A Rejoinder to Mr Drake, Part 1 · Section 5
Sect. 5 I Come now again to my Oppoſer, having vindicated my ground and ſtate of my queſtion; the next thing is my proofs or Scriptures, which I think are clear and open for us. The firſt proof was from the Paſſeover, Ex. 12.3.47.50. 2 Chron. 30.5. Speak unto Iſrael, Let every man, all the Congregation, the whole people, &c. unto which I will adde Iudas, who cannot be doubted to be at the Paſſeover with Chriſt. The force of this proof to the Sacrament, lies not only, that there is the ſame grace ſignified and conſigned in both, but the ſame ground for the applying both, which is, external Covenant relation with them as Iews, with us as Chriſtians. Againſt this he has four things, pag. 19. to pag. 25.
1. He alleges my own text, Numb. 9.7, and confutes my plea. If Mr. Humphreys, ſays he, plead, that only Legal uncleanneſſe excluded men from the Paſſeover; I ask him why? He will anſwer, Becauſe it defiled the holy things, &c. But ſo did Moral, &c. pag. 18.19.
Anſ. Here Mr. Drake is miſerably miſtaken, Mr. Humphreys intends not to anſwer him ſo ſillily, but becauſe it was Gods poſitive command, that Levitically unclean perſons ſhould be ſeparated from the Camp, but there was no ſuch law for Moral uncleanneſſe at all, but the contrary, that all the Congregation were to eat thereof. And thus you ſee how by unpinning one pin, there is about two of his pages quite undreſt, yet the naked innocents are not aſhamed! As for his proofs then Lev. 18. Ez. 23. &c. they are buſily vain, about what none need deny; but as for his words upon this, Where was Mr. Humphreys eys? Did he not read? Did he not mind? &c. One would verily believe this man had clearly the truth of his ſide, and ſome plain manifeſt Text to ſhew me, where the Morally unclean were to be debarred; But, would you think it? that for all this there is not a tittle or ſhew of any text to this purpoſe. So that theſe petulant expreſſions do put me in mind of that lively invention of the Taylors wife, that would ſtill call her Husband Lowſie Fellow: Such a womaniſh obſtinacy is there in Error, that when it is even drown'd in the depth and weight of the plaineſt Scripture, will yet perſiſt reviling, ſo long as there is left it but the nails, and geſture of an argument.
P. 19. That all unclean perſons were to be ſuſpended the Paſſeover, is evident by 2 Chro. 23.19.
Anſ. For ſhame do not ſay ſo. 1. Doth that place ſpeak of the Paſſeover?2. Doth that place ſpeak of ſuſpenſion?3. Doth that place ſpeak of Moral uncleanneſſe? Is it probable that the Levites at ſuch a time did, or could, in ſuch a concourſe try and examine them concerning Moral cleanneſſe or uncleanneſſe?4. Might not the Morally unclean, as well as the Excommunicate and Publican by Mr. Drakes own Doctrine, p. 202. come into the Temple?5. And what is Jeh…iadahs ſetting Porters at the gates of the Houſe of the Lord, as to the very point of eating the Paſſeover, which we know was done in private houſes?
2. He excepts, Becauſe Infants eat the Paſſeover. Indeeed we read of ſuch Children being there as were capable of Inſtruction, Ex. 12.26, 27. but whether their Infants were to eat thereof, I refer to others, and ſhall only ſcore it up, Twice. See Ainſworth, on Exodus 23.17.
3. He pleads Excommunication was a barr to the Paſſeover, and that this was for ſcandalous ſins, not Levitical pollutions, p. 20, 21, 22, 23.
Anſ. To ſave labour, who will not be willing to grant this in the main? But what follows then, only as I hold, That men muſt firſt be Excommunicate, before they be kept from the Sacrament. And who would think ſo grave a man ſhould let the world ſee him, playing with his own ſhadow, ſome four leaves together? His Exception at my word [Type] in the way, if ſtrictly taken, is not amiſſe; Whereupon, I will note firmly againſt himſelf, that the Excluſion of the Legally unclean from the Congregation, is no proof for him to plead, to keep the Morally unclean from the Sacrament, but a type indeed, that ſuch, in whom the leproſy, bloody iſſue, or death of ſin reigns, ſhall be excluded heaven, where nothing ſhall enter that defileth, Rev. 21.27.
4. Having told us of 3 degrees of Excommunication among the Jews, and 4 among the Greeks, which happily were originally the way of receiving in Penitents, rather than the degrees of caſting them out; He tels us, It is evident that Nidui was a barre in particular to the Paſſeover.
Anſ. I pray mark it, Nidui was an Excommunication for 30 dayes; Now if it were a bar in particular to the Paſſeover, a man could never be excommunicate by his account but at Eaſter. The truth is, Nidui was no more in reference to the Paſſeover, than any ſociety, for it was a ſeparation from all communion both civil as ſacred, for four paces. And as for the queſtion, Whether ſuch a one might eat of the Paſchal Lamb at the ſame diſtance of four paces, as he might hear, pray, and come in other company, it is not worth the ſearching, ſeeing it is twelve to one throughout the year whether it ever happened to concern the Paſſeover.
To cloze up this proof, let us turn again to that text Numb. 9. and conſider, 1. That every ſoul here was enjoyned to this duty upon pain of being cut off, v. 10.2. That if a man were unclean, it kept him off but a month, v. 11. which could not therefore be of Moral pollution.3. That the ground of this bar in Levitical uncleanneſſe, v. 7. was meerly the Law of God in reference to the Camp or whole Congregation, Numb. 5.23. Levi. 13.46. not peculiarly to this Ordinance, and therefore whereas ſome do prevaricate, and make uſe of this Text, (which is a ſign they have nothing elſe to ſay) againſt the day-light of Free-admiſſion in other places to this Paſſeover, and yet urge it ſo often, with ſuch eagerneſſe of belief, as if they would convince all others by it, they ſeem to me, as men Baptized into the old Sextons Spirit, that will have their own clock be right, their own opinions true, howſoever the Sunne goes.
My ſecond proof was from 1 Cor. 10.17. Theſe Corinths were ſcandalous many of them, and yet ſays the Apoſtle, We being many are all partakers of one bread. Againſt this M. Drake has three exceptions. p. 25, 26, 27.
Firſt, He extenuates their crime, and counts it no bar to their Receiving. Secondly, He confutes this himſelf, and proves they were guilty of groſſe ſins, by 2 Cor. 12.21. and ſo will not allow them to be admitted. Thirdly, He ſuppoſes this too, and queſtions only Paul's allowance of it. Thus you ſee how playfull the man is, that at one breath he can blow his bubble out, and in, and out again.
For the Firſt, it is manifeſt, that theſe Corinths were Fornicators, 1 Cor. 5.1. Contentions, 6.1. Carnal, 13.3. Unchriſtian, Uncharitable, Diſorderly, c. 11. &c.
For the Second, the Text is full to the point; St. Paul ſays they were all partakers of this bread? Mr. Drake ſays, But how will he prove notwithſtanding they were admitted? Mr. Drake ſays, They had only a right to it, in actu primo. St. Paul ſays, they all partook of it; whom ſhall we believe, Maſter Paul, or Saint Drake?
For the Third, That he allowed of this practice, that is manifeſt too, 1. In that he doth not forbid it, which if it had been ſin, he muſt have done.2. In that he urges their very coming, as a means and argument to reclaim them from Idols.3. In that he does as it were even give his aſſent in a plain precept for it, 1 Cor. 11.33. Wherefore when you come together, tarry one for another; Hereof I appeal to the judicious for this meaning, that their coming was good, and their diſorders to be reformed.
A tender Chriſtian may here object, v. 20, 21. againſt our mixt Communion, I would not have you have fellowſhip with Devills, you cannot partake of the Table of the Lord & the Table of Divils. I anſwer, the Apoſtle ſpeaks not of divers perſons (in the whole Ch.) going to one Table, but of the ſame perſons going to divers Tables, and he plainly reaſons from their partaking of the one againſt the other. From whence I argue, Thoſe that were engaged from going to Idolls, partook of the Lords Supper; but it was not the regenerate only, but all their intelligent Members were hereby engaged from Idols; Ergo, All their intelligent Members partook of the Sacrament, and were to partake of it, if the Apoſtles argument be ſufficient.
As for his mollifying the word Drunken, I, diſapprove not; and if any man be quite ſo; I hold him unintelligent, and fit for the preſent to be turned away from all Ordinances.
My third proof was from 1 Cor. 10.3, 4, 5. which, I think, if it be well laid to heart, might eaſe us of our ſcruples. Read Calvin Inst. l. 2. c. 10. ſect. 5. 6. who agrees with my explication of it. His objections are two, p. 28. 29.
1. He ſays, I ſpeak gratis in ſaying they were admitted to our Sacraments.
Anſ. I pray ſee the words, does Saint Paul ſpeak gratis? They did all eat the ſame ſpiritual meat, and drank of the ſame ſpiritual drink, and Rock, which was Chriſt. Mark it, he ſays the ſame, not only the ſame thing ſignified, but the ſame ſymbolls, the ſame meat and drink, or the ſame Sacrament. So that Mr. Drake is miſtaken, and his arguing from their Elements being not the ſame, is very low, as if becauſe we have ſometimes Sack, ſometimes Claret, we had not the ſame Sacrament. Calvin tells us, they enjoyed iiſdem ſymbolis, as the Text doth, which I conceive herein, that there was ſpecifically, the ſame Sacramental union, between the ſigns and things ſignified, in their, as our Elements. They all drank of the Rock which was Chriſt, they did not all drink really of Chriſt, but ſymbolically, and ſo do we, ſymbolically then they are the ſame, that is, the ſame ſymbols, or Sacrament.
Whereas he urges here, The uncircumciſed and Infants, again (which is now thrice) were admitted, his Argument will but ever come to this, becauſe our Scriptures ſometimes ſeem to prove more, therefore they cannot prove the leſſe.
2. He brings in the ordinary ſhift, That this was neceſſary to preſerve their lives, and ſo they were admitted, &c.
Anſ. This I prevented, by ſhewing that to this very ſcope and purpoſe doth Paul parallel theſe Sacraments of theirs with ours, to let the Corinths know, that they had no other than the ſame privileges with the Iews, in their Fre-admiſſion. If he ſhould ſay I make no more of your coming freely hither, than of the Iews, all drinking of the Rock, it were no plainer to me than what he has ſpoken. He doth acknowledge it ſo, in finding ſuch a large inſtance to compare with it.
For the difference he makes between our Elements and theirs, which he ſays is manifeſt, namely, theirs was to nouriſh their bodies, as well as their ſouls, &c. It is groſſe, and fit for none to ſay but the Papiſts, that hold there is left only the qualities of bread (that cannot nouriſh) in tranſubſtantiation.
And whereas he ſays, They muſt have choaked and ſtarved elſe, I ſay, if it be neceſſarily, ſin to Eat of Chriſt Sacramentally, unleſſe men are regenerate (as Mr. Drake holds) there is no doubt but they ſhould have rather dyed than be guilty of the blood of Chriſt; (which he phraſes murdering him) and have ſooner famiſht their bodies than damn'd their Souls. If it be not a ſin but accidentally; Here is a good reaſon indeed for their eating and drinking All of them: but what reaſon is there St. Paul ſhould parallel our eating and drinking with theirs, unleſſe it be true likewiſe, that we are to eat, All of us? it is not his bare ſaying The parallels do not run on four feet, will ſerve, for you may ſee he won't let the Apoſtle ſo much as ſtand on one, if he denies our Free admiſſion.
Before I paſſe, I have two things heer for tender Chriſtians. 1. That to Eat Chriſt Symbolically, is no ſuch dreadfull thing as is made of it (I mean above other Ordinances, it is as ſinfull to uſe them unworthily as this) for Paul makes no account to ſay, they all drank Sacramentally of him, provided always you come with reverence, both in regard of the nature of the inſtitution, and your own condition.2. That the want of grace is no juſt hinderance or excuſe from our profeſſion. There is a general profeſſion of God in oppoſition to all Idols, in which ſenſe I take it, the whole people only could ſo commonly be ſaid to enter Covenant, With all their heart, and all their ſoul, in ſome places. So there is a general profeſſion of Chriſt, that ſalvation only is in his name, which every Chriſtian may profeſſe truly, though he be no true profeſſor. It is a great weakneſſe of ſome that think for fear of hypocriſie, an unregenerate man may not do his duty. Hypocriſy, is either oppoſed to truth, which is diſſembling, ſuch an action that is evill propter fieri muſt be avoyded; or to ſincerity, and ſuch an action that is evill only through accident of the doer, while in the ſubſtance it be good for all his evill diſpoſition, the thing ſtill muſt be done. A Chriſtians profeſſion, (a pledge wherof is this Sacrament) may be hypocriſie in one ſenſe, but not in the other.
My fourth proof was from the Parable of the Feaſt, Lu. 14. Mat. 22. which I judge has more force in it than ſome think, though leſſe than others. Mr. Drake here is in a ſtreight; if he allow it applicable to this Supper, it is clear againſt him. The Servants bring in All both good and Bad. If he will not allow it, he doth not only go againſt the ſtream of Divines, (and that not ſolidly) but wreſts out of their own hands their main argument from the excluſion of him that had not the wedding garment, which being the act of the Lord, is not well applied neither. The truth is, the Feaſt does not ſignifie particularly the Supper; but it is as true it does it in general, as other Ordinances. The Feaſt is Jeſus Chriſt, ſet out in his Ordinances, and outward privileges, unto which there is a free acceſſe, and intereſſe of the Good and Bad within the Church, ſo that for the main, we have our full weight, that the Servants, whoſe office it is to be the Diſpencers of the myſteries, have not any power for diſcrimination of the gueſts in their admitting them to the Feaſt; and therefore, unleſſe they can prove it by ſome warrant otherwhere, are not to judge of the worthineſſe and unworthineſſe of their Church-members, as to the offer of Chriſt, in this Supper. It is true, If men be ſcandalous, they are lyable to cenſure, but who does not ſee this upon another account, I mean of diſcipline, to ſatisfie the Church, amend them, and warn others. But if you do it upon this ground of ſetting up a diſcriminating Ordinance, I muſt ſpeak my Conſcience, I think it not according to the mind of the Lord of the Feaſt. Again, As for the unintelligent, as Infants and the like, who does not ſee, that the Feaſt is ſtill free, but they are uncapable? they make no excuſe, but God does excuſe them, and ſo they cann't be compelled. But if you ſet up Viſible worthineſſe for a rule of Admiſſion, you aſſume a power of diſcriminating the gueſts; You may call it your zeal, your care, and piety, yet is it a power (as well as a burden) even over Gods Ordinance, and differs as much from our Miniſterial inſtruction, Catechiſm, and admonition, as a ſeparating the vile from the precious by the word of Gods mouth, and the doing it without, untill you prove it.
And now for his four particulars, p. 30, 31. Firſt, He diſtinguiſhes between the feaſt, which is Christ, and the diſhes wherein he is ſerved, which are the Ordinances. This is ſomething ingenuous; but whereas he applies this, that a man may be invited to a feaſt, and yet not to the diſh in the feaſt; it is very fine if we ſhould ſerve him as the plain man did his Son, that pretended he could prove two eggs to be three, by his Logick; Well, ſays he, I will take the one, and your Mother the other, and now do you prove the third, and take it for your ſelf. Let us have the diſhes, and what will become of Mr. Drakes feaſt? Thus hungry, and hardly beſtead, does he paſſe through it.
Secondly, He urges, Then ſhould Heathen be admitted. Anſ. And ſo they may, if they come in in an orderly way, 1 Cor. 14.40. they muſt firſt have a right by Church-memberſhip, and then being once within the Church, they are alike admitted to all privileges.
Thirdly, He addes, How were the unthankfull gueſts alſo excluded (Luke 14?) and anſwers himſelf, Becauſe they would not come.
Fourthly, He tels us, Wordly buſineſſe ſomtimes may detain a man from the Sacrament, Numb. 9.10. Anſ. Who doubts it, and yet the feaſt not neglected, if the buſineſſe be indiſpenſible? But as for the ſtrength of his reaſon here, it is as good as the Fathers, that would have his Child excuſed to his Maſter, for not comming to School, becauſe he was dead.
In the way, For my quoting that Text, Lu. 12.42. with 1 Cor. 4.1, 2. Acts 20.28. Mr. Drake need not have given me ſuch ill words: I make no interpretation of them, but that it is the Miniſters duty, duly to diſpence the Ordinances, which if he does do, they do not touch him, but may convince thoſe that think it their conſcience wholly to omit it, and this I hope may turn the edge of his rebuke. For my part I do not think my ſelf fit to be compared with Mr. Drake, or the leaſt of the godly, but with the greateſt ſinners, and bow down my practice at the feet of Gods mercy. Forgive, O Lord, my failings, for they are even more than the hairs of my head! Yet do I think, that both thoſe that exclude all, and they that exclude any (who are neither Vnintelligent, or Excommunicate) come ſhort in the importance of theſe Scriptures.
My fifth proof was from Iohns Free-baptiſm, even of thoſe he calls Vipers, Mat. 13. upon that ground, Adultis eadem eſt ratio utriuſque Sacramenti. See Mar. 1.5. And they of Iudea went out, and were All baptized of him, that is, All that went out to him for Baptiſm were admitted; and yet Mr. Drake, as he is wont, anſwers me thus overly, He ſays, but proves not that Iohn baptized all commers, p. 32. he ſhould ſay, He does not prove it, but only brings Scripture for it.
This axiome (which I think I had of Pemble) he denies, p. 33. 1. Becauſe, Heathen may be admitted to Baptiſm.
Anſ. I had thought when men had been converted to the faith once, they had been Chriſtians. 2. Becauſe it makes for him, ſeeing there was an outward confeſſion at Baptiſm.
Anſ Who would think it, he ſhould fly for ſhelter to this Sanctuary, even while he pollutes it. You muſt take the meaning thus, There is Eadem ratio, but not in omnibus. It holds in the main, that the ſame faith which will admit one of age to be Baptized, will alſo admit him to this Sacrament, and that is an Hiſtorical faith only in profeſſion; yet as for making that confeſſion, though it he needfull at Baptiſm, in admitting them to be Church Members (as we are willing to know whom we enter into our ſociety) ſeeing we have Scripture for it; yet not at this Supper where we have none, for when men are Church-members already, their very coming is their profeſſion.
My ſixt proof was Act. 2.41, 42, 46. Which Text he leaves out, you may conceive it has ſilenced him. For while we find thouſands admitted thus freely and equally (not omitting his phraſe of Pell-mel) in their breaking bread (I ſay even wholy alike) as in doctrin and prayer we dare not fall down to that Sacramental Rule upon tryal he would ſet up, if it be once held as neceſſary and divine (though we acknowledge the prudence and piety of others) ſeeing it has not one word to ſpeak, or the leaſt argument left it concerning this Scripture, that it ſhould open the mouth, or move the wing, or peep againſt it.
My ſeventh text was Act. 10.28. which I ſay, I apply only as to the expreſſion. Yet does he purſue it with four pitifull exceptions, p. 34, 35. For the firſt whereof it is untrue, St. Paul ſays not Tit. 1.15. the unbeliever is unclean to us, but all things are unclean to him.
For the ſecond I ſhall ſatisfie after I have propoſed this queſtion, in anſwer to his two other; Whether do you think him more pierceing in the third, to find only the unintelligent left out, or ingenuous in the fourth, to ſpeak ſo eloquently, when he has done? I have heard of one, that would undertake ye, to confute all Bellarmine in two words (Mentiris Bellarmine) by Mr. Drakes language and confidence, he may be the man.
And now for the force of theſe words, I told you in the beginning, we muſt diſtinguiſh of paſſages unto their right parties; there is a ſort of weak Chriſtians that think they ſhall be defiled if they Communicate in our mixt Churches; this text may be full and ſolid for them, though it reaches not others. Mr. Drake ſhould be more tender, than to debilitate their ſupports. Dear ſouls, I have ſeen ſome of your tears, and let this dry them up for you, you are not to account them common and unclean that receive with you, If your ſelves be clean, all are clean to you. The ſoul many times, that is not taken with a reaſon, may by an expreſſion. A man may be common and unclean three ways, 1. Levitically, and this is abrogate;2. Morally, and this defiles a mans ſelf, and not another;3. Faederally, as appears in 1 Cor. 7.14. Now while perſons are Faederally clean, as all Church members are, being ſeparated by external Covenant to Chriſt from the World, we need not doubt but they may be communicated withall without any pollution. Indeed Mr. Drake ſays heer, ſuch and ſuch are Morally unclean, but what then? It is not Moral cleanneſſe, but Faederal cleanneſſe is the ground of our admiſſion, and a man is not Faederally unclean till excommunicated. He objects, wicked Chriſtians reject Chriſt, p. 35. and anſwers himſelf with me, p. 84. Though they tranſgreſſe they do not renounce the Covenant as Turks do, and are Church Members till excommunicated.
And theſe were my Scriptures to eſtabliſh us, in this ſweet truth that leads us unto peace, and though he has done his endeavour to hinder you of the benefit of them, yet for all his oppoſition there is not ſo much as the girdle of their loyns looſed, or latchet of their ſhooes broken.
For the cloze herof I gatherd up ſome Texts, Io. 6.37. Rev. 22.17. &c. that do ſet forth the moſt free offers of Jeſus Chriſt, which though Mr. Drake makes but light of, p. 36. do pathetically enter the ſpirits of others, that have but a little embraced this ſweet notion, that the Lord Jeſus is proportionably gracious in his external privileges to a Chriſtian profeſſion, as he is in his internal ſaving benefits to the ſincerity of Chriſtianity. Heer he ſays three things, the one is, With what Conſcence can I keep off Infants? This is now four times. The other two are the ſame, which in their naked ſenſe comes to this: Though Christ be offered freely, yet it muſt be to ſuch only as we judge truly receive him. The truth is, the word and the Sacraments are but the ſame publick inſtrument, delivered as a ſealed writing for the uſe of the Church, and are equal privileges (if I may call the ſame equal) to all the Members of it. I do even pity mortality, to ſee what a few words, a few enfoldings, can hide Truth from us; what ſenſe is in this? Jeſus Chriſt is to be freely ſhewed forth, to bring men home effectually to him, and yet muſt the Receivers make out their right unto the Miniſter, before we dare offer, or conditionally apply him to them.
I do humbly conceive, heer is the falſe notion that perplexes the many. We that are Miniſters (they think) are ſent by our Prince Jeſus to our Flocks, as Rebels, to offer grace and ſalvation; if they come in and truly accept him, we are to ſeal their pardons; if they do not make this (viſibly) appear, we may not apply the ſeal, without being guilty of the blood of Chriſt. Now this is a very ill apprehenſion (which we ſhall rectifie as we go forwards) for we muſt not make the notion of ſealing ſo dreadfull, and bring ſo much blood upon our ſouls. I think this is true indeed, in reference to the heathen, whom we need not fear to judge viſible Rebels, and they muſt come in and profeſſe Jeſus Chriſt in oppoſition to all other Religions, before we can ſeal the Word to them. The Word is no ſealed Word (even outwardly) but to the Church; and when they are made Members once, it is then ſealed; we ſeal them an equal right to all Ordinances, and Privileges, and whatſoever is exernal we confer to them. But being received into the Church, and profeſſors already, we cannot compel any tryal of them more (unleſſe by way of Catechiſm and inſtruction wherein yet there is no man too old to learn, Lu. 14.) but it muſt be, as to the truth of their profeſſion, or effectual ſincerity, which for to do (where no ſcandal calls them in queſtion (it is to go about to judge mens) hearts, and to enter into the ſeat of God, and make our ſelves diſpenſers, not of the myſteries only, but of the grace, while we take a power to judge of mens worthineſſe, and according to viſibility, ſeal them their pardons. This is a buſineſſe of ſad conſequence to give occaſion, and ſome hold-faſt to thoſe Anti-chriſtian Scandals, are caſt on our Miniſtry by them that would undo us.
I muſt confeſſe I belive it was only the zeal and piety of good men, that made them thus to riſe up againſt ignorance and ſin, without intending to enter upon Gods Throne, but if we have erred, and muſt be laid down, it may be in the duſt, I hope we ſhall acknowledge his hand, and if he ſhall return our Captivity from the Rivers of Confuſion, where we have ſate down and wept, we will remember again our Ieruſalem, and when thou haſt reſtored us, our Harps now hanging on the Willows, we will ſing of thy goodneſſe, in the wonted ſongs of thy Syon.