cals them are forbidden but who in the Church are they I would gladly know the Apostle speaks of some that did eat and drink unworthily but it doth not follow therefore that their persons were unworthy because some of their actions were I have insisted largely upon this in answer to Mr. Collins The truth is how can they be said to be forbidden that are of the Church and baptized and as such are under the command of all institute worship Nay it 's a question whether Excommunication doe disoblige from precepts of worship although the Church may lawfully deny them the benefit of all worship in the punishing of impenitent scandalous sinners for their amendment A prison doth not excuse a Fellon from duties of publick worship when he by his own sinning hath brought himself justly under that restraint And in his saying Any proper and sufficient way to the exclusion of the unfit I know no way but Juridical censures of the Church that is proper according to the Gospel rule Juridical Admonition and Excommunication the Word hath prescribed directly and that only is proper and sufficient for the exclusion of the unfit as for any other way to be proper that is no where to be found in the Scripture and neglect to doe as it is written is but a raw sancy of a mans own framing and punishable by the Scriptures as is clear in the case of Nadab and Abihu Levit. 10.1 2. they invented a proper and a sufficient way in kindling common fire to consume the Sacrifice of Incense the fire of the Tabernacle being out through their own negligence but the Lord destroyed them with fire from heaven for presuming to offer that which the Lord commanded not For where the Lord himself prescribes a way the Church is bound only to that way not any way but that only of Gods own prescribing will he be pleased with God will be sanctified in them that come nigh him Now then I say when we upon Church reforming through the subtilty of some and carelessenesse of others have lost the exercise of the Churches discipline being out of actual possession through our own default as to the edification of the whole shall any be so bold now as to invade this authoritative power and assume to themselves without the consent of the Church the exercise of discipline and under that pretence use any way that is but proper and sufficient to exclude the ignorant and scandalous from the Sacrament when the Lord hath prescribed a direct way what is to be done with the scandalous in the Church Again that the Ark should be fetched unto its proper place was an end commanded yet any proper and sufficient means subservient thereunto were not warrantable but that way and means only that God had appointed and you know David swerved from the prescription in fetching back the Ark but the Lord made a breach upon them for it in smiting Vzzah that he dyed This way was proper and sufficient to attain the end yet they were punished for it The Lord made a breach amongst them because they carryed not the Ark according to that order God had prescribed in the Law It 's a dangerous and desperate attempt to invent ways and means of exclusion of Christs visible subjects from their native rights otherwise then it is written There is a clear rule for Juridical Excommunication and in what cases and by whom to be exercised and let that satisfie all untill they can finde further order from the Scriptures to warrant their other proceedings under the notion of discipline in this giddy age The Reader may sufficiently by this see the weaknesse and vanity of the way and practise defended by the Author I have fully answered the texts of Scripture and the reasons added as seconds to warrant their way they must either finde out a better warrant then is yet produced or else as the ten Tribes were jealous of the other two and a half Josh 22. when they heard that the two had erected an Altar of their own heads conceived they were in a superstitious rebellion in forsakeing the wayes of the Lord and so to provoke the Lord unto anger to punish the whole Congregation as in the matter of Peor and Achan so may we be jealous and suspicious of these new invented wayes so vigorously acted in by our brethren which tend so evidently to make division and schism in the Church and is such an impediment that doth obstruct and make void all hopes of attaining unto that discipline that God hath prescribed for the health and welfare of the whole Church They cannot say as the two Tribes of their Altar It is not for sacrifice but for a witnesse to the other Tribes that their children had part in the Lord and in the Altar that he had commanded to be built for sacrifice and worship For the way that Mr. Saunders defends is for worship and held forth as necessary to the prejudice of professing Christians that have any interest in the Lord and in all his commanded worship that you exclude them from and upon the matter discovenant them and their children from having a part in the Lord. Doe you think it but a small evill to your professing people to deprive them of the benefit and blessing of Gospel appointments instituted by the Lord himself for the spiritual good of his visible Church of which your people are members and within What know you but it may lye heavy upon your souls if ever you be reduced into straights and tryals to think of the wrong you have done to your peoples souls in withholding that from them which was necessary You think now the fault is your peoples and that they keep themselves away from the Sacrament they may be admitted if they will for you say it 's more for want of a will then of capacity that they are not admitted But by your leave Sir may I presume to speak one word on the peoples behalf you impose such laws and ties upon their consciences in order to admission that you cannot in the least make good by the authority of your Master you pretend very much to his authority in those very things which are meerly your own fancies and inconsistent with your own principles otherwayes I dare boldly say that you are in such a way and stickle to defend it too that you will never while you live be able to produce one plain text of Scripture allowing it its own sense to justifie either the forming of your Church or to prove any one thing of what you stand upon as necessary to admission you have quoted 15. texts to prove examination and suspension only and not one will in the least favour you as hath bin discovered already and in your laying down necessary things to qualifie unto receiving you quote about sixty texts and I have searched after them I dare say it and justifie it too that there is not one text of all that number
in the least pertinent to prove any one of the qualifications as laid down to be necessary to this end namely to admission to the holy Supper And how would you have your people to come up to your tearms when you so evidently wrest the sense of Scriptures to justifie the boldnesse of venting forth your own fancies in the name of the Lord This is the way you are agreed of and you rejoyce in your comforts and applaud it for purity and you are resolved thus to walk and you cry up Gospel rule and yet your actings are not consonant to any rule the Scripture teach for any thing you have said in defence of your way May not your comforts be suspected as well as others whose wayes and courses are dangerous and to be avoided I would have you consider of it for these unnecessary separations in a true Church as you confesse of ours are absolutely schismatical and your people are bound to decline your way and to keep their station in the Church into which they are imbodyed and to use all their indeavours to partake of Gods Ordinances where they may without running themselves into such dangerous schisms that directly tend to the confusion of the whole And without doubt if you will be as ingenuous as you expresse you must either return to your distracted flocks and perform those relative duties you stand bound unto or persist in wayes of your own choosing meerly without the words warranty which is scandalous in the Church of Christ so to doe and deserves to be censured Mr. Saunders after his arguments he gives some motives which he would have his Reader lay to heart the evils following the neglect of them or the like course 1. And chiefly God is provoked to remove our Candlestick for neglect of Church censures upon scandalous offenders A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump 1 Cor. 5.6 I deny that the way defended hath any thing of the Church censures in it according to that text Answ for Mr. Saunders saith they excommunicate none and Excommunication alone is meant by this Scripture The Apostle doth not say Separate the meal from the leaven but purge out the leaven from the meal he doth not say exclude the scandalous from the Sacrament but put out from among your selves such wicked persons that is out of all Christian Communion civill or sacred What is their course to this Text when they Juridically censure none nor indeed are in a capacity so to doe Casting out of the Church and leaving out from the Sacrament those that are within are huge different things the first is lawful and according to Gospel rule the other unlawful as being against all Gospel rules or precedents It 's true the neglect of Church censures where a Church is in such a capacity is a great evill that doth much provoke the Lord to punish such neglect and that we are in this capacity at present some have more to answer for then I fear they are sensible of nor humbled under that direful guilt my prayer to God is to make us all sensible of our malady and in his due time restore unto this poor rent and divided Church that remedy of holy discipline His second evil is The confusion of souls by ordinary and common profanation eating and drinking their own damnation This is high indeed for words Answ but hath not that dreadful doome in it as he reports without better proof ordinary and common profanation in the Scripture sense was never read of The Church of Corinth lay under the guilt of high profanation but it was not ordinary or common I think 'T is probable they never offended so again nor any other Church what their sin was should be enquired after more strictly and the punishment inflicted and then judge whether the Sacrament be for the confusion of souls it was a temporal chastisement to prevent the damnation of souls This to the punishment The sin was a sacrilegious misuse of holy things to carnal and common ends in the very act of administration which I have largely given my thoughts of and shewed that not any Congregations in our Church did ever or rarely so offend and what he meanes by common profanation must be some other thing that the Scripture no where condemns otherwise then in every other Ordinance of God that is too carelesly performed As all other Ordinances so this was instituted for the spiritual good of the Church Christ commands nothing for the hurt of his visible subjects they conforming thereunto according to their present capacity the Lord gives his laws and Ordinances for our good only Sometimes he permits a people for their punishment to chuse Ordinances and statutes of their own making for their hurt as Israel of old did I conclude then that this evil the confusion of souls c. is a slander of Gods Ordinance and an evill of mens own making when applied to the Sacrament more then to all other Ordinances in the Church Next He saith in his third place Abuse of the bloud of Christ by being too prodigal hereof 1. Answ They properly abuse the signs of Christs bloud that slight Sacraments as too mean and carnal to use to that end they were instituted for 2. They who admit Heathens and give the holy Supper to persons unbaptized or excommunicate or to those that come on purpose to abuse the signs to common ends But to administer the Sacrament unto serious professing Christians that come reverently and demean themselves orderly according to the external part of this observance is that which is according unto Gospel rule and the administration holy and warrantable Christ that gave himself for his Church doth not think much of giving the signs and representations of himself body and bloud to the members thereof And who will plead for any but Church-members who are under the obligation of this observance of their Lord And to deny it to such is to be more withholding then is meet and a dishonour to Jesus Christ who came into the world to save sinners His fourth is Obstructing the reformation of the Churches we live in And what is reformation in the Church Answ but to draw on the whole to a conformity to all the Laws of Jesus Christ externally at least For the Church can goe no further it is the only work of God to reform the hearts of men And the whole Church are as much bound to a conformity to this law of receiving the Sacrament in remembrance of Christ as to any other act of obedience in the Church He that commands all the rest of obedience commands this too And therefore they understand not what Reformation is that are busie in such reformings in their Churches that the greatest part of Christs subjects are out of carlessenesse neglected and exempted from their duty of obedience Nay those that would serve their redeeming Lord and Saviour in the command of his own worship as they are believing Christians in hope of
TO RECEIVE THE LORDS SUPPER The Actual Right and Duty of all Church-Members of Years not EXCOMMUNICATE MADE GOOD Against Mr. COLLINS his Exceptions against The Bar Removed written by the Author And what Right the ignorant and scandalous tolerated in the Church have to the Lords Supper declared Many things belonging to that Controversie more fully discussed tending much to the peace and settlement of the Church AND ALSO A ful Answer to what Mr. COLLINS hath written in defence of Juridical Suspension wherein his pretended arguments from Scripture are examined and confuted To which is also annexed A brief Answer to the Antidiatribe written by Mr. Saunders By JOHN TIMSON a private Christian of Great Bowdon in Leicestershire Those members of the body which we think lesse honorable upon those we bestow more aboundant honor That there should be no Schism in the Body 1 Cor. 12 23 25. London Printed by E. C. for Tho. Williams at the Bible in Little-Britain and Will. Tomson at Harborough in Leicestershire 1655. The Authour to the Reader HOw weak and unable I am for the managing of the least truth and how unfit to appear in publick in its defence I am very sensible and filled with fears and perplexing thoughts in my very soul lest I should do any thing but for the Truth and for the peace of our unsetled Church or should be injurious to so good a cause which I am drawn out I doe not well know how to vindicate Who is sufficient to defend the Truth I tremble to think how many precious and choyce Servants of the Lord and faithful Labourers in his Vineyard are against me in what I publish I reverence and esteem those of the Presbyterian judgement above others in some considerable respects and verily judge them conscientious men and such as I look upon as best qualified for promoting the Gospel truth and the Churches peace And although my returns to Mr. Collins be somewhat round yet I hope I doe not much reflect upon most of the Presbyterian judgement notwithstanding his seeming to write in the name of all of that perswasion I do professe my study was to speak my very heart in this Controversie and to provoke different mindes to give some stronger grounds for their opinion and practice assuring my self that a great deal more must be said against that Free Admission to the Sacrament which I plead for then any of late have said before either Mr. Humphrey or my self will be answered and many thousands in the Nation which I hope fear God will be satisfied I may safely say with a good conscience it is more the clear conviction of my judgement and conscience that perswades me to appear in this controversie then any private interest or affectation of opinion or spirit of contradiction or basenesse of that spirit either â—o humor or flatter the common multitude I am perswaded it is the very simplicity of holy Truth which I have undertaken to defend leading directly to the Churches Peace and Reformation Truth seeks no corners but is invincible and intire in it self it may be over-born at a push but will recover again and vanquish all the dark parts of man O that we had such impartial and unbyased spirits as to receive all truth in the love of it Let me intreat my Reader to weigh things met with in this controversie deliberately and then I doubt not but of whatsoever judgement he be he will confesse my principles and arguments are rational and much the drift and scope of plain Scriptures And if he will but grant me Infant Baptism he will finde it a hard task to overthrow any of my building as it is stated He may see with what clearnesse and ease I have answered to what is excepted against my first book in the reading of this and also to what is brought in defence of Suspension as distinct from Excommunication as it is stated by Mr. Collins Indeed he pleaseth himself with telling his Reader my principles are both large and rotten but if he think to goe but an inch narrower he will finde it a most difficult task to free himself of that charge laid against the Pharisees the making void the Commandements of God by their Traditions He cannot go a jot narrower but he must uncovenant undisciple and unduty those which he cals Church members the doing of which plucks up all that the Church stands upon and levels Christians not Excommunicate with the Pagan world in point of right and actuall duty of receiving This is so irrational that it stands Mr. Collins upon to doe his utmost to give some satisfaction therein which if he doe he must make good from the Scriptures those things which he so often begs As 1. That the Lords Supper is strong meat only 2. A seal to justifying faith only 3 And that every unregenerate person in the Church that receives eats judgement to himself more then in any other Ordinances of Word and Prayer he doing in each what he can to decline and avoid profanenesse 4. That a Church-member of years under Toleration of the Church is no believer or disciple under actual duty as a Christian 5. That to the different state of the Church as consisting of regenerate and unregenerate is under different rules and duties as to publick worship 6. That more knowledge and holinesse is required to the Lords Supper then to Baptism in persons of years 7. He must prove Suspension distinct from Excommunication a Church censure and for what sins 8. That some baptized of years mentioned in the Scripture have been denyed the Sacrament of the Supper for ignorance or for not having fruits of holinesse answerable to the Christian Profession and yet allowed the liberty of all other Ordinances in the Church as members 9. He must prove a Pastoral or Church tryal by examination of Church-members fitnesse or unfitnesse necessary to admitting to the Sacrament and more such like things before he can justly debar any from the Sacrament more then from the rest of Church priviledges and duties If he can make good all or any of these things by the Scriptures so as to take off what we have excepted against them then he may doe something towards giving satisfaction in this Controversie otherwise in plain terms I would have him to sit still and let others who may think to doe somewhat in order to it put forth their strength For I am willing my grounds and principles should be tryed to the utmost I had rather be put to shame a thousand times then upon mistake in any thing I should dissent from godly men and draw any into errour But yet I would have you to know that these grounds and principles on which my judgement is built have been so long received and chewed upon and examined and tryed by general rules of Scripture and Reason that I shall not easily be removed For I dare boldly say the substance of what I write I received not from Erastus
Mr. Prinne nor Mr. Humphrey my judgement was setled and satisfied in these things long before I heard of these Authors And besides what reason hath Mr. Collins to charge us with this that we are Erastus his scholars when he findes us so point blanck against him in defending the Juridâ—cal censures of the Church I cannot say that ever I read any Author that came up to my opinion or judgement in these things in any measure til now of late I saw Mr. Humfreys Vindication of free Admission So that whether my grounds be new or old I have made but little acquiry in respect of humane authority this I am satisfied in that my grounds are such as accord with the Gospel Covenant and the state of the Visible Church of Christ as it is constituted in Parents and children good and bad called and chosen And I finde that men of different judgements run themselves upon dangerous rocks of Schisms Separations and needlesse divisions in the Church besides their interferings contradictions of themselves and detracting unworthily from Covenant-relation Church-membership Sacraments signs and pleadges of Covenant love to the whole Church in general And therefore I hope though I have endeavoured to remove an unnecessary Bar yet it will appear that I am not guilty of that sin and curse that Mr. Collins intimates in saying Was it our grief formerly that we had no Bar and is it our work now to remove the Bars yea the Lords and the Churches ancient Land-marks But who are most faulty in this they that plead for the Churches Land-marks and rights or they that unjustly defraud the Church thereof laying the Church common with the world judge ye or who are most for Reformation according unto Scripture Canon they that presse to all Scripture obedience or they that exempt Christians from some necessary duties of Worship they that would have all in the Church dealt with as members in a Juridical way to their amendment or they that unchurch them undisciple them and so unduty them and level them with the Pagan World Mr. Collins pretends much zeal in his Epistle prefixed to his Book but I could wish he had more sound judgement and knowledge in these things to abate the inconsiderate noise he makes and the passion which he shews therein First he tels us that it was a burden that lay upon our souls that in the Prelates dayes there was no bar but one which Suâ—peâ—â—on made And then about six lines after he saith the Prelatical party may rise up in judgement against us and say Lord we gave the Minister authority to keep any from the Sacrament for notorious sins c. First he saith there was no Bar and then he saith that there was a Bar and such a one as I thinkâ— might have satisfied men of his perswasion The truth is both Presbyterian and Brownists make such a slender thing of Covenant relation the ground of baptism in the Church that it will not bear up what they should build upon it afterwards for they make it upon the matter but a meer titular or nominal thing restraining the Gospel Covenant to believers only in a strict sense making Sacramental Seals invalid if they doe not so believe conceiving that if persons in the Church by their actual offending discover themselvs to be in an unregenerate state after baptism that then they are out of Covenant and so by consequence have forfeited their actual right to Sacramental seals thereof making no difference between such and the Pagan world But if we hold to the Covenant made to the Church and their seed as it was published and declared to Abraham and all along to the Church of the Jews and look upon the Christian Church as graffed into them and equally children of Abraham by profession of faith and Baptism as the Jew by nature and Circumcsiion presse all to walk up to their profession as Christians according to Gospel observances being bound to observe all things as the Jews were then should we build upon such a foundation of truth that would be immoveable and bear up as much as we now plead for But I have exprest my self more largely in this ensuing discourse and may not now insist upon the largenesse of the Gospel Covenant In short then I conceive that it is a very great mistake to narrow the Gospel Covenant unto this He that believes shall be saved but he that believes not shall be damned I grant 1. That this is a truth as taken in the usual sense but then I deny that it is the whole Covenant of grace made unto the Church and their seed 2. I grant it a conditional proposition used in the first tender of the Gospel unto Infidels to move them to accept of Christ and so to bring them into the visible Church but I deny that this in like manner was or is to be preached unto the visible Church that professe their acceptance of Christ and all observances appointed by him 3. I grant that actual believing and profession of faith was the only thing that fitted a Pagan for Baptism and graffing into the Gospel Church in which the promises of grace and glory belong to the whole indefinitely but yet I deny that there is any promise of grace in those words He that believes shall be saved it is true there is the promise of being saved upon condition of sincere believing but there is no promise in that to give a sinner grace to believe So that this conditional part of the Covenant in a strict sense as it is usually urged alone without the absolute renders unregenerate sinners uncapable of any good news by the Gospel it not being in the power of any of himself so to believe And to make the death of Christ a seal to confirm this conditional part of the Covenant only as being that which the Sacraments hold forth is to make the death of Christ a seal to confirm a Covenant of works in the Church derogatory to the Gospel mercy and grace Therefore we are to conceive of the Covenant as it 's held out to the Church by the Prophets and Apostles the Church being built upon both Gen. 17. Jerem. 31. Ezek. 36. it is largely laid down and applyed by the Apostles to the Church in Gospel times Act 2.39 Heb. 8. Act. 3.25 26. 5.31 Rom. 15.8 9. 2 Cor. 6.16.18 7.1 compared These Scriptures prove that the Apostles did usually apply those old free grace promises with the end of Christ coming into the world to confirm them to the Gospel Church But if any please to enter their exceptions against these my notions about the Covenant I shall be glad both of an occasion and opportunity to insist more largely upon them For I must confesse I think there are not many that are very right about the nature and largenesse of the Gospel Covenant made to the Church and that straitning the Covenant too much occasions very much division and schism in the
supply means of instructing them in the. PAg. 4 lin 7. read unto p. 13. l. 27. r. privative p. 1â— l 6. r. reaching p. 29. l. 8. for il r for it p. 31. l. 12. r. Vzzahs p. 31. l. 14. r. answer p. 50. l. 10. r. undvoidable p. 64. l. 15. r. examen p. 71. l. 1 3. r. a knowledge p 89. l. 14. r. propositions p. 98. l. 12. r. leavened p. 99. l. 21. r. chain p. 100. l. 27. r. visible p. 116. l. 2. r. adjourned pag. 138. l. 28. supply in after doth p. 156. l. 9. r. uneldered l. 30. supply of the whole Church after settlement p. 161. l. 9. r. privative p. 166. l. 2. f. examination r. argument p. 170. l. 2. r. irreproveable p. 189. l. 7. supply an ordinance of after give p. 199. l. 6 dele it p. 216. l. 3. f. first r. fift p. 249. l. 15. f. power r. prevalency p. 275. l. 21. r. suspition p. 280. l. 1. f. know r. how p. 286. l. 27. f. which r. when p. 298. l. 32. r. to persecutions p. 312. l. 29. r. think p. 327. l. 8. put in profitable after that is l. 16. r. themselves To Receive the Lords Supper the actual Right and Duty of all Church-Members of years not Excommunicate BEloved Christian friends Although I judge that I am not as yet answered by Mr. Collings there being enough in my Book to answer him and vindicate it self from whatsoever is as yet objected against it to the Judicious and impartial Reader yet with respect unto Mr. Collings who is esteemed a Gentleman learned and worthy according unto his title and some profitable labours for the Churches good And also for the further satisfying both of the weak and plain minded Christians As also the confirming of those my friends that cordially imbrace my Book and adhere to the truth asserted therein And that the controversie it self may come to some clearer issue and something more may be discovered in order unto peace and truth and reformation in the Church of God in all humility and respect unto different mindes I crave leave once more soberly and freely to present my thoughts unto further consideration for I judge that Mr. Collings hath been too hasty in concluding that my main principles are rotten that I have made the ground of my discourse by what he hath said in answer thereunto for the truth is he hath not in the least disabled any one main thing I have asserted nor is willing to keep to the question as it 's stated nor answer to any purpose where the main stresse of Controversie lies but trifles about Infants and distracted and Pagans and the excommunicate the admitting of which aâ— such not any in our times plead for And therefore he might have said lesse to these and more to those that the thing in controversie concerns namely Whether the unregenerate or ignorant and scandalous members in the Church being baptized and of years not excommunicate may be debarred the Lords Supper they expressing their desires to receive and proffering themselves I answer in the negative all along that they may not be put by Mr. Collings seems to be offended with my charging the Reverend Doctor with unbrotherly dealing A thing saith he that my self am more guilty of which I think is hardly so unlesse the worthinesse of the person my opinion strikes at doth so much the more aggravate the thing As for my not taking notice of Mr. Humfreys reflections as he cals them it may be better excused as to my self and friend then the other can 1. Because that part of the Book which concerned the Doctor was finished and gone from me towards the Presse before ever I knew of Mr. Humfreys rejoinder 2. When I did read it over I thought his returns to such bitter censures and invectives against him were very pathetical yet humble and melting and well becoming a sober charitable Christian and fellow-labourer with the other in the holy Gospel 3. I have heard many godly and learned in the Ministery acknowledge that his returns are humble and charitable and yet quick and rational As to Mr. Collings quotation of the two last pages of his rejoynder I conceive that Mr. Humfrey little thought that any would be so uncharitable as to take his Allegorical reproof and caution in that unfeemly sense that Mr. Collings will force upon it there being not any Scripture uncapable of a rational application And those that are impartial and sober can judge no lesse of that And for those six or seven dissatisfactions of mine concerning the practice of some Presbyterians unassociated I know not how I should have expressed my self more modestly then by professing my self unsatisfied giving so many hints as I have clearly done against those things I charge them with And I am sure if the main principles in my Book stand firm as I think they will for any thing yet said against me Mr. Collings will not be very zealous for ruling Elders nor Suspension distinct from Excommunication Church examination of her members into actual receiving nor leaving out without any judicial proceedings But to the matter it self let us see what he hath said against that First his demand is What it is that gives one right to the Sacrament of the Supper he knows the answer will be Church membership either this alone or something else if this alone then Infants and mad men and drunkards must come say what they can if they say not Church-membership alone doth give a full right then many of their arguments fail 1. Answ That Church membership alone gives one a legal right to the Lords Supper according unto Gospel rules the which right is a true right and that sufficient unto free admission of all in the Church but then this right is to be distinguished into a real right in point of title and a right of actual possession and injoyment the former right respects all Infants born of Christian Parents the latter right belongs unto all Church-members of years that are baptized and in a rational and Church capacity actually to enjoy their right An heir in his infancy hath as true a right unto his Fathers land he being dead as an heir at full age but yet it doth not follow that a childe under age shall be left actually to manage his right himself in that state as an heir at one and twenty We know the Apostle saith it An heir under age differs not from a servant though he be Lord of all Yet such is the the consequence of Mr. Collings touching Infant Communion if we grant them a true right as members in point of title and a remote right actually to injoy assoon as they are in a natural and rational capacity then saith he they as members must come say what we can to the contrary Although Mr. Humfrey and my self have shewed a clear difference between Infants and distracted and the ignorant at age in several particulars The
one 1. not in a natural capacity as the other is Nor 2. in a rational capacity as the other is 3. The one not so under the obligation of precepts of publique actuall worship as the other are 4. The one not at all under the censures of the Church as the other are Nay although Mr. Humfrey in his rejoynder tels them that there is as wide a difference between Infants and Ignorants as between a doe not and a cannot speaking of Examination and discerning the Lords Body the Ignorant they do not but yet they ought to do but Infants and distracted cannot and are excused yet notwithstanding all this widenesse in the premises Mr. Collings without an answer unto ours most peremptorily enters his consent unto the Doctors weaknesse and tels us the Doctor saith right that by the same reason we except against Infants c. we may except against the ignorant and scandalous Thus you may see let the premises be never so different they must hold to their conclusion be it never so absurd and irrationall and I would have them to take notice that We doe not except against Infants and distracted as a punishment or censure as they of the ignorant and scandalous but rather we wave them as such that are under a state of weaknesse and impotency by the wisdome and providence of God inevitable We do not except against Infants as not having a true right but out of the consideration of their natural and rational incapacity actually to injoy their right We doe not except against Infants and distracted because they cannot examine themselves discern the Lords Body as Mr. Collings would have it But because self examination and discerning the Lords Body coming to receive are not their actual duties but we judge all these are the actual duties of ignorants and of the scandalous in the Church untill they be excommunicate And assoon as Infants are grown past childehood and come under the actual obligations of precepts and worship our principles incline us to as timely an admittance of youths that shall voluntarily desire it and proffer themselves as those that oppose us 'T is certain that children in the Church 1. Come under family instruction and correction before they come under the Ministerial instructions admonitions corrections either of Church or State 2. That children come sooner under negative precepts then affirmative acts of worship it may be a sin for that childe to lye swear curse steal when at that age it is no sin to omit publick prayers and the Lords Supper Divines say affirmatives alwayes binde but not to all at all times in many cases God will have mercy rather then sacrifice as is supposed to the case in hand But I could wish we might keep close to the thing in controversie Infant Communion is not a thing controverted in our Church In the next place in answer to his Church-membership t is very comprehensive importing no lesse then Believer Saint Disciple Christian c. and therefore needs nothing else to give a true legal right according unto the rule unto the Lords Supper for all Believers Disciples Saints by calling and profession when and whilest they were within were never denyed the Lords Supper It 's true a Church-Member may come under divers considerations 1. As an heir at age or in his minority or under distraction is still an heir and his right to be conceived of as before 2. So it is in the Common-wealth anâ— evill and a hurtful subject is a subject and hath the benefit of the laws thereof as any other subjects of the same kinde though never so good and profitable so it is in the Church the most uncomely members are members and have as true a legal right to the external priviledges of the Church as any other members of the same kinde though never so good and holy A difference in the degrees alters not the kinde for that whatever belongs unto a Church-member as such belongs unto all of the same kinde is with out doubt We do not finde a different rule to Church-members of the same kinde if good or bad openly offend they ought to be proceeded against accordingly and neither the one nor the other should be denyed an actual external priviledge of the Church untill the Church hath given out judgement against them by excommunication authoritatively and we are not to make any difference in the Church about members in respect of externals the rule being only one and the same unto all Members believers disciples brethren in a large sense are as truly such in a true sense as those are such indeed in a strict sense Hence Mr. Collings his demand What it is added unto Church-membership entitles to this Sacrament is both frivolous and improper because Church-membership includes as much as can be added unto it and yet doth not exclude the worst born in the Church and under her toleration Nor did I ever think that any man would be so perverse as he to make reason and age additions to membership they being but essentials to the more perfect being of a man for that is supposed of all that come under actual precepts of worship that they are reasonable men and of years There is the Church-membership of Infants and of men and of women yet all is but Church-membership age sex and reason c. are not additions unto membership but a Church-member is the same with all these Yet it 's true too that unto all actual observances in the Church age and reason must necessarily be presupposed So again knowledge faith and obedience are not additions to membership but a Church-member comprehends all these in his sense degree or kinde And while they will acknowledge persons in the Church Church-members believers disciples c. they must conclude with me that Church-membership alone gives a true legal right to the holy Supper say what they can to the contrary so that the vanity of this superadding unto membership unto Sacramental right is nothing else but a raising a dust to blinde our eyes What Church either in the Old or New Testament required more then membership unto this Sacrament all that came under Circumcision or Baptism stood ingaged to keep the Passeover and the holy Supper When Mr. Collings can give a clear instance otherwise I shall think my self bound to return him thanks If any make enquiry what Church-membership in its rise and nature is It 's a relative state of persons only that have entred Covenant with God Answ professing either expressely or implicitly their voluntary submitting to the whole administration of the Covenant And this entring into Covenant is either personal or parental Personal of those that are Pagans born but parental in the Church who by birth-priviledge have entred Covenant with their parents And this I call a relative state because it hath its priviledge meerly from the Covenant which God through Christ hath freely made unto some of mankinde and their seed whom he is
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
distinction above We know in the Church Not the hearers of the Word but the doers thereof shall be blesied in their deed persons in the Church are bound to observe and doe all that Christ in his Word hath commanded upon that account they have the promise of his gracious presence and if the Sacrament be an Ordinance of Christ for the good of his Church why may we not exspect the presence of Christ in blessing this for the spiritual good of his Church as all the rest Mr. Collins must give stronger reasons to deny it a converting Ordinance then these or else he had better have said nothing me thinks Mr. Gillespie might have furnished him with a greater strength then so Next he saith Either the Word alone read at the administration is to convert or Word and signes making up the Sacrament if the Word only he thinks wicked men may stay and hear that if we say more we must prove it This Answ as it is no argument to prove the negative so it need not be answered for his main thing in this is to bid us prove that the Sacrament is a converting Ordinance in the Church the which I conceive is clearly done already And when Mr. Collins is able to exclude the Sacrament from the work of the Ministry in the Church and exclude Word and Prayer in order to the Sacrament from that work and end of converting in the Church and can exclude this Ordinance from being a spiritual instrument in the hand of the Spirit of Christ to quicken whom he will and can exclude the unregenerate from Covenant relation and membership and allow them no other priviledge in the Church for their spiritual good then unto Infidels c. I say when he hath performed this task soundly and substantially it 's possible he may make the vanity of our opinion that are for the affirmative to appear and put us upon further proof untill then let the Judiclous Reader judge of the arguments between us whether ours or his be most rational and satisfactory as they are deducted from general rules of Scripture and reason And by this time I have given you an account of all that Mr. Collins hath excepted against the first part of my book I doe not know of any material thing I have omitted to answer in particular but indeed not so much for any great cause I had thus to doe in what he hath said to loosen the foundations and principles upon which my whole building stands but from a desire further to clear up the thing in controversie and to reduce the controversie into a narrower compasse In the close of Mr. Collins answer he collects about seven rotten pillars as he cals them out of the whole of mine and pens them down as he pleaseth and then bids others judge of them taking it for granted that he hath discovered them to be rotten and false And that my Book hath not much truth in any one page of it It 's possible that there may be some things in my Book that are doubtful Answ 1 and that upon the piercing tryal of some grave Divines of deeper Judgements may be discovered unsound or rendered weak but I am confident that Mr. Collins hath made no such discovery in any one thing that he hath excepted against I humbly conceive that whosoever undertakes to answer the main grounds and principles I build upon for free admission to the Sacrament they must deny our Church and Baptism or else destroy themselves by their own inconsistences let their parts be what they will And I wonder that any of the Presbyterian judgement should contend with me for they doe but discover their own nakednesse and give occasion unto Brownists and Anabaptists to reproach us so that I professe I am afraid to speak what I should in some things I shall give you a breviate of the principles I build upon in the managing of this in controversie That the Eternal God hath created all mankinde for himself and hath decreed the blessed and everlasting happinesse of some with all the wayes and means for that end with his eternal purpose not to give special grace unto the rest but in his wisdome and providence doth so order and dispose of the means effectually in respect of sin and the punishment thereof to the infinite glory of his Justice in the just condemnation of the wicked world That for the Elects sake Christ was promised after the fall and came into the world as the only means of Gods putting into execution his eternal purposes concerning their salvation the whole creation and race of mankinde is preserved successively in their generations for the being and gathering of Gods Elect unto grace and glory That Jesus Christ is the only meriting and procuring cause of the Gospel Covenant freely made and published unto some of mankind of free choice That this Covenant of grace is of a large comprehensive extent including the parents and their children in their generations for ever to them that have entred into it by profession and baptism and doe not renounce iâ— or apostate from it That the Covenant of Grace consists it promises of giving the first regenerating grace Secondly in promises of growth in grace Thirdly In promises of rewarding graces with comfortable blessings temporal and spiritual in this life and with eternal glory iâ— the world to come That the Church of God on earth is so constituted by the will and pleasure of God that in it might alwayes be sutable objects oâ— those different promises included in the Gospel Covenant unto which the natural issue of Christians in the visible Church doth well agree That Sacraments as they represent the death of Christ are seals confirming the truth of the whole Covenant of grace made and published to the visible Church only That Sacraments are instituted and intended only for the Churches use in order to the spiritual good thereof in general which includes the use of every one in particular That all in the Church come under the the obligation of all instituted worship prescribed of which Sacraments are a principal part That Covenant relation is either personal or parental the former founded upon profession of faith and holy baptism the later derived really and wholly by succession That a positive profession of faith explicitely is necessity unto admission unto Church-membership of those that are Heathens born but Church-membership is the birth priviledge of all born of Christian parents in the Church That to be Saints Believers Disciples a Brother and within is understood by Church-membership That during the state of Church-membership every member ought to enjoy the external priviledges of that Church whereof he is a member in particular untill he voluntarily fall away by final apostasie or be justly cast out of all Church Communion by an authoritative act of Church censures That those that derive their Church-membership from that great Charter of Covenant relation with the Church and have it confirmed
injoyned to observe And the new administrations were not then in being 3. It could not be meant of the Lords Supper because it was not instituted then nor of two or three years after therefore those whom he preacht unto and meant by the word yea could not be in a capacity to give that holy thing at all 4. By Dogs and Swine cannot be meant Disciples and those that were followers and adherers unto Christ for to them is this counsel and moderate merciful caution given I do not deny but this place is applyable unto all times in the Church upon the same or like reason and occasion but I think this place is nothing at all to the Controversie in hand for I know of none that will plead for the admission of such that will rent you for giving them the holy Supper And as that is no reason why they should deny it to ours so not the sense of the place as by dogs were not meant professors and followers of Christ then so not now but by dogs must needs be understood cruel persecutors of Christ the truth of precious doctrine that he taught and was believed by many And therefore when he first sent forth his Disciples to preach the Kingdome of heaven only to the Jews Christ gives them the like counsel Behold Matth. 10. I send you as Sheep among Wolves be ye therefore wise as Serpents and innocent as Doves And when they persecute you in one City flee to another And shake the dust off your feet against those that will not receive you but are ready rather to rent you You see our blessed Saviour compares the unbelieving Jews Scribes and Pharisees and Priests unto Wolves which are a kinde of wilde dogs the which strengthens the sense I have given Tell me where the Prophets or Apostles are forbid to warn reprove admonish the Church though never so corrupt in their publick dispensations or forbid to administer the holy Sacraments unto them from the like reasons as in the Text. The Prophets were to give warning and tell the people of their sins and of Gods judgements for their sins the Pastors and Elders of their several flocks are to feed the flock of God and to teach them all observances prescribed by their Lord. And see that their people know observe and doe all things that Christ commands ruling over them as the heritage of their Lord and not as if they were of Belial Dogs and Swine whom they may shut out of doores and starve them at their pleasure Having given this sense which I doubt not but is nearer the mark and lesse lyable unto exceptions then Mr. Collins his sense will appear to be And is applyable to men of reproveable spirits now and in the Church too unto private Christians that upon their necessary journey or otherwise may possibly meet with such that will not bear reproofs be it performed with never such wisdom but will either fly in the face or reproach and scorn their reprover In such like cases Christ doth warrant his peoples silence Indeed Mr. Beteman hath done well upon this text and although it were not very civil for Mr. Collins to print his brothers Sermon without his consent and that at second hand too himself not hearing it at all Yet I doubt not but his printing of that Sermon hath done much in taking off what he so freely asperses and reproacheth him with in his long narrative preface But in such cases as before the Church were she in a capacity might use her power to reform such rayling dogged offenders Mr. Collins queries 1. What is meant by that which is holy which was forbid to be given 2. Who are the Dogs and Swine here spoken of 3. To whom this precept is directed His answer to the first is That all holy things and pearls are here forbid c. which the Scripture doth not elsewhere plainly allow to be given unto Dogs and Swine Secondly He sayes he hopes it will easily be granted to concern such holy things as God hath betrusted us Ministers to give out His reason is For is is to men Christ spakes How can Mr. Collins be assured Answ 1 that all holy things are here meant when Christ saith only to private men that he preacht unto Give not that which is holy unto the dogs Were private hearers in a capacity to give all holy things This interp retation will please some men in these exorbitant times that put no difference between persons in the Office and Function of the Ministry and private gifted men Private reproofs instructions admonitions is that which is holy and answers the Word for Christ doth not say give not all holy things speaking in the plural number as Mr. Collins doth nor doth he say give not that which shall be holy hereafter unto the dogs within my Church as Mr. Collins would have it but he saith Give not that which is holy c. speaking in the present tense and then judge whether the holy Supper be here meant that was not yet instituted nor prophesied of Nay see how our Author is intoxicated with his own fancy that he fetches first such a compasse to include it in and then so narrows the text again that he excludes all other holy things out of it and will allow no other thing to be meant but the holy Supper only which is not to be given unto dogs saith he this is a fine fetch to prove suspension indeed if it would hold 't is certain the Sacrament was not spoken of in this text at all Whereas he saith He hopes it will be granted him that the text concerns all such holy things as are betrusted unto Ministers by God himself for it is men that Christ speaks unto See his reason Answ we must grant him that the text concerns all holy things which Ministers are intrusted with to dispense because they were men that Christ spoke to as if all men were intrusted with publike Ordinances And he cannot prove that any of his hearers were in Office to dispense holy things if he could he would have said Ministers for men but I shall proceed and come to his second query What is meant by Dogs and Swine His answer to this is something large in giving the opinion of the learned but I shall not meddle with his authorities but to what himself saith in his 15 16. pages wherein he shews that the Scriptures call some men dogs in several respects but I shall only examine those which concern the argument in hand namely who are Dogs and Swine in the Church of Christ whom Ministers are forbid to give the Sacrament unto and allow them the benefit of all the other Ordinances To his 1 2 3. account let the indifferent reader look unto his quotations and he will be satisfied that they concern not the argument in hand His 4. is Wicked men both in the Old Testament Prov. 26.11 and in the New 2 Pet. 2.22 are called dogs
because as the dog filthily licks up his vomit again c. That of Solomon is this Answ As a dog returns to his vomit so a fool returns to his folly Every fool is not a wicked man yet every wicked man is a fool in Scripture sense I think but it doth not follow that every wicked gracelesse man is a dog though he may have some properties like the properties of a dog but this is a different property from that in the text and nothing to the purpose That of Peter is meant of Apostates falling from the Truth and profession of faith once embraced like those that St. Paul prophesies of men shall arise from among your selves speaking perverse things and shall draw disciples after them such as these Peter speaks of that turn from the Truth unto Error and upon that account take upon them to be Teachers that they may vent their damnable heresies c. and so fall away from the true Church either to their former vomit of Heathenism or to wallow in the mire of their former sensuality such need not to be suspended that fall off from the Church of themselves This will not reach the argument in hand as to our case His 5. is Heathens are called dogs Mat. 7.27 and we will yeild the argument so far His last is Sinners in general are called dogs Phil. 3.2 Beware of dogs where he means false teachers rightly called dogs saith Musculus This is fine Answ false Teachers are rightly called Dogs from his quotation as he proveâ— by reverend Musculus and yet this he quotes to prove that sinners in general are called dogs What are all sinners in general false Teachers Then the grossely ignorant are too And if false Teachers that pervert and trouble the Church be rightly called dogs then offending brethren that adhere to the doctrine and profession of the Church are but falsely called dogs for they are to be admonished as brethren Let Mr. Collins shew us some Scriptures to prove that Church-members disciples or any one that is called a brother and within that is an object of Church-censures is any where called a dog Doth not himself say that one that was excommunicate was to be admonished as a brother according unto 2 Thes 3.15 And doth not the Apostle allow a disorderly member the title of a brother And would not have such counted an enâ—my or dog which Mr. Collins makes of all sinners in general as before And so himself too if he be a sinner which I believe he will confesse that he is but me thinks if Mr. Collins will allow a disorderly stubborn sinner under excommunication to be a brother for so he takes that quotation then he hath little reason to count a member under the indulgence of the Church a dog or a swine The truth is he is so miserably out I think he did not know what he writ and he had need have a better head then mine to bring all his ends together in this argument they are so wide one from another and the Church and World so confounded into one that I cannot tell what to make of him For if we say saith he that by dogs are meant the Heathen as Mark. 7.27 Then either those only or those amongst others 2 If we say the latter then they yeeld it What doth he mean by Heathen amongst others Answ but the ignorant and offending brethren in the Church Thus you see they must be the dogs in the text or else he will make Heathens of professing Christians in the Church to doe it I but if we say that the Heathen are the only dogs to whom only holy things should be denyed then holy things may be given unto Persecutors and the Excommunicate 1. Answ I have denyed that all holy things are there meant and given my reasons 2. That the text is not directed unto Ministers properly but unto private Believers or hearers of Christ 3. That which is holy is to be understood of private reproofs and admonitions which for the safety of their persons living amongst such Dogs and Wolves as the unbelieving cruel Pharisees Priests and people of the Jews then so called by Christ And here they are cautioned not to meddle with them c. 4. This counsel is directed unto the whole Church or Brotherhood touching their dealing with others that were Persecutors and fierce dogged enemies to the Christian profesfion and is not at all applyable to persons in the Church in respect of publick administrations the which all in the Church are commanded to observe nor is our Saviours reason of any force for any in the Church lest they turn again and rent you nor applyable to the publike Ordinances for there is not any that will rent you for administring unto them the Word Sacrament and prayer in the Church if any will doe so let the Church judge them for it 5. I grant that by dogs is meant cruel persecutors that at any time shall rent and ruine the persons of those that professe the true Christian Religion And this may be done by some that are not Heathens for there are many mis-believers and false teachers that where they are backt with power as in the Papacy are cruel dogs against the Professors of the true Religion but yet it does not follow that any that profeesse themselves members of our Church are the dogs meant in the text It 's true we have had our differences amongst our selves about some circumstances and inconvenient Ceremonies about the ordering of Worship And our first Reformers put us in a way for discipline confirmed by the Supreme Authority of this Nation And those that had the exercise of the Churches discipline have been severe in punishing those that have not been obedient unto her commands and we know they abused their power in some cases too much under the pretence of singular good ends Namely the order peace unity and edification of the whole to prevent the common mischief of factions schisin divisions erroneous doctrine and the like without which in a Church these evils will abound Now I say it is not very handsome for Mr. Collins that professes himself a younger son of the Church to account the Rulers of our Church Persecutors much lesse the common people for adhering unto their Governours and Teachers as they shall have better Rulers and Teachers I question not but we shall finde them better disposed how ever this is a far different case to the cruel unbelieving Jewes and Hereticall bloudy Papists and yet neither of them Pagans 6. I affirm That as all other Scripture so this in special is written for our learning and use and it alwayes holds in the same or like cases or reason Whether unto the desperate irreproveable Ruffian in the Church or of the bloudy Persecutors out of the Church Jews Turks or Papists and yet I say also that whomsoever upon tasting of them we finde them of peaceable spirits whether they be in the Church or
out of the Church we should reprove instruct admonish and warn every sinner to flye the wrath to come And this we ought to doe towards all in our places and callings as private Christians And hence I conceive that Mr. Collins is hugely mistaken that stretcheth the metaphor of dogs to any kinde of sinners that the Scriptures compare to dogs for other kinde of properties of dogs as worthlesnesse greedinesse barking or licking up their vomit c. the text is of such dogs that will tear and scorn you for the best counsel you can give them for the good of their souls And me thinks that the same ground Mr. Collins goes upon to allow all the other holy things unto Heathens the Excomunicate c. might satisfie him as rationally to allow the Sacrament unto the ignorant and scandalous in the Church all that he pleads to the other is from some other Scripture warrant and I appeal unto the Impartial to judge between us whether Pastors and Teachers of their respective flocks be not as much bound by Christs command to administer the holy Supper unto their particular flocks consisting of Church-members disciples baptized and not excommunicated as to administer the other holy Ordinances unto Heathen the Excommunicate c. I think I have said enough as to the former from Mat. 28.20 to give full satisfaction Let me tell our Author and the world that although it be sufficiently taught in the holy Sciptures to deny the unbaptized and Excommunicate the holy Supper yet this text in debate doth not forbid it at all to those that are without or under Church censures much lesse doth it forbid the Sacrament to those that are within which is the thing Mr. Collins quotes it to prove And thus in short I have answered to the main of Mr. Collins strength as touching this place And I humbly conceive have broke his argument drawn from this text to make good his principal Syllogism pag. 4. That there may be some baptized persons in the Church not cast out to whom the Sacrament may not lawfully be given And he must quit himself a great deal better then in his book to make good his two propositions from this text before he can conclude any thing for his purpose And truly I think it was an acceptable service both to God and the poor Church in Mr. Boteman who so presently addrest himself to redeem a captive text so wofully wrested to perplex and disturb the poor Churches peace in seting up an invention of men which Jesuâ— Christ commanded not And for his assumption That the Sacrament is a holy thing and a Pearl and there may be some in the Church not cast out who in Scripture phrase are Dogs and Swine Ergo c. It 's true Answ 1 the Sacrament is a holy thing but it doth not therefore follow that it iâ— that which is holy meant in the Text nor forbid to be given upon that reason our Saviour gives for fear of being rent c. And though it be granted that there are some in the Church that are such kinde of dogs that are irreproveable that will not endure a private reproof it will not follow that therefore they are not to be reproved Ministerially by persons in Office in their publick preaching nor that they may not authoritatively be reproved and admonished and censured by the Church Juridically for their desperate rayling dogged miscarriages if there be any such offending brethren why are they not dealt withall according unto the right rule Matth. 18. 1 Cor. 5. If any persons in the Church be objects of Excommunication I judge such are and then judge whether Suspension be sufficient where Excommunication should and ought to take place provided they be obstinate otherwise Church admonition may be a sufficient remedy to reform such scandalous sinners Hence judge how pertinent this text is made use of to prove suspension of some from the Sacrament that as members of the Church may be allowed Communion with the Church in all other spiritual acts of worship How this proves Suspension of some distinct from Excommunication I leave to the freedome of your own Judgements to judge of In the next place without any wrong to the Author I shall examine his third Scripture argument deducible from 1 Cor. 5. rather choosing to follow the Apostles order in this Epistle because by answering of this first it will save me some labour in my answer to his second 1 Cor. 10.17 His Argument is this It is unlawfull for the Officers of the Church to give the Sacrament to such with whom it is unlawful for themselves or their brethren to eat But there may be some in the Church not cast out with whom it may be unlawful for the Church to eat Ergo. I question the truth of his first proposition Answ 1 by distinguishing of a friendly familiar unnecessary eating and of a true necessary eating Now in a civil sense I may not have friendly unnecessary familiarity with scandalous brethren though not cast out but may withdraw from all friendly unnecessary familiarity from such as a means to bring them to shame but it does not follow therefore that I upon my necessary occasions in my Calling must shun such but that I may set such a one a work and admit him to my Table he being not cast out though scandalous or a poor man may work for a scandalous rich man and eat at his Table with him c. or upon a journey and divers such cases with relations c. Therefore the same persons that I may not eat with the same persons I may eat with so that if the Apostle in 1 Cor. 5.11 mean but civill eating his first proposition is not good nor very clear which he would have his Reader to believe without any doubt or proof If we may eat with a scandalous brother not legally cast out as before then we may have company and eat with such at the Sacrament because giving and receiving at the Sacrament is our necessary duty as professing Christians and Church-members which I have sufficiently proved before the which the worst offenders in the Church may not carelessely neglect so long as they are in a Church capacity to receive and that capacity remains untill the Church authoritatively have put them out of Church Communion as Members And then and not until then are scandalous brethren disobliged from publick duties of worship and hence his argument that he draws from the lesser to the greater is fallacious and that must needs be the bottome of his argument For there is but few Interpreters otherwayes expound it but of a civil eating And himself seems most confident in that argument in its place And therefore he should have proved his main proposition namely That it is unlawful to give the Sacrament to those in the Church not Excommunicate with whom in some cases it is unlawful to eat in a civil sense And for to take it for not
this to Juridical Suspension distinct from Excommunication as it 's usually practised in some Churches Indeed Mr. Collins need not have been so hasty in aspersing Mr. Boteman pag. 98. unlesse he could in some ordinary case prove Juridical Suspension from the Sacrament distinct from Excommunication the which he hath not yet done and it 's a great question whether he ever will or can It 's true that our Church in prudence left the denying of the Sacrament to some to the discretion of particular Ministers as he alleadges but then let me tell you this doth not reach the argument For 1. this was only in case of obstinacy being dealt with all by the Minister who was by the Canons and Rubrick of the Church authorised thus to doe 2. Such acts of discipline were subject to the Churches judgement and censure afterwards the persons conceiving themselves wronged might complain and those Ministers were lyable to be censured for going beyond the rule as some have been suspended from officiating themselves for putting persons by upon slender proof even such as their Ordinary upon hearing did not judge competent 3. The Church urged the act of receiving as a necessary duty incumbent upon all of years and upon that ground both earnestly exhorted all to come and punished those that carelesly neglected it 4. The Churches Jurisdiction consisted of Excommunication only in case of obstinacy but in case of penitency admonition and publike penance the offenders confession of his sins humbly in the body of the Church craving the forgivenesse of their sin in particular both of God and the Church did free from Excommunication The obstinate was denyed all the Ordinances except to hear the Sermon at the Church doores or behinde the Font the penitent not denyed any one Ordinance lay these things together and then let wise men judge how our Church heretofore doth precedent the Suspension which Mr. Collins contends for namely that a Minister by vertue of his Office with his Elders may and ought upon Scripture ground to deny some the Sicrament not obstinate and allow them the priviledge of all other Church Communion as Members And this he would have Juridical although the Church be in no capacity to impower them with any acts of discipline at all nor have the help of appeals to restrain the rash proceedings of inconsiderate uncharitable zealous Ministers whose principles tend too much to division Separation and confusion in the Church who would be more careful to further the edification peace and unity of the Church were themselves under the rod of holy discipline Juridically exercised by grave learned experienced presidents which particular Presbyters in reason will not be very zealous for so long as themselves are left to themselves to exercise an absolute power to rule as they please in their own Congregation without controll I wish these petty irregular reformings prove not the greatest remora's that hinder the reformation peace and edification of the whole especially where particular Pastors and Elders are of Mr. Collins opinion 1. That makes a meer nothing of Church-membership without grace 2. That will allow them no other Covenant relation then to Heathens 3. That will not so much as allow them the external titles of Brethren Saints Believers within but reproach them with the odious names of Hogs and Dogs unbelievers and of the Devil c. though they he such as never had the benefit and help of holy discipline to amend them or try whether they sin out of weaknesse or wilfulnesse 4. That will take upon him in his own name to dissolve them from Christs commands and threaten them not to doe it upon pain of damnation 5. That will make the Sacrament strong meat that cannot be digested by weak doubting Christians 6. That knows not wherein the Officers can have any work to keep the Communion of the Church pure if not in the Sacrament 7. That will allow no more priviledge in duties of worship to the ignorant and scandalous then to Heathens out of the Church 8. That doth insolently affirm that a single Pastor alone may lawfully suspend from the Sacrament he being the ruling part of that particular Church 9. That upon the matter puts the whole of discipline in Suspension from the Lords Supper either making it the same with Excommunication or else renders Excommunication needlesse in the Church Are men thus leavened with Brownism fit to be rulers in the Church of God Or like to preserve the peace unity edification and seek reformation of the whole according to the general rules and ends prescribed in the Scriptures I appeal to the standing rule of Sciptures to judge whether such as himself or the friends of my judgement and opinions as to the weal of the Church it being judged true by both be consonant unto it and whether he or we be guilty of the most folly and filth and defend such things as is a shame to be named amongst Christians as himself expresses against our opinion in opposing his pag. 98. I come to his ninth argument the sum is If scandalous persons not excommunicate nor unclean were debarred the Passeover then such may be suspended from the Lords Supper but the first is true therefore the latter I grant the consequence is good Answ but let him prove the antecedent that scandalous sinners not cut off nor unclean were debarred some Ordinances and the Passeover I dare give him seven years time to prove that by Scriptures either by direct text or sound consequence that cannot rationally be denyed all that hath been said to that thing is to give us a glosse of moral uncleannesse and thence argue that if the legal unclean might not eat the Passeover much lesse the moral unclean if the legal unclean defiled holy things much more moral uncleannesse the consequence is naught Because 1. The Church of the Jews were in Covenant relation and holy in a Covenant sense and no where blamed or debarred the Ordinances of the Church upon any such account 2. Because it was either punished by their Judicials or taken away by a continual course of Sacrifices and therefore could not rest upon them much lesse bar them from the Sacrament of the Passeover 3. Because nothing could excuse from the not observing of that service in its appointed season but legal uncleannesse and a necessary journey upon their lives if nothing else would excuse then all others were to keep it 4. It 's clear that some did keep the Passeover that were guilty of that which you will say was moral uncleannesse Ezra 9.1 after they had kept the Passeover complaint was brought unto Ezra saying The people of Israel Priests and Levites have not separated themselves from the people of the lands doing according to their abominations of the Canaanites c. for they have taken of the daughters for themselves and for their sons and the Princes have been chief in this trespasse 5. I say further that in some cases the people of
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
had al equal priviledge to all other Ordinances but Sacraments They agree with other reformed Churches as to suspension properly as the Brownists and Anabaptists doe all agree in this to suspend scandalous members that will not be resormed by admonition but what 's this to the case in controversie unlesse they judge that not any are members untill they be admitted upon profession of faith c. as others of the separations judge if so what is the Church priviledge of one born a Christian and baptized and of years of discretion to the holy Supper more then a Pagan who upon his profession of faith hath right to Sacraments What doth admission upon profession of faith imply but that all in the Church not so admitted are Heathens and without making the Lords Supper the initiating Ordinance into Church Communion and subjection to censures If of those that are admitted none may be suspended but after admonition for some scandalous sin and this only is properly suspension Then let me demand of Mr. Col. what he will make the cause of excommunication If he say that scandalous sinning is the cause of both then one of those censures are superfluous if he say we must distinguish of scandalous sining in regard of degrees some deserving the lesser censure the other the greater Excommunication Let him make that good from the Scriptures which concerns him to doe before he can prove suspension from the Sacrament distinct from Excommunication in the mean time what he affirms of proper Suspension is all one with Excommunication and upon the same ground the Church may as well proceed unto Excommunication as Suspension so that this very concession of his doth upon the matter undermine his chiefest strength and render all he hath said in proof of Suspension as distinct from Excommunication frivolous But in the next place his pleading That they must be lookt upon as now reforming a disordered Church had former Ministers done their duties they might have saved us this labour of putting our people upon making a profession of faith in order to admittance to the Lords Supper Answ 1 1. Me thinks the sad effects of our late reformings might have put a stop to Mr. Col. thus late pleadings the issue being little else but either neglect of Gods Ordinance or running Pastors and people into a deluge of division and confusion 2. It 's granted by all that our Church in respect of some evil circumstances in doctrine worship and discipline had need of a holy yet a wary and a wholesome reformation that might best stand with the health peace union edification of the whole 3. That the most godly and knowing part of the Nation have had the advantage of power and opportunity to reform what ever was amiss I think cannot be denyed But whether they have sincerely endeavoured it in that way that might best stand with the health peace union and edification of the whole doth admit of questioning 4. 'T is certain our late reformers found an establishment of the main substantials of Doctrine Worship and discipline in the Church And do they think to advance reformain the removal of the foundations of the Churches well being 5. Reformation stands in the reducing all Christians to a universal observance of al the known Laws Ordinances of Jesus Christ uniformly and not in setting up of humane inventions that the Church must bow unto in order to holy worship and hence Mr. Col. must first make good that it is the duty of all in the Church to make a publick profession of faith or submit to the examination of his Eldership in order to the holy Supper before he tels others what they require now suspend for is to be excused by their being upon reformation now A strange reformation that 's begun in making void the commands of Jesus Christ carryed on with prejudices and division and if persisted in may end in confusion Was it ever known before now that Reformation began in admitting to the Passeover or Lords Supper it's an absurd reforming that wil allow those to be Church-members and yet deny them to do the duty of a Member and Christian It was more rational and agreeing with Scripture rule to correct that general carelesse neglect in Ministers and people in order to reforming then to devise a novel way in a setled reformed Church to hinder the most of Church-memb from doing their duty The care zeal of our first reformers was both to exhort and to presse all of years to actual receiving not thinking it sufficient to be present gazing on or carelesse in not preparing and likewise corrected those that neglected this holy observance how unlike are these mens spirits to our first reformers It 's true many Ministers then were too carelesse of their duties in catechising and instructing the younger sort and so it will be still but what then Doth that disoblige Christians from that necessary part of institute Worship Ministers neglect their duties to their people therefore the people must not doe their duty to their Lord but must be left out and levelled with the Pagan world Had our Church been abolished when they abolished Episcopacy then in order unto constituting and gathering a new Church a verbal profession of saith in order unto lawful baptism had been proper but to plead it unto reforming but of the same Church already imbodyed and planted together by baptism is to be wise beyond what is written If Mr. Collins plea be good for the Presbyterian perswasion it holds as good to the Independent practice for they admit into Communion upon the same principle But he would not have this lookt upon as a standing principle Answ Why because it wants a standing rule that 's his reason I judge But then he tels us Our former Ministers would admit any one for his two pence This is somewhat an ignorant slander Answ as if it was left to the liberty of a private Minister to admit and refuse at his pleasure when he might know both the Minister and people were under the precept and penalty of the Church But what means all this pleading to excuse their rigid practices but that either they question their warrant or would have us think the case is extraordinary and so will warrant their irregular improper proceedings in order to admitting Church-members to the Lords Supper an argument indeed of late that doth set the whole land at a stand to answer but not so much for strength of reason that is in it but for a power out of it that will make any thing hold that 's said 158. pag. Mr. Collins pleads further and tels his Reader That there was no way but this to begin any Reformation amongst us who by our former way of administration of the holy Supper had made our Churches a reproach to Papists and a grief to all Protestants and opened a way for Brownists and Anabaptists to fill their Congregation with our strictest Professors c.
The substance of this is much to be doubted of Answ unlesse our common people were more ignorant then the common people in Rome or Italy who are taught that Ignorance is the Mother of Devotion and I think the most of Orthodox Protestants were more grieved about the gesture determined by the Church and those superstitious rails and turning the Table Altarwise and the insufficient administrators then at our free admission of Church-members Suppose all he saith were true is there no way to reform but to remove the foundations of the Churches established doctrine worship and discipline and innovate wayes of our own politick choosing different to all other setled reformed Churches as himself confesses Say our malady in a great part was ignorance could not they begun reformation with a more then ordinary diligence in teaching and instruction and friendly admonition in the carrying on all Gods ordinances in love reverence and unity taking all advantages to promote knowledg in which in time we might have hoped to see some good proficiency in the growing up of the whole together by the goodnesse and blessing of the Lord. For it 's certain that the Scriptures teach not any thing about the censuring of Church-members for ignorance simply and to deprive Church-members of the benefit of Gods Ordinances for causes lesse then the Scriptures do warrant is no reformation but rather an usurpation upon the priviledge and right of a Church-member Say again that loose and scandalous members was another part of our malady is the denying the Sacrament to a multitude of such sinners the only way to reform them What care such for the Sacrament so long as it 's the ordinary case of most and they may have the liberty of all the other Ordinances in the Church as members How is this like to reform their persons when they may be let alone to be loose and profane if they doe but keep away from the Sacraments Such a kinde of reforming that was never read of in holy writ nor in any Orthodox Authors Had it not been better to reform according to Scripture rules and precedents we judging all in the Church adhering to the Protestant Religion Church-members to have prest them unto all Christian observance and to have dealt with them as those that are within and to have proceeded against some unto the like admonitions and excommucation Juridically Gods way is alwayes best and we may groundedly hope to have his way attended with a blessing of successe in the amendment of the worst sinners amongst us It 's a pitiful shift to prevent our strictest professors from running into the Brownists Congregations to practise their principles and so become like them in making admission to the Lords Supper upon a publike profession of faith the only ground to unite and imbody the visible Church into Ecclesiastical Communion and so in gratifying some few in their error require such terms unto actual receiving of necessity that the baptized in the Church of years are no where bound to submit unto nor in a capacity to come unto And yet are under the obligation of actual receiving unlesse in plain tearms you will unchurch them and so unduty them and speak out as the Brownists do But I think enough hath been said already as to this and therefore I shall now take my leave of my Reader having done with the main things in Mr. Collins late Book as it opposes free admission to the Lords Supper And I hope Mr. Collins may seriously conceive himself soberly and rationally answered as to Juridical Suspension distinct from Excommunication as himself hath stated it He hath taken some pains to prove it in the power of a single Minister to suspend from the Supper but I think it needlesse to examine him or answer him in that for I know that Mr. Collins will have work enough to maintain that Suspension from the Lords Supper which he cals Juridical he might first have tryed how he could have come off with this before he had shewed himself so forward to goe about to prove that which is so denyed by all that are Orthodox and sober And I know were there any thing in what he hath said of private Suspension considerable and worthy of a consutation that learned Reverend Gentleman Mr. Joanes whom he attempts to answer would call him to an acount of his forwardnesse of Spirit to Lord it over Gods heritage and to be a Pope in his own Congregation FINIS A BRIEF ANSWER TO THE ANTIDIATRIBE WRITTEN By Mr. Saunders Minister of Hollesworth in Devonshire Wherein his chief Strength in Defence of Separation in a Church and Examination in order to admitting To the LORDS-SVPPER Is Examined and the way he defends proved to be SCHISMATICAL LONDON Printed by E. Cotes for William Tomson at Harborough in Leicestershire 1655. ABRIEF ANSWER To Mr. SAUNDERS ANTIDIATRIBE IN the midst of these unhappy and dividing times in the Church of God I know not how such a worm as I should improve a few hours better after redious lâ—bor in my honest calling then by remembring the happy and ever to be desired Peace and Reformation of renowned Zion As it is my daily prayer so it is a part of my dayly care and study to endeavour that the Churches peace and truth may meet in one And hence it is that I so often appear against those who upon dangerous mistakes destroy and pluck up the main principles and foundations on which the Churches peace and reformation should stand and consist in How sad are our miseries like to be in the end when those that are our professed friends are ever hatching of new unheard of wayes of Separation and Schism Amongst others this unhappy Author doth bear his share by defending such a way that is rarely met withall and yet cryed up to be the way of truth and reformation according unto Gospel rule The way he defends in brief is this some certain Ministers and Christians have agreed to form up a Church in the choyce of a Pastor Officers and members in some one place The tearms agreed on unto admission to and exclusion from the sacred Communion of this Church as to the holy Supper is either a publick profession of faith or submitting to a Church examination in giving an account of their knowledge and faith unto satisfaction c. and so likewise as to practise they require not only a freedome from things scandalous but some real demonstrations of the faith of holinesse unto admittance This way it appears hath been rigorously carryed on against the consent of some able Ministers in those parts And something is excepted against their way by a solid reverend Gentleman I judge with several demands and queries and objections for them to answer and clear in defence of their way and practise Mr. Saunders in behalf of the rest hath taken some pains to give satisfaction unto others professing himself ready to stand or fall as the truth is with him or against
him in their practise It 's an ingenuous resolution I confesse and if he will but stand to it I doubt not of the issue but that it will be worth our labour to dispute it with him according to Scripture and Reason the only Judge of Truth Besides I am the rather inclined to enter the lists with him in this Controversie because he protests against a rigid separation from a true Church and declares himself only for a moderate and lawful separation in the Church not as yet disowning our Churches I take it Unto this I answer That Separation that is proper and lawful in the Church Answ is either made by Orthodox Doctrine Or 2. by wholesome Discipline Juridically exercised Or 3. we may and ought to withdraw all unnecessary friendly and intimate familiarity from scandalous brethren where the necessary duties of our general and particular callings will permit without prejudice to our selves And then the question will be whether the practice defended in respect of separation be no more but so if it be but Doctrinal or putting out of Communion Juridically by Excommunication or declining all unnecessary familiarity with the scandalous though tolerated all will be yeelded on his side But if it be found otherwise I shall deny it as dangerous and warn all Christians to avoid it lest they be infected with Schism a cursed fruit of the flesh and drawn into such needlesse separations as can never be warranted It 's one thing to separate from the sinful courses of scandalous brethren and another thing to separate from the necessary duties of Gods Worship and of our calling where such are tolerated It 's one thing to exclude the scandalous Juridically another thing to exclude the ignorant who desire to be learners of wholesome Doctrine or those that are not satisfied to yeeld unto their tearms as presented under the necessity of duty when upon search their terms are but the bold inventions and opinions of strong fancies and not to be owned upon any such account as is pretended Yet I shall advise to a condescension to the same terms upon a prudential account for the help and incouragement of all in saith and knowledge provided it be used to no such end as to exclude Church-members from that necessary duty of institute worship Doe this in remembrance of me Christians ought not to betray their own and their brethrens liberties to those that have the boldnesse in these exorbitant times to invade them and bring all into division and confusion Why should not all that are within and of the Church enjoy all external helps and means of their amendment untill the Church hath taken the forfeiture of their offending and issued out judgement against them I think I have writ more to this then will be answered in hast Mr. Saunders would be judged a sober moderate man that still owns our Church Ministry and members for true But yet we finde him so inconsistent to himself that upon the matter he unchurches all our Parochial Congregations that he will not allow them to be Churches but in an equivocating sense that is to say in no sense as a â—â—rish in it's Precincts but as a separate Church may be in a Parish as in the world We doe not say saith he that our Assemblies are Churches as Parishes but that they are Churches in Parishes and in that sense Parish Churches pag. 127. and yet he is sharp against rigid separation and pretends but to Surgery not to Butchery but if unchurching of our Parochial Assemblies be not a rigid Butchery let him tell us what is more rigid They of the Independent judgement doe generally acknowledge our Assemblies to be the Churches of Christ though out of order The Anabaptists will confesse a Church may be in a Parish as well as in a City Country and World and in this sense they may say there are Churches in Parishes and so Parish Churches How is our Church beholden to such pretenders that will speak as much in defence of our Parochial Churches as they state them as our adversaries will grant And yet he hath the happinesse to be approved of by a learned Gentleman for his recommending to the Church a well tempered Reformation if love to his person and cause deceive him not Mr. Manton in his approbational Epistle to this Book I confesse if those we plead for be not members of true Churches in Scripture account then all must needs goe against us for it is certain that Heathens the unbaptized or such as have renounced the Christian Religion may not eat thereof our opinion pleads for all Church-members of years baptized and not excommunicated as knowing not any rule against the admitting of such to the Lords Supper produced yet by any And yet Mr. Manton saith peremptorily amongst all others none have deserved worse of the Church of God then those that plead for a loose way as he cals it of receiving all sorts of persons to holy things and by promiscuous administrations prostitute the Ordinance of God to every comer I confesse this passage from so reverend a Minister as he is reputed to be did enter my very heart at first and plunged my soul into a greater perplex of passion then is ordinary Yet not out of any apprehension of guilt though I have alwayes cause to flee unto Gods mercy for acceptance but that so good a man and an eminent Minister of the Gospel should be so inconsiderately rash in his censure of the Churches friends But to answer directly 1. Doth not Mr. Manton receive all sorts of Christians unto Gods Ordinances of Word Prayer singing of Psalms the administration of holy baptism Are not these holy things And is it loosenesse in himself to admit all sorts of persons in the Church to partake of these I hope not and why then not in the other it being a necessary duty to all in the Church of years as the Ordinances before named he might doe well to give some better reason then others doe When he can charge us justly with pleading the admission of the unbaptized Heathens the Excommunicate then let him charge us with that odium of loosenesse or a loose way as being against Gospel-rule but untill then his charge and censure is no other then a rash slander unbecoming such a person It 's strange and to be admired that our pressing unto Christian observance to those that are baptized professing Christians and of the visible Church should have such a hard sense put upon it as to be branded with loosenesse when in all other duties pressing to obedience according to rule is accounted godlinesse and holy strictnesse But doubtlesse that way that is the nearest to Gospel rule is the good way and straight way However it may have the hap upon mistake to be called a loose way Truly to speak freely I little value that perverse disputing in most that oppose us that are forced to uncovenant unchurch undisciple unduty a Christian professing
publick administrations as their duty And with what conscience can such live upon the Churches maintenance that forsake their function and duty to their Congregations And if they make the Sacrament the distinguishing Ordinance between the Church and the world as the Author cals it some where then no wonder they are so tender who they admit into the Church and thus upon the matter they look upon the greatest part of their Congregations as Heathens unbelievers whom the duties of Christianity doe not concern In another place he saith an unregenerate person is far from being a disciple c. and therefore not a Christian for the Disciples were first called Christians at Antioch And hence they devise ways and bars to keep them from the Lords Table equall unto a Heathen But me thinks they might easily perceive their mistake for baptism of old was accounted the only distinguishing Ordinance as circumcision between the Church and the world and the only separating and distinguishing Ordinance in the Church is Juridical Excommunication which they make no use of for Mr. Saunders saith they Excommunicate none if they judge their people Church-members and within if they have any scandalous crime against them why do they not begin reformation by casting out the obstinate according to rule they are all for admission of members when they should be for ejecting in the work of reforming If they be for admission into Church Communion they must begin with baptism and I think the tearms they stand upon in order to the Supper will sooner be made good in order to baptism of grown ones then to those that are initiated into the Church already by lawful baptism I have writ enough to this already the truth is if my judgment fail not Mr. Saund. doth but shuffle when he speaks of our Assemblies to be true Churches some of them one while they are true Churches and have both matter and form which are the main essentials of true Churches agreed upon by al only he saith but not without great disorder at present Discipline being interrupted as I suppose he means And he must needs speak this in behalf of our Parochial Churches for he makes mention of the Churches of England of which some he will undertake to prove to be true Churches against those that deny all for matter and form to be true pag. 127. And yet in the very same page he contradicts himself in saying We doe not say our Assemblies are Churches as Parishes but that they are Churches in Parishes and in that sense Parish Churches and in the page before he thinks the truth of some of our Churches as to their Essence he can prove A Church may be in a Parish as well as in a Country or City as Ephesus Corinth yea as well as in the World By this you may conceive what a good friend he is like to be to our Parish Churches against Anabaptists and Brownists that although he accounts them rigid Separatists they will grant that there are some Parishes in England that some that are godly and real members of Christ dwell in them which they will confesse are the matter of a true Church Nay there may be a rigid separate Church in fellowship and order in a Parish as well as in a Countrey City World And in this sense they are Parish Churches What shifts are these but why doth he not speak plain to the case in question and clearly speak his judgement of our Parochial Congregations as they are baptized and adhere to the publick Ministry in general consisting of good and bad nay the most very ignorant and in some thing or other either scandalous offensive or remisse Will he prove such Parishes in their Precincts and outward bounds to have both the matter and form of true Churches If he would doe so I shall imbrace him as friend of the Church And one would think in his 128. page that is his sense by what he infers for baptism saying That all Infants born in our Churches are to be baptized for Congregational Churches as they are called baptized all their Infants and then If it be objected that sundry of the parents are ungodly whose children we baptize he asks whether they can deny baptism to the childe of any member how offensive soever before the sentence of cutting off passe upon him So he answers of ours These supposed wicked ones whether as carnall or profane are not excommunicated what therefore should hinder their childrens baptism Hence he owns all in our Churches that are baptized members Christians and within for I suppose he would not plead the baptizing of the children of those that are Infidels and without that are no objects of Excommunication And yet in other places they are far from being Disciples Church-members c. Nay he saith as to baptism we suppose our Churches to be true but sick and corrupt pag. 126 but wherein corrupt if all be true you publish 129. pag. wherein you adde to what you said before Besides the children are not baptized in their Parents right alone but in the Churches where the childe is born a member being holy federally by birth and therefore to be baptized You prove the Subjects of our baptism lawful the Ministâ—â— and baptism it self for matter and manner I presume wherein is it sick and corrupt then I could wish you were more steddy in your judgement consonant to your self and honest to your Reader But to reply upon your own grants if all children born in the Church he holy foederally by birth then it follows that all parents in the Church of whom they are so born are believers for the Apostle affirms that only of the children of believers 1 Cor. 7.14 And then if all parents in the Church be believers why doe you not administer the Lords Supper to them for actual receiving is the undoubted duty of all believers how you will deny the consequence I cannot tell I pray you consider well of my Answer unto Mr. Collings for I must be very brief to yours Again if our Churches be true Churches and all it consists of lawfully admitted into it Then it will follow 1. That while they are within they are to enjoy all external priviledges of our Church according unto Gospel rule which is one and the same unto all Church-members as such This is so rational and clear that all that separate from us own and practise it untill a member by Apostasie fall off or be Juridically cast out of Church priviledges 2. That Pastors of true Churches are to attend their several flocks in a constant exercise of the whole ministerial work they are designed unto by the Church that ordained them such 3. That forming a Church in the choyce of a Pastor and Officers members in a true Church already formed according unto rule as to the essentials thereof at least is a work not only superfluous and absurd but Schismatical and pernicious breaking the peace and union of that
and which none ever was denyed in the Apostolical Churches during their abode in those Churches And to those that judge ours lawfully baptized and in a true Church cannot rationally refuse to admit them while they are within And again if the examination defended be a necessary duty why not binding unto all Church-members of the same kinde Necessary duties use to be universal How comes this to be restrained only to such as well may be suspected for incompetent knoweldge Sure if it be a necessary duty it is incumbent upon all in the Church or else to none at all if a Minister be at liberty to dispense with some a gift may blind their eyes at length But what Scriptures determine of the just measure of this competent knowledge that the Ignorant are to be examined of without which they must be excluded the Sacrament if no certain rule can be found to satisfie us in this how can men determine of it Then it will follow as in all other doubtful or groundless things so many men so many mindes and will but adde more fewel to our too many hot divisions already And know an unquestionable duty of publick worship should be made void upon such trifling uncertainties that not any are able to determine of seems to me too great a boldnesse in man Thus as briefly as I could I have not only questioned the question but have examined it in particulars thereof by explaining and yeelding something and by denying other things intended by the Author And I think the true question is this Whether it be the duty of all professing the true Religion and admitted into fellowship and Communion of the Church already by holy baptism and constantly attend the publick Worship of God to give an account of their knowledge and faith upon the command and examination of their Minister and Officers and either to be admitted or refused the Lords Supper as these examiners shall approve or not approve of the measure truth and soundnesse of the knowledge of all and whether all that refuse to submit to this duty are justly to be excluded the Sacrament I dare say that 's the proper question as to our case and now I come to examine the Scriptures and reasons laid down by Mr. Saunders to prove the affirmative Namely that all are bound to stand to this tryal before they can lawfully be admitted to the Lords Supper His quotations are many and he is something large upon them therefore I must desire the Readers patience in my answer yet I will promise thee I have laboured to avoid all tedious impertinences Mr. Saunders first proof 1 Cor. 14.40 Let all things be done decently and in order This he saith is a general rule serving till the worlds end to direct the Churches in matters of outward worship whereof this of admission to and exclusion from the Lords Supper is one Who knows not that the Apostle as in the 11. chapter Answ 1 reproves the Church of Cotinth for her divisions and disorders in their publick Assemblies in the very time of administring the Lords Supper and prescribes them rules and orders in special as to the reforming of those profane disorders so in this chapter he takes them up for some other disorders they were guilty of in the like assemblies in the carrying on of some other exercises of Religion amongst themselves as verse 26. doth intimate How is it then brethren when you come together every one of you hath a Psalm hath a doctrine hath a tongue hath a revelation hath an interpretation let all things be done to edifying The fault was this in the exercises of these different gifts by different persons they observed no order but made a confusion all exercising their particular gifts at once that not any could be edified by anothers gift either for his own or because so many spoke together that those that were hearers could not tell which to attend c. Therefore after many particular directions prescribed to particular cases lest the Apostle should omit some other things that might fall out about the ordering of Worship in the Church of God he gives them more general rules that might reach all other the like cases Let all things be done decently and in order The Apostle orders speech and silence in their Assemblies so as all may be edified and comforted but here is not a word of admission to and exclusion from the Sacrament nor any other Ordinance in the Church for they that were received into the Church were bound as Christians to attend upon all Ordinances of publick Worship while they were within this rule was given to direct us about some necessary circumstances in the ordering of necessary worship which other Scriptures inforce upon all in the Church to observe as time and place and external order in all parts of institute worship decent and reverent gesture silence and watchings authorized administrators c. But Mr. Saunders consequence is false for it is not such a general rule as he would have it namely to warrant a Minister to receive of his people to duties of necessary worship whom hee pleases and refuse whom he pleases is this to direct in matters or circumstances of outward worship to exclude Christians from their necessary duties of worship If this will warrant his excluding from one Ordinance of worship then from all at his pleasure if a persons admission and exclusion be but a circumstance of outward worship then our Bishops did well in forbidding preaching and hearing in the afternoon and punishing those that made conscience of their duty otherwise By this Church-members are not left at liberty to doe what Christ commands but what the Church commands we may see how ways of mens own chooseing will warp them If this consequence had been published by a Bishop in their times Christians would have startled at it But he goes on And supposes they had no particular warrant in Gods Word to bear them out yet saith he if our course be holy and orderly it hath warrant from that general rule 1. Answ That course cannot be holy and orderly that tends to a desperate schism in the Church as I have hinted already 2. That tends to their peoples hinderance and exclusion from their necessary duties of worship as Christians 3. That is warranted by no Scripture rule 4. The discovery of the fallacie of your consequence from this general rule makes your supposition nothing for your purpose The Apostle speaks of such a rational prudential decency and order in the Church that may be necessary and yet no where in the Scriptures determined of as to particulars either in commanding or forbidding And would Ministers take up an order under the same notion to instruct ask questions of their people to that end they may better profit by every Ordinance and be incouraged to a more diligent and frequent attendance thereon in hope of a blessing I conceive were nearer the minde of Christ from this
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
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
stated it pag. 20. These were not excluded any Communion for ignorance but for disorderly walking And we allow some examination to finde out offenders in the exercise of discipline but deny that the Church upon finding her members greatly defective in knowledge for that she may exclude them from fellowship in some Ordinances without better proof But because both reverend and learned Interpreters are uncertain and in doubt of the practical part of the Apostles directions as touching the offending Brethren I shal here contribute that little of my dark apprehensions I have at present towards the searching after the sense of the place And in so doing three things are to be inquired after especially First The quality or condition of the person Secondly The nature of the sin Thirdly The remedy prescribed to reform the sinner In the first there is no difficulty at all that the Apostle meant a brother one that was within and a Christian all agree so as touching the nature of the sin writ about it is clear enough How Mr. Saunders should be so wide is to be admired in applying the remedy to wrong persons vers 2. It 's certain the fault or sin intended was this there was one or some of that Christian Church that altogether neglected the workes of their particular calling and lived in idlenesse not working at all vers 11. and not only so but that such were guilty of that common vice that alwayes attends idle persons they were busie bodies in the same verse and this is usual when a mans minde is not taken up in some lawful calling he is subject to those temptations for want of businesse of his own he will busie himself with other mens and for want of necessaries of his own which idlenesse brings upon him he is ready to thrust in where he can and backbite flatter invent tales tending to the disquiet and contention of the places where such are this seems to be intimated ver 12. In the first part of the remedy he commanding them in the authority of Christ that with quietnesse they work eating their own bread yet they might the rather be gently dealt with because they having newly received the knowledge of Christian hope of eternal life by him they might be so taken with this mercy that it might take some off from their necessary occasions and make them think that they should alwayes be talking and speaking of the things of Christ they not considering the inconveniences that would follow thereupon not only the burdening of the Church but giving an occasion of the growth and putting forth such vitious corruptions hinted at before that the corrupt nature of all men are more or lesse inclined unto The remedy prescribed consists of several parts I shall but touch at things A command in a double respect The first was when he was with them in person vers 10. and this ran upon a penalty This we commanded you that if any would not work neither should he eat notwithstanding this charge the Church was carelesse and remisse in putting this into execution and did relieve them and too much countenance them in that disorderly course insomuch that some complaint was made against the thing For we hear saith the Apostle that there are some that walk disorderly not working at all c. vers 11. and in order to this sinful connivence of the Church he layes a strict injunction in the authority of Christ upon the Church to withdraw from such vers 6. in respect of civil familiarity and maintenance according to their charge as before He repeats the command again in his absence and that in the authority of Christ and in positive tearms That with quietnesse they work and eat their own bread vers 12. and further tels them if any one shall refuse to be obedient according to this Epistle the Church should note them by some sign of distinction declining that wonted and friendly familiarity as to others that lived orderly and so doing would be a means to bring them into some shame and amendment and clear the Church of the guilt of such disorders I mean the Church in general Besides I should have taken notice how the Apostle presseth upon them his own practice when he was amongst them vers 7 8 9. for the Apostles they wrought with labour c. but not because they had not power and liberty to forbear working but to make themselves an ensample unto all in the Church to follow them and that they might not be chargeable to any But last of all lest the Church should run on the other hand into too much severity and in stead of healing and amending of the offender destroy and loose him by expelling him out of their society as they would an enemy the Apostle puts in a moderate caution yet count him not as an enemy or Infidel as we judge of one that is Excommunicate but admonish him as a brother or one within under a more gentle cure So that I conceive the most severity here intended was to decline all friendly fellowship with them by withdrawing their friendly countenance and kindenesse and rather to reprove and admonish them for their amendment this seems to be but a particular drawn from a more general rule Ephes 5.11 Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darknesse but rather reprove them nor partake in other mens sins But Mr. Saunders saith This sense that I pitch upon in respect of the penalty is too little as Excommunication is too much quoting Erasmus pag. 140. he saith further it must be such a noting and withdrawing as tends to the saving and reforming of scandalous and misliving brethren suspension from eivil society is lesse shaming 1. Answ They may doe well to give some reasons why the declining all friendly familiarity in respect of civil courtesies and charity is too little to bring such brethren to shame considering those times and of what necessity it was of to have the love and furtherance of the Church all Christians being so lyable persecutors unlesse they were such that would revolt from their Christian profession upon the least danger 2. The punishment in a civil sense was so sharp that had all in that Church but done their duty in putting it into execution the offender must either have reformed or have been pined to death or forsake the Church for every member was under an Apostolical command If any would not work neither should he eat had the whole together or a part made conscience of their duty they might have humbled the proudest and brought them under some yoke or other I warrant you 3. If this was too little for scandalous misliving brethren as he saith then why is not suspension from the Lords Supper too little especially where most in a Church are upon the matter suspended as with them of their way many of which are neither ignorant nor scandalous nor any way of a misliving course and can it be imagined that
sufficiently proved that to be their necessary duty which will not be answered these two dayes And untill that be answered the argument doth reflect upon themselves not only by being accessories of their peoples neglects of institute worship but being principals of inforcing those neglects of necessary worship groundlesly hindering those that would 1. You must prove that the baptized rational members of the Church if ignorant and in some things offensive are forbid the Lords Supper and yet stand bound as members to all other observances of worship 2. That a scandalous member indulged leavens the Church by doing lawful and religious actions commanded 3. That the prime end in casting out the scandalous obstinate is to keep them from the Sacrament mainly I say that which leavens a Church is to connive at the scandalous by not doing what they are in a capacity to doe in acts of severe censures to reform them it being far from my heart to think that the good actions of a scandalous brother indulged doth leaven the whole but his evill actions not punished with severity of discipline according unto rule But why the Church should be leavened more by the admission of such to the Sacrament theâ— to holy prayer c. is to me a mysterie because the Scriptures are clear both in commanding spiritual qualifications in order to prayer and forbidding the evill and yet are silent as to these in order to the Sacrament 2. It cannot be denyed but the Sacraments are the most carnal Ordinances in the Gospel Church consisting of external matter that more suites with our bodily senses then any other And lastly the weaknesse of their argument that cry up the holy Supper above her fellows in the Church with the mischievous effects that follow thereupon inevitably Yet notwithstanding to prevent mistake I judg the Lords Supper equal in dignity and holinesse with the rest of holy appointments in the Church as being holy in respect of the holinesse of the Author institution use and ends requiring as much of preparation reverent approaches and divine adoration in this part of sacred Worship as any other part of worship prescribed His eight and ninth proofs are Heb. 13.17 1 Pet. 3.15 pag. 151. Obey them that have the rule over you c. be ready to give an answer to every one that asketh a reason of the hope that is in you The sum of that in Peter is but this he saith If this were to be given before an enemy then much more and easier is it to be made before friends such as desire to be helpers of mens faith not upbraiders of their weaknesse The Author shews some ingenuity upon this text Answ as if he were tender of wresting the sense he yeelds it concerns Christians under the tyranny of persecutors to be constant in their profession and therefore waves the consequence he had a minde to He doth not say if to enemies then much more it 's your duty as Christians to make profession of your faith and hope before friends as necessary to admission to the Sacrament Which he should had the text been for his purpose But he saith if this were to be given before an enemy then much more and easier is it to be made before friends So that here he insinuates by way of motive as helping their faith c. and I dare say it will be sooner yeelded unto upon that score then upon the account of a necessary duty and I shall highly honour those that are endeavouring to their utmost to draw on all their people to some profession of faith or other provided they doe it to no other ends but to help forward the weak and ignorant in faith and knowledge without the least infringement of the priviledges of the Ordinances in the Church they stand bound to observe as they are professing Christians But for men to urge it as a necessary duty in the name of Christ when he never commands it at all to any such â—nd they pretend that is in order to admission to and exclusion from the Sacrament is that which I think my self bound to oppose as superstitions pernicious and tyrannical in the Church of Christ And I doubt not but to make it good against all those that will acknowledge the constitution and form of our Church to be true at present though in some things out of order I confesse my expressions may be judged too harsh but I hope you will a little bear with my zeal it being in the behalf of the Church defending their just rights against those that thing they doe well to degrade them of the same That of Heb. 13.17 doth now come to be spoken to Mr. Saunders observes 1. That the people under them must be ruled and governed by them 2. Ministers must give an account of them which cannot be well done without taking knowledge of their estates 3. They must not only preach and exhort but doe all else which may conduce to the peoples salvation 4. If people obey not their Rulers in the Church they hurt themselves two wayes 1. By sinning against this command 2. By sadding their Pastors hearts and so lessening their profit by his Ministry All these are applicable to our purpose urging activity on the Ministers as well in discipline as in preaching calling for compliance from the people To his 1. where a Church is so happy Answ 1 as to have regular Rulers chosen by the whole and set a part to exercise holy discipline Authoritatively I grant that not only the people but every Minister ought to be ruled and governed by them in all lawful and profitable things but I deny that in the want of such Rulers and government any Minister or Ministers by vertue of that Function alone may assume to themselves an authoritative power to exercise acts of Jurisdiction over their people although the people out of ignorance should desire it I grant that the people should be obedient to their Ministers in the religious carrying of that Ministerial work accordingto Gospel rule but I deny that the Apostle intended the peoples obedience to every fancy that some have the boldnesse in these times to urge upon their people to their great prejudice and spiritual hurt in debarring them some necessary duty and Covenant blessing Therefore as children unto parents so people unto their Pastors must be obedient in all things but with this restriction in the Lord for this is right Ephes 6.7 To his second Ministers must give an account of them which cannot well be without taking knowledge of their estates Answ 1. He doth not keep to the tearms of the text The Apostle doth not say that Ministers must give an account of their people whether they be good or bad profitable or unprofitable but he saith for they watch for your souls as they that must give an account that they may doe it with joy and not with grief c. The sense is this they must perform all necessary duties
to their way of gathering they meddle not with at all nor is it proper so to doe in the way they have designed their way being rather to admit unto membership then the exclusion of Church-members from the priviledges of the Church they have formed But Sir how doubtfully doe you expresse your self at last as if your self were in some doubt whether these texts make for your way or not What they may doe who knowes and yet in the beginning of the same sentence you say they conclude positively for your practise I may well assure you Sir that it 's a grief to my Spirit that such sober godly moderate Gentlemen as your self seems to be should ingage in a practice before you could tell how to make it out by the authority of holy Scriptures against all the world Had you been so happy as first to have seen an undoubted warrant before you had ingaged in this separation you should never have been one in that society whilest you had lived How an ingenuous and rational head can withstand such plain demonstrations that by the assistance of the Lord I have expressed my self in in opposing yours and indeavouring to give the true sense of the Scriptures in debate I cannot tell I must and doe commend all that is written to the powerful working of the Spirit of Truth and Grace to perswade and incline the hearts of the godly to see where truth and the Churches peace and reformation lies according to plain and evident rule I doubt not but your own heart will bear me witnesse that I have rationally discovered the most if not all your consequences and conclusions as applyed to desend your practice to be meer mistakes and impertinent I beseech you consider seriously how ever you will be able to give the Church of God sat is faction for running into such a needlesse separation that is altogether without Scripture warrant Nay doe but think how you will answer your Lord for breaking the peade and union of your particular Congregations raysing prejudices bringing your persons and Ministry into contempt by making such a groundlesse rent and schism in his Church and that to the great prejudice of his visible subjects setting up laws of your own chusing urging them upon your people as necessary or else must be excluded as to you the necessary Laws of Jesus Christ their absolute Lord. You say well as every conscionable sober serious Christian should that you are ready to stand or fall as the authority of Scriptures shall determine In charity I am bound to believe that you intend no lesse then what you have soberly published Gods providence hath so over-ruled the action that one that is a meer stranger unto you I not so much as hearing of your quality no otherwise then I can gather by your Book to give you a sudden answer wherein you are now upon the tryal of your ingenuity and honesty there to make good your practice you are acting vigorously in or to return to your own flock and withhold nothing that is from them If you seriously search into the conditions of your people I believe you may see cause to confesse that you have lost more in your respective flocks then you are like to recover while you live at least some of you Please not your selves with what is so much pretended in this giddy age Namely to act in reforming in some pure and stricter way For many have run them out of all under such like pretences Be holy and strict as it is written according to the known and undoubted rule of Scripture Canon and be assured that that 's the purest way for you know not our own way be it never so specious but the way of the Lord is the straight way that leads to life in glory and if you return and be saithful in dispensing the things of God as you are obliged by the Word that 's the way that God will own the way of the Churches peace and edification the way to make Ministers a blessing to their people and their people a blessing unto them and the only way both to unite and to reform the whole The Lord give you a heart to be serious and searching after the safest way in the further discharge of those relative duties as Pastor of a Congregation whom you are set to watch over and warn and feed also in the Lord. I must confesse unto you that I have been something more round and rude in my answer then is so well becoming considering the moderate temper of our Author But the Lord is my record that I have not any slight esteem of his person but am verily perswaded he is a precious able sober Divine that expresses much of true godlinesse in him It is partly the want of some easier smoother expression partly my zeal of the Churches peace so miserably plunged into divisions and separations the great impediments to reformation partly because I would provoke to more searching into this Controversie about admission to exclusion from the Sacrament for I see that our over rigid principles in this doe run us upon other dangerous rocks Partly to vindicate my self and those of the same perswasion from what we are censured for by Mr. Manton But if any thing be inexcuseable that your charitable construction cannot moderate I beg your pardon for I affect not to be bitter nor would I be guilty of any incivility towards any godly Ministers of the Gospel But I shall go on and come to examine his convincing arguments laid down as seconds to the Scriptures alleadged pag. 156. and the first is this Because the holy Supper belongs to godly ones real believers men have a right in Gods sight only as such They that have no true grace have a seal set to a blanck Men stand in the visible Church as they are apprehended to belong to the invisible all this he saith is soundly proved by our Saviour adminstring to Disciples only Matth. 26.26 not to Disciples in the largest acceptation for many professed besides but to such as were more peculiar was it given And his practise is to be a rule to the Church All Mr. Saunders strength in proof of this argument stands in two things Answ 1. In his asserting several things that are usually taken for granted without any special proof 2. In urging the practise of our Saviour in the first administration Matth. 26.26 as proving soundly all the particulars asserted in the argument he denying that this was an accidental circumstance but was fore-determined by Christ so to have it but his enumeration of particulars are meerly begged and argued against in my answer to Mr. Collings unlesse it be this that men stand in the visible Church as they belong to the invisible I know not any ground why we should apprehend that all in the visible Church doe belong to the invisible of Gods Elect for in the Church amongst them that are called it 's said that many
his mercy and blessing to their souls are discouraged and hindred by these pretenders to reform They shut up the Kingdome of Heaven against poor souls that as sinners would be entring in and adhering to their Saviour They forbid whom Christ commands to serve him in this Ordinance and in reforming of their Churches they make void the commands of Christ by their own traditions which wayes tend more to the destruction and confusion of Churches then in the least the reforming of them His fifth is Crossing the desire of the godly in the land and the actings of the State herein The desires of the godly were Answ and still are for the reformation of the whole according to the Word of God and when they see evident demonstrations from the Word to justifie a more general admission to the Lords Supper then upon mistake have been thought of they will be satisfied in their desires accounting those desires irregular that have bin drawn out without Scripture ground Better such desires should be crossed then attained His sixth Degenerating from the Primitive times and all true antiquity That the Virgin Primitive times in the Apostolical Churches admitted all to the holy Supper that came under baptism Answ and were received into the Church is so evident that no sober man will deny as hath been shewed already and for after times if they acted otherwise they are as much to be questioned for swerving from the first precedents as we â— As for that Antiquity that is newer then the Scriptures this Author is no adorer of it as himself writeth The Fathers were divided in truth and united in error The principle of Antiquity yeelds but a popular and fallacious argumeent pag. 6.9 and therefore he might have spared this quotation of Chrysostom in his Homily 83. Let us keep away all without exception that we see to come unworthily But what he meant by unworthily who can tell and what he meant by keeping away whether as a single Minister or by the Churches Jurisdiction is a query But did ever Chrysostome forsake his Church as Pastor and joyn himself as an Officer or member to another Pastor and Church And in stead of administring the holy Supper to his own Congregation or using any acts of discipline to amend them leave them out and separate some few with him to receive the Sacrament in another Church See whether Christ or his Apostles or Chrysostome will justifie your own practice all that you have yet pretended from the Scripture to warrant your way hath been sufficiently examined and confuted His last The want of making some separation as to the Lords Table hath given occasion to some to forsake our Congregations Master Cotton Bloody Tenent 1. â— The want of right and solid principles as touching the constitution and first reforming of our Church hath given the occasion of the Brownists separation from us for they in New England doe not scruple the administring of the Sacrament to a scandalous member tolerated by the Church till censured Juridically and for them that own our Church and Ordinances for true they might be rationally satisfied upon the same principle 2. The want of right principles as to the Sacrament hath wryed more of the godly minded then otherwayes would be as men come to embrace truer principles and conceptions of this holy Ordinance according to the Scriptures they will be more tender of making unnecessary separations and rents in the Church 3. It is a wonder that our common principles in order to the Sacrament doe not hurry all knowing consciencious men into some separations or other sith it 's said the unregenerate are far from being disciples believers and the Sacrament is a cup of poyson and for the confusion and damnation of such souls they are guilty of the murder of Christ c. And that they have nothing to doe with the Covenant and therefore the Sacrament is but a seal to a blanck when administred unto them These erroneous principles doe more distract and trouble the poor Church then men are willing to understand or decline the unnecessary stirs that follow thereupon His second motive contains The great advantages got by acting in some courses of discipline But he should have told us what courses of discipline he means whether any course that men can invent or that which the Scriptures only teach What shall we think of that course themselves are acting in Doth theirs were it generally taken up enable us the better to defend the truth of our Churches as he tels us pag. 162. Must we run into a schism Answ and become like unto our adversaries in unchurching our Parochial Congregations and gather or form up Churches out of them as you to defend the truth of our Churches what is this but to yeeld the cause and betray the Church to defend the truth of a separate Congregation and so to end the quarrel in becoming like unto our reproaching adversaries of Brownists and Anabaptists c. I doubt not but we shall finde friends to defend the truth of our Churches as to their being as they are formed up already and grafted into the true Olive root and branch And I think none are more perfidious to our Churches then those that forsake their former station in the Church and form a new with the specious pretences according to Gospel rule What doth this imply but that our Churches are false and not according to Gospel rule What beside their own word can free them from rigid and absolute separation That which follows We shall have the better satisfaction in our Consciences whilest God is our witnesse that we have taken pains drawn losse upon our estates stirred up the envy of the multitude for his service sake And who hath required this at your hands Answ Where is it written that you should act as you do If you meet with sufferings for your irregular actings what thank have you It 's not the goodnesse of the men or ends but the goodnesse of the cause that makes a Martyr and brings solid comfort to the souls of Gods people all sects are apt to blesse themselves in what they suffer by contrary mindes but this and the rest that follows is but weak and beg'd too I come to his answer of objections pag. 164. 1. Object The stirs and troubles where any such separation is made 2. The separation defended is the same with schism and absolute separation pag. 165. His answer is We must follow peace with men as it may stand with holynesse and no otherwise and indeed from a high rash or absolute separation there are dangerous consequences but from that which is moderate and warrantable no such dangers saith he To this I reply 1. That keeping the peace of the Church of Christ is more urged and prest home amongst Christians then to other men in the world Christ came to make division between the Church and the world but left a legacy of love and peace to