more of my minde in the mean time let me tell him that I much fear his charity to Church-members savours of excesse and exceeds all due bounds Take habitual worthinesse in his own sense as he expresses himself in the same thing thus Yet we believe their Church-membership is not that which makes them thus worthy but their into est in Christ which charity obligeth them thus believe untill by some fruits they discover the oâ— trary Then it will follow Answ That all Infants born in the Church a habitually worthy not from their Covenaâ— holinesse that gives them the priviledge 〈◊〉 membership but from their interest in Chrâ— as beleevers Let him try if he can convinâ— the Antipaedobaptist of that That charity which obligeth us thus 〈◊〉 believe of all Church-members is true 〈◊〉 charity obligeth no man to believe that whiâ— is false Then it follows that those that are haâ— tually worthy from their interest in Chrisâ— may fall away from that habituall woâ— thinesse they have from their interest 〈◊〉 Christ This strongly implyes that they hold thâ— no one should be continued a member of thâ— visible Church but such that are habituall worthy from an interest in Christ Anâ— thus you may see how their extremity oâ— charity runs them into an extremity of râ—gor and censorious dealing with Church members at length Let the impartial Reader judge how true it is that Mr. Colling hath said 'T is not much material to dispute whether
the Apostle spake of habitual unworthinesse oâ— actual when all he drives at is nothing else unto his admitting to the Sacrament If I can but undermine him in that one prop his whole building will fall and the controversie come to some good issue for what Mr. Collings can doe in it let him doe the best can In the next place he saith he dares not deny but the disorderly eating in the Church of Corinth was an unworthy eating and might be a cause of their punishment vers 30. We know God is very tender of his own order and brings that instance of Uzziahs case c. This I take to be a good concession to my anwer of the 3. 4. query pag. 16 17 18. Answ The Bar removed But I see he is very unwilling to come off clearly in it mark he doth but say their unworthy eating might be a cause of their punishment The holy Apostle saith plainly for this cause many are weak and sick some dead That is the cause is plain vers 29. Their not discerning was more out of carelesnesse and profanenesse then simply out of ignorance their eating and drinking unworthily which he further explains to be their not discerning the Lords body but used the bare elements as common bread not discerning the body and bloud of the Lord they were consecrated to represent with other particular miscarriages in the time of administration for this cause saith our Apostle they were punished this were a cause saith our Author but not all the cause for which they were punished with death Who shall carry the sense now of these two competitors our Apostle or Mr. Collings I need not again urge what have formerly spoke to this Scripture 〈◊〉 Mr. Collings or any other first answer 〈◊〉 what I have done in clearing the set of the place and let them prove that were for personal unworthinesse if thâ— can or for any other sins that they wâ— guilty of before they met together for tâ— time of administration c. Let them gâ—â— us some clear demonstrations of it if they câ—â— if they cannot let them be so ingenuâ— as to give us their consent and trouble seâ—ful consciences no longer with such kind trifling uncertainties that here follow 〈◊〉 our Author Mr. Collings hath given us three argumeâ— to shew us why â—e cannot digest the seâ— that I have given of the 1 Cor. 11.20 toâ— end He saith because the Apostle chap. 5. had them of Corinth that they could not keep 〈◊〉 feast with the old leaven of malice and wickedneâ— And bidden them purge out the old leaven vers 7. And not eat with one called a brother who shâ— be a fornicator or idolater c. And agaiâ— chap. 10.21 had told them they could 〈◊〉 drink of the cup of the Lord and of the cup divels What then why did he not malâ— his conclusion that we might have clearâ— understood to what end he quotes thoâ— Scriptures as a reason But let us a little follow him in thesâ— Scriptures and examine what they will make to prove these two things 1. That the Lord punished the Corinthians for personal unworthinesse 2. That they were punished for some other sins then what they were guilty of in the time of administration which is the main thing in hand As for 1 Cor. 5. he tels us not the Apostle that they could not keep the feast with malice c. the Apostle exhorts them to purge out the old leaven meaning that of the incestuous person speaking by way of an allusion to the law of the Passeover which were to purge their houses of all leaven against that feast which continued seven days resemblably he would have them purge themselves of that wicked person whom they had indulged amongst them and made the name of God to be evill spoken of by tolerating such sins amongst them as is not so much as named amongst the Gentiles that one should have his fathers wife c. therefore deliver him to Satan purge your selves of your former connivence and indulging such and then saith he let us keep the feast but not with malice and wickednesse c. but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth meaning that he would have them spend their whole lives so the Apostle tels them what he would have them doe and how they should keep the feast Mr. Collins tels us he told them they could not keep the feast c. but he that hath but half an eye may easily discern what this place is for his purpose This proves that scandalous persons should be cast out of all Christian Communion for the conclusion of the whole is in the last verse cast out from amongst your selves that wicked person which is the thing that I all along contend for the just censures of the Church but I would have none debarred their right till then But Mr. Collings might have given us some probable grounds to prove that the feast mentioned was the holy Supper and not to leave us to such uncertainties for if it be not meant of the holy Supper what is this to his purpose Let him shew us where the Supper of the Lord is called a feast and that this feast must needs be that but this is but a shift to hold up the old interest So hard a thing it is to come off from the authority of men especially when themselves are ingaged in such wayes that men have framed But then he goes on vers Answ 11. And not eat with one called a Brother This Scripture is more fully opened hereafter as also the 1 Cor. 10.21 who should be a fornicator an Idolater c. Mr. Collings should have cleared unto us what is meant by not eat whether not eat in a civil friendly necessary sense or not eat at the holy Supper with such during their actual abode in the Church If he mean the latter in reference to the Sacrament I shall demand of him where that word eat alone is to be taken for the holy Supper and if it be not meant of the holy Supper what is this to the thing in hand The 9 10. verses doe give us some light of the Apostles meaning He had wrote an Epistle to them not to keep company with the fornicators of the world But in this Epistle he mollifies the former with some liberty else they must goe out of the world his meaning is not to keep company in a civil friendly sense unnecessarily but if a brother be such a one keep no civil friendly company with him at all no not to eat upon unnecessary occasion And so for that 10. chap. 21. They could not drink of the cup of the Lord and of the cup Divels too The main sin the Apostle aims at in this chapter is Idolatry vers 14. These Corinthians being grafted into the Christian Church did bear up themselves upon their Church priviledges too high And hence grew fearlesse of Gods judgements notwithstanding
irrational and absurd And untill some better grounds be produced for the satisfaction hereof then Mr. Collins hath given I am not like to be answered in this very thing And let me tell Mr. Collins and all that are friends to his judgement that they must make out that very thing by holy Scriptures or else themselves will be forced to yeeld the cause and not so much as threaten their poor people any more with the murder of Christ and eating and drinking their own damnation for as to that which is visible which man is to judge of in the act of publick administration what fault can any of you finde I could wish that in all other publick Worship all persons would carry themselves as reverently and be as serious and intent in their attendance upon divine appointment It 's a strange thing to me that although you cannot charge upon your people the profanation of the holy Supper in that way that the Corinths were punished for yet you fright them with the same danger and are more severe in barring them from it then ever we read of by any Apostles or Elders in Scriptures In all other duties of publick worship you presse your people to be frequent in and to doe their homage to God as well as they can you will tell them is better then to neglect them And only touching this publick duty of the Sacrament you tell them they had better to forbear And it is a lesse sin not to come then to come although they come as prepared as they can When this is a duty incumbent to all in the Church that are baptized and of years sufficient to come under the obligation of positive precepts as any other is The usual grounds you have given will never hold because you have run your selves upon such mistakes about this main place of 1 Cor. 11. and I verily believe I have made such exceptions against the common interpretations of latter Divines that you will finde it a work of such difficulty to answer to satisfaction that you will be forc't either to deny our Church to be a true Church or else let the controversie fall I mean as it consists of all baptized members in general and act as true Scripture Churches have done both in the Old and New Testament I have seen what a deal of pains Mr. Collins hath taken to make good suspension from the Sacrament I have weighed his scripture arguments as heedfully as I am able with the judgement of the ancient and modern Divines and yet I cannot discern the least solid bottome for all that he hath said in that dispute to rest upon or trust in for my own satisfaction although God knows I have not the least prejudice against any authority he hath made use of but am willing to try all things And I purpose God willing to examine the main grounds of Scripture he hath concluded suspension from if I be not otherwise prevented hereafter in the mean time I shall goe on with this undertaking in hand I confesse were this true that personal unworthinesse in the Church did of necessity cause persons to eat and drink unworthily and so bring judgment or that the ignorant and scandalous amongst us that are actual offenders upon other accounts must of necessity eat and drink unworthily if they come and so bring judgement upon themselves for unworthy receiving there were some colour for to fright men and hinder them from coming to the Sacrament but if these things will not be sufficiently made good the ground of all our fears and scruples and devices is removed and taken away and we must conclude that so long as the outward administration is carryed on with reverence and external holinesse and goâ— order sutable to the institution and rules 〈◊〉 worship that there is no other unwortâ— communion in this part of Gods publiâ—â— worship then in the other parts thereof 〈◊〉 so much for the ignorant unregenerate Châ—â—stians are more carelesse and unreverent aâ— sluggish in hearing praying singing theâ— the Sacrament I cannot tell what men mâ— say to this I finde that Mr. Collins hâ— said but little to it notwithstanding my â—â—ging it so much in my Book he knowiâ—â— that if it be not fully answered all that 〈◊〉 hath said in favour of suspension will fall 〈◊〉 the ground and his book will be woâ—â— nothing I also shall in all humility desâ—â— Mr. Collins or any of his judgement to 〈◊〉 if they can make good the affirmative of tâ—â— next question Whether the Church be able to judge 〈◊〉 particular Quest what persons upon tryal wâ—â— eat and drink unworthily in the Apostlâ— sense Answ I say it 's a thing that the best Eldershâ—â— in the Church of England cannot certainlâ— know of any member beforehand for sâ—â— they finde one very ignorant of God anâ— Jesus Christ whom he hath sent and of Sâ—craments and all other worship yet 〈◊〉 being a baptized person and professing 〈◊〉 willingnesse to learn and to serve God it his publick worship as well as he can Upon what account can any disswade him from it as I have already proved in my Book the baptized as well as the circumcised come under all observance in the Church The which I shall have occasion to speak more fully unto hereafter when I come to that which Mr. Collins hath answered to that particular If you say such will eat and drink unworthily in the Apostles sense You cannot be sure of that which was seldome or never seen in our Congregations and for to disswade from a necessary duty of worship upon such a fear before hand that was seldome or never heard of is not very rational I shall easily grant that blinde obedience and service is sinful obedience And such lye under an unsutable frame of spirit to attempt any of the things of God that are holy and sacred But how doth this impotency and unsutable frame disengage them from duty and homage especially their reverential approaches unto Sacramental Communion being such as bears a good conformity to the main materials prescribed for the carrying on the external part of that service and men can judge but according to the outward appearance so that then there being no appearance of any open abuse and profaning holy things the Church cannot charge them with any other unworthy eating or drinking then praying and hearing and singing c. Which not any that are sober doth judge a ground competent to disswade from those duties Ignorant Church-members of years no objects of Church censures especially when they are willing to learn Besides ignorance is rather a meer want that cannot in many be helped for want of vision or plain instruction the which though it be threatned and punishable by the Lord yet comes not within the verge and cognisance of men to punish otherwise then it is punished in the effects of it yea even for the actual miscarriage of such c. Say again that some persons
so to use the remedy as to prevent the judgement and to receive benefit by the Ordinance where God gave a blessing pag. 13. The Bar removed I doe not finde that Mr. Collins hath much to except against what I have answered to these two queries in my Book pag. 19 20. He grants what I have said is true but yet he sayes in case of scandalous sinners in the Church self examination is not enough but there is something to be done by the Ministers and officers of the Church he grants self examination a personal remedy but there are other Church remedies which the Apostle commandeth the use of as well as this 1 Cor. 5. I am ready to yeeld it Answ that there are Church remedies and judge that his quotation 1 Cor. 5. is so for the reforming scandalous brethren And that those that are justly delivered up to Satan or cast out of Christian Communion by the authority of the Church should not only be debarred the Sacrament but all publick Ordinances and all civil society so far as our particular callings will possibly admit of but yet I am far from thinking that the Apostle ever meant that delivering unto Satan and to put from among themselves that wicked person was no more but exclude him the Sacrament And I verily believe that the same censure that was put into execution by the decree of the Apostle was made a general rule for the Church touching their dealing with all scandalous brethren in the Church as plainly appears in the 10 11 12. verses of that chapter the which I shall more clearly speak unto when I come to examine the grounds of suspension laid down by Mr. Collins He saith He cannot subscribe to my inclination that self examination mentioned 1 Cor. 11.28 must be limited by the premises in the context as the institution repeated doth import with some other directions and cautions given in cure of their malady c. He might have done it for any strength of reason he can give to the contrary Answ for if those two things hold which I have pincht upon That the Corinths were not blamed nor punished for personal unworthinesse at all Nor 2. for any other actual offendings but meerly for their profaning the Ordinance of Christ in the very time of administration for this cause only some are weak sick and some are dead vers 30. I say if this hold as I believe it will what reason can any man have to judge that the Apostle intends more in this place then the reforming of them in those particular sins they were punished for and blamed for If they were punished for coming to the Sacrament in an unregenerate state or for want of the knowledg of God in Christ for want of love of God and of Jesus Christ of men or for any other want or miscarriage save only this so exprest in the context examination might have been urged accordingly but they being not so much as blamed for any such things in order to the Sacrament no not in this chap. or elsewhere what shew of reason can any man have to be so severe in urging of examination as a duty of that necessity that if they be not able to discern the mysteries of the Kingdome of God and to approve themselves to God to be sincere as to such particulars which are only necessary for admittance unto heavenly glory or else if otherwise they come they will but eat and drink their own damnation When in my answer I have limited this duty of self-examination to the context as if the Apostle had said unto them You being fully convinced of your former woeful abuse and profaning this holy Ordinance of Christ you must now judge and condemn your selves accordingly and approve your selves according unto the right rule prescribed unto you in the institution received from Christ understanding within your selves what this holy observance doth mean and so come and demean your selves with reverence and good order sutable to Gods Ordinance and then he tels them they should not be judged of the Lord. This saith Mr. Collins is short work indeed pag. 29. What though it be short of the ordinary lasts of some men that will extend this duty to an infinitum Answ yet until Mr. Collins or any other can confute it I shall judge it right work and no whit short of the sense oâ— this place the which were it justly applyed to ours as it ought to be they being members of the same visible body and under the same rule and priviledges of the Church and not offenders in that kinde I think a shorte work would serve did not men upon mistakâ— affect to make themselves more work the they have warrant for from their Lord. But thus he saith The wrod in the Gree will not be satisfied with such a short and seaâ— interpretation Magistrates examine malefactor more strictly and the Goldsmiths tryal of his gold a more searching tryal the Apostle expounds iâ— 2 Cor. 13.5 You must excuse me as touching the Original Answ I am not able to examine it I wish could I am afraid the truth will be prejudiced through mine inabilities yet as I aâ— informed this makes but little to his purpose the same word being so often used iâ— the New Testament and that upon differenâ—â— accounts as Rom. 2.18 chap. 14.18 and the 16.10 2 Cor. 7.11 10.18 the 13.7 Phil. 1.10 2 Tim. 2.15 by some of these places you may see we are to approve of the things that are excellent and good and holy so as to put forth our endevours in pursuance of them and to decline the contrary which is all one with 1 Cor. 11.28 the Apostle would have the Corinths to approve themselves to the rules prescribed them and so come 2 Cor. 13.5 is a different thing to 1 Cor. 11.28 there the Apostle perceived that they questioned his authority of Apostleship and required a proof of Christ speaking in him the which saith the Apostle they need not goe far for a proof of Christ in accompanying his Word by him towards them is not weak but mighty vers 3. and hence he bids them examine themselves whether they be in the faith prove your selves that Christ is in you and that would be a sufficient proof of Christs speaking in him and of his Ministerial authority Thus you may clearly see although here is the same word yet it 's used upon a far different occasion and therefore it doth not expound 1 Cor. 11.28 as Mr. Collins would have it Next he saith That another kinde of examination is here required hath been the concurrent judgement of all Divines especially those of the reformed Churches c. I heartily reverence the concurrent judgement of all Divines and it is my grief that I differ from them in some things I wish that the authority of man do not cloud the truth from some for my own part my inabilities are such that there can be no danger of swaying
baptism layes the same ingagement upon all the baptized to come under all observances of the New Testament administration that of the holy Supper as well as others hence the Apostle commends the Church of Corinth for remembring him in all things and for keeping the Ordinances as he delivered them unto them 1 Cor. 11.2 and it is not good to distinguish and dispute away duty where the Scriptures gives such a general warranty I know not well what he means by Christs commanding respectively if he judge that ours are within as the Church of Corinth were without doubt they are both under the observance and discipline of the Church If he judge that ours that are ignorant and scandalous are without then what hath he to do to judge those that are without there is no hope to amend them by discipline or ground to baptize their children or to justifie the main foundation of our Church As I said in my Book pag. 23. The Bar removed so I say again that Jesus Christ commands nothing for the hurt of his visible subjects they observing it according to their present capacity Can an instance be given in the Old or New Testament of any any that came under Circumsion or Baptism that as private members were admitted to all other Ordinances in the Church and yet were forbidden the other Sacrament the Passeover or the Lords Supper To this Mr. Collins answers with a meer trifle telling us That it will pose me to prove that those that had touched the dead body of a man might come at no ordinance but he can prove they might not come to the Passeover Numb 9. Enough hath been said to this already Answ I need but repeat Numb 19.13 20 22. The truth is what ever the unclean did touch or what ever toucht him were unclean Hag. 2. Vers 22 Nay such persons that neglected the Law for their purification were to be cut off from the Congregation because he had defiled the Sanctuary of the Lord. I might run through the several kindes of uncleannesse and shew you how they were separated both from civill as well as holy society but those that are acquainted with Scriptures will be satisfied in this thing Nay as I have noted before the Lord appointed and consecrated a season on purpose for the unclean to keep the Passeover but not so of any other Ordinance they were deprived of in the time of their uncleannesse Mr. Collins sayes Nor is that whimzy of mine pag. 25. at all better by which I prove the receiving of the Sacrament a duty incumbent upon all because included in the first Table he sayes it will pose me to prove that this duty of receiving is commanded in the first Table if it were yet he hopes preaching of the Word is so also which yet is not a duty enjoyned to all but to those only who are appointed thereto If that of mine must goe under the reproach of a whimzy with Mr. Collins Answ I know as reverend and as able Divines as Mr. Collins appears to be that doe judge that the affirmative part of the second Commandement includes all Gods institute worship which at any time he hath or shall prescribe to be done And except Mr. Collins will deny the holy Supper to be a part of Gods instituted worship it must come under this prescribed worship as well as any other there being no part exprest in the command more then another it 's enough to prove that all in the Church come under the precepts of worship the Sacrament being so they are bound to that as well as all other but then he seems to grant the thing yet he hopes so is preaching of the Word c. It 's true and as I had said in my Book pag. 25 That all Ministers what ever are bound hence to preach c. And what need we have the same again but that he had rather puzle then satisfie the weak We know that which lays an injunction upon Ministers to preach or administer c. doth also injoyn all their people to hear and receive as private Christians the Commandement doth not confound relative duties although Mr. Collins of purpose doth to deceive his Reader And me thinks it might make him blush to call that a whimzy in me which is so ordinarily delivered by as reverend men as himself and a great deal more But the Judicious Reader may easily judge what poore shifts he is put unto that excepts against the truth Let Mr. Collins give us some rational account why persons in the Church are lesse ingaged unto this part of instituted worship then all others that all of the Jews Church should come under the Law of the Passeover without exception good and bad And he to plead no duty to the holy Supper of persons in the Church too they being not worse then the carnal Jew I see not but upon the same ground he exempts them from this duty he may exempt them from all others that are essential to a Church state and so consequently not only unduty them but unchurch them too For what he hath said before implies no lesse where he is bold to undisciple them to evade this argument we draw from the command of Christ Matth. 28.20 The Doctor was somewhat sharp with my much respected friend Mr. Humfrey for making the act of receiving the principal and examination but an accessory in my vindicating of him I hinted two or three things 1. That the duty of self-examination is but a private duty And the private is to be subordinate to the publick 2. This duty of examination was prescribed occasionally as a remedy to that particular case of making a breach upon the materials of divine institution and order And we may safely say the end is most principal the means lesse 3. Where a true Church doth not so offend as Corinth did this duty is not so to be urged upon them as to the Church of Corinth But it 's clear there is not the same offending in the Church of England as there was at Corinth Therefore that duty is not to be urged upon ours with the same necessity of danger of eating and drinking unworthily as to the Church of Corinth Unto these Mr. Collins hath some exceptions 1. Whether it be sense or no he cannot tell that I say self-examination is a private duty and so subordinate to the publick and then sayes who denyes it But yet he questions whether upon an incapacity or neglect of the private the publick be a duty for where a private duty is commanded in order to prepare us for the publick we cannot without sin perform the publick before we have performed the private cleansing were the unclean persons private duty yet till it was done he might not come to the Passeover 1. Answ Though I grant self-examination a requisite duty unto a profitable receiving and judge the neglect thereof sinful yet so long as the publique administrations are carryed on with reverence
religion in some measure namely 1. The union of Christ with the Father 2. The union of the two natures in the person of Christ. 3. The mystical union of the soul with Christ 4. The mysterious exercise of faith in applying the soul to the pronise c. and this is all his proof the which amounts just to as much as his say so as to his quotation 1 Cor. 11.28 enough hath been spoken already to shew the vanity of his high flown conceptions And indeed a most pernicious perplexing tenent to poor doubting weak unsatisfied Christians should it be believed I have alwayes been taught that Sacraments are the lowest condescensions of the love of Christ to his weakest babes they being suted so familiarly to our bodily senses as it were with Thomas his seeing and feeling the body of Christ was more effectual to make him believe then the testimony of their word who preached Christ was risen indeed But the next he saith The Sacrament is the seal of the righteousnesse of faith and hence it seemes incongruous to the ignorant and scandalous that have not faith The question is of the unregenerate in the Church Answ the which may be discernable by these Characters of ignorant and scandalous in part and know that I have nothing to say in behalf of them that hate instruction and that persist in their vile abominable doings after admonition and due conviction unto obstinacy Let such be declined and avoided as unworthy of all Christian Communion and spare not but for those that are yeelding sinners and are ready to condemn themselves upon all occasions if being wisely dealt withall expressing themselves willing and desirous to amend these I think should have the benefit of all the Ordinances as the ordinary means of their salvation But now to his assertion That the Sacrament is the seal of the righteousnesse of faith We know that Sacraments which had their Original from God unto Abraham Gen. 17. were tokens of the everlasting Covenant of grace made with Abraham and his seed God having deputed him to be a father of many Nations And that all the Nations of the earth shall be blessed in him c. Circumcision was appointed to be a token unto Abraham in this comprehensive sense that not only they that were his seed by natural descent but those also that shall embrace the profession of the faith of Abraham shall be blessed with him even they and their natural issue also And the Apostle Rom. 4.4 descants much upon this large Covenant or promise made unto Abraham in the warranty of the Gentiles engrafting into the stock of Abraham by faith the which the Jews stumbled at and fell into prejudices and discontents upon the Gentiles embracing of the Gospel concluding it false because they imbraced it that were always left of God and so abominable to the Church as naturally descended from Abraham and the Prophets c. The Apostle disputes this thing with them and saith Is he a God of the Jews only is he not of the Gentiles also Yes of the Gentiles also chap. 3.29 And he tels them their fleshly priviledges according to the Law will not continue them the people of God without faith in Christ And by faith in Christ the Gentiles are made the people of God unto Justification opposing faith unto works chiefly in point of Justification as in the beginning of the 4. chapter is expressed in that instance of Abraham and David It was not works but faith that was reckoned unto Abraham for righteousnesse in his uncircumcised state and hence he argues Abraham to be a father of the uncircumcision as well as of the circumcision because he received the token of circumcision a seal of the righteousnesse of that faith he had in his uncircumcision that he might be the father of all that believe that righteousnesse might be imputed to them also and a father of the believing circumcision too c. Now then what was the main thing that Abraham is thus commended for and blessed for Why it 's said He believed God and that was imputed unto him for righteousnesse But then we may enquire what was the thing he believed God would be as good as his word to him in Answer It ' was this that God had made him a father of many Nations though he had no child yet he believed against hope c. And this was imputed unto him for righteousnesse We know that Abraham after the flesh was not a father of many Nations that is not the sense but he is so in a spiritual sense by religion and saith and that 's the thing the Apostle drives at to prove him a father of all that come in unto his religion and faith And that all such are of him and blessed with him And doubtlesse Abraham that saw this day of Christ and rejoyced so understood it that all the Nations of the Earth should be blessed in him by faith and this blessednesse to begin in his own natural family and to be extended unto all Nations in time And hence that is true I will be thy God and the God of thy seed in their generations for ever Gen. 17.7 and that he should be the father of many Nations and that they should be blest in him c. This is the everlasting Covenant of Grace that Abraham believed and this is the faith that circumcision was a token of and did confirm the truth of to him and all that are in him by religion for ever even to them and theirs and I doubt not but the Sacrament seals to the same faith still in reference to them that have entered the same Covenant and professe their subjection to the laws and administration thereof but I have not exprest my self in this so fully and clearly as I could wish I shall have occasion to doe more in it hereafter This by the way to give a hint what the Apostle means in calling circumcision a seal of the righteousnesse of that faith that Abraham yet had in uncircunacision it being too ambiguously lest and applyed by Mr. Collins in order unto Church-members unregenerate Mr. Collins hath two or three things more in the 32. pag. but finding nothing in them that doth trouble us about the question in hand I passe them by though it 's true he takes the boldnesse to deny yet he doth not give any ground or reason why but takes all for granted still though I have rationally cleared the contrary in my answer to the query pag. 36 37 38 39. Bar removed I shall now see what he excepts against my 6. proposition pag. 30. 31. I conceive that Sacraments in general and this in particular were instituted for the spiritual good of the Church of Christ comprehensively taken in which every particular member is included First he grants as much pag. 33. and then addes his jus ad rem and then queries how this proves that therefore every particular member ought in his present state come
examine himself and so let him come Philip put it upon the Ethiopian Eunuch Answ to examine whether he believed with all his heart or no in order unto baptism And I think that was more then the other of Paul to the Corinths Baptism to men of years was upon the condition of a personal faith without which they might not be baptized implyed by this If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayst otherwise not but there is no such thing in order to the Supper they were to examine themselves and so come it cannot be reasonably conceived of that if they neglected this private duty they should not come for it was their duty to come together to celebrate the Supper but not to profane it for the worse Profession of faith was a publick duty in order to baptism without which they could not be baptized but examination but a private duty left to God and our own consciences which no publick officers have to doe with concerning others but to instruct and to exhort unto the duty c. they have not the like warrant to require an account whether the private hath been performed much lesse to debar them upon a supposal of non-performance or prejudge of their incapacity before hand and so discourage from coming together for which we have not one syllable of warrant but I have spoken enough to this already Remember the abuse of the Brazen Serpent He saith The children of the legally unclean were not forbid circumcision but the unclean man might not eat the Passeover The unclean during his uncleannesse Answ 1 might not circumcise his child circumcision being instituted a token of the Covenant which an unclean man might no more defile and make unclean then any other religious service And what though it were to be done the eight day it might be rejourned for a week upon the same reason as the Passeover was for a month and circumcision in another case for forty years we know the rule in cases of necessity God will rather have mercy then sacrifice There is no legal uncleannesse in the Church now and therefore this doth not so much as reach the argument and indeed his other two are as little for his turn he must finde a better answer then so or tell us where to finde one or else the argument will cleave so close that he will be forced to narrow Infant baptism unto the holy Supper or enlarge the Supper unto Infant Baptism or be irrational and absurd in so flat a contradiction as hath been hinted And to prevent some mistake let me intreat the Reader carefully to consider That although I have said that more is required unto the Supper then unto Baptism It is to be understood in the Church of persons that are Church-members by nature But of Aliens I conceive more is required of them unto baptism then of Church-members unto the Supper especially when they were members by birth priviledge The ground is this because a publick profession of faith is necessary for the admitting of a Heathen into the visible Catholick Church by baptism And so of his entring the Gospel Covenant for himself and seed but to them that are in Covenant by birth it is otherwise their Covenant right remains untill it be forfeited by renouncing the Covenant or hating to be reformed by the Churches just censures And while they are in the Covenant and in the Church they may not be denyed the external priviledges thereof although they be transgressors of the Covenant c. But to proceed and come more close to the query in hand namely Whether there be any thing in the nature end action language of the Sacrament incongruous to the unregenerate in the Church receiving in 1 Cor. 11. or elsewhere To which I have in the general shewed a congruity between the Sacrament and the unregenerate in the Church And have answered unto Mr. Collins exceptions against me Now we come more directly to the query and to what is excepted against us I must confesse in pag. 36. Bar removed there is a great mistake but who were faulty in it I cannot well tell the 19. line is out of place and is to be prefixed to my three arguments to prove the Sacrament a converting Ordinance pag. 40. for that which follows page 36. line 19. is to demonstrate a sutablenesse or congruity in the Sacrament to the unregenerate mans receiving where the particulars of the question are examined and cleared And hence Mr. Collins followes the mistake and makes himself merry with those three new arguments as he had thought they were but he findes the first as old as Pauls steeple And the third proves a Monkies right to the Sacrament in his pag. 35 36. I confesse my nature inclines me too much to give him returns sutable unto his vein of levity Answ but I shall rather choose to keep to the question and inform the Reader again touching this question in hand I laid down the nature of the Sacrament to be a visible Gospel representing Christ and him crucified to the outward senses of the body to that end that they might be the in lets of the soul to give the application of the benefits of Christs death to the heart and conscience And I thought the unregenerate in the Church have as much need of the use of all their senses to understand Christ and him crucified and to apply the benefits that come by him as the regenerate and more they being more dull to understand or to be affected with the benefits and blessings that come to sinners by vertue thereof Unto this Mr. Collins saith Bravely concluded from need to right is wide concluding I conclude from the nature of the Sacrament Answ 1 c. That therefore the unregenerate in the Church have need to be allowed the use of all their senses to let in the knowledge of Christ as the regenerate they being more dull c. And hence I conceive a congruity unto such he sayes from need to right is wide concluding The question is not to prove a right but a congruity or rather to free the unregenerate from the charge of incongruity c. unto which Mr. Collins excepts nothing against the nature of it In spiritual things unto the Church I much question whether it be wide concluding from need to right I am sure need and wants are the only objects of Gods free bounty in giving Christ and all he gives with him With him the fatherlesse and desolate finde mercy If any want wisdome let them ask it of God who gives freely What though from need to right doth not alwayes hold in the Courts of men it 's a good plea in the Court of free grace and well taken when sinners come off in the use of Gods own appointments for the obtaining of a blessing of supply unto their necessities In the next place we are to examine what Mr. Collins excepts against the end of the Sacrament as I have exprest
premises Answ 1 the conclusion needs no proof If the same instruments of the Spirit unto conversion be in the administration of the Sacrament as at the other parts of the Ministerial work in the Church then we must allow the fame effect to the one as to the other both being the Ordinance of God and performed by persons in the Office and Function of the Ministry But in the administration of the Sacrament are the same instruments of the Spirit unto conversion as Word Prayer c. Therefore the Sacrament is appointed for conversion in the Church Whereas he sayes Then doubtlesse the excommunicate should not be debarred it is no consequence because converting of sinners is not all the ground why God commands his Church to observe all things of his prescribing but his own glory in commanding what he will because he will Besides 2. Bar removed pag. 70 71 72 73. The excommunicate should be put out of all Church Communion in all other parts of publick worship as well as from the Sacrament as I have made it out in my answer unto Doctor Drake which is not yet answered by any 3. This implyes that the unregenerate are not to doe any thing by way of duty but what is for conversion not be diligent in their callings shew mercy and doe justly c. because these duties are not appointed to convert them Next all men confesse that the Word and Prayer as they are publick Ordinances of God are for conversion in the Church But without the Word and Prayer sanctifying and setting apart the elements of Bread and Wine there can be no Sacrament Therefore the Sacrament as consisting in Word and Prayer is converting This Mr. Collins tearms A thread-bare argument that hath a great hole in it For though the Word and Prayer are means of conversion and they doe constantly attend the Sacrament yet it doth not follow that the Sacrament quà Sacrament is so nor is there any need for conversion that the unregenerate should be at it for they may hear and pray and not receive Why did not Mr. Collins really discover a hole in the argument by some solid answer but fancy a hole before it be made he confesses the Word and Prayer are means of conversion and so grants my major and upon the matter grants my minor by saying that Word and Prayer doe constantly attend the Sacrament but yet he is not willing to yeeld the conclusion which is not very rational I concluding no more then what he grants in the propositions But he saith It will not follow that the Sacrament quà a Sacrament is converting either he must mean that the giving and receiving without word and Prayer is the Sacrament quà a Sacrament or that giving and receiving the signes in relation to Word Prayer conjoyned is the Sacrament quà a Sacrament If he means the former let him prove that giving and receiving the signes of Bread and Wine without Word and Prayer is the Sacrament If the latter then in his granting the premises he yeilds the conclusion and thus you may quickly see what a great hole the hath made in this argument But then he saith Nor is there any need for conversion that the unregenerate should be at it for they may pray and hear and not receive No! Answ is there no great need of converting the unregenerate I had thought they have great need to take the advantage of every Ordinance in the Church appointed for their spiritual good and in order to conversion And have not they as much need to enjoy the benefit of instituted signes conjoyned to the Word and Prayer to represent the death and passion of Jesus Christ unto the outward senses which are the inlets to the understanding heart and conscience as any others But then he sayes They may hear and pray and not receive It 's true so may any other doth it therefore follow that none may receive or that hearing and praying in order to receiving is sufficient without taking and eating and drinking the institute signes in remembrance of the death of Christ Or would he have them to hear and pray in order to receiving and then turn their backs upon Gods holy Ordinance after they have prayed unto God for his blessing upon it The Reverend Doctor said That presence might answer this end unto which I answered If bare presence much more actual receiving But now Mr. Collins sayes That they cannot promise them that their presence will do them good but they are sure he saith their receiving will not And hence concludes my consequence is naught Who can promise before-hand that any other Ordinance in the Church shall doe the unregenerate good by their presence at the time shall they not therefore give their presence It 's the language of Scripture that all in the Church are to keep Gods statutes and judgements for their good But he is sure their receiving will doe them no good I wonder how he dare limit the holy One and detract so injuriously from the wisdome power and grace of Christ in his own appointments He hath confessed before that the Sacraments were instituted for the spiritual good of the visible Church of Christ in general and that this Church consists of good and bad and now he sayes the Sacrament wil doe the unregenerate no good Doth he think the unregenerate are not of the visible Church that Sacraments were instituted for the good thereof The judicious Reader may easily discern how consonant he is to his own judgement in more things then this But this antecedent of his That he is sure their receiving will doe them no good is sufficient to publish to the world that my consequence is naught c. in answer to the Doctor But why doth Mr. Collins give us his argument for the negative He turns me over to Mr. Gillespy that hath twenty arguments I suppose himself may use some of them in his answer to Mr. Barkesdales 9. argument wherein he seemes to make a shew of silenceing all men that hold the Sacrament a converting Ordinance pag. 14. And because the argument which he answers unto is the same with mine I shall crave leave of Mr. Barksdale to examine in brief the strength of his because he thinks he hath done enough at once to shew thevanity of our opinion 1. He argues from the absurdities that will follow Then it is as proper to go to the Heathen and call them to a Sacrament in order to their conversion as to preach the Gospel unto them It concerns Mr. Collins to prove that every Ordinance in the Church instituted for the good thereof Answ 1 doth belong unto Heathen and such and may be used for their good Let him prove that the unbaptized Heathen are as much in Covenant relation and under the obligation of all Christian observance as the unregenerate Christian Let him prove that whatsoever is for conversion in the Church is for the good of Heathens as
well as preaching the Gospel The exercise of discipline is for converting an offending brother doth it follow that Church discipline is to convert Heathens to whom it never was intended or appointed Besides we know the unbaptized is not to eat thereof were there the like ground to the unregenerate Christian I should be satisfied Thus you may see even in the very thing wherein he would charge absurdity upon us it will return upon himself by putting no difference between the Church of Christ and the Infidel world He sayes If the Sacrament be a converting Ordinance there can be no personal unworthinesse sufficient to debar any from it then come Turks Indians Papists excommunicate persons c. This is but the same again in other words Answ which I have answered again and again all along here is a plain levelling the Church with the world again as if the same personal unworthinesse were in the Church as is in the world doth it follow that because no personal unworthinesse in the Church is sufficient to debar any from the Sacrament but only actual persisted in unto excommunication that therefore there is no personal unworthinesse in the unclean Pagan world that lies in unbelief They must first receive the Doctrine of the Gospel before they can be brought into the Church where the Sacraments are to be administred And as for those that are in Covenant-relation and in possession of Church-membership it 's true personal unworthinesse can be no bar because in a relative sense there is no such thing in the Church but I have said enough to this already He saith If it be a converting Ordinance he can see no reason why the Communicant should be bound to examine himself and so eat or whether he hath skill to discern the Lords body The Word and Prayer are converting Ordinances Answ and yet he may see reason enough to urge upon such preparation and caution prerequisite and concomitant in those duties of hearing and praying if he examine the Scriptures in order to a blessing the same may be said of the Sacrament if Mr. Collins be not too perverse But then he comes to speak distinctly to the argument He distinguisheth between converting by accident or by institution designed unto that end in an Ordinancel hearing of the Word is such faith comes by hearing Rom. 10. Hear and your soul shall live let any shew us a Scripture speaking to this purpose concerning the Lords Supper 'T is true faith comes by hearing Answ and hearing by the Word of God But doth it follow that all other Ordinances are excluded from being a means of working sincere faith in the Church when they are joyned with the Word in the work of the Ministry as hath been said already That of Rom. 10. proves that it is not possible that any should call upon the name of the Lord in whom they have not beleived And how should they believe in him of whom they have not so much as heard of And how shall they hear without a Preacher c. which is spoken to the case of Heathens that never heard of Christ Such must of necessity hear Christ before they can believe in him And this faith comes by hearing and this hearing by the Word of God by a Preacher sent This was the ordinary means of bringing persons into the Church that were Pagans born and then being within they had the benefit of all other Ordinances in the Church for their edification and salvation What then will it follow hence that persons born in the Church that draw in the knowledge of Christ by education and tradition in their youth cannot believe or have faith in any other way but by hearing only The promise is that whosoever shall call upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved in opposition to those that never heard of his Name Salvation is of the Christian Church as once of the Jews unto which promise of Salvation all the Ordinances set up in the Church are subservient The work of the Ministry was to be carryed on by the Pastors and Teachers fixed unto their several flocks in the Church which they are constantly to attend upon for the spiritual good thereof as they which must give an account thereof unto their Lord and it concerns them faithfully to carry on the whole work of their Ministry accordingly towards their whole flock and not to make Heathens of them then content themselves onely with preaching unto them on the Lords day and the work is done as if there were no more care to be taken with Church-members then with Pagans nor no more means to be used for their spiritual good then they would use unto Heathen whom the work of the Ministry was never intended for And whereas Mr. Collins cals for proof Where are the like Scriptures to prove the Sacrament a converting Ordinance as is preaching and hearing I answer him by distinguishing thus hearing of faith preached was and is the ordinary means of sincere believing in the Church of which the Sacrament is a special part Befides the Sacrament cannot be administred without hearing the Word of God and prayer with the use of other senses as it is the visible compendium of the whole Gospel holding forth Christ crucified for remission of fins But to speak a little unto his other quotation Isai 55. Hear and your souls shall live This was spoken unto the Church he will say I grant it was and more then this too as that chapter shews That first they were invited to come unto God in whom all spiritual blessing was to be had for the satisfying of every empty thirsty soul and disswaded from thinking to be satisfied elsewhere Secondly exhorted unto several duties 1. To hearken diligently unto what the Lord had said unto them and be satisfied with good Then 2. incline your ear and come unto me that you may be satisfied with the fatnesse of my house They were to hear and come to God too in all holy obedience for in the Scriptures men are said not to hear when they will not regard to doe what the Lord hath commanded them so hear that your souls may live hear and doe is the language of the holy Ghost to the Church usually 3. Then to seek God while he will be found and to call upon him him while he is neer seek him in all his own appointments and Ordinances where he hath promised his presence 4. Then is subjoyned Let the wicked forsake his way and the unrighteous man his thoughts And let him return unto the Lord and he will have mercy on him c. Therefore you may easily conceive here is not only hear and your soul shall live but all other duties of worship and observance are required also in the Church in order to a blessing of spiritual life and there are promises of grace and mercy unto the Church in that same chapter upon their doing their duties enjoyned the which doth make good the
He says That Sacraments are strong meat which weak Christians are not able to digest and that they are seals of faith only He denyes the Sacrament to be a converting Ordinance because then Heathens should come c. And will not have the unregenerate Christians to come under any duty but what is converting He affirms that in an unlearned Congregation a single Minister may suspend from the Sacrament he being the ruling part of the Church c. And yet in all other thing seeme to bear himself much upon the authority of men With such like things as these he thinks he hath loosened all that I have built upon and hence thinks that the whole will fall but he must take a great deal of pains more then yet he hath done if he think to be the man that must give satisfaction in this Controversie And I believe he must speak a great deal more then hath been spoken by any if in the least he can make good suspension from the Sacrament more then from any other part of holy Communion in sacred worship I mean of Church-members of years of discretion as the question is stated He must not think that the authority of men will carry the thing it being a businesse of this consequence that on which the peace and settlement depends which can never be as to our condition so long as men make habitual worthinesse in a real sense that which alone gives one right to the Sacrament 2. And set up the distinction of Believer and Infidel in the Church 3. And level the unregenerate part of the Church with the world in respect of Covenant relation promises of first grace work of the Ministry feals of the Covenant c. Such like interferings in a visible Church doth destroy it and pluck up the very foundation on which the Church of England stands My constant prayer to the Lord is and shall be that he will so favour us with the blessings of his people as to give us Magistrates and Ministers that may be tender in protecting and defending the Vine which himself hath planted And it 's pity that Mr. Collins and divers others of his judgement should not see where truth and the Churches peace lyes I have done with him as to what he hath excepted against my Book in particular I shall very briefly examine his strength for Suspension from the Lords Supper FINIS I shall in the next place annex a short Answer to or an Examination of Mr. Collins Quotations and Arguments for that which he cals A Juridical Suspension from the Lords Supper the main Subject of his late Book BEloved Friends I am sorry that our Author should take such a deal of pains to make good that thing that hath and doth so much trouble and hinder the edification and peace of the Church and hath been the occasion of the extirpation of the Churches Discipline and the main impediment of an establishment of Discipline at the present And how impossible it is that the Church of England should be preserved and secured in a Church state from the common reproaches of adversaries upon his principles let them that are sober judge when himself is equalling the most of her members to the Infidel world disobliging them from duties of instituted worship and observance under this pretence that they are unbelievers and no disciples nor brethren that are within and hence he will allow them just as much priviledge in the Church as he doth unto Pagans except baptizing their Infants which he will hardly doe upon their own parents faith but upon their remote predecessors And thus he makes a great stir about suspension from the Sacrament and by this groundlesse censure doth hinder or make invalid other necessary commands of Jesus Christ to the great prejudice of the Church of Christ As namely the benefit of Gods Ordinance of Sacrament and just excommunications according to the practice of Apostolical Churches when this suspension was not known nor heard of And therefore I having spoke so much already in defence of this priviledge and and right of a Church-member and that being already ingaged in this Controversie give me leave further to answer to what I can finde urged against the friends of my judgement that hath not as yet been spoken unto as may satisfie the plain minded Christian that is not able to unravel so many subtil needlesse syllogisms that Mr. Collins abounds with in his elaborate Book But I intend brevity And therefore expect not my answer unto every thing but to his main grounds he hath laid for suspension In stating of the question Mr. Collins sayes 1. As to suspending of some persons from the Supper he means no more then a denyal of that Ordinance from some pag. 1. 2. He distinguisheth of Suspension To be either Juridical or Pastoral Positive or Primitive 3. Of a Presbytered Church he saith They finding some of their members grossely ignorant or seandalous not excommunicated in the Name of the Lord Jesus are to warn them to forbear coming to the Lords Table for a time and if they presse in to deny it them declaring the Church hath no Communion with them pag. 3. I shall speak unto that suspension he cals Juridical and Positive only Answ 1 for if I can break him in the proof of that his other will appear to be a dream But to the question 1. He saith They mean no more by suspension then a denyal of that Ordinance of the Supper from them for a time Then 2. In case they will come to deny it them declaring the Church hath no communion with them Here you may take notice how clear Mr. Collins is in stating the question 1. He makes suspension no more but a deâ—yal of the Sacrament from some for a time And then secondly the Church declares they have no Communion with them so that he in stating the question layes foundation for a Suspension and Excommunication both For if excommunidation consists not in putting out of all Church Communion I know not what it is He so confounds these that I know not how to take him And therefore I must query him a little further about the question stated I query whether a Minister with his Parochial Lay Elders be a Presbytery that can saspend their members Juridically I judge this but the same with a Pastor denying the Sacrament at his private will and pleasure Such Elders have no more to do with the exercise of discipline then with the administrations of all publique worship They have not so much as a name nor the lineaments of an Office known in Scripture And it is a businesse of the like difficulty to prove lay rulere in the Church distinct from Ministerial rulers as to prove Juridicall Suspension from the Sacrament only distinct from Excommunication I query whether in suspending of members from the Sacrament their proceedings be according to that known rule Matth. 18.15 16 17 c. and how they can apply
that rule unto the ignorant that are not scandalous they may doe well to tell us I query what difference they make between a Juridical suspended member and those that keep away out of carelesnesse or dislike of their proceeding in order unto receiving I query again in what relation doth a suspended member stand in reference unto holy Communion in the other parts of Gods worship Has he a Communion with you as a Church-member upon the account of his duty and Church priviledge or as you will allow the presence of a Heathen in order to conversion If you say but as a Heathen whom you will allow the benefit of converting Ordinances in the Church then your suspension is the same with excommunication for you allow an excommunicate person as much benefit of converting Ordinances as a Heathen And if you say hearing and praying c. You allow as a members duty and priviledge then in those acts of worship you hold communion with them as members of the same body with you then how is it that you declare unto such in the name of Christ and the Church that you have no communion with them as Mr. Collins hath stated it If in the third place you say The Church declares she will have no Communion with such in the Sacrament as a member onely limiting her none Communion to that and from no other holy Communion in worship as a member then you will make a disagreement in acts of worship which are all acts of holy Communion and make a renâ— in that which is uniform in it self by Godâ— appointment all acts of worship being of Gods own prescribing and are incumbenâ— unto all that are in Covenant relation with him as all Church-members are untill they be legally dismembred conditionally the Churches censures binding persons under wrath untill they penitently return unto Christian obedience If Church-membership be not a sufficient title to claim the benefit of a Sacrament as I have stated it cleared and proved it we should rather begin the reforming of our Church at membership if we can tell how then at the Sacrament the Sacrament being the undoubted right of every Church-member If suspension put persons out of all Church Communion in acts of holy worship then they are considered as in the state of Heathens which is all one with excommunication And therefore Mr. Collins hath taken a great deal of pains to prove I know not what unlesse it be excommunication under the name of Juridical suspension and then what will become of suspension it will fall of it's own accord without any further disputing Doubtless if there be such a Church censure as suspension distinct from excommunication then we should finde something of it in the Scriptures And in what cases it should be exercised if it be a lesser censure then in reason we should have some hints from Scriptures for what sins or for what want of qualifications prerequisite unto the Sacrament more then any other Ordinance of Worship Now Mr. Collins saith If he can but prove it in any case how ignorant heretical or scandalous soever c. pag. 4. Mr. Botemans challenge will be answered True but that still remains to doe and if Mr. Collins fail in the stating of the question it 's ten to one he is at as great a losse in his proof Therefore I will suppose that that suspension which Mr. Boteman would have proved is this that a Minister with his two Elders have power in the Name of Christ to deny the Sacrament to those that are Church-members and in possession of the Sacrament and allow them the priviledge of all the other Ordinances of Worship and Communion in the Church as members of the same Church And I believe Mr. Boteman and I shall never see nor hear that suspension proved by any whatever from the Scriptures And I think that the thing he endeavours to prove either he means this or else the same with excommunication if he wil allow them no other Communion with the Church then unto Heathens Now I come to examine his proof and his principal examination is this To those whom the Sacrament may not lawfully be given it may lawfully be denyed But there be some baptized persons in the Church to whom it may not lawfully be given Ergo His Major is granted Answ let us see how he can prove his Minor Namely that there are or may be some baptized persons not excommunicate to whom the Sacrament may not lawfully be given His first proof of this is Matth. 7.6 Give not that which is holy unto Dogs neither cast you your pearls before Swine lest they trample them under their feet and turn again and rent you He is a great deal more large upon this proof then he is profitable or pertinent to the businesse I shall endtvour first to give the sense and then to examine the main of his for he is too large for me to transcribe I conceive then That this Text of our blessed Saviour is chiefly spoken by way of counsel and caution unto his Disciples and followers in general respecting all that were then present hearers of him at his Sermon upon the Mount that gave credit unto his Doctrine and acknowledged his Person and whereas he would not have them give that which is holy to the dogs he means private reproofs and admonitions because those were perillous times in regard of the cruel carping In fidel Pharisees and Jews that were such deadly enemies unto him and unto all that should speak on his behalf therefore in reference to the safety of their persons he warrants their silence rather then to put their persons upon such imminent danger of being rent by that untoward generation of malicious enemies of Christ and especially Christ knowing that they were given up to a spirit of blindenesse and hardnesse of heart that they should not repent and therefore whatever Pearls of Divine Truth were cast unto them for their good were to no purpose they would but slight and scorn them and trample them under their feet so that the reason is double why he warrants their filence to such dogs not only the safety of their persons but the unprofitablenesse of their reproofs and holy admonitions they will but trample them under feet c. Good reason had our blessed Saviour thus to caution his Disciples for if I mistake not Christ himself not long before was led by such kind of wretched people unto the brow of a hill thinking to have thrown him down headlong but by a divine power escaped through the midst of them If you compare Matth. 4. with Luke 4. 't is probable that it was before this Sermon 1. That it was meant of private admonition or reproof is clear because it was before the twelve were so much as all called much lesse sent publickly to preach 2. It cannot be meant of publick Ordinances in the Church of Christ because then the old administrations were in form which all were
injoyned to observe And the new administrations were not then in being 3. It could not be meant of the Lords Supper because it was not instituted then nor of two or three years after therefore those whom he preacht unto and meant by the word yea could not be in a capacity to give that holy thing at all 4. By Dogs and Swine cannot be meant Disciples and those that were followers and adherers unto Christ for to them is this counsel and moderate merciful caution given I do not deny but this place is applyable unto all times in the Church upon the same or like reason and occasion but I think this place is nothing at all to the Controversie in hand for I know of none that will plead for the admission of such that will rent you for giving them the holy Supper And as that is no reason why they should deny it to ours so not the sense of the place as by dogs were not meant professors and followers of Christ then so not now but by dogs must needs be understood cruel persecutors of Christ the truth of precious doctrine that he taught and was believed by many And therefore when he first sent forth his Disciples to preach the Kingdome of heaven only to the Jews Christ gives them the like counsel Behold Matth. 10. I send you as Sheep among Wolves be ye therefore wise as Serpents and innocent as Doves And when they persecute you in one City flee to another And shake the dust off your feet against those that will not receive you but are ready rather to rent you You see our blessed Saviour compares the unbelieving Jews Scribes and Pharisees and Priests unto Wolves which are a kinde of wilde dogs the which strengthens the sense I have given Tell me where the Prophets or Apostles are forbid to warn reprove admonish the Church though never so corrupt in their publick dispensations or forbid to administer the holy Sacraments unto them from the like reasons as in the Text. The Prophets were to give warning and tell the people of their sins and of Gods judgements for their sins the Pastors and Elders of their several flocks are to feed the flock of God and to teach them all observances prescribed by their Lord. And see that their people know observe and doe all things that Christ commands ruling over them as the heritage of their Lord and not as if they were of Belial Dogs and Swine whom they may shut out of doores and starve them at their pleasure Having given this sense which I doubt not but is nearer the mark and lesse lyable unto exceptions then Mr. Collins his sense will appear to be And is applyable to men of reproveable spirits now and in the Church too unto private Christians that upon their necessary journey or otherwise may possibly meet with such that will not bear reproofs be it performed with never such wisdom but will either fly in the face or reproach and scorn their reprover In such like cases Christ doth warrant his peoples silence Indeed Mr. Beteman hath done well upon this text and although it were not very civil for Mr. Collins to print his brothers Sermon without his consent and that at second hand too himself not hearing it at all Yet I doubt not but his printing of that Sermon hath done much in taking off what he so freely asperses and reproacheth him with in his long narrative preface But in such cases as before the Church were she in a capacity might use her power to reform such rayling dogged offenders Mr. Collins queries 1. What is meant by that which is holy which was forbid to be given 2. Who are the Dogs and Swine here spoken of 3. To whom this precept is directed His answer to the first is That all holy things and pearls are here forbid c. which the Scripture doth not elsewhere plainly allow to be given unto Dogs and Swine Secondly He sayes he hopes it will easily be granted to concern such holy things as God hath betrusted us Ministers to give out His reason is For is is to men Christ spakes How can Mr. Collins be assured Answ 1 that all holy things are here meant when Christ saith only to private men that he preacht unto Give not that which is holy unto the dogs Were private hearers in a capacity to give all holy things This interp retation will please some men in these exorbitant times that put no difference between persons in the Office and Function of the Ministry and private gifted men Private reproofs instructions admonitions is that which is holy and answers the Word for Christ doth not say give not all holy things speaking in the plural number as Mr. Collins doth nor doth he say give not that which shall be holy hereafter unto the dogs within my Church as Mr. Collins would have it but he saith Give not that which is holy c. speaking in the present tense and then judge whether the holy Supper be here meant that was not yet instituted nor prophesied of Nay see how our Author is intoxicated with his own fancy that he fetches first such a compasse to include it in and then so narrows the text again that he excludes all other holy things out of it and will allow no other thing to be meant but the holy Supper only which is not to be given unto dogs saith he this is a fine fetch to prove suspension indeed if it would hold 't is certain the Sacrament was not spoken of in this text at all Whereas he saith He hopes it will be granted him that the text concerns all such holy things as are betrusted unto Ministers by God himself for it is men that Christ speaks unto See his reason Answ we must grant him that the text concerns all holy things which Ministers are intrusted with to dispense because they were men that Christ spoke to as if all men were intrusted with publike Ordinances And he cannot prove that any of his hearers were in Office to dispense holy things if he could he would have said Ministers for men but I shall proceed and come to his second query What is meant by Dogs and Swine His answer to this is something large in giving the opinion of the learned but I shall not meddle with his authorities but to what himself saith in his 15 16. pages wherein he shews that the Scriptures call some men dogs in several respects but I shall only examine those which concern the argument in hand namely who are Dogs and Swine in the Church of Christ whom Ministers are forbid to give the Sacrament unto and allow them the benefit of all the other Ordinances To his 1 2 3. account let the indifferent reader look unto his quotations and he will be satisfied that they concern not the argument in hand His 4. is Wicked men both in the Old Testament Prov. 26.11 and in the New 2 Pet. 2.22 are called dogs
because as the dog filthily licks up his vomit again c. That of Solomon is this Answ As a dog returns to his vomit so a fool returns to his folly Every fool is not a wicked man yet every wicked man is a fool in Scripture sense I think but it doth not follow that every wicked gracelesse man is a dog though he may have some properties like the properties of a dog but this is a different property from that in the text and nothing to the purpose That of Peter is meant of Apostates falling from the Truth and profession of faith once embraced like those that St. Paul prophesies of men shall arise from among your selves speaking perverse things and shall draw disciples after them such as these Peter speaks of that turn from the Truth unto Error and upon that account take upon them to be Teachers that they may vent their damnable heresies c. and so fall away from the true Church either to their former vomit of Heathenism or to wallow in the mire of their former sensuality such need not to be suspended that fall off from the Church of themselves This will not reach the argument in hand as to our case His 5. is Heathens are called dogs Mat. 7.27 and we will yeild the argument so far His last is Sinners in general are called dogs Phil. 3.2 Beware of dogs where he means false teachers rightly called dogs saith Musculus This is fine Answ false Teachers are rightly called Dogs from his quotation as he proveâ— by reverend Musculus and yet this he quotes to prove that sinners in general are called dogs What are all sinners in general false Teachers Then the grossely ignorant are too And if false Teachers that pervert and trouble the Church be rightly called dogs then offending brethren that adhere to the doctrine and profession of the Church are but falsely called dogs for they are to be admonished as brethren Let Mr. Collins shew us some Scriptures to prove that Church-members disciples or any one that is called a brother and within that is an object of Church-censures is any where called a dog Doth not himself say that one that was excommunicate was to be admonished as a brother according unto 2 Thes 3.15 And doth not the Apostle allow a disorderly member the title of a brother And would not have such counted an enâ—my or dog which Mr. Collins makes of all sinners in general as before And so himself too if he be a sinner which I believe he will confesse that he is but me thinks if Mr. Collins will allow a disorderly stubborn sinner under excommunication to be a brother for so he takes that quotation then he hath little reason to count a member under the indulgence of the Church a dog or a swine The truth is he is so miserably out I think he did not know what he writ and he had need have a better head then mine to bring all his ends together in this argument they are so wide one from another and the Church and World so confounded into one that I cannot tell what to make of him For if we say saith he that by dogs are meant the Heathen as Mark. 7.27 Then either those only or those amongst others 2 If we say the latter then they yeeld it What doth he mean by Heathen amongst others Answ but the ignorant and offending brethren in the Church Thus you see they must be the dogs in the text or else he will make Heathens of professing Christians in the Church to doe it I but if we say that the Heathen are the only dogs to whom only holy things should be denyed then holy things may be given unto Persecutors and the Excommunicate 1. Answ I have denyed that all holy things are there meant and given my reasons 2. That the text is not directed unto Ministers properly but unto private Believers or hearers of Christ 3. That which is holy is to be understood of private reproofs and admonitions which for the safety of their persons living amongst such Dogs and Wolves as the unbelieving cruel Pharisees Priests and people of the Jews then so called by Christ And here they are cautioned not to meddle with them c. 4. This counsel is directed unto the whole Church or Brotherhood touching their dealing with others that were Persecutors and fierce dogged enemies to the Christian profesfion and is not at all applyable to persons in the Church in respect of publick administrations the which all in the Church are commanded to observe nor is our Saviours reason of any force for any in the Church lest they turn again and rent you nor applyable to the publike Ordinances for there is not any that will rent you for administring unto them the Word Sacrament and prayer in the Church if any will doe so let the Church judge them for it 5. I grant that by dogs is meant cruel persecutors that at any time shall rent and ruine the persons of those that professe the true Christian Religion And this may be done by some that are not Heathens for there are many mis-believers and false teachers that where they are backt with power as in the Papacy are cruel dogs against the Professors of the true Religion but yet it does not follow that any that profeesse themselves members of our Church are the dogs meant in the text It 's true we have had our differences amongst our selves about some circumstances and inconvenient Ceremonies about the ordering of Worship And our first Reformers put us in a way for discipline confirmed by the Supreme Authority of this Nation And those that had the exercise of the Churches discipline have been severe in punishing those that have not been obedient unto her commands and we know they abused their power in some cases too much under the pretence of singular good ends Namely the order peace unity and edification of the whole to prevent the common mischief of factions schisin divisions erroneous doctrine and the like without which in a Church these evils will abound Now I say it is not very handsome for Mr. Collins that professes himself a younger son of the Church to account the Rulers of our Church Persecutors much lesse the common people for adhering unto their Governours and Teachers as they shall have better Rulers and Teachers I question not but we shall finde them better disposed how ever this is a far different case to the cruel unbelieving Jewes and Hereticall bloudy Papists and yet neither of them Pagans 6. I affirm That as all other Scripture so this in special is written for our learning and use and it alwayes holds in the same or like cases or reason Whether unto the desperate irreproveable Ruffian in the Church or of the bloudy Persecutors out of the Church Jews Turks or Papists and yet I say also that whomsoever upon tasting of them we finde them of peaceable spirits whether they be in the Church or
to eat at the Sacrament only properly as it 's too difficult to prove so it would follow that he will prove the same by the same for then the sense of his proposition is this That it is unlawful to give the Sacrament unto such that we may not give the Sacrament unto but there is some not cast out we may not give the Sacrament unto Ergo. Take his argument in what sense you can there is nothing in 1 Cor. 5. to stand upon or in the least to make it good his proof of his Minor fals too short I will grant him 1. That there may be such in the Church that the Apostle cals old leaven 2. That it is unlawful for the Church to connive at their wickednesse that was that old leaven and keep the Feast of the Lords Supper with them but what 's this for his purpose himself saith it's a plain case that the Apostle did chide the Corinths in that they did not cast out the incestuous person that leavened their Communion by Excommunication pag. 35. in this he sayes true and they of Corinth put this Decree into execution concerning the incestuous person as the only remedy to purge themselves of that leaven that sowred the whole by their connivence and sinful indulgence What then Does it follow because they were chidden for their neglect of exercising Church-censures therefore they were chidden for admistring the Sacrament unto him before he was Juridically put out of all Communion with them If the Apostle had understood that suspension from the Sacrament only had been a sufficient remedy to purge the Church and reform the sinner then doubtlesse he would have blamed them for admitting him to the Sacrament and he would have given the remedy in prescribing a rule to suspend him from the Sacrament only but as their whole Communion was leavened by their sinful indulgence so they were urged to cast that scandalous person out of all Christian Communion sacred and civil with such a one no not eat but how doth this prove that there may be some in the Church not excommunicated with whom it's unlawfull to eat the Sacrament But he goes on with his proof of his second thing That it is not lawful to communicate with scandalous sinners let us therefore keep the Feast not with the old leaven of malice and wickednesse from hence is easily gathered saith he that Christians ought not to keep the feast with scandalous sinners True I say so too Answ where a Church is in a capacity to deal with the scandalous Juridically and thereby put them out of all Christian Communion as the Church of Corinth did But I deny still that they were blamed for admitting such unto Gods Ordinances before they were Juridically by the censures of the Church separated from the Congregation Search and see if you can finde one syllable of a sentence in this chapter tending that way Mr. Collins makes a great deal of doe about keeping the Feast but at last I think he fastens upon a good honest safe interpretation pag. 38. from Isai 25.6 Where the Lord promiseth to make a feast of fat things unto all people Gentiles as well as Jews by which saith he is promised all Gospel Ordinances and a holy Communion with them in all his Ordinances c. and hence the Sacrament is a part of this Feast c. pag. 39. But if that be the sense Answ then upon his own confession the Sacrament is but a part of that Feast Why how doth this prove then that we ought not to keep the Feast with scandalous sinners when Mr. Collins allows scandalous sinners the liberty of all the other dishes and parts of this Feast but being aware of this he addes that the Lordâ— Supper is the only proper Feast of this Feast that 's his sense first he will be honest and let every Gospel Ordinance have a share in this Feast and then attributes all to this one and makes it the proper Feast of the Feast they was to keep And he tels us Doubtlesse it must be so because some Communion with on incestuous person in other Ordinances may be allowed Thus you see let the Scripture say what it will and although Mr. Collins is forced to confesse his assent unto a rational sense you may see how his private opinion and fancy draws him off again and makes him venture to give the denomination of this Feast to the Lords Supper only and it must be so because against his own reason and sense he will have it so is that a reason to make it good for some Communion with an incestuous person in other Ordinances may be allowed directly contrary to the Apostles decree and direction when he commands them To put out from amongst your selves that wicked person verse the last But still the very main thing of his argument wants proof That there may be some in the Church not Excommunicate with whom it is unlawful for the Church to eat In his proof of this he must make good these several things That in this 5. chap. 1 Cor. the Church was blamed for eating with the scandalous brother before the Churches tryal and censure of Excommunication was inflicted That the Church was not leavened for their carelesse connivence and tolerating such a scandalous brother but only for admitting of him to the Sacrament That the Church of Corinth had done their duty if they had only suspended him from the Lords Supper That we are as much forbid the company and civil friendly familiarity in eating and drinking with a scandalous brother not cast out as with an Excommunicate person I shal refer my self to those that are learned sober if it be not of necessity to prove those things before he can conclude from this Chapter that there may be some in the Church not cast out with whom it may be unlawful to eat the Sacrament or that the unexcommunicate members should be suspended from the Sacrament and allowed the liberty of all other Ordinances in the Church as members But Mr. Collins in stead of making good his Argument he trifles about making that word Feast to be meant only the Sacrament after he hath granted it was but a part thereof as it is one Ordinance with the other of Gospel Worship He quotes Mr. Gillespy that tels us this Feast cannot be restrained unto the Lords Supper only And Mr. Rutherford that understands it of Church Communion in the dainties of the Gospel And Ravenella that sayes it is taken for all Gospel Worship from Zach. 14.16 17 18. and yet he will goe beyond his own Authors and prove with reason beyond them all that by this Feast is meant the Sacrament only I confesse I had thought to prevent tediousnesse to have past by his reasons but lest he should be wise in his own conceit I shall take some notice of them All he sayes amounts to this surely it were not a civil Feast nor a Mosaical Feast but meant of
some spiritual Gospel Feast and the Supper is a part of the Gospel Feast the relation the text hath to the Passeover and the liberty of Communion with an incestuous person in the other Ordinances 1. Is he sure that all Mosaical Feasts were then out of use 2. That their Feasts of Charity may have no reference to this Feast Jude tels us that scandalous loose heretical persons in the Church were spots in their Feasts of Charity And this scandalous person is said to leaven them and nothing more opposite to their Feasts of Charity then to feast together with malice and wickednesse 3. Is there no difference to be put between that one Sacrifice of Christ himself once for all and the Paschal Lambe an outward sign thereof that the Apostles analogie must needs be restrained unto the Sacrament succeeding The rest have been answered Let him prove that the Sacrament is any where called a Feast it doth not become him to give Jesus Christ a nick name I must confesse for my own part I most incline to those that understand by keeping holy Communion in the Profession of the Gospel thoughout the whole course of our lives not denying but that the Sacrament is involved in this General of a holy life And my reasons are these The Apostles motive thus to keep the Feast holds unto all holy duties and to all times for Christ is always our Passeover that was sacrificed for the Church We have alwayes cause of purging out the old leaven out of our own hearts and lives and purging of our selves from all sinful connivence and indulging of scandalous brethren that leaven the whole when Church discipline is carelessely out of coldnesse neglected The rule or remedy prescribed in the text as touching scandalous offenders to amend them is upon that particular occasion drawn out into a general that holds always as I shall make good in answer unto his next argument drawn from this text But what if I should grant him what he can never prove that by Feast is meant the Sacrament only will it follow that scandalous brethren must only be left out or barely denyed the Sacrament only when the Apostle chides the Church of Corinth for not grieving it so as to provoke them unto zeal to put away that person from among them vers 2. Besides if such scandalous sinners in the Church as the Apostle reckons up ver 11. ought not to be excommunicate then not any at all and is it safe for the Church to deny such the Sacrament only whom they ought to Excommunicate and put out of all Communion whatsoever Suppose the Church had done no more but put that wicked person from the Sacrament doe you think they had put that Apostolical sentence into execution vers 4.5 Let him prove that ever any Church in the Apostles age suspended their members from the Sacrament only as he would have it The truth is he affects to draw up many syllogisms but he is not able to prove any one of them I could wish he would either study his things better or else give over his writing about this controversie His second Argument from this text is this If there be some in the Church not yet cast out by Excommunication who are Fornicators or covetous or Idolaters or Raylers or Drunkards or Extortioners then there may be soâ—e in the Church with whom a Christian ought not to eat the Lords Supper But there may be such in the Church Ergo He sayes the Minor will easily be granted the Major is grounded on 1 Cor. 5.11 And he further sayes all that can be said in this case is that the eating there forbidden is not eating the Lords Supper so saith the friends of my opinion If no more can be said and proved but that Answ 1 it 's enough to break his argument But he is a little too confident and looks too overly upon the Text. For 1. the proof of his major doth not say that in the Church of Corinth there were such But if a man that is called a Brother be a Fornicator c. which implyes that there may be such in a true Church as well as a Brother that was an incestuous person Suppose that there be such in a true Church doth not the Apostle reminde them of the rule how the Church should deal with such namely as with the incestuous person with such no not to eat vers 11. and then gives the reason vers 12. for what have I to do to judge them that are without Doe not ye judge them that are within but them that are without God judgeth therefore put from among your selves that wicked person There was one of their Church that was actually guilty others might be as any shall be guilty of such and such scandalous sins at any time in the Church the Church ought to judge them by putting them out of all Communion as in that particular case of incest If such as the Apostle nominates for scandalous brethren be not objects of excommunication not only my self but all reformed Churches in Christendome are hugely out Can any have the least shew of reason to conceive that the Apostle should be so severe against an incestuous person and the Church for not putting him away from among them vers 2. and say nothing to their conniving and indulging an Adulterer Idolater c. That were then such guilty persons known amongst them as he for incest or that suppose there were such can we imagine that they were suspended from the Sacrament only as a sufficient punishment for those sins as Mr. Collins would And so uppon the matter lose this Ordinance of Excommunication except it be for incest Beloved Friends I beseech you mark the Apostles order and scope and you may easily conceive his sense he had wrote an Epistle unto them before not to company with fornicators covetous Extortioners or Idolaters of the world but upon this occasion of a members miscarriage in the Church in this Epistle he mollifies with lenity his former Epistle and tels them now yet not altogether forbear company with such such of the world for then you must goe out of the world but now I have written unto you not to keep company not to eat upon another stricter account if a Brother be such a one as an Infidel Pagan is put them out of your Communion altogether And thus he drawes out a general rule from this particular case of the incestuous person leaving the Infidel world to the judgement of God but sets up a judging in the Church for the destruction of the flesh that scandalous Brethren may be reformed and their souls saved in the day of the Lord Jesus as I have spoke already And if I mistake not Reverend Calvin speaks to the same purpose upon the same place in his 12. chap. 4. book 5. Section Of his Institutions Upon the second end of Excommunication 'T is true he sayes in the administration of the Supper choise
is greatly requisite which yet saith he cannot be had but by the Jurisdiction of the Church Then in the second end least as it is wont to come to passe with the continual company of the evill the good should be corrupted This end the Apostle touched when he commanded the Corinths to put the incestuous person out of their company A little leaven saith he corrupts the whole And he foresaw herein so great a danger that he forbad him all fellowship and so applyes the 11. verse to the same with the incestuous person If any Brother be either a whoremonger or an Idolater c. with such a one I grant you not leave so much as to eat Therefore you may clearly conceive that Calvin applyes that particular instance to be spoke of all other the Apostle names in the 11. verse this Reverend Author would have none debarred the Sacrament but by the Jurisdiction of the Church nor have any Excommunicate for lesser sins when the severity of words authoritatively will amend them but when they grievously offend the Church they ought for a time to be deprived of the Communion of the Supper till they have given assurance of their repentance his ground is 1 Cor. 5.5 thus explaining himself for against the Corinthian Paul useth not only rebuking of words but driveth him out of the Church c. What 's this but Excommunication and yet Mr. Collins quotes this very place to prove suspension distinct from Excommunication in his pag. 140 141. If he deal thus with his authority he makes such a noyse withall no wonder they be not all of his opinion Then he quotes Vrsin which I desire in brief to to give you an account of he concludes that Vrsin is for suspension 1. Because he makes Excommunication the last remedy 2. Because he hath given fourteen reasons to prove that scandalous persons ought to be kept from the holy Supper 1. He hath not a word of suspension Answ 2. Must the last remedy necessarily imply suspension why not severity of words private and publike admonition c. And to his second he gives fourteen arguments to prove that the Power of the Keys is necessary in the Church And Mr. Collins tels his Reader they are to keep the scandalous from the Sacrament but he deals with his Author as he doth with Scriptures But as touching this Reverend Author for my purpose 1. He admits of no other proceedings in the discipline of the Church but according to that known rule Matth. 18.15 and that in all cases of scandal and open ungodlinesse 2. Not to proceed unto Excommunication but in point of obstinacy persisted in 3. He defines Excommunication to be the banishing of a grievous transgressor or an open ungodly and obstinate person from the fellowship of the faithful by the judgement of the Elders and consent of the Church and by the Authority of Christ and by the holy Scriptures and then sayes when the Church pronounceth of any that they are not godly they must be excommunicated and not admitted unto the Sacrament c. in his 5. question upon the Keyes of the Kingdome Thus you may conceive this quotation of his directly proves that Excommunication is that which debars scandalous sinners from the Sacrament and not suspension as Mr. Collins would falsely have it be By this time the Reader may easily judge what foundation Mr. Collins hath deducted his argument from he first mistakes the text and then rayses his argument and thus he hath built a Castle in the ayr And before he can conclude any thing to suspend scandalous brethren from the Sacrament from 1 Cor. 5.11 he must prove that those that the Apostle speaks of were not Excommunicate or that he speaks to the case of scandalous brethren in the Church in the want of Church Discipline I must confesse with grief of heart that his Minor is true that there are such scandalous sinners in oâ—â— Church that the Apostle doth instance iâ— 1 Cor. 5.11 and not Excommunicate but where doth any Scripture forbid to keep company not to eat as in case they were Juridically Excommunicate A difference must be made between a Brother under Church toleration and a brother under Church Excommunication or else Church censures are meerly superfluous and to nâ— purpose if we be as much bound to withdraw Communion to the one as to the other in respect of holy and civil fellowship together So that his dispute about not keep company not to eat with scandalous Brethren not Excommunicate is nothing at all to the Text nor to his Argument for we are all agreed in this that the Excommunicate person may not come to the Sacrament nor during that censure may we keep company and as Calvin renders it the Apostle would not grant them leave so much as to eat with such the necessity of relation excepted but as touching an offender in the Church not Juridically proceeded against Mr. Collins doubts not nor any that are sober but upon our necessary occasions as our several callings lead us unto we may keep company we may eat and take more liberty of familiarity with such then with Heathens did we live amongst them as the Corinthians did Yet doubtlesse all unnecessary intimate friendly familiarity is to be declined with scandalous brethren the Church not being in a capacity to judge them or neglects her duty through carelesnesse but this is more then this text will bear too but yet is consonant unto other parts of holy Scriptures c. From the Apostles scope in this chapter I shall assert these things That Church censures are of such necessity that without which the well being of a true Church cannot be If the Church of Corinth were leavened with indulging of one scandalous Brother what may we judge of our selves that tolerate and connive at thousands for want of the severity of true discipline If the Church of Corinth was thus chidden by the Apostle for their neglect of Discipline unto one scandalous member What chiding deserve they that have pluckt up the discipline of the Church and have laid all wast and left our offending Brethren to perish in their sinful courses for want of the right way and remedy to reform them that their souls may be saved That a true Church of Christ may possibly have such scandalous members in it as the Apostle enumerates in the 11. verse That scandalous persons in the Church ought to have the title of Brethren and to be differenced from the Infidel world vers 11. That lesse familiarity in civil and sacred Communion is allowed to the Excommunicate then unto scandalous sinners out of the Church vers 10 11. That the Apostle urgeth a general rule for the excommunicating of all scandalous brethren in the Church upon that occasion of the incestuous person That the main and proper end of Excommunication is the reforming of a sinner and salvation of his soul Here is not one word in this Chapter for Suspension
scandalous member not cast out is warned not to take it upon pain of damnation I know no such text and it remains still to prove that the Corinths were threatned or punished for any scandalous sins committed before they came or for admitting any scandalous brethren at all but only for their actual miscarriage in the very act of administration I have said more for the negative then Mr. Collins will be able to answer this two dayes He saith None can without sin knowingly expose the Ordinance of God to necessary abuse and profanation but to administer it to one that cannot have Communion with Christ profanes it Ergo. Let him prove the consequence if he can Answ 1. The Apostle proves that all the Corinthians that drank of the Lords cup and eat of that bread had Communion with Christ and he sayes We that are many are one bread ch 10.16 17. And doubtlesse those that made divisions and lived in incest and eat of things offered unto Idols and that opprest one another by needlesse and scandalous suits at law in the Heathen Courts and those that were guilty of such great schisms and disorders in the Church were a part of that many The very outward actions of eating and drinking according to the institution is a Sacramental Communion which is a holy Communion in the relation the signes have to the thing signified thereby And in the relation the receiver hath to the benefit and profit thereof Sacraments being instituted to that end for the Church as hath been proved But he tels us how a thing is abused 1. When it is not turned to a right use 2. When no difference is put between the holy and profane Ezek. 22.26 The first is answered Answ his latter I shall speak to his quotation is meant of the legal clean and unclean that her Priests through carelesnesse made no difference and so profaned the holy things by admitting such to bring their sacrifices that during their uncleannesse made every thing they touched unclean but there is no such difference to be made in the Gospel Church now that difference is taken away Heathen uncleannesse remains still but we doe not plead their admittance into Church Communion He sayes further That he cannot see but every scandalous sinner Drunkard Swearer Adulterer c. hath as great a fellowship with Devils as the Corinthians had He must see a great deal more fellowship with devils in such Answ then in the Corinthians or else he can conclude nothing for his purpose for it 's certain the Corinthians were not kept from the Sacrament nor forbid it upon that account His first argument for Suspension is That nothing is lawful in the worship of God but what we have precept or president for but to give the Sacrament to such as are visibly scandalous not Excommunicate is to doe that in the worship of God which neither precept nor example doth justifie Ergo Sacraments are parts of institute worship and in the administrations we are to be guided according to the precepts given upon the institution of them and according to the example of the Lord Jesus who at the first institutiō of the Supper gave us an example for the perpetual celebration of it c. p. 51 52. His Major is good Answ but his Minor is false and to be denyed matter of scandal doth not disoblige any that are within and of Christs family and Kingdome from precepts of institute worship as the Sacrament is confessed to be but rather it is thus that this precept of institute Worship doth oblige all Church-members that are within to reform their other scandalous actions 'T is true Christ gave to none but his Disciples And the Apostles directed this observance only unto the visible Churches which consisted of visible Saints by their profession and external calling at least And who will plead for any but visible Saints professing the true Religion externally at least while they are Church-members and within we plead the priviledges of that estate as all Scripture Churches alwayes practised and yeelded unto their members And so long as our Antagonists own our Church for the Church of Christ and our members true members of the Church they doe but discover their own nakednesse in all they say against us and what 's this argument in hand but the same with the Anabaptists if not a great deal lesse rational then they use it for Had we but that clear precept or precedent for Insant baptism that we have for baptized members of the visible Church to receive the Sacrament in remembrance of Christ I doubt not but there is hundreds of those that would quit the argument and reform their practise Christ sayes to his Disciples when it was first instituted drink ye all of it The Apostle Paul understands this precept as respecting the whole Church of Corinth for he directs that Church in general to act according to the institution of Christ for he delivered what he received from the Evangelists that did hear and see the institution That question about Judas is not very material to the Controversie whether he did receive the Sacrament or not 't is certain he eat the Passeover and what was the Paschal Lambe but a sign of the body and bloud of Christ and the Bread and the Wine is no more Besides he might have taken the Sacrament if he had had a minde to have continued with them during that service who hindered him or forbad him if he did not he had done better to have adhered unto Christ in the observance of his holy Ordinances though but a hypocrite then by giving way to the Devils temptation to turn his back upon Gods Ordinance and seek for opportunity how to betray his Lord and Master into the hands of his bloudy enemies but for my own part I incline to believe that Judas did receive the Sacrament but I need not trouble my self with that dispute I have said enough as from that of Matth. 28.19 20. compared with 1 Cor. 11.24 to satisfie any that are impartial I need adde no more in proof of this that it is a duty incumbent upon all Church-members to observe the Sacrament as any other publique duties of Worship This we shall with more case and lesse time make good against all opposition of men then our adversaries who oppose us will free themselves from what the Pharises were charged withall namely in making void the commands of God by their own Traditions As for Precedents the Analogy of the Passeover the practice of the Apostolical Churches which have been urged sufficiently to satisfie any that are sober of the Presbyterians judgement that have not such clearnesse of reason from the Analogy of circumcision nor new Testament Precedents for Infant baptism as we for free admission of Church-members baptized and not excommunicated unto the Supper and hence were they but as rational in the one as the other the controversie would cease amongst us that are for a National
Church I proceed unto his sixt Argument If there may be some in the Church not yet cast out with whom the Communion of the Church cannot be pure then there may be some in the Church not Excommunicate whom the Officers may not without sin admit to the Lords Supper But there may be some such in the Church Ergo His proof of the proposition is 1. That it is the duty of the Officers of the Church to keep the fellowship of the Church pure This he saith none will deny but if any be inclined to deny it he should doe well First To think to what end the rod of discipline is put into their hands Secondly How to expound 1 Cor. 5.7 and those many other Texts that look this way pag. 86 87. 2. That it is their special duty to keep the fellowship of the Church pure as to this Ordinance as this was proved before from 1 Cor. 5.8 so it 's câ—ar from reason it 's apparent that of all other Ordinances this Ordinance alone is appointed for such as have something of grace in them Answ 1 I grant that it is the duty of the Rulers of the Church to use all necessary and lawful means to preserve the purity of Church Communion in all acts of publike Worship I grant that they are in a special manner to take care to keep the Communion of the Church pure as to this Ordinance of the Sacrament but still I deny that this is to be done by suspension from the Sacrament and allow them the priviledges of all other publique Communion in the Worship of God as members That 1 Cor. 5.7 8 13. hath been examined already and proves no such thing let it be proved that the Communion of that Church was leavened for admitting one that was scandalous to the Sacrament or that their Communion is that Ordinance was polluted by their connivence towards him or that to deny him the Sacrament was a sufficient remedy both to reform the offender and to purge out the old leaven wherewith they were leavened if the Text will bear none of these things what is it quoted for The Rod of Discipline it 's expressed clearly from the text was to reform the sinner with the salvation of his soul and the Church by doing her duty is correcting with this merciful end did clear and purge her self from that sinful connivence and toleration of such a one And if this purging was not by excommunication then I am out if it was then Mr. Collins is quite out in quoting it and he hath said nothing in laying the foundation of his argument as to the keeping of the Sacramental Communion pure by Suspension I beseech you mark for in this very argument many are very much perplexed as if the only end of discipline were to preserve the Communion of the Church pure only at the Sacrament and as if the greatest impurity of Communion in the Church lay in the admitting of ignorant unregenerate scandalous brethren unto the Sacrament whereas I dare be bold to affirm that to receive the Sacrament is as much the duth of any such as they are Church-members and within as any other duty of publike worship whatever and their obedience in that observance is as well pleasing and acceptable unto the Lord they coming as prepared as they can as any observance in the Church And if it was not for the correcting of such things that are in their own nature sinful such as are nominated 1 Cor. 5.11 there would be no need of Church discipline The main end of discipline is to reform that which is evill in Church-members and to encourage unto well doing that every member may be obedient in all things And for Mr. Collins to say that the Sacrament alone is appointed for such as have something of grace in them is only his bare saying and doth clash with the command of Christ as also with the peace edification charity and unity of the Church But he sayes further The Word is called the bread of life and it is to be offered to dead souls Heathens were ever admitted to hear and profane persons are the objects of discipline The Excommunicate may hear and ought to be admonished as brethren That he knows not wherein the Officers can have any work to keep the Communion of a Church pure if not in this Ordinance aâ— to this the Scripture saith it cannot be pertaked of worthily without examining our selves and discerning the Lords Body It 's true Answ 1 the Word is the Bread of Life and doth quicken dead souls where God gives the blessing doth it follow that the Sacrament the visible Word of Life is not appointed unto that end where God gives the same blessing Heathens may hear true What then therefore Church-members may not receive Or 2. Therefore Church-members may hear but the question is whether he will allow a Christian to hear as a member or as a Heathen The profane are the objects of discipline What them Must they not pray hear receive untill they be cast out by it Are they objects of nothing else How are they objects of discipline that were never admitted unto the Sacrament Can you suspend them from that they never had wherein are such more objects of discipline then those that are without who may hear and pray and be present at every Ordinance as well as the other that are within Then he saith The Excommunicate may hear and ought to be admonished as brethren Very good it 's well the Excommunicate may have the title of Brethren but as ill that those in the Church whom we cannot charge with obstinacy untill it be Juridically tryed shall have the odious tearms of Hogs and Dogs profane c. He knows not wherein the Officers of a Church can have any work to keep the Communion of the Church pure if not in the Sacrament What doth all their work lye in that Answ 1. Is no care to be had how men profane all the other Ordinances by their sleeping talking laughing and disturbing the Minister and others in holy Worship 2. Is not care to be had that the doctrine be holy and sound even the Word of the Lord that is taught That the Worship of Prayer be performed with soundnesse of words sutable to the necessities of the people and with such devotion and affection becoming Worship 3. Is not care to be had that the Sacraments be rightly administred according unto the institution without superstitious addings unto or detracting from them 4. Is not care to be had to admonish rebuke the unruly and to excommunicate the obstinate to reform and amend them in order to their spiritual good And is this and the former no work if the Officers may not suspend from the Sacrament only The truth is he puts so much in this that he makes nothing of all other work that the Scriptures clearly teach allow him but suspension which he hath unnecessarily ingaged himself to prove and he
will give you an acquittance or a release from Excommunication keep but from the Sacrament you need not fear any examination adomonition or excommunication if you can but dispense with your conscience carelessely to neglect this Ordinance you may freely enjoy all the rest as well as a Heathen or an Excommunicate person Nay it may be if you will but keep from the Sacrament he will allow you the title of Brethren as well as an Excommunicate person but if you will not be satisfied unlesse you may receive the Sacrament in remembrance of Christ for remission of sins then you must look to be called Hogs and Dogs unbelievers murderers of Christ the profane world that are without hope and God in the world This argument of his doth better become a Brownist then one that pretends to a friendly owning of our Church but the poor Church may say these slanders divisions Separations and confusions are the wounds that she hath received by the hands of such friends All that he saith in proof of his Minor hath been sufficiently answered already both by my learned friend Mr. Humfrey and my self I intend brevity for there is nothing left in his following arguments much considerable His seventh Argument Either it 's lawful for the Officers to deny the Sacrament to such as they finde ignorant scandalous and impenitent or they are bound to give into such But they are not bound to give it to such Ergo. His proof of the Minor is The Officers are not bound to administer the Ordinance to those who they know are not bound to receive it but the ignorant and scandalous are visibly such as are not bound to receive it Ergo. His main proof of this Minor is this If such be bound to receive then they are bound to make themselves guilty of the body and bloud of Christ and to eat and drink their own damnation which are strange things for a man to be bound in conscience unto This argument is wholly founded upon that grosse mistake of personal unworthinesse Answ which I have so clearly confuted at large in it's place where I shall refer the Reader for full satisfaction His eight Argument If none may be suspended but those who are excommunicated then none must be kept away but those that are contumacious But some may be kept away who are not contumacious Ergo. The major is plain Mat. 18. The minor only needs proof saith he 1. Surely those that are under admonition are to be kept away 2. Suppose one should come to the Minister the morning he were to receive and blaspheme Christ and tell him he came for nothing but to abuse the Church or suppose a Minister should know one of his people had committed murder theft incest whoredome the night before c. shall such be admitted they not being excommunicate if not then there is suspension distinct from Excommunication pag. 98. The Major admits of some question Answ 1 for Matth. 18.15 speaks not very clearly unto all cases that instance is of particular trespasses between private brethren which are things of a lesser nature yet these persisted in unto contumacy after the Churches admonition makes one lyable unto Excommunication but I question whether all publike notorious open scandalous sinners in the Church be thus to be proceeded against especially when their scandalous sinning is of long continuance and doth offend the Congregation the whole Congregation in such a case is to be satisfied which cannot be by a private repentance should it be supposed upon the admonitionof the Church I think the incestuous Corinth was not dealt withall according to that rule Matth. 18.15 Publike sins should have publike shame that others may fear and the offender be brought to a serious and notorious repentance before the Church declare themselves satisfied and receive them into holy Communion so that I think for the Church to proceed gradually in some cases as such as Mr. Collins doth instance in is not alwayes necessary nor to wait untill the offender appears to be obstinate but ipso facto to be forthwith censured But these cases are not to be left to the discretion of every particular Pastor to judge of but to the discretion and grave judgement of the ruling part of the whole Church Besides I question whether one that hath been often reproved in the publike Ministery and yet lives in scandalous sins of whoredome drunkennesse cursing and swearing variance and contention c. is not to be judged contumacious and upon that account the Church being in a capacity and informed should upon sufficient proof without delay Excommunicate him I leave these things to better Judgements but yet I am inclinable to conceive that Matth. 18. most properly respects private trespasses which are not openly known and how that rule should hold to be applyed in the same manner to open scandals that cause the name of God and the true profession of Religion to be blasphemed and reproached I am not very clear But now we shall examine his Minor But some may be kept away from the Sacrament that are not contumacious So may some be Excommunicate that are not contumacious as I have hinted at Answ which if that be true then the argument fals to nothing of it self But he saith surely Those that are under admonition are to be kept away This he begs how will he prove it For where the offence will admit of hearing the Churches admonition and upon that give hope or satisfaction of amendment why should they be kept from the Sacrament more then the other Ordinances they not being authoritatively put out of Church Communion is it rational for to execute before sentence be given Unto his suppositions I shall answer him first they are no proof If such may be Juridically suspended then they may be Juridically excommunicated for it is Juridical Suspension that is now in question And as it is stated the Church may as well doe the one as the other And the Church need not be long in giving sentence in such cases if there be clear proof besides the Sacrament may rather be rejourned for a short time then that any should justly be offended or that a single Minister should doe that which is not regular Murder thest incest whoredome is Felony by the civil Law of the Nation and if any can discover any such they should attach and put them into the custody of the Civil Officers these are gaol sins and to be punished by the Judges And I know no rule that doth warrant the Church to censure those that are under the penalty of the course of civil Courts of Justice If one should grant that in an extraordinary case some extraordinary course at the present might be taken as suppose some profane abuse at the Sacrament as to disturb the administration by some disorder I doubt not but the Churchwardens might thrust them out of the Church do the like to any that should come drunk or mad but what is
this to Juridical Suspension distinct from Excommunication as it 's usually practised in some Churches Indeed Mr. Collins need not have been so hasty in aspersing Mr. Boteman pag. 98. unlesse he could in some ordinary case prove Juridical Suspension from the Sacrament distinct from Excommunication the which he hath not yet done and it 's a great question whether he ever will or can It 's true that our Church in prudence left the denying of the Sacrament to some to the discretion of particular Ministers as he alleadges but then let me tell you this doth not reach the argument For 1. this was only in case of obstinacy being dealt with all by the Minister who was by the Canons and Rubrick of the Church authorised thus to doe 2. Such acts of discipline were subject to the Churches judgement and censure afterwards the persons conceiving themselves wronged might complain and those Ministers were lyable to be censured for going beyond the rule as some have been suspended from officiating themselves for putting persons by upon slender proof even such as their Ordinary upon hearing did not judge competent 3. The Church urged the act of receiving as a necessary duty incumbent upon all of years and upon that ground both earnestly exhorted all to come and punished those that carelesly neglected it 4. The Churches Jurisdiction consisted of Excommunication only in case of obstinacy but in case of penitency admonition and publike penance the offenders confession of his sins humbly in the body of the Church craving the forgivenesse of their sin in particular both of God and the Church did free from Excommunication The obstinate was denyed all the Ordinances except to hear the Sermon at the Church doores or behinde the Font the penitent not denyed any one Ordinance lay these things together and then let wise men judge how our Church heretofore doth precedent the Suspension which Mr. Collins contends for namely that a Minister by vertue of his Office with his Elders may and ought upon Scripture ground to deny some the Sicrament not obstinate and allow them the priviledge of all other Church Communion as Members And this he would have Juridical although the Church be in no capacity to impower them with any acts of discipline at all nor have the help of appeals to restrain the rash proceedings of inconsiderate uncharitable zealous Ministers whose principles tend too much to division Separation and confusion in the Church who would be more careful to further the edification peace and unity of the Church were themselves under the rod of holy discipline Juridically exercised by grave learned experienced presidents which particular Presbyters in reason will not be very zealous for so long as themselves are left to themselves to exercise an absolute power to rule as they please in their own Congregation without controll I wish these petty irregular reformings prove not the greatest remora's that hinder the reformation peace and edification of the whole especially where particular Pastors and Elders are of Mr. Collins opinion 1. That makes a meer nothing of Church-membership without grace 2. That will allow them no other Covenant relation then to Heathens 3. That will not so much as allow them the external titles of Brethren Saints Believers within but reproach them with the odious names of Hogs and Dogs unbelievers and of the Devil c. though they he such as never had the benefit and help of holy discipline to amend them or try whether they sin out of weaknesse or wilfulnesse 4. That will take upon him in his own name to dissolve them from Christs commands and threaten them not to doe it upon pain of damnation 5. That will make the Sacrament strong meat that cannot be digested by weak doubting Christians 6. That knows not wherein the Officers can have any work to keep the Communion of the Church pure if not in the Sacrament 7. That will allow no more priviledge in duties of worship to the ignorant and scandalous then to Heathens out of the Church 8. That doth insolently affirm that a single Pastor alone may lawfully suspend from the Sacrament he being the ruling part of that particular Church 9. That upon the matter puts the whole of discipline in Suspension from the Lords Supper either making it the same with Excommunication or else renders Excommunication needlesse in the Church Are men thus leavened with Brownism fit to be rulers in the Church of God Or like to preserve the peace unity edification and seek reformation of the whole according to the general rules and ends prescribed in the Scriptures I appeal to the standing rule of Sciptures to judge whether such as himself or the friends of my judgement and opinions as to the weal of the Church it being judged true by both be consonant unto it and whether he or we be guilty of the most folly and filth and defend such things as is a shame to be named amongst Christians as himself expresses against our opinion in opposing his pag. 98. I come to his ninth argument the sum is If scandalous persons not excommunicate nor unclean were debarred the Passeover then such may be suspended from the Lords Supper but the first is true therefore the latter I grant the consequence is good Answ but let him prove the antecedent that scandalous sinners not cut off nor unclean were debarred some Ordinances and the Passeover I dare give him seven years time to prove that by Scriptures either by direct text or sound consequence that cannot rationally be denyed all that hath been said to that thing is to give us a glosse of moral uncleannesse and thence argue that if the legal unclean might not eat the Passeover much lesse the moral unclean if the legal unclean defiled holy things much more moral uncleannesse the consequence is naught Because 1. The Church of the Jews were in Covenant relation and holy in a Covenant sense and no where blamed or debarred the Ordinances of the Church upon any such account 2. Because it was either punished by their Judicials or taken away by a continual course of Sacrifices and therefore could not rest upon them much lesse bar them from the Sacrament of the Passeover 3. Because nothing could excuse from the not observing of that service in its appointed season but legal uncleannesse and a necessary journey upon their lives if nothing else would excuse then all others were to keep it 4. It 's clear that some did keep the Passeover that were guilty of that which you will say was moral uncleannesse Ezra 9.1 after they had kept the Passeover complaint was brought unto Ezra saying The people of Israel Priests and Levites have not separated themselves from the people of the lands doing according to their abominations of the Canaanites c. for they have taken of the daughters for themselves and for their sons and the Princes have been chief in this trespasse 5. I say further that in some cases the people of
him in their practise It 's an ingenuous resolution I confesse and if he will but stand to it I doubt not of the issue but that it will be worth our labour to dispute it with him according to Scripture and Reason the only Judge of Truth Besides I am the rather inclined to enter the lists with him in this Controversie because he protests against a rigid separation from a true Church and declares himself only for a moderate and lawful separation in the Church not as yet disowning our Churches I take it Unto this I answer That Separation that is proper and lawful in the Church Answ is either made by Orthodox Doctrine Or 2. by wholesome Discipline Juridically exercised Or 3. we may and ought to withdraw all unnecessary friendly and intimate familiarity from scandalous brethren where the necessary duties of our general and particular callings will permit without prejudice to our selves And then the question will be whether the practice defended in respect of separation be no more but so if it be but Doctrinal or putting out of Communion Juridically by Excommunication or declining all unnecessary familiarity with the scandalous though tolerated all will be yeelded on his side But if it be found otherwise I shall deny it as dangerous and warn all Christians to avoid it lest they be infected with Schism a cursed fruit of the flesh and drawn into such needlesse separations as can never be warranted It 's one thing to separate from the sinful courses of scandalous brethren and another thing to separate from the necessary duties of Gods Worship and of our calling where such are tolerated It 's one thing to exclude the scandalous Juridically another thing to exclude the ignorant who desire to be learners of wholesome Doctrine or those that are not satisfied to yeeld unto their tearms as presented under the necessity of duty when upon search their terms are but the bold inventions and opinions of strong fancies and not to be owned upon any such account as is pretended Yet I shall advise to a condescension to the same terms upon a prudential account for the help and incouragement of all in saith and knowledge provided it be used to no such end as to exclude Church-members from that necessary duty of institute worship Doe this in remembrance of me Christians ought not to betray their own and their brethrens liberties to those that have the boldnesse in these exorbitant times to invade them and bring all into division and confusion Why should not all that are within and of the Church enjoy all external helps and means of their amendment untill the Church hath taken the forfeiture of their offending and issued out judgement against them I think I have writ more to this then will be answered in hast Mr. Saunders would be judged a sober moderate man that still owns our Church Ministry and members for true But yet we finde him so inconsistent to himself that upon the matter he unchurches all our Parochial Congregations that he will not allow them to be Churches but in an equivocating sense that is to say in no sense as a â—â—rish in it's Precincts but as a separate Church may be in a Parish as in the world We doe not say saith he that our Assemblies are Churches as Parishes but that they are Churches in Parishes and in that sense Parish Churches pag. 127. and yet he is sharp against rigid separation and pretends but to Surgery not to Butchery but if unchurching of our Parochial Assemblies be not a rigid Butchery let him tell us what is more rigid They of the Independent judgement doe generally acknowledge our Assemblies to be the Churches of Christ though out of order The Anabaptists will confesse a Church may be in a Parish as well as in a City Country and World and in this sense they may say there are Churches in Parishes and so Parish Churches How is our Church beholden to such pretenders that will speak as much in defence of our Parochial Churches as they state them as our adversaries will grant And yet he hath the happinesse to be approved of by a learned Gentleman for his recommending to the Church a well tempered Reformation if love to his person and cause deceive him not Mr. Manton in his approbational Epistle to this Book I confesse if those we plead for be not members of true Churches in Scripture account then all must needs goe against us for it is certain that Heathens the unbaptized or such as have renounced the Christian Religion may not eat thereof our opinion pleads for all Church-members of years baptized and not excommunicated as knowing not any rule against the admitting of such to the Lords Supper produced yet by any And yet Mr. Manton saith peremptorily amongst all others none have deserved worse of the Church of God then those that plead for a loose way as he cals it of receiving all sorts of persons to holy things and by promiscuous administrations prostitute the Ordinance of God to every comer I confesse this passage from so reverend a Minister as he is reputed to be did enter my very heart at first and plunged my soul into a greater perplex of passion then is ordinary Yet not out of any apprehension of guilt though I have alwayes cause to flee unto Gods mercy for acceptance but that so good a man and an eminent Minister of the Gospel should be so inconsiderately rash in his censure of the Churches friends But to answer directly 1. Doth not Mr. Manton receive all sorts of Christians unto Gods Ordinances of Word Prayer singing of Psalms the administration of holy baptism Are not these holy things And is it loosenesse in himself to admit all sorts of persons in the Church to partake of these I hope not and why then not in the other it being a necessary duty to all in the Church of years as the Ordinances before named he might doe well to give some better reason then others doe When he can charge us justly with pleading the admission of the unbaptized Heathens the Excommunicate then let him charge us with that odium of loosenesse or a loose way as being against Gospel-rule but untill then his charge and censure is no other then a rash slander unbecoming such a person It 's strange and to be admired that our pressing unto Christian observance to those that are baptized professing Christians and of the visible Church should have such a hard sense put upon it as to be branded with loosenesse when in all other duties pressing to obedience according to rule is accounted godlinesse and holy strictnesse But doubtlesse that way that is the nearest to Gospel rule is the good way and straight way However it may have the hap upon mistake to be called a loose way Truly to speak freely I little value that perverse disputing in most that oppose us that are forced to uncovenant unchurch undisciple unduty a Christian professing
any that are scandalous misliving brethren should ever be brought to shame by keeping them from the Sacrament only when so many of them that are brethren of honest and good repute are kept away as well as the other It 's both a vain and absurd thing to pretend to the right means to reform and yet so to use them as to be certainly disappointed of the end Nay where such reforming as theirs is once in acting what 's the event and end or fruit that follows but strife and debate contention division prejudices back-biting quarreling and questioning what such a Minister preaches with derision and confusion and such like desperate fruits as experience doth daily shew 4. If excommunication be too much for scandalous misliving brethren that would not reform as is supposed of these in the text why then it will follow as before that none ought to be excommunicate at all for none can be worse in the Church then scandalous misliving brethren sure that will not reform But to come to this argument in the close of this Mr. Saunders forms it up thus Noting offending brethren so as to shame them is holy and necessary But such is our suspension of misliving men Therefore holy and necessary How wide his Major is from the text needs no great discovery to the Judicious Answ but for the sake of the weak and lesse intelligent Reader something should be done Had the Apostle writ to the Church to take any course they could devise to bring these disorderly brethren unto shame then his Major had been tolerable but when the Church is directed to the particular way and means to bring such to shame as in the text and the Church to invent some other wayes drawing a general from a particular is evill if any kinde of noting will but shame them then it 's holy and necessary from this text it would as well follow that the stocks or pillory is so to note offending brethren as to shame them therefore holy and necessary from this text what may not then be assumed to be holy and necessary if it will but shame men But I have shewn above that their way brings none to shame and therefore hath not the least colour of warrant from the text The Lord give them hearts to consider of it His fourth proof to prove examination a necessary duty unto admission to the Lords Supper is 1 Cor. 5.11 If any man that is called a Brother be a fornicator or covetous or an idolater drunkard c. with such one no not to eat If we take not to eat in a civil sense then they raise their argument from the lesser to the greater 2. If we take it for Sacramental eating then we have an Apostolical injunction against the coming of the ungodly ones to the Lords Table and by consequence an allowance of separation as to such and of tryal in order to it pag. 141 142. 1. You shall see what himself saith in answer to all this in that which follows in the some page 1. The whole chapter concerns Church-fellowship censures It is about casting out of the incestuous person as every one sees Doe not we judge them that are within put away from among you that or the like wicked person Again he saith that the nature of the recited sins vers 11. shew that he intends scandals calling for discipline and coming under the like censure with incest thus far himself pag. 143. And therefore from his own sense of the context I conclude that this text allows of no other separation in the Church but what is made by Juridical Excommunication for doubtlesse the incestuous person was only so separated from the fellowship of the Church and this is the same which I alwayes plead for and would have reformation begin withall Let him draw what consequence he can from his own sense of the text for their separation when he confesses in another place that they excommunicate none By this the intelligent and sober may know what to judge of the way he defends that is so point blanck to his own quotations for in the text reforming the scandalous in the Church is onely by Excommunication and they excommunicate none but separate from their Churches leaving the infectious and diseased to cure themselves or perish for them by neglecting those due and necessary Ordinances appointed for their amendment but in my answer to Mr. Collings I have spoke largely to this Scripture whither I shall refer you His fifth proof is Matth. 7.6 but I cannot conceive he doth draw any thing from it at all in proof of the question in hand and I having largely spoke to it in my answer to Mr. Collings it 's needlesse to repeat besides I have answered to more difficulties from Mr. Collings then is urged by Mr. Saunders So also his sixth proof 1 Cor. 11.27 to the end is fully answered no more need be added untill what I have writ in my answer to Mr. Collings be throughly answered and confuted All that I can finde of Mr. Saunders amounts but to this If self-examination be necessary to goe before receiving then such as doe not or cannot ought to be excluded And hence they will inforce it the duty of all to be examined that they may know who are able to examine themselves and those that upon this search they finde not capable exclude them It concerns them 1. Answ To prove what every one is to examine himself of from the text 2. To determine of the lowest degree of what is necessary to receiving or excluding in respect of every member 3. To prove that unlesse the private be so done at least the publick ceaseth to be their duty but certainly I judge that those that are under the actual obligation of self-examination are under the actual obligation of receiving I grant the Word doth justifie the necessity of those things he lays down and are the duties of all Christians But deny that these things are to be applyed to qualifieâ— persons for the Sacrament for the Church of Corinth was commanded both and sure both were the duty of all her members of years however denyed to ours by the Author The qualifications in order to receiving laid down by Mr. Saunders pag. 171.172.173 are such that had he not forsaken his Pastoral charge and joyned himself to another Church before he had been able to prove the least particular there confidently affirmed he should never have runned into that needlesse exorbitant separation while he had lived But this is that which undoes them first they fancy to themselves a false sense of some Scriptures and then draw a multiplication of far fetcht consequences from it too and by this means run themselves into an infinitum of mischievous errors to the Churches prejudice and trouble And truly I cannot but admire at the wisdome and providence of God only wise that hath by strange workings made void from time to time what hath been
are called but sew are chosen though it 's true in a negative sense in this respect of particular persons we cannot exclude any one from Election Mr. Saunders argument in form as to the substance and sense is thus Such only that Christ gave the Sacrament unto have right to receive it But he gave it to none but holy ones Disciples by peculiar choyce Ergo holy ones disciples by peculiar choyce only have right unto it The argument is so weak and feeble that to the Judicious it needs no answer Answ but for the help of the weak something would be said 1. Were there no other Scripture presidents Precepts Intimations for clearing and warranting the right of those that are to be admitted but the first president argued from then it would have posed us to answer it or to prove the continuance of it to the Churches use at all because at first it was given to extraordinary persons in Office only But if he will allow the whole of holy Scripture he might see enough to justifie the right of all in the Church in general without any peculiar choyse 1 Cor. 10.17 Act. 2.42 ch 20.7 2. If this President Matth. 26.26 were fore-determined by Christ to be an example and rule for the Church then 1. Who must administer this Ordinance now according to this pattern Christ himself only blessed and gave it unto Apostles only 2. Then it will follow that none but persons in Office and of the Ministry should receive it 3. Then the greatest part of sincere Disciples and followers of Christ should be left out for without doubt there were many such at that present that were not admitted Besides the seventy Disciples sometimes sent forth to preach the Gospel there were other holy persons both men and women the names that presently met together for religious and divine imployments were about an hundred and twenty of whom some choyse persons are named as Mary the Mother of Jesus and other women and Matthias and Barsabas Act. 1.14 15 23. which Christ gave not the Sacrament unto therefore if this president must be our rule no wonder they refuse as good as they admit nay better then they admit for without doubt Christ gave it to some that afterward discovered great ignorance and unbelief besides one of them was a Devil 4. If this president must be our rule as it 's urged then there must be a choyse of some peculiar holy ones out of holy ones admitted and as holy and sincere refused And yet see how the Author prevaricates and departs from this president in another place where he saith Our way is only to exclude the visibly unworthy and no others pag. 166. 3. If all that Christ gave the Sacrament unto were not holy then the argument will fall of it self but Christ gave it unto Judas whom he knew was a Traytor and had conspired with other of his enemies to destroy him therefore all that Christ gave it unto were not holy ones and so the argument â—als That which is to be made good is the Minor for indeed some are in doubt whether Judas received the Sacrament or no. And therefore I shall a little touch upon that and it will be made good from Matth. 26.26 his own quotation in this text Christ gave the signes of his body and bloud to his Disciples and said Take eat this is my Body Judas was one of his Disciples that sate down at the Table vers 20. When Even was come he sate down with the twelve and one of this twelve should betray him vers 21. and that Judas continued at the Supper it evident vers 23. He that dippeth with me in the dish the same is he And St. Mark 14. chap. of his Gospel vers 17.20 relates just the same with St. Matthew Then come to Saint Luke chap. 22.14 21. he agrees with the former that all the twelve sate down and he in special speaks of the actions done at the Table the twelve sate down unto Namely 1. The eating of the Passeover vers 15 17 18. Then Christs celebrating this sacred Ordinance blessing and breaking bread to be done in remembrance of Christ vers 19.20 And now having related the main actions that were performed thus solemnly at the Table then he relates what words fell out to be spoken at the Table vers 21 22. notwithstanding Christs love in this familiar manner exprest to them and theirs to him both in the Passeover and holy Supper yet Christ tels them that one of them should betray him and Luke you see relates these words as being at the conclusion of those holy appointments of the Passeover and holy Supper And thus we may conceive a clear agreement of these three Evangelists that Judas was at the Lords Table and did doe as the other did for any thing in the least hinted at by these three that wrote first of this holy history And how ever it should come into the head of any so much as to scruple such a thing whether Judas one of the twelve that sate and eat at the same Table with Christ and the other received the holy Supper or no especially there being not the least hint of his exclusion or withdrawing more then of the other is to be admired Without doubt we may rationally conclude from these three that Judas received the Sacrament of the Lord as well as Peter or James or Thomas c. for they are not recorded to have received it by name in particular but as they were his Disciples and of the twelve that sate down at the Table But then you will say how comes it to passe that this of Judas receiving or not is made such a great controversie in the Church in all ages Answ That which hath occasioned this Controversie from the four Evangelists is in Joh. 13.30 Judas having received the Sop went immediately out and it was night hence it 's conceived that John hath relation to the Passeover Supper and this sop was some part of that service and upon his eating this the Devil entred vers 27. and he went out immediately before the Lords Supper was instituted and given and brought about his actual treason in a part of that night This place and sense hath occasioned the question and quarrel as to Judas so far as ever I could meet with any colour of reason Therefore now I shall both briefly and plainly give you my thoughts how to reconcile the Evangelists and to satisfie any that are rational I hope 1. It can never be proved that St. John doth so much as mention or mean the Passeover Supper in the 13. of John at all only he gives a more particular account of that Supper which Christ and his Disciples had together at Bethany two dayes before the feast of the Passeover in the house of one Simon a Leaper where a woman poured upon Christs head a box of very costly oyntment c. all the Evangelists spake of this Supper Matth. 26.2
cals them are forbidden but who in the Church are they I would gladly know the Apostle speaks of some that did eat and drink unworthily but it doth not follow therefore that their persons were unworthy because some of their actions were I have insisted largely upon this in answer to Mr. Collins The truth is how can they be said to be forbidden that are of the Church and baptized and as such are under the command of all institute worship Nay it 's a question whether Excommunication doe disoblige from precepts of worship although the Church may lawfully deny them the benefit of all worship in the punishing of impenitent scandalous sinners for their amendment A prison doth not excuse a Fellon from duties of publick worship when he by his own sinning hath brought himself justly under that restraint And in his saying Any proper and sufficient way to the exclusion of the unfit I know no way but Juridical censures of the Church that is proper according to the Gospel rule Juridical Admonition and Excommunication the Word hath prescribed directly and that only is proper and sufficient for the exclusion of the unfit as for any other way to be proper that is no where to be found in the Scripture and neglect to doe as it is written is but a raw sancy of a mans own framing and punishable by the Scriptures as is clear in the case of Nadab and Abihu Levit. 10.1 2. they invented a proper and a sufficient way in kindling common fire to consume the Sacrifice of Incense the fire of the Tabernacle being out through their own negligence but the Lord destroyed them with fire from heaven for presuming to offer that which the Lord commanded not For where the Lord himself prescribes a way the Church is bound only to that way not any way but that only of Gods own prescribing will he be pleased with God will be sanctified in them that come nigh him Now then I say when we upon Church reforming through the subtilty of some and carelessenesse of others have lost the exercise of the Churches discipline being out of actual possession through our own default as to the edification of the whole shall any be so bold now as to invade this authoritative power and assume to themselves without the consent of the Church the exercise of discipline and under that pretence use any way that is but proper and sufficient to exclude the ignorant and scandalous from the Sacrament when the Lord hath prescribed a direct way what is to be done with the scandalous in the Church Again that the Ark should be fetched unto its proper place was an end commanded yet any proper and sufficient means subservient thereunto were not warrantable but that way and means only that God had appointed and you know David swerved from the prescription in fetching back the Ark but the Lord made a breach upon them for it in smiting Vzzah that he dyed This way was proper and sufficient to attain the end yet they were punished for it The Lord made a breach amongst them because they carryed not the Ark according to that order God had prescribed in the Law It 's a dangerous and desperate attempt to invent ways and means of exclusion of Christs visible subjects from their native rights otherwise then it is written There is a clear rule for Juridical Excommunication and in what cases and by whom to be exercised and let that satisfie all untill they can finde further order from the Scriptures to warrant their other proceedings under the notion of discipline in this giddy age The Reader may sufficiently by this see the weaknesse and vanity of the way and practise defended by the Author I have fully answered the texts of Scripture and the reasons added as seconds to warrant their way they must either finde out a better warrant then is yet produced or else as the ten Tribes were jealous of the other two and a half Josh 22. when they heard that the two had erected an Altar of their own heads conceived they were in a superstitious rebellion in forsakeing the wayes of the Lord and so to provoke the Lord unto anger to punish the whole Congregation as in the matter of Peor and Achan so may we be jealous and suspicious of these new invented wayes so vigorously acted in by our brethren which tend so evidently to make division and schism in the Church and is such an impediment that doth obstruct and make void all hopes of attaining unto that discipline that God hath prescribed for the health and welfare of the whole Church They cannot say as the two Tribes of their Altar It is not for sacrifice but for a witnesse to the other Tribes that their children had part in the Lord and in the Altar that he had commanded to be built for sacrifice and worship For the way that Mr. Saunders defends is for worship and held forth as necessary to the prejudice of professing Christians that have any interest in the Lord and in all his commanded worship that you exclude them from and upon the matter discovenant them and their children from having a part in the Lord. Doe you think it but a small evill to your professing people to deprive them of the benefit and blessing of Gospel appointments instituted by the Lord himself for the spiritual good of his visible Church of which your people are members and within What know you but it may lye heavy upon your souls if ever you be reduced into straights and tryals to think of the wrong you have done to your peoples souls in withholding that from them which was necessary You think now the fault is your peoples and that they keep themselves away from the Sacrament they may be admitted if they will for you say it 's more for want of a will then of capacity that they are not admitted But by your leave Sir may I presume to speak one word on the peoples behalf you impose such laws and ties upon their consciences in order to admission that you cannot in the least make good by the authority of your Master you pretend very much to his authority in those very things which are meerly your own fancies and inconsistent with your own principles otherwayes I dare boldly say that you are in such a way and stickle to defend it too that you will never while you live be able to produce one plain text of Scripture allowing it its own sense to justifie either the forming of your Church or to prove any one thing of what you stand upon as necessary to admission you have quoted 15. texts to prove examination and suspension only and not one will in the least favour you as hath bin discovered already and in your laying down necessary things to qualifie unto receiving you quote about sixty texts and I have searched after them I dare say it and justifie it too that there is not one text of all that number
in the least pertinent to prove any one of the qualifications as laid down to be necessary to this end namely to admission to the holy Supper And how would you have your people to come up to your tearms when you so evidently wrest the sense of Scriptures to justifie the boldnesse of venting forth your own fancies in the name of the Lord This is the way you are agreed of and you rejoyce in your comforts and applaud it for purity and you are resolved thus to walk and you cry up Gospel rule and yet your actings are not consonant to any rule the Scripture teach for any thing you have said in defence of your way May not your comforts be suspected as well as others whose wayes and courses are dangerous and to be avoided I would have you consider of it for these unnecessary separations in a true Church as you confesse of ours are absolutely schismatical and your people are bound to decline your way and to keep their station in the Church into which they are imbodyed and to use all their indeavours to partake of Gods Ordinances where they may without running themselves into such dangerous schisms that directly tend to the confusion of the whole And without doubt if you will be as ingenuous as you expresse you must either return to your distracted flocks and perform those relative duties you stand bound unto or persist in wayes of your own choosing meerly without the words warranty which is scandalous in the Church of Christ so to doe and deserves to be censured Mr. Saunders after his arguments he gives some motives which he would have his Reader lay to heart the evils following the neglect of them or the like course 1. And chiefly God is provoked to remove our Candlestick for neglect of Church censures upon scandalous offenders A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump 1 Cor. 5.6 I deny that the way defended hath any thing of the Church censures in it according to that text Answ for Mr. Saunders saith they excommunicate none and Excommunication alone is meant by this Scripture The Apostle doth not say Separate the meal from the leaven but purge out the leaven from the meal he doth not say exclude the scandalous from the Sacrament but put out from among your selves such wicked persons that is out of all Christian Communion civill or sacred What is their course to this Text when they Juridically censure none nor indeed are in a capacity so to doe Casting out of the Church and leaving out from the Sacrament those that are within are huge different things the first is lawful and according to Gospel rule the other unlawful as being against all Gospel rules or precedents It 's true the neglect of Church censures where a Church is in such a capacity is a great evill that doth much provoke the Lord to punish such neglect and that we are in this capacity at present some have more to answer for then I fear they are sensible of nor humbled under that direful guilt my prayer to God is to make us all sensible of our malady and in his due time restore unto this poor rent and divided Church that remedy of holy discipline His second evil is The confusion of souls by ordinary and common profanation eating and drinking their own damnation This is high indeed for words Answ but hath not that dreadful doome in it as he reports without better proof ordinary and common profanation in the Scripture sense was never read of The Church of Corinth lay under the guilt of high profanation but it was not ordinary or common I think 'T is probable they never offended so again nor any other Church what their sin was should be enquired after more strictly and the punishment inflicted and then judge whether the Sacrament be for the confusion of souls it was a temporal chastisement to prevent the damnation of souls This to the punishment The sin was a sacrilegious misuse of holy things to carnal and common ends in the very act of administration which I have largely given my thoughts of and shewed that not any Congregations in our Church did ever or rarely so offend and what he meanes by common profanation must be some other thing that the Scripture no where condemns otherwise then in every other Ordinance of God that is too carelesly performed As all other Ordinances so this was instituted for the spiritual good of the Church Christ commands nothing for the hurt of his visible subjects they conforming thereunto according to their present capacity the Lord gives his laws and Ordinances for our good only Sometimes he permits a people for their punishment to chuse Ordinances and statutes of their own making for their hurt as Israel of old did I conclude then that this evil the confusion of souls c. is a slander of Gods Ordinance and an evill of mens own making when applied to the Sacrament more then to all other Ordinances in the Church Next He saith in his third place Abuse of the bloud of Christ by being too prodigal hereof 1. Answ They properly abuse the signs of Christs bloud that slight Sacraments as too mean and carnal to use to that end they were instituted for 2. They who admit Heathens and give the holy Supper to persons unbaptized or excommunicate or to those that come on purpose to abuse the signs to common ends But to administer the Sacrament unto serious professing Christians that come reverently and demean themselves orderly according to the external part of this observance is that which is according unto Gospel rule and the administration holy and warrantable Christ that gave himself for his Church doth not think much of giving the signs and representations of himself body and bloud to the members thereof And who will plead for any but Church-members who are under the obligation of this observance of their Lord And to deny it to such is to be more withholding then is meet and a dishonour to Jesus Christ who came into the world to save sinners His fourth is Obstructing the reformation of the Churches we live in And what is reformation in the Church Answ but to draw on the whole to a conformity to all the Laws of Jesus Christ externally at least For the Church can goe no further it is the only work of God to reform the hearts of men And the whole Church are as much bound to a conformity to this law of receiving the Sacrament in remembrance of Christ as to any other act of obedience in the Church He that commands all the rest of obedience commands this too And therefore they understand not what Reformation is that are busie in such reformings in their Churches that the greatest part of Christs subjects are out of carlessenesse neglected and exempted from their duty of obedience Nay those that would serve their redeeming Lord and Saviour in the command of his own worship as they are believing Christians in hope of
his Church only they are to follow after the things that make for peace and the edification one of another without limitation but holinesse is the boundary of our peace with all other men of the world there is an absolute injunction to the Church And have peace amongst your selves 1 Thess 5.13 Mark 9.50 2. That to break the Churches peace by an unnecessary Separation is so far from holinesse or losing our blessing that it 's a wicked schism as I have proved theirs to be they not being able to warrant the separation they are acting in by any ground of Scripturce or prinâ—iples of solid reason And therefore it will reflect upon them to their reproach and shame untill they be able to give satisfaction to the Church in their fuller defence or reforming by returning from the schism they have hatched and nourished to the great prejudice of many of their peoples souls I come to his queries pag. 166. I shall be very brief and but touch at things I having done more then was intended 1. Query Whether it be not against the Solemn Covenant not to act in some disciplinary courses for in this we have swoâ—n to endeavour Reformation in Discipune according to the Word Hence he assumes when this was taken either we saw the alteration of corrupt customes to be necessary in the Congregations we live in or not necessary now if the latter be true then whosoever so took it he swore not in judgement and so took Gods name in vain for he swore to reform being convinced of no corruptions But if the 1 be true then we desire of every Minister and other man that hath taken it with what conscience they can oppose ways and courses tending to that sworn end and bow they dare to withhold their own activity therein 1. Answ Without doubt it 's against the Solemn National Covenant not to endeavour in our several places and callings the Reformation of Religion in the Kingdomes of England and Iteland in Doctine Worship Discipline and Government according to the Word of God and the example of the best reformed Churches and likewise not to endeavour to bring the three Nations to the neerest conjunction and uniformity in Religion confession of faith form of Church Government c. But then the question is What our endeavours should be as the case stands as particular Minisiers or private members Reformation in Discipline being not yet agreed of by the whole what it is nor in present exercise and force by vertue of law which was intended in the Covenant 2 Whether the wayes and courses defended by our Author doe not crosse and assault the ends of the Covenant as tending to nothing more then making divisions and several factions confusions in the Churches of God which have swore to bring the whole Church of the three Nations to the neerest conjunction uniformity in Religion confession of Faith form of Church-government c. That we and our posterity after us may as Brethren live in faith and love and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us 3. The Covenant binds us to reform in Discipline according to the Word and example of best reformed Churches Mr. Saunders puts in and practiseth a more general latiâ—ude Whether not to act in some disciplinary wayes and courses be not against the Covenant he means some courses or other of mens own inventing as that of theirs which hath nothing of the particulars in the Covenant in it as being not grounded upon the Word as I have made it manifest not according to the example of best reformed Churches that have ever abhorred rents schisms in the Church by unlawful separations as their is upon their own principles for they separate from Churches they confesse to be true Churches and the members thereof they own for believers brethren and within in baptizing their children upon the account of federal holynesse In stead of reforming their Churches as formed of old by our first Reformers they form up a new of the principal part of the old leaving out of this frame the main matter of the old so that upon the matter they pull down many Churches to build one and rather destroy their Churches then reform them by holy Discipline Discipline is to purge out some few to amend them but theirs is to separate from the most of their Churches to destroy them in not using the right means towards them as brethren to encourage them in all Christian obedience c. And hence with good conscience I fear not to oppose their way and course without breach of my Covenant Nay in the 2. Article of the Covenant we are bound without respect of person to endeavour the extirpation of Superstition and Schism as well as Popery Prelacy and Heresie The two former may with good conscience be charged upon your way 1. Superstition because you urge upon all you admit duties of necessity that God no where commands binding the conscience where it is free and so become Lords of mens faith and unlesse Christs subjects will submit to these superstitious inventions you have framed you exclude them from necessary duties of homage and worship injoyned by their Lord. 2. Schism because you are run into an unnecessary separation in the Church breaking the peace of the Church causelesly as hath been hinted all along It being the main I have writ to discover your way Schismatical But it seems he thinks that there was nothing corrupt in the Church to be reformed by Discipline but admission so largely to the Sacrament and that this was the only thing we swore to reform and therefore must joyn with them or else be forsworn although they have nothing at all of true discipline in exercise for they excommunicate none himself confesses And it 's clear as the Sun at mid day that there is no other means to exclude Church-members from the Sacrament but by casting them out of the Church Juridically which is a question whether any at present in our Church be in a capacity so to act and hence the Covenant bindes us to endevour after such a capacity as to reform all corruptions that are properly reformable by true Discipline 3. Query He asks What other way there is to be walked in to keep close to the Word I have given my thoughts in my answer to Mr. Ward The Scripture rule examined Answ Mr. Joanes is considerable to answer this query as the state stands with us at present And if we were in possession of true discipline we should endeavour so to exercise it that the worst might be reformed by it not refuse to admit them to the Sacrament and so exclude them from all discipline as if they were Heathens and let not any assume the exercise of discipline that are not sure of their warrant from the Word And let them be sure they use no other censures then they have precept or precedent for from the word And let them be sure