religion in some measure namely 1. The union of Christ with the Father 2. The union of the two natures in the person of Christ. 3. The mystical union of the soul with Christ 4. The mysterious exercise of faith in applying the soul to the pronise c. and this is all his proof the which amounts just to as much as his say so as to his quotation 1 Cor. 11.28 enough hath been spoken already to shew the vanity of his high flown conceptions And indeed a most pernicious perplexing tenent to poor doubting weak unsatisfied Christians should it be believed I have alwayes been taught that Sacraments are the lowest condescensions of the love of Christ to his weakest babes they being suted so familiarly to our bodily senses as it were with Thomas his seeing and feeling the body of Christ was more effectual to make him believe then the testimony of their word who preached Christ was risen indeed But the next he saith The Sacrament is the seal of the righteousnesse of faith and hence it seemes incongruous to the ignorant and scandalous that have not faith The question is of the unregenerate in the Church Answ the which may be discernable by these Characters of ignorant and scandalous in part and know that I have nothing to say in behalf of them that hate instruction and that persist in their vile abominable doings after admonition and due conviction unto obstinacy Let such be declined and avoided as unworthy of all Christian Communion and spare not but for those that are yeelding sinners and are ready to condemn themselves upon all occasions if being wisely dealt withall expressing themselves willing and desirous to amend these I think should have the benefit of all the Ordinances as the ordinary means of their salvation But now to his assertion That the Sacrament is the seal of the righteousnesse of faith We know that Sacraments which had their Original from God unto Abraham Gen. 17. were tokens of the everlasting Covenant of grace made with Abraham and his seed God having deputed him to be a father of many Nations And that all the Nations of the earth shall be blessed in him c. Circumcision was appointed to be a token unto Abraham in this comprehensive sense that not only they that were his seed by natural descent but those also that shall embrace the profession of the faith of Abraham shall be blessed with him even they and their natural issue also And the Apostle Rom. 4.4 descants much upon this large Covenant or promise made unto Abraham in the warranty of the Gentiles engrafting into the stock of Abraham by faith the which the Jews stumbled at and fell into prejudices and discontents upon the Gentiles embracing of the Gospel concluding it false because they imbraced it that were always left of God and so abominable to the Church as naturally descended from Abraham and the Prophets c. The Apostle disputes this thing with them and saith Is he a God of the Jews only is he not of the Gentiles also Yes of the Gentiles also chap. 3.29 And he tels them their fleshly priviledges according to the Law will not continue them the people of God without faith in Christ And by faith in Christ the Gentiles are made the people of God unto Justification opposing faith unto works chiefly in point of Justification as in the beginning of the 4. chapter is expressed in that instance of Abraham and David It was not works but faith that was reckoned unto Abraham for righteousnesse in his uncircumcised state and hence he argues Abraham to be a father of the uncircumcision as well as of the circumcision because he received the token of circumcision a seal of the righteousnesse of that faith he had in his uncircumcision that he might be the father of all that believe that righteousnesse might be imputed to them also and a father of the believing circumcision too c. Now then what was the main thing that Abraham is thus commended for and blessed for Why it 's said He believed God and that was imputed unto him for righteousnesse But then we may enquire what was the thing he believed God would be as good as his word to him in Answer It ' was this that God had made him a father of many Nations though he had no child yet he believed against hope c. And this was imputed unto him for righteousnesse We know that Abraham after the flesh was not a father of many Nations that is not the sense but he is so in a spiritual sense by religion and saith and that 's the thing the Apostle drives at to prove him a father of all that come in unto his religion and faith And that all such are of him and blessed with him And doubtlesse Abraham that saw this day of Christ and rejoyced so understood it that all the Nations of the Earth should be blessed in him by faith and this blessednesse to begin in his own natural family and to be extended unto all Nations in time And hence that is true I will be thy God and the God of thy seed in their generations for ever Gen. 17.7 and that he should be the father of many Nations and that they should be blest in him c. This is the everlasting Covenant of Grace that Abraham believed and this is the faith that circumcision was a token of and did confirm the truth of to him and all that are in him by religion for ever even to them and theirs and I doubt not but the Sacrament seals to the same faith still in reference to them that have entered the same Covenant and professe their subjection to the laws and administration thereof but I have not exprest my self in this so fully and clearly as I could wish I shall have occasion to doe more in it hereafter This by the way to give a hint what the Apostle means in calling circumcision a seal of the righteousnesse of that faith that Abraham yet had in uncircunacision it being too ambiguously lest and applyed by Mr. Collins in order unto Church-members unregenerate Mr. Collins hath two or three things more in the 32. pag. but finding nothing in them that doth trouble us about the question in hand I passe them by though it 's true he takes the boldnesse to deny yet he doth not give any ground or reason why but takes all for granted still though I have rationally cleared the contrary in my answer to the query pag. 36 37 38 39. Bar removed I shall now see what he excepts against my 6. proposition pag. 30. 31. I conceive that Sacraments in general and this in particular were instituted for the spiritual good of the Church of Christ comprehensively taken in which every particular member is included First he grants as much pag. 33. and then addes his jus ad rem and then queries how this proves that therefore every particular member ought in his present state come
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
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
because as the dog filthily licks up his vomit again c. That of Solomon is this Answ As a dog returns to his vomit so a fool returns to his folly Every fool is not a wicked man yet every wicked man is a fool in Scripture sense I think but it doth not follow that every wicked gracelesse man is a dog though he may have some properties like the properties of a dog but this is a different property from that in the text and nothing to the purpose That of Peter is meant of Apostates falling from the Truth and profession of faith once embraced like those that St. Paul prophesies of men shall arise from among your selves speaking perverse things and shall draw disciples after them such as these Peter speaks of that turn from the Truth unto Error and upon that account take upon them to be Teachers that they may vent their damnable heresies c. and so fall away from the true Church either to their former vomit of Heathenism or to wallow in the mire of their former sensuality such need not to be suspended that fall off from the Church of themselves This will not reach the argument in hand as to our case His 5. is Heathens are called dogs Mat. 7.27 and we will yeild the argument so far His last is Sinners in general are called dogs Phil. 3.2 Beware of dogs where he means false teachers rightly called dogs saith Musculus This is fine Answ false Teachers are rightly called Dogs from his quotation as he proveâ— by reverend Musculus and yet this he quotes to prove that sinners in general are called dogs What are all sinners in general false Teachers Then the grossely ignorant are too And if false Teachers that pervert and trouble the Church be rightly called dogs then offending brethren that adhere to the doctrine and profession of the Church are but falsely called dogs for they are to be admonished as brethren Let Mr. Collins shew us some Scriptures to prove that Church-members disciples or any one that is called a brother and within that is an object of Church-censures is any where called a dog Doth not himself say that one that was excommunicate was to be admonished as a brother according unto 2 Thes 3.15 And doth not the Apostle allow a disorderly member the title of a brother And would not have such counted an enâ—my or dog which Mr. Collins makes of all sinners in general as before And so himself too if he be a sinner which I believe he will confesse that he is but me thinks if Mr. Collins will allow a disorderly stubborn sinner under excommunication to be a brother for so he takes that quotation then he hath little reason to count a member under the indulgence of the Church a dog or a swine The truth is he is so miserably out I think he did not know what he writ and he had need have a better head then mine to bring all his ends together in this argument they are so wide one from another and the Church and World so confounded into one that I cannot tell what to make of him For if we say saith he that by dogs are meant the Heathen as Mark. 7.27 Then either those only or those amongst others 2 If we say the latter then they yeeld it What doth he mean by Heathen amongst others Answ but the ignorant and offending brethren in the Church Thus you see they must be the dogs in the text or else he will make Heathens of professing Christians in the Church to doe it I but if we say that the Heathen are the only dogs to whom only holy things should be denyed then holy things may be given unto Persecutors and the Excommunicate 1. Answ I have denyed that all holy things are there meant and given my reasons 2. That the text is not directed unto Ministers properly but unto private Believers or hearers of Christ 3. That which is holy is to be understood of private reproofs and admonitions which for the safety of their persons living amongst such Dogs and Wolves as the unbelieving cruel Pharisees Priests and people of the Jews then so called by Christ And here they are cautioned not to meddle with them c. 4. This counsel is directed unto the whole Church or Brotherhood touching their dealing with others that were Persecutors and fierce dogged enemies to the Christian profesfion and is not at all applyable to persons in the Church in respect of publick administrations the which all in the Church are commanded to observe nor is our Saviours reason of any force for any in the Church lest they turn again and rent you nor applyable to the publike Ordinances for there is not any that will rent you for administring unto them the Word Sacrament and prayer in the Church if any will doe so let the Church judge them for it 5. I grant that by dogs is meant cruel persecutors that at any time shall rent and ruine the persons of those that professe the true Christian Religion And this may be done by some that are not Heathens for there are many mis-believers and false teachers that where they are backt with power as in the Papacy are cruel dogs against the Professors of the true Religion but yet it does not follow that any that profeesse themselves members of our Church are the dogs meant in the text It 's true we have had our differences amongst our selves about some circumstances and inconvenient Ceremonies about the ordering of Worship And our first Reformers put us in a way for discipline confirmed by the Supreme Authority of this Nation And those that had the exercise of the Churches discipline have been severe in punishing those that have not been obedient unto her commands and we know they abused their power in some cases too much under the pretence of singular good ends Namely the order peace unity and edification of the whole to prevent the common mischief of factions schisin divisions erroneous doctrine and the like without which in a Church these evils will abound Now I say it is not very handsome for Mr. Collins that professes himself a younger son of the Church to account the Rulers of our Church Persecutors much lesse the common people for adhering unto their Governours and Teachers as they shall have better Rulers and Teachers I question not but we shall finde them better disposed how ever this is a far different case to the cruel unbelieving Jewes and Hereticall bloudy Papists and yet neither of them Pagans 6. I affirm That as all other Scripture so this in special is written for our learning and use and it alwayes holds in the same or like cases or reason Whether unto the desperate irreproveable Ruffian in the Church or of the bloudy Persecutors out of the Church Jews Turks or Papists and yet I say also that whomsoever upon tasting of them we finde them of peaceable spirits whether they be in the Church or
scandalous member not cast out is warned not to take it upon pain of damnation I know no such text and it remains still to prove that the Corinths were threatned or punished for any scandalous sins committed before they came or for admitting any scandalous brethren at all but only for their actual miscarriage in the very act of administration I have said more for the negative then Mr. Collins will be able to answer this two dayes He saith None can without sin knowingly expose the Ordinance of God to necessary abuse and profanation but to administer it to one that cannot have Communion with Christ profanes it Ergo. Let him prove the consequence if he can Answ 1. The Apostle proves that all the Corinthians that drank of the Lords cup and eat of that bread had Communion with Christ and he sayes We that are many are one bread ch 10.16 17. And doubtlesse those that made divisions and lived in incest and eat of things offered unto Idols and that opprest one another by needlesse and scandalous suits at law in the Heathen Courts and those that were guilty of such great schisms and disorders in the Church were a part of that many The very outward actions of eating and drinking according to the institution is a Sacramental Communion which is a holy Communion in the relation the signes have to the thing signified thereby And in the relation the receiver hath to the benefit and profit thereof Sacraments being instituted to that end for the Church as hath been proved But he tels us how a thing is abused 1. When it is not turned to a right use 2. When no difference is put between the holy and profane Ezek. 22.26 The first is answered Answ his latter I shall speak to his quotation is meant of the legal clean and unclean that her Priests through carelesnesse made no difference and so profaned the holy things by admitting such to bring their sacrifices that during their uncleannesse made every thing they touched unclean but there is no such difference to be made in the Gospel Church now that difference is taken away Heathen uncleannesse remains still but we doe not plead their admittance into Church Communion He sayes further That he cannot see but every scandalous sinner Drunkard Swearer Adulterer c. hath as great a fellowship with Devils as the Corinthians had He must see a great deal more fellowship with devils in such Answ then in the Corinthians or else he can conclude nothing for his purpose for it 's certain the Corinthians were not kept from the Sacrament nor forbid it upon that account His first argument for Suspension is That nothing is lawful in the worship of God but what we have precept or president for but to give the Sacrament to such as are visibly scandalous not Excommunicate is to doe that in the worship of God which neither precept nor example doth justifie Ergo Sacraments are parts of institute worship and in the administrations we are to be guided according to the precepts given upon the institution of them and according to the example of the Lord Jesus who at the first institutiō of the Supper gave us an example for the perpetual celebration of it c. p. 51 52. His Major is good Answ but his Minor is false and to be denyed matter of scandal doth not disoblige any that are within and of Christs family and Kingdome from precepts of institute worship as the Sacrament is confessed to be but rather it is thus that this precept of institute Worship doth oblige all Church-members that are within to reform their other scandalous actions 'T is true Christ gave to none but his Disciples And the Apostles directed this observance only unto the visible Churches which consisted of visible Saints by their profession and external calling at least And who will plead for any but visible Saints professing the true Religion externally at least while they are Church-members and within we plead the priviledges of that estate as all Scripture Churches alwayes practised and yeelded unto their members And so long as our Antagonists own our Church for the Church of Christ and our members true members of the Church they doe but discover their own nakednesse in all they say against us and what 's this argument in hand but the same with the Anabaptists if not a great deal lesse rational then they use it for Had we but that clear precept or precedent for Insant baptism that we have for baptized members of the visible Church to receive the Sacrament in remembrance of Christ I doubt not but there is hundreds of those that would quit the argument and reform their practise Christ sayes to his Disciples when it was first instituted drink ye all of it The Apostle Paul understands this precept as respecting the whole Church of Corinth for he directs that Church in general to act according to the institution of Christ for he delivered what he received from the Evangelists that did hear and see the institution That question about Judas is not very material to the Controversie whether he did receive the Sacrament or not 't is certain he eat the Passeover and what was the Paschal Lambe but a sign of the body and bloud of Christ and the Bread and the Wine is no more Besides he might have taken the Sacrament if he had had a minde to have continued with them during that service who hindered him or forbad him if he did not he had done better to have adhered unto Christ in the observance of his holy Ordinances though but a hypocrite then by giving way to the Devils temptation to turn his back upon Gods Ordinance and seek for opportunity how to betray his Lord and Master into the hands of his bloudy enemies but for my own part I incline to believe that Judas did receive the Sacrament but I need not trouble my self with that dispute I have said enough as from that of Matth. 28.19 20. compared with 1 Cor. 11.24 to satisfie any that are impartial I need adde no more in proof of this that it is a duty incumbent upon all Church-members to observe the Sacrament as any other publique duties of Worship This we shall with more case and lesse time make good against all opposition of men then our adversaries who oppose us will free themselves from what the Pharises were charged withall namely in making void the commands of God by their own Traditions As for Precedents the Analogy of the Passeover the practice of the Apostolical Churches which have been urged sufficiently to satisfie any that are sober of the Presbyterians judgement that have not such clearnesse of reason from the Analogy of circumcision nor new Testament Precedents for Infant baptism as we for free admission of Church-members baptized and not excommunicated unto the Supper and hence were they but as rational in the one as the other the controversie would cease amongst us that are for a National
will give you an acquittance or a release from Excommunication keep but from the Sacrament you need not fear any examination adomonition or excommunication if you can but dispense with your conscience carelessely to neglect this Ordinance you may freely enjoy all the rest as well as a Heathen or an Excommunicate person Nay it may be if you will but keep from the Sacrament he will allow you the title of Brethren as well as an Excommunicate person but if you will not be satisfied unlesse you may receive the Sacrament in remembrance of Christ for remission of sins then you must look to be called Hogs and Dogs unbelievers murderers of Christ the profane world that are without hope and God in the world This argument of his doth better become a Brownist then one that pretends to a friendly owning of our Church but the poor Church may say these slanders divisions Separations and confusions are the wounds that she hath received by the hands of such friends All that he saith in proof of his Minor hath been sufficiently answered already both by my learned friend Mr. Humfrey and my self I intend brevity for there is nothing left in his following arguments much considerable His seventh Argument Either it 's lawful for the Officers to deny the Sacrament to such as they finde ignorant scandalous and impenitent or they are bound to give into such But they are not bound to give it to such Ergo. His proof of the Minor is The Officers are not bound to administer the Ordinance to those who they know are not bound to receive it but the ignorant and scandalous are visibly such as are not bound to receive it Ergo. His main proof of this Minor is this If such be bound to receive then they are bound to make themselves guilty of the body and bloud of Christ and to eat and drink their own damnation which are strange things for a man to be bound in conscience unto This argument is wholly founded upon that grosse mistake of personal unworthinesse Answ which I have so clearly confuted at large in it's place where I shall refer the Reader for full satisfaction His eight Argument If none may be suspended but those who are excommunicated then none must be kept away but those that are contumacious But some may be kept away who are not contumacious Ergo. The major is plain Mat. 18. The minor only needs proof saith he 1. Surely those that are under admonition are to be kept away 2. Suppose one should come to the Minister the morning he were to receive and blaspheme Christ and tell him he came for nothing but to abuse the Church or suppose a Minister should know one of his people had committed murder theft incest whoredome the night before c. shall such be admitted they not being excommunicate if not then there is suspension distinct from Excommunication pag. 98. The Major admits of some question Answ 1 for Matth. 18.15 speaks not very clearly unto all cases that instance is of particular trespasses between private brethren which are things of a lesser nature yet these persisted in unto contumacy after the Churches admonition makes one lyable unto Excommunication but I question whether all publike notorious open scandalous sinners in the Church be thus to be proceeded against especially when their scandalous sinning is of long continuance and doth offend the Congregation the whole Congregation in such a case is to be satisfied which cannot be by a private repentance should it be supposed upon the admonitionof the Church I think the incestuous Corinth was not dealt withall according to that rule Matth. 18.15 Publike sins should have publike shame that others may fear and the offender be brought to a serious and notorious repentance before the Church declare themselves satisfied and receive them into holy Communion so that I think for the Church to proceed gradually in some cases as such as Mr. Collins doth instance in is not alwayes necessary nor to wait untill the offender appears to be obstinate but ipso facto to be forthwith censured But these cases are not to be left to the discretion of every particular Pastor to judge of but to the discretion and grave judgement of the ruling part of the whole Church Besides I question whether one that hath been often reproved in the publike Ministery and yet lives in scandalous sins of whoredome drunkennesse cursing and swearing variance and contention c. is not to be judged contumacious and upon that account the Church being in a capacity and informed should upon sufficient proof without delay Excommunicate him I leave these things to better Judgements but yet I am inclinable to conceive that Matth. 18. most properly respects private trespasses which are not openly known and how that rule should hold to be applyed in the same manner to open scandals that cause the name of God and the true profession of Religion to be blasphemed and reproached I am not very clear But now we shall examine his Minor But some may be kept away from the Sacrament that are not contumacious So may some be Excommunicate that are not contumacious as I have hinted at Answ which if that be true then the argument fals to nothing of it self But he saith surely Those that are under admonition are to be kept away This he begs how will he prove it For where the offence will admit of hearing the Churches admonition and upon that give hope or satisfaction of amendment why should they be kept from the Sacrament more then the other Ordinances they not being authoritatively put out of Church Communion is it rational for to execute before sentence be given Unto his suppositions I shall answer him first they are no proof If such may be Juridically suspended then they may be Juridically excommunicated for it is Juridical Suspension that is now in question And as it is stated the Church may as well doe the one as the other And the Church need not be long in giving sentence in such cases if there be clear proof besides the Sacrament may rather be rejourned for a short time then that any should justly be offended or that a single Minister should doe that which is not regular Murder thest incest whoredome is Felony by the civil Law of the Nation and if any can discover any such they should attach and put them into the custody of the Civil Officers these are gaol sins and to be punished by the Judges And I know no rule that doth warrant the Church to censure those that are under the penalty of the course of civil Courts of Justice If one should grant that in an extraordinary case some extraordinary course at the present might be taken as suppose some profane abuse at the Sacrament as to disturb the administration by some disorder I doubt not but the Churchwardens might thrust them out of the Church do the like to any that should come drunk or mad but what is
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
were morally unclean in his sense and what doe my principles plead for more in the Christian Church if I plead but for the same now that upon their lives was injoyned then even by the Lord himself I hope he will not charge it upon me that I make God unlike himself but if he will make the New Testament so contrary to the Old as to say the whole Church may not observe the Lords Supper his opinion will hardly be reconciled with the unchangeablenesse of the faithful true and living Lord God Thus I have given you to understand that the legally unclean were not lookt upon as unworthy to eat the Passeover at all And the sense that I have given upon 1 Cor. 11. pleads no otherwise in favour of the morally unclean as he cals them then the Old Testament doth injoyn One hint more let Mr. Collins prove that the legally unclean were expressely forbid the Passeover I am sure Moses knew of no expresse prohibition and therefore was at a stand when the case was brought before him and could not tell what to direct whether the unclean might keep it or forbear untill he had enquired of the Lord what they should doe Besides when the Passeover was rejourned to the last day multitudes did eat it that were not cleansed and were accepted of And the Lord said 2 Chron. 30.15 17 18 19 20. If any man of your posterity shall be unclean by reason of a dead body or be in a journey a far off yet he shall keep the Passeover unto the Lord Numb 9.10 here you see is an expresse command for the unclean man to keep the Passeover He kept the same Passeover at Gods appointed season as well as the rest of the Congregation for God appointing and sanctifying another season for them in special made the service the same in it self and to them And yet for all this what adoe have our late Divines made about this I could wish we might hear no more of it unlesse they can make better use of it then Mr. Collins doth Now I have answered three arguments that made him so hard of digesting this truth That the Corinthians were not punished for personal unworthinesse but for their actual offendings at the time of administration For the further helps of this hard digestion and edification and satisfaction of my Christian friends I she freely speak my heart for the clearing upoâ— this in question according to my measure for I know well enough that our mistake about worthinesse and unworthinesse of person in the Church hath done more hurt is this Church then all the Bishops ever did Our holy Apostle in 1 Cor. 7.14 haâ— clearly and sully exprest himself about habâ—tual worthinesse that if but one of marrias state were a believer the other infidel person was sanctified by the believing party and tels us that if it were not so their children they had between them were unclean but now are holy meaning that upon thâ— faith and entring into the Covenant of thâ— one their children enter covenant with thâ— parent and upon that account are a holy feed and federate with their parents in the priviledges of the Church as it was in the state of the Jews Church Why surely if the branches were holy then the root was holy also Now I say how can it be imagined that the Apostle will have the children holy even of those persons that in chap. 11. he judged personally unworthy Sure if the children were foederally holy then their parents were too for the right of the childe is derived from the believing state of the parents that was sufficient to free them from unworthy eating in respect of their persons And therefore the Apostle concludes that all things are sanctified to the Church by the Word and Prayer To the pure all things are pure but to the unbelieving and impure is nothing pure Here is a clear difference between the professing Church and the infidel world all is clean to the one but nothing clean to the other And therefore the Sacrament could not be polluted by the believing Corinths in respect of their persons It will follow then that it was profaned by their evill actions only The Apostle understood the nature of the Gospel Church better then those I have to deal with in this controversie He understood the right rule and accordingly reduced all unto it He distinguisheth between clean and unclean believer and infidel all was clean to the one and nothing clean to the other that except the Corinths had admitted Infidels unto the body and bloud of Christ to pollute it personal unworthinesse could not be the sin for which they were punished Heathenish uncleannesse the uncircumcised might not eat thereof I tell you this is that which hath undone us of late we make the same difference in the Church that the Apostle made between the Church and the world And all those Scriptures on which this difference is declared by the Apostle our Divines usually apply to the different state of persons in the Church the regenerate and unregenerate and accordingly would be dividing their people anâ— are as fearful many of them to admiâ— an unsound believer to the Sacrament as a uncircumcised Infidel but I hope those exorbitant distempers that some desperately plunge themselves into from the same mistakes will make sober men consider a last I know no such language used in Scripture concerning persons of the Church as thâ— any Church-members should be personally unworthy to use Gods Ordinance and â—serve God in his own appointments Indeeâ— for persons to reject the tenders and invitations of the Gospel to oppose and persecute the messengers that publish lise and salvation by Jesus Christ such are said to be unworthy of eternal life Act. 13.46 the Apostle Paul again tels the unbelieving Jews That it was necessary that the Word of God should have first been spoken unto you but seeing by envy contradiction and blaspheming vers 45. you put it from you and judge your selves unworthy of eternal life loe we turn to the Gentiles for sâ— hath the Lord commanded So our blessed Saviour Matth. 10 11 12 13 14. gave the twelve Commission to Preach that the Kingdome of Heaven is at hand c. they were rather to goe to the lost sheep of the house of Israel then to the Samaritans And when they came either into City Town or Family they were to salute it and preach peace unto them but if they were not worthy their peace should return and to those that would not receive them and hear their words they were to shake off the dust of their feet against them vers 14. with a grievous judgement threatned vers 15. against such people that refuse the Gospel when it is tendered unto them These are said not to be worthy that reject the Gospel wholly as the unbelieving Jews did which implyes those that receive the Gospel and believe the truth thereof and professe their subjection
unto it being of no other religion then what the Gospel teacheth they may be said to be worthy whatever they are for sincerity and truth so again Matth. 22. concerning the invited guests to the marriage Supper which set forth the fat things of the Gospel administrations and the grace thereof the messengers were sent to call in the guests that were bidden but they made light of it and would not come and some went to their farms and others to their merchandize and others abused the servants that invited them c. Then the King was wroth and destroyed those murderers and said to his servants The wedding is ready but they that were invited were not worthy vers 8. This was meant of the unbelieving Jews that totally rejected Christ and would never come under his external administrations set up in his Church in order to salvation they are said you may see not to be worthy or unworthy but the Gentiles that came in though soâ—â— came absurdly and perished too at last yâ—â— there is no such thing said of them no the were worthy though they consisted of gooâ— and bad The invitation priviledged allâ— come there is no pleading I am unworth to come but refusal was that which the unworthinesse consisted in only From the hints of Scriptures we may conceive there no such thing as personal unworthinesse â— order to observance and duty of persoâ— in Covenant relation which all are the have entred Covenant though but in the parents untill they renounce the Covenanâ— or for their hating to be reformed by thâ— Churches just censures they be discovenanteâ— conditionally that if they never repent 〈◊〉 return to their obedience in a right way the are gone forever Now then I say if tâ— Scriptures charge not any with unworthynesse of person but such as I have instanced in who can imagin that the Churâ—â— of Corinth was punished for that I would gladly know of Mr. Collings of any other learned man where the Scriptureâ— threaten punishment against personal unworthinesse simply Or where can they give an instance that ever any wese punished for habitual unworthinesse at all in the Old or New Testament If you cannot finde such a thing in all the whole Bible what reason can you have to judge that the Corinths were punished for personal unworthinesse It 's true the sin of our natures derived from the first man is punished with death for we al dye in Adam but this natural death is a common lot appointed for all good and bad It 's appointed for all men once to dye Heb. 9.27 And we see death reigns over Infants that have not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression Rom. 5. but in this both original sin and death that follows thereupon is of unavoidable necessity by the decree of God So likewise as actual sin is the transgression of the law he that so transgresseth is lyable to the punishment of that law 1 Tim. 1.9 10. And the whole Law it self is made for the lawlesse and disobedient for the ungodly and for sinners for murderers for whoremongers for lyars and for perjured persons c. that is for the punishment of all wilful disobedience of men And so it is said of the Church If you will walk contrary to me I will walk contrary to you You have I known of all the families of the earth yet the Lord will punish them for their sins And wherefore doth living man complain for the punishment of his sin Lam. 3.39 all the punishments threatned in the Word and inflicted either by God or man were for actual offendings but we never read of any coming to the Ordinances that were punished for a meer want of regeneration circumcision of the heart an interest in Christ c. This is a case the Lord hath alwayes pityâ— and promised the cure of unto his Church forasmuch as no man can convert and reneâ— his own soul of himself nay of thosâ— that have the means and use the ordinarâ— means of their salvation as the Jews diâ— It 's said not of him that willeth nor of bâ— that runneth but it is God that sheweth mercy Râ— 9. Habitual unworthinesse in that respeâ— is unavoidable and is the common stateâ— all by nature as well them that are born the Church as those that are born out of iâ— Ephes 2. but the Covenants of promise aâ— made to the Church for the cure of this dâ— praved state And the Lord hath set up 〈◊〉 Ordinances of Word Sacraments and Prayâ— in the Church as the ordinary means foâ— men to use in their conversion and salvation revealed in the promises of the Covenant the neglect whereof is usually punishe with blindenesse and profanenesse not diligent frequenting of them But what iâ— God doth punish habitual or natural uâ—â— worthinesse it being an effect of Adams defection What is that to the Church that iâ— bounded by a rule May they contrary tâ— all rule judge of it and punish it therefore with suspension from the Sacrament Our blessed Saviour rebukes this rash humour in men saying Judge not lest you be judged It 's clear enough that we may judge of mens actions and finding them transgresfors we may punish their persons but we have nothing to doe to judge of mens persons let them be good or bad as to their persons that is nothing to us we must leave them to stand or fall to their own Master for what have we to doe to judge another mans servant But if either be found transgressors so far as their offendings come within the Churches cognisance to punish let them impartially doe it without respect of persons in the Church We read that those that are appointed to judge amongst their brethren Deut. 1 16 17. are to judge righteously between every man and his brother without respect of persons in judgement to hear the small as well as the great not fearing the face of any man for the judgement is the Lords and the cause that is too hard for man to judge of was to be brought before the Lord and he would hear it there is a rule given to judge of causes and actions between brother and brother And yet in point of causes and things external that brethren might differ in these might be too hard for men to judge of How much more hard is it to judge of the spirits of men within them whether they have an interest in Christ or no surely if in the other much more in this we are to refer it to the Lord besides you may see in judging about things which concerns the Church Matth. 18. 1. It must be of evill actions only 2. Upon sufficient proof 3. And in case of obstinacy refusing 〈◊〉 hear the Church c. before any judgement can issue out against them Tell me hoâ— you can apply this rule to personal unworâ— thinesse Can this be attested upon Oath oâ— is the Church able to convince any in particular of it Or is it