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
in the power of aâ— to reform it Hence I conclude that as itâ— not applyable unto the rules of Church dicipline so it is such an avoidable thing 〈◊〉 Church-members that not any man of reson will plead the punishing of with suspeâ— sion from the Lords Supper If the Apostles meaning 1 Cor. 11. wenthat the Corinths were punished for habitâ—â— unworthinesse and that whosoever eats as drinks that is personally unworthy is guiâ—â— of the body and bloud of the Lord and 〈◊〉 eating his own damnation then these seâ—ral inconveniences and snares must necesâ— rily follow That there is not any Minister on cancan administer the Sacrament clearly in faiâ— because he cannot have a clear ground 〈◊〉 faith for him to believe that those he delive the Sacrament unto are habitually wortâ— from their interest in Christ so that 〈◊〉 must still lye under the bondage of fear aâ— doubt of his communicating with others 〈◊〉 the murder of Christ and eating and drinkin their own damnation That all weak doubting fearful Christian either Ministers or others that are not groundedly assured of their interest in Christ for acceptance in this service cannot come in faith for he that doubts is damned if he eat and what ever is not of faith is sin Such persons that are not upon good ground assured of the truth of their own worthinesse cannot be assured of their eating and drinking worthily but must of necessity lye under the fear of being guilty of what is threatned and so eat doubtingly if such venture to come which is sin or else they must forbear until they be assured or are fully perswaded of the truth of their own personal worthinesse And this would be the perplexity of most sincere Christians there being but few in comparison of those that arrive to any grounded assurance of their own justification sanctification salvation c. Hence we may concive that when Mr. Collins cals the Sacrament strong meat he means because there is not any but strong Christians that can partake thereof with satisfaction peace and comfort And so upon the matter he denyes it to be milk for babes as well as a means of working grace in those that want it That all blinde self-conceited Pharisees and senslesse secure carnal Christians formal confident hypocrites that never were acquainted with any saving work of grace upon their spirits may come to the Sacrament boldly for they doubt not of their good estate before God and hence they shall be 1. Either flattered in their grosse presumption by the Churches admittance of them Or 2. They must be bard out by such ban as the Scriptures no where make That hence Ministers of the Gospel aâ— forc'd to detract un worthily from Christs authority in hiscommanding this observance tâ— the whole Church disswading their people from this service due to Christ more then froâ— any other whatsoever and so will presume tâ— loose where Christ binds or else are forceâ— to suspend them illegally and so presume tâ— bind where Christ doth loose leave at liberty freely to serve him in his own appointments What a snare doth this kinde of unworthy eating bring upon all the unregenerate and doubting Christians If they neglect the Sacrament for want of personal worthinesse they sin in omitting so great a duty of publick worship if they observe it as well a they can yet being unworthy they eat anâ— drink their own damnation by being guilty of the bloud of Christ as some say What doth more occasion godly and tender consciences to withdraw Communion from our Parochial congregations gather Churches out of a Church then fear of personal unworthy eating and drinking in Sacramental Communion as for the external actionâ— in the present administration the deportments of all generally are such as are inoffensive and they doe not separate from us for the most part out of any other dislike of publique Worship That hence it is that we make the nature of Sacraments to clash with themselves in that we will not suffer them to meet in the same subjects and are afraid to administer the seal to those parents whose children we freely administer it unto but the resusal of the oâ—â—e followed home will soon destroy the administration to the other for in all Scripture Churches they always meet together in one and the same subject When Mr. Collins hath chewed well of these several things I hope he will finde in himself a better digesting of that which I have given of the Apostles sense And therefore in the next place I shall come to touch a little further of actual unworthinesse in reference to the Sacrament having clearly removed that miserable mistake of personal unworthinesse in order to unworthy receiving And indeed the whole controversie will be brought to actuall sinning for that is the very thing the Church of Corinth was blamed and punished for Then the dispute will lye in these few questions Whether any unworthy actions of persons in the Church makes them guilty of unworthy receiving more then of unworthy Communion in other special parts of publick worship or no Whether the Church be able to judge iâ— particular what persons in the Church upon tryal or otherwise will of necessity be guilty of the body and bloud of Christ and eaâ— judgement to themselves in the Apostle sense Whether the Church hath power to suspen Church-members from Sacramental Commâ—nion allowing them the priviledges of alâ— the other Ordinances I shall answer in the negative unto theâ—â— under favour to Mr. Collins or any otheâ— that shall endevour to give further satisfactions to the questions And to the first I haâ— hinted at already in answer to Mr. Colliâ— quotations 1 Cor. 5. chap. 10. all that bâ— hath said from those Scriptures doth noâ— amount to eating and drinking unworthily that was punished chap. 11. I have also in mâ— Book shewed at large what eating and drinking unworthily it was that was punished and which made guilty of the body anâ— bloud of Christ in short I conceive it weâ— an open abuse or a Sacrilegious profaning holy things to common use with other disorders in the very time of the administring the Lords Supper practically destroying the very essence and spiritual ends of Chrisâ—â— holy institution And upon this accounâ— alone they were guilty of the body and bloud of Christ and of eating judgement to themselves not for any other cause or sins they lay under but for this cause some are dead c. And whosoever they are that eat and drink the outward signes set apart by the Word and Prayer to represent the body and bloud of Christ unworthily as the Corinthians did are guilty of the same sin and lyable to the same judgements but that all other sinful actions committed before they come though not repented of doth make guilty of polluting the body and bloud of Christ and of judgement they demeaning themselves reverently and conformly as to the externals thereof is to me not only doubtful but
and good order beseeming Gods worship externally I would gladly know wherein the Eldership is any further concerned 2. What though an incapable neglect of the private doth hinder the profitable use of the publick and that it cannot without sin be performed doth it therefore follow that such persons in the Church may neglect the publick worship without sin if not whether is the greatest to obey and doe as well as they can with sin or to cast off all care oâ— duty wholly it's easily answered in all other duties and but a meer begging the question to deny it in this of the Sacrament aâ— to that instance of his Cleansing was the unclean persons private duty yet till it was done he might not eat the Passeover 1. Answ It 's a question whether cleansing were a private duty only could an unclean perâ—oâ— make himself clean by what law is a query Numb 6.9 10 11. 19.19 speak the contrary 2. Grant it were might they enter into the gates of the Sanctuary to offer unto God any other sacrifice until they were cleansed In Hezekiahs Passeover of the 2. month many did eat the Passeover that was not clean and were accepted We know they might not for it was accounted a defiling the Sanctuary a thing threatned with death or perpetual banishment from the Congregation His instance doth rather prove that the justly excommunicate ought not to be admitted to the publick Ordinances of Worship untill they be lawfully admitted upon their satisfying the Church by repentance Then to prove persons in the Church not excommunicate may not take the Sacrament untill they have performed that private duty of examination I have said enough to prove that the neglect of this private duty of examination in order to receiving doth not reach the neglect of that duty of cleansing in order unto the whole worship of God In his 32. pag. he is nibling at my next thing wherein I would have this private duty of examination occasionally prescribed as a remedy or a means to that particular case of offending And therefore they were to approve themselves according to the rules of institution and good order and so come in doing the good and declining the evill they had been punished for c. To this purpose I said the end is more principal the means lesse Unto this Mr. Collins saith No man can receive the Sacrament without sin neglecting the due means to make him a worthy receiver He had thought due means must be necessarily supposed to the end Who will deny what he saith to this Answ But what is this to answer the thing May the main duty of publick worship be neglected unlesse a man be able to use all due means in order to a more comfortable and profitable receiving If not let them so come as well as they can rather then the main of Gods worship shall be omitted By this which hath been answered unto Mr. Collins his weak exceptions I hope the impartial Reader may clearly judge upon what bottome we infer free admission namely the authority of Christs command Besides you may take notice of the pitiful shifts that our adversaries are put unto to dispute against the authority of Christs commands Let them consider He that breaks the least of his commands and teacheth men so shall be accounted least in the Kingdom of Heaven Nay if they shall wittingly thus offend in one they are guilty of all My last query is Whether there be any thing in the Nature language actions or end of the Sacrament in 1 Cor. 11. or elsewhere incongruous to the unregenerate receiving in the Church Mr. Collins saith Whether in 1 Cor. 11. there be any thing or no he will not dispute it is enough he findes it elsewhere and he conceives there is something contrary to the receiving of the ignorant and scandalous which is the question for the Church judgeth not of secret things What he hath said to this Answ hath been sufficiently answered already he hath nothing new but the old taken for granted which hath been denyed according to the stating of the question I am glad he is so sober as to say the Church judgeth not of secrets then I hope he will not proceed to censure any of his people but for scandalous sins persisted unto obstinacy if he or his Eldership doe they undertake to judge of secrets But then he comes more particularly to the question As first Touching the institution for saith he Christ gave it to none such he means Christ gave it to none that were ignorant or scandalous 1. Christ gave it to none but the twelve that were impowered with Commission to Preach and baptize heal the sick and to cast out Devils c. What then must none but such be admitted this would be a good argument to deny not only the cup but the whole administration from the Laity But 2. The question is whether the Apostles in their ordering of particular Congregations gave any direction to exclude any that came under Baptism from the holy Supper and yet allowed them the priviledge of all other Ordinances in the Church The Scripture speaks of thousands that submitted unto baptism and continued stedfast in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers which are the main essentials of worship and this is spoken of the whole assoon as they were baptized Act. 2.32 And the Church of Corinths are commended for keeping the Ordinances It was a profaning of this of the Supper they were blamed and punished for And for grosse ignorance amongst them we need not doubt of it and other scandalous and disorderly conversation but what is this of his but â—o insinuate unto the world that the bapâ—ized in the Church that are either ignorant or in some things scandalous are not of the Church the old road of Brownism But then he saith secondly The Sacrament is contrary to such in the nature of it for it is strong meat and the seal of the righteousnesse of faith That it is strong meat onely Answ we deny it remains for him to prove if he can his say so is no proof yet that 's his great argument He had need commence Doctor before we credit his bare word but he gives his reason for it in his Book pag. 104. Strong meat belongs to men of age who by reason of an habit have their senses exercised to discern good and evil Heb. 5.13 14. But the Sacrament is strong meat therefore it doth not belong to those that are babes in knowledge But I deny his minor he saith it's evident he gives his reason That meat which is of haâ—dest digestion and concoction and which not duly digested proves most pernicious to the body is strong meat but such is the Sacrament of the Lords Supper I deny his minor again he proves it 1 Cor. 11.28 and tels us This meat is not tasted nor digested well without the knowing of the greatest mysteries of
Israel were accepted of in their keeping the Passeover although many of them did eat the Passeover otherwise then was written for some that were unclean did eat thereof 2 Chron. 30.18 19 20. 6. It was the will of God that declared that such things upon a man should be unclean and all things he touched should be so by his institution only but there is no such thing declared by the will of God touching moral uncleannesse in the Church as to debar them the Passeover or any other Ordinanceâ— all his and other mens quotations have been sufficiently examined as to this and fully answered unlesse it be one of Mr. Collins Deut. 23.18 Thou shall not bring the price of a whore or the price of a Dogge into the House of the Lord for any vow for these are abomination to the Lord if not the price then not the Whore or Dogge He argues from the lesser to the greater Answ Doth it follow that because they might not offer any of those two for any vow that therefore they might not bring their Lambe in its season to the House of the Lord and offer it before him according to Gods command It was an abomination to doe those things that God forbad therefore it is abomination to doe that which God commands that 's all the text will prove as to debarring of the moral unclean from the Passeover Away with such trifling and impertinent applications of holy Scriptures The truth is men of his judgement must do more then they have yet done I had almost said more then they can doe or else had better never to have said any thing about this argument drawn from the Analogy of the Passeover all that man can say against us from that doth but discover their own weaknesse in fighting against the Truth His tenth Argument It 's a sin in a Minister to declare those one visible Body who are not one body with visible Saints but scandalous sinners are not one body with visible Saints And be that gives the Lords Supper declares those to whom he gives it unto to be one visible Body Ergo. 1. Answ Is it a sin to say the visible Church is the visible body of Christ and this visible body consists of good and bad Wheat and Tares c. Is it a sin to declare this 2. Are not all that are baptized into one Body of that Body and are not the scandalous in the Church baptized and is it a sin for one to declare that the baptized are one visible body with visible Saints What is a visible Saint but a baptized visible professing Christian that is a member of the true visible Church Is not an offending brother a brother and within while he is within If the Sacrament of baptism doe initiate into that one body and the Sacrament of the Supper bespeaks them so too that are baptized Is it a sin for a Minister to give the Sacrament to such by declaring that which is true and which no man can deny that holds our Church a true visible Church Who can you say is not a real member of Christ in particular And one that he dyed not for The Apostle affirmed it of all in the Church of Corinth that they were one body What if Gillespy will not be perswaded the Apostle would say it of all we finde it so written and I think it safe to be perswaded of the truth of what is written the authority of Scripture shall perswade with me before the authority of men His eleventh Argument The Sacrament is not to be given to any who are not Christs Disciples but scandalous sinners are none of his disciples Ergo. The Major is true Answ but the Minor is to be distinguished into scandalous sinners out of the Church and such like sinners in the Church to the former it 's granted but to the latter it 's denyed What are Church-members but Disciples What are all that professe the true Christian Religion and only call upon the name of the Lord Jesus in hope of eternal life by him but Disciples if they be not Disciples and within then they are Heathens and without whom the Church have nothing to doe to judge in order to their amendment and if they be without and strangers from the Covenant of promises why doe you baptize their children or presse them to any duties of Gospel worship as incumbent upon them as Christians If they be Christians and within why should they not have their proper titles and priviledges of that estate If you can make them neither within the Church nor without then it 's possible you may doe something in this argument and when you have done that I doubt not but you will be answered His 12.13 arguments I have answered in my answer to what he hath excepted against The Bar removed His fourteenth Argument It is unlawful to partake of other mens sins Ephes 5.7 But he that gives the Sacrament wittingly to an ignorant scandalous person partakes with him in his sin Ergo. I grant his Major Answ but deny his Minor because giving and receiving the Sacrament is a most necessary duty of worship which both Minister and people stand mutually ingaged to observe and perform as any other duty of worship in the Church and the Sacrament being given and received with that reverence and order according to the form of holy institution there is no sin as to the matter it self and as for the manner as in every thing we fail all so in this and if this were sufficient to forbear the Sacrament then we must give over all worship In all duties better to doe as well as we can then not at all so that it follows that those that deny the Sacrament to those that are bound to receive it are partakers of their sin in not allowing them to doe their duty for ignorance and other offendings doe not excuse from precepts of institute Worship and the holy Supper more then all other Gospel Worship while persons are within Shall mans impotency and iniquity pull down Gods authority If in all other duties of Gospel Worship such had better obey as wel as they can then neglect Gods worship altogether it 's but a begging the question to deny it in the observance of the Sacrament It 's true a Minister may be guilty of his peoples ignorance and may fear and tremble at that guilt if he neglect all or any due and probable principles of the true Religion that may in some measure prepare them to profit by every Ordinance in the Church But having done his duty he need not fear to give them the Sacrament but tremble at the neglect of that administration and discouraging weak and ignorant Christians from it True it is also that a Minister and the Church may make themselves accessory to the sins of offending brethren in the Church by their carelesse indulging of them in their evill wayes by not reproving admonishing censuring c. by which sinners