A Double Reply, To the reader
To all thoſe who love the Lord Ieſus in ſincerity, eſpecially ſuch of them whoſe lot is cast in the City of NORWICH.
Beloved Friends and Brethren,
IT is not for my own ſake, nor for the ſake of thoſe who are my Brethren in the work of reformation here or elſewhere, that I am come out into theſe liſts; both my ſelf (and I ſuppoſe all of them) could either have been content to have come up to Mr. Boatmans principles, and practice, and ſo endeared our ſelves to all our people, or at leaſt have born with patience the names of Phariſees, Dremers, ſuch as do things wiſer ages never thought of, Recuſants, Presbyterian Reformadoes, Calvins fellows, (which are the Rhetorical terms that M. John Boatman, & M. Thomas Marſhall, have beſtowed upon us) ſecuring our ſelves in the aſſurance of our innocence, and pittying their ignorance, who if they had been better acquainted with the Scriptures, and the practice of the Church would have ſpake more modeſtly. Nor is it for their ſakes, becauſe I think they have ſaid any thing worth the anſwering. We know 'tis an eaſy thing, for one to ſtand in a pulpit, and cry out againſt the way of God, as a Phariſaical way, a Phariſaical invention, a dream, an impleding Scripture, and to ſet upon the Title page of a book, The Kings cenſure of Recuſdants; he that hath but got a maſtery over his conſcience, and a bold face, may do ſuch things cheap enough. In the mean time we know: the Gentlemen will eat their words, when they are challenged for them. It is for your ſakes (dearly beloved Brethren) and for our Lord Jeſus Chriſts ſake, and for his Churches ſake, that we cannot be ſilent; for the Lords ſake whoſe ſacred Ordinance we cannot with patience ſee proſtituted, and his blood counted as an unholy thing: For his Churches ſake, that what ſhe hath believed and practiſed in all times and ages, might neither be judged hereſy or novelty: for your ſakes that you may not be ſeduced by the great adverſary of reformation, or any that drive on his deſigns (though poſſibly not wittingly) into an alienation of heart from, and an enmity to the great work of the Lord in cleanſing the Sanctuary, and refining of Zion, which we have hoped the Lord is about in England, and hath been for ſome years; yea and for their ſouls ſake who are angry with us, that we will not let them eat and drink judgement to themſelves, towards the good of whoſe ſouls our bowells yern, and we are loth that by our means they ſhould increaſe their guilt, and more and more harden themſelves to eternall ruin: was it not (my beloved Brethren) the burthen that lay upon the ſouls of the old Non-Conformists, that there was no bar to keep any from the Lords Table (but one which ſuperſtition made?) was it our juſt grief then that we had no bar, and is it our work now to remove the bars, yea the Lords and the Churches antient land marks, ſhall not the Popiſh faction riſe up in judgement againſt us at the laſt day and ſay, Aquinas Vaſquez. Bonaventura.Lord we diſputed whither a ſecret ſinner might be received to the Sacrament, and theſe reformers plead for open ſinners receiving; yea and the Prelatical party which we condemned ſhall ſay, Lord we gave the Miniſter authority to keep any from the Sacrament for any notorious ſins, yea for ſpeaking againſt the prayer book, or the Kings authority in things Eccleſiaſtical: Theſe pretend to reform us, and cryed out againſt us; yet do not only admit but plead for the admiſſion of ſuch as ſpeak againſt Jeſus Chriſt the great King of Zion. Thus we have juſtified our Elder Sister Sodom, and our younger Samaria, yea neither of them would plead for the wickedneſs which we do. This hath brought me into the liſts; now I am there, I ſhall deſire but fair play If our adverſaries can prove, all primitive Churches and modern Churches in an errour, and themſelves onelyonly in the right (though we muſt needs be concluded to err with good company) yet I hope I ſhall not ſtop my ears againſt due conviction. But we muſt crave leave to try them with the two weapons of Scriptural Reaſon and Antiquity, to prove that we are not cowards in this Cauſe of God.
Since my book was ſent to the Preſs, three others have came to my hands, all pleading for promiſcuous communions; I crave your patience for a backblow for them; much of them I have anſwered before hand. I ſhall ſubjoin a few animadverſions more upon what they have in them.An anſwer to Mr. Thomas Marſhall.
The firſt contains two or thee Sermons preached by one Mr. T. Marſhall on Matth 22.8. As I diſcern in him a ſpirit which from any Sober man deſerves rather flight than anſwer from thoſe ill favoured paſſages, p. 21. where he chargeth us with ſequeſtring, firſt, the bodily bread from the Paſtors and then the bread of Chriſt from the peoples ſouls. And page 25. where he hath this paſſage, Mr. Calvin and his fellowes whom the Presbyterian Reformadoes follow, perceiving what a jewel of auricular confeſſion they have loſt, &c. Chriſtians! this ſame diſpiſed Mr. Calvin, was one whoſe name will live and ſmell ſweet when Mr. Thomas Marſhalls will rot (it is a name too well known in the Church of Chriſt for Mr. Marſhall to Ecclipſe) but I ſay as theſe and many other ridiculous paſſages, ſheweth me at firſt view what the author was, and how unworthy of an anſwer; So ſome others, (which I ſtumbled upon at firſt) aſſured me I ſhould find nothing in him worth the anſwering? witneſs his diviſion of thoſe words, The wedding is ready, into the wedding and the Propenſity of it.
But to paſs by that, and much other pittiful ſtuff (ſet out a little (like an old ruſty ſuit) with an end or two of gold and ſilver lace taken our of the Fathers, Page 14.and much of that ſpoiled too either in the taking of, or ſetting on.)
In his 14. page he would make us believe, That the Feast meant chiefly Matt. 22. is The Lords Supper; and to prove this, he cites Origen in the Margent, who by his own confeſſion, onelyonly ſaith it may be ſtretched to that (and all that know any thing of Origen, know he had a trick of ſtretching Metaphors too far.) But doth Origen ſay, the Lords Supper, is chiefly meant? No ſurely he had more judgement by far. But I wonder who authorized Mr. Marſhall to ſay this was the feaſt made for all Nations, Iſaiah 25 9. ſurely then the Apoſtles were ill Stewards of the Lords houſe that did not firſt invite all the Heathens to this Supper. Page 15.But tis like thoſe good men were old Presbyterian Reformadoes (inconſiderable) Calvins fellows too.
It was an hundred to one, that in the 15. page Mr. Marſhall had not brought in Christmaſs Feaſts into this Text, which would have been a New Argument for Chriſtmaſs day, and worthy of ſuch a Doctor, and then he might have proved from Scripture, that it is his and our duty to invite men to a Chriſtmaſs Py. But he remembers ſomething, (that he hath loſt his New years gifts I ſuppoſe) and muſt ſigh and lament he ſaies with Jeremy, That men do not keep Christmaſs day (for that he makes the Engliſh of not comming to the Solemn Feaſts.)
I am come to his ſecond Sermon.
He hath done with the wedding (he ſaies) (he hath made the Feaſt a very ſhort one) now have at the Propenſity to it (an hard word; he hath therefore here Engliſhed it by preparation) though I think he is unhappy in this expreſſion too, it being prepared, Page 21.not preparing; and preparation argues no more previous acts ſure. The feaſt he will have to be the Lords Supper, in ſpight of our teeth, but ſurely that was not ready when Chriſt ſpake this.
He falls heavily upon us, p. 21. for not having the Feaſt ready; Page 22.but he is miſtaken, we have the Supper ready; and the queſtion betwixt us is only whether all Mr. Marſhalls gueſts be ready; Mr. Marſhall thinks our maſter keeps an open houſe for all comers; we think he keeps an orderly houſe, and every ſervant muſt have his portion in their ſeaſon.
He ſaies, We pretend peoples unworthineſs; This he tells us will not excuſe us: true if he can prove we are bound to give it to all; but if we be onelyonly bound to give it to the viſibly worthy, I hope it will. He ſaies true, (but nothing to the purpoſe) that ſome ignorance and ſin repented of, will not make a man unworthy. The queſtion is, whether a groſs ignorance of the mysteries of religion and ſin not repented of, will not? what he ſaies there of Judas his ſin, and the diſciples ignorance, is nothing to his purpoſe, till he proves we refuſe ſome leſs ignorant then the Apoſtles; and that Judas was, 1. a communicant, 2. openly ſcandalous before that time.Page 23.
I wonder he will take notice of Ambroſe his excluding the Emperour Theodoſius, conſidering Theodoſius was not excommunicated, and yet kept back by Ambroſe; and that not, as he would inſinuate, by Rhetorick and ſwaſion, but authoritatively, and ſomething ſeverely, Ambroſe telling him, he would not adminiſter till he was gone. For what he ſaith of the Church of Corinth, Page 26.I have anſwered it in the following ſheets.
He is very angry with them who come in to ſequeſtred livings; they are the Feaſt, Mat. 22. too it ſeems, for he applys Quomodo huc intraſti? to them who dare come in to them without the wedding garment of the ſcandalous Miniſters leave: In the ſame place, afraid I ſuppoſe of the ſtool of Repentance in Scotland, he falls heavily upon Presbyterian diſcipline. Alas good man! more hath been ſaid for that diſcipline long ago than he is able to anſwer.Page 27.
He ſaies the Sacrament was adminiſtred by Chriſt, and Acts 2. without Elders; but he ſeeth not how lamely the ergo muſt hop after theſe premiſes, conſidring the order of the church was not then eſtabliſhed.Page 28.
O but the Apoſtle ſaies nothing of Elders 1 Cor. 11. no more doth Moſes Gen. 1.1. but what then? the Apoſtle is treating of the Sacrament, and yet ſaies nothing of them, but he ſpoke of them 1 Cor. 12. as Governments; and chap. 5. he had ſpoke of not eating with, and purging out ſcandalous ſinners, which ſurely are acts of Government; and if there be Governments in the Church diſtinct from Apoſtles, Prophets, Teachers, as is plain 1 Cor. 12.28. if Mr. Marſhall awakes his reaſon, Pag. 29, 30.it will ſee Elders concerned in this act of Government. He is miſtaken in telling us Paul excommunicated the incestuous perſon, for he only gave order to the Governours of the Church to do it, 1 Cor. 5.4.
He pretends to anſwer our arguments; he ſaith we ſay, The Sacrament will then be prophaned if all be admitted. He grants this himſelf as to perſonal profanation, and we plead for it further as to a defilement of the communion; but he ſaies we cannot help it. If he means it of men of his perſwaſion, I know not what to ſay: they indeed reſolving to admit all, cannot help it. Page 31.But we think we can, and therefore ſuſpend the ſcandalous and ignorant; for what he ſaies expounding Matth. 7.6. of Reproof, he agrees with Mr. Boatman; I have ſufficiently in the following ſheets ſhewed the vanity of that reſtrict interpretation.
In his 31. page he pretends to anſwer a ſecond Argument of ours drawn from the Miniſters danger participating with the ſins of others. As to what he ſaies upon this point, paſſing by his gird about the Covenant, he tells us the damnation mentioned 1 Cor. 11.29. Is not to the giver, but to the Receiver.
But what is this to the purpoſe, if in giving we do partake of the ſins of others, there is a damnation alſo will attend our giving it, and ſurely there is a guilt may be contracted by a participation of the ſins of others, otherwiſe the Apoſtle forgot himſelf in warning us we ſhould take heed of it, and the Schoolmen have ſpent their time ill to tell us how many waies it may be incurred. The queſtion is, whether the Miniſter giving the Sacrament to the unworthy, incurs this guilt; Page 31.if Mr. M. thinks he doth not, let him ſpeak out and we will join iſſue with him upon that. He ſaies we are commanded to give it, but he hath not proved it by Luke 22.19.
He thinks he hath nicked it by a diſtinction of cooperations; he ſaies the Miniſter doth onelyonly cooperate to the ſinners ſin in receiving in actu primo, not in acti ſecundo.
1. If this diſtinction will ſerve the turn, it will excuſe giving it to Turks.
2. But we muſt tell him that the actus primus is ſin; It is ſin for an ignorant ſcandalous perſon to receive.
3. I do not well underſtand what Mr. Marſhall means by the actus ſecundus; if he ſaies his receiving ſinfully is actus ſecundus, I cannot underſtand how his ſinfulneſs can make a diſtinct act: if he means receiving damnation, this indeed may more properly be ſo called, but then he that by giving to him contributes to the cauſe, doth doubtleſs contribute to the effect; for ſurely if he be cauſa cauſae he muſt be alſo cauſa cauſati.
He thinks our third Argument from the ſcandal of godly Communicants is invalid.
1. Becauſe he conceives we are commanded to give it to all.
2. Becauſe he conceives it is not ſcandalum datum (a ſcandal given) but only taken; but we deny both theſe we find no ſuch command.
3. It is a ſcandal given, for we are commanded not to keep the Feaſt, not to eat with ſuch, not to give holy things to dogs &c. of which ſee more in the following ſheets.
He ſayes the Miniſter muſt exclude none of himſelf. Page 33.I have examined that chap. 11. he ſaies it belongs to a Court of Judicature. I wonder what Court he means, for Elderſhips he hath declared againſt them. The Common prayer Book gave this power to a ſingle member, ſo do the Canons 1603.
In the latter end of the ſecond Sermon he lets fly againſt Presbytery. But what hath the man to ſay againſt it? Pag. 33, 34.why it hath been thrice endeavoured to be eſtabliſhed to no purpoſe. He forgets that it is the onelyonly Government now eſtabliſhed in England by the Form of Church-Government, paſſed ſine die, by both Houſes of Parliament, 1648. And I believe it may ſtand long enough if it ſtands but till M. Marſhall be able to diſpute it down.
I find no more In him to this purpoſe; Page 46.onelyonly one paſſage in his third Sermon ſtumbles me where he tells us, that communicants may be worthy dignitate Congruentiae, or ex merito congrui. What others may, I cannot tell. I do not underſtand that Divinity; if he means honeſtly, he is at beſt unhappy in his expreſſions.
Since I had read over this Pamphlet, An anſwer to M. Barksdales letter printed with the diſputation at Winchcombthere came to my hands a Book, entituled a diſputation at Winchcomb, in which I find a letter, dated May 26. 1652. from one Mr. Barksdale to one Mr. Helm, wherein he propounds 14. Arguments for promiſcuous communion. I will ſhortly turn them into form and ſhew you where they halt.
If we must fulfil Christs precept do this in Remembrance of me, Argum. foreign.then we must administer the Sacrament to all.
But we must fulfill Christs precept.
Ergo.
The Conſequence is falſe; Chriſt onelyonly ſpake to his diſciples to do it in communion of his diſciples; no other were there; he that adminiſters it in a ſcandalous communion, doth not do that in remembrance of Chriſt.
If Chriſt waſhed Judas his feet, Argum. 2 and admitted him to the Sacrament, then we ought to admit all.
But Chriſt waſhed Judas his feet, and admitted him to the Sacrament.
Ergo.
1. The conſequence is falſe, for Judas was no ſcandalous Sinner.
2. The Minor cannot be proved, Judas indeed ſate down with the twelve, but went out immediately upon the Sop, Joh. 13. which was before the paſchal Lamb was eaten; long before the Supper was adminiſtred, as I prove in the following ſheets.
If the Lords death must be ſhewed to the ear in hearing, Argum. 3 then alſo to the eye in the Sacrament to all men.
But it must be ſhewed to all to the ear in hearing. Ergo.
The conſequence is falſe, and 1. will conclude for receiving heathens to the Sacrament.
2. Nothing muſt be done in Gods worſhip, but what he hath appointed; he hath appointed the word to be preached to all; but he hath not appointed the Sacraments for all.
Beſides the word is by Gods appointment a converting ordinance, ſo is not the Sacrament:
4. The Sacrament is not an Ordinance for meer preſenting Chriſts death, but for ſealing our intereſt in it.
If there be the ſame danger upon hearing unworthily, Argum. 4 as receiving the Sacrament unworthily, then thoſe who are admitted to hear may be admitted to receive.
But there is the ſame danger upon unworthy hearing, the word being to ſome the ſavour of death.
Ergo.
1. The conſequence is feeble; for admit there were the ſame danger upon the one or the other, yet the praerequiſite duties are not the ſame, through an inability to perform which, thoſe who are ſounable are to be excluded.
2. I doubt whether either the ſin of unworthy hearing, or the danger be ſo great as the ſin, and danger of unworthy receiving. There are degrees of ſin; I know not how we ſhould better judge the greatneſs of ſin than by Scripture expreſſions: The Scripture ſaith, He who eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himſelf, and is guilty of the body and blood of Chriſt; it is made equall to the ſin of Judas, which ſurely was greater than the ſin of Peter in denying his Maſter. For the danger, 'tis true in exitu, the danger of both is the ſame; but it ſeems God is quicker in judgement with ſuch as by unworthy receiving the Sacrament trample under foot the blood of Chriſt; for this cauſe (ſaith the Apoſtle) ſome of you are ſick and weak, and ſome are fallen aſleep. The Scripture ſaith, Blood-thirsty and deceitful men ſhall not live out half their dayes. This concludes Bloodthirſtineſs of more dangerous conſequence than other ſins.
If the Apoſtles baptized whole multitudes upon profeſſion of faith, Argum. 6 and afterwards admitted them all to the Sacrament, though many of them afterwards appeared not right, then we may administer the Sacrament to all.
But the Apoſtle baptized whole multitudes upon profeſſion of faith, and afterwards admitted them to the Sacrament, though many were not right.
Ergo,
Here is fallacia foreign. Profeſſion of Faith is an ambiguous term, it ſignifyeth either a meer verbal profeſſion or ſuch a proſeſſion as is real, or at leaſt not viſibly contradicted.
The Apoſtles baptized and admitted to the Sacrament ſuch as made a profeſſion of the faith, not contradicting it by a lewd life; it doth not therefore follow, that we muſt admit to the Sacrament ſuch as make indeed a verbal profeſſion, but at the ſame time in works deny him to whom in words they profeſs; we deny the Sacrament to none who make as much profeſſion of their faith as thoſe did whom the Apoſtles Acts 2. admitted to the Sacrament.
The Sacrament ought to be adminiſtred to all Saints. Argum. 6
But all Christians are Saints. Saint Paul calls the Corinthians ſo.
Ergo.
1 Here is the ſame fallacy again. The ſacrament is to be adminiſtred to all Saints, That is, to all who viſibly appear ſanctified through the Spirit of grace; but all Chriſtians are not Saints in that ſenſe. So the minor is falſe.
1. In ſome ſenſe all baptized perſons are Saints, as they are ſeparated from Heathens and by their baptiſm dedicated to God; if Saints be taken in this ſenſe, the Major is falſe. Children of believing parents are called holy 1 Cor 7. that is Saints federally; but yet I hope Mr. Barksdale will concur with the reformed Churches in acknowledging the admiſſion of children the errour of ſome primitive Churches.
3. St. Paul calls all the Members of the viſible Church Saints, but it will lie upon Mr. Barksdale to prove that he means it of them all viritim; I believe it a term applyed to them conjunctim, and the Denomination taken à parte meliori.
Thoſe who were admitted in the Church of Corinth, Argum 7 may be admitted in our Churches.
But diſorderly perſons were admitted in the Church of Corinth.
Ergo.
The Major preſumes the Church of Corinth perfect, and that they did nothing amiſs, the contrary to which is plain from 1 Cor. 5. elſe the Major is falſe; for wherein the Church of Corinth was ſinfully remiſs, they ought not to be our pattern.
But Mr. Barksdale tells us, They were not blamed for their comming together, but for their comming together for the worſe. Be it ſo, and that which cauſed this was the ſcandalous perſons amongſt them with whom they ought not to have eaten, as he told them in the fifth chapter. But the Apostle doth not check the Minister and forbid him to offer the Sacrament, but onelyonly bids them examine themſelves. True, he ſaies no more, 1 Cor. 11. But it was becauſe he had ſaid enough before 1 Cor. 5.8, 10, 11, 12.
Thoſe who may be admitted to join with us in prayers and ſinging Pſalms may alſo be admitted to the Sacrament. Argum. 8
1. Either this Propoſition is falſe, or let me aſſume.
1. But Turks and Indians may be admitted to pray and ſing with us. Yet I hope Mr. Barksdale will not admit them to his Sacrament.
2. Prayer and praiſe are pieces of Natural worſhip, homages due from God as their Creator. O come let us worſhip, and bow down and kneel before the Lord our Maker; receiving the Sacrament is a piece of inſtituted worſhip for thoſe who have intereſt in Chriſt as a Redeemer.
But Mr. Barksdale tells us we ſing the hundred Pſalm with them, We are his flock.
Sol. So we read in their ears, 1 Cor. 6.11. yet it will not follow all of them are waſhed, and justified and ſanctified, &c. Yet they are his flock; in the ſenſe of that Pſalm he hath made them, and he feeds them, they are the ſheep of his Pasture, ſo he doth the Young Ravens, Matth. 6. yet it will not follow they muſt have the Sacrament.
They are of the great flock, But Chriſt hath a little flock, to whom he will give the Kingdom; to theſe the Sacrament belongs only, not are we to give it to any but ſuch as are viſibly of this flock.
A converting, quickning Ordinance belongs to all. Argum. 9
But the Sacrament is a converting Ordinance.
Ergo.
The Major is granted; He proves the Minor, becauſe the word is joined with it; and if the word alone be, much more when conjoined with the other.
At once to ſhew the Vanity of this opinion (which ſo prevails in the world) that the Sacrament is a converting Ordinance. Sol. I argue;
1. If it be ſo, then it is proper and conſonant to Scripture to go amongst heathens, and as ſoon as we come, call them to a Sacrament in order to their converſion, as to preach the Gospel to them.
But ſurely none ever thought ſo, nor was it ever practiſed in the world yet; what it may be if theſe principles be well practiſed, I cannot tell.
2. Again, if it be a converting Ordinance, there can be no perſonal unworthineſs ſufficient to debar any from it; then come Turks, Indians, Papiſts, Incestuous perſons, excommunicate perſons, &c.
3. If it be a converting Ordinance, I ſee no reaſon why the Communicant ſhould be bound to examine himſelf, and ſo eat, or whether he hath skill to diſcern the Lords body. But to anſwer diſtinctly.
1. When we ſpeak of converting Ordinances, we mean Appointments of Jeſus Chriſt for the converſion of ſouls to himſelf, diſtinguiſhing betwixt thoſe things which may be uſeful ex accidente to convince and convert, and what ex inſtituto is deſigned to that end. Hearing of the word is ſuch, Faith comes by hearing, Rom. 10. Hear and your ſouls ſhall live, Iſaiah 55. Let any one ſhew us any Scripture ſpeaking to this purpoſe concerning the Lords Supper.
2. Beſides the preaching of the word is one thing, but the readin… the word of Inſtitution at a Sacrament is another thing; let Mr. Barksdale prove the latter appointed by Chriſt for converſion.
3. Either the word alone (read at the adminiſtration) is a converting Ordinance, or the Word and Elements making up the Sacrament. If it be only the word, wicked men (for ought I know) may ſtay and hear that; if he ſayes more, he muſt prove it.
But to his tenth Argument.
Thoſe whoſe children may be admitted to Baptiſm, Argum. 10 themſelves may be admitted to the Lords Supper.
But the children of the ignorant and ſcandalous may be admitted to Baptiſm.
Ergo.
Though ſome will deny the Minor, yet it ſhall ſatisfy me to put Mr. Barksdale to prove the Major.
1. Children are baptized in their parents right. I ſee no reaſon why it ſhould neceſſarily be the immediate parent.
2. Beſides there is no ſelf-examination pre-required to baptiſm.
3. The children of the legally unclean were not forbidden circumciſion.
1. But the parent muſt have a perſonal right to the Lords Supper.
2. He muſt examine himſelf, and ſo eat.
3. Of old if he were legally unclean he muſt not eat the Paſſover.
What we cannot help, we must do.
But we cannot help promiſcuous admintstrations. Argum. 11
The Major is queſtionleſs true, ultra poſſe non datur eſſe.
But the Minor is falſe. Cannot muſt be expounded Phyſically or Morally: if he means of the firſt, we can help it; Ambroſe would not adminiſter till Theodoſius was content to withdraw. If he means it in a moral ſenſe upon the account of that confeſſed maxim, Id tantum poſſumus quod jure poſſumus, It is clearly petere foreign, a begging of the queſtion, which is whither Gods word hath not given us power? To ſuſpend the ignorant and ſcandalous.and I wonder Epiſcopal men ſhould ſo far forget the Rubrick and Canons as to deny it. For our parts, beſides the authority of Gods word, diſcharging our conſciences, we think the Form of Government eſtabliſhed 1648. by Parlament diſchargeth our practice.
He goes on.
A ſeparation in the Church is unlawfull. Argum. 12
But this practice of ſuspenſion makes a ſeparation in the Church.
Ergo.
If the Major be true, the legally unclean could not lawfully be kept from the Paſſeover, yet God threatens the Prieſts for not doing it. Beſides, Excommunication is a ſeparation in the Church; for the excommunicate perſon is not out of all relation to the Church, but to be admoniſhed as a brother; yet we are to ſeparate from him (as a diſeaſed member) both in reſpect of Sacramental communion, and intimacy of civil communion.
The unworthineſs of ſome muſt not debar others of their right. Argum. 13
But (admitting ſuspenſion) this is done.
Ergo.
1. As to the Major if he means by debarring others of their right, deveſting them of their right, it is true. 2. if he means hindring them for a time from enjoying their right, It is a queſtion whither ſuch a caſe may not be, ſuppoſe the peace of the Church muſt be broken, or ſuppoſe there be one or two have a right who cannot make a communion.
But to the Minor.
2. I ſee not how the admiſſion of ſuſpenſion enforceth the debarring of any their right. Let the worthy be received, and the unworthy ſuſpended. The good mother will feed her children, but if the doggs be ſo many that ſhe cannot at preſent, ſhe will watch her time till they be ſhut out of doors.
To whom the tender of the Covenant belongs, Argum. 14 to thoſe all the ſeals of it belong.
But to the ignorant and ſcandalous the tender of the Covenant belong.
Ergo.
The Major is falſe; though the tender of the Covenant belongs to all, yet the ſeal belongs to none but thoſe who have evidenced their acceptance of the covenant; God hath commanded the offer of the Covenant to all, but not the ſetting of the Seal.
I find no more in that book looking thwart upon me; for I durſt not defend Mr. Helms his Arguments. If Mr. Barksdales friends have truly repreſented the diſpute. I could either have wiſhed Mr. B. ſtronger Opponents that day, or at leaſt his Opponents ſtronger Arguments.
But I muſt not let paſs a paſſage or two I find there in a letter from Mr. Barksdale to Collonel A. dated June 1653.
1. He tells the Collonel, and now the world that Judas was an hypocrite diſcloſed, when Chriſt admitted him; whether Chriſt admitted him or no, I have ſhewed we have juſt reaſon to doubt, if not to conclude the contrary. But ſuppoſe he did, how it appears he was an hypocrite diſcloſed, I cannot tell; that Chriſt (who as God knew hearts) knew his heart is plain indeed, but is an hypocrite known only to an all ſeeing God diſcloſed think we?
2. He tells the Collonell, Chriſt did not eate the Lamb. This is indeed Grotius his notion; to which more afterwards. But neither Grotius, nor Mr. Barksdale ſure ſhall ever make ſober Chriſtians believe that Chriſt ſupped that night with a humane invention inſtead of a divine inſtitution; the eating of that foreign, was no fulfilling the Law, which we think Chriſt did in that laſt act.
In the ſame letter he tells us, That the ſop Christ gave to Judas was the Sacramental bread; upon this very ground was founded the miſtake of diverſe of the Antients, from whence they concluded Judas was at the inſtitution, and a communicant there, becauſe they conceived this foreign was the ſacramental bit. To this opinion, Cyrill, Euthymus, and (as I remember) Auſtin (ſomewhere) doth encline; I confeſs it ſtartled me at firſt, becauſe he hints me that foreign doth ſignify a bit of bread; and ſo doth Dr. D. Hammonds Annotations on John 13.Hammond in his late Annotations on the Goſpel, who alſo puts in Heſychius for a witneſs ſhould ſay (I know not where) that foreign ſignifies foreign; From whence he confidently concludes (as well he might) that Judas was at the Sacrament.
I muſt confeſs at firſt bluſh I had almoſt began to quit our notion of the ſop being the bitter herbs dipt in the Charoſheth, allowing the Dr. and other learned Expoſitors (in the ſame miſtake) a great deal more Critical learning then I dare pretend to. But poſt foreign, (which they ſay are beſt) remembring that they did not uſe to dip bread in the Char… ſheth; and that if this were the Sacramental bread, it would enjoin us all to dip it before we give it (for I cannot allow the Doctors notion of foreign, though I have not time now to enter my exceptions, I reſolved to look a little before I ſubſcribed. And firſt I find,
Heſychius ſaith no ſuch thing; he ſaies indeed foreign ſo ſignifies, but ſaies nothing of foreign, and it is a pittyful ſhift that the Doctor hath, faying foreign is a falſe print; for which
1. Suid. in verbo foreign. Scapulain Lex. Budeus in Lex.You have onelyonly the Doctors word.
2. Suidas then is falſe printed too; for he ſaies the ſame foreign.
3. If there had been no ſuch word as foreign, the Doctor might have been believed; but there is ſuch a word in the Greek tongue which ſo ſignifies. Scapula expounds it Fruſtulum; Budeus, inferior pars pains, mica aut crustulum panis nimium aſſati.
4. If indeed (in Heſychius) foreign had ſtood in the place of foreign, we might have been ſo charitable as to have believed the Doctor, but Heſychius hath not foreign at all, but onelyonly its Primitive foreign, and there are nine or ten words which in their Alphabetical order intervene (I may miſtake the number, but I believe not much if at all) now conſidering this, why we ſhould believe the Printer rather than the Doctor miſtaken, I cannot tell; eſpecially conſidering what others no leſs Criticks in the Greek tongue ſay.
5. Steph. Theſauru. Gr. Lin. Bnd. Comment. Gr. Lin. Bud. Lex. Gr. Suidasin verbo foreign. Phav. in Lex… Diog. Laertius in v. Diog. Euſtathius in …om Od. l. 2.Stephen ſaies it ſignifies a crust of bread put into a mans mouth, a mouthful of bread, or any other edible thing. Budeus in his Commentataries tells us it ſignifies any mouthful, in his Lexicon he tranſlates it by Buccella a mouthfull.
Suidas ſayes it ſignifies Bread, and not only ſo, but Reieſculente frustulum, quantum os capere potest, quod ideo Buccea vocatur ſive Buccella, a morſel or mouthfull of any edible thing.
Phavorinus expounds foreign by foreign, ſaith he, foreign, (parts, little bits of things, thence it is joined with foreign (which it needed not if it ſignified as much alone) and indeed for this there is a place plain enough in Diogenes Laertius in the life of Diogenes where we find foreign, for which (ſaith Stephen) debuit dicere foreign; what Phavorinus ſaith of foreign he hath borrowed verbatim from Euſtathius, who ſaies the ſame thing in his comment on the ninth book of the Odyſſes; where we find Homers authority ſufficient to ſpoil the Doctors and Mr. Barksdales notion, where it is ſaid of the Cyclops being aſleep,
—foreign
foreign.—Homer. Odyſſ. l. 9.
From whence it is plain that foreign doth onelyonly ſignify a mouthful, a bit, and doth not deſignare materiam; and conformably to this Heſychius expounds it only by foreign, (now ſurely foreign is but a pig of his own Sow) and being a diminutive derived from it, Heſyc. in Lex.doth not add to the ſignification foreign. can be no more than a little foreign, being daughter to it; conformably to this is foreign, another ſprig from the ſame root, uſed Rom. 12.20. If thine enemy hunger, Rom. 12.20.foreign, which ſurely need not be conſtrued Give him a bit of bread to eat, and 1 Cor. 13.3. 1 Cor. 13.3.foreign where it cannot be conſtrued of bits of Bread, except we will ſay Pauls eſtate was made up of nothing but loaves of bread. By all this the vanity of the Doctors and and Mr. Barksdales Criticiſm appears; as alſo how dangerous a thing it is to build divinity concluſions upon vain criticiſms. foreign ſignifies onelyonly a little mouthful; be it of what it will; for that muſt be underſtood by what is joined with it. Chriſt took foreign a little mouthfull and gave it to Judas; but it ſtill remains to prove that this was bread; we ſay it was the herbs, which he dipt in the Charcſheth and gave it to Judas.
And ſo much may ſerve for Mr. Barksdale.
There is yet a third book come out ſince I ſent my ſheets to the Preſs, wrote by one Mr. Timſon, An Anſwer to Mr. Timſon.a private Christian of Great Bowden in Lieceſterſhire. It is properly directed as an anſwer to Dr. Drake. I ſhall not take that learned mans work out of his hand, knowing how able he is to do it himſelf; yet (craving firſt pardon of the Doctor) now my hand is in, I ſhall ſubjoin an animadverſion or two; eſpecially upon ſuch paſſages in his book as contain the principles on which his whole diſcourſe is built, and where he ſpeaks in theſi to the buſineſs.
The Authors ſtudy ſeems to be to beget in his Reader an opinion of his moderation, upon which he is ſomething froward with the Doctor for ſome harſh expreſſions (as he calls them p. 1.) words that might have been ſpared (he ſaith) p. 2. he calls it unbrotherly and uncharitable dealing; Qui alterum incuſat probri, ipſum ſe intueri oportet. This had been capable of a very good interpretation, if Mr. Timſon, had taken as much notice of his friend Mr. Humfreys (I had almoſt ſaid) brutiſh reflections upon the Doctor, and abuſing of Scripture to do it (witneſs the two laſt pages of his Rejoinder; and that vein of Security which runs through the whole book (to paſs by his falſe and imperfect propoſals of the Doctors anſwer, that he might have advantage to ſcoff him; and all this is prefaced in with ſuch humble profeſſions of ſelf-denyal and piety, as are more then ordinary) I ſay if Mr. Timſon had equally taken notice of this too, he might have been judged more unbiaſſed then we can now conceive him; eſpecially conſidering his own reflections upon the poor Presbyterians p. 8, 9. whom he chargeth with ſetting up Officers in the Church whom Chriſt never impowred with the keyes, &c. and ſuch a way as no word doth warrant; and cauſing a careleſs forbearance of the Sacrament, and ſuſpending perſons upon accounts for which thers not the leaſt warrant either of Rule or Preſident, and making excommunication both leſs, and more than it is, and doing many things. All which are beſide the rule, p. 10. Tis well he mends it with I think; for we hope we are able to make learned men think otherwiſe, or elſe deny both Scripture and Reaſon too.
Theſe are heavy charges and argue as unbrotherly and uncharitable dealings, with ſome hundreds of men in England, as learned and judicious as Mr. Timſon complains of in the Doctor, eſpecially conſidering there is (beſides many other) a book written in Mr. Timſons mother tongue too, called Jus divinum Regiminis Eccleſiaſtici with a Vindication of it, publiſhed by ſome learned Brethren of the Province of London, proving (paſt Mr. Timſons anſwering) thoſe ſame offenſive officers and that ſame unwarrantable way, and ſuſpenſion. But thus much onelyonly to let the Reader know that as Mr. Timſon is much Mr. Humfries friend, ſo he hath imitated him a little too far in quarrelling with his brother for what himſelf intended to be ten times more guilty of.
In his fourth page he puts the Queſtion, Whether all Church-members not rightly excommunicated may come to the Lords Supper; he is for the Affirmative; ſomething larger he is in his principles then Mr. Humfry (his friend) who excepts thoſe who are excommunicate de jure.
Mr. Humfry and Mr. Timſon too except Infants, perſons diſtracted, and drunken perſons. The Doctor ſaies right, that by the ſame reaſon the Ignorant and ſcandalous are to be excepted: I know Mr. Humfry is angry at this and doth not love to hear of it often (whence it is that in his Rejoinder he ſo ridiculouſly diſturbs his Reader with dallyings) but to ſpeak to the buſineſs, I demand of Mr. Humfry, and his friend Mr. Timſon, what it is which gives one right to the Sacrament. I know they will ſay Church-memberſhip. I proceed; Either this alone, or this and ſomething elſe. If they ſay this alone, it muſt neceſſarily follow that according to their principles then all thoſe who are Church-members have a right to it; for Quod convenit alicui quà tali muſt needs convenire omni tali, and then Infants, and mad men, and d…unkards muſt come, let them ſay what they can.
If they ſay that Church-memberſhip alone doth not give them a plenary right.Timſons Bar removed, p. 5, 6, 7, 8.
1. Many of their arguments will fail, as I ſhall obſerve anon. 2. Some may be ſuſpended. 3. I muſt enquire what it is then which joined with Church-memberſhip doth entitle them. I cannot find Mr. Humfrey nor Mr. Timſon ſpeaking plainly to this; the latter ſpends time to prove the ignorant and ſcandalous are more capable then Infants and mad men; but he is not clear in telling us wherein their capacity lies: whether in this that they have more years, which fails in mad men, or in this that they have more wit; if I underſtand them them think they are in a more capacity to exerciſe their reaſon: Well then; is this the thing that conjoined with Church-memberſhip, gives all a right to the Sacrament? then it follows
That all Church-members, who are able to exerciſe their reaſon, ought to be admitted to the Table of the Lord.
Why are Drunkards then excepted by M. Timſon p. 4. (excep he means only during the time of their drunkenneſs) But if Mr. Timpſon remembers, p. 5. he tells us, the Church is to enquire what is agreeable to the will of God revealed. So then it being granted both by Mr. Humfry and Mr. Timſon; that meer Church-memberſhip doth not give a plenary right to the Sacrament; for then infants and diſtracted perſons and drunkards muſt not be excepted; we in enquiring what elſe muſt be conjoined with it, muſt have an eye to the will of God revealed.
And let Mr. Timſon ſhew us the leaſt ſhadow of Scripture to prove that a capacity of exerciſing their reaſon is that other thing, which ſuperadded to Church-memberſhip, gives a plenary right, and we will be his bond-men.
In the mean time thus far it is agreed betwixt us, that meer Church-memberſhip doth not give one a right. Then Mr. Timſon hath granted his question againſt himſelf; for ſome Church-members not rightly excommunicated may not come to the Lords Table.
But this then is the queſtion between us, what it is which ſuperadded to Church-memberſhip, which gives only jus ad rem, haereditarium, et remotum, muſt give a man jus in re, aptitudinarium, & proximum, a plenary full right to the Sacrament.
Mr. Humfry and Mr. Timſon, if I underſtand them, ſay as I ſaid before, a capacity to exerciſe their reaſon; we ſay
Knowledge and Faith which works by holineſs.
Here is the queſtion: by whom ſhall we be tryed? By God and the Country, ſaith the Malefactor; by God and the Church ſay we. By God ſpeaking to us in his word, and inabling us by vertue of that candle ſet up in us to fetch true concluſions from ſacred principles, comparing ſpiritual things with ſpiritual.
1. Firſt I plead againſt their opinion thus;
If a meer capacity to exerciſe reaſon entituleth a Church-member to the Sacrament, than every Church member in ſuch a capacity hath an undoubted right.
This conſequcence ſtands upon ſuch foundation of reaſon, that he who doth not want the capacity mentioned in it muſt confeſs it.
I aſſume then;
But every Church-member that hath a capacity to exerciſe reaſon, hath not an undoubted right to the Lords Supper.
Ergo.
What Mr. Timſon thinks I cannot tell; but I am ſure Mr. Humfry is almoſt angry with the D…ctor, that he ſhould underſtand him of ſuch as of right ought to be excommunicated.
Now ſurely it is poſſible that one may be in a capacity to exerciſe reaſon, and yet ſo notoriouſly ſcandalous, that of right he ought to be excommunicated. Suppoſe one had committed inceſt or adultery, and that immediately before a Sacrament; ſuch a wretch may be in a capacity to exerciſe reaſon, yet ſurely Mr. Timſon hath large principles if he thinks ſuch wretches have a plenary right to the Ordinance.
Let Mr. Humfry and Mr. Timſon ſay what they can. Something beſides Church-memberſhip muſt be added to give one a plenary right to the Sacrament; or elſe Infants and diſtracted perſons muſt have a plenary right. And ſomething beſides an ability to exerciſe reaſon; or elſe an inceſtuous perſon immediately after his vileneſs hath as full a right as any; and the like might be ſaid for a Drunkard, a Murtherer, any profane perſon, openly defending his profaneſs, for one who doth not know whether Chriſt were a man or a woman, &c.
2. Secondly I urge further according to Mr. Timſons principles,
He muſt be able to diſcern the Lords body from common Bread.
But many men may be Church-members and rational, and yet not able to do this.
Ergo ſomething elſe muſt be ſuperadded.
3. A child of five or ſix years old is able to exerciſe reaſon and is a Church-member if baptized; if theſe two things give a plenary right, ſuch children ought undoubtedly to be admitted.
This is ſufficient to ſhew the vanity of this Conceit, That meer Church-memberſhip, with a capacity to exerciſe Reaſon, gives one a plenary right to the Lords Supper.
And if meer Church-memberſhip doth not do it, no nor that with this ſecond thing added:
I Query what it is doth it. Surely it muſt be ſomething above theſe: we ſay a Knowledge of the things of God conjoined with faith in Chriſt, ſuch a faith as is evidenced by holineſs.
It will ſtand Mr. Humfrey and Mr. Timſon in hand either to ſpeak clearly to this, and tell us what gives a plenary right, or to acknowledge with us that theſe things (ſuperadded to Church-memberſhip) do: which if they grant us, Let them ſay what they will. Dr. Drake ſaith true, that by the ſame reaſon that Mr. Humfry and Mr. Timſon except infants and perſons diſtracted, ignorant and ſcandalous perſons are to be excepted; and Mr. Humfrys excepting out of his opinion infants and perſons diſtracted, is but a crafty trick to prevent thoſe arguments which he foreſaw he could not anſwer, like ſome late Arminians, who tell us, Christ died to purchaſe a poſſibility of ſalvation for all but ſuch as ſhall dy impeninent.
And the Reader may eaſily perceive the ſores of M. Humfrys book, by his kickings in his Rejoinder, where the Doctor touched him. I ſay Mr. Humfry and Mr. Timſon muſt hold that a meer natural capacity to exerciſe reaſon in one who is a Church-member, gives him a full right to the Sacrament, or elſe there is a par ratio for keeping away the ignorant and ſcandalous as for infants and perſons diſtracted. And if they hold ſo I have ſhewed them what follows upon it. When Mr. Timſon ſpeaks clearly to this point, we will more ſtrictly examine his judgement.
He ſpends his 8, 9, 10. pages in entering his exceptions againſt the Presbyterian Diſcipline where he chargeth the friends of it ſufficiently, and d…als as unbrotherly with ſome hundreds of Learned and Reverend men, as he chargeth Dr. Drake to have done with Mr. Humphry, and ſomething more.
Conſidering that the Reverend Doctor if he be a little ſmart with his adverſary, yet withall he anſwers his adverſary Et miſcuit utile amaro.
But Mr. Timſon hath anſwered nothing ſaid in the defence of thoſe practices which he ſo deeply cenſureth. All that I ſhall ſay is, we hope, Longe aliter in Coelo quam Boudenae de Presbyterio concluſum eſt.
Jeſus Chriſt and Mr. Timſon are not both of a mind. But in the mean time,
Q…is tuler… Gracchos de ſeditione querentes? why doth Mr. …imſon inveigh againſt unbrotherly, uncharitable, weak dealing, before he hath apologized for his own dealing in that manner with ſo many men and Churches too? I think the impartial Reader of his book may ſee enough of it in his book.
Thus we ſee not onelyonly what he obſerves, That good men are apt to reprove others in things controverted, but alſo for things they will do themſelves.
In his 12. and 13. pages he puts ſome Quaeries upon the 1 Cor. 11. an ingenuous anſwer to which he thinks would moderate our rigour as he calls it; and therefore he hath favoured us with his opinion as to them, p. 14, 15, 16, 17. &c.
Becauſe indeed all his ſuperſtructure ſtands upon the foundation he here laies,
I ſhall crave leave to examine a little what he ſaies here.
1. I obſerve that in propounding them he forgot the rule of Frusta fi… per plura quod fieri poſſit per pauciora.
For his four firſt quaeries are reducible to this one.
1. Q Whether the unworthy Receiving mentioned 1 Cor. 11.29. (for which the Corinthians were chaſtned v. 30.) was perſonal or habitual; or meerly actual miſcarriages in reference to the order, in which they ought to have received?
His fifth, ſixth and ſeventh are reducible to this ſecond.
2. Q. Whether the duty of ſelf-examination preſcribed by the Apostle as a Remedy to prevent future Judgements, were not ſuch as the unregenerate and moſt ignorant perſon might uſe? &c.
3. Q. His eighth, Whether an incapacity to perform this duty, or neglect of it did give a writ of eaſe from the precept of publique duty and ſervice, Do this in Remembrance of me?
4. Q. His laſt quaery is, Whether there be any thing in the institution, nature, language and actions of the Sacrament in the Context, or elſewhere incongruous to the unregenate mans receiving?
As to the firſt of theſe Queries. Mr. Timſon thinks p. 14. That they are not blamed for their perſonal unworthyneſſe; for chap. 1. ver. 1, 2. they were all ſanctified in Christ Jeſus, called to be Saints; I ſee no great harm is like to come of it, if we ſhould grant that the Apoſtle there doth not primarily ſpeak of habitual perſonal unworthineſs, but actual. But Mr. Timſon in his anſwer to the ſecond and third Query, thinks the unworthy eating ſignifies only their diſorderly eating, and for this onelyonly p. 14. he thinks they were puniſhed, v. 30. this is the Summ of what he ſaies, p. 14, 15. 16, 17, 18.
To which I anſwer.
1. Tis not much materiall to diſpute whether the Apoſtle there ſpeaks of habitual unworthineſs or only actual; That there is a perſonal unworthyneſs himſelf muſt grant, or elſe Turks and Excommunicated perſons cannot be excluded.
2. Whether every unregenerate man (as unregenerate) be perſonally unworthy, Mr. Timſon ſeems to doubt, we believe, but there is no need to diſpute it here. For
3. We grant that every Church member is by us to be lookt upon as habitually worthy, unleſs by ſome actual miſcarriage he declares himſelf actually unworthy, which we believe may be done as well by his ignorance, diſcovering his actual miſimproving of the means of grace, as by his ſcandalous life and converſation. Yet we believe their Church-memberſhip is not that which makes them habitually worthy but their intereſt in Chriſt, which charity obligeth us to believe they have till by ſome fruits they diſcover to us the contrary.
4. We dare not deny but the diſorderly eating in the Church of Corinth, was an unworthy eating, and might be a cauſe of their puniſhment ver. 30. we know God is very tender of his own order. God hath made a breach upon us (ſaith David in Ʋzzah's caſe) becauſe we ſought him not in due order.
5. But that a man ſhould not be capable of eating unworthily, except by ſuch diſorderly receiving? or that all the unworthy eating of the Corinthians, ſhould be their diſorderly eating; or that this ſhould be the only ſin for which they were puniſhed with death.
Theſe things we cannot digeſt without ſome good Arguments to crowd them down.
1. Becauſe the Apoſtle chap. 5. had told the Corinthians they could not keep the Feaſt with the old leaven of malice and wickedneſs, and bidden them purge out the old leaven, ver. 7, 8. and not eat with one called a Brother who ſhould be a Fornicator, an Idolator, &c. And again chap. 10. ve. 21. had told them, They could not drink of the cup of the Lord, and of the cup of Devils, and that they could not be partakers of the Table of the Lord, and of the Table of Devils.
2. Becauſe it ſeems very abſurd to us that a man who ſhould offend but in a point of order ſhould be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, and eat and drink damnation to himſelf; which are the two things predicated of the unworthy Receiver, and he who comes reaking with the guilt of ſcandalous ſins ſhould not at all be guilty or lyable to Gods Judgements.
Thirdly becauſe we cannot conceive, that God ſhould be ſo unlike himſelf as to look upon one legally unclean unworthy to eat the Paſſeover under the old Teſtament, and yet look upon one morally unclean as worthy under the New Teſtament.
We therefore humbly conceive (till Mr. Timſon makes the contrary appear to us) that the Subject of thoſe propoſitions 1 Cor. 11.27, 29▪ viz. He who eateth and drinketh unworthily, muſt be expounded as well by the fi…th and tenth chapters, as by what precedeth in this; and that thoſe did as well eat and drink unworthily, who kept the Feast with old leaven, who did partake of the Cup of Devils chap. 10. as thoſe who came in diſorderly parties to the Lords Table and mingled that Feaſt with their Love-feaſts. And …hat they were as well puniſhed for the former as the latter ſins. I have done with his four firſt Quaeries. His fifth and ſixth quaeries are,
What Remedy the Apoſtle preſcribes, whether the moſt ignorant perſon, owning the true religion and the unregenerate might not uſe it ſo far as to prevent the Judgements and receive benefi….
Mr. Timſon ſaies the remedy propounded is by Instruction and Direction. Inſtruction, to which purpoſe he remembers them of the Institution. True, he doth ſo, but whether as a mean to convince them of their ſin, or a Remedy, I think may be a queſtion.
2 Then ſaith he, he directs them to examine themſelves, and to tarry for one another. True but is this all? in caſe there be ſcandalous ſinners in the Church, are the miniſters and officers of the Church to do nothing elſe but bid them examine themſelves? This we are told indeed (Mr. Boatman told us ſo too I remember) but I hope in the fifth chap. the Apoſtle had told them of another Remedy; Not keeping the Feast, not eating with them; doth it follow that becauſe the Apoſtle doth not repeat it again here, therefore that is no remedy?
Self-examination is a perſonal Remedy, but there are other Church remedies which the Apoſtle commandeth the uſe of as well as this. Mr. Timſon quaeries whether the remedy be not ſuch (I ſuppoſe ſelf examination is that he means) as the moſt ignorant and the unregenerate may make uſe of, ſo far as to prevent the judgement threatned, and receive benefits thus he openeth himſelf in the ſeventh quaery. So then this query amounts to this,
Whether a man be bound before the Sacrament to examine himſelf any otherwiſe than an unregenerate perſon, and the moſt ignorant perſon profeſſing and owning true Religion may do, about the meer notion of the Sacrament, the institution, &c.
The Queſtion is here concerning the nature of that ſelf-examination, which is the duty of him who would partake worthily at the Lords Table; for when we have determined that, we ſhall eaſily judge whether an unregenerate or ignorant perſon be in a capacity to do it.
Pag. 21, 22. Mr. Timſon is ſtrongly enclined to believe that they are onelyonly bound to examine themſelves concerning the premiſes; and that Divines ſtretch this precept too far to expound it of any other, becauſe he conceives the Apoſtle ſutes the remedy to the malady.
Mr. Humfry ſubmits his Judgement to other Divines in this thing in his Rejoinder p 6. 7. onelyonly ſubjoineth three honeſt cautions.
I cannot ſubſcribe to Mr. Timſons inclinations, that the ſelf-examination mentioned 1 Cor. 11.28. muſt be limitted by the premiſſes.
1. Then it will follow that the Apoſtles mind is a communicant ſhould onelyonly ask himſelf,
Firſt, Whether he takes his own Supper before the Lords Supper, v. 21.
Secondly, Whether he knows that what he doth is Chriſts institution, v. 23, 24, 25.
Thirdly, Whether he knows the Lords body from common bread (as Mr. Humfry and Mr. Timſon expound that phraſe of diſcerning the Lords body) v. 29. ſo let a man examine himſelf and he may come, thinks Mr. Timſon; this indeed is ſhort work. But ſurely,
2. The word foreign will not be ſatisfied with ſuch a jejune interpretation; whether it be verbum forenſe, as ſome would have it. Surely Magiſtrates examine malefactors more ſtrictly, or verbum mecchanicum, as others will have it, The Goldſmiths tryal of his Gold is a more ſearching trial; the Apoſtle expounds it 2 Cor. 13.5. Examine your ſelves whether you be in the faith or no, prove your ſelves.
3. That another kind of Examination is here required, hath been the concurrent Judgement of all Divines, eſpecially thoſe of the reformed Churches, which makes Mr. Humfry tender the leading the way to this looſe interpretation, and to ſubmit to their unanimous judgment, I heartily wiſh he had ſhewed himſelf as tender concerning the buſineſs of ſuſpenſion which he might have done upon the ſame principle.
4. But if they be to examine themſelves no more than whither they diſcern the Lords body, we conceive it enough, for it will ly upon Mr. Humfry and Mr. Timſon to prove that the diſcerning there meant is no more than the diſtingu ſhing betwixt that feaſt and their Love-feaſts; diſcerning muſt imply knowledge, I cannot diſcern the Lords body from another thing if I do not know it. I muſt know it as a body ſacramentally; 2. as the Lords body: it will neceſſarily imply a knowledge of the ſign, and of the thing ſignified in the Sacrament, a knowledge of the two natures in the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and of what he hath done and ſuffered for me, and of the nature of the Sacrament, and what is held forth in it to the ſoul. And from hence will eaſily follow an anſwer to Mr. Timſons 6. query; That Ignorant perſons though (pro formâ) they do own the Chriſtian Religion, yet are not in a capacity to examine themſelves, ſo as to prevent the Judgement or receive the benefit.
Mr. Timſons 8. query is, Whether a careleſs neglect, or incapacity to perform this duty, doth excuſe and give a writ of eaſe from that precept, Do this in remembrance of me.
1. When Mr. Timſon hath proved that that precept is an univerſal precept that concerns every individual perſon that is baptized and in a capacity to exerciſe reaſon, we may poſſibly tell him, that his incapacity or careleſs neglect makes him doubly guilty, and ſo doth not give a writ of eaſe but only laies another action upon him. We conceive that precept only to concern the Diſciples of Chriſt, and none but true diſciples. Though I do not ſee what Mr. Timſon can make of it, if we ſay all within the Church are obliged by that precept in ſenſu compoſito, that is firſt to examine and then to eat; but not in ſenſu diviſo. Nor will it much trouble us which Mr. Timſon ſaies p. 23. where he ſaies, The Apoſtles were bound to call upon thoſe to whom they preached to obſerve all that he had commanded. Either that Argument will prove, that they were to call upon Pagans, children, &c. to come to the Sacrament, or elſe it ſaies nothing but this, that we are bound to call upon all to obſerve ſuch things as he hath commanded them reſpectively, and then it ſtill remains to prove that Chriſt hath commanded an ignorant profane perſon while ſuch to come to the Sacrament.
For Mr. Timſon's query p. 24. Whether any instance can be given, of any under the Law admitted to the other Ordinances yet debarred the Paſſeover; we conceive there may. It will poſe Mr. Timſon to prove that thoſe who had touched the dead body of a man might come at no ordinances but we can prove that they might not come at the Paſſover, Num. 9.
Nor is that whimzy of his p. 25. at all better, by which he would prove the receiving the Sacrament a duty incumbent upon all becauſe included in the firſt table. For beſides that it will poſe Mr. Timſon to prove that the ſpecifical duty of receiving of the Lords Supper is commanded in the firſt Table: If it were, yet I hope preaching the word is ſo alſo, which yet is not a duty enjoined to all, but thoſe only who are appointed thereto.
Whether it be ſenſe or no I cannot tell, ſure I am it hath no great ſtrength of reaſon that he ſaies ſelf-examination is a private duty, and ſo ſubordinate to the Publique. Who denies it? but if he means that we muſt not neglect the publiqu becauſe we cannot perform, or have not performed the Private; Beſides that we queſtion whether upon ſuch an incapacity or neglect the publique be a duty, we conceive that where a private duty as commanded in order to prepare us for the publique, we cannot without ſin perform the publique before we have performed the private; cleanſing was the unclean perſons private duty: yet till it was done, we think he might not come to the Paſſeover.
For his notion p 27. that the Receiving the Sacrament is the End, and Self-examination the means, it is ſo far from making for him, that it will conclude that he who cannot or hath not examined himſelf, can no more receive the Sacrament without ſin, neglecting the due means to make him a worthy receiver, then Mr. Timſon can prove the wicked ought to receive without Scripture or reaſon, or write another book without an hand, pen, ink of paper; I had thought due means muſt be neceſſarily ſuppoſed to the end.
His 9. query is, Whether there be any thing in the nature, language, actions or end of the Sacrament in 1 Cor. 11. or elſewhere, incongruous to the unregenerates receiving.
Whether in 1 Cor. 11. there be any thing there or no, I ſhall not diſpute. I have ſaid ſomething to that already, and it is enough if we find it elſewhere, and we conceive there is ſomething contrary to the receiving of the ignorant and ſcandalous, which is the queſtion, for the Church judgeth not of ſecret things.
1. In the institution for Chriſt gave it to none ſuch:
2. In the nature of it, for it is strong meat, and the ſeal of the righteouſneſs of faith.
3. In the language of it for the ignorant cannot do it in a notional remembrance of Chriſt, nor the ſcandalous in a practical remembrance of him.
4. In the actions required, for we conceive the communicant is ſpiritually as well as corporally to eat and drink, viz. to exerciſe faith.
5 In the end for we conceive it was instituted, not to convey faith but to ſeal it.
But before Mr. Timſon can tell us his mind, he muſt lay down ſix postulata, and if we will grant them he will do ſomething.
1. First he conceives, that this Sacrament is instituted for the good of every particular member of the Church. We conceive ſo too; therefore they have jus ad rem, but how doth this prove that therefore every particular member ought in his preſent ſtate to come to it, and coming ought to be admitted. 1. Was not the Paſſover ſo appointed, yet I think the unclean perſons might not come during their uncleanneſs. 2. I know many reverend men think the excommunicate perſon is yet a member of the Catholike Church, and I am ſure we ſhall not baptize him again upon his repentance, and he yet poſſibly owns the Chriſtian Religion. So that he is a baptized perſon owning the Chriſtian Religion, and ſo a member of the Church Catholike, and doubtleſs (ſuppoſing his Repentance) the Sacrament is inſtituted for his good: but I hope it will not therefore follow he ought in his ſtate of Excommunication to be received to that Communion.
2. For his ſecond, we will grant it him that the Church confists of good and bad.
3. And his third, That the unregenerate are the proper objects of the promiſe of first grace. Though that muſt be underſtood with a grane of ſalt, and I had rather ſay that the unregenerate are the only objects of firſt grace; then the only objects of the promiſes. For the promiſes profit not any without faith, and how the unregenerate ſhould exert an act of faith, to apply a promiſe I cannot tell, and I doubt whether it be truth to ſay any promiſes belong to men as unregenerate for if they belong to them as unregerate, they may apply them as unregenerate.
4. His fourth thing is, That the whole administration of the Covenant belongs to thoſe in the Church who are the immediate objects of the abſolute promiſe…: they being of years of diſcretion to uſe the ſame in order to the Lords putting the promiſes into execution.
How [thoſe in the Church] and [being of years of diſcretion] comes in, I cannot tell, unleſs it be to prevent an anſwer for if Mr. Timſons argument be good it is fetch from the right, which an intereſt in the Covenant promiſes gives one to the Seals of it. And then it muſt hold univerſally▪ and if the unregenerate out of the Church be is much objects of the promiſes of the firſt grace, as thoſe within there is no reaſon for that reſtriction.
But to ſpeak to his Argument.
To thoſe to whom the abſolute promiſes of the Covenant belong, to thoſe the whole administration, and ſo the ſeals of it belong.
But to the unregenerate in the Church and of years the promiſes belong.
Ergo,
If Mr. Timſon will clear this Syllogiſm from the fallacy of 4 terms, the anſwer will be eaſy. Let but belong in each propofition be underſtood in the ſame ſenſe, and the argument is weak.
If by belonging he means no more then this, that the unregenerate are thoſe onelyonly upon whom God ſhines with firſt grace, or to whom God hath declared he will give firſt grace, we deny the major; for by this argument heathens may come.
If by belonging, or being the objects, he means that thoſe are they only who by faith can apply them and make uſe of them for their ſalvation or conſolation, his major is true; but his minor is falſe; for no promiſe doth ſo belong to any unregenerate man, viz. as his portion which he may claim and make uſe of in his unregeneracy.
To his fifth, That the Sacraments being viſible repreſentations of the death of Christ on which thoſe promiſes are founded, and by which they are confirmed; The uſe of the Sacrament doth belong to thoſe whom thoſe promiſes do respect. To this I anſwer;
1. That the promiſes are founded upon Chriſts death, and confirmed by it, I grant.
2. I grant alſo the Sacraments are viſible repreſentations of Christs death. But that is not all, they are ſeals as well as ſigns.
3. It is falſe, That the uſe of the Sacraments belongs to ſuch as the promiſes of first grace do respect. For then the uſe of it belongs to heathens; but the uſe of it belongs to thoſe only who by faith apply the promiſes.
6. That thoſe in the Church whom we cannot exclude from Covenant relation [being of year] must not be excluded from the Sacrament, becauſe they are ſeals of covenant love to that people that are i… poſſeſſion of Covenant administrations.
I wonder again how that term [being of years] comes in, for the argument is to prove a right for covenant Seals for ſuch as are in covenant relation, now children are in covenant, relation. That exception plainly implies that covenant relation is not enough. I know if Mr. Timſon had thought of it too, he would have excepted mad men; for they are in covenant relation, and this argument pleads their right: the upſhot is, Mr. Timſon grants here by excepting thoſe not of years, that covenant relation is not enough to give right to covenant ſcals, ſo he hath anſwered himſelf. For his argument fails if covenant relation be not enough, and we ſtill demand what muſt be ſuperadded? if he ſays only years, then mad men have a right, if he adds a capacity to exerciſe reaſon too. 1. Let him ſhew us Scripture for theſe … things to be added. 2. I ſpoke to it already.
He tels us the elect before converſion are in the writing, and in the Church, therefore the Sacraments ſeal to them. That the elect are enrolled in the everlaſting covenant I dare not deny; but that they are fully in covenant is falſe, Chriſt indeed hath covenanted for them before they believe; but they are not ſaid to be completly in covenant till upon the tender of the covenant to them in the Goſpel they have accepted the condition. And the Sacrament doth not ſeal to the everlaſting covenant, but to the acceptation of the covenant to which faith muſt be ſuppoſed. For what Mr. T. ſaies about baptiſm hath been anſwered again and again. He thinks it hard to ſay any in the Church are not in covenant. Concerning the everlaſting covenant, I know none will ſay it de individuis; yet ſurely Judas was out though a member of the firſt church, but thoſe who are in a ſtate of unbelief, though they may be objects for Gods firſt free grace, yet ſurely are not in covenant.
In the 2 or 3 next p. he puts us in hope of 2 or 3 new arguments, I would fain ſee them, for I have not ſeen one brought in this caſe many a day. H…s firſt is from the nature of a Sacrament; That it is a viſible Gospel repreſenting Christ crucified to all the ſenſes: what then? therefore the unregenerate have need of it. Bravely concluded! he was afraid if he had concluded, Therefore they have right to it, we ſhould have denied the conſequence. The unregenerate have need of Chriſt and all his grace and glory, but have they therefore a right to him? This argument is as old as Pauls ſteeple too. But from need to right is wide concluding. His ſecond is from the end of the Sacrament. viz. To remember Chriſt; what then? The Sacrament is to be obſerved in remembrance of Christ by all thoſe who profeſs hope of being ſaved by his death. If he had put in lively hope, or will grant me that he means thoſe who having that hope purify themſelves as God is pure (wch is the evidence of that hope) I yield it, otherwiſe I quaery. But how if they be ignorant of what Chriſt was or did? How ſhall they do it in remembrance of him? or how if they by profane oaths and blaſphemies profane his blood? how ſhall they do it in a practical remembrance of him? Thirdly, he argues learnedly, They have an hand to take and a mouth to eat. This argument will prove a Monkies right to it; I had thought the taking, eating and drinking muſt be ſpiritual by faith: he asks how we will prove it? if he pleaſeth to compare Jo. 6.54, 53, 56. with v. 40, 35.50.51, 53. Eph. 4.17. Jo. 3.36. he may find proof for it. 4. The language of the Sacrament runs in general, he ſaith, for many, for you, and who were they? Chriſts diſciples.
It ſounds very harſh he ſaies to ſay the Sacrament is not a converting Ordinance. How harſhly it ſounds in Mr. Timſons ears I cannot tell. Mr. Gillespy hath proved it is not by 20 arguments, which M.T. hath not anſwered, and it will be more hard for M.T. to prove, That Chriſt appointed it for an ordinary means to convert ſouls. His argument is worth nothing becauſe it is an eſſential piece of the Miniſters work, and becauſe it was appointed to ſhew forth Chriſts death. Let him prove the conſequence of theſe that therefore Chriſt hath appointed it for converſion; if it were appointed to that end, doubtleſs they excōmmunicate ſhould not be debarred.
3. His thred bare argumnt p. 40. hath a great hole in it. For though the word and prayer are means of converſion, and they do conſtantly attend the Sacrament, yet it doth not follow that the Sacrament quà a Sacrament is ſo; nor is there any need for converſion that the unregenerate ſhould be at it; for they may hear and pray and not receive. But M. T. tels us if bare preſence anſwer the end, much more would receiving. We cannot promiſe them their preſence will do them good, but we are ſure their receiving will not, and therefore M. Ts. conſequence is nought. In his 3 next pages he falls upon the Doctor who is able to ſpeak for himſelf. In the other part of his book. I find nothing in theſi to prove the right of the ignorant and ſcandalous, he is altogether dealing with the Doctor and the Glocesterſhire miniſters, anſwering what they have ſaid againſt promiſcuous communion. I am afraid my Preface will ſwell too much, I ſhall therefore turn him over to my elder Brethren.
I think I have endeavoured to looſen the Foundation upon which his whole building ſtands; and if I miſtake not theſe rotten pillars uphold it.
1. Church memberſhip with a proportion of years, and a capacity to exerciſe reaſon gives one full right to the Sacrament.
2. Any ſuperficial examination, if we know the nature of the inſtitution is all required.
3. Thoſe who are in any covenant relation have right to all covenant ſeals.
4. The Sacrament is a converting Ordinance.
5. Do this in remembrance of me, is an univerſal precept, which concerns all in the Church, yea and they are bound to do this, though they cannot do what is prerequiſite to it.
6. Receiving the Sacrament in remembrance of Chriſt is, nothing but a bodily eating the bread and drinking the wine, and a notional remembrance of the hiſtory of the paſſion of Chriſt.
7. The Sacrament belongs to all believers, and in Scripture ſenſe there are no unbelievers in the Church, p. 48.
Theſe are the rotten principles of divinity, which he makes his heads for his arguments, which how contrary they are to Scripture, to reaſon, to the Judgement of all Divines, enquire and judge.
Being paſt theſe I ſhall leave the remaining Structure, Suis & ipſe viribus liber ruit: If theſe principles be falſe his book hath not much truth in any one page of it.
I ſhall now diſmiſs thee from my porch; onelyonly let me give thee a caution or two. Thou wilt find many ſlips either of my pen or the Printer, for which I beg thy pardon: Some I have noted in my firſt part, yet two ſheets of the preface, and two at the end of that eſcaped me; and in the other ſheets ſome alſo ſlipped me after twice reading over, beſides Comma's and Periods, and other ſtops miſplaced, for which I muſt beg thy pardon; poſſibly they might be my faults writing in haſt.
I hear of ſome intentions in M. Brabourn to reply to me. He hath nothing elſe to do. I have. I am aſſured in that he will do nothing to the purpoſe; he is at ten or twelve pound charge to get an anſwer printed; tis pitty, that it ſhould not be worth ſo many farthings when it is done, and that he ſhould not have all the advantage given him can be to help him off with his copies. If with a good conſcience I could, I ſhould be willing to anſwer him out of charity to help his book to ſell, but that were the way to make the ſent of his book ſpread it ſelf further. I ſhall therefore promiſe thee nothing but ſilence. If but a rational School-boy ſhall ſend me word that he judgeth me anſwered in any one point, it is ten to one but I may vindicate my ſelf, otherwaies I ſhall think him more an object of pitty than any revenge; for this age tels us there are ſome who both want wit to write, and diſcretion to hold their peace.
And now (my dearly beloved friends) I am almoſt ty…ed with Polemical writing, and I will not promiſe you much more of that nature. I have endeavoured in two or three treatiſes to vindicate ſome truth, viz. Concerning the Divine Ordinance and Office of the Ministery, in my Vindic…ae Miniſterii Evangelici, and anſwer to Mr. Sheppard.
2. The preheminecy of the Lord; day above Christmas day in my anſwer to Mr. Fiſher, &c.
3. The divine right of Church Government in the hand of the Miniſters and Elders againſt Mr. Brabourn. And now this divine ordinance and antient practice of ſuspending the ignorant and ſcandalous from the Lords Supper. Theſe ſcufflings have hindered me from ſome things (poſſibly more profitable) I have part of a diſcourſe neer ready, which I have promiſed the world, concerning Temptations, if my adverſaries diſturb me not. I ſhall in the next place apply my ſelf to that work; I have been willing to let it ſleep while I diſpatched this, becauſe by this I hope I may be uſeful to the whole Church, and in that but to particular ſouls, which I deſire may be my excuſe to you.
But I fear leſt the City ſhould run out at the gates. Bowing therefore my knees to the God of peace and truth, that you may be guided into all truth, and eſtabliſhed in the right ways of the Lord, I rest,
Chaplyfield-houſe in Norwich July 16. 1654. Your Cordial friend and ſervant in the work of the Gospel, I. COLLINGS.