his Church only they are to follow after the things that make for peace and the edification one of another without limitation but holinesse is the boundary of our peace with all other men of the world there is an absolute injunction to the Church And have peace amongst your selves 1 Thess 5.13 Mark 9.50 2. That to break the Churches peace by an unnecessary Separation is so far from holinesse or losing our blessing that it 's a wicked schism as I have proved theirs to be they not being able to warrant the separation they are acting in by any ground of Scripturce or prinâ—iples of solid reason And therefore it will reflect upon them to their reproach and shame untill they be able to give satisfaction to the Church in their fuller defence or reforming by returning from the schism they have hatched and nourished to the great prejudice of many of their peoples souls I come to his queries pag. 166. I shall be very brief and but touch at things I having done more then was intended 1. Query Whether it be not against the Solemn Covenant not to act in some disciplinary courses for in this we have swoâ—n to endeavour Reformation in Discipune according to the Word Hence he assumes when this was taken either we saw the alteration of corrupt customes to be necessary in the Congregations we live in or not necessary now if the latter be true then whosoever so took it he swore not in judgement and so took Gods name in vain for he swore to reform being convinced of no corruptions But if the 1 be true then we desire of every Minister and other man that hath taken it with what conscience they can oppose ways and courses tending to that sworn end and bow they dare to withhold their own activity therein 1. Answ Without doubt it 's against the Solemn National Covenant not to endeavour in our several places and callings the Reformation of Religion in the Kingdomes of England and Iteland in Doctine Worship Discipline and Government according to the Word of God and the example of the best reformed Churches and likewise not to endeavour to bring the three Nations to the neerest conjunction and uniformity in Religion confession of faith form of Church Government c. But then the question is What our endeavours should be as the case stands as particular Minisiers or private members Reformation in Discipline being not yet agreed of by the whole what it is nor in present exercise and force by vertue of law which was intended in the Covenant 2 Whether the wayes and courses defended by our Author doe not crosse and assault the ends of the Covenant as tending to nothing more then making divisions and several factions confusions in the Churches of God which have swore to bring the whole Church of the three Nations to the neerest conjunction uniformity in Religion confession of Faith form of Church-government c. That we and our posterity after us may as Brethren live in faith and love and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us 3. The Covenant binds us to reform in Discipline according to the Word and example of best reformed Churches Mr. Saunders puts in and practiseth a more general latiâ—ude Whether not to act in some disciplinary wayes and courses be not against the Covenant he means some courses or other of mens own inventing as that of theirs which hath nothing of the particulars in the Covenant in it as being not grounded upon the Word as I have made it manifest not according to the example of best reformed Churches that have ever abhorred rents schisms in the Church by unlawful separations as their is upon their own principles for they separate from Churches they confesse to be true Churches and the members thereof they own for believers brethren and within in baptizing their children upon the account of federal holynesse In stead of reforming their Churches as formed of old by our first Reformers they form up a new of the principal part of the old leaving out of this frame the main matter of the old so that upon the matter they pull down many Churches to build one and rather destroy their Churches then reform them by holy Discipline Discipline is to purge out some few to amend them but theirs is to separate from the most of their Churches to destroy them in not using the right means towards them as brethren to encourage them in all Christian obedience c. And hence with good conscience I fear not to oppose their way and course without breach of my Covenant Nay in the 2. Article of the Covenant we are bound without respect of person to endeavour the extirpation of Superstition and Schism as well as Popery Prelacy and Heresie The two former may with good conscience be charged upon your way 1. Superstition because you urge upon all you admit duties of necessity that God no where commands binding the conscience where it is free and so become Lords of mens faith and unlesse Christs subjects will submit to these superstitious inventions you have framed you exclude them from necessary duties of homage and worship injoyned by their Lord. 2. Schism because you are run into an unnecessary separation in the Church breaking the peace of the Church causelesly as hath been hinted all along It being the main I have writ to discover your way Schismatical But it seems he thinks that there was nothing corrupt in the Church to be reformed by Discipline but admission so largely to the Sacrament and that this was the only thing we swore to reform and therefore must joyn with them or else be forsworn although they have nothing at all of true discipline in exercise for they excommunicate none himself confesses And it 's clear as the Sun at mid day that there is no other means to exclude Church-members from the Sacrament but by casting them out of the Church Juridically which is a question whether any at present in our Church be in a capacity so to act and hence the Covenant bindes us to endevour after such a capacity as to reform all corruptions that are properly reformable by true Discipline 3. Query He asks What other way there is to be walked in to keep close to the Word I have given my thoughts in my answer to Mr. Ward The Scripture rule examined Answ Mr. Joanes is considerable to answer this query as the state stands with us at present And if we were in possession of true discipline we should endeavour so to exercise it that the worst might be reformed by it not refuse to admit them to the Sacrament and so exclude them from all discipline as if they were Heathens and let not any assume the exercise of discipline that are not sure of their warrant from the Word And let them be sure they use no other censures then they have precept or precedent for from the word And let them be sure
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
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
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
act of giving and receiving sufficiently to inform the meanest person that the elements are signs of the body and bloud of Christ and that they eat and drink in remembrance of Christ for remission of sins c. His Conclusion is false because his Minor wants proof Again He brings in a childe of five or six years old as able to exercise reason and so is a Church-member if baptized and if these two things give a plenary right such ought to be admitted Children minde childish things ordinarily and nothing else Answ and they come not under the obligation of worship as men of age that have put away childish things And what if it be granted him that they have some childish reason doth it follow that they have religious devotion from a principle of conscience as men of age ordinarily expresse in most solemn sacred worship Let him answer to what hath been said already as to this particular before he concludes as he doth That what he hath said is sufficient to shew the vanity of this conceit as he is pleaseed to call it that meer Church membership with years of discretion gives one a full right to the Lords Supper What he means by full right he may doe well to explain himself I have told him plainly enough that Church-membership having its rise from Covenant relation gives a true right unto all external Church-priviledges during that relative state of actual membership I know that their real state of spiritual interest in Christ doth put members into a higher capacity to improve their right for their spiritual advantage then those that are but in that relative state only of visible members in a large sense Yet the good improvement of the one doth not hinder nor take away the just right of the other An ill husbands right in law is as good as the best husbands in the world untill by law his right be taken away And an evill member in the Common-wealth hath as much priviledge in respect of the benefit of the law while he is a member as any other of the same kinde though never so good The best subject is but a subject and the worst subject is a subject untill he be out-lawed or convicted of treason So I say in the Church the best and holyest man that lives is but a Church-member and the worst that lives he being baptized and adhering to the true religion and under Church indulgence is a member also of the same visible Church and in respect of his relative state his right is as good to the Sacrament as the other in a legal sense for the one is as much under observance as the other all are Covenanters and have entred it at least and hence stand bound to the tearms of Christian obedience There is but one Law and rule for good and bad the one hath received the Spirit of the Covenant that makes his service sweet and easie the other is notwithstanding under the letter of administrations in a waiting for a blessing and may not be released Such have the right of precept which is a sufficient warranty for their observance of the Supper The other not only that but the right of spiritual priviledge and blessing through the real union and communion with Jesus Christ And Mr. Collings his superadded qualifications to membership or Covenanters to give a right to precepts of worship is so flat by this time he urging it so often that I shal trouble my reader with it no more only take notice that upon the matter he makes membership a meer nothing for doe but superadde a knowledge of the things of God conjoyned with faith in Christ evidenced by the fruits of holinesse unto a Turk or any other Pagan or Jew in the Infidel world it would give them the right of membership and Sacraments and therefore at once you may see what clear conceptions Mr. Collings hath of the priviledges of Church-membership In this page Mr. Collings conceives Pag. 25. That I have dealt more unbrotherly with the friends of Presbyterian Discipline even some hundreds of them both learned and reverend men as I charge the Doctor to have done with Mr. Humfrey and that by entring some exceptions against that discipline Bar removed pag. 8 9 10. I have spoke to this already Answ I am sorry that such groundlesse consequences I observed from the reverend Doctor should reflect upon some hundreds of learned reverend friends to the Presbyterian discipline I had thought the most of the things I am unsatisfied in as being meerly groundlesse would not have been owned by some hundreds of such learned men I spoke chiefly of them that are Congregations unassociated and when Mr. Collings or any other can clear themselves of what I charge them with I shal either make good my charge if you take it so or else submit unto you and acknowledge it my weaknesse to be unsatisfied of the truth of what I pointed at in those 8 9 10 pages of my Book In the mean time Mr. Collings being the first that I have heard of that hath put so hard a sense of my dissatisfactions notwithstanding I have many Presbyterian friends learned and reverend it makes me something question whether many will charge it on me for unbrotherly dealing or no. I being but a private Christian might do it in order to my own and divers others satisfaction that are in no such way nor dare attempt any such practices although we have made after the search of warrant for those wayes as well as other men we not knowing how to know the minde of Christ better then by his Word in these things nor how to know the simplicity of truth then by seeking of God by prayer and humiliation for guidance and direction in our free and serious debates in the presence of the Lord amongst our selves in order unto practice the which we of great Bowden have carefully done even a considerable number of us with our Minister before we did communicate together in the holy Supper And we hope the Lord was with us in the whole we are fully satisfied and not ashamed to publish unto others of our Christian brethren the grounds and principles we act from Our greatest grief is that we observe too great a carelesnesse in our people to worship God with us in this great engaging Ordinance of holy Communion in the Sacrament of the holy Supper And this we shall further declare that although our Minister were and is one of our old Non conformists and did indevour to draw us into another way of Communion yet such was our answers and grounds that he was satisfied therewith And doth administer Sacraments freely with a setled satisfied judgment we blesse and praise our God for it Let others judge of us what they please we judge that we act according to the minde of Christ considering that present capacity we are in In this 26. page he is pleased to examine my queries upon 1 Cor.
11. and that the rather it seems because as he sayes all my superstructure stands upon the foundation that I have there laid page 23. at latter end I confesse I judge the stresse of all the controversie hath been occasioned upon mistake of the Apostles scope sense in that chapter and therefore have endeavoured by severa queries upon the place Answ with my answer to them conjoyned pag. 14 15 16 17. of my Book to give you the sense of the place Which I hope hath and will satisfie many distressed consciences which have beeâ— perplexed too much through some mistakâ— of our latter Divines former ages anâ— Churches as some of my friends have tokâ— me since do much favour the sense that have given of the place And it seems tâ— me that Mr. Collings is put to a stand whâ—â— to say to it as for that great thing of applying the danger to unworthinesse of persons Mr. Coll. whiâ—â— troubled us all he confesses he sees no great hanâ— is like to come of it if it be granted that thâ— Apostle there doth not primarily speak of personâ— unworthinesse but actual And again he saith 'T is not much material to dispute whether thâ— Apostle there spake of habitual unworthinesse â— only actual That there is a personal unworthinesse himself must grant he saith or else Turkes an excommunicated persons cannot be excluded Here you may see a very fair concession from Mr. Answ Collings I would we had found him as ingenuous in other things that we might have been all of a minde but though thiâ— place doth not prove it he would have uâ— conceive that some other places doe in order to the Sacrament And it is a thing that I must grant else Turks and the excommunicate cannot be excluded I will examine his Scriptures anon and shall first deny that which he will force me to grant his reason is worth nothing or else Turks c. I grant that there is a personal unworthinesse in Turks and Pagans and in the excommunicate also conditionally but doth it therefore follow that there is a personal unworthinesse in the Church that professe themselves a people in Covenant with God and have the Lord for their God Here you may observe again how Mr. Collings is levelling Church-members with the infidel world it 's strange to me that a Batcheler of Divinity should not be able to make difference between a Pagan and a Christian What 1 Cor. 7.14 did he forget that foederal holinesse that differenceth the clean from the unclean He queries Whether every unregenerate man as such be personally unworthy he believes he is I seeme to doubt he saith Without doubting that there is no personal unworthinesse in the unregenerate in the Church simply considered in it self Answ for all such are in Covenant relation the which relation is personal they are a consecrate people to the Lord and are in that sense holy in opposition to the infidel world that still lyes in profanenesse those whom God hath chosen to bear his name and are entred into Covenant with God Let no man account common and uncleaâ— commonizing such a called professing peoplâ— with the Pagan world c. as is the humor and sin of these times for personâ— unworthinesse cannot be in the Church 〈◊〉 long as a persons relative worthinesse remains Indeed we may distinguish of a persons worthinesse in the Church it is either relative meerly or else real and relativâ— together The former is sufficient for thâ— acceptance of the Church unto all Gospeâ— Ordinances the latter is that which hatâ— its praise of God it being called the ciâ— cumcision of the heart c. the other but oâ— the letter only Rom. 2.20 But Mr. Colling saith there is no need of disputing this Although I know the main cause of this conâ— troversie occasioned by this very thing Tâ— what end is your Bar but to exclude the unworthy Why have you devised such strange things as to make it strong meat 〈◊〉 seal to faith a strengthening and a nourishing Ordinance c. contradistinct from all the rest in the Church excluding it from being a means of conversion which you allow to all the other Ordinances in the Church To what end is your suspension and hindring persons more from this then any other To what end are your proving and trying of such that generally professe the same religion your selves preach though harmlesse and honest as to men yet may not be admitted I say to what end is all this but that you are afraid of personal unworthinesse And it is the only thing to be disputed for we are all agreed about actual unworthinesse that let a man be a godly man yet if he sin scandalously he is to be censured it and so of the unregenerate if they be obstinate our difference about actual unworthinesse will be in what cases the Church may exercise the rod for what sins but he tels us pag 27. That every Church member is by us to be lookt upon as habitually worthy unlesse by some actual miscarriage he declares himself actually unworthy But the question is Answ whether Mr. Collings will grant that those in the Church that they finde by their miscarriages to be actually unworthy they judge to be habitually worthy and let him tell us plainly that they keep back no man from the Sacrament for habitual unworthinesse if he can and say truth but for actual miscarriages onely Let him plainly answer me in that and then I may tell him more of my minde in the mean time let me tell him that I much fear his charity to Church-members savours of excesse and exceeds all due bounds Take habitual worthinesse in his own sense as he expresses himself in the same thing thus Yet we believe their Church-membership is not that which makes them thus worthy but their into est in Christ which charity obligeth them thus believe untill by some fruits they discover the oâ— trary Then it will follow Answ That all Infants born in the Church a habitually worthy not from their Covenaâ— holinesse that gives them the priviledge 〈◊〉 membership but from their interest in Chrâ— as beleevers Let him try if he can convinâ— the Antipaedobaptist of that That charity which obligeth us thus 〈◊〉 believe of all Church-members is true 〈◊〉 charity obligeth no man to believe that whiâ— is false Then it follows that those that are haâ— tually worthy from their interest in Chrisâ— may fall away from that habituall woâ— thinesse they have from their interest 〈◊〉 Christ This strongly implyes that they hold thâ— no one should be continued a member of thâ— visible Church but such that are habituall worthy from an interest in Christ Anâ— thus you may see how their extremity oâ— charity runs them into an extremity of râ—gor and censorious dealing with Church members at length Let the impartial Reader judge how true it is that Mr. Colling hath said 'T is not much material to dispute whether
are known to be scandalous in some actual offendings and doth not give such satisfaction of their amendment as is required shall the Eldership tell such persons they must not come to the Sacrament for if they doe they will eat and drink their own damnation be guilty of the bloud of Christ in the Apostles sense when they may be knowing persons and able to discern the Lords body and to carry themselves conformly as to the prescription of all Sacramental actions appertaining to that service it doth not follow I easily grant in this case that any sin indulged in a mans self or in the Church may hinder Gods blessing upon his own Ordinances For he that regardeth iniquity in his heart God will not hear his prayers and the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination unto the Lord but it will not hence follow that such must not pray nor offer sacrifice at all but they ought to reform the evill as well as doe the good if they expect that God should hear them I grant also that every scandalous sinner in the Church should be dealt withall according to divine rule the neglect thereof as it respects private members or the publick Officers either of Church or Commonwealth doth leaven accordingly but yet I deny that such sinners are to be debarred their necessary duties of worship untill they be juridically proceeded against by a lawful Court of Judicature I grant again that every scandalous sinner in Church is lyable to the judgements of God for his sinful enormities but yet I deny that those sinful enormities of swearing drunkennesse uncleannesse lying cousenage dishonesty c. is eating and drinking the body and bloud of the Lord unworthily which the Corinthians were punished for I grant again that such scandalous sinners continuing impenitent cannot communicate in the Supper without sin and it is unsutable and inconsistent with their Christian profâ—ssion and that which God upbraids sinners oft with in Scriptures but yet this doth not reach the Corinthians sinning at the time of the administration of the Supper but is applyable to all other worship as well as to the Sacrament For my part I cannot yet see one Scripture alleadged by any that doth prove that the moral unclean in the Church were debarred the Passeover or Supper more then the other parts of publick worship which is a thing of necessity to be proved by those that venture to debar from the one and yet allow them the liberty to enjoy the other What the Doctor hath said as to that hath been answered and what Mr. Ward hath said hath been answered also and what Mr. Collins hath said or can say aâ— to that I doubt not in the least but will be easily answered too And to this purpose 〈◊〉 shall take leave to examine some of Mr. Collins quotations pag. 101. Ezra 6 21. And the children of Israel which were come again out of the captivity and all such as had separated themselves unto them from the filthinesse of the Heathen of the land to seek the Lord God of Israel diâ— eat and kept the feast of unleavened bread seveâ— dayes c. How this proves that the morally unclean were debarred the Passeover 〈◊〉 know not he might have told us how that all that were returned from their captivity that were of the true Church and all such that separated from Heathenish idolatry and mixtures to the Church did eat the Passeover is true this implyes that those that would not seek the Lord God of Israel continued in Idolatrous practices and would not keep the Passeover Can Mr. Collins prove that some of the children of Israel that returned from their captivity was debarred the Passeover for their moral uncleannesse or can he prove hence that they were all free from that uncleannesse doubtlesse if he take notice of what follows in the 9.10 chap. he must acknowledg there were many guilty of moral uncleannesse and yet all kept the Passeover so that you may easily discern how pertinent this is for his purpose The next quotation is 2 Chron. 23.19 And he set the porters at the gates of the house of the Lord that none which were unclean in any thing should enter in From this Scripture he cryes up a suspension of some from some Ordinances that were not excommunicated c. but he cannot tell it seemes whether from the Passeover or no and then what is this for his purpose I think we never read of any other uncleannesse in Scripture but Heathenish uncleannesse and legal uncleannesse that were not to enter into Gods House or Sanctuary and as for Moral uncleannesse either it was such as was punished by the Judges according to their Judicial laws or such as they were cleansed from externally by their continual course of Sacrifices and offerings and hence there was no such thing at all nor were any ever bar'd from the Passeover upon any such account that I could ever finde in the Book of God and well might the Porters charge be to keep out those that were unclean in any thing because we know there were several kindes of personal uncleannesses that were legal besides the uncircumcised Heathen that might not enter into the Sanctuary Ezek. 44.7 8. nor eat of the Passeover Exod. 12. And the main reason why those that were but legally unclean might not eat the Passeover nor come to the Tabernacle to offer his Sacrifice as others in their season did and were accepted was this because the person that was unclean made every thing he toucht unclean too and he that neglected his time for cleansing and concealing it that soul was to be cut of from the Congregation he hath defiled the Lords Sanctuary Numb 19.13 20. That of Hag. 2.14 proves the same But I have answered his other quotations in my examine of the Scripture rule I need not insist upon these any longer for they are too triflingly urged to require any further answer Why doth he not shew us some Scripture to prove that some have bin suspended from the Passeover for moral uncleanness and allowed the liberty of all other publick worship the which is the whole subject of his great Book almost Yet I am certain he can finde nothing for his turn in Moses and the Prophets And I think he hath as little from Christ and his Apostles for the foundation of his suspension from the Sacrament only which is the question I should speak unto next But I shall let it alone unill I come in short to examine the quotations alledged in the New Testament to prove the affirmative by Mr. Collins in the main body of his last Book I shall now go on with answering to what he saith to mine My fift and sixt queries are 1. What is the remedy the Apostle prescribes to that Church to prevent future judgement and to enjoy present benefit 2. Whether the unregenerate and most ignorant person professing and owning the true Religion among them were not in some capacity
to it and coming ought to be admitted If the proposition be true Answ as is granted it is then it will follow that all Church-members should be encouraged unto the pertaking of that which is for their spiritual good And it 's most injurious for any to deprive any of that spiritual good that proffer themselves or discourage them so to doe But he hath two things to except against the consequence He saith Was not the Passeover so appointed yet he thinks unclean persons might not come during their uncleannesse But now there is no such uncleannesse in the Gospel Church to hinder any Answ 1 They were no more debarred the Passeover then all other publick worship nor so much for provision was made for them in that case not in the other And as that of Moral uncleannesse was no hinderance then so not now as hath been shewed and hence his first exception is worth nothing But then 2. he tels us That some reverend men think the excommunicate person is yet a member of the Catholick Church and shall not be baptized upon his repentance and he owning the true religion and being baptized his repentance being supposed the Sacrament is for his good but it will not therefore follow he ought in that state of his excommunication to come to the Sacrament It 's not material to the question Answ 1 whether the excommunicate be dismembred or not it 's sufficient to my purpose that he be dispossest of all external priviledges of the Church during his impenitency in that condition he is justly sentenced unto to debar him the Sacrament And I think all parties are agreed in this and in this case I deny that the Sacrament is for his good while he is under the last remedy and Ordinance of Christ for his amendment or utter ruine Then if you suppose his repentance and satisfying the Church he ought to be loosed from that sentence and received into Church communion again That the justly excommunicate are absolutely dismembred is too harsh to affirm untill we be able to judge that he hates to be reformed under the Churches just censures adding unto his incorrigible sinning not only obstinacy but Apostasie And then he is undone for ever For what the Church bindes on earth is bound in heaven though the Churches main end is onely to reform and heal a diseased member Therefore though I should grant him not absolutely dismembred and yet deny him the Sacrament it doth not follow that Church-members under Church indulgence or forbearance may be denyed the Sacrament These are two different cases And therefore doth not in the least hurt my first proposition My second proposition is That the Church of Christ consists of good and bad And this Mr. Collins grants me also And it having such a dependence on the first that it compleats for my opinion this argument The holy Supper is instituted for the spiritual good of every particular member of the Church But this Church of Christ consists of good and bad regenerate and unregenerate therefore the holy Supper is instituted for the spiritual good of good and bad regeneratâ— and unregenerate and consequently is to be administred to them in order to that good I conceive that both propositions beinâ— granted the conclusion cannot be denyed My third is That the unregenerate in thâ— Church are the only immediate objects of the prâ—mise of the first grace Mr. Collins answers unto this thus That bâ— hâ—d rather say that the unregenerate are objects 〈◊〉 the first grace then of the promise of that grace 〈◊〉 the promises profit not any without faith and hâ—â— the unregenerate should apply the promise he caâ—not tell 1. Answ In granting them objects of the finâ— grace he grants them to be objects of the promise of that grace Unlesse the first grace is not at all to be lookt for from the promise 2. Nor promised unto any at all 3. Or else given to some to whom God never promised it The which things to affirm would be point blanck against the Scriptures So that the question is whether Mr. Collins doth own any such thing as promises of giving the first grace at all For if there be any such promises at all made to the Church in general they must of necessity immediately respect some proper object that hath not that grace of and in it self it is want and misery that is the proper object of grace and mercy But why should Mr. Collins expresse himself thus doubtfully in such a main thing Doth he not baptize all Infants upon this account chiefly that the promise is to the Parents and children surely if they be not objects of the promises of the first grace the most of ours every where are objects of no promises that Sacraments seal for it 's too certain that they and theirs have not a true sincere purifying faith to apply the other promises of salvation This is certain if they be not objects of the promises of the first grace they cannot be objects of the promises of crowning that grace with glory exclude the unregenerate in the Church from the promise of the first grace and you exclude them from all And then judge what will follow And where he saith The premises profit not any without faith shall the want of a fincere faith make the faithfulnesse of God without effect God forbid Let God be true in what he hath promised to the Church in general and indefinite terms and every man a lyar Rom. 3.3 4. We know of the Jews that were the greatest enemies unto Christ a remnant of them were sanctified and saved according unto Act. 2.39 Peter tels the wicked Jews that were guilty of the innocent bloud of Christ that the promise is to them and their children before he knew whether they would repent or no. What faith had they when Peter told them so not so as much ours have that generally believe that Christ iâ— the only Saviour of the world These Jews denyed this yet being of the visible Church as descended from Abraham the Apostle makeâ— them and their children objects of the promises and hence perswades them to repent oâ— what they had done against Christ be baptized for remission of sins c. And so many 〈◊〉 received his word were baptized indeed and submitted themselves to the obedience oâ— faith What though the unregenerate cannot actually apply those promises by faith unto themselves Doth it follow that thereforâ— they are not objects or susceptives of them in a passive sense God being free in making these promises unto them and by his Spirit in the use of his own appointments to apply them effectually unto whom he will of such that have not faith to apply them Forasmuch as not any can in astrict sense believe until he be impowered with regenerating grace No nor then without the concurrence of a divine aid to apply the promises made to such a blessed state to their own comfort and salvation Besides the
scandalous member not cast out is warned not to take it upon pain of damnation I know no such text and it remains still to prove that the Corinths were threatned or punished for any scandalous sins committed before they came or for admitting any scandalous brethren at all but only for their actual miscarriage in the very act of administration I have said more for the negative then Mr. Collins will be able to answer this two dayes He saith None can without sin knowingly expose the Ordinance of God to necessary abuse and profanation but to administer it to one that cannot have Communion with Christ profanes it Ergo. Let him prove the consequence if he can Answ 1. The Apostle proves that all the Corinthians that drank of the Lords cup and eat of that bread had Communion with Christ and he sayes We that are many are one bread ch 10.16 17. And doubtlesse those that made divisions and lived in incest and eat of things offered unto Idols and that opprest one another by needlesse and scandalous suits at law in the Heathen Courts and those that were guilty of such great schisms and disorders in the Church were a part of that many The very outward actions of eating and drinking according to the institution is a Sacramental Communion which is a holy Communion in the relation the signes have to the thing signified thereby And in the relation the receiver hath to the benefit and profit thereof Sacraments being instituted to that end for the Church as hath been proved But he tels us how a thing is abused 1. When it is not turned to a right use 2. When no difference is put between the holy and profane Ezek. 22.26 The first is answered Answ his latter I shall speak to his quotation is meant of the legal clean and unclean that her Priests through carelesnesse made no difference and so profaned the holy things by admitting such to bring their sacrifices that during their uncleannesse made every thing they touched unclean but there is no such difference to be made in the Gospel Church now that difference is taken away Heathen uncleannesse remains still but we doe not plead their admittance into Church Communion He sayes further That he cannot see but every scandalous sinner Drunkard Swearer Adulterer c. hath as great a fellowship with Devils as the Corinthians had He must see a great deal more fellowship with devils in such Answ then in the Corinthians or else he can conclude nothing for his purpose for it 's certain the Corinthians were not kept from the Sacrament nor forbid it upon that account His first argument for Suspension is That nothing is lawful in the worship of God but what we have precept or president for but to give the Sacrament to such as are visibly scandalous not Excommunicate is to doe that in the worship of God which neither precept nor example doth justifie Ergo Sacraments are parts of institute worship and in the administrations we are to be guided according to the precepts given upon the institution of them and according to the example of the Lord Jesus who at the first institutiō of the Supper gave us an example for the perpetual celebration of it c. p. 51 52. His Major is good Answ but his Minor is false and to be denyed matter of scandal doth not disoblige any that are within and of Christs family and Kingdome from precepts of institute worship as the Sacrament is confessed to be but rather it is thus that this precept of institute Worship doth oblige all Church-members that are within to reform their other scandalous actions 'T is true Christ gave to none but his Disciples And the Apostles directed this observance only unto the visible Churches which consisted of visible Saints by their profession and external calling at least And who will plead for any but visible Saints professing the true Religion externally at least while they are Church-members and within we plead the priviledges of that estate as all Scripture Churches alwayes practised and yeelded unto their members And so long as our Antagonists own our Church for the Church of Christ and our members true members of the Church they doe but discover their own nakednesse in all they say against us and what 's this argument in hand but the same with the Anabaptists if not a great deal lesse rational then they use it for Had we but that clear precept or precedent for Insant baptism that we have for baptized members of the visible Church to receive the Sacrament in remembrance of Christ I doubt not but there is hundreds of those that would quit the argument and reform their practise Christ sayes to his Disciples when it was first instituted drink ye all of it The Apostle Paul understands this precept as respecting the whole Church of Corinth for he directs that Church in general to act according to the institution of Christ for he delivered what he received from the Evangelists that did hear and see the institution That question about Judas is not very material to the Controversie whether he did receive the Sacrament or not 't is certain he eat the Passeover and what was the Paschal Lambe but a sign of the body and bloud of Christ and the Bread and the Wine is no more Besides he might have taken the Sacrament if he had had a minde to have continued with them during that service who hindered him or forbad him if he did not he had done better to have adhered unto Christ in the observance of his holy Ordinances though but a hypocrite then by giving way to the Devils temptation to turn his back upon Gods Ordinance and seek for opportunity how to betray his Lord and Master into the hands of his bloudy enemies but for my own part I incline to believe that Judas did receive the Sacrament but I need not trouble my self with that dispute I have said enough as from that of Matth. 28.19 20. compared with 1 Cor. 11.24 to satisfie any that are impartial I need adde no more in proof of this that it is a duty incumbent upon all Church-members to observe the Sacrament as any other publique duties of Worship This we shall with more case and lesse time make good against all opposition of men then our adversaries who oppose us will free themselves from what the Pharises were charged withall namely in making void the commands of God by their own Traditions As for Precedents the Analogy of the Passeover the practice of the Apostolical Churches which have been urged sufficiently to satisfie any that are sober of the Presbyterians judgement that have not such clearnesse of reason from the Analogy of circumcision nor new Testament Precedents for Infant baptism as we for free admission of Church-members baptized and not excommunicated unto the Supper and hence were they but as rational in the one as the other the controversie would cease amongst us that are for a National
Israel were accepted of in their keeping the Passeover although many of them did eat the Passeover otherwise then was written for some that were unclean did eat thereof 2 Chron. 30.18 19 20. 6. It was the will of God that declared that such things upon a man should be unclean and all things he touched should be so by his institution only but there is no such thing declared by the will of God touching moral uncleannesse in the Church as to debar them the Passeover or any other Ordinanceâ— all his and other mens quotations have been sufficiently examined as to this and fully answered unlesse it be one of Mr. Collins Deut. 23.18 Thou shall not bring the price of a whore or the price of a Dogge into the House of the Lord for any vow for these are abomination to the Lord if not the price then not the Whore or Dogge He argues from the lesser to the greater Answ Doth it follow that because they might not offer any of those two for any vow that therefore they might not bring their Lambe in its season to the House of the Lord and offer it before him according to Gods command It was an abomination to doe those things that God forbad therefore it is abomination to doe that which God commands that 's all the text will prove as to debarring of the moral unclean from the Passeover Away with such trifling and impertinent applications of holy Scriptures The truth is men of his judgement must do more then they have yet done I had almost said more then they can doe or else had better never to have said any thing about this argument drawn from the Analogy of the Passeover all that man can say against us from that doth but discover their own weaknesse in fighting against the Truth His tenth Argument It 's a sin in a Minister to declare those one visible Body who are not one body with visible Saints but scandalous sinners are not one body with visible Saints And be that gives the Lords Supper declares those to whom he gives it unto to be one visible Body Ergo. 1. Answ Is it a sin to say the visible Church is the visible body of Christ and this visible body consists of good and bad Wheat and Tares c. Is it a sin to declare this 2. Are not all that are baptized into one Body of that Body and are not the scandalous in the Church baptized and is it a sin for one to declare that the baptized are one visible body with visible Saints What is a visible Saint but a baptized visible professing Christian that is a member of the true visible Church Is not an offending brother a brother and within while he is within If the Sacrament of baptism doe initiate into that one body and the Sacrament of the Supper bespeaks them so too that are baptized Is it a sin for a Minister to give the Sacrament to such by declaring that which is true and which no man can deny that holds our Church a true visible Church Who can you say is not a real member of Christ in particular And one that he dyed not for The Apostle affirmed it of all in the Church of Corinth that they were one body What if Gillespy will not be perswaded the Apostle would say it of all we finde it so written and I think it safe to be perswaded of the truth of what is written the authority of Scripture shall perswade with me before the authority of men His eleventh Argument The Sacrament is not to be given to any who are not Christs Disciples but scandalous sinners are none of his disciples Ergo. The Major is true Answ but the Minor is to be distinguished into scandalous sinners out of the Church and such like sinners in the Church to the former it 's granted but to the latter it 's denyed What are Church-members but Disciples What are all that professe the true Christian Religion and only call upon the name of the Lord Jesus in hope of eternal life by him but Disciples if they be not Disciples and within then they are Heathens and without whom the Church have nothing to doe to judge in order to their amendment and if they be without and strangers from the Covenant of promises why doe you baptize their children or presse them to any duties of Gospel worship as incumbent upon them as Christians If they be Christians and within why should they not have their proper titles and priviledges of that estate If you can make them neither within the Church nor without then it 's possible you may doe something in this argument and when you have done that I doubt not but you will be answered His 12.13 arguments I have answered in my answer to what he hath excepted against The Bar removed His fourteenth Argument It is unlawful to partake of other mens sins Ephes 5.7 But he that gives the Sacrament wittingly to an ignorant scandalous person partakes with him in his sin Ergo. I grant his Major Answ but deny his Minor because giving and receiving the Sacrament is a most necessary duty of worship which both Minister and people stand mutually ingaged to observe and perform as any other duty of worship in the Church and the Sacrament being given and received with that reverence and order according to the form of holy institution there is no sin as to the matter it self and as for the manner as in every thing we fail all so in this and if this were sufficient to forbear the Sacrament then we must give over all worship In all duties better to doe as well as we can then not at all so that it follows that those that deny the Sacrament to those that are bound to receive it are partakers of their sin in not allowing them to doe their duty for ignorance and other offendings doe not excuse from precepts of institute Worship and the holy Supper more then all other Gospel Worship while persons are within Shall mans impotency and iniquity pull down Gods authority If in all other duties of Gospel Worship such had better obey as wel as they can then neglect Gods worship altogether it 's but a begging the question to deny it in the observance of the Sacrament It 's true a Minister may be guilty of his peoples ignorance and may fear and tremble at that guilt if he neglect all or any due and probable principles of the true Religion that may in some measure prepare them to profit by every Ordinance in the Church But having done his duty he need not fear to give them the Sacrament but tremble at the neglect of that administration and discouraging weak and ignorant Christians from it True it is also that a Minister and the Church may make themselves accessory to the sins of offending brethren in the Church by their carelesse indulging of them in their evill wayes by not reproving admonishing censuring c. by which sinners
The substance of this is much to be doubted of Answ unlesse our common people were more ignorant then the common people in Rome or Italy who are taught that Ignorance is the Mother of Devotion and I think the most of Orthodox Protestants were more grieved about the gesture determined by the Church and those superstitious rails and turning the Table Altarwise and the insufficient administrators then at our free admission of Church-members Suppose all he saith were true is there no way to reform but to remove the foundations of the Churches established doctrine worship and discipline and innovate wayes of our own politick choosing different to all other setled reformed Churches as himself confesses Say our malady in a great part was ignorance could not they begun reformation with a more then ordinary diligence in teaching and instruction and friendly admonition in the carrying on all Gods ordinances in love reverence and unity taking all advantages to promote knowledg in which in time we might have hoped to see some good proficiency in the growing up of the whole together by the goodnesse and blessing of the Lord. For it 's certain that the Scriptures teach not any thing about the censuring of Church-members for ignorance simply and to deprive Church-members of the benefit of Gods Ordinances for causes lesse then the Scriptures do warrant is no reformation but rather an usurpation upon the priviledge and right of a Church-member Say again that loose and scandalous members was another part of our malady is the denying the Sacrament to a multitude of such sinners the only way to reform them What care such for the Sacrament so long as it 's the ordinary case of most and they may have the liberty of all the other Ordinances in the Church as members How is this like to reform their persons when they may be let alone to be loose and profane if they doe but keep away from the Sacraments Such a kinde of reforming that was never read of in holy writ nor in any Orthodox Authors Had it not been better to reform according to Scripture rules and precedents we judging all in the Church adhering to the Protestant Religion Church-members to have prest them unto all Christian observance and to have dealt with them as those that are within and to have proceeded against some unto the like admonitions and excommucation Juridically Gods way is alwayes best and we may groundedly hope to have his way attended with a blessing of successe in the amendment of the worst sinners amongst us It 's a pitiful shift to prevent our strictest professors from running into the Brownists Congregations to practise their principles and so become like them in making admission to the Lords Supper upon a publike profession of faith the only ground to unite and imbody the visible Church into Ecclesiastical Communion and so in gratifying some few in their error require such terms unto actual receiving of necessity that the baptized in the Church of years are no where bound to submit unto nor in a capacity to come unto And yet are under the obligation of actual receiving unlesse in plain tearms you will unchurch them and so unduty them and speak out as the Brownists do But I think enough hath been said already as to this and therefore I shall now take my leave of my Reader having done with the main things in Mr. Collins late Book as it opposes free admission to the Lords Supper And I hope Mr. Collins may seriously conceive himself soberly and rationally answered as to Juridical Suspension distinct from Excommunication as himself hath stated it He hath taken some pains to prove it in the power of a single Minister to suspend from the Supper but I think it needlesse to examine him or answer him in that for I know that Mr. Collins will have work enough to maintain that Suspension from the Lords Supper which he cals Juridical he might first have tryed how he could have come off with this before he had shewed himself so forward to goe about to prove that which is so denyed by all that are Orthodox and sober And I know were there any thing in what he hath said of private Suspension considerable and worthy of a consutation that learned Reverend Gentleman Mr. Joanes whom he attempts to answer would call him to an acount of his forwardnesse of Spirit to Lord it over Gods heritage and to be a Pope in his own Congregation FINIS A BRIEF ANSWER TO THE ANTIDIATRIBE WRITTEN By Mr. Saunders Minister of Hollesworth in Devonshire Wherein his chief Strength in Defence of Separation in a Church and Examination in order to admitting To the LORDS-SVPPER Is Examined and the way he defends proved to be SCHISMATICAL LONDON Printed by E. Cotes for William Tomson at Harborough in Leicestershire 1655. ABRIEF ANSWER To Mr. SAUNDERS ANTIDIATRIBE IN the midst of these unhappy and dividing times in the Church of God I know not how such a worm as I should improve a few hours better after redious lâ—bor in my honest calling then by remembring the happy and ever to be desired Peace and Reformation of renowned Zion As it is my daily prayer so it is a part of my dayly care and study to endeavour that the Churches peace and truth may meet in one And hence it is that I so often appear against those who upon dangerous mistakes destroy and pluck up the main principles and foundations on which the Churches peace and reformation should stand and consist in How sad are our miseries like to be in the end when those that are our professed friends are ever hatching of new unheard of wayes of Separation and Schism Amongst others this unhappy Author doth bear his share by defending such a way that is rarely met withall and yet cryed up to be the way of truth and reformation according unto Gospel rule The way he defends in brief is this some certain Ministers and Christians have agreed to form up a Church in the choyce of a Pastor Officers and members in some one place The tearms agreed on unto admission to and exclusion from the sacred Communion of this Church as to the holy Supper is either a publick profession of faith or submitting to a Church examination in giving an account of their knowledge and faith unto satisfaction c. and so likewise as to practise they require not only a freedome from things scandalous but some real demonstrations of the faith of holinesse unto admittance This way it appears hath been rigorously carryed on against the consent of some able Ministers in those parts And something is excepted against their way by a solid reverend Gentleman I judge with several demands and queries and objections for them to answer and clear in defence of their way and practise Mr. Saunders in behalf of the rest hath taken some pains to give satisfaction unto others professing himself ready to stand or fall as the truth is with him or against
him in their practise It 's an ingenuous resolution I confesse and if he will but stand to it I doubt not of the issue but that it will be worth our labour to dispute it with him according to Scripture and Reason the only Judge of Truth Besides I am the rather inclined to enter the lists with him in this Controversie because he protests against a rigid separation from a true Church and declares himself only for a moderate and lawful separation in the Church not as yet disowning our Churches I take it Unto this I answer That Separation that is proper and lawful in the Church Answ is either made by Orthodox Doctrine Or 2. by wholesome Discipline Juridically exercised Or 3. we may and ought to withdraw all unnecessary friendly and intimate familiarity from scandalous brethren where the necessary duties of our general and particular callings will permit without prejudice to our selves And then the question will be whether the practice defended in respect of separation be no more but so if it be but Doctrinal or putting out of Communion Juridically by Excommunication or declining all unnecessary familiarity with the scandalous though tolerated all will be yeelded on his side But if it be found otherwise I shall deny it as dangerous and warn all Christians to avoid it lest they be infected with Schism a cursed fruit of the flesh and drawn into such needlesse separations as can never be warranted It 's one thing to separate from the sinful courses of scandalous brethren and another thing to separate from the necessary duties of Gods Worship and of our calling where such are tolerated It 's one thing to exclude the scandalous Juridically another thing to exclude the ignorant who desire to be learners of wholesome Doctrine or those that are not satisfied to yeeld unto their tearms as presented under the necessity of duty when upon search their terms are but the bold inventions and opinions of strong fancies and not to be owned upon any such account as is pretended Yet I shall advise to a condescension to the same terms upon a prudential account for the help and incouragement of all in saith and knowledge provided it be used to no such end as to exclude Church-members from that necessary duty of institute worship Doe this in remembrance of me Christians ought not to betray their own and their brethrens liberties to those that have the boldnesse in these exorbitant times to invade them and bring all into division and confusion Why should not all that are within and of the Church enjoy all external helps and means of their amendment untill the Church hath taken the forfeiture of their offending and issued out judgement against them I think I have writ more to this then will be answered in hast Mr. Saunders would be judged a sober moderate man that still owns our Church Ministry and members for true But yet we finde him so inconsistent to himself that upon the matter he unchurches all our Parochial Congregations that he will not allow them to be Churches but in an equivocating sense that is to say in no sense as a â—â—rish in it's Precincts but as a separate Church may be in a Parish as in the world We doe not say saith he that our Assemblies are Churches as Parishes but that they are Churches in Parishes and in that sense Parish Churches pag. 127. and yet he is sharp against rigid separation and pretends but to Surgery not to Butchery but if unchurching of our Parochial Assemblies be not a rigid Butchery let him tell us what is more rigid They of the Independent judgement doe generally acknowledge our Assemblies to be the Churches of Christ though out of order The Anabaptists will confesse a Church may be in a Parish as well as in a City Country and World and in this sense they may say there are Churches in Parishes and so Parish Churches How is our Church beholden to such pretenders that will speak as much in defence of our Parochial Churches as they state them as our adversaries will grant And yet he hath the happinesse to be approved of by a learned Gentleman for his recommending to the Church a well tempered Reformation if love to his person and cause deceive him not Mr. Manton in his approbational Epistle to this Book I confesse if those we plead for be not members of true Churches in Scripture account then all must needs goe against us for it is certain that Heathens the unbaptized or such as have renounced the Christian Religion may not eat thereof our opinion pleads for all Church-members of years baptized and not excommunicated as knowing not any rule against the admitting of such to the Lords Supper produced yet by any And yet Mr. Manton saith peremptorily amongst all others none have deserved worse of the Church of God then those that plead for a loose way as he cals it of receiving all sorts of persons to holy things and by promiscuous administrations prostitute the Ordinance of God to every comer I confesse this passage from so reverend a Minister as he is reputed to be did enter my very heart at first and plunged my soul into a greater perplex of passion then is ordinary Yet not out of any apprehension of guilt though I have alwayes cause to flee unto Gods mercy for acceptance but that so good a man and an eminent Minister of the Gospel should be so inconsiderately rash in his censure of the Churches friends But to answer directly 1. Doth not Mr. Manton receive all sorts of Christians unto Gods Ordinances of Word Prayer singing of Psalms the administration of holy baptism Are not these holy things And is it loosenesse in himself to admit all sorts of persons in the Church to partake of these I hope not and why then not in the other it being a necessary duty to all in the Church of years as the Ordinances before named he might doe well to give some better reason then others doe When he can charge us justly with pleading the admission of the unbaptized Heathens the Excommunicate then let him charge us with that odium of loosenesse or a loose way as being against Gospel-rule but untill then his charge and censure is no other then a rash slander unbecoming such a person It 's strange and to be admired that our pressing unto Christian observance to those that are baptized professing Christians and of the visible Church should have such a hard sense put upon it as to be branded with loosenesse when in all other duties pressing to obedience according to rule is accounted godlinesse and holy strictnesse But doubtlesse that way that is the nearest to Gospel rule is the good way and straight way However it may have the hap upon mistake to be called a loose way Truly to speak freely I little value that perverse disputing in most that oppose us that are forced to uncovenant unchurch undisciple unduty a Christian professing
and which none ever was denyed in the Apostolical Churches during their abode in those Churches And to those that judge ours lawfully baptized and in a true Church cannot rationally refuse to admit them while they are within And again if the examination defended be a necessary duty why not binding unto all Church-members of the same kinde Necessary duties use to be universal How comes this to be restrained only to such as well may be suspected for incompetent knoweldge Sure if it be a necessary duty it is incumbent upon all in the Church or else to none at all if a Minister be at liberty to dispense with some a gift may blind their eyes at length But what Scriptures determine of the just measure of this competent knowledge that the Ignorant are to be examined of without which they must be excluded the Sacrament if no certain rule can be found to satisfie us in this how can men determine of it Then it will follow as in all other doubtful or groundless things so many men so many mindes and will but adde more fewel to our too many hot divisions already And know an unquestionable duty of publick worship should be made void upon such trifling uncertainties that not any are able to determine of seems to me too great a boldnesse in man Thus as briefly as I could I have not only questioned the question but have examined it in particulars thereof by explaining and yeelding something and by denying other things intended by the Author And I think the true question is this Whether it be the duty of all professing the true Religion and admitted into fellowship and Communion of the Church already by holy baptism and constantly attend the publick Worship of God to give an account of their knowledge and faith upon the command and examination of their Minister and Officers and either to be admitted or refused the Lords Supper as these examiners shall approve or not approve of the measure truth and soundnesse of the knowledge of all and whether all that refuse to submit to this duty are justly to be excluded the Sacrament I dare say that 's the proper question as to our case and now I come to examine the Scriptures and reasons laid down by Mr. Saunders to prove the affirmative Namely that all are bound to stand to this tryal before they can lawfully be admitted to the Lords Supper His quotations are many and he is something large upon them therefore I must desire the Readers patience in my answer yet I will promise thee I have laboured to avoid all tedious impertinences Mr. Saunders first proof 1 Cor. 14.40 Let all things be done decently and in order This he saith is a general rule serving till the worlds end to direct the Churches in matters of outward worship whereof this of admission to and exclusion from the Lords Supper is one Who knows not that the Apostle as in the 11. chapter Answ 1 reproves the Church of Cotinth for her divisions and disorders in their publick Assemblies in the very time of administring the Lords Supper and prescribes them rules and orders in special as to the reforming of those profane disorders so in this chapter he takes them up for some other disorders they were guilty of in the like assemblies in the carrying on of some other exercises of Religion amongst themselves as verse 26. doth intimate How is it then brethren when you come together every one of you hath a Psalm hath a doctrine hath a tongue hath a revelation hath an interpretation let all things be done to edifying The fault was this in the exercises of these different gifts by different persons they observed no order but made a confusion all exercising their particular gifts at once that not any could be edified by anothers gift either for his own or because so many spoke together that those that were hearers could not tell which to attend c. Therefore after many particular directions prescribed to particular cases lest the Apostle should omit some other things that might fall out about the ordering of Worship in the Church of God he gives them more general rules that might reach all other the like cases Let all things be done decently and in order The Apostle orders speech and silence in their Assemblies so as all may be edified and comforted but here is not a word of admission to and exclusion from the Sacrament nor any other Ordinance in the Church for they that were received into the Church were bound as Christians to attend upon all Ordinances of publick Worship while they were within this rule was given to direct us about some necessary circumstances in the ordering of necessary worship which other Scriptures inforce upon all in the Church to observe as time and place and external order in all parts of institute worship decent and reverent gesture silence and watchings authorized administrators c. But Mr. Saunders consequence is false for it is not such a general rule as he would have it namely to warrant a Minister to receive of his people to duties of necessary worship whom hee pleases and refuse whom he pleases is this to direct in matters or circumstances of outward worship to exclude Christians from their necessary duties of worship If this will warrant his excluding from one Ordinance of worship then from all at his pleasure if a persons admission and exclusion be but a circumstance of outward worship then our Bishops did well in forbidding preaching and hearing in the afternoon and punishing those that made conscience of their duty otherwise By this Church-members are not left at liberty to doe what Christ commands but what the Church commands we may see how ways of mens own chooseing will warp them If this consequence had been published by a Bishop in their times Christians would have startled at it But he goes on And supposes they had no particular warrant in Gods Word to bear them out yet saith he if our course be holy and orderly it hath warrant from that general rule 1. Answ That course cannot be holy and orderly that tends to a desperate schism in the Church as I have hinted already 2. That tends to their peoples hinderance and exclusion from their necessary duties of worship as Christians 3. That is warranted by no Scripture rule 4. The discovery of the fallacie of your consequence from this general rule makes your supposition nothing for your purpose The Apostle speaks of such a rational prudential decency and order in the Church that may be necessary and yet no where in the Scriptures determined of as to particulars either in commanding or forbidding And would Ministers take up an order under the same notion to instruct ask questions of their people to that end they may better profit by every Ordinance and be incouraged to a more diligent and frequent attendance thereon in hope of a blessing I conceive were nearer the minde of Christ from this