the judgement of any able Divines by my opinion wherein I dissent from them it must be the simplicity of truth and the justnesse of what I maintain only that bean me up against those I have to deal with in this controversie I am a meer naked man that am ingaged with men of compleat harness and arms that History Arts and Tongue can furnish them withall I must confesse I am strongly perswaded of the truth of what I have writ in this controversie and that it is the onely way to bring the Churcher peace and truth together and for Sions sake I can have no rest but am drawn on to doe things not so well becoming my rank and calling in the Church I beg your pardon I hope some will confesse they can see something of God in it excuse me for it is not so much the judgement of Divines as the Scripture grounds that will satisfie my spirit in this thing Next pag. 30. Mr. Collins saith But if they be to examine themselves no more then whether they discern the Lords Body we conceive it enough for discerning must imply knowledge 1. To know the Lords Body Sacramentally 2. As the Lords Body 3. Acknowledge of the sign and thing signified in the Sacrament 4. Acknowledge of the two natures of Christ and of what he hath done and suffered for me 5. And of the nature of the Sacrament and what is held forth in it to the soul From hence he saith will easily follow an answer to the sixt query That ignorant persons though by profession they do own the true Religion yet are not in a capacity to examine themselves so as to prevent the judgement c. I grant that every one that comes to this Ordinance Answ 1 should be able to discern the Lords body at least notionally by the outward signes and that the thing signified by the instituted signes is the same and that the bread and wine is to be received in remembrance of the death of Christ whose bloud was shed for remission of sins but for to know the two natures of Christ and what he hath done and suffered for me and to understand the nature of the Sacrament distinctly and what is held out in it to the soul is more then the Apostle taught the Church of Corinth in order to their receiving and therefore these requisites require further proof before he can conclude any thing from them In charity I judge that there is not any that live under any painful Preachers but are so well instructed as to understand that the Sacrament is a holy Ordinance of God appointed for the good of their souls in general And that accordingly they humbly and reverently make their addresses unto it to receive the outward signes in remembrance that Christ shed his bloud to save sinners c. and this is upon the matter as much as the Apostle requires unto worthy receiving let it be proved that such a receiving was ever blamed or punished in the holy Scriptures if it cannot be proved why doe men bring such needlesse troubles and distractions in the Church by their own traditions It was not so much the ignorance of the Corinths that was punished as their profane actions which they were guilty of in the time of receiving it 's a question whether their ignorance simply were punished at all any otherwise then accompanyed with those horrible effects the which doth very rarely touch the worst of our Congregations in the Church let Mr. Collins better consider of these things before he answer them for although many of ours should be more ignorant then they of Corinth yet so long as they doe not openly profane the Ordinance by their actual miscarriages at the time of worship as the Corinthians did it doth not follow that they eat and drink unworthily and so their own damnation as they of Corinth It 's true also that the Lord may justly punish persons for their ignorance under the means But doth it follow that therefore men may too with debarring them from the Sacrament I think not untill by some clear ground of Scripture Mr. Collins or some other can prove the Eldership may And I shall intreat them to make it good with the greatest strength they can for otherwise they must look to be baffled in it so long as they grant them Church-members I shall now see what Mr. Collins excepts against my answer to the eight query that is Whether a carelesse incapable neglect of self-examination doth excuse and give a writ of ease from that precept Doe this in remembrance of me He saith If I can prove this an universal precept that concerns every individuall person that is baptized and of years of discretion he may tell me that such neglect makes them doubly guilty c. pag. 31. He saith further That he conceives that precept onely to concern the disciples of Christ and none but true disciples I wonder what Mr. Collins will make of ours that are baptized Answ and externally at least adhere to the true religion are they Pagans If not then they are disciples and followers of Christ by profession And upon his own grant come under that precept Do this in remembrance of me I am far from going about to divide these duties I would have them examine and come too yet the neglect of the one doth not excuse from the other a man must not onely goe and be reconciled with his brother but he must come and offer his gift also He saith It will not much trouble him what I have said from Matth. 28.19 20. the Apostles were bound to call upon those they preacht unto to observe all Christs commands either that proves the they were to call upon Pagans to come to the Sacrament or else to call upon all to observe such things that he had commanded them respectively and then it will still remain to prove that Christ hath commanded an ignorant person to come to the Sacrament It 's very true Answ 1 for to avoid the trouble he is not willing to reach the argument as you may see pag. 23. Bar removed the argument was drawn from the charge of Christ to his Apostles in order to them that came under baptism not to the Pagans they preached unto but to them that by their preaching were converted and added unto the Church by baptism Christ chargeth them to teach his Church to observe and doe all whatever he hath commanded them and loe he will be with them alwayes Where are the Apostles bid to teach the Heathen as such to observe all that he hath commanded He gives his statutes and his judgements unto Israel as for the Heathen they have not known his laws This very charge of Christ is just the language of God to the Church in Moses and the Prophets upon the like encouragement of a blessing As Circumcision brought all the uncircumcised under all observances of the old administration even the Passeover upon their lives So
Church they are of by making unnecessary rents and divisions in it It is not separation from a Church but separation in a true Church causelesly that is properly a Schism absolute separation from a true Church is properly apostasie in an Ecclesiastical sense I take it Hence his distinction of separation from a true Church and separation in a true Church where the ordinary means of salvation is and the fruits thereof as himself confesses of ours is groundlesse and wicked The first sort come under the censure of the Apostles John and Jude 1 Epistle of John 2.19 Judes general Epistle vers 19. The last sort are detected by St. Paul 1 Cor. 1.10 11 12. Chap. 11.18 19. Rom. 16.7 Act. 20.30 1 Cor. 12.23 24 25. chap. 14.33 Now I shall a little touch upon what this new formed Church requires of persons they admit into Sacramental Communion with them And I will give you the question as themselves have stated it Whether in the reforming of a long corrupted Church Mr. Saund. it be necessary that all the members thereof doe submit to some examination or tryal of their knowledge before they be admitted unto the Lords Supper This question they fear not to maintain in the affirmative Here they suppose corruption in our Churches and therefore with men well satisfied with their present frame and temper not looking on them as under any such disorder as we suppose with such we desire not much to dispute we can expect little of reason or truth from men of that minde This question is but ambiguously stated Answ 1 and should be further explained as to the particular branches of it for as to our Church in respect of doctrine it must be spoken with thankfulnesse that long hath the light thereof filled our Horizon as himself confesses pag. 6. and this Examination is only in reference to sound knowledg the means whereof the Church was not corrupted in so as to deserve the denomination of a long corrupted Church in that respect For generally the principles that were taught and received by the people were Orthodox that the people cannot in reason generally lye under the Suspension of heretical knowledge for they have been so long habituated to sound words in respect of several Creeds which very frequently were professed and assented unto in our assemblies with such plainnesse of Catechising c. that in respect of the ordinary means of the peoples knowing in a competent sense which is the subject matter that examination and trial only relates unto in the question that the Church cannot be truly said to have been a long corrupted Church And then that clause in the question as to us is needlesse which indeed upon the matter is the very cause of the question that being taken away makes the question fall for then the question will be Whether in a reformed Church as to knowledge examination be necessary in all we admit to the Sacrament And I judge this the most proper question by what himself hath acknowledged of our Church in respect of purity of Doctrine the only means of sound knowledge to her members they being generally educated and trained up therein from their youth so that as to knowledge the Church was not corrupt That many of her members have but little knowledge and are weak in the faith is confessed and is their sin but whether it be such a sin that the Church may chastise with discipline I very much doubt of they being otherwise not tainted with scandalous offending And how a Church-member should be denyed a necessary duty of institute worship without some proper act of discipline I cannot tell I confesse had the generality of our people been poysoned with Popish heretical principles touching the holy Supper and all other worship there had been a rational cause of the question as he hath stated it and a ground sufficient to be suspicious of the knowledge of most whether that little most know were true or false Orthodox or heretical And if upon complaint or tryal they should be found heretical and will not be reclaimed I think such come under the chastisement of the Church but this is not our case nor question If by the word necessary in the question be meant a duty incumbent upon all to submit unto and that every one must stand to the trial of their Pastor and Officers in respect of their knowledge before they can lawfully be admitted unto the Lords Supper It will be denyed and the Author must give us stronger proofs and arguments for the affirmative then what he hath urged in his Antidiatribe we shall examine his proofs anon I should grant him that it might be necessary in respect of some benefit and help to a more profitable receiving if people would come off in such a prudential way only to that end they may be prepared better but to make use of it to that end as either to disswade them from their duty or exclude them from a necessary duty of solemn worship out of a perswasion that their knowledge is incompetent this I utterly dislike as rash and groundlesse I grant that the Church actually impowered with the exercise of true discipline may and ought to convent any of her members before them complained of or suspected for matter of scandal and examine them and finding them guilty and impenitent may censure them but the question intends another thing I grant that self Examination is a necessary duty in order to receiving and that may satisfie the question as it 's stated for that is some examination to receiving as his expression is when this is indevoured of professing Christians although they neglect that which is Pastoral it 's a question whether they deserve to be excluded or no. But to reply If Church Examination be a necessary duty to all admission As he would why not unto every time they come to receive For that examination that the Apostle enjoyns holds to every time the holy Sacrament is administred but they require it but once and that only upon a supposition of a general corruption of our Churches p. 22. But were not the Church of the Jews as generally corrupt as ours at some times and yet at such a time did not as godly men as your selves call all to observe the Passeover without such a way of examination you plead for think of Josiah Jehosaphat Hezekiah Nehemiah c. You confesse the Passeover and Supper are the same for substance and in answer to the first objection you say Christ had communicated with his Disciples before in the Passeover therefore he needed not examine those that were admitted before If your reason be good I ask what need you examine those that have been admitted to the Louds Supper before Nay what need you examine those that are admitted unto holy Baptism before that are of years not excommunicated That which was necessary unto Baptism was sufficient to admission into the Church where Sacramental Communion only is
stated it pag. 20. These were not excluded any Communion for ignorance but for disorderly walking And we allow some examination to finde out offenders in the exercise of discipline but deny that the Church upon finding her members greatly defective in knowledge for that she may exclude them from fellowship in some Ordinances without better proof But because both reverend and learned Interpreters are uncertain and in doubt of the practical part of the Apostles directions as touching the offending Brethren I shal here contribute that little of my dark apprehensions I have at present towards the searching after the sense of the place And in so doing three things are to be inquired after especially First The quality or condition of the person Secondly The nature of the sin Thirdly The remedy prescribed to reform the sinner In the first there is no difficulty at all that the Apostle meant a brother one that was within and a Christian all agree so as touching the nature of the sin writ about it is clear enough How Mr. Saunders should be so wide is to be admired in applying the remedy to wrong persons vers 2. It 's certain the fault or sin intended was this there was one or some of that Christian Church that altogether neglected the workes of their particular calling and lived in idlenesse not working at all vers 11. and not only so but that such were guilty of that common vice that alwayes attends idle persons they were busie bodies in the same verse and this is usual when a mans minde is not taken up in some lawful calling he is subject to those temptations for want of businesse of his own he will busie himself with other mens and for want of necessaries of his own which idlenesse brings upon him he is ready to thrust in where he can and backbite flatter invent tales tending to the disquiet and contention of the places where such are this seems to be intimated ver 12. In the first part of the remedy he commanding them in the authority of Christ that with quietnesse they work eating their own bread yet they might the rather be gently dealt with because they having newly received the knowledge of Christian hope of eternal life by him they might be so taken with this mercy that it might take some off from their necessary occasions and make them think that they should alwayes be talking and speaking of the things of Christ they not considering the inconveniences that would follow thereupon not only the burdening of the Church but giving an occasion of the growth and putting forth such vitious corruptions hinted at before that the corrupt nature of all men are more or lesse inclined unto The remedy prescribed consists of several parts I shall but touch at things A command in a double respect The first was when he was with them in person vers 10. and this ran upon a penalty This we commanded you that if any would not work neither should he eat notwithstanding this charge the Church was carelesse and remisse in putting this into execution and did relieve them and too much countenance them in that disorderly course insomuch that some complaint was made against the thing For we hear saith the Apostle that there are some that walk disorderly not working at all c. vers 11. and in order to this sinful connivence of the Church he layes a strict injunction in the authority of Christ upon the Church to withdraw from such vers 6. in respect of civil familiarity and maintenance according to their charge as before He repeats the command again in his absence and that in the authority of Christ and in positive tearms That with quietnesse they work and eat their own bread vers 12. and further tels them if any one shall refuse to be obedient according to this Epistle the Church should note them by some sign of distinction declining that wonted and friendly familiarity as to others that lived orderly and so doing would be a means to bring them into some shame and amendment and clear the Church of the guilt of such disorders I mean the Church in general Besides I should have taken notice how the Apostle presseth upon them his own practice when he was amongst them vers 7 8 9. for the Apostles they wrought with labour c. but not because they had not power and liberty to forbear working but to make themselves an ensample unto all in the Church to follow them and that they might not be chargeable to any But last of all lest the Church should run on the other hand into too much severity and in stead of healing and amending of the offender destroy and loose him by expelling him out of their society as they would an enemy the Apostle puts in a moderate caution yet count him not as an enemy or Infidel as we judge of one that is Excommunicate but admonish him as a brother or one within under a more gentle cure So that I conceive the most severity here intended was to decline all friendly fellowship with them by withdrawing their friendly countenance and kindenesse and rather to reprove and admonish them for their amendment this seems to be but a particular drawn from a more general rule Ephes 5.11 Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darknesse but rather reprove them nor partake in other mens sins But Mr. Saunders saith This sense that I pitch upon in respect of the penalty is too little as Excommunication is too much quoting Erasmus pag. 140. he saith further it must be such a noting and withdrawing as tends to the saving and reforming of scandalous and misliving brethren suspension from eivil society is lesse shaming 1. Answ They may doe well to give some reasons why the declining all friendly familiarity in respect of civil courtesies and charity is too little to bring such brethren to shame considering those times and of what necessity it was of to have the love and furtherance of the Church all Christians being so lyable persecutors unlesse they were such that would revolt from their Christian profession upon the least danger 2. The punishment in a civil sense was so sharp that had all in that Church but done their duty in putting it into execution the offender must either have reformed or have been pined to death or forsake the Church for every member was under an Apostolical command If any would not work neither should he eat had the whole together or a part made conscience of their duty they might have humbled the proudest and brought them under some yoke or other I warrant you 3. If this was too little for scandalous misliving brethren as he saith then why is not suspension from the Lords Supper too little especially where most in a Church are upon the matter suspended as with them of their way many of which are neither ignorant nor scandalous nor any way of a misliving course and can it be imagined that
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
pleased to own and make his people and to be unto them a God in a more peculiar relation then to all others of mankinde for those whom God chooseth to approach neer unto him in his own appointments have the promise of being satisfied with the fatnesse of his house Now then I judge so long as Covenant relation holds membership holds and so long as membership holds the priviledges of that estate holds It must be an authority equivalent to the ground of membership that can dismember or dispossesse them of their right as members which nothing but renouncing the Covenant or obstinacy continued in under the Churches censures can doe it But he goes on in his mistake and tels his Reader That I hold it 's only the exercise of reason conjoyned unto Church-membership gives all a right to the Sacrament then it follows saith he That all such who are able to exercise their reason ought to come and be admitted And then asks us why are drunkards excepted against pag. 22. Here is but the same again which is already answered only he saith Answ why are drunkards excepted against for they are Church-members and can exercise reason In stating the question Mr. Humfrey hath it he might say the drunk meaning the actual drunk as void of reason conscience and devotion for that present as being more fit to be thrust among Swine then suffered to come unto any sacred Ordinance of Worship in that profane sordid brutishnesse not denying but the same man at another time when he is sober and in his serious minde to serve God as a Christian he being not excommunicated may and ought to partake of every Ordinance in the Churchâ— a member Saith Mr. Coll. If he can but shew him the least shâ—dow of Scripture to prove that a capacity to exercâ— reason is that other thing which added unto Church-membership gives one an actual right we will be 〈◊〉 bondmen Membership alone in its own latitude comprehends as much as he himself wiâ—â— have added unto it to give a true actual righâ— as is made out above Answ 1 And then 2. I hope Mr. Collings will alloâ— men and women that are baptized and continue to adhere to the true Religion to bâ— Church-members and if so himself doâ— grant their right which is as much as hâ— would have me prove unlesse he think that Church-membership of persons growâ— up to years of discretion is a meer notâ— onal thing an empty nothing levelling Church-members to the Pagan world as 〈◊〉 may well suspect him for several things meâ— withall hereafter his often urging of something to be added to give one of years right to the Sacrament as knowledge faith and the fruits of holinesse strongly implies that to be a Church-member disciple is nothing to give a right It 's the things he superaddes that gives the right to the Supper whereas to Church-membership I know and so may be that his superaddings are not proper nor indeed sense for adde those things to a Pagan and they wil give him right unto Sacraments â—hereas a Church-member imports the same â—e they ignorant or scandalous during that priviledged estate Doth the Scriptures speak 〈◊〉 any such additions to a Jew unto his observing the Passeover in its season Let it 〈◊〉 proved that an ignorant Jew lost his actuall right as a Jew or Church-member or â—at an ignorant Christian in the Apostles â—ayes that was baptized and within had no â—ight to the Lords Supper Will you not alâ—ow as much of Church priviledge to a baptized Christian now as was allowed then Are the priviledges of the same Church diminished â—o her members Wherein will you have a Church-member not excommunicate differ from a Heathen or the excommunicate You allow all other Ordinances in the Church to a Heathen the suspended Excommunicate and just so much you allow to a Church-member tollerated and no more how doe you confound things that differ What difference doe you make between the excommunicable and the excommunicate the ignorant and such as offend out of weaknesse that are not excommunicate The Primitive and Positive suspension as you call them the proper and improper c. the punishment de facto in its execution is all the very same deny them the Sacrament only that 's the least and that 's the greatest Whether it be done by a Classes or Presbytery or a single Minister or by the discoâ—ragement of some private Christians or 〈◊〉 of peoples own carelesnesse The only poâ— of reformation and end of Discipline is mâ— that great design of keeping Church-members of years from the Sacrament slightâ— their Covenant relation obligation unactual observances as members disciples 〈◊〉 lievers c. as if they were no more unâ— the duties of Gospel worship then Turks aâ— Pagans If Church-membership with uâ— judged the same with those were added 〈◊〉 to the Chdrch in the Apostles dayes wâ— should we question the duty priviledge â—â—ours more then they of those times I woâ— have Mr. Collings either shew me a differâ— state of Church-membership or else shâ— me a different rule for the same Church 〈◊〉 walk by either let him doe the one or 〈◊〉 other or else be so ingenuous to yeeld 〈◊〉 every member his right until the Churâ— have legally dispossest them of it At the latter end of the 22 page Mr. Coll. he drawâ— up the question between both and wouâ— have it put to tryal but indeed the questiâ— is so wide from the question in controversâ— and so much said already to clear the question in hand that I may well passe it bâ— and see what we can finde in page 23. wheâ— he is still upon the same thing and pleaâ— against me thus If a meer capacity to exercise reason entitule◠〈◊〉 Church-member to the Sacrament then every Church-member in such a capacity hath an undoubted right I grant that every Church-member of years of discretion hath an undoubted right Answ I utterly disown his antecedent as not reckoning the question as it 's stated he should have put in this proviso Church-members that are professing the true religion not under the Churches just censure And had he done so he might have assumed what he could but he willing to leave so much out of his antecedent as would have spoyled his consequence â—nd prevented him in urging those inconsequences that follow upon it in the whole page although I must confesse the cases he instances in have need to be spoken unto with wisdome and tendernesse so that the truth be not prejudiced As to the case of members that are so notoriously scandalous that of right ought to be excommunicate but are not as he instances in incest and adultery immediately before a Sacrament he sees I have large principles if I would admit such a one 1. Answ Either such are under the suspicion of these sins Or 2. are under evident conviction A suspicion is not sufficient to ground Church censures upon if this be
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
their manifold sins as that of Idolatry in this chapter the Apostle tels them that the Church of the Jews was invested with the like priviledges as they are and yet for their provoking sins God was not well pleased with them but destroyed many of them for their murmurings whoredomes Idolatries c. and therefore warns them of the like in general And then in the 14. verse he applyes himself unto them in particular Wherefore my beloved brethren fly from Idolatry I speak to wise men judge what I say for this is the thing that comes neer you which some of you are guilty of And that he might throughly convince them of the hainous nature of this sin he draws an argument from the nature of that holy Communion they had together in the holy Supper which supposes them to be all of one Christian body for they all eat of one bread and drink of one cup c. Hence he would have them see what an inconsistent thing it were for them to be of this Christian body and of another Heathenish body too in point of Communion they could not be of both of Christ and Belial this were a mixture unsufferable to drink the cup of the Lord at one time in the Church of Christ and then at another time to drink the cup of Divels in his Temple Will you thus provoke the Lord c. you must either forbear the one or the other for you cannot serve God and the Devil And this he aggravates the more because it was such an offence and scandal to the weak amongst them the which they that were the strongest Christians offended in as the latter end of the chapter doth clearly give it and that about indifferent things and it became thus sinful in regard of some evil circumstances But now what is this to prove that this sin was in their eating and drinking unworthily in the 11 chap. as Mr. Collins would have it for here you may conceive that at most the offenders were but implicitly threatned with punishment but in the 11. ch they were already punished when this Epistle was sent unto them the which will trouble Mr. C. to reconcile Besides had the Apostle in ch 11. meant their actual offending in the 5. 10. ch then he would have said for these causes some are punished or for this and divers other but as he meant no other so he writes and terminates the only cause of their punishment was their profaning the holy Sacrament of the body and bloud of the Lord as hath been spoken to For this cause c. His second reason to prove he cannot digest the sense I have given is because it seems very absurd to him that a man who should but offend in a point of order should be guilty of the body and bloud of Christ and so of judgement and he who comes raking with the guilt of scandalous sins should not at all be guilty or lyable to Gods judgements Why will Mr. Answ Collins thus mince their sin Was their being drunk and their using a sacred Ordinance of Christ appointed for so spiritual an end but as a civil or common Supper but offending in a point of order if this did not strike at the very essence and nature of the Ordinance I know not what doth doth not the Apostle tell them plainly This is not to eat the Lords Supper but their own this profanation of the instituted signs rendered them guilty of polluting the very body and bloud of Christ that the signs did represent and will he say this were but to offend in a point of order I might adde their offending in point of order to the main But then to the latter part Touching them that come in scandalous sins that they should not at all be guilty or lyable to the judgements of God Who ever said such a word Answ Doth it sollow because the Corinthians were punished for no other cause but their prophaning this Ordinance that therefore I must needs hold that they that come in other scandalous sins are not lyable to any of Gods judgements for their other sins I say tribulation anguish and woe to every soul that doth evill And yet I say too it 's possible a scandalous sinner may come to the Sacrament and not at all be guilty of the Corinthians sinning nor as to his receiving be lyable to the judgements of God provided he come as prepared and carry himself as reverently at the administration as he can for his scandalous life doth not disingage him from Christian observance while he is within and not under the just censures of the Church to reform him thereby I know for carnal wretched impenitent sinners to come carelessely and customarily is a great sin and for them that out of carelessenesse and want of affection to it shall neglect it when they are invited to it is a great sin also and both punishable by the Lord. I wish all due and lawful means were used for the reforming of both so might we expect a greater blessing of grace upon all in a holy use of Gods own appointments in the mean time let us all reform what we regularly can and mourn for what we are wanting in Mr. Collings third reason is because he cannot conceive that God should be so unlike himself as to look upon one legally unclean unworthy to eat the Passeover under the Old Testament and yet look upon one morally unclean as worthy under the New It is too bold to call the blessed God unto mans bar Answ because he is not like to men that are not able to reach the reason of his declared will God cannot be unlike himself be sure but it 's possible Mr. Collings may be unlike the truth in what he saith pag. 28. how doth he know that God lookt upon one that was legally unclean as unworthy to eat the Passeover We know that that uncleannesse was incident to good men as well as others It will set him hard to prove I think that it took away the habitual worthinesse of a godly man or that relative worthinesse of membership if not such were not lookt upon as unworthy of the Passeover but were under a contingent necessity by the will of God that they could not observe it but they should make the sacrifice unclean for by the will of God it was declared unto them that whatsoever they touched in their uncleannesse should be unclean And we know it was a case the Lord indulged equally with those that were in a necessary journey appointing them another day of purpose the next month nor were they so much denyed the benefit of this Ordinance as of others that they lost the profit of during their uncleannesse there being not the like provision appointed as to the Passeover Again let me ask Mr. Collins why the whole Church were to observe the Passeover upon their lives and yet he cannot deny but in that Church in their best estate there were many that
were morally unclean in his sense and what doe my principles plead for more in the Christian Church if I plead but for the same now that upon their lives was injoyned then even by the Lord himself I hope he will not charge it upon me that I make God unlike himself but if he will make the New Testament so contrary to the Old as to say the whole Church may not observe the Lords Supper his opinion will hardly be reconciled with the unchangeablenesse of the faithful true and living Lord God Thus I have given you to understand that the legally unclean were not lookt upon as unworthy to eat the Passeover at all And the sense that I have given upon 1 Cor. 11. pleads no otherwise in favour of the morally unclean as he cals them then the Old Testament doth injoyn One hint more let Mr. Collins prove that the legally unclean were expressely forbid the Passeover I am sure Moses knew of no expresse prohibition and therefore was at a stand when the case was brought before him and could not tell what to direct whether the unclean might keep it or forbear untill he had enquired of the Lord what they should doe Besides when the Passeover was rejourned to the last day multitudes did eat it that were not cleansed and were accepted of And the Lord said 2 Chron. 30.15 17 18 19 20. If any man of your posterity shall be unclean by reason of a dead body or be in a journey a far off yet he shall keep the Passeover unto the Lord Numb 9.10 here you see is an expresse command for the unclean man to keep the Passeover He kept the same Passeover at Gods appointed season as well as the rest of the Congregation for God appointing and sanctifying another season for them in special made the service the same in it self and to them And yet for all this what adoe have our late Divines made about this I could wish we might hear no more of it unlesse they can make better use of it then Mr. Collins doth Now I have answered three arguments that made him so hard of digesting this truth That the Corinthians were not punished for personal unworthinesse but for their actual offendings at the time of administration For the further helps of this hard digestion and edification and satisfaction of my Christian friends I she freely speak my heart for the clearing upoâ— this in question according to my measure for I know well enough that our mistake about worthinesse and unworthinesse of person in the Church hath done more hurt is this Church then all the Bishops ever did Our holy Apostle in 1 Cor. 7.14 haâ— clearly and sully exprest himself about habâ—tual worthinesse that if but one of marrias state were a believer the other infidel person was sanctified by the believing party and tels us that if it were not so their children they had between them were unclean but now are holy meaning that upon thâ— faith and entring into the Covenant of thâ— one their children enter covenant with thâ— parent and upon that account are a holy feed and federate with their parents in the priviledges of the Church as it was in the state of the Jews Church Why surely if the branches were holy then the root was holy also Now I say how can it be imagined that the Apostle will have the children holy even of those persons that in chap. 11. he judged personally unworthy Sure if the children were foederally holy then their parents were too for the right of the childe is derived from the believing state of the parents that was sufficient to free them from unworthy eating in respect of their persons And therefore the Apostle concludes that all things are sanctified to the Church by the Word and Prayer To the pure all things are pure but to the unbelieving and impure is nothing pure Here is a clear difference between the professing Church and the infidel world all is clean to the one but nothing clean to the other And therefore the Sacrament could not be polluted by the believing Corinths in respect of their persons It will follow then that it was profaned by their evill actions only The Apostle understood the nature of the Gospel Church better then those I have to deal with in this controversie He understood the right rule and accordingly reduced all unto it He distinguisheth between clean and unclean believer and infidel all was clean to the one and nothing clean to the other that except the Corinths had admitted Infidels unto the body and bloud of Christ to pollute it personal unworthinesse could not be the sin for which they were punished Heathenish uncleannesse the uncircumcised might not eat thereof I tell you this is that which hath undone us of late we make the same difference in the Church that the Apostle made between the Church and the world And all those Scriptures on which this difference is declared by the Apostle our Divines usually apply to the different state of persons in the Church the regenerate and unregenerate and accordingly would be dividing their people anâ— are as fearful many of them to admiâ— an unsound believer to the Sacrament as a uncircumcised Infidel but I hope those exorbitant distempers that some desperately plunge themselves into from the same mistakes will make sober men consider a last I know no such language used in Scripture concerning persons of the Church as thâ— any Church-members should be personally unworthy to use Gods Ordinance and â—serve God in his own appointments Indeeâ— for persons to reject the tenders and invitations of the Gospel to oppose and persecute the messengers that publish lise and salvation by Jesus Christ such are said to be unworthy of eternal life Act. 13.46 the Apostle Paul again tels the unbelieving Jews That it was necessary that the Word of God should have first been spoken unto you but seeing by envy contradiction and blaspheming vers 45. you put it from you and judge your selves unworthy of eternal life loe we turn to the Gentiles for sâ— hath the Lord commanded So our blessed Saviour Matth. 10 11 12 13 14. gave the twelve Commission to Preach that the Kingdome of Heaven is at hand c. they were rather to goe to the lost sheep of the house of Israel then to the Samaritans And when they came either into City Town or Family they were to salute it and preach peace unto them but if they were not worthy their peace should return and to those that would not receive them and hear their words they were to shake off the dust of their feet against them vers 14. with a grievous judgement threatned vers 15. against such people that refuse the Gospel when it is tendered unto them These are said not to be worthy that reject the Gospel wholly as the unbelieving Jews did which implyes those that receive the Gospel and believe the truth thereof and professe their subjection
in the power of aâ— to reform it Hence I conclude that as itâ— not applyable unto the rules of Church dicipline so it is such an avoidable thing 〈◊〉 Church-members that not any man of reson will plead the punishing of with suspeâ— sion from the Lords Supper If the Apostles meaning 1 Cor. 11. wenthat the Corinths were punished for habitâ—â— unworthinesse and that whosoever eats as drinks that is personally unworthy is guiâ—â— of the body and bloud of the Lord and 〈◊〉 eating his own damnation then these seâ—ral inconveniences and snares must necesâ— rily follow That there is not any Minister on cancan administer the Sacrament clearly in faiâ— because he cannot have a clear ground 〈◊〉 faith for him to believe that those he delive the Sacrament unto are habitually wortâ— from their interest in Christ so that 〈◊〉 must still lye under the bondage of fear aâ— doubt of his communicating with others 〈◊〉 the murder of Christ and eating and drinkin their own damnation That all weak doubting fearful Christian either Ministers or others that are not groundedly assured of their interest in Christ for acceptance in this service cannot come in faith for he that doubts is damned if he eat and what ever is not of faith is sin Such persons that are not upon good ground assured of the truth of their own worthinesse cannot be assured of their eating and drinking worthily but must of necessity lye under the fear of being guilty of what is threatned and so eat doubtingly if such venture to come which is sin or else they must forbear until they be assured or are fully perswaded of the truth of their own personal worthinesse And this would be the perplexity of most sincere Christians there being but few in comparison of those that arrive to any grounded assurance of their own justification sanctification salvation c. Hence we may concive that when Mr. Collins cals the Sacrament strong meat he means because there is not any but strong Christians that can partake thereof with satisfaction peace and comfort And so upon the matter he denyes it to be milk for babes as well as a means of working grace in those that want it That all blinde self-conceited Pharisees and senslesse secure carnal Christians formal confident hypocrites that never were acquainted with any saving work of grace upon their spirits may come to the Sacrament boldly for they doubt not of their good estate before God and hence they shall be 1. Either flattered in their grosse presumption by the Churches admittance of them Or 2. They must be bard out by such ban as the Scriptures no where make That hence Ministers of the Gospel aâ— forc'd to detract un worthily from Christs authority in hiscommanding this observance tâ— the whole Church disswading their people from this service due to Christ more then froâ— any other whatsoever and so will presume tâ— loose where Christ binds or else are forceâ— to suspend them illegally and so presume tâ— bind where Christ doth loose leave at liberty freely to serve him in his own appointments What a snare doth this kinde of unworthy eating bring upon all the unregenerate and doubting Christians If they neglect the Sacrament for want of personal worthinesse they sin in omitting so great a duty of publick worship if they observe it as well a they can yet being unworthy they eat anâ— drink their own damnation by being guilty of the bloud of Christ as some say What doth more occasion godly and tender consciences to withdraw Communion from our Parochial congregations gather Churches out of a Church then fear of personal unworthy eating and drinking in Sacramental Communion as for the external actionâ— in the present administration the deportments of all generally are such as are inoffensive and they doe not separate from us for the most part out of any other dislike of publique Worship That hence it is that we make the nature of Sacraments to clash with themselves in that we will not suffer them to meet in the same subjects and are afraid to administer the seal to those parents whose children we freely administer it unto but the resusal of the oâ—â—e followed home will soon destroy the administration to the other for in all Scripture Churches they always meet together in one and the same subject When Mr. Collins hath chewed well of these several things I hope he will finde in himself a better digesting of that which I have given of the Apostles sense And therefore in the next place I shall come to touch a little further of actual unworthinesse in reference to the Sacrament having clearly removed that miserable mistake of personal unworthinesse in order to unworthy receiving And indeed the whole controversie will be brought to actuall sinning for that is the very thing the Church of Corinth was blamed and punished for Then the dispute will lye in these few questions Whether any unworthy actions of persons in the Church makes them guilty of unworthy receiving more then of unworthy Communion in other special parts of publick worship or no Whether the Church be able to judge iâ— particular what persons in the Church upon tryal or otherwise will of necessity be guilty of the body and bloud of Christ and eaâ— judgement to themselves in the Apostle sense Whether the Church hath power to suspen Church-members from Sacramental Commâ—nion allowing them the priviledges of alâ— the other Ordinances I shall answer in the negative unto theâ—â— under favour to Mr. Collins or any otheâ— that shall endevour to give further satisfactions to the questions And to the first I haâ— hinted at already in answer to Mr. Colliâ— quotations 1 Cor. 5. chap. 10. all that bâ— hath said from those Scriptures doth noâ— amount to eating and drinking unworthily that was punished chap. 11. I have also in mâ— Book shewed at large what eating and drinking unworthily it was that was punished and which made guilty of the body anâ— bloud of Christ in short I conceive it weâ— an open abuse or a Sacrilegious profaning holy things to common use with other disorders in the very time of the administring the Lords Supper practically destroying the very essence and spiritual ends of Chrisâ—â— holy institution And upon this accounâ— alone they were guilty of the body and bloud of Christ and of eating judgement to themselves not for any other cause or sins they lay under but for this cause some are dead c. And whosoever they are that eat and drink the outward signes set apart by the Word and Prayer to represent the body and bloud of Christ unworthily as the Corinthians did are guilty of the same sin and lyable to the same judgements but that all other sinful actions committed before they come though not repented of doth make guilty of polluting the body and bloud of Christ and of judgement they demeaning themselves reverently and conformly as to the externals thereof is to me not only doubtful but
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
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
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
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
their children unto baptism if no promise belong to him to make use of as his is not his childes baptism a considerable use The absolute promise of the first grace to the unregenerate is the main encouragement to the use of means for the attainment of grace This is that which opens a door of hope unto all and as they are sinners destitute of the work of grace they may rightly goe to God and pray for a new heart and for his Spirit to beget regenerating grace it their gracelesse spirits Oh turn thou us Lord and we shall be converted unto thee for thou never saidst to the seed of Jacob Seek yee my face in vain And we are the seed of thy Church and people whom thou hast promised to be a God unto and to make us thy people for thy names sake forsake us not but put forth 〈◊〉 work of thy mighty power to open our hearâ— to receive the grace of thy promise we 〈◊〉 objects of and without which we are undouâ— I say ask and you shall have for the Lorâ— will give his Spirit to them that ask it Anâ— this I hope is of good use to the unregenerate it 's a special ground to pray for renewing grace themselves and likewise for other that have grace to pray for them as Minister for their people and parents for their children c. Exclude them from these promises and you exclude them from your prayers for we have no warrant to pray for that which God doth not promise to give My fifth proposition That the Sacraments being visible representations of Christs death on which those promises are founded and by which they â—ne confirmed the use of the Sacraments belongs to those whom those promises doe immediately respect Unto this he hath nothing considerable but what hath been answered already only he grants the main of this And yet sayes that Sacraments are seals as well as signs 1. Sacraments are seals as they are signes Answ and not otherwise 2. They are but representatives of the real seal that confirms the absolute promises namely the death of Christ and so not seals properly but by way of resemblance giving the name to the signs that is only proper to the thing signified namely the death of Christ it being all one to imagine the Sacraments real seals of the Covenant with real presence If I mistake not hence it will follow That which the death of Christ is a seal of Sacraments are seals of but the death of Christ is a seal of the promises of first grace which respect the unregenerate in the Church therefore the use of these seals belong to them I see not but that the Sacraments as they are seals to confirm the truth of the Covenant in which are included promises of first grace to the unregenerate in the Church the unregenerate may use the seals for their incouragement to wait upon God in the use of that and all ordinary means in hope of the blessing of regenerating grace according to what is promised in the Word and sealed in the Sacrament who else should use the seals if not those that have a right unto what is sealed should not But then he saith It is false that the use of the Sacraments belongs to such as the promises of first grace doe respect for then the use of the Sacrameâ— belongs to Heathens but the use of it belongs 〈◊〉 those only who by faith apply the promises So long as any creatures are without to letter Answ and external administration of thâ— Covenant and have not so much as accepted of the outward tender and made eâ—trance therein by baptism they are strange from the Covenant of promise and without a literal ground of hope and without Goâ— I have shewed the difference already 〈◊〉 though I have granted elsewhere that thâ— Heathen are objects of the promise of 〈◊〉 grace in some remote sense yet it 's hard 〈◊〉 say of any Nation in special so long as thâ— Lord is pleased to withhold the ordinaâ— means of their conversion from them thâ— they are objects of that promise This is certain truth where the Lord hath a peopâ—â— to save he will either send his Word to 〈◊〉 them or bring them under the Word by soâ— providence or other to that end as for thoâ— that are left to wander in their own Idolitrous wayes there is no hope to such If 〈◊〉 Gospel be hid it 's hid to them that perish Anâ— whereas Mr. Collins saith The Sacrament belongs only to those who by faith apply the promiseâ— Alas this he takes for granted although be knows we have denyed it upon confiderable ground Take faith in his sense can any man imagine that all the people of the Jews were able by faith to apply the promises yet they were all bound to keep the Passeover Conceive how improbable it were that all that submitted unto baptism in the Apostles age were able by a true saith to apply the promises yet none were denyed the Supper that came under Baptism Doth Mr. Gollins think that all in our Church are able by a true sincere faith to apply the promises Yet we administer baptism unto their children a seal of the same promises upon the account of their parents And I verily judge that the parents are in as good a capacity for the holy Supper as their children are for holy baptism If the childes right may be derived more remote then much more the Parents of that childe as being a generation neerer that right If the promise include the grand childe much more his own childe And wherein is the holy Supper a different seal of the Covenant from baptism So that in giving Baptism to their child you clearly yeeld their right to use the Supper provided they be not excommunicated But Mr. Collins argues against me thus in his late Book pag. 104. Those who if they were Heathens might not be baptized though they be baptized and in the Church ought not to be admitted to the Lords Supper But those who are ignorant and scandalous if they were Heathens should not be baptized Ergo I grant his minor is true Answ that ignorant and scandalous Heathens should not be baptized But I deny his Major that ignorant and scandalous Christians are Heathens Suppose them unbaptized which they are not for I will suppose that their Covenant relation holds still though they were unbaptized they being the issue of persons in the Church and they never as yet have renounced the Covenant but adhere to the publick administration thereof which may be the case of some in these exorbitant time for there are many a growing up to year of discretion that through the delusion 〈◊〉 their parents are unbaptized the which 〈◊〉 think are no Heathen being Christians born nor cut off from Covenant relation noâ— Church-membership notwithstanding their parents wickednesse to dispute them ouâ— of the Covenant and consequently ouâ— of the Church and so from baptism a priviledge thereof
but they ought to be baptized when ever themselves or any other oâ— their friends desire it for them upon the account of membership it not being their fault it hath been neglected so long but their parents And I say likewise of the ignorant and scandalous born in the Church were they unbaptized the Church ought to use all means possible to perswade them unto it as their special duty to engage them unto better obedience and Church discipline for their amendment The children of Israel were uncircumcised a great many of them while they were in their travel in the Wildernesse their uncircumcision did not discovenant nor unchurch them but they were al circumcised when they came to Canaan God was angry with Moses for neglecting the circumcising of his sons but yet their Covenant relation held they must be circumcised And I think here is nothing against reason in all this But then there is not the like reason for Heathen to be baptized that are ignorant and scandalous because they are strangers from the Covenants of promise have no such priviledge as Covenant relation they are unclean and untill they embrace the faith of the Gospel and express themselves real in their acceptance of it and promise to joyn themselves with the visible professing body of Christ they may not be received These are two huge different things which Mr. Collins all along levels to the same and therefore his argument fals to nothing And I would have Mr. Collins and all others that professe themselves friends to the Church of England to beware how they maintain that Baptism makes Church-members it 's true of those that are of the Pagan world by nature they can in no wise be made members of the visible Church of Christ but by lawful baptism but those in the Church that are born of Christian parents are members born they being comprehended in the same Covenant with their parents But Mr. Collins in proof of his major saith It is against reason to say the contraray A notâ—ble proof indeed Let him shew us whâ— reason it 's against to say that Church-members unbaptized ought to be baptized upâ—â— lower personal qualifications then Heathen I come to my next proposition That the in the Church whom we cannot exclude from Câ—â—venant relation that are of years must not be excluded from the Sacrament because Sacrament are seals of Covenant love to that people the are in possession of Covenant administrations Mr. Collins in answer to this is fallen upon the old businesse again and wonders her years of discretion comes in for he saith the argument is to prove a right to Covenant seals for sâ—â— as are in Covenant relation Now children are 〈◊〉 Covenant relation that exception plainly implyes say he that Covenant relation is not enough to give right to Covenant seals And so he sayes I have answered my self Mr. Answ 1 Collins is more happy then others iâ— such an answer be judged a sufficient one because years of discretion is no essential oâ— Covenant relation but of a man putting him into an actual capacity to perform actâ— of worship the which until then he is not under the obligation of actual observance I have spoken enough to this already Why is not Covenant relation enough I never thought so but maintain that Covenant relation gives right to Covenant seals unto parents and children I hope I am as clear in this point as most are It 's an handsome shifting of an answer to say I have answered my self The argument lies to answer still If Sacraments be seals of covenant love to a people in possession of covenant administrations then such a people ought to use these seals of Covenant love unto them in remembrance thereof untill they be legally dispossest of the same But ours are in Covenant relation and in possession of the Ordinances of the Covenant Therefore it belongs to them to make use of the seals of Gods love in remembrance of his goodnesse towards them Untill you can discovenant them it 's a weak thing to goe about to dispriviledge them in the externals of the Church especially the Ordinances being the Ordinary way and means of attaining the grace of the Covenant In his 35. pag. he tels us That Sacraments are not seals of the everlasting Covenant but seal to the acceptation of the Covenant to which faith must be supposed I have alwayes thought that the Covenant made with Abraham and his seed Answ and so often published and repeated and explained to the Jews Church and applyed to the Gospel Church Heb. 8. had been an everlasting Covenant of grace and that Sacraments seal to this Covenant And that not only the new Covenant but the seals thereof belong unto the visible Church And that the agreement or Covenant between the Father and the Son for the elect had been a different thing from the Covenant made unto the Church which Sacraments seal If that were not an everlasting Covenant that Circumcision was a fign and seal of I must confesse I am out but I am sure it 's that which I have been alwayes taught and never heard it denyed but by Anabaptists and such like Heterodox spirits It 's true this everlasting Covenant is to be entred into by those the seals are to be applyed unto and this entrance or acceptance is either personal or parental An alien upon profession of faith and desiring to joyn himself to the visible Church of Christ by baptism and so to come voluntarily under the Laws of Christ is to be received he hath accepted of the laws of the Covenant But for those that are in the Church by nature and professe no other religion and worship but the true are all supposed to have such a faith at least as doth argue their acceptance of the Covenant during their abode in the Church the which is sufficient to ingage them unto Christian obedience and doth entitle them to external Church priviledges although this is not enough in order to their justification and salvation but yet the external part is the way prescribed for the attainment of the internal blessings of the everlasting Covenant even to as many in the Church that Jesus Christ was sent into the world to seek and to save by giving them repentance and remission of sins Hence it is very necessary to distinguish of a twofold acceptation one common that accepts of the external part of the Covenant which reprobates doe with the elect the other is internal and special when God by his Spirit opens the heart and inclines the will to receive the grace of the Covenant unto eternal life the former is that which gives right to the external priviledges of the Church the other to the internal blessings of grace and glory The former hath the promise of the first grace the other the promise of increase in grace and the reward of glory If that be true of Mr. Collins That Sacraments seal to the acceptation of the Covenant which
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
by the authority of the Church baptizing them as members of the visible body of Christ cannot be legally put out of Church communion at the pleasure of some few Elders of themselves unlesse deligated so to act from a National Assembly of Presbyters Though the right of discipline may be inherent in every lawful Presbyter yet the exercise thereof is proper only unto those that are intrusted therewith by the representatives of the whole Irregular actings and good ends cannot stand together to doe evil that good may come is not only dangerous but damnable The state of unregeneracy and personal unworthinesse in the Church doth not bar any one from the Sacrament nor doth come within the verge of the Church to judge of or correct in the least Actual unworthinesse persisted in unto obstinacy is the only object of Church censures of persons in the Church yet all actual unworthinesse doth not necessarily run persons upon eating and drinking the Lords Supper unworthily in the Apostles sense There is no personal unworthinesse in the Church in a relative sense in reference to the Sacrament or any uther Ordinance but the carelesse neglect thereof is most unworthy and punishable Not to discern the Lords Body is not to put a difference between common bread and the instituted signes set a part by Word and Prayer to represent the death of Christ for remission of sins Examination is a private duty to be performed between God and the conscience unto a profitable receiving having a special eye to the rules of the whole administration making their approaches there accordingly externally at least There is a real difference to be put between the unregenerate Christian and an unregenerate Infidel the Church and the world believer and unbeliever the confounding of these hath run us into Brownism of late The whole Church is in Covenant with God and are the immediate objects of the promises but the world lies in wickednesse and under wrath without the promises of the Covenant and hope and God in the world The whole Church are under all Gospel observance the whole work of the Ministry as the ordinary means of their conversion and salvation The Pagan world for the most part never had the advantage of so much as any part of that work the Gospel being hid to them that perish Salvation is of the Christian Church but no salvation out of it How can they call on him in whom they have not believed and how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard And there is salvation in no other Name whatsoever save only in Jesus Christ That the legally unclean were not so much debarred the benefit of the Passeover as other Sacrifices or spiritual observances in that Church That the Moral uncleannesse then was no more bar to the Passeover then unto all other observances in the Church Nay that was either punished by the Judges according unto their Judicial proceedings or otherwise cleansed from it by a continual course of Sacrifices And therefore no bar at all against any That no persons in the Church of the Old Testament or in the Churches of the New read of in Scriptures were ever debarred the Passeover or the Sacrament of the holy Supper and allowed the benefit of all the other Ordinances in the Church Hence I cannot but conceive that suspension from the Sacrament alone usually called the minor Excommunication is but a humane invention in the Church More is required to the Lords Supper then to Baptism in the Church yet lesse is required to the holy Supper of them that are Church-members then of Heathens unto Baptism We must distinguish of real and relative personal worthinesse The whole visible Church not under Church censures are personally worthy in a relative sense And hence there is no personal unworthinesse in the Church 2. Of believing in a large sense and of believing in a strict sense both to be accounted true believers in Scripture sense The denomination of a Believer is as well derived from a right object believed on as from the right and holinesse of the Subject believing 3. Of entring into the Covenant and of continuing in the Covenant The former is proper for Infidels the latter concerns the Church for it is supposed that all in the Church have entred the Gospel Covenant And in the Church we must distinguish of transgressing the Covenant and renouncing the Covenant of breaking and renewing it and whosoever is entred into the Covenant comes under the whole administration thereof and cannot be disobliged from any observance thereof but by the binding power of the Keys of Christs Kingdome exercised Juridically Beloved Friends I have now given you an account of the most of my principles that I build upon and conclude free admission to the holy Supper from And I judge they are such that have their rise from the holy Scriptures or are rational deductions drawn from thence which are not in the least loosened nor shaken by Mr. Collins nor any other of his judgement nor I think never will notwithstanding his forwardnesse of spirit in the close of his Book to cry up a victory when he has not so much as routed me in any one thing in all my Book which argues a bold conceited vapouring spirit a little too much Therefore now in short I shall collect some of his main strength and magisterial principles made use of to undermine the foundations of mine either exprest or implyed He denyes that Church-membership alone doth give a full right to the Sacrament therefore superaddes knowledge faith and the fruits of holinesse to give one right all which say I is included in Membership And his superadding will give a Pagan right He affirms that he looks upon all Church-members habitually worthy from their interest in Christ until they discover the contrary by their actual offendings Then say I he holds That all Infants are habitually worthy from their interest in Christ and commonly fall away from that state of grace He sayes 'T is not much material whether the Corinths were punished for habitual unworthinesse or no and yet upon the matter that the whole he disputes against He saith the unregenerate are personally unworthy and therefore cannot receive He sayes there is no promise belongs to the unregenerate in the Church that have not faith to apply it and that they are rather objects of the first grace then of the promise of that grace and that the Heathen are as much objects of the promises of first grace as the unregenerate part of the Church And doubts whether any promise belong to men as unregenerate if so then Heathen may come to the Sacrament He puts no difference between the unregenerate in the Church and the Pagan world in respect of promises titles duties priviledges except it be the baptizing their children he undisciples them unduties them uncovenants them in reference to the holy Supper and yet will have them Church-members and present their children unto baptism
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
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
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
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
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
Israel were accepted of in their keeping the Passeover although many of them did eat the Passeover otherwise then was written for some that were unclean did eat thereof 2 Chron. 30.18 19 20. 6. It was the will of God that declared that such things upon a man should be unclean and all things he touched should be so by his institution only but there is no such thing declared by the will of God touching moral uncleannesse in the Church as to debar them the Passeover or any other Ordinanceâ— all his and other mens quotations have been sufficiently examined as to this and fully answered unlesse it be one of Mr. Collins Deut. 23.18 Thou shall not bring the price of a whore or the price of a Dogge into the House of the Lord for any vow for these are abomination to the Lord if not the price then not the Whore or Dogge He argues from the lesser to the greater Answ Doth it follow that because they might not offer any of those two for any vow that therefore they might not bring their Lambe in its season to the House of the Lord and offer it before him according to Gods command It was an abomination to doe those things that God forbad therefore it is abomination to doe that which God commands that 's all the text will prove as to debarring of the moral unclean from the Passeover Away with such trifling and impertinent applications of holy Scriptures The truth is men of his judgement must do more then they have yet done I had almost said more then they can doe or else had better never to have said any thing about this argument drawn from the Analogy of the Passeover all that man can say against us from that doth but discover their own weaknesse in fighting against the Truth His tenth Argument It 's a sin in a Minister to declare those one visible Body who are not one body with visible Saints but scandalous sinners are not one body with visible Saints And be that gives the Lords Supper declares those to whom he gives it unto to be one visible Body Ergo. 1. Answ Is it a sin to say the visible Church is the visible body of Christ and this visible body consists of good and bad Wheat and Tares c. Is it a sin to declare this 2. Are not all that are baptized into one Body of that Body and are not the scandalous in the Church baptized and is it a sin for one to declare that the baptized are one visible body with visible Saints What is a visible Saint but a baptized visible professing Christian that is a member of the true visible Church Is not an offending brother a brother and within while he is within If the Sacrament of baptism doe initiate into that one body and the Sacrament of the Supper bespeaks them so too that are baptized Is it a sin for a Minister to give the Sacrament to such by declaring that which is true and which no man can deny that holds our Church a true visible Church Who can you say is not a real member of Christ in particular And one that he dyed not for The Apostle affirmed it of all in the Church of Corinth that they were one body What if Gillespy will not be perswaded the Apostle would say it of all we finde it so written and I think it safe to be perswaded of the truth of what is written the authority of Scripture shall perswade with me before the authority of men His eleventh Argument The Sacrament is not to be given to any who are not Christs Disciples but scandalous sinners are none of his disciples Ergo. The Major is true Answ but the Minor is to be distinguished into scandalous sinners out of the Church and such like sinners in the Church to the former it 's granted but to the latter it 's denyed What are Church-members but Disciples What are all that professe the true Christian Religion and only call upon the name of the Lord Jesus in hope of eternal life by him but Disciples if they be not Disciples and within then they are Heathens and without whom the Church have nothing to doe to judge in order to their amendment and if they be without and strangers from the Covenant of promises why doe you baptize their children or presse them to any duties of Gospel worship as incumbent upon them as Christians If they be Christians and within why should they not have their proper titles and priviledges of that estate If you can make them neither within the Church nor without then it 's possible you may doe something in this argument and when you have done that I doubt not but you will be answered His 12.13 arguments I have answered in my answer to what he hath excepted against The Bar removed His fourteenth Argument It is unlawful to partake of other mens sins Ephes 5.7 But he that gives the Sacrament wittingly to an ignorant scandalous person partakes with him in his sin Ergo. I grant his Major Answ but deny his Minor because giving and receiving the Sacrament is a most necessary duty of worship which both Minister and people stand mutually ingaged to observe and perform as any other duty of worship in the Church and the Sacrament being given and received with that reverence and order according to the form of holy institution there is no sin as to the matter it self and as for the manner as in every thing we fail all so in this and if this were sufficient to forbear the Sacrament then we must give over all worship In all duties better to doe as well as we can then not at all so that it follows that those that deny the Sacrament to those that are bound to receive it are partakers of their sin in not allowing them to doe their duty for ignorance and other offendings doe not excuse from precepts of institute Worship and the holy Supper more then all other Gospel Worship while persons are within Shall mans impotency and iniquity pull down Gods authority If in all other duties of Gospel Worship such had better obey as wel as they can then neglect Gods worship altogether it 's but a begging the question to deny it in the observance of the Sacrament It 's true a Minister may be guilty of his peoples ignorance and may fear and tremble at that guilt if he neglect all or any due and probable principles of the true Religion that may in some measure prepare them to profit by every Ordinance in the Church But having done his duty he need not fear to give them the Sacrament but tremble at the neglect of that administration and discouraging weak and ignorant Christians from it True it is also that a Minister and the Church may make themselves accessory to the sins of offending brethren in the Church by their carelesse indulging of them in their evill wayes by not reproving admonishing censuring c. by which sinners
should be reformed from their evils otherwayes the Minister and Church may partake of those sins though they never come to the Sacrament but this is a conceit of some men that unlesse a man doe what he can to keep such away from the Sacrament he is a partaker of their sins whereas the Sacrament is his duty as well as any other Worship who is not to be blamed for that but for his sins such works of darknesse that the Apostle doth instance in Ephes 5.2 3 4. the place that this argument stands upon We are not to reform such offenders in those lawful things they are but to reform them from the wicked and ungodly courses that they offend in I grant that if any in the Church should pollute the holy signs of Bread and Wine to profane ends in a meer carnal eating and drinking unto excesse as the Corinthians did and were punished for or if by any rude profane carriage or misdemeanour shall be disorderly in the time of administration the Officers of the Church not doing what in them lyes to restrain and prevent it might be partakers of their sins but this is a case which was hardly ever known in our Congregations But as for Church-members that come with reverence and demean themselves orderly and conform to the external actions according to the rules of institution there can nothing be proved against any for being partakers with other mens sins as to this particular so far as I am able to judge I have now given you an account of Mr. Collins 14. arguments to prove Suspension from the Sacrament only distinct from Excommunication And if I mistake not very much I have sully answered them by removing all his foundations from Scripture and reason he pretends to deduct them from What others can doe I doe not know I will prejudge none of his perswasion but yet I am somewhat confident that the more wise men search into this Controversie the more they will finde it a work of that difficulty to make good Suspension from the Lords Supper only from Scriptures and allow the liberty of all other Ordinances in the Church as members that they had need follow no other studies but this that undertake it Touching that authority brought in proof of Suspension so largely insisted upon I cannot examine And therefore must leave it to those that are in a capacity to search and judge whether Mr. Collins hath dealt any more impartially with his Authors then with the holy Scriptures I question whether any of his quotations Ancient or Modern doth reach Suspension as himself hath stated it and as many practise it for it was alwayes to be put in execution by the authority of the whole Church and not left to the liberty of a Pastor and his Elders to deny the Sacrament to whom they please without any remedy of appeals Whether they suspended from the Sacrament of the holy Supper only and allowed the suspended the liberty of all the other Ordinances in the Church as Church-members Whether their Suspension was gradual and made use of only in order to their proceedings unto Excommunication and so of no longer continuance then to try the offenders obstinacy or repentance Whether they grounded Suspension on the Word of God or on the policy and prudence of the Church if he say the former he may doe well to shew us their grounds if the latter then that doth much alter the case for Mr. Collins doth not urge it upon any such account nor may the Churches prudence be pleaded where Christ commands and the Word doth determine Whether non-admittance of Penitents Aliens born Catechumens unbaptized were any thing at all unto suspension from the Lords Supper I question whether any one instance can be given of any Church or persons that were judged Orthodox that ever maintained that a Church-member in possession of the Sacrament was denyed the Sacrament by his Minister and Elders meerly for ignorance and for the omitting of some private duties and allowed the benefit of all other Ordinances in the Church as members which is the practice of the Presbyterian party that Mr. Collins defends or that ever any scandalous members were only kept from the Sacrament without any further Juridical proceedings unto Excommunication or whether any Church ever would suffer their members of years to neglect the Ordinance of the holy Supper year after year through carelesnesse or meerly leave them out as Heathens though born in the Church and baptized Now I say if that authority which is quoted by Mr. Collins will not reach these cases they are but little for his purpose they will not speak to the clearing of the Controversie in hand Besides humane authority only will not satisfie the conscience of the doubtful it is only the authority of the holy Scriptures that must satisfie conscience and be binding unto all And as it is apparent the ancient Church did erre in their extremity of rigour in their censures in respect of length of time so it 's possible enough they might erre in their several degrees of censures Not so much their practice as the ground thereof from Scripture rule will give satisfaction to those that doubt Besides these let Mr. Collins give us authority of any Church before these last ages that ever made a Pastoral examination of Church-members of years of that necessity unto the holy Supper without which they would debar them the Sacrament By these and the like queries I hope we shall hear by some of the Presbyterian judgement or others by what authority they practise so many things not to be found in the holy Scriptures But I finde Mr. Collins in his Booke pag. 157. making some Apology for themselves He confesses their present practise doth differ from other reformed setled Churches as to the suspension of any they admit they agree with others and wil suspend none but after admonition for some scandalous sin And indeed saith he this only is properly Suspension We deny the Sacrament indeed to others viz. such as will not give account of their faith and submit to the order of the Church c. What did Mr. Collins mean in his stating the question to put in ignorant persons Answ 1 if none are to be suspended but after admonition for some scandalous sin if this indeed be properly suspension what will he make denying the Sacrament to the ignorant not resusing to learn and denying it those that are not convinced of submitting to Church examination and an explicite profession of faith as their duty What will he call that If it be not suspension properly what is it then the punishment is the same with those that are excommunicate for scandalous sins or suspended properly all they doe amounts but to this to deny them the Sacrament And yet they would be judged to agree with other reformed Churches but it was never heard of before these present times that a Heathen an excommunicate person the suspended or left out
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
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
and which none ever was denyed in the Apostolical Churches during their abode in those Churches And to those that judge ours lawfully baptized and in a true Church cannot rationally refuse to admit them while they are within And again if the examination defended be a necessary duty why not binding unto all Church-members of the same kinde Necessary duties use to be universal How comes this to be restrained only to such as well may be suspected for incompetent knoweldge Sure if it be a necessary duty it is incumbent upon all in the Church or else to none at all if a Minister be at liberty to dispense with some a gift may blind their eyes at length But what Scriptures determine of the just measure of this competent knowledge that the Ignorant are to be examined of without which they must be excluded the Sacrament if no certain rule can be found to satisfie us in this how can men determine of it Then it will follow as in all other doubtful or groundless things so many men so many mindes and will but adde more fewel to our too many hot divisions already And know an unquestionable duty of publick worship should be made void upon such trifling uncertainties that not any are able to determine of seems to me too great a boldnesse in man Thus as briefly as I could I have not only questioned the question but have examined it in particulars thereof by explaining and yeelding something and by denying other things intended by the Author And I think the true question is this Whether it be the duty of all professing the true Religion and admitted into fellowship and Communion of the Church already by holy baptism and constantly attend the publick Worship of God to give an account of their knowledge and faith upon the command and examination of their Minister and Officers and either to be admitted or refused the Lords Supper as these examiners shall approve or not approve of the measure truth and soundnesse of the knowledge of all and whether all that refuse to submit to this duty are justly to be excluded the Sacrament I dare say that 's the proper question as to our case and now I come to examine the Scriptures and reasons laid down by Mr. Saunders to prove the affirmative Namely that all are bound to stand to this tryal before they can lawfully be admitted to the Lords Supper His quotations are many and he is something large upon them therefore I must desire the Readers patience in my answer yet I will promise thee I have laboured to avoid all tedious impertinences Mr. Saunders first proof 1 Cor. 14.40 Let all things be done decently and in order This he saith is a general rule serving till the worlds end to direct the Churches in matters of outward worship whereof this of admission to and exclusion from the Lords Supper is one Who knows not that the Apostle as in the 11. chapter Answ 1 reproves the Church of Cotinth for her divisions and disorders in their publick Assemblies in the very time of administring the Lords Supper and prescribes them rules and orders in special as to the reforming of those profane disorders so in this chapter he takes them up for some other disorders they were guilty of in the like assemblies in the carrying on of some other exercises of Religion amongst themselves as verse 26. doth intimate How is it then brethren when you come together every one of you hath a Psalm hath a doctrine hath a tongue hath a revelation hath an interpretation let all things be done to edifying The fault was this in the exercises of these different gifts by different persons they observed no order but made a confusion all exercising their particular gifts at once that not any could be edified by anothers gift either for his own or because so many spoke together that those that were hearers could not tell which to attend c. Therefore after many particular directions prescribed to particular cases lest the Apostle should omit some other things that might fall out about the ordering of Worship in the Church of God he gives them more general rules that might reach all other the like cases Let all things be done decently and in order The Apostle orders speech and silence in their Assemblies so as all may be edified and comforted but here is not a word of admission to and exclusion from the Sacrament nor any other Ordinance in the Church for they that were received into the Church were bound as Christians to attend upon all Ordinances of publick Worship while they were within this rule was given to direct us about some necessary circumstances in the ordering of necessary worship which other Scriptures inforce upon all in the Church to observe as time and place and external order in all parts of institute worship decent and reverent gesture silence and watchings authorized administrators c. But Mr. Saunders consequence is false for it is not such a general rule as he would have it namely to warrant a Minister to receive of his people to duties of necessary worship whom hee pleases and refuse whom he pleases is this to direct in matters or circumstances of outward worship to exclude Christians from their necessary duties of worship If this will warrant his excluding from one Ordinance of worship then from all at his pleasure if a persons admission and exclusion be but a circumstance of outward worship then our Bishops did well in forbidding preaching and hearing in the afternoon and punishing those that made conscience of their duty otherwise By this Church-members are not left at liberty to doe what Christ commands but what the Church commands we may see how ways of mens own chooseing will warp them If this consequence had been published by a Bishop in their times Christians would have startled at it But he goes on And supposes they had no particular warrant in Gods Word to bear them out yet saith he if our course be holy and orderly it hath warrant from that general rule 1. Answ That course cannot be holy and orderly that tends to a desperate schism in the Church as I have hinted already 2. That tends to their peoples hinderance and exclusion from their necessary duties of worship as Christians 3. That is warranted by no Scripture rule 4. The discovery of the fallacie of your consequence from this general rule makes your supposition nothing for your purpose The Apostle speaks of such a rational prudential decency and order in the Church that may be necessary and yet no where in the Scriptures determined of as to particulars either in commanding or forbidding And would Ministers take up an order under the same notion to instruct ask questions of their people to that end they may better profit by every Ordinance and be incouraged to a more diligent and frequent attendance thereon in hope of a blessing I conceive were nearer the minde of Christ from this
text then what it is urged for Next he assumes something from what is granted by Bishop Abbot but that 's nothing to the text nor proof of his way pag. 131. The Text he saith will yeeld us this argument page 133. Where is no due order in Sacramental administrations Mr. Saund. there Gods Word is not observed But where all are admitted there is no order Therefore in admission of all Gods will is not observed The major may be yeelded the Minor is to be denyed by distinguishing 1. Answ Where all are admitted without distinction of Christian and Heathen baptized or unbaptized a member in Communion and one under Excommunication c. there is no order it 's true as being against many Scriptures But 2. where all are admitted that are of a true Orthodox Church and are baptized professing Christians under the Churches indulgence the children of whom himself accounts holy federally of these the Minor is to be denyed and so the argument fals for pressing of baptized Christians or believers come under the obligation of this part of institute worship in the Church as of any other the precept is commended to the whole Church As oft as you doe this doe it in remembrance of me 1 Cor. 11.24 25. And if a Minister will be faithful to his charge he must teach and incourage al of his flock to observe and doe all that Christ commands Mat. 28.20 And how can they say as St. Paul did that they kept back nothing that was necessary for the Church when they keep back so necessary an Ordinance from their respective flocks The Lord discover unto his servants their great neglects and error Mr. Saunders addes in proof of his Minor thus Where there is mixture and confusion of good and bad fit and unfit there is no order But where all are admitted is this mixture Ergo. What is an evill mixture Answ and against the Word I have explained above and to call this mixture of good and bad as he cals them evill in the Church in reference to external Ordinances and duties of worship and homage is very unsound and doth accuse the wisdome of God of weaknesse in constituting his visible Church so as to consist of good and bad fit and unfit but are not all things sanctified by the warrant of the Word to the whole Church And are not all things clean to them in a federal sense Is there not grace and mercy enough in the Gospel Covenant made to the professing Church to cure the worst Gods blessing concurring with the necessary means used to that end Let not men be dividing where God joyns by his own constitution and merciful gift comprehending the natural children of all parents in the Church with the Church for the gathering of his elect out of them all To call this a mixture in an evil sense as corrupting the Church and Ordinances is a slander and an unjust reproach brought upon the Church by rash and inconsiderate heads care is to be taken for the exercise of true discipline for the amendment of the scandalous as is provided in all my writings But there is nothing can be said otherwise to exclude any in the Church from necessary duties of institute Worship And therefore the vanity of that self flattery is discovered in his 134. pag. wherein he applauds their course and way as tending to advance order and holinesse in the Church which indeed they are guilty of the breach of very great commands of Jesus Christ in setting up this pretended order and holinesse Let them consider better of it and free themselves from what I charge them with if they can tell how or else make good what they promise in returning from their way of schism to their Pastoral duties to their respective flocks His second proof is Jer. 15.19 If thou takest the precious from the vile then shalt thou be as my mouth In short to give a few hints of the true sense before I examine his Answ The people of Judah and Jerusalem were in a most desperate apostasie in the reign of King Zedekiah the time of this holy Prophets prophesying for they had forsaken the Lord and his prescribed worship which but a little before godly Josiah had put them in possession of according to the laws of God left in writing by Moses but his son being wicked turned to Idolatry and all the people with him ran a whoring after strange Gods insomuch that the Lord complains of them according to thy Cities are thy Gods oh Judah for which and many other of their abominable doings the Lord sent his servant Jeremie to denounce Gods judgements against them especially that judgement of their being subdued by the King of Babylon and carryed away captives by him This message did so vexe them that they wholly set themselves in opposition to the Prophet insomuch that the good man was so tired out with their revilings and threats that out of his frailty he grew into a passionate discontent questioning the message that he had received from the mouth of the Lord and staggering at Gods promise of protection made in particular to him chap. 1.8 here he chargeth God rashly as if he had been to him as a lyar and as waters that fail chap. 15.18 this 19. verse is an answer to Jeremiahs rash charge Therefore thus saith the Lord if thou return or repent then will I bring thee again and thou shalt stand before me if thou take away the precious from the vile then shalt thou be as my Word let them return to thee and submit to the truth of that message I have sent by thee But do not thou return to them by reason of their extream unreasonable opposition they raise against thee for I will be as good to thee as ever I promised to be for I will make thee to this people a strong brazen wall and they shall fight against thee but they shall not prevail c. v. 20. Jeremiahs duty was to bear up himself in discharge of the message sent upon with courage constancy faithfulnesse against all discouragements met with whatever he was to denounce the judgements of God against them for their provoking sins to bring them to repentance or leave them without excuse and in so doing his duty the Word of the Lord spoken by him should have an answerable effect upon the spirits of men some should believe it and reform and yeeld themselves voluntarily to the King of Babylon and so live others should be hardened and accuse the Prophet of revolting from his own Nation and holding intelligence with an enemy and discouraging the people from their arms by perswading them to yeild and live and so set themselves against him and reject his word and perish Thus the Word of the Lord made a separation for the saving of some and destruction of others I take it And so the stream of Interpreters runs but to this Mr. Saunders answers If this Text allows only a
doctrinal separation and denies any other then Excommunication fals We doe not say that this Text denies any other separation but this we say Answ it was but doctrinal of it self in respect of act as touching the Prophet yet in respect of the effect the Word took upon them it became personal and the instrumental cause of some to separate from that deluge of Idolatry the most were involved in nor is there any danger that Excommunication should fall unlesse it stands upon this text so long as other texts of holy Writ uphold it which himself cannot be ignorant of and this separation of Jurisdical Excommunication we grant and examination in order unto it But what is this in favour of the thing in the question that is only in reference to a persons knowledge which not being judged competent should be excluded the Sacrament these are huge different cases Takes occasion to speak of separation as Ecclesiastical Mr. Saund. and that twofold 1. From an Idolatrous Church as we from Rome justly c. 2. When a Church doth separate from the scandalous members of her own body Or separate such as are scandalous from her this he saith is grounded upon the Text in hand and 2 Thess 3.6 This is tearmed a negative separation in a Church not from it This he saith is their case they separate only in that wherein those separated from cannot lawfully joyn pag. 136. The first separation may be lawful when we cannot have communion with them in the main essentials of doctrine and worship Answ the whole of these holy things being mingled with the superstitious inventions and heretical doctrines of men the text in hand doth justifie this For the Church of the Jews was then Idolatrous in their worship and had forsaken the Lord and his prescribed worship therefore he denounceth most terrible judgements against them by his Prophet to reform them which could not be as to particulars without separating from their Idolatrous assemblies of worship But to say as he in the next that this text doth warrant a separation in a Church where the doctrine and worship is holy and owned by the presence and blessing of the Lord as themselves cannot deny of ours is too impudently asserted How proper it is for a Church to separate from the scandalous members of her own body I am yet to learn that she may separate such as are scandalous from her Juridically is all along granted but this is nothing to their case who confesse they excommunicate none But here lies the bottom of all They separate only in that wherein those separated from cannot lawfully joyn Let 's examine how the text in hand will warrant them in that Did Jer. and those that were separated by vertue of Gods Word separate from the other of the Church because they could not lawfully joyn with them in Gods own prescribed worship which all were injoyned by Gods command to observe Then it will be some ground for your way but as there can be no such thing in the text so no colour of ground for you to plead hence in defence of your way Nay it may rather reflect upon you thus As they fell off from that Reformation of Josiah that had reduced the people to a conformity to the Law and chose to themselves new Idolatrous wayes that God commanded not so you fall off from that Reformation begun according to the Laws of Christ enjoyning al professing baptized Christians to a conformity to all his laws and Ordinances in the Church and choose to your selves a way of Schism and separation needlesly without the least shew of solid ground for if an Israelite though otherwise ignorant and wicked was priviledged to joyn with the Church in all holy and commanded worship then why not a Christian as well under an equal capacity If those you separate from in that of the Sacrament be under the obligation of Christs command as they are professing baptized Christians which none can deny upon good ground then Christs command is of sufficient warrant to justifie their lawful joyning with you as in all other commanded duties of worship you seeme to practise the antecedent hath been proved already from 1 Cor. 11.24 25. Matth. 28.20 the consequence will be yeelded I hope But to give you the sum of all he draws from the text in hand That which God commands is our duty but God requires more then a doctrinal separation in applying the Word Therefore more is our duty His Major is undenyable Answ 1 his Minor is true also and therefore Excommunication iâ— granted though not from this text but what 's this argument to prove that those that either refuse to be examined by their Minister and Officers or upon Examination not satisfying their Minister and Officers in respect of knowledge only ought to be excluded the Sacrament Indeed all he saith to this Answ in order to the text is but this one slender clause Now if some separation must be made then examination and such like proper means also pag. 138. Though this may be granted in respect of Excommunication yet this is more then can be concluded from the text in hand as I have given sufficient hints of already His third proof is 2 Thess 3.2 6 14 15 verses Mr. Saunders saith The Apostle speaks of wicked men vers 2. which he will have noted vers 14 that is censured as is plain c. In the 2. vers he gives a character of some false brethren unreasonable wicked men then a command vers 6. to withdraw and after to have no company vers 14. which by the following words we are constrained to understand of some exclusion from fellowship in some Ordinances c. 1. If those unreasonable wicked men were of the Church and Brethren Answ which the Apostle desires the Church to pray that he may be delivered from in respect of his safety then surely they deserved to be excommunicated and cast out out of all Christian Communion or else none at all and if such were the Delinquents writ about vers 6.14 Divines need not fear to say that Excommunication is too much at first as he pag. 140. and therefore by his own sense from vers 2. this text will prove no more but what he always granted namely excommunication If those unreasonable wicked men there meant were not of the Church but persecutors that absurdly hindred the preaching and profession of the Gospel as all men where the Apostle came amongst had not faith but were either Infidels or Apostates then to what purpose are those directions given to this Church toward such that were in no capacity to be dealt withall as members in Communion for they that are without God judgeth Suppose one should grant him that this withdrawing is to be understood of some exclusion from fellowship in some Ordinances what can hence be concluded for his way As to examination in respect of knowledge only which is the thing in question as himself hath
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
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