the Canon it selfe speakes 2. But as to the substance of his exception I answer briefly thus for the overthrowing of it Either the Common prayer booke was not abolished by a lawfull authority sufficient for the nulling and abrogating of that sanction whereby it was formerly established or els it was If it were not then Ministers by vertue of the Common prayer booke may as opportunity is offered suspend according to the Directions therein given them which remaine still in force if not nulled by a sufficient authority But if the Common prayer booke was abolished by a lawfull authority sufficient for the abrogating that sanction whereby it was formerly established then certainly they who had such power to abrogate that government and order had power also to establish our suspension It belonging to the same power or authority to null as to make a law And then the same suspension in substance is delegated to Church Officers still in the Ordinance of 48 for Presbyterial Government where this is appointed by the Lords and Commons by whom only the Service booke was abrogated I have the rather hinted this for the satisfaction of some godly persons who have not been well satisfied with the State proceedings in reference to Church Government who yet have an high esteem of the former constitutions of the Church of England And me thinkes where the same thing for substance is appointed and practiced they should not reject it And now let the Reader if he please judge whether M. W. or we behave our selves most like Ministers of the Church of England in reference to the degrees of excommunication and specially in reference to suspension the neglect whereof he out of Mr. P. chargeth us with Mr. W. proceeds to carp at may be in my syllogisme when as yet may be was in the position I opposed And the question was whether such cases may occurre not whether they did occurre wherein the persons spoken of might be suspended as appeares in my M S. at numb 6.17 But our Doctor resolutissimus absolutissimus descends not so low as to observe the state of the Question he had rather it seemes be shewing his Logick to his weaker consciences for whose satisfaction his title page designes his booke and telling them p. 43 44. which are the subjects and the predicats in the Propositions and the medius terminus in the syllogisme they will it may be applaud their Doctor with an Egregiam veró laudem But if any of his weaker consciences meet with these lines I am of opinion they will not so farre admire those logical termes as to refuse the plaine and wholesome provision I now offer them to share with me in the PSAIM 119. Part 4. D. 25 Down on the dust my sad soul stayes Let thy truth life afford 26 Declar'd to thee I have my wayes Thou heardst Teach me thy Word 27 Disclose thy Precopts-way to me Thy wondrous workes I 'le tell 28 Deep griefe my soul melts strengthen me After thy Word right well 29 Drive lying wayes from me thy Law Grant to me graciously 30 Duely I chose thy Truth and saw Thy Judgements with mine eye 31 Dearly thy witness'd Truth I hold From shame Lord me discharge 32 Daily in thy wayes run I would If thou my heart enlarge CHAP. V. §. 1. THe confirmation of the Major Proposition in my second syllogisme at numb 25. in my M S. Mr. W. repeats in his p. 44. where he hath such jejune and lanquid exceptions against some explications being inserted in Parentheses and so separated from the syllogisme it selfe that I judge it needless to make any defence against them There being none I thinke who manage a dispute in writing who do not use the like Although its true in disputations face to face there is less need of them any mistake which might occurre about the meaning of the termes being soone rectified by explication thereof The like frivolous complaint he makes of some various equipollent phrases used viz. visibly unbeleevers and such as ought to be judged and taken to be unbeleevers when as I had expresly signified the equipollency of them numb 25. The proposition I was to prove was Those who by word openly renounce the Lord Jesus Christ are visibly such to whom the Lord would not according to the revelation of his will in his Word have the Lords Supper administred Now my conclusion in the syllogisme I brought to prove this was Those who by word openly renounce the Lord Jesus Christ are visibly such to whom according to the word of God the Lords Supper ought not to be administred An ordinary Reader I think would see no difference betwixt them to whom according to the word of God the Lords Supper ought not to be administred and them to whom the Lord would not according to the revelation of his will in his word have the Lords Supper administred But Mr. W. that he may seeme to see further into a milstone than another can doe hath spyed the disagreement He was belike at a great want for exceptions who takes up these and considering his necessity he may be better excused It s better to pick strawes than to doe just nothing But at last he hath unbutton'd his eyes and can perceive some strength in my proofe when it hath been he thinkes beholding to him for a better dresse p. 46. where he thus formes it Those who are visibly unbeleevers are visibly such to whom the Lords Supper ought not to be administred But those who by word openly renounce the Lord Jesus Christ are visibly unbeleevers Ergo Those who by word openly renounce the Lord Jesus Christ are visibly such to whom the Sacrament of the Lords Supper ought not to be administred § 2. Well now he hath the honour as he speakes to be opponent himselfe I hope he will be more civil in his answer and not be captious against his own creature Wherein now saith he p. 47. doth this argument advance your pretensions or disparage ours and then explaining that Question or shewing that he is not at a want of other artificiall words to say the same thing againe as pompously he addes What evidence doth it artificially and intrinsecally give for you or against us My conclusion was those who by word openly renounce the Lord Jesus Christ are visibly such to whom according to the word of God the Lords Supper ought not to be administred The conclusion he hath made for me is those who by word openly renounce the Lord Jesus Christ are visibly such to whom the Sacrament of the Lords Supper ought not to be administred Let the Reader judge what material difference there is betwixt them Yet he grants the latter when he quarreld the former But then as bethinking himselfe that the argument is mine though the dress be his he will now have another thrust at it and denies the Minor yet not absolutely but with distinction now he attempts to play the part of a
appeare to be of a right faith and doctrinally true beleevers And againe saith he p. 61. By our administration to beleevers is meant such beleevers as we may have a certainty that they are beleevers Now if we must know them to be beleevers by hearing them say the Creed and testifying their beleefe of every Article therein before we can have a certainty they are beleevers capable of admission to the Supper then they must give an understanding visible account of their faith in order to their admission Their having been baptized in infancy is no demonstration and less then demonstration will not serve for the infallible certainty Mr. W. requires of their personall doctrinal faith this doctrinal faith they cannot be expected to have without instruction preceding and the meanes of instruction afforded to them is no proof of their proficiency therefore according to Mr. W. his own concessions they must give an account of their proficiency under the meanes of instruction they have had for the attaining this indispensably necessary doctrinal faith which we must saith he have an infallible certainty of before we administer unto them 4. The same Reason which will justifie the requiring a Parents renewing his profession of faith and renouncing what is contrary thereunto when he presents his childe to baptisme will as effectually prove that he should personally professe the faith before he was admitted to the Lords Supper And therefore whereas an ancient Divine in this Country as I am informed at the celebration of a Baptisme having asked the Parent the usuall Questions then offered to his Brethren Why that parent might not be admitted to the Lords Supper without any further Examination before Minister or Eldership since he had now made an open profession of his faith at the baptisme of his child It may be answered 1. That if he please to give a reason to warrant his demanding that profession from the Parent before the infant should be baptized the same will shew what he desired He may try at his leasure to give a Reason for the one which will not as effectually reach the other 2. Yea much more strong will it be in the latter than former case In his datum than quaesitum supposing the parent had been upon a personall owning the Covenant engagements admitted before that time to the Lords Supper 3. I should readily grant if this parent have not or not upon a personal confession of the faith been admitted to the Lords Supper before that this profession he was occasioned to make at the baptisme of his infant may so far as it goes serve without renewing of it at his admission to the Lords Supper But then it should be considered whether the answering in that forme I beleeve I renounce for sake c. may be reasonably judged an understanding owning of the Covenant where it appeares not by previous conference with him or a present more full explication of himselfe or some other probable way that he doth understand what he answers unto 4. Lastly I answer That the parent who is to be admitted to the Lords Supper ought not only understandingly to own the Covenant and baptisme as one seale thereof which he makes profession of at the baptisme of his infant but also particularly the ordinance of the Lords Supper the signification of the sacramental elements and actions therein and the end of celebrating the same that he may be in a visible capacity of discerning the Lords body And therefore there is manifest reason why he should make a further profession supposing he hath not done it before for his own admission to the Communion then was required from him at the admission of his Infant to baptisme And so much in answer to this proposall of the Minister aforesaid of which I desire his candid acceptance Some other passages mentioned by him at the same time I neglect as savouring of calumny and passion The tide may turne and the brooke therewith I grudge him not the liberty of Retract on but then it were seemly to be without detraction from others who still own the opinion he was lately most zealous for I now proceed 3 It makes no alteration as to the matter in hand whether this understanding profession of the faith be immediately before a persons first admission to the Sacrament or a longer time before so that the thing be done And therefore where Confirmation was in use and seriously managed that might serve this purpose sufficiently according to the direction of the Common prayer book before recited Ch 4. § 3. 4 If persons have been unduely admitted to the Lords Supper without making this understanding profession of the Christian faith before that excuseth them not from being now called to make it in order to their present admission this will stand good till it can be evinced that a neglect excuseth from duty that that must never be done which hath been sinfully left undone and that because of that irregular omission although as fit an opportunity is againe afforded for the doing of it as that was which formerly was not taken hold of as it should have been for the same And indeed as the Provincial Synod of London in their Vindication hath observed The great Odium cast upon the Presbyterial way is occasioned by the shameful neglect formerly of the Rules then appointed for Examination of all before they should have been admitted to the Lords Table And now the Reformation endeavoured in this thing is not so much for the amending the Rule which before was prescribed as in calling people up to a stricter observation of the same Rule for matter and substance 5 It hath bin already shewed that the Presbyterian Government which is that confirmed by the Parliament after advice had with the Assembly of Divines not what some Presbyterians may hold doth not require all persons now should be againe examined who have formerly upon the due profession of their faith been admitted to the Sacrament But it forbidding the ignorant to be admitted only inferres that such as hitherto have not understandingly owned the Covenant of grace should now be called to do it if they would partake of the Sacrament And therefore where any have formerly performed that in substance which is now required from them who are to be first admitted to the Supper and can make it appear there is no necessity according to Presbyterian principles for their rene wall of it as to their present communicating 6 This profession must be made before sufficient and comperent witnesses else it cannot be a satisfactory profession But who those must be is a consideration of another nature For this may vary according to the different circumstances of persons times and places and the judgement of the Church thereupon or of those who are most eminently concerned in the management of such things pertaining to the prudential order thereof so that the end be attained for the good of the persons admitted and the satisfaction and edification
And at the end of the Confirmation it 's ordered And there shall none be admitted to the holy Communion untill such time as he can say the Catechisme and be confirmed Here is the substance of what is required among us Let any who come to communicate shew that ever since they came to years they thus personally owned the Christian Faith and I know no bar in the Presbyterial Government to their admission The Ordinance of Parliament no where requireth that all should be examined now in order to their admission But that the ignorant are to be excluded and that implies not as some have over-hastily concluded that all are to be now examined But onely that all not examined sometime before are to be examined now and they onely unless there be proofes or at least strong presumptions of any their apostasie from or losing the knowledge of the faith they have sometime personally professed §. 4. Secondly for scandall the order of the Church of England was manifest that the scandalous should be suspended though not then fully excommunicated or excommunicated majori excommunicatione as the Canons speak In the Rubrick before the Communion it is thus ordered If any of those who intend to communicate be an open notorious evill liver the Curate shall advertise him in any wise not to presume to the Lords Table untill he have openly declared himself to have truly repented and amended his former naughty life c. The same order shall the Curate use with those betwixt whom he perceiveth malice and hatred to reign not suffering them to partake of the Lords Table untill he knowes them to be reconciled And if one of the parties so at variance be content to forgive the other from the bottome of the heart to make amends for that he himself hath offended and the other party will not be perswaded to a godly unity the Minister in that case ought to admit the penitent person to the holy Communion and not him that is obstinate The first exhortation which is ordered to be read at certain times when the Curate shall see the people negligent to come to the holy Communion is mostwhat verbatim and altogether in sense what Mr W. hath prefixed before his Book under the name of Dr Peter Martyr and why he might not have quoted the common-Common-Prayer Book for it as well as Peter Martyr I cannot certainly tell but the Reader may easily guesse somewhat shrewdly at it And for answer thereunto as I see nothing therein against the suspension pleaded for so those who framed the common-Common-Prayer thought it no way thwarted their suspension and lesser excommunication if they had they would not have contradicted themselves so grossly as to insert it in the Communion where they so expressly give order for the debarring the ptophane as you have already heard And in their next exhortation to examine themselves repent and amend they add For otherwise the recieving the holy Communion doth nothing else but increase your damnation And especially in their third Exhortation It 's said thus Therefore if any of you be a blasphemer of God an hinderer or flanderer of his Word an adulterer or be in malice or envy or any other grievous crime bewayl your sins and come not to this holy Table lest after the taking of that holy Sacrament the Divel enter into you as he entred into Judas and fill you full of impiety and bring you to destruction of body and soul Whereby it is evident the first exhortation to come was made to them onely who were supposed obedient believers and here they who were disobedient are warned to keep off whiles so wilfully disobedient and those who were notoriously such were to be kept off by the Minister But yet certainly the Curate did not fully excommunicate all them whom he was not to suffer to partake of the Lords Table though in part he did ecclesiastically withdraw from them as is more evident in the Canons of the Synod held at London in the first year of King James §. 5. The title of the 26th Canon is Notorious offenders not to be admitted to the Communion And in the Canon No Minister shall in any wise admit to the receiving of the holy Communion any of his cure or flock which be openly knowne to live in sin notorious without repentance nor malicious persons not reconciled nor unfaithfull Church-wardens c. Can. 27. The title is Schismatiques not to be admitted to the Communion The title of Can. 57. is The Sacraments not to be refused at the hands of unpreaching Ministers In the Canon it selfe its ordered Those who leave their own Parish Churches in that respect c. they are from the Ordinary to receive punishment by Ecclesiastical Censures that is Let them persisting in their wilfulness be suspended and then after a moneths further obstinacy excommunicated In Can. 59. Enjoyning Ministers to catechize every Sunday It s decreed if the Minister do neglect he is to be admonished and if he wilfully offend againe suspended and if the third time then excommunicated and others concern'd to come themselves or send theirs to be catechized are in the same Canon in case of their neglect herein to be suspended by their Ordinaries if they be not children and if they so persist for the space of a moneth then let them be excommunicated Can. 68. the title whereof is Ministers not to refuse to christen or bury But in the body of the Canon there is this proviso Except the party deceased were denounced excommunicate majori excommunicatione for some grievous and notorious crime and no man able to testifie of his repentance These three last Canons I have quoted shew how cleerly they owned a degree of Censure called by the name of suspension though it was in those cases to be inflicted by the Ordinary But the former quotations shew how farre the Minister also was entrusted with a debarring from the Communion notoriously prophane persons who might tender themselves to receive Now we are to heare what Mr. W. alledgeth to cut us off from our present pleading this order of the Church of England The suspension saith he taken up in the Church of England in case of obstinacy in some notorious crime was the publique act of the Church and State not inherent in a Minister as a Minister but derived to him by deputation and cannot now be pretended to the Common prayer book which gave the power being now abolished So he p. 41. §. 6. First It s to be observed that Mr. W. here speaks of the suspension taken up in the Church of England as if it were only in case of obstinacy in some notorious crime whereas its manifest most of the passages before rehearsed out of the Canons and Common prayer booke cleerly evince that suspension was inflicted for several crimes without respect to obstinacy therein and then obstinacy and continuance in those crimes without visible repentance and reformation was punished with greater excommunication as
no true believers I will believe when he or any else can shew me one Scripture-evidence for it Mr. W. now dismisseth me p. 151 in his proper language thus Put up your bagpipes whistle at home And let him cry aloud Montibus sylvis that if there be any idle eccho there he may procure from it an answer to such another book as his Suspension discussed is But by his leave I 'le take Davids Harp and on it thus conclude PSALM 119. Part 22. Y. Z. 169 Yeild to my cry thy presence neere From thy word light I crave 170 Yeild to my suit thy ready eare After thy word me save 171 Yee lips of mine shall praise the Lord who taught me his Truth sure 172 Yea my tongue shall boast of thy word For thy Lawes are right pure 173 Yoak't in thy Lawes I choose to be Let thine hand help afford 174 Young fresh delights thine Hests give me I long'd for thine aid Lord. 175 Zealously to praise thee I list whiles life lasts just help send 176 Zion path I stray sheep have mist Seek me thy Lawes I 'le tend A particular Answer to twenty-two Digressive passages in Mr W s Booke entituled Suspension Discussed 1 IN his Epistle to the Reader he saith speaking of us Although some things of the ancient Fathers they have sometimes in their mouthes yet they will allow the authority of the ancient Fathers no further then will serve their owne turnes c. The like complaint the Papists sillily make against the Protestants so Canisius barkes in the Preface of his Opus Catcchisticum against Luther Calvin and Melancthon Is any one so stupid as to allow the authority of the Fathers in those things he thinkes they erred Mr. W. as we have seene above honourably quotes Tertullian for him p. 141. and lamentably falls out with him as a Ring-leader of Heretiques p. 147 148. and saith p. 149. We shal honour Tertullian in yeilding to his Assertions wherein he is orthodoxall but we shal believe neither him nor you wherein you are amisse And doth not Mr. W. use his own judgement to discerne wherein he is orthodoxal and where not and so reject his authority in the latter as he owns it in the former Was not this then an irrationall and selfe-condemning Exception 2 Your Parish Pope or his vestry Cardinals cryes Mr. W p. 98. The Pope is not formidable but with his Bull. And here Mr. W. would scare us with his Bull against us For Parish Pope is a flat contradiction according to the sense wherein Pope is now taken But with such a Bull he shall ride none but calves 3 Examination of persons in order to their admission to the Lords Supper is a maine ground of Mr. W. his many complaints and invectives in his booke p. 3 4 9. Though you saith he delude the Country with a loud cry as if your quarrell lay only against the ignorant and scandalous yet your designe is to bring all men under your Examination as divinely and scripturally necessary unto acceptable celebration of the Lords Supper let their parts be never so eminent and their lives never so regular The same Coleworts are served in againe and againe over and over p. 21 27 28 38 54 56 60 88 95 96 113. This dish coming in so often as the learned Cartwright on 1 John 4.3 said to the Rhemists on a like occasion argues either an hungry guest or a needy Hoste Concerning this which is called Examination that is a taking cognizance of adult persons their understanding owning and profession of the Christian faith which in infancy they were baptized into in order to their admission to the Communion I shal deliver my apprehensions in the ensuing Considerations 1 I consider that the Scripture mentions not any Instances of such who having been baptized infants were afterwards when adult admitted to the Supper as expressly distinguished from them who were baptized adult or at yeares nor doth it in expresse Rules or patternes describe how or in what manner such baptized in infancy were admitted or are to be admitted to the Lords Supper 2 Yet from what the Scripture informes us in concerning the prerequisits in the adult to Baptisme and the nature of the Lords Supper in it selfe Some Directions may be gathered concerning this matter particularly That there may be required from persons when they first tender themselves to receive that they make a serious profession of their assent and consent to the Christian faith they have been baptized into Whether this be by a continued speech or catechistically is not at all stood upon For 1. There is the same Reason for requiring this here as there is for that which none deny the requiring it from persons adult in order to their Baptisme although they be never so learned and regular in their conversations before As Augustine Ambrose and others have been and such as Mr. W. acknowledgeth p. 139. were in a salvable condition before their baptisme and therefore did visibly appeare so to be The visible understanding owning of the Covenant whereof the Sacraments are seales is as requisite in the first admission of the former to the Lords Supper as in the latter to Baptisme all things being equall on both parties save only that one is baptized not the other but this alters not the thing in debate because his being baptized in infancy is no testimony of his personal or visible owning the Covenant which is required in the adult for the participating of the Lords Supper 2. There is no Rule I know of to direct us at what yeares any one baptized in infancy may be admitted to the Communion but according to his sooner or latter understanding profession of his baptismal engagements Why may not a child of six or seven yeares old be admitted who may be taught to repeat a Catechisme and to say he desires to communicate but because he is not then judged in a capacity understandingly to consent to the Covenant termes And how can another though of twenty yeares be judged understandingly to own the Covenant who doth not so profess the same before sufficient witnesses For de non existentibus non apparentibus idem est judicium Therefore this verbal profession may be required to be made by a person adult baptized in infancy in the presence of competent witnesses before he is admitted to the Lords Supper 3. Mr. W. himselfe tells us p. 56. that knowledge of who are beleevers and of who are not beleevers must be the loadstar of our administring or not administring the Lords Supper And p. 59. he saith In our administration of the Lords Supper to others we are to be guided by the Scripture Characters of a doctrinal faith And of this we may have infallible certainty when we know the parties are baptized and heare them say the Creed and testifie their beleese of every Article therein contained And hence we connclude infallibly that they are he should have said visibly
commedet ex eo no son of Israel that is an Apostate shall eat thereof Thus we have an instance of debarring the Passeover for a pollution not ceremonial which should make him uncleane ceremonially so as to separate him from the company of others civilly And this we shall have occasion I thinke to improve further beneath Mr Cotton in his grounds and ends of childrens Baptisme p. 11 to shew the hainousness of the sin of a baptized parent who neglects to baptize his Infant quotes this place and saith Surely in the old Testament a man was accounted of God as uncircumcised himselfe if his children were uncircumcised And according to the analogy Mr. W. proceeds upon and reasonably enough in his solving the Question why Infants are not admitted to the Communion taken fromthe not partaking of the Jewes Infants at the Passeover p. 131. I say on the same analogy we may more particularly argue If a circumcised person formerly might not eat the Passeover if he circumcised not his males then a baptized parent now may not eat the Lords Supper if he bring not his infant to Baptisme and indeed supposing the command as cleere now for the baptizing of Insants as it was before for circumcising of male Infants the argumentation is strong enough §. 9. 3. I thus argue in the third place The Sacrament ought not to be administred to them whom we are no wise called nor obliged to administer to upon the account of administring to beleevers But we are no wise called nor obliged to administer the Sacrament to unbeleevers who are such in the sense and in respect of notorious disobedience to the Gospel upon the account of administring to beleevers Ergo the Sacrament ought not to be administred to unbeleevers who are such in the sense and in respect of notorious disobedience to the Gospel The Major is manifest the Minor I thus confirme If in other like cases where duties are incumbent on us respecting our behaviour towards others as so and so qualifi'd the obligation to those duties of our behaviour towards persons ceaseth when they are not visibly so and so qualified then we are no wise called nor obliged to administer the Sacrament to unbeleevers who are such in the sense and respect of notorious disobedience to the Gospel But the former is true therefore the latter also The Consequence is cleere For paria arguunt fidemque faciunt The Minor may be shewed in sundry like instances The Scripture enjoynes us several duties in our behaviour towards the wicked and godly the righteous and unrighteous although we cannot certainly tell who these persons are habitually and inwardly But all agree I thinke that those are to be taken and dealt with by us as such who are visibly in the wayes of godliness or impiety David describing the practices of an holy man Psal 15. among others reckons this ver 4. In whose eyes a vile person is contemned but he honoreth them who fear the Lord we must shun the company of the wicked Psal 119.115 we are to give to him that needeth and not as in a way of charity and necessary reliefe to them who need not But we know not ever who needeth that craves our almes he may counterfeit and if it appeare he doth counterfeit we are not obliged nor called to give unto him what belongs to the needy We must know persons to be Christs Disciples by their loving one another yet such love cannot certainly be known to us to be in others John 13.33 So also we are commanded Luk. 17.3 4. If thy brother trespass against thee rebuke him and if he repent forgive him But how shall I know when he repents It follows vers 4. If he trespasse seven times in a day and seven times in a day turn again to thee saying I repent thou shalt forgive him There is a two-fold forgiveness 1. that which is opposed to hatred grudges and unjust desire of revenge against him who hath wronged us Thus we are to forgive him who trespasseth against us whether he repent or no we are to love our enemies remaining such 2. That which is opposed to the not receiving him into familiarity and tokens of intimate and encouraging friendship as formerly And thus we are not bound to forgive unless he who hath trespasled do repent that is do manifest his repentance and his saying he repents may be a manifestation thereof sufficient to us that we may so far acquiesce therein as to be obliged to forgive him in this later sense But here Calvins caution is useful Addendum est saith he on the place Christum non privare fideles judicio ut slultè ad verbulum unum creduli fint sed tantum velle aequos esse humanos ut resipiscentibus manum porrigant si modo apparet ipsos ex animo sibi in peccat is displicere sed quoties probabile Agnum conversionis dederit peccator admitti vult Christus ad reconciliationens ne repulsae fractus deficiat Now he who hath taken away my goods and saith he repents and yet will not having them in his hand restore them to me by his wicked and wilfull detention overthrowes the credibleness of his verball profession and his saying I repent obligeth to this sort of private forgivenesse I have mentioned no otherwise then as it is a probable token of his serious repentance Nay though he is a wise son as the proverb goes who knows his own father yet is every child obliged to honor both his parents So manifest is it that we may be and are obliged in severall duties to those persons as so and so qualified whom we cannot certainly know to be such under the notion whereof we tender those respects to them But as our Saviour saith He that receiveth a Prophet or Disciple in the name of such that is who probably appeares to be such shall have his reward so here in these and such like cases But when persons appear to be in a way visibly contrary to these qualifications on which is founded any offices in sundry respects who doubts that our obligation to perform such offices to them then ceaseth When therefore such as by baptisme have bound themselves to believe that is to receive and obey the Gospel do yet notoriously appeare to be unbelievers in respect of their actuall disobedience to the Gospel we are not obliged to administer the Sacrament to as believers As on the contrary when baptized persons owning their baptismes appeare not to be in a way of notorious disobedience to the Gospel we are bound to administer to them as believers whether they are really and inwardly so or no. §. 10. 4. A fourth argument may be grounded on the forme of administration wherein the Minister saith to the Communicants according to 1 Cor. 11.24 Take eat this is the Body of Christ which is broken for you So Luke 22.19 20. And this Cup is the New Testament in Christs blood which is shed for
you In the Common-prayer book it is Take eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee Drink this in remembrance that Christs blood was shed for thee The Directory saith in Pauls words This is the body of Christ which is broken for you Whence I argue The Lords Supper ought not to be administred to them to whom these words may not be spoken particularly in the administration of it But to such unbelievers as are such in respect of their notorious visible disobedience to the Gospel these words may not be spoken particularly in the administration of the Sacrament Therefore to them the Lords Supper ought not to be administred The Major is above exception For those ought not to be admitted to whom the Minister may not say what he ought to apply to the communicants The Minor I shall further insist upon and labour to clear In order whereto I must enquire into the meaning of the foresaid words to be used in the form of administration It must be acknowledged that these words considered absolutely and in themselves may be interpreted more generally either 1. of Christs being sacrificed for the redemption of all the world of mankind the genus humanum and that not onely sufficienter for that which is paid for the redemption of persons is not strictly a price because it is sufficient in its own nature to be a worthy and valuable consideration to redeem them but conditionally by way of Christs intention also to redeem mankind that is upon the condition of believing So that this Gospel may be preached to every humane creature not so to any lapsed Angel He that believeth and is baptized shal be saved God so loved the world c. Or 2. if this please not the fuller explication whereof may be seen in learned Camero and the larger disquisition of it in the acute Amyraldus Christ dyed for all in that he bought all to be Lord and Ruler over them as Mediator in the Kingdome he hath received by dispensation from the Father to be Lord of all Or 3. as he procured some common benefits for all But I conceive it 's manifest these words of administration considered as words of administration in the Sacrament and so with speciall relation to the Sacrament cannot be understood in so large a sense q d. Christ died for thee if thou will believe or on condition of thy faith or Christ died for thee or was broken for thee that he might have power over thee as Lord and Judge or to purchase some common benefits for thee as he did for all mankind For so they might be applyed to heathens yea to the most wicked of heathens and such as are visibly in the most nototious opposition of and apostasie from the very name of Christianity and so this should be no more an application of comfort to the visibly most worthy receiver then is applicable to the vilest Mahumetan on the face of the earth §. 11. There is another as narrow a sense put on the words as the former is large and that is to restrain them to the application of the benefits of Christs death absolutely to every receiver q. d. This is the body of Christ in which thou hast saving interest As surely as thou receivest the outward signes so certainly is the inward grace there also But this cannot be the meaning here because no Church nor Minister can certainly tell who those are who are sincere believers who onely are partakers absolutely of the remission of sins purchased by Christs broken body and his blood made over unto them There remains onely a third sense that I know of which is a mean betwixt the two former And this is to be founded on the manifest sense of other such like passages in Scripture and the nature of the Lords Supper it self Paul saith to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 5.11 But ye are washed but ye are are sanctified but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the spirit of our God And to the Ephesians Eph. 2.1 8 19 20 21 22. You hath he qu ekned who were dead in trespasses and sins by grace ye are saved through faith chap. 5.8 Ye were sometimes darkness but now are ye light in the Lord. Abundance of such passages there be in Scripture where it is manifest the Apostle applies to them the comforts and benefits of sincere believers as theirs and yet he knew not their sincerity absolutely It must needs then be that according to his knowledge of their sincerity so was the application he makes to them of the priviledges annexed onely to sincerity that is according to the judgement of the Church which received them as such probably If they were such as Ecclesiastieally they appeared to be then all these benefits were really theirs And hence the baptized are said to be illuminated and sanctified because in the judgement of the Church they were such who were admitted to baptisme who if they were really what they were by the Church esteemed to be were certainly sanctified and enlightned so I humbly conceive the meaning of these words This is the body of Christ which is broken for you is this q. d. If thou be really what the Church taking thee into her fellowship judgeth thee to be whiles it being in a capacity to judge hath not judged thee contrary then thou art certainly partaker of the inward grace of this Sacrament All the saving benefits flowing from Christs blood are thine If thou art sincere as the Church or Minister hopes and judgeth of thee in admitting thee then Christ is thine really Not if thou wilt believe Christ is thine but if thou now dost sincerely believe as thou now appearest to do which supposeth that he is taken for one who doth sincerely believe by them who regularly admit him the governing Church or Minister alone in some cases How incongruous would it be to say to a rebell who was erewhile visibly in Armes and was breathing out treason against his Soveraign and hath not yet visibly recanted the same and therefore is still visibly in the way of treason how incongruous would it be to say to such a one If thou art a good subject the King is thy friend And it is manifest in part by what hath been before quoted from the Common-prayer book and Canons that the Church of England which used that form of administration Christ died for thee understood it as to be applied onely to the visibly justified believers because they excluded the notoriously disobedient though not fully excommunicated and warned all to refrain who lived and allowed themselves wilfully in secret sins which the governors of the Church could take no cognizance of Thus in the third Exhortation after the warning of the wicked persons that they come not to the Lords Table In the invitation following those onely are called who are truly penitent To them it 's said Draw neer and take this holy Sacrament to your comfort They never seemed