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
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
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
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
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
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
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
promises of the first grace are not only free but absolute not so depending upon condition of faith in a strict sense as many other promises doe yet not so absolute but that the ordinary means of salvation ought to be observed diligently in order â—o attainment of the first grace for God will â—e enquired after by the house of Israel for the grace of the New Covenant Ezek. 36. My fourth proposition is That the whole â—dministration of the Covenant belongs to those in he Church that are the immediate objects of the â—bsolute promises in order to the Lords putting these â—romises into execution Mr. Collinâ— saith If the argument be good it 's â—etcht from the right which an interest in the Coâ—enant promises gives one to the seals of it And â—hen it must hold universally and if the unregeneâ—ate world without be as much objects of the first â—ace as those within there is no reason for that â—striction It seems Mr. Answ Collins would not have the â—romises of first grace be limited unto the Church but would have the unregenerate â—ut of the Church as much objects as those within for indeed he is ready at every pinch â—o level the unregenerate in the Church to the â—n fidel world Therefore I shall endevour to clear unto you the difference in this particular briefly â—t may be I may publish more of this hereafâ—er It is evident that the whole Covenant of grace is made unto the Church in general terms without any exception of persons in â—t as is clear Jer. 31. Heb. 8. Ezek. 36. A â—ew Covenant I will make with the house of Judah and Jerusalem in which Covenant thâ— promise of the first grace is most expresse anâ— full the state of the Jews Church consâ—â—ing most of carnal members that were proper objects of the promises of first grace Why the Gentile world as carnal and bâ—miserable yet this Covenant containing thâ— first grace was never made to them at all bâ— upon condition of faith and grafting them selves into the same visible body as they aâ— Infidels and without They are aliens from 〈◊〉 Common wealth of Israel strangers to the Covenâ— of promises and without all hope and withâ—â— God in the world Ephes 2.12 How can the be said to be as much objects of the promiâ— of the first grace that are without as theâ— that are within when they are alienatâ— from all during that Infidel state It 's tâ—â— there is a promise that all the Nations 〈◊〉 the earth shall be blessed in Abraham but iâ— runs in conditional tearms as they are iâ— him they must first be brought into him and be of the true Church that Abraham waâ— father of before they can be blessed in him and so the Apostle expounds it They that aâ—â— of faith are blessed with him and ye are all eveâ— the whole Church Jews and Gentiles thâ— children of Abraham by faith in Christ Jesus And not any others in the world that remained in their infidel estate This difference is clearly intimated by the Apostle Peter Act. 2.39 when he speaks of the Jews that were of the Church by nature as descended from Abraham he tels them plainly The promise is to them and their children speaking in the present tense But then speaking of the Gentiles he saith the promise is intended unto them also but with another restriction then to the Jews even unto as many as it shall please the Lord our God to call of them at any time for the future and to none else they of the infidel world must be externally called at least and planted into the visible Church of Christ by baptism before they and theirs can be children of the promise and in Covenant relation As the Pagan world is without the promise of the first grace so we know they are without the ordinary means of working that grace if they be as much objects of the promise of first grace as the unregenerate in the Church What 's the reason the Lord denyes them the ordinary means of putting them into execution The Apostle saith If our Gospel be hid or withheld from persons or people it 's hid to them that perish Our own experience will convince us that those that are without are not so much objects of the promise of first grace as them within because we see the fruit of it in the Church in every age and time in the conversion of many but scarse any age of a hundred generations we have heard of any conversions in some part of the Pagan world Hence I judge there is a real difference between the Church and the Pagan world in respect of the one they are objects of the promises the other without promise and hope and God in the world and me thinks Mr. Collins and the friends of his judgement they being godly sober Orthodox Divines should be satisfied with this difference I have only hinted at in short for my part I think there is nothing more clear and easie to be made out from holy Scriptures were not men of his judgement too much learned with Brownism destroying that which our firâ— reformers have planted I must confesse it 's nothing becoming my calling and abilities to challenge any learned reverend men yet I doubt not but through the assistance of Gods grace to maintain this difference I have in short laid down against all the contradiction of sober Orthodox men provided they will dispute it from the authority of holy Scriptures and what may be clearly and rationally deducted thence Next Mr. Collins is pleased to put my proposition into form pag. 34. Those to whom the absolute promises of the Covenant belong to those the whole administration of the Covenant and so the seals belong But to the unregenerate in the Church and of years the promises belong Ergo. He saith Let but belong in each proposition be understood in the same sense and the answer is easie and the argument weak c. I will yeild him that which he desires Answ and take it in that sense which is most large namely that the promises of first grace belong to the unregenerate in the Church then he denies the major and saith That by this argument Heathens may come to the Sacrament I say no unlesse Mr. Collins can prove that the Heathen are as much objects of the absolute promises in the Covenant as the unregenerate in the Church I think when he hath performed that task soundly and undeniably I shall yeild the argument weak and think the worse of my cause but untill then he must give me leave to think the argument strong for any thing he hath yet said in answer of it He only saith it That no promise doth so belong to any unregenerate man as his portion which he may cleare and make use of it in his unregeneracy What thinks Mr. Collins then of the baptizing the Infants of such Answ 1 the usual practise of our Church How can he perswade such to offer
supposes faith It 's sufficient for our opinion because all in the Church doe accept of the Covenant and have faith And we doe not plead for Heathens untill they believe and come under baptism But surely the death of Christ confirmed the everlasting Covenant out of which faith with the fruits thereof freely flow And I think Sacraments are no other wayes seals then they are signs of his death as it is said This cup is the new Covenant in my bloud the cup was not really the new Covenant but a sign thereof representatively as I have hinted before Yet surely saith Mr. Collins those that are in a state of unbelief are not in Covenant though they may be objects of Gods first free grace Answ If they be not in the everlasting Covenant they cannot be said to be objects of Gods first free grace for doubtlesse God gives grace to none that are out of that Covenant himself grants that the elect are enrold in the everlasting Covenant and many of them may be in the Church I hope though in a state of unbelief in his sense and doubtlesse it is for the elects sake that we have an external administration a Church consisting of most bad that his elect may be gathered out of all sorts of sinners and others left without excuse is this wise contrivance of the ever blessed God And hence this mingled state of good and bad must grow together untill the harvest experience doth tell us what precious wheat hath sprung out of the roots of wicked tares And wicked tares have sprung out of the roots of the choycest wheat let that convince us Mr. Collins saith That argument about baptism hath been answered again and again The argument is this If parents that are ignorant and scandalous in the Church be so much in Covenant as to give their children right unto holy baptism a seal of the Covenant then themselves have right to the holy Supper it being but the seal of the same Covenant The antecedent is granted by Mr. Collins and all that are friends to his judgement and yet they deny the consequence because they say more is required to the Lords Supper then unto Baptism Unto this I answer It cannot be proved that in in the Apostles days more was required unto the Supper then to baptism of persons of years it 's clear enough that which prepared them for baptism brought them into the Church And that being once within they had the priviledges of the Church accordingly is without question Lesse is required unto Covenant seals of persons born in the Church they being free born to all the priviledges of this spiritual Corporation then of those that are aliens and strangers by birth these obtain their freedom upon the terms of faith and repentance The ignorant and scandalous are in as good a capacity of the Supper of the Lord as their children are of the baptism of the Lord they being under Church indulgence First They are in an active capacity of exercising the understanding heart and conscience memory with all the externals required unto that service their children are meerly passive for the other Secondly Parents are in possession of the feals of themselves but their children before baptism are not Parents in the Church derive as much right from their Ancestors as their children doe untill they be discovenanted if not more as being a generation neerer that right If parents Covenant relation be sufficient to give right to the seals for his childe then surely for himself Besides the contradiction in the other opinion of Mr. Collins as first he pleads the Covnaâ—nt for the parents unto their childrens baptism and then disputes them out of Covenant in his admission unto the holy Supper They shall be accounted believers as to the one but unbelievers as to the other The promise is to them and their children in order unto baptism but then in order to the holy Supper there is no more promise belongs unto them then unto Pagans And there is no promise made to any that have not faith to apply them and so exclude children from the promise too at last for they have not such a faith as to apply the promises Thus you may see he is a Presbyterian in practice and an Anabaptist in opinion For if his judgement be true about baptism then it 's false about the holy Supper if his judgement be true about the Supper then it 's false about baptism for both are the same seal of the same Covenant exhibited only by different figns People had need be well setled and satisfied of themselves in these times that keep their station in the Church where they have such Teachers and meet with such opinions that destroy all The truth is our straightnesse in the one and largenesse in the other doth destroy it self and doth occasion most intelligent Christians either to fall off from Infant baptism or else to restrain it to those that are judged fit to be received into holy Communion in the Lords Supper Had it not been for our own scruples about admitting to the Supper casting off the most of Church-members from Communion under the notion of ignorant and scandalous we had never known of these exorbitances in the Church which now we suffer under by the separations It is an easie thing for Mr. Collins to say the argument is answered again and again not telling us by whom nor how But if it be not better answered then he hath done it in his answer to Mr. Barksdel he must answer it again or else it must be unanswered and cleave close unto him still as such a Church-rent that he will never free himself of unlesse he alter his judgement which he will finde the readiest way of the two In his 15. pag. to Mr. Barksdels 10. argument for free admission he puts in three exceptions He grants children are baptized in their parents right but yet can see no reason why it should necessarily be the immediate parent True for sometimes it may fall out Answ that both parents may be excommunicate or turn'd Apostates in these cases it 's not necessary but otherwise being of the true Christian Church and faith the ignorant and scandalous being in actual Church-membership and baptized give as true a legal right to their childs baptism as any other member what ever so long as their own right holds their childs right doth also and that immediately from them is to the sober unquestionable Indeed if parents be never so really godly and unbaptized their childrens right to baptism must either be derived from Ancestors or else have none at all a visible peofession of faith in persons baptized gives a true right for their childe to the Sacramental seal and consequently for themselves to the same seal of the Supper there was the same danger for the neglect of the Passeover as for circumcision He saith further There is no self-examination prerequired unto baptism but to the Supper a man must
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
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
so to use the remedy as to prevent the judgement and to receive benefit by the Ordinance where God gave a blessing pag. 13. The Bar removed I doe not finde that Mr. Collins hath much to except against what I have answered to these two queries in my Book pag. 19 20. He grants what I have said is true but yet he sayes in case of scandalous sinners in the Church self examination is not enough but there is something to be done by the Ministers and officers of the Church he grants self examination a personal remedy but there are other Church remedies which the Apostle commandeth the use of as well as this 1 Cor. 5. I am ready to yeeld it Answ that there are Church remedies and judge that his quotation 1 Cor. 5. is so for the reforming scandalous brethren And that those that are justly delivered up to Satan or cast out of Christian Communion by the authority of the Church should not only be debarred the Sacrament but all publick Ordinances and all civil society so far as our particular callings will possibly admit of but yet I am far from thinking that the Apostle ever meant that delivering unto Satan and to put from among themselves that wicked person was no more but exclude him the Sacrament And I verily believe that the same censure that was put into execution by the decree of the Apostle was made a general rule for the Church touching their dealing with all scandalous brethren in the Church as plainly appears in the 10 11 12. verses of that chapter the which I shall more clearly speak unto when I come to examine the grounds of suspension laid down by Mr. Collins He saith He cannot subscribe to my inclination that self examination mentioned 1 Cor. 11.28 must be limited by the premises in the context as the institution repeated doth import with some other directions and cautions given in cure of their malady c. He might have done it for any strength of reason he can give to the contrary Answ for if those two things hold which I have pincht upon That the Corinths were not blamed nor punished for personal unworthinesse at all Nor 2. for any other actual offendings but meerly for their profaning the Ordinance of Christ in the very time of administration for this cause only some are weak sick and some are dead vers 30. I say if this hold as I believe it will what reason can any man have to judge that the Apostle intends more in this place then the reforming of them in those particular sins they were punished for and blamed for If they were punished for coming to the Sacrament in an unregenerate state or for want of the knowledg of God in Christ for want of love of God and of Jesus Christ of men or for any other want or miscarriage save only this so exprest in the context examination might have been urged accordingly but they being not so much as blamed for any such things in order to the Sacrament no not in this chap. or elsewhere what shew of reason can any man have to be so severe in urging of examination as a duty of that necessity that if they be not able to discern the mysteries of the Kingdome of God and to approve themselves to God to be sincere as to such particulars which are only necessary for admittance unto heavenly glory or else if otherwise they come they will but eat and drink their own damnation When in my answer I have limited this duty of self-examination to the context as if the Apostle had said unto them You being fully convinced of your former woeful abuse and profaning this holy Ordinance of Christ you must now judge and condemn your selves accordingly and approve your selves according unto the right rule prescribed unto you in the institution received from Christ understanding within your selves what this holy observance doth mean and so come and demean your selves with reverence and good order sutable to Gods Ordinance and then he tels them they should not be judged of the Lord. This saith Mr. Collins is short work indeed pag. 29. What though it be short of the ordinary lasts of some men that will extend this duty to an infinitum Answ yet until Mr. Collins or any other can confute it I shall judge it right work and no whit short of the sense oâ— this place the which were it justly applyed to ours as it ought to be they being members of the same visible body and under the same rule and priviledges of the Church and not offenders in that kinde I think a shorte work would serve did not men upon mistakâ— affect to make themselves more work the they have warrant for from their Lord. But thus he saith The wrod in the Gree will not be satisfied with such a short and seaâ— interpretation Magistrates examine malefactor more strictly and the Goldsmiths tryal of his gold a more searching tryal the Apostle expounds iâ— 2 Cor. 13.5 You must excuse me as touching the Original Answ I am not able to examine it I wish could I am afraid the truth will be prejudiced through mine inabilities yet as I aâ— informed this makes but little to his purpose the same word being so often used iâ— the New Testament and that upon differenâ—â— accounts as Rom. 2.18 chap. 14.18 and the 16.10 2 Cor. 7.11 10.18 the 13.7 Phil. 1.10 2 Tim. 2.15 by some of these places you may see we are to approve of the things that are excellent and good and holy so as to put forth our endevours in pursuance of them and to decline the contrary which is all one with 1 Cor. 11.28 the Apostle would have the Corinths to approve themselves to the rules prescribed them and so come 2 Cor. 13.5 is a different thing to 1 Cor. 11.28 there the Apostle perceived that they questioned his authority of Apostleship and required a proof of Christ speaking in him the which saith the Apostle they need not goe far for a proof of Christ in accompanying his Word by him towards them is not weak but mighty vers 3. and hence he bids them examine themselves whether they be in the faith prove your selves that Christ is in you and that would be a sufficient proof of Christs speaking in him and of his Ministerial authority Thus you may clearly see although here is the same word yet it 's used upon a far different occasion and therefore it doth not expound 1 Cor. 11.28 as Mr. Collins would have it Next he saith That another kinde of examination is here required hath been the concurrent judgement of all Divines especially those of the reformed Churches c. I heartily reverence the concurrent judgement of all Divines and it is my grief that I differ from them in some things I wish that the authority of man do not cloud the truth from some for my own part my inabilities are such that there can be no danger of swaying
the judgement of any able Divines by my opinion wherein I dissent from them it must be the simplicity of truth and the justnesse of what I maintain only that bean me up against those I have to deal with in this controversie I am a meer naked man that am ingaged with men of compleat harness and arms that History Arts and Tongue can furnish them withall I must confesse I am strongly perswaded of the truth of what I have writ in this controversie and that it is the onely way to bring the Churcher peace and truth together and for Sions sake I can have no rest but am drawn on to doe things not so well becoming my rank and calling in the Church I beg your pardon I hope some will confesse they can see something of God in it excuse me for it is not so much the judgement of Divines as the Scripture grounds that will satisfie my spirit in this thing Next pag. 30. Mr. Collins saith But if they be to examine themselves no more then whether they discern the Lords Body we conceive it enough for discerning must imply knowledge 1. To know the Lords Body Sacramentally 2. As the Lords Body 3. Acknowledge of the sign and thing signified in the Sacrament 4. Acknowledge of the two natures of Christ and of what he hath done and suffered for me 5. And of the nature of the Sacrament and what is held forth in it to the soul From hence he saith will easily follow an answer to the sixt query That ignorant persons though by profession they do own the true Religion yet are not in a capacity to examine themselves so as to prevent the judgement c. I grant that every one that comes to this Ordinance Answ 1 should be able to discern the Lords body at least notionally by the outward signes and that the thing signified by the instituted signes is the same and that the bread and wine is to be received in remembrance of the death of Christ whose bloud was shed for remission of sins but for to know the two natures of Christ and what he hath done and suffered for me and to understand the nature of the Sacrament distinctly and what is held out in it to the soul is more then the Apostle taught the Church of Corinth in order to their receiving and therefore these requisites require further proof before he can conclude any thing from them In charity I judge that there is not any that live under any painful Preachers but are so well instructed as to understand that the Sacrament is a holy Ordinance of God appointed for the good of their souls in general And that accordingly they humbly and reverently make their addresses unto it to receive the outward signes in remembrance that Christ shed his bloud to save sinners c. and this is upon the matter as much as the Apostle requires unto worthy receiving let it be proved that such a receiving was ever blamed or punished in the holy Scriptures if it cannot be proved why doe men bring such needlesse troubles and distractions in the Church by their own traditions It was not so much the ignorance of the Corinths that was punished as their profane actions which they were guilty of in the time of receiving it 's a question whether their ignorance simply were punished at all any otherwise then accompanyed with those horrible effects the which doth very rarely touch the worst of our Congregations in the Church let Mr. Collins better consider of these things before he answer them for although many of ours should be more ignorant then they of Corinth yet so long as they doe not openly profane the Ordinance by their actual miscarriages at the time of worship as the Corinthians did it doth not follow that they eat and drink unworthily and so their own damnation as they of Corinth It 's true also that the Lord may justly punish persons for their ignorance under the means But doth it follow that therefore men may too with debarring them from the Sacrament I think not untill by some clear ground of Scripture Mr. Collins or some other can prove the Eldership may And I shall intreat them to make it good with the greatest strength they can for otherwise they must look to be baffled in it so long as they grant them Church-members I shall now see what Mr. Collins excepts against my answer to the eight query that is Whether a carelesse incapable neglect of self-examination doth excuse and give a writ of ease from that precept Doe this in remembrance of me He saith If I can prove this an universal precept that concerns every individuall person that is baptized and of years of discretion he may tell me that such neglect makes them doubly guilty c. pag. 31. He saith further That he conceives that precept onely to concern the disciples of Christ and none but true disciples I wonder what Mr. Collins will make of ours that are baptized Answ and externally at least adhere to the true religion are they Pagans If not then they are disciples and followers of Christ by profession And upon his own grant come under that precept Do this in remembrance of me I am far from going about to divide these duties I would have them examine and come too yet the neglect of the one doth not excuse from the other a man must not onely goe and be reconciled with his brother but he must come and offer his gift also He saith It will not much trouble him what I have said from Matth. 28.19 20. the Apostles were bound to call upon those they preacht unto to observe all Christs commands either that proves the they were to call upon Pagans to come to the Sacrament or else to call upon all to observe such things that he had commanded them respectively and then it will still remain to prove that Christ hath commanded an ignorant person to come to the Sacrament It 's very true Answ 1 for to avoid the trouble he is not willing to reach the argument as you may see pag. 23. Bar removed the argument was drawn from the charge of Christ to his Apostles in order to them that came under baptism not to the Pagans they preached unto but to them that by their preaching were converted and added unto the Church by baptism Christ chargeth them to teach his Church to observe and doe all whatever he hath commanded them and loe he will be with them alwayes Where are the Apostles bid to teach the Heathen as such to observe all that he hath commanded He gives his statutes and his judgements unto Israel as for the Heathen they have not known his laws This very charge of Christ is just the language of God to the Church in Moses and the Prophets upon the like encouragement of a blessing As Circumcision brought all the uncircumcised under all observances of the old administration even the Passeover upon their lives So