A Second Vindication of a Free Admission to the Lords Supper, Postscript

A Second Vindication of a Free Admission to the Lords Supper · Postscript

p. 121A POST SCRIPT.

Courteous Reader,

THere are yet ſome things I ſhal make, bold to trouble thee to read in this place, becauſe I would not have the Diſcourſe it ſelf to ſwel any bigger thā it has don. If thou thinkſt thē long, thou mayeſt let them alone if thou wilt. I know well that this controverſie is not about any fundamental, but that, as brethren, we may bear well enough with one another that differ in it, nevertheleſs, in regard of practice, it is even neceſſary at leaſt for moſt that are of the Ministry to be eſtabliſht concerning the ſame, or elſe perhaps, it might have been long enough before ſome ſhould have thought it fit to meddle any more with it. What I have done here in this laſt book, I offer to them chiefly, and thee that haſt ſtudied the point; what I have done in my firſt book, to the many.

[1.] Whereas in my undertaking this Subject, I choſe thoſe words, Doe this, Drink ye all of it, p. 122And they all drank of it, in that text Mar. 14. 23. for my ground, which many think might have been more ſoundly choſen: I deſire the ſtrength thereof may be laid in thoſe two things which have been touched Sect. 10. but I am not ſatisfied without ſpeaking a little farther thereof, with thy leave to have it noted by ſuch. The firſt is, that we have here, as in the other Evangeliſts, the inſtitution of the Sacrament, wherein there is a direct precept to the Church, Doe this, with the extent thereof expreſſed, Drink ye all of ir. The words are directed in general to the diſciples, as diſciples, and conſequently all that are diſciples (ſuppoſe them in a capacity of reaſon to uſe it) come under a right of Obligation to uſe the ſame. It is objected, By all, is meant no more than All preſent. But this is too overly, the precept I hope, does ſo concern the diſciples preſent, as that St. Paul makes theſe very words of the inſtitution obtigatory to the Church of Corinth, and to us all as a ſtanding Ordinance till Chriſt come, 1 Cor. 11. 26. It is manifeſt then that theſe words, as the precept of Chriſt, are delivered to the diſciples in bebalf of the Church, whereof themſelves were a repreſentative part. Now then I ask, whether as Repreſentatives of the Church inviſible, or viſible? if you will ſay of the Church inviſible to make the command only to the regenerate and elect, it is unreaſonable; for all the Ordinances are delivered to the Church as viſible, Heb. 9.19. Rom. 3.2. and we ſuppoſe Judas was amongſt them. But if they were here Repreſentatives of the Church, as viſible, it muſt follow, that all thoſe who are of the viſible Church, (and in capacity of the obligation) are berchy obliged to this Ordinance. It is not argumentative to ſay here, none of theſe diſciples p. 123were ignorant or ſcandalous (which yet I think is untrue) becauſe they were repreſentatives of the Church, not as men unspotted with ignorance or ſcandal, any more than as Apoſtles, but as they were members thereof, viſible members, diſciples, Chriſtians. Id veiò concedimus, ſaies Bezs, (De Presb. & Ex. p. 27. with 23.) quòd Chriſtus inter ſuos diſcipulos coenam inſtituens manifeſtè oftendìt coenae celebrationem illis convenire (which is inciuded in ſolis illis) qui Chriſti ſe diſcipulos profiteantur; and Mr. Perkins (Caſe conſ. B. 2. c. 10,) laies this down for his firſt rule, Every man of years living in the Church, and being baptized, is bound in conſcience by the commandement to uſe the Supper. Now whiles my adverſaries are forced to fly off here, and confine the precept to the regenerate only, we may eaſily ſee both where our bottom lies, and alſo how firm it is. The ſecond thing I build on in this text, is, That together with the precept, we have the example of Iudas, who is ſat down with the twelve, Mat. 26.20. and his hand at the table, Luke 22.21. It is objected, that Judas was a cloſe hypocrite, his villany ſecret and unknown, and ſo this preſident will make nothing to our purpoſe. But under favour, ſuch as ſay ſo, are miſtaken, for though this anſwer ſhould ſuffice (which I think it does not) as to the part of the admitters, in regard Chriſt acting (ſay they) as a Miniſter, was not to take notice of what he knew of Judas as he was God: yet it is apparent, that it reaches not the matter at all as to the receivers themſelves, who neverthleſs for all this, as for their own parts, will be bound to receiving. though they be ſuch as Judas was, that is, at leaſt unregenerate, if not ſcandalous alſo. It may be replyed, p. 124as to the part of the admitters, that Chriſt knew of Judas compact (which no doubt was a high ſcandal in its ſelf, being inductive of ſin and ruine to the Jews, with whom he dealt) not only as God, but as man likewiſe, becauſe as man, he was a Prophet, Deut. 18, 15. and that Godhead that dwelt in him bodily, revealed this to him; Now I argue, if it was Chriſts duty to have excluded Judas from the Paſſeover, if a man had revealed this to him, how much more must be have done it when the God-head revealed it to him, whoſe teſtimony is above all mens in the world? But I ſhall chuſe to lay my ſtrength here (as I ſay) as to the part of the receivers, & that from Chriſts acting, not as a mere man, but as Mediator. As the Lord Jeſus does inſtitute the Sacrament, and give the precept, he muſt do it unqueſtionably as mediator; It is God only can give laws to bind the conſcience: Now in the inſtitution and giving the precept, he directs the ſame to all preſent, and ſo to Judas amongſt the reſt, from whence ariſes an obligation from the Lord irrefragably upon Judas, as well as on the others, to actual receiving; what Chriſt bids him expreſly do among them, muſt be his duty; and conſequently, while a man is a diſciple, though unregenerate, as Judas was, that does not unduty him to uſe the Supper. And then let us hear what Dr. Diake himſelf, who herein throughly looks to the foundation, will tell us. Let but Mr. H. (ſays be p. 116.) prove that actual receiving is a debt on the part of a natural man, and he will yield the cauſe to us.

[2.] Whereas it is denied, notwithſtanding this text and others by us alleadged, that there is no precept nor preſident in Scripture for the adminiſtring the Sacrament to all, (Mr. Coll. ch. 5.) p. 125I deſire theſe two Trules may be laid, 1. that Giving and receiving being Relata, all thoſe texts that prove it the duty of any to receive the Sacrament, does eo nomine oblige the Miniſter to deliver it to them, or admit them, becauſe Poſito uno relatorum, ponitur alterum. 2. That we are to look upon all the Ordinances of God unto his Church, as univerſal, obliging every member in particular to wait upon them, unleſs where the Scripture it ſelf layes ſome reſtriction or limitation; the reaſon is, becauſe it is preſumption in any to limit that which Gad hath not reſtrained. And then I do aſſert hereupon, that there is as many Scripture-precepts and preſidents to deliver the Sacrament to all, as to any, ſuppoſing them within the Church, and neither unintelligent, or excommunicate, as we entend the queſtion; for ſuch as are Heathen, Exod. 12.43, 48. or have not reaſon and diſcernment, 1 Cor. 11. 28, 29. or are under cenſure, 1 Cor. 5. 13. are debarr'd (we all grant) by the Scriptures quoted. There are two inſtances only, beſides the precept and preſident in the former text, I will here mention. The one is, the inſtance of the Paſſeover, where all the congregation of Iſrael, every man, Ex. 12.3, 47, 50. from Dan to Berſheba, 2 Chr. 30.5. all their males every year, Exod. 34.23. Deut. 16. 16. All the children of the captivity, to name that text, Ezra 6.21. becauſe by ſome it is alleaged againſt us; that is, all the Jews that returned, without exception, and all ſuch as had ſeperated themſelves unto them from the filthineſſe of the heathen; that is, all their proſelytes alſo (the filthineſſe of the heathen was their idols) did eat, and were ſo commanded. There is nothing, which I would chiefty have obſerved, that p. 126made any Iſraelite uncapable of partaking thereof, but that which made a godly man uncapable, and ſuch, no more uncapable of this, than of other the holy things. And this was Levitical uncleanneſs, whereof while the queſtion is propoſed to Moſes, Num. 9. whether ſuch ſhould eat of it or no, it is plain (in the chapter) that for the reſt to eat thereof, was out of queſtion. The other inſtance is that of 1 Cor. 10.1, 2, 3, 4. as I have preſt it in my firſt book. They all eat of the Manna, and drank of the rock, which was Chriſt. The main anſwer given by Beza, Gilleſpy, Philip Goodwin, Rutherford, Dr. Drake, and which all have, is, that all the Iſraclites were admitted here, becauſe this water and manna was their corporal food, without which they could not live. But herein lyes the force of what we urge, to wit, Why ſhould the Lord make that ordinary food of theirs, without which they could not live, to be Sacramental, if to eat and drink of Chriſt ſacramentally, was not a priviledge in common to the Church? The main thing alleaged againſt Free-admiſſion, is the holineſs of that, whereunto Sacramental ſigus do relate, and the indispoſition of the viſibly unworthy to partake thereof; Now ſayes the Apoſtle, the Iſraelites all of them, yet many of them unworthy (in our adverſaries ſenſe) did drink of the rock, which was Chriſt, and it was the Lords will they ſhould do ſo, for therefore he made that food (I ſay) which all were to live by, Sacramental. Beſides, if it were ſuch a grievous ſin, as murdering the Lord of glory, or being guilty of his bloud, to drink of Chriſt ſymholically, without ſuch and ſuch qualifications, as ſome do ſtill speak, then ſhould theſe Iſraelites (as I have ſaid in my Rejoynd.) have p. 127rather ſamiſhed their bodies, than have eat and drank the damnation of their ſouls; whereas we find that the ſons of Aaron, Lev. 22.23. were not to eat of the holy things during their Levitical uncleanneſs, though it was their appointed food, which Gilleſpy himſelf notes, p. 97. Exemplo Iſraëlitarum (ſaies Muſculus, in Pſ. 105. v. 39.) Apoſtolus admonet, uſum externorum Sacramentorum, talem eſſe, ut neminem juſtificet, poſſing; ab omnibus promiſcuè exerceri.

[3.] Whereas it is laid down, by my adverſaries, as their main hold, that viſible worthineſs is the rule of admiſſion, as viſible unworthineſs or unfitneſs the rule of Suspenſion; I ſhall think ſit to propoſe, or oppoſe theſe three things. 1. Take all the viſible worthineſs in the world, it can amount to no more than an external covenant-relation, denominating the ſubjects quoad homines, Saints, Believers, Chriſtians. Now who ſhall define us theſe covenant-relatives, either this judgement of men, or the open plain determination of the Scriptures? 2. If we go on this ground of covenant-relation, we go on a certain judgement, every one knows who are externally in covenant, or Church-members, but if we go on viſible worthineſs, as a third thing (between this and truth of grace) diſtinct here from, we muſt go on continual uncertainty, as without Scripture. 3. This rule of viſible worthineſs, is bottom'd on real worthineſs, which it ſuppoſeth in the receiver, as neceſſarily antecedent to the Sacraments. Now then I argue, either the manifeſtations hereof (for viſible fitneſs or worthineſs being their rule of admitting people, that fitneſs muſt be tryed, and that by evidence) upon which the Sacrament muſt be adminiſtred, p. 128are either infallible or certain, and then no hypocrite can ever receive, or be admitted, which is doubtleſs untrue; Or probable only, and conjectural, and then none can in faith adminiſter to another, becauſe he cannot he aſſured by all thoſe evidences or manifeſtations, that the party hath that in him which is neceſſarily and eſſentially held pre-requiſite to receiving. The Sacraments cannot be adminiſtred according to rule, unleſs they have their neceſſary pre-requiſites, or eſſentials; nor in faith, unleſs the Miniſter be aſſured they have their eſſentials. And therefore it is not real worthineſs, or truth of grace, as to the receivers own part; or viſible worthineſſe as to the admitters part, but covenant-relation in both, is the very ground indeed both of adminiſtring and receiving; alwayes remembring, that our queſtion truly is not concerning what is required of the receiver in order to other ends, that he may be ſaved (ſo truth of grace and final perſeverance too, is neceſſary) but what is neceſſarily antecedent to the obtaining the external Ordinance, and to the validity thereof. I deſire the Reader to obſerve this well, that be may know clearly how to put a ſound difference between theſe two things, to wit, between what is required of the receiver in his coming, or that comes to the Sacrament, and what is ſo required to receiving, as that elſe be must not come. As to the former, we are to preſs upon men all thoſe Sacramental qualifications which are laid down ordinarily by Divines, as being neceſſary to the obtaining the effectual benefits of Chriſt held forth in the Sacrament. But as for the latter, we muſt take heed what we preſs upon any, leſt we preſſe them only to the omiſſion of their duty. Even as we are to preſs upon men who hear and pray, that they pray p. 129and hear with underſtanding, faith, love, humility, and other graces (as they are to receive) and that if they do not, they ſin in their hearing and prayer; Yet muſt not we preſs this ſo, that if they have not theſe qualifications, they may not hear nor pray; this were to preſs them to iniquity, for the avoiding of partial, to run into total diſobedience. By this diſtinction then we ſhall underſtand, both how to preſs the Sacrament on our people that neglect it; The man that bringeth not the offering of the Lord in his appointed ſeaſon, ſhall be cut off, Numb. 9. and how to preſs our people to a worthy behaviour, that come to it. And both theſe, I think, ought to be preſſed together, the rather, becauſe the Ordinances are the means if any have not theſe graces, to excite their hearts unto them; for whatſoever ſome of our late Divines may ſay, when thoſe two great Reformers Luther and Swinglius met at the Synod of Marparge, however they differ'd otherwiſe about the Sacrament, they agreed perfectly in theſe two things; both that the Sacrament was neceſſary unto every Chriſtian man; and that the uſe of it was to the ſame effect with the Word, ordained of God, that thereby infirm conſciences might be ſtirred to belief, by the holy Ghoſt. See Book of Martyrs, Vol. 2. p. 87.

[4.] Whereas there are certain places urged by many for the ſecluſion of the morally unclean, from the Paſſeover, which Mr. Coll. hath in part heaped up, p. 101. from Gilleſpy, B. 1. c. 9. to wit, Iſa. 1.10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Jer. 7.9, 10, 11. Pſ. 50.16. Pſ. 118.19, 20. Pſ. 15.1. Ezra 6.21.2 Chron. 23.19. Deur. 23.18. Hag. 2.11, 12, 13, 14. Ezek. 22.26. Ezek. 44.7, 9. Ezek, 23.39. I ſhall think fit to ſpeak p. 130ſomething briefly to theſe Scriptures. For the 3 firſt, Iſa. 1.10 — 15. Jer. 7.9. — 11. Pſ. 50 16. It is plain that theſe texts speak of Prayer, the Word, and the whole worſhip of God generally in their ſolemn aſſemblies, as well as the Sacrifices, and therefore muſt be underſtood ſo, as that though the manner of their comming be reproved in ſuch a patherical veine, a DESC="foreign", as it is, the matter nevertheleſs in the ſubſtance was not to be left undone. The rule is this, when an action hath evil in its own ſubſtance, it is to be omitted; but when the action is of it ſelf the matter of a precept, and 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. See Reinolds 3 Treat. p. 248. and Mr. Pemble in Fol. Vind. Gov. p. 82. To the two next texts, Pſ. 118. 19, 20. Pſ. 15.1. I anſwer, as to the former, that on the contrary hand the righteous here are ſpoken of as ſuch only that could come to the Lords houſe with acceptation of their perſons in their ſervices, but it does not follow therefore that the unrighteous muſt not come to do any ſervice at the temple. To argue thus, This is the gate into which the righteous ſhall enter; therefore the unrighteous were never to come there, is me-thinks juſt like the Jews, Mat. 5. who when the Law commanded, Thou ſhalt love thy neighbour, collected, and hate thine enemy. For the text following, Ezra 6.21. I have mentioned it in the ſecond thing before, as full and plain for us. To the next, 2 Chr. 23.19. I have anſwered in 4. or 5. particulars, Rejoynd. p. 45. Only whereas in the laſt of them I am acquainted from Mr. Coll. (p. ibidem) that though the Paſſeover was eaten in their houſes, yet it was killed in the Temple. I ſhould p. 131have thanked him for his learning, if he had not neglected to acquaint me alſo out of the ſame Doctor he quotes there, that the Jews being diſtributed at this ſolemnitive into their Paſchal ſocieties, it was but one only of every ſociety that carried the lamb to the temple to be killed, and then the queſtion, I hope, remains ſtill as for the reſt, that is, the generality, how could the ſetting porters at the gates of the temple be any hindrance to them in eating the Paſſeover, that was eaten in their privat houſes? For the text enſuing, Deur. 23.18. I think but few are like to be much moved by it. It follows not, becauſe the hire of a harlot was not to be brought for a vow into the houſe of the Lord, that therefore the harlot her ſelf might not come thither upon other ſervice. It is plain, that the Phariſees brought the woman taken in adultery to christ in the temple, Jo. 8.2, 3. It is anſwered, By the temple we muſt underſtand the intermural, or outer Court only. But I pray who was there, to ſay ſo? Again it is anſwered, ſhe was brought thither ad poenam, to be judged, well, but I pray then how could the morally unclean be thought to defile the temple, when their place of Judicature unto which they brought their capital offenders, was in the temple? The Prieſts would not receive back Judas money into the Treaſury, but they refuſed not Judas himſelf to come to them within the Sanctuary. To the next text, Hag. 2. 11. — 14. I anſwer, Though moral uncleanneſs is compared here with levitical, yet did it not defile the holy things, as legal did, nullum ſimile eſt idem, but in ſome other conſideration, to wit, every thing is unclean morally to the unclean, according to Tit. 1.15. in this ſenſe, that ſo long as the best actions proceed not from a ſanctified heart, p. 132they are ſinne, there will be ſin in dominion as … the manner of performance of them. See my Rejoynd. more fully, p. 115, 116. Now in this ſenſe however all the ordinances and all a mans duties become unclean to him, this text forbids not, but they muſt be done; for elſe, ſo long as a man is unſanctified he muſt do nothing, becauſe all his ſervices, all the works of his hands, as every holy thing, is polluted (as to this ſenſe) and profaned by him. In ſhort, There is a defilement of a mans ſervice, ſo as to cauſe them to be omitted, or ſo as not to cauſe them to be omitted; Moral uncleanneſs may be ſaid to defile the Ordinances, as all things are ſaid to be unclean to the wicked, Tit. 1.15. yet ſo, that theſe ſervices are not to be omitted, and a man to do nothing. (See Pemble before-quoted.) But it does not defile them ſo as legal pollution did defile the Sanctuary, that was, ſo as ſuch might not do their ſervice in the Sanctuary. The Sadduces were groſſly wicked perſons, as to their opinions, and yet did not the Phariſees ever queſtion their comming to the temple for the ſervice of God; and when the Jews look'd on Paul, as a moſt vile notorious perſon that did live, yet they find no fault at all with him for his own comming into the temple, Act. 21.24. — 29. (nor could they ſure upon this ſuppoſition, becauſe it is not likely the Apoſtles then would have adviſed him ſuch a way to avoid their fury) while they made ſuch an intollerable stir only upon ſuppoſal that he had brought ſome Greekes into it. For the two next texts, Ez. 22.26. Ez. 44.7.9. I conceive they are palpably wreſted i… Moral uncleanneſs. By the holy, is meant the Jew, or circumciſed, Ezra 9.2. Deut. 14.2. (who are again divided into the clean, and unclean, p. 133that is, levitically) and by the profane ſtranger, the uncircumciſed. This ſtranger was their proſelyte of the gate, who might not come into the Temple before his circumciſion, and therefore he is called uncircumciſed in heart, as well as in fleſh, that being yet uncircumciſed in fleſh he durſt offer to do it. I know Gilleſpy, p. 88. ſtands much on the word Nor, Ez. 44.9; But what if this …ſjunctive Nor, prove to be the conjunctive And in the Original (the words directly render'd running thus; Every ſtranger uncircumciſed in fleſh, and uncircumciſed in Heart, ſhall not enter, &c.) what then ſhall we think, to ſee not only Gilleſpy, and Rutherford, (Ch. Gov. p. 246.) but even the Provincial Aſſembly of London (Vind. Presb. Gov. p. 54.) to take up things thus on truſt, one after another? For the laſt text, Ez. 23.38, 39. It ſeems to me that the defilement in this place (as in the other) was by their legal, not moral uncleanneſs. For whereas in v. 37. God hath expreſſed their Idolatry and murder, he adds in v. 38. Moreover (or beſides that) this they have done unto me, to wit, defiled my houſe, that is another crime; then in v. 39. he explains how, For when they had ſlain their children to their idols, they came the ſame day into my Sanctuary to defile it. Now it cannot be doubted, but in the ſlaying their chilren to their Idols there muſt neceſſarily be a touching ſomething that was unclean by the dead, which was Levitical pollution, Num. 22.4. and ſo herein lay this third crime added to the reſt, that being thus unclean, they came nevertheleſſe into Gods Sanctuary in the ſame day, to profane it. That this is the meaning, theſe words In the ſame day, make it clear. I pray mark them, they are p. 134twice repeated, both verſe 38, & 39. that you may not eſcape the meaning. Moreover they have defiled my Sanctuary by comming into in the ſame day. Now why the ſame day? what if it had been the next day, or another after? it had been all one to Moral uncleanneſs. But becauſe of their Legal uncleanneſs, the Law in this caſe expreſſly commanded, that who ſo touched any thing that was unclean by the dead, he was to be unclean til the Even, and not to come into the Sanctuary (upon pain of being cut off) before his purification, Lev. 22. v. 4. with v. 6. I will cloze theſe texts with an obſervation here, to avoid miſconſtruction; It is this, that there are two things ſeem foreign, or incompatible, and are not ſo, but are both to be held as plainly true. They are theſe, That a perſon though he be ungodly or wicked, may and muſt wait upon the Ordinances, it is his duty that he is bound unto; and yet that ſuch a perſon too may and muſt (upon conviction and cenſure) be excluded; that is; there is nothing in the nature of the Ordinances, but that ſuch may come to them, being appointed of God for the working grace and reformation in the commers; Yet hath the Lord ſet up a power in the Church, whereby theſe perſons upon a due account, ſhall by way of puniſhment be cut off from them: ſuch being the wiſdom of Gods appointments, that both their commiag before cenſure, and their excluſion upon cenſure, are a like means to be uſed, one after another, for the bringing them to repentance. To this purpoſe I cannot paſs in the way, thoſe Texts which Gilleſpy mentions, p. 106, 107. to prove that ſcandalous ſins do pollute, not only a mans ſelf, but the people of God that are in fellowſhip with them, 1 Cor. 5, 6. Heb. 13.15, 16, 2 Pet. 2.13. Jude 13. whereunto p. 135I anſwer, that this pollution, I take it, is not, 1. any kind of outward pollution, as under the Law. 2. Nor any intrinſecal pollution, which cannot be, while a mans own conſcience is not defiled. 3. Nor is it only a bare pollution by evil example, imitation or infection, for ſo the good are not defiled; though in part indeed, it is this. But 4. under favour, that pollution or defilement wherewith the whole Church and fellowſhip thereof is ſaid defiled or leavened by a ſcandalows ſinner, inſomuch, that he is to be caſt out from it (especially in the primitive time, when they had their gathered Churches amidſt the heathen) is a pollution of diſcredit, diſgrace, and diſreputation which is brought upon the Church; in ſuffering ſuch among them; In regard of which report (It is commonly reported, 1 Cor. 5.1.) ſuch as theſe, are leven, spots, blemiſhes to the whole, beſides the evil inclined following their ſteps. And ſo though I would maintain the Ordinances free from any ſuch pollution by wicked men (as was by the uncleanneſs under the Law) that ſhould neceſſitate all ſuch never to come at them: Yet I do not at all infringe diſcipline; but in the taking off what oppoſes Free-admiſſion, I leave the grounds ſtill firm (even this alſo from the keeping Church-fellowſhip pure in a right ſenſe) for Excomunication.

[5.] Whereas it is commonly urged by the moſt from what is ſpoken, The morally unclean are worſe than the levitical, if the one were to be kept from the Paſſeover, then much more the other, and ſo from the Sacrament. I doe humbly conceive, if I may speak freely, that Eraſtus hath moſt elaborately ſatisfied this argument (Confir. Theſ. lib. 2. cap. 1.) for all what p. 136Beza, Rutherford, or Gilleſpy, have replyed to him. They indeed do prove, that legal uncleanneſs was a type of our moral uncleanneſs, which Eraſtus denies not, but they do not prove that their excluſion was a type of our Excommunication, which he ſtands upon, much leſſe of Suspenſion, as diſtinct from it, which ſerves me. The type and the thing typed, are not to be made the ſame. Quod praecipue intendebamus, ſayes he, eſt immunditiam legis non ita praefiguraſſe ſcelera, ut in his terris, eodem modo, eadem que poenâ coercenda eſſe concludi poſſit. For my part, I think that this barr of Levitical uncleanneſs is not to be look'd upon as any cenſure for a crime, (it was a calamity, not a ſin to be a leper) but as a Mandate only for the keeping up that ceremonial outward holineſs, on things, places, perſons, which God was pleaſed to enjoyn under the Law, for what reaſons that infinite wiſdom only knows beſt, that hath now aboliſhed the ſame. That a man who had ſworn, lyed, deceived, or committed a like ſin, might come the ſame day to the holy things and not defile them, and yet that the moſt pious Jew that had but touched any thing unclean, could not come without defilement of them; it is to be reſolved only into the will of God, that would have it ſo, and to inquire farther into the reaſon of this will, (as Mr. Coll. does, p. 100.) is not to be wiſe unto ſobriety. The force then of this argument as Eraſtus has it, will indeed be all one with this, as if a man neatly dreſt, ſhould thus argue; A thief or a drunkard is worſe thā that man who carries lime or coal; but I muſt take heed of coming near that man, leſt he pollute or ſmut me, therfore I muſt much leſſe come near a wicked, or ſcandalous perſon. It is therefore an ingenuous acknowledgement of that p. 137Presbyterian Author, whoſoever he be, that wrot the Vindication of the Antiquaeriſt againſt Mr. Prynne, p. 7. where confeſſing ſome arguments indeed uſed for ſuſpenſion to be weak, For inſtance (ſayes he) thoſe arguments brought from the Ceremonial Law ſeem to me but Ceremonial, not ſubſtantial arguments, and if they prove any thing, I conceive (pace tantorum virorum who make uſe of them) they evince rather a ſecluſion from ſpiritual and eternal priviledges, than from outward Goſpel-Ordinances. And unto this Dr. Drake himſelf againſt me, agrees perfectly, p. 20, which is according to Eraſtus, & the truth, in this particular.

[6.] Whereas the foundation I ſtand upon in the main of this dispute, is duty, which muſt n needs be a ſure bottom, in regard that mans impotency or iniquity cannot evacuate Gods authority, but the will of God muſt ſtand againſt all conſequence; and hereupon thoſe that write againſt me, are neceſſitated to aſſert, that it is the duty of none to receive the Sacrament, but the regenerate only, which are happily here and there one in a congregation. I ſhall appeal to the conſciences of thoſe that fear God, to judge between us, with what equity can theſe men revile me and my opinion for looſe, profane and ungodly, whoſe only deſign is to ſet up Gods Ordinance amongſt us, that men and women may hereby acknowledge themſelves profeſſors, and diſciples of Chriſt, as they ought, by obſerving his inſtitutions, (If you be my diſciples, keep my commandements) and in the mean time juſtifie themſelves in their own opinions, as moſt conſcientious and godly, that does but directly herein, as to the generality, go about the making void p. 138the command of Chriſt by their tradition. Whoſoever ſhall break one of theſe leaſt commandements and teach men ſo, ſhall be called leaſt in the kingdom of heaven. It is ſtrange, & to be admired (ſaies judicious Timſon in his latter book, p. 263.) that our preſſing to Chriſtian obſervance, ſhould have ſuch a hard ſenſe put upon it, as to be branded with looſneſs, when in all other duties, preſſing to obedience according to rule, is accounted godlineſs, and holy ſtrictneſs. When Eraſtus (I find) is affirming that legal uncleanneſs only debarred the Jews from the holy things, and not moral, (which he ſaid was to be puniſht otherwiſe, as with priſon and death) Beza anſwers, At iniquiſſima lex Dei fuiſſet quod tam ſeverè externum contactum puniret, ad ſcelera verò manifeſtè conniveret, as Eraſtus quotes him with thoſe words following, Exhorrui cum iſta tua legi, Conf. Theſ. 146. when others with Eraſtus underſtand by Cutting off in the Law, an untimely death, to be inflicted by the Magiſtrate where the crime was open, or by God himſelf where it was ſecret, or the Magiſtrate neglected his duty, Lev. 20.4, 5. Gilleſpy anſwers, Then might the Moſaical lawes in ſuch texts, as Ex. 30.38. Lev. 7.20. Num. 19.13.20. no leſſe than thoſe of Draco, be ſaid to have been written in blood, p. 53. (whereas indeed by the way, where the eſcape was ſo eaſy, the greater ſeverity threatned herein, ſhewed but the wiſdom of God, that none might willfully ever offer to incurre it:) So when I here fix my ſelf on the command of Chriſt, Doe this, to his Church, which conſiſts of regenerate and unregenerate, and my adverſaries can come off here no way elſe, they make no more ado, but deny the command of God p. 140to all but the regenerate only. A ſad thing in my apprehenſion, that men ſo pious, eminent, and worthy, ſhould even be ready rather to fall foul on the very Laws of God himſelf, than to croſs or lay down their own conceptions. And yet I remember when Eraſtus is ſhewing many plain convincing differences from Scripture, between legal and moral uncleanneſs in reference to the matter laſt mentioned; particularly, that legal uncleanneſs was ſuch, as by the appointment of God ſhould be liable to defile the holy things, & ſo debarr men frō them, but there was no ſuch Law for moral: Mr. Rutherford takes him up thus, often, This is to diſpute with God, All this is mere cavilling at the wiſdom of God, Ch. Gov. p. 288.283. &c. But whether there be any ingenuity or righteouſneſs in ſuch replies; thoſe that read theſe contrary paſſages in his oppoſers, will judge and ſee eaſily (if men may have liberty to speak freely) who they be herein, if there be any, that doe but cavill indeed, and dispute with God. As for my part, I conceive that judgement which hath been given long ſince upon the dispute between Beza and Eraſtus is good, that neither ſide is altogether in the right, but that they have divided the truth between them; which truth, ſo far as concerns me in this controverſie, I have endeavoured to find and lay down impartially in the preceding ſhe is, let others doe the like in other things that ſhall concern them.

[7.] Whereas it is doubted whether Judas was preſent at the Sacrament, for which there is no argument commonly urged, can be conſiderable (this being matter of fact) but that only from Jo. 13.30. where it is ſaid he went out, There are two things, I conceive, convenient to be aſſerted here, p. 140in reference to the 6 Ch. of M. Coll. which he rightly ſtyles a digreſſion. The first is, That Jeſus Chriſt according to the received opinion of the Latin Church, did eat his Paſſeover on the ſame night with the Jews. This is irrefragably proved by thoſe texts, Mat. 14.12, 14, 15. Mat. 26.14 Lu. 22.7, 9, 11, 12. where I obſerve, 1. It is ſaid to be the firſt day of the feaſt of unleavened bread, which Strictly began the night they kept the Paſſeover, after Sun-ſet, continuing til Sun-ſet the next day: but Largely in our Saviors time they called the fourteenth day (becauſe it began at the evening therof enſuing) the firſt day of the feaſt, as the diſciples ſpeak here. 2. It is likewiſe ſaid expreſly that it was the time the Paſsover ought to be killed, & was killed, ſo that there is no room for evaſion, whereas thoſe texts then, Io. 18.28. and Io. 19.14. are objected, that Chriſt was brought under Pilates judgment before the Paſſeover, there muſt on neceſſity be ſome ambiguity in theſe Texts or the other; But when Luke tells us it was the time the Paſſeover ought to be killed, and Mat. and Mat. the time it was killed, there can be no evaſion here in the texts. I have quoted, without denyal of the truth thereof, and therefore the ambiguity is in the other objected; to wit, the Paſſover there which they were then preparing, is to be underſtood of the Paſſoever of the Herd or Bullock, Deu. 16.2. 2 Chr. 30.24. and 35.7, 8. and not of the Lamb they had already eaten over night. See Lyra on the place, and Dr. Eightfoots Temple Service, Chap. 14. Sect. 1. and Hand Glean. out of Exod. ſect. 18.3. It is ſaid, the diſciples on this day came to Jeſus, ſaying, where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Paſſeover? Now how ſhould this be, if they punctually knew it not to be the day of the Jews? 4. Thoſe diſciples he ſends to town p. 141to prepare it, find a gueſs chamber already furniſhed according to Chriſts word; Now how ſhould that good man of the houſe have his room already furniſhed & prepared for the Paſſeover, that knew nothing of Chriſts comming, if it were not now the time thereof according to the Jews? 5. It is ſaid, At the feaſt Pilate uſed to releaſe to them a priſoner, and he asked them, if they would be ſhould releaſe Jeſus; therefore it was not before the feaſt, but at the feaſt, Mat. 27.15. Lu. 23.17. The ſecond thing is, that this being convinced, it will follow that this Supper in Jo. 13. was not Chriſts laſt Paſſeover Supper, for theſe reaſons, which I remember Dr. Lightfoot once ſhewed me in part of 0734 0 his Harmony yet in Manuſcript, or very much to this effect. 1. Becauſe it is expreſſly ſaid ſo, v. 1. Now before the feaſt of the Paſſeover. 2. Becauſe when Judas went out here, the diſciples thought he had gone out to buy ſomething againſt the feaſt, v. 39. and therefore it was not at the feaſt. 3. Becauſe when the even of that day was come (& it is ſaid to be night here when Judas went out) wherein they eat the Paſsover it was holy, Ex. 12.16. & there was then nothing to be bought or ſold, How then could the diſciples think Judas had gon out to buy ſomething againſt the feaſt, if it were that night it ſelf wherein nothing could be bought? 4. The devil entred into Judas to ſet him on his villany, while the Paſſeover drew near, Lu. 22.1, 2, 3. that muſt needs be before the night it ſelf; but the devil entred Judas at the ſop in this Supper, Ergo, the Supper in John was before Chriſts laſt Supper. 5. Becauſe there are many different paſſages (though accounted the ſame) at this ſupper in John, and Chriſts laſt Supper in the other Evangeliſts, which every one may eaſily multiply, that will be pleaſed exactly to read them. 6. Becauſe there is not here one ſyllable p. 142mentioned of the inſtitution of the Sacrament which was at Chriſts laſt Paſſeover Supper. 7. Becauſe the exact reckoning we may find in Scripture of Chriſts laſt week before the Paſſeover may do much to inform us herein, which I conceive appeares thus. Six dayes before it, Jeſus came to Bethany, Jo. 12.1. On the next day, he rides in triumph to Jeruſalem, v. 12. and returns to Bethany at night, Mar. 11.11. On the morrow, he went again thither to the Temple, Mar. 11.12, 15. When Even was come, he comes back as before, v. 19. In the morning next, likewiſe he goes to Jeruſalem, v. 20.27. and at night returns to the Mount of Olives, Luk. 21.37. where he lodges, we may conceive, in Bethany, as he was wont, for the next day, being now two dayes before the Paſſeover, we find him there, comparing the Text following, Luk. 22.1, 2, 3, 4. with Matt. 26.2 — 14. and Mark 14.1, 3. And hereabouts, I conceive, for the two dayes following he ſhelters himſelf, in his addreſſes for death, having departed purpoſely from the City to hide himſelf from them, Joh. 12.36. Now during this time of his retirement, whereof the other Evangeliſts record nothing, we have the relation of John of this Supper, and many heavenly paſſages, in no leſs than 4. or 5. Chapters, which cannot be thought one continued Speech or Sermon, as is commonly ſaid, if the words in ch. 14. v. ult. with ch. 18. v. 1. (likewiſe ch. 16.20.) be conſidered. Theſe diſcourſes then, meditations, tranſactions in ch. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. (to proceed) taking up theſe two dayes, the Paſſeover comes, Chriſt ſends two diſciples to the City to prepare it, Luke 22.7. Himſelf follows with the Twelve, Mar. 14.17. They all eat thereof, v. p. 14320. After the hymn they go out, v. 26. Judas ſteals away to fetch the Officers, v. 43. Chriſt is apprehended, v. 46. The Jews ſit up all night upon him conſulting, (which appears by Peters Cocks crowing.) Early, as ſoon as it was light, Mat. 27.1. Jo. 18.28. Pilate is called up. The judgment haſtened and dispatcht. At**As for that text, Jo. 19.14. Diſertè legitur foreign, apud Petrum Alexandriae Epiſcopum libello quem ſcripſit de Paſchate foreign.John 19:14 nine a clock in the morning he is faſtned on the Croſs, Mar. 15.25. About twelve there comes the Ecclipſe, Luke 23.44. After three, he gives up the ghoſt, Mar. 15.34, 37. is taken down and interred: In the grave he lies the remnant of that day, all the Jewiſh Sabbath, being the next, and part of the third, which by a Synecdoche of a part for the whole, is reckoned 3. dayes, Mat. 16.21. Then he ariſes, being their firſt day of the week, Jo. 20.1. Is ſeen of his diſciples for 40 dayes, Acts 1.3. and ſo aſcends to heaven, v. 9. Bleſſed be his name for ever.

[8.] Wheras I have recorded a certain preſident from a neighbour, (Rejoynd. p. 240.) in confirmation of that point, whether the Sacrament be a means of converſion, unto which others might be added, of ſome men eminent for the good they do in their places, who have told my ſelf the l…ke, as to the experiences of their own ſouls, which is much ſatisfying: I do think fit to take notice of thoſe two ſtories which Mr. Coll. mentions in oppoſition p. 144hereunto, p. 14. Of two Women, the one under a Miniſter of his acquaintance, the other under Mr. Simmonds, who dying under carnal ſecurity, attributed both their hardning to theſe mens admitting them to the Sacrament. Now theſe two ſtories, and the like, I judge may be worthy very ſerious conſideration, ſomething contrary, and more likely, than that for which he brings them; for theſe Miniſters, I believe, were congregational men, or ſuch at leaſt who were more ſtrict than others as to their admiſſion, and it is this; (I pray God it may be judiciouſly laid to heart, whether it be ſo or no) that, while men pretend to have more pure communion, and ſo be more careful of ſeparating the vile from the precious, than others ordinarily, especially preſſing that this Ordinance belongs only to the regenerate, ſo that men muſt think themſelves ſo, when they come thither; It need be no wonder, unto any, that are but little acquainted with the fancies and temper of folks Spirits, that many weak people ſhould think well of their eſtates, that they are better than others being under theſe forms, and ſo grow ſecure, and harden, ſo long as ſuch holy Miniſters that refuſe others with ſuch cautiouſnes, do receive them (as worthy perſons, and viſibly regenerate) to their Communions: whereas our former Miniſters, and we that ſay with Paul, Know ye not that all our Fathers were baptized in the cloud, and drank of the rock, which rock was Chriſt? Know ye not that there is a common right, as to this outward priviledge of Ordinances: ſo that we eſteem none of you better than your neighbours for your partaking hereof, we are of the circumciſion that worſhip God in the ſpirit, and have no confidence in the fleſh, or externals: I ſay, while we teach thus, we have p. 145no occaſion to fear that any one ſhould grow spiritually proud, or fall into ſecurity, thinking themſelves better than others for our admitting them to the Sacrament, any more than to other Ordinances, where we teach, and call upon them alike, to make uſe thereof unto repentance, & acceptance of Chriſt, and not ſuppoſe them converted already, which lays the ground-work of folks hardning, if herein there be any. Whereas then Mr. Col. from Gilleſpy would fain know what fruit any godly Miniſters found of their former promiſcuous adminiſtrations? I anſwer, beſides the peace and quiet of their people, which they now may wiſh, this fruit thereof they might have, that none of their congregations could bleſs themſelves in any ſuppoſed condition better than their fellows, for their outward participation of what was to be in common to all of them, the contrary whereof would by theſe men be faſtned on us; Even as all things (ſay the wiſe) have two handles, and every reaſon, a contrary reaſon.

[9.] Whereas many worthy and pious Miniſters do think it would do well to bring their people to the giving ſome account to them of their faith and knowledge before the Sacrament, as a means for their future reformation; and there are ſome of their people that have taken, or be ready to take an occaſion from my opinion, to oppoſe their pious endeavours: I ſhall humbly declare thus much, for the ſakes of theſe people, that, Although I will not juſtifie any of theſe Miniſters that are more tender and fearful about the doing, than neglecting their office, and am perſwaded, that there is no Examination but of a mans own ſelf, can be preſſed as neceſſary to the Sacrament, yet do I both allow and reverence the piety, zeal and pains of many p. 146Miniſters, that prudentially take occaſion hereby to look into the ſtate of their flocks, only for their admonition and inſtruction, without driving them from their duty; And I do bewail the frowardnes and offwardneſs of moſt unto ſo eaſie a ſubmiſſion, utterly diſliking at the bottom of my heart the spirits of ſuch Chriſtians, who either out of conſciouſneſs of their own ignorance, or haughtineſs of their minds, will be contented to be deprived the Sacrament, rather than give an account of their faith to thoſe that ask it in the ſpirit of meekneſs, for their edification. Nay I do profeſs for my part, were I under the Presbytery, I ſhould moſt freely ſubject my ſelf to their trial, as being afraid to grieve the spirit of my Paſtor, (ſuppoſing him to require it meerly out of the tenderneſs of his conſcience) and give example of obſtinacy to others; As alſo most eaſily believing that the people may do ill in refuſing examination, when the Miniſter does but ill too, in refuſing them therefore the Lords-Supper. Obey them that have the rule over you, and ſubmit your ſelves; for they watch for your ſouls, as they that muſt give account, that they may doe it with joy, and not with grief, for that is unprofitable for you. I ſpeak not this for ſ…tting up any power over mens conſciences, that are to be left free; but that I may ſo plead for Free-admiſſion, that I may not hinder any mens piety or reformation. To this end I could wiſh, that for the Ignorant, there were Catechiſts in the Church, and ſome prudent kind of Law for the bringing all ſuch to ſubmit to be catechized; and for the ſcandalous, that there were ſome authoritative way for the exerciſe of that moſt yielded, and leaſt practiſed duty of fraternal correption; let a man be profane, malicious, and injurious, I am p. 147perſwaded one half hours ſerious rebuke of him before grave men, that ſhould awe him, would doe more towards his repentance, than many years keeping him from the Sacrament. If after this, the party does continue obſtinate, let him in the name of God be proceeded againſt by Church-cenſure or Excommunication; A thing doubtleſs, which if the main truth in my bookes I drive at firſt, were well eſtabliſht, would have its ſeaſon to be preſſed.

[10.] Whereas I find that many of the moſt holy Chriſtians have their faces ſet againſt our mixt Communions, and that general way of Unity I look at, the pantings and breathings of whoſe spirits after holineſs and purity, I cannot but reverence, though I think them led more by their preſent affections, than ſoundeſs of Judgment, It is my purpoſe and reſolution, having now propoſed my thoughts, rather than grieve and exaſperate them any more, to leave the Controverſy; ſo that without ſome more than ordinary urgent reaſon be to the contrary, which is not live to be, I ſhall not engage perſonally with any of them agen about the ſame, but ſhall commit my cauſe to the Lord, humbly beſeeching him to pardon me all my failings that have been in it, and perſwading my ſelf that if there be any thing uſefull for the Church in what I have written, ſome one or other that are friends of truth, will ſtand by her in a time and ſeaſon fitting for it, And farther by theſe my Son be admoniſhed, of making many books there is no end, and much ſtudy is a wearineſs to the fleſh; Let us hear the concluſion of the matter, Fear God and keep his commandements, for this is the whole of man.

From Froome, May 26. 1656: J. H.

FINIS.

End of the text · John Humfrey, A Second Vindication of a Free Admission to the Lords Supper (1656)