Cameroes authority is here quoted but that grave and pious man Mr. Blake hath made it his businesse to confute this difference in the 27 28 and 29 Chapters of his Treatise of the Covenant wherein as I find Mr. Anthony Burgesse particularly in this point commending that Tract as solid and judicious in his second part of Justif after he had seen what hath been put in against it likewise Mr. Vines and others So doe I humbly judge his labours therein are worthy to be attested as very serviceable to the Churches peace SECT 3. VNto the Church under that notion as his Church or people the Lord hath vouchsafed his ordinances by way of priviledge and distinction from the world He shewed his word to Jacob his statutes and his judgements unto Israel he hath not done so to any nation as for his judgements they have not known them Ps 147.19 20. Ps 78.5 6 7. What advantage then hath the Jew Much every way chiefly because that unto theÌ„ were committed the oracles of God Rom. 3.12 To them pertaineth the adoption the convenants and the service of God Rom. 8.4 with Eph. 2.12 Upon this account do our Divines solidly as I think make the Ordinances the right administration of the Word and Sacraments under which a profession of the doctrine of Christ prayer and other worship is comprehended to be the notes or marks of the visible Church It is true indeed that the Gospel is to be preached unto every creature to bring men in unto the Church as the Jewes no doubt might use the Word to make proselytes neverthelesse the word of God as other ordinances cannot be said to pertain unto any out of the Church in the sense of the Scriptures now mentioned until they receive the doctrine thereof and externally subject themselves to the same For this same priviledge of ordinances or this donation of ordinances by way of priviledge to the Church in distinction from others is a thing to be stood upon as a matter very considerable both because if we let this advantage fall we shall presently level a Christian with an Heathen the Church of Christ with the Pagan world and also because the Lord hath appointed these his ordinances whereby the advantage of them does appear to be the ordinary means of bestowing his effectual grace which he hath indefinitely promised in the use thereof SECT 4. VPon this latitude of the convenant and this priviledge of ordinances belonging thus to the Church as a proprium quarto modo or an essential mark thereof it must follow that every member in statu quo must have a right â—evolved on him or flowing to him from that relation as a member Only here wee must observe two distinctions 1. We must distinguish between a Right unto the effectual benefits of Christ held forth in an ordinance as particularly the Lords Supper and a Right to the external ordinance The former right indeed belongs to none but the regenerate but the latter belongs to all within the Church to all alike that are Members Aliqui induunt Christum says Austin usque ad Sacramentorum receptionem aln ad vitae sanctificationem I know some chuse to distinguish here between an active â—ight in the Church to conferre the Seals and a passive right in a visible Member to receive a right in foro Ecclesiae and in foro Dei But for my part I think this former plain distinction of mine respecting an active and passive right in foro Dei Ecclesiae alike is rather for these two reasons see Sect. 2. to be used and in other terms may if you please be expressed thus The Sacraments may be considered either Complexly with the entire fruits and benefits of the Covenant unto which truth of Grace is necessarily required to the obtaining thereof Or precisely in the Ordinance it self and so it is Church-membership alone or external covenant-relation denominating the subjects Saints Beleevers Disciples Christians that gives men right unto the same See reverend Dr. Worths Inf Bap p. 16. It is one thing what is required of the receiver in his coming or that comes to the Sacrament as of the hearer and him that prays in their hearing and prayer and another thing what is requir'd to receiving so that else he must not come 2. We must distinguish between a Right and use of that right Though this right unto all the ordinances be in common It must be acknowledged for the use and actual partaking of some ordinances particularly the Lords Supper there is a difference to be put between such as are not of age or capacity but want the use of reason as Infants Idiots Distracted with the like and other members the direct and immediate ground hereof lying herein in that the use of a right is not of so large extent as the right is A man may have a right to a thing or to do a thing when it is impossible for him to use the thing or to doe it and the impossibility does disoblige and excuse him from the doing It is thus with infants and distracted persons in point of the Lords Supper it is not for want of a right they are not admitted any more than the infectious or sick they have a right nay a full plenary right let others use their own terms as they will as appears convincingly by the other Sacrament of baptisme where there being only a passive reception which they are capable of they do and must receive it But it is because they cannot use the same right here where such an activity is required as they are not capable of Even as in their estates they have a right to them but they do not manage them An heir in his infancy is Lord of all in respect of the one and yet differs not from a servant in respect of the other Gal. 4.1 SECT 5. FRom this concession of mine about Infants and the Distracted it cannot be argued à pari by my opposers for an exclusion of all ignorant unregenerate and scandalous persons 1. Because in the one they stand wholly on the point of Right but in the other we look only on the use of that tight The unregenerate say they have no right to the Sacrament and if they be visibly so through ignorance or scandal they must be excluded We say Infants and the distracted have a right but only they have not reason to manage their right as the other have so here is no parity The truth is it is membership as before that alone gives right so that though a person be unregenerate he may have a right to the ordinance and whether he be Infant Distracted Ignorant or Scandalous it is all one for that if he be a member this external right is the same in the one as in the other Now the right being the same in the use of the right must lie all the difference which between these is plain enough the one have the exercise of reason and are thereby
and they shall be my people And as that is extended to the whole Jews Lev. 26.12 13. So are the whole Gentiles Is 55.4 5. Is 11.10 Is 60.1 2. All Nations Isa 2.1 2. All flesh Is 66.23 Is 40.5 Psal 65.2 All the kinreds of the earth Ps 22.26 27. The Kingdoms of the world Rev. 11.15 From the rising of the Sun to the going down thereof Mal. 1.11 to wit even as many of them as the Lord our God shall call Act. 2.39 said to become the people of God under the New Testament SECT 2. I Know indeed for all these many and arge expressions every where in Scripture some eminent Divines do conceive the Church and Covenant ought to be restrained to the regenerate only and that none else are really but nominally aequivocally Church-members And so I remember Arminius expresses it for them Disp pub Thes 18. Sec. 15. Vocati et non electi ad ecclesiam visibilem pertinere judicantur quanquam Aequivocè quum ad invisibilem non pertine an t This doctrine enforces them to distinguish between what gives right as to a mans own part unto Church-membership and the Ordinances and that which gives right to be admitted whereas the truth is these are Relata quorum posito sublato uno ponitur tollitur alterum Besides there is this grievous inconvenience it runs doâ—nright into that the Minister shall be bound to administer the Ordinances particularly the Sacrament unto people when they are bound upon pain of damnation not to take them Upon this arises inextricable difficulties which as they encline men to separations so they leave the doubtfull Christian in such a case that he can hardly ever act in faith upon such foundations It is my opinion therefore that the Covenant may be considered in the special grace thereof and in ernal administration and thus it belongs only to the elect and regenerate Or in the general grace and external administration of the Ordinances and thus it belongs to the whole Church as visible and to the several members alike whether regenerate or not My reasons for this latitude are these 1. It is manifest that the whole Nation of the Jewes Deut. 29. were Gods peculiar people in covenant with him by the texts fore-quoted and this is amply proved by Mr. Blake Treat Cov. p. 189 190. but that most of them were only aequivocally so is by others assumed gratis 2. It is plain that the Gentiles are ingrafted into the Olive of the Jews Rom. 11.24 that is into their external covenant which covenant must be the covenant of grace for else it could be no prejudice for any of them to be broken off nor priviledge for any of us to be ingrafted in And it must be as to the external administratiò for else neither could any of them be broken off not any of us ingrafted in 3. It appears that the Promise or covenant of Grace in the external administration belongs to all that the Lord our God shall call Acts 2.39 To those that are afarr off that is the Gentiles and their children when the Lord should call any of their parents as it did for the present to the Jews and theirs 4. The called no doubt are many more than the elect many are called but few chosen The called are such as Mr. Blake phrases it as are brought in covenant The chosen such as are brought up to the terms of it Now it is to be considered The called contain the chosen As there is an outward vocation and an effectual vocation yet that outward is real as well as the other So there is an outward being in covenant and effectual as we speak for distinctions sake Yet that outward is real not aequivocally only 5. The Scripture puts a real difference between the Nation of the Jews as being in covenant Rom. 3.1 and 9.4 and others that were alienated from the Commonwealth of Israel without hope without God in the world Eph. 2.12 but if none but the regenerate are in covenant there is no such difference externally between a Jew and Gentile Christian and Heathen but aequivocally onely in which manner methinks the Scripture should not be made to speak so abundantly 6. For this latitude as to Obligation and priviledge of Ordinances it is evident Gen. 17.10 This is my covenant ye shall keep between me and you every man-child among you shall be circumcised Here I note that the waiting on Gods ordinance is the keeping the covenant it self in the external administration And surely there is so much plain strength in the instance of circumcision Gen. 17. Jud. 5. from this large right of Ordinances from covenant-relation that it alone will hold against all can be said against it 7. Excellent Mr. Baxter in his Inf Bap p. 224. mihi Ed. 3. highly commending Mr. Blakes opening of the conditional covenant and affirming that he hath fully proved that the reprobate meaning of professors is within the verge of it he adds And doubtlesse this imerest in the covenant is afruit of Christs death Now if it be so how can it be aequivocal only that is an interect or priviledge which will become a lie and dissimulation for those that have it to assume and can that be a fruit of Christs death 8. If no unregenerate Christian be in covenant but aequivocally then must not such a one bring his child to baptism nor partake himself of Christian communion but it is a meer mockery of Christ as some seem to me here to speak harshly to avoid which he must tenounce his profession and never come to the Supper and to the other Ordinances but only as an Heathen and Infidel 9. Then those that are disciples of Christ for so was Judas must not be caught to doe all things Christ hath commanded Mat. 28.20 10. The Scripture as Mr. Blake urges speaks of dealing falsly in covenant breaking and not being stedfast in it but if the regenerate only be in covenant there can be no such thing really but nominally only 11. Christ said expresly to the twelve Doe this Drink you all of it that was a command and yet one of them was unregenerate From whence it follows that receiving the Sacrament is a duty of a disciple though unregenerate and so the covenant as to priviledge of ordinances belonging to such For my part I cannot but think those titles of Disciples Beleevers Christians Saints by calling and the like given to all within the Church are titles of right and not nominal only We must distinguish saies Timson of beleeving in a large sense and of beleeving in a strict sense both to be accounted true beleeving in Scripture sense The denomination of a beleever and so Saint Christian is as well derived from a right object beleeved on as from the holiness of the subject beleeving Answ to Mr. Col p. 153. It is in my apprehension appositely spoken 12. The covenant is founded upon grace Gratia saies Bullinger Decad. 5. Ser 6.
Word that accompanies the Sacrament especially in things of the Sacrament as well as by that which goes before or after it And by the way as for the younger sort come out of their childhood my judgement is with Aquinas Quando pueri incipiunt aliqualem usum rationis habere ut possint devotionem hujus Sacramenti concipere tunc potest eis hoc Sacramentum conferri Part 3. Quaest 80. Art 4. For the Scandalous in the next place I would have some to know or consider that the Sacrament is an ordinance wherein the curse and wrath of God against sin is held forth in the sufferings of Christ as well as pardon upon repentance Herein is the joynt strength of the Law and Gospel applyed in power to the understanding and a most high-aggravating of sin upon the conscience saies Mr. Blake in his late Book called The Covenant sealed in reference to his former The Covenant opened ch 7. Sect. 13. Arg. 3. 4. A sin-aggravating heart-breaking soul-humbling ordinance as he calls it is a means to reclaim even a scandalous sinner Reader I speak not these things on the one hand to hinder Catechism Examination and any means of private conference for the bringing our people unto knowledge Nay I am not against a prudential making use of this season to this end but only in regard that few Ministers doe or can go to all their people and their people will not come to them I doe conceive it may be satisfactory to their spirits in doing their office that though some persons be ignorant yet coming to the Supper and hearing the nature and use of the Sacrament laid open there is hope through Gods grace that they may receive at the very time competent information to be edified and wrought on by it I will speak plainly they may receive instruction for the knowing according to their modell the wretchednesse of sin that Christ is the Son of God through whose name alone we can be saved and that he is held forth as crucified in the elements and tender'd to beleevers which is as much as Mr. Blake saies he dares require to admittance Cov. Seal p. 233. Again on the other hand I speak not neither to favour the scandalous my doctrine is rather too harsh in the casting them out yet am I not so far gone as to think that it is not possible for such a person not yet under censure to be wrought on or edified by this ordinance No let but a right application of what is held forth herein be made by every receiver according to the state of his soul and what can be more effectual through the word to break his heart Let the man which is most keen against sin consider what I have proposed in my Rejoynder p. 37 39 40 75 76. 112 113.235 236 237 238 239 255. and he will see this is no loose doctrine I have taught Neither may they say this is no means to work grace or repentance but confirm it this is not an ordinance for conversion but for edification For I say otherwise It is a means of edification and salvation and therefore unto some likewise of conversion The whole exercise of Christs officers in dispensing the word seales and all other ordinances of Christ say the London Divines in their Jus Divin Reg. Ec. p. 36. is for the edifying the Church of Christ or the visible body Eph 4.11 12. with v. 4 5 6. 1 Cor. 12.11 12. From hence then I argue If the Lord hath appointed all his ordinances within the Church for the edification of the whole and there be some unregenerate within the Church then is the Sacrament appointed for some unregenerate mens edification and consequently their conversion for otherwise such cannot at all be edified unto salvation But the former is true therefore the latter Again The solemn application of the covenant to a mans self according to his estate to wit of salvation through Christ if he will beleeve and repent and of judgement from Christ if he continues in his sinnes and does not turn effectually to him is the very onely way whereby the Spirit usually worketh conviction and sincere conversion But actual receiving of the Sacrament is a solemn means of such an application Ergo. I pray see what I have written in the fore-quoted places for the clearing of this and compare it with the substance of what Mr. Blake hath put in since and it may be more cautiously exprest in the said place of his Cov Seal p. 204. 240. which hath much confirm'd me and I am perswaded when this matter is a litle more laid to heart that many will not only be ready to confesse with him ibid. p. 240. that there is more weight herein than personally hath been acknowledged but also that though it be objected against my doctrine that it strengthens the hands of the wicked Ez. 13.22 yet shall the godly find here a sword put in their hands for the smiting the wicked the secure and hypocrite up to the heart with this Sacrament it self while they are but taught to apply what is held forth to them according to their condition Indeed I conceive a forbearance sometimes for all this may be piously advised upon the account of prudence and the solemnitie of the ordinance to doe more good by it which I shall speak something of in the end to yield what may be to the satisfying the pious but this will not come up to a necessity All the disciples of Christ were ignorant in the fundamentals of Christs death and resurrection and Judas was scandalous See my Rejoynd page 15. yet Christ excluded neither of them at his Supper SECT 6. WEll now let thus much be considered that the Lord hath his Church in such a latitude to take into it whole Nations regenerate and unregenerate That the priviledge of ordinances belongs to this Church by way of distinction of it from the world That every member thereof therefore hath a right unto the ordinances devolved on him from this Church-covenant-relation While yet it is confessed that there are some which through their incapacity of reason cannot use the same The result of all will come to this that there is no person of discretion within the Church can be debarred any publick ordinance particularly the Sacrament before he be turn'd out of the Church with which this priviledge of ordinances is convertible and from it inseparable The Sacrament is the communion or token of our communion in Jesus Christ But every Church-member in statu quo is in Christ Jo. 15.2 and in some sense partaker of his blood so as to sanctifie him Heb. 10 29. and redeem him 2 Pet. 2.1 and therefore his right is good to that which is in the same sense the token hereof So long as he is in communion how can he be debarr'd the communion while he is in the body he may partake of the body The Church is the body of Christ and so
est favor numinis quo Deus pater nos propter Christum complectitur et donis instruct Now in the Scripture there is two-fold grace General grace and Special grace God is said to love all that he would have all to be saved yet elect some Christ is said to dye for all and to dye for his sheep Both these are true whatsoever men contend the Scripture must be beleeved and we must not argue from the one to the destruction of the other To define this sense orthodoxly how both are reconciled who is so wise to undertake One Cottier a grave French-Protestant Divine in an Epistle of his to one of their Provincial Assemblies and well approved of by them having studied this point long saies thus Ad haec respondemus non esse asystata quia gradu modo differunt Deum putamus posse magìs et minùs velle Par est majora magìs minora minùs velle Quod verò de Deo dicitur Christo etiam convenit Pro omnibus mortuus magis vero pro Electis Doctor Twisse saies thus often Fatemur et nos Christum-mortuum esse pro omnibus et singulis hoc sensu nempe ut inomnes singulos per mortem ejus redundet salus modò in ipsum credant Lib. 2. Crim. 4. Sect. 6. For my part I dare not be peremptory in determining this sense of General grace it suffices me that there is some sense thereof according to the word of truth and I shall only observe this one thing that in the Scripture this General grace belonging to all in some Orthodox sense whatsoever it be is often appropriated to the visible Church who are said to be redeemed to be in Christ and sanctified with his blood in way of distinction from the world when some of them are reprobates and perish with it 2 Pet. 2.1 Jo. 15.2 Heb. 10.29 And herein I do conceive we may see how the covenant of grace in this latitude to the whole Church may stand upon a real and not an aequivocal foundation and that will be if we doe not reckon the unregenerate and non-elect to be in covenant in reference to special grace as Christ is said to dye for his sheep and elect whereof these cannot partake indeed only in the account of men which is nominally only but in reference to General grace as Christ is said to dye for all and that not nominally aequivocally in the account of men only but really so that the tender and offer of Christ to all is serious and real as it is appropriated to the Church that receives it with distinction of priviledge from the heathen or world that doe not receive this grace and Gospel but deny it And this by the way I shall humbly offer for the removing some grand objections which stick with many For instance The Sacraments are signes of grace instituted to testifie the being and having the thing saies Gillespie Aar rod blos B. 3. c. 13. Therefore they belong to the regenerate only Again It is not credible that Christ should say This is my body broken for you and my blood shed for you if Judas were amongst the other disciples B. 3. c. 8. Again The Sacrament is the communion of the body blood of Christ with the like I answer The Sacraments are signs directly of this general Grace as it is appropriated in Scripture to the Church and they do testifie to every nember the being and their having thereof by way of advantage and distinction from the world And thus as it is credible that Christ should say there are some branches in him that yet are fruitlesse that Peter should say some are bought by the Lord that deny him and Paul that some are sanctined by the blood of the covenant that trample upon it according to the texts fore-quoted So is it credibse that Christ should say these words This is my body broken for you to Judas among the rest and in the same sense is there a communion of Christs body and blood to all within the Church even as Moses saies to all the people Rehold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you Ex. 24.8 Heb. 9.19.20 though some of them be professors only Two things here may be demanded 1. How can this General grace of the covenant be appropriated to the Church which belongs to all the world I answer It belongs to the world only in regard of publication tender and a kind of potential interest if they come in but it belongs to the Church by way of actual interest as already come in See my Rejoynd p. 202. so that one is said to be in covenant and the others yet aliens from it Eph. 2 12.2ly What is that then which brings a man into this outward actual interest in the covenant whereby this General grace thereof belongs to him by way of priviledge now when as yet he is no more partaker of the Special grace thereof than before I answer with Mr. Hudson Vind. p. 8. There are two Sieves which God useth the first is to sift the world into a visible ecclesiastical body The second is to sift this visible ecclesiastical body into a spiritual invisible body The one Sieve is managed by the hands of the Minister the other is in the hands of God only Into the one a man is brought by the outward call of the Minister and his own answering that call in receiving the doctrine of Christ and subjection to the Ordinances Into the other a man is brought only by election and regeneration 13. Lastly The covenant under the New Testament is said to be better than under the Old Heb. 7.22 8.6 But to account this priviledge of Ordinances which was in common to the Jews as is proved before to belong now only to the regenerate is to make it worse under the New testament than under the Old which is injurious to doe Arbitrari saies Calvin Inst l. 4. c. 16. Sec. 6. Christum adventu sno patris gratiam immiouisse aut decurtasse execrabili blasphemia non vacat I know some do make this difference between the New and Old Testament that the Jews were all called Gods people and reckoned in covenant though many of them were wicked but it is not so now say they under the New Against these I shall oppose only those two plain texts 1 Cor. 5.11 12. there are scandalous persons enumerated a Fornicator covetous drunkard yet within that is within the Church and covenant yet a brother So 2 Thess 3.15 There is the disorderly person yet count him not as an enemy that is happily considering the word in other places as Rom. 11.28 Eph. 2.16 count him not as one out of the Church an Unbeleever or Heathen but admonish him as a brother And indeed unless such be looked on as brethren and as within how can there be any excommunication for what have we to doe to judge those that are without I know that
fateor quidem generaliter omnes censeri qui se tales esse testentur etiamsi reipsâ nihil minùs sunt quam Christiani 3. That they are so to be accounted of in regard of admission untill they are orderly convicted and sentenc'd Deinde pro non detectis haberi qui tales esse non fuerint eo quem Deus in ecclesiâ constituit ordine convicti pro rebellibus damnati So pag. 27. Christus inquit D. Erastus jussit omnes edere illum panem et ex poculo illo bibere Ergo neminem vult excludi qui se suum discipulum profiteatur Id verò concedimus adeò quidem ut ipsos etiam hypocritas quamdiu vel penitus sunt tecti vel neque authoritate publico convicti et damnati inter discipulos numeremus I know some of our Divines of late but not of the gravity and moderation of Beza as Mr. Collins p. 41. Gillespy Mr. D. and others are more bold with the command of Christ and taking up Beza for granting thus much do restrain it to the regenerate only But this reverend man who is much rather to be heard durst not do so but is plain you see and clear in these concessions upon which the substance of my whole opinion at least as to the Ministers part will stand For if the Sacrament be instituted for disciples and all that professe Christ are to be accounted such and none of them to be excluded until they be convicted and condemned for rebels in that order God hath appointed as he affirms then must that disciplinary Free-admission which hold before excommunication be good unless it can be provd that there is some other censure in the order God hath appointed whereby the said rebels are to be condemned besides excommunication which I deny And so you see to what a little point our difference draws Beza sayes they must be convict and sentenced first before they be excluded as well as I only he conceives there is a lesser censure to be first inflicted before the greater which I must confesse I find not And herein likewise Beza himself acknowledges thus far that there is seldome mention in the Scripture of any such lesser censure but the greater only Tantum abest ut major excommunicatio censeri possit praeter Dei verbum invecta ut contra rara sint in ipso verbo Dei expressa minoris excommunicationis exempla majoris autem multa p. 11. Now if here instead of rara he had said nulla I think he had delivered the very truth My reasons against the affirmative of this question are these 1. Because the Lord Jesus in that primitive institution under the Gospel Mat. 18.15 16 17. hath prescribed no other parts or order in discipline than admonition and excommunication After the offending partie is admonished privately then publiquely If he will not hear the Church sayes Christ let him be as an Heathen that is let him be excommunicate according to those that oppose Erastus Now if the Apostles have prescribed any other order of discipline than what is prescribed in this original pattern let it be produced If not then may this text be sufficient that there is no such middle thing in the order Christ hath appointed as Suspension between admonition and excommunication 2. Because the power of the Keyes are given for binding and loosing which I conceive is done not in regard of a persons being debarr'd or admitted any ordinance The Levitically unclean were kept from the ordinances during their uncleannesse yet were not their sins bound thereby for many times they might become unclean without sin Lev. 21.3 Numb 19.8 But in regard of that state and relation men have to the Church outwardly and Christ as visible members from which while they are excluded their sins are accordingly and no otherwise bound or retained because there is no remission out of the Church or out of Christ the visible herein clave non errante presenting the invisible as they are loosed by being received in again through repentance From whence I argue where the sins of men are not bound or retained there is no Church-censure Mat. 16.19 Io. 20.23 But it is not excluding men from the Sacrament but the excluding them from the Church and so Relatively from all its benefits in that sense as we say Extra quam non est salus aut remissio that does bind the sins of men upon earth Therefore suspension can be no Church-censure distinct from excommunication See my Rejoynd p. 145 150. As the being within the Church puts men into a state whereby every member Relatively though a Reprobate is said in Scripture to be in Christ redeemed sanctified to have communion of his body and bloud with the like so does the casting them out of the Church put them likewise into a contrary state or condition whereby they are Relatively to be said without Christ without God in the world without redemption remission salvation 3. Because the Scriptures wheresoever they speak of exclusion in point of discipline doe still speak in general Purge out the old leven Have no company Put away from among your selves such a person c. From whence my argument will be framed thus If there bee no place in Scripture to prove any exclusion at all but such as speaks of exclusion from the Church the whole lump society in general or the like then is it not possible to prove by the Scripture Sacramental exclusion as distinct from Church-exclusion Or If there be no other medium in Scripture-discipline I speak of the word Discipline all the way restrainedly as to this part of censure but excommunication it self for the proving a withholding any at all for moral uncleanness from any publick ordinance as may appear by any thing of weight in Gillespyes 14 Arguments for exclusion from the Passeover B. 1. c. 12. then cannot suspension be proved as distinct from but only as conjunct with excommunication The consequence here is apparent But the former is true therefore the latter In a word the Scripture knows no other exclusion that is disciplinary but a casting out of the Church and so from the Sacrament only as included in it SECT 12 ANd this I take to be so true full and convincing that I should hardly need any thing more for the answering even the whole of those arguments for juridical suspension which is of late put forth by Mr. Coll in that book of his upon this subject wherein I may truly say there is bestowed a good deal of reading only as it were to discover how little there is to be found in others and nothing from himself besides humane authority for his opinion I must confesse there are here Certain Scriptures and Reasons urged by him with so much pedantry that is more than enough and it will be necessary that I give my thoughts concerning the Scriptures though for what is mere formalitie ostentation or personal abuse it may passe I pray God teach
foundation for this Cannot we say is not a natural cannot but a logical cannot A cannot argumentative Ye cannot partake of this Sacrament saies the Apostle and of those meats sacrificed to Idols because there is no agreement between these things he explains his own cannot there is a plain inconsistency in reason between them for by the one we professe communion with Christ by the other with devils and I would not have you saies he v. 20. have communion with devils To this purpose that Note from Beza upon the word cup is pertinent that it is not said you cannot partake of the body and blood of Christ which would rather expresse this inward communion but you cannot partake of the cup and table which must intend the outward elements and not the things signified only the very drift reason and matter of the Apostle else is evacuated Not as Mr. Col. urges because Pauls argument is plainly to prove the unlawfulnes of their comming to this table while they were guilty of such sinnes which is indeed a plain untruth but because his argument is from their partaking of the Lords table as their duty being Christians to disprove their partaking of the meats offer'd to Idols with the Heathens I know some interpret this Cannot morally Id possumus solùm quod jure possumus You cannot that is in few words you ought not which might be admitted if they will apply it right to wit thus You cannot that is you ought not to goe to the Idol-temples who are according to your profession to bee partakers of the Lords table But for them to apply it quite contrary you go to the temple of Idols and so you cannot that is you ought not come to the Sacrament This I must tell them cannot be admitted Cannot in the sense of the Texts cannot that is cannot in any reason Let this cannot then here be understood not of a physical cannot nor a bare moral cannot but a logical cannot grounded if you will on a moral cannot on the one side yet so long as you shall not be able to deny the moral Can which the whole former part of the chapter enforces on the other here will be nothing at all for the adversarie The Apostle does not say any where before You partake of the table of Idols or have eaten of those meats I would not have you have felloship with Christ But he says plainly you partake of the Lords Table you are in communion with Christ and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils Thus then the main being clear I shall propose here four things 1. Whether it can be denied that this action of these Corinths in partaking of these Idol-tables was scandalous Scandalum being dictum vel factum minùs rectum praebens atteri occasionem ruinae 2. If it cannot how then can any man gather an argument from this place whatsoever they may do from others for the keeping away persons from the Sacrament for scandal when the Apostle himself pleads the general priviledge of these persons comming to the Sacrament as an argument to reclaim them from their scandall 3. Whether this argument here may not be irrefragably advanced Those that were by the A ostles reasoning engaged from partaking of the table of Idols partook of the Lords Supper for this is the ground upon which he proves they might not partake thereof But not only those Corinths that were more pious but those scandalous patricularly were hereby engaged and warned from partaking of those tables of devils Ergo these Corinths though scandalous were admitted to the Sacrament Thus much is not to be gain aid they were I adde and they ought to be tid excommunicate upon the same consideration because else you make a sinfull medium in the Apostles Argument 4. Whether many of our godly brethren that take occasion from these words to separate from us in our mixt communions are not a little mistaken in them seeing the Apostle here pleads not against the comming of divers persons good and bad to the same table but against the same persons going to diverse tables The third Scripture is 1 Cor. 5.8 Therefore let us keep the feast not with the old leaven c. For the meaning of these words we find in the beginning of the chapter the Apostle is speaking to these Corinths about their gathering together in an ecclesiastical way for the excōmunicating the incestuous person as appears especially from the last verse unto which with v. 7. and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in v. 5. what Erastus opposes I judge is strain'd and insufficient though what he urges upon the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were plausible otherwise For this now St. Paul gives his plain reason which yet he expresses metaphorically Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump that is one such evil example tolerated will bring a blot or infamy upon the whole Church besides the hurt it may doe through imitation Purge out therefore the old leaven that you may be a new lump that is Cast our of your society therefore this person For Christ our passeover is sacrificed for us that is as to the sense and matter agreeable to Tit. 3.14 Christ gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to be a peculiar people zealous of good works so that Christ being sacrificed for us is an argument to us as to purge out sin in our selves so to purge out the old leaven from the Church The word Old happily may signifie not every fresh sinner for one lapse or so but the veterate and obstinate therein For the manner of the expression it is plainly brought in by way of elegancy in pursuance of the Metaphor as likewise the text that follows therefore let us keep the feast The words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Igitur epulemur as the olo translation that is Itaque solennitèr vivamus or vitam presentem transeamus Let us live festivally or as the Margin of our English Bibles most properly Let us keep holy day to wit in our communion together as Christians Let us lead or passe our life which ought to be a perpetual celebration of our redemption Not with the old leaven or the leven of malice or wickednes but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth that is what the Israelites did typically for 7 days let us perform in the truth and thing signified all the days of our lives to wit purging out the leven both of imbred corruption and scandal from amongst us So that to make here a solemn enquiry what is this feast we are to keep in the text seems to me an injudicious and needless trouble the substantive Feast being not in the text but the Metaphor exprest only in one verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 manifestly borrowed to follow the allusion or to suit with the rest in the sense I have spoken according to Athanasius Chrysostome Theophilact Lyra Calvin Beza
admitters in regard Christ acting say they as a Minister was not to take notice of what he knew of Judas as he was God yet it is apparent that it reaches not the matter at all as to the receivers themselves who neverthless for all this as for their own parts will be bound to receiving though they be such as Judas was that is at least unregenerate if not scandalous also It may be replyed as to the part of the admitters that Christ knew of Judas compact which no doubt was a high scandal in its self being inductive of sin and ruine to the Jews with whom he dealt not only as God but as man likewise because as man he was a Prophet Deut. 18 15. and that Godhead that dwelt in him bodily revealed this to him Now I argue if it was Christs duty to have excluded Judas from the Passeover if a man had revealed this to him how much more must be have done it when the God-head revealed it to him whose testimony is above all mens in the world But I shall chuse to lay my strength here as I say as to the part of the receivers that from Christs acting not as a mere man but as Mediator As the Lord Jesus does institute the Sacrament and give the precept he must do it unquestionably as mediator It is God only can give laws to bind the conscience Now in the institution and giving the precept he directs the same to all present and so to Judas amongst the rest from whence arises an obligation from the Lord irrefragably upon Judas as well as on the others to actual receiving what Christ bids him expresly do among them must be his duty and consequently while a man is a disciple though unregenerate as Judas was that does not unduty him to use the Supper And then let us hear what Dr. Diake himself who herein throughly looks to the foundation will tell us Let but Mr. H. says be p. 116. prove that actual receiving is a debt on the part of a natural man and he will yield the cause to us 2. Whereas it is denied notwithstanding this text and others by us alleadged that there is no precept nor president in Scripture for the administring the Sacrament to all Mr. Coll. ch 5. I desire these two Trules may be laid 1. that Giving and receiving being Relata all those texts that prove it the duty of any to receive the Sacrament does eo nomine oblige the Minister to deliver it to them or admit them because Posito uno relatorum ponitur alterum 2. That we are to look upon all the Ordinances of God unto his Church as universal obliging every member in particular to wait upon them unless where the Scripture it self layes some restriction or limitation the reason is because it is presumption in any to limit that which Gad hath not restrained And then I do assert hereupon that there is as many Scripture-precepts and presidents to deliver the Sacrament to all as to any supposing them within the Church and neither unintelligent or excommunicate as we entend the question for such as are Heathen Exod. 12.43 48. or have not reason and discernment 1 Cor. 11. 28 29. or are under censure 1 Cor. 5. 13. are debarr'd we all grant by the Scriptures quoted There are two instances only besides the precept and president in the former text I will here mention The one is the instance of the Passeover where all the congregation of Israel every man Ex. 12.3 47 50. from Dan to Bersheba 2 Chr. 30.5 all their males every year Exod. 34.23 Deut. 16. 16. All the children of the captivity to name that text Ezra 6.21 because by some it is alleaged against us that is all the Jews that returned without exception and all such as had seperated themselves unto them from the filthinesse of the heathen that is all their proselytes also the filthinesse of the heathen was their idols did eat and were so commanded There is nothing which I would chiefty have observed that made any Israelite uncapable of partaking thereof but that which made a godly man uncapable and such no more uncapable of this than of other the holy things And this was Levitical uncleanness whereof while the question is proposed to Moses Num. 9. whether such should eat of it or no it is plain in the chapter that for the rest to eat thereof was out of question The other instance is that of 1 Cor. 10.1 2 3 4. as I have prest it in my first book They all eat of the Manna and drank of the rock which was Christ The main answer given by Beza Gillespy Philip Goodwin Rutherford Dr. Drake and which all have is that all the Israclites were admitted here because this water and manna was their corporal food without which they could not live But herein lyes the force of what we urge to wit Why should the Lord make that ordinary food of theirs without which they could not live to be Sacramental if to eat and drink of Christ sacramentally was not a priviledge in common to the Church The main thing alleaged against Free-admission is the holiness of that whereunto Sacramental sigus do relate and the indisposition of the visibly unworthy to partake thereof Now sayes the Apostle the Israelites all of them yet many of them unworthy in our adversaries sense did drink of the rock which was Christ and it was the Lords will they should do so for therefore he made that food I say which all were to live by Sacramental Besides if it were such a grievous sin as murdering the Lord of glory or being guilty of his bloud to drink of Christ symholically without such and such qualifications as some do still speak then should these Israelites as I have said in my Rejoynd have rather samished their bodies than have eat and drank the damnation of their souls whereas we find that the sons of Aaron Lev. 22.23 were not to eat of the holy things during their Levitical uncleanness though it was their appointed food which Gillespy himself notes p. 97. Exemplo Israëlitarum saies Musculus in Ps 105. v. 39. Apostolus admonet usum externorum Sacramentorum talem esse ut neminem justificet possing ab omnibus promiscuè exerceri 3. Whereas it is laid down by my adversaries as their main hold that visible worthiness is the rule of admission as visible unworthiness or unfitness the rule of Suspension I shall think sit to propose or oppose these three things 1. Take all the visible worthiness in the world it can amount to no more than an external covenant-relation denominating the subjects quoad homines Saints Believers Christians Now who shall define us these covenant-relatives either this judgement of men or the open plain determination of the Scriptures 2. If we go on this ground of covenant-relation we go on a certain judgement every one knows who are externally in covenant or Church-members but if we go on
able to act from a principle of reverence towards God the other have not The Corinths sin of not discerning the Lords body was more of carelesnes or prophanenesse than bare ignorance there is as much difference between Infants and Ignorants as I have said otherwhere as between a Doe not and a Cannot if the one does not it is their fault but the other cannot and are excused 2. Because there is yet a farther thing here most considerable and that is this The very ground upon which we are to do any thing or leave it undone is the consideration of duty The command of God as it is our rule so it must be the reason of our actions Now there is a difference in the very point of obligation or duty between Infants and Distracted persons and Ignorant and Scandalous persons The command of the Apostle is this 1 Cor. 11. Let a man examine himself and so let him eat discerning the Lords body Now as for Infants and the Distracted they are not bound to this command it is impossible for such to examine themselves and discern the Lords body and there can be no obligation to that which is naturally impossible But as for Scandalous and Ignorant persons they are bound to examine themselves they are of capacitie and are bound to get knowledge and discern the Lords body Who can deny that they are bound to do this and that if they do it not it is their sinne It is true an ignorant person cannot examine himself as well as a knowing Christian but he can examine himself though so farr that he is bound to it He cannot hear and apply the Word as a man of more knowledge but he can hear and apply the Word after a sort though as an ignorant man which he is bound unto and so far as he can apply the word he can examine himself the doing of one is a doing of the other Likewise an unregenerate man cannot discern the Lords body with that faith and love as the regenerate do but yet neverthelesse in point of dutie the case is plain every man must doe still what he can that God may help him to do what he cannot That which is a sin to neglect or leave undone is a dutie to be done but it is a sin in Ignorant and Scandalous persons not to examine themselves and discern the Lords body and no fin in Infant and Distracted persons and therefore it is a dutie in the one and not in the other And if it be a dutie here comes in then this rule which can never be taken off that Mans impotencie in the manner of performance of a dutie must not make void Gods authoritie in the substance and so I cloze up this if there be a dutie incumbent upon Ignorant and Scandalous members in respect of this Sacrament which is not on Infants and those which have not the use of reason then can there be no argument here from the non-admission of the one to the exclusion of the other And this might suffice but I will adde 3. It cannot be reasonably imagined that such a state of persons as Infants and Idiots in the Church should be admitted to actual receiving that in the discretion of the Church are no proper objects of Church-censures in point of offending which growen persons in the Church are though never so ignorant As John Timson hath put in to my assistance in his Bar removed p. 6. I will add it is as unreasonable likewise that such a state of men in the Church as ignorant persons should not be capable of a right of receiving the Sacrament who are upon their misdemeanour lyable to a censure of exlusion from it Eadem est ratio contrariorum 4. The non-admission of Infants and Distracted or Idiots is the office of everie single Minister belonging only to the right administring of the ordinance so that the precept alone Let a man examine himself and discern the Lords bodies does suffice for the doing thereof But exclusion of ignorant and scandalous persons is an act of Jurisdiction and belonging according to the Presbyterians to the Elders so that there are other texts required upon the account whereof that is to be done to wit those texts which concern discipline as Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. Put away from among you such a person There is not therefore the same reason for the one as for the other as may be gather'd farther from what will follow There is more required and another ground to an act which is ecclesiastically inflictive of punishment than to a bare act of pastoral discretion 5. The Ordinances all are to be used only for edification Now the work of the Sacrament on the receiver being only by way of sign as the understanding is exercised thereon it is not possible that those who have not the use of reason to discern any meaning here of can be edified or have any real grace wrought on them by it But for such as are of years understanding though spiritually ignorant and scandalous though unregenerate for the regenerate may sometimes be such I do conceive they are capable through the grace of God to receive good by it as by the word the Sacrament being nothing else but a visible word or an appendix to the Gospel As for the ignorant in the first place I suppose such as are of age and reason let the Minister speak of Mans miserie redemption by Christ and tell the people plainly the meaning of the Sacrament they come unto in as few plain words as they can and ought who can deny that they may not receive instruction and with instruction conviction now at this time they are here as at another If they do not the fault will be their Ministers or their own The Sacrament mediante verbo through the word will be granted a teaching ordinance but the Word does accompany the Sacrament and is indeed a part of it The Novices of the Jews were instructed in the meaning of the Passeover and some mysteries of their Religion at their eating the Passeover Godwin Jewish Antiq. l. 3. c. 4. the Paschal Lamb was appointed for a teaching sign and memorial in their generations Exod. 12.26 27. So doubtless is the Sacrament a teaching sign also I must confesse if you will say that some are so grosly ignorant that they are not capable for the present to learn or be instructed by publick teaching then may you have the libertie for me to number them amongst Idiots and such as have not the use of reason and so deal with them accordingly and if indeed there be such we had best happily for avoyding cavil to distinguish between these excepting them together with Infants and the Distracted and those whom I speak of that though they be ignorant are of discretion and capacitie to edifie by the publick ordinances and as for such it seems to me against sense to deny that they may not receive instruction and edification by the