publick administrations as their duty And with what conscience can such live upon the Churches maintenance that forsake their function and duty to their Congregations And if they make the Sacrament the distinguishing Ordinance between the Church and the world as the Author cals it some where then no wonder they are so tender who they admit into the Church and thus upon the matter they look upon the greatest part of their Congregations as Heathens unbelievers whom the duties of Christianity doe not concern In another place he saith an unregenerate person is far from being a disciple c. and therefore not a Christian for the Disciples were first called Christians at Antioch And hence they devise ways and bars to keep them from the Lords Table equall unto a Heathen But me thinks they might easily perceive their mistake for baptism of old was accounted the only distinguishing Ordinance as circumcision between the Church and the world and the only separating and distinguishing Ordinance in the Church is Juridical Excommunication which they make no use of for Mr. Saunders saith they Excommunicate none if they judge their people Church-members and within if they have any scandalous crime against them why do they not begin reformation by casting out the obstinate according to rule they are all for admission of members when they should be for ejecting in the work of reforming If they be for admission into Church Communion they must begin with baptism and I think the tearms they stand upon in order to the Supper will sooner be made good in order to baptism of grown ones then to those that are initiated into the Church already by lawful baptism I have writ enough to this already the truth is if my judgment fail not Mr. Saund. doth but shuffle when he speaks of our Assemblies to be true Churches some of them one while they are true Churches and have both matter and form which are the main essentials of true Churches agreed upon by al only he saith but not without great disorder at present Discipline being interrupted as I suppose he means And he must needs speak this in behalf of our Parochial Churches for he makes mention of the Churches of England of which some he will undertake to prove to be true Churches against those that deny all for matter and form to be true pag. 127. And yet in the very same page he contradicts himself in saying We doe not say our Assemblies are Churches as Parishes but that they are Churches in Parishes and in that sense Parish Churches and in the page before he thinks the truth of some of our Churches as to their Essence he can prove A Church may be in a Parish as well as in a Country or City as Ephesus Corinth yea as well as in the World By this you may conceive what a good friend he is like to be to our Parish Churches against Anabaptists and Brownists that although he accounts them rigid Separatists they will grant that there are some Parishes in England that some that are godly and real members of Christ dwell in them which they will confesse are the matter of a true Church Nay there may be a rigid separate Church in fellowship and order in a Parish as well as in a Countrey City World And in this sense they are Parish Churches What shifts are these but why doth he not speak plain to the case in question and clearly speak his judgement of our Parochial Congregations as they are baptized and adhere to the publick Ministry in general consisting of good and bad nay the most very ignorant and in some thing or other either scandalous offensive or remisse Will he prove such Parishes in their Precincts and outward bounds to have both the matter and form of true Churches If he would doe so I shall imbrace him as friend of the Church And one would think in his 128. page that is his sense by what he infers for baptism saying That all Infants born in our Churches are to be baptized for Congregational Churches as they are called baptized all their Infants and then If it be objected that sundry of the parents are ungodly whose children we baptize he asks whether they can deny baptism to the childe of any member how offensive soever before the sentence of cutting off passe upon him So he answers of ours These supposed wicked ones whether as carnall or profane are not excommunicated what therefore should hinder their childrens baptism Hence he owns all in our Churches that are baptized members Christians and within for I suppose he would not plead the baptizing of the children of those that are Infidels and without that are no objects of Excommunication And yet in other places they are far from being Disciples Church-members c. Nay he saith as to baptism we suppose our Churches to be true but sick and corrupt pag. 126 but wherein corrupt if all be true you publish 129. pag. wherein you adde to what you said before Besides the children are not baptized in their Parents right alone but in the Churches where the childe is born a member being holy federally by birth and therefore to be baptized You prove the Subjects of our baptism lawful the Ministâ—â— and baptism it self for matter and manner I presume wherein is it sick and corrupt then I could wish you were more steddy in your judgement consonant to your self and honest to your Reader But to reply upon your own grants if all children born in the Church he holy foederally by birth then it follows that all parents in the Church of whom they are so born are believers for the Apostle affirms that only of the children of believers 1 Cor. 7.14 And then if all parents in the Church be believers why doe you not administer the Lords Supper to them for actual receiving is the undoubted duty of all believers how you will deny the consequence I cannot tell I pray you consider well of my Answer unto Mr. Collings for I must be very brief to yours Again if our Churches be true Churches and all it consists of lawfully admitted into it Then it will follow 1. That while they are within they are to enjoy all external priviledges of our Church according unto Gospel rule which is one and the same unto all Church-members as such This is so rational and clear that all that separate from us own and practise it untill a member by Apostasie fall off or be Juridically cast out of Church priviledges 2. That Pastors of true Churches are to attend their several flocks in a constant exercise of the whole ministerial work they are designed unto by the Church that ordained them such 3. That forming a Church in the choyce of a Pastor and Officers members in a true Church already formed according unto rule as to the essentials thereof at least is a work not only superfluous and absurd but Schismatical and pernicious breaking the peace and union of that
Mr. Prinne nor Mr. Humphrey my judgement was setled and satisfied in these things long before I heard of these Authors And besides what reason hath Mr. Collins to charge us with this that we are Erastus his scholars when he findes us so point blanck against him in defending the Juridâ—cal censures of the Church I cannot say that ever I read any Author that came up to my opinion or judgement in these things in any measure til now of late I saw Mr. Humfreys Vindication of free Admission So that whether my grounds be new or old I have made but little acquiry in respect of humane authority this I am satisfied in that my grounds are such as accord with the Gospel Covenant and the state of the Visible Church of Christ as it is constituted in Parents and children good and bad called and chosen And I finde that men of different judgements run themselves upon dangerous rocks of Schisms Separations and needlesse divisions in the Church besides their interferings contradictions of themselves and detracting unworthily from Covenant-relation Church-membership Sacraments signs and pleadges of Covenant love to the whole Church in general And therefore I hope though I have endeavoured to remove an unnecessary Bar yet it will appear that I am not guilty of that sin and curse that Mr. Collins intimates in saying Was it our grief formerly that we had no Bar and is it our work now to remove the Bars yea the Lords and the Churches ancient Land-marks But who are most faulty in this they that plead for the Churches Land-marks and rights or they that unjustly defraud the Church thereof laying the Church common with the world judge ye or who are most for Reformation according unto Scripture Canon they that presse to all Scripture obedience or they that exempt Christians from some necessary duties of Worship they that would have all in the Church dealt with as members in a Juridical way to their amendment or they that unchurch them undisciple them and so unduty them and level them with the Pagan World Mr. Collins pretends much zeal in his Epistle prefixed to his Book but I could wish he had more sound judgement and knowledge in these things to abate the inconsiderate noise he makes and the passion which he shews therein First he tels us that it was a burden that lay upon our souls that in the Prelates dayes there was no bar but one which Suâ—peâ—â—on made And then about six lines after he saith the Prelatical party may rise up in judgement against us and say Lord we gave the Minister authority to keep any from the Sacrament for notorious sins c. First he saith there was no Bar and then he saith that there was a Bar and such a one as I thinkâ— might have satisfied men of his perswasion The truth is both Presbyterian and Brownists make such a slender thing of Covenant relation the ground of baptism in the Church that it will not bear up what they should build upon it afterwards for they make it upon the matter but a meer titular or nominal thing restraining the Gospel Covenant to believers only in a strict sense making Sacramental Seals invalid if they doe not so believe conceiving that if persons in the Church by their actual offending discover themselvs to be in an unregenerate state after baptism that then they are out of Covenant and so by consequence have forfeited their actual right to Sacramental seals thereof making no difference between such and the Pagan world But if we hold to the Covenant made to the Church and their seed as it was published and declared to Abraham and all along to the Church of the Jews and look upon the Christian Church as graffed into them and equally children of Abraham by profession of faith and Baptism as the Jew by nature and Circumcsiion presse all to walk up to their profession as Christians according to Gospel observances being bound to observe all things as the Jews were then should we build upon such a foundation of truth that would be immoveable and bear up as much as we now plead for But I have exprest my self more largely in this ensuing discourse and may not now insist upon the largenesse of the Gospel Covenant In short then I conceive that it is a very great mistake to narrow the Gospel Covenant unto this He that believes shall be saved but he that believes not shall be damned I grant 1. That this is a truth as taken in the usual sense but then I deny that it is the whole Covenant of grace made unto the Church and their seed 2. I grant it a conditional proposition used in the first tender of the Gospel unto Infidels to move them to accept of Christ and so to bring them into the visible Church but I deny that this in like manner was or is to be preached unto the visible Church that professe their acceptance of Christ and all observances appointed by him 3. I grant that actual believing and profession of faith was the only thing that fitted a Pagan for Baptism and graffing into the Gospel Church in which the promises of grace and glory belong to the whole indefinitely but yet I deny that there is any promise of grace in those words He that believes shall be saved it is true there is the promise of being saved upon condition of sincere believing but there is no promise in that to give a sinner grace to believe So that this conditional part of the Covenant in a strict sense as it is usually urged alone without the absolute renders unregenerate sinners uncapable of any good news by the Gospel it not being in the power of any of himself so to believe And to make the death of Christ a seal to confirm this conditional part of the Covenant only as being that which the Sacraments hold forth is to make the death of Christ a seal to confirm a Covenant of works in the Church derogatory to the Gospel mercy and grace Therefore we are to conceive of the Covenant as it 's held out to the Church by the Prophets and Apostles the Church being built upon both Gen. 17. Jerem. 31. Ezek. 36. it is largely laid down and applyed by the Apostles to the Church in Gospel times Act 2.39 Heb. 8. Act. 3.25 26. 5.31 Rom. 15.8 9. 2 Cor. 6.16.18 7.1 compared These Scriptures prove that the Apostles did usually apply those old free grace promises with the end of Christ coming into the world to confirm them to the Gospel Church But if any please to enter their exceptions against these my notions about the Covenant I shall be glad both of an occasion and opportunity to insist more largely upon them For I must confesse I think there are not many that are very right about the nature and largenesse of the Gospel Covenant made to the Church and that straitning the Covenant too much occasions very much division and schism in the
supposes faith It 's sufficient for our opinion because all in the Church doe accept of the Covenant and have faith And we doe not plead for Heathens untill they believe and come under baptism But surely the death of Christ confirmed the everlasting Covenant out of which faith with the fruits thereof freely flow And I think Sacraments are no other wayes seals then they are signs of his death as it is said This cup is the new Covenant in my bloud the cup was not really the new Covenant but a sign thereof representatively as I have hinted before Yet surely saith Mr. Collins those that are in a state of unbelief are not in Covenant though they may be objects of Gods first free grace Answ If they be not in the everlasting Covenant they cannot be said to be objects of Gods first free grace for doubtlesse God gives grace to none that are out of that Covenant himself grants that the elect are enrold in the everlasting Covenant and many of them may be in the Church I hope though in a state of unbelief in his sense and doubtlesse it is for the elects sake that we have an external administration a Church consisting of most bad that his elect may be gathered out of all sorts of sinners and others left without excuse is this wise contrivance of the ever blessed God And hence this mingled state of good and bad must grow together untill the harvest experience doth tell us what precious wheat hath sprung out of the roots of wicked tares And wicked tares have sprung out of the roots of the choycest wheat let that convince us Mr. Collins saith That argument about baptism hath been answered again and again The argument is this If parents that are ignorant and scandalous in the Church be so much in Covenant as to give their children right unto holy baptism a seal of the Covenant then themselves have right to the holy Supper it being but the seal of the same Covenant The antecedent is granted by Mr. Collins and all that are friends to his judgement and yet they deny the consequence because they say more is required to the Lords Supper then unto Baptism Unto this I answer It cannot be proved that in in the Apostles days more was required unto the Supper then to baptism of persons of years it 's clear enough that which prepared them for baptism brought them into the Church And that being once within they had the priviledges of the Church accordingly is without question Lesse is required unto Covenant seals of persons born in the Church they being free born to all the priviledges of this spiritual Corporation then of those that are aliens and strangers by birth these obtain their freedom upon the terms of faith and repentance The ignorant and scandalous are in as good a capacity of the Supper of the Lord as their children are of the baptism of the Lord they being under Church indulgence First They are in an active capacity of exercising the understanding heart and conscience memory with all the externals required unto that service their children are meerly passive for the other Secondly Parents are in possession of the feals of themselves but their children before baptism are not Parents in the Church derive as much right from their Ancestors as their children doe untill they be discovenanted if not more as being a generation neerer that right If parents Covenant relation be sufficient to give right to the seals for his childe then surely for himself Besides the contradiction in the other opinion of Mr. Collins as first he pleads the Covnaâ—nt for the parents unto their childrens baptism and then disputes them out of Covenant in his admission unto the holy Supper They shall be accounted believers as to the one but unbelievers as to the other The promise is to them and their children in order unto baptism but then in order to the holy Supper there is no more promise belongs unto them then unto Pagans And there is no promise made to any that have not faith to apply them and so exclude children from the promise too at last for they have not such a faith as to apply the promises Thus you may see he is a Presbyterian in practice and an Anabaptist in opinion For if his judgement be true about baptism then it 's false about the holy Supper if his judgement be true about the Supper then it 's false about baptism for both are the same seal of the same Covenant exhibited only by different figns People had need be well setled and satisfied of themselves in these times that keep their station in the Church where they have such Teachers and meet with such opinions that destroy all The truth is our straightnesse in the one and largenesse in the other doth destroy it self and doth occasion most intelligent Christians either to fall off from Infant baptism or else to restrain it to those that are judged fit to be received into holy Communion in the Lords Supper Had it not been for our own scruples about admitting to the Supper casting off the most of Church-members from Communion under the notion of ignorant and scandalous we had never known of these exorbitances in the Church which now we suffer under by the separations It is an easie thing for Mr. Collins to say the argument is answered again and again not telling us by whom nor how But if it be not better answered then he hath done it in his answer to Mr. Barksdel he must answer it again or else it must be unanswered and cleave close unto him still as such a Church-rent that he will never free himself of unlesse he alter his judgement which he will finde the readiest way of the two In his 15. pag. to Mr. Barksdels 10. argument for free admission he puts in three exceptions He grants children are baptized in their parents right but yet can see no reason why it should necessarily be the immediate parent True for sometimes it may fall out Answ that both parents may be excommunicate or turn'd Apostates in these cases it 's not necessary but otherwise being of the true Christian Church and faith the ignorant and scandalous being in actual Church-membership and baptized give as true a legal right to their childs baptism as any other member what ever so long as their own right holds their childs right doth also and that immediately from them is to the sober unquestionable Indeed if parents be never so really godly and unbaptized their childrens right to baptism must either be derived from Ancestors or else have none at all a visible peofession of faith in persons baptized gives a true right for their childe to the Sacramental seal and consequently for themselves to the same seal of the Supper there was the same danger for the neglect of the Passeover as for circumcision He saith further There is no self-examination prerequired unto baptism but to the Supper a man must
by the authority of the Church baptizing them as members of the visible body of Christ cannot be legally put out of Church communion at the pleasure of some few Elders of themselves unlesse deligated so to act from a National Assembly of Presbyters Though the right of discipline may be inherent in every lawful Presbyter yet the exercise thereof is proper only unto those that are intrusted therewith by the representatives of the whole Irregular actings and good ends cannot stand together to doe evil that good may come is not only dangerous but damnable The state of unregeneracy and personal unworthinesse in the Church doth not bar any one from the Sacrament nor doth come within the verge of the Church to judge of or correct in the least Actual unworthinesse persisted in unto obstinacy is the only object of Church censures of persons in the Church yet all actual unworthinesse doth not necessarily run persons upon eating and drinking the Lords Supper unworthily in the Apostles sense There is no personal unworthinesse in the Church in a relative sense in reference to the Sacrament or any uther Ordinance but the carelesse neglect thereof is most unworthy and punishable Not to discern the Lords Body is not to put a difference between common bread and the instituted signes set a part by Word and Prayer to represent the death of Christ for remission of sins Examination is a private duty to be performed between God and the conscience unto a profitable receiving having a special eye to the rules of the whole administration making their approaches there accordingly externally at least There is a real difference to be put between the unregenerate Christian and an unregenerate Infidel the Church and the world believer and unbeliever the confounding of these hath run us into Brownism of late The whole Church is in Covenant with God and are the immediate objects of the promises but the world lies in wickednesse and under wrath without the promises of the Covenant and hope and God in the world The whole Church are under all Gospel observance the whole work of the Ministry as the ordinary means of their conversion and salvation The Pagan world for the most part never had the advantage of so much as any part of that work the Gospel being hid to them that perish Salvation is of the Christian Church but no salvation out of it How can they call on him in whom they have not believed and how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard And there is salvation in no other Name whatsoever save only in Jesus Christ That the legally unclean were not so much debarred the benefit of the Passeover as other Sacrifices or spiritual observances in that Church That the Moral uncleannesse then was no more bar to the Passeover then unto all other observances in the Church Nay that was either punished by the Judges according unto their Judicial proceedings or otherwise cleansed from it by a continual course of Sacrifices And therefore no bar at all against any That no persons in the Church of the Old Testament or in the Churches of the New read of in Scriptures were ever debarred the Passeover or the Sacrament of the holy Supper and allowed the benefit of all the other Ordinances in the Church Hence I cannot but conceive that suspension from the Sacrament alone usually called the minor Excommunication is but a humane invention in the Church More is required to the Lords Supper then to Baptism in the Church yet lesse is required to the holy Supper of them that are Church-members then of Heathens unto Baptism We must distinguish of real and relative personal worthinesse The whole visible Church not under Church censures are personally worthy in a relative sense And hence there is no personal unworthinesse in the Church 2. Of believing in a large sense and of believing in a strict sense both to be accounted true believers in Scripture sense The denomination of a Believer is as well derived from a right object believed on as from the right and holinesse of the Subject believing 3. Of entring into the Covenant and of continuing in the Covenant The former is proper for Infidels the latter concerns the Church for it is supposed that all in the Church have entred the Gospel Covenant And in the Church we must distinguish of transgressing the Covenant and renouncing the Covenant of breaking and renewing it and whosoever is entred into the Covenant comes under the whole administration thereof and cannot be disobliged from any observance thereof but by the binding power of the Keys of Christs Kingdome exercised Juridically Beloved Friends I have now given you an account of the most of my principles that I build upon and conclude free admission to the holy Supper from And I judge they are such that have their rise from the holy Scriptures or are rational deductions drawn from thence which are not in the least loosened nor shaken by Mr. Collins nor any other of his judgement nor I think never will notwithstanding his forwardnesse of spirit in the close of his Book to cry up a victory when he has not so much as routed me in any one thing in all my Book which argues a bold conceited vapouring spirit a little too much Therefore now in short I shall collect some of his main strength and magisterial principles made use of to undermine the foundations of mine either exprest or implyed He denyes that Church-membership alone doth give a full right to the Sacrament therefore superaddes knowledge faith and the fruits of holinesse to give one right all which say I is included in Membership And his superadding will give a Pagan right He affirms that he looks upon all Church-members habitually worthy from their interest in Christ until they discover the contrary by their actual offendings Then say I he holds That all Infants are habitually worthy from their interest in Christ and commonly fall away from that state of grace He sayes 'T is not much material whether the Corinths were punished for habitual unworthinesse or no and yet upon the matter that the whole he disputes against He saith the unregenerate are personally unworthy and therefore cannot receive He sayes there is no promise belongs to the unregenerate in the Church that have not faith to apply it and that they are rather objects of the first grace then of the promise of that grace and that the Heathen are as much objects of the promises of first grace as the unregenerate part of the Church And doubts whether any promise belong to men as unregenerate if so then Heathen may come to the Sacrament He puts no difference between the unregenerate in the Church and the Pagan world in respect of promises titles duties priviledges except it be the baptizing their children he undisciples them unduties them uncovenants them in reference to the holy Supper and yet will have them Church-members and present their children unto baptism
He says That Sacraments are strong meat which weak Christians are not able to digest and that they are seals of faith only He denyes the Sacrament to be a converting Ordinance because then Heathens should come c. And will not have the unregenerate Christians to come under any duty but what is converting He affirms that in an unlearned Congregation a single Minister may suspend from the Sacrament he being the ruling part of the Church c. And yet in all other thing seeme to bear himself much upon the authority of men With such like things as these he thinks he hath loosened all that I have built upon and hence thinks that the whole will fall but he must take a great deal of pains more then yet he hath done if he think to be the man that must give satisfaction in this Controversie And I believe he must speak a great deal more then hath been spoken by any if in the least he can make good suspension from the Sacrament more then from any other part of holy Communion in sacred worship I mean of Church-members of years of discretion as the question is stated He must not think that the authority of men will carry the thing it being a businesse of this consequence that on which the peace and settlement depends which can never be as to our condition so long as men make habitual worthinesse in a real sense that which alone gives one right to the Sacrament 2. And set up the distinction of Believer and Infidel in the Church 3. And level the unregenerate part of the Church with the world in respect of Covenant relation promises of first grace work of the Ministry feals of the Covenant c. Such like interferings in a visible Church doth destroy it and pluck up the very foundation on which the Church of England stands My constant prayer to the Lord is and shall be that he will so favour us with the blessings of his people as to give us Magistrates and Ministers that may be tender in protecting and defending the Vine which himself hath planted And it 's pity that Mr. Collins and divers others of his judgement should not see where truth and the Churches peace lyes I have done with him as to what he hath excepted against my Book in particular I shall very briefly examine his strength for Suspension from the Lords Supper FINIS I shall in the next place annex a short Answer to or an Examination of Mr. Collins Quotations and Arguments for that which he cals A Juridical Suspension from the Lords Supper the main Subject of his late Book BEloved Friends I am sorry that our Author should take such a deal of pains to make good that thing that hath and doth so much trouble and hinder the edification and peace of the Church and hath been the occasion of the extirpation of the Churches Discipline and the main impediment of an establishment of Discipline at the present And how impossible it is that the Church of England should be preserved and secured in a Church state from the common reproaches of adversaries upon his principles let them that are sober judge when himself is equalling the most of her members to the Infidel world disobliging them from duties of instituted worship and observance under this pretence that they are unbelievers and no disciples nor brethren that are within and hence he will allow them just as much priviledge in the Church as he doth unto Pagans except baptizing their Infants which he will hardly doe upon their own parents faith but upon their remote predecessors And thus he makes a great stir about suspension from the Sacrament and by this groundlesse censure doth hinder or make invalid other necessary commands of Jesus Christ to the great prejudice of the Church of Christ As namely the benefit of Gods Ordinance of Sacrament and just excommunications according to the practice of Apostolical Churches when this suspension was not known nor heard of And therefore I having spoke so much already in defence of this priviledge and and right of a Church-member and that being already ingaged in this Controversie give me leave further to answer to what I can finde urged against the friends of my judgement that hath not as yet been spoken unto as may satisfie the plain minded Christian that is not able to unravel so many subtil needlesse syllogisms that Mr. Collins abounds with in his elaborate Book But I intend brevity And therefore expect not my answer unto every thing but to his main grounds he hath laid for suspension In stating of the question Mr. Collins sayes 1. As to suspending of some persons from the Supper he means no more then a denyal of that Ordinance from some pag. 1. 2. He distinguisheth of Suspension To be either Juridical or Pastoral Positive or Primitive 3. Of a Presbytered Church he saith They finding some of their members grossely ignorant or seandalous not excommunicated in the Name of the Lord Jesus are to warn them to forbear coming to the Lords Table for a time and if they presse in to deny it them declaring the Church hath no Communion with them pag. 3. I shall speak unto that suspension he cals Juridical and Positive only Answ 1 for if I can break him in the proof of that his other will appear to be a dream But to the question 1. He saith They mean no more by suspension then a denyal of that Ordinance of the Supper from them for a time Then 2. In case they will come to deny it them declaring the Church hath no communion with them Here you may take notice how clear Mr. Collins is in stating the question 1. He makes suspension no more but a deâ—yal of the Sacrament from some for a time And then secondly the Church declares they have no Communion with them so that he in stating the question layes foundation for a Suspension and Excommunication both For if excommunidation consists not in putting out of all Church Communion I know not what it is He so confounds these that I know not how to take him And therefore I must query him a little further about the question stated I query whether a Minister with his Parochial Lay Elders be a Presbytery that can saspend their members Juridically I judge this but the same with a Pastor denying the Sacrament at his private will and pleasure Such Elders have no more to do with the exercise of discipline then with the administrations of all publique worship They have not so much as a name nor the lineaments of an Office known in Scripture And it is a businesse of the like difficulty to prove lay rulere in the Church distinct from Ministerial rulers as to prove Juridicall Suspension from the Sacrament only distinct from Excommunication I query whether in suspending of members from the Sacrament their proceedings be according to that known rule Matth. 18.15 16 17 c. and how they can apply