The Golden Mean, Case 4
Caſe. 4.
But whether may Miniſters lawfully adminiſter this Sacrament to thoſe, in whom they can ſee no ſignes of ſound and ſaving grace? I anſwer, yes undoub…edly, and that for theſe following reaſons.
Sol. Firſt, becauſe the Apoſtles in the pureſt primitives times, never required any more to admiſſion than outward profeſſion, refuſing none that were willing to give their names unto Chriſt; never once queſtioning the ſincerity of their affections, for ought we read, witneſs thoſe three thouſand ſoules admitted preſently both to Baptiſme, and the Lord's Supper, upon their willing aſſent. Act. 2.41. &c. and that breaking of bread. ver. 42. is ment of Sacramentall breaking, may appear more plainly, if we well obſerve, what learned Maſter Mede ſaith, concerning the words. They were ſaith he, foreign, which the vulgar Latine turns, Erant autem perſeverantes in doctrina Apoſtolorum, & communicatione fractionis, panis & orationibus; but the Syriack, Perſeverantes erant in doctrina Apoſtolorum, & Communicabant in precatione, & fractione Euchariſtiae, hoc eſt, aſſidui erant in audiendis Apoſtolis, & Sacrificio Chriſtiano celebrando, and withal he adds, who knows no that the Synaxis, of the ancient Chriſtians conſiſted of theſe three parts, of hearing the Word of God, of prayers, and commemoration of Chriſt in the Euchriſt? And therefore he ſaith, our tranſlation is not here ſo right, which refers foreign to foreign and tranſlates it the fellowſhip of the Apoſtles, whereas it is to be referred to foreign Vide Mede vol. 1. page, 493. 494.
And to proceed, we do not read of any admitted to baptiſme, but were alſo admitted to the Lord's Supper. Hence Act. 20.7. It is ſaid, that upon the firſt day of the week the Diſciples came together to break bread, and Paul preached unto them; Mark, he ſpeaks of Diſciples in generall, without any exception, that they came together of purpoſe, to break bread; as a ſpeciall Sabbath-duty, as wel as hearing the Word &c.
Reaſon 2 My ſecond reaſon is, becauſe all circumciſed were ſtrictly in joined to eat the Paſſeover, Exod. 12.44. and 47. Every mans ſervant that is bought with money, when thou haſt circumciſed him ſhall eat thereof; all the Congregation of Iſrael ſhall keep it, amongſt whom, without queſtion there were many, if not moſt of them, uncircumciſed in heart, and unregenerate, uncircumciſion in heart, orunregeneracy; was never made a bar to exclude any from the outward Ordinance (though it may from the bleſſing of it) becauſe no man can judge the heart.
As for theſe Numb. 9.6, 7. &c. that were forbidden to keep the Paſſeover, by reaſon of uncleanneſs, being defiled by a dead body of a man, it was ſuch an uncleanneſs, as might befall the holyeſt man among them; beſides it was ſuch as kept them out of the Congregation, and ſo from other Ordinances as well as that. Numb. 5.2. Command the Children of Iſrael, that they put out of the Camp every Leper, and every one that hath an Iſſue, and whoſoever is defiled by the dead, both male and female, ſhall ye put out, without the Camp: That they defile not the Camp. ver. 3. Now out of the Camp, then out of the Congregation, but marke what followed. Numb. 9.13. The man that is clean, (to wit, legally) And is not in a journey, and forbeareth to keep the Paſſeover, even the ſame ſoul ſhall be cut off from his people, becauſe he brought not the Offering of the Lord, in his appointed ſeaſon, that man ſhall bear his ſin: You ſee therefore there was great ſin, in refuſing to keep the Paſſeover, if legally cleane, though unregenerate; for that uncleannes there, cannot be extended to inward uncleanneſſe, which man cannot poſſibly know.
Reaſ. 3 Thirdly, becauſe the uſe of this Ordinance doth much conduce to a through converſion. For here thou muſt take notice of a two-fold converſion, one is unto the Faith, another is to the Truth of the Goſpell; the former is onelyonly outward, conſiſting in profeſſion and outward practiſe onelyonly; the other is inward, when the heart receiveth the love of the truth, and of this letter wee here ſpeak, which is holpen by this holy Sacrament, reverently and devoutly adminiſtred, for we ſuppoſe all that can lay any claym to the Sacrament have the former.
Argument. 1 Now to prove that the uſe of this Ordinance doth much conduce to this converſion,to prove that the uſe of this Sacrament conduceth to converſion that is reall. my firſt Argument is this: Becauſe it is a means to convince men of ſinfullneſſe, which is the firſt work of the ſpirit in true converſion, Joh 16.8 Now in this Sacrament Chriſt, is as it were, Crucifyed before our eyes, and that for the remiſſion of ſinnes, which could not otherwiſe be expiated, but by the ſhedding of his blood; likewiſe it ſerves to convince us of the haynouſneſſe, and hatefullneſſe of our ſin, which could not be done away by any other meanes, but by the Blood of the Son of God, as alſo to convince us of monſtrous ingratitud, if we ſhould preſume to come to the Sacrament of Chriſt body and blood, and yet to follow fleſh and blood, and not labour to be cleanſed by the blood of that Lamb that takes away the ſinnes of the World. Beſides the very breaking of the bread, underſtandingly looked upon, is a forcible argument to break our hearts, London Min. vindic of the Preſbyteriall Government, page, 104.(as the London Miniſters have excellently and feelingly obſerved) Was Jeſus Chriſt rent and torn for you, and ſhall it not break your hearts, that you ſhould ſin againſt him? Was he crucified for you, ſaith they, and will you crucifie him by your ſinnes? And beſides, ſay they, the breaking of the bread is not onelyonly ordained to be a motive unto brokennes of heart for ſin, but alſo in the right uſe to effect that which it moves unto. Argu. 2 Secondly the Sacrament is a compound Ordinance, conſiſting of the word, praier, and elements of bread and wine, and therefore muſt needs be more forcible then the ſingle word, or both word and prayer without it, when verbum viſible is joyned both with prayer, and verbum audibile, a three-fold cord is not ſoon broken.
And the aforeſaid London Miniſters call it, ubi Supra page 110.a Viſible Sermon; that as Chriſt in the miniſtry of the Word preacheth to the ear, and by the ear conveyeth himſelf into the heart: ſo in the Sacrament he preacheth to the eie, and by the eie conveieth himſelf into the heart. Therefore as the Apoſtle Peter tells us, 1 Pet. 3.1, 2That the Wives good converſation may win the Husband, whom the Word will not win, to wit alone, becauſe deeds are often more forcible then words: So I may ſay, that the Sacrament joined with the Word, validior eſt vox operis quam oris.may work that, which the Word alone will not effect.
For though the word preached be of greateſt weight for Converſion, The Sacrament is a ſign and a ſeal; as a ſign it viſibly teacheth, & as a ſeal it confirmeth, both which help to beget faith wch is ſaving.yet the Sacrament being added as a ſeal to the Word, to confirme the ſame, muſt needs help to work ſound and ſaving faith, and ſo turre the ſcale. For as the Apoſtle ſaith, Heb. 6.17, 18. God willing more abundantly to ſhew unto the heirs of promiſe the immutability of his counſell confirmed it by an oath, that by two immutable things in which it was impoſſible for God to lie, we might have a ſtrong confirmation: So I may well ſay, that theſe two immutable things, God's Word and Seale, muſt needs make ſtronger impreſſion upon our hearts, to work faith, and conſequently converſion.
Et quae non proſunt ſingula, juncta juvant.
Argu. 3 In the third place, doth not experiance tell us, that, ſince the adminiſtration of this Sacrament hath been ſo much neglected, fewer by far have been converted, than in former times; becauſe this holy Sacrament kept men more in awe, partly by reaſon of the ſolemneſſe of this Sacred Ordinance, for which men have been preſſed to more ſerious preparation, &c. partly by reaſon of the Apoſtles preſſing to examination, by expreſſing the hainouſneſſe of the ſin, and greatneſſe of the danger of unworthy receiving, that it makes them guilty of the body, and blood of Chriſt, and to eat and drink their owne damnation. 1 Cor. 11.27, 28, 29.
Argu. 4 Laſtly another thing which I conceive of no ſmall conſequence, is this; In adminiſtring and partaking of this Ordinance there is a more particular application of the Elements by every one that receives, whereas the word preached, being delivered to all at once, is applyed but by a few, men being loath, if they can chooſe, to take that to themſelves, which goes againſt the hair, as moſt duties do, eſpecially Repentance, or true converſion. But now when the Sacrament of the Supper is adminiſtred, they muſt needs act that do receive, becauſe they muſt eat and drink, whereby a nearer ingagement comes upon them, which makes them look better about them.
Hence many never begin to think ſeriouſly of Religion, and a religious, courſe, untill they are to come to the Sacrament, and then they begin to bethink themſelues, and to turne over a new leafe, and ſo fall cloſe to ſavour and reliſh Religion, which before they regarded not, Cov. ſe aled, p. 216. &c.or at moſt very ſlightly conſidered. Expertus loquor, See more concerning this matter in M. Blakes Covenant ſealed.
Object. 1 But here it will be Objected, that ſhould we admit thoſe that are unregenerate, being dead in treſpaſſes and ſinns, it would do them no good at all; but a great deal of hurt, yea prove very poiſon to them, becauſe they will eat and drink damnation to themſelves; for they cannot but eat and drink unworthily, taking God's name in vain. I anſwer, Anſwer. by the ſame reaſon you muſt keep them from every Ordinance, bebecauſe, while unregenerate, they take Gods name in vain, and hurt themſelves as well as in this. Beſides, none eat and drink damnation, but thoſe that are in a damnable eſtate already; For he that believs not, is condemned already, Joh. 3.18. As for poiſoning them by this, how can a dead man be poiſoned? And beſides, Vid. Blake Cov. ſealed, ch. 17. ſect. 11. pag. 190.I hold it a dangerous errour to think, that this Sacrament will prove poiſon to all that partake of it, being unregenerate; for had it been ſo, ſurely the Lord would not have appointed the ſame meat and drink to have been both Sacramental and neceſſary food, without which the Iſraelites had been ſtarved in the wilderneſſe; and with which moſt of them, being unregenerate, muſt have been poiſoned, if that poſition were true, for they all ate the ſame ſpiritual meat, and all drank the ſame ſpiritual drink, 1 Cor. 10.3, 4. whence I argue thus; Seeing the Lord appointed the ordinary food of the Iſraelites to be ſacramental, and the very ſame ſpiritual meat and drink with ours; and ſeeing they were all bound to eat, or elſe they had been ſelf-murtherers; Therefore there can be no ſuch danger of ſoul-murthering to all unregenerate, that eat in obedience to God's Commandement, which muſt of neceſſity follow, if the Sacrament ſhould be poiſon to all ſuch as were unconverted.
I deny not but there was ſomething extraordinary in that ſacramental meat and drink, in regard that the mixt multitude did both eat and drink of the ſame; yet ſtill the argument holds good, in regard of the ſacramentality of it, (as I may ſay) and that we may rather conclude thence, that thoſe that are no members of the Church may eat at the Sacrament, than exclude thoſe from it that are viſible members, though unregenerate. Doubtleſſe the unregenerate ſin no otherwiſe in this, than they do in other commanded duties, which they cannot poſſibly perform aright in that condition, and which notwithſtanding they cannot neglect without greater ſin; Bowles his Paſt. Evang. lib. 3. pag. 193.Minorem contrahit reatum (ſaith reverend Bowles) qui in officio, quod praecipitur, deficit in modo praeſtandi, quàm qui prorſus negligit. Peccat ille ex accidenti, ſcil. ex defectu fuperveniente; hic verò in ſubſtantiam praecepti, que jubemur Domini mortem uſ que dum advenerit annunciare. Peccat ille in unum duntaxat praeceptum; hic in duo, quae prudens ſcienſ que omittit. And after this manner we were wont to comfort wounded conſciences, who were afraid to performe holy duties, becauſe they found ſuch failings and faithleſſe diſtractions in the performance of them, that they thought they ſinned more in doing them, than in leaving them undone; For this we told them, that there was leſſe ſin in the willing performance, though with much weakneſſe, than in the wilful neglect of them.
Object. But here ſome think to evade, by diſtinguiſhing between duties naturally moral, and thoſe of meer poſitive inſtitution. Moral duties, as praier, thankſgiving, &c. are confeſt to belong in general unto all; but it is not ſo in duties of poſitive inſtitution; they are given with limit to ſome, and are not of univerſal obligation.
Anſw. To this Mr. Blake hath ſufficiently anſwered; M. Blak Cov. ſealed c 7. ſect. 11. p. 195.1. By way of Conceſſion: Poſitive precepts bind not at all, becauſe they are not given to all; the Gentil nations were not tied to the Law of Ceremonies given to the Jews, and meer Heathens are not now tied to our Sacraments. 2. For a poſitive anſwer he ſaith; Poſitive precepts were never given in charge with any ſuch diſtinction, as to bind the regenerate, and to exclude men in unregeneration, Men under ſin, and in nature, are bound to the affirmative part of the ſecond Commandement, to obſerve every way of worſhip that ſhall be inſtituted by God, all of which are onelyonly of poſitive right. All Iſrael were tied to ſacrifice, as well as to hear, and pray; and all Chriſtians are now under an obligation to the Law of the Sacraments, as they are to other duties. And a little after he adds; There are texts indeed produced, ſeemingly taking off men under ſin, from the performance of poſitive duties, as Mat. 5.23.24. and as much may be ſaid concerning thoſe that are moral, Ezek. 14.2, 3. & 20.23. thus far Mr. Blake.
Object. If here it ſhould be objected concerning the former Scripture, 1 Cor. 10.1, 2, 3. &c. that preſently after, God was ſaid not to be well pleaſed with many of them that are that ſpiritual meat, &c. Anſw. but overthrew them in the wilderneſſe, ver. 5. I anſwer; 'tis true, and this makes much againſt them, that reſt in the deed done, and think Sacraments will ſave by the bare outward act, ſine bono motu utentis; but this makes nothing againſt what I have ſaid; for the Apoſtle ſaith not, that God was diſpleaſed with them for eating that Spirituall meat, &c. but for luſting after evill thinges, as appeares ver. 6, 7. &c. In all which, and that which followes in the next Chap. where he ſpeakes of the Lord's Supper, he ſaith not one word, againſt their coming to the Sacrament, which was their duty, but onelyonly againſt their misbehaviour at it, which was very groſſe; whereby it may appear, that many of them were unregenerate, for ſome of them were drunke, either at or preſently after that Ordinance, which is little better, they came to it, not as a ſacred, but as a civil, or rather uncivil feaſt; hence thoſe judgments ſeized upon them, to wit weakneſſe, ſickneſſe, & death ver. 30. & yet not a word of excluding the parties, but only condemning their miſcarriages.