to eat at the Sacrament only properly as it 's too difficult to prove so it would follow that he will prove the same by the same for then the sense of his proposition is this That it is unlawful to give the Sacrament unto such that we may not give the Sacrament unto but there is some not cast out we may not give the Sacrament unto Ergo. Take his argument in what sense you can there is nothing in 1 Cor. 5. to stand upon or in the least to make it good his proof of his Minor fals too short I will grant him 1. That there may be such in the Church that the Apostle cals old leaven 2. That it is unlawful for the Church to connive at their wickednesse that was that old leaven and keep the Feast of the Lords Supper with them but what 's this for his purpose himself saith it's a plain case that the Apostle did chide the Corinths in that they did not cast out the incestuous person that leavened their Communion by Excommunication pag. 35. in this he sayes true and they of Corinth put this Decree into execution concerning the incestuous person as the only remedy to purge themselves of that leaven that sowred the whole by their connivence and sinful indulgence What then Does it follow because they were chidden for their neglect of exercising Church-censures therefore they were chidden for admistring the Sacrament unto him before he was Juridically put out of all Communion with them If the Apostle had understood that suspension from the Sacrament only had been a sufficient remedy to purge the Church and reform the sinner then doubtlesse he would have blamed them for admitting him to the Sacrament and he would have given the remedy in prescribing a rule to suspend him from the Sacrament only but as their whole Communion was leavened by their sinful indulgence so they were urged to cast that scandalous person out of all Christian Communion sacred and civil with such a one no not eat but how doth this prove that there may be some in the Church not excommunicated with whom it's unlawfull to eat the Sacrament But he goes on with his proof of his second thing That it is not lawful to communicate with scandalous sinners let us therefore keep the Feast not with the old leaven of malice and wickednesse from hence is easily gathered saith he that Christians ought not to keep the feast with scandalous sinners True I say so too Answ where a Church is in a capacity to deal with the scandalous Juridically and thereby put them out of all Christian Communion as the Church of Corinth did But I deny still that they were blamed for admitting such unto Gods Ordinances before they were Juridically by the censures of the Church separated from the Congregation Search and see if you can finde one syllable of a sentence in this chapter tending that way Mr. Collins makes a great deal of doe about keeping the Feast but at last I think he fastens upon a good honest safe interpretation pag. 38. from Isai 25.6 Where the Lord promiseth to make a feast of fat things unto all people Gentiles as well as Jews by which saith he is promised all Gospel Ordinances and a holy Communion with them in all his Ordinances c. and hence the Sacrament is a part of this Feast c. pag. 39. But if that be the sense Answ then upon his own confession the Sacrament is but a part of that Feast Why how doth this prove then that we ought not to keep the Feast with scandalous sinners when Mr. Collins allows scandalous sinners the liberty of all the other dishes and parts of this Feast but being aware of this he addes that the Lordâ— Supper is the only proper Feast of this Feast that 's his sense first he will be honest and let every Gospel Ordinance have a share in this Feast and then attributes all to this one and makes it the proper Feast of the Feast they was to keep And he tels us Doubtlesse it must be so because some Communion with on incestuous person in other Ordinances may be allowed Thus you see let the Scripture say what it will and although Mr. Collins is forced to confesse his assent unto a rational sense you may see how his private opinion and fancy draws him off again and makes him venture to give the denomination of this Feast to the Lords Supper only and it must be so because against his own reason and sense he will have it so is that a reason to make it good for some Communion with an incestuous person in other Ordinances may be allowed directly contrary to the Apostles decree and direction when he commands them To put out from amongst your selves that wicked person verse the last But still the very main thing of his argument wants proof That there may be some in the Church not Excommunicate with whom it is unlawful for the Church to eat In his proof of this he must make good these several things That in this 5. chap. 1 Cor. the Church was blamed for eating with the scandalous brother before the Churches tryal and censure of Excommunication was inflicted That the Church was not leavened for their carelesse connivence and tolerating such a scandalous brother but only for admitting of him to the Sacrament That the Church of Corinth had done their duty if they had only suspended him from the Lords Supper That we are as much forbid the company and civil friendly familiarity in eating and drinking with a scandalous brother not cast out as with an Excommunicate person I shal refer my self to those that are learned sober if it be not of necessity to prove those things before he can conclude from this Chapter that there may be some in the Church not cast out with whom it may be unlawful to eat the Sacrament or that the unexcommunicate members should be suspended from the Sacrament and allowed the liberty of all other Ordinances in the Church as members But Mr. Collins in stead of making good his Argument he trifles about making that word Feast to be meant only the Sacrament after he hath granted it was but a part thereof as it is one Ordinance with the other of Gospel Worship He quotes Mr. Gillespy that tels us this Feast cannot be restrained unto the Lords Supper only And Mr. Rutherford that understands it of Church Communion in the dainties of the Gospel And Ravenella that sayes it is taken for all Gospel Worship from Zach. 14.16 17 18. and yet he will goe beyond his own Authors and prove with reason beyond them all that by this Feast is meant the Sacrament only I confesse I had thought to prevent tediousnesse to have past by his reasons but lest he should be wise in his own conceit I shall take some notice of them All he sayes amounts to this surely it were not a civil Feast nor a Mosaical Feast but meant of
Church I proceed unto his sixt Argument If there may be some in the Church not yet cast out with whom the Communion of the Church cannot be pure then there may be some in the Church not Excommunicate whom the Officers may not without sin admit to the Lords Supper But there may be some such in the Church Ergo His proof of the proposition is 1. That it is the duty of the Officers of the Church to keep the fellowship of the Church pure This he saith none will deny but if any be inclined to deny it he should doe well First To think to what end the rod of discipline is put into their hands Secondly How to expound 1 Cor. 5.7 and those many other Texts that look this way pag. 86 87. 2. That it is their special duty to keep the fellowship of the Church pure as to this Ordinance as this was proved before from 1 Cor. 5.8 so it 's câ—ar from reason it 's apparent that of all other Ordinances this Ordinance alone is appointed for such as have something of grace in them Answ 1 I grant that it is the duty of the Rulers of the Church to use all necessary and lawful means to preserve the purity of Church Communion in all acts of publike Worship I grant that they are in a special manner to take care to keep the Communion of the Church pure as to this Ordinance of the Sacrament but still I deny that this is to be done by suspension from the Sacrament and allow them the priviledges of all other publique Communion in the Worship of God as members That 1 Cor. 5.7 8 13. hath been examined already and proves no such thing let it be proved that the Communion of that Church was leavened for admitting one that was scandalous to the Sacrament or that their Communion is that Ordinance was polluted by their connivence towards him or that to deny him the Sacrament was a sufficient remedy both to reform the offender and to purge out the old leaven wherewith they were leavened if the Text will bear none of these things what is it quoted for The Rod of Discipline it 's expressed clearly from the text was to reform the sinner with the salvation of his soul and the Church by doing her duty is correcting with this merciful end did clear and purge her self from that sinful connivence and toleration of such a one And if this purging was not by excommunication then I am out if it was then Mr. Collins is quite out in quoting it and he hath said nothing in laying the foundation of his argument as to the keeping of the Sacramental Communion pure by Suspension I beseech you mark for in this very argument many are very much perplexed as if the only end of discipline were to preserve the Communion of the Church pure only at the Sacrament and as if the greatest impurity of Communion in the Church lay in the admitting of ignorant unregenerate scandalous brethren unto the Sacrament whereas I dare be bold to affirm that to receive the Sacrament is as much the duth of any such as they are Church-members and within as any other duty of publike worship whatever and their obedience in that observance is as well pleasing and acceptable unto the Lord they coming as prepared as they can as any observance in the Church And if it was not for the correcting of such things that are in their own nature sinful such as are nominated 1 Cor. 5.11 there would be no need of Church discipline The main end of discipline is to reform that which is evill in Church-members and to encourage unto well doing that every member may be obedient in all things And for Mr. Collins to say that the Sacrament alone is appointed for such as have something of grace in them is only his bare saying and doth clash with the command of Christ as also with the peace edification charity and unity of the Church But he sayes further The Word is called the bread of life and it is to be offered to dead souls Heathens were ever admitted to hear and profane persons are the objects of discipline The Excommunicate may hear and ought to be admonished as brethren That he knows not wherein the Officers can have any work to keep the Communion of a Church pure if not in this Ordinance aâ— to this the Scripture saith it cannot be pertaked of worthily without examining our selves and discerning the Lords Body It 's true Answ 1 the Word is the Bread of Life and doth quicken dead souls where God gives the blessing doth it follow that the Sacrament the visible Word of Life is not appointed unto that end where God gives the same blessing Heathens may hear true What then therefore Church-members may not receive Or 2. Therefore Church-members may hear but the question is whether he will allow a Christian to hear as a member or as a Heathen The profane are the objects of discipline What them Must they not pray hear receive untill they be cast out by it Are they objects of nothing else How are they objects of discipline that were never admitted unto the Sacrament Can you suspend them from that they never had wherein are such more objects of discipline then those that are without who may hear and pray and be present at every Ordinance as well as the other that are within Then he saith The Excommunicate may hear and ought to be admonished as brethren Very good it 's well the Excommunicate may have the title of Brethren but as ill that those in the Church whom we cannot charge with obstinacy untill it be Juridically tryed shall have the odious tearms of Hogs and Dogs profane c. He knows not wherein the Officers of a Church can have any work to keep the Communion of the Church pure if not in the Sacrament What doth all their work lye in that Answ 1. Is no care to be had how men profane all the other Ordinances by their sleeping talking laughing and disturbing the Minister and others in holy Worship 2. Is not care to be had that the doctrine be holy and sound even the Word of the Lord that is taught That the Worship of Prayer be performed with soundnesse of words sutable to the necessities of the people and with such devotion and affection becoming Worship 3. Is not care to be had that the Sacraments be rightly administred according unto the institution without superstitious addings unto or detracting from them 4. Is not care to be had to admonish rebuke the unruly and to excommunicate the obstinate to reform and amend them in order to their spiritual good And is this and the former no work if the Officers may not suspend from the Sacrament only The truth is he puts so much in this that he makes nothing of all other work that the Scriptures clearly teach allow him but suspension which he hath unnecessarily ingaged himself to prove and he
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
act of giving and receiving sufficiently to inform the meanest person that the elements are signs of the body and bloud of Christ and that they eat and drink in remembrance of Christ for remission of sins c. His Conclusion is false because his Minor wants proof Again He brings in a childe of five or six years old as able to exercise reason and so is a Church-member if baptized and if these two things give a plenary right such ought to be admitted Children minde childish things ordinarily and nothing else Answ and they come not under the obligation of worship as men of age that have put away childish things And what if it be granted him that they have some childish reason doth it follow that they have religious devotion from a principle of conscience as men of age ordinarily expresse in most solemn sacred worship Let him answer to what hath been said already as to this particular before he concludes as he doth That what he hath said is sufficient to shew the vanity of this conceit as he is pleaseed to call it that meer Church membership with years of discretion gives one a full right to the Lords Supper What he means by full right he may doe well to explain himself I have told him plainly enough that Church-membership having its rise from Covenant relation gives a true right unto all external Church-priviledges during that relative state of actual membership I know that their real state of spiritual interest in Christ doth put members into a higher capacity to improve their right for their spiritual advantage then those that are but in that relative state only of visible members in a large sense Yet the good improvement of the one doth not hinder nor take away the just right of the other An ill husbands right in law is as good as the best husbands in the world untill by law his right be taken away And an evill member in the Common-wealth hath as much priviledge in respect of the benefit of the law while he is a member as any other of the same kinde though never so good The best subject is but a subject and the worst subject is a subject untill he be out-lawed or convicted of treason So I say in the Church the best and holyest man that lives is but a Church-member and the worst that lives he being baptized and adhering to the true religion and under Church indulgence is a member also of the same visible Church and in respect of his relative state his right is as good to the Sacrament as the other in a legal sense for the one is as much under observance as the other all are Covenanters and have entred it at least and hence stand bound to the tearms of Christian obedience There is but one Law and rule for good and bad the one hath received the Spirit of the Covenant that makes his service sweet and easie the other is notwithstanding under the letter of administrations in a waiting for a blessing and may not be released Such have the right of precept which is a sufficient warranty for their observance of the Supper The other not only that but the right of spiritual priviledge and blessing through the real union and communion with Jesus Christ And Mr. Collings his superadded qualifications to membership or Covenanters to give a right to precepts of worship is so flat by this time he urging it so often that I shal trouble my reader with it no more only take notice that upon the matter he makes membership a meer nothing for doe but superadde a knowledge of the things of God conjoyned with faith in Christ evidenced by the fruits of holinesse unto a Turk or any other Pagan or Jew in the Infidel world it would give them the right of membership and Sacraments and therefore at once you may see what clear conceptions Mr. Collings hath of the priviledges of Church-membership In this page Mr. Collings conceives Pag. 25. That I have dealt more unbrotherly with the friends of Presbyterian Discipline even some hundreds of them both learned and reverend men as I charge the Doctor to have done with Mr. Humfrey and that by entring some exceptions against that discipline Bar removed pag. 8 9 10. I have spoke to this already Answ I am sorry that such groundlesse consequences I observed from the reverend Doctor should reflect upon some hundreds of learned reverend friends to the Presbyterian discipline I had thought the most of the things I am unsatisfied in as being meerly groundlesse would not have been owned by some hundreds of such learned men I spoke chiefly of them that are Congregations unassociated and when Mr. Collings or any other can clear themselves of what I charge them with I shal either make good my charge if you take it so or else submit unto you and acknowledge it my weaknesse to be unsatisfied of the truth of what I pointed at in those 8 9 10 pages of my Book In the mean time Mr. Collings being the first that I have heard of that hath put so hard a sense of my dissatisfactions notwithstanding I have many Presbyterian friends learned and reverend it makes me something question whether many will charge it on me for unbrotherly dealing or no. I being but a private Christian might do it in order to my own and divers others satisfaction that are in no such way nor dare attempt any such practices although we have made after the search of warrant for those wayes as well as other men we not knowing how to know the minde of Christ better then by his Word in these things nor how to know the simplicity of truth then by seeking of God by prayer and humiliation for guidance and direction in our free and serious debates in the presence of the Lord amongst our selves in order unto practice the which we of great Bowden have carefully done even a considerable number of us with our Minister before we did communicate together in the holy Supper And we hope the Lord was with us in the whole we are fully satisfied and not ashamed to publish unto others of our Christian brethren the grounds and principles we act from Our greatest grief is that we observe too great a carelesnesse in our people to worship God with us in this great engaging Ordinance of holy Communion in the Sacrament of the holy Supper And this we shall further declare that although our Minister were and is one of our old Non conformists and did indevour to draw us into another way of Communion yet such was our answers and grounds that he was satisfied therewith And doth administer Sacraments freely with a setled satisfied judgment we blesse and praise our God for it Let others judge of us what they please we judge that we act according to the minde of Christ considering that present capacity we are in In this 26. page he is pleased to examine my queries upon 1 Cor.
were morally unclean in his sense and what doe my principles plead for more in the Christian Church if I plead but for the same now that upon their lives was injoyned then even by the Lord himself I hope he will not charge it upon me that I make God unlike himself but if he will make the New Testament so contrary to the Old as to say the whole Church may not observe the Lords Supper his opinion will hardly be reconciled with the unchangeablenesse of the faithful true and living Lord God Thus I have given you to understand that the legally unclean were not lookt upon as unworthy to eat the Passeover at all And the sense that I have given upon 1 Cor. 11. pleads no otherwise in favour of the morally unclean as he cals them then the Old Testament doth injoyn One hint more let Mr. Collins prove that the legally unclean were expressely forbid the Passeover I am sure Moses knew of no expresse prohibition and therefore was at a stand when the case was brought before him and could not tell what to direct whether the unclean might keep it or forbear untill he had enquired of the Lord what they should doe Besides when the Passeover was rejourned to the last day multitudes did eat it that were not cleansed and were accepted of And the Lord said 2 Chron. 30.15 17 18 19 20. If any man of your posterity shall be unclean by reason of a dead body or be in a journey a far off yet he shall keep the Passeover unto the Lord Numb 9.10 here you see is an expresse command for the unclean man to keep the Passeover He kept the same Passeover at Gods appointed season as well as the rest of the Congregation for God appointing and sanctifying another season for them in special made the service the same in it self and to them And yet for all this what adoe have our late Divines made about this I could wish we might hear no more of it unlesse they can make better use of it then Mr. Collins doth Now I have answered three arguments that made him so hard of digesting this truth That the Corinthians were not punished for personal unworthinesse but for their actual offendings at the time of administration For the further helps of this hard digestion and edification and satisfaction of my Christian friends I she freely speak my heart for the clearing upoâ— this in question according to my measure for I know well enough that our mistake about worthinesse and unworthinesse of person in the Church hath done more hurt is this Church then all the Bishops ever did Our holy Apostle in 1 Cor. 7.14 haâ— clearly and sully exprest himself about habâ—tual worthinesse that if but one of marrias state were a believer the other infidel person was sanctified by the believing party and tels us that if it were not so their children they had between them were unclean but now are holy meaning that upon thâ— faith and entring into the Covenant of thâ— one their children enter covenant with thâ— parent and upon that account are a holy feed and federate with their parents in the priviledges of the Church as it was in the state of the Jews Church Why surely if the branches were holy then the root was holy also Now I say how can it be imagined that the Apostle will have the children holy even of those persons that in chap. 11. he judged personally unworthy Sure if the children were foederally holy then their parents were too for the right of the childe is derived from the believing state of the parents that was sufficient to free them from unworthy eating in respect of their persons And therefore the Apostle concludes that all things are sanctified to the Church by the Word and Prayer To the pure all things are pure but to the unbelieving and impure is nothing pure Here is a clear difference between the professing Church and the infidel world all is clean to the one but nothing clean to the other And therefore the Sacrament could not be polluted by the believing Corinths in respect of their persons It will follow then that it was profaned by their evill actions only The Apostle understood the nature of the Gospel Church better then those I have to deal with in this controversie He understood the right rule and accordingly reduced all unto it He distinguisheth between clean and unclean believer and infidel all was clean to the one and nothing clean to the other that except the Corinths had admitted Infidels unto the body and bloud of Christ to pollute it personal unworthinesse could not be the sin for which they were punished Heathenish uncleannesse the uncircumcised might not eat thereof I tell you this is that which hath undone us of late we make the same difference in the Church that the Apostle made between the Church and the world And all those Scriptures on which this difference is declared by the Apostle our Divines usually apply to the different state of persons in the Church the regenerate and unregenerate and accordingly would be dividing their people anâ— are as fearful many of them to admiâ— an unsound believer to the Sacrament as a uncircumcised Infidel but I hope those exorbitant distempers that some desperately plunge themselves into from the same mistakes will make sober men consider a last I know no such language used in Scripture concerning persons of the Church as thâ— any Church-members should be personally unworthy to use Gods Ordinance and â—serve God in his own appointments Indeeâ— for persons to reject the tenders and invitations of the Gospel to oppose and persecute the messengers that publish lise and salvation by Jesus Christ such are said to be unworthy of eternal life Act. 13.46 the Apostle Paul again tels the unbelieving Jews That it was necessary that the Word of God should have first been spoken unto you but seeing by envy contradiction and blaspheming vers 45. you put it from you and judge your selves unworthy of eternal life loe we turn to the Gentiles for sâ— hath the Lord commanded So our blessed Saviour Matth. 10 11 12 13 14. gave the twelve Commission to Preach that the Kingdome of Heaven is at hand c. they were rather to goe to the lost sheep of the house of Israel then to the Samaritans And when they came either into City Town or Family they were to salute it and preach peace unto them but if they were not worthy their peace should return and to those that would not receive them and hear their words they were to shake off the dust of their feet against them vers 14. with a grievous judgement threatned vers 15. against such people that refuse the Gospel when it is tendered unto them These are said not to be worthy that reject the Gospel wholly as the unbelieving Jews did which implyes those that receive the Gospel and believe the truth thereof and professe their subjection
unto it being of no other religion then what the Gospel teacheth they may be said to be worthy whatever they are for sincerity and truth so again Matth. 22. concerning the invited guests to the marriage Supper which set forth the fat things of the Gospel administrations and the grace thereof the messengers were sent to call in the guests that were bidden but they made light of it and would not come and some went to their farms and others to their merchandize and others abused the servants that invited them c. Then the King was wroth and destroyed those murderers and said to his servants The wedding is ready but they that were invited were not worthy vers 8. This was meant of the unbelieving Jews that totally rejected Christ and would never come under his external administrations set up in his Church in order to salvation they are said you may see not to be worthy or unworthy but the Gentiles that came in though soâ—â— came absurdly and perished too at last yâ—â— there is no such thing said of them no the were worthy though they consisted of gooâ— and bad The invitation priviledged allâ— come there is no pleading I am unworth to come but refusal was that which the unworthinesse consisted in only From the hints of Scriptures we may conceive there no such thing as personal unworthinesse â— order to observance and duty of persoâ— in Covenant relation which all are the have entred Covenant though but in the parents untill they renounce the Covenanâ— or for their hating to be reformed by thâ— Churches just censures they be discovenanteâ— conditionally that if they never repent 〈◊〉 return to their obedience in a right way the are gone forever Now then I say if tâ— Scriptures charge not any with unworthynesse of person but such as I have instanced in who can imagin that the Churâ—â— of Corinth was punished for that I would gladly know of Mr. Collings of any other learned man where the Scriptureâ— threaten punishment against personal unworthinesse simply Or where can they give an instance that ever any wese punished for habitual unworthinesse at all in the Old or New Testament If you cannot finde such a thing in all the whole Bible what reason can you have to judge that the Corinths were punished for personal unworthinesse It 's true the sin of our natures derived from the first man is punished with death for we al dye in Adam but this natural death is a common lot appointed for all good and bad It 's appointed for all men once to dye Heb. 9.27 And we see death reigns over Infants that have not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression Rom. 5. but in this both original sin and death that follows thereupon is of unavoidable necessity by the decree of God So likewise as actual sin is the transgression of the law he that so transgresseth is lyable to the punishment of that law 1 Tim. 1.9 10. And the whole Law it self is made for the lawlesse and disobedient for the ungodly and for sinners for murderers for whoremongers for lyars and for perjured persons c. that is for the punishment of all wilful disobedience of men And so it is said of the Church If you will walk contrary to me I will walk contrary to you You have I known of all the families of the earth yet the Lord will punish them for their sins And wherefore doth living man complain for the punishment of his sin Lam. 3.39 all the punishments threatned in the Word and inflicted either by God or man were for actual offendings but we never read of any coming to the Ordinances that were punished for a meer want of regeneration circumcision of the heart an interest in Christ c. This is a case the Lord hath alwayes pityâ— and promised the cure of unto his Church forasmuch as no man can convert and reneâ— his own soul of himself nay of thosâ— that have the means and use the ordinarâ— means of their salvation as the Jews diâ— It 's said not of him that willeth nor of bâ— that runneth but it is God that sheweth mercy Râ— 9. Habitual unworthinesse in that respeâ— is unavoidable and is the common stateâ— all by nature as well them that are born the Church as those that are born out of iâ— Ephes 2. but the Covenants of promise aâ— made to the Church for the cure of this dâ— praved state And the Lord hath set up 〈◊〉 Ordinances of Word Sacraments and Prayâ— in the Church as the ordinary means foâ— men to use in their conversion and salvation revealed in the promises of the Covenant the neglect whereof is usually punishe with blindenesse and profanenesse not diligent frequenting of them But what iâ— God doth punish habitual or natural uâ—â— worthinesse it being an effect of Adams defection What is that to the Church that iâ— bounded by a rule May they contrary tâ— all rule judge of it and punish it therefore with suspension from the Sacrament Our blessed Saviour rebukes this rash humour in men saying Judge not lest you be judged It 's clear enough that we may judge of mens actions and finding them transgresfors we may punish their persons but we have nothing to doe to judge of mens persons let them be good or bad as to their persons that is nothing to us we must leave them to stand or fall to their own Master for what have we to doe to judge another mans servant But if either be found transgressors so far as their offendings come within the Churches cognisance to punish let them impartially doe it without respect of persons in the Church We read that those that are appointed to judge amongst their brethren Deut. 1 16 17. are to judge righteously between every man and his brother without respect of persons in judgement to hear the small as well as the great not fearing the face of any man for the judgement is the Lords and the cause that is too hard for man to judge of was to be brought before the Lord and he would hear it there is a rule given to judge of causes and actions between brother and brother And yet in point of causes and things external that brethren might differ in these might be too hard for men to judge of How much more hard is it to judge of the spirits of men within them whether they have an interest in Christ or no surely if in the other much more in this we are to refer it to the Lord besides you may see in judging about things which concerns the Church Matth. 18. 1. It must be of evill actions only 2. Upon sufficient proof 3. And in case of obstinacy refusing 〈◊〉 hear the Church c. before any judgement can issue out against them Tell me hoâ— you can apply this rule to personal unworâ— thinesse Can this be attested upon Oath oâ— is the Church able to convince any in particular of it Or is it
well as preaching the Gospel The exercise of discipline is for converting an offending brother doth it follow that Church discipline is to convert Heathens to whom it never was intended or appointed Besides we know the unbaptized is not to eat thereof were there the like ground to the unregenerate Christian I should be satisfied Thus you may see even in the very thing wherein he would charge absurdity upon us it will return upon himself by putting no difference between the Church of Christ and the Infidel world He sayes If the Sacrament be a converting Ordinance there can be no personal unworthinesse sufficient to debar any from it then come Turks Indians Papists excommunicate persons c. This is but the same again in other words Answ which I have answered again and again all along here is a plain levelling the Church with the world again as if the same personal unworthinesse were in the Church as is in the world doth it follow that because no personal unworthinesse in the Church is sufficient to debar any from the Sacrament but only actual persisted in unto excommunication that therefore there is no personal unworthinesse in the unclean Pagan world that lies in unbelief They must first receive the Doctrine of the Gospel before they can be brought into the Church where the Sacraments are to be administred And as for those that are in Covenant-relation and in possession of Church-membership it 's true personal unworthinesse can be no bar because in a relative sense there is no such thing in the Church but I have said enough to this already He saith If it be a converting Ordinance he can see no reason why the Communicant should be bound to examine himself and so eat or whether he hath skill to discern the Lords body The Word and Prayer are converting Ordinances Answ and yet he may see reason enough to urge upon such preparation and caution prerequisite and concomitant in those duties of hearing and praying if he examine the Scriptures in order to a blessing the same may be said of the Sacrament if Mr. Collins be not too perverse But then he comes to speak distinctly to the argument He distinguisheth between converting by accident or by institution designed unto that end in an Ordinancel hearing of the Word is such faith comes by hearing Rom. 10. Hear and your soul shall live let any shew us a Scripture speaking to this purpose concerning the Lords Supper 'T is true faith comes by hearing Answ and hearing by the Word of God But doth it follow that all other Ordinances are excluded from being a means of working sincere faith in the Church when they are joyned with the Word in the work of the Ministry as hath been said already That of Rom. 10. proves that it is not possible that any should call upon the name of the Lord in whom they have not beleived And how should they believe in him of whom they have not so much as heard of And how shall they hear without a Preacher c. which is spoken to the case of Heathens that never heard of Christ Such must of necessity hear Christ before they can believe in him And this faith comes by hearing and this hearing by the Word of God by a Preacher sent This was the ordinary means of bringing persons into the Church that were Pagans born and then being within they had the benefit of all other Ordinances in the Church for their edification and salvation What then will it follow hence that persons born in the Church that draw in the knowledge of Christ by education and tradition in their youth cannot believe or have faith in any other way but by hearing only The promise is that whosoever shall call upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved in opposition to those that never heard of his Name Salvation is of the Christian Church as once of the Jews unto which promise of Salvation all the Ordinances set up in the Church are subservient The work of the Ministry was to be carryed on by the Pastors and Teachers fixed unto their several flocks in the Church which they are constantly to attend upon for the spiritual good thereof as they which must give an account thereof unto their Lord and it concerns them faithfully to carry on the whole work of their Ministry accordingly towards their whole flock and not to make Heathens of them then content themselves onely with preaching unto them on the Lords day and the work is done as if there were no more care to be taken with Church-members then with Pagans nor no more means to be used for their spiritual good then they would use unto Heathen whom the work of the Ministry was never intended for And whereas Mr. Collins cals for proof Where are the like Scriptures to prove the Sacrament a converting Ordinance as is preaching and hearing I answer him by distinguishing thus hearing of faith preached was and is the ordinary means of sincere believing in the Church of which the Sacrament is a special part Befides the Sacrament cannot be administred without hearing the Word of God and prayer with the use of other senses as it is the visible compendium of the whole Gospel holding forth Christ crucified for remission of fins But to speak a little unto his other quotation Isai 55. Hear and your souls shall live This was spoken unto the Church he will say I grant it was and more then this too as that chapter shews That first they were invited to come unto God in whom all spiritual blessing was to be had for the satisfying of every empty thirsty soul and disswaded from thinking to be satisfied elsewhere Secondly exhorted unto several duties 1. To hearken diligently unto what the Lord had said unto them and be satisfied with good Then 2. incline your ear and come unto me that you may be satisfied with the fatnesse of my house They were to hear and come to God too in all holy obedience for in the Scriptures men are said not to hear when they will not regard to doe what the Lord hath commanded them so hear that your souls may live hear and doe is the language of the holy Ghost to the Church usually 3. Then to seek God while he will be found and to call upon him him while he is neer seek him in all his own appointments and Ordinances where he hath promised his presence 4. Then is subjoyned Let the wicked forsake his way and the unrighteous man his thoughts And let him return unto the Lord and he will have mercy on him c. Therefore you may easily conceive here is not only hear and your soul shall live but all other duties of worship and observance are required also in the Church in order to a blessing of spiritual life and there are promises of grace and mercy unto the Church in that same chapter upon their doing their duties enjoyned the which doth make good the
civil and necessary occasions if they bought any such meat at the shambles they might lawfully eat it without scruple of conscience nay further if an unbeliever should bid a Christian to a civil feast he leaves them to their own liberty to goe and eat whatsoever was set before them But I have been too long already yet I was willing to search after the true sense of the place which is not easily discerned unlesse we minde heedfully the scope especially when a thing is in an intricate case and so much reasoning largely held out proving that to be evill by consequence as cloathed with some circumstances which in it's self in its own nature is lawful and good as here Now I shall examine Mr. Coll. argument what bottome it stands on his argument is It 's unlawful to give the Sacrament unto those that cannot eat it But there may be some in the Church not Excommunicate who cannot drink of the Lords cup Ergo c. His Major he saith is proved vers 21. I will confess that in this place we have the Sacrament spoken of and that those that the Apostle blames for drinking the cup of Devils were not Excommunicate but yet I deny that it was unlawful to give the Sacrament to such For 1. it 's a great question and will require some time for Mr. Collins to prove That eating of things offered unto Idols was a sin that came within the verge of the Church to punish with putting such out of Sacramental Communion In the 5. chapter as I take it those that the Apostle deals with in the 10. Chapter are not in that particular list vers 11. which the Church was to judge doubtlesse if they had been such Idolaters that in the 5. chap. 11. he speaks of he would have threatned the rod and given order unto the Elders of the Church to put out of their Communion such Idolaters for their connivence at Idolaters would leaven the lump as well as an incestuous person but herein not a word of any such thing But he will be ready to say The Apostle spoke of putting out of Comâ—union before in the 5. chap. therefore it was not necessary to repeat it again in the 10. I but how will these things hang together 1. To give a charge to the Church to cast out Idolaters and then himself using such mildnesse of speech and variety of argumentation as I have shewed to convince them that it was a sin granting the thing in it self lawfull but evill in respect of some circumstances 2. The main argument to prove their eating and drinking in the Idol Temple to be a sin was drawn from the nature of the Sacrament in which themselves as Christians are said to have Communion with Christ by being partakers of the cup and bread consicrated for to represent the body and bloud of Christ in like manner they were said to have Communion with Devils by being partakers of the cup and meat in the Idol Temple that was consecrated and offered unto Idols and hence the Apostle would not have them to have Communion with Devils as all his other reasons so this tends solely to reform them in that particular of eating in the Idol Temple and not a word of forbidding any such the Sacrament as Mr. Collins would have it when he saith The sum is they who cannot drink the cup of the Lord are either 1. Such as God hath forbidden coming thither 2. Or those that can have no Communion with Christ nor benefit by this Ordinance Those that give credit to that sense Answ must be such as adhere more to Mr. Collins fancy then the sense of holy Scriptures what are any of those two to the text in hand was any forbid the Sacrament that eat of things offered unto Idols 2. Doth not the Apostle affirm that they all had Communion with Christ in partaking of the cup of blessings Is not that the very medium of his argument the Apostle argues from their Sacramental Communion as Christians to decline Communion with Idolaters Mr. Collins argues from their Communion with Idols to a none Communion as Christians And thus the Judicious Reader may easily judge of the soundation of his argument who out of an inconsiderate rashnesse most grossely runs upon mistake and thence forms a silly syllogism pag. 29. I grant it a sin to deliver the Sacrament to those whom we know God hath forbid it But I deny that these of Corinth spoken of are in the least so much as blamed or in the least tittle forbid the Sacrament the Apostle proves they all took it and had Communion in Christ in it I wonder that ever a man pretending unto sober principles should be so fond as to think that those that the Apostles writes to as Saints sanctified in Christ Jesus his dearly beloved Brethren and writing unto them as wise men and such that had great gifts and largenesse of knowledge in their liberties by Jesus Christ that knew an Idol was nothing in the world and that which was offered was never the worse every creature of God was good and not to be resused c. as the Apostle yeelds I say how he comes to think that these should be forbidden the Sacrament and to be such as could not have Communion with Christ makes me wonder if Saints and the Apostles dearly beloved Brethren whom he argues so friendly with were not under Christs command of this necessary observance in the Church then here is not any that are but I have said enough to this already and all that he saith to this text is most irrational and impertinent to prove that some in the Church not excommunicated ought to be denyed the Sacrament this place proves that they did all partake of that one Sacramental bread 1 Cor. 10.17 and puts the thing past questioning He hath more things in making good his argument but having pluckt up his ground work it 's too tedious both for me to write and you to read the confutation of the rest for it will fall of it self you must grant him what he sayes to be true because he sayes it for he is not able in the least to bring any one argument from Scripture to prove suspension distinct from Excommunication as himself states it I will trouble you but with two things more of his in this argument for now I intend brevity in all he has further to say in defence of Suspension for I know not any one thing more much material that I have not fully answered in the former discourse in order to his several exceptions against the Bar removed He sayes He hopes we have all too reverend thoughts of the wisdome of God to think that he should lay an obligation upon his Ministers to give this Ordinance unto them whom he hath warned upon pain of damnation not to take it What is this but to beg the question Answ and thence insinuate upon us an absurdity let him first prove that a
should be reformed from their evils otherwayes the Minister and Church may partake of those sins though they never come to the Sacrament but this is a conceit of some men that unlesse a man doe what he can to keep such away from the Sacrament he is a partaker of their sins whereas the Sacrament is his duty as well as any other Worship who is not to be blamed for that but for his sins such works of darknesse that the Apostle doth instance in Ephes 5.2 3 4. the place that this argument stands upon We are not to reform such offenders in those lawful things they are but to reform them from the wicked and ungodly courses that they offend in I grant that if any in the Church should pollute the holy signs of Bread and Wine to profane ends in a meer carnal eating and drinking unto excesse as the Corinthians did and were punished for or if by any rude profane carriage or misdemeanour shall be disorderly in the time of administration the Officers of the Church not doing what in them lyes to restrain and prevent it might be partakers of their sins but this is a case which was hardly ever known in our Congregations But as for Church-members that come with reverence and demean themselves orderly and conform to the external actions according to the rules of institution there can nothing be proved against any for being partakers with other mens sins as to this particular so far as I am able to judge I have now given you an account of Mr. Collins 14. arguments to prove Suspension from the Sacrament only distinct from Excommunication And if I mistake not very much I have sully answered them by removing all his foundations from Scripture and reason he pretends to deduct them from What others can doe I doe not know I will prejudge none of his perswasion but yet I am somewhat confident that the more wise men search into this Controversie the more they will finde it a work of that difficulty to make good Suspension from the Lords Supper only from Scriptures and allow the liberty of all other Ordinances in the Church as members that they had need follow no other studies but this that undertake it Touching that authority brought in proof of Suspension so largely insisted upon I cannot examine And therefore must leave it to those that are in a capacity to search and judge whether Mr. Collins hath dealt any more impartially with his Authors then with the holy Scriptures I question whether any of his quotations Ancient or Modern doth reach Suspension as himself hath stated it and as many practise it for it was alwayes to be put in execution by the authority of the whole Church and not left to the liberty of a Pastor and his Elders to deny the Sacrament to whom they please without any remedy of appeals Whether they suspended from the Sacrament of the holy Supper only and allowed the suspended the liberty of all the other Ordinances in the Church as Church-members Whether their Suspension was gradual and made use of only in order to their proceedings unto Excommunication and so of no longer continuance then to try the offenders obstinacy or repentance Whether they grounded Suspension on the Word of God or on the policy and prudence of the Church if he say the former he may doe well to shew us their grounds if the latter then that doth much alter the case for Mr. Collins doth not urge it upon any such account nor may the Churches prudence be pleaded where Christ commands and the Word doth determine Whether non-admittance of Penitents Aliens born Catechumens unbaptized were any thing at all unto suspension from the Lords Supper I question whether any one instance can be given of any Church or persons that were judged Orthodox that ever maintained that a Church-member in possession of the Sacrament was denyed the Sacrament by his Minister and Elders meerly for ignorance and for the omitting of some private duties and allowed the benefit of all other Ordinances in the Church as members which is the practice of the Presbyterian party that Mr. Collins defends or that ever any scandalous members were only kept from the Sacrament without any further Juridical proceedings unto Excommunication or whether any Church ever would suffer their members of years to neglect the Ordinance of the holy Supper year after year through carelesnesse or meerly leave them out as Heathens though born in the Church and baptized Now I say if that authority which is quoted by Mr. Collins will not reach these cases they are but little for his purpose they will not speak to the clearing of the Controversie in hand Besides humane authority only will not satisfie the conscience of the doubtful it is only the authority of the holy Scriptures that must satisfie conscience and be binding unto all And as it is apparent the ancient Church did erre in their extremity of rigour in their censures in respect of length of time so it 's possible enough they might erre in their several degrees of censures Not so much their practice as the ground thereof from Scripture rule will give satisfaction to those that doubt Besides these let Mr. Collins give us authority of any Church before these last ages that ever made a Pastoral examination of Church-members of years of that necessity unto the holy Supper without which they would debar them the Sacrament By these and the like queries I hope we shall hear by some of the Presbyterian judgement or others by what authority they practise so many things not to be found in the holy Scriptures But I finde Mr. Collins in his Booke pag. 157. making some Apology for themselves He confesses their present practise doth differ from other reformed setled Churches as to the suspension of any they admit they agree with others and wil suspend none but after admonition for some scandalous sin And indeed saith he this only is properly Suspension We deny the Sacrament indeed to others viz. such as will not give account of their faith and submit to the order of the Church c. What did Mr. Collins mean in his stating the question to put in ignorant persons Answ 1 if none are to be suspended but after admonition for some scandalous sin if this indeed be properly suspension what will he make denying the Sacrament to the ignorant not resusing to learn and denying it those that are not convinced of submitting to Church examination and an explicite profession of faith as their duty What will he call that If it be not suspension properly what is it then the punishment is the same with those that are excommunicate for scandalous sins or suspended properly all they doe amounts but to this to deny them the Sacrament And yet they would be judged to agree with other reformed Churches but it was never heard of before these present times that a Heathen an excommunicate person the suspended or left out
baptized people to make out their argument and own invented way against such manifest demonstration which cannot otherwise be answered and yet for the zeal of the Churches peace and priviledges we defend in behalf of her members we are counted the greatest enemies to the Church none deserve worse of the Church then we no not Ranters Quakers Antitrinitarians Anabaptists Brownists that destroy all the Church is in possession of through the gift of his grace for there are some amongst all others that deserve bad enough sure but we deserve worse then all these if this good man say true As for looking at a worldly interest he hints at I have as little cause as ever had any man I have what I lookt for before I ingaged to have many tongues and pens against me even of them I esteem my very good friends which thing I have put my self upon with no small reluctancy of spirit what the Lord intends by it for good or hurt I am not certain but content to submit to his pleasure and further guidance in the Controversie being well assured of this that I shall not loose my labour of zeal and love for the Churches peace and edification I shall speak one word more to vindicate my self and friends from this heavy censure The question shall be put to the judgement of the learned and sober in the Church of England Whether Mr. Saunders himself gives approbation of or Mr. Humfry or my self deserves worse of the Church of God If we doe not deserve worse of the Church then the Author himself approves of I hope the judicious Reader will forgive us the wrong and what himself hath published will acquit us And I doubt not but when our principles and theirs are laid together and compared impartially as I have given some discoveries in these followings sheets it will not be very difficult to judge whether they or we deserve worse of the Church of God And so I will leave Mr. Mantons hard censure to himself and others that shall read both to judge between us I should hardly have troubled you with these sheets had not that passage much provoked me nor would I hinder that reverend Gentleman ingaged he may rejoyn more deliberately if he see cause I think I have done enough to caution the Reader of lesse judgement from being taken with this Author with whose smoothnesse of expression and plausible pretences his Reader may quickly be intangled and carryed away with a sound of enticing words that have no truth nor solid reason in them I shall now upon the sudden come to examine the main of his Book And my way will be first to examine what himself relates of their way Secondly I shall examine the state of the question and the proofs urged to defend it answer his arguments queries and motives and then conclude Mr. Saunders tels us what their way is There is a Church formed in one of our Congregations according to the rule of the Word In the choyce of a Pastor Officers and Members other Ministers and people are joyned to this society in which we are like to walk till we can see truth or reason against us pag. 121. To this something may be yeelded Answ 1 as namely that where a people is destitute of a faithful Pastor they may choose one that is qualified for the carrying on the whole work of the Ministery in the Church And the people to submit unto him as ruling over them in the Lord I mean so far as his Office and Function doth authorize him according to rule to admonish warn rebuke and command Then something is to be denyed untill further proof of their practice appear As namely 1. That he that is a Pastor of a particular Congregation and Church or flock unto which he was either lawfully sent and inducted by the Church or came in by the consent of the people over whom he is I say for such a one to joyn himself to another Church as a common member and to hold constant Communion in the Sacrament with that Church and altogether neglect the administring of the Lords Supper to that people he is Pastor of I utterly reject as that which the Scripture doth no where allow but is contrary to reason order peace and edification of his people if it doth not imply a forsaking his Pastoral relation and duties 2. I would gladly see it made out by Scripture that one that is a Pastor of a Church already may be chosen a Pastor again either by the people he is Pastor unto or by others that have lawful Pastors over them already if this practice be permitted in those that are confessed by the Author to be true Churches which they dare not separate from What a deluge of disorder confusion must necessarily follow Can a man be a Pastor of a select company out of several Churches and a Pastor to his own people in general he was first related unto denying the Lords Supper to them that are properly his own flock give it as Pastor to other mens flocks and charge Or can a man be Pastor of a true Church and an Officer of another Or a particular private member in constant Communion with another in acts of worship These things have need of sugred words indeed to make them passe yet this is represented unto all with the common guise of every Sect to be according to the rule of the Word when Mr. Saunders hath given us his proof to make good these paradoxes hinted at and further declared and explained their way we may have occasion more strictly to examine it in all the particulars of it In the mean time I can conceive no lesse of their way but that it makes such a rent in their several Congregations that most properly and justly is called Schism pleading necessity will not help you especially when it 's of your own makeing running upon sundry mistakes and taking principles upon trust for truth that the holy Scriptures no where teach brings most knowing men under these straights overwhelming the Church with distraction division and confusion Besides there is no necessity to sin upon pretence of reforming that Reformation that is begun by sinfull means is not of God nor can never tend to the Churches good Arguments drawn from pretended necessities are of little strength in a sober rational dispute however prevalent they are conceived to be when accompanyed with the sword How can those Ministers think they have done their duty in administring the holy Supper to their respective Congregations by drawing a few of their own members with them to receive it in another mans Congregation They may as well think they have done their duty in preaching to their own Congregation by a constant drawing a few of their people with them to hear another man preach and if the other be their Pastor as to some in the way they are in cannot be denyed why should not such members constantly attend him in all
Church they are of by making unnecessary rents and divisions in it It is not separation from a Church but separation in a true Church causelesly that is properly a Schism absolute separation from a true Church is properly apostasie in an Ecclesiastical sense I take it Hence his distinction of separation from a true Church and separation in a true Church where the ordinary means of salvation is and the fruits thereof as himself confesses of ours is groundlesse and wicked The first sort come under the censure of the Apostles John and Jude 1 Epistle of John 2.19 Judes general Epistle vers 19. The last sort are detected by St. Paul 1 Cor. 1.10 11 12. Chap. 11.18 19. Rom. 16.7 Act. 20.30 1 Cor. 12.23 24 25. chap. 14.33 Now I shall a little touch upon what this new formed Church requires of persons they admit into Sacramental Communion with them And I will give you the question as themselves have stated it Whether in the reforming of a long corrupted Church Mr. Saund. it be necessary that all the members thereof doe submit to some examination or tryal of their knowledge before they be admitted unto the Lords Supper This question they fear not to maintain in the affirmative Here they suppose corruption in our Churches and therefore with men well satisfied with their present frame and temper not looking on them as under any such disorder as we suppose with such we desire not much to dispute we can expect little of reason or truth from men of that minde This question is but ambiguously stated Answ 1 and should be further explained as to the particular branches of it for as to our Church in respect of doctrine it must be spoken with thankfulnesse that long hath the light thereof filled our Horizon as himself confesses pag. 6. and this Examination is only in reference to sound knowledg the means whereof the Church was not corrupted in so as to deserve the denomination of a long corrupted Church in that respect For generally the principles that were taught and received by the people were Orthodox that the people cannot in reason generally lye under the Suspension of heretical knowledge for they have been so long habituated to sound words in respect of several Creeds which very frequently were professed and assented unto in our assemblies with such plainnesse of Catechising c. that in respect of the ordinary means of the peoples knowing in a competent sense which is the subject matter that examination and trial only relates unto in the question that the Church cannot be truly said to have been a long corrupted Church And then that clause in the question as to us is needlesse which indeed upon the matter is the very cause of the question that being taken away makes the question fall for then the question will be Whether in a reformed Church as to knowledge examination be necessary in all we admit to the Sacrament And I judge this the most proper question by what himself hath acknowledged of our Church in respect of purity of Doctrine the only means of sound knowledge to her members they being generally educated and trained up therein from their youth so that as to knowledge the Church was not corrupt That many of her members have but little knowledge and are weak in the faith is confessed and is their sin but whether it be such a sin that the Church may chastise with discipline I very much doubt of they being otherwise not tainted with scandalous offending And how a Church-member should be denyed a necessary duty of institute worship without some proper act of discipline I cannot tell I confesse had the generality of our people been poysoned with Popish heretical principles touching the holy Supper and all other worship there had been a rational cause of the question as he hath stated it and a ground sufficient to be suspicious of the knowledge of most whether that little most know were true or false Orthodox or heretical And if upon complaint or tryal they should be found heretical and will not be reclaimed I think such come under the chastisement of the Church but this is not our case nor question If by the word necessary in the question be meant a duty incumbent upon all to submit unto and that every one must stand to the trial of their Pastor and Officers in respect of their knowledge before they can lawfully be admitted unto the Lords Supper It will be denyed and the Author must give us stronger proofs and arguments for the affirmative then what he hath urged in his Antidiatribe we shall examine his proofs anon I should grant him that it might be necessary in respect of some benefit and help to a more profitable receiving if people would come off in such a prudential way only to that end they may be prepared better but to make use of it to that end as either to disswade them from their duty or exclude them from a necessary duty of solemn worship out of a perswasion that their knowledge is incompetent this I utterly dislike as rash and groundlesse I grant that the Church actually impowered with the exercise of true discipline may and ought to convent any of her members before them complained of or suspected for matter of scandal and examine them and finding them guilty and impenitent may censure them but the question intends another thing I grant that self Examination is a necessary duty in order to receiving and that may satisfie the question as it 's stated for that is some examination to receiving as his expression is when this is indevoured of professing Christians although they neglect that which is Pastoral it 's a question whether they deserve to be excluded or no. But to reply If Church Examination be a necessary duty to all admission As he would why not unto every time they come to receive For that examination that the Apostle enjoyns holds to every time the holy Sacrament is administred but they require it but once and that only upon a supposition of a general corruption of our Churches p. 22. But were not the Church of the Jews as generally corrupt as ours at some times and yet at such a time did not as godly men as your selves call all to observe the Passeover without such a way of examination you plead for think of Josiah Jehosaphat Hezekiah Nehemiah c. You confesse the Passeover and Supper are the same for substance and in answer to the first objection you say Christ had communicated with his Disciples before in the Passeover therefore he needed not examine those that were admitted before If your reason be good I ask what need you examine those that have been admitted to the Louds Supper before Nay what need you examine those that are admitted unto holy Baptism before that are of years not excommunicated That which was necessary unto Baptism was sufficient to admission into the Church where Sacramental Communion only is
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
are called but sew are chosen though it 's true in a negative sense in this respect of particular persons we cannot exclude any one from Election Mr. Saunders argument in form as to the substance and sense is thus Such only that Christ gave the Sacrament unto have right to receive it But he gave it to none but holy ones Disciples by peculiar choyce Ergo holy ones disciples by peculiar choyce only have right unto it The argument is so weak and feeble that to the Judicious it needs no answer Answ but for the help of the weak something would be said 1. Were there no other Scripture presidents Precepts Intimations for clearing and warranting the right of those that are to be admitted but the first president argued from then it would have posed us to answer it or to prove the continuance of it to the Churches use at all because at first it was given to extraordinary persons in Office only But if he will allow the whole of holy Scripture he might see enough to justifie the right of all in the Church in general without any peculiar choyse 1 Cor. 10.17 Act. 2.42 ch 20.7 2. If this President Matth. 26.26 were fore-determined by Christ to be an example and rule for the Church then 1. Who must administer this Ordinance now according to this pattern Christ himself only blessed and gave it unto Apostles only 2. Then it will follow that none but persons in Office and of the Ministry should receive it 3. Then the greatest part of sincere Disciples and followers of Christ should be left out for without doubt there were many such at that present that were not admitted Besides the seventy Disciples sometimes sent forth to preach the Gospel there were other holy persons both men and women the names that presently met together for religious and divine imployments were about an hundred and twenty of whom some choyse persons are named as Mary the Mother of Jesus and other women and Matthias and Barsabas Act. 1.14 15 23. which Christ gave not the Sacrament unto therefore if this president must be our rule no wonder they refuse as good as they admit nay better then they admit for without doubt Christ gave it to some that afterward discovered great ignorance and unbelief besides one of them was a Devil 4. If this president must be our rule as it 's urged then there must be a choyse of some peculiar holy ones out of holy ones admitted and as holy and sincere refused And yet see how the Author prevaricates and departs from this president in another place where he saith Our way is only to exclude the visibly unworthy and no others pag. 166. 3. If all that Christ gave the Sacrament unto were not holy then the argument will fall of it self but Christ gave it unto Judas whom he knew was a Traytor and had conspired with other of his enemies to destroy him therefore all that Christ gave it unto were not holy ones and so the argument â—als That which is to be made good is the Minor for indeed some are in doubt whether Judas received the Sacrament or no. And therefore I shall a little touch upon that and it will be made good from Matth. 26.26 his own quotation in this text Christ gave the signes of his body and bloud to his Disciples and said Take eat this is my Body Judas was one of his Disciples that sate down at the Table vers 20. When Even was come he sate down with the twelve and one of this twelve should betray him vers 21. and that Judas continued at the Supper it evident vers 23. He that dippeth with me in the dish the same is he And St. Mark 14. chap. of his Gospel vers 17.20 relates just the same with St. Matthew Then come to Saint Luke chap. 22.14 21. he agrees with the former that all the twelve sate down and he in special speaks of the actions done at the Table the twelve sate down unto Namely 1. The eating of the Passeover vers 15 17 18. Then Christs celebrating this sacred Ordinance blessing and breaking bread to be done in remembrance of Christ vers 19.20 And now having related the main actions that were performed thus solemnly at the Table then he relates what words fell out to be spoken at the Table vers 21 22. notwithstanding Christs love in this familiar manner exprest to them and theirs to him both in the Passeover and holy Supper yet Christ tels them that one of them should betray him and Luke you see relates these words as being at the conclusion of those holy appointments of the Passeover and holy Supper And thus we may conceive a clear agreement of these three Evangelists that Judas was at the Lords Table and did doe as the other did for any thing in the least hinted at by these three that wrote first of this holy history And how ever it should come into the head of any so much as to scruple such a thing whether Judas one of the twelve that sate and eat at the same Table with Christ and the other received the holy Supper or no especially there being not the least hint of his exclusion or withdrawing more then of the other is to be admired Without doubt we may rationally conclude from these three that Judas received the Sacrament of the Lord as well as Peter or James or Thomas c. for they are not recorded to have received it by name in particular but as they were his Disciples and of the twelve that sate down at the Table But then you will say how comes it to passe that this of Judas receiving or not is made such a great controversie in the Church in all ages Answ That which hath occasioned this Controversie from the four Evangelists is in Joh. 13.30 Judas having received the Sop went immediately out and it was night hence it 's conceived that John hath relation to the Passeover Supper and this sop was some part of that service and upon his eating this the Devil entred vers 27. and he went out immediately before the Lords Supper was instituted and given and brought about his actual treason in a part of that night This place and sense hath occasioned the question and quarrel as to Judas so far as ever I could meet with any colour of reason Therefore now I shall both briefly and plainly give you my thoughts how to reconcile the Evangelists and to satisfie any that are rational I hope 1. It can never be proved that St. John doth so much as mention or mean the Passeover Supper in the 13. of John at all only he gives a more particular account of that Supper which Christ and his Disciples had together at Bethany two dayes before the feast of the Passeover in the house of one Simon a Leaper where a woman poured upon Christs head a box of very costly oyntment c. all the Evangelists spake of this Supper Matth. 26.2
his mercy and blessing to their souls are discouraged and hindred by these pretenders to reform They shut up the Kingdome of Heaven against poor souls that as sinners would be entring in and adhering to their Saviour They forbid whom Christ commands to serve him in this Ordinance and in reforming of their Churches they make void the commands of Christ by their own traditions which wayes tend more to the destruction and confusion of Churches then in the least the reforming of them His fifth is Crossing the desire of the godly in the land and the actings of the State herein The desires of the godly were Answ and still are for the reformation of the whole according to the Word of God and when they see evident demonstrations from the Word to justifie a more general admission to the Lords Supper then upon mistake have been thought of they will be satisfied in their desires accounting those desires irregular that have bin drawn out without Scripture ground Better such desires should be crossed then attained His sixth Degenerating from the Primitive times and all true antiquity That the Virgin Primitive times in the Apostolical Churches admitted all to the holy Supper that came under baptism Answ and were received into the Church is so evident that no sober man will deny as hath been shewed already and for after times if they acted otherwise they are as much to be questioned for swerving from the first precedents as we â— As for that Antiquity that is newer then the Scriptures this Author is no adorer of it as himself writeth The Fathers were divided in truth and united in error The principle of Antiquity yeelds but a popular and fallacious argumeent pag. 6.9 and therefore he might have spared this quotation of Chrysostom in his Homily 83. Let us keep away all without exception that we see to come unworthily But what he meant by unworthily who can tell and what he meant by keeping away whether as a single Minister or by the Churches Jurisdiction is a query But did ever Chrysostome forsake his Church as Pastor and joyn himself as an Officer or member to another Pastor and Church And in stead of administring the holy Supper to his own Congregation or using any acts of discipline to amend them leave them out and separate some few with him to receive the Sacrament in another Church See whether Christ or his Apostles or Chrysostome will justifie your own practice all that you have yet pretended from the Scripture to warrant your way hath been sufficiently examined and confuted His last The want of making some separation as to the Lords Table hath given occasion to some to forsake our Congregations Master Cotton Bloody Tenent 1. â— The want of right and solid principles as touching the constitution and first reforming of our Church hath given the occasion of the Brownists separation from us for they in New England doe not scruple the administring of the Sacrament to a scandalous member tolerated by the Church till censured Juridically and for them that own our Church and Ordinances for true they might be rationally satisfied upon the same principle 2. The want of right principles as to the Sacrament hath wryed more of the godly minded then otherwayes would be as men come to embrace truer principles and conceptions of this holy Ordinance according to the Scriptures they will be more tender of making unnecessary separations and rents in the Church 3. It is a wonder that our common principles in order to the Sacrament doe not hurry all knowing consciencious men into some separations or other sith it 's said the unregenerate are far from being disciples believers and the Sacrament is a cup of poyson and for the confusion and damnation of such souls they are guilty of the murder of Christ c. And that they have nothing to doe with the Covenant and therefore the Sacrament is but a seal to a blanck when administred unto them These erroneous principles doe more distract and trouble the poor Church then men are willing to understand or decline the unnecessary stirs that follow thereupon His second motive contains The great advantages got by acting in some courses of discipline But he should have told us what courses of discipline he means whether any course that men can invent or that which the Scriptures only teach What shall we think of that course themselves are acting in Doth theirs were it generally taken up enable us the better to defend the truth of our Churches as he tels us pag. 162. Must we run into a schism Answ and become like unto our adversaries in unchurching our Parochial Congregations and gather or form up Churches out of them as you to defend the truth of our Churches what is this but to yeeld the cause and betray the Church to defend the truth of a separate Congregation and so to end the quarrel in becoming like unto our reproaching adversaries of Brownists and Anabaptists c. I doubt not but we shall finde friends to defend the truth of our Churches as to their being as they are formed up already and grafted into the true Olive root and branch And I think none are more perfidious to our Churches then those that forsake their former station in the Church and form a new with the specious pretences according to Gospel rule What doth this imply but that our Churches are false and not according to Gospel rule What beside their own word can free them from rigid and absolute separation That which follows We shall have the better satisfaction in our Consciences whilest God is our witnesse that we have taken pains drawn losse upon our estates stirred up the envy of the multitude for his service sake And who hath required this at your hands Answ Where is it written that you should act as you do If you meet with sufferings for your irregular actings what thank have you It 's not the goodnesse of the men or ends but the goodnesse of the cause that makes a Martyr and brings solid comfort to the souls of Gods people all sects are apt to blesse themselves in what they suffer by contrary mindes but this and the rest that follows is but weak and beg'd too I come to his answer of objections pag. 164. 1. Object The stirs and troubles where any such separation is made 2. The separation defended is the same with schism and absolute separation pag. 165. His answer is We must follow peace with men as it may stand with holynesse and no otherwise and indeed from a high rash or absolute separation there are dangerous consequences but from that which is moderate and warrantable no such dangers saith he To this I reply 1. That keeping the peace of the Church of Christ is more urged and prest home amongst Christians then to other men in the world Christ came to make division between the Church and the world but left a legacy of love and peace to