the Apostle spake of habitual unworthinesse oâ— actual when all he drives at is nothing else unto his admitting to the Sacrament If I can but undermine him in that one prop his whole building will fall and the controversie come to some good issue for what Mr. Collings can doe in it let him doe the best can In the next place he saith he dares not deny but the disorderly eating in the Church of Corinth was an unworthy eating and might be a cause of their punishment vers 30. We know God is very tender of his own order and brings that instance of Uzziahs case c. This I take to be a good concession to my anwer of the 3. 4. query pag. 16 17 18. Answ The Bar removed But I see he is very unwilling to come off clearly in it mark he doth but say their unworthy eating might be a cause of their punishment The holy Apostle saith plainly for this cause many are weak and sick some dead That is the cause is plain vers 29. Their not discerning was more out of carelesnesse and profanenesse then simply out of ignorance their eating and drinking unworthily which he further explains to be their not discerning the Lords body but used the bare elements as common bread not discerning the body and bloud of the Lord they were consecrated to represent with other particular miscarriages in the time of administration for this cause saith our Apostle they were punished this were a cause saith our Author but not all the cause for which they were punished with death Who shall carry the sense now of these two competitors our Apostle or Mr. Collings I need not again urge what have formerly spoke to this Scripture 〈◊〉 Mr. Collings or any other first answer 〈◊〉 what I have done in clearing the set of the place and let them prove that were for personal unworthinesse if thâ— can or for any other sins that they wâ— guilty of before they met together for tâ— time of administration c. Let them gâ—â— us some clear demonstrations of it if they câ—â— if they cannot let them be so ingenuâ— as to give us their consent and trouble seâ—ful consciences no longer with such kind trifling uncertainties that here follow 〈◊〉 our Author Mr. Collings hath given us three argumeâ— to shew us why â—e cannot digest the seâ— that I have given of the 1 Cor. 11.20 toâ— end He saith because the Apostle chap. 5. had them of Corinth that they could not keep 〈◊〉 feast with the old leaven of malice and wickedneâ— And bidden them purge out the old leaven vers 7. And not eat with one called a brother who shâ— be a fornicator or idolater c. And agaiâ— chap. 10.21 had told them they could 〈◊〉 drink of the cup of the Lord and of the cup divels What then why did he not malâ— his conclusion that we might have clearâ— understood to what end he quotes thoâ— Scriptures as a reason But let us a little follow him in thesâ— Scriptures and examine what they will make to prove these two things 1. That the Lord punished the Corinthians for personal unworthinesse 2. That they were punished for some other sins then what they were guilty of in the time of administration which is the main thing in hand As for 1 Cor. 5. he tels us not the Apostle that they could not keep the feast with malice c. the Apostle exhorts them to purge out the old leaven meaning that of the incestuous person speaking by way of an allusion to the law of the Passeover which were to purge their houses of all leaven against that feast which continued seven days resemblably he would have them purge themselves of that wicked person whom they had indulged amongst them and made the name of God to be evill spoken of by tolerating such sins amongst them as is not so much as named amongst the Gentiles that one should have his fathers wife c. therefore deliver him to Satan purge your selves of your former connivence and indulging such and then saith he let us keep the feast but not with malice and wickednesse c. but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth meaning that he would have them spend their whole lives so the Apostle tels them what he would have them doe and how they should keep the feast Mr. Collins tels us he told them they could not keep the feast c. but he that hath but half an eye may easily discern what this place is for his purpose This proves that scandalous persons should be cast out of all Christian Communion for the conclusion of the whole is in the last verse cast out from amongst your selves that wicked person which is the thing that I all along contend for the just censures of the Church but I would have none debarred their right till then But Mr. Collings might have given us some probable grounds to prove that the feast mentioned was the holy Supper and not to leave us to such uncertainties for if it be not meant of the holy Supper what is this to his purpose Let him shew us where the Supper of the Lord is called a feast and that this feast must needs be that but this is but a shift to hold up the old interest So hard a thing it is to come off from the authority of men especially when themselves are ingaged in such wayes that men have framed But then he goes on vers Answ 11. And not eat with one called a Brother This Scripture is more fully opened hereafter as also the 1 Cor. 10.21 who should be a fornicator an Idolater c. Mr. Collings should have cleared unto us what is meant by not eat whether not eat in a civil friendly necessary sense or not eat at the holy Supper with such during their actual abode in the Church If he mean the latter in reference to the Sacrament I shall demand of him where that word eat alone is to be taken for the holy Supper and if it be not meant of the holy Supper what is this to the thing in hand The 9 10. verses doe give us some light of the Apostles meaning He had wrote an Epistle to them not to keep company with the fornicators of the world But in this Epistle he mollifies the former with some liberty else they must goe out of the world his meaning is not to keep company in a civil friendly sense unnecessarily but if a brother be such a one keep no civil friendly company with him at all no not to eat upon unnecessary occasion And so for that 10. chap. 21. They could not drink of the cup of the Lord and of the cup Divels too The main sin the Apostle aims at in this chapter is Idolatry vers 14. These Corinthians being grafted into the Christian Church did bear up themselves upon their Church priviledges too high And hence grew fearlesse of Gods judgements notwithstanding
TO RECEIVE THE LORDS SUPPER The Actual Right and Duty of all Church-Members of Years not EXCOMMUNICATE MADE GOOD Against Mr. COLLINS his Exceptions against The Bar Removed written by the Author And what Right the ignorant and scandalous tolerated in the Church have to the Lords Supper declared Many things belonging to that Controversie more fully discussed tending much to the peace and settlement of the Church AND ALSO A ful Answer to what Mr. COLLINS hath written in defence of Juridical Suspension wherein his pretended arguments from Scripture are examined and confuted To which is also annexed A brief Answer to the Antidiatribe written by Mr. Saunders By JOHN TIMSON a private Christian of Great Bowdon in Leicestershire Those members of the body which we think lesse honorable upon those we bestow more aboundant honor That there should be no Schism in the Body 1 Cor. 12 23 25. London Printed by E. C. for Tho. Williams at the Bible in Little-Britain and Will. Tomson at Harborough in Leicestershire 1655. The Authour to the Reader HOw weak and unable I am for the managing of the least truth and how unfit to appear in publick in its defence I am very sensible and filled with fears and perplexing thoughts in my very soul lest I should do any thing but for the Truth and for the peace of our unsetled Church or should be injurious to so good a cause which I am drawn out I doe not well know how to vindicate Who is sufficient to defend the Truth I tremble to think how many precious and choyce Servants of the Lord and faithful Labourers in his Vineyard are against me in what I publish I reverence and esteem those of the Presbyterian judgement above others in some considerable respects and verily judge them conscientious men and such as I look upon as best qualified for promoting the Gospel truth and the Churches peace And although my returns to Mr. Collins be somewhat round yet I hope I doe not much reflect upon most of the Presbyterian judgement notwithstanding his seeming to write in the name of all of that perswasion I do professe my study was to speak my very heart in this Controversie and to provoke different mindes to give some stronger grounds for their opinion and practice assuring my self that a great deal more must be said against that Free Admission to the Sacrament which I plead for then any of late have said before either Mr. Humphrey or my self will be answered and many thousands in the Nation which I hope fear God will be satisfied I may safely say with a good conscience it is more the clear conviction of my judgement and conscience that perswades me to appear in this controversie then any private interest or affectation of opinion or spirit of contradiction or basenesse of that spirit either â—o humor or flatter the common multitude I am perswaded it is the very simplicity of holy Truth which I have undertaken to defend leading directly to the Churches Peace and Reformation Truth seeks no corners but is invincible and intire in it self it may be over-born at a push but will recover again and vanquish all the dark parts of man O that we had such impartial and unbyased spirits as to receive all truth in the love of it Let me intreat my Reader to weigh things met with in this controversie deliberately and then I doubt not but of whatsoever judgement he be he will confesse my principles and arguments are rational and much the drift and scope of plain Scriptures And if he will but grant me Infant Baptism he will finde it a hard task to overthrow any of my building as it is stated He may see with what clearnesse and ease I have answered to what is excepted against my first book in the reading of this and also to what is brought in defence of Suspension as distinct from Excommunication as it is stated by Mr. Collins Indeed he pleaseth himself with telling his Reader my principles are both large and rotten but if he think to goe but an inch narrower he will finde it a most difficult task to free himself of that charge laid against the Pharisees the making void the Commandements of God by their Traditions He cannot go a jot narrower but he must uncovenant undisciple and unduty those which he cals Church members the doing of which plucks up all that the Church stands upon and levels Christians not Excommunicate with the Pagan world in point of right and actuall duty of receiving This is so irrational that it stands Mr. Collins upon to doe his utmost to give some satisfaction therein which if he doe he must make good from the Scriptures those things which he so often begs As 1. That the Lords Supper is strong meat only 2. A seal to justifying faith only 3 And that every unregenerate person in the Church that receives eats judgement to himself more then in any other Ordinances of Word and Prayer he doing in each what he can to decline and avoid profanenesse 4. That a Church-member of years under Toleration of the Church is no believer or disciple under actual duty as a Christian 5. That to the different state of the Church as consisting of regenerate and unregenerate is under different rules and duties as to publick worship 6. That more knowledge and holinesse is required to the Lords Supper then to Baptism in persons of years 7. He must prove Suspension distinct from Excommunication a Church censure and for what sins 8. That some baptized of years mentioned in the Scripture have been denyed the Sacrament of the Supper for ignorance or for not having fruits of holinesse answerable to the Christian Profession and yet allowed the liberty of all other Ordinances in the Church as members 9. He must prove a Pastoral or Church tryal by examination of Church-members fitnesse or unfitnesse necessary to admitting to the Sacrament and more such like things before he can justly debar any from the Sacrament more then from the rest of Church priviledges and duties If he can make good all or any of these things by the Scriptures so as to take off what we have excepted against them then he may doe something towards giving satisfaction in this Controversie otherwise in plain terms I would have him to sit still and let others who may think to doe somewhat in order to it put forth their strength For I am willing my grounds and principles should be tryed to the utmost I had rather be put to shame a thousand times then upon mistake in any thing I should dissent from godly men and draw any into errour But yet I would have you to know that these grounds and principles on which my judgement is built have been so long received and chewed upon and examined and tryed by general rules of Scripture and Reason that I shall not easily be removed For I dare boldly say the substance of what I write I received not from Erastus
unto it being of no other religion then what the Gospel teacheth they may be said to be worthy whatever they are for sincerity and truth so again Matth. 22. concerning the invited guests to the marriage Supper which set forth the fat things of the Gospel administrations and the grace thereof the messengers were sent to call in the guests that were bidden but they made light of it and would not come and some went to their farms and others to their merchandize and others abused the servants that invited them c. Then the King was wroth and destroyed those murderers and said to his servants The wedding is ready but they that were invited were not worthy vers 8. This was meant of the unbelieving Jews that totally rejected Christ and would never come under his external administrations set up in his Church in order to salvation they are said you may see not to be worthy or unworthy but the Gentiles that came in though soâ—â— came absurdly and perished too at last yâ—â— there is no such thing said of them no the were worthy though they consisted of gooâ— and bad The invitation priviledged allâ— come there is no pleading I am unworth to come but refusal was that which the unworthinesse consisted in only From the hints of Scriptures we may conceive there no such thing as personal unworthinesse â— order to observance and duty of persoâ— in Covenant relation which all are the have entred Covenant though but in the parents untill they renounce the Covenanâ— or for their hating to be reformed by thâ— Churches just censures they be discovenanteâ— conditionally that if they never repent 〈◊〉 return to their obedience in a right way the are gone forever Now then I say if tâ— Scriptures charge not any with unworthynesse of person but such as I have instanced in who can imagin that the Churâ—â— of Corinth was punished for that I would gladly know of Mr. Collings of any other learned man where the Scriptureâ— threaten punishment against personal unworthinesse simply Or where can they give an instance that ever any wese punished for habitual unworthinesse at all in the Old or New Testament If you cannot finde such a thing in all the whole Bible what reason can you have to judge that the Corinths were punished for personal unworthinesse It 's true the sin of our natures derived from the first man is punished with death for we al dye in Adam but this natural death is a common lot appointed for all good and bad It 's appointed for all men once to dye Heb. 9.27 And we see death reigns over Infants that have not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression Rom. 5. but in this both original sin and death that follows thereupon is of unavoidable necessity by the decree of God So likewise as actual sin is the transgression of the law he that so transgresseth is lyable to the punishment of that law 1 Tim. 1.9 10. And the whole Law it self is made for the lawlesse and disobedient for the ungodly and for sinners for murderers for whoremongers for lyars and for perjured persons c. that is for the punishment of all wilful disobedience of men And so it is said of the Church If you will walk contrary to me I will walk contrary to you You have I known of all the families of the earth yet the Lord will punish them for their sins And wherefore doth living man complain for the punishment of his sin Lam. 3.39 all the punishments threatned in the Word and inflicted either by God or man were for actual offendings but we never read of any coming to the Ordinances that were punished for a meer want of regeneration circumcision of the heart an interest in Christ c. This is a case the Lord hath alwayes pityâ— and promised the cure of unto his Church forasmuch as no man can convert and reneâ— his own soul of himself nay of thosâ— that have the means and use the ordinarâ— means of their salvation as the Jews diâ— It 's said not of him that willeth nor of bâ— that runneth but it is God that sheweth mercy Râ— 9. Habitual unworthinesse in that respeâ— is unavoidable and is the common stateâ— all by nature as well them that are born the Church as those that are born out of iâ— Ephes 2. but the Covenants of promise aâ— made to the Church for the cure of this dâ— praved state And the Lord hath set up 〈◊〉 Ordinances of Word Sacraments and Prayâ— in the Church as the ordinary means foâ— men to use in their conversion and salvation revealed in the promises of the Covenant the neglect whereof is usually punishe with blindenesse and profanenesse not diligent frequenting of them But what iâ— God doth punish habitual or natural uâ—â— worthinesse it being an effect of Adams defection What is that to the Church that iâ— bounded by a rule May they contrary tâ— all rule judge of it and punish it therefore with suspension from the Sacrament Our blessed Saviour rebukes this rash humour in men saying Judge not lest you be judged It 's clear enough that we may judge of mens actions and finding them transgresfors we may punish their persons but we have nothing to doe to judge of mens persons let them be good or bad as to their persons that is nothing to us we must leave them to stand or fall to their own Master for what have we to doe to judge another mans servant But if either be found transgressors so far as their offendings come within the Churches cognisance to punish let them impartially doe it without respect of persons in the Church We read that those that are appointed to judge amongst their brethren Deut. 1 16 17. are to judge righteously between every man and his brother without respect of persons in judgement to hear the small as well as the great not fearing the face of any man for the judgement is the Lords and the cause that is too hard for man to judge of was to be brought before the Lord and he would hear it there is a rule given to judge of causes and actions between brother and brother And yet in point of causes and things external that brethren might differ in these might be too hard for men to judge of How much more hard is it to judge of the spirits of men within them whether they have an interest in Christ or no surely if in the other much more in this we are to refer it to the Lord besides you may see in judging about things which concerns the Church Matth. 18. 1. It must be of evill actions only 2. Upon sufficient proof 3. And in case of obstinacy refusing 〈◊〉 hear the Church c. before any judgement can issue out against them Tell me hoâ— you can apply this rule to personal unworâ— thinesse Can this be attested upon Oath oâ— is the Church able to convince any in particular of it Or is it
Church they are of by making unnecessary rents and divisions in it It is not separation from a Church but separation in a true Church causelesly that is properly a Schism absolute separation from a true Church is properly apostasie in an Ecclesiastical sense I take it Hence his distinction of separation from a true Church and separation in a true Church where the ordinary means of salvation is and the fruits thereof as himself confesses of ours is groundlesse and wicked The first sort come under the censure of the Apostles John and Jude 1 Epistle of John 2.19 Judes general Epistle vers 19. The last sort are detected by St. Paul 1 Cor. 1.10 11 12. Chap. 11.18 19. Rom. 16.7 Act. 20.30 1 Cor. 12.23 24 25. chap. 14.33 Now I shall a little touch upon what this new formed Church requires of persons they admit into Sacramental Communion with them And I will give you the question as themselves have stated it Whether in the reforming of a long corrupted Church Mr. Saund. it be necessary that all the members thereof doe submit to some examination or tryal of their knowledge before they be admitted unto the Lords Supper This question they fear not to maintain in the affirmative Here they suppose corruption in our Churches and therefore with men well satisfied with their present frame and temper not looking on them as under any such disorder as we suppose with such we desire not much to dispute we can expect little of reason or truth from men of that minde This question is but ambiguously stated Answ 1 and should be further explained as to the particular branches of it for as to our Church in respect of doctrine it must be spoken with thankfulnesse that long hath the light thereof filled our Horizon as himself confesses pag. 6. and this Examination is only in reference to sound knowledg the means whereof the Church was not corrupted in so as to deserve the denomination of a long corrupted Church in that respect For generally the principles that were taught and received by the people were Orthodox that the people cannot in reason generally lye under the Suspension of heretical knowledge for they have been so long habituated to sound words in respect of several Creeds which very frequently were professed and assented unto in our assemblies with such plainnesse of Catechising c. that in respect of the ordinary means of the peoples knowing in a competent sense which is the subject matter that examination and trial only relates unto in the question that the Church cannot be truly said to have been a long corrupted Church And then that clause in the question as to us is needlesse which indeed upon the matter is the very cause of the question that being taken away makes the question fall for then the question will be Whether in a reformed Church as to knowledge examination be necessary in all we admit to the Sacrament And I judge this the most proper question by what himself hath acknowledged of our Church in respect of purity of Doctrine the only means of sound knowledge to her members they being generally educated and trained up therein from their youth so that as to knowledge the Church was not corrupt That many of her members have but little knowledge and are weak in the faith is confessed and is their sin but whether it be such a sin that the Church may chastise with discipline I very much doubt of they being otherwise not tainted with scandalous offending And how a Church-member should be denyed a necessary duty of institute worship without some proper act of discipline I cannot tell I confesse had the generality of our people been poysoned with Popish heretical principles touching the holy Supper and all other worship there had been a rational cause of the question as he hath stated it and a ground sufficient to be suspicious of the knowledge of most whether that little most know were true or false Orthodox or heretical And if upon complaint or tryal they should be found heretical and will not be reclaimed I think such come under the chastisement of the Church but this is not our case nor question If by the word necessary in the question be meant a duty incumbent upon all to submit unto and that every one must stand to the trial of their Pastor and Officers in respect of their knowledge before they can lawfully be admitted unto the Lords Supper It will be denyed and the Author must give us stronger proofs and arguments for the affirmative then what he hath urged in his Antidiatribe we shall examine his proofs anon I should grant him that it might be necessary in respect of some benefit and help to a more profitable receiving if people would come off in such a prudential way only to that end they may be prepared better but to make use of it to that end as either to disswade them from their duty or exclude them from a necessary duty of solemn worship out of a perswasion that their knowledge is incompetent this I utterly dislike as rash and groundlesse I grant that the Church actually impowered with the exercise of true discipline may and ought to convent any of her members before them complained of or suspected for matter of scandal and examine them and finding them guilty and impenitent may censure them but the question intends another thing I grant that self Examination is a necessary duty in order to receiving and that may satisfie the question as it 's stated for that is some examination to receiving as his expression is when this is indevoured of professing Christians although they neglect that which is Pastoral it 's a question whether they deserve to be excluded or no. But to reply If Church Examination be a necessary duty to all admission As he would why not unto every time they come to receive For that examination that the Apostle enjoyns holds to every time the holy Sacrament is administred but they require it but once and that only upon a supposition of a general corruption of our Churches p. 22. But were not the Church of the Jews as generally corrupt as ours at some times and yet at such a time did not as godly men as your selves call all to observe the Passeover without such a way of examination you plead for think of Josiah Jehosaphat Hezekiah Nehemiah c. You confesse the Passeover and Supper are the same for substance and in answer to the first objection you say Christ had communicated with his Disciples before in the Passeover therefore he needed not examine those that were admitted before If your reason be good I ask what need you examine those that have been admitted to the Louds Supper before Nay what need you examine those that are admitted unto holy Baptism before that are of years not excommunicated That which was necessary unto Baptism was sufficient to admission into the Church where Sacramental Communion only is