Israel were accepted of in their keeping the Passeover although many of them did eat the Passeover otherwise then was written for some that were unclean did eat thereof 2 Chron. 30.18 19 20. 6. It was the will of God that declared that such things upon a man should be unclean and all things he touched should be so by his institution only but there is no such thing declared by the will of God touching moral uncleannesse in the Church as to debar them the Passeover or any other Ordinanceâ— all his and other mens quotations have been sufficiently examined as to this and fully answered unlesse it be one of Mr. Collins Deut. 23.18 Thou shall not bring the price of a whore or the price of a Dogge into the House of the Lord for any vow for these are abomination to the Lord if not the price then not the Whore or Dogge He argues from the lesser to the greater Answ Doth it follow that because they might not offer any of those two for any vow that therefore they might not bring their Lambe in its season to the House of the Lord and offer it before him according to Gods command It was an abomination to doe those things that God forbad therefore it is abomination to doe that which God commands that 's all the text will prove as to debarring of the moral unclean from the Passeover Away with such trifling and impertinent applications of holy Scriptures The truth is men of his judgement must do more then they have yet done I had almost said more then they can doe or else had better never to have said any thing about this argument drawn from the Analogy of the Passeover all that man can say against us from that doth but discover their own weaknesse in fighting against the Truth His tenth Argument It 's a sin in a Minister to declare those one visible Body who are not one body with visible Saints but scandalous sinners are not one body with visible Saints And be that gives the Lords Supper declares those to whom he gives it unto to be one visible Body Ergo. 1. Answ Is it a sin to say the visible Church is the visible body of Christ and this visible body consists of good and bad Wheat and Tares c. Is it a sin to declare this 2. Are not all that are baptized into one Body of that Body and are not the scandalous in the Church baptized and is it a sin for one to declare that the baptized are one visible body with visible Saints What is a visible Saint but a baptized visible professing Christian that is a member of the true visible Church Is not an offending brother a brother and within while he is within If the Sacrament of baptism doe initiate into that one body and the Sacrament of the Supper bespeaks them so too that are baptized Is it a sin for a Minister to give the Sacrament to such by declaring that which is true and which no man can deny that holds our Church a true visible Church Who can you say is not a real member of Christ in particular And one that he dyed not for The Apostle affirmed it of all in the Church of Corinth that they were one body What if Gillespy will not be perswaded the Apostle would say it of all we finde it so written and I think it safe to be perswaded of the truth of what is written the authority of Scripture shall perswade with me before the authority of men His eleventh Argument The Sacrament is not to be given to any who are not Christs Disciples but scandalous sinners are none of his disciples Ergo. The Major is true Answ but the Minor is to be distinguished into scandalous sinners out of the Church and such like sinners in the Church to the former it 's granted but to the latter it 's denyed What are Church-members but Disciples What are all that professe the true Christian Religion and only call upon the name of the Lord Jesus in hope of eternal life by him but Disciples if they be not Disciples and within then they are Heathens and without whom the Church have nothing to doe to judge in order to their amendment and if they be without and strangers from the Covenant of promises why doe you baptize their children or presse them to any duties of Gospel worship as incumbent upon them as Christians If they be Christians and within why should they not have their proper titles and priviledges of that estate If you can make them neither within the Church nor without then it 's possible you may doe something in this argument and when you have done that I doubt not but you will be answered His 12.13 arguments I have answered in my answer to what he hath excepted against The Bar removed His fourteenth Argument It is unlawful to partake of other mens sins Ephes 5.7 But he that gives the Sacrament wittingly to an ignorant scandalous person partakes with him in his sin Ergo. I grant his Major Answ but deny his Minor because giving and receiving the Sacrament is a most necessary duty of worship which both Minister and people stand mutually ingaged to observe and perform as any other duty of worship in the Church and the Sacrament being given and received with that reverence and order according to the form of holy institution there is no sin as to the matter it self and as for the manner as in every thing we fail all so in this and if this were sufficient to forbear the Sacrament then we must give over all worship In all duties better to doe as well as we can then not at all so that it follows that those that deny the Sacrament to those that are bound to receive it are partakers of their sin in not allowing them to doe their duty for ignorance and other offendings doe not excuse from precepts of institute Worship and the holy Supper more then all other Gospel Worship while persons are within Shall mans impotency and iniquity pull down Gods authority If in all other duties of Gospel Worship such had better obey as wel as they can then neglect Gods worship altogether it 's but a begging the question to deny it in the observance of the Sacrament It 's true a Minister may be guilty of his peoples ignorance and may fear and tremble at that guilt if he neglect all or any due and probable principles of the true Religion that may in some measure prepare them to profit by every Ordinance in the Church But having done his duty he need not fear to give them the Sacrament but tremble at the neglect of that administration and discouraging weak and ignorant Christians from it True it is also that a Minister and the Church may make themselves accessory to the sins of offending brethren in the Church by their carelesse indulging of them in their evill wayes by not reproving admonishing censuring c. by which sinners
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
text then what it is urged for Next he assumes something from what is granted by Bishop Abbot but that 's nothing to the text nor proof of his way pag. 131. The Text he saith will yeeld us this argument page 133. Where is no due order in Sacramental administrations Mr. Saund. there Gods Word is not observed But where all are admitted there is no order Therefore in admission of all Gods will is not observed The major may be yeelded the Minor is to be denyed by distinguishing 1. Answ Where all are admitted without distinction of Christian and Heathen baptized or unbaptized a member in Communion and one under Excommunication c. there is no order it 's true as being against many Scriptures But 2. where all are admitted that are of a true Orthodox Church and are baptized professing Christians under the Churches indulgence the children of whom himself accounts holy federally of these the Minor is to be denyed and so the argument fals for pressing of baptized Christians or believers come under the obligation of this part of institute worship in the Church as of any other the precept is commended to the whole Church As oft as you doe this doe it in remembrance of me 1 Cor. 11.24 25. And if a Minister will be faithful to his charge he must teach and incourage al of his flock to observe and doe all that Christ commands Mat. 28.20 And how can they say as St. Paul did that they kept back nothing that was necessary for the Church when they keep back so necessary an Ordinance from their respective flocks The Lord discover unto his servants their great neglects and error Mr. Saunders addes in proof of his Minor thus Where there is mixture and confusion of good and bad fit and unfit there is no order But where all are admitted is this mixture Ergo. What is an evill mixture Answ and against the Word I have explained above and to call this mixture of good and bad as he cals them evill in the Church in reference to external Ordinances and duties of worship and homage is very unsound and doth accuse the wisdome of God of weaknesse in constituting his visible Church so as to consist of good and bad fit and unfit but are not all things sanctified by the warrant of the Word to the whole Church And are not all things clean to them in a federal sense Is there not grace and mercy enough in the Gospel Covenant made to the professing Church to cure the worst Gods blessing concurring with the necessary means used to that end Let not men be dividing where God joyns by his own constitution and merciful gift comprehending the natural children of all parents in the Church with the Church for the gathering of his elect out of them all To call this a mixture in an evil sense as corrupting the Church and Ordinances is a slander and an unjust reproach brought upon the Church by rash and inconsiderate heads care is to be taken for the exercise of true discipline for the amendment of the scandalous as is provided in all my writings But there is nothing can be said otherwise to exclude any in the Church from necessary duties of institute Worship And therefore the vanity of that self flattery is discovered in his 134. pag. wherein he applauds their course and way as tending to advance order and holinesse in the Church which indeed they are guilty of the breach of very great commands of Jesus Christ in setting up this pretended order and holinesse Let them consider better of it and free themselves from what I charge them with if they can tell how or else make good what they promise in returning from their way of schism to their Pastoral duties to their respective flocks His second proof is Jer. 15.19 If thou takest the precious from the vile then shalt thou be as my mouth In short to give a few hints of the true sense before I examine his Answ The people of Judah and Jerusalem were in a most desperate apostasie in the reign of King Zedekiah the time of this holy Prophets prophesying for they had forsaken the Lord and his prescribed worship which but a little before godly Josiah had put them in possession of according to the laws of God left in writing by Moses but his son being wicked turned to Idolatry and all the people with him ran a whoring after strange Gods insomuch that the Lord complains of them according to thy Cities are thy Gods oh Judah for which and many other of their abominable doings the Lord sent his servant Jeremie to denounce Gods judgements against them especially that judgement of their being subdued by the King of Babylon and carryed away captives by him This message did so vexe them that they wholly set themselves in opposition to the Prophet insomuch that the good man was so tired out with their revilings and threats that out of his frailty he grew into a passionate discontent questioning the message that he had received from the mouth of the Lord and staggering at Gods promise of protection made in particular to him chap. 1.8 here he chargeth God rashly as if he had been to him as a lyar and as waters that fail chap. 15.18 this 19. verse is an answer to Jeremiahs rash charge Therefore thus saith the Lord if thou return or repent then will I bring thee again and thou shalt stand before me if thou take away the precious from the vile then shalt thou be as my Word let them return to thee and submit to the truth of that message I have sent by thee But do not thou return to them by reason of their extream unreasonable opposition they raise against thee for I will be as good to thee as ever I promised to be for I will make thee to this people a strong brazen wall and they shall fight against thee but they shall not prevail c. v. 20. Jeremiahs duty was to bear up himself in discharge of the message sent upon with courage constancy faithfulnesse against all discouragements met with whatever he was to denounce the judgements of God against them for their provoking sins to bring them to repentance or leave them without excuse and in so doing his duty the Word of the Lord spoken by him should have an answerable effect upon the spirits of men some should believe it and reform and yeeld themselves voluntarily to the King of Babylon and so live others should be hardened and accuse the Prophet of revolting from his own Nation and holding intelligence with an enemy and discouraging the people from their arms by perswading them to yeild and live and so set themselves against him and reject his word and perish Thus the Word of the Lord made a separation for the saving of some and destruction of others I take it And so the stream of Interpreters runs but to this Mr. Saunders answers If this Text allows only a
pleased to own and make his people and to be unto them a God in a more peculiar relation then to all others of mankinde for those whom God chooseth to approach neer unto him in his own appointments have the promise of being satisfied with the fatnesse of his house Now then I judge so long as Covenant relation holds membership holds and so long as membership holds the priviledges of that estate holds It must be an authority equivalent to the ground of membership that can dismember or dispossesse them of their right as members which nothing but renouncing the Covenant or obstinacy continued in under the Churches censures can doe it But he goes on in his mistake and tels his Reader That I hold it 's only the exercise of reason conjoyned unto Church-membership gives all a right to the Sacrament then it follows saith he That all such who are able to exercise their reason ought to come and be admitted And then asks us why are drunkards excepted against pag. 22. Here is but the same again which is already answered only he saith Answ why are drunkards excepted against for they are Church-members and can exercise reason In stating the question Mr. Humfrey hath it he might say the drunk meaning the actual drunk as void of reason conscience and devotion for that present as being more fit to be thrust among Swine then suffered to come unto any sacred Ordinance of Worship in that profane sordid brutishnesse not denying but the same man at another time when he is sober and in his serious minde to serve God as a Christian he being not excommunicated may and ought to partake of every Ordinance in the Churchâ— a member Saith Mr. Coll. If he can but shew him the least shâ—dow of Scripture to prove that a capacity to exercâ— reason is that other thing which added unto Church-membership gives one an actual right we will be 〈◊〉 bondmen Membership alone in its own latitude comprehends as much as he himself wiâ—â— have added unto it to give a true actual righâ— as is made out above Answ 1 And then 2. I hope Mr. Collings will alloâ— men and women that are baptized and continue to adhere to the true Religion to bâ— Church-members and if so himself doâ— grant their right which is as much as hâ— would have me prove unlesse he think that Church-membership of persons growâ— up to years of discretion is a meer notâ— onal thing an empty nothing levelling Church-members to the Pagan world as 〈◊〉 may well suspect him for several things meâ— withall hereafter his often urging of something to be added to give one of years right to the Sacrament as knowledge faith and the fruits of holinesse strongly implies that to be a Church-member disciple is nothing to give a right It 's the things he superaddes that gives the right to the Supper whereas to Church-membership I know and so may be that his superaddings are not proper nor indeed sense for adde those things to a Pagan and they wil give him right unto Sacraments â—hereas a Church-member imports the same â—e they ignorant or scandalous during that priviledged estate Doth the Scriptures speak 〈◊〉 any such additions to a Jew unto his observing the Passeover in its season Let it 〈◊〉 proved that an ignorant Jew lost his actuall right as a Jew or Church-member or â—at an ignorant Christian in the Apostles â—ayes that was baptized and within had no â—ight to the Lords Supper Will you not alâ—ow as much of Church priviledge to a baptized Christian now as was allowed then Are the priviledges of the same Church diminished â—o her members Wherein will you have a Church-member not excommunicate differ from a Heathen or the excommunicate You allow all other Ordinances in the Church to a Heathen the suspended Excommunicate and just so much you allow to a Church-member tollerated and no more how doe you confound things that differ What difference doe you make between the excommunicable and the excommunicate the ignorant and such as offend out of weaknesse that are not excommunicate The Primitive and Positive suspension as you call them the proper and improper c. the punishment de facto in its execution is all the very same deny them the Sacrament only that 's the least and that 's the greatest Whether it be done by a Classes or Presbytery or a single Minister or by the discoâ—ragement of some private Christians or 〈◊〉 of peoples own carelesnesse The only poâ— of reformation and end of Discipline is mâ— that great design of keeping Church-members of years from the Sacrament slightâ— their Covenant relation obligation unactual observances as members disciples 〈◊〉 lievers c. as if they were no more unâ— the duties of Gospel worship then Turks aâ— Pagans If Church-membership with uâ— judged the same with those were added 〈◊〉 to the Chdrch in the Apostles dayes wâ— should we question the duty priviledge â—â—ours more then they of those times I woâ— have Mr. Collings either shew me a differâ— state of Church-membership or else shâ— me a different rule for the same Church 〈◊〉 walk by either let him doe the one or 〈◊〉 other or else be so ingenuous to yeeld 〈◊〉 every member his right until the Churâ— have legally dispossest them of it At the latter end of the 22 page Mr. Coll. he drawâ— up the question between both and wouâ— have it put to tryal but indeed the questiâ— is so wide from the question in controversâ— and so much said already to clear the question in hand that I may well passe it bâ— and see what we can finde in page 23. wheâ— he is still upon the same thing and pleaâ— against me thus If a meer capacity to exercise reason entitule◠〈◊〉 Church-member to the Sacrament then every Church-member in such a capacity hath an undoubted right I grant that every Church-member of years of discretion hath an undoubted right Answ I utterly disown his antecedent as not reckoning the question as it 's stated he should have put in this proviso Church-members that are professing the true religion not under the Churches just censure And had he done so he might have assumed what he could but he willing to leave so much out of his antecedent as would have spoyled his consequence â—nd prevented him in urging those inconsequences that follow upon it in the whole page although I must confesse the cases he instances in have need to be spoken unto with wisdome and tendernesse so that the truth be not prejudiced As to the case of members that are so notoriously scandalous that of right ought to be excommunicate but are not as he instances in incest and adultery immediately before a Sacrament he sees I have large principles if I would admit such a one 1. Answ Either such are under the suspicion of these sins Or 2. are under evident conviction A suspicion is not sufficient to ground Church censures upon if this be
their children unto baptism if no promise belong to him to make use of as his is not his childes baptism a considerable use The absolute promise of the first grace to the unregenerate is the main encouragement to the use of means for the attainment of grace This is that which opens a door of hope unto all and as they are sinners destitute of the work of grace they may rightly goe to God and pray for a new heart and for his Spirit to beget regenerating grace it their gracelesse spirits Oh turn thou us Lord and we shall be converted unto thee for thou never saidst to the seed of Jacob Seek yee my face in vain And we are the seed of thy Church and people whom thou hast promised to be a God unto and to make us thy people for thy names sake forsake us not but put forth 〈◊〉 work of thy mighty power to open our hearâ— to receive the grace of thy promise we 〈◊〉 objects of and without which we are undouâ— I say ask and you shall have for the Lorâ— will give his Spirit to them that ask it Anâ— this I hope is of good use to the unregenerate it 's a special ground to pray for renewing grace themselves and likewise for other that have grace to pray for them as Minister for their people and parents for their children c. Exclude them from these promises and you exclude them from your prayers for we have no warrant to pray for that which God doth not promise to give My fifth proposition That the Sacraments being visible representations of Christs death on which those promises are founded and by which they â—ne confirmed the use of the Sacraments belongs to those whom those promises doe immediately respect Unto this he hath nothing considerable but what hath been answered already only he grants the main of this And yet sayes that Sacraments are seals as well as signs 1. Sacraments are seals as they are signes Answ and not otherwise 2. They are but representatives of the real seal that confirms the absolute promises namely the death of Christ and so not seals properly but by way of resemblance giving the name to the signs that is only proper to the thing signified namely the death of Christ it being all one to imagine the Sacraments real seals of the Covenant with real presence If I mistake not hence it will follow That which the death of Christ is a seal of Sacraments are seals of but the death of Christ is a seal of the promises of first grace which respect the unregenerate in the Church therefore the use of these seals belong to them I see not but that the Sacraments as they are seals to confirm the truth of the Covenant in which are included promises of first grace to the unregenerate in the Church the unregenerate may use the seals for their incouragement to wait upon God in the use of that and all ordinary means in hope of the blessing of regenerating grace according to what is promised in the Word and sealed in the Sacrament who else should use the seals if not those that have a right unto what is sealed should not But then he saith It is false that the use of the Sacraments belongs to such as the promises of first grace doe respect for then the use of the Sacrameâ— belongs to Heathens but the use of it belongs 〈◊〉 those only who by faith apply the promises So long as any creatures are without to letter Answ and external administration of thâ— Covenant and have not so much as accepted of the outward tender and made eâ—trance therein by baptism they are strange from the Covenant of promise and without a literal ground of hope and without Goâ— I have shewed the difference already 〈◊〉 though I have granted elsewhere that thâ— Heathen are objects of the promise of 〈◊〉 grace in some remote sense yet it 's hard 〈◊〉 say of any Nation in special so long as thâ— Lord is pleased to withhold the ordinaâ— means of their conversion from them thâ— they are objects of that promise This is certain truth where the Lord hath a peopâ—â— to save he will either send his Word to 〈◊〉 them or bring them under the Word by soâ— providence or other to that end as for thoâ— that are left to wander in their own Idolitrous wayes there is no hope to such If 〈◊〉 Gospel be hid it 's hid to them that perish Anâ— whereas Mr. Collins saith The Sacrament belongs only to those who by faith apply the promiseâ— Alas this he takes for granted although be knows we have denyed it upon confiderable ground Take faith in his sense can any man imagine that all the people of the Jews were able by faith to apply the promises yet they were all bound to keep the Passeover Conceive how improbable it were that all that submitted unto baptism in the Apostles age were able by a true saith to apply the promises yet none were denyed the Supper that came under Baptism Doth Mr. Gollins think that all in our Church are able by a true sincere faith to apply the promises Yet we administer baptism unto their children a seal of the same promises upon the account of their parents And I verily judge that the parents are in as good a capacity for the holy Supper as their children are for holy baptism If the childes right may be derived more remote then much more the Parents of that childe as being a generation neerer that right If the promise include the grand childe much more his own childe And wherein is the holy Supper a different seal of the Covenant from baptism So that in giving Baptism to their child you clearly yeeld their right to use the Supper provided they be not excommunicated But Mr. Collins argues against me thus in his late Book pag. 104. Those who if they were Heathens might not be baptized though they be baptized and in the Church ought not to be admitted to the Lords Supper But those who are ignorant and scandalous if they were Heathens should not be baptized Ergo I grant his minor is true Answ that ignorant and scandalous Heathens should not be baptized But I deny his Major that ignorant and scandalous Christians are Heathens Suppose them unbaptized which they are not for I will suppose that their Covenant relation holds still though they were unbaptized they being the issue of persons in the Church and they never as yet have renounced the Covenant but adhere to the publick administration thereof which may be the case of some in these exorbitant time for there are many a growing up to year of discretion that through the delusion 〈◊〉 their parents are unbaptized the which 〈◊〉 think are no Heathen being Christians born nor cut off from Covenant relation noâ— Church-membership notwithstanding their parents wickednesse to dispute them ouâ— of the Covenant and consequently ouâ— of the Church and so from baptism a priviledge thereof
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
him in their practise It 's an ingenuous resolution I confesse and if he will but stand to it I doubt not of the issue but that it will be worth our labour to dispute it with him according to Scripture and Reason the only Judge of Truth Besides I am the rather inclined to enter the lists with him in this Controversie because he protests against a rigid separation from a true Church and declares himself only for a moderate and lawful separation in the Church not as yet disowning our Churches I take it Unto this I answer That Separation that is proper and lawful in the Church Answ is either made by Orthodox Doctrine Or 2. by wholesome Discipline Juridically exercised Or 3. we may and ought to withdraw all unnecessary friendly and intimate familiarity from scandalous brethren where the necessary duties of our general and particular callings will permit without prejudice to our selves And then the question will be whether the practice defended in respect of separation be no more but so if it be but Doctrinal or putting out of Communion Juridically by Excommunication or declining all unnecessary familiarity with the scandalous though tolerated all will be yeelded on his side But if it be found otherwise I shall deny it as dangerous and warn all Christians to avoid it lest they be infected with Schism a cursed fruit of the flesh and drawn into such needlesse separations as can never be warranted It 's one thing to separate from the sinful courses of scandalous brethren and another thing to separate from the necessary duties of Gods Worship and of our calling where such are tolerated It 's one thing to exclude the scandalous Juridically another thing to exclude the ignorant who desire to be learners of wholesome Doctrine or those that are not satisfied to yeeld unto their tearms as presented under the necessity of duty when upon search their terms are but the bold inventions and opinions of strong fancies and not to be owned upon any such account as is pretended Yet I shall advise to a condescension to the same terms upon a prudential account for the help and incouragement of all in saith and knowledge provided it be used to no such end as to exclude Church-members from that necessary duty of institute worship Doe this in remembrance of me Christians ought not to betray their own and their brethrens liberties to those that have the boldnesse in these exorbitant times to invade them and bring all into division and confusion Why should not all that are within and of the Church enjoy all external helps and means of their amendment untill the Church hath taken the forfeiture of their offending and issued out judgement against them I think I have writ more to this then will be answered in hast Mr. Saunders would be judged a sober moderate man that still owns our Church Ministry and members for true But yet we finde him so inconsistent to himself that upon the matter he unchurches all our Parochial Congregations that he will not allow them to be Churches but in an equivocating sense that is to say in no sense as a â—â—rish in it's Precincts but as a separate Church may be in a Parish as in the world We doe not say saith he that our Assemblies are Churches as Parishes but that they are Churches in Parishes and in that sense Parish Churches pag. 127. and yet he is sharp against rigid separation and pretends but to Surgery not to Butchery but if unchurching of our Parochial Assemblies be not a rigid Butchery let him tell us what is more rigid They of the Independent judgement doe generally acknowledge our Assemblies to be the Churches of Christ though out of order The Anabaptists will confesse a Church may be in a Parish as well as in a City Country and World and in this sense they may say there are Churches in Parishes and so Parish Churches How is our Church beholden to such pretenders that will speak as much in defence of our Parochial Churches as they state them as our adversaries will grant And yet he hath the happinesse to be approved of by a learned Gentleman for his recommending to the Church a well tempered Reformation if love to his person and cause deceive him not Mr. Manton in his approbational Epistle to this Book I confesse if those we plead for be not members of true Churches in Scripture account then all must needs goe against us for it is certain that Heathens the unbaptized or such as have renounced the Christian Religion may not eat thereof our opinion pleads for all Church-members of years baptized and not excommunicated as knowing not any rule against the admitting of such to the Lords Supper produced yet by any And yet Mr. Manton saith peremptorily amongst all others none have deserved worse of the Church of God then those that plead for a loose way as he cals it of receiving all sorts of persons to holy things and by promiscuous administrations prostitute the Ordinance of God to every comer I confesse this passage from so reverend a Minister as he is reputed to be did enter my very heart at first and plunged my soul into a greater perplex of passion then is ordinary Yet not out of any apprehension of guilt though I have alwayes cause to flee unto Gods mercy for acceptance but that so good a man and an eminent Minister of the Gospel should be so inconsiderately rash in his censure of the Churches friends But to answer directly 1. Doth not Mr. Manton receive all sorts of Christians unto Gods Ordinances of Word Prayer singing of Psalms the administration of holy baptism Are not these holy things And is it loosenesse in himself to admit all sorts of persons in the Church to partake of these I hope not and why then not in the other it being a necessary duty to all in the Church of years as the Ordinances before named he might doe well to give some better reason then others doe When he can charge us justly with pleading the admission of the unbaptized Heathens the Excommunicate then let him charge us with that odium of loosenesse or a loose way as being against Gospel-rule but untill then his charge and censure is no other then a rash slander unbecoming such a person It 's strange and to be admired that our pressing unto Christian observance to those that are baptized professing Christians and of the visible Church should have such a hard sense put upon it as to be branded with loosenesse when in all other duties pressing to obedience according to rule is accounted godlinesse and holy strictnesse But doubtlesse that way that is the nearest to Gospel rule is the good way and straight way However it may have the hap upon mistake to be called a loose way Truly to speak freely I little value that perverse disputing in most that oppose us that are forced to uncovenant unchurch undisciple unduty a Christian professing
doctrinal separation and denies any other then Excommunication fals We doe not say that this Text denies any other separation but this we say Answ it was but doctrinal of it self in respect of act as touching the Prophet yet in respect of the effect the Word took upon them it became personal and the instrumental cause of some to separate from that deluge of Idolatry the most were involved in nor is there any danger that Excommunication should fall unlesse it stands upon this text so long as other texts of holy Writ uphold it which himself cannot be ignorant of and this separation of Jurisdical Excommunication we grant and examination in order unto it But what is this in favour of the thing in the question that is only in reference to a persons knowledge which not being judged competent should be excluded the Sacrament these are huge different cases Takes occasion to speak of separation as Ecclesiastical Mr. Saund. and that twofold 1. From an Idolatrous Church as we from Rome justly c. 2. When a Church doth separate from the scandalous members of her own body Or separate such as are scandalous from her this he saith is grounded upon the Text in hand and 2 Thess 3.6 This is tearmed a negative separation in a Church not from it This he saith is their case they separate only in that wherein those separated from cannot lawfully joyn pag. 136. The first separation may be lawful when we cannot have communion with them in the main essentials of doctrine and worship Answ the whole of these holy things being mingled with the superstitious inventions and heretical doctrines of men the text in hand doth justifie this For the Church of the Jews was then Idolatrous in their worship and had forsaken the Lord and his prescribed worship therefore he denounceth most terrible judgements against them by his Prophet to reform them which could not be as to particulars without separating from their Idolatrous assemblies of worship But to say as he in the next that this text doth warrant a separation in a Church where the doctrine and worship is holy and owned by the presence and blessing of the Lord as themselves cannot deny of ours is too impudently asserted How proper it is for a Church to separate from the scandalous members of her own body I am yet to learn that she may separate such as are scandalous from her Juridically is all along granted but this is nothing to their case who confesse they excommunicate none But here lies the bottom of all They separate only in that wherein those separated from cannot lawfully joyn Let 's examine how the text in hand will warrant them in that Did Jer. and those that were separated by vertue of Gods Word separate from the other of the Church because they could not lawfully joyn with them in Gods own prescribed worship which all were injoyned by Gods command to observe Then it will be some ground for your way but as there can be no such thing in the text so no colour of ground for you to plead hence in defence of your way Nay it may rather reflect upon you thus As they fell off from that Reformation of Josiah that had reduced the people to a conformity to the Law and chose to themselves new Idolatrous wayes that God commanded not so you fall off from that Reformation begun according to the Laws of Christ enjoyning al professing baptized Christians to a conformity to all his laws and Ordinances in the Church and choose to your selves a way of Schism and separation needlesly without the least shew of solid ground for if an Israelite though otherwise ignorant and wicked was priviledged to joyn with the Church in all holy and commanded worship then why not a Christian as well under an equal capacity If those you separate from in that of the Sacrament be under the obligation of Christs command as they are professing baptized Christians which none can deny upon good ground then Christs command is of sufficient warrant to justifie their lawful joyning with you as in all other commanded duties of worship you seeme to practise the antecedent hath been proved already from 1 Cor. 11.24 25. Matth. 28.20 the consequence will be yeelded I hope But to give you the sum of all he draws from the text in hand That which God commands is our duty but God requires more then a doctrinal separation in applying the Word Therefore more is our duty His Major is undenyable Answ 1 his Minor is true also and therefore Excommunication iâ— granted though not from this text but what 's this argument to prove that those that either refuse to be examined by their Minister and Officers or upon Examination not satisfying their Minister and Officers in respect of knowledge only ought to be excluded the Sacrament Indeed all he saith to this Answ in order to the text is but this one slender clause Now if some separation must be made then examination and such like proper means also pag. 138. Though this may be granted in respect of Excommunication yet this is more then can be concluded from the text in hand as I have given sufficient hints of already His third proof is 2 Thess 3.2 6 14 15 verses Mr. Saunders saith The Apostle speaks of wicked men vers 2. which he will have noted vers 14 that is censured as is plain c. In the 2. vers he gives a character of some false brethren unreasonable wicked men then a command vers 6. to withdraw and after to have no company vers 14. which by the following words we are constrained to understand of some exclusion from fellowship in some Ordinances c. 1. If those unreasonable wicked men were of the Church and Brethren Answ which the Apostle desires the Church to pray that he may be delivered from in respect of his safety then surely they deserved to be excommunicated and cast out out of all Christian Communion or else none at all and if such were the Delinquents writ about vers 6.14 Divines need not fear to say that Excommunication is too much at first as he pag. 140. and therefore by his own sense from vers 2. this text will prove no more but what he always granted namely excommunication If those unreasonable wicked men there meant were not of the Church but persecutors that absurdly hindred the preaching and profession of the Gospel as all men where the Apostle came amongst had not faith but were either Infidels or Apostates then to what purpose are those directions given to this Church toward such that were in no capacity to be dealt withall as members in Communion for they that are without God judgeth Suppose one should grant him that this withdrawing is to be understood of some exclusion from fellowship in some Ordinances what can hence be concluded for his way As to examination in respect of knowledge only which is the thing in question as himself hath
prepared in order unto the exercise of discipline I doubt not but when our principles are more the minde of Scriptures in regard of the blessed and priviledged state of the whole visible Church in Covenant relation with God the Lord will favour us in his great kindenesse by putting the poore despised Church of the Nation into a possession of that discipline that is most the minde of Jesus Christ revealed in the Word In the mean time we have all need to pray much for we are under an hour of temptation and many are scared by it I come to his seventh proof pag. 148. 1 Tim. 5.22 Neither be partakers of other mens sins The sum of what he saith to this was not enough for a Minister to give the unworthy warning of the danger or to reprove and denounce Gods judgements against the impenitent to free him from other mens sins This may clear him as a Preacher but not as a Ruler or Steward for if the same Minister shall loose the same men by giving them the seals of the New Covenant which is to tell them that they are interessed in Gospel priviledges and promises he fears that the guilt that was thrust out of the fore doore comes in again at the back doore 1. The main of the question lies in this Answ whether the Minister admits any such who are by the Authority of Scriptures forbid to come he not doing what he regularly may to exclude them I shall easily grant that a Minister through carelesnesse and unfaithfulnesse may be involved in the guilt of their peoples sins as touching the Sacrament but the question is when a Minister hath laboured to instruct his people and hath given warning of the danger of eating and drinking unworthily and hath stirred them up to come reverently and orderly carrying themselves sutable to the external actions there required hath not done his duty in an Evangelical sense as to that of his that every Minister is a Ruler and therefore to urge upon them acts of discipline and Jurisdiction as a Ruler when the whole Church is without discipline is such a boldnesse that never any pretending to sober principles assumed untill these exorbitant times we are fallen into for want of holy discipline But he grants that in respect of all the Minister doing his duty as before is clear as a Preacher And that is sufficient from his own mouth to justifie those that dare assume no other power in the Church at present but what they have by vertue of their Ministerial Office And as Stewards they are bound to be faithful in the dispensing of that leaving the issue to the blessing of their Master And it concerns Mr. Saunders to prove himself a Ruler and impowered with the actual exercise of the Keyes of Jurisdiction in his Church before he take upon him to binde and loose at his pleasure if he be so impowered why doth he not reform his own Congregation and administer all the Ordinances in his own Church Why doth he not by his authority convent the scandalous before him and admonish rebuke Excommunicate without any fear or scruple and practise all Church Communion in all the Ordinances to the other not at all under his censure Will he blame another in that which he neglects himself If there be none in his Congregation over whom he rules lyable to his censures to amend them why doth he neglect to administer the holy Sacrament unto them If there be scandalous members in his Church why doth he connive at their wickedness and suffer himself to be leavened by his carelesse indulgence towards them partaking of their sins forasmuch as he neglects the only means to reform them by Juridical Excommunication 1 Cor. 5. If he say he keeps them from the Sacrament I answer But the Church of Corinth were commanded to do more Was it ever read of in the Scripture that a Pastor refused to administer the holy Suppeâ— to his flock to keep the scandalous from communicating with them What though you plead but for Suspension ought not that to be Juridical as you are a Ruler impowered so to act And have you so proceeded with all your people that are excluded the holy Supper I pray you Sir satisfie me in these things either by some Scripture grounds or by your Reformation as you are a Christian and a Minister of the holy Gospel As to the rest of this Paragraph I wish you would better study the nature of the New Covenant and whom it respects And how the Sacraments may be said to be seals thereof and what they seal to in the Covenant which things I have insisted somewhat upon in my other writings both in answer to Dr. Drake and Mr. Collins whither I refer you intending hast at present In his next Paragraph he speaks to the text in hand The Apostle speaks of Ordination of Ministers wherein by not examining the persons to be ordained guilt is contracted ordaining without proving as 1 Tim. 3.10 is too sudden so likewise the giving of the Sacrament is sudden and guilty though but once in a year where no difference or tryal is made of them that come but he that will though of the basest of the people may be a guest at the Lords Table Men may put all this off by thinking the fault is not theirs while the act is others mens but others mens sins may be ouâ—s As incivil Judicatories there are principals and accessories So before God there will be too and non-examiners are accessories before the fact thus far he p. 150 This text is quoted either for illustration Answ or probation of the thing in question If but for illustration then it 's not argumentative and the inference but begged If for proof of the thing in question the consequence must be this as the Presbytery is guilty of others mens sins when they ordain into the Ministry suddenly without tryal of their gifts and life so in like manner those Ministers are guilty of others mens sins that receive al to the Sacrament without Examination To this I answer by pleading non-sequitur it remains for him to prove the necessity of the latter equal with the former let the like proof and reason be given for the one as the other they being of themselves things distinct to each other and different things in the premises will not bear the same conclusions And therefore that which the text intends I grant but deny the other untill further proof And for his distinction in principals and accessories in sin And non-examiners are accessories before the fact Still the question is but beg'd it 's still to prove that examination is the duty of every Minister in order to excluding the ignorant c. his distinction holds only in those sins or actions that are absolutely forbid in that which iâ— sin in its own nature but I deny that giving and receiving the Sacrament is so to baptized Christians of years and of the Church I have