The Covenant Sealed, Treatise · Chapter 8
CHAP. VIII.
SECT. I. Of the neceſſity of Sacraments.
THe next Obſervation that the words offer, is,Sacraments are not arbitrary but neceſſary. That Sacraments are not arbitrary, but neceſſary; the Covenant-people of God, not onelyonly may, but muſt partake of them. As God appointed, ſo Abraham received this ſign of circumciſion: And as he received it, ſo all in confederation with him received it likewiſe, Gen. 17.23. And Abraham took Iſhmael his ſon, and all that were born in his houſe, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abrahams houſe, and circumciſed the fleſh of their foreskin, in the ſelf-ſame day, as God had ſaid unto him. And the ſtated time for circumciſion of thoſe children who were born of parents in Covenant, being the eighth day, the text tells us, That Abraham circumciſed his ſon Iſaac, being eight dayes old, as God Commanded him, Gen. 21.4. And when Moſes had a ſon born in his exile, and had neglected this duty; The Lord met him in his way from Midian to Egypt, and ſought to kill him, Exrd. 4.24. he appeared in ſome formidable way of death to him, in that way (as many do conjecture) that he appeared to Balaam on his way, Numb. 22.23. Not that God really intended his death whom he now employed in that great work to deliver his people out of Egypt, but he appeared in this poſture, to let him know what his ſin deſerved, and by theſe terrors to bring him and his wife to take the courſe after mentioned, for prevention of it. And though there have been ſome that have gone about to aſſign other cauſes of Gods anger againſt hith, and this apparition in ſuch terror, yet no other in the text appearing, and God departing from him, upon the childs circumciſion; the neglect of that Command was undoubtedly the cauſe of it. Whatſoever reaſon moved Moſes to this neglect, whether the fear of diſpleaſing his father in law, or his wife, (which Rivet judges to be moſt probable) certain it is from the Lords diſpleaſure againſt him, that it was his ſin. This was after given in charge by Moſes to the people of God, Levit. 12.3. ſpeaking of the birth of a man-child, he ſaith, The eighth day the fleſh of his foreskin ſhall be circumciſed. This the Iſraelites (except the intermiſſion of it in the wilderneſſe) exactly followed; when the eighth day happened on the Sabbath, that work was yet obſerved, as Chriſt notes, Joh. 7.23. On the Sabbath day they received circumciſion, that the Law of Moſes might not be broken; John Baptiſt therefore on the eighth day was circumciſed, Luk. 1.59. and Chriſt himſelf on that day was circumciſed, Luk. 2.21. as alſo Paul, Philip. 3.5. That of the Paſſeover was appointed 400. years at the leaſt, after circumciſion. It had its firſt inſtitution in Egypt, Exod. 12.3, 4. &c. to be obſerved as a feaſt to the Lord, throughout their generations, to be kept as an Ordinance for ever, ver. 14. It was again commanded by Moſes, and inſerted into the body of the Law, Levit. 23.4. Numb. 28.16. This was carefully obſerved by the Iſraelites in their generations, though at ſome times when Idolatry prevailed, ſinfully neglected. We read of many famous Paſſeovers obſerved; viz. In Joſhua's time, in Hezekiah's, in Joſiah's dayes, alſo by Ezra upon the return of Gods people out of the captivity of Babylon, Ezra 6.19. It is obſerved of the Lord Chriſt, that he kept four Paſſeovers after the time that he publickly appeared as the Meſſiah. The laſt was the evening before his death, concerning which he ſaid, With a deſire have I deſired to eat this Paſſeover with you before I dye, Luk. 22.15. With extreme earneſt affection he was carried towards it, and then he put a period to it, and did inſtitute his Supper in the place and room of it. That heavy menace, ſo frequently threatened in the Law, of being cut off from among their people, is given out againſt the neglect of both of theſe Sacraments, Gen 17.14. The uncircumciſed manchild whoſe fleſh of his foreskin is not circumciſed, that ſoul ſhall be cut off from his people, he hath broken my Covenant, Num. 9.13. The man that is clean, and is not in a journey, and forbeareth to keep the Paſſeover; even the ſame ſoul ſhall be cut off from his people, becauſe he brought not the offering of the Lord in his appointed ſeaſon, that man ſhall bear his ſin; which commination however we do interpret it, whether of the more immediate hand of God, as dying childleſſe: The caſe of Jeconiah, Jer. 22.30. or being cut off by untimely death: The caſe of Er and Onan, Gen. 38.1.9. and of Nadab and Abihu, Levit. 10.2. or periſhing everlaſtingly: The caſe of all preſumtuous and inpenitent ſiners, 1 Cor. 6.9. or whether the execution be committed to man, and that either the temporal Magiſtrate, which was the caſe of Achan, Joſh. 7. and of Shelomiths ſon, Levit. 24.14. or by Eccleſiaſtical cenſure, which was the caſe of the inceſtuous Corinthian, 1 Cor. 5.13. As there be that appear for each of theſe, which way ſoever it is underſtood, it ſufficiently proves a neceſſity of theſe Ordinances. For the Sacraments of the New Teſtament when John baptiſed, and the Phariſees did refuſe to ſubmit to his Baptiſme, the text ſaith, They rejected the Counſel of God againſt themſelves, Luk. 7.30. and the Commiſſion given to the Apoſtles, to diſciple all Nations, baptizing them, Matth. 28.19. implyes a neceſſity of all diſcipled ones, to ſubmit to Baptiſme, Mar. 16.16. He that believeth and is baptized ſhall be ſaved. Faith is of abſolute neceſſity in all that hear the tender of the Goſpel, and therefore it followes, He that believeth not ſhall be damned; and Baptiſme is the ordinary way ſet up of God, that leads to it. Peter counſels his converts, when he had them in an hopeful way, Repent and be Baptized, Act. 2.28. And Ananias counſels Paul, Ariſe, why tarrieſt thou? and be baptized, Act. 22.16. For the Lord Supper we find it under a precept, 1 Cor. 11.24, 25. Luk. 22.19. Do this in remembrance of me, 1 Cor. 11.28. Let a man examine himſelf, and ſo let him eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup, implies as a preparation for it; ſo alſo a neceſſity, that we eat and drink of it; ſo that every Sacrament hath its injunction upon it.
Firſt, The inſtitution of it is a ſufficient proof of the neceſſity. God did never inſtitute it to have it neglected; There is ſtrength in that argument from the gift to the uſe,Arguments evincing the neceſſity of Sacraments. from the fruition of any thing from the hand of God (as the ſervant the talent from his Maſter) to the improvement of it. Theſe are inſtituted of God for his people, and therefore for the uſe of his people. That which the Apoſtle ſpeaks reſpective to Goſpel ordinances in general, may be applyed to any one in particular; We beſeech you, that ye receive not the grace of God in vain, 2 Cor. 6.1.
Secondly, Frequent explicite commands are added (as we have ſeen in the Scripture proofs) reſpective to either of the Sacraments; and though no other reaſon could be rendred, yet the Soveraignty of heaven muſt be obeyed. When the young Prophet that came from Judah, 1 Kings 13. did eat bread upon his return, expreſſely contrary to the command of God, we know the judgement that followed, when the like command is broke in refuſal to eat, there is the like danger; God hath power in poſitives, as well as negatives, in commanding of eating, as he hath in forbidding.
Thirdly, As it is a duty, ſo alſo a priviledg; we obey a command when we receive a Sacrament, and alſo take a gift. And the ſleighting of Gods favours, equals the evil of diſobedience to his commands. What ſin ſuffers more then theirs, that upon call, refuſe to come to the wedding ſupper? The gift is annexed to the duty. Take eat, this is my body; they that do not eat, have not the promiſe.
Fourthly, Our neceſſity calls us to it, we have proved the Supper to be an heart-breaking ordinance, and there is none that deny it to be a ſoule ſtrengthening ordinance. Hunger will make haſte to run to meat, guilt to pardon, and pain to eaſe, and ſorrow to comfort; were we as ſenſible of our hunger, or guilt, we ſhould make equal haſte to Chriſt in each ordinance, in this ordinance. Thoſe that are agreed about the neceſſity of Sacraments, are yet at difference about the degree, or kind of their neceſſity. That diſtinction of neceſſity by precept, or command of God, and neceſſity as a means whereby ſalvation is gained, is well knownaAdverſarii fatentur Sacramenta eſſe neceſſaria quia praecepta, et etiam neceſſaira ut media utilia: non tamen agnoſcunt ullum Sacramentum neceſſarium, ſimpliciter ut medium. Bellarmine ſaies, we yield to them the former, that there is the neceſſity of a divine command upon them, And they alſo yield to us that no other Sacraments of theirs are any otherwiſe neceſſary, except Baptiſme and repentance. And we further yield that repentance is of neceſſity in the moſt abſolute ſenſe; being underſtood of the change of the heart or converſion to God. But not under any notion of a Sacrament. As to their Sacramental repentance, ſtanding in confeſſion in the eares of a Prieſt, taking pennance, and receiving abſolution from him, we do not ſo much as acknowledg any command of God concerning them; All the diſpute then is about Baptiſme, In which alſo we cannot grant, that there is a command given of God concerning it, but we muſt yield that it is neceſſary as a means whereby God in his ordinary way, carries us on by his grace to ſalvation; onelyonly we deny ſuch an abſolute neceſſity of it, as that no ſalvation can be obtained without it. They yet yield that deſire of Baptiſme doth ſupply the want of it, and we yield that thoſe of years, that neither have it nor deſire it, cannot be excluded from contempt of it. This growing out of error, as in Socinians, The kind or degree of neceſſity in Sacraments.and others, we ſay it is dangerous, but do not preſently conclude it damnable. But the want of it, where there can be no deſire of it, as in infants, they make damnable; in which we wholly are diſſenters, and cannot yield a neceſſity of that height in it. We have our reaſons.
Firſt, Salvation was not tied to Sacraments in the Old Teſtament; not to circumciſion, in room of which we have baptiſme, and is by the Apoſtle called by the name of Baptiſme, Col. 2.11. This is clear by the delay of it, according to Gods command, to the eighth day. If thoſe periſhed that died in the mean ſpace, which was the caſe of Davids child, their parents obedience of Gods command brought them to perdition. And ſalvation being not tied to Sacraments, but attainable without them, in the daies of the Old Teſtament, there is no cauſe to believe, that in the New Teſtament, there ſhould be reſtraint. The promulgation of the Goſpel did not ſtreighten grace, or make the way leſſe paſſeable to life and glory.
Secondly, They that are in Covenant with God, are upon that account in capacity of Salvation. This is plain; what advantage is gained by Covenant, if ſalvation be denyed? But ſuch are in Covenant, many ſuch that never were baptized. This is as clear. I will be thy God and the God of thy ſeed; aſſoone as Abraham had a child, he had a child in Covenant, which howſoever Jeſuits, and after them Anabaptiſts would underſtand of the ſpiritual ſeed, yet God (as we ſee through the Old Teſtament) ownes them as his in a greater latitude. Thoſe to whom he gave the land of Canaan, are his ſeed there mentioned: But he gave not the Land of Canaan to the ſpiritual ſeed onelyonly: Therefore they onelyonly are not the ſeed there mentioned. The New Teſtament holds it out, in as great latitude, as I have abundantly ſhewed.
Thirdly, As Abraham the Father of the faithful came into a ſtate of juſtification, and ſalvation, ſo others may attain to it in like ſort; This is evident of it ſelf: But Abraham was in a ſtate of juſtification, without application of any Sacrament in his ſtate of uncircumciſion, and not of Circumciſion, as the Apoſtle argues, by computing the time, when it was ſaid of him, that he believed the Lord, and it was accounted unto him for righteouſneſſe, Rom. 4.9, 10.
Fourthly, If Baptiſme be of this abſolute neceſſity, that regeneration is affixt to it, and none can be ſaved without it, then it is in mans power to ſave; and deſtroy, as is ſaid of Nebuchadnezzar, whom he would he ſlew, and whom he would he kept alive, Dan. 5.19. which was the higheſt pitch of prerogative in regard of the outward man; ſo it may be ſaid of man reſpective to eternity of bliſſe, or miſery; according to them the meaneſt midwife may Baptize them ready to give up the Ghoſt, and ſave them, neglect them, and damne them. The Infant ſet out in type, Ezek. 16. And Moſes in the flags, lay ſadly at mans mercy for this fading life; but thouſands of infants, are alike at mercy, according to this tenent, for eternity.
Joh. 3.5. vindicated.The great objection which is made on the contrary, and that onelyonly which is worthy of conſideration, is drawn from Chriſts words in conference with Nicodemus, Joh. 3.5. Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. The water there, is meant of Baptiſme, that laver of regeneration, without this there is no entrance into heaven. When Paul ſaid, Except theſe ſtay in the ſhip, ye cannot be ſaved, Acts 27.31. all will preſently underſtand that their abode in the ſhip was of abſolute neceſſity to ſafety; and ſo alſo baptiſme according to Chriſts words for eternity.
Anſw. Though it be not eaſy to determine, what is the right meaning, (and genuine interpretation of thoſe words, yet it is of no great difficulty to vindicate them, from them that would faſten this ſenſe upon them, and gather this conſequence from them; And before I come to a full anſwer, I ſhall premiſe two things. 1. That it is a wonder that Nicodemus coming to our Saviour in the night, and as yet knowing nothing in the Myſtery of Chriſt, ſhould hear that from him, that others in the open light, and farre more knowing in Chriſtianity, could never hear from his mouth. 2. Bellarmine himſelf (as Ameſius doth obſerve) confeſſes (and if I do not much miſtake, Suarez ſomewhere) that at that time of Chriſts conference with Nicodemus, there was no ſuch abſolute neceſſity of Baptiſme. He puts the queſtion when baptiſme began to be neceſſary, and determines it in four propoſitions.Baptiſmus Ch…ſti non fuit neceſſarius neceſſitate medii aut praecepti ante Chriſti mortem. Baptiſmus Chriſti coepit eſſe neceſſarius neceſſitate medii & praecepti a die pentecoſtes. The third is, That it was not neceſſary before the death of Chriſt, neither neceſſitate praecepti, or medii. The fourth is, that it was not neceſſary, neceſſitate me dii, & praecepti, before the day of Pentecoſt. And let any judge whether it be probable, inſtructing that novice in the faith, Chriſt would in the firſt place inform him, not what in preſent, but what afterwards would be of neceſſity, eſpecially ſeeing that after that time by him ſet down, when the abſolute neceſſity ſhould commence, we hear of no ſuch neceſſity of it. For more full ſatisfaction, I further anſwer,
Firſt, That text which names not Baptiſme, and cannot be concluded by an argument infallibly cogent to ſpeak of Baptiſme cannot enforce an abſolute neceſſity of it; This is cleare: But this text names not Baptiſme, neither is there any argument to conclude infallibly, that it ſpeaks of baptiſme; probabilities are mentioned, but no neceſſary concluding argument is by any produced.
Secondly, A Scripture-text carrying like colour, hath been urged for a like neceſſity for infants to receive the Lords Supper, John 6.53. But this is agreed on all parties not to hold: This then how eagerly ſoever it is preſt, may fail likewiſe.
Thirdly, Either water there muſt be taken for Baptiſme of water, or elſe by way of Exegeſis to hold out the ſame thing that was expreſt before by the birth of the Spirit. If the latter will hold, as there are many parallel inſtances given, and multitudes of Divines ſo interprete it (Gerrard in his common places reckons up many more then I have to conſult) then this text comes to nothing in this particular. And that this ſhould be the meaning, Chamier with fair probabilities argues, ſeeing in this ſenſe, the words bear an abſolute truth without any limitation. All being of a corrupt birth there is a neceſſity of a new birth, and that by the Spirit, there being no more births then that of the fleſh (which is corrupt) and that of the Spirit, that comes to heal corruption. If the former ſtand, that water muſt of neceſſity hold out Baptiſme of water, as Papiſts and Lutherans generally contend, and many Proteſtants yield, then either the words muſt be taken in an abſolute way, without any limit at all, or elſe with their juſt and due limitations; If limits muſt be put, then no abſolute unlimitted neceſſity can be concluded; and to underſtand it without any limit at all, our adverſaries themſelves ſee to be lyable to dangerous abſurdities.
Some therefore underſtand it of the Baptiſme of water, or ſome other that ſupplies the place and room of it; and it is on all hands granted, that Baptiſmus flaminis & ſanguinis, the Spirit, or blood in Martyrdome, may ſupply the room of it for ſalvation. And this Chamier ſaies, is the limit that Arboreus puts. Others underſtand it of Baptiſme of water, if it can be had, and it be not contemned and deſpiſed, and this Chamier ſaies is the limit that Lombard, Bonaventure, Gorran, Carthuſian, and Villagadus put to it. Others underſtand it of that regeneration, that is ordinarily by baptiſme of water, though by other meanes it may be wrought. And this limit Alexander of Hales puts to it, as Ameſius obſerves, either of actual Baptiſme, or elſe of the deſire of it, and this Suarez ſayes is the opinion of all Divines, and charges it for an hereſy to hold, that none of years can be ſaved unleſſe actually baptized, notwithſtanding their earneſt deſire of it; and in his time, he ſaies, one a Michael Baius a Divine of Lovain held it, But as (he ſaies) Pius 5. and Gregorius 13. in their letters publiſhed did condemne it. And this text being ſubject to ſo many limitations, our adverſaries being judges; I hope I may without any juſt exception adde one, that it be underſtood of men of years, ſuch as Nicodemus was, to whom it was ſpoken; ſeeing ſo many helps are provided for men of yeares in the want of Baptiſme, it is altogether unreaſonable to leave Infants in ſuch exigents, as to be irremedileſly under damnation for eternity, when it is not in their power to make proviſion of it, and ſo are holpen by Lombard, and thoſe of that party: Any man may be their Compurgitor that they are not guilty of contempt of it. Beſides this Text, there are many high ſpeeches alledged out of ſome of the Ancient for the neceſſity of Baptiſme, and heavy doom of thoſe that paſſe out of this world in the want of it. But theſe are not onelyonly under the diſlike of Proteſtants, but of thoſe that theſe lay claim to be of their own party. Bernard, Epiſt. 77. is large againſt them; and Voſſius hath a full quotation out of Petrus Bleſſenſis, who was Bernards contemporary.cSufficit Spiritus & aqua: Sufficit Spiritus & ſanguis, ſi aquam non excluſit contemptus Religionis, ſed articulus neceſſitatis: Sufficiet ſolus Spiritus, quia teſtimonium ipſius pondus habet. The Spirit and water ſufficeth; The Spirit and blood ſufficeth, if inſtant neceſſity, and not contempt of Religion depriveth of Water. The Spirit alone may ſuffice, for his teſtimony hath weight in it. And whereas Auſtin of all other is moſt frequently quoted for this rigid ſentence, as being in name moſt eminent, my author ſets Austine againſt Auſtin, having in his 5th. Book againſt Donatiſts theſe words:dEtiam atque etiam conſiderans in venio, non tantum paſſionem pro nomine Chriſti, id quod ex Baptiſmo decrat, poſſe ſupplere, ſed etiam fidem converſionemque cordis, ſi forte ad celebrandum myſterium baptiſmi, in anguſtiis temporum ſufficere non poteſt. Neque enim latro ille pro nomine Chriſti crucifixus eſt, ſed pro meritis facinorum ſuorum; nec quia credidit paſſus eſt, ſed dum patitur credit: quantum it aque valeat etiam ſine viſibili Sacramento baptiſmi quod ait Apoſtolus. Rom. 10.10 Corde creditur ad juſtitiam, ore autem fit confeſſio ad ſalutem, in illo latrone declaratum eſt: ſed tunc impletur inviſibiliter cum myſterium baptiſmi, non contemptus Religionis, ſed articulus neceſſitatis excludit. Again, and again, conſidering I find, that not onelyonly ſuffering for the Name of Chriſt, may ſupply what is wanting in Baptiſme, but alſo faith, and converſion of the heart, if peradventure ſtreights of time will not permit the celebration of the Sacrament of Baptiſme. But to hold the Reader no longer in this controverſy; in avoiding the Popiſh neceſſity of Sacraments, for a more diſtinct underſtanding of this neceſſity of Sacraments, I ſhall lay down ſome rules.
SECT. II. Rules for a right underſtanding of the neceſſity of Sacraments.
Rules for a right underſtanding of the neceſſity of Sacraments. 1. Sacraments are ſtanding Ordinances.FIrſt, that Sacraments both of the Old, and New Teſtament, are standing Ordinances, to be obſerved of the people of God, not barely in the generation in which they were ſet up, but in all ſucceſſive generations; ſo that there is an abiding and laſting neceſſity in them. This is in that punctuall way ſet down in Scriptures reſpective to each Sacrament, as though the Spirit of God would let us know, that he did foreſee a generation ready to ariſe, to throw them off, and live above them, or elſe to vilifie them, as unneceſſary, indifferent and arbitrary. For circumciſion, ſee Gen. 17.12, 13. He that is eight dayes old, ſhall be circumciſed among you, every man-child in your generations: he that is born in the houſe, or bought with money of any ſtranger which is not of thy ſeed, he that is born in thy houſe, and he that is bought with thy money muſt needs be circumciſed, and my Covenant ſhall be in your fleſh for an everlaſting Covenant. God layes there a neceſſity upon it, a laſting neceſſity in all ſucceeding generations of that people to be obſerved; and when Moſes ſeveral generations afterwards did as we have heard omit it; upon what reaſon we have nothing but conjecture. We ſee, Exod. 4.24. how much God was diſpleaſed at it. And for the Paſſeover, Exod. 12.13. we find a like laſting injunction, This day ſhall be unto you for a memoriall, and you ſhall keep it a feaſt unto the Lord, thorowout your generations: you ſhall keep it a feaſt by an Ordinance for ever: repeated again, ver. 17. It was an Ordinance that no Jew in any generation might antiquate, or put a period unto. It muſt laſt as long as they remained a diſtinct generation unto God, even till Chriſt (in whoſe hands are times and ſeaſons, in whom there is neither Jew nor Greek) ſhould be the end of it. As to New Teſtament-Sacraments the Scripture is as clear; when Chriſt gave commiſſion for diſcipling Nations, and baptizing them, for their encouragement in the work, he promiſes his preſence unto the end of the world: The work is to continue as long as Chriſts preſence in the work continues: But Chriſts preſence according to promiſe, is to continue with them in diſcipling of Nations, and baptizing them, being diſcipled, unto the end of the world. I am not ignorant of the Critical obſervation that is made of the phraſe, foreign, ſaeculi, by reaſon of the various acceptation of it in Scriptures, endeavouring to have it to be underſtood of the end of that age, in which thoſe lived to whom Chriſt ſpake. But neither the parallel uſe of the word by Matthew, nor the context will bear that evaſion. For the parallel uſe of the phraſe by Matthew four places may be inſtanced in, three in one Chapter, Matth. 13.39. The harveſt is the end of the world, verſ. 40. As therefore the tares are gathered and burnt in the fire, ſo ſhall it be in the end of this world, verſ. 49. So ſhall it be at the end of the world, the Angels ſhall come forth, and ſever the wicked from among the juſt, Matth. 24.3. Tell us when ſhall theſe things be? and what ſhall be the ſign of the coming, and of the end of the world? In all places the phraſe is the ſame, and the words can be underſtood in none of them with that limitation: And that the context will not bear it, enough may be gathered from that which I have ſaid, Treatiſe of the Covenant, pag. 117. For a more clear diſcovery of the words, we know that there is a double period of ages, or generations in Scripture: One at Chriſts firſt, coming, when an end was put to Circumciſion, and the Paſſeover; of this the Apoſtle ſpeaks, Heb. 9.26. But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared, to put away ſin by the ſacrifice of himſelf: at the end of that world Chriſt dyed. The other is at his ſecond coming, and this is the end of the world here mentioned; and upon this account Dr. Reynolds in this Sermons upon Hoſ. 14. interprets that of Chriſt concerning the ſin againſt the Holy Ghoſt, that it ſhall never be forgiven in this life, nor in the life to come, Matth. 12.32. of the age in which Chriſt lived, and now near to an end, and the age that ſhould follow from his death till his ſecond coming; neither under the Old, nor New Teſtament, or Covenant, can that ſin find remiſſion. Till Chriſts ſecond return, a Miniſtery, and Baptiſme muſt ſtill remain. For the Lords Supper, Scripture-teſtimony is as clear, 1 Cor. 11.26. As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do ſhew forth the Lords death till he come. If we can believe a coming of Chriſt for a temporal Reign, before the time of his, coming to the general Judgment, I ſhall believe that may be called the conſummation, end or finiſhing of this generation; and then a period may be put to theſe and other Ordinances. But howſoever that will anſwer, or fail mens expectations, certain it is, that it is the mind of Chriſt that they ſhall ſtand, till the time that he doth come; and then his mind will be further known. The practice of the Church hath hitherto anſwered theſe teſtimonies. All ages of the Church (as we know) held up Circumciſion till Chriſts time, and in Chriſts time it was in uſe, as Chriſt teſtifies, Joh. 7.22. and he ſubmits to it in his own perſon, Luk. 2. and ſo we may ſay of the Paſſeover notwithſtanding ſome diſuſe, the godly ever knew it to be in force, or elſe, as piety broke forth, they had not ſtill reaſſumed it. And Chriſt dying (as we have heard) at the end of that world, the day that he was to dye, he held a paſſeover. In New Teſtament-times not onelyonly through the Apoſtles times, but to this time, Baptiſme and the Lords Supper have continued. Reaſons may alſo enforce this as to Sacraments in general, ſo to Baptiſme and the Lords Supper in particular. 1. The Covenant is to be kept for ever, there is no diſpenſation at any time for the breach of it; The ſeals then which by Divine inſtitution are appointed as appendants to it, muſt be continued. As reaſon it ſelf may ſpeak enough for the validity of this conſequence, ſo the Text of Scripture likewiſe confirms it, Gen. 17.7, 13. compared, I will eſtabliſh my Covenant between me, and thee, and thy ſeed after thee, in their generations for an everlaſting Covenant; to be a God unto thee, and unto thy ſeed after thee. He that is born in thy houſe, and he that is bought with thy money, muſt needs be circumciſed; and my Covenant ſhall be in your fleſh, for an everlaſting Covenant. 2. We have as much need as ever, this generation as any other generation, to have our weakneſſes ſupported, our faith ſtrengthened; there is not any benefit ever gained by a Sacrament, but as primitive times did, ſo we may reap ſpiritual advantage by it. For reaſons for the perpetuity of Baptiſme, Mr. Baxter, pag. 341, 342. of his Treatiſe of Infants Church-memberſhip and Baptiſme, hath furniſhed the Reader with plenty; of ten that he urges, I judg nine at leaſt to be unqueſtionable; to which I ſhall adde onelyonly one, and that is ſuch a one, that with weakneſſe enough hath been brought by ſome for warranty of the diſuſe of it. If the gift of the Spirit be laſting, and continuing in the Church, then the uſe of Baptiſme is laſting and continuing likewiſe: But the gift of the Spirit is laſting and continuing: Ergo. The aſſumption, that the Spirit is a laſting gift, I ſuppoſe none will queſtion. The major Propoſition is grounded on the Apoſtles words, Act. 10.47. Can any man forbid water, that theſe ſhould not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghoſt as well as we? When others do reaſon from the having of the Spirit, to the needleneſſe of Baptiſme, the Apoſtle diſputes in the direct oppoſite manner, where the Spirit is, there Baptiſme is not to be denyed. For the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, we may likewiſe evince the conſtant ſtanding neceſſity of it: 1. The death of Chriſt is to be ſhewed forth conſtantly, and every way preached: This is a ſhewing forth of the death of Chriſt, a means of declaring of him crucified, 1 Cor. 11.26. 2. The memorial of Chriſt is to be preſerved, and endeared; This is for his memorial, done in remembrance of him, Matth 26. Luke 22. 1 Cor. 11. If the deliverance from Egypt muſt be kept as a memorial for ever in that Ordinance of the Paſſeover, then much more the remembrance of Chriſt in his Supper. 3. Every way of Communion with Chriſt is to be preſerved, and upheld; This is a way of Communion with Chriſt, 1 Cor. 10.16. 4. Union with the Members of Chriſt is to be ſtudied; This is the way of our union with the Members of Chriſt, and therefore this is to be continued. I ſhall not enlarge much for refutation of Objections of thoſe that in our times are contrarily minded, ſeeing I have read little of any thing that they have to ſay; a noiſe is abroad of ſuch (with whom I have had ſmall converſe) that cry down rebaptiſme, by the denyal of Baptiſme; as Lucian made it his buſineſſe to confute Polytheiſme, by bringing in of Atheiſme; made himſelf merry with the Pagans rabble of gods, by believing no God; Oppoſition of errour ordinarily leads men into oppoſite errors; but a better way may be found for the overthrow of a double Baptiſme, then by the nullifying of all baptiſme. One God aſſerted by the Apoſtle will overthrow Atheiſme and Polytheiſme, and one Baptiſme aſſerted by him in the ſame place will overthrow Anabaptiſme. But theſe are not the firſt founders of this opinion: Auſtin ſpeaking of the Manichees, Hereſ. 46. ſaith,eBaptiſmum in aqua nihil cuiquam perhibent ſalutis adferre, nec quenquam eorum, baptizandum putant. That they hold, that Baptiſm with water not at all uſefull for ſalvation, neither do they think it meet to baptize any that they deceive: and ſpeaking of other Hereticks, Hereſ. 49. Seleuciani, and Hermiani, he ſaith,fBaptiſmum in aquâ non accipiunt. They do not hold any baptiſme with water. And Philaſtrius (who as Bellarmine witneſſes de Scriptor. Eccleſiasticis, pag. 93. wrote before Auſtin of Hereſies, and is quoted by Auſtin) ſaith,gSeleucus & Hermius haeretici animas hominum de igne & Spiritu eſſe exiſtimantes, iſti baptiſmo non utuntur, propter verbum hoc quod dixit Johannes Baptiſta: ipſe vos baptizabit in Spiritu & igne. Seleucus, and Hermius the hereticks hold, that the ſoul conſiſts of fire, and the Spirit. Theſe uſe not Baptiſme, by reaſon of John Baptiſts words, He ſhall baptize you with the Spirit, and fire. Socinus in this laſt age hath revived this opinion, and ſaith,hBaptiſmum aquae habere praeceptum Chriſti, aut ſaltem non perpetuum & univerſale. That Baptiſme with water hath no command from Chriſt, or at leaſt no perpetual, and univerſal command. The Reader if he pleaſe may ſee the Scriptures by him wreſted, and Reaſons by him brought,Refert Voſſius. vindicated, and anſwered by Voſſius de neceſſitate Baptiſmi, pag 381. to pag. 388.
Rule. 2 Secondly, There appears a greater degree of neceſſity of the initiatory leading Sacrament, Initiatory Sacraments are of greater neceſſity then thoſe that follow.which ſerves for our firſt admiſſion (whether in the dayes of the Old, or New Teſtament) into the Church of God, then of the other that ſucceeds for our further ſtrength and growth. Both of them are neceſſary, neither of them are arbitrary; but in caſe we may enter compariſon, the greater weight lyes on the former, as may ſeveral wayes appear unto us:
Arguments evincing this neceſſity.Firſt, There was a leading Sacrament for initiation many years in the Church, before any was ordained to follow after it. Circumciſion was given in charge 400 years before the Paſſeover; that of Circumciſion was not long after Abrahams call, and the promiſe of the land of Canaan being before Iſaac's birth, which was onelyonly 25 years diſtant from his firſt removal out of Haran for Canaan, as appears, Gen. 12.4. & 21.5. compared. The Paſſeover was given in charge upon Iſraels departure out of Egypt, Exod. 12. one year before the Law was given, which was 430 yeares after the promiſe to Abraham, Gal. 3.17. All this time the ſeed of Abraham entred into the Church by Circumciſion, and enjoyed no other Sacrament properly ſo called.
Secondly, Gods diſpleaſure never ſhewed it ſelf ſo high, upon the neglect of the Paſſeover, as upon the neglect of Circumciſion, though the penalty threatned is the ſame in both, Gen. 17.14. Numb. 9.13. God never appeared, that we read, for the death of any, upon that account, as he did for the death of Moſes, upon the neglect of Circumciſion. Reverend Mr. Cotton makes the like danger to be in the neglect of Infant-Baptiſme, as we may ſee in the Preface to his Book on that ſubject.
Thirdly, To be utterly out of the Church, muſt needs be of greater danger, then to want ſome one Ordinance in the Church.iExtra Eccleſiam nulla Salus. Out of the Church there is no ſalvation, is an old Rule, which Acts 2.47. Epheſ. 2.12. Jer. 10.25. abundantly confirm, that is, without it, and all right of relation to it, and to be without right, and to live in the neglect and deſpiſal of it, (being convinced of the neceſſity of it) are alike dangerous.
Fourthly, No ſuch brand can lye on the want of the one, as the other; none equal to that of uncircumciſion, can be faſtened upon the want of any other priviledge: But leſt excuſing à tanto, I ſhould be though to excuſe à toto, in comparing the danger, I ſhould be though to deny any danger in the want of this later, I ſhall ceaſe.
Thirdly, As the Paſſeover in Iſrael, both in the wilderneſſe, The Lords Supper may occaſionally be delayed.and Rule. 3 the Land of Canaan, was ſometimes diſcontinued, and not in the time preſcribed obſerved, by reaſon of the Churches diſorder, and preſent unpreparedneſſe of the people; ſo likewiſe it may haply ſometimes fall out on like occaſion, to be thought needfull for a time to delay the Lords Supper. For the diſuſe of the Paſſeover by the children of Iſrael in the Wilderneſſe more happily may be ſaid, then for the time when they were ſettled in Canaan, ſeeing Circumciſion at that time was alſo diſcontinued, whether by ſpecial command from God, or upon inevitable neceſſity by reaſon of their often removals, for which the knife of Circumciſion would have diſabled, or their ſinful neglect, I will not determine; and yet more is ſaid for ommiſſion of it in that time, then perhaps can fairly be defended. A Reverend Divine ſaith, He wonders why omiſſion of the Paſſeover in the wilderneſſes is alledged; for after the firſt celebration thereof, all future celebrations were by expreſſe and plain command to be onelyonly in the Land of Canaan; quoting Exod. 13.4, 5. with an &c. Deut. 16. from ver. 1. uſ que ad 8. and confirming it at large with the authority of Rivet, inſerting his words. But with due reverence to men of their eminencey, I may ſuggeſt alſo my wondrings, how it can be ſaid, that by expreſſe and plain command all future celebrations of the Paſſe, after the firſt, were onelyonly to be in the Land of Canaan, ſeeing, Numb. 9.1. a famous Paſſeover was obſerved in the wilderneſſe of Sinai, in the firſt monethmonth of the ſecond year after they were come out of the Land of Egypt. If it be ſaid, that this Paſſeouer in the Wilderneſſe was by eſpecial command from God, and otherwiſe ſhould not have been obſerved till they came into the Land of Canaan, as Ainſworth on Numb. 9.1. in favour of this opinion doth indeed ſay, The cauſe why God commanded them to keep the Paſſeover in the Wilderneſſe was, (ſaith he) for that by the firſt inſtitution they were bound to keep it when they came into the Land of Canaan, and therefore without ſpeciall warranty could not have kept it in the deſert. I anſwer, That Circumciſion when it was firſt taken up again in the Wilderneſſe, was by eſpecial command from God, Joſh. 5.2. and in all probability the Paſſeover that then was obſerved with it, ver. 10. was by like command; which doth not argue, but that by vertue of the primitive inſtitution they might have kept it; neither is there any Text urged evincing any ſuch limit to the Land of Canaan: for the place quoted, Deut. 16.2, 5, 6. verſes, onelyonly looks that way,Deut. 16.2, 5, 6. vindicated. and the words are theſe, Thou ſhalt therefore ſacrifice the Paſſeover unto the Lord thy God, of the flock and the herd in the place in which the Lord ſhall chooſe to place his Name there; thou mayeſt not ſacrifice the Paſſeover within any of thy gates, which the Lord thy God giveth thee; But at the place which the Lord thy God ſhall chooſe to place his Name in, there thou ſhalt ſacrifice the Paſſeover at even, at the going down of the Sun, at the ſeaſon that thou cameſt forth out …f Egypt: and there the place prohibited is not all places out of Canaan, but their own gates, though in Canaan. And the place preſcribed is not Canaan, but the place whereſoever God ſhould fix his Tabernacle; upon the ſame account no ſacrifice could have been with warranty offered in the Wilderneſſe, but onelyonly in Canaan, there is the like reaſon, and like Law for both, Deut. 12.5, 6, 7. But unto the place which the Lord your God ſhall chooſe out of all your Tribes to put his Name there, even unto his habitation ſhall ye ſeek, and thither thou ſhalt come, and thither ye ſhall bring your burnt-offerings, and your ſacrifices, and your tythes, and heave-offerings of your hand, and your vowes, and your free-will offerings, and the firſtlings of your herds and of your flocks, and there ye ſhall eat before the Lord your God. Yet we find ſacrifice offered in the Wilderneſſe, and there they did eat before the Lord, as is plain, Levit. 10.1. ver. 16, to the end. As for Exod. 12.25. & 13.45. where the command for celebration of the Paſſeover is given in charge to be obſerved, when they came into the Land of Canaan, They being to have Canaan by the gift of God for their habitation, mention is made of that place, where it was in all their generations to be obſerved (and no notice taken of any ſuch halt, that they were to make in the way, which their ſin did afterwards occaſion): But it is no prohibition of it in the way thither, or warranty for omiſſion, when the time was thus protracted for their arrival there; having the Tabernacle with them, they had their liberty for obſervation of it: which is clear to me, from Deut. 12.10, 11. When ye go over Jordan and dwell in the Land, which the Lord your God giveth you to inherit, and when he giveth you reſt from all your enemies round about, ſo that ye dwell in ſafety, then there ſhall be a place, which the Lord your God ſhall chooſe, to cauſe his Name to dwell there, thither ſhall ye bring all that I command you. But before they paſſed Jordan, while Moſes was with them, as you have heard, they had their offerings, which is further plain, Numb. 16.17, 18, 46.47. and ſo might have had their Paſſeover likewiſe. As the Paſſeover was diſcontinued in the Wilderneſſe; ſo it was alſo oftentimes in the Land of Canaan, we read of no more Paſſeovers then one, that was kept by Joſhuah. Joſiah in the eighth year of his Reign, began to ſeek after the God of his Fathers; and in the twelfth year he began to purge Judah, and Jeruſalem from the high places, and the groves, and the carved Images, and the molten Images, 2 Chron. 34.3, 4. But it was in the eighteenth year of his Reign that he could reach to keep a Paſſeover, Chap. 35.19. Hezekiah, as appears, haſted to keep a Paſſeover, yet durſt not be over-haſty, he could not keep it on the day which originally in the Law was appointed. But upon advice put it off to the ſecond monethmonth, becauſe the Prieſts had not ſanctified themſelves ſufficiently, 2 Chro. 30.3. Ezra kept a Paſſeover upon the return out of the Captivity, Ezra 6.19. and the reaſon is given, verſ. 20, 21. For the Prieſts and Levites were purified together, all of them were pure, and killed the Paſſeover for all the children of the captivity, and for their brethren the Prieſts, and for themſelves; and the children of Iſrael, which were come again out of Captivity, and all ſuch as had ſeparated themſelves unto them, from the filthineſſe of the Heathen of the Land to ſeek the Lord God of Iſrael, did eat. Had not the Prieſts and Levites been thus purified, and the people thus ſeparated, the Paſſeover it appeares had been longer delayed. As theſe ſaw neceſſitating occaſion for omiſſion of this Ordinance, which yet is not charged as their ſin; ſo may alſo the Miniſters of Chriſt ſee like occaſion for delay of adminiſtration of the Lords Supper. And there is advantage on their part, ſeeing there was a preſcript time in the Law for the obſervation of the one, but no limited time in the Goſpel for the adminiſtration of the other. Sometimes a Miniſter by providence is caſt upon ſuch a people, that ſcarce three are able to diſcern what they have in hand, when they are about this duty, and therefore he ſees no more reaſon to call them to it, then Chriſt ſaw to call his diſciples newly choſen unto private faſtings, or the Apoſtle to give meat to babes; edification is their great buſineſſe, their whole buſineſſe; they may ſtay the time that they may adminiſter it to edification; ſometimes it evidently appeares that the rent is in a way to be made ſo great by their adminiſtration, through the obſervance of ſome working errour upon the judgment in others, that are ſo principled, that none but high Saints are for this Ordinance, that they ſee danger in proceeding in it. And though I do not doubt, but that it is often forborn out of ſinful neglect, and by truly conſciencious Miniſters, ſometimes out of over-much indulgence of their brethrens weakneſſe, and their own over-rigid principles: yet as I do believe that all conſciencious Paſtours, who for ſome ſpace of time forbear, do judge that there is cauſe for ſuch forbearance, ſo I do believe that upon ſome occaſions pro hic & nunc, it may juſtly be forborn. And whatſoever exception is taken againſt Arguments drawn from Analogy, as not concluding, of which I need to ſay no more then I have already ſpoken, yet I ſhall conclude, that this which is drawn from the Paſſeover (which is rather from example, then analogy) is cogent. If that of the London-Divines in their Divine Right of Church-Government, pag. 20, 21. (quoted and approved by Reverend Mr. Jeanes, pag. 21. of his Treatiſe) be of weight, That whatſoever actions were done by Saints recorded in Scripture, upon ſuch grounds as are of morall, perpetual, and common concernment to one perſon as well as to another, to one Church as well as to another, theſe actions are obligatory to all, and a rule to after-generations, then this Argument; grounded on the example of ſuch actions, is not to be charged as not concluding; yea, though we had no ſuch Example to lead us, (as perhaps they had none, to be a precedent to them) yet thoſe reaſons which led them, or thoſe that are equivalent, may lead us likewiſe.
Fourthly,4. Rule. There is no preſcript for the time, or frequency of the obſervation of the Lords Supper. There is no definitive time in the Gospel for obſervation, nor any preciſe determinate preſcript for the frequency of the Lords Supper. But when and how often Chriſtian prudence muſt order, yet being an holy exerciſe, the day which we are to keep holy calls for it, being the Lords Supper, what time ſo meet as the Lords day? The whole community of the faithful being intereſted in it, it is to be obſerved at the time of their publick meetings, which occaſionally may be at other times, but muſt be at that time. And in caſe breaking of bread, Act. 20.7. be meant of the Lords Supper, (as moſt affirm, and I will not oppoſe) it is out of queſtion. But yet I cannot think that every holy duty is alwaies to be the work of every holy meeting, ſo the word ſhould never be preached, nor prayer publickly made without a Sacrament; I believe there is ſomewhat extraordinary in a Sacrament, comparative to other duties, as there is in a Faſt. And though the Law for the Paſſeover, and day of Atonement, tye not us to annual obſervations onelyonly of Sacraments, and Faſts, as it tyed the Jewes; yet me thinks it ſpeaks ſomewhat more then ordinary in them, and that Faſts and Sacraments are not to be done in that frequency, as daily addreſſes to God in prayer, and our hearing from God in his Word. And though I ſubſcribe to Mr. Pemble and others, that the Apoſtles words, [As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup] implyes that it ſhould be often. A Chriſtian ſhould not ſeldome in his life partake of this Ordinance, yet I ſuppoſe it doth allow, if not imply longer intermiſſion then is to be in other duties. The primitive times, perhaps in ſome places at leaſt, made this Ordinance over-common, celebrating it (as is ſaid) every day, in other places every Lords day. Mr. Pemble who religiouſly pleads for the frequent celebration of it, ſayes, It is true, that as in other, ſo in this Divine inſtitution, Satan hath done much by his malicious policy to corrupt mens hearts in the obſervation of it. When the Sacrament was adminiſtred often, he brought it into contempt by the commonneſſe of it: Now that it is adminiſtred ſeldome, through ignorance it is thought unneceſſary. How truly his obſervation is verified, we ſee in two extreams into which different parties are run at this preſent time: One part breaking bread almoſt at all their meetings, and make no more of it then common bread, looking after no Miniſter ſet apart for that work, not ſo much as of their own making, any one whom they will call a gifted diſciple (and ſuch with them is every dipt diſciple) is ſet up for it; They act it while ſome walk, ſome talk in their preſence, with leſſe reverence then befits grave perſons at common meals. I fear there was never more rudeneſſe in Corinth, then may be ſeen here in Sacramental obſervations. On the other hand, the Sacrament is almoſt forgotten, and looked upon as a Ceremony antiquated, and obſolete; Chriſtian prudence ſhould interpoſe, and diſcern a mean between both. To quicken and put us on againſt this laſt, of which the moſt had need, inſtead of a Book of Canons,Directions for our guidance about it. or compulſory Lawes. Let us, 1. Affect our ſoules with an ardent love of Chriſt, and then we ſhall not be ſo ſlack in celebration of this memorial of him: We will keep up the memory of an endeared friend, this way Chriſt hath commended to endear his memory to us. If love be ſuch as it ought, we ſhall not deſire that it be ſeldome, if it may be poſſibly often. Peter had it three times in charge from Chriſt, to feed his Lambs, to feed his ſheep; how often he muſt preach Chriſt he is not told, that is left to his love; If thou loveſt me, feed my ſheep. Love would not let him be ſlothfull. 2. Let us take into conſideration our own neceſſities, of which here we may have ſupplyes, firſt our want of humiliation, and heartbreaking, how ſlight and overly is all our feeling, and ſenſe of ſin? if let alone are we not in danger to grow paſt feeling? which was the caſe of the Heathen, when they had arrived at the greateſt height of wickedneſſe, Epheſ. 4.19. Here is an hammer for that purpoſe, when once the Law hath diſcovered, by the light that is given, that we have ſinned. No way to this for the aggravation of it. Here we ſee Gods deteſtation of ſin, that would not ſpare it in his onelyonly Son, as he ſpared not the Angels that ſinned, but having no Mediatour to bear it for them, they bore the puniſhment of it in their own perſons; ſo he ſpared not his own Son, when he had taken upon him our ſin. Here we ſee the deſert of ſin in all thoſe torments which Chriſt bore for us. If we would know ſin, and be ſenſible of wrath, ſtudy the Sacrament, the dead ſoul may be here awakened. Secondly, our ſpiritual weakneſſes and wants, which I ſhall ſet out in Mr. Pembles words, Let them look inward, and ſee how great need they have of many and often confirmations of their faith, renovations of their repentance, of ſtirring up the graces of God in their ſoules, to adde an edge, an eagerneſſe to all spiritual affections after holineſſe, to get unto themſelves the moſt powerfull provocations unto obedience. Every one that hath grace knowes how frequently the power thereof is impaired by temptations, weakened by wordly diſtractions, even of our lawful employment, and over-maſtered by the force of ſinful luſts, ſo that they muſt needs diſcover a great deal of ignorance in their ſpiritual eſtate, that feel not in their own ſoules a proneneſſe to aſtoniſhment, as well in their ſoules, as in their bodies, at leaſt they bewray intolerable careleſneſſe, that finding the emptineſſe and leanneſſe of their ſoules, yet neglect to repair often to this holy Table, whereon is ſet forth the bread of life, whereof when they have eaten, their spirit may come again, 1 Sam. 31.12 their hearts may be ſtrengthened, their ſoules may be repleniſhed, as with marrow and fatneſſe. Theſe conſiderations may quicken our appetites after this ſpiritual food. And ſuch a meal extraordinary, with the help of our ordinary refreſhments, in hearing, prayer, and meditation, may carry us on more then 40 dayes, towards our heavenly Manſion. That we haſten not too faſt on the other hand, Let us take into conſideration our inabilities for a ſuitable preparation, and fitneſſe for addreſſe to this Ordinance; we have faſted ſo long in courſe, that we have ſcarce known what humiliation of our ſoules in faſting is; yea; ſome would be every day at …t, as we can riſe in our ſpirits to the extraordinary weight of it, and fit our ſoules with ſuitable preparations for it. Theſe that I have named are the beſt gages, that I know, to regulate us in it, that in over-eager haſte in duties extraordinary, we do not run our ſelves out of breath; nor in over-much ſloth, give our ſelves over to faintneſſe, and leanneſſe.
SECT. III. A Corollary from the former Doctrine.
Men called to the Sacrament may not othewiſe then upon weighty reaſons abſent themſelves from it.THen it will follow by way of neceſſary inference from this conſideration of the neceſſity of Sacraments; that, When Sacraments are dispenſed, Chriſtians ſhould ſee weighty reaſons, ſuch in which they may have confidence, that they will bear them out at the day of Judgment, for their omiſſion of them. This duty is in the number of affirmative precepts, which alwayes bind, A man is never from under the obligation of that Precept, Do this in remembrance of me; though it doth not bind to all times, A man is not to be ever in the doing of it, and he is never to be found in the neglect of it; Loco & tempore debitis, in due time, and place they muſt be done. A journey would have diſpenſed with a man for abſence from the Paſſeover, ſo it will (when neceſſity of a mans calling makes it neceſſary) from the Lords Supper; ſo alſo will ſickneſſes, impriſonments, or like providences. But when the ſervant comes, and calls, and ſayes, All things are made ready, then take thou heed how thou makeſt excuſes. They that were called to the wedding Feaſt might have pleaded, that other buſineſſes lay upon them, that they could not alwayes attend weddings: But when the King ſends, and ſayes, All is ready, come, there is no time for other occaſions td be lookt after. It were an endleſſe work, to find out the reaſons that men frame for abſenting themſelves.Excuſes for abſence from the Lords Table removed. Some ſee that it is a duty above them, neither their knowledge, nor their life doth anſwer to that which is required in a Communicant; and ſo deſpair of coming up to it, and therefore keep off, leſt they ſhould (as they fear) encreaſe their judgment: In caſe theſe ſpeak out of a ſerious conſideration of the work, with a ſad reflexion on themſelves, upon a diligent ſcrutiny into their hearts, and wayes; and ſo take a day over for it, and in the mean time digge for knowledge, as for hid treaſures, and do ſtrengthen their reſolutions to withſtand all temptations to ſin, they are by all meanes to be encouraged, and holpen; every Chriſtian of ſtrength ſhould commiſerate theſe weak ſoules. But in caſe they clearly ſee all to be ſo, as we have ſaid, and reſolve to let all alone, as a man that ſees himſelf near to a bankrupt, regards not whether end goes forward. This is then a ſad and ſaddening reaſon; It lyes upon theſe to take their ſtate and condition into further conſideration, that by the good hand of God it may be better with them. To provoke theſe to further care of their eternal ſtate, I ſhall put to them theſe queſtions:
Firſt, What is it that thou doſt reſpective to other duties,The excuſe of unfitneſſe examined. the duty of Prayer? doſt thou pray ever, or never? reſolving to keep back from the Sacrament, doſt thou reſolve wholly to forbear to call on the Name of the Lord? If thou reſolveſt in this way, and periſheſt, thou haſt upon thee the brand of the wicked, Pſal. 14.4. They call not on the Name of the Lord; and the ſentence of the wrath of God, Jer. 10.25. If thou canſt pray with hopes to be heard, thou mayeſt then have hopes to receive the Sacrament, to be accepted; and if ſo qualified, as to be out of hopes in the one, then thou art altogether void of hopes in both. Paul ſpeaks much of the danger of an unworthy Communicant, which ſhould awaken all that intend to receive. And multitude of Scripture-Texts ſpeak the ſame of men that pray in ſuch a condition: What can be worſe then for the Lord to ſay, when they pray, he will not hear, he will hide his eyes? Iſa. 1.15. to reproach their praying, by the name of howling? Hoſ. 7.14. to account it an abomination? Prov. 28.9.
Secondly, If it be above thy hopes to ſit down with acceptance at the Lords Table, Is it not then as much above thy hopes to ſit down in heavenly places with Chriſt Jeſus? If thy ſtate of ignorance, unbelief, and wickedneſſe keep thee from participation with viſible Church-members in this Ordinance in the way, how wilt thou be fit to joyn with the Church Triumphant in glory? Thou muſt be made meet for heaven, Col. 1.12. if thou come to heaven: and thou art meet to partake of this Supper, when thou art meet for heaven; unfit for this, unfit for ſalvation.
Thirdly, If the danger be great to come unworthily, is it any leſſe not to come at all? It is hard to determine of the ſins of deſpiſing, and prophaning the worſhip of the Lord, whether is greater, or leſſer; Judge whether are in better caſe, thoſe mentioned, Matth. 22.7. or him that is mentioned, ver. 12, 13. and then thou wilt ſee that there remains nothing, but to endeavour to be ſuch a one that may come, otherwiſe thou periſheſt in coming, and periſheſt in abſenting.
Others profeſſe their willingneſſe, and readineſſe to come, in caſe they could have things to their minds when they come: But things being as they are, they are compelled to forbear. Now theſe keep off out of ſeveral principles, which in caſe they be well laid, they may juſtifie their practice; but in caſe they are found erroneous, their way muſt needs be faulty. Theſe are in two extreams.
Want of a wonted Leiturgy may not excuſe.Some would come in caſe the ancient Liturgy were held, and the Book of Common Prayer anciently in uſe in England might be obſerved; in the mean time till that be, they do forbear▪ To this I ſay, It is wonder how ſo much ſtreſſe is laid on this as to invite to the worſhip of God in caſe they may enjoy it, and to perſwade a total neglect, if they want it. Give me leave to deſire of theſe (there being ſo many that harp upon this ſtring) a few things for ſatisfaction, that ſo we may either prevail with them, to hold Communion with us, or elſe that we may forbear with them.
Firſt, Is not this an honour far above all, that is due to any labour, or compoſure of man, to turn the ſcale in this manner, whether an inſtituted worſhip of God muſt ſtand or fall? An humane work it is, this cannot be denyed; we are to receive nothing as Divinely inſpired, upon pain of adding to the Word of God, but that which is contained in the words of the Scripture. For this, ſo to ſteer my courſe, that when my liberty of uſe of it is granted, I will worſhip; and when denyed, I will forbear; This I ſay is too high an honour, a work of man is thus made of the very eſſence and being of an Ordinancie of God. Hezekiah indeed put that honour upon the Altar at Hieruſalem, that he would admit no ſacrifice elſewhere, (as Rabſhakeh could obſerve to his reproach, Iſa. 37.7.) But he had a Word of God for it, Deut. 12.5, 6. To give the like honour to this book without a word from God, is to idolize it; Theſe opinions of it, were that which outed it.
Secondly, Is it for the excellency of the work it ſelf, that thou thus prizeſt it? or from the Sanction, that from higher powers hath been put upon it, the Law that did eſtabliſh it? It muſt needs be one of theſe, that moves thee to put ſuch an honour upon it. That no ſuch incomparable tranſcendent excelleny, to cauſe ſo high a price to be put upon it, can be found in the work it ſelf, may ſeem ſeveral waies to appear, if we conſider, 1. The time of compoſure, immediately upon the firſt dawning of the Goſpel light, and beginning of the knowledg of God in the midſt of us. 2. The perſons for whoſe uſe it was compoſed, ſuch that for the generality had ſcarce ſtept one foot out of Popiſh blindneſſe. 3. The end at which the compilers aimed, to frame ſuch a piece that might draw on a people wholly held in Maſſe Idolatry, to be content to accept ſomewhat in their own tongue, where prayers are directed to God in Chriſt, and not (as before they had been trayned) to Saints, and Angells; So that they made not that uſe of their own gifts for ſuch a work, as by the light received from God they might have framed, but ſuch a one that they judged moſt meet for the Churches preſent infant condition, and ſo contented themſelves, in a great part, with that which they found in the Breviaries, and Portuiſes of Rome. In ſo much that B. Davenant one of the graveſt and moſt learned of Prelates, ſaith, Deter. 37.kQuidam exipſis Pontificibus Romanis, formulam illam ſacrorum officiorum qua not utimur, probare voluerit, modo nos ab ejus autoritate hac in rependere voluiſſemus. that ſome of the Biſhops of Rome have offered to approve our form of prayers, provided that we would accept it by their authority. This is ſufficient, if no more ſhould be ſaid, to make it appear that it did never come up to that excellency, that one might reach, that were compoſed in greater light, and for their uſe that were of further growth. But letting it paſſe without exception, and yielding (as muſt be granted) that thouſands are in heaven that received the Sacraments no otherwiſe then according to the directory in it, yet doubtleſſe, as muſt alſo be granted, that many more thouſands are in heaven, that never knew it, Chriſt and his Apoſtles never uſed it. It was not in uſe in the primitive times; How many Liturgies may be read, as we may ſee if we go no further then Caſſander? and this of ours is none of them. None of the reformed Churches in the world except England hath made uſe of it. Had it been of ſuch a glory that men would deny themſelves the benefit of the Sacrament, rather then want it, all ſhould at the greateſt coſt have procured it. As our forefathers in England ſent over into Germany for Bibles, at leaſt New Teſtaments with hazard of their lives, ſo ſhould they out of Germany have ſent for ourt Liturgy Whereas ſome ignorantly ſay, that that was the Proteſtant Religion, Proteſtaniſme lives and dies with it; This is damnably injurious to all Proteſtants in all the world, but our ſelves; The want of this Liturgy ſtrikes them out of our Communion; It on the other hand as much gratifies the Church of Rome, whoſe emiſſaries whiſper this into ignorant eares; they uſe to charge us, that Henry the eighth brought in our Religion, but according to theſe we are not ſo old, Edward the ſixth muſt be the father of it. It is not then from the excellency of the work that men can warrantably refuſe this ordinance of God, upon the want of it the Sacrament may ſtand in its glory without it. But it is from the ſanction that is put upon it, the law that hath eſtabliſhed it, to which the people of England, though not others, muſt be ſubject. This many learned in the lawes much queſtioned; while it was moſt in uſe with us upon grounds not eaſily anſwered; the act that impoſed it under ſo ſtrict penalties, referres to the book authorized by Parliament in the fifth, and ſixth years of Edward the ſixth, with two onelyonly alterations; now the alterations from time have been many more, and therefore the book is not the ſame. And whereas we ſhould have recourſe to the ſtandard, the original draught among Parliament-records, that for many yeares hath not been found. 2. When we have ſuffered ſo great a change, as we ſee in our lawes, divine providence ſo ordering, and yet keep ſilence, and in ſubmiſſion to divine will, conform to that which is in preſent; How is it that this ſhould be as the lawes of the Medes and Perſians, which changeth not? When it is taken from us, we muſt not leave an ordinance of God, to keep hold of it.
Others would receive it, in caſe they might keep up their wonted geſture when they come to it.Variation from a geſture or poſture may not excuſe. But ſeeing that that in many places is not born, therefore they keep from it. Anſw. When ſome heretofore did forbear the Sacrament upon the account of kneeling, being ſo prejudiced againſt it (as no Scripture-poſture) that they durſt not uſe it, what clamours and invectives were raiſed againſt them, that they left (as was wont to be objected) a neceſſary duty for that which was arbitrary and indifferent, and upon ſo ſmal an account made a breach of that unity, which ought to be among the people of God? Was it not an uſual language in reproach of theſe, to ſay that they would receive it lying along; if it were poſſible ſtanding on their heads, rather then want it? and when theſe made it their complaint, that they were accounted ſchiſmatique Puritans, and worſe then Idolaters, for not kneeling at the Sacrament, Abridg. pag. 39. Bradſh. arg. 11. He that took moſt paines, and wrote moſt largely in defence of kneeling, anſwers, As for the imputations of Puritanes and Schiſmatiques, ſo far forth as the ſame be caſt upon you for refuſing to kneel, it is becauſe you refuſe and oppoſe the Church in a matter indifferent. For to ſtrive againſt a National Church, and break the peace of it unjuſtly (as to breake it about ſuch mutable geſtures in Gods worſhip, as are truely indifferent both in nature and uſe, is to break them unjuſtly) was ever held for a Schiſmatical courſe. Paybody of kneeling, part 3. pag. 226. That which was then ſo blame-worthy, that men upon it were ſcarce judged fit to live in the Nation, is it now ſo innocent, and praiſe-worthy? will this be a good plea at the day of judgement, to ſpeak to God in this language? Thou haſt commanded the celebration of thy Supper, enjoyning us to take, eat, and to drink of it. Thou didſt annex a promiſe of the body and blood of Chriſt for the pardon of ſin; now there is a geſture which I would take in, which thou commandeſt not; in caſe I may not have my will in the one, why ſhouldſt thou have thy will in the other? Let thy great promiſe go, rather then I will take and eat it, in any other poſture then that which I have uſed. When ſo many and great troubles were in the Church about this geſture, which are not yet forgotten, many pious men yielded to it, though they ſaw inconvenience in it (ſeeing they durſt not make a ſchiſme in the Church, or be at the loſſe of a Sacrament) but were farre from believing any neceſſity of it, or in it. The party that urged it had never more to ſay then the command of authority, to put an obediential, not an inherent neceſſity upon it, (as Dr. Sanderſon diſtinguiſhes) and the indifferency of it in its own nature to warrant it; If a geſture (which ſome have judged ſinful, and all have confeſt to be unneceſſary) now be waved, none ſhould be ſo much offended.
Others yet would break through all of this,A call by Church-officers for an account of knowledg and profeſſion of faith is no warranty for abſence. to come to this ordinance, neither want of Liturgy, nor change of geſture ſhould keep them back. But there is a further barre in their way, that which Peter requires of every man, to be ready alwaies to give an anſwer to every man that asketh them, a reaſon of the hope that is in them, 1 Pet. 3.15. is now called for, in caſe they will communicate. Here is their grievance, and therefore they will abſent themſelves, and here is a double exception. 1. The thing it ſelf. 2. The manner of proceeding. As to the thing it ſelf; It is objected, that the Apoſtle ſaies, Let a man examine himſelf, and ſo let him eat of his bread, and drink of this Cup, &c. Every man then is to be left to his own private examination, and not to ſubject himſelf to the examination of another. For anſwer to this grievance, I ſay,
Firſt, In caſe that this examination, or account taken, did ſhoulder out that of ſelf examination, the objection were then to purpoſe; if theſe can be proved oppoſite, and not ſubordinate, one of them muſt then be waved.
Secondly, Let us then agree in this, that ſelf examination is neceſſary: and that it is to be done in order to the worthy receiving the Lords Supper; and all that would communicate, to be ready to engage themſelves for this ſelf-examinrtion, and then I ſhall onelyonly demand theſe queſtions.
Firſt, Whether they will examine themſelves, or engage for examination, that cannot examine? Whether they will make a ſearch, that have not eies to ſee? Whether they will prove themſelves, whether they be in the faith, that know not faith? Whether they will examine their humiliation under ſin, and return from ſin, that know not ſin? If a Miniſter of Chriſt ſhould call upon his people to examine, before they eat of this bread, or drink of this cup, he muſt upon that account take care that they be ſo farre knowing as to do it. If he muſt adminiſter it for edification, he ſhould ſee (ſo farre as he is able to diſcern) whether they be in a capacity to be edified by it. If this knowledg be wanting, then by their own confeſſion they are unmeet, in caſe they be of knowledg, it is eaſily ſignified, and made known, eſpecially fundamental neceſſary principles being alone demanded.
Secondly, Among other graces, wilt not thou in this ſelf-examination look for that grace of humility? that of hungring after Chriſt Jeſus evidenced in the love of his Ordinances? If thou art wholly wanting in the grace of humility, thou ſtandeſt unfit for this Table, God reſiſts the proud, The ſoul that is lift up is not right. If once this be obtained, then thou wilt, as to thy guidance in heaven-way, not be too high to obey thoſe that are over thee in the Lord. Thoſe ſpeeches that we have heard of ſcorn and compariſons entred, never came from an humble heart. If thou wanteſt an hungring fervent affection after Chriſt Jeſus, thou then art not meet for this Table, as being without a ſpiritual appetite; If thou haſt attained to it, no ſuch barres will be pleaded, or ſpoken of to hold thee from it. Hunger will break ſtone-walls, iron-bars: This is a hard weapon that will break through all obſtacles.
For the manner, ſome ſay,The aſſociation of Elders in the work, no warranty for abſence. If this were done by the Miniſter alone, they could eaſily bear, but others aſſociated they do not like. Ruling Lay-Elders they ſuppoſe are not of Gods inſtitution. To this I ſay,
Firſt, What do they ſay to all the Reformed Churches almoſt in the World, that have that way of Diſcipline; if thou wert a member of the Church there, wouldeſt thou upon this account ſeparate and leave Church-Communion?
Secondly, What ſayeſt thou of our Government in this Church, when Biſhops were in power; who acted then in Government but Chancellors, and Officials, who were for the moſt part lay-perſons? If ſuch could rule over a whole County, perhaps three or four Counties; three or four may then with the Miniſter have inſpection into one Pariſh. The 26 Canon required Miniſters to keep back notorious offenders from the Sacrament; and Canon 27. provided that he ſhould give his reaſon upon complaint to the Ordinary, and obey his direction. This Ordinary was for the moſt part a Lay-perſon, and he was ſet over both the Miniſters and Communicants of many Congregations.
Thirdly, In caſe any judge that according to Goſpel-order, no others ſhould joyn with the Miniſter, but that he ſhould act alone in admiſſion; what prejudice is this to the Sacrament, when he that is confeſſedly called to the work, acts alone in the adminiſtration of it? And in caſe a Miniſter ſee it expedient to crave aſſiſtance in ſo weighty a buſineſſe, eſpecially where he is caſt upon a large Congregation, for his further information, and advice; where then is the evill? When Miniſters this way go alone, then it is auricular confeſſion, ſhrift, and whatſoever prophaneneſſe can deviſe; then partiality is objected, that out of ſpleen they put men from this Ordinance; when to avoid theſe even by conſent help is choſen, that on the other hand it is ſuch a grievance,The mixture of ſuch that are ſuppoſed unworthy, no warrantly for abſence. that it is thought a ſufficient reaſon of mens abſence.
Theſe that we have hitherto ſeen are extreams on the one hand. There are thoſe of an oppoſite party, that have their Objections likewiſe, and would come, as they ſay, to this Table, in caſe they could meet with ſuitable gueſts there, and thoſe onelyonly that become ſuch a Feaſt; ſuch that are holy, and no other; but looking for others there whom God never called, they reſolve upon that account to keep abſent. I anſwer, 1. Let theſe take heed leſt they take too much upon them, in paſſing ſentence upon all that come to joyn in this duty, and think better upon it, whether that, or ſomewhat elſe, ought not to be there their buſineſſe? 2. Whether they go not higher then the Word of God will bear them out in the principles that they lay for the qualification of ſuch a one that is admittible to this Supper? and take heed that their great ambition be not to find out a Church in that purity and glory, that Chriſt hath altogether denyed to be enjoyed on earth. 3. Where it is that they can have hopes to go to joyn, where all give evidences of regeneration, and no other are received? Theſe betake themſelves all their dayes to the Society of Seekers. As thoſe under the famine of the Word threatened by the Prophet, ſhall wander from Sea to Sea, and from the North, even to the Eaſt, and ſhall run to and fro, ſeeking the Word of the Lord: So may theſe, ſeeking a Church of their own fancying, but ſhall find none. But for more full ſatisfaction, let theſe take theſe following Arguments into conſideration.
Arguments evincing the lawfulneſſe of communicating in mixt Congregations.Firſt, There is never an approved example in all the Scripture, of any one man that did ſeparate, or withdraw himſelf from an Ordinance, which God hath enjoyned upon the account of the impurity or defilement, either of him that did adminiſter, or of thoſe that were to joyn in it. It is true that it is ſaid, 1 Sam. 2.17. as the aggravation of the ſin of Hophni and Phinehas the ſons of Eli, that men then (and as appears for their ſakes) abhorred the offering of the Lord, and therefore in all probability abſented themſelves from it; but Elkanah and Hannah did not ſo, as appears, Chap. 1.3, 7. and Mr. Hilderſam. Lect. 29 on John, pag. 129. obſerves from Chap. 2.24. that it was their ſin that made any ſuch ſeparation.
Secondly, There are many approved Examples of the people of God to the contrary; how much do we read in the Prophets of the peoples wickedneſſe, and corruptions in the State Civill, and Eccleſiaſtical? yet which of them for that cauſe did make ſeparation? We ſee what company did reſort to the houſe of God in Jeremy's time. Jer. 7.9, 10. and yet we ſee Jeremy ready, when he had liberty, to reſort to it, Jer. 36.5. Much was out of frame, and little in due order in Chriſts time; yet as he acknowledged, that even then ſalvation was of the Jewes, Joh. 4.22. they had then ſaving Ordinances among them, ſo he held Communion with them, as he religiouſly obſerved other Feaſts, ſo ſome have obſerved (as we have heard) that he kept four Paſſeovers, after he appeared in publick, for the work of mans Redemption.
Thirdly, One mans ſin muſt not keep another from a neceſſary enjoyned duty; if one man will make himſelf by his prophane addreſſes guilty of Chriſts death, another muſt not therefore forbear to ſhew forth his death. This is ſuch a duty, and the ſin of another will by no means excuſe neglect of it: this were to ſin, becauſe another ſins; to deſpiſe an Ordinance, becauſe another prophanes it: when one came without a wedding garment, no invited gueſt for his ſake did keep from the wedding.
Fourthly, No one Communicant is bound to examine what all are, that are his fellow-Communicants; there is neither expreſſe command for it, nor yet reaſon to evince it; each man is bound to ſee himſelf arrayed, as he ought, and not to find fault in others addreſſes, Let a man examine himſelf, and ſo let him eat; though he be to admoniſh as his brothers viſible ſin gives him occaſion.
Fifthly, The penalty of him that comes unworthily, reaches his own ſelf, that comes in his unworthineſſe, and extends no further. Legal uncleanneſſe defiled the man, that was perſonally unclean, and not his neighbour: ſo it is here, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himſelf, &c.
Sixthly, If one mans ſin this way do defile another, the ſin of one Communicant doth defile all other Communicants; then it muſt be either from the nature of ſin, thus to defile all in ſo near Communion, or from the nature of the Ordinance thus to be defiled to all, when one in defilement comes to it; or from ſome poſitive precept forbidding all to come, when any that is unclean is there. I doubt not but this is a ſufficient enumeration. But, 1. It is not of the nature of ſin, thus to defile all, in ſuch communion, then it would every where thus defile, whereſoever any have ſociety, or do accompany together. Then the chief Prieſts had done well, to keep out of the Judgment-Hall, that they might be clean, to keep the Paſſeover, John 18.28. and the Phariſees to waſh, when they came from Market. 2. It is not of the nature of the Ordinance to be thus defiled to all. It is not ſo in other Ordinances: Cain's offering defiled not Abels, nor did Hophni and Phinehas in their offerings defile Elkanah and Hannah when they offered. 3. Nor yet is there any poſitive precept, forbidding a cleanſed ſoul, upon the account of the uncleanneſſe of another, to come to this Table.
Seventhly, If one mans preſence in this way defile another, then it is either his ſimple preſence, ſuch a ones being there in his infection, or elſe a willing and witting preſence with ſuch a one. If ſimple preſence do defile, then there is no man that can be ſecure. The cloſeſt hypocrite that creeps in unawares would be the undoing of all; when Chriſt ſaid, Ye are clean, but not all, Joh 13.10. according to this opinion it had been a contradiction, the uncleanneſſe of one had been the defilement of all. Neither is it willing, or witting preſence, that can in this way defile, then it muſt be in every ſingle mans power to determine him to be ſuch, and exclude him thence, or elſe of neceſſity exclude himſelf. When the Elderſhip hath judged and received according to the general way of Reformed Churches, or the plurality of votes of believers, as it is with men of the Congregational way, he muſt make an after-ſearch, a further ſcrutiny; he that one judges fit, that moſt judge fit, ſome will judge unworthy, and upon that account muſt ſhut themſelves out of Communion. Men of ſuch principles muſt everlaſtingly avoid all Church-fellowſhip, or act againſt their principles; and we need not to ſpeak it, it is too plainly viſible what manner of perſons men of ſuch high pretences have in their Congregations. There are multitudes of Arguments heaped to nouriſh this ſcruple, but I ſhall not further trouble the Reader; there is nothing, I think, can be ſaid, but that which here hath been ſpoke, will afford a ſufficient anſwer.