A Rejoinder to Mr Drake, Part 1 · Section 10
Sect. 10 MY Fifth Reaſon was drawn from the uniformity of the ſervice of God; If the Lord has appointed all his ordinances in common for the viſible Church, why would man ſever what Chriſt has joyned? The ſtrength of this truly rednced to its fountain, iſſues from Gods precept, and our duty, which, ſo long as they muſt ſtand, the queſtion may not need ſo great debate, whether we muſt obey rather, God, or man.
There was no Nation like the Jews, unto whom the Lord gave his Statutes, ſayes Moſes, it was the whole people, the whole Church, to whom the Statutes were given; Amongſt theſe Statutes, they had the Paſſeover, which you may ſee to whom it belongs, Exod. 12.3. Speak unto all the Congregations; Mark it, is not here a general inſtitution, as of any other ordinance? ſo that the whole Iewiſh Church, or all the circumciſed, is the adequate ſubject (if I may uſe thoſe words) of this duty? Compare it with Numb 9.3. and God ſayes, he that did not keep it, ſhould be cut off. Will any man now imagine (unleſſe Mr. Drake) that none but the regenerate were to eat thereof? Turn then to the Goſpel, and do we not likewiſe find the Sacrament inſtituted thus for the whole Church? The Lords words are, Doe this, Drink ye all of it, a ſtanding precept to all the Twelve, as repreſentatives of the Vniverſal Church, as viſible, while Iudas is amongſt them; and it is expreſt, They all drank of it. Out of Sion ſhall go forth a Law; upon this obligation, we find the whole number of Profeſſors, breaking bread every week, Act. 20.7. and daily, Act. 3.46. but we find not a word about any diſcrimination at it: Is not this then a general command for the viſible Church? and was not here the practice common? Again 1 Cor. 11. you have the whole inſtitution repeated, and enjoyned till Chriſt come, ver. 26. And then ver. 33. he concludes directly thus, When you come together to eat, tarry for one another. He ſpeaks, no doubt, unto the perſons he reproves, which we may ſee how vicious they were, and yet their comming he holds to be good, that must still be done, but directs them to carry themſelves better there, which likewiſe ought not to be left undone. One would never think it ſhould have needed to come under proof, that this is a duty belonging in general to the viſible Church, or that any ſhould hold, that it is a precept onelyonly for the regenerate and Elect, if we did but conſider that Saint Paul is ſo far from making diſtinction of theſe Corinths at it, that he brings it in the Chapter before, as an ordinary privilege, without any diſpute, even as freely as the very Manna, and the rock, which rock was Chriſt.
Unto this I will adde only thoſe words, Gen. 17.10. This is my covenant you ſhall keep, Every man-child among you ſhall be circumciſed; from whence it appears, the condition and keeping of the Covenant is either inwardly in the grace, or out wardly, in the adminiſtration; If a man be not inwardly in covenant to keep it effectually in the grace, yet ſo long as he is externally in covenant, he muſt keep it ſtill in the adminiſtration, that is in the Ordinances.
It is therefore, as I am afraid, very dangerous to hold with Mr D. (let the pious judge between us) that it is onelyonly the regenerate (for ſo he ſpeaks it) not every mans duty to receive; for this opens a door unto neglect, making mans impotency, a ſufficient reaſon to nullifie Gods precept, and to juſtifie one ſinne with another. I ſhall therefore here produce you Mr. Perkins (for we muſt be plain herein) in his Caſes of Conſcience, whoſe authority I hope will go, he layes down theſe three rules.
1: Every man of years living in the Church, and being baptized, is bound in conſcience by Gods command, Take, Eat, Doe ye this, to uſe the Lords Supper. You ſee here Church memberſhip is the rule this Eminent man went by, and yet I hope was not one of the wicked, for all Mr. D's cenſure.2. Every man is to receive it often, 1 Cor. 11.26. conſidering it is nothing but the ſhewing the Lords death. He comes up to our very ground herein, as a viſible Goſpel.3. Every man is to receive, and uſe the Lords Supper, according to the laudable custom of his own Church, &c. Nothing can be more full and honeſt. Indeed it is true, if a man live in any known ſin, he ought to repent before he come, he muſt come, and come worthy, he muſt come worthily, yet he muſt come, whether he be regenerate or unregenerate, he muſt obey ſtill; our neceſſity of ſinning cannot evacuate Chriſts authority, or mans duty. When an Action hath evil in its own ſubſtance, it is to be omitted; but when the Action is of its ſelf the matter of a precept, and ſo hath evil externally caſt on it by the Agent that doth it, here the Action is not to be omitted, but the Agent to be reformed.
For Mr. D's anſwers here they are trifles, p. 75, 76, 77. 1 He brings in Infants again, which is the ninth time, and he is confident to extricate himſelf by the ſame ga…. But he is a little miſtaken, for I have put him in two ſuch thorns, that he ſhall ſooner prick himſelf to the bone, than fairly get out of it.2. He ſays ſix parts of time are common, yet not the ſeventh.3. He ſays on.4. He is very fine. The whole Ordinances he diſtinguiſhes into parts, they are not applicable univerſally, and ſo the Sacrament. Where if the man be ſerious, I anſwer. 1. Mr. D. muſt not part thoſe actions Chriſt has joyned.2. Moſes makes no doubt of applying the Covenant univerſally to the people, and it is in my mind that that paſſage may do much.3. The Word it ſelf, or covenant, is applicable to all, in the whole parts of it uppon its own terms, that is, conditionally.4. If this will not ſerve, Take but the language of the Covenant aright, Mar. 16.16. Here is Chriſt, If thou truly acceptſt of him, thou ſhalt be ſaved; If thou do not, the Word declares, and the Sacrament ſeals to thee, unleſſe thou repentest, thou ſhalt periſh; and then all the difficulty is over, and our ſcruples done.
P. 78. If doe this be univerſal (leaving thoſe two other things like the reſt) then it were a ſin to perſwade any to forbear, though a Zimri, Actually drunk, &c.
Anſ. 1. His inſtances are ipſo jure Excommunicate.2. As Chriſt ſays, Doe this, Paul ſays, Put away from you ſuch a perſon. We do not deny from Chriſts univerſal, Pauls exception.3. Though there is no occaſion that may make us commit a ſinne, yet are there many occaſions ſometimes of forbearing a duty. A man may leave his gift at the altar, and go and be reconciled, but he muſt not take away his gift from the altar: The buſineſſe may be deferred, that muſt not be wholly left undone. If I know my brother evil, I think I may admoniſh him to repentance▪ and give him inſtructions of preparing himſelf better againſt next Sacrament, ſo long as I do but bind the obligation more on him; but if I adviſe him upon ſuch reaſons as will wholly keep him away, my adviſe is evil. Affirmative precepts do bind univerſally, as well as Negative, but not ad ſemper, againſt all occaſions. I may in prudence, I think, adviſe my brother of ſuch an occaſion, for the advantage of his ſoul; but if I tell him it is not his duty, I make my ſelf Lord over Gods command. As the Church has alwayes attributed much unto prudence in the ordering this ſolemnity, eſpecially as to her more ſeldom and frequent adminiſtring, ſo may her Members happily take ſome example, as to their receiving. Forbearance on neceſſary (Numb. 9.10.) or pious grounds (Matt. 5.23.) reaches but to the ad ſemper, and may be lawfull; but for to hold, it is not a mans duty while unregenerate, this reaches the ſemper, and looſes the bands of Gods command. Let this zealous man take heed, it be not laid to his charge.
I will adde, If the man be careleſſe, and regards not his comming, but being conſcious of his evil life, he thinks he ſhall eat his damnanation, and ſo layes it by, which is the caſe of thouſands, I think we are here to ſet our faces againſt ſuch, and to let them know, that it is not mans wickedneſſe can void or annihilate the authority of Chriſt: ſo that they are ſtill for to come, and the obligation lies on them, to apply the Covenant for their repentance. O my vile ſoul! why doeſt thou fly? This ſhews the guilt that is on thy conſcience, and wouldſt thou hide thine own eys from it? Come man, and ſee what thou haſt done; Here is Chriſts blood, which thou doſt ſhed with thy tranſgreſſions, and will not this melt thee? See how the corps doth as it were bleed at the preſence of the Murderer, and will it not melt thee? if it does not, it ſhall riſe up againſt thee. Behold here is ſealed to thee eternal condemnation, unleſſe thou repenteſt, and ſincerely comeſt in to Ieſus Chriſt; Lay it well to heart, man, and think on it, there is no way beſides left thee for to eſcape it.
Pag. ibid. He grants, though an unregenerate man ſins in all his duties, yet muſt he do them; But ſayes, There is not par ratio in order to receiving, 1. Becauſe it is not his duty,2. It cannot convert him.
Anſ. The former of theſe I have ſpoken to all this while, and ſhall thus enforce it: If the Sacrament be not the duty of an unregenerate man, then muſt regeneration be a qualification required in the precept, as neceſſary to receiving, and ſo be eſſentially antecedent to the Sacraments; but regeneration is not eſſentially antecedent to the Sacraments. For 1. Then Baptiſm was not adminiſtred validly, and according to rule to many by the Apoſtle, Acts 8.13. Iohn 6.66. with Iohn 4.1. Acts 20.30.2. Then ſuch as were baptized before they were regenerate, ſuppoſing they came to be afterwards regenerate, were to be baptized again, becauſe their former baptiſm had not its eſſentials.3. Then can no man adminiſter either Sacrament to any but himſelf, for he cannot act in faith, ſeeing he is not ſure others have the eſſentials.4. Then can no doubting Chriſtian himſelf receive, for he cannot act in faith ſo long as he is not fully perſwaded of his own regeneration. The truth is then, though regeneration is a qualification neceſſary to the receiver, in regard of other ends, to wit, for the obtaining the entire benefits of the Covenant ſealed, yet not abſolutely neceſſary to receiving; Even as ſaving faith is neceſſary to the hearers of the Word, for the obtaining the effectual benefit of ſalvation, yet not abſolutely pre-requiſite to hearing, for faith may come by it. If it be an evil to ſet up our poſts with Gods poſts, what is it to remove Gods poſts, to ſet up our own? The Lord Ieſus ſays plainly, Drink ye all of it, but Mr. D. ſays No, It is not every mans duty.
The ſecond follows neceſſarily upon this, if it be every Church members duty of age, as Mr. Perkins, and Divines commonly tell us, then it may tend to his good, as ſure as all Gods Commandements are good; and if it does him not good, it will be his ſin. For my part I am very ſorry to ſee how men for the ſake of this are forc'd upon it, to deny the other. When Chriſt ſays, Believe, there goes a power with his precept, as when he ſaid, Lazarus, Come forth; Elſe it were vain for us Miniſters to act, that are but earthen inſtruments. And ſhall Chriſt ſay, Take, and we make nothing of it? Is this it, men ſo earneſtly contend for, to make the word of Chriſt an empty word, as if it could not quicken us? Alas Sirs! this is nothing but meer diſtruſt. A pious ſoul may even bleed to ſee his Saviours command laid waſt, becauſe we have ſo little faith in it. Chriſt is not a Miniſter of the letter, which kils, but of the Spirit, which he conveys through his commands. The good Lord pardon, and help in us, this great evil of unbelief. And as for all the injuries this man out of his zeal has done unto me, Accept thou now, O God, from a melted heart, and wet eyes, this poor prayer of mine for him, that his own bitter words may not ſink ſo heavy on his ſoul, as they have on mine, when he comes to ſee how much he has done amiſſe.
Before I paſſe, methinks we have need here of ſome foreign, upon this truth, which ſeems harſh, that the unregenerate ſins in all he does.
There is therefore a doing good or evil, either Simply, in regard of the matter of Gods precept; or Relatively, in regard of the Sanction of it to its end, as it comes under the condition of the Covenant, whereby we expect life: In the firſt ſenſe, a man though unregenerate may do well, and that which is right in Gods eyes, and be rewarded for it, 2 Kin. 10.30. yet ſins in the ſecond. There is a faith only, that God is, and that he is a rewarder of them that ſeek him; and there is a true juſtifying faith in Jeſus Chriſt. The actions of Moral men, that have proceeded out of the firſt only, I dare ſay in the behalf of Gods goodneſſe, are ſo far accepted as vertuous, that they ſhall be rewarded (according to their truſt he will not fail them) either Poſitively, with ſome temporal bleſſings, or Privatively, with ſome degree of mitigation, in their eternal puniſhments; ſo that It ſhall be well ſtill with thoſe that do well, that none may want ſufficient encouragement to do good. But yet I ſay whatſoever actions do not proceed from that other faith too, which is truly ſaving, they are ſaid to be ſin nevertheleſſe, in that they come not up to that perfection or ſincerity, Gen. 17.1. required in the Covenant, as the condition its ſelf, Ja. 2.20. or rather teſtimony thereof, unto juſtification of life, or everlaſting ſalvation.
Page 79. He throws his glove firſt to the Independents, then to the Presbyterians, &c.
Anſ. In thoſe words of mine, Let men on one ſide anſwer, Let ſome of our other, &c. I muſt confeſſe they fell from me at firſt without the leaſt thought of Engagement. I know that every one is not fit to take up the Gantlet for truth, and I am one, as Mr. D. ſays truly, that am not yet ſcarce out of the ſhell of learning, or Divinity; and therefore let not the hoſt of Iſrael come out, to ſeek a fleae, or hunt a partridge upon the Mountains.
For the one ſide, I think our difference lies only about the Church, for as for their own Members, they ſcruple not at a Free-admiſſion, no more than I, and whether they turn away any before Excommunication, I cannot ſay, but gueſſe ſo. So that if there be ſcruples among themſelves, they that are humble, may make ſome uſe of me, they that are not, need not be offended, ſeeing Mr. D. tels them, they are beholding to me, for my too favourable opinion of them.
For the other ſide, (p. 80.81.) My queſtion is to ſome, and it may be but few of them, How they can baptize the children, (as Members of the viſible Church, being born of Chriſtian parents) and yet turn away their parents from the Sacraments? I will not infringe what Mr. D. has ſaid here, p. 82, 83, 84. at the very largeſt for Infant-baptiſm, ſeeing as to my queſtion it falls beſide it. For if any will ſay, they do not baptize their Children, as born of Chriſtian parents, but by ſtipulation of others, or upon account of foreign, I ſay nothing againſt them, I wiſh it may be maintained; but as for thoſe who never took notice or not approved of any other ground of their Baptiſm, but as they are immediatly born Chriſtians of ſuch as viſibly profeſſe Chriſt, according to my terms; The right which the parents derive upon their children, unto Baptiſm, muſt be acknowledged to be in themſelves unto the Sacrament; They cannot give, but what they have. So that, unleſſe there be a manifeſt impediment to retrench that right, or the preſent enjoyment of it, by Excommunication, Diſtraction, or Infection, their Church-memberſhip is ſufficient, and the argument valid, from the one to the other.
Againſt this p. 81. Mr. D. brings in the old buſineſſe again, which is now about ten times, with a ſecond thing like it; And p. 85, 86, 87. (for that which is between, p. 82, 83. 84. I wiſh it may paſſe) he has 4 particulars more, the ſubſtance of the whole comes unto this, That the parents muſt have a farther right to ſhew, than what they have common with their child unto this Ordinance. And here indeed lies the very point of our difference, I hold it is Church-memberſhip (where there is none of our former yielded impediments) that gives an immediate outward right unto the Sacrament; He holds, A man muſt be firſt tryed if he be viſibly worthy, and it is that alone can give him admiſſion. For the one now, look over Mr. Drake and you ſhall find ſtill whenſoever he falls upon this thing, he has nothing againſt it, but that ſilly reaſon (from the untelligent) ſo often repeated; Had he any thing elſe, would it not be alleged? and has he nothing elſe, and will you be captivated? For the other, look over the Scripture; This is the thing lies on him to prove, and ſee if he can produce you any precept of God for it; if he has none, will his own word goe? While he has ſo little againſt us, and no Text for himſelf, his skirts are diſcovered, and heels made bare.
Let the prudent judge, If our argument from Church-memberſhip is even the chief and moſt ſolid ground upon which we do baptize our Children, as the Iews, by being born Iews, had a right to Circumciſion, although we cannot lightly find in Scripture that any were admitted without a profeſſion of faith unto Baptiſm; what weakneſſe ſhall we bring on our ſelves, if the ſame thing ſhall not be held ſufficient (without a known cauſe) unto the Sacrament, whereunto we find no confeſſion any where required, but as ſoon as they were once Church-members, Acts 2. 42. this fellowſhip immediately gave them a privilege to it?
The Sacraments ſerve for two things, for our faith towards God, and profeſſion one with another; Though our Church-members doe not all come with that faith, whereby they ſhould receive the effectual benefits of the Covenant, yet do I not ſee how they can be ſo eaſily debarr'd their profeſſion of Chriſtianity, in oppoſition to all other Religions, as the Iews did often, freely, and univerſally, enter into Covenant with the true God.
P. 87, 88, 89. Hee brings in my argument of Chriſtian liberty, from Ordinances of men, Col. 2.18, 19, 20. which muſt not be ſuffered to creep into the ſeat of God, as neceſſary to our worſhip. And this, I take it, does prevail much with many that fear God.
Againſt this he ſays 4 things, 1. Let the Readers take notice, that in Mr. Humphrey's judgement, the putting a bar to Free-admiſſion, is an humane, not divine Ordinance, &c.
Anſw. I doubt not but they will take notice that I doe willingly yield to all our known Barrs (under the Unintelligent, and Excommunicate) the Church has allowed; but am fully perſwaded, that this barre Mr. D. would ſet up otherwiſe, has no foundation in the Scriptures, and muſt wiſh him to take heed, that while he ſets up his viſible worthineſſe upon trial, as the rule of our admiſſion, which Chriſt has not ſet up, his own words (We like not the preſſing of humane inventions upon the conſcience, especially in Divine worſhip) do not riſe up, and fly upon him. I pray God give him a ſight, how he profeſſedly maintains, what he diſlikes, and of thoſe ſad evils his opinion has done.
2. He asks, By what Scripture and conſequence I can keep off Infants, and the Diſtracted? and he will by the ſame exclude all perſons viſibly unworthy, or elſe he will be of my Religion.
Anſ. Seeing he ſays ſo, I will expreſſe my ſelf once more. My ground is 1 Cor. 11.28, 29. Upon this ground I draw this conſequence, That thoſe whoſe duty it is not to Examine themſelves, and get knowledge to diſcern the Lords body, are not to come; Such are all Infants, and the Diſtracted, it being naturally impoſſible. But can Mr. Drake now ſay the like here? That it is not the duty of all viſibly unworthy, to get knowledge, and examine themſelves, that ſo they may come? Dare he ſay ſo? If he dare not, I hope he will perform his promiſe, and yield to the truth. Beſides, as I have ſaid, they that have an intelligent capacity may receive ſome good impreſſions by it, (and the more weak, ſometimes are more affectionate) but as for Infants, and the Diſtracted, we know ſigns cannot have any real work on them.
3. He ſays, If his bar were only prudential, I ſhould do better to ſubmit, than diſpute againſt it.
Anſ. If I ſhould do the Church ſervice, in ſubmitting to this way only as humane, then ſhall I do God ſervice, to oppoſe it as divine, and not let it ſit in his ſeat, as a neceſſary antecedent to this Ordinance. And I doubt not but Ieſus Chriſt, that has ſhed his moſt precious blood to purchaſe our liberty, will be jealous over it, and not ſuffer our Conſciences to become the ſervants of men, nor yet theſe pious men to become ſervants to themſelves. Indeed I know we have good diſtinctions here, as to the obeying of men, between the obedience of the outward and inward man, and that ſimpliciter, neceſſitate conſequentis, & ex hypotheſi, neceſſitate conſequentiae, but I fear what in it ſelf may be prudent, the ſad effects will make otherwiſe.
4. He brings in the Distracted (or unintelligent) again, and ſo in the iſſue, would be justified.
Anſ. Methinks it fortunes prety happily, for ſeeing this is about the twelfth time, it is a fit Iury to do it for him. And whereas I remember he brought in my Onion, in the cloſe of the laſt reaſon, Had we (ſays He) the peeling of it, we would make uſe of the pulpe, either for food, ſauce, or medicine; I will adviſe him by all means to keep it for the ſecon…, for while the cold meat of this his even tainted paſſage, comes ſo often to the board, it may ſtand him in ſome ſtead to help to haſh, or ſtew, and ſerve it in with it.