Church But Reader I will detain thee no longer in the porch only let me intreat a candid and charitable conceiving of my sense drift and end in what I have written I would provoke none but leave the probability of what I have asserted from Scripture and reason to the consideration of all Only this let me tell thee by the way That Suspension as it 's stated by Mr. Collins I judge to be sufficiently confuted in the latter part of this Book What himself or any other may doe further in stating it and proving it by Scripture or reason deduced thence I know not I think whosoever undertakes it will finde it a hard task to make this good That some Church-members of years and indued with reason shall and ought to be denyed the Communion of the Lords Supper and yet be allowed the liberty of all other Communion in acts of worship as Church members at that present And though I doe not in plain terms prove it an invention of men yet I conceive I have so removed the arguments and reasons it 's pretended to be built upon that it doth not yet appear to be the Ordinance of Christ and so by consequence that it is but a Tradition of men Jesus Christ commands all that are Disciples Church-members to observe all his commands from which none that are baptized can be excluded without equal authority to that of Christ Suspension from the Sacrament only must first be proved an Ordinance of Christ before any may be suspended from it For no authority on earth can disoblige from actual duty but the same that doth oblige to duty I mean no authority can doe it but that of Christ in giving the power of the keys of the Church to binde and loose authoritatively To conclude let none deceive themselves in reading this Book as if it were intended for defence of promiscuous Communion for what I intend therein is to justifie a lawful Communion in the Lords Supper according unto the rules of the Law and Gospel and sure that is the most pure Communion that is most agreeable to rule as the case now stands in our Church Mixt Communion properly is to admit an Infidel Jew or Pagan unbaptized to the Sacrament that denyes or knows not that Christ is come in the flesh or to admit the Excommunicate before they have given satisfaction to the Church by their repentance and amendment of life If I should plead for such a Communion then it would reflect upon me to my reproach shame But I plead not for this but for Church discipline to reform the disorderly in the Church Juridically I would have the Church still to preserve the form of all necessary duties of worship though they cannot bring up all to the power of godlinesse as is desirable Better to keep up Religion though but in the right form then not at all What reason can any have to discourage from any religious form of true worship under this pretence that they come not up to the inward power which is undiscernable for the most part Form and power are inseparable in the true Religion where the Lord gives his blessing That place of Timothy is usually misunderstood in our times for it is clear they had not so much as the external form of true Christian Doctrine and Worship but such a form of godlinesse as Heathens have or may have for it was spoken of false teachers and seducers that usually make pretences of a form of godlinesse of their own devising and deny or be enemies to the form of godlinesse which is according to truth commanded of God for they are such as resist the truth men of corrupt mindes reprobate concerning the doctrine of faith God never blesses false forms of worship with his powerful presence working grace in them that out of strong delusion have invented those forms but forms of his own prescribed worship are the power of God to salvation to whom he will Now I crave pardâ—n of all sober men for this my so bold attempt to clash with so many able solid Divines as I shall be judged to do I reverence all and should patiently wait and without contending submit to all were the Church in a setled state but we having run into such endless divisions and separations it concerns every one to study and indeavour the regaining of the settlement peace and edification of the whole And I could wish that men of â—ober principles who have an eye at the same end would be more serious in weighing the grounds we build upon and the weapons we fight with in managing this controversie I could wish that able and learned men would throughly search and more deeply dive into this controversie for I know that unlesse a great deal more can be said against Free Admission as it is stated then I could as yet ever hear of contrary mindes will be forced either to yeeld or else they will run themselves upon such rocks as will quite break the constitution of our Church But prove all things and impartially incline to own and imbrace that which brings the fullest and nearest evidence of truth and solid reason to thy understanding And the Lord give us at least to see where the truth and the Churches peace lies and establish the same among us which is and shall be the prayer of him that longs to see that day John Timson The most principal things handled in this Controversie are contained in these few questions 1. WHether all Church-members of years not Excommunicate have a true right to the Lords Supper or no. 2. Whether any Church-members may lawfully be denyed the Lords Supper for ignorance and state of unregeneracy according unto Gospel rule 3. Whether Church-members as such in relation to the Covenant be not personally worthy during their abode in the Church and in that sense worthy receivers though otherwise they be actually unworthy 4. Whether it is the duty of all Church-members of years to receive the Lords Supper as to hear pray read sing c. 5. Whether the promises of first grace be not included in the Gospel Covenant which Sacraments seal And the unregenerate in the Church be the only objects of those promises 6. Whether the Church is to judge of her members worthinesse or unworthinesse in order to admitting to the Lords Supper more then to all other acts of publick worship 7. Whether the Sacrament can be denyed to be a converting Ordinance in the Church 8. Whether Juridical Suspension be an Ordinance of Christ or an invention of man ERRATA Reader among many lesser faults which have escaped in the printing by reason of the Authors absence there is one great fault pag. 143. in 12 13 14. The distinction there mentioned is this Hearing of faith preached was and is the ordinary means of the faith of Heathens but the whole work of the Ministry is the ordinary means of sincere believing in the Church And p. 239. l. 10. after probable
religion in some measure namely 1. The union of Christ with the Father 2. The union of the two natures in the person of Christ. 3. The mystical union of the soul with Christ 4. The mysterious exercise of faith in applying the soul to the pronise c. and this is all his proof the which amounts just to as much as his say so as to his quotation 1 Cor. 11.28 enough hath been spoken already to shew the vanity of his high flown conceptions And indeed a most pernicious perplexing tenent to poor doubting weak unsatisfied Christians should it be believed I have alwayes been taught that Sacraments are the lowest condescensions of the love of Christ to his weakest babes they being suted so familiarly to our bodily senses as it were with Thomas his seeing and feeling the body of Christ was more effectual to make him believe then the testimony of their word who preached Christ was risen indeed But the next he saith The Sacrament is the seal of the righteousnesse of faith and hence it seemes incongruous to the ignorant and scandalous that have not faith The question is of the unregenerate in the Church Answ the which may be discernable by these Characters of ignorant and scandalous in part and know that I have nothing to say in behalf of them that hate instruction and that persist in their vile abominable doings after admonition and due conviction unto obstinacy Let such be declined and avoided as unworthy of all Christian Communion and spare not but for those that are yeelding sinners and are ready to condemn themselves upon all occasions if being wisely dealt withall expressing themselves willing and desirous to amend these I think should have the benefit of all the Ordinances as the ordinary means of their salvation But now to his assertion That the Sacrament is the seal of the righteousnesse of faith We know that Sacraments which had their Original from God unto Abraham Gen. 17. were tokens of the everlasting Covenant of grace made with Abraham and his seed God having deputed him to be a father of many Nations And that all the Nations of the earth shall be blessed in him c. Circumcision was appointed to be a token unto Abraham in this comprehensive sense that not only they that were his seed by natural descent but those also that shall embrace the profession of the faith of Abraham shall be blessed with him even they and their natural issue also And the Apostle Rom. 4.4 descants much upon this large Covenant or promise made unto Abraham in the warranty of the Gentiles engrafting into the stock of Abraham by faith the which the Jews stumbled at and fell into prejudices and discontents upon the Gentiles embracing of the Gospel concluding it false because they imbraced it that were always left of God and so abominable to the Church as naturally descended from Abraham and the Prophets c. The Apostle disputes this thing with them and saith Is he a God of the Jews only is he not of the Gentiles also Yes of the Gentiles also chap. 3.29 And he tels them their fleshly priviledges according to the Law will not continue them the people of God without faith in Christ And by faith in Christ the Gentiles are made the people of God unto Justification opposing faith unto works chiefly in point of Justification as in the beginning of the 4. chapter is expressed in that instance of Abraham and David It was not works but faith that was reckoned unto Abraham for righteousnesse in his uncircumcised state and hence he argues Abraham to be a father of the uncircumcision as well as of the circumcision because he received the token of circumcision a seal of the righteousnesse of that faith he had in his uncircumcision that he might be the father of all that believe that righteousnesse might be imputed to them also and a father of the believing circumcision too c. Now then what was the main thing that Abraham is thus commended for and blessed for Why it 's said He believed God and that was imputed unto him for righteousnesse But then we may enquire what was the thing he believed God would be as good as his word to him in Answer It ' was this that God had made him a father of many Nations though he had no child yet he believed against hope c. And this was imputed unto him for righteousnesse We know that Abraham after the flesh was not a father of many Nations that is not the sense but he is so in a spiritual sense by religion and saith and that 's the thing the Apostle drives at to prove him a father of all that come in unto his religion and faith And that all such are of him and blessed with him And doubtlesse Abraham that saw this day of Christ and rejoyced so understood it that all the Nations of the Earth should be blessed in him by faith and this blessednesse to begin in his own natural family and to be extended unto all Nations in time And hence that is true I will be thy God and the God of thy seed in their generations for ever Gen. 17.7 and that he should be the father of many Nations and that they should be blest in him c. This is the everlasting Covenant of Grace that Abraham believed and this is the faith that circumcision was a token of and did confirm the truth of to him and all that are in him by religion for ever even to them and theirs and I doubt not but the Sacrament seals to the same faith still in reference to them that have entered the same Covenant and professe their subjection to the laws and administration thereof but I have not exprest my self in this so fully and clearly as I could wish I shall have occasion to doe more in it hereafter This by the way to give a hint what the Apostle means in calling circumcision a seal of the righteousnesse of that faith that Abraham yet had in uncircunacision it being too ambiguously lest and applyed by Mr. Collins in order unto Church-members unregenerate Mr. Collins hath two or three things more in the 32. pag. but finding nothing in them that doth trouble us about the question in hand I passe them by though it 's true he takes the boldnesse to deny yet he doth not give any ground or reason why but takes all for granted still though I have rationally cleared the contrary in my answer to the query pag. 36 37 38 39. Bar removed I shall now see what he excepts against my 6. proposition pag. 30. 31. I conceive that Sacraments in general and this in particular were instituted for the spiritual good of the Church of Christ comprehensively taken in which every particular member is included First he grants as much pag. 33. and then addes his jus ad rem and then queries how this proves that therefore every particular member ought in his present state come
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
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
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
to it and coming ought to be admitted If the proposition be true Answ as is granted it is then it will follow that all Church-members should be encouraged unto the pertaking of that which is for their spiritual good And it 's most injurious for any to deprive any of that spiritual good that proffer themselves or discourage them so to doe But he hath two things to except against the consequence He saith Was not the Passeover so appointed yet he thinks unclean persons might not come during their uncleannesse But now there is no such uncleannesse in the Gospel Church to hinder any Answ 1 They were no more debarred the Passeover then all other publick worship nor so much for provision was made for them in that case not in the other And as that of Moral uncleannesse was no hinderance then so not now as hath been shewed and hence his first exception is worth nothing But then 2. he tels us That some reverend men think the excommunicate person is yet a member of the Catholick Church and shall not be baptized upon his repentance and he owning the true religion and being baptized his repentance being supposed the Sacrament is for his good but it will not therefore follow he ought in that state of his excommunication to come to the Sacrament It 's not material to the question Answ 1 whether the excommunicate be dismembred or not it 's sufficient to my purpose that he be dispossest of all external priviledges of the Church during his impenitency in that condition he is justly sentenced unto to debar him the Sacrament And I think all parties are agreed in this and in this case I deny that the Sacrament is for his good while he is under the last remedy and Ordinance of Christ for his amendment or utter ruine Then if you suppose his repentance and satisfying the Church he ought to be loosed from that sentence and received into Church communion again That the justly excommunicate are absolutely dismembred is too harsh to affirm untill we be able to judge that he hates to be reformed under the Churches just censures adding unto his incorrigible sinning not only obstinacy but Apostasie And then he is undone for ever For what the Church bindes on earth is bound in heaven though the Churches main end is onely to reform and heal a diseased member Therefore though I should grant him not absolutely dismembred and yet deny him the Sacrament it doth not follow that Church-members under Church indulgence or forbearance may be denyed the Sacrament These are two different cases And therefore doth not in the least hurt my first proposition My second proposition is That the Church of Christ consists of good and bad And this Mr. Collins grants me also And it having such a dependence on the first that it compleats for my opinion this argument The holy Supper is instituted for the spiritual good of every particular member of the Church But this Church of Christ consists of good and bad regenerate and unregenerate therefore the holy Supper is instituted for the spiritual good of good and bad regeneratâ— and unregenerate and consequently is to be administred to them in order to that good I conceive that both propositions beinâ— granted the conclusion cannot be denyed My third is That the unregenerate in thâ— Church are the only immediate objects of the prâ—mise of the first grace Mr. Collins answers unto this thus That bâ— hâ—d rather say that the unregenerate are objects 〈◊〉 the first grace then of the promise of that grace 〈◊〉 the promises profit not any without faith and hâ—â— the unregenerate should apply the promise he caâ—not tell 1. Answ In granting them objects of the finâ— grace he grants them to be objects of the promise of that grace Unlesse the first grace is not at all to be lookt for from the promise 2. Nor promised unto any at all 3. Or else given to some to whom God never promised it The which things to affirm would be point blanck against the Scriptures So that the question is whether Mr. Collins doth own any such thing as promises of giving the first grace at all For if there be any such promises at all made to the Church in general they must of necessity immediately respect some proper object that hath not that grace of and in it self it is want and misery that is the proper object of grace and mercy But why should Mr. Collins expresse himself thus doubtfully in such a main thing Doth he not baptize all Infants upon this account chiefly that the promise is to the Parents and children surely if they be not objects of the promises of the first grace the most of ours every where are objects of no promises that Sacraments seal for it 's too certain that they and theirs have not a true sincere purifying faith to apply the other promises of salvation This is certain if they be not objects of the promises of the first grace they cannot be objects of the promises of crowning that grace with glory exclude the unregenerate in the Church from the promise of the first grace and you exclude them from all And then judge what will follow And where he saith The premises profit not any without faith shall the want of a fincere faith make the faithfulnesse of God without effect God forbid Let God be true in what he hath promised to the Church in general and indefinite terms and every man a lyar Rom. 3.3 4. We know of the Jews that were the greatest enemies unto Christ a remnant of them were sanctified and saved according unto Act. 2.39 Peter tels the wicked Jews that were guilty of the innocent bloud of Christ that the promise is to them and their children before he knew whether they would repent or no. What faith had they when Peter told them so not so as much ours have that generally believe that Christ iâ— the only Saviour of the world These Jews denyed this yet being of the visible Church as descended from Abraham the Apostle makeâ— them and their children objects of the promises and hence perswades them to repent oâ— what they had done against Christ be baptized for remission of sins c. And so many 〈◊〉 received his word were baptized indeed and submitted themselves to the obedience oâ— faith What though the unregenerate cannot actually apply those promises by faith unto themselves Doth it follow that thereforâ— they are not objects or susceptives of them in a passive sense God being free in making these promises unto them and by his Spirit in the use of his own appointments to apply them effectually unto whom he will of such that have not faith to apply them Forasmuch as not any can in astrict sense believe until he be impowered with regenerating grace No nor then without the concurrence of a divine aid to apply the promises made to such a blessed state to their own comfort and salvation Besides the
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
He says That Sacraments are strong meat which weak Christians are not able to digest and that they are seals of faith only He denyes the Sacrament to be a converting Ordinance because then Heathens should come c. And will not have the unregenerate Christians to come under any duty but what is converting He affirms that in an unlearned Congregation a single Minister may suspend from the Sacrament he being the ruling part of the Church c. And yet in all other thing seeme to bear himself much upon the authority of men With such like things as these he thinks he hath loosened all that I have built upon and hence thinks that the whole will fall but he must take a great deal of pains more then yet he hath done if he think to be the man that must give satisfaction in this Controversie And I believe he must speak a great deal more then hath been spoken by any if in the least he can make good suspension from the Sacrament more then from any other part of holy Communion in sacred worship I mean of Church-members of years of discretion as the question is stated He must not think that the authority of men will carry the thing it being a businesse of this consequence that on which the peace and settlement depends which can never be as to our condition so long as men make habitual worthinesse in a real sense that which alone gives one right to the Sacrament 2. And set up the distinction of Believer and Infidel in the Church 3. And level the unregenerate part of the Church with the world in respect of Covenant relation promises of first grace work of the Ministry feals of the Covenant c. Such like interferings in a visible Church doth destroy it and pluck up the very foundation on which the Church of England stands My constant prayer to the Lord is and shall be that he will so favour us with the blessings of his people as to give us Magistrates and Ministers that may be tender in protecting and defending the Vine which himself hath planted And it 's pity that Mr. Collins and divers others of his judgement should not see where truth and the Churches peace lyes I have done with him as to what he hath excepted against my Book in particular I shall very briefly examine his strength for Suspension from the Lords Supper FINIS I shall in the next place annex a short Answer to or an Examination of Mr. Collins Quotations and Arguments for that which he cals A Juridical Suspension from the Lords Supper the main Subject of his late Book BEloved Friends I am sorry that our Author should take such a deal of pains to make good that thing that hath and doth so much trouble and hinder the edification and peace of the Church and hath been the occasion of the extirpation of the Churches Discipline and the main impediment of an establishment of Discipline at the present And how impossible it is that the Church of England should be preserved and secured in a Church state from the common reproaches of adversaries upon his principles let them that are sober judge when himself is equalling the most of her members to the Infidel world disobliging them from duties of instituted worship and observance under this pretence that they are unbelievers and no disciples nor brethren that are within and hence he will allow them just as much priviledge in the Church as he doth unto Pagans except baptizing their Infants which he will hardly doe upon their own parents faith but upon their remote predecessors And thus he makes a great stir about suspension from the Sacrament and by this groundlesse censure doth hinder or make invalid other necessary commands of Jesus Christ to the great prejudice of the Church of Christ As namely the benefit of Gods Ordinance of Sacrament and just excommunications according to the practice of Apostolical Churches when this suspension was not known nor heard of And therefore I having spoke so much already in defence of this priviledge and and right of a Church-member and that being already ingaged in this Controversie give me leave further to answer to what I can finde urged against the friends of my judgement that hath not as yet been spoken unto as may satisfie the plain minded Christian that is not able to unravel so many subtil needlesse syllogisms that Mr. Collins abounds with in his elaborate Book But I intend brevity And therefore expect not my answer unto every thing but to his main grounds he hath laid for suspension In stating of the question Mr. Collins sayes 1. As to suspending of some persons from the Supper he means no more then a denyal of that Ordinance from some pag. 1. 2. He distinguisheth of Suspension To be either Juridical or Pastoral Positive or Primitive 3. Of a Presbytered Church he saith They finding some of their members grossely ignorant or seandalous not excommunicated in the Name of the Lord Jesus are to warn them to forbear coming to the Lords Table for a time and if they presse in to deny it them declaring the Church hath no Communion with them pag. 3. I shall speak unto that suspension he cals Juridical and Positive only Answ 1 for if I can break him in the proof of that his other will appear to be a dream But to the question 1. He saith They mean no more by suspension then a denyal of that Ordinance of the Supper from them for a time Then 2. In case they will come to deny it them declaring the Church hath no communion with them Here you may take notice how clear Mr. Collins is in stating the question 1. He makes suspension no more but a deâ—yal of the Sacrament from some for a time And then secondly the Church declares they have no Communion with them so that he in stating the question layes foundation for a Suspension and Excommunication both For if excommunidation consists not in putting out of all Church Communion I know not what it is He so confounds these that I know not how to take him And therefore I must query him a little further about the question stated I query whether a Minister with his Parochial Lay Elders be a Presbytery that can saspend their members Juridically I judge this but the same with a Pastor denying the Sacrament at his private will and pleasure Such Elders have no more to do with the exercise of discipline then with the administrations of all publique worship They have not so much as a name nor the lineaments of an Office known in Scripture And it is a businesse of the like difficulty to prove lay rulere in the Church distinct from Ministerial rulers as to prove Juridicall Suspension from the Sacrament only distinct from Excommunication I query whether in suspending of members from the Sacrament their proceedings be according to that known rule Matth. 18.15 16 17 c. and how they can apply
promises of the first grace are not only free but absolute not so depending upon condition of faith in a strict sense as many other promises doe yet not so absolute but that the ordinary means of salvation ought to be observed diligently in order â—o attainment of the first grace for God will â—e enquired after by the house of Israel for the grace of the New Covenant Ezek. 36. My fourth proposition is That the whole â—dministration of the Covenant belongs to those in he Church that are the immediate objects of the â—bsolute promises in order to the Lords putting these â—romises into execution Mr. Collinâ— saith If the argument be good it 's â—etcht from the right which an interest in the Coâ—enant promises gives one to the seals of it And â—hen it must hold universally and if the unregeneâ—ate world without be as much objects of the first â—ace as those within there is no reason for that â—striction It seems Mr. Answ Collins would not have the â—romises of first grace be limited unto the Church but would have the unregenerate â—ut of the Church as much objects as those within for indeed he is ready at every pinch â—o level the unregenerate in the Church to the â—n fidel world Therefore I shall endevour to clear unto you the difference in this particular briefly â—t may be I may publish more of this hereafâ—er It is evident that the whole Covenant of grace is made unto the Church in general terms without any exception of persons in â—t as is clear Jer. 31. Heb. 8. Ezek. 36. A â—ew Covenant I will make with the house of Judah and Jerusalem in which Covenant thâ— promise of the first grace is most expresse anâ— full the state of the Jews Church consâ—â—ing most of carnal members that were proper objects of the promises of first grace Why the Gentile world as carnal and bâ—miserable yet this Covenant containing thâ— first grace was never made to them at all bâ— upon condition of faith and grafting them selves into the same visible body as they aâ— Infidels and without They are aliens from 〈◊〉 Common wealth of Israel strangers to the Covenâ— of promises and without all hope and withâ—â— God in the world Ephes 2.12 How can the be said to be as much objects of the promiâ— of the first grace that are without as theâ— that are within when they are alienatâ— from all during that Infidel state It 's tâ—â— there is a promise that all the Nations 〈◊〉 the earth shall be blessed in Abraham but iâ— runs in conditional tearms as they are iâ— him they must first be brought into him and be of the true Church that Abraham waâ— father of before they can be blessed in him and so the Apostle expounds it They that aâ—â— of faith are blessed with him and ye are all eveâ— the whole Church Jews and Gentiles thâ— children of Abraham by faith in Christ Jesus And not any others in the world that remained in their infidel estate This difference is clearly intimated by the Apostle Peter Act. 2.39 when he speaks of the Jews that were of the Church by nature as descended from Abraham he tels them plainly The promise is to them and their children speaking in the present tense But then speaking of the Gentiles he saith the promise is intended unto them also but with another restriction then to the Jews even unto as many as it shall please the Lord our God to call of them at any time for the future and to none else they of the infidel world must be externally called at least and planted into the visible Church of Christ by baptism before they and theirs can be children of the promise and in Covenant relation As the Pagan world is without the promise of the first grace so we know they are without the ordinary means of working that grace if they be as much objects of the promise of first grace as the unregenerate in the Church What 's the reason the Lord denyes them the ordinary means of putting them into execution The Apostle saith If our Gospel be hid or withheld from persons or people it 's hid to them that perish Our own experience will convince us that those that are without are not so much objects of the promise of first grace as them within because we see the fruit of it in the Church in every age and time in the conversion of many but scarse any age of a hundred generations we have heard of any conversions in some part of the Pagan world Hence I judge there is a real difference between the Church and the Pagan world in respect of the one they are objects of the promises the other without promise and hope and God in the world and me thinks Mr. Collins and the friends of his judgement they being godly sober Orthodox Divines should be satisfied with this difference I have only hinted at in short for my part I think there is nothing more clear and easie to be made out from holy Scriptures were not men of his judgement too much learned with Brownism destroying that which our firâ— reformers have planted I must confesse it 's nothing becoming my calling and abilities to challenge any learned reverend men yet I doubt not but through the assistance of Gods grace to maintain this difference I have in short laid down against all the contradiction of sober Orthodox men provided they will dispute it from the authority of holy Scriptures and what may be clearly and rationally deducted thence Next Mr. Collins is pleased to put my proposition into form pag. 34. Those to whom the absolute promises of the Covenant belong to those the whole administration of the Covenant and so the seals belong But to the unregenerate in the Church and of years the promises belong Ergo. He saith Let but belong in each proposition be understood in the same sense and the answer is easie and the argument weak c. I will yeild him that which he desires Answ and take it in that sense which is most large namely that the promises of first grace belong to the unregenerate in the Church then he denies the major and saith That by this argument Heathens may come to the Sacrament I say no unlesse Mr. Collins can prove that the Heathen are as much objects of the absolute promises in the Covenant as the unregenerate in the Church I think when he hath performed that task soundly and undeniably I shall yeild the argument weak and think the worse of my cause but untill then he must give me leave to think the argument strong for any thing he hath yet said in answer of it He only saith it That no promise doth so belong to any unregenerate man as his portion which he may cleare and make use of it in his unregeneracy What thinks Mr. Collins then of the baptizing the Infants of such Answ 1 the usual practise of our Church How can he perswade such to offer
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
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
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