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
Church in that remembrance And I doubt not but Christ has a great number of his Elect alwayes of the unregenerate in the Church What incongruity in all this Besides some other things I said It sounds very harsh in the Church to exclude this Ordinance of Christ from being a means of converting the unregenerate in the Church they being the most proper objects of converting grace as held out in in the promises for the putting of which into execution all the Ordinances in the Church seeme to be subservient And I verily believe this Ordinance of the holy Supper had never been denyed to convert in the Church had not Divines run themselves upon such great mistake about habitual unworthinesse from 1 Cor. 11. That very mistake hath occasioned this for if the unregenerate eat and drink unworthily as the Corinths did and were punished for of necessity then it were rational to deny it a converting Ordinance for as the Reverent Doctor argues rationally from that thus Natural men are guilty of the bloud of Christ and eaâ— and drink judgement to themselves and shall we think that that sinful act in unworthy receiving shall be so blest of God as to become a means of conversion to them c. This must needs be a consequence of the other mistake That being removed men will easily yeeld the other Mr. Collins tels us of twenty arguments of Mr. Gillespy that it is not for conversion the which he sayes I have not yet answered I must confesse it neither doe I know what they are for I have not his Book My friend Mr. Humfrey hath promised to answer those arguments Which I believe will be easie enough to doe unlesse they be stronger then the strongest of Mr. Collins in his answer to Mr. Barsdale upon the same argument pag. 14. the latter end of his Book the which argument of his I shall examine anon Let us first see what he hath excepted against mine Which I think are so much for the probability of the affirmative that the negative must remain doubtful unto the impartial intelligent Reader That one special end of the work of the Ministery in general is for conversion of the unregenerate in the Church will hardly be denyed But to the administration of the Sacrament the main essentials of that work of the Ministery in the Church are of necessity as Word and Prayer and breaking of Bread Act. 2.42 Therefore one special end of the Sacrament as it is an essential part of that work is for the converting the unregenerate in the Church The major proposition is bottomed from Ephes 4.8 10 11 12 13 verses Christ ascended far above the heavens that he might fill all things And he gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers for the gathering of Saints for the work of the Ministery for the edifying of the body of Christ till we all come into the union of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulnesse of Christ 1. Here it is plain that God hath ordained the work of the Ministry in the hands of Pastors and Teachers in the Church to edifie the body of Christ untill the whole number of his elect be united to him and made compleat c. And we know there is alwayes in the Church objects of conversion as well as of the promises to which the work of the Ministry is intended to unite them unto Christ c. And this is to be done by the work of the Ministry in general without any distinction of parts the whole work together without exception of any part is for conversion in the Church as is clear from this place Now unlesse Mr. Collins or any other what ever can give us some clear Scripture to exclude a part of this work from that end of conversion they must allow this end of conversion to the work of the Ministry in general but as that was never performed as yet so I think never will by any only men take the boldnesse to separate that which the holy Ghost doth joyn together upon meer mistake about unworthy receiving And it is a rule that Mr. Collins doth justifie from Matth. 7.6 Where the Scriptures dâ— not distinguish we must not distinguish If a principal end of the work of the Ministry in the Church be intended for conversion in general then the particular parts of that work for the particulars are included in the general And the most comprehensive sense iâ— to be taken of all Scripture-expressions unlesse some other Scriptures put some limitations of that sense and when any man caâ— shew me a Scripture that excludes the administration of the Sacrament from this principal end of conversion in the Church I will have done with this Argument And untill then the Argument is of more force then all the authority of men meerly can in the least overthrow We should distinguish of preaching the Gospel unto Pagans that are aliens to the Common-wealth of Israel and of the work of the Ministry consisting of the whole administration of the Gospel intended only for the spiritual good of the visible Church of Christ unto Infidels the preaching of the Gospel is appointed the ordinary way and means to convert them unto the faith and bring them into the Church but those that are in the Church as they are objects of the promises and under the obligation of all observances which Infidels are not so they are under greater advantages of converting them unto sincerity of faith and the power of godlinesse by the work of the Ministry in general of which Infidels are allowed but a part The minor proposition is evident that to the administration of the Sacrament it 's necessary that the main essentials of the work of the Ministry in the Church be performed as publishing not only the Word of institution but the History of Christs death and passion with exhortations sutable to the Ordinance in hand according to the practise and custom of our own Church with solemn prayers and praises considerably meet for so waighty an Ordinance unto which are adjoyned instituted signes to be given and taken in remembrance of the death of Christ all which concurring together in the act of administration doth comprise upon the matter the main essentials of publick worship wherein the work of the Ministry doth chiefly consist so that I cannot conceive how the premises can be denyed by any therefore the conclusion doth necessarily follow That the Sacrament as it is an essential part of the work of the Ministry is for conversion in the Church But Mr. Collins saith This argument is worth nothing But why did he not shew the weaknesse of it then his bare say so is no answer But he sayes Let it be proved that therefore Christ hath appointed it for conversion if it were doubtlesse the excommunicate should not be debarred I have made good the
to their way of gathering they meddle not with at all nor is it proper so to doe in the way they have designed their way being rather to admit unto membership then the exclusion of Church-members from the priviledges of the Church they have formed But Sir how doubtfully doe you expresse your self at last as if your self were in some doubt whether these texts make for your way or not What they may doe who knowes and yet in the beginning of the same sentence you say they conclude positively for your practise I may well assure you Sir that it 's a grief to my Spirit that such sober godly moderate Gentlemen as your self seems to be should ingage in a practice before you could tell how to make it out by the authority of holy Scriptures against all the world Had you been so happy as first to have seen an undoubted warrant before you had ingaged in this separation you should never have been one in that society whilest you had lived How an ingenuous and rational head can withstand such plain demonstrations that by the assistance of the Lord I have expressed my self in in opposing yours and indeavouring to give the true sense of the Scriptures in debate I cannot tell I must and doe commend all that is written to the powerful working of the Spirit of Truth and Grace to perswade and incline the hearts of the godly to see where truth and the Churches peace and reformation lies according to plain and evident rule I doubt not but your own heart will bear me witnesse that I have rationally discovered the most if not all your consequences and conclusions as applyed to desend your practice to be meer mistakes and impertinent I beseech you consider seriously how ever you will be able to give the Church of God sat is faction for running into such a needlesse separation that is altogether without Scripture warrant Nay doe but think how you will answer your Lord for breaking the peade and union of your particular Congregations raysing prejudices bringing your persons and Ministry into contempt by making such a groundlesse rent and schism in his Church and that to the great prejudice of his visible subjects setting up laws of your own chusing urging them upon your people as necessary or else must be excluded as to you the necessary Laws of Jesus Christ their absolute Lord. You say well as every conscionable sober serious Christian should that you are ready to stand or fall as the authority of Scriptures shall determine In charity I am bound to believe that you intend no lesse then what you have soberly published Gods providence hath so over-ruled the action that one that is a meer stranger unto you I not so much as hearing of your quality no otherwise then I can gather by your Book to give you a sudden answer wherein you are now upon the tryal of your ingenuity and honesty there to make good your practice you are acting vigorously in or to return to your own flock and withhold nothing that is from them If you seriously search into the conditions of your people I believe you may see cause to confesse that you have lost more in your respective flocks then you are like to recover while you live at least some of you Please not your selves with what is so much pretended in this giddy age Namely to act in reforming in some pure and stricter way For many have run them out of all under such like pretences Be holy and strict as it is written according to the known and undoubted rule of Scripture Canon and be assured that that 's the purest way for you know not our own way be it never so specious but the way of the Lord is the straight way that leads to life in glory and if you return and be saithful in dispensing the things of God as you are obliged by the Word that 's the way that God will own the way of the Churches peace and edification the way to make Ministers a blessing to their people and their people a blessing unto them and the only way both to unite and to reform the whole The Lord give you a heart to be serious and searching after the safest way in the further discharge of those relative duties as Pastor of a Congregation whom you are set to watch over and warn and feed also in the Lord. I must confesse unto you that I have been something more round and rude in my answer then is so well becoming considering the moderate temper of our Author But the Lord is my record that I have not any slight esteem of his person but am verily perswaded he is a precious able sober Divine that expresses much of true godlinesse in him It is partly the want of some easier smoother expression partly my zeal of the Churches peace so miserably plunged into divisions and separations the great impediments to reformation partly because I would provoke to more searching into this Controversie about admission to exclusion from the Sacrament for I see that our over rigid principles in this doe run us upon other dangerous rocks Partly to vindicate my self and those of the same perswasion from what we are censured for by Mr. Manton But if any thing be inexcuseable that your charitable construction cannot moderate I beg your pardon for I affect not to be bitter nor would I be guilty of any incivility towards any godly Ministers of the Gospel But I shall go on and come to examine his convincing arguments laid down as seconds to the Scriptures alleadged pag. 156. and the first is this Because the holy Supper belongs to godly ones real believers men have a right in Gods sight only as such They that have no true grace have a seal set to a blanck Men stand in the visible Church as they are apprehended to belong to the invisible all this he saith is soundly proved by our Saviour adminstring to Disciples only Matth. 26.26 not to Disciples in the largest acceptation for many professed besides but to such as were more peculiar was it given And his practise is to be a rule to the Church All Mr. Saunders strength in proof of this argument stands in two things Answ 1. In his asserting several things that are usually taken for granted without any special proof 2. In urging the practise of our Saviour in the first administration Matth. 26.26 as proving soundly all the particulars asserted in the argument he denying that this was an accidental circumstance but was fore-determined by Christ so to have it but his enumeration of particulars are meerly begged and argued against in my answer to Mr. Collings unlesse it be this that men stand in the visible Church as they belong to the invisible I know not any ground why we should apprehend that all in the visible Church doe belong to the invisible of Gods Elect for in the Church amongst them that are called it 's said that many
one 1. not in a natural capacity as the other is Nor 2. in a rational capacity as the other is 3. The one not so under the obligation of precepts of publique actuall worship as the other are 4. The one not at all under the censures of the Church as the other are Nay although Mr. Humfrey in his rejoynder tels them that there is as wide a difference between Infants and Ignorants as between a doe not and a cannot speaking of Examination and discerning the Lords Body the Ignorant they do not but yet they ought to do but Infants and distracted cannot and are excused yet notwithstanding all this widenesse in the premises Mr. Collings without an answer unto ours most peremptorily enters his consent unto the Doctors weaknesse and tels us the Doctor saith right that by the same reason we except against Infants c. we may except against the ignorant and scandalous Thus you may see let the premises be never so different they must hold to their conclusion be it never so absurd and irrationall and I would have them to take notice that We doe not except against Infants and distracted as a punishment or censure as they of the ignorant and scandalous but rather we wave them as such that are under a state of weaknesse and impotency by the wisdome and providence of God inevitable We do not except against Infants as not having a true right but out of the consideration of their natural and rational incapacity actually to injoy their right We doe not except against Infants and distracted because they cannot examine themselves discern the Lords Body as Mr. Collings would have it But because self examination and discerning the Lords Body coming to receive are not their actual duties but we judge all these are the actual duties of ignorants and of the scandalous in the Church untill they be excommunicate And assoon as Infants are grown past childehood and come under the actual obligations of precepts and worship our principles incline us to as timely an admittance of youths that shall voluntarily desire it and proffer themselves as those that oppose us 'T is certain that children in the Church 1. Come under family instruction and correction before they come under the Ministerial instructions admonitions corrections either of Church or State 2. That children come sooner under negative precepts then affirmative acts of worship it may be a sin for that childe to lye swear curse steal when at that age it is no sin to omit publick prayers and the Lords Supper Divines say affirmatives alwayes binde but not to all at all times in many cases God will have mercy rather then sacrifice as is supposed to the case in hand But I could wish we might keep close to the thing in controversie Infant Communion is not a thing controverted in our Church In the next place in answer to his Church-membership t is very comprehensive importing no lesse then Believer Saint Disciple Christian c. and therefore needs nothing else to give a true legal right according unto the rule unto the Lords Supper for all Believers Disciples Saints by calling and profession when and whilest they were within were never denyed the Lords Supper It 's true a Church-Member may come under divers considerations 1. As an heir at age or in his minority or under distraction is still an heir and his right to be conceived of as before 2. So it is in the Common-wealth anâ— evill and a hurtful subject is a subject and hath the benefit of the laws thereof as any other subjects of the same kinde though never so good and profitable so it is in the Church the most uncomely members are members and have as true a legal right to the external priviledges of the Church as any other members of the same kinde though never so good and holy A difference in the degrees alters not the kinde for that whatever belongs unto a Church-member as such belongs unto all of the same kinde is with out doubt We do not finde a different rule to Church-members of the same kinde if good or bad openly offend they ought to be proceeded against accordingly and neither the one nor the other should be denyed an actual external priviledge of the Church untill the Church hath given out judgement against them by excommunication authoritatively and we are not to make any difference in the Church about members in respect of externals the rule being only one and the same unto all Members believers disciples brethren in a large sense are as truly such in a true sense as those are such indeed in a strict sense Hence Mr. Collings his demand What it is added unto Church-membership entitles to this Sacrament is both frivolous and improper because Church-membership includes as much as can be added unto it and yet doth not exclude the worst born in the Church and under her toleration Nor did I ever think that any man would be so perverse as he to make reason and age additions to membership they being but essentials to the more perfect being of a man for that is supposed of all that come under actual precepts of worship that they are reasonable men and of years There is the Church-membership of Infants and of men and of women yet all is but Church-membership age sex and reason c. are not additions unto membership but a Church-member is the same with all these Yet it 's true too that unto all actual observances in the Church age and reason must necessarily be presupposed So again knowledge faith and obedience are not additions to membership but a Church-member comprehends all these in his sense degree or kinde And while they will acknowledge persons in the Church Church-members believers disciples c. they must conclude with me that Church-membership alone gives a true legal right to the holy Supper say what they can to the contrary so that the vanity of this superadding unto membership unto Sacramental right is nothing else but a raising a dust to blinde our eyes What Church either in the Old or New Testament required more then membership unto this Sacrament all that came under Circumcision or Baptism stood ingaged to keep the Passeover and the holy Supper When Mr. Collings can give a clear instance otherwise I shall think my self bound to return him thanks If any make enquiry what Church-membership in its rise and nature is It 's a relative state of persons only that have entred Covenant with God Answ professing either expressely or implicitly their voluntary submitting to the whole administration of the Covenant And this entring into Covenant is either personal or parental Personal of those that are Pagans born but parental in the Church who by birth-priviledge have entred Covenant with their parents And this I call a relative state because it hath its priviledge meerly from the Covenant which God through Christ hath freely made unto some of mankinde and their seed whom he is
by the authority of the Church baptizing them as members of the visible body of Christ cannot be legally put out of Church communion at the pleasure of some few Elders of themselves unlesse deligated so to act from a National Assembly of Presbyters Though the right of discipline may be inherent in every lawful Presbyter yet the exercise thereof is proper only unto those that are intrusted therewith by the representatives of the whole Irregular actings and good ends cannot stand together to doe evil that good may come is not only dangerous but damnable The state of unregeneracy and personal unworthinesse in the Church doth not bar any one from the Sacrament nor doth come within the verge of the Church to judge of or correct in the least Actual unworthinesse persisted in unto obstinacy is the only object of Church censures of persons in the Church yet all actual unworthinesse doth not necessarily run persons upon eating and drinking the Lords Supper unworthily in the Apostles sense There is no personal unworthinesse in the Church in a relative sense in reference to the Sacrament or any uther Ordinance but the carelesse neglect thereof is most unworthy and punishable Not to discern the Lords Body is not to put a difference between common bread and the instituted signes set a part by Word and Prayer to represent the death of Christ for remission of sins Examination is a private duty to be performed between God and the conscience unto a profitable receiving having a special eye to the rules of the whole administration making their approaches there accordingly externally at least There is a real difference to be put between the unregenerate Christian and an unregenerate Infidel the Church and the world believer and unbeliever the confounding of these hath run us into Brownism of late The whole Church is in Covenant with God and are the immediate objects of the promises but the world lies in wickednesse and under wrath without the promises of the Covenant and hope and God in the world The whole Church are under all Gospel observance the whole work of the Ministry as the ordinary means of their conversion and salvation The Pagan world for the most part never had the advantage of so much as any part of that work the Gospel being hid to them that perish Salvation is of the Christian Church but no salvation out of it How can they call on him in whom they have not believed and how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard And there is salvation in no other Name whatsoever save only in Jesus Christ That the legally unclean were not so much debarred the benefit of the Passeover as other Sacrifices or spiritual observances in that Church That the Moral uncleannesse then was no more bar to the Passeover then unto all other observances in the Church Nay that was either punished by the Judges according unto their Judicial proceedings or otherwise cleansed from it by a continual course of Sacrifices And therefore no bar at all against any That no persons in the Church of the Old Testament or in the Churches of the New read of in Scriptures were ever debarred the Passeover or the Sacrament of the holy Supper and allowed the benefit of all the other Ordinances in the Church Hence I cannot but conceive that suspension from the Sacrament alone usually called the minor Excommunication is but a humane invention in the Church More is required to the Lords Supper then to Baptism in the Church yet lesse is required to the holy Supper of them that are Church-members then of Heathens unto Baptism We must distinguish of real and relative personal worthinesse The whole visible Church not under Church censures are personally worthy in a relative sense And hence there is no personal unworthinesse in the Church 2. Of believing in a large sense and of believing in a strict sense both to be accounted true believers in Scripture sense The denomination of a Believer is as well derived from a right object believed on as from the right and holinesse of the Subject believing 3. Of entring into the Covenant and of continuing in the Covenant The former is proper for Infidels the latter concerns the Church for it is supposed that all in the Church have entred the Gospel Covenant And in the Church we must distinguish of transgressing the Covenant and renouncing the Covenant of breaking and renewing it and whosoever is entred into the Covenant comes under the whole administration thereof and cannot be disobliged from any observance thereof but by the binding power of the Keys of Christs Kingdome exercised Juridically Beloved Friends I have now given you an account of the most of my principles that I build upon and conclude free admission to the holy Supper from And I judge they are such that have their rise from the holy Scriptures or are rational deductions drawn from thence which are not in the least loosened nor shaken by Mr. Collins nor any other of his judgement nor I think never will notwithstanding his forwardnesse of spirit in the close of his Book to cry up a victory when he has not so much as routed me in any one thing in all my Book which argues a bold conceited vapouring spirit a little too much Therefore now in short I shall collect some of his main strength and magisterial principles made use of to undermine the foundations of mine either exprest or implyed He denyes that Church-membership alone doth give a full right to the Sacrament therefore superaddes knowledge faith and the fruits of holinesse to give one right all which say I is included in Membership And his superadding will give a Pagan right He affirms that he looks upon all Church-members habitually worthy from their interest in Christ until they discover the contrary by their actual offendings Then say I he holds That all Infants are habitually worthy from their interest in Christ and commonly fall away from that state of grace He sayes 'T is not much material whether the Corinths were punished for habitual unworthinesse or no and yet upon the matter that the whole he disputes against He saith the unregenerate are personally unworthy and therefore cannot receive He sayes there is no promise belongs to the unregenerate in the Church that have not faith to apply it and that they are rather objects of the first grace then of the promise of that grace and that the Heathen are as much objects of the promises of first grace as the unregenerate part of the Church And doubts whether any promise belong to men as unregenerate if so then Heathen may come to the Sacrament He puts no difference between the unregenerate in the Church and the Pagan world in respect of promises titles duties priviledges except it be the baptizing their children he undisciples them unduties them uncovenants them in reference to the holy Supper and yet will have them Church-members and present their children unto baptism
any that are scandalous misliving brethren should ever be brought to shame by keeping them from the Sacrament only when so many of them that are brethren of honest and good repute are kept away as well as the other It 's both a vain and absurd thing to pretend to the right means to reform and yet so to use them as to be certainly disappointed of the end Nay where such reforming as theirs is once in acting what 's the event and end or fruit that follows but strife and debate contention division prejudices back-biting quarreling and questioning what such a Minister preaches with derision and confusion and such like desperate fruits as experience doth daily shew 4. If excommunication be too much for scandalous misliving brethren that would not reform as is supposed of these in the text why then it will follow as before that none ought to be excommunicate at all for none can be worse in the Church then scandalous misliving brethren sure that will not reform But to come to this argument in the close of this Mr. Saunders forms it up thus Noting offending brethren so as to shame them is holy and necessary But such is our suspension of misliving men Therefore holy and necessary How wide his Major is from the text needs no great discovery to the Judicious Answ but for the sake of the weak and lesse intelligent Reader something should be done Had the Apostle writ to the Church to take any course they could devise to bring these disorderly brethren unto shame then his Major had been tolerable but when the Church is directed to the particular way and means to bring such to shame as in the text and the Church to invent some other wayes drawing a general from a particular is evill if any kinde of noting will but shame them then it 's holy and necessary from this text it would as well follow that the stocks or pillory is so to note offending brethren as to shame them therefore holy and necessary from this text what may not then be assumed to be holy and necessary if it will but shame men But I have shewn above that their way brings none to shame and therefore hath not the least colour of warrant from the text The Lord give them hearts to consider of it His fourth proof to prove examination a necessary duty unto admission to the Lords Supper is 1 Cor. 5.11 If any man that is called a Brother be a fornicator or covetous or an idolater drunkard c. with such one no not to eat If we take not to eat in a civil sense then they raise their argument from the lesser to the greater 2. If we take it for Sacramental eating then we have an Apostolical injunction against the coming of the ungodly ones to the Lords Table and by consequence an allowance of separation as to such and of tryal in order to it pag. 141 142. 1. You shall see what himself saith in answer to all this in that which follows in the some page 1. The whole chapter concerns Church-fellowship censures It is about casting out of the incestuous person as every one sees Doe not we judge them that are within put away from among you that or the like wicked person Again he saith that the nature of the recited sins vers 11. shew that he intends scandals calling for discipline and coming under the like censure with incest thus far himself pag. 143. And therefore from his own sense of the context I conclude that this text allows of no other separation in the Church but what is made by Juridical Excommunication for doubtlesse the incestuous person was only so separated from the fellowship of the Church and this is the same which I alwayes plead for and would have reformation begin withall Let him draw what consequence he can from his own sense of the text for their separation when he confesses in another place that they excommunicate none By this the intelligent and sober may know what to judge of the way he defends that is so point blanck to his own quotations for in the text reforming the scandalous in the Church is onely by Excommunication and they excommunicate none but separate from their Churches leaving the infectious and diseased to cure themselves or perish for them by neglecting those due and necessary Ordinances appointed for their amendment but in my answer to Mr. Collings I have spoke largely to this Scripture whither I shall refer you His fifth proof is Matth. 7.6 but I cannot conceive he doth draw any thing from it at all in proof of the question in hand and I having largely spoke to it in my answer to Mr. Collings it 's needlesse to repeat besides I have answered to more difficulties from Mr. Collings then is urged by Mr. Saunders So also his sixth proof 1 Cor. 11.27 to the end is fully answered no more need be added untill what I have writ in my answer to Mr. Collings be throughly answered and confuted All that I can finde of Mr. Saunders amounts but to this If self-examination be necessary to goe before receiving then such as doe not or cannot ought to be excluded And hence they will inforce it the duty of all to be examined that they may know who are able to examine themselves and those that upon this search they finde not capable exclude them It concerns them 1. Answ To prove what every one is to examine himself of from the text 2. To determine of the lowest degree of what is necessary to receiving or excluding in respect of every member 3. To prove that unlesse the private be so done at least the publick ceaseth to be their duty but certainly I judge that those that are under the actual obligation of self-examination are under the actual obligation of receiving I grant the Word doth justifie the necessity of those things he lays down and are the duties of all Christians But deny that these things are to be applyed to qualifieâ— persons for the Sacrament for the Church of Corinth was commanded both and sure both were the duty of all her members of years however denyed to ours by the Author The qualifications in order to receiving laid down by Mr. Saunders pag. 171.172.173 are such that had he not forsaken his Pastoral charge and joyned himself to another Church before he had been able to prove the least particular there confidently affirmed he should never have runned into that needlesse exorbitant separation while he had lived But this is that which undoes them first they fancy to themselves a false sense of some Scriptures and then draw a multiplication of far fetcht consequences from it too and by this means run themselves into an infinitum of mischievous errors to the Churches prejudice and trouble And truly I cannot but admire at the wisdome and providence of God only wise that hath by strange workings made void from time to time what hath been
Mr. Prinne nor Mr. Humphrey my judgement was setled and satisfied in these things long before I heard of these Authors And besides what reason hath Mr. Collins to charge us with this that we are Erastus his scholars when he findes us so point blanck against him in defending the Juridâ—cal censures of the Church I cannot say that ever I read any Author that came up to my opinion or judgement in these things in any measure til now of late I saw Mr. Humfreys Vindication of free Admission So that whether my grounds be new or old I have made but little acquiry in respect of humane authority this I am satisfied in that my grounds are such as accord with the Gospel Covenant and the state of the Visible Church of Christ as it is constituted in Parents and children good and bad called and chosen And I finde that men of different judgements run themselves upon dangerous rocks of Schisms Separations and needlesse divisions in the Church besides their interferings contradictions of themselves and detracting unworthily from Covenant-relation Church-membership Sacraments signs and pleadges of Covenant love to the whole Church in general And therefore I hope though I have endeavoured to remove an unnecessary Bar yet it will appear that I am not guilty of that sin and curse that Mr. Collins intimates in saying Was it our grief formerly that we had no Bar and is it our work now to remove the Bars yea the Lords and the Churches ancient Land-marks But who are most faulty in this they that plead for the Churches Land-marks and rights or they that unjustly defraud the Church thereof laying the Church common with the world judge ye or who are most for Reformation according unto Scripture Canon they that presse to all Scripture obedience or they that exempt Christians from some necessary duties of Worship they that would have all in the Church dealt with as members in a Juridical way to their amendment or they that unchurch them undisciple them and so unduty them and level them with the Pagan World Mr. Collins pretends much zeal in his Epistle prefixed to his Book but I could wish he had more sound judgement and knowledge in these things to abate the inconsiderate noise he makes and the passion which he shews therein First he tels us that it was a burden that lay upon our souls that in the Prelates dayes there was no bar but one which Suâ—peâ—â—on made And then about six lines after he saith the Prelatical party may rise up in judgement against us and say Lord we gave the Minister authority to keep any from the Sacrament for notorious sins c. First he saith there was no Bar and then he saith that there was a Bar and such a one as I thinkâ— might have satisfied men of his perswasion The truth is both Presbyterian and Brownists make such a slender thing of Covenant relation the ground of baptism in the Church that it will not bear up what they should build upon it afterwards for they make it upon the matter but a meer titular or nominal thing restraining the Gospel Covenant to believers only in a strict sense making Sacramental Seals invalid if they doe not so believe conceiving that if persons in the Church by their actual offending discover themselvs to be in an unregenerate state after baptism that then they are out of Covenant and so by consequence have forfeited their actual right to Sacramental seals thereof making no difference between such and the Pagan world But if we hold to the Covenant made to the Church and their seed as it was published and declared to Abraham and all along to the Church of the Jews and look upon the Christian Church as graffed into them and equally children of Abraham by profession of faith and Baptism as the Jew by nature and Circumcsiion presse all to walk up to their profession as Christians according to Gospel observances being bound to observe all things as the Jews were then should we build upon such a foundation of truth that would be immoveable and bear up as much as we now plead for But I have exprest my self more largely in this ensuing discourse and may not now insist upon the largenesse of the Gospel Covenant In short then I conceive that it is a very great mistake to narrow the Gospel Covenant unto this He that believes shall be saved but he that believes not shall be damned I grant 1. That this is a truth as taken in the usual sense but then I deny that it is the whole Covenant of grace made unto the Church and their seed 2. I grant it a conditional proposition used in the first tender of the Gospel unto Infidels to move them to accept of Christ and so to bring them into the visible Church but I deny that this in like manner was or is to be preached unto the visible Church that professe their acceptance of Christ and all observances appointed by him 3. I grant that actual believing and profession of faith was the only thing that fitted a Pagan for Baptism and graffing into the Gospel Church in which the promises of grace and glory belong to the whole indefinitely but yet I deny that there is any promise of grace in those words He that believes shall be saved it is true there is the promise of being saved upon condition of sincere believing but there is no promise in that to give a sinner grace to believe So that this conditional part of the Covenant in a strict sense as it is usually urged alone without the absolute renders unregenerate sinners uncapable of any good news by the Gospel it not being in the power of any of himself so to believe And to make the death of Christ a seal to confirm this conditional part of the Covenant only as being that which the Sacraments hold forth is to make the death of Christ a seal to confirm a Covenant of works in the Church derogatory to the Gospel mercy and grace Therefore we are to conceive of the Covenant as it 's held out to the Church by the Prophets and Apostles the Church being built upon both Gen. 17. Jerem. 31. Ezek. 36. it is largely laid down and applyed by the Apostles to the Church in Gospel times Act 2.39 Heb. 8. Act. 3.25 26. 5.31 Rom. 15.8 9. 2 Cor. 6.16.18 7.1 compared These Scriptures prove that the Apostles did usually apply those old free grace promises with the end of Christ coming into the world to confirm them to the Gospel Church But if any please to enter their exceptions against these my notions about the Covenant I shall be glad both of an occasion and opportunity to insist more largely upon them For I must confesse I think there are not many that are very right about the nature and largenesse of the Gospel Covenant made to the Church and that straitning the Covenant too much occasions very much division and schism in the
supply means of instructing them in the. PAg. 4 lin 7. read unto p. 13. l. 27. r. privative p. 1â— l 6. r. reaching p. 29. l. 8. for il r for it p. 31. l. 12. r. Vzzahs p. 31. l. 14. r. answer p. 50. l. 10. r. undvoidable p. 64. l. 15. r. examen p. 71. l. 1 3. r. a knowledge p 89. l. 14. r. propositions p. 98. l. 12. r. leavened p. 99. l. 21. r. chain p. 100. l. 27. r. visible p. 116. l. 2. r. adjourned pag. 138. l. 28. supply in after doth p. 156. l. 9. r. uneldered l. 30. supply of the whole Church after settlement p. 161. l. 9. r. privative p. 166. l. 2. f. examination r. argument p. 170. l. 2. r. irreproveable p. 189. l. 7. supply an ordinance of after give p. 199. l. 6 dele it p. 216. l. 3. f. first r. fift p. 249. l. 15. f. power r. prevalency p. 275. l. 21. r. suspition p. 280. l. 1. f. know r. how p. 286. l. 27. f. which r. when p. 298. l. 32. r. to persecutions p. 312. l. 29. r. think p. 327. l. 8. put in profitable after that is l. 16. r. themselves To Receive the Lords Supper the actual Right and Duty of all Church-Members of years not Excommunicate BEloved Christian friends Although I judge that I am not as yet answered by Mr. Collings there being enough in my Book to answer him and vindicate it self from whatsoever is as yet objected against it to the Judicious and impartial Reader yet with respect unto Mr. Collings who is esteemed a Gentleman learned and worthy according unto his title and some profitable labours for the Churches good And also for the further satisfying both of the weak and plain minded Christians As also the confirming of those my friends that cordially imbrace my Book and adhere to the truth asserted therein And that the controversie it self may come to some clearer issue and something more may be discovered in order unto peace and truth and reformation in the Church of God in all humility and respect unto different mindes I crave leave once more soberly and freely to present my thoughts unto further consideration for I judge that Mr. Collings hath been too hasty in concluding that my main principles are rotten that I have made the ground of my discourse by what he hath said in answer thereunto for the truth is he hath not in the least disabled any one main thing I have asserted nor is willing to keep to the question as it 's stated nor answer to any purpose where the main stresse of Controversie lies but trifles about Infants and distracted and Pagans and the excommunicate the admitting of which aâ— such not any in our times plead for And therefore he might have said lesse to these and more to those that the thing in controversie concerns namely Whether the unregenerate or ignorant and scandalous members in the Church being baptized and of years not excommunicate may be debarred the Lords Supper they expressing their desires to receive and proffering themselves I answer in the negative all along that they may not be put by Mr. Collings seems to be offended with my charging the Reverend Doctor with unbrotherly dealing A thing saith he that my self am more guilty of which I think is hardly so unlesse the worthinesse of the person my opinion strikes at doth so much the more aggravate the thing As for my not taking notice of Mr. Humfreys reflections as he cals them it may be better excused as to my self and friend then the other can 1. Because that part of the Book which concerned the Doctor was finished and gone from me towards the Presse before ever I knew of Mr. Humfreys rejoinder 2. When I did read it over I thought his returns to such bitter censures and invectives against him were very pathetical yet humble and melting and well becoming a sober charitable Christian and fellow-labourer with the other in the holy Gospel 3. I have heard many godly and learned in the Ministery acknowledge that his returns are humble and charitable and yet quick and rational As to Mr. Collings quotation of the two last pages of his rejoynder I conceive that Mr. Humfrey little thought that any would be so uncharitable as to take his Allegorical reproof and caution in that unfeemly sense that Mr. Collings will force upon it there being not any Scripture uncapable of a rational application And those that are impartial and sober can judge no lesse of that And for those six or seven dissatisfactions of mine concerning the practice of some Presbyterians unassociated I know not how I should have expressed my self more modestly then by professing my self unsatisfied giving so many hints as I have clearly done against those things I charge them with And I am sure if the main principles in my Book stand firm as I think they will for any thing yet said against me Mr. Collings will not be very zealous for ruling Elders nor Suspension distinct from Excommunication Church examination of her members into actual receiving nor leaving out without any judicial proceedings But to the matter it self let us see what he hath said against that First his demand is What it is that gives one right to the Sacrament of the Supper he knows the answer will be Church membership either this alone or something else if this alone then Infants and mad men and drunkards must come say what they can if they say not Church-membership alone doth give a full right then many of their arguments fail 1. Answ That Church membership alone gives one a legal right to the Lords Supper according unto Gospel rules the which right is a true right and that sufficient unto free admission of all in the Church but then this right is to be distinguished into a real right in point of title and a right of actual possession and injoyment the former right respects all Infants born of Christian Parents the latter right belongs unto all Church-members of years that are baptized and in a rational and Church capacity actually to enjoy their right An heir in his infancy hath as true a right unto his Fathers land he being dead as an heir at full age but yet it doth not follow that a childe under age shall be left actually to manage his right himself in that state as an heir at one and twenty We know the Apostle saith it An heir under age differs not from a servant though he be Lord of all Yet such is the the consequence of Mr. Collings touching Infant Communion if we grant them a true right as members in point of title and a remote right actually to injoy assoon as they are in a natural and rational capacity then saith he they as members must come say what we can to the contrary Although Mr. Humfrey and my self have shewed a clear difference between Infants and distracted and the ignorant at age in several particulars The
pleased to own and make his people and to be unto them a God in a more peculiar relation then to all others of mankinde for those whom God chooseth to approach neer unto him in his own appointments have the promise of being satisfied with the fatnesse of his house Now then I judge so long as Covenant relation holds membership holds and so long as membership holds the priviledges of that estate holds It must be an authority equivalent to the ground of membership that can dismember or dispossesse them of their right as members which nothing but renouncing the Covenant or obstinacy continued in under the Churches censures can doe it But he goes on in his mistake and tels his Reader That I hold it 's only the exercise of reason conjoyned unto Church-membership gives all a right to the Sacrament then it follows saith he That all such who are able to exercise their reason ought to come and be admitted And then asks us why are drunkards excepted against pag. 22. Here is but the same again which is already answered only he saith Answ why are drunkards excepted against for they are Church-members and can exercise reason In stating the question Mr. Humfrey hath it he might say the drunk meaning the actual drunk as void of reason conscience and devotion for that present as being more fit to be thrust among Swine then suffered to come unto any sacred Ordinance of Worship in that profane sordid brutishnesse not denying but the same man at another time when he is sober and in his serious minde to serve God as a Christian he being not excommunicated may and ought to partake of every Ordinance in the Churchâ— a member Saith Mr. Coll. If he can but shew him the least shâ—dow of Scripture to prove that a capacity to exercâ— reason is that other thing which added unto Church-membership gives one an actual right we will be 〈◊〉 bondmen Membership alone in its own latitude comprehends as much as he himself wiâ—â— have added unto it to give a true actual righâ— as is made out above Answ 1 And then 2. I hope Mr. Collings will alloâ— men and women that are baptized and continue to adhere to the true Religion to bâ— Church-members and if so himself doâ— grant their right which is as much as hâ— would have me prove unlesse he think that Church-membership of persons growâ— up to years of discretion is a meer notâ— onal thing an empty nothing levelling Church-members to the Pagan world as 〈◊〉 may well suspect him for several things meâ— withall hereafter his often urging of something to be added to give one of years right to the Sacrament as knowledge faith and the fruits of holinesse strongly implies that to be a Church-member disciple is nothing to give a right It 's the things he superaddes that gives the right to the Supper whereas to Church-membership I know and so may be that his superaddings are not proper nor indeed sense for adde those things to a Pagan and they wil give him right unto Sacraments â—hereas a Church-member imports the same â—e they ignorant or scandalous during that priviledged estate Doth the Scriptures speak 〈◊〉 any such additions to a Jew unto his observing the Passeover in its season Let it 〈◊〉 proved that an ignorant Jew lost his actuall right as a Jew or Church-member or â—at an ignorant Christian in the Apostles â—ayes that was baptized and within had no â—ight to the Lords Supper Will you not alâ—ow as much of Church priviledge to a baptized Christian now as was allowed then Are the priviledges of the same Church diminished â—o her members Wherein will you have a Church-member not excommunicate differ from a Heathen or the excommunicate You allow all other Ordinances in the Church to a Heathen the suspended Excommunicate and just so much you allow to a Church-member tollerated and no more how doe you confound things that differ What difference doe you make between the excommunicable and the excommunicate the ignorant and such as offend out of weaknesse that are not excommunicate The Primitive and Positive suspension as you call them the proper and improper c. the punishment de facto in its execution is all the very same deny them the Sacrament only that 's the least and that 's the greatest Whether it be done by a Classes or Presbytery or a single Minister or by the discoâ—ragement of some private Christians or 〈◊〉 of peoples own carelesnesse The only poâ— of reformation and end of Discipline is mâ— that great design of keeping Church-members of years from the Sacrament slightâ— their Covenant relation obligation unactual observances as members disciples 〈◊〉 lievers c. as if they were no more unâ— the duties of Gospel worship then Turks aâ— Pagans If Church-membership with uâ— judged the same with those were added 〈◊〉 to the Chdrch in the Apostles dayes wâ— should we question the duty priviledge â—â—ours more then they of those times I woâ— have Mr. Collings either shew me a differâ— state of Church-membership or else shâ— me a different rule for the same Church 〈◊〉 walk by either let him doe the one or 〈◊〉 other or else be so ingenuous to yeeld 〈◊〉 every member his right until the Churâ— have legally dispossest them of it At the latter end of the 22 page Mr. Coll. he drawâ— up the question between both and wouâ— have it put to tryal but indeed the questiâ— is so wide from the question in controversâ— and so much said already to clear the question in hand that I may well passe it bâ— and see what we can finde in page 23. wheâ— he is still upon the same thing and pleaâ— against me thus If a meer capacity to exercise reason entitule◠〈◊〉 Church-member to the Sacrament then every Church-member in such a capacity hath an undoubted right I grant that every Church-member of years of discretion hath an undoubted right Answ I utterly disown his antecedent as not reckoning the question as it 's stated he should have put in this proviso Church-members that are professing the true religion not under the Churches just censure And had he done so he might have assumed what he could but he willing to leave so much out of his antecedent as would have spoyled his consequence â—nd prevented him in urging those inconsequences that follow upon it in the whole page although I must confesse the cases he instances in have need to be spoken unto with wisdome and tendernesse so that the truth be not prejudiced As to the case of members that are so notoriously scandalous that of right ought to be excommunicate but are not as he instances in incest and adultery immediately before a Sacrament he sees I have large principles if I would admit such a one 1. Answ Either such are under the suspicion of these sins Or 2. are under evident conviction A suspicion is not sufficient to ground Church censures upon if this be
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
the Apostle spake of habitual unworthinesse oâ— actual when all he drives at is nothing else unto his admitting to the Sacrament If I can but undermine him in that one prop his whole building will fall and the controversie come to some good issue for what Mr. Collings can doe in it let him doe the best can In the next place he saith he dares not deny but the disorderly eating in the Church of Corinth was an unworthy eating and might be a cause of their punishment vers 30. We know God is very tender of his own order and brings that instance of Uzziahs case c. This I take to be a good concession to my anwer of the 3. 4. query pag. 16 17 18. Answ The Bar removed But I see he is very unwilling to come off clearly in it mark he doth but say their unworthy eating might be a cause of their punishment The holy Apostle saith plainly for this cause many are weak and sick some dead That is the cause is plain vers 29. Their not discerning was more out of carelesnesse and profanenesse then simply out of ignorance their eating and drinking unworthily which he further explains to be their not discerning the Lords body but used the bare elements as common bread not discerning the body and bloud of the Lord they were consecrated to represent with other particular miscarriages in the time of administration for this cause saith our Apostle they were punished this were a cause saith our Author but not all the cause for which they were punished with death Who shall carry the sense now of these two competitors our Apostle or Mr. Collings I need not again urge what have formerly spoke to this Scripture 〈◊〉 Mr. Collings or any other first answer 〈◊〉 what I have done in clearing the set of the place and let them prove that were for personal unworthinesse if thâ— can or for any other sins that they wâ— guilty of before they met together for tâ— time of administration c. Let them gâ—â— us some clear demonstrations of it if they câ—â— if they cannot let them be so ingenuâ— as to give us their consent and trouble seâ—ful consciences no longer with such kind trifling uncertainties that here follow 〈◊〉 our Author Mr. Collings hath given us three argumeâ— to shew us why â—e cannot digest the seâ— that I have given of the 1 Cor. 11.20 toâ— end He saith because the Apostle chap. 5. had them of Corinth that they could not keep 〈◊〉 feast with the old leaven of malice and wickedneâ— And bidden them purge out the old leaven vers 7. And not eat with one called a brother who shâ— be a fornicator or idolater c. And agaiâ— chap. 10.21 had told them they could 〈◊〉 drink of the cup of the Lord and of the cup divels What then why did he not malâ— his conclusion that we might have clearâ— understood to what end he quotes thoâ— Scriptures as a reason But let us a little follow him in thesâ— Scriptures and examine what they will make to prove these two things 1. That the Lord punished the Corinthians for personal unworthinesse 2. That they were punished for some other sins then what they were guilty of in the time of administration which is the main thing in hand As for 1 Cor. 5. he tels us not the Apostle that they could not keep the feast with malice c. the Apostle exhorts them to purge out the old leaven meaning that of the incestuous person speaking by way of an allusion to the law of the Passeover which were to purge their houses of all leaven against that feast which continued seven days resemblably he would have them purge themselves of that wicked person whom they had indulged amongst them and made the name of God to be evill spoken of by tolerating such sins amongst them as is not so much as named amongst the Gentiles that one should have his fathers wife c. therefore deliver him to Satan purge your selves of your former connivence and indulging such and then saith he let us keep the feast but not with malice and wickednesse c. but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth meaning that he would have them spend their whole lives so the Apostle tels them what he would have them doe and how they should keep the feast Mr. Collins tels us he told them they could not keep the feast c. but he that hath but half an eye may easily discern what this place is for his purpose This proves that scandalous persons should be cast out of all Christian Communion for the conclusion of the whole is in the last verse cast out from amongst your selves that wicked person which is the thing that I all along contend for the just censures of the Church but I would have none debarred their right till then But Mr. Collings might have given us some probable grounds to prove that the feast mentioned was the holy Supper and not to leave us to such uncertainties for if it be not meant of the holy Supper what is this to his purpose Let him shew us where the Supper of the Lord is called a feast and that this feast must needs be that but this is but a shift to hold up the old interest So hard a thing it is to come off from the authority of men especially when themselves are ingaged in such wayes that men have framed But then he goes on vers Answ 11. And not eat with one called a Brother This Scripture is more fully opened hereafter as also the 1 Cor. 10.21 who should be a fornicator an Idolater c. Mr. Collings should have cleared unto us what is meant by not eat whether not eat in a civil friendly necessary sense or not eat at the holy Supper with such during their actual abode in the Church If he mean the latter in reference to the Sacrament I shall demand of him where that word eat alone is to be taken for the holy Supper and if it be not meant of the holy Supper what is this to the thing in hand The 9 10. verses doe give us some light of the Apostles meaning He had wrote an Epistle to them not to keep company with the fornicators of the world But in this Epistle he mollifies the former with some liberty else they must goe out of the world his meaning is not to keep company in a civil friendly sense unnecessarily but if a brother be such a one keep no civil friendly company with him at all no not to eat upon unnecessary occasion And so for that 10. chap. 21. They could not drink of the cup of the Lord and of the cup Divels too The main sin the Apostle aims at in this chapter is Idolatry vers 14. These Corinthians being grafted into the Christian Church did bear up themselves upon their Church priviledges too high And hence grew fearlesse of Gods judgements notwithstanding
were morally unclean in his sense and what doe my principles plead for more in the Christian Church if I plead but for the same now that upon their lives was injoyned then even by the Lord himself I hope he will not charge it upon me that I make God unlike himself but if he will make the New Testament so contrary to the Old as to say the whole Church may not observe the Lords Supper his opinion will hardly be reconciled with the unchangeablenesse of the faithful true and living Lord God Thus I have given you to understand that the legally unclean were not lookt upon as unworthy to eat the Passeover at all And the sense that I have given upon 1 Cor. 11. pleads no otherwise in favour of the morally unclean as he cals them then the Old Testament doth injoyn One hint more let Mr. Collins prove that the legally unclean were expressely forbid the Passeover I am sure Moses knew of no expresse prohibition and therefore was at a stand when the case was brought before him and could not tell what to direct whether the unclean might keep it or forbear untill he had enquired of the Lord what they should doe Besides when the Passeover was rejourned to the last day multitudes did eat it that were not cleansed and were accepted of And the Lord said 2 Chron. 30.15 17 18 19 20. If any man of your posterity shall be unclean by reason of a dead body or be in a journey a far off yet he shall keep the Passeover unto the Lord Numb 9.10 here you see is an expresse command for the unclean man to keep the Passeover He kept the same Passeover at Gods appointed season as well as the rest of the Congregation for God appointing and sanctifying another season for them in special made the service the same in it self and to them And yet for all this what adoe have our late Divines made about this I could wish we might hear no more of it unlesse they can make better use of it then Mr. Collins doth Now I have answered three arguments that made him so hard of digesting this truth That the Corinthians were not punished for personal unworthinesse but for their actual offendings at the time of administration For the further helps of this hard digestion and edification and satisfaction of my Christian friends I she freely speak my heart for the clearing upoâ— this in question according to my measure for I know well enough that our mistake about worthinesse and unworthinesse of person in the Church hath done more hurt is this Church then all the Bishops ever did Our holy Apostle in 1 Cor. 7.14 haâ— clearly and sully exprest himself about habâ—tual worthinesse that if but one of marrias state were a believer the other infidel person was sanctified by the believing party and tels us that if it were not so their children they had between them were unclean but now are holy meaning that upon thâ— faith and entring into the Covenant of thâ— one their children enter covenant with thâ— parent and upon that account are a holy feed and federate with their parents in the priviledges of the Church as it was in the state of the Jews Church Why surely if the branches were holy then the root was holy also Now I say how can it be imagined that the Apostle will have the children holy even of those persons that in chap. 11. he judged personally unworthy Sure if the children were foederally holy then their parents were too for the right of the childe is derived from the believing state of the parents that was sufficient to free them from unworthy eating in respect of their persons And therefore the Apostle concludes that all things are sanctified to the Church by the Word and Prayer To the pure all things are pure but to the unbelieving and impure is nothing pure Here is a clear difference between the professing Church and the infidel world all is clean to the one but nothing clean to the other And therefore the Sacrament could not be polluted by the believing Corinths in respect of their persons It will follow then that it was profaned by their evill actions only The Apostle understood the nature of the Gospel Church better then those I have to deal with in this controversie He understood the right rule and accordingly reduced all unto it He distinguisheth between clean and unclean believer and infidel all was clean to the one and nothing clean to the other that except the Corinths had admitted Infidels unto the body and bloud of Christ to pollute it personal unworthinesse could not be the sin for which they were punished Heathenish uncleannesse the uncircumcised might not eat thereof I tell you this is that which hath undone us of late we make the same difference in the Church that the Apostle made between the Church and the world And all those Scriptures on which this difference is declared by the Apostle our Divines usually apply to the different state of persons in the Church the regenerate and unregenerate and accordingly would be dividing their people anâ— are as fearful many of them to admiâ— an unsound believer to the Sacrament as a uncircumcised Infidel but I hope those exorbitant distempers that some desperately plunge themselves into from the same mistakes will make sober men consider a last I know no such language used in Scripture concerning persons of the Church as thâ— any Church-members should be personally unworthy to use Gods Ordinance and â—serve God in his own appointments Indeeâ— for persons to reject the tenders and invitations of the Gospel to oppose and persecute the messengers that publish lise and salvation by Jesus Christ such are said to be unworthy of eternal life Act. 13.46 the Apostle Paul again tels the unbelieving Jews That it was necessary that the Word of God should have first been spoken unto you but seeing by envy contradiction and blaspheming vers 45. you put it from you and judge your selves unworthy of eternal life loe we turn to the Gentiles for sâ— hath the Lord commanded So our blessed Saviour Matth. 10 11 12 13 14. gave the twelve Commission to Preach that the Kingdome of Heaven is at hand c. they were rather to goe to the lost sheep of the house of Israel then to the Samaritans And when they came either into City Town or Family they were to salute it and preach peace unto them but if they were not worthy their peace should return and to those that would not receive them and hear their words they were to shake off the dust of their feet against them vers 14. with a grievous judgement threatned vers 15. against such people that refuse the Gospel when it is tendered unto them These are said not to be worthy that reject the Gospel wholly as the unbelieving Jews did which implyes those that receive the Gospel and believe the truth thereof and professe their subjection
in the power of aâ— to reform it Hence I conclude that as itâ— not applyable unto the rules of Church dicipline so it is such an avoidable thing 〈◊〉 Church-members that not any man of reson will plead the punishing of with suspeâ— sion from the Lords Supper If the Apostles meaning 1 Cor. 11. wenthat the Corinths were punished for habitâ—â— unworthinesse and that whosoever eats as drinks that is personally unworthy is guiâ—â— of the body and bloud of the Lord and 〈◊〉 eating his own damnation then these seâ—ral inconveniences and snares must necesâ— rily follow That there is not any Minister on cancan administer the Sacrament clearly in faiâ— because he cannot have a clear ground 〈◊〉 faith for him to believe that those he delive the Sacrament unto are habitually wortâ— from their interest in Christ so that 〈◊〉 must still lye under the bondage of fear aâ— doubt of his communicating with others 〈◊〉 the murder of Christ and eating and drinkin their own damnation That all weak doubting fearful Christian either Ministers or others that are not groundedly assured of their interest in Christ for acceptance in this service cannot come in faith for he that doubts is damned if he eat and what ever is not of faith is sin Such persons that are not upon good ground assured of the truth of their own worthinesse cannot be assured of their eating and drinking worthily but must of necessity lye under the fear of being guilty of what is threatned and so eat doubtingly if such venture to come which is sin or else they must forbear until they be assured or are fully perswaded of the truth of their own personal worthinesse And this would be the perplexity of most sincere Christians there being but few in comparison of those that arrive to any grounded assurance of their own justification sanctification salvation c. Hence we may concive that when Mr. Collins cals the Sacrament strong meat he means because there is not any but strong Christians that can partake thereof with satisfaction peace and comfort And so upon the matter he denyes it to be milk for babes as well as a means of working grace in those that want it That all blinde self-conceited Pharisees and senslesse secure carnal Christians formal confident hypocrites that never were acquainted with any saving work of grace upon their spirits may come to the Sacrament boldly for they doubt not of their good estate before God and hence they shall be 1. Either flattered in their grosse presumption by the Churches admittance of them Or 2. They must be bard out by such ban as the Scriptures no where make That hence Ministers of the Gospel aâ— forc'd to detract un worthily from Christs authority in hiscommanding this observance tâ— the whole Church disswading their people from this service due to Christ more then froâ— any other whatsoever and so will presume tâ— loose where Christ binds or else are forceâ— to suspend them illegally and so presume tâ— bind where Christ doth loose leave at liberty freely to serve him in his own appointments What a snare doth this kinde of unworthy eating bring upon all the unregenerate and doubting Christians If they neglect the Sacrament for want of personal worthinesse they sin in omitting so great a duty of publick worship if they observe it as well a they can yet being unworthy they eat anâ— drink their own damnation by being guilty of the bloud of Christ as some say What doth more occasion godly and tender consciences to withdraw Communion from our Parochial congregations gather Churches out of a Church then fear of personal unworthy eating and drinking in Sacramental Communion as for the external actionâ— in the present administration the deportments of all generally are such as are inoffensive and they doe not separate from us for the most part out of any other dislike of publique Worship That hence it is that we make the nature of Sacraments to clash with themselves in that we will not suffer them to meet in the same subjects and are afraid to administer the seal to those parents whose children we freely administer it unto but the resusal of the oâ—â—e followed home will soon destroy the administration to the other for in all Scripture Churches they always meet together in one and the same subject When Mr. Collins hath chewed well of these several things I hope he will finde in himself a better digesting of that which I have given of the Apostles sense And therefore in the next place I shall come to touch a little further of actual unworthinesse in reference to the Sacrament having clearly removed that miserable mistake of personal unworthinesse in order to unworthy receiving And indeed the whole controversie will be brought to actuall sinning for that is the very thing the Church of Corinth was blamed and punished for Then the dispute will lye in these few questions Whether any unworthy actions of persons in the Church makes them guilty of unworthy receiving more then of unworthy Communion in other special parts of publick worship or no Whether the Church be able to judge iâ— particular what persons in the Church upon tryal or otherwise will of necessity be guilty of the body and bloud of Christ and eaâ— judgement to themselves in the Apostle sense Whether the Church hath power to suspen Church-members from Sacramental Commâ—nion allowing them the priviledges of alâ— the other Ordinances I shall answer in the negative unto theâ—â— under favour to Mr. Collins or any otheâ— that shall endevour to give further satisfactions to the questions And to the first I haâ— hinted at already in answer to Mr. Colliâ— quotations 1 Cor. 5. chap. 10. all that bâ— hath said from those Scriptures doth noâ— amount to eating and drinking unworthily that was punished chap. 11. I have also in mâ— Book shewed at large what eating and drinking unworthily it was that was punished and which made guilty of the body anâ— bloud of Christ in short I conceive it weâ— an open abuse or a Sacrilegious profaning holy things to common use with other disorders in the very time of the administring the Lords Supper practically destroying the very essence and spiritual ends of Chrisâ—â— holy institution And upon this accounâ— alone they were guilty of the body and bloud of Christ and of eating judgement to themselves not for any other cause or sins they lay under but for this cause some are dead c. And whosoever they are that eat and drink the outward signes set apart by the Word and Prayer to represent the body and bloud of Christ unworthily as the Corinthians did are guilty of the same sin and lyable to the same judgements but that all other sinful actions committed before they come though not repented of doth make guilty of polluting the body and bloud of Christ and of judgement they demeaning themselves reverently and conformly as to the externals thereof is to me not only doubtful but
irrational and absurd And untill some better grounds be produced for the satisfaction hereof then Mr. Collins hath given I am not like to be answered in this very thing And let me tell Mr. Collins and all that are friends to his judgement that they must make out that very thing by holy Scriptures or else themselves will be forced to yeeld the cause and not so much as threaten their poor people any more with the murder of Christ and eating and drinking their own damnation for as to that which is visible which man is to judge of in the act of publick administration what fault can any of you finde I could wish that in all other publick Worship all persons would carry themselves as reverently and be as serious and intent in their attendance upon divine appointment It 's a strange thing to me that although you cannot charge upon your people the profanation of the holy Supper in that way that the Corinths were punished for yet you fright them with the same danger and are more severe in barring them from it then ever we read of by any Apostles or Elders in Scriptures In all other duties of publick worship you presse your people to be frequent in and to doe their homage to God as well as they can you will tell them is better then to neglect them And only touching this publick duty of the Sacrament you tell them they had better to forbear And it is a lesse sin not to come then to come although they come as prepared as they can When this is a duty incumbent to all in the Church that are baptized and of years sufficient to come under the obligation of positive precepts as any other is The usual grounds you have given will never hold because you have run your selves upon such mistakes about this main place of 1 Cor. 11. and I verily believe I have made such exceptions against the common interpretations of latter Divines that you will finde it a work of such difficulty to answer to satisfaction that you will be forc't either to deny our Church to be a true Church or else let the controversie fall I mean as it consists of all baptized members in general and act as true Scripture Churches have done both in the Old and New Testament I have seen what a deal of pains Mr. Collins hath taken to make good suspension from the Sacrament I have weighed his scripture arguments as heedfully as I am able with the judgement of the ancient and modern Divines and yet I cannot discern the least solid bottome for all that he hath said in that dispute to rest upon or trust in for my own satisfaction although God knows I have not the least prejudice against any authority he hath made use of but am willing to try all things And I purpose God willing to examine the main grounds of Scripture he hath concluded suspension from if I be not otherwise prevented hereafter in the mean time I shall goe on with this undertaking in hand I confesse were this true that personal unworthinesse in the Church did of necessity cause persons to eat and drink unworthily and so bring judgment or that the ignorant and scandalous amongst us that are actual offenders upon other accounts must of necessity eat and drink unworthily if they come and so bring judgement upon themselves for unworthy receiving there were some colour for to fright men and hinder them from coming to the Sacrament but if these things will not be sufficiently made good the ground of all our fears and scruples and devices is removed and taken away and we must conclude that so long as the outward administration is carryed on with reverence and external holinesse and goâ— order sutable to the institution and rules 〈◊〉 worship that there is no other unwortâ— communion in this part of Gods publiâ—â— worship then in the other parts thereof 〈◊〉 so much for the ignorant unregenerate Châ—â—stians are more carelesse and unreverent aâ— sluggish in hearing praying singing theâ— the Sacrament I cannot tell what men mâ— say to this I finde that Mr. Collins hâ— said but little to it notwithstanding my â—â—ging it so much in my Book he knowiâ—â— that if it be not fully answered all that 〈◊〉 hath said in favour of suspension will fall 〈◊〉 the ground and his book will be woâ—â— nothing I also shall in all humility desâ—â— Mr. Collins or any of his judgement to 〈◊〉 if they can make good the affirmative of tâ—â— next question Whether the Church be able to judge 〈◊〉 particular Quest what persons upon tryal wâ—â— eat and drink unworthily in the Apostlâ— sense Answ I say it 's a thing that the best Eldershâ—â— in the Church of England cannot certainlâ— know of any member beforehand for sâ—â— they finde one very ignorant of God anâ— Jesus Christ whom he hath sent and of Sâ—craments and all other worship yet 〈◊〉 being a baptized person and professing 〈◊〉 willingnesse to learn and to serve God it his publick worship as well as he can Upon what account can any disswade him from it as I have already proved in my Book the baptized as well as the circumcised come under all observance in the Church The which I shall have occasion to speak more fully unto hereafter when I come to that which Mr. Collins hath answered to that particular If you say such will eat and drink unworthily in the Apostles sense You cannot be sure of that which was seldome or never seen in our Congregations and for to disswade from a necessary duty of worship upon such a fear before hand that was seldome or never heard of is not very rational I shall easily grant that blinde obedience and service is sinful obedience And such lye under an unsutable frame of spirit to attempt any of the things of God that are holy and sacred But how doth this impotency and unsutable frame disengage them from duty and homage especially their reverential approaches unto Sacramental Communion being such as bears a good conformity to the main materials prescribed for the carrying on the external part of that service and men can judge but according to the outward appearance so that then there being no appearance of any open abuse and profaning holy things the Church cannot charge them with any other unworthy eating or drinking then praying and hearing and singing c. Which not any that are sober doth judge a ground competent to disswade from those duties Ignorant Church-members of years no objects of Church censures especially when they are willing to learn Besides ignorance is rather a meer want that cannot in many be helped for want of vision or plain instruction the which though it be threatned and punishable by the Lord yet comes not within the verge and cognisance of men to punish otherwise then it is punished in the effects of it yea even for the actual miscarriage of such c. Say again that some persons
baptism layes the same ingagement upon all the baptized to come under all observances of the New Testament administration that of the holy Supper as well as others hence the Apostle commends the Church of Corinth for remembring him in all things and for keeping the Ordinances as he delivered them unto them 1 Cor. 11.2 and it is not good to distinguish and dispute away duty where the Scriptures gives such a general warranty I know not well what he means by Christs commanding respectively if he judge that ours are within as the Church of Corinth were without doubt they are both under the observance and discipline of the Church If he judge that ours that are ignorant and scandalous are without then what hath he to do to judge those that are without there is no hope to amend them by discipline or ground to baptize their children or to justifie the main foundation of our Church As I said in my Book pag. 23. The Bar removed so I say again that Jesus Christ commands nothing for the hurt of his visible subjects they observing it according to their present capacity Can an instance be given in the Old or New Testament of any any that came under Circumsion or Baptism that as private members were admitted to all other Ordinances in the Church and yet were forbidden the other Sacrament the Passeover or the Lords Supper To this Mr. Collins answers with a meer trifle telling us That it will pose me to prove that those that had touched the dead body of a man might come at no ordinance but he can prove they might not come to the Passeover Numb 9. Enough hath been said to this already Answ I need but repeat Numb 19.13 20 22. The truth is what ever the unclean did touch or what ever toucht him were unclean Hag. 2. Vers 22 Nay such persons that neglected the Law for their purification were to be cut off from the Congregation because he had defiled the Sanctuary of the Lord. I might run through the several kindes of uncleannesse and shew you how they were separated both from civill as well as holy society but those that are acquainted with Scriptures will be satisfied in this thing Nay as I have noted before the Lord appointed and consecrated a season on purpose for the unclean to keep the Passeover but not so of any other Ordinance they were deprived of in the time of their uncleannesse Mr. Collins sayes Nor is that whimzy of mine pag. 25. at all better by which I prove the receiving of the Sacrament a duty incumbent upon all because included in the first Table he sayes it will pose me to prove that this duty of receiving is commanded in the first Table if it were yet he hopes preaching of the Word is so also which yet is not a duty enjoyned to all but to those only who are appointed thereto If that of mine must goe under the reproach of a whimzy with Mr. Collins Answ I know as reverend and as able Divines as Mr. Collins appears to be that doe judge that the affirmative part of the second Commandement includes all Gods institute worship which at any time he hath or shall prescribe to be done And except Mr. Collins will deny the holy Supper to be a part of Gods instituted worship it must come under this prescribed worship as well as any other there being no part exprest in the command more then another it 's enough to prove that all in the Church come under the precepts of worship the Sacrament being so they are bound to that as well as all other but then he seems to grant the thing yet he hopes so is preaching of the Word c. It 's true and as I had said in my Book pag. 25 That all Ministers what ever are bound hence to preach c. And what need we have the same again but that he had rather puzle then satisfie the weak We know that which lays an injunction upon Ministers to preach or administer c. doth also injoyn all their people to hear and receive as private Christians the Commandement doth not confound relative duties although Mr. Collins of purpose doth to deceive his Reader And me thinks it might make him blush to call that a whimzy in me which is so ordinarily delivered by as reverend men as himself and a great deal more But the Judicious Reader may easily judge what poore shifts he is put unto that excepts against the truth Let Mr. Collins give us some rational account why persons in the Church are lesse ingaged unto this part of instituted worship then all others that all of the Jews Church should come under the Law of the Passeover without exception good and bad And he to plead no duty to the holy Supper of persons in the Church too they being not worse then the carnal Jew I see not but upon the same ground he exempts them from this duty he may exempt them from all others that are essential to a Church state and so consequently not only unduty them but unchurch them too For what he hath said before implies no lesse where he is bold to undisciple them to evade this argument we draw from the command of Christ Matth. 28.20 The Doctor was somewhat sharp with my much respected friend Mr. Humfrey for making the act of receiving the principal and examination but an accessory in my vindicating of him I hinted two or three things 1. That the duty of self-examination is but a private duty And the private is to be subordinate to the publick 2. This duty of examination was prescribed occasionally as a remedy to that particular case of making a breach upon the materials of divine institution and order And we may safely say the end is most principal the means lesse 3. Where a true Church doth not so offend as Corinth did this duty is not so to be urged upon them as to the Church of Corinth But it 's clear there is not the same offending in the Church of England as there was at Corinth Therefore that duty is not to be urged upon ours with the same necessity of danger of eating and drinking unworthily as to the Church of Corinth Unto these Mr. Collins hath some exceptions 1. Whether it be sense or no he cannot tell that I say self-examination is a private duty and so subordinate to the publick and then sayes who denyes it But yet he questions whether upon an incapacity or neglect of the private the publick be a duty for where a private duty is commanded in order to prepare us for the publick we cannot without sin perform the publick before we have performed the private cleansing were the unclean persons private duty yet till it was done he might not come to the Passeover 1. Answ Though I grant self-examination a requisite duty unto a profitable receiving and judge the neglect thereof sinful yet so long as the publique administrations are carryed on with reverence
promises of the first grace are not only free but absolute not so depending upon condition of faith in a strict sense as many other promises doe yet not so absolute but that the ordinary means of salvation ought to be observed diligently in order â—o attainment of the first grace for God will â—e enquired after by the house of Israel for the grace of the New Covenant Ezek. 36. My fourth proposition is That the whole â—dministration of the Covenant belongs to those in he Church that are the immediate objects of the â—bsolute promises in order to the Lords putting these â—romises into execution Mr. Collinâ— saith If the argument be good it 's â—etcht from the right which an interest in the Coâ—enant promises gives one to the seals of it And â—hen it must hold universally and if the unregeneâ—ate world without be as much objects of the first â—ace as those within there is no reason for that â—striction It seems Mr. Answ Collins would not have the â—romises of first grace be limited unto the Church but would have the unregenerate â—ut of the Church as much objects as those within for indeed he is ready at every pinch â—o level the unregenerate in the Church to the â—n fidel world Therefore I shall endevour to clear unto you the difference in this particular briefly â—t may be I may publish more of this hereafâ—er It is evident that the whole Covenant of grace is made unto the Church in general terms without any exception of persons in â—t as is clear Jer. 31. Heb. 8. Ezek. 36. A â—ew Covenant I will make with the house of Judah and Jerusalem in which Covenant thâ— promise of the first grace is most expresse anâ— full the state of the Jews Church consâ—â—ing most of carnal members that were proper objects of the promises of first grace Why the Gentile world as carnal and bâ—miserable yet this Covenant containing thâ— first grace was never made to them at all bâ— upon condition of faith and grafting them selves into the same visible body as they aâ— Infidels and without They are aliens from 〈◊〉 Common wealth of Israel strangers to the Covenâ— of promises and without all hope and withâ—â— God in the world Ephes 2.12 How can the be said to be as much objects of the promiâ— of the first grace that are without as theâ— that are within when they are alienatâ— from all during that Infidel state It 's tâ—â— there is a promise that all the Nations 〈◊〉 the earth shall be blessed in Abraham but iâ— runs in conditional tearms as they are iâ— him they must first be brought into him and be of the true Church that Abraham waâ— father of before they can be blessed in him and so the Apostle expounds it They that aâ—â— of faith are blessed with him and ye are all eveâ— the whole Church Jews and Gentiles thâ— children of Abraham by faith in Christ Jesus And not any others in the world that remained in their infidel estate This difference is clearly intimated by the Apostle Peter Act. 2.39 when he speaks of the Jews that were of the Church by nature as descended from Abraham he tels them plainly The promise is to them and their children speaking in the present tense But then speaking of the Gentiles he saith the promise is intended unto them also but with another restriction then to the Jews even unto as many as it shall please the Lord our God to call of them at any time for the future and to none else they of the infidel world must be externally called at least and planted into the visible Church of Christ by baptism before they and theirs can be children of the promise and in Covenant relation As the Pagan world is without the promise of the first grace so we know they are without the ordinary means of working that grace if they be as much objects of the promise of first grace as the unregenerate in the Church What 's the reason the Lord denyes them the ordinary means of putting them into execution The Apostle saith If our Gospel be hid or withheld from persons or people it 's hid to them that perish Our own experience will convince us that those that are without are not so much objects of the promise of first grace as them within because we see the fruit of it in the Church in every age and time in the conversion of many but scarse any age of a hundred generations we have heard of any conversions in some part of the Pagan world Hence I judge there is a real difference between the Church and the Pagan world in respect of the one they are objects of the promises the other without promise and hope and God in the world and me thinks Mr. Collins and the friends of his judgement they being godly sober Orthodox Divines should be satisfied with this difference I have only hinted at in short for my part I think there is nothing more clear and easie to be made out from holy Scriptures were not men of his judgement too much learned with Brownism destroying that which our firâ— reformers have planted I must confesse it 's nothing becoming my calling and abilities to challenge any learned reverend men yet I doubt not but through the assistance of Gods grace to maintain this difference I have in short laid down against all the contradiction of sober Orthodox men provided they will dispute it from the authority of holy Scriptures and what may be clearly and rationally deducted thence Next Mr. Collins is pleased to put my proposition into form pag. 34. Those to whom the absolute promises of the Covenant belong to those the whole administration of the Covenant and so the seals belong But to the unregenerate in the Church and of years the promises belong Ergo. He saith Let but belong in each proposition be understood in the same sense and the answer is easie and the argument weak c. I will yeild him that which he desires Answ and take it in that sense which is most large namely that the promises of first grace belong to the unregenerate in the Church then he denies the major and saith That by this argument Heathens may come to the Sacrament I say no unlesse Mr. Collins can prove that the Heathen are as much objects of the absolute promises in the Covenant as the unregenerate in the Church I think when he hath performed that task soundly and undeniably I shall yeild the argument weak and think the worse of my cause but untill then he must give me leave to think the argument strong for any thing he hath yet said in answer of it He only saith it That no promise doth so belong to any unregenerate man as his portion which he may cleare and make use of it in his unregeneracy What thinks Mr. Collins then of the baptizing the Infants of such Answ 1 the usual practise of our Church How can he perswade such to offer
supposes faith It 's sufficient for our opinion because all in the Church doe accept of the Covenant and have faith And we doe not plead for Heathens untill they believe and come under baptism But surely the death of Christ confirmed the everlasting Covenant out of which faith with the fruits thereof freely flow And I think Sacraments are no other wayes seals then they are signs of his death as it is said This cup is the new Covenant in my bloud the cup was not really the new Covenant but a sign thereof representatively as I have hinted before Yet surely saith Mr. Collins those that are in a state of unbelief are not in Covenant though they may be objects of Gods first free grace Answ If they be not in the everlasting Covenant they cannot be said to be objects of Gods first free grace for doubtlesse God gives grace to none that are out of that Covenant himself grants that the elect are enrold in the everlasting Covenant and many of them may be in the Church I hope though in a state of unbelief in his sense and doubtlesse it is for the elects sake that we have an external administration a Church consisting of most bad that his elect may be gathered out of all sorts of sinners and others left without excuse is this wise contrivance of the ever blessed God And hence this mingled state of good and bad must grow together untill the harvest experience doth tell us what precious wheat hath sprung out of the roots of wicked tares And wicked tares have sprung out of the roots of the choycest wheat let that convince us Mr. Collins saith That argument about baptism hath been answered again and again The argument is this If parents that are ignorant and scandalous in the Church be so much in Covenant as to give their children right unto holy baptism a seal of the Covenant then themselves have right to the holy Supper it being but the seal of the same Covenant The antecedent is granted by Mr. Collins and all that are friends to his judgement and yet they deny the consequence because they say more is required to the Lords Supper then unto Baptism Unto this I answer It cannot be proved that in in the Apostles days more was required unto the Supper then to baptism of persons of years it 's clear enough that which prepared them for baptism brought them into the Church And that being once within they had the priviledges of the Church accordingly is without question Lesse is required unto Covenant seals of persons born in the Church they being free born to all the priviledges of this spiritual Corporation then of those that are aliens and strangers by birth these obtain their freedom upon the terms of faith and repentance The ignorant and scandalous are in as good a capacity of the Supper of the Lord as their children are of the baptism of the Lord they being under Church indulgence First They are in an active capacity of exercising the understanding heart and conscience memory with all the externals required unto that service their children are meerly passive for the other Secondly Parents are in possession of the feals of themselves but their children before baptism are not Parents in the Church derive as much right from their Ancestors as their children doe untill they be discovenanted if not more as being a generation neerer that right If parents Covenant relation be sufficient to give right to the seals for his childe then surely for himself Besides the contradiction in the other opinion of Mr. Collins as first he pleads the Covnaâ—nt for the parents unto their childrens baptism and then disputes them out of Covenant in his admission unto the holy Supper They shall be accounted believers as to the one but unbelievers as to the other The promise is to them and their children in order unto baptism but then in order to the holy Supper there is no more promise belongs unto them then unto Pagans And there is no promise made to any that have not faith to apply them and so exclude children from the promise too at last for they have not such a faith as to apply the promises Thus you may see he is a Presbyterian in practice and an Anabaptist in opinion For if his judgement be true about baptism then it 's false about the holy Supper if his judgement be true about the Supper then it 's false about baptism for both are the same seal of the same Covenant exhibited only by different figns People had need be well setled and satisfied of themselves in these times that keep their station in the Church where they have such Teachers and meet with such opinions that destroy all The truth is our straightnesse in the one and largenesse in the other doth destroy it self and doth occasion most intelligent Christians either to fall off from Infant baptism or else to restrain it to those that are judged fit to be received into holy Communion in the Lords Supper Had it not been for our own scruples about admitting to the Supper casting off the most of Church-members from Communion under the notion of ignorant and scandalous we had never known of these exorbitances in the Church which now we suffer under by the separations It is an easie thing for Mr. Collins to say the argument is answered again and again not telling us by whom nor how But if it be not better answered then he hath done it in his answer to Mr. Barksdel he must answer it again or else it must be unanswered and cleave close unto him still as such a Church-rent that he will never free himself of unlesse he alter his judgement which he will finde the readiest way of the two In his 15. pag. to Mr. Barksdels 10. argument for free admission he puts in three exceptions He grants children are baptized in their parents right but yet can see no reason why it should necessarily be the immediate parent True for sometimes it may fall out Answ that both parents may be excommunicate or turn'd Apostates in these cases it 's not necessary but otherwise being of the true Christian Church and faith the ignorant and scandalous being in actual Church-membership and baptized give as true a legal right to their childs baptism as any other member what ever so long as their own right holds their childs right doth also and that immediately from them is to the sober unquestionable Indeed if parents be never so really godly and unbaptized their childrens right to baptism must either be derived from Ancestors or else have none at all a visible peofession of faith in persons baptized gives a true right for their childe to the Sacramental seal and consequently for themselves to the same seal of the Supper there was the same danger for the neglect of the Passeover as for circumcision He saith further There is no self-examination prerequired unto baptism but to the Supper a man must
examine himself and so let him come Philip put it upon the Ethiopian Eunuch Answ to examine whether he believed with all his heart or no in order unto baptism And I think that was more then the other of Paul to the Corinths Baptism to men of years was upon the condition of a personal faith without which they might not be baptized implyed by this If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayst otherwise not but there is no such thing in order to the Supper they were to examine themselves and so come it cannot be reasonably conceived of that if they neglected this private duty they should not come for it was their duty to come together to celebrate the Supper but not to profane it for the worse Profession of faith was a publick duty in order to baptism without which they could not be baptized but examination but a private duty left to God and our own consciences which no publick officers have to doe with concerning others but to instruct and to exhort unto the duty c. they have not the like warrant to require an account whether the private hath been performed much lesse to debar them upon a supposal of non-performance or prejudge of their incapacity before hand and so discourage from coming together for which we have not one syllable of warrant but I have spoken enough to this already Remember the abuse of the Brazen Serpent He saith The children of the legally unclean were not forbid circumcision but the unclean man might not eat the Passeover The unclean during his uncleannesse Answ 1 might not circumcise his child circumcision being instituted a token of the Covenant which an unclean man might no more defile and make unclean then any other religious service And what though it were to be done the eight day it might be rejourned for a week upon the same reason as the Passeover was for a month and circumcision in another case for forty years we know the rule in cases of necessity God will rather have mercy then sacrifice There is no legal uncleannesse in the Church now and therefore this doth not so much as reach the argument and indeed his other two are as little for his turn he must finde a better answer then so or tell us where to finde one or else the argument will cleave so close that he will be forced to narrow Infant baptism unto the holy Supper or enlarge the Supper unto Infant Baptism or be irrational and absurd in so flat a contradiction as hath been hinted And to prevent some mistake let me intreat the Reader carefully to consider That although I have said that more is required unto the Supper then unto Baptism It is to be understood in the Church of persons that are Church-members by nature But of Aliens I conceive more is required of them unto baptism then of Church-members unto the Supper especially when they were members by birth priviledge The ground is this because a publick profession of faith is necessary for the admitting of a Heathen into the visible Catholick Church by baptism And so of his entring the Gospel Covenant for himself and seed but to them that are in Covenant by birth it is otherwise their Covenant right remains untill it be forfeited by renouncing the Covenant or hating to be reformed by the Churches just censures And while they are in the Covenant and in the Church they may not be denyed the external priviledges thereof although they be transgressors of the Covenant c. But to proceed and come more close to the query in hand namely Whether there be any thing in the nature end action language of the Sacrament incongruous to the unregenerate in the Church receiving in 1 Cor. 11. or elsewhere To which I have in the general shewed a congruity between the Sacrament and the unregenerate in the Church And have answered unto Mr. Collins exceptions against me Now we come more directly to the query and to what is excepted against us I must confesse in pag. 36. Bar removed there is a great mistake but who were faulty in it I cannot well tell the 19. line is out of place and is to be prefixed to my three arguments to prove the Sacrament a converting Ordinance pag. 40. for that which follows page 36. line 19. is to demonstrate a sutablenesse or congruity in the Sacrament to the unregenerate mans receiving where the particulars of the question are examined and cleared And hence Mr. Collins followes the mistake and makes himself merry with those three new arguments as he had thought they were but he findes the first as old as Pauls steeple And the third proves a Monkies right to the Sacrament in his pag. 35 36. I confesse my nature inclines me too much to give him returns sutable unto his vein of levity Answ but I shall rather choose to keep to the question and inform the Reader again touching this question in hand I laid down the nature of the Sacrament to be a visible Gospel representing Christ and him crucified to the outward senses of the body to that end that they might be the in lets of the soul to give the application of the benefits of Christs death to the heart and conscience And I thought the unregenerate in the Church have as much need of the use of all their senses to understand Christ and him crucified and to apply the benefits that come by him as the regenerate and more they being more dull to understand or to be affected with the benefits and blessings that come to sinners by vertue thereof Unto this Mr. Collins saith Bravely concluded from need to right is wide concluding I conclude from the nature of the Sacrament Answ 1 c. That therefore the unregenerate in the Church have need to be allowed the use of all their senses to let in the knowledge of Christ as the regenerate they being more dull c. And hence I conceive a congruity unto such he sayes from need to right is wide concluding The question is not to prove a right but a congruity or rather to free the unregenerate from the charge of incongruity c. unto which Mr. Collins excepts nothing against the nature of it In spiritual things unto the Church I much question whether it be wide concluding from need to right I am sure need and wants are the only objects of Gods free bounty in giving Christ and all he gives with him With him the fatherlesse and desolate finde mercy If any want wisdome let them ask it of God who gives freely What though from need to right doth not alwayes hold in the Courts of men it 's a good plea in the Court of free grace and well taken when sinners come off in the use of Gods own appointments for the obtaining of a blessing of supply unto their necessities In the next place we are to examine what Mr. Collins excepts against the end of the Sacrament as I have exprest
premises Answ 1 the conclusion needs no proof If the same instruments of the Spirit unto conversion be in the administration of the Sacrament as at the other parts of the Ministerial work in the Church then we must allow the fame effect to the one as to the other both being the Ordinance of God and performed by persons in the Office and Function of the Ministry But in the administration of the Sacrament are the same instruments of the Spirit unto conversion as Word Prayer c. Therefore the Sacrament is appointed for conversion in the Church Whereas he sayes Then doubtlesse the excommunicate should not be debarred it is no consequence because converting of sinners is not all the ground why God commands his Church to observe all things of his prescribing but his own glory in commanding what he will because he will Besides 2. Bar removed pag. 70 71 72 73. The excommunicate should be put out of all Church Communion in all other parts of publick worship as well as from the Sacrament as I have made it out in my answer unto Doctor Drake which is not yet answered by any 3. This implyes that the unregenerate are not to doe any thing by way of duty but what is for conversion not be diligent in their callings shew mercy and doe justly c. because these duties are not appointed to convert them Next all men confesse that the Word and Prayer as they are publick Ordinances of God are for conversion in the Church But without the Word and Prayer sanctifying and setting apart the elements of Bread and Wine there can be no Sacrament Therefore the Sacrament as consisting in Word and Prayer is converting This Mr. Collins tearms A thread-bare argument that hath a great hole in it For though the Word and Prayer are means of conversion and they doe constantly attend the Sacrament yet it doth not follow that the Sacrament quà Sacrament is so nor is there any need for conversion that the unregenerate should be at it for they may hear and pray and not receive Why did not Mr. Collins really discover a hole in the argument by some solid answer but fancy a hole before it be made he confesses the Word and Prayer are means of conversion and so grants my major and upon the matter grants my minor by saying that Word and Prayer doe constantly attend the Sacrament but yet he is not willing to yeeld the conclusion which is not very rational I concluding no more then what he grants in the propositions But he saith It will not follow that the Sacrament quà a Sacrament is converting either he must mean that the giving and receiving without word and Prayer is the Sacrament quà a Sacrament or that giving and receiving the signes in relation to Word Prayer conjoyned is the Sacrament quà a Sacrament If he means the former let him prove that giving and receiving the signes of Bread and Wine without Word and Prayer is the Sacrament If the latter then in his granting the premises he yeilds the conclusion and thus you may quickly see what a great hole the hath made in this argument But then he saith Nor is there any need for conversion that the unregenerate should be at it for they may pray and hear and not receive No! Answ is there no great need of converting the unregenerate I had thought they have great need to take the advantage of every Ordinance in the Church appointed for their spiritual good and in order to conversion And have not they as much need to enjoy the benefit of instituted signes conjoyned to the Word and Prayer to represent the death and passion of Jesus Christ unto the outward senses which are the inlets to the understanding heart and conscience as any others But then he sayes They may hear and pray and not receive It 's true so may any other doth it therefore follow that none may receive or that hearing and praying in order to receiving is sufficient without taking and eating and drinking the institute signes in remembrance of the death of Christ Or would he have them to hear and pray in order to receiving and then turn their backs upon Gods holy Ordinance after they have prayed unto God for his blessing upon it The Reverend Doctor said That presence might answer this end unto which I answered If bare presence much more actual receiving But now Mr. Collins sayes That they cannot promise them that their presence will do them good but they are sure he saith their receiving will not And hence concludes my consequence is naught Who can promise before-hand that any other Ordinance in the Church shall doe the unregenerate good by their presence at the time shall they not therefore give their presence It 's the language of Scripture that all in the Church are to keep Gods statutes and judgements for their good But he is sure their receiving will doe them no good I wonder how he dare limit the holy One and detract so injuriously from the wisdome power and grace of Christ in his own appointments He hath confessed before that the Sacraments were instituted for the spiritual good of the visible Church of Christ in general and that this Church consists of good and bad and now he sayes the Sacrament wil doe the unregenerate no good Doth he think the unregenerate are not of the visible Church that Sacraments were instituted for the good thereof The judicious Reader may easily discern how consonant he is to his own judgement in more things then this But this antecedent of his That he is sure their receiving will doe them no good is sufficient to publish to the world that my consequence is naught c. in answer to the Doctor But why doth Mr. Collins give us his argument for the negative He turns me over to Mr. Gillespy that hath twenty arguments I suppose himself may use some of them in his answer to Mr. Barkesdales 9. argument wherein he seemes to make a shew of silenceing all men that hold the Sacrament a converting Ordinance pag. 14. And because the argument which he answers unto is the same with mine I shall crave leave of Mr. Barksdale to examine in brief the strength of his because he thinks he hath done enough at once to shew thevanity of our opinion 1. He argues from the absurdities that will follow Then it is as proper to go to the Heathen and call them to a Sacrament in order to their conversion as to preach the Gospel unto them It concerns Mr. Collins to prove that every Ordinance in the Church instituted for the good thereof Answ 1 doth belong unto Heathen and such and may be used for their good Let him prove that the unbaptized Heathen are as much in Covenant relation and under the obligation of all Christian observance as the unregenerate Christian Let him prove that whatsoever is for conversion in the Church is for the good of Heathens as
well as preaching the Gospel The exercise of discipline is for converting an offending brother doth it follow that Church discipline is to convert Heathens to whom it never was intended or appointed Besides we know the unbaptized is not to eat thereof were there the like ground to the unregenerate Christian I should be satisfied Thus you may see even in the very thing wherein he would charge absurdity upon us it will return upon himself by putting no difference between the Church of Christ and the Infidel world He sayes If the Sacrament be a converting Ordinance there can be no personal unworthinesse sufficient to debar any from it then come Turks Indians Papists excommunicate persons c. This is but the same again in other words Answ which I have answered again and again all along here is a plain levelling the Church with the world again as if the same personal unworthinesse were in the Church as is in the world doth it follow that because no personal unworthinesse in the Church is sufficient to debar any from the Sacrament but only actual persisted in unto excommunication that therefore there is no personal unworthinesse in the unclean Pagan world that lies in unbelief They must first receive the Doctrine of the Gospel before they can be brought into the Church where the Sacraments are to be administred And as for those that are in Covenant-relation and in possession of Church-membership it 's true personal unworthinesse can be no bar because in a relative sense there is no such thing in the Church but I have said enough to this already He saith If it be a converting Ordinance he can see no reason why the Communicant should be bound to examine himself and so eat or whether he hath skill to discern the Lords body The Word and Prayer are converting Ordinances Answ and yet he may see reason enough to urge upon such preparation and caution prerequisite and concomitant in those duties of hearing and praying if he examine the Scriptures in order to a blessing the same may be said of the Sacrament if Mr. Collins be not too perverse But then he comes to speak distinctly to the argument He distinguisheth between converting by accident or by institution designed unto that end in an Ordinancel hearing of the Word is such faith comes by hearing Rom. 10. Hear and your soul shall live let any shew us a Scripture speaking to this purpose concerning the Lords Supper 'T is true faith comes by hearing Answ and hearing by the Word of God But doth it follow that all other Ordinances are excluded from being a means of working sincere faith in the Church when they are joyned with the Word in the work of the Ministry as hath been said already That of Rom. 10. proves that it is not possible that any should call upon the name of the Lord in whom they have not beleived And how should they believe in him of whom they have not so much as heard of And how shall they hear without a Preacher c. which is spoken to the case of Heathens that never heard of Christ Such must of necessity hear Christ before they can believe in him And this faith comes by hearing and this hearing by the Word of God by a Preacher sent This was the ordinary means of bringing persons into the Church that were Pagans born and then being within they had the benefit of all other Ordinances in the Church for their edification and salvation What then will it follow hence that persons born in the Church that draw in the knowledge of Christ by education and tradition in their youth cannot believe or have faith in any other way but by hearing only The promise is that whosoever shall call upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved in opposition to those that never heard of his Name Salvation is of the Christian Church as once of the Jews unto which promise of Salvation all the Ordinances set up in the Church are subservient The work of the Ministry was to be carryed on by the Pastors and Teachers fixed unto their several flocks in the Church which they are constantly to attend upon for the spiritual good thereof as they which must give an account thereof unto their Lord and it concerns them faithfully to carry on the whole work of their Ministry accordingly towards their whole flock and not to make Heathens of them then content themselves onely with preaching unto them on the Lords day and the work is done as if there were no more care to be taken with Church-members then with Pagans nor no more means to be used for their spiritual good then they would use unto Heathen whom the work of the Ministry was never intended for And whereas Mr. Collins cals for proof Where are the like Scriptures to prove the Sacrament a converting Ordinance as is preaching and hearing I answer him by distinguishing thus hearing of faith preached was and is the ordinary means of sincere believing in the Church of which the Sacrament is a special part Befides the Sacrament cannot be administred without hearing the Word of God and prayer with the use of other senses as it is the visible compendium of the whole Gospel holding forth Christ crucified for remission of fins But to speak a little unto his other quotation Isai 55. Hear and your souls shall live This was spoken unto the Church he will say I grant it was and more then this too as that chapter shews That first they were invited to come unto God in whom all spiritual blessing was to be had for the satisfying of every empty thirsty soul and disswaded from thinking to be satisfied elsewhere Secondly exhorted unto several duties 1. To hearken diligently unto what the Lord had said unto them and be satisfied with good Then 2. incline your ear and come unto me that you may be satisfied with the fatnesse of my house They were to hear and come to God too in all holy obedience for in the Scriptures men are said not to hear when they will not regard to doe what the Lord hath commanded them so hear that your souls may live hear and doe is the language of the holy Ghost to the Church usually 3. Then to seek God while he will be found and to call upon him him while he is neer seek him in all his own appointments and Ordinances where he hath promised his presence 4. Then is subjoyned Let the wicked forsake his way and the unrighteous man his thoughts And let him return unto the Lord and he will have mercy on him c. Therefore you may easily conceive here is not only hear and your soul shall live but all other duties of worship and observance are required also in the Church in order to a blessing of spiritual life and there are promises of grace and mercy unto the Church in that same chapter upon their doing their duties enjoyned the which doth make good the
out of the Church we should reprove instruct admonish and warn every sinner to flye the wrath to come And this we ought to doe towards all in our places and callings as private Christians And hence I conceive that Mr. Collins is hugely mistaken that stretcheth the metaphor of dogs to any kinde of sinners that the Scriptures compare to dogs for other kinde of properties of dogs as worthlesnesse greedinesse barking or licking up their vomit c. the text is of such dogs that will tear and scorn you for the best counsel you can give them for the good of their souls And me thinks that the same ground Mr. Collins goes upon to allow all the other holy things unto Heathens the Excomunicate c. might satisfie him as rationally to allow the Sacrament unto the ignorant and scandalous in the Church all that he pleads to the other is from some other Scripture warrant and I appeal unto the Impartial to judge between us whether Pastors and Teachers of their respective flocks be not as much bound by Christs command to administer the holy Supper unto their particular flocks consisting of Church-members disciples baptized and not excommunicated as to administer the other holy Ordinances unto Heathen the Excommunicate c. I think I have said enough as to the former from Mat. 28.20 to give full satisfaction Let me tell our Author and the world that although it be sufficiently taught in the holy Sciptures to deny the unbaptized and Excommunicate the holy Supper yet this text in debate doth not forbid it at all to those that are without or under Church censures much lesse doth it forbid the Sacrament to those that are within which is the thing Mr. Collins quotes it to prove And thus in short I have answered to the main of Mr. Collins strength as touching this place And I humbly conceive have broke his argument drawn from this text to make good his principal Syllogism pag. 4. That there may be some baptized persons in the Church not cast out to whom the Sacrament may not lawfully be given And he must quit himself a great deal better then in his book to make good his two propositions from this text before he can conclude any thing for his purpose And truly I think it was an acceptable service both to God and the poor Church in Mr. Boteman who so presently addrest himself to redeem a captive text so wofully wrested to perplex and disturb the poor Churches peace in seting up an invention of men which Jesuâ— Christ commanded not And for his assumption That the Sacrament is a holy thing and a Pearl and there may be some in the Church not cast out who in Scripture phrase are Dogs and Swine Ergo c. It 's true Answ 1 the Sacrament is a holy thing but it doth not therefore follow that it iâ— that which is holy meant in the Text nor forbid to be given upon that reason our Saviour gives for fear of being rent c. And though it be granted that there are some in the Church that are such kinde of dogs that are irreproveable that will not endure a private reproof it will not follow that therefore they are not to be reproved Ministerially by persons in Office in their publick preaching nor that they may not authoritatively be reproved and admonished and censured by the Church Juridically for their desperate rayling dogged miscarriages if there be any such offending brethren why are they not dealt withall according unto the right rule Matth. 18. 1 Cor. 5. If any persons in the Church be objects of Excommunication I judge such are and then judge whether Suspension be sufficient where Excommunication should and ought to take place provided they be obstinate otherwise Church admonition may be a sufficient remedy to reform such scandalous sinners Hence judge how pertinent this text is made use of to prove suspension of some from the Sacrament that as members of the Church may be allowed Communion with the Church in all other spiritual acts of worship How this proves Suspension of some distinct from Excommunication I leave to the freedome of your own Judgements to judge of In the next place without any wrong to the Author I shall examine his third Scripture argument deducible from 1 Cor. 5. rather choosing to follow the Apostles order in this Epistle because by answering of this first it will save me some labour in my answer to his second 1 Cor. 10.17 His Argument is this It is unlawfull for the Officers of the Church to give the Sacrament to such with whom it is unlawful for themselves or their brethren to eat But there may be some in the Church not cast out with whom it may be unlawful for the Church to eat Ergo. I question the truth of his first proposition Answ 1 by distinguishing of a friendly familiar unnecessary eating and of a true necessary eating Now in a civil sense I may not have friendly unnecessary familiarity with scandalous brethren though not cast out but may withdraw from all friendly unnecessary familiarity from such as a means to bring them to shame but it does not follow therefore that I upon my necessary occasions in my Calling must shun such but that I may set such a one a work and admit him to my Table he being not cast out though scandalous or a poor man may work for a scandalous rich man and eat at his Table with him c. or upon a journey and divers such cases with relations c. Therefore the same persons that I may not eat with the same persons I may eat with so that if the Apostle in 1 Cor. 5.11 mean but civill eating his first proposition is not good nor very clear which he would have his Reader to believe without any doubt or proof If we may eat with a scandalous brother not legally cast out as before then we may have company and eat with such at the Sacrament because giving and receiving at the Sacrament is our necessary duty as professing Christians and Church-members which I have sufficiently proved before the which the worst offenders in the Church may not carelessely neglect so long as they are in a Church capacity to receive and that capacity remains untill the Church authoritatively have put them out of Church Communion as Members And then and not until then are scandalous brethren disobliged from publick duties of worship and hence his argument that he draws from the lesser to the greater is fallacious and that must needs be the bottome of his argument For there is but few Interpreters otherwayes expound it but of a civil eating And himself seems most confident in that argument in its place And therefore he should have proved his main proposition namely That it is unlawful to give the Sacrament to those in the Church not Excommunicate with whom in some cases it is unlawful to eat in a civil sense And for to take it for not
from the Sacrament only Nay the Church is not blamed for their giving the Sacrament to that incestuous member but for not punishing him for his sin by excommunication hence we may doe things that are commanded and lawful with scandalous brethren not cast out by Excommunication Although this incestuous person was in Church Communion and fellowship with them in all the Ordinances yet the Apostle in the 10. chapter tels them vers 17. We being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of that one bread meaning the Sacrament and the incestuous person was one of that all and they were commended for keeping the Ordinances of the Church chap. 11.2 and not blamed nor punished for any such cause as their admitting of an incestuous person nor was he punished with others that the Lord was angry with for the profaning his Ordinance in the very time of that observance therefore it 's not well doing in one that is scandalous and not cast out that doe leaven the whole but his doing and living in that which is wicked and being let alone through Church negligence that leavens the lump The Apostle no where saith if one that is called a Brother be an ignorant person or unregenerate or one that cannot pray ex tempore c. with such doe not eat but he instances in scandalous sins only I confesse Mr. Collins hath a great many words about this no not eat with such which had he applyed to a Brother Excommunicate it would be yeelded him but his argument is a different thing for it 's of a Brother not cast out by Excommunication 1. Can any disoblige a brother from his necessary duties of instituted Worship that is not under the binding power of the keyes of Christs Kingdome 2. Are we as much to decline friendly familiarity to a scandalous brother within and not so much as brought to his tryal as to one that is cast out for continuing obstinate in his sin 3. As the case doth not hold so much as to necessary company and civil eating as hath been hinted much lesse will it hold in duties of commanded worship Christs commands are of more force to oblige his visible subjects then the private prohibitions of a single Pastor with his intruded Elders It 's true they can excommunicate as well as suspend from the Sacrament but I humbly desire such to be sure that they are intrusted with the exercise of Church Discipline of binding and loosing before they put it into execution Now I shall examine what he hath drawn from 1 Cor. 10.21 to prove suspension distinct from Excommunication his argument is this It is unlawful to give the Sacrament to those that cannot eat or drink it but there may be some in the Church not excommunicated who cannot drink of the Lords Cup. Ergo. In his explaining the tearms he understands cannot eat in a moral sense and then the sense is you cannot lawfully and warrantably eat and drink the Cup of the Lord and the cup of Devils the sum of all is 1. Such as God hath forbidden to come to that Ordinance Or 2. Such as if they rush upon the Ordinance yet can have no Communion with Christ no benefit by it this he makes to be the sense and then doubts not but he shall make good his argument pag. 27 28 29. Give me leave to search into the Apostles sense and then examine how Mr. Answ 1 Collins and the holy Apostle doe agree in the sense of this Text 1 Cor. 10.21 I have said something unto this already upon another account I will be as brief as I can This is the fourth publick fault the Apostle deals with the Corinthians about First he chides them for their factious respect had about their Ministers upon which they ran into divisions and making of parties chap. 1.3 Secondly he chides them for indulging and tolerating a known member amongst them in an incestuous marriage which hath been largely handled chap. 5. Thirdly he chides them for their unnecessary suits of Law Brother with Brother in Infidel Courts before Heathen Judges Fourthly he blames them for eating of things offered in Sacrifice unto Idols at their Idolatrous Festivals in the Idol Temple chap. 8. And to that end he might reform them and take them off that were guilty as in the other different faults he applyed himself unto them with different remedies and means of reforming which would be too tedious to speak unto so here in this as it is a different fault he deals with the offenders in a different way to the former His concession with them that the thing it self to them that had knowledge was not simply a sin for an Idol was nothing and unto them there was but one God and meat commends not unto God though they had this knowledge and stood upon their liberty he tels them If you doe eat you are not the better if you doe not eat you are never the better vers 4.8 But then he tels them that this practice was dangerous and of evill consequence in respect of some circumstances 1. In respect of the Heathen that out of conscience eat it as a thing offered unto the Idol the presence of Christians emboldened them in their Idolatry 2. In respect of weak Brethren that have not that clear knowledge in the nature of the thing it self as some had which upon such Precedents was ready to venture upon the same practice and not having knowledge of himself his conscience were defiled by the liberty and practice of the other v. 10. and so by consequence it became a sin unto the strong vers 12. c. 3. Then he comes to perswade with them to forbear that practice upon several considerations and reasons 1. He urges Christian Charity in order unto the edification of others before knowledge in their liberty so as to use it to the prejudice of the weak 2. Tels them his own tendernesse in such a case rather then he by meat should make his brother to offend he would eat no flesh while the world stands 3. Then commends unto them himself and Barnabas for an ensample in another case ch 9. That although they had power as well as other Apostles to marry require maintenance from them which was no more then Christ had ordained and appointed for the Preachers of the Gospel yet they used not this power nor required any such maintenance from them and though he was free from all yet he became servant unto all to the Jew he became a Jew to the weak he became as weak that he might save some and this he did for the Gospel sake c. and then applyes it Know ye not that they which run in a race run all even so run that you may obtain even as himself denyed himself in many things which he might have lookt after for their sakes and the Gospels looking for a better prize or reward hereafter so he would have them to deny themselves
in some things that they might doe rather then to cause their Brother to offend so uncharitably But in the 10. chapter he comes more close and addes several arguments taken from their relation they had to God as they were of his Church and people and invested with such priviledges of gifts and graces and of Church Ordinances in which they had Communion with Christ and one with another as he instances in Sacramental Communion c. Well this he yeelds unto them and then draws his argument 1. From the Church of the Jews they were related unto God as near as we can be and they had the same Sacraments and other peculiar Ordinances of Gods own prescribing yet notwithstanding the Lord often punished them for their sins I and for as small sins as some of them were guilty of and therefore he would have the Corinthians and all others be warned and admonished by such precedents of Gods severity towards his own the particular instances thereof are written for our admonition Wherefore let him that think he stands take caution lest he fals It 's a dangerous thing to goe to the outside of your liberty and to put your selves upon such dangerous temptations as to go into the Idol Temple to feast with Idolaters Gods people before time have been drawn into Idolatry by such temptations and so might they And yet see the tendernesse and the good opinion the Apostle had of them he mingles his sharp with some sweet telling them that although some of them had miscarryed in this very thing yet there hath no temptation taken you but what is common unto frail imperfect man but God is faithfull who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able c. And hence exhorts to decline the temptation v. 14. Wherefore my beloved Brethren flee from Idolatry Two things to be noted 1. He doth not call them Idolaters but his beloved Brethren that were guilty of this fault 2. He doth not charge them with flat Idolatry but is earnest to perswade them to flee the temptations appearances occasions of Idolatry He spake unto wise men that as they gave offence this way so they were able to judge of his arguments and manner of dealing with them still yeelding unto them their deserts that his arguments might the better take with them to reform them but still goes on with further considerations that might further convince them and be prevailing to reform the evil by commending unto them the consideration of their Sacramental Communion vers 16 17. comprehending all The cup of blessing which we blesse is it not the Communion of the bloud of Christ Doubtlesse it was unto the whole Church in a Sacramental sense as follows For we being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of that one bread even those that were in fault were a part of that many and all we are all partakers of that one Sacramental bread and consequently of Christ Sacramentally as he gives a proof thereof vers 18. Behold Israel after the flesh are not they which eat of the Sacrifices partakers of the Altar this they could not deny but must yeeld it What say I then that the Idoll is any thing or that which is offered in Sacrifice to Idols is any thing He grants them that still which they so much stood upon but yet he saith This is something that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice unto Devils and not to God and I would not that you should have fellowship with Devils That 's the consequence and here lyes the argument If as you are Christians by eating the instituted bread you have Communion together and partake of Christ the end of that bread then as you eat and partake with the Gentiles in those things that are consecrated and sacrificed to the Devill you have communion with Devils or as Israel which eat of the Sacrifices of the Altar were partakers of the Altar even so Christians with Heathens that eat of the things sacrificed unto Devils were partakers of Devils This by consequence was a greater evil then they were aware of and therefore he tels them I would not that you should have fellowship with Devils which had they been aware of doubtlesse they would have declined it The Apostle having thus brought the sin home by such an argument that could not be evaded then he concludes from hence that you cannot drink of the cup of the Lord and of the cup of Devils Ye cannot be partakers of the Table of the Lord and of the table of Devils Doe you provoke the Lord to jealousie are you stronger then he c. vers 21 22. Well now we are come to the place that Mr. Collins makes the very bottome of his argument You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of Devils c. That I conceive is to be understood thus so long as they profest themselves for Christ and continued in his visible body the Church and were partakers of the Sacramental Communion with Christ they could not without sin drink the cup of Devils and be partakers of the table of Devils there was such a direct opposition in these two Tables that it was a thing inconsistent or a contradiction for one to partake of both as a Heathen might not drink the cup of the Lord so a Christian might not drink the cup of Devils there was a diametrical opposition in these two even as much as Christ and Belial Accordingly our blessed Saviour in another case No man can serve two Masters that is two Masters directly contrary ye cannot serve God and Mammom And so Elijah If the Lord be God follow him if Baal be God follow him they could not follow both who will or can imagine that our Saviour spoke this to forbid such to serve God Or that Elijah forbid the Israelites to follow God because he said they could not follow both And yet Mr. Collins strength of phancy hath wryed his reason that he will have the Corinths forbid the Sacrament and their serving of God therein because they could not doe both The Apostle's end in writing is to reform the evil by forbidding them the cup of Devils but Mr. Collins end in writing is to forbid them the cup of the Lord and that 's all the reformation that he drives at But the Apostle goes on and grants as much at the last as he did at the first All things are lawfull for me but all things are not expedient all things are lawfull but all things edifie not vers 23 24. meaning the things that were sacrificed unto Idols upon the same account as at first that an Idol is nothing in the world chap. 8. But the thing was inexpedient and uncharitable did rather destroy then edifie my self or brother and therefore adviseth not to seek our own but every man anothers wealth c. And so he hath done with that only he hints at another case upon their
civil and necessary occasions if they bought any such meat at the shambles they might lawfully eat it without scruple of conscience nay further if an unbeliever should bid a Christian to a civil feast he leaves them to their own liberty to goe and eat whatsoever was set before them But I have been too long already yet I was willing to search after the true sense of the place which is not easily discerned unlesse we minde heedfully the scope especially when a thing is in an intricate case and so much reasoning largely held out proving that to be evill by consequence as cloathed with some circumstances which in it's self in its own nature is lawful and good as here Now I shall examine Mr. Coll. argument what bottome it stands on his argument is It 's unlawful to give the Sacrament unto those that cannot eat it But there may be some in the Church not Excommunicate who cannot drink of the Lords cup Ergo c. His Major he saith is proved vers 21. I will confess that in this place we have the Sacrament spoken of and that those that the Apostle blames for drinking the cup of Devils were not Excommunicate but yet I deny that it was unlawful to give the Sacrament to such For 1. it 's a great question and will require some time for Mr. Collins to prove That eating of things offered unto Idols was a sin that came within the verge of the Church to punish with putting such out of Sacramental Communion In the 5. chapter as I take it those that the Apostle deals with in the 10. Chapter are not in that particular list vers 11. which the Church was to judge doubtlesse if they had been such Idolaters that in the 5. chap. 11. he speaks of he would have threatned the rod and given order unto the Elders of the Church to put out of their Communion such Idolaters for their connivence at Idolaters would leaven the lump as well as an incestuous person but herein not a word of any such thing But he will be ready to say The Apostle spoke of putting out of Comâ—union before in the 5. chap. therefore it was not necessary to repeat it again in the 10. I but how will these things hang together 1. To give a charge to the Church to cast out Idolaters and then himself using such mildnesse of speech and variety of argumentation as I have shewed to convince them that it was a sin granting the thing in it self lawfull but evill in respect of some circumstances 2. The main argument to prove their eating and drinking in the Idol Temple to be a sin was drawn from the nature of the Sacrament in which themselves as Christians are said to have Communion with Christ by being partakers of the cup and bread consicrated for to represent the body and bloud of Christ in like manner they were said to have Communion with Devils by being partakers of the cup and meat in the Idol Temple that was consecrated and offered unto Idols and hence the Apostle would not have them to have Communion with Devils as all his other reasons so this tends solely to reform them in that particular of eating in the Idol Temple and not a word of forbidding any such the Sacrament as Mr. Collins would have it when he saith The sum is they who cannot drink the cup of the Lord are either 1. Such as God hath forbidden coming thither 2. Or those that can have no Communion with Christ nor benefit by this Ordinance Those that give credit to that sense Answ must be such as adhere more to Mr. Collins fancy then the sense of holy Scriptures what are any of those two to the text in hand was any forbid the Sacrament that eat of things offered unto Idols 2. Doth not the Apostle affirm that they all had Communion with Christ in partaking of the cup of blessings Is not that the very medium of his argument the Apostle argues from their Sacramental Communion as Christians to decline Communion with Idolaters Mr. Collins argues from their Communion with Idols to a none Communion as Christians And thus the Judicious Reader may easily judge of the soundation of his argument who out of an inconsiderate rashnesse most grossely runs upon mistake and thence forms a silly syllogism pag. 29. I grant it a sin to deliver the Sacrament to those whom we know God hath forbid it But I deny that these of Corinth spoken of are in the least so much as blamed or in the least tittle forbid the Sacrament the Apostle proves they all took it and had Communion in Christ in it I wonder that ever a man pretending unto sober principles should be so fond as to think that those that the Apostles writes to as Saints sanctified in Christ Jesus his dearly beloved Brethren and writing unto them as wise men and such that had great gifts and largenesse of knowledge in their liberties by Jesus Christ that knew an Idol was nothing in the world and that which was offered was never the worse every creature of God was good and not to be resused c. as the Apostle yeelds I say how he comes to think that these should be forbidden the Sacrament and to be such as could not have Communion with Christ makes me wonder if Saints and the Apostles dearly beloved Brethren whom he argues so friendly with were not under Christs command of this necessary observance in the Church then here is not any that are but I have said enough to this already and all that he saith to this text is most irrational and impertinent to prove that some in the Church not excommunicated ought to be denyed the Sacrament this place proves that they did all partake of that one Sacramental bread 1 Cor. 10.17 and puts the thing past questioning He hath more things in making good his argument but having pluckt up his ground work it 's too tedious both for me to write and you to read the confutation of the rest for it will fall of it self you must grant him what he sayes to be true because he sayes it for he is not able in the least to bring any one argument from Scripture to prove suspension distinct from Excommunication as himself states it I will trouble you but with two things more of his in this argument for now I intend brevity in all he has further to say in defence of Suspension for I know not any one thing more much material that I have not fully answered in the former discourse in order to his several exceptions against the Bar removed He sayes He hopes we have all too reverend thoughts of the wisdome of God to think that he should lay an obligation upon his Ministers to give this Ordinance unto them whom he hath warned upon pain of damnation not to take it What is this but to beg the question Answ and thence insinuate upon us an absurdity let him first prove that a
this to Juridical Suspension distinct from Excommunication as it 's usually practised in some Churches Indeed Mr. Collins need not have been so hasty in aspersing Mr. Boteman pag. 98. unlesse he could in some ordinary case prove Juridical Suspension from the Sacrament distinct from Excommunication the which he hath not yet done and it 's a great question whether he ever will or can It 's true that our Church in prudence left the denying of the Sacrament to some to the discretion of particular Ministers as he alleadges but then let me tell you this doth not reach the argument For 1. this was only in case of obstinacy being dealt with all by the Minister who was by the Canons and Rubrick of the Church authorised thus to doe 2. Such acts of discipline were subject to the Churches judgement and censure afterwards the persons conceiving themselves wronged might complain and those Ministers were lyable to be censured for going beyond the rule as some have been suspended from officiating themselves for putting persons by upon slender proof even such as their Ordinary upon hearing did not judge competent 3. The Church urged the act of receiving as a necessary duty incumbent upon all of years and upon that ground both earnestly exhorted all to come and punished those that carelesly neglected it 4. The Churches Jurisdiction consisted of Excommunication only in case of obstinacy but in case of penitency admonition and publike penance the offenders confession of his sins humbly in the body of the Church craving the forgivenesse of their sin in particular both of God and the Church did free from Excommunication The obstinate was denyed all the Ordinances except to hear the Sermon at the Church doores or behinde the Font the penitent not denyed any one Ordinance lay these things together and then let wise men judge how our Church heretofore doth precedent the Suspension which Mr. Collins contends for namely that a Minister by vertue of his Office with his Elders may and ought upon Scripture ground to deny some the Sicrament not obstinate and allow them the priviledge of all other Church Communion as Members And this he would have Juridical although the Church be in no capacity to impower them with any acts of discipline at all nor have the help of appeals to restrain the rash proceedings of inconsiderate uncharitable zealous Ministers whose principles tend too much to division Separation and confusion in the Church who would be more careful to further the edification peace and unity of the Church were themselves under the rod of holy discipline Juridically exercised by grave learned experienced presidents which particular Presbyters in reason will not be very zealous for so long as themselves are left to themselves to exercise an absolute power to rule as they please in their own Congregation without controll I wish these petty irregular reformings prove not the greatest remora's that hinder the reformation peace and edification of the whole especially where particular Pastors and Elders are of Mr. Collins opinion 1. That makes a meer nothing of Church-membership without grace 2. That will allow them no other Covenant relation then to Heathens 3. That will not so much as allow them the external titles of Brethren Saints Believers within but reproach them with the odious names of Hogs and Dogs unbelievers and of the Devil c. though they he such as never had the benefit and help of holy discipline to amend them or try whether they sin out of weaknesse or wilfulnesse 4. That will take upon him in his own name to dissolve them from Christs commands and threaten them not to doe it upon pain of damnation 5. That will make the Sacrament strong meat that cannot be digested by weak doubting Christians 6. That knows not wherein the Officers can have any work to keep the Communion of the Church pure if not in the Sacrament 7. That will allow no more priviledge in duties of worship to the ignorant and scandalous then to Heathens out of the Church 8. That doth insolently affirm that a single Pastor alone may lawfully suspend from the Sacrament he being the ruling part of that particular Church 9. That upon the matter puts the whole of discipline in Suspension from the Lords Supper either making it the same with Excommunication or else renders Excommunication needlesse in the Church Are men thus leavened with Brownism fit to be rulers in the Church of God Or like to preserve the peace unity edification and seek reformation of the whole according to the general rules and ends prescribed in the Scriptures I appeal to the standing rule of Sciptures to judge whether such as himself or the friends of my judgement and opinions as to the weal of the Church it being judged true by both be consonant unto it and whether he or we be guilty of the most folly and filth and defend such things as is a shame to be named amongst Christians as himself expresses against our opinion in opposing his pag. 98. I come to his ninth argument the sum is If scandalous persons not excommunicate nor unclean were debarred the Passeover then such may be suspended from the Lords Supper but the first is true therefore the latter I grant the consequence is good Answ but let him prove the antecedent that scandalous sinners not cut off nor unclean were debarred some Ordinances and the Passeover I dare give him seven years time to prove that by Scriptures either by direct text or sound consequence that cannot rationally be denyed all that hath been said to that thing is to give us a glosse of moral uncleannesse and thence argue that if the legal unclean might not eat the Passeover much lesse the moral unclean if the legal unclean defiled holy things much more moral uncleannesse the consequence is naught Because 1. The Church of the Jews were in Covenant relation and holy in a Covenant sense and no where blamed or debarred the Ordinances of the Church upon any such account 2. Because it was either punished by their Judicials or taken away by a continual course of Sacrifices and therefore could not rest upon them much lesse bar them from the Sacrament of the Passeover 3. Because nothing could excuse from the not observing of that service in its appointed season but legal uncleannesse and a necessary journey upon their lives if nothing else would excuse then all others were to keep it 4. It 's clear that some did keep the Passeover that were guilty of that which you will say was moral uncleannesse Ezra 9.1 after they had kept the Passeover complaint was brought unto Ezra saying The people of Israel Priests and Levites have not separated themselves from the people of the lands doing according to their abominations of the Canaanites c. for they have taken of the daughters for themselves and for their sons and the Princes have been chief in this trespasse 5. I say further that in some cases the people of
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
publick administrations as their duty And with what conscience can such live upon the Churches maintenance that forsake their function and duty to their Congregations And if they make the Sacrament the distinguishing Ordinance between the Church and the world as the Author cals it some where then no wonder they are so tender who they admit into the Church and thus upon the matter they look upon the greatest part of their Congregations as Heathens unbelievers whom the duties of Christianity doe not concern In another place he saith an unregenerate person is far from being a disciple c. and therefore not a Christian for the Disciples were first called Christians at Antioch And hence they devise ways and bars to keep them from the Lords Table equall unto a Heathen But me thinks they might easily perceive their mistake for baptism of old was accounted the only distinguishing Ordinance as circumcision between the Church and the world and the only separating and distinguishing Ordinance in the Church is Juridical Excommunication which they make no use of for Mr. Saunders saith they Excommunicate none if they judge their people Church-members and within if they have any scandalous crime against them why do they not begin reformation by casting out the obstinate according to rule they are all for admission of members when they should be for ejecting in the work of reforming If they be for admission into Church Communion they must begin with baptism and I think the tearms they stand upon in order to the Supper will sooner be made good in order to baptism of grown ones then to those that are initiated into the Church already by lawful baptism I have writ enough to this already the truth is if my judgment fail not Mr. Saund. doth but shuffle when he speaks of our Assemblies to be true Churches some of them one while they are true Churches and have both matter and form which are the main essentials of true Churches agreed upon by al only he saith but not without great disorder at present Discipline being interrupted as I suppose he means And he must needs speak this in behalf of our Parochial Churches for he makes mention of the Churches of England of which some he will undertake to prove to be true Churches against those that deny all for matter and form to be true pag. 127. And yet in the very same page he contradicts himself in saying We doe not say our Assemblies are Churches as Parishes but that they are Churches in Parishes and in that sense Parish Churches and in the page before he thinks the truth of some of our Churches as to their Essence he can prove A Church may be in a Parish as well as in a Country or City as Ephesus Corinth yea as well as in the World By this you may conceive what a good friend he is like to be to our Parish Churches against Anabaptists and Brownists that although he accounts them rigid Separatists they will grant that there are some Parishes in England that some that are godly and real members of Christ dwell in them which they will confesse are the matter of a true Church Nay there may be a rigid separate Church in fellowship and order in a Parish as well as in a Countrey City World And in this sense they are Parish Churches What shifts are these but why doth he not speak plain to the case in question and clearly speak his judgement of our Parochial Congregations as they are baptized and adhere to the publick Ministry in general consisting of good and bad nay the most very ignorant and in some thing or other either scandalous offensive or remisse Will he prove such Parishes in their Precincts and outward bounds to have both the matter and form of true Churches If he would doe so I shall imbrace him as friend of the Church And one would think in his 128. page that is his sense by what he infers for baptism saying That all Infants born in our Churches are to be baptized for Congregational Churches as they are called baptized all their Infants and then If it be objected that sundry of the parents are ungodly whose children we baptize he asks whether they can deny baptism to the childe of any member how offensive soever before the sentence of cutting off passe upon him So he answers of ours These supposed wicked ones whether as carnall or profane are not excommunicated what therefore should hinder their childrens baptism Hence he owns all in our Churches that are baptized members Christians and within for I suppose he would not plead the baptizing of the children of those that are Infidels and without that are no objects of Excommunication And yet in other places they are far from being Disciples Church-members c. Nay he saith as to baptism we suppose our Churches to be true but sick and corrupt pag. 126 but wherein corrupt if all be true you publish 129. pag. wherein you adde to what you said before Besides the children are not baptized in their Parents right alone but in the Churches where the childe is born a member being holy federally by birth and therefore to be baptized You prove the Subjects of our baptism lawful the Ministâ—â— and baptism it self for matter and manner I presume wherein is it sick and corrupt then I could wish you were more steddy in your judgement consonant to your self and honest to your Reader But to reply upon your own grants if all children born in the Church he holy foederally by birth then it follows that all parents in the Church of whom they are so born are believers for the Apostle affirms that only of the children of believers 1 Cor. 7.14 And then if all parents in the Church be believers why doe you not administer the Lords Supper to them for actual receiving is the undoubted duty of all believers how you will deny the consequence I cannot tell I pray you consider well of my Answer unto Mr. Collings for I must be very brief to yours Again if our Churches be true Churches and all it consists of lawfully admitted into it Then it will follow 1. That while they are within they are to enjoy all external priviledges of our Church according unto Gospel rule which is one and the same unto all Church-members as such This is so rational and clear that all that separate from us own and practise it untill a member by Apostasie fall off or be Juridically cast out of Church priviledges 2. That Pastors of true Churches are to attend their several flocks in a constant exercise of the whole ministerial work they are designed unto by the Church that ordained them such 3. That forming a Church in the choyce of a Pastor and Officers members in a true Church already formed according unto rule as to the essentials thereof at least is a work not only superfluous and absurd but Schismatical and pernicious breaking the peace and union of that
Church they are of by making unnecessary rents and divisions in it It is not separation from a Church but separation in a true Church causelesly that is properly a Schism absolute separation from a true Church is properly apostasie in an Ecclesiastical sense I take it Hence his distinction of separation from a true Church and separation in a true Church where the ordinary means of salvation is and the fruits thereof as himself confesses of ours is groundlesse and wicked The first sort come under the censure of the Apostles John and Jude 1 Epistle of John 2.19 Judes general Epistle vers 19. The last sort are detected by St. Paul 1 Cor. 1.10 11 12. Chap. 11.18 19. Rom. 16.7 Act. 20.30 1 Cor. 12.23 24 25. chap. 14.33 Now I shall a little touch upon what this new formed Church requires of persons they admit into Sacramental Communion with them And I will give you the question as themselves have stated it Whether in the reforming of a long corrupted Church Mr. Saund. it be necessary that all the members thereof doe submit to some examination or tryal of their knowledge before they be admitted unto the Lords Supper This question they fear not to maintain in the affirmative Here they suppose corruption in our Churches and therefore with men well satisfied with their present frame and temper not looking on them as under any such disorder as we suppose with such we desire not much to dispute we can expect little of reason or truth from men of that minde This question is but ambiguously stated Answ 1 and should be further explained as to the particular branches of it for as to our Church in respect of doctrine it must be spoken with thankfulnesse that long hath the light thereof filled our Horizon as himself confesses pag. 6. and this Examination is only in reference to sound knowledg the means whereof the Church was not corrupted in so as to deserve the denomination of a long corrupted Church in that respect For generally the principles that were taught and received by the people were Orthodox that the people cannot in reason generally lye under the Suspension of heretical knowledge for they have been so long habituated to sound words in respect of several Creeds which very frequently were professed and assented unto in our assemblies with such plainnesse of Catechising c. that in respect of the ordinary means of the peoples knowing in a competent sense which is the subject matter that examination and trial only relates unto in the question that the Church cannot be truly said to have been a long corrupted Church And then that clause in the question as to us is needlesse which indeed upon the matter is the very cause of the question that being taken away makes the question fall for then the question will be Whether in a reformed Church as to knowledge examination be necessary in all we admit to the Sacrament And I judge this the most proper question by what himself hath acknowledged of our Church in respect of purity of Doctrine the only means of sound knowledge to her members they being generally educated and trained up therein from their youth so that as to knowledge the Church was not corrupt That many of her members have but little knowledge and are weak in the faith is confessed and is their sin but whether it be such a sin that the Church may chastise with discipline I very much doubt of they being otherwise not tainted with scandalous offending And how a Church-member should be denyed a necessary duty of institute worship without some proper act of discipline I cannot tell I confesse had the generality of our people been poysoned with Popish heretical principles touching the holy Supper and all other worship there had been a rational cause of the question as he hath stated it and a ground sufficient to be suspicious of the knowledge of most whether that little most know were true or false Orthodox or heretical And if upon complaint or tryal they should be found heretical and will not be reclaimed I think such come under the chastisement of the Church but this is not our case nor question If by the word necessary in the question be meant a duty incumbent upon all to submit unto and that every one must stand to the trial of their Pastor and Officers in respect of their knowledge before they can lawfully be admitted unto the Lords Supper It will be denyed and the Author must give us stronger proofs and arguments for the affirmative then what he hath urged in his Antidiatribe we shall examine his proofs anon I should grant him that it might be necessary in respect of some benefit and help to a more profitable receiving if people would come off in such a prudential way only to that end they may be prepared better but to make use of it to that end as either to disswade them from their duty or exclude them from a necessary duty of solemn worship out of a perswasion that their knowledge is incompetent this I utterly dislike as rash and groundlesse I grant that the Church actually impowered with the exercise of true discipline may and ought to convent any of her members before them complained of or suspected for matter of scandal and examine them and finding them guilty and impenitent may censure them but the question intends another thing I grant that self Examination is a necessary duty in order to receiving and that may satisfie the question as it 's stated for that is some examination to receiving as his expression is when this is indevoured of professing Christians although they neglect that which is Pastoral it 's a question whether they deserve to be excluded or no. But to reply If Church Examination be a necessary duty to all admission As he would why not unto every time they come to receive For that examination that the Apostle enjoyns holds to every time the holy Sacrament is administred but they require it but once and that only upon a supposition of a general corruption of our Churches p. 22. But were not the Church of the Jews as generally corrupt as ours at some times and yet at such a time did not as godly men as your selves call all to observe the Passeover without such a way of examination you plead for think of Josiah Jehosaphat Hezekiah Nehemiah c. You confesse the Passeover and Supper are the same for substance and in answer to the first objection you say Christ had communicated with his Disciples before in the Passeover therefore he needed not examine those that were admitted before If your reason be good I ask what need you examine those that have been admitted to the Louds Supper before Nay what need you examine those that are admitted unto holy Baptism before that are of years not excommunicated That which was necessary unto Baptism was sufficient to admission into the Church where Sacramental Communion only is
text then what it is urged for Next he assumes something from what is granted by Bishop Abbot but that 's nothing to the text nor proof of his way pag. 131. The Text he saith will yeeld us this argument page 133. Where is no due order in Sacramental administrations Mr. Saund. there Gods Word is not observed But where all are admitted there is no order Therefore in admission of all Gods will is not observed The major may be yeelded the Minor is to be denyed by distinguishing 1. Answ Where all are admitted without distinction of Christian and Heathen baptized or unbaptized a member in Communion and one under Excommunication c. there is no order it 's true as being against many Scriptures But 2. where all are admitted that are of a true Orthodox Church and are baptized professing Christians under the Churches indulgence the children of whom himself accounts holy federally of these the Minor is to be denyed and so the argument fals for pressing of baptized Christians or believers come under the obligation of this part of institute worship in the Church as of any other the precept is commended to the whole Church As oft as you doe this doe it in remembrance of me 1 Cor. 11.24 25. And if a Minister will be faithful to his charge he must teach and incourage al of his flock to observe and doe all that Christ commands Mat. 28.20 And how can they say as St. Paul did that they kept back nothing that was necessary for the Church when they keep back so necessary an Ordinance from their respective flocks The Lord discover unto his servants their great neglects and error Mr. Saunders addes in proof of his Minor thus Where there is mixture and confusion of good and bad fit and unfit there is no order But where all are admitted is this mixture Ergo. What is an evill mixture Answ and against the Word I have explained above and to call this mixture of good and bad as he cals them evill in the Church in reference to external Ordinances and duties of worship and homage is very unsound and doth accuse the wisdome of God of weaknesse in constituting his visible Church so as to consist of good and bad fit and unfit but are not all things sanctified by the warrant of the Word to the whole Church And are not all things clean to them in a federal sense Is there not grace and mercy enough in the Gospel Covenant made to the professing Church to cure the worst Gods blessing concurring with the necessary means used to that end Let not men be dividing where God joyns by his own constitution and merciful gift comprehending the natural children of all parents in the Church with the Church for the gathering of his elect out of them all To call this a mixture in an evil sense as corrupting the Church and Ordinances is a slander and an unjust reproach brought upon the Church by rash and inconsiderate heads care is to be taken for the exercise of true discipline for the amendment of the scandalous as is provided in all my writings But there is nothing can be said otherwise to exclude any in the Church from necessary duties of institute Worship And therefore the vanity of that self flattery is discovered in his 134. pag. wherein he applauds their course and way as tending to advance order and holinesse in the Church which indeed they are guilty of the breach of very great commands of Jesus Christ in setting up this pretended order and holinesse Let them consider better of it and free themselves from what I charge them with if they can tell how or else make good what they promise in returning from their way of schism to their Pastoral duties to their respective flocks His second proof is Jer. 15.19 If thou takest the precious from the vile then shalt thou be as my mouth In short to give a few hints of the true sense before I examine his Answ The people of Judah and Jerusalem were in a most desperate apostasie in the reign of King Zedekiah the time of this holy Prophets prophesying for they had forsaken the Lord and his prescribed worship which but a little before godly Josiah had put them in possession of according to the laws of God left in writing by Moses but his son being wicked turned to Idolatry and all the people with him ran a whoring after strange Gods insomuch that the Lord complains of them according to thy Cities are thy Gods oh Judah for which and many other of their abominable doings the Lord sent his servant Jeremie to denounce Gods judgements against them especially that judgement of their being subdued by the King of Babylon and carryed away captives by him This message did so vexe them that they wholly set themselves in opposition to the Prophet insomuch that the good man was so tired out with their revilings and threats that out of his frailty he grew into a passionate discontent questioning the message that he had received from the mouth of the Lord and staggering at Gods promise of protection made in particular to him chap. 1.8 here he chargeth God rashly as if he had been to him as a lyar and as waters that fail chap. 15.18 this 19. verse is an answer to Jeremiahs rash charge Therefore thus saith the Lord if thou return or repent then will I bring thee again and thou shalt stand before me if thou take away the precious from the vile then shalt thou be as my Word let them return to thee and submit to the truth of that message I have sent by thee But do not thou return to them by reason of their extream unreasonable opposition they raise against thee for I will be as good to thee as ever I promised to be for I will make thee to this people a strong brazen wall and they shall fight against thee but they shall not prevail c. v. 20. Jeremiahs duty was to bear up himself in discharge of the message sent upon with courage constancy faithfulnesse against all discouragements met with whatever he was to denounce the judgements of God against them for their provoking sins to bring them to repentance or leave them without excuse and in so doing his duty the Word of the Lord spoken by him should have an answerable effect upon the spirits of men some should believe it and reform and yeeld themselves voluntarily to the King of Babylon and so live others should be hardened and accuse the Prophet of revolting from his own Nation and holding intelligence with an enemy and discouraging the people from their arms by perswading them to yeild and live and so set themselves against him and reject his word and perish Thus the Word of the Lord made a separation for the saving of some and destruction of others I take it And so the stream of Interpreters runs but to this Mr. Saunders answers If this Text allows only a
stated it pag. 20. These were not excluded any Communion for ignorance but for disorderly walking And we allow some examination to finde out offenders in the exercise of discipline but deny that the Church upon finding her members greatly defective in knowledge for that she may exclude them from fellowship in some Ordinances without better proof But because both reverend and learned Interpreters are uncertain and in doubt of the practical part of the Apostles directions as touching the offending Brethren I shal here contribute that little of my dark apprehensions I have at present towards the searching after the sense of the place And in so doing three things are to be inquired after especially First The quality or condition of the person Secondly The nature of the sin Thirdly The remedy prescribed to reform the sinner In the first there is no difficulty at all that the Apostle meant a brother one that was within and a Christian all agree so as touching the nature of the sin writ about it is clear enough How Mr. Saunders should be so wide is to be admired in applying the remedy to wrong persons vers 2. It 's certain the fault or sin intended was this there was one or some of that Christian Church that altogether neglected the workes of their particular calling and lived in idlenesse not working at all vers 11. and not only so but that such were guilty of that common vice that alwayes attends idle persons they were busie bodies in the same verse and this is usual when a mans minde is not taken up in some lawful calling he is subject to those temptations for want of businesse of his own he will busie himself with other mens and for want of necessaries of his own which idlenesse brings upon him he is ready to thrust in where he can and backbite flatter invent tales tending to the disquiet and contention of the places where such are this seems to be intimated ver 12. In the first part of the remedy he commanding them in the authority of Christ that with quietnesse they work eating their own bread yet they might the rather be gently dealt with because they having newly received the knowledge of Christian hope of eternal life by him they might be so taken with this mercy that it might take some off from their necessary occasions and make them think that they should alwayes be talking and speaking of the things of Christ they not considering the inconveniences that would follow thereupon not only the burdening of the Church but giving an occasion of the growth and putting forth such vitious corruptions hinted at before that the corrupt nature of all men are more or lesse inclined unto The remedy prescribed consists of several parts I shall but touch at things A command in a double respect The first was when he was with them in person vers 10. and this ran upon a penalty This we commanded you that if any would not work neither should he eat notwithstanding this charge the Church was carelesse and remisse in putting this into execution and did relieve them and too much countenance them in that disorderly course insomuch that some complaint was made against the thing For we hear saith the Apostle that there are some that walk disorderly not working at all c. vers 11. and in order to this sinful connivence of the Church he layes a strict injunction in the authority of Christ upon the Church to withdraw from such vers 6. in respect of civil familiarity and maintenance according to their charge as before He repeats the command again in his absence and that in the authority of Christ and in positive tearms That with quietnesse they work and eat their own bread vers 12. and further tels them if any one shall refuse to be obedient according to this Epistle the Church should note them by some sign of distinction declining that wonted and friendly familiarity as to others that lived orderly and so doing would be a means to bring them into some shame and amendment and clear the Church of the guilt of such disorders I mean the Church in general Besides I should have taken notice how the Apostle presseth upon them his own practice when he was amongst them vers 7 8 9. for the Apostles they wrought with labour c. but not because they had not power and liberty to forbear working but to make themselves an ensample unto all in the Church to follow them and that they might not be chargeable to any But last of all lest the Church should run on the other hand into too much severity and in stead of healing and amending of the offender destroy and loose him by expelling him out of their society as they would an enemy the Apostle puts in a moderate caution yet count him not as an enemy or Infidel as we judge of one that is Excommunicate but admonish him as a brother or one within under a more gentle cure So that I conceive the most severity here intended was to decline all friendly fellowship with them by withdrawing their friendly countenance and kindenesse and rather to reprove and admonish them for their amendment this seems to be but a particular drawn from a more general rule Ephes 5.11 Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darknesse but rather reprove them nor partake in other mens sins But Mr. Saunders saith This sense that I pitch upon in respect of the penalty is too little as Excommunication is too much quoting Erasmus pag. 140. he saith further it must be such a noting and withdrawing as tends to the saving and reforming of scandalous and misliving brethren suspension from eivil society is lesse shaming 1. Answ They may doe well to give some reasons why the declining all friendly familiarity in respect of civil courtesies and charity is too little to bring such brethren to shame considering those times and of what necessity it was of to have the love and furtherance of the Church all Christians being so lyable persecutors unlesse they were such that would revolt from their Christian profession upon the least danger 2. The punishment in a civil sense was so sharp that had all in that Church but done their duty in putting it into execution the offender must either have reformed or have been pined to death or forsake the Church for every member was under an Apostolical command If any would not work neither should he eat had the whole together or a part made conscience of their duty they might have humbled the proudest and brought them under some yoke or other I warrant you 3. If this was too little for scandalous misliving brethren as he saith then why is not suspension from the Lords Supper too little especially where most in a Church are upon the matter suspended as with them of their way many of which are neither ignorant nor scandalous nor any way of a misliving course and can it be imagined that
sufficiently proved that to be their necessary duty which will not be answered these two dayes And untill that be answered the argument doth reflect upon themselves not only by being accessories of their peoples neglects of institute worship but being principals of inforcing those neglects of necessary worship groundlesly hindering those that would 1. You must prove that the baptized rational members of the Church if ignorant and in some things offensive are forbid the Lords Supper and yet stand bound as members to all other observances of worship 2. That a scandalous member indulged leavens the Church by doing lawful and religious actions commanded 3. That the prime end in casting out the scandalous obstinate is to keep them from the Sacrament mainly I say that which leavens a Church is to connive at the scandalous by not doing what they are in a capacity to doe in acts of severe censures to reform them it being far from my heart to think that the good actions of a scandalous brother indulged doth leaven the whole but his evill actions not punished with severity of discipline according unto rule But why the Church should be leavened more by the admission of such to the Sacrament theâ— to holy prayer c. is to me a mysterie because the Scriptures are clear both in commanding spiritual qualifications in order to prayer and forbidding the evill and yet are silent as to these in order to the Sacrament 2. It cannot be denyed but the Sacraments are the most carnal Ordinances in the Gospel Church consisting of external matter that more suites with our bodily senses then any other And lastly the weaknesse of their argument that cry up the holy Supper above her fellows in the Church with the mischievous effects that follow thereupon inevitably Yet notwithstanding to prevent mistake I judg the Lords Supper equal in dignity and holinesse with the rest of holy appointments in the Church as being holy in respect of the holinesse of the Author institution use and ends requiring as much of preparation reverent approaches and divine adoration in this part of sacred Worship as any other part of worship prescribed His eight and ninth proofs are Heb. 13.17 1 Pet. 3.15 pag. 151. Obey them that have the rule over you c. be ready to give an answer to every one that asketh a reason of the hope that is in you The sum of that in Peter is but this he saith If this were to be given before an enemy then much more and easier is it to be made before friends such as desire to be helpers of mens faith not upbraiders of their weaknesse The Author shews some ingenuity upon this text Answ as if he were tender of wresting the sense he yeelds it concerns Christians under the tyranny of persecutors to be constant in their profession and therefore waves the consequence he had a minde to He doth not say if to enemies then much more it 's your duty as Christians to make profession of your faith and hope before friends as necessary to admission to the Sacrament Which he should had the text been for his purpose But he saith if this were to be given before an enemy then much more and easier is it to be made before friends So that here he insinuates by way of motive as helping their faith c. and I dare say it will be sooner yeelded unto upon that score then upon the account of a necessary duty and I shall highly honour those that are endeavouring to their utmost to draw on all their people to some profession of faith or other provided they doe it to no other ends but to help forward the weak and ignorant in faith and knowledge without the least infringement of the priviledges of the Ordinances in the Church they stand bound to observe as they are professing Christians But for men to urge it as a necessary duty in the name of Christ when he never commands it at all to any such â—nd they pretend that is in order to admission to and exclusion from the Sacrament is that which I think my self bound to oppose as superstitions pernicious and tyrannical in the Church of Christ And I doubt not but to make it good against all those that will acknowledge the constitution and form of our Church to be true at present though in some things out of order I confesse my expressions may be judged too harsh but I hope you will a little bear with my zeal it being in the behalf of the Church defending their just rights against those that thing they doe well to degrade them of the same That of Heb. 13.17 doth now come to be spoken to Mr. Saunders observes 1. That the people under them must be ruled and governed by them 2. Ministers must give an account of them which cannot be well done without taking knowledge of their estates 3. They must not only preach and exhort but doe all else which may conduce to the peoples salvation 4. If people obey not their Rulers in the Church they hurt themselves two wayes 1. By sinning against this command 2. By sadding their Pastors hearts and so lessening their profit by his Ministry All these are applicable to our purpose urging activity on the Ministers as well in discipline as in preaching calling for compliance from the people To his 1. where a Church is so happy Answ 1 as to have regular Rulers chosen by the whole and set a part to exercise holy discipline Authoritatively I grant that not only the people but every Minister ought to be ruled and governed by them in all lawful and profitable things but I deny that in the want of such Rulers and government any Minister or Ministers by vertue of that Function alone may assume to themselves an authoritative power to exercise acts of Jurisdiction over their people although the people out of ignorance should desire it I grant that the people should be obedient to their Ministers in the religious carrying of that Ministerial work accordingto Gospel rule but I deny that the Apostle intended the peoples obedience to every fancy that some have the boldnesse in these times to urge upon their people to their great prejudice and spiritual hurt in debarring them some necessary duty and Covenant blessing Therefore as children unto parents so people unto their Pastors must be obedient in all things but with this restriction in the Lord for this is right Ephes 6.7 To his second Ministers must give an account of them which cannot well be without taking knowledge of their estates Answ 1. He doth not keep to the tearms of the text The Apostle doth not say that Ministers must give an account of their people whether they be good or bad profitable or unprofitable but he saith for they watch for your souls as they that must give an account that they may doe it with joy and not with grief c. The sense is this they must perform all necessary duties
in the least pertinent to prove any one of the qualifications as laid down to be necessary to this end namely to admission to the holy Supper And how would you have your people to come up to your tearms when you so evidently wrest the sense of Scriptures to justifie the boldnesse of venting forth your own fancies in the name of the Lord This is the way you are agreed of and you rejoyce in your comforts and applaud it for purity and you are resolved thus to walk and you cry up Gospel rule and yet your actings are not consonant to any rule the Scripture teach for any thing you have said in defence of your way May not your comforts be suspected as well as others whose wayes and courses are dangerous and to be avoided I would have you consider of it for these unnecessary separations in a true Church as you confesse of ours are absolutely schismatical and your people are bound to decline your way and to keep their station in the Church into which they are imbodyed and to use all their indeavours to partake of Gods Ordinances where they may without running themselves into such dangerous schisms that directly tend to the confusion of the whole And without doubt if you will be as ingenuous as you expresse you must either return to your distracted flocks and perform those relative duties you stand bound unto or persist in wayes of your own choosing meerly without the words warranty which is scandalous in the Church of Christ so to doe and deserves to be censured Mr. Saunders after his arguments he gives some motives which he would have his Reader lay to heart the evils following the neglect of them or the like course 1. And chiefly God is provoked to remove our Candlestick for neglect of Church censures upon scandalous offenders A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump 1 Cor. 5.6 I deny that the way defended hath any thing of the Church censures in it according to that text Answ for Mr. Saunders saith they excommunicate none and Excommunication alone is meant by this Scripture The Apostle doth not say Separate the meal from the leaven but purge out the leaven from the meal he doth not say exclude the scandalous from the Sacrament but put out from among your selves such wicked persons that is out of all Christian Communion civill or sacred What is their course to this Text when they Juridically censure none nor indeed are in a capacity so to doe Casting out of the Church and leaving out from the Sacrament those that are within are huge different things the first is lawful and according to Gospel rule the other unlawful as being against all Gospel rules or precedents It 's true the neglect of Church censures where a Church is in such a capacity is a great evill that doth much provoke the Lord to punish such neglect and that we are in this capacity at present some have more to answer for then I fear they are sensible of nor humbled under that direful guilt my prayer to God is to make us all sensible of our malady and in his due time restore unto this poor rent and divided Church that remedy of holy discipline His second evil is The confusion of souls by ordinary and common profanation eating and drinking their own damnation This is high indeed for words Answ but hath not that dreadful doome in it as he reports without better proof ordinary and common profanation in the Scripture sense was never read of The Church of Corinth lay under the guilt of high profanation but it was not ordinary or common I think 'T is probable they never offended so again nor any other Church what their sin was should be enquired after more strictly and the punishment inflicted and then judge whether the Sacrament be for the confusion of souls it was a temporal chastisement to prevent the damnation of souls This to the punishment The sin was a sacrilegious misuse of holy things to carnal and common ends in the very act of administration which I have largely given my thoughts of and shewed that not any Congregations in our Church did ever or rarely so offend and what he meanes by common profanation must be some other thing that the Scripture no where condemns otherwise then in every other Ordinance of God that is too carelesly performed As all other Ordinances so this was instituted for the spiritual good of the Church Christ commands nothing for the hurt of his visible subjects they conforming thereunto according to their present capacity the Lord gives his laws and Ordinances for our good only Sometimes he permits a people for their punishment to chuse Ordinances and statutes of their own making for their hurt as Israel of old did I conclude then that this evil the confusion of souls c. is a slander of Gods Ordinance and an evill of mens own making when applied to the Sacrament more then to all other Ordinances in the Church Next He saith in his third place Abuse of the bloud of Christ by being too prodigal hereof 1. Answ They properly abuse the signs of Christs bloud that slight Sacraments as too mean and carnal to use to that end they were instituted for 2. They who admit Heathens and give the holy Supper to persons unbaptized or excommunicate or to those that come on purpose to abuse the signs to common ends But to administer the Sacrament unto serious professing Christians that come reverently and demean themselves orderly according to the external part of this observance is that which is according unto Gospel rule and the administration holy and warrantable Christ that gave himself for his Church doth not think much of giving the signs and representations of himself body and bloud to the members thereof And who will plead for any but Church-members who are under the obligation of this observance of their Lord And to deny it to such is to be more withholding then is meet and a dishonour to Jesus Christ who came into the world to save sinners His fourth is Obstructing the reformation of the Churches we live in And what is reformation in the Church Answ but to draw on the whole to a conformity to all the Laws of Jesus Christ externally at least For the Church can goe no further it is the only work of God to reform the hearts of men And the whole Church are as much bound to a conformity to this law of receiving the Sacrament in remembrance of Christ as to any other act of obedience in the Church He that commands all the rest of obedience commands this too And therefore they understand not what Reformation is that are busie in such reformings in their Churches that the greatest part of Christs subjects are out of carlessenesse neglected and exempted from their duty of obedience Nay those that would serve their redeeming Lord and Saviour in the command of his own worship as they are believing Christians in hope of
their manifold sins as that of Idolatry in this chapter the Apostle tels them that the Church of the Jews was invested with the like priviledges as they are and yet for their provoking sins God was not well pleased with them but destroyed many of them for their murmurings whoredomes Idolatries c. and therefore warns them of the like in general And then in the 14. verse he applyes himself unto them in particular Wherefore my beloved brethren fly from Idolatry I speak to wise men judge what I say for this is the thing that comes neer you which some of you are guilty of And that he might throughly convince them of the hainous nature of this sin he draws an argument from the nature of that holy Communion they had together in the holy Supper which supposes them to be all of one Christian body for they all eat of one bread and drink of one cup c. Hence he would have them see what an inconsistent thing it were for them to be of this Christian body and of another Heathenish body too in point of Communion they could not be of both of Christ and Belial this were a mixture unsufferable to drink the cup of the Lord at one time in the Church of Christ and then at another time to drink the cup of Divels in his Temple Will you thus provoke the Lord c. you must either forbear the one or the other for you cannot serve God and the Devil And this he aggravates the more because it was such an offence and scandal to the weak amongst them the which they that were the strongest Christians offended in as the latter end of the chapter doth clearly give it and that about indifferent things and it became thus sinful in regard of some evil circumstances But now what is this to prove that this sin was in their eating and drinking unworthily in the 11 chap. as Mr. Collins would have it for here you may conceive that at most the offenders were but implicitly threatned with punishment but in the 11. ch they were already punished when this Epistle was sent unto them the which will trouble Mr. C. to reconcile Besides had the Apostle in ch 11. meant their actual offending in the 5. 10. ch then he would have said for these causes some are punished or for this and divers other but as he meant no other so he writes and terminates the only cause of their punishment was their profaning the holy Sacrament of the body and bloud of the Lord as hath been spoken to For this cause c. His second reason to prove he cannot digest the sense I have given is because it seems very absurd to him that a man who should but offend in a point of order should be guilty of the body and bloud of Christ and so of judgement and he who comes raking with the guilt of scandalous sins should not at all be guilty or lyable to Gods judgements Why will Mr. Answ Collins thus mince their sin Was their being drunk and their using a sacred Ordinance of Christ appointed for so spiritual an end but as a civil or common Supper but offending in a point of order if this did not strike at the very essence and nature of the Ordinance I know not what doth doth not the Apostle tell them plainly This is not to eat the Lords Supper but their own this profanation of the instituted signs rendered them guilty of polluting the very body and bloud of Christ that the signs did represent and will he say this were but to offend in a point of order I might adde their offending in point of order to the main But then to the latter part Touching them that come in scandalous sins that they should not at all be guilty or lyable to the judgements of God Who ever said such a word Answ Doth it sollow because the Corinthians were punished for no other cause but their prophaning this Ordinance that therefore I must needs hold that they that come in other scandalous sins are not lyable to any of Gods judgements for their other sins I say tribulation anguish and woe to every soul that doth evill And yet I say too it 's possible a scandalous sinner may come to the Sacrament and not at all be guilty of the Corinthians sinning nor as to his receiving be lyable to the judgements of God provided he come as prepared and carry himself as reverently at the administration as he can for his scandalous life doth not disingage him from Christian observance while he is within and not under the just censures of the Church to reform him thereby I know for carnal wretched impenitent sinners to come carelessely and customarily is a great sin and for them that out of carelessenesse and want of affection to it shall neglect it when they are invited to it is a great sin also and both punishable by the Lord. I wish all due and lawful means were used for the reforming of both so might we expect a greater blessing of grace upon all in a holy use of Gods own appointments in the mean time let us all reform what we regularly can and mourn for what we are wanting in Mr. Collings third reason is because he cannot conceive that God should be so unlike himself as to look upon one legally unclean unworthy to eat the Passeover under the Old Testament and yet look upon one morally unclean as worthy under the New It is too bold to call the blessed God unto mans bar Answ because he is not like to men that are not able to reach the reason of his declared will God cannot be unlike himself be sure but it 's possible Mr. Collings may be unlike the truth in what he saith pag. 28. how doth he know that God lookt upon one that was legally unclean as unworthy to eat the Passeover We know that that uncleannesse was incident to good men as well as others It will set him hard to prove I think that it took away the habitual worthinesse of a godly man or that relative worthinesse of membership if not such were not lookt upon as unworthy of the Passeover but were under a contingent necessity by the will of God that they could not observe it but they should make the sacrifice unclean for by the will of God it was declared unto them that whatsoever they touched in their uncleannesse should be unclean And we know it was a case the Lord indulged equally with those that were in a necessary journey appointing them another day of purpose the next month nor were they so much denyed the benefit of this Ordinance as of others that they lost the profit of during their uncleannesse there being not the like provision appointed as to the Passeover Again let me ask Mr. Collins why the whole Church were to observe the Passeover upon their lives and yet he cannot deny but in that Church in their best estate there were many that
are called but sew are chosen though it 's true in a negative sense in this respect of particular persons we cannot exclude any one from Election Mr. Saunders argument in form as to the substance and sense is thus Such only that Christ gave the Sacrament unto have right to receive it But he gave it to none but holy ones Disciples by peculiar choyce Ergo holy ones disciples by peculiar choyce only have right unto it The argument is so weak and feeble that to the Judicious it needs no answer Answ but for the help of the weak something would be said 1. Were there no other Scripture presidents Precepts Intimations for clearing and warranting the right of those that are to be admitted but the first president argued from then it would have posed us to answer it or to prove the continuance of it to the Churches use at all because at first it was given to extraordinary persons in Office only But if he will allow the whole of holy Scripture he might see enough to justifie the right of all in the Church in general without any peculiar choyse 1 Cor. 10.17 Act. 2.42 ch 20.7 2. If this President Matth. 26.26 were fore-determined by Christ to be an example and rule for the Church then 1. Who must administer this Ordinance now according to this pattern Christ himself only blessed and gave it unto Apostles only 2. Then it will follow that none but persons in Office and of the Ministry should receive it 3. Then the greatest part of sincere Disciples and followers of Christ should be left out for without doubt there were many such at that present that were not admitted Besides the seventy Disciples sometimes sent forth to preach the Gospel there were other holy persons both men and women the names that presently met together for religious and divine imployments were about an hundred and twenty of whom some choyse persons are named as Mary the Mother of Jesus and other women and Matthias and Barsabas Act. 1.14 15 23. which Christ gave not the Sacrament unto therefore if this president must be our rule no wonder they refuse as good as they admit nay better then they admit for without doubt Christ gave it to some that afterward discovered great ignorance and unbelief besides one of them was a Devil 4. If this president must be our rule as it 's urged then there must be a choyse of some peculiar holy ones out of holy ones admitted and as holy and sincere refused And yet see how the Author prevaricates and departs from this president in another place where he saith Our way is only to exclude the visibly unworthy and no others pag. 166. 3. If all that Christ gave the Sacrament unto were not holy then the argument will fall of it self but Christ gave it unto Judas whom he knew was a Traytor and had conspired with other of his enemies to destroy him therefore all that Christ gave it unto were not holy ones and so the argument â—als That which is to be made good is the Minor for indeed some are in doubt whether Judas received the Sacrament or no. And therefore I shall a little touch upon that and it will be made good from Matth. 26.26 his own quotation in this text Christ gave the signes of his body and bloud to his Disciples and said Take eat this is my Body Judas was one of his Disciples that sate down at the Table vers 20. When Even was come he sate down with the twelve and one of this twelve should betray him vers 21. and that Judas continued at the Supper it evident vers 23. He that dippeth with me in the dish the same is he And St. Mark 14. chap. of his Gospel vers 17.20 relates just the same with St. Matthew Then come to Saint Luke chap. 22.14 21. he agrees with the former that all the twelve sate down and he in special speaks of the actions done at the Table the twelve sate down unto Namely 1. The eating of the Passeover vers 15 17 18. Then Christs celebrating this sacred Ordinance blessing and breaking bread to be done in remembrance of Christ vers 19.20 And now having related the main actions that were performed thus solemnly at the Table then he relates what words fell out to be spoken at the Table vers 21 22. notwithstanding Christs love in this familiar manner exprest to them and theirs to him both in the Passeover and holy Supper yet Christ tels them that one of them should betray him and Luke you see relates these words as being at the conclusion of those holy appointments of the Passeover and holy Supper And thus we may conceive a clear agreement of these three Evangelists that Judas was at the Lords Table and did doe as the other did for any thing in the least hinted at by these three that wrote first of this holy history And how ever it should come into the head of any so much as to scruple such a thing whether Judas one of the twelve that sate and eat at the same Table with Christ and the other received the holy Supper or no especially there being not the least hint of his exclusion or withdrawing more then of the other is to be admired Without doubt we may rationally conclude from these three that Judas received the Sacrament of the Lord as well as Peter or James or Thomas c. for they are not recorded to have received it by name in particular but as they were his Disciples and of the twelve that sate down at the Table But then you will say how comes it to passe that this of Judas receiving or not is made such a great controversie in the Church in all ages Answ That which hath occasioned this Controversie from the four Evangelists is in Joh. 13.30 Judas having received the Sop went immediately out and it was night hence it 's conceived that John hath relation to the Passeover Supper and this sop was some part of that service and upon his eating this the Devil entred vers 27. and he went out immediately before the Lords Supper was instituted and given and brought about his actual treason in a part of that night This place and sense hath occasioned the question and quarrel as to Judas so far as ever I could meet with any colour of reason Therefore now I shall both briefly and plainly give you my thoughts how to reconcile the Evangelists and to satisfie any that are rational I hope 1. It can never be proved that St. John doth so much as mention or mean the Passeover Supper in the 13. of John at all only he gives a more particular account of that Supper which Christ and his Disciples had together at Bethany two dayes before the feast of the Passeover in the house of one Simon a Leaper where a woman poured upon Christs head a box of very costly oyntment c. all the Evangelists spake of this Supper Matth. 26.2