they proceed to censures gradually and for no other cause but for the like sins and scandals that the Word directs in 4. Query Whether the Church should own men to be members for a bare profession c. I confesse I doe the more wonder at the query Answ because the most of sober Divines are taxt for unfoundnesse in holding the affirmative and yet himself saith the children of such are holy federally and therefore to be baptized whereas if the parents be not Church members how come their children to be holy federally and to have right to baptism that being spoken of the children of such that were in the Church And if a remote right may serve to bring in the childe of such a bare professor as he pag 129. then why have not the parents of that childe the same remote right as being a generation nearer that right they being not Excommunicate as is supposed Is the child a member without so much as a bare profession and the parents none that professe Christianity externally A bare profession may be serious in its kinde I suppose though it want the will of holinesse So that if we adde to a historical or temporary professor but to be serious and real in his profession for the present he may passe for a member with him and I shall think those men very uncharitable that judge lesse of ours generally that frequent Gods Ordinances and take themselves greatly wronged when they are deprived of any one I take it to be a good sign that they are serious in what they professe and then this is but the same which in others he conceives unsound 2. What shall be done with the children of the most godly when they are grown up if profession without true holynesse doth not continue such members forasmuch that there is no rule left to dismember for ignorance or want of the work of true holinesse regeneration c. members such are not only by birth but formally by the Churches approbational act of baptism they are so far from renouncing or forsaking their Christian profession that they adhere to the external part of it and are not scandalous They neither fall off nor are cut off by any rule or act of censure what hinders them but that such remain members of the Church and have a true right to all the external priviledges of membership 3. If positive unbelief in denying the person and Ordinances of Christ on whom the Church is built cut off persons from the Church as is clearly spoken of the Jews Rom. 11. then the contrary to that Infidelity which is a real owning and professing the person and Ordinances of Christ continues those that are members born to be members so long as they hold to the Christian profession Excommunication dismembers but conditionally for in case the offender externally reform and hold to his profession and promise amendment he ought to be loosed from that censure But I hasten What shall Ministers doe while Government is unsetled Query 5 and their people opposite to wayes of Reformation 1. Shall they give the Sacrament promiscuously to all 2. Shall they by their own Antiquity exclude the unfit 3. Or shall they wholly desist To the last he answers that the use of the Ordinance of the Supper is so necessary as that it may not alwayes nor long be discontinued the command of Christ Doe this requires obedience this he saith is well proved by Mr. Joanes but yet he doth not close with him in another point namely that while the Church is undisciplin'd the Sacrament may be administred in every Congregation without any separation But he conceived that the Lords Supper cannot be holily transacted by any unlesse the scandalous be removed c. pag. 169. 1. Answ It 's a question whether their people are opposite to true reformation or no because they were never yet tryed with it and therefore who can tell whether they will oppose it or no That they are opposite to such wayes of Reformation as the Author pretends to and labours to defend is no great wonder when Ministers will venture to spake and doe such things to reform them which are no where to be found in the Scriptures but in their own wills and fancies as I have discovered already it 's well he is so sober as to hold the administring of the Lords Supper so necessary that it may not long be omitted and that he assents to that Reverend Minister Mr. Joanes who hath done the Church most eminent service in that undertaking of his And then if it be a necessary duty requiring obedience why then this may satisfie him in answer to his first Shall they give the Sacrament to all Yeato all that are concern'd in Christian obedience and observance which all in your Parish that are baptized and of years are as well to this as to any other part of instituted worship in the Church And there 's no more danger in the word promiscuous to this Ordinance then to all others there being as much to be said for the casting the scandalous out of the Church as from the Sacrament and more too for we have no rule at all to exclude a scandalous member from the Sacrament while he is within but we have clear rule to cast such out of the Church by Excommunication and then removal from the Sacrament fals in as a consequence of that Juridical act and no otherwise That Ministers are in a very great strait by reason of the necessity of the one hand to administer saith he and yet perchance have a wicked party predominant to hinder any good course of separation Answ The strait is not to great more as in shew and conceit men first receive false principles and then conclude accordingly from them and that brings them into straits whereas if they were rightly informed of their own duties and their peoples priviledges as Church-members the case were easie Christ commands to all his visible subjects while they are within is a sufficient warranty upon this very ground you are now in no more strait about the Lords supper then in all other worship which many scarse make so much as a scruple of His saying that this is against the mind of Christ he intending it for disciples only is pitiful weak when himself grants the baptizing of the children of all as holy federally from their parents which cannot be true unless their parents be believers or disciples as hath been shewed and therefore in granting that it doth necessarily prove the lawful right of all to the holy Supper Baptism Lords Supper being but the same seal of the same Covenant in which both are in cluded and concerned And doubtlesse a single Minister is not impowered with authority to excommunicate Juridically which I suppose he means is Mr. Joanes his advantage upon his adversaries he holding them strictly to some such Presbyterian principles as this which I wonder that any man should dare to assume to
baptism layes the same ingagement upon all the baptized to come under all observances of the New Testament administration that of the holy Supper as well as others hence the Apostle commends the Church of Corinth for remembring him in all things and for keeping the Ordinances as he delivered them unto them 1 Cor. 11.2 and it is not good to distinguish and dispute away duty where the Scriptures gives such a general warranty I know not well what he means by Christs commanding respectively if he judge that ours are within as the Church of Corinth were without doubt they are both under the observance and discipline of the Church If he judge that ours that are ignorant and scandalous are without then what hath he to do to judge those that are without there is no hope to amend them by discipline or ground to baptize their children or to justifie the main foundation of our Church As I said in my Book pag. 23. The Bar removed so I say again that Jesus Christ commands nothing for the hurt of his visible subjects they observing it according to their present capacity Can an instance be given in the Old or New Testament of any any that came under Circumsion or Baptism that as private members were admitted to all other Ordinances in the Church and yet were forbidden the other Sacrament the Passeover or the Lords Supper To this Mr. Collins answers with a meer trifle telling us That it will pose me to prove that those that had touched the dead body of a man might come at no ordinance but he can prove they might not come to the Passeover Numb 9. Enough hath been said to this already Answ I need but repeat Numb 19.13 20 22. The truth is what ever the unclean did touch or what ever toucht him were unclean Hag. 2. Vers 22 Nay such persons that neglected the Law for their purification were to be cut off from the Congregation because he had defiled the Sanctuary of the Lord. I might run through the several kindes of uncleannesse and shew you how they were separated both from civill as well as holy society but those that are acquainted with Scriptures will be satisfied in this thing Nay as I have noted before the Lord appointed and consecrated a season on purpose for the unclean to keep the Passeover but not so of any other Ordinance they were deprived of in the time of their uncleannesse Mr. Collins sayes Nor is that whimzy of mine pag. 25. at all better by which I prove the receiving of the Sacrament a duty incumbent upon all because included in the first Table he sayes it will pose me to prove that this duty of receiving is commanded in the first Table if it were yet he hopes preaching of the Word is so also which yet is not a duty enjoyned to all but to those only who are appointed thereto If that of mine must goe under the reproach of a whimzy with Mr. Collins Answ I know as reverend and as able Divines as Mr. Collins appears to be that doe judge that the affirmative part of the second Commandement includes all Gods institute worship which at any time he hath or shall prescribe to be done And except Mr. Collins will deny the holy Supper to be a part of Gods instituted worship it must come under this prescribed worship as well as any other there being no part exprest in the command more then another it 's enough to prove that all in the Church come under the precepts of worship the Sacrament being so they are bound to that as well as all other but then he seems to grant the thing yet he hopes so is preaching of the Word c. It 's true and as I had said in my Book pag. 25 That all Ministers what ever are bound hence to preach c. And what need we have the same again but that he had rather puzle then satisfie the weak We know that which lays an injunction upon Ministers to preach or administer c. doth also injoyn all their people to hear and receive as private Christians the Commandement doth not confound relative duties although Mr. Collins of purpose doth to deceive his Reader And me thinks it might make him blush to call that a whimzy in me which is so ordinarily delivered by as reverend men as himself and a great deal more But the Judicious Reader may easily judge what poore shifts he is put unto that excepts against the truth Let Mr. Collins give us some rational account why persons in the Church are lesse ingaged unto this part of instituted worship then all others that all of the Jews Church should come under the Law of the Passeover without exception good and bad And he to plead no duty to the holy Supper of persons in the Church too they being not worse then the carnal Jew I see not but upon the same ground he exempts them from this duty he may exempt them from all others that are essential to a Church state and so consequently not only unduty them but unchurch them too For what he hath said before implies no lesse where he is bold to undisciple them to evade this argument we draw from the command of Christ Matth. 28.20 The Doctor was somewhat sharp with my much respected friend Mr. Humfrey for making the act of receiving the principal and examination but an accessory in my vindicating of him I hinted two or three things 1. That the duty of self-examination is but a private duty And the private is to be subordinate to the publick 2. This duty of examination was prescribed occasionally as a remedy to that particular case of making a breach upon the materials of divine institution and order And we may safely say the end is most principal the means lesse 3. Where a true Church doth not so offend as Corinth did this duty is not so to be urged upon them as to the Church of Corinth But it 's clear there is not the same offending in the Church of England as there was at Corinth Therefore that duty is not to be urged upon ours with the same necessity of danger of eating and drinking unworthily as to the Church of Corinth Unto these Mr. Collins hath some exceptions 1. Whether it be sense or no he cannot tell that I say self-examination is a private duty and so subordinate to the publick and then sayes who denyes it But yet he questions whether upon an incapacity or neglect of the private the publick be a duty for where a private duty is commanded in order to prepare us for the publick we cannot without sin perform the publick before we have performed the private cleansing were the unclean persons private duty yet till it was done he might not come to the Passeover 1. Answ Though I grant self-examination a requisite duty unto a profitable receiving and judge the neglect thereof sinful yet so long as the publique administrations are carryed on with reverence
but they ought to be baptized when ever themselves or any other oâ— their friends desire it for them upon the account of membership it not being their fault it hath been neglected so long but their parents And I say likewise of the ignorant and scandalous born in the Church were they unbaptized the Church ought to use all means possible to perswade them unto it as their special duty to engage them unto better obedience and Church discipline for their amendment The children of Israel were uncircumcised a great many of them while they were in their travel in the Wildernesse their uncircumcision did not discovenant nor unchurch them but they were al circumcised when they came to Canaan God was angry with Moses for neglecting the circumcising of his sons but yet their Covenant relation held they must be circumcised And I think here is nothing against reason in all this But then there is not the like reason for Heathen to be baptized that are ignorant and scandalous because they are strangers from the Covenants of promise have no such priviledge as Covenant relation they are unclean and untill they embrace the faith of the Gospel and express themselves real in their acceptance of it and promise to joyn themselves with the visible professing body of Christ they may not be received These are two huge different things which Mr. Collins all along levels to the same and therefore his argument fals to nothing And I would have Mr. Collins and all others that professe themselves friends to the Church of England to beware how they maintain that Baptism makes Church-members it 's true of those that are of the Pagan world by nature they can in no wise be made members of the visible Church of Christ but by lawful baptism but those in the Church that are born of Christian parents are members born they being comprehended in the same Covenant with their parents But Mr. Collins in proof of his major saith It is against reason to say the contraray A notâ—ble proof indeed Let him shew us whâ— reason it 's against to say that Church-members unbaptized ought to be baptized upâ—â— lower personal qualifications then Heathen I come to my next proposition That the in the Church whom we cannot exclude from Câ—â—venant relation that are of years must not be excluded from the Sacrament because Sacrament are seals of Covenant love to that people the are in possession of Covenant administrations Mr. Collins in answer to this is fallen upon the old businesse again and wonders her years of discretion comes in for he saith the argument is to prove a right to Covenant seals for sâ—â— as are in Covenant relation Now children are 〈◊〉 Covenant relation that exception plainly implyes say he that Covenant relation is not enough to give right to Covenant seals And so he sayes I have answered my self Mr. Answ 1 Collins is more happy then others iâ— such an answer be judged a sufficient one because years of discretion is no essential oâ— Covenant relation but of a man putting him into an actual capacity to perform actâ— of worship the which until then he is not under the obligation of actual observance I have spoken enough to this already Why is not Covenant relation enough I never thought so but maintain that Covenant relation gives right to Covenant seals unto parents and children I hope I am as clear in this point as most are It 's an handsome shifting of an answer to say I have answered my self The argument lies to answer still If Sacraments be seals of covenant love to a people in possession of covenant administrations then such a people ought to use these seals of Covenant love unto them in remembrance thereof untill they be legally dispossest of the same But ours are in Covenant relation and in possession of the Ordinances of the Covenant Therefore it belongs to them to make use of the seals of Gods love in remembrance of his goodnesse towards them Untill you can discovenant them it 's a weak thing to goe about to dispriviledge them in the externals of the Church especially the Ordinances being the Ordinary way and means of attaining the grace of the Covenant In his 35. pag. he tels us That Sacraments are not seals of the everlasting Covenant but seal to the acceptation of the Covenant to which faith must be supposed I have alwayes thought that the Covenant made with Abraham and his seed Answ and so often published and repeated and explained to the Jews Church and applyed to the Gospel Church Heb. 8. had been an everlasting Covenant of grace and that Sacraments seal to this Covenant And that not only the new Covenant but the seals thereof belong unto the visible Church And that the agreement or Covenant between the Father and the Son for the elect had been a different thing from the Covenant made unto the Church which Sacraments seal If that were not an everlasting Covenant that Circumcision was a fign and seal of I must confesse I am out but I am sure it 's that which I have been alwayes taught and never heard it denyed but by Anabaptists and such like Heterodox spirits It 's true this everlasting Covenant is to be entred into by those the seals are to be applyed unto and this entrance or acceptance is either personal or parental An alien upon profession of faith and desiring to joyn himself to the visible Church of Christ by baptism and so to come voluntarily under the Laws of Christ is to be received he hath accepted of the laws of the Covenant But for those that are in the Church by nature and professe no other religion and worship but the true are all supposed to have such a faith at least as doth argue their acceptance of the Covenant during their abode in the Church the which is sufficient to ingage them unto Christian obedience and doth entitle them to external Church priviledges although this is not enough in order to their justification and salvation but yet the external part is the way prescribed for the attainment of the internal blessings of the everlasting Covenant even to as many in the Church that Jesus Christ was sent into the world to seek and to save by giving them repentance and remission of sins Hence it is very necessary to distinguish of a twofold acceptation one common that accepts of the external part of the Covenant which reprobates doe with the elect the other is internal and special when God by his Spirit opens the heart and inclines the will to receive the grace of the Covenant unto eternal life the former is that which gives right to the external priviledges of the Church the other to the internal blessings of grace and glory The former hath the promise of the first grace the other the promise of increase in grace and the reward of glory If that be true of Mr. Collins That Sacraments seal to the acceptation of the Covenant which
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
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
belonging to their Office towards you as such that must give an account to God of their being diligent and faithful in the work they are sent to perform therefore he would have the people to be willing and obedient unto them for their incouragement in the work that they may do it with joy c. 'T is certain both Minister and people must give an account to God The Minister of his faithful discharge of his duties in relation to his people and the people of theirs accordingly For if souls miscarry for his unfaithfulnesse in not warning them of the danger they make themselves guilty of the bloud of souls otherwise doing their duty faithfully they are free from the bloud of all But Mr. Saunders would have it thus That Ministers must give an account of the state and condition of their people I think or if he mean they must take knowledge of their spiritual estates that they may know how to apply themselves toward them both in private and publick with seasonable words c. in reference to their own account I see no great hurt in that nor doth it prove any such thing the text is quoted for But if he should argue as some others doe from this text Ministers must give an account to God of their people therefore the people must give an account of themselves to their Ministers Answ 1. As before by denying the antecedent as respecting their personal condition whether regenerate or not or whether they have profited or not but of their own duty in respect of their peoples good 2. Grant it as themselves would the consequence is not clear because a Ministers account unto God and a peoples account to their Minister stand at so great a distance so wide a difference But why should this be required of the people more in order to the Sacrament then Prayer or in respect of their Salvation Prove that the Minister is to give an account to God only how he prepares and whom he admits to the Sacrament restraining the Text to that particular only But the text he saith is for their purpose Because it urgeth to activity in discipline as in preaching aâ—d calling aloud for compliance from the people 1. Answ Grant it true what he saith it urgeth to activity in discipline then it must be supposed that the Church thus writ unto was in actual possession of Ecclesiastical Rulers and holy discipline But doth it hence follow that they themselves are such Rulers and impowered with the exercise of holy discipline I think no without better proof Try how you can prove that the exercise of discipline is an inseparable power of every Minister and that he is as much bound to draw out this power into act at all times as his preaching power if so 1. Then the Church cannot be said to be undisciplined at all so long as she hath Ministers but all the fault lies in this the Ministers negligence in not exercising acts of Jurisdiction as he is bound to doe and impowered with 2. Then a Minister is absolute and independent of himself and not accountable to any Church power in his male-administrations of that power but to Jesus Christ alone 3. Then all have this power that are Ministers and so at liberty to act as their several humors move them and must be left to this liberty as they are Ministers being once ordained but who can be so blinde as not to see into what a gulf of division tyranny and confusion that error if put into practice would involve the whole And most miserable is the condition of those people that are oppressed with Ministers of such impudent insolent principles when drawn into act It concerns the Christian Magistrate to relieve such a people But to proceed to his next called the 11 12 13 14 15. proofs pag. 153. from Levit. 13.5 2 Chron. 23.19 Joel 3.17 Nahum 1.15 Zach. 14.21 For the two first he pleads an equity in them which is argumentative The three last he saith are against the impure and horrid mixtures which in our dayes are without sufficient check in most Assemblies Do but read read over his quotations Answ and you will be able to answer him your selves His 1. speaks of the uncleannesse of Leprofie and how he was to be shut up seven dayes now during this time he could come to no Ordinances therefore ignorant persons in the Gospel Church must not come to the Sacrament a goodly equitable consequence indeed But I have been large in confuting the same in my answer to Mr. Collings whither I refer the Reader as also his 2. Is there fully spoken to His last three are so impertinent that it is but lost labour to repeat the texts for they are special promises peculiar to the Jews upon their return from the Babylonish captivity 1. The Temple should be built again and no more be defiled with the uncircumcised Heathen And this he applyes to us as if the unregenerate ignorant and offending brethren that are of the Church were meant to be these uncircumcised Heathens aliens and strangers that pollute the Churches Communion now as they the holy Temple and Sanctuary then though himself doth grant ours to be within and of the Gospel Church and their children holy federally by vertue of the Covenant but this is so absurd that it tires me I having spoke so much to this already But he saith God hath promised this happinesse unto his people under the Gospel that there shall come no more in to them the uncircumcised and unclean Now if strangers men of Belial not enduring the yoke of Christ shall still be mixed with Gods people How is this promise made good he asks This promise Isai 52.1 Answ was made directly to the Jews Church after their return from their captivity and by the uncircumcised and unclean is meant Heathenish uncleannesse they should no more invade their land and defile holy things as before But I never was acquainted with any such promise as himself tels his Reader of made to Gospel times that there should be no strangers in his sense and meaning that is no scandalous sinners in the visible Church no tares among wheat no mixture of good and bad I would have him shew us such a promise as that and that it respects the Gospel Church at all times and in every place where God hath his Church which is necessary to make good or else how can our Author apply it to this period of time and to our Church in particular Besides 1. How doth it call into question all Churches of the Gospel that ever were for there were scandalous and wicked persons in them all 2. It 's inconsistent with the wisdom and pleasure of God who hath constituted the Church in such mercy and grace that all that are born in the Church are of the Church and is it likely that such admission did intend such a purity all being so corrupt by nature as the Church maintaines 3.
The very Ordinances set up in the Church to convert the promises made to the Church in order to that end and our own experience of some fruit thereof may discover the vanity of that conceit namely that there shall be no regenerate or wicked in the Church And he that shall resist such manifest demonstration I think he understands but little of the truth and nature of the Gospel Covenant and the blessings of grace and mercy that are conferred upon sinners in the Church from it I pray you Sir why is it not Gospel-like for sinners in the Church to partake of all Gospel Ordinances of Worship What is the Gospel it self but good news to sinners And what do all the Ordinances tend to but to bring sinners home to God And I hope he is no enemy to holinesse as our Author intimates pag. 154. that would have Ministers to allow Jesus Christ the liberty of his own appointments in the Church to unite unto himself all those he dearly loves and dyed for But Mr. Saunders tels us That God looks now for a more real and spiritual people and will not own such for his people that are gracelesse what ever their profession may be quoting Camero But what a strange assertion is this Answ and how derogatory to the Gospel Covenant and diminishing the grace and goodnesse thereof to sinners in the Church who are the people of God and holy federally by birth as himself confesseth And will God now disown them for his people that are gracelesse by nature then we may cast all Infants out of the Church and so from baptism For it will hardly be made good that Infants by nature have real inherent grace then what hope is there left for gracelesse professing people under the Ordinances if God will not own such they are left destitute of all hope for who can own God and come to him by the power of Grace untill the Lord own them for his people by giving them that grace first But what reason can any of sober principles give that God will not now in the Gospel times own such a gracelesse professing people for his people as he hath done before the coming of Christ in the flesh For 1. Is not Jesus Christ the Author and procurer of all spiritual blessings to faln man and always the same yesterday to day and for ever 2. And was not the Gospel Covenant as to the substance of it alwayes the same to the visible professing Church and to their seed Is it straightned in respect of grace and mercy towards man since the coming of our Lord more then before Or doth it run upon such tearms now as that not any may come under the outward administration that have not real grace Or will you have none come under Gospel worship and duties that professe Christianity that have not real grace What rocks doth that assertion dash against 3. Is not the visible Church the same all being grassed into the same Olive and Vine and planted together into the same body by baptism as the Jew by circumcision Doe you think that a different administration only made such a different Church and consequently requires such a different subject in admission into it as yours imports What was there in the old administration that should in reason indulge so great a latitude as to the subjects more then in the new Those that can tell us wherein the mystery of this lies should doe well to give us the discovery for my part I must confesse I judge both the Old and also the New meerly external as in the letter both fitted for reasonable man as instrumental to conveigh a blessing of grace unto whom the Lord will of those that in obedience yeeld what homage they are able unto their Lord. Whosoever entred this great Covenant of grace that the visible Church alwayes hath and is in possession of came alwayes under the restipulation thereof as his duty which is this to observe and doe all that the Lord requires to be done at that time and age that any person lives in so shall ye be his people and the Lord will be your God The Lords Covenant with his Church doth always oblige those that have entred into it to all that obedience that at present is in force by the Lord. A Jew by nature was under all that God commanded them and a Christian by nature is under all that God commands now A Jew by nature and profession had all the Church priviledges of a Jew In like manner a Christian by nature and profession hath all the Church priviledges of a Christian only with greater advantage forasmuch as the priviledges of the Christian Church are more clear and spiritual tending more unto the spiritual profit and edification of the whole And what reason besides the good pleasure of God can any man give why the Lord should vary in these different administrations Most certain it is that since Christ was manifested in the flesh and justified in the Spirit and ascended into glory greater hath been the advantage both of knowing and believing in the Son of God in comparison of attaining unto knowledg and faith in Christ by those that had but some darke obscure discoveries of him by types and shadows for men now to say that God looks for more at our hands then of them is rational But to affirm that the Lord in Gospel times will not own a Christ-professing people that have not real grace is altogethere groundlesse and a little too peremptorily spoken without better proof then Camero And it 's too harsh to affirm that a meer want of reall grace doth discovenant a Christian professing people and that God will disown them for his people upon that account they being holy federally by birth and upon that account baptized and thereby put in possession of the Sacramental Seal which himself will grant And would the same men but argue as rationally from the state of the Jews Church as touching grown ones as they doe of Infants this Controversie about who shall be admitted to the Sacrament would have been frivolous But now Mr. Saunders hath done with the texts which he saith Conclude positively for their practice in gathering and distinguishing their Communicants by examining What all these lights will doe being set up together who knows So likewise Answ 1 I have now done with examining of what you have concluded from these several texts for your way and I hope I have given both your self and every sober unprejudiced reader clear and rational demonstrations that there is not so much as one of these 15. texts that will prove examnation a necessary duty unto the Lords Supper as it 's stated Nor hath Mr. Saunders so much as applyed them for the most part to prove the question So little is his own confidence of the pertinentnesse of his own quotations for some of them he hath applyed to prove suspension and others to prove excommunication which in order