A Second Vindication of a Free Admission to the Lords Supper, Section 10
SECT. 10.
FOr the former of theſe queſtions, It ſeems to me, (as is before ſaid) that were the Presbyterian judgement right and uniform to its ſelf, I ſhould not need to have any diſpute with them; for, if Suſpenſion, or excluſion from the Sacrament, be no other than a juridical action, which thoſe that are for Ruling Elders do, and ought to maintain, then can no argument from the diſtinct nature of this ordinance, that would conclude this excluſion, though there were no diſcipline, be of ſufficient force for it. It there be one ſuch, then is this excluſion thereby proved to belong to the Miniſters office in his faithfull adminiſtration of the Ordinance (as before) and not to the power of juriſdiction. Nevertheleſſe, for ought I ſee, when they come to diſpute, it is theſe arguments mainly they ſtand upon. And therefore, for my own part, upon conſideration of thoſe perplexities which ariſe from hence on tender conſciences, together with the injury that is hereby offered to the Church in laying the ground of all her diviſions and ſeparations (and upon no other intereſt of parties I profe…e in the world) I have thought good to do my endeavour for the anſwering and taking off thoſe arguments, in what I have formerly written, and I hope I have in ſome meaſure done it, eſpecially in my Rejoynder, to ſome mens ſatisfaction.
For 1. let but a candid interpretation, be given on that Chapter, 1 Cor. 11. laying no more ſtreſſe on the words, than the purport of the contents will bear, and ſo thoſe objections that ariſe from thence be allayed, which ſink deepeſt; For which, I humbly offer that 4th Section in my Rejoynder, p. 29. to 44.2. Let the covenant be layed down in that latitude as the Scripture does, and ſo thoſe objections from the Sacrament being a ſeal, be ſatisfied, ſeeing the ſeal (Quoad jus) muſt be as large as the covenant; For which read p. 170. to 180. 3. Let the Sacrament with all the ordinances be look'd upon, as inſtituted for the viſible Church, which conſiſts of the unregenerate as well as the regenerate, and conſequently, that it is both the duty and a means (ſubordinate to the word) for edification of the one as well as the other; whereby that objection, that the Sacrament is for confirmation, and not converſion, is taken off, For, though this ordinance is no converting ordinance to the Heathen, it hinders not, but it may beget grace in a Chriſtian. And I muſt confeſſe, I ſometimes wonder, to ſee how this ſticks upon the ſpirits of moſt at their firſt thoughts: The Sacrament is no ordinance (ſay they) for the Heathen to convert them; therefore it is no means of converſion: whereas indeed the Sacrament is no ordinance for the Heathen, not becauſe it is not converting, but becauſe God hath appointed it only for his Church. The Sacrament is no confirming ordinance to the Heathen; therefore is it no confirming ordinance? There is the ſame arguing in both: It is neither a converting nor confirming ordinance to the Heathen, becauſe it is no ordinance at all for them. Notwithſtanding, That it is a means for edification of the Church, (as I ſay, and chuſe to lay it down ſo) whether her Members bee regenerate or not, I humbly tender my Rejoynder, p. 206. to 241. and likewiſe what learned Mr. Blake hath put in more lately, Cov. Seal. chap. 7. ſect. 13 and 14. who doth fully agree with me in this point, and hath eaſily anſwered Mr. Gilleſpyes twenty arguments, which have been ſtood upon ſo much by many.
Let theſe three things, now I ſay, be done, as I think they are, and there will be nothing left, as I ſuppoſe, that can hold conſiderable againſt the negative of the former queſtion; for which, it ſhall ſuffice me to produce the judgement of my reverend and pious, though harſh adverſarie, Doctor Drake himſelf. Let Mr. Humfrey (ſaies he, p. 116.) prove that actual receiving is a debt on the part of a natural man, and we ſhall be farr enough of hindring any the payment of their debts. Now this is proved in the third particular; The Sacrament is appointed for the Church, the Church conſiſts of unregenerate, as well as others, which is a firm and ſolid probation; and is indeed that ſtrong bottom (as Mr. Blake acknowledges it, Cov. Seal. p. 247. whatſoever others have ſaid hereof) on which not only my book, but both his too, ſo far as concerns this matter, are founded.
And as for that inſtance of Judas joyned by me to the precept, Doe this. Drink ye all of it. And they all drank of it. (in the choice of that text, Mark 14.23.) it does adde much ſtrength hereunto, let it be taken directly, not on the part of the admitters, as it is uſually urged, but on the part of the receivers; Thus. That theſe words Do this, Drink ye all of it, was ſpoken to All preſent, it will be granted. That Judas was preſent, the Evangeliſts do as it were command, at leaſt allow us to beleeve, while they tell us he ſate down with the reſt, and his hand was at table. Now ſuppoſing him preſent, Chriſt bids Judas expreſly to receive, (to Take) amongſt the reſt; From whence, actual receiving is irrefragably proved the duty of a diſciple, though unregenerate, or in his natural eſtate. And then you ſee what Mr. Drake yields me, and what would bee wonne, though he ſhould not; for this foundation, as to the main, muſt hold ſo long as the precepts of God can be preſerved from being made void by mans tradition. Go and diſciple all Nations, ſaies Chriſt, baptizing them, and teaching them to obſerve all things whatſoever I have commanded you, Mat. 28.19, 20. From hence we collect, that thoſe who are diſcipled by baptiſm, that is, are baptized members, muſt be taught to obſerve all the commands of Chriſt. But the Sacrament is one of Chriſts commandements.
I will onelyonly urge here farther one argument, which I muſt confeſſe, ſinks deep into me, as that which is not merely fetcht from the brain, but from the hearts of many that are wounded by it. That doctrine which cuts off every doubtfull Chriſtian from the Sacrament, is harſh doctrine and not to be endured: (By the Doubtfull Chriſtian, I underſtand a man in doubt of his regeneration, a man that is indeed truly gracious, but doubts ſo, that he is inclined rather to think he is not.) But this doctrine that holds it not the duty, but unlawful for every unregenerate man to receive, does cut off every doubtfull Chriſtian from receiving; Therefore this doctrine is not to be endured. The Major I hope will not be denied, the Minor I prove, That doctrine which concludes it to be ſinne in the doubtfull Chriſtian to receive the Sacrament, cuts off the doubtfull Chriſtian from receiving. This is manifeſt. But this doctrine concludes it to be ſinne in the doubtful Chriſtian to receive. Probo. That which a man is not fully perſwaded in his conſcience is lawfull to be done, it is ſinne if it be done: This is the very direct meaning of thoſe words, Rom. 14.23. Whatſoever is not of faith is ſin. But if it be not the duty, or it be not lawful, according to this doctrine, for any man which is not regenerate, to receive the Sacrament, then cannot the doubtfull Chriſtian, that is in doubt whether he be regenerate or not, be fully perſwaded in his conſcience, that it is his duty, or that it is lawfull for him to receive; and conſequently, if he receives, he ſinnes. If he eateth and doubteth, he is damn'd if he eat. This I humbly conceive is convincing. The argument I preſume is ſtrong as it is urged by others on the part of the admitters. If truth of grace be neceſſarily required to receiving, how ſhall the Miniſter act in faith, that cannot be aſſured of the truth of grace in an other? But as I doe urge it thus, on the part of the doubtful receiver himſelf, I think it is irrefragable. And as it is that, which hath wrought much with me in my Rejoynd. p. 30, 31. So hath it with pious Timſon, who agrees with me in it, Anſ. to Mr. Col. p. 51. and likewiſe Mr. Blake, Cov. Seal. p. 192. wherein you may ſee a ſympathy of our very ſoules and ſpirits in this point. I ſhall not need therefore to ſay any more of this former queſtion, but refer to what is already written.