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
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
Church But Reader I will detain thee no longer in the porch only let me intreat a candid and charitable conceiving of my sense drift and end in what I have written I would provoke none but leave the probability of what I have asserted from Scripture and reason to the consideration of all Only this let me tell thee by the way That Suspension as it 's stated by Mr. Collins I judge to be sufficiently confuted in the latter part of this Book What himself or any other may doe further in stating it and proving it by Scripture or reason deduced thence I know not I think whosoever undertakes it will finde it a hard task to make this good That some Church-members of years and indued with reason shall and ought to be denyed the Communion of the Lords Supper and yet be allowed the liberty of all other Communion in acts of worship as Church members at that present And though I doe not in plain terms prove it an invention of men yet I conceive I have so removed the arguments and reasons it 's pretended to be built upon that it doth not yet appear to be the Ordinance of Christ and so by consequence that it is but a Tradition of men Jesus Christ commands all that are Disciples Church-members to observe all his commands from which none that are baptized can be excluded without equal authority to that of Christ Suspension from the Sacrament only must first be proved an Ordinance of Christ before any may be suspended from it For no authority on earth can disoblige from actual duty but the same that doth oblige to duty I mean no authority can doe it but that of Christ in giving the power of the keys of the Church to binde and loose authoritatively To conclude let none deceive themselves in reading this Book as if it were intended for defence of promiscuous Communion for what I intend therein is to justifie a lawful Communion in the Lords Supper according unto the rules of the Law and Gospel and sure that is the most pure Communion that is most agreeable to rule as the case now stands in our Church Mixt Communion properly is to admit an Infidel Jew or Pagan unbaptized to the Sacrament that denyes or knows not that Christ is come in the flesh or to admit the Excommunicate before they have given satisfaction to the Church by their repentance and amendment of life If I should plead for such a Communion then it would reflect upon me to my reproach shame But I plead not for this but for Church discipline to reform the disorderly in the Church Juridically I would have the Church still to preserve the form of all necessary duties of worship though they cannot bring up all to the power of godlinesse as is desirable Better to keep up Religion though but in the right form then not at all What reason can any have to discourage from any religious form of true worship under this pretence that they come not up to the inward power which is undiscernable for the most part Form and power are inseparable in the true Religion where the Lord gives his blessing That place of Timothy is usually misunderstood in our times for it is clear they had not so much as the external form of true Christian Doctrine and Worship but such a form of godlinesse as Heathens have or may have for it was spoken of false teachers and seducers that usually make pretences of a form of godlinesse of their own devising and deny or be enemies to the form of godlinesse which is according to truth commanded of God for they are such as resist the truth men of corrupt mindes reprobate concerning the doctrine of faith God never blesses false forms of worship with his powerful presence working grace in them that out of strong delusion have invented those forms but forms of his own prescribed worship are the power of God to salvation to whom he will Now I crave pardâ—n of all sober men for this my so bold attempt to clash with so many able solid Divines as I shall be judged to do I reverence all and should patiently wait and without contending submit to all were the Church in a setled state but we having run into such endless divisions and separations it concerns every one to study and indeavour the regaining of the settlement peace and edification of the whole And I could wish that men of â—ober principles who have an eye at the same end would be more serious in weighing the grounds we build upon and the weapons we fight with in managing this controversie I could wish that able and learned men would throughly search and more deeply dive into this controversie for I know that unlesse a great deal more can be said against Free Admission as it is stated then I could as yet ever hear of contrary mindes will be forced either to yeeld or else they will run themselves upon such rocks as will quite break the constitution of our Church But prove all things and impartially incline to own and imbrace that which brings the fullest and nearest evidence of truth and solid reason to thy understanding And the Lord give us at least to see where the truth and the Churches peace lies and establish the same among us which is and shall be the prayer of him that longs to see that day John Timson The most principal things handled in this Controversie are contained in these few questions 1. WHether all Church-members of years not Excommunicate have a true right to the Lords Supper or no. 2. Whether any Church-members may lawfully be denyed the Lords Supper for ignorance and state of unregeneracy according unto Gospel rule 3. Whether Church-members as such in relation to the Covenant be not personally worthy during their abode in the Church and in that sense worthy receivers though otherwise they be actually unworthy 4. Whether it is the duty of all Church-members of years to receive the Lords Supper as to hear pray read sing c. 5. Whether the promises of first grace be not included in the Gospel Covenant which Sacraments seal And the unregenerate in the Church be the only objects of those promises 6. Whether the Church is to judge of her members worthinesse or unworthinesse in order to admitting to the Lords Supper more then to all other acts of publick worship 7. Whether the Sacrament can be denyed to be a converting Ordinance in the Church 8. Whether Juridical Suspension be an Ordinance of Christ or an invention of man ERRATA Reader among many lesser faults which have escaped in the printing by reason of the Authors absence there is one great fault pag. 143. in 12 13 14. The distinction there mentioned is this Hearing of faith preached was and is the ordinary means of the faith of Heathens but the whole work of the Ministry is the ordinary means of sincere believing in the Church And p. 239. l. 10. after probable
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
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
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
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
sufficiently proved that to be their necessary duty which will not be answered these two dayes And untill that be answered the argument doth reflect upon themselves not only by being accessories of their peoples neglects of institute worship but being principals of inforcing those neglects of necessary worship groundlesly hindering those that would 1. You must prove that the baptized rational members of the Church if ignorant and in some things offensive are forbid the Lords Supper and yet stand bound as members to all other observances of worship 2. That a scandalous member indulged leavens the Church by doing lawful and religious actions commanded 3. That the prime end in casting out the scandalous obstinate is to keep them from the Sacrament mainly I say that which leavens a Church is to connive at the scandalous by not doing what they are in a capacity to doe in acts of severe censures to reform them it being far from my heart to think that the good actions of a scandalous brother indulged doth leaven the whole but his evill actions not punished with severity of discipline according unto rule But why the Church should be leavened more by the admission of such to the Sacrament theâ— to holy prayer c. is to me a mysterie because the Scriptures are clear both in commanding spiritual qualifications in order to prayer and forbidding the evill and yet are silent as to these in order to the Sacrament 2. It cannot be denyed but the Sacraments are the most carnal Ordinances in the Gospel Church consisting of external matter that more suites with our bodily senses then any other And lastly the weaknesse of their argument that cry up the holy Supper above her fellows in the Church with the mischievous effects that follow thereupon inevitably Yet notwithstanding to prevent mistake I judg the Lords Supper equal in dignity and holinesse with the rest of holy appointments in the Church as being holy in respect of the holinesse of the Author institution use and ends requiring as much of preparation reverent approaches and divine adoration in this part of sacred Worship as any other part of worship prescribed His eight and ninth proofs are Heb. 13.17 1 Pet. 3.15 pag. 151. Obey them that have the rule over you c. be ready to give an answer to every one that asketh a reason of the hope that is in you The sum of that in Peter is but this he saith If this were to be given before an enemy then much more and easier is it to be made before friends such as desire to be helpers of mens faith not upbraiders of their weaknesse The Author shews some ingenuity upon this text Answ as if he were tender of wresting the sense he yeelds it concerns Christians under the tyranny of persecutors to be constant in their profession and therefore waves the consequence he had a minde to He doth not say if to enemies then much more it 's your duty as Christians to make profession of your faith and hope before friends as necessary to admission to the Sacrament Which he should had the text been for his purpose But he saith if this were to be given before an enemy then much more and easier is it to be made before friends So that here he insinuates by way of motive as helping their faith c. and I dare say it will be sooner yeelded unto upon that score then upon the account of a necessary duty and I shall highly honour those that are endeavouring to their utmost to draw on all their people to some profession of faith or other provided they doe it to no other ends but to help forward the weak and ignorant in faith and knowledge without the least infringement of the priviledges of the Ordinances in the Church they stand bound to observe as they are professing Christians But for men to urge it as a necessary duty in the name of Christ when he never commands it at all to any such â—nd they pretend that is in order to admission to and exclusion from the Sacrament is that which I think my self bound to oppose as superstitions pernicious and tyrannical in the Church of Christ And I doubt not but to make it good against all those that will acknowledge the constitution and form of our Church to be true at present though in some things out of order I confesse my expressions may be judged too harsh but I hope you will a little bear with my zeal it being in the behalf of the Church defending their just rights against those that thing they doe well to degrade them of the same That of Heb. 13.17 doth now come to be spoken to Mr. Saunders observes 1. That the people under them must be ruled and governed by them 2. Ministers must give an account of them which cannot be well done without taking knowledge of their estates 3. They must not only preach and exhort but doe all else which may conduce to the peoples salvation 4. If people obey not their Rulers in the Church they hurt themselves two wayes 1. By sinning against this command 2. By sadding their Pastors hearts and so lessening their profit by his Ministry All these are applicable to our purpose urging activity on the Ministers as well in discipline as in preaching calling for compliance from the people To his 1. where a Church is so happy Answ 1 as to have regular Rulers chosen by the whole and set a part to exercise holy discipline Authoritatively I grant that not only the people but every Minister ought to be ruled and governed by them in all lawful and profitable things but I deny that in the want of such Rulers and government any Minister or Ministers by vertue of that Function alone may assume to themselves an authoritative power to exercise acts of Jurisdiction over their people although the people out of ignorance should desire it I grant that the people should be obedient to their Ministers in the religious carrying of that Ministerial work accordingto Gospel rule but I deny that the Apostle intended the peoples obedience to every fancy that some have the boldnesse in these times to urge upon their people to their great prejudice and spiritual hurt in debarring them some necessary duty and Covenant blessing Therefore as children unto parents so people unto their Pastors must be obedient in all things but with this restriction in the Lord for this is right Ephes 6.7 To his second Ministers must give an account of them which cannot well be without taking knowledge of their estates Answ 1. He doth not keep to the tearms of the text The Apostle doth not say that Ministers must give an account of their people whether they be good or bad profitable or unprofitable but he saith for they watch for your souls as they that must give an account that they may doe it with joy and not with grief c. The sense is this they must perform all necessary duties
TO RECEIVE THE LORDS SUPPER The Actual Right and Duty of all Church-Members of Years not EXCOMMUNICATE MADE GOOD Against Mr. COLLINS his Exceptions against The Bar Removed written by the Author And what Right the ignorant and scandalous tolerated in the Church have to the Lords Supper declared Many things belonging to that Controversie more fully discussed tending much to the peace and settlement of the Church AND ALSO A ful Answer to what Mr. COLLINS hath written in defence of Juridical Suspension wherein his pretended arguments from Scripture are examined and confuted To which is also annexed A brief Answer to the Antidiatribe written by Mr. Saunders By JOHN TIMSON a private Christian of Great Bowdon in Leicestershire Those members of the body which we think lesse honorable upon those we bestow more aboundant honor That there should be no Schism in the Body 1 Cor. 12 23 25. London Printed by E. C. for Tho. Williams at the Bible in Little-Britain and Will. Tomson at Harborough in Leicestershire 1655. The Authour to the Reader HOw weak and unable I am for the managing of the least truth and how unfit to appear in publick in its defence I am very sensible and filled with fears and perplexing thoughts in my very soul lest I should do any thing but for the Truth and for the peace of our unsetled Church or should be injurious to so good a cause which I am drawn out I doe not well know how to vindicate Who is sufficient to defend the Truth I tremble to think how many precious and choyce Servants of the Lord and faithful Labourers in his Vineyard are against me in what I publish I reverence and esteem those of the Presbyterian judgement above others in some considerable respects and verily judge them conscientious men and such as I look upon as best qualified for promoting the Gospel truth and the Churches peace And although my returns to Mr. Collins be somewhat round yet I hope I doe not much reflect upon most of the Presbyterian judgement notwithstanding his seeming to write in the name of all of that perswasion I do professe my study was to speak my very heart in this Controversie and to provoke different mindes to give some stronger grounds for their opinion and practice assuring my self that a great deal more must be said against that Free Admission to the Sacrament which I plead for then any of late have said before either Mr. Humphrey or my self will be answered and many thousands in the Nation which I hope fear God will be satisfied I may safely say with a good conscience it is more the clear conviction of my judgement and conscience that perswades me to appear in this controversie then any private interest or affectation of opinion or spirit of contradiction or basenesse of that spirit either â—o humor or flatter the common multitude I am perswaded it is the very simplicity of holy Truth which I have undertaken to defend leading directly to the Churches Peace and Reformation Truth seeks no corners but is invincible and intire in it self it may be over-born at a push but will recover again and vanquish all the dark parts of man O that we had such impartial and unbyased spirits as to receive all truth in the love of it Let me intreat my Reader to weigh things met with in this controversie deliberately and then I doubt not but of whatsoever judgement he be he will confesse my principles and arguments are rational and much the drift and scope of plain Scriptures And if he will but grant me Infant Baptism he will finde it a hard task to overthrow any of my building as it is stated He may see with what clearnesse and ease I have answered to what is excepted against my first book in the reading of this and also to what is brought in defence of Suspension as distinct from Excommunication as it is stated by Mr. Collins Indeed he pleaseth himself with telling his Reader my principles are both large and rotten but if he think to goe but an inch narrower he will finde it a most difficult task to free himself of that charge laid against the Pharisees the making void the Commandements of God by their Traditions He cannot go a jot narrower but he must uncovenant undisciple and unduty those which he cals Church members the doing of which plucks up all that the Church stands upon and levels Christians not Excommunicate with the Pagan world in point of right and actuall duty of receiving This is so irrational that it stands Mr. Collins upon to doe his utmost to give some satisfaction therein which if he doe he must make good from the Scriptures those things which he so often begs As 1. That the Lords Supper is strong meat only 2. A seal to justifying faith only 3 And that every unregenerate person in the Church that receives eats judgement to himself more then in any other Ordinances of Word and Prayer he doing in each what he can to decline and avoid profanenesse 4. That a Church-member of years under Toleration of the Church is no believer or disciple under actual duty as a Christian 5. That to the different state of the Church as consisting of regenerate and unregenerate is under different rules and duties as to publick worship 6. That more knowledge and holinesse is required to the Lords Supper then to Baptism in persons of years 7. He must prove Suspension distinct from Excommunication a Church censure and for what sins 8. That some baptized of years mentioned in the Scripture have been denyed the Sacrament of the Supper for ignorance or for not having fruits of holinesse answerable to the Christian Profession and yet allowed the liberty of all other Ordinances in the Church as members 9. He must prove a Pastoral or Church tryal by examination of Church-members fitnesse or unfitnesse necessary to admitting to the Sacrament and more such like things before he can justly debar any from the Sacrament more then from the rest of Church priviledges and duties If he can make good all or any of these things by the Scriptures so as to take off what we have excepted against them then he may doe something towards giving satisfaction in this Controversie otherwise in plain terms I would have him to sit still and let others who may think to doe somewhat in order to it put forth their strength For I am willing my grounds and principles should be tryed to the utmost I had rather be put to shame a thousand times then upon mistake in any thing I should dissent from godly men and draw any into errour But yet I would have you to know that these grounds and principles on which my judgement is built have been so long received and chewed upon and examined and tryed by general rules of Scripture and Reason that I shall not easily be removed For I dare boldly say the substance of what I write I received not from Erastus
Mr. Prinne nor Mr. Humphrey my judgement was setled and satisfied in these things long before I heard of these Authors And besides what reason hath Mr. Collins to charge us with this that we are Erastus his scholars when he findes us so point blanck against him in defending the Juridâ—cal censures of the Church I cannot say that ever I read any Author that came up to my opinion or judgement in these things in any measure til now of late I saw Mr. Humfreys Vindication of free Admission So that whether my grounds be new or old I have made but little acquiry in respect of humane authority this I am satisfied in that my grounds are such as accord with the Gospel Covenant and the state of the Visible Church of Christ as it is constituted in Parents and children good and bad called and chosen And I finde that men of different judgements run themselves upon dangerous rocks of Schisms Separations and needlesse divisions in the Church besides their interferings contradictions of themselves and detracting unworthily from Covenant-relation Church-membership Sacraments signs and pleadges of Covenant love to the whole Church in general And therefore I hope though I have endeavoured to remove an unnecessary Bar yet it will appear that I am not guilty of that sin and curse that Mr. Collins intimates in saying Was it our grief formerly that we had no Bar and is it our work now to remove the Bars yea the Lords and the Churches ancient Land-marks But who are most faulty in this they that plead for the Churches Land-marks and rights or they that unjustly defraud the Church thereof laying the Church common with the world judge ye or who are most for Reformation according unto Scripture Canon they that presse to all Scripture obedience or they that exempt Christians from some necessary duties of Worship they that would have all in the Church dealt with as members in a Juridical way to their amendment or they that unchurch them undisciple them and so unduty them and level them with the Pagan World Mr. Collins pretends much zeal in his Epistle prefixed to his Book but I could wish he had more sound judgement and knowledge in these things to abate the inconsiderate noise he makes and the passion which he shews therein First he tels us that it was a burden that lay upon our souls that in the Prelates dayes there was no bar but one which Suâ—peâ—â—on made And then about six lines after he saith the Prelatical party may rise up in judgement against us and say Lord we gave the Minister authority to keep any from the Sacrament for notorious sins c. First he saith there was no Bar and then he saith that there was a Bar and such a one as I thinkâ— might have satisfied men of his perswasion The truth is both Presbyterian and Brownists make such a slender thing of Covenant relation the ground of baptism in the Church that it will not bear up what they should build upon it afterwards for they make it upon the matter but a meer titular or nominal thing restraining the Gospel Covenant to believers only in a strict sense making Sacramental Seals invalid if they doe not so believe conceiving that if persons in the Church by their actual offending discover themselvs to be in an unregenerate state after baptism that then they are out of Covenant and so by consequence have forfeited their actual right to Sacramental seals thereof making no difference between such and the Pagan world But if we hold to the Covenant made to the Church and their seed as it was published and declared to Abraham and all along to the Church of the Jews and look upon the Christian Church as graffed into them and equally children of Abraham by profession of faith and Baptism as the Jew by nature and Circumcsiion presse all to walk up to their profession as Christians according to Gospel observances being bound to observe all things as the Jews were then should we build upon such a foundation of truth that would be immoveable and bear up as much as we now plead for But I have exprest my self more largely in this ensuing discourse and may not now insist upon the largenesse of the Gospel Covenant In short then I conceive that it is a very great mistake to narrow the Gospel Covenant unto this He that believes shall be saved but he that believes not shall be damned I grant 1. That this is a truth as taken in the usual sense but then I deny that it is the whole Covenant of grace made unto the Church and their seed 2. I grant it a conditional proposition used in the first tender of the Gospel unto Infidels to move them to accept of Christ and so to bring them into the visible Church but I deny that this in like manner was or is to be preached unto the visible Church that professe their acceptance of Christ and all observances appointed by him 3. I grant that actual believing and profession of faith was the only thing that fitted a Pagan for Baptism and graffing into the Gospel Church in which the promises of grace and glory belong to the whole indefinitely but yet I deny that there is any promise of grace in those words He that believes shall be saved it is true there is the promise of being saved upon condition of sincere believing but there is no promise in that to give a sinner grace to believe So that this conditional part of the Covenant in a strict sense as it is usually urged alone without the absolute renders unregenerate sinners uncapable of any good news by the Gospel it not being in the power of any of himself so to believe And to make the death of Christ a seal to confirm this conditional part of the Covenant only as being that which the Sacraments hold forth is to make the death of Christ a seal to confirm a Covenant of works in the Church derogatory to the Gospel mercy and grace Therefore we are to conceive of the Covenant as it 's held out to the Church by the Prophets and Apostles the Church being built upon both Gen. 17. Jerem. 31. Ezek. 36. it is largely laid down and applyed by the Apostles to the Church in Gospel times Act 2.39 Heb. 8. Act. 3.25 26. 5.31 Rom. 15.8 9. 2 Cor. 6.16.18 7.1 compared These Scriptures prove that the Apostles did usually apply those old free grace promises with the end of Christ coming into the world to confirm them to the Gospel Church But if any please to enter their exceptions against these my notions about the Covenant I shall be glad both of an occasion and opportunity to insist more largely upon them For I must confesse I think there are not many that are very right about the nature and largenesse of the Gospel Covenant made to the Church and that straitning the Covenant too much occasions very much division and schism in the
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
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
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
premises Answ 1 the conclusion needs no proof If the same instruments of the Spirit unto conversion be in the administration of the Sacrament as at the other parts of the Ministerial work in the Church then we must allow the fame effect to the one as to the other both being the Ordinance of God and performed by persons in the Office and Function of the Ministry But in the administration of the Sacrament are the same instruments of the Spirit unto conversion as Word Prayer c. Therefore the Sacrament is appointed for conversion in the Church Whereas he sayes Then doubtlesse the excommunicate should not be debarred it is no consequence because converting of sinners is not all the ground why God commands his Church to observe all things of his prescribing but his own glory in commanding what he will because he will Besides 2. Bar removed pag. 70 71 72 73. The excommunicate should be put out of all Church Communion in all other parts of publick worship as well as from the Sacrament as I have made it out in my answer unto Doctor Drake which is not yet answered by any 3. This implyes that the unregenerate are not to doe any thing by way of duty but what is for conversion not be diligent in their callings shew mercy and doe justly c. because these duties are not appointed to convert them Next all men confesse that the Word and Prayer as they are publick Ordinances of God are for conversion in the Church But without the Word and Prayer sanctifying and setting apart the elements of Bread and Wine there can be no Sacrament Therefore the Sacrament as consisting in Word and Prayer is converting This Mr. Collins tearms A thread-bare argument that hath a great hole in it For though the Word and Prayer are means of conversion and they doe constantly attend the Sacrament yet it doth not follow that the Sacrament quà Sacrament is so nor is there any need for conversion that the unregenerate should be at it for they may hear and pray and not receive Why did not Mr. Collins really discover a hole in the argument by some solid answer but fancy a hole before it be made he confesses the Word and Prayer are means of conversion and so grants my major and upon the matter grants my minor by saying that Word and Prayer doe constantly attend the Sacrament but yet he is not willing to yeeld the conclusion which is not very rational I concluding no more then what he grants in the propositions But he saith It will not follow that the Sacrament quà a Sacrament is converting either he must mean that the giving and receiving without word and Prayer is the Sacrament quà a Sacrament or that giving and receiving the signes in relation to Word Prayer conjoyned is the Sacrament quà a Sacrament If he means the former let him prove that giving and receiving the signes of Bread and Wine without Word and Prayer is the Sacrament If the latter then in his granting the premises he yeilds the conclusion and thus you may quickly see what a great hole the hath made in this argument But then he saith Nor is there any need for conversion that the unregenerate should be at it for they may pray and hear and not receive No! Answ is there no great need of converting the unregenerate I had thought they have great need to take the advantage of every Ordinance in the Church appointed for their spiritual good and in order to conversion And have not they as much need to enjoy the benefit of instituted signes conjoyned to the Word and Prayer to represent the death and passion of Jesus Christ unto the outward senses which are the inlets to the understanding heart and conscience as any others But then he sayes They may hear and pray and not receive It 's true so may any other doth it therefore follow that none may receive or that hearing and praying in order to receiving is sufficient without taking and eating and drinking the institute signes in remembrance of the death of Christ Or would he have them to hear and pray in order to receiving and then turn their backs upon Gods holy Ordinance after they have prayed unto God for his blessing upon it The Reverend Doctor said That presence might answer this end unto which I answered If bare presence much more actual receiving But now Mr. Collins sayes That they cannot promise them that their presence will do them good but they are sure he saith their receiving will not And hence concludes my consequence is naught Who can promise before-hand that any other Ordinance in the Church shall doe the unregenerate good by their presence at the time shall they not therefore give their presence It 's the language of Scripture that all in the Church are to keep Gods statutes and judgements for their good But he is sure their receiving will doe them no good I wonder how he dare limit the holy One and detract so injuriously from the wisdome power and grace of Christ in his own appointments He hath confessed before that the Sacraments were instituted for the spiritual good of the visible Church of Christ in general and that this Church consists of good and bad and now he sayes the Sacrament wil doe the unregenerate no good Doth he think the unregenerate are not of the visible Church that Sacraments were instituted for the good thereof The judicious Reader may easily discern how consonant he is to his own judgement in more things then this But this antecedent of his That he is sure their receiving will doe them no good is sufficient to publish to the world that my consequence is naught c. in answer to the Doctor But why doth Mr. Collins give us his argument for the negative He turns me over to Mr. Gillespy that hath twenty arguments I suppose himself may use some of them in his answer to Mr. Barkesdales 9. argument wherein he seemes to make a shew of silenceing all men that hold the Sacrament a converting Ordinance pag. 14. And because the argument which he answers unto is the same with mine I shall crave leave of Mr. Barksdale to examine in brief the strength of his because he thinks he hath done enough at once to shew thevanity of our opinion 1. He argues from the absurdities that will follow Then it is as proper to go to the Heathen and call them to a Sacrament in order to their conversion as to preach the Gospel unto them It concerns Mr. Collins to prove that every Ordinance in the Church instituted for the good thereof Answ 1 doth belong unto Heathen and such and may be used for their good Let him prove that the unbaptized Heathen are as much in Covenant relation and under the obligation of all Christian observance as the unregenerate Christian Let him prove that whatsoever is for conversion in the Church is for the good of Heathens as
well as preaching the Gospel The exercise of discipline is for converting an offending brother doth it follow that Church discipline is to convert Heathens to whom it never was intended or appointed Besides we know the unbaptized is not to eat thereof were there the like ground to the unregenerate Christian I should be satisfied Thus you may see even in the very thing wherein he would charge absurdity upon us it will return upon himself by putting no difference between the Church of Christ and the Infidel world He sayes If the Sacrament be a converting Ordinance there can be no personal unworthinesse sufficient to debar any from it then come Turks Indians Papists excommunicate persons c. This is but the same again in other words Answ which I have answered again and again all along here is a plain levelling the Church with the world again as if the same personal unworthinesse were in the Church as is in the world doth it follow that because no personal unworthinesse in the Church is sufficient to debar any from the Sacrament but only actual persisted in unto excommunication that therefore there is no personal unworthinesse in the unclean Pagan world that lies in unbelief They must first receive the Doctrine of the Gospel before they can be brought into the Church where the Sacraments are to be administred And as for those that are in Covenant-relation and in possession of Church-membership it 's true personal unworthinesse can be no bar because in a relative sense there is no such thing in the Church but I have said enough to this already He saith If it be a converting Ordinance he can see no reason why the Communicant should be bound to examine himself and so eat or whether he hath skill to discern the Lords body The Word and Prayer are converting Ordinances Answ and yet he may see reason enough to urge upon such preparation and caution prerequisite and concomitant in those duties of hearing and praying if he examine the Scriptures in order to a blessing the same may be said of the Sacrament if Mr. Collins be not too perverse But then he comes to speak distinctly to the argument He distinguisheth between converting by accident or by institution designed unto that end in an Ordinancel hearing of the Word is such faith comes by hearing Rom. 10. Hear and your soul shall live let any shew us a Scripture speaking to this purpose concerning the Lords Supper 'T is true faith comes by hearing Answ and hearing by the Word of God But doth it follow that all other Ordinances are excluded from being a means of working sincere faith in the Church when they are joyned with the Word in the work of the Ministry as hath been said already That of Rom. 10. proves that it is not possible that any should call upon the name of the Lord in whom they have not beleived And how should they believe in him of whom they have not so much as heard of And how shall they hear without a Preacher c. which is spoken to the case of Heathens that never heard of Christ Such must of necessity hear Christ before they can believe in him And this faith comes by hearing and this hearing by the Word of God by a Preacher sent This was the ordinary means of bringing persons into the Church that were Pagans born and then being within they had the benefit of all other Ordinances in the Church for their edification and salvation What then will it follow hence that persons born in the Church that draw in the knowledge of Christ by education and tradition in their youth cannot believe or have faith in any other way but by hearing only The promise is that whosoever shall call upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved in opposition to those that never heard of his Name Salvation is of the Christian Church as once of the Jews unto which promise of Salvation all the Ordinances set up in the Church are subservient The work of the Ministry was to be carryed on by the Pastors and Teachers fixed unto their several flocks in the Church which they are constantly to attend upon for the spiritual good thereof as they which must give an account thereof unto their Lord and it concerns them faithfully to carry on the whole work of their Ministry accordingly towards their whole flock and not to make Heathens of them then content themselves onely with preaching unto them on the Lords day and the work is done as if there were no more care to be taken with Church-members then with Pagans nor no more means to be used for their spiritual good then they would use unto Heathen whom the work of the Ministry was never intended for And whereas Mr. Collins cals for proof Where are the like Scriptures to prove the Sacrament a converting Ordinance as is preaching and hearing I answer him by distinguishing thus hearing of faith preached was and is the ordinary means of sincere believing in the Church of which the Sacrament is a special part Befides the Sacrament cannot be administred without hearing the Word of God and prayer with the use of other senses as it is the visible compendium of the whole Gospel holding forth Christ crucified for remission of fins But to speak a little unto his other quotation Isai 55. Hear and your souls shall live This was spoken unto the Church he will say I grant it was and more then this too as that chapter shews That first they were invited to come unto God in whom all spiritual blessing was to be had for the satisfying of every empty thirsty soul and disswaded from thinking to be satisfied elsewhere Secondly exhorted unto several duties 1. To hearken diligently unto what the Lord had said unto them and be satisfied with good Then 2. incline your ear and come unto me that you may be satisfied with the fatnesse of my house They were to hear and come to God too in all holy obedience for in the Scriptures men are said not to hear when they will not regard to doe what the Lord hath commanded them so hear that your souls may live hear and doe is the language of the holy Ghost to the Church usually 3. Then to seek God while he will be found and to call upon him him while he is neer seek him in all his own appointments and Ordinances where he hath promised his presence 4. Then is subjoyned Let the wicked forsake his way and the unrighteous man his thoughts And let him return unto the Lord and he will have mercy on him c. Therefore you may easily conceive here is not only hear and your soul shall live but all other duties of worship and observance are required also in the Church in order to a blessing of spiritual life and there are promises of grace and mercy unto the Church in that same chapter upon their doing their duties enjoyned the which doth make good the
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
He says That Sacraments are strong meat which weak Christians are not able to digest and that they are seals of faith only He denyes the Sacrament to be a converting Ordinance because then Heathens should come c. And will not have the unregenerate Christians to come under any duty but what is converting He affirms that in an unlearned Congregation a single Minister may suspend from the Sacrament he being the ruling part of the Church c. And yet in all other thing seeme to bear himself much upon the authority of men With such like things as these he thinks he hath loosened all that I have built upon and hence thinks that the whole will fall but he must take a great deal of pains more then yet he hath done if he think to be the man that must give satisfaction in this Controversie And I believe he must speak a great deal more then hath been spoken by any if in the least he can make good suspension from the Sacrament more then from any other part of holy Communion in sacred worship I mean of Church-members of years of discretion as the question is stated He must not think that the authority of men will carry the thing it being a businesse of this consequence that on which the peace and settlement depends which can never be as to our condition so long as men make habitual worthinesse in a real sense that which alone gives one right to the Sacrament 2. And set up the distinction of Believer and Infidel in the Church 3. And level the unregenerate part of the Church with the world in respect of Covenant relation promises of first grace work of the Ministry feals of the Covenant c. Such like interferings in a visible Church doth destroy it and pluck up the very foundation on which the Church of England stands My constant prayer to the Lord is and shall be that he will so favour us with the blessings of his people as to give us Magistrates and Ministers that may be tender in protecting and defending the Vine which himself hath planted And it 's pity that Mr. Collins and divers others of his judgement should not see where truth and the Churches peace lyes I have done with him as to what he hath excepted against my Book in particular I shall very briefly examine his strength for Suspension from the Lords Supper FINIS I shall in the next place annex a short Answer to or an Examination of Mr. Collins Quotations and Arguments for that which he cals A Juridical Suspension from the Lords Supper the main Subject of his late Book BEloved Friends I am sorry that our Author should take such a deal of pains to make good that thing that hath and doth so much trouble and hinder the edification and peace of the Church and hath been the occasion of the extirpation of the Churches Discipline and the main impediment of an establishment of Discipline at the present And how impossible it is that the Church of England should be preserved and secured in a Church state from the common reproaches of adversaries upon his principles let them that are sober judge when himself is equalling the most of her members to the Infidel world disobliging them from duties of instituted worship and observance under this pretence that they are unbelievers and no disciples nor brethren that are within and hence he will allow them just as much priviledge in the Church as he doth unto Pagans except baptizing their Infants which he will hardly doe upon their own parents faith but upon their remote predecessors And thus he makes a great stir about suspension from the Sacrament and by this groundlesse censure doth hinder or make invalid other necessary commands of Jesus Christ to the great prejudice of the Church of Christ As namely the benefit of Gods Ordinance of Sacrament and just excommunications according to the practice of Apostolical Churches when this suspension was not known nor heard of And therefore I having spoke so much already in defence of this priviledge and and right of a Church-member and that being already ingaged in this Controversie give me leave further to answer to what I can finde urged against the friends of my judgement that hath not as yet been spoken unto as may satisfie the plain minded Christian that is not able to unravel so many subtil needlesse syllogisms that Mr. Collins abounds with in his elaborate Book But I intend brevity And therefore expect not my answer unto every thing but to his main grounds he hath laid for suspension In stating of the question Mr. Collins sayes 1. As to suspending of some persons from the Supper he means no more then a denyal of that Ordinance from some pag. 1. 2. He distinguisheth of Suspension To be either Juridical or Pastoral Positive or Primitive 3. Of a Presbytered Church he saith They finding some of their members grossely ignorant or seandalous not excommunicated in the Name of the Lord Jesus are to warn them to forbear coming to the Lords Table for a time and if they presse in to deny it them declaring the Church hath no Communion with them pag. 3. I shall speak unto that suspension he cals Juridical and Positive only Answ 1 for if I can break him in the proof of that his other will appear to be a dream But to the question 1. He saith They mean no more by suspension then a denyal of that Ordinance of the Supper from them for a time Then 2. In case they will come to deny it them declaring the Church hath no communion with them Here you may take notice how clear Mr. Collins is in stating the question 1. He makes suspension no more but a deâ—yal of the Sacrament from some for a time And then secondly the Church declares they have no Communion with them so that he in stating the question layes foundation for a Suspension and Excommunication both For if excommunidation consists not in putting out of all Church Communion I know not what it is He so confounds these that I know not how to take him And therefore I must query him a little further about the question stated I query whether a Minister with his Parochial Lay Elders be a Presbytery that can saspend their members Juridically I judge this but the same with a Pastor denying the Sacrament at his private will and pleasure Such Elders have no more to do with the exercise of discipline then with the administrations of all publique worship They have not so much as a name nor the lineaments of an Office known in Scripture And it is a businesse of the like difficulty to prove lay rulere in the Church distinct from Ministerial rulers as to prove Juridicall Suspension from the Sacrament only distinct from Excommunication I query whether in suspending of members from the Sacrament their proceedings be according to that known rule Matth. 18.15 16 17 c. and how they can apply
that rule unto the ignorant that are not scandalous they may doe well to tell us I query what difference they make between a Juridical suspended member and those that keep away out of carelesnesse or dislike of their proceeding in order unto receiving I query again in what relation doth a suspended member stand in reference unto holy Communion in the other parts of Gods worship Has he a Communion with you as a Church-member upon the account of his duty and Church priviledge or as you will allow the presence of a Heathen in order to conversion If you say but as a Heathen whom you will allow the benefit of converting Ordinances in the Church then your suspension is the same with excommunication for you allow an excommunicate person as much benefit of converting Ordinances as a Heathen And if you say hearing and praying c. You allow as a members duty and priviledge then in those acts of worship you hold communion with them as members of the same body with you then how is it that you declare unto such in the name of Christ and the Church that you have no communion with them as Mr. Collins hath stated it If in the third place you say The Church declares she will have no Communion with such in the Sacrament as a member onely limiting her none Communion to that and from no other holy Communion in worship as a member then you will make a disagreement in acts of worship which are all acts of holy Communion and make a renâ— in that which is uniform in it self by Godâ— appointment all acts of worship being of Gods own prescribing and are incumbenâ— unto all that are in Covenant relation with him as all Church-members are untill they be legally dismembred conditionally the Churches censures binding persons under wrath untill they penitently return unto Christian obedience If Church-membership be not a sufficient title to claim the benefit of a Sacrament as I have stated it cleared and proved it we should rather begin the reforming of our Church at membership if we can tell how then at the Sacrament the Sacrament being the undoubted right of every Church-member If suspension put persons out of all Church Communion in acts of holy worship then they are considered as in the state of Heathens which is all one with excommunication And therefore Mr. Collins hath taken a great deal of pains to prove I know not what unlesse it be excommunication under the name of Juridical suspension and then what will become of suspension it will fall of it's own accord without any further disputing Doubtless if there be such a Church censure as suspension distinct from excommunication then we should finde something of it in the Scriptures And in what cases it should be exercised if it be a lesser censure then in reason we should have some hints from Scriptures for what sins or for what want of qualifications prerequisite unto the Sacrament more then any other Ordinance of Worship Now Mr. Collins saith If he can but prove it in any case how ignorant heretical or scandalous soever c. pag. 4. Mr. Botemans challenge will be answered True but that still remains to doe and if Mr. Collins fail in the stating of the question it 's ten to one he is at as great a losse in his proof Therefore I will suppose that that suspension which Mr. Boteman would have proved is this that a Minister with his two Elders have power in the Name of Christ to deny the Sacrament to those that are Church-members and in possession of the Sacrament and allow them the priviledge of all the other Ordinances of Worship and Communion in the Church as members of the same Church And I believe Mr. Boteman and I shall never see nor hear that suspension proved by any whatever from the Scriptures And I think that the thing he endeavours to prove either he means this or else the same with excommunication if he wil allow them no other Communion with the Church then unto Heathens Now I come to examine his proof and his principal examination is this To those whom the Sacrament may not lawfully be given it may lawfully be denyed But there be some baptized persons in the Church to whom it may not lawfully be given Ergo His Major is granted Answ let us see how he can prove his Minor Namely that there are or may be some baptized persons not excommunicate to whom the Sacrament may not lawfully be given His first proof of this is Matth. 7.6 Give not that which is holy unto Dogs neither cast you your pearls before Swine lest they trample them under their feet and turn again and rent you He is a great deal more large upon this proof then he is profitable or pertinent to the businesse I shall endtvour first to give the sense and then to examine the main of his for he is too large for me to transcribe I conceive then That this Text of our blessed Saviour is chiefly spoken by way of counsel and caution unto his Disciples and followers in general respecting all that were then present hearers of him at his Sermon upon the Mount that gave credit unto his Doctrine and acknowledged his Person and whereas he would not have them give that which is holy to the dogs he means private reproofs and admonitions because those were perillous times in regard of the cruel carping In fidel Pharisees and Jews that were such deadly enemies unto him and unto all that should speak on his behalf therefore in reference to the safety of their persons he warrants their silence rather then to put their persons upon such imminent danger of being rent by that untoward generation of malicious enemies of Christ and especially Christ knowing that they were given up to a spirit of blindenesse and hardnesse of heart that they should not repent and therefore whatever Pearls of Divine Truth were cast unto them for their good were to no purpose they would but slight and scorn them and trample them under their feet so that the reason is double why he warrants their filence to such dogs not only the safety of their persons but the unprofitablenesse of their reproofs and holy admonitions they will but trample them under feet c. Good reason had our blessed Saviour thus to caution his Disciples for if I mistake not Christ himself not long before was led by such kind of wretched people unto the brow of a hill thinking to have thrown him down headlong but by a divine power escaped through the midst of them If you compare Matth. 4. with Luke 4. 't is probable that it was before this Sermon 1. That it was meant of private admonition or reproof is clear because it was before the twelve were so much as all called much lesse sent publickly to preach 2. It cannot be meant of publick Ordinances in the Church of Christ because then the old administrations were in form which all were
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
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
Church I proceed unto his sixt Argument If there may be some in the Church not yet cast out with whom the Communion of the Church cannot be pure then there may be some in the Church not Excommunicate whom the Officers may not without sin admit to the Lords Supper But there may be some such in the Church Ergo His proof of the proposition is 1. That it is the duty of the Officers of the Church to keep the fellowship of the Church pure This he saith none will deny but if any be inclined to deny it he should doe well First To think to what end the rod of discipline is put into their hands Secondly How to expound 1 Cor. 5.7 and those many other Texts that look this way pag. 86 87. 2. That it is their special duty to keep the fellowship of the Church pure as to this Ordinance as this was proved before from 1 Cor. 5.8 so it 's câ—ar from reason it 's apparent that of all other Ordinances this Ordinance alone is appointed for such as have something of grace in them Answ 1 I grant that it is the duty of the Rulers of the Church to use all necessary and lawful means to preserve the purity of Church Communion in all acts of publike Worship I grant that they are in a special manner to take care to keep the Communion of the Church pure as to this Ordinance of the Sacrament but still I deny that this is to be done by suspension from the Sacrament and allow them the priviledges of all other publique Communion in the Worship of God as members That 1 Cor. 5.7 8 13. hath been examined already and proves no such thing let it be proved that the Communion of that Church was leavened for admitting one that was scandalous to the Sacrament or that their Communion is that Ordinance was polluted by their connivence towards him or that to deny him the Sacrament was a sufficient remedy both to reform the offender and to purge out the old leaven wherewith they were leavened if the Text will bear none of these things what is it quoted for The Rod of Discipline it 's expressed clearly from the text was to reform the sinner with the salvation of his soul and the Church by doing her duty is correcting with this merciful end did clear and purge her self from that sinful connivence and toleration of such a one And if this purging was not by excommunication then I am out if it was then Mr. Collins is quite out in quoting it and he hath said nothing in laying the foundation of his argument as to the keeping of the Sacramental Communion pure by Suspension I beseech you mark for in this very argument many are very much perplexed as if the only end of discipline were to preserve the Communion of the Church pure only at the Sacrament and as if the greatest impurity of Communion in the Church lay in the admitting of ignorant unregenerate scandalous brethren unto the Sacrament whereas I dare be bold to affirm that to receive the Sacrament is as much the duth of any such as they are Church-members and within as any other duty of publike worship whatever and their obedience in that observance is as well pleasing and acceptable unto the Lord they coming as prepared as they can as any observance in the Church And if it was not for the correcting of such things that are in their own nature sinful such as are nominated 1 Cor. 5.11 there would be no need of Church discipline The main end of discipline is to reform that which is evill in Church-members and to encourage unto well doing that every member may be obedient in all things And for Mr. Collins to say that the Sacrament alone is appointed for such as have something of grace in them is only his bare saying and doth clash with the command of Christ as also with the peace edification charity and unity of the Church But he sayes further The Word is called the bread of life and it is to be offered to dead souls Heathens were ever admitted to hear and profane persons are the objects of discipline The Excommunicate may hear and ought to be admonished as brethren That he knows not wherein the Officers can have any work to keep the Communion of a Church pure if not in this Ordinance aâ— to this the Scripture saith it cannot be pertaked of worthily without examining our selves and discerning the Lords Body It 's true Answ 1 the Word is the Bread of Life and doth quicken dead souls where God gives the blessing doth it follow that the Sacrament the visible Word of Life is not appointed unto that end where God gives the same blessing Heathens may hear true What then therefore Church-members may not receive Or 2. Therefore Church-members may hear but the question is whether he will allow a Christian to hear as a member or as a Heathen The profane are the objects of discipline What them Must they not pray hear receive untill they be cast out by it Are they objects of nothing else How are they objects of discipline that were never admitted unto the Sacrament Can you suspend them from that they never had wherein are such more objects of discipline then those that are without who may hear and pray and be present at every Ordinance as well as the other that are within Then he saith The Excommunicate may hear and ought to be admonished as brethren Very good it 's well the Excommunicate may have the title of Brethren but as ill that those in the Church whom we cannot charge with obstinacy untill it be Juridically tryed shall have the odious tearms of Hogs and Dogs profane c. He knows not wherein the Officers of a Church can have any work to keep the Communion of the Church pure if not in the Sacrament What doth all their work lye in that Answ 1. Is no care to be had how men profane all the other Ordinances by their sleeping talking laughing and disturbing the Minister and others in holy Worship 2. Is not care to be had that the doctrine be holy and sound even the Word of the Lord that is taught That the Worship of Prayer be performed with soundnesse of words sutable to the necessities of the people and with such devotion and affection becoming Worship 3. Is not care to be had that the Sacraments be rightly administred according unto the institution without superstitious addings unto or detracting from them 4. Is not care to be had to admonish rebuke the unruly and to excommunicate the obstinate to reform and amend them in order to their spiritual good And is this and the former no work if the Officers may not suspend from the Sacrament only The truth is he puts so much in this that he makes nothing of all other work that the Scriptures clearly teach allow him but suspension which he hath unnecessarily ingaged himself to prove and he
this to Juridical Suspension distinct from Excommunication as it 's usually practised in some Churches Indeed Mr. Collins need not have been so hasty in aspersing Mr. Boteman pag. 98. unlesse he could in some ordinary case prove Juridical Suspension from the Sacrament distinct from Excommunication the which he hath not yet done and it 's a great question whether he ever will or can It 's true that our Church in prudence left the denying of the Sacrament to some to the discretion of particular Ministers as he alleadges but then let me tell you this doth not reach the argument For 1. this was only in case of obstinacy being dealt with all by the Minister who was by the Canons and Rubrick of the Church authorised thus to doe 2. Such acts of discipline were subject to the Churches judgement and censure afterwards the persons conceiving themselves wronged might complain and those Ministers were lyable to be censured for going beyond the rule as some have been suspended from officiating themselves for putting persons by upon slender proof even such as their Ordinary upon hearing did not judge competent 3. The Church urged the act of receiving as a necessary duty incumbent upon all of years and upon that ground both earnestly exhorted all to come and punished those that carelesly neglected it 4. The Churches Jurisdiction consisted of Excommunication only in case of obstinacy but in case of penitency admonition and publike penance the offenders confession of his sins humbly in the body of the Church craving the forgivenesse of their sin in particular both of God and the Church did free from Excommunication The obstinate was denyed all the Ordinances except to hear the Sermon at the Church doores or behinde the Font the penitent not denyed any one Ordinance lay these things together and then let wise men judge how our Church heretofore doth precedent the Suspension which Mr. Collins contends for namely that a Minister by vertue of his Office with his Elders may and ought upon Scripture ground to deny some the Sicrament not obstinate and allow them the priviledge of all other Church Communion as Members And this he would have Juridical although the Church be in no capacity to impower them with any acts of discipline at all nor have the help of appeals to restrain the rash proceedings of inconsiderate uncharitable zealous Ministers whose principles tend too much to division Separation and confusion in the Church who would be more careful to further the edification peace and unity of the Church were themselves under the rod of holy discipline Juridically exercised by grave learned experienced presidents which particular Presbyters in reason will not be very zealous for so long as themselves are left to themselves to exercise an absolute power to rule as they please in their own Congregation without controll I wish these petty irregular reformings prove not the greatest remora's that hinder the reformation peace and edification of the whole especially where particular Pastors and Elders are of Mr. Collins opinion 1. That makes a meer nothing of Church-membership without grace 2. That will allow them no other Covenant relation then to Heathens 3. That will not so much as allow them the external titles of Brethren Saints Believers within but reproach them with the odious names of Hogs and Dogs unbelievers and of the Devil c. though they he such as never had the benefit and help of holy discipline to amend them or try whether they sin out of weaknesse or wilfulnesse 4. That will take upon him in his own name to dissolve them from Christs commands and threaten them not to doe it upon pain of damnation 5. That will make the Sacrament strong meat that cannot be digested by weak doubting Christians 6. That knows not wherein the Officers can have any work to keep the Communion of the Church pure if not in the Sacrament 7. That will allow no more priviledge in duties of worship to the ignorant and scandalous then to Heathens out of the Church 8. That doth insolently affirm that a single Pastor alone may lawfully suspend from the Sacrament he being the ruling part of that particular Church 9. That upon the matter puts the whole of discipline in Suspension from the Lords Supper either making it the same with Excommunication or else renders Excommunication needlesse in the Church Are men thus leavened with Brownism fit to be rulers in the Church of God Or like to preserve the peace unity edification and seek reformation of the whole according to the general rules and ends prescribed in the Scriptures I appeal to the standing rule of Sciptures to judge whether such as himself or the friends of my judgement and opinions as to the weal of the Church it being judged true by both be consonant unto it and whether he or we be guilty of the most folly and filth and defend such things as is a shame to be named amongst Christians as himself expresses against our opinion in opposing his pag. 98. I come to his ninth argument the sum is If scandalous persons not excommunicate nor unclean were debarred the Passeover then such may be suspended from the Lords Supper but the first is true therefore the latter I grant the consequence is good Answ but let him prove the antecedent that scandalous sinners not cut off nor unclean were debarred some Ordinances and the Passeover I dare give him seven years time to prove that by Scriptures either by direct text or sound consequence that cannot rationally be denyed all that hath been said to that thing is to give us a glosse of moral uncleannesse and thence argue that if the legal unclean might not eat the Passeover much lesse the moral unclean if the legal unclean defiled holy things much more moral uncleannesse the consequence is naught Because 1. The Church of the Jews were in Covenant relation and holy in a Covenant sense and no where blamed or debarred the Ordinances of the Church upon any such account 2. Because it was either punished by their Judicials or taken away by a continual course of Sacrifices and therefore could not rest upon them much lesse bar them from the Sacrament of the Passeover 3. Because nothing could excuse from the not observing of that service in its appointed season but legal uncleannesse and a necessary journey upon their lives if nothing else would excuse then all others were to keep it 4. It 's clear that some did keep the Passeover that were guilty of that which you will say was moral uncleannesse Ezra 9.1 after they had kept the Passeover complaint was brought unto Ezra saying The people of Israel Priests and Levites have not separated themselves from the people of the lands doing according to their abominations of the Canaanites c. for they have taken of the daughters for themselves and for their sons and the Princes have been chief in this trespasse 5. I say further that in some cases the people of
had al equal priviledge to all other Ordinances but Sacraments They agree with other reformed Churches as to suspension properly as the Brownists and Anabaptists doe all agree in this to suspend scandalous members that will not be resormed by admonition but what 's this to the case in controversie unlesse they judge that not any are members untill they be admitted upon profession of faith c. as others of the separations judge if so what is the Church priviledge of one born a Christian and baptized and of years of discretion to the holy Supper more then a Pagan who upon his profession of faith hath right to Sacraments What doth admission upon profession of faith imply but that all in the Church not so admitted are Heathens and without making the Lords Supper the initiating Ordinance into Church Communion and subjection to censures If of those that are admitted none may be suspended but after admonition for some scandalous sin and this only is properly suspension Then let me demand of Mr. Col. what he will make the cause of excommunication If he say that scandalous sinning is the cause of both then one of those censures are superfluous if he say we must distinguish of scandalous sining in regard of degrees some deserving the lesser censure the other the greater Excommunication Let him make that good from the Scriptures which concerns him to doe before he can prove suspension from the Sacrament distinct from Excommunication in the mean time what he affirms of proper Suspension is all one with Excommunication and upon the same ground the Church may as well proceed unto Excommunication as Suspension so that this very concession of his doth upon the matter undermine his chiefest strength and render all he hath said in proof of Suspension as distinct from Excommunication frivolous But in the next place his pleading That they must be lookt upon as now reforming a disordered Church had former Ministers done their duties they might have saved us this labour of putting our people upon making a profession of faith in order to admittance to the Lords Supper Answ 1 1. Me thinks the sad effects of our late reformings might have put a stop to Mr. Col. thus late pleadings the issue being little else but either neglect of Gods Ordinance or running Pastors and people into a deluge of division and confusion 2. It 's granted by all that our Church in respect of some evil circumstances in doctrine worship and discipline had need of a holy yet a wary and a wholesome reformation that might best stand with the health peace union edification of the whole 3. That the most godly and knowing part of the Nation have had the advantage of power and opportunity to reform what ever was amiss I think cannot be denyed But whether they have sincerely endeavoured it in that way that might best stand with the health peace union and edification of the whole doth admit of questioning 4. 'T is certain our late reformers found an establishment of the main substantials of Doctrine Worship and discipline in the Church And do they think to advance reformain the removal of the foundations of the Churches well being 5. Reformation stands in the reducing all Christians to a universal observance of al the known Laws Ordinances of Jesus Christ uniformly and not in setting up of humane inventions that the Church must bow unto in order to holy worship and hence Mr. Col. must first make good that it is the duty of all in the Church to make a publick profession of faith or submit to the examination of his Eldership in order to the holy Supper before he tels others what they require now suspend for is to be excused by their being upon reformation now A strange reformation that 's begun in making void the commands of Jesus Christ carryed on with prejudices and division and if persisted in may end in confusion Was it ever known before now that Reformation began in admitting to the Passeover or Lords Supper it's an absurd reforming that wil allow those to be Church-members and yet deny them to do the duty of a Member and Christian It was more rational and agreeing with Scripture rule to correct that general carelesse neglect in Ministers and people in order to reforming then to devise a novel way in a setled reformed Church to hinder the most of Church-memb from doing their duty The care zeal of our first reformers was both to exhort and to presse all of years to actual receiving not thinking it sufficient to be present gazing on or carelesse in not preparing and likewise corrected those that neglected this holy observance how unlike are these mens spirits to our first reformers It 's true many Ministers then were too carelesse of their duties in catechising and instructing the younger sort and so it will be still but what then Doth that disoblige Christians from that necessary part of institute Worship Ministers neglect their duties to their people therefore the people must not doe their duty to their Lord but must be left out and levelled with the Pagan world Had our Church been abolished when they abolished Episcopacy then in order unto constituting and gathering a new Church a verbal profession of saith in order unto lawful baptism had been proper but to plead it unto reforming but of the same Church already imbodyed and planted together by baptism is to be wise beyond what is written If Mr. Collins plea be good for the Presbyterian perswasion it holds as good to the Independent practice for they admit into Communion upon the same principle But he would not have this lookt upon as a standing principle Answ Why because it wants a standing rule that 's his reason I judge But then he tels us Our former Ministers would admit any one for his two pence This is somewhat an ignorant slander Answ as if it was left to the liberty of a private Minister to admit and refuse at his pleasure when he might know both the Minister and people were under the precept and penalty of the Church But what means all this pleading to excuse their rigid practices but that either they question their warrant or would have us think the case is extraordinary and so will warrant their irregular improper proceedings in order to admitting Church-members to the Lords Supper an argument indeed of late that doth set the whole land at a stand to answer but not so much for strength of reason that is in it but for a power out of it that will make any thing hold that 's said 158. pag. Mr. Collins pleads further and tels his Reader That there was no way but this to begin any Reformation amongst us who by our former way of administration of the holy Supper had made our Churches a reproach to Papists and a grief to all Protestants and opened a way for Brownists and Anabaptists to fill their Congregation with our strictest Professors c.
him in their practise It 's an ingenuous resolution I confesse and if he will but stand to it I doubt not of the issue but that it will be worth our labour to dispute it with him according to Scripture and Reason the only Judge of Truth Besides I am the rather inclined to enter the lists with him in this Controversie because he protests against a rigid separation from a true Church and declares himself only for a moderate and lawful separation in the Church not as yet disowning our Churches I take it Unto this I answer That Separation that is proper and lawful in the Church Answ is either made by Orthodox Doctrine Or 2. by wholesome Discipline Juridically exercised Or 3. we may and ought to withdraw all unnecessary friendly and intimate familiarity from scandalous brethren where the necessary duties of our general and particular callings will permit without prejudice to our selves And then the question will be whether the practice defended in respect of separation be no more but so if it be but Doctrinal or putting out of Communion Juridically by Excommunication or declining all unnecessary familiarity with the scandalous though tolerated all will be yeelded on his side But if it be found otherwise I shall deny it as dangerous and warn all Christians to avoid it lest they be infected with Schism a cursed fruit of the flesh and drawn into such needlesse separations as can never be warranted It 's one thing to separate from the sinful courses of scandalous brethren and another thing to separate from the necessary duties of Gods Worship and of our calling where such are tolerated It 's one thing to exclude the scandalous Juridically another thing to exclude the ignorant who desire to be learners of wholesome Doctrine or those that are not satisfied to yeeld unto their tearms as presented under the necessity of duty when upon search their terms are but the bold inventions and opinions of strong fancies and not to be owned upon any such account as is pretended Yet I shall advise to a condescension to the same terms upon a prudential account for the help and incouragement of all in saith and knowledge provided it be used to no such end as to exclude Church-members from that necessary duty of institute worship Doe this in remembrance of me Christians ought not to betray their own and their brethrens liberties to those that have the boldnesse in these exorbitant times to invade them and bring all into division and confusion Why should not all that are within and of the Church enjoy all external helps and means of their amendment untill the Church hath taken the forfeiture of their offending and issued out judgement against them I think I have writ more to this then will be answered in hast Mr. Saunders would be judged a sober moderate man that still owns our Church Ministry and members for true But yet we finde him so inconsistent to himself that upon the matter he unchurches all our Parochial Congregations that he will not allow them to be Churches but in an equivocating sense that is to say in no sense as a â—â—rish in it's Precincts but as a separate Church may be in a Parish as in the world We doe not say saith he that our Assemblies are Churches as Parishes but that they are Churches in Parishes and in that sense Parish Churches pag. 127. and yet he is sharp against rigid separation and pretends but to Surgery not to Butchery but if unchurching of our Parochial Assemblies be not a rigid Butchery let him tell us what is more rigid They of the Independent judgement doe generally acknowledge our Assemblies to be the Churches of Christ though out of order The Anabaptists will confesse a Church may be in a Parish as well as in a City Country and World and in this sense they may say there are Churches in Parishes and so Parish Churches How is our Church beholden to such pretenders that will speak as much in defence of our Parochial Churches as they state them as our adversaries will grant And yet he hath the happinesse to be approved of by a learned Gentleman for his recommending to the Church a well tempered Reformation if love to his person and cause deceive him not Mr. Manton in his approbational Epistle to this Book I confesse if those we plead for be not members of true Churches in Scripture account then all must needs goe against us for it is certain that Heathens the unbaptized or such as have renounced the Christian Religion may not eat thereof our opinion pleads for all Church-members of years baptized and not excommunicated as knowing not any rule against the admitting of such to the Lords Supper produced yet by any And yet Mr. Manton saith peremptorily amongst all others none have deserved worse of the Church of God then those that plead for a loose way as he cals it of receiving all sorts of persons to holy things and by promiscuous administrations prostitute the Ordinance of God to every comer I confesse this passage from so reverend a Minister as he is reputed to be did enter my very heart at first and plunged my soul into a greater perplex of passion then is ordinary Yet not out of any apprehension of guilt though I have alwayes cause to flee unto Gods mercy for acceptance but that so good a man and an eminent Minister of the Gospel should be so inconsiderately rash in his censure of the Churches friends But to answer directly 1. Doth not Mr. Manton receive all sorts of Christians unto Gods Ordinances of Word Prayer singing of Psalms the administration of holy baptism Are not these holy things And is it loosenesse in himself to admit all sorts of persons in the Church to partake of these I hope not and why then not in the other it being a necessary duty to all in the Church of years as the Ordinances before named he might doe well to give some better reason then others doe When he can charge us justly with pleading the admission of the unbaptized Heathens the Excommunicate then let him charge us with that odium of loosenesse or a loose way as being against Gospel-rule but untill then his charge and censure is no other then a rash slander unbecoming such a person It 's strange and to be admired that our pressing unto Christian observance to those that are baptized professing Christians and of the visible Church should have such a hard sense put upon it as to be branded with loosenesse when in all other duties pressing to obedience according to rule is accounted godlinesse and holy strictnesse But doubtlesse that way that is the nearest to Gospel rule is the good way and straight way However it may have the hap upon mistake to be called a loose way Truly to speak freely I little value that perverse disputing in most that oppose us that are forced to uncovenant unchurch undisciple unduty a Christian professing
baptized people to make out their argument and own invented way against such manifest demonstration which cannot otherwise be answered and yet for the zeal of the Churches peace and priviledges we defend in behalf of her members we are counted the greatest enemies to the Church none deserve worse of the Church then we no not Ranters Quakers Antitrinitarians Anabaptists Brownists that destroy all the Church is in possession of through the gift of his grace for there are some amongst all others that deserve bad enough sure but we deserve worse then all these if this good man say true As for looking at a worldly interest he hints at I have as little cause as ever had any man I have what I lookt for before I ingaged to have many tongues and pens against me even of them I esteem my very good friends which thing I have put my self upon with no small reluctancy of spirit what the Lord intends by it for good or hurt I am not certain but content to submit to his pleasure and further guidance in the Controversie being well assured of this that I shall not loose my labour of zeal and love for the Churches peace and edification I shall speak one word more to vindicate my self and friends from this heavy censure The question shall be put to the judgement of the learned and sober in the Church of England Whether Mr. Saunders himself gives approbation of or Mr. Humfry or my self deserves worse of the Church of God If we doe not deserve worse of the Church then the Author himself approves of I hope the judicious Reader will forgive us the wrong and what himself hath published will acquit us And I doubt not but when our principles and theirs are laid together and compared impartially as I have given some discoveries in these followings sheets it will not be very difficult to judge whether they or we deserve worse of the Church of God And so I will leave Mr. Mantons hard censure to himself and others that shall read both to judge between us I should hardly have troubled you with these sheets had not that passage much provoked me nor would I hinder that reverend Gentleman ingaged he may rejoyn more deliberately if he see cause I think I have done enough to caution the Reader of lesse judgement from being taken with this Author with whose smoothnesse of expression and plausible pretences his Reader may quickly be intangled and carryed away with a sound of enticing words that have no truth nor solid reason in them I shall now upon the sudden come to examine the main of his Book And my way will be first to examine what himself relates of their way Secondly I shall examine the state of the question and the proofs urged to defend it answer his arguments queries and motives and then conclude Mr. Saunders tels us what their way is There is a Church formed in one of our Congregations according to the rule of the Word In the choyce of a Pastor Officers and Members other Ministers and people are joyned to this society in which we are like to walk till we can see truth or reason against us pag. 121. To this something may be yeelded Answ 1 as namely that where a people is destitute of a faithful Pastor they may choose one that is qualified for the carrying on the whole work of the Ministery in the Church And the people to submit unto him as ruling over them in the Lord I mean so far as his Office and Function doth authorize him according to rule to admonish warn rebuke and command Then something is to be denyed untill further proof of their practice appear As namely 1. That he that is a Pastor of a particular Congregation and Church or flock unto which he was either lawfully sent and inducted by the Church or came in by the consent of the people over whom he is I say for such a one to joyn himself to another Church as a common member and to hold constant Communion in the Sacrament with that Church and altogether neglect the administring of the Lords Supper to that people he is Pastor of I utterly reject as that which the Scripture doth no where allow but is contrary to reason order peace and edification of his people if it doth not imply a forsaking his Pastoral relation and duties 2. I would gladly see it made out by Scripture that one that is a Pastor of a Church already may be chosen a Pastor again either by the people he is Pastor unto or by others that have lawful Pastors over them already if this practice be permitted in those that are confessed by the Author to be true Churches which they dare not separate from What a deluge of disorder confusion must necessarily follow Can a man be a Pastor of a select company out of several Churches and a Pastor to his own people in general he was first related unto denying the Lords Supper to them that are properly his own flock give it as Pastor to other mens flocks and charge Or can a man be Pastor of a true Church and an Officer of another Or a particular private member in constant Communion with another in acts of worship These things have need of sugred words indeed to make them passe yet this is represented unto all with the common guise of every Sect to be according to the rule of the Word when Mr. Saunders hath given us his proof to make good these paradoxes hinted at and further declared and explained their way we may have occasion more strictly to examine it in all the particulars of it In the mean time I can conceive no lesse of their way but that it makes such a rent in their several Congregations that most properly and justly is called Schism pleading necessity will not help you especially when it 's of your own makeing running upon sundry mistakes and taking principles upon trust for truth that the holy Scriptures no where teach brings most knowing men under these straights overwhelming the Church with distraction division and confusion Besides there is no necessity to sin upon pretence of reforming that Reformation that is begun by sinfull means is not of God nor can never tend to the Churches good Arguments drawn from pretended necessities are of little strength in a sober rational dispute however prevalent they are conceived to be when accompanyed with the sword How can those Ministers think they have done their duty in administring the holy Supper to their respective Congregations by drawing a few of their own members with them to receive it in another mans Congregation They may as well think they have done their duty in preaching to their own Congregation by a constant drawing a few of their people with them to hear another man preach and if the other be their Pastor as to some in the way they are in cannot be denyed why should not such members constantly attend him in all
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
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
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
prepared in order unto the exercise of discipline I doubt not but when our principles are more the minde of Scriptures in regard of the blessed and priviledged state of the whole visible Church in Covenant relation with God the Lord will favour us in his great kindenesse by putting the poore despised Church of the Nation into a possession of that discipline that is most the minde of Jesus Christ revealed in the Word In the mean time we have all need to pray much for we are under an hour of temptation and many are scared by it I come to his seventh proof pag. 148. 1 Tim. 5.22 Neither be partakers of other mens sins The sum of what he saith to this was not enough for a Minister to give the unworthy warning of the danger or to reprove and denounce Gods judgements against the impenitent to free him from other mens sins This may clear him as a Preacher but not as a Ruler or Steward for if the same Minister shall loose the same men by giving them the seals of the New Covenant which is to tell them that they are interessed in Gospel priviledges and promises he fears that the guilt that was thrust out of the fore doore comes in again at the back doore 1. The main of the question lies in this Answ whether the Minister admits any such who are by the Authority of Scriptures forbid to come he not doing what he regularly may to exclude them I shall easily grant that a Minister through carelesnesse and unfaithfulnesse may be involved in the guilt of their peoples sins as touching the Sacrament but the question is when a Minister hath laboured to instruct his people and hath given warning of the danger of eating and drinking unworthily and hath stirred them up to come reverently and orderly carrying themselves sutable to the external actions there required hath not done his duty in an Evangelical sense as to that of his that every Minister is a Ruler and therefore to urge upon them acts of discipline and Jurisdiction as a Ruler when the whole Church is without discipline is such a boldnesse that never any pretending to sober principles assumed untill these exorbitant times we are fallen into for want of holy discipline But he grants that in respect of all the Minister doing his duty as before is clear as a Preacher And that is sufficient from his own mouth to justifie those that dare assume no other power in the Church at present but what they have by vertue of their Ministerial Office And as Stewards they are bound to be faithful in the dispensing of that leaving the issue to the blessing of their Master And it concerns Mr. Saunders to prove himself a Ruler and impowered with the actual exercise of the Keyes of Jurisdiction in his Church before he take upon him to binde and loose at his pleasure if he be so impowered why doth he not reform his own Congregation and administer all the Ordinances in his own Church Why doth he not by his authority convent the scandalous before him and admonish rebuke Excommunicate without any fear or scruple and practise all Church Communion in all the Ordinances to the other not at all under his censure Will he blame another in that which he neglects himself If there be none in his Congregation over whom he rules lyable to his censures to amend them why doth he neglect to administer the holy Sacrament unto them If there be scandalous members in his Church why doth he connive at their wickedness and suffer himself to be leavened by his carelesse indulgence towards them partaking of their sins forasmuch as he neglects the only means to reform them by Juridical Excommunication 1 Cor. 5. If he say he keeps them from the Sacrament I answer But the Church of Corinth were commanded to do more Was it ever read of in the Scripture that a Pastor refused to administer the holy Suppeâ— to his flock to keep the scandalous from communicating with them What though you plead but for Suspension ought not that to be Juridical as you are a Ruler impowered so to act And have you so proceeded with all your people that are excluded the holy Supper I pray you Sir satisfie me in these things either by some Scripture grounds or by your Reformation as you are a Christian and a Minister of the holy Gospel As to the rest of this Paragraph I wish you would better study the nature of the New Covenant and whom it respects And how the Sacraments may be said to be seals thereof and what they seal to in the Covenant which things I have insisted somewhat upon in my other writings both in answer to Dr. Drake and Mr. Collins whither I refer you intending hast at present In his next Paragraph he speaks to the text in hand The Apostle speaks of Ordination of Ministers wherein by not examining the persons to be ordained guilt is contracted ordaining without proving as 1 Tim. 3.10 is too sudden so likewise the giving of the Sacrament is sudden and guilty though but once in a year where no difference or tryal is made of them that come but he that will though of the basest of the people may be a guest at the Lords Table Men may put all this off by thinking the fault is not theirs while the act is others mens but others mens sins may be ouâ—s As incivil Judicatories there are principals and accessories So before God there will be too and non-examiners are accessories before the fact thus far he p. 150 This text is quoted either for illustration Answ or probation of the thing in question If but for illustration then it 's not argumentative and the inference but begged If for proof of the thing in question the consequence must be this as the Presbytery is guilty of others mens sins when they ordain into the Ministry suddenly without tryal of their gifts and life so in like manner those Ministers are guilty of others mens sins that receive al to the Sacrament without Examination To this I answer by pleading non-sequitur it remains for him to prove the necessity of the latter equal with the former let the like proof and reason be given for the one as the other they being of themselves things distinct to each other and different things in the premises will not bear the same conclusions And therefore that which the text intends I grant but deny the other untill further proof And for his distinction in principals and accessories in sin And non-examiners are accessories before the fact Still the question is but beg'd it 's still to prove that examination is the duty of every Minister in order to excluding the ignorant c. his distinction holds only in those sins or actions that are absolutely forbid in that which iâ— sin in its own nature but I deny that giving and receiving the Sacrament is so to baptized Christians of years and of the Church I have
The very Ordinances set up in the Church to convert the promises made to the Church in order to that end and our own experience of some fruit thereof may discover the vanity of that conceit namely that there shall be no regenerate or wicked in the Church And he that shall resist such manifest demonstration I think he understands but little of the truth and nature of the Gospel Covenant and the blessings of grace and mercy that are conferred upon sinners in the Church from it I pray you Sir why is it not Gospel-like for sinners in the Church to partake of all Gospel Ordinances of Worship What is the Gospel it self but good news to sinners And what do all the Ordinances tend to but to bring sinners home to God And I hope he is no enemy to holinesse as our Author intimates pag. 154. that would have Ministers to allow Jesus Christ the liberty of his own appointments in the Church to unite unto himself all those he dearly loves and dyed for But Mr. Saunders tels us That God looks now for a more real and spiritual people and will not own such for his people that are gracelesse what ever their profession may be quoting Camero But what a strange assertion is this Answ and how derogatory to the Gospel Covenant and diminishing the grace and goodnesse thereof to sinners in the Church who are the people of God and holy federally by birth as himself confesseth And will God now disown them for his people that are gracelesse by nature then we may cast all Infants out of the Church and so from baptism For it will hardly be made good that Infants by nature have real inherent grace then what hope is there left for gracelesse professing people under the Ordinances if God will not own such they are left destitute of all hope for who can own God and come to him by the power of Grace untill the Lord own them for his people by giving them that grace first But what reason can any of sober principles give that God will not now in the Gospel times own such a gracelesse professing people for his people as he hath done before the coming of Christ in the flesh For 1. Is not Jesus Christ the Author and procurer of all spiritual blessings to faln man and always the same yesterday to day and for ever 2. And was not the Gospel Covenant as to the substance of it alwayes the same to the visible professing Church and to their seed Is it straightned in respect of grace and mercy towards man since the coming of our Lord more then before Or doth it run upon such tearms now as that not any may come under the outward administration that have not real grace Or will you have none come under Gospel worship and duties that professe Christianity that have not real grace What rocks doth that assertion dash against 3. Is not the visible Church the same all being grassed into the same Olive and Vine and planted together into the same body by baptism as the Jew by circumcision Doe you think that a different administration only made such a different Church and consequently requires such a different subject in admission into it as yours imports What was there in the old administration that should in reason indulge so great a latitude as to the subjects more then in the new Those that can tell us wherein the mystery of this lies should doe well to give us the discovery for my part I must confesse I judge both the Old and also the New meerly external as in the letter both fitted for reasonable man as instrumental to conveigh a blessing of grace unto whom the Lord will of those that in obedience yeeld what homage they are able unto their Lord. Whosoever entred this great Covenant of grace that the visible Church alwayes hath and is in possession of came alwayes under the restipulation thereof as his duty which is this to observe and doe all that the Lord requires to be done at that time and age that any person lives in so shall ye be his people and the Lord will be your God The Lords Covenant with his Church doth always oblige those that have entred into it to all that obedience that at present is in force by the Lord. A Jew by nature was under all that God commanded them and a Christian by nature is under all that God commands now A Jew by nature and profession had all the Church priviledges of a Jew In like manner a Christian by nature and profession hath all the Church priviledges of a Christian only with greater advantage forasmuch as the priviledges of the Christian Church are more clear and spiritual tending more unto the spiritual profit and edification of the whole And what reason besides the good pleasure of God can any man give why the Lord should vary in these different administrations Most certain it is that since Christ was manifested in the flesh and justified in the Spirit and ascended into glory greater hath been the advantage both of knowing and believing in the Son of God in comparison of attaining unto knowledg and faith in Christ by those that had but some darke obscure discoveries of him by types and shadows for men now to say that God looks for more at our hands then of them is rational But to affirm that the Lord in Gospel times will not own a Christ-professing people that have not real grace is altogethere groundlesse and a little too peremptorily spoken without better proof then Camero And it 's too harsh to affirm that a meer want of reall grace doth discovenant a Christian professing people and that God will disown them for his people upon that account they being holy federally by birth and upon that account baptized and thereby put in possession of the Sacramental Seal which himself will grant And would the same men but argue as rationally from the state of the Jews Church as touching grown ones as they doe of Infants this Controversie about who shall be admitted to the Sacrament would have been frivolous But now Mr. Saunders hath done with the texts which he saith Conclude positively for their practice in gathering and distinguishing their Communicants by examining What all these lights will doe being set up together who knows So likewise Answ 1 I have now done with examining of what you have concluded from these several texts for your way and I hope I have given both your self and every sober unprejudiced reader clear and rational demonstrations that there is not so much as one of these 15. texts that will prove examnation a necessary duty unto the Lords Supper as it 's stated Nor hath Mr. Saunders so much as applyed them for the most part to prove the question So little is his own confidence of the pertinentnesse of his own quotations for some of them he hath applyed to prove suspension and others to prove excommunication which in order
cals them are forbidden but who in the Church are they I would gladly know the Apostle speaks of some that did eat and drink unworthily but it doth not follow therefore that their persons were unworthy because some of their actions were I have insisted largely upon this in answer to Mr. Collins The truth is how can they be said to be forbidden that are of the Church and baptized and as such are under the command of all institute worship Nay it 's a question whether Excommunication doe disoblige from precepts of worship although the Church may lawfully deny them the benefit of all worship in the punishing of impenitent scandalous sinners for their amendment A prison doth not excuse a Fellon from duties of publick worship when he by his own sinning hath brought himself justly under that restraint And in his saying Any proper and sufficient way to the exclusion of the unfit I know no way but Juridical censures of the Church that is proper according to the Gospel rule Juridical Admonition and Excommunication the Word hath prescribed directly and that only is proper and sufficient for the exclusion of the unfit as for any other way to be proper that is no where to be found in the Scripture and neglect to doe as it is written is but a raw sancy of a mans own framing and punishable by the Scriptures as is clear in the case of Nadab and Abihu Levit. 10.1 2. they invented a proper and a sufficient way in kindling common fire to consume the Sacrifice of Incense the fire of the Tabernacle being out through their own negligence but the Lord destroyed them with fire from heaven for presuming to offer that which the Lord commanded not For where the Lord himself prescribes a way the Church is bound only to that way not any way but that only of Gods own prescribing will he be pleased with God will be sanctified in them that come nigh him Now then I say when we upon Church reforming through the subtilty of some and carelessenesse of others have lost the exercise of the Churches discipline being out of actual possession through our own default as to the edification of the whole shall any be so bold now as to invade this authoritative power and assume to themselves without the consent of the Church the exercise of discipline and under that pretence use any way that is but proper and sufficient to exclude the ignorant and scandalous from the Sacrament when the Lord hath prescribed a direct way what is to be done with the scandalous in the Church Again that the Ark should be fetched unto its proper place was an end commanded yet any proper and sufficient means subservient thereunto were not warrantable but that way and means only that God had appointed and you know David swerved from the prescription in fetching back the Ark but the Lord made a breach upon them for it in smiting Vzzah that he dyed This way was proper and sufficient to attain the end yet they were punished for it The Lord made a breach amongst them because they carryed not the Ark according to that order God had prescribed in the Law It 's a dangerous and desperate attempt to invent ways and means of exclusion of Christs visible subjects from their native rights otherwise then it is written There is a clear rule for Juridical Excommunication and in what cases and by whom to be exercised and let that satisfie all untill they can finde further order from the Scriptures to warrant their other proceedings under the notion of discipline in this giddy age The Reader may sufficiently by this see the weaknesse and vanity of the way and practise defended by the Author I have fully answered the texts of Scripture and the reasons added as seconds to warrant their way they must either finde out a better warrant then is yet produced or else as the ten Tribes were jealous of the other two and a half Josh 22. when they heard that the two had erected an Altar of their own heads conceived they were in a superstitious rebellion in forsakeing the wayes of the Lord and so to provoke the Lord unto anger to punish the whole Congregation as in the matter of Peor and Achan so may we be jealous and suspicious of these new invented wayes so vigorously acted in by our brethren which tend so evidently to make division and schism in the Church and is such an impediment that doth obstruct and make void all hopes of attaining unto that discipline that God hath prescribed for the health and welfare of the whole Church They cannot say as the two Tribes of their Altar It is not for sacrifice but for a witnesse to the other Tribes that their children had part in the Lord and in the Altar that he had commanded to be built for sacrifice and worship For the way that Mr. Saunders defends is for worship and held forth as necessary to the prejudice of professing Christians that have any interest in the Lord and in all his commanded worship that you exclude them from and upon the matter discovenant them and their children from having a part in the Lord. Doe you think it but a small evill to your professing people to deprive them of the benefit and blessing of Gospel appointments instituted by the Lord himself for the spiritual good of his visible Church of which your people are members and within What know you but it may lye heavy upon your souls if ever you be reduced into straights and tryals to think of the wrong you have done to your peoples souls in withholding that from them which was necessary You think now the fault is your peoples and that they keep themselves away from the Sacrament they may be admitted if they will for you say it 's more for want of a will then of capacity that they are not admitted But by your leave Sir may I presume to speak one word on the peoples behalf you impose such laws and ties upon their consciences in order to admission that you cannot in the least make good by the authority of your Master you pretend very much to his authority in those very things which are meerly your own fancies and inconsistent with your own principles otherwayes I dare boldly say that you are in such a way and stickle to defend it too that you will never while you live be able to produce one plain text of Scripture allowing it its own sense to justifie either the forming of your Church or to prove any one thing of what you stand upon as necessary to admission you have quoted 15. texts to prove examination and suspension only and not one will in the least favour you as hath bin discovered already and in your laying down necessary things to qualifie unto receiving you quote about sixty texts and I have searched after them I dare say it and justifie it too that there is not one text of all that number
in the least pertinent to prove any one of the qualifications as laid down to be necessary to this end namely to admission to the holy Supper And how would you have your people to come up to your tearms when you so evidently wrest the sense of Scriptures to justifie the boldnesse of venting forth your own fancies in the name of the Lord This is the way you are agreed of and you rejoyce in your comforts and applaud it for purity and you are resolved thus to walk and you cry up Gospel rule and yet your actings are not consonant to any rule the Scripture teach for any thing you have said in defence of your way May not your comforts be suspected as well as others whose wayes and courses are dangerous and to be avoided I would have you consider of it for these unnecessary separations in a true Church as you confesse of ours are absolutely schismatical and your people are bound to decline your way and to keep their station in the Church into which they are imbodyed and to use all their indeavours to partake of Gods Ordinances where they may without running themselves into such dangerous schisms that directly tend to the confusion of the whole And without doubt if you will be as ingenuous as you expresse you must either return to your distracted flocks and perform those relative duties you stand bound unto or persist in wayes of your own choosing meerly without the words warranty which is scandalous in the Church of Christ so to doe and deserves to be censured Mr. Saunders after his arguments he gives some motives which he would have his Reader lay to heart the evils following the neglect of them or the like course 1. And chiefly God is provoked to remove our Candlestick for neglect of Church censures upon scandalous offenders A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump 1 Cor. 5.6 I deny that the way defended hath any thing of the Church censures in it according to that text Answ for Mr. Saunders saith they excommunicate none and Excommunication alone is meant by this Scripture The Apostle doth not say Separate the meal from the leaven but purge out the leaven from the meal he doth not say exclude the scandalous from the Sacrament but put out from among your selves such wicked persons that is out of all Christian Communion civill or sacred What is their course to this Text when they Juridically censure none nor indeed are in a capacity so to doe Casting out of the Church and leaving out from the Sacrament those that are within are huge different things the first is lawful and according to Gospel rule the other unlawful as being against all Gospel rules or precedents It 's true the neglect of Church censures where a Church is in such a capacity is a great evill that doth much provoke the Lord to punish such neglect and that we are in this capacity at present some have more to answer for then I fear they are sensible of nor humbled under that direful guilt my prayer to God is to make us all sensible of our malady and in his due time restore unto this poor rent and divided Church that remedy of holy discipline His second evil is The confusion of souls by ordinary and common profanation eating and drinking their own damnation This is high indeed for words Answ but hath not that dreadful doome in it as he reports without better proof ordinary and common profanation in the Scripture sense was never read of The Church of Corinth lay under the guilt of high profanation but it was not ordinary or common I think 'T is probable they never offended so again nor any other Church what their sin was should be enquired after more strictly and the punishment inflicted and then judge whether the Sacrament be for the confusion of souls it was a temporal chastisement to prevent the damnation of souls This to the punishment The sin was a sacrilegious misuse of holy things to carnal and common ends in the very act of administration which I have largely given my thoughts of and shewed that not any Congregations in our Church did ever or rarely so offend and what he meanes by common profanation must be some other thing that the Scripture no where condemns otherwise then in every other Ordinance of God that is too carelesly performed As all other Ordinances so this was instituted for the spiritual good of the Church Christ commands nothing for the hurt of his visible subjects they conforming thereunto according to their present capacity the Lord gives his laws and Ordinances for our good only Sometimes he permits a people for their punishment to chuse Ordinances and statutes of their own making for their hurt as Israel of old did I conclude then that this evil the confusion of souls c. is a slander of Gods Ordinance and an evill of mens own making when applied to the Sacrament more then to all other Ordinances in the Church Next He saith in his third place Abuse of the bloud of Christ by being too prodigal hereof 1. Answ They properly abuse the signs of Christs bloud that slight Sacraments as too mean and carnal to use to that end they were instituted for 2. They who admit Heathens and give the holy Supper to persons unbaptized or excommunicate or to those that come on purpose to abuse the signs to common ends But to administer the Sacrament unto serious professing Christians that come reverently and demean themselves orderly according to the external part of this observance is that which is according unto Gospel rule and the administration holy and warrantable Christ that gave himself for his Church doth not think much of giving the signs and representations of himself body and bloud to the members thereof And who will plead for any but Church-members who are under the obligation of this observance of their Lord And to deny it to such is to be more withholding then is meet and a dishonour to Jesus Christ who came into the world to save sinners His fourth is Obstructing the reformation of the Churches we live in And what is reformation in the Church Answ but to draw on the whole to a conformity to all the Laws of Jesus Christ externally at least For the Church can goe no further it is the only work of God to reform the hearts of men And the whole Church are as much bound to a conformity to this law of receiving the Sacrament in remembrance of Christ as to any other act of obedience in the Church He that commands all the rest of obedience commands this too And therefore they understand not what Reformation is that are busie in such reformings in their Churches that the greatest part of Christs subjects are out of carlessenesse neglected and exempted from their duty of obedience Nay those that would serve their redeeming Lord and Saviour in the command of his own worship as they are believing Christians in hope of
they proceed to censures gradually and for no other cause but for the like sins and scandals that the Word directs in 4. Query Whether the Church should own men to be members for a bare profession c. I confesse I doe the more wonder at the query Answ because the most of sober Divines are taxt for unfoundnesse in holding the affirmative and yet himself saith the children of such are holy federally and therefore to be baptized whereas if the parents be not Church members how come their children to be holy federally and to have right to baptism that being spoken of the children of such that were in the Church And if a remote right may serve to bring in the childe of such a bare professor as he pag 129. then why have not the parents of that childe the same remote right as being a generation nearer that right they being not Excommunicate as is supposed Is the child a member without so much as a bare profession and the parents none that professe Christianity externally A bare profession may be serious in its kinde I suppose though it want the will of holinesse So that if we adde to a historical or temporary professor but to be serious and real in his profession for the present he may passe for a member with him and I shall think those men very uncharitable that judge lesse of ours generally that frequent Gods Ordinances and take themselves greatly wronged when they are deprived of any one I take it to be a good sign that they are serious in what they professe and then this is but the same which in others he conceives unsound 2. What shall be done with the children of the most godly when they are grown up if profession without true holynesse doth not continue such members forasmuch that there is no rule left to dismember for ignorance or want of the work of true holinesse regeneration c. members such are not only by birth but formally by the Churches approbational act of baptism they are so far from renouncing or forsaking their Christian profession that they adhere to the external part of it and are not scandalous They neither fall off nor are cut off by any rule or act of censure what hinders them but that such remain members of the Church and have a true right to all the external priviledges of membership 3. If positive unbelief in denying the person and Ordinances of Christ on whom the Church is built cut off persons from the Church as is clearly spoken of the Jews Rom. 11. then the contrary to that Infidelity which is a real owning and professing the person and Ordinances of Christ continues those that are members born to be members so long as they hold to the Christian profession Excommunication dismembers but conditionally for in case the offender externally reform and hold to his profession and promise amendment he ought to be loosed from that censure But I hasten What shall Ministers doe while Government is unsetled Query 5 and their people opposite to wayes of Reformation 1. Shall they give the Sacrament promiscuously to all 2. Shall they by their own Antiquity exclude the unfit 3. Or shall they wholly desist To the last he answers that the use of the Ordinance of the Supper is so necessary as that it may not alwayes nor long be discontinued the command of Christ Doe this requires obedience this he saith is well proved by Mr. Joanes but yet he doth not close with him in another point namely that while the Church is undisciplin'd the Sacrament may be administred in every Congregation without any separation But he conceived that the Lords Supper cannot be holily transacted by any unlesse the scandalous be removed c. pag. 169. 1. Answ It 's a question whether their people are opposite to true reformation or no because they were never yet tryed with it and therefore who can tell whether they will oppose it or no That they are opposite to such wayes of Reformation as the Author pretends to and labours to defend is no great wonder when Ministers will venture to spake and doe such things to reform them which are no where to be found in the Scriptures but in their own wills and fancies as I have discovered already it 's well he is so sober as to hold the administring of the Lords Supper so necessary that it may not long be omitted and that he assents to that Reverend Minister Mr. Joanes who hath done the Church most eminent service in that undertaking of his And then if it be a necessary duty requiring obedience why then this may satisfie him in answer to his first Shall they give the Sacrament to all Yeato all that are concern'd in Christian obedience and observance which all in your Parish that are baptized and of years are as well to this as to any other part of instituted worship in the Church And there 's no more danger in the word promiscuous to this Ordinance then to all others there being as much to be said for the casting the scandalous out of the Church as from the Sacrament and more too for we have no rule at all to exclude a scandalous member from the Sacrament while he is within but we have clear rule to cast such out of the Church by Excommunication and then removal from the Sacrament fals in as a consequence of that Juridical act and no otherwise That Ministers are in a very great strait by reason of the necessity of the one hand to administer saith he and yet perchance have a wicked party predominant to hinder any good course of separation Answ The strait is not to great more as in shew and conceit men first receive false principles and then conclude accordingly from them and that brings them into straits whereas if they were rightly informed of their own duties and their peoples priviledges as Church-members the case were easie Christ commands to all his visible subjects while they are within is a sufficient warranty upon this very ground you are now in no more strait about the Lords supper then in all other worship which many scarse make so much as a scruple of His saying that this is against the mind of Christ he intending it for disciples only is pitiful weak when himself grants the baptizing of the children of all as holy federally from their parents which cannot be true unless their parents be believers or disciples as hath been shewed and therefore in granting that it doth necessarily prove the lawful right of all to the holy Supper Baptism Lords Supper being but the same seal of the same Covenant in which both are in cluded and concerned And doubtlesse a single Minister is not impowered with authority to excommunicate Juridically which I suppose he means is Mr. Joanes his advantage upon his adversaries he holding them strictly to some such Presbyterian principles as this which I wonder that any man should dare to assume to
doe as Mr. Saunders opens his minde in and hath published it against the learned Assemblie and all sober men he saith Thus the Minister by his own authority without Elders may put back such as he knows to be unfit But if by his authority he may put back the unfit then by the same authority he may as well Excommunicate if by authority he means the authority of rule in acts of discipline but if he only understand his Ministerial authority in a case of necessity I think it not so insolent as the other although it is a hard task to justifie either from the rule or free themselves of doing evill that good may come c. And Mr. Saunders will finde work enough to justifie their own way from Schism he had not need entice others to as bad But he saith further the Minister is impowered and Commissioned as to all Ordinances by Christ whether to this Sacrament to act solely or alone is a question Answ What should hinder but that one alone may administer the Sacrament by vertue of that Ministerial power as well as in all other Ordinances of Worship I know not Scripture that requires acts of discipline in order to the Lords Supper more then to the rest of worship in the Church Those that can finde any such Scripture may do well to publish what they know 6. Query He asketh who are fit to come to the Lords Table and what qualifications may be justly required And gives his answer 1. Concerning knowledge he stands not so much upon the muchnesse as the soundnesse of it save this it must be so much as may let in Christ into the soul c. But he is not clear and distinct in prescribing the least measure of such a knowledge Answ that lets Christ into the souls of some persons for it 's supposed that some have Christ in their souls in their Infancy 2. Christ first comes into a dark soul that hath no other but a passive reception and he alone brings true and saving light with him 3. If no more knowledge be required to actual receiving of the Sacrament then to a passive reception of Christ where Christ pleaseth by his Spirit First to take hold on souls we may consent to this but if he mean so much light and faith whereby a man is capable actually to apply some further spiritual blessing by Christ it requires proof the bare sayings of men meerly are not competent to weigh with the Churches peace and truth so much concerned in this practice 4. How weak is all that they can say in defence of this qualification to admission to the Lords Supper when ours are all baptized and within and therefore under the actual observance of this duty as any other himself saith well of a wicked mans praying thus Their presence at the duty can be no sin while 't is that they are commanded to doe though at present their own evils make them unable to doe as they should pag. 126. would men say but the same of this of the Sacrament it 's not sin to receive while 't is that they are commanded to doe though at present they through ignorance and other wants cannot receive as they should I say would but men thus judge and say of the Sacrament there being the same reason for it as is proved clearly in another place this controversie would be ended and all parties pleased Besides there is not any law or rule in Scriptures to warrant the punishing of ignorance or unregeneracie in the Church with the deprivation of a common priviledge belonging to members in common of the same kinde never was such a thing heard of in the Apostolical Churches that any were censured for ignorance in excluding them from the Lords Table or from any other Ordinance in the Church If you judge ours within and baptized and of years and yet exclude them the Sacrament for want of knowledge I dare be bold to say that you venture to doe that which you have neither Scripture precept nor counsel nor precedent for How you think to be born out in such a bold presumptuous practice against the clear command of Christ you may doe well to consider of it His quotations are so impertinent for his purpose that it will be but losse of time and labour to examine them I admire how men dare so notoriously mis-apply the holy Scriptures 2. As to practice he saith These four quallifications seeme necessary to admitting to the Sacrament 1. They must be no companions of drunkards or any other wicked livers 2. They must be such as frequent and delight in the society of godly people 3. Such as are not known to be guilty of any known sin 4. Such as perform all religious duties as well in private as in publick c. 1. Answ That these are qualifications or duties required of all professing Christians is granted That receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is so also it being a publick duty of worship incumbent upon all in the Church and comprehended in his last cannot be denyed 2. That these qualifications are necessary in order to Gods glory and our Salvation is confessed but that they are necessary in order to receiving to the Sacrament upon good grounds is to be denyed untill better proof 3. These qualifications are necessary to prove our spiritual states by and to know in what condition we stand in before the Lord. But the Scriptures quoted doe not in the least urge them as prerequisite unto the Lords Supper more then to all other worship They that have this Book let them search and see if they can finde one of these sixty texts that hath so much as a sound to prove any of these qualifications laid down pag. 172. necessarily prerequisite in order to the Lords Supper And if you cannot finde one of so great a number for his purpose had it not been more for his repuration as he is a Minister not to have quoted them then thus absurdly to misapply them to justifie a way themselves have inconsiderately chosen It 's the usual road of those that have strong fancies and weak judgements to multiply texts of Scriptures impertinently If this Author shall think it necessary still to defend their way I much desire that he may shew himself a workman that need not be ashamed by dividing the pure truths of God aright one clear and rational deduction from the holy Scripture properly applyed either for suspension or examination or excluding the ignorant would doe more to justifie the separations that some venture to make amongst their people in order to the Sacrament then multitude of texts impertinently alleadged as hath been discovered Nay it 's a strange thing and to be wondred at that the same men that doe satisfie themselves touching Infant Baptism upon the Analogy of Circumcision Covenant relation according to the state of the Jews Church without any expresse rule in the New Testament in respect of precept or
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
clear upon sufficient proof the Christian Magistrate hath to doe with them those things being punishable by death in our Law And such malefactors cannot ordinarily escape the penalty of the Law if the Magistrate will nâ— doe his duty The Church may assooâ— judicially excommunicate as suspend suâ— And it 's a question that wiser men then I haâ— need to answer Whether such scandaloâ— sinners as Mr. Collings speaks of ought noâ— most properly to be punished by the Judge in a Christian Common-wealth according to the penalties the Law of God directs iâ— such cases And whether the Church has 〈◊〉 doe at all with such or no in point of censures is a question as for other forts of sinners that the Laws of this Common-wealth doth more indulge the Churches cognisance in point of discipline may reach 〈◊〉 she be in that capacity otherwise she caâ— but instruct the ignorant warn the unruly reâ—buke in publick the open offender admonish all anâ— have patience towards all men Every Christian in his place to doe what in them lyes to reform themselves and not suffer sinne to lye upon their brother But as for that knack of excommunicable and meerly upon that account keep members back without any tryal whether their offendings bâ— out of weaknesse or wilfulnesse or without any legal proceedings in order to their amendment is a very bold part Such precedents are of pernicious consequence in these times where we have none to make our appeal unto knowing how that Brownism hath too much leavened the greatest part of the most knowing men Ministers and others in the Church of England Well let not any presume upon sin themselves in pretence of punishing sin in others If you cannot act orderly according to clear rule make not such haste to reform as to goe about it in an unwarrantable way as for Church-members that are in possession of their right according to law doe not dispossesse them untill the Church authoritatively hath given out judgement against them Let not our Church-men be more irrational then our Lawyers for subjects in the Common-wealth And as for that he saith Church-members not knowing whether Christ were a man or a woman I am sorry that any should be so grossely ignorant I thank God I never have known any such if Mr. Collings have I hope not in his Parish And I cannot but judge it a reproach of our Church and Ministry if any such can be found amongst us But it 's a lamentable thing notwithstanding our scruples about Sacramental Communion so many years together but few that have prepared their people ever the more by doubling their diligence in catechizing of them plainly and familiarly in publick and private Which I fear some that appear forward for a purer Communion in seven years time never did so much as in a friendly way spend so much as an hour with their poor ignorant people in private to inform them better and to know their conditions and incourage them to learn the things of God in order to their better profiting in publick administrations How long is it that we have been excepting against poor ignorant brethren and yet not ordinary means used to prevent it more then heretofore if so much for in the Bishops times care was taken that all did learn the Lords Prayer the Creed and the ten Commandements with the explanations of them and other parts of the Churches Catechising we had our set Prayers that people were apt to learn but now in many places people never hear the Lords Prayer Creed nor Commands scarse in the year nor have in use any common plain Catechism c. Ah poor souls that care is not towards them I verily judge as good Shepheards have of their Masters dumb sheep who will see to every particular one that it be kept in order and that nothing obstruct its growth and feeding and if any sheep goe astray he diligently seeks it and bringeth it to his fellows and when either flye or scab doth hinder its prosperity he will not let it alone untill the poor sheep come to him though he should call it but he will goe to it and gently catch it although it's so silly to flee from him and mercifully help it he will not let them goe till they be infectious and then separate the broken from the whole but endeavour to keep every one in that order that all may fold together Act. 20.28 Take heed therefore unto your selves and to all over the which the holy Ghost hath made you overseers to feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own bloud If you have that love to your Lord and Master as you should you will feed his sheep and lambs that they may fold together Reverend Elders we are fallen into carelesse times in respect of the Worship of God little or no care is taken that our people constantly frequent the publick assemblies ignorant persons are left to watch to themselves you have the more cause to apply your selves to them in private even from house to house and be tender unto them as a nurse cherisheth her children to insinuate your selves in a friendly familiar way into them will gain in them a reverent esteem of you in their hearts which will give you the advantage of perswading them to receive instruction from you both in publick and private It 's an easie businesse to make a separation in your flocks and to cast off the relation of Pastor and people and to neglect relative duties and to fill your people with prejudices divisions and discontents and to break the peace and union of the whole but a work of commendable difficulty when with care prudence and diligence you so apply your selves unto all as they that must give an account unto God of every particular soul committed to your charge Remember the bloud of souls and judge your selves bound to deal with the worst of your people as members of the body of Christ while they remain children of the Kingdom and not reckon them dogs and Swine untill they be legally put out of Church-Communion and hate to be reformed by the Churches censures Mr. Pag. 24. Collings urgeth against my principles thus He must be able to discern the Lords Body from commâ—n bread But many men may be Church members and rational and yet not able to doe this therefore something else must he added The Minor wants prof Answ and so is but a reproach to Church-members reflecting upon our Teachers that have opportunity enough to inform the meanest capacity of years more then so And that reverent and trembling approaching generally every where doth prove that they judge otherwise of the consecrated signes then of common bread why should Mr. Collings be so uncharitable to any that professe their desires and offer themselves reverently in conscience of this service he knowing that there is enough in the words of institution consecration by Word and Prayer the words used in the