Answer to Two Questions Regarding Infant Baptism, Answer 2

Answer to Two Questions Regarding Infant Baptism · Answer 2

p. 8THE SECOND QVESTION. Queſt. Whether it be not ſinfull, for a Chriſtian to receiv the Sacrament in a mixt Aſsembly.

A Mixt Aſſembly is that, wherein good and badd are mingled together, and make up one Congregation; when the precious are not ſevered from the vile, nor any difference put between the Holy and Prophane. Now theſe good and badd, theſe precious and vile, are not to be reckoned in reſpect of their ſpirituall eſtate toward God, i. e. as they are Elect or Reprobate, Sincere or Hypocriticall: but in reſpect of their Eccleſiaſticall ſtate in the ey and judgement of Men, as they are in their courſes and converſations, in their Calling and Profeſſion holy or profane. Theſe bad, and vile, are again to be conſidered A parte ante, or A parte poſt, viz. Either ſuch as yet profeſs not themſelves in Covenant with God, by joining themſelves to the Aſſembly of his ſervants: Or ſuch, who having formerly had a ſtanding in the Church, do afterward run out into exorbitant courſes to the ſcandall of Religion, and ſo deſerv to be ſeparated from the Society of the Saints, and by the Sentence of Excommunication cut of from the Aſſembly. So that the Queſtion is, Whether if either of theſe be found in the Congregation and company of them, that draw neer to the Table of the Lord to partake of thoſe holy Myſteries; either thoſe, who as yet have not been admitted, or thoſe that by the laws of Chriſt ought to be ſhutt out and ſequeſtred, whether their preſence do make it unlawfull in point of conſcience for a Chriſtian to receiv the Sacrament among them, ſo that if he do, he is eo nomine, therby deſiled, and become partaker of their ſinn.

Where alſo for the better underſtanding of the Anſwer to this Queſtion, we are to note, what is granted: and what is queſtioned and demanded.

p. 19Things granted are theſe.

1. Some are not to be admitted to the Table of the Lord. This is evident enough No uncircumciſed perſon might eat of the Paſſover: Nor any perſon unbaptiſed be admitted to the Lords Supper, how morally righteous ſoever he bee. The Reaſon her-of is, Becauſe, None may be received into the Communion and fellowſhip of the Church, till he have profeſſed himſelf one of them that deſire to lay hold on the Hope of Eternall life by the Mean and Mediation of Chriſt, in whom alone is founded the Covenant of Grace. Now this Profeſſion is by ſubmitting himſelf to the Sacrament of Baptiſm. Hence it is that our Bleſſed Saviour hath joined theſe two together, He that beleeveth and is baptiſed. As none unbaptiſed: So not all that are baptiſed. Children ſo ſoon as they be able to learn muſt be taught, and by teaching be fitted to diſcern the Lords Body before they be admitted to it: Of old, Iſrael muſt inſtruct their children in the Rites of the Paſſover:Exod 12 26 & 13.14.Exod 12:26Exod 13:14 In imitation wher-of Chriſtians receiv a charge touching their children, to bring them up in the knowledge and practiſe of their holy Profeſſion. Yea, and by an Apoſtolicall Ordinance (as it is probable from that of Heb. 6.2.) The Paſtours of the Church in all ages according to the truſt committed to them, have taken an account of what the Parents have done in this Education of their children, examining them in the Articles of their Beleef, and the points of the Catechiſm, And ther-upon have approved thoſe whom they found Proficients, and by their Benediction have confirmed and comforted them in theſe their happy Beginnings. This Order of ſolemn Confirmation is acknowledged by the Godly learned to be of merveilous good uſe in the Church. And reaſon giveth it ſo to be: That ſo, when children are come to a perfect Age, and in ſome meaſure able to underſtand the matters of Religion, and to give an account of their Faith, they may then make an open profeſſion of their Beleef, and an open promiſe of their Obedience to the laws of God: and ſo ther-upon in a ſolemn maner be admitted to the holy Communion. And till they be thus confirmed, I ſhould yeeld it altogether unfitting (at leaſt for Orders ſake) that any be admitted to the Table of the Lord.

2. Some are to be ſhutt out and ſequeſtred. No doubt of this: Adam was thruſt out of Paradiſe, that he might not taſt of the Tree of life, and feed himſelf with a vain hope of immortality. The Leprous were to be ſhut out of the Camp: They that were unclean by a dead body, Num. 9.6. could not keep the Paſſover on the day. The Refractary and Obſtinate is to be accounted as an Heathen. Mat. 18.17. The inceſtuous perſon muſt be delivered to Satan, and Scandalous Chriſtians excluded from civill, much more from ſacred Communion. Cor. 5. Such order muſt be taken alſo with in-ordinate walkers, 2 Theſs. 3. and with unreformable Heretiks, Tit. 3.10. If any man love not the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, i. e. if any walk in a manifeſt Profeſſion of Diſlike and Deteſtation of Chriſt and p. 20his Goſpel, He muſt be pronounced Anathema: This is the Diſcipline of the Church: and good is the Reaſon ther-of, 1. In reſpect of the Perſons Delinquent: That by the deſtruction of the Fleſh the Spirit may be ſaved: This was an wholſome ſeverity, a Church-puniſhment, inflicted as a means appointed of God to reduce and reclaim thoſe who were not deſperately given up to a reprobate ſenſe. 2. In reſpect of the Congregation, that others might hear and fear: That others might ſhun familiarity wi h them for fear of infection by them. 3. In reſpect of them that are without the Church: That the name of the Lord might not be blaſphemed by them: but that they might ſee and know, that as the Profeſſion, ſo the practiſe of the Church is a conſtant care of holines. Nor will the Church of God indure it, that any of their Society ſhall ſay one thing and do another, talk holines, and live profanely: If any do forget himſelf, and conform to the Men of the World in exorbitant courſes, he ſhall be ſhutt out from among them, and cut off from their Communion: that ſo the whol Aſſembly may even in the ey of the world be found in ſome meaſure conformable to the Holineſs of Chriſt their Head. For theſe Reaſons ſome are to be ſhutt out and ſequeſtred. The firſt and ſecond Reaſons are perpetuall, and preſs the Execution of this point of Diſcipline at all times: The third was more urgent in the times of the firſt Plantation of the Church: And in that reſpect it was (as I conceiv) that the Primitive Churches were ſo ſevere and rigid, even to an over-great meaſure of extremity till experience taught them the Neceſſity of ſome more mildnes and moderation. But yet alway ther is uſe of this point of Diſcipline, to ſeperate and cut off ſcandalous perſons: that ſo the members of the Church may be ſecured from infection, and the whol Body from ſcandal and imputation.

3. The Neglect of the Church-Officers in doing their duty, is a ſinn that may expoſe the whol Congregation to the judgements of God: Their office it is to watch over the Holy things of God, that they be not laid open to contempt, either by admitting them that are not fitted, or by not ſequeſtring them that ought to be ſequeſtred: And their Negligence is a provoking ſinn: was it not upon this ground, that the Congregation doth ſmart in the caſe of Achan? The Elders and officers were not ſo carefull as they ſhould have been. To which if ther be added alſo the Neglect of inferiour perſons in doing what they ought (it is their part to be eys and ears to the Governours, informing them of what is amiſs: yea, and in a dutifull way to admoniſh them of their duty, and intreat their diligent circumſpection, which if they do not, much more if they do approve of their ſlackneſs, and like of them the better, becauſe they are not ſo officious.) What wonder if this Neglect of the Governour prove the deſtruction of the whol Congregation: underſtand this in reſpect of temporall judgements: God to ſhew his juſt indignation againſt ſin: and to teach all and every one to have a care of others, both to greev for them, and to admoniſh them, doth for the ſin of ſome one, eſpecially p. 21if an eminent perſon, cauſe the whol to ſmart under the Rodd of ſome common Calamity. This alſo is not denyed.

Theſe things being premiſed, as things granted, and not at all queſtioned.

The Scruple doth ly in this one particular. Whether the ſinn of the unworthy and wicked perſon, intruding himſelf into the company of them that draw neer to the Table of the Lord: and the ſinn of the Church-officers who ſhould (but do not) exclude him, whether this ſinn of theirs defile the Conſcience of Him (a private Chriſtian) who hath no further communion with them, ſave only that he is in their company, and they in his, when he goeth up to the Table of the Lord: He neither approveth of them, nay is greeved for the diſ-order; Whether is he defiled?

To this I anſwer Negatively: It is not (alway) ſinfull for a private Chriſtian to receiv the Sacrament in the company of them that are unworthy Communicants, nay worthy of Excommunication. Not alway, I ſay, Becauſe I liſt not to plead the cauſe of them, who for ſome private reſpects do voluntarily chuſe the Society of ſome wicked perſons, when it is in their liberty to make a better choice, But where it is not: As it is not in the choice of Pariſhioners to refuſe their Pariſh Church to which by the juſt law of the Magiſtrate they are bound for Order ſake: Now that in this caſe it is not ſinfull: I prove by theſe Arguments.

The firſt Argument.

VVHat no text of Scripture hath manifeſted to be unlawfull, that is not ſinfull: For in as much as Sin is the Tranſgreſſion of the law, what is not unlawfull, that is not ſinfull: And if the text of Scripture doth not manifeſt a thing unlawfull, who ſhall dare to do it. That no …ext of Scripture hath manifeſted it unlawfull for a private Chriſtian in this caſe to come in the company of the unworthy, it is evidenced by this, That ther is neither any text of Prohibition to forbid it, nor any text of Reprehenſion that hath blamed thoſe that have done it: Conſequent-ly it is not by text of Scripture manifeſted to be unlawfull, and therfore not ſinfull. As we conclude that lawfull, that by text is either commanded or commended. So that, unlawfull, that is either prohibited or reproved.

1. No text of Scripture hath forbidden it.

Not that of Cor. 5.11. No not in that new tranſlation, which ſome put in capitall letters, as if ther were ſome great myſtery in it: NOT TO BE MIXT TOGETHER. Truth it is, ther is a Prohibition directed to the Church of Corinth, and it pertaineth to all the members ther-of: The Prohibition is to them, Not to keep company with ſcandalous Chriſtians, no not to eat with ſuch a one. But it is manifeſt that this Prohibition is not touching Sacred but civill Society: That company-keeping is in the Citty, not in the Church: That eating is at their own Table, not at the Table of the Lord. Th'Apoſtle had written to them a p. 22former Epiſtle, Not to keep company with Fornicators and other ſcandalous perſons: Fain he would that Chriſtians ſhould not only forbear ſuch ſinfull courſes, but even the company of them that were therwith-all defiled: This his Epiſtle and his charge in it, he doth now interpret. ſhewing, That he did not intend to forbid them all company or ſociety with thoſe of that ill-name which were not of the Church; This had been to have ſhut them up in a cloiſter, to have baniſhed them out of the world, to have impoſed upon them an impoſſibility; ſo St. Chryſoſtome you muſt ſeek another world to live in, ſeeing the …aſe of Gods people in this world, is as of Roſes among thorns, they cannot but live among the wicked: But, that, if ther were any profeſſed Chriſtians, that yet had not reformed thoſe evill courſes, but ſtill lived in the uſuall practiſe of them, with ſuch a one they muſt have no familiarity, No not to eat with them. So then, The eating forbidden is ſuch as is not forbidden in Relation to men of the world: Now with the men of the world they never had any company at the Table of the Lord: Conſequent-ly, the text doth not reſpect that ſacred Communion, nor their joining with the ſcandalous in that ſacred Action. This phraſe Eat not with him, is the ſame in effect with that of 2 Joh. 10. Receiv him not into your Houſe It was altogether unlawfull for the Corinths to invite ſuch a ſcandalous Brother to their houſes, or to ſhew him any courteſie; yea, I ſuppoſe the phraſe doth reach further, even to refuſe his invitation, q. d. Neither invite him to eat with you, nor accept of any invitation to eat with him; that ſo all ſhew of Familiarity betwixt him and you may be avoided. Add this; It cannot be underſtood of that holy Society which is among Chriſtians at the Lords Table, be…auſe that foreign, No not to eat, intimateth the leaſt familiarity that may be; For ſo is the Argument, foreign, Not to keep company, no nor to eat: But in that Holy ſociety which Chriſtians have one with another in the Houſe of God, this foreign. To eat together is the greateſt: Whence it is that the aggravation of the Puniſhment of obſtinate perſons doth runn in a contrary courſe, foreign; they are firſt ſhut out from the Table of the Lord▪ and afterward from the Houſes and Tables of Chriſtians. So then, this text of Cor. 5. not reſpecting the familiarity and company of them that come to the Lords Table, cannot be alledged to prove it unlawfull, and ſinfull for a Chriſtian to be found in company, and to go along with the wicked to the Table of the Lord.

Nor that of 2 Theſs. 3.14. The words are theſe: If any man obey not our word by this Epiſtle, Note that man, and …ave no company with him, that he may be aſhamed. Here it is forbidden to have company with a brother that walketh diſorderly: So in verſ. 6. viz. He ſpeaks of them that were idle and buſi-bodyes, verſ. 11. The Chriſtians of Theſſalonica were moſt of them Artiſans and Labourers; and for thoſe to live idly out of a Calling was a diſ-orderly walking: and p. 23thoſe the Apoſtle would have to be puniſhed: The puniſhment is ſet down, ver. 6. foreign: To withdraw themſelves from him; and foreign. To keep no company with him: Now this company cannot be underſtood of the holy Communion, becauſe it is ſubjoined to the verb foreign, Note that man, Calvin Beza, Bullinger: Marlorat.which by divers Godly and Learned is interpreted the Act of Excommunication: q. d. Excommunicate him, and have no company with Him: Put him out of the Church: yea, out of all Civill familiarity: Neither invite him to houſe, nor willingly be yee found in his company. Which is yet more manifeſt; if we conſider, that this foreign, is to ſet ſuch a note upon Him as may make him aſhamed: Now that could not be by forbearing to communicate in his company. In very deed who ſhould forbear? Is not the Precept directed to the whol Church? Should they all forbear the Communion, and leav him alone at it? Ridiculum. No, they muſt all perform their duty, each in his place: The Church-officers muſt ſet a note upon him: i. e. Denounce him as an unworthy member of the Church, unfit to be admitted, not only to the Table of the Lord, but even unfit to be admitted to any familiarity and ſociety with them: The Church-members muſt do accordingly, i. e. forbear all commerce and communion with him; they muſt ſhun him as a Peſt and a Plague-ſore. So then, neither of theſe two texts relating properly and directly to the Table of the Lord can be underſtood, as prohibiting private Chriſtians to communicate in the company of them that ought not to be admitted. Sublato ſubjecto quaeſtionis, colluntur & accidentia. Much leſs thoſe other texts which are by ſome added ex abundanti to fill up room rather then to confirm that cauſe, viz. Act. 2.40. Eph. 5.11. Theſs. 5.22. & 2. Tim. 3.2.5. For why? When St. Peter ſaith, Save your ſelves from this untoward generation. Doth he ſpeak of misbehaviour'd Chriſtians? or rather of misbeleeving Jews? And is it a work of Darkneſs? Is it an Appearance of evill to attend on Gods ordinance? If it be not ſo well performed by theſe wicked ones as it ought; yet is it not to be accounted evill. Surely it is rather a work of light, and an Appearance of good, how-ſoever to the wicked and unprepared nothing profitable, is ther no difference betwixt what is evill in the Subſtance of the Act, and what is ſo only by Accident, viz. through ſome deſert of the Actor. From ſuch turn away (ſaith the Apoſtle.) What then? Muſt I therfore turn away from the Communion if they come to it? No: but in the courſe of my converſation I muſt have nothing to do with them: Nay more, that text doth not neceſſarily prove that I muſt turn away ſuch from the Holy Communion; much leſs doth it prove that I muſt turn away my ſelf becauſe of them. None of thoſe texts do ſpeak home to the point, leaſt of all that of,

2 Cor. 6.17. This text doth indeed call for ſeparation: but from whom? Collect this out of the Coherence. In ver. 14. Be not (ſaith he) un-equally yoked with un-beleevers, Not yoked ſc. in ſociety and partnerſhip of the ſhop and ſtock: in p. 24Cohabitation and company of the Bed and Bord: Thus to be joined in ſociety with Infidels he counteth a yoke, an unequall yoke; and would have them take heed of it. His Argument is taken from the unequall condition of them: To do this is to couple Righteouſnes with Unrighteouſnes, Light with Darkneſs; Chriſt with Belial: the Temple of God with Idols: things that can have no commerce together, nor communion: And then inferreth, Wherfore come out from among them, and be yee ſeparate (ſaith the Lord) and touch not the unclean thing, &c. The Church of Corinth lived in the midſt of Infidels: No wonder therfore if the Apoſtle call upon them to ſeparate from ſuch, to take heed of communion with them, eſpecially in that which he had taxed under the name of Idolatry, and here under that phraſe, Touch not the unclean thing; ſc. their preſence at the Idolatrous feaſts, This in ſpeciall would he have them forbear; Now I pray, what is this to the preſence of the worthy receiver in the company of unworthy Communicants at the Table of the Lord? Is not he blind that ſeeth not a large difference, and that the one doth not draw on the other to be unlawfull? Will it follow, that becauſe the Corinthians who were preſent with Idolaters at their Idol-feaſts, are ſaid to have communion with Idolaters, that therfore he who is in the company of wicked men in their approaching to the Table of the Lord, doth partake with them in their wickednes? If ſo: Then as the Corinths by ſo doing are ſaid to touch the unclean thing: So alſo theſe Receivers of whom wee ſpeak, by ſo doing do alſo touch the unclean thing. And ſhall we call the Table of the Lord an unclean thing? Is it alſo an Idol? Ther is a text in Hagg. 2. ver. 12— 14. which had wont to be alledged to prove that wicked men defile the Ordinances of God. But if ſo, it is but to themſelves not to others: As wholſom meat received into a corrupted ſtomack turns into noxious humours: and the ſame word that is to ſome the ſavour of life, is to others (in whom it is not mixed with faith) the ſavour of Death; to theſe, but not to others in their company: Ther is an errour in theſe mens underſtanding: They conceiv, that meerly to be in company with the wicked, is to communicate with them in their wickedneſs: They are deceived: To communicate in wickedneſs, is to join fellowſhip in the purſuit of wicked intentions: ex. gr. When wicked men take in hand a wicked purpoſe (to honour an Idol, to ſet up profaneſs; to act in the works of darknes, murther, adultery, theevery, perjury, &c. Then to join ſociety with them wittingly, is to communicate with them in wickednes. Wittingly, I ſay: For thoſe 200. that in the ſimplicity of their heart went along with Abſalom to Hebron, did not communicate with him in his treaſon tho they went in company. But now, Will any man of wit or reaſon ſay, That theſe wicked men, and theſe ſcandalous Brethren, who come to the Table of the Lord unworthily, that they go about a wicked purpoſe and intention? ſurely, what faultines ſoever is in them, by which they barr themſelves from the Benefit of the Lords p. 25Table; yet the thing that they go about, in it ſelfe is good, a duty enjoined, yea ſo acknowledged by them, in which reſpect it is that they addreſs themſelves unto it: And therfore they that go with them to this, do communicate with them in Good; becauſe they do willingly join their company in the proſecution of thoſe good intentions. So then none of theſe texts do ſpeak to the point.

Object. But it will be replyed: That tho the letter of the text doth only look upon civill ſociety prohibiting that as unlawfull: yet by conſequence it will follow; That if the one, yea that which is the leſs be unlawfull, then the other, yea much more that that is the greater is unlawfull; If no Civill, much leſs any ſacred Society. True: but then, you muſt preſuppoſe the ſame power of Admitting and ſeparating: If I may not admit him to mine houſe, much leſs may I admit him to the Table of the Lord: ſuppoſing me to have the power of Admitting. I grant, that for them that have power to keep him out, the Argument holdeth. The Church-officers of Corinth and Theſſalonica were bound to make that inference upon the text of St. Paul; And if they did not, I acknowledge them to have ſinned. But the caſe is other wiſe in this matter: This doth not prove, that every particular Chriſtian in either of thoſe Churches did ſinn in comming to the Table of the Lord while theſe were not removed, if not they, then neither is it ſinn in any of our Church-members to preſent himſelf at the Holy Table, to partake of thoſe holy Myſteries in the company of them that are unworthy. For why? The Table is the Lords: it is he that maketh the feaſt, that inviteth the gueſts, and bids them welcome: Shall any that is invited and prepared yet abſtain becauſe of anothers unpreparednes? Tell mee I pray you: Did that text of the Apoſtle Cor. 5.11. forbid any Chriſtian to eat at another mans table, ſuppoſing that this other man hath alſo invited a ſcandalous Chriſtian? I trow not. By vertue of that text I may not (as before was ſaid) invite the ſcandalous brother, I may not accept of his invitation. But if a third man invite us both, this text doth not bind me to refuſe my friends curteſie becauſe of ſuch company. If not ſo: much leſs to refuſe the invitation of God calling me to feaſt at his holy Table. Did any of thoſe gueſts in the Parable Mat. 22. turn back when they ſaw the Man who had not on his wedding garment, and conſequently in the ſtate of manifeſt unworthines and unpreparednes? Did they I ſay turn back? or is any of them checked for coming in his company? Which brings on the ſecond part of the firſt Argument, viz. That as this caſe is not prohibited, ſo neither is it reprehended.

2. No text of Scripture hath reprehended it.

Not that in Cor. 5.1.2. Ther indeed he taxeth the Church of Corinth, that they ſuffered the inceſtuous perſon ſtill to remain in Communion with them. He blameth them that they were puffed up, i. e. they ſought to hide and excuſe the fault glorying in the excellency of the mans gifts (for it is conceived that he was a Teacher among them, and that for the eminency of his gifts, they were unwilling p. 26to ſeparate him from the Congregation.) This he chargeth upon them: and that they had not mourned: What is meant by this mourning is not eaſily to determine: That is not to be doubted which ſome ſay, viz. That ther is good reaſon why we ſhould mourn for the ſin of others (as did thoſe in Ezek. 9.4. who are ther-upon marked in the forehead to be preſerved from the common deſtruction) good reaſon, I ſay, both becauſe hereby there groweth a ſcandall upon the Congregation; as alſo, becauſe the ſinns of others do indanger us (except we mourn for them) in reſpect of temporall things both goods and life, and all: This I ſay is not doubted, yet I rather lean to the opinion of them who underſtand this mourning, of the indicting a ſolemn day of Faſting and mourning for the excommunication of that inceſtuous perſon: The cuſtom then was to denounce the ſentence of Excommunication in a ſolemn maner, with the generall mourning and lamentation of the whol aſſembly invited ther-unto by appointing a time for that Action, So much the learned do obſerv out of this text, Cor. 5.2. & 2 Cor. 12.0. And this is that that I conceiv the Apoſtle meaneth in ſaying, Yee have not mourned, that he might be put away from among you. And was this the Duty of every particular perſon in the Congregation? The Epiſtle indeed is written to the whol Church of Corinth, & reſpecteth every particular perſon in the Congregation: But I ſuppoſe that St. Paul doth not intend to accuſe every particular member either of being puffed, or of not mourning: much leſs to injoin every man to put on that ſolemn maner of mourning by indiction of the day, and denouncing the ſentence of Excommunication againſt him.

To beleev that whatſoever is ſpoken to the whol Congregation may be executed by every particular member ther-of, is in effect to take away diſtinction of Orders and officers in the Church and Common-wealth: When God ſaith Deut. 13. That intiſers to Jdolatry muſt be ſtoned to death; Doth he intend to put every man in Authority to ſee the execution done immediately; Nay, in caſe the Magiſtrate neglect his office, doth this warrantiſe every man to put the law in execution? Doth not this law of God rather intend that execution paſs on legally by the hand of the Officers deputed to hear and determin of ſuch matters? When St. Paul writing to the Colloſſians, Col. 4.17. putteth in this exhortation, And ſay to Archippus, Take heed to the Miniſtry which thou haſt received in the Lord, that thou fulfill it; Doth he hereby authoriſe every Colloſſian to lay this charge upon the Miniſter? Or is it not rather to be preſented to him by the hands of them that were in place and authority? So neither in Cor. 5. He that was not puffed up, was not guilty of communicating in that ſin. And ſuppoſe that the Church-officers had not done their duty in removing the inceſtuous perſon (as perhaps they did not remove ſome other ſcandalous brethren from the Church-ſociety) ther is nothing in the text to lead us to beleev that St. Paul intended a reproof to them that were not puffed, but indeed mourned privately in p. 27their devotions to ſee ſuch diſorder, a reproof I ſay to them, for that they did not with-draw themſelves from the Communion of the Church in their approaching to the Table of the Lord.

Cor. 10. He reprehendeth them who held Communion with Idolaters in their Idol-feaſts: and in Cor. 11. them who profaned the Table of the Lord by their unreverent carriage and behaviour at it: uſing many Arguments to diſwade them from that evill, and to perſwade them to a reformation: yet doth he not either mention this as a motive, that they did bring ſin upon others, or admoniſh others to forbear communion with them till theſe things were reformed, leaſt ther-by their conſcience ſhould be defiled, and the ordinance of God become unprofitable to them. Yet this had been a very powerfull Argument of perſuaſion both to the one & to the other, and doubtleſs had ther been truth in it, St. Paul would not have forgotten it. The unworthy receiver (ſaith the Apoſtle) eateth and drinketh damnation to himſelf: He ſaith not, to himſelf and others: I grant, it doth not follow from the ſilence of the Apoſtle, that his ſin cannot hurt another beſide himſelf: But this doth follow; That if to him that hath prepared himſelf ther had been any danger at all from the preſence of others who are unworthy, this had been a fit place for St. Paul to have mentioned it. Which ſince he hath not, we conclude, that he who hath examined himſelf, hath done enough to ſecure him from the danger of eating and drinking damnation to himſelf, When the Apoſtle doth ſet down the cauſes of that plague that was among the Corinths doth he mention any ſuch thing as their preſence with the wicked in the Duty of Receiving? Or doth the text any wher at all imply it?

We find in Ezek. 22.26. a complaint of the Prieſts that they had violated, and offered violence to the law: that they had profaned the Holy things of God: that they put no difference between the Holy and Profane, nor ſhewed difference between the clean and unclean. And in Jer. 15.9. the Lord by ſhewing the Prophet what he would have him to doe, intimateth a Reprehenſion of the falſ-prophets who had not done their duty, viz. To ſeparate the pretious from the vile. But if we look upon the places and weigh them well, we may obſerv that both texts have reference to the Duty of Teachers and Officers in the Church: They muſt indeed put a difference betwixt things holy and profane, they muſt ſeparate the precious from the vile, pronouncing mercy to the one, denouncing judgement to the other: admitting the one to the Holy things, keeping of the other: This muſt they do, and if not, they deſerve a juſt reproof. But what is this to the cauſe in hand? Doth this countenance the courſe of ſuch who condemn thoſe that do not put themſelves from the Holy things of Gods becauſe thoſe be admitted which ought not? Is not this rather to make ſad the Heart of the righteous? That of Eſay 65.11. Yee are they that forſake the Lord that prepare a Table for the Troup, and furniſh a drink-offering for the number. This I ſay hath been alledged to tax the negligence p. 28of them who admit the promiſcuous multitude to the Table of the Lord: As if the Prophet had blamed Iſrael for the like careleſneſs in their Paſſover and Peaceoffering, wheras the text doth blame their Idolatry, not their profaneſs: Idolatry in ſacrificing to Jupiter and Mercury: to the Hoſt of Heaven. But admit it as a tax of negligence and profaneſs, yet muſt it not fall upon every particular perſon: Apply it to the Church officers and ſpare not: but blame not them, who becauſe the promiſcuous multitude are not turn'd away, do not turn away themſelves from the Table of the Lord. And ſo much for the firſt Argument, &c.

The ſecond Argument.

NO man may neglect, either the Duty that he oweth to God; or the Benefit which God reacheth forth to Him upon pretence that another man doth not perform his Duty, or is not fitted to receive the Benefit with Him. Shall not the Husband pray, or Hear and Receiv, becauſe the wife of his Boſome is paſſionate and irreconciliable? Shall not Lot make haſt out of Sodome, becauſe his ſon-in-laws do not prepare to go with him? That it is a Duty to receiv the Sacrament is plain enough by that precept, Do this in Remembrance of mee: That ther is a Benefit reached forth to us in it, is as evident by that word of our Saviour, This is my Body, This is my Blood; He that eateth my fleſh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlaſting life. Nay more: This Benefit cannot be had without this duty: Except yee eat the fleſh of the Son of man, and drinke his blood, yee have no life in you, Joh. 6.53. You will perhaps reply: That Duties muſt be performed in a right manner, otherwiſe we may provoke God: Iſrael muſt eat the Paſſover, yet not in their uncleanneſs, nor with the unclean, ſay the ſame of Chriſtians. I grant the Propoſition for ſound and good: The inſtance of Iſrael doth not reach home to the point in hand. It doth not appear by any text of Scripture: That if the Maſter of the familie did neglect to exclude ſuch as were unclean, that therupon the children or ſervants did, or might lawfully forbear the Paſſover.

Add this alſo, To bring home the Argument more particularly to the cauſe in hand where a prepared Heart may comply with the principall end of Receiving the Sacrament, ther ought he not to abſent himſelf for want of the ſecondary, Reaſon giveth it. That wher ther is a Duty to be done, a Benefit to be expected: If ther be divers Ends of doing that duty, ſome more, ſome leſs principall: No reaſon to neglect that by which the Principall end may be obtained, becauſe we cannot obtain th… ſ…condary. Now then, As God hath appointed and ordained this Sacrament; 1. To hold forth the Benefit of Chriſts death to the worthy Receiver, that by partaking of Chriſts fleſh and blood the Chriſtian may be more neerly united to Chriſt himſelf in the firſt place, and then to the members of Chriſt. 2. To call for and cauſe in the Society of the faithfull a publick Teſtification of their mutuall love and charity one to another as members of the p. 29ſame myſticall body. So, the principall end of Receiving is to continue the Union and Communion with Chriſt, and all good Chriſtians (the living members of Chriſt) which was begun in Baptiſm: And the ſecondary is to make profeſſion of it by joining with this and that Aſſembly of Chriſtians. Now then, ſince the primary end of Receiving is our Union with Chriſt: and our union with Chriſtians is but the ſecondary (For we are not united to Chriſt by being received into the Congregation, but indeed received into the Congregation becauſe firſt united to Chriſt.) Nay ſince, the primary end, is Union: and our Profeſſion or Teſtification therof is but the ſecond (or third) end of Receiving. Therfore where the Primary end may be obteined, why ſhould the want of the ſecond (or perhaps the third) be accounted any juſt barr to keep us off. Now, howſoever the mixture of bad with the good, or the ſcandalous courſes of over-many in the Aſſembly might ſeem a juſt barr to our Profeſſion of Communion and Fellowſhip with this or that Congregation, yet ſince it cannot hinder us in obtaining our deſire of Union with Chriſt, and his myſticall Body, why ſhould this mixture be any barr to the Duty enjoined? In very deed if that Profeſſion of our ſelves to be of the Number of them who hold of Chriſt and his Church, if this (I ſay) were the principall end of Receiving the Sacrament, Then were there ſome ſhew of Reaſon to forbear joining with a mixt Aſſembly: But now it is otherwiſe. It were indeed to be wiſhed that the whole Congregation were ſuch as that we might affectionatly deſire to continue in Communion and Fellowſhip with them: But if it fall out otherwiſe through the fault of other men: Can that be a ſufficient reaſon to hinder us from the Sacrament; The prime fruit and Benefit wher-of we may partake of, even in the mixt Aſſembly? Add this alſo: That it is charitably ſuppoſed, ther be ſome Saints in the Congregation; and in our addreſs to the Sacrament we do profeſs our deſire of Union and Communion with them: if others intrude themſelves, we came not thither to meet with them. Now the Queſtion is, whether we may neglect the good and godly Chriſtians, and that Duty which we ow to God in reſpect of them, becauſe of the bad and wicked, whom finding ther, we have not power to remove.

The third Argument.

TThat Opinion which in the beſt Ages of the Church hath been condemned of errour: And that which neceſſarily caſteth Chriſtians upon inextricable difficulty's and diſcomforts, is in all probability erroneous, and therfore not to be embraced: Such is the opinion of them who hold it ſinfull for a Chriſtian (tho well-prepared for the holy Sacrament by ſelf-examination according to the Doctrine of the Apoſtle) to draw neer to the Table of the Lord in the company of them that are unjuſtly permitted to come to that holy Ordinance, That it hath been condemned as erroneous in the beſt ages of the Church, is p. 28duplicate page p. 29duplicate page p. 30evident by the ſtory of the Novatians firſt, and the Donatiſts afterward, who upon ſuch grounds made a ſeparation from the Church of God,Againſt the Donatiſts doth St. Auguſtin diſpute, as did St. Cyprian before him againſt the Novatians. Note here, that often in his books De Bapt. contra Donatist, & contra Creſcon, Gram. lib. 2. cap. 15. doth St. Auſtin cite an Authority out of Cyprian, lib de lapſis, to prove the concluſion that we have in hand. Nos non communicare peccatis aliorum etiamſi cum iis in Sacramentorum communione maneamus. and ſet up ſelect Congregations of their own; utterly condemning thoſe Churches and Aſſemblies, who admitted of any ſuch to the Communion of the Church whom they accounted fit to be ſuſpended from the Sacrament, and the ſociety of the faithfull.

That it doth neceſſarily caſt many Chriſtians upon inextricable difficulties and diſcomforts is evident in this: That if it be unlawfull to receiv the Sacramant in a mixt Aſſembly; Then it may fall out that ſome Chriſtians may for ever be deprived of that Ordinance, and ſo want that comfort both in life and death, which they might have by it. For why? ſome have not liberty nor means of ſeparation, and ſeeking elſewhere, ex. gr. Wives, children, ſervants which are under the Covert and command of their Husbands, Parents, Maſters: Some again are ſhut up in priſon; others baniſhed or confined to ſuch a place where this Doctrine is not beleeved, nor is that Sacrament any where to be had, but in the Parochiall Aſſemblies of that Place and People. Now for all ſuch to be deprived of the Sacrament, and of the comfort which cometh by it, is a matter of ſuch inconvenience, that it cannot in any probability be allowed as an Order, and Appointment of Chriſt. Conſequently I conclude; That the Opinion which denyeth it lawfull for a Chriſtian to communicate in a mixt Aſſembly, is in all probability erroneous and not to be received.

This alſo may be caſt in to make up full weight and meaſure: That we find in the Goſpel our Bleſſed Saviour not excluding Iudas from the Paſſover, even when he knew that he had conſpired with the Prieſts to betray him. Nor do any of the Diſciples, when our Saviour told them, Yee are not all clean, One of you ſhall betray me, not any of them do call upon Chriſt to turn out the Traitour, no not when by the Sopp given to Judas, Chriſt had manifeſted him to be the man. Wher-in if the Apoſtles were to blame (ſo it may be theſe men may think) as not ſufficiently (at that time) carefull to have an Holy Communion by ſeparating the pretious from the vile: yet certainly our bleſſed Saviour did not at all tranſgreſs the Rule of Holineſs, Nor would he have permitted Iudas to ſit ſo neer them, if any of them might therby fail of Receiving the Benefit that might upon ſelf-preparation be juſtly expected from that Sacrament. Nor do I know what can be excepted againſt this, unleſs any would deny the Neceſſity of morall cleanneſs to the preparing and fitting of the Jews for the worthy receiving of the Paſſover, or boldly avouch that nothing more was required of them but a care p. 31of Ceremoniall purity, and legall purifications of the Fleſh: which I ſuppoſe is an opinion ſo groſs and abſurd, that none of underſtanding would own it and avouch it. We read Hezekiah urging the Preparation of the Heart, as an Argument to prevail with God to pardon the neglect of Ceremoniall purification: which had been of no force at all, if thoſe Purifications had not been required only in the way of ſignification and commonefaction to put them in mind of that ſpirituall and morall duty, the Preparation of Heart. If God took any pleaſure in waſhing the hands, and ſcouring the fleſh, why doth our Saviour blame the Phariſees who were but too diligent, and obſervant of their Ceremonies: No, no: Evident it is, that Sacrifices and Ceremonies, were acceptable only as Inſtitutions, and Admonitions of Morall Duties: As at other times; So in their Preparation of themſelves to the Holy Sacrament: Nor was it enough for Iudas that he was clean (as farr as the water could reach) no not enough that his feet were waſhed (if waſhed they were) by Chriſt: Since the Heart was full of covetouſnes and diveliſh intentions. Whoſe uncleanneſs, might it be an hinderance to the Reſidue in receiving the Benefit of the Sacrament, Can we with reaſon beleev, that our Saviour would not have ſhutt him out, and ſo have taught them (upon ſuch an occaſion) the Neceſſity of what theſe men call for with ſo much importunity?

I cloſe up all in a word: Since neither Scripture nor Reaſon do conclude it unlawfull. Nay ſince (the Scripture being ſilent in the cauſe, neither prohibiting nor reprehending) Reaſon doth draw us to conclude againſt the opinion of theſe men: I conclude, It is not ſinfull for a Chriſtian to receiv the Sacrament in a mixt Aſſembly.

foreign.

Appendix.

Extracted out of a Reſponſary Letter.

To your two Queſtions propounded in the cloſe of the Letter I return this breef Anſwer for your ſatisfaction.

To the firſt viz. Whether it be not a ſinn in the Miniſter to deliver the Sacrament to him that is ſcandalous: i. e. to him who having been ſuch, hath not as yet reconciled himſelf to God and the Church by publik evidences of his Repentance. I cannot admit the Affirmative for a Truth, viz. It is ſin in him except with theſe limitations.

1. When ther is power in the Hand of the Miniſter to keep ſuch men off, and to bring them to the Teſtification of their Repentance. 2. Where it is evident to the Miniſter, that the man hath not reconciled himſelf to God and the Congregation. 3. When the man is indeed ſcandalous i. e. notoriouſly known to have given offence. But the caſe is otherwiſe; when either the Miniſter hath not power in his hand: or when he is not certain of the Mans Non-Repentance, and Non-Reconciliation: Or thirdly, when the man is not indeed ſcandalous. I ſay, Not indeed, Becauſe ſome men account ſome things to be ſcandalous which indeed are not. Ther is a ſcandal to a weak brother in the want of a charitable uſe of Chriſtian Liberty; Ther is a ſcandal to them that are without: This latter is only that ſcandal that deſerveth repulſe from the Communion: Not the other.

To the ſecond viz, Whether it be not a ſinn in the People to communicate with any ſuch: i. e. To receiv the Communion in the Society of ſuch a Miniſter, and ſuch a ſcandalous Brother. I ſay as before: I cannot affirm it ſinfull; except with theſe limitations. 1. When it is evident to the Chriſtian that ſuch a perſon is indeed ſcandalous, and hath not reconciled himſelf. 2. When it is in the liberty of the Communicant to chuſe or refuſe ſuch company. But the caſe is otherwiſe; when it is not evident to him, that the other hath not reconciled himſelf: or when it is not in the liberty of the Comunicant to refuſe. Now as it is not in the liberty of the Chriſtian (ſaving the Duty that he oweth to God) to abſtein altogether from the Sacrament: So neither is it in his liberty (ſaving his duty that he oweth to the Magiſtrat) to abſtain from that Congregation wher-of by vertue of his houſe and Habitation he is known to be a Member. At the Communion of the ſick peradventure he may forbear from joining in ſociety with ſuch, if they ſhould deſire: Not ſo, from the publick Congregation.

FINIS.

Imprimatur,

CHARLES HERLE.

End of the text · Thomas Blake, Answer to Two Questions Regarding Infant Baptism (1645)