him in their practise It 's an ingenuous resolution I confesse and if he will but stand to it I doubt not of the issue but that it will be worth our labour to dispute it with him according to Scripture and Reason the only Judge of Truth Besides I am the rather inclined to enter the lists with him in this Controversie because he protests against a rigid separation from a true Church and declares himself only for a moderate and lawful separation in the Church not as yet disowning our Churches I take it Unto this I answer That Separation that is proper and lawful in the Church Answ is either made by Orthodox Doctrine Or 2. by wholesome Discipline Juridically exercised Or 3. we may and ought to withdraw all unnecessary friendly and intimate familiarity from scandalous brethren where the necessary duties of our general and particular callings will permit without prejudice to our selves And then the question will be whether the practice defended in respect of separation be no more but so if it be but Doctrinal or putting out of Communion Juridically by Excommunication or declining all unnecessary familiarity with the scandalous though tolerated all will be yeelded on his side But if it be found otherwise I shall deny it as dangerous and warn all Christians to avoid it lest they be infected with Schism a cursed fruit of the flesh and drawn into such needlesse separations as can never be warranted It 's one thing to separate from the sinful courses of scandalous brethren and another thing to separate from the necessary duties of Gods Worship and of our calling where such are tolerated It 's one thing to exclude the scandalous Juridically another thing to exclude the ignorant who desire to be learners of wholesome Doctrine or those that are not satisfied to yeeld unto their tearms as presented under the necessity of duty when upon search their terms are but the bold inventions and opinions of strong fancies and not to be owned upon any such account as is pretended Yet I shall advise to a condescension to the same terms upon a prudential account for the help and incouragement of all in saith and knowledge provided it be used to no such end as to exclude Church-members from that necessary duty of institute worship Doe this in remembrance of me Christians ought not to betray their own and their brethrens liberties to those that have the boldnesse in these exorbitant times to invade them and bring all into division and confusion Why should not all that are within and of the Church enjoy all external helps and means of their amendment untill the Church hath taken the forfeiture of their offending and issued out judgement against them I think I have writ more to this then will be answered in hast Mr. Saunders would be judged a sober moderate man that still owns our Church Ministry and members for true But yet we finde him so inconsistent to himself that upon the matter he unchurches all our Parochial Congregations that he will not allow them to be Churches but in an equivocating sense that is to say in no sense as a â—â—rish in it's Precincts but as a separate Church may be in a Parish as in the world We doe not say saith he that our Assemblies are Churches as Parishes but that they are Churches in Parishes and in that sense Parish Churches pag. 127. and yet he is sharp against rigid separation and pretends but to Surgery not to Butchery but if unchurching of our Parochial Assemblies be not a rigid Butchery let him tell us what is more rigid They of the Independent judgement doe generally acknowledge our Assemblies to be the Churches of Christ though out of order The Anabaptists will confesse a Church may be in a Parish as well as in a City Country and World and in this sense they may say there are Churches in Parishes and so Parish Churches How is our Church beholden to such pretenders that will speak as much in defence of our Parochial Churches as they state them as our adversaries will grant And yet he hath the happinesse to be approved of by a learned Gentleman for his recommending to the Church a well tempered Reformation if love to his person and cause deceive him not Mr. Manton in his approbational Epistle to this Book I confesse if those we plead for be not members of true Churches in Scripture account then all must needs goe against us for it is certain that Heathens the unbaptized or such as have renounced the Christian Religion may not eat thereof our opinion pleads for all Church-members of years baptized and not excommunicated as knowing not any rule against the admitting of such to the Lords Supper produced yet by any And yet Mr. Manton saith peremptorily amongst all others none have deserved worse of the Church of God then those that plead for a loose way as he cals it of receiving all sorts of persons to holy things and by promiscuous administrations prostitute the Ordinance of God to every comer I confesse this passage from so reverend a Minister as he is reputed to be did enter my very heart at first and plunged my soul into a greater perplex of passion then is ordinary Yet not out of any apprehension of guilt though I have alwayes cause to flee unto Gods mercy for acceptance but that so good a man and an eminent Minister of the Gospel should be so inconsiderately rash in his censure of the Churches friends But to answer directly 1. Doth not Mr. Manton receive all sorts of Christians unto Gods Ordinances of Word Prayer singing of Psalms the administration of holy baptism Are not these holy things And is it loosenesse in himself to admit all sorts of persons in the Church to partake of these I hope not and why then not in the other it being a necessary duty to all in the Church of years as the Ordinances before named he might doe well to give some better reason then others doe When he can charge us justly with pleading the admission of the unbaptized Heathens the Excommunicate then let him charge us with that odium of loosenesse or a loose way as being against Gospel-rule but untill then his charge and censure is no other then a rash slander unbecoming such a person It 's strange and to be admired that our pressing unto Christian observance to those that are baptized professing Christians and of the visible Church should have such a hard sense put upon it as to be branded with loosenesse when in all other duties pressing to obedience according to rule is accounted godlinesse and holy strictnesse But doubtlesse that way that is the nearest to Gospel rule is the good way and straight way However it may have the hap upon mistake to be called a loose way Truly to speak freely I little value that perverse disputing in most that oppose us that are forced to uncovenant unchurch undisciple unduty a Christian professing
Church But Reader I will detain thee no longer in the porch only let me intreat a candid and charitable conceiving of my sense drift and end in what I have written I would provoke none but leave the probability of what I have asserted from Scripture and reason to the consideration of all Only this let me tell thee by the way That Suspension as it 's stated by Mr. Collins I judge to be sufficiently confuted in the latter part of this Book What himself or any other may doe further in stating it and proving it by Scripture or reason deduced thence I know not I think whosoever undertakes it will finde it a hard task to make this good That some Church-members of years and indued with reason shall and ought to be denyed the Communion of the Lords Supper and yet be allowed the liberty of all other Communion in acts of worship as Church members at that present And though I doe not in plain terms prove it an invention of men yet I conceive I have so removed the arguments and reasons it 's pretended to be built upon that it doth not yet appear to be the Ordinance of Christ and so by consequence that it is but a Tradition of men Jesus Christ commands all that are Disciples Church-members to observe all his commands from which none that are baptized can be excluded without equal authority to that of Christ Suspension from the Sacrament only must first be proved an Ordinance of Christ before any may be suspended from it For no authority on earth can disoblige from actual duty but the same that doth oblige to duty I mean no authority can doe it but that of Christ in giving the power of the keys of the Church to binde and loose authoritatively To conclude let none deceive themselves in reading this Book as if it were intended for defence of promiscuous Communion for what I intend therein is to justifie a lawful Communion in the Lords Supper according unto the rules of the Law and Gospel and sure that is the most pure Communion that is most agreeable to rule as the case now stands in our Church Mixt Communion properly is to admit an Infidel Jew or Pagan unbaptized to the Sacrament that denyes or knows not that Christ is come in the flesh or to admit the Excommunicate before they have given satisfaction to the Church by their repentance and amendment of life If I should plead for such a Communion then it would reflect upon me to my reproach shame But I plead not for this but for Church discipline to reform the disorderly in the Church Juridically I would have the Church still to preserve the form of all necessary duties of worship though they cannot bring up all to the power of godlinesse as is desirable Better to keep up Religion though but in the right form then not at all What reason can any have to discourage from any religious form of true worship under this pretence that they come not up to the inward power which is undiscernable for the most part Form and power are inseparable in the true Religion where the Lord gives his blessing That place of Timothy is usually misunderstood in our times for it is clear they had not so much as the external form of true Christian Doctrine and Worship but such a form of godlinesse as Heathens have or may have for it was spoken of false teachers and seducers that usually make pretences of a form of godlinesse of their own devising and deny or be enemies to the form of godlinesse which is according to truth commanded of God for they are such as resist the truth men of corrupt mindes reprobate concerning the doctrine of faith God never blesses false forms of worship with his powerful presence working grace in them that out of strong delusion have invented those forms but forms of his own prescribed worship are the power of God to salvation to whom he will Now I crave pardâ—n of all sober men for this my so bold attempt to clash with so many able solid Divines as I shall be judged to do I reverence all and should patiently wait and without contending submit to all were the Church in a setled state but we having run into such endless divisions and separations it concerns every one to study and indeavour the regaining of the settlement peace and edification of the whole And I could wish that men of â—ober principles who have an eye at the same end would be more serious in weighing the grounds we build upon and the weapons we fight with in managing this controversie I could wish that able and learned men would throughly search and more deeply dive into this controversie for I know that unlesse a great deal more can be said against Free Admission as it is stated then I could as yet ever hear of contrary mindes will be forced either to yeeld or else they will run themselves upon such rocks as will quite break the constitution of our Church But prove all things and impartially incline to own and imbrace that which brings the fullest and nearest evidence of truth and solid reason to thy understanding And the Lord give us at least to see where the truth and the Churches peace lies and establish the same among us which is and shall be the prayer of him that longs to see that day John Timson The most principal things handled in this Controversie are contained in these few questions 1. WHether all Church-members of years not Excommunicate have a true right to the Lords Supper or no. 2. Whether any Church-members may lawfully be denyed the Lords Supper for ignorance and state of unregeneracy according unto Gospel rule 3. Whether Church-members as such in relation to the Covenant be not personally worthy during their abode in the Church and in that sense worthy receivers though otherwise they be actually unworthy 4. Whether it is the duty of all Church-members of years to receive the Lords Supper as to hear pray read sing c. 5. Whether the promises of first grace be not included in the Gospel Covenant which Sacraments seal And the unregenerate in the Church be the only objects of those promises 6. Whether the Church is to judge of her members worthinesse or unworthinesse in order to admitting to the Lords Supper more then to all other acts of publick worship 7. Whether the Sacrament can be denyed to be a converting Ordinance in the Church 8. Whether Juridical Suspension be an Ordinance of Christ or an invention of man ERRATA Reader among many lesser faults which have escaped in the printing by reason of the Authors absence there is one great fault pag. 143. in 12 13 14. The distinction there mentioned is this Hearing of faith preached was and is the ordinary means of the faith of Heathens but the whole work of the Ministry is the ordinary means of sincere believing in the Church And p. 239. l. 10. after probable
supply means of instructing them in the. PAg. 4 lin 7. read unto p. 13. l. 27. r. privative p. 1â— l 6. r. reaching p. 29. l. 8. for il r for it p. 31. l. 12. r. Vzzahs p. 31. l. 14. r. answer p. 50. l. 10. r. undvoidable p. 64. l. 15. r. examen p. 71. l. 1 3. r. a knowledge p 89. l. 14. r. propositions p. 98. l. 12. r. leavened p. 99. l. 21. r. chain p. 100. l. 27. r. visible p. 116. l. 2. r. adjourned pag. 138. l. 28. supply in after doth p. 156. l. 9. r. uneldered l. 30. supply of the whole Church after settlement p. 161. l. 9. r. privative p. 166. l. 2. f. examination r. argument p. 170. l. 2. r. irreproveable p. 189. l. 7. supply an ordinance of after give p. 199. l. 6 dele it p. 216. l. 3. f. first r. fift p. 249. l. 15. f. power r. prevalency p. 275. l. 21. r. suspition p. 280. l. 1. f. know r. how p. 286. l. 27. f. which r. when p. 298. l. 32. r. to persecutions p. 312. l. 29. r. think p. 327. l. 8. put in profitable after that is l. 16. r. themselves To Receive the Lords Supper the actual Right and Duty of all Church-Members of years not Excommunicate BEloved Christian friends Although I judge that I am not as yet answered by Mr. Collings there being enough in my Book to answer him and vindicate it self from whatsoever is as yet objected against it to the Judicious and impartial Reader yet with respect unto Mr. Collings who is esteemed a Gentleman learned and worthy according unto his title and some profitable labours for the Churches good And also for the further satisfying both of the weak and plain minded Christians As also the confirming of those my friends that cordially imbrace my Book and adhere to the truth asserted therein And that the controversie it self may come to some clearer issue and something more may be discovered in order unto peace and truth and reformation in the Church of God in all humility and respect unto different mindes I crave leave once more soberly and freely to present my thoughts unto further consideration for I judge that Mr. Collings hath been too hasty in concluding that my main principles are rotten that I have made the ground of my discourse by what he hath said in answer thereunto for the truth is he hath not in the least disabled any one main thing I have asserted nor is willing to keep to the question as it 's stated nor answer to any purpose where the main stresse of Controversie lies but trifles about Infants and distracted and Pagans and the excommunicate the admitting of which aâ— such not any in our times plead for And therefore he might have said lesse to these and more to those that the thing in controversie concerns namely Whether the unregenerate or ignorant and scandalous members in the Church being baptized and of years not excommunicate may be debarred the Lords Supper they expressing their desires to receive and proffering themselves I answer in the negative all along that they may not be put by Mr. Collings seems to be offended with my charging the Reverend Doctor with unbrotherly dealing A thing saith he that my self am more guilty of which I think is hardly so unlesse the worthinesse of the person my opinion strikes at doth so much the more aggravate the thing As for my not taking notice of Mr. Humfreys reflections as he cals them it may be better excused as to my self and friend then the other can 1. Because that part of the Book which concerned the Doctor was finished and gone from me towards the Presse before ever I knew of Mr. Humfreys rejoinder 2. When I did read it over I thought his returns to such bitter censures and invectives against him were very pathetical yet humble and melting and well becoming a sober charitable Christian and fellow-labourer with the other in the holy Gospel 3. I have heard many godly and learned in the Ministery acknowledge that his returns are humble and charitable and yet quick and rational As to Mr. Collings quotation of the two last pages of his rejoynder I conceive that Mr. Humfrey little thought that any would be so uncharitable as to take his Allegorical reproof and caution in that unfeemly sense that Mr. Collings will force upon it there being not any Scripture uncapable of a rational application And those that are impartial and sober can judge no lesse of that And for those six or seven dissatisfactions of mine concerning the practice of some Presbyterians unassociated I know not how I should have expressed my self more modestly then by professing my self unsatisfied giving so many hints as I have clearly done against those things I charge them with And I am sure if the main principles in my Book stand firm as I think they will for any thing yet said against me Mr. Collings will not be very zealous for ruling Elders nor Suspension distinct from Excommunication Church examination of her members into actual receiving nor leaving out without any judicial proceedings But to the matter it self let us see what he hath said against that First his demand is What it is that gives one right to the Sacrament of the Supper he knows the answer will be Church membership either this alone or something else if this alone then Infants and mad men and drunkards must come say what they can if they say not Church-membership alone doth give a full right then many of their arguments fail 1. Answ That Church membership alone gives one a legal right to the Lords Supper according unto Gospel rules the which right is a true right and that sufficient unto free admission of all in the Church but then this right is to be distinguished into a real right in point of title and a right of actual possession and injoyment the former right respects all Infants born of Christian Parents the latter right belongs unto all Church-members of years that are baptized and in a rational and Church capacity actually to enjoy their right An heir in his infancy hath as true a right unto his Fathers land he being dead as an heir at full age but yet it doth not follow that a childe under age shall be left actually to manage his right himself in that state as an heir at one and twenty We know the Apostle saith it An heir under age differs not from a servant though he be Lord of all Yet such is the the consequence of Mr. Collings touching Infant Communion if we grant them a true right as members in point of title and a remote right actually to injoy assoon as they are in a natural and rational capacity then saith he they as members must come say what we can to the contrary Although Mr. Humfrey and my self have shewed a clear difference between Infants and distracted and the ignorant at age in several particulars The
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
publick administrations as their duty And with what conscience can such live upon the Churches maintenance that forsake their function and duty to their Congregations And if they make the Sacrament the distinguishing Ordinance between the Church and the world as the Author cals it some where then no wonder they are so tender who they admit into the Church and thus upon the matter they look upon the greatest part of their Congregations as Heathens unbelievers whom the duties of Christianity doe not concern In another place he saith an unregenerate person is far from being a disciple c. and therefore not a Christian for the Disciples were first called Christians at Antioch And hence they devise ways and bars to keep them from the Lords Table equall unto a Heathen But me thinks they might easily perceive their mistake for baptism of old was accounted the only distinguishing Ordinance as circumcision between the Church and the world and the only separating and distinguishing Ordinance in the Church is Juridical Excommunication which they make no use of for Mr. Saunders saith they Excommunicate none if they judge their people Church-members and within if they have any scandalous crime against them why do they not begin reformation by casting out the obstinate according to rule they are all for admission of members when they should be for ejecting in the work of reforming If they be for admission into Church Communion they must begin with baptism and I think the tearms they stand upon in order to the Supper will sooner be made good in order to baptism of grown ones then to those that are initiated into the Church already by lawful baptism I have writ enough to this already the truth is if my judgment fail not Mr. Saund. doth but shuffle when he speaks of our Assemblies to be true Churches some of them one while they are true Churches and have both matter and form which are the main essentials of true Churches agreed upon by al only he saith but not without great disorder at present Discipline being interrupted as I suppose he means And he must needs speak this in behalf of our Parochial Churches for he makes mention of the Churches of England of which some he will undertake to prove to be true Churches against those that deny all for matter and form to be true pag. 127. And yet in the very same page he contradicts himself in saying We doe not say our Assemblies are Churches as Parishes but that they are Churches in Parishes and in that sense Parish Churches and in the page before he thinks the truth of some of our Churches as to their Essence he can prove A Church may be in a Parish as well as in a Country or City as Ephesus Corinth yea as well as in the World By this you may conceive what a good friend he is like to be to our Parish Churches against Anabaptists and Brownists that although he accounts them rigid Separatists they will grant that there are some Parishes in England that some that are godly and real members of Christ dwell in them which they will confesse are the matter of a true Church Nay there may be a rigid separate Church in fellowship and order in a Parish as well as in a Countrey City World And in this sense they are Parish Churches What shifts are these but why doth he not speak plain to the case in question and clearly speak his judgement of our Parochial Congregations as they are baptized and adhere to the publick Ministry in general consisting of good and bad nay the most very ignorant and in some thing or other either scandalous offensive or remisse Will he prove such Parishes in their Precincts and outward bounds to have both the matter and form of true Churches If he would doe so I shall imbrace him as friend of the Church And one would think in his 128. page that is his sense by what he infers for baptism saying That all Infants born in our Churches are to be baptized for Congregational Churches as they are called baptized all their Infants and then If it be objected that sundry of the parents are ungodly whose children we baptize he asks whether they can deny baptism to the childe of any member how offensive soever before the sentence of cutting off passe upon him So he answers of ours These supposed wicked ones whether as carnall or profane are not excommunicated what therefore should hinder their childrens baptism Hence he owns all in our Churches that are baptized members Christians and within for I suppose he would not plead the baptizing of the children of those that are Infidels and without that are no objects of Excommunication And yet in other places they are far from being Disciples Church-members c. Nay he saith as to baptism we suppose our Churches to be true but sick and corrupt pag. 126 but wherein corrupt if all be true you publish 129. pag. wherein you adde to what you said before Besides the children are not baptized in their Parents right alone but in the Churches where the childe is born a member being holy federally by birth and therefore to be baptized You prove the Subjects of our baptism lawful the Ministâ—â— and baptism it self for matter and manner I presume wherein is it sick and corrupt then I could wish you were more steddy in your judgement consonant to your self and honest to your Reader But to reply upon your own grants if all children born in the Church he holy foederally by birth then it follows that all parents in the Church of whom they are so born are believers for the Apostle affirms that only of the children of believers 1 Cor. 7.14 And then if all parents in the Church be believers why doe you not administer the Lords Supper to them for actual receiving is the undoubted duty of all believers how you will deny the consequence I cannot tell I pray you consider well of my Answer unto Mr. Collings for I must be very brief to yours Again if our Churches be true Churches and all it consists of lawfully admitted into it Then it will follow 1. That while they are within they are to enjoy all external priviledges of our Church according unto Gospel rule which is one and the same unto all Church-members as such This is so rational and clear that all that separate from us own and practise it untill a member by Apostasie fall off or be Juridically cast out of Church priviledges 2. That Pastors of true Churches are to attend their several flocks in a constant exercise of the whole ministerial work they are designed unto by the Church that ordained them such 3. That forming a Church in the choyce of a Pastor and Officers members in a true Church already formed according unto rule as to the essentials thereof at least is a work not only superfluous and absurd but Schismatical and pernicious breaking the peace and union of that
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
Mr. Prinne nor Mr. Humphrey my judgement was setled and satisfied in these things long before I heard of these Authors And besides what reason hath Mr. Collins to charge us with this that we are Erastus his scholars when he findes us so point blanck against him in defending the Juridâ—cal censures of the Church I cannot say that ever I read any Author that came up to my opinion or judgement in these things in any measure til now of late I saw Mr. Humfreys Vindication of free Admission So that whether my grounds be new or old I have made but little acquiry in respect of humane authority this I am satisfied in that my grounds are such as accord with the Gospel Covenant and the state of the Visible Church of Christ as it is constituted in Parents and children good and bad called and chosen And I finde that men of different judgements run themselves upon dangerous rocks of Schisms Separations and needlesse divisions in the Church besides their interferings contradictions of themselves and detracting unworthily from Covenant-relation Church-membership Sacraments signs and pleadges of Covenant love to the whole Church in general And therefore I hope though I have endeavoured to remove an unnecessary Bar yet it will appear that I am not guilty of that sin and curse that Mr. Collins intimates in saying Was it our grief formerly that we had no Bar and is it our work now to remove the Bars yea the Lords and the Churches ancient Land-marks But who are most faulty in this they that plead for the Churches Land-marks and rights or they that unjustly defraud the Church thereof laying the Church common with the world judge ye or who are most for Reformation according unto Scripture Canon they that presse to all Scripture obedience or they that exempt Christians from some necessary duties of Worship they that would have all in the Church dealt with as members in a Juridical way to their amendment or they that unchurch them undisciple them and so unduty them and level them with the Pagan World Mr. Collins pretends much zeal in his Epistle prefixed to his Book but I could wish he had more sound judgement and knowledge in these things to abate the inconsiderate noise he makes and the passion which he shews therein First he tels us that it was a burden that lay upon our souls that in the Prelates dayes there was no bar but one which Suâ—peâ—â—on made And then about six lines after he saith the Prelatical party may rise up in judgement against us and say Lord we gave the Minister authority to keep any from the Sacrament for notorious sins c. First he saith there was no Bar and then he saith that there was a Bar and such a one as I thinkâ— might have satisfied men of his perswasion The truth is both Presbyterian and Brownists make such a slender thing of Covenant relation the ground of baptism in the Church that it will not bear up what they should build upon it afterwards for they make it upon the matter but a meer titular or nominal thing restraining the Gospel Covenant to believers only in a strict sense making Sacramental Seals invalid if they doe not so believe conceiving that if persons in the Church by their actual offending discover themselvs to be in an unregenerate state after baptism that then they are out of Covenant and so by consequence have forfeited their actual right to Sacramental seals thereof making no difference between such and the Pagan world But if we hold to the Covenant made to the Church and their seed as it was published and declared to Abraham and all along to the Church of the Jews and look upon the Christian Church as graffed into them and equally children of Abraham by profession of faith and Baptism as the Jew by nature and Circumcsiion presse all to walk up to their profession as Christians according to Gospel observances being bound to observe all things as the Jews were then should we build upon such a foundation of truth that would be immoveable and bear up as much as we now plead for But I have exprest my self more largely in this ensuing discourse and may not now insist upon the largenesse of the Gospel Covenant In short then I conceive that it is a very great mistake to narrow the Gospel Covenant unto this He that believes shall be saved but he that believes not shall be damned I grant 1. That this is a truth as taken in the usual sense but then I deny that it is the whole Covenant of grace made unto the Church and their seed 2. I grant it a conditional proposition used in the first tender of the Gospel unto Infidels to move them to accept of Christ and so to bring them into the visible Church but I deny that this in like manner was or is to be preached unto the visible Church that professe their acceptance of Christ and all observances appointed by him 3. I grant that actual believing and profession of faith was the only thing that fitted a Pagan for Baptism and graffing into the Gospel Church in which the promises of grace and glory belong to the whole indefinitely but yet I deny that there is any promise of grace in those words He that believes shall be saved it is true there is the promise of being saved upon condition of sincere believing but there is no promise in that to give a sinner grace to believe So that this conditional part of the Covenant in a strict sense as it is usually urged alone without the absolute renders unregenerate sinners uncapable of any good news by the Gospel it not being in the power of any of himself so to believe And to make the death of Christ a seal to confirm this conditional part of the Covenant only as being that which the Sacraments hold forth is to make the death of Christ a seal to confirm a Covenant of works in the Church derogatory to the Gospel mercy and grace Therefore we are to conceive of the Covenant as it 's held out to the Church by the Prophets and Apostles the Church being built upon both Gen. 17. Jerem. 31. Ezek. 36. it is largely laid down and applyed by the Apostles to the Church in Gospel times Act 2.39 Heb. 8. Act. 3.25 26. 5.31 Rom. 15.8 9. 2 Cor. 6.16.18 7.1 compared These Scriptures prove that the Apostles did usually apply those old free grace promises with the end of Christ coming into the world to confirm them to the Gospel Church But if any please to enter their exceptions against these my notions about the Covenant I shall be glad both of an occasion and opportunity to insist more largely upon them For I must confesse I think there are not many that are very right about the nature and largenesse of the Gospel Covenant made to the Church and that straitning the Covenant too much occasions very much division and schism in the
injoyned to observe And the new administrations were not then in being 3. It could not be meant of the Lords Supper because it was not instituted then nor of two or three years after therefore those whom he preacht unto and meant by the word yea could not be in a capacity to give that holy thing at all 4. By Dogs and Swine cannot be meant Disciples and those that were followers and adherers unto Christ for to them is this counsel and moderate merciful caution given I do not deny but this place is applyable unto all times in the Church upon the same or like reason and occasion but I think this place is nothing at all to the Controversie in hand for I know of none that will plead for the admission of such that will rent you for giving them the holy Supper And as that is no reason why they should deny it to ours so not the sense of the place as by dogs were not meant professors and followers of Christ then so not now but by dogs must needs be understood cruel persecutors of Christ the truth of precious doctrine that he taught and was believed by many And therefore when he first sent forth his Disciples to preach the Kingdome of heaven only to the Jews Christ gives them the like counsel Behold Matth. 10. I send you as Sheep among Wolves be ye therefore wise as Serpents and innocent as Doves And when they persecute you in one City flee to another And shake the dust off your feet against those that will not receive you but are ready rather to rent you You see our blessed Saviour compares the unbelieving Jews Scribes and Pharisees and Priests unto Wolves which are a kinde of wilde dogs the which strengthens the sense I have given Tell me where the Prophets or Apostles are forbid to warn reprove admonish the Church though never so corrupt in their publick dispensations or forbid to administer the holy Sacraments unto them from the like reasons as in the Text. The Prophets were to give warning and tell the people of their sins and of Gods judgements for their sins the Pastors and Elders of their several flocks are to feed the flock of God and to teach them all observances prescribed by their Lord. And see that their people know observe and doe all things that Christ commands ruling over them as the heritage of their Lord and not as if they were of Belial Dogs and Swine whom they may shut out of doores and starve them at their pleasure Having given this sense which I doubt not but is nearer the mark and lesse lyable unto exceptions then Mr. Collins his sense will appear to be And is applyable to men of reproveable spirits now and in the Church too unto private Christians that upon their necessary journey or otherwise may possibly meet with such that will not bear reproofs be it performed with never such wisdom but will either fly in the face or reproach and scorn their reprover In such like cases Christ doth warrant his peoples silence Indeed Mr. Beteman hath done well upon this text and although it were not very civil for Mr. Collins to print his brothers Sermon without his consent and that at second hand too himself not hearing it at all Yet I doubt not but his printing of that Sermon hath done much in taking off what he so freely asperses and reproacheth him with in his long narrative preface But in such cases as before the Church were she in a capacity might use her power to reform such rayling dogged offenders Mr. Collins queries 1. What is meant by that which is holy which was forbid to be given 2. Who are the Dogs and Swine here spoken of 3. To whom this precept is directed His answer to the first is That all holy things and pearls are here forbid c. which the Scripture doth not elsewhere plainly allow to be given unto Dogs and Swine Secondly He sayes he hopes it will easily be granted to concern such holy things as God hath betrusted us Ministers to give out His reason is For is is to men Christ spakes How can Mr. Collins be assured Answ 1 that all holy things are here meant when Christ saith only to private men that he preacht unto Give not that which is holy unto the dogs Were private hearers in a capacity to give all holy things This interp retation will please some men in these exorbitant times that put no difference between persons in the Office and Function of the Ministry and private gifted men Private reproofs instructions admonitions is that which is holy and answers the Word for Christ doth not say give not all holy things speaking in the plural number as Mr. Collins doth nor doth he say give not that which shall be holy hereafter unto the dogs within my Church as Mr. Collins would have it but he saith Give not that which is holy c. speaking in the present tense and then judge whether the holy Supper be here meant that was not yet instituted nor prophesied of Nay see how our Author is intoxicated with his own fancy that he fetches first such a compasse to include it in and then so narrows the text again that he excludes all other holy things out of it and will allow no other thing to be meant but the holy Supper only which is not to be given unto dogs saith he this is a fine fetch to prove suspension indeed if it would hold 't is certain the Sacrament was not spoken of in this text at all Whereas he saith He hopes it will be granted him that the text concerns all such holy things as are betrusted unto Ministers by God himself for it is men that Christ speaks unto See his reason Answ we must grant him that the text concerns all holy things which Ministers are intrusted with to dispense because they were men that Christ spoke to as if all men were intrusted with publike Ordinances And he cannot prove that any of his hearers were in Office to dispense holy things if he could he would have said Ministers for men but I shall proceed and come to his second query What is meant by Dogs and Swine His answer to this is something large in giving the opinion of the learned but I shall not meddle with his authorities but to what himself saith in his 15 16. pages wherein he shews that the Scriptures call some men dogs in several respects but I shall only examine those which concern the argument in hand namely who are Dogs and Swine in the Church of Christ whom Ministers are forbid to give the Sacrament unto and allow them the benefit of all the other Ordinances To his 1 2 3. account let the indifferent reader look unto his quotations and he will be satisfied that they concern not the argument in hand His 4. is Wicked men both in the Old Testament Prov. 26.11 and in the New 2 Pet. 2.22 are called dogs