in the power of aâ— to reform it Hence I conclude that as itâ— not applyable unto the rules of Church dicipline so it is such an avoidable thing 〈◊〉 Church-members that not any man of reson will plead the punishing of with suspeâ— sion from the Lords Supper If the Apostles meaning 1 Cor. 11. wenthat the Corinths were punished for habitâ—â— unworthinesse and that whosoever eats as drinks that is personally unworthy is guiâ—â— of the body and bloud of the Lord and 〈◊〉 eating his own damnation then these seâ—ral inconveniences and snares must necesâ— rily follow That there is not any Minister on cancan administer the Sacrament clearly in faiâ— because he cannot have a clear ground 〈◊〉 faith for him to believe that those he delive the Sacrament unto are habitually wortâ— from their interest in Christ so that 〈◊〉 must still lye under the bondage of fear aâ— doubt of his communicating with others 〈◊〉 the murder of Christ and eating and drinkin their own damnation That all weak doubting fearful Christian either Ministers or others that are not groundedly assured of their interest in Christ for acceptance in this service cannot come in faith for he that doubts is damned if he eat and what ever is not of faith is sin Such persons that are not upon good ground assured of the truth of their own worthinesse cannot be assured of their eating and drinking worthily but must of necessity lye under the fear of being guilty of what is threatned and so eat doubtingly if such venture to come which is sin or else they must forbear until they be assured or are fully perswaded of the truth of their own personal worthinesse And this would be the perplexity of most sincere Christians there being but few in comparison of those that arrive to any grounded assurance of their own justification sanctification salvation c. Hence we may concive that when Mr. Collins cals the Sacrament strong meat he means because there is not any but strong Christians that can partake thereof with satisfaction peace and comfort And so upon the matter he denyes it to be milk for babes as well as a means of working grace in those that want it That all blinde self-conceited Pharisees and senslesse secure carnal Christians formal confident hypocrites that never were acquainted with any saving work of grace upon their spirits may come to the Sacrament boldly for they doubt not of their good estate before God and hence they shall be 1. Either flattered in their grosse presumption by the Churches admittance of them Or 2. They must be bard out by such ban as the Scriptures no where make That hence Ministers of the Gospel aâ— forc'd to detract un worthily from Christs authority in hiscommanding this observance tâ— the whole Church disswading their people from this service due to Christ more then froâ— any other whatsoever and so will presume tâ— loose where Christ binds or else are forceâ— to suspend them illegally and so presume tâ— bind where Christ doth loose leave at liberty freely to serve him in his own appointments What a snare doth this kinde of unworthy eating bring upon all the unregenerate and doubting Christians If they neglect the Sacrament for want of personal worthinesse they sin in omitting so great a duty of publick worship if they observe it as well a they can yet being unworthy they eat anâ— drink their own damnation by being guilty of the bloud of Christ as some say What doth more occasion godly and tender consciences to withdraw Communion from our Parochial congregations gather Churches out of a Church then fear of personal unworthy eating and drinking in Sacramental Communion as for the external actionâ— in the present administration the deportments of all generally are such as are inoffensive and they doe not separate from us for the most part out of any other dislike of publique Worship That hence it is that we make the nature of Sacraments to clash with themselves in that we will not suffer them to meet in the same subjects and are afraid to administer the seal to those parents whose children we freely administer it unto but the resusal of the oâ—â—e followed home will soon destroy the administration to the other for in all Scripture Churches they always meet together in one and the same subject When Mr. Collins hath chewed well of these several things I hope he will finde in himself a better digesting of that which I have given of the Apostles sense And therefore in the next place I shall come to touch a little further of actual unworthinesse in reference to the Sacrament having clearly removed that miserable mistake of personal unworthinesse in order to unworthy receiving And indeed the whole controversie will be brought to actuall sinning for that is the very thing the Church of Corinth was blamed and punished for Then the dispute will lye in these few questions Whether any unworthy actions of persons in the Church makes them guilty of unworthy receiving more then of unworthy Communion in other special parts of publick worship or no Whether the Church be able to judge iâ— particular what persons in the Church upon tryal or otherwise will of necessity be guilty of the body and bloud of Christ and eaâ— judgement to themselves in the Apostle sense Whether the Church hath power to suspen Church-members from Sacramental Commâ—nion allowing them the priviledges of alâ— the other Ordinances I shall answer in the negative unto theâ—â— under favour to Mr. Collins or any otheâ— that shall endevour to give further satisfactions to the questions And to the first I haâ— hinted at already in answer to Mr. Colliâ— quotations 1 Cor. 5. chap. 10. all that bâ— hath said from those Scriptures doth noâ— amount to eating and drinking unworthily that was punished chap. 11. I have also in mâ— Book shewed at large what eating and drinking unworthily it was that was punished and which made guilty of the body anâ— bloud of Christ in short I conceive it weâ— an open abuse or a Sacrilegious profaning holy things to common use with other disorders in the very time of the administring the Lords Supper practically destroying the very essence and spiritual ends of Chrisâ—â— holy institution And upon this accounâ— alone they were guilty of the body and bloud of Christ and of eating judgement to themselves not for any other cause or sins they lay under but for this cause some are dead c. And whosoever they are that eat and drink the outward signes set apart by the Word and Prayer to represent the body and bloud of Christ unworthily as the Corinthians did are guilty of the same sin and lyable to the same judgements but that all other sinful actions committed before they come though not repented of doth make guilty of polluting the body and bloud of Christ and of judgement they demeaning themselves reverently and conformly as to the externals thereof is to me not only doubtful but
out of the Church we should reprove instruct admonish and warn every sinner to flye the wrath to come And this we ought to doe towards all in our places and callings as private Christians And hence I conceive that Mr. Collins is hugely mistaken that stretcheth the metaphor of dogs to any kinde of sinners that the Scriptures compare to dogs for other kinde of properties of dogs as worthlesnesse greedinesse barking or licking up their vomit c. the text is of such dogs that will tear and scorn you for the best counsel you can give them for the good of their souls And me thinks that the same ground Mr. Collins goes upon to allow all the other holy things unto Heathens the Excomunicate c. might satisfie him as rationally to allow the Sacrament unto the ignorant and scandalous in the Church all that he pleads to the other is from some other Scripture warrant and I appeal unto the Impartial to judge between us whether Pastors and Teachers of their respective flocks be not as much bound by Christs command to administer the holy Supper unto their particular flocks consisting of Church-members disciples baptized and not excommunicated as to administer the other holy Ordinances unto Heathen the Excommunicate c. I think I have said enough as to the former from Mat. 28.20 to give full satisfaction Let me tell our Author and the world that although it be sufficiently taught in the holy Sciptures to deny the unbaptized and Excommunicate the holy Supper yet this text in debate doth not forbid it at all to those that are without or under Church censures much lesse doth it forbid the Sacrament to those that are within which is the thing Mr. Collins quotes it to prove And thus in short I have answered to the main of Mr. Collins strength as touching this place And I humbly conceive have broke his argument drawn from this text to make good his principal Syllogism pag. 4. That there may be some baptized persons in the Church not cast out to whom the Sacrament may not lawfully be given And he must quit himself a great deal better then in his book to make good his two propositions from this text before he can conclude any thing for his purpose And truly I think it was an acceptable service both to God and the poor Church in Mr. Boteman who so presently addrest himself to redeem a captive text so wofully wrested to perplex and disturb the poor Churches peace in seting up an invention of men which Jesuâ— Christ commanded not And for his assumption That the Sacrament is a holy thing and a Pearl and there may be some in the Church not cast out who in Scripture phrase are Dogs and Swine Ergo c. It 's true Answ 1 the Sacrament is a holy thing but it doth not therefore follow that it iâ— that which is holy meant in the Text nor forbid to be given upon that reason our Saviour gives for fear of being rent c. And though it be granted that there are some in the Church that are such kinde of dogs that are irreproveable that will not endure a private reproof it will not follow that therefore they are not to be reproved Ministerially by persons in Office in their publick preaching nor that they may not authoritatively be reproved and admonished and censured by the Church Juridically for their desperate rayling dogged miscarriages if there be any such offending brethren why are they not dealt withall according unto the right rule Matth. 18. 1 Cor. 5. If any persons in the Church be objects of Excommunication I judge such are and then judge whether Suspension be sufficient where Excommunication should and ought to take place provided they be obstinate otherwise Church admonition may be a sufficient remedy to reform such scandalous sinners Hence judge how pertinent this text is made use of to prove suspension of some from the Sacrament that as members of the Church may be allowed Communion with the Church in all other spiritual acts of worship How this proves Suspension of some distinct from Excommunication I leave to the freedome of your own Judgements to judge of In the next place without any wrong to the Author I shall examine his third Scripture argument deducible from 1 Cor. 5. rather choosing to follow the Apostles order in this Epistle because by answering of this first it will save me some labour in my answer to his second 1 Cor. 10.17 His Argument is this It is unlawfull for the Officers of the Church to give the Sacrament to such with whom it is unlawful for themselves or their brethren to eat But there may be some in the Church not cast out with whom it may be unlawful for the Church to eat Ergo. I question the truth of his first proposition Answ 1 by distinguishing of a friendly familiar unnecessary eating and of a true necessary eating Now in a civil sense I may not have friendly unnecessary familiarity with scandalous brethren though not cast out but may withdraw from all friendly unnecessary familiarity from such as a means to bring them to shame but it does not follow therefore that I upon my necessary occasions in my Calling must shun such but that I may set such a one a work and admit him to my Table he being not cast out though scandalous or a poor man may work for a scandalous rich man and eat at his Table with him c. or upon a journey and divers such cases with relations c. Therefore the same persons that I may not eat with the same persons I may eat with so that if the Apostle in 1 Cor. 5.11 mean but civill eating his first proposition is not good nor very clear which he would have his Reader to believe without any doubt or proof If we may eat with a scandalous brother not legally cast out as before then we may have company and eat with such at the Sacrament because giving and receiving at the Sacrament is our necessary duty as professing Christians and Church-members which I have sufficiently proved before the which the worst offenders in the Church may not carelessely neglect so long as they are in a Church capacity to receive and that capacity remains untill the Church authoritatively have put them out of Church Communion as Members And then and not until then are scandalous brethren disobliged from publick duties of worship and hence his argument that he draws from the lesser to the greater is fallacious and that must needs be the bottome of his argument For there is but few Interpreters otherwayes expound it but of a civil eating And himself seems most confident in that argument in its place And therefore he should have proved his main proposition namely That it is unlawful to give the Sacrament to those in the Church not Excommunicate with whom in some cases it is unlawful to eat in a civil sense And for to take it for not
to eat at the Sacrament only properly as it 's too difficult to prove so it would follow that he will prove the same by the same for then the sense of his proposition is this That it is unlawful to give the Sacrament unto such that we may not give the Sacrament unto but there is some not cast out we may not give the Sacrament unto Ergo. Take his argument in what sense you can there is nothing in 1 Cor. 5. to stand upon or in the least to make it good his proof of his Minor fals too short I will grant him 1. That there may be such in the Church that the Apostle cals old leaven 2. That it is unlawful for the Church to connive at their wickednesse that was that old leaven and keep the Feast of the Lords Supper with them but what 's this for his purpose himself saith it's a plain case that the Apostle did chide the Corinths in that they did not cast out the incestuous person that leavened their Communion by Excommunication pag. 35. in this he sayes true and they of Corinth put this Decree into execution concerning the incestuous person as the only remedy to purge themselves of that leaven that sowred the whole by their connivence and sinful indulgence What then Does it follow because they were chidden for their neglect of exercising Church-censures therefore they were chidden for admistring the Sacrament unto him before he was Juridically put out of all Communion with them If the Apostle had understood that suspension from the Sacrament only had been a sufficient remedy to purge the Church and reform the sinner then doubtlesse he would have blamed them for admitting him to the Sacrament and he would have given the remedy in prescribing a rule to suspend him from the Sacrament only but as their whole Communion was leavened by their sinful indulgence so they were urged to cast that scandalous person out of all Christian Communion sacred and civil with such a one no not eat but how doth this prove that there may be some in the Church not excommunicated with whom it's unlawfull to eat the Sacrament But he goes on with his proof of his second thing That it is not lawful to communicate with scandalous sinners let us therefore keep the Feast not with the old leaven of malice and wickednesse from hence is easily gathered saith he that Christians ought not to keep the feast with scandalous sinners True I say so too Answ where a Church is in a capacity to deal with the scandalous Juridically and thereby put them out of all Christian Communion as the Church of Corinth did But I deny still that they were blamed for admitting such unto Gods Ordinances before they were Juridically by the censures of the Church separated from the Congregation Search and see if you can finde one syllable of a sentence in this chapter tending that way Mr. Collins makes a great deal of doe about keeping the Feast but at last I think he fastens upon a good honest safe interpretation pag. 38. from Isai 25.6 Where the Lord promiseth to make a feast of fat things unto all people Gentiles as well as Jews by which saith he is promised all Gospel Ordinances and a holy Communion with them in all his Ordinances c. and hence the Sacrament is a part of this Feast c. pag. 39. But if that be the sense Answ then upon his own confession the Sacrament is but a part of that Feast Why how doth this prove then that we ought not to keep the Feast with scandalous sinners when Mr. Collins allows scandalous sinners the liberty of all the other dishes and parts of this Feast but being aware of this he addes that the Lordâ— Supper is the only proper Feast of this Feast that 's his sense first he will be honest and let every Gospel Ordinance have a share in this Feast and then attributes all to this one and makes it the proper Feast of the Feast they was to keep And he tels us Doubtlesse it must be so because some Communion with on incestuous person in other Ordinances may be allowed Thus you see let the Scripture say what it will and although Mr. Collins is forced to confesse his assent unto a rational sense you may see how his private opinion and fancy draws him off again and makes him venture to give the denomination of this Feast to the Lords Supper only and it must be so because against his own reason and sense he will have it so is that a reason to make it good for some Communion with an incestuous person in other Ordinances may be allowed directly contrary to the Apostles decree and direction when he commands them To put out from amongst your selves that wicked person verse the last But still the very main thing of his argument wants proof That there may be some in the Church not Excommunicate with whom it is unlawful for the Church to eat In his proof of this he must make good these several things That in this 5. chap. 1 Cor. the Church was blamed for eating with the scandalous brother before the Churches tryal and censure of Excommunication was inflicted That the Church was not leavened for their carelesse connivence and tolerating such a scandalous brother but only for admitting of him to the Sacrament That the Church of Corinth had done their duty if they had only suspended him from the Lords Supper That we are as much forbid the company and civil friendly familiarity in eating and drinking with a scandalous brother not cast out as with an Excommunicate person I shal refer my self to those that are learned sober if it be not of necessity to prove those things before he can conclude from this Chapter that there may be some in the Church not cast out with whom it may be unlawful to eat the Sacrament or that the unexcommunicate members should be suspended from the Sacrament and allowed the liberty of all other Ordinances in the Church as members But Mr. Collins in stead of making good his Argument he trifles about making that word Feast to be meant only the Sacrament after he hath granted it was but a part thereof as it is one Ordinance with the other of Gospel Worship He quotes Mr. Gillespy that tels us this Feast cannot be restrained unto the Lords Supper only And Mr. Rutherford that understands it of Church Communion in the dainties of the Gospel And Ravenella that sayes it is taken for all Gospel Worship from Zach. 14.16 17 18. and yet he will goe beyond his own Authors and prove with reason beyond them all that by this Feast is meant the Sacrament only I confesse I had thought to prevent tediousnesse to have past by his reasons but lest he should be wise in his own conceit I shall take some notice of them All he sayes amounts to this surely it were not a civil Feast nor a Mosaical Feast but meant of
this to Juridical Suspension distinct from Excommunication as it 's usually practised in some Churches Indeed Mr. Collins need not have been so hasty in aspersing Mr. Boteman pag. 98. unlesse he could in some ordinary case prove Juridical Suspension from the Sacrament distinct from Excommunication the which he hath not yet done and it 's a great question whether he ever will or can It 's true that our Church in prudence left the denying of the Sacrament to some to the discretion of particular Ministers as he alleadges but then let me tell you this doth not reach the argument For 1. this was only in case of obstinacy being dealt with all by the Minister who was by the Canons and Rubrick of the Church authorised thus to doe 2. Such acts of discipline were subject to the Churches judgement and censure afterwards the persons conceiving themselves wronged might complain and those Ministers were lyable to be censured for going beyond the rule as some have been suspended from officiating themselves for putting persons by upon slender proof even such as their Ordinary upon hearing did not judge competent 3. The Church urged the act of receiving as a necessary duty incumbent upon all of years and upon that ground both earnestly exhorted all to come and punished those that carelesly neglected it 4. The Churches Jurisdiction consisted of Excommunication only in case of obstinacy but in case of penitency admonition and publike penance the offenders confession of his sins humbly in the body of the Church craving the forgivenesse of their sin in particular both of God and the Church did free from Excommunication The obstinate was denyed all the Ordinances except to hear the Sermon at the Church doores or behinde the Font the penitent not denyed any one Ordinance lay these things together and then let wise men judge how our Church heretofore doth precedent the Suspension which Mr. Collins contends for namely that a Minister by vertue of his Office with his Elders may and ought upon Scripture ground to deny some the Sicrament not obstinate and allow them the priviledge of all other Church Communion as Members And this he would have Juridical although the Church be in no capacity to impower them with any acts of discipline at all nor have the help of appeals to restrain the rash proceedings of inconsiderate uncharitable zealous Ministers whose principles tend too much to division Separation and confusion in the Church who would be more careful to further the edification peace and unity of the Church were themselves under the rod of holy discipline Juridically exercised by grave learned experienced presidents which particular Presbyters in reason will not be very zealous for so long as themselves are left to themselves to exercise an absolute power to rule as they please in their own Congregation without controll I wish these petty irregular reformings prove not the greatest remora's that hinder the reformation peace and edification of the whole especially where particular Pastors and Elders are of Mr. Collins opinion 1. That makes a meer nothing of Church-membership without grace 2. That will allow them no other Covenant relation then to Heathens 3. That will not so much as allow them the external titles of Brethren Saints Believers within but reproach them with the odious names of Hogs and Dogs unbelievers and of the Devil c. though they he such as never had the benefit and help of holy discipline to amend them or try whether they sin out of weaknesse or wilfulnesse 4. That will take upon him in his own name to dissolve them from Christs commands and threaten them not to doe it upon pain of damnation 5. That will make the Sacrament strong meat that cannot be digested by weak doubting Christians 6. That knows not wherein the Officers can have any work to keep the Communion of the Church pure if not in the Sacrament 7. That will allow no more priviledge in duties of worship to the ignorant and scandalous then to Heathens out of the Church 8. That doth insolently affirm that a single Pastor alone may lawfully suspend from the Sacrament he being the ruling part of that particular Church 9. That upon the matter puts the whole of discipline in Suspension from the Lords Supper either making it the same with Excommunication or else renders Excommunication needlesse in the Church Are men thus leavened with Brownism fit to be rulers in the Church of God Or like to preserve the peace unity edification and seek reformation of the whole according to the general rules and ends prescribed in the Scriptures I appeal to the standing rule of Sciptures to judge whether such as himself or the friends of my judgement and opinions as to the weal of the Church it being judged true by both be consonant unto it and whether he or we be guilty of the most folly and filth and defend such things as is a shame to be named amongst Christians as himself expresses against our opinion in opposing his pag. 98. I come to his ninth argument the sum is If scandalous persons not excommunicate nor unclean were debarred the Passeover then such may be suspended from the Lords Supper but the first is true therefore the latter I grant the consequence is good Answ but let him prove the antecedent that scandalous sinners not cut off nor unclean were debarred some Ordinances and the Passeover I dare give him seven years time to prove that by Scriptures either by direct text or sound consequence that cannot rationally be denyed all that hath been said to that thing is to give us a glosse of moral uncleannesse and thence argue that if the legal unclean might not eat the Passeover much lesse the moral unclean if the legal unclean defiled holy things much more moral uncleannesse the consequence is naught Because 1. The Church of the Jews were in Covenant relation and holy in a Covenant sense and no where blamed or debarred the Ordinances of the Church upon any such account 2. Because it was either punished by their Judicials or taken away by a continual course of Sacrifices and therefore could not rest upon them much lesse bar them from the Sacrament of the Passeover 3. Because nothing could excuse from the not observing of that service in its appointed season but legal uncleannesse and a necessary journey upon their lives if nothing else would excuse then all others were to keep it 4. It 's clear that some did keep the Passeover that were guilty of that which you will say was moral uncleannesse Ezra 9.1 after they had kept the Passeover complaint was brought unto Ezra saying The people of Israel Priests and Levites have not separated themselves from the people of the lands doing according to their abominations of the Canaanites c. for they have taken of the daughters for themselves and for their sons and the Princes have been chief in this trespasse 5. I say further that in some cases the people of
The substance of this is much to be doubted of Answ unlesse our common people were more ignorant then the common people in Rome or Italy who are taught that Ignorance is the Mother of Devotion and I think the most of Orthodox Protestants were more grieved about the gesture determined by the Church and those superstitious rails and turning the Table Altarwise and the insufficient administrators then at our free admission of Church-members Suppose all he saith were true is there no way to reform but to remove the foundations of the Churches established doctrine worship and discipline and innovate wayes of our own politick choosing different to all other setled reformed Churches as himself confesses Say our malady in a great part was ignorance could not they begun reformation with a more then ordinary diligence in teaching and instruction and friendly admonition in the carrying on all Gods ordinances in love reverence and unity taking all advantages to promote knowledg in which in time we might have hoped to see some good proficiency in the growing up of the whole together by the goodnesse and blessing of the Lord. For it 's certain that the Scriptures teach not any thing about the censuring of Church-members for ignorance simply and to deprive Church-members of the benefit of Gods Ordinances for causes lesse then the Scriptures do warrant is no reformation but rather an usurpation upon the priviledge and right of a Church-member Say again that loose and scandalous members was another part of our malady is the denying the Sacrament to a multitude of such sinners the only way to reform them What care such for the Sacrament so long as it 's the ordinary case of most and they may have the liberty of all the other Ordinances in the Church as members How is this like to reform their persons when they may be let alone to be loose and profane if they doe but keep away from the Sacraments Such a kinde of reforming that was never read of in holy writ nor in any Orthodox Authors Had it not been better to reform according to Scripture rules and precedents we judging all in the Church adhering to the Protestant Religion Church-members to have prest them unto all Christian observance and to have dealt with them as those that are within and to have proceeded against some unto the like admonitions and excommucation Juridically Gods way is alwayes best and we may groundedly hope to have his way attended with a blessing of successe in the amendment of the worst sinners amongst us It 's a pitiful shift to prevent our strictest professors from running into the Brownists Congregations to practise their principles and so become like them in making admission to the Lords Supper upon a publike profession of faith the only ground to unite and imbody the visible Church into Ecclesiastical Communion and so in gratifying some few in their error require such terms unto actual receiving of necessity that the baptized in the Church of years are no where bound to submit unto nor in a capacity to come unto And yet are under the obligation of actual receiving unlesse in plain tearms you will unchurch them and so unduty them and speak out as the Brownists do But I think enough hath been said already as to this and therefore I shall now take my leave of my Reader having done with the main things in Mr. Collins late Book as it opposes free admission to the Lords Supper And I hope Mr. Collins may seriously conceive himself soberly and rationally answered as to Juridical Suspension distinct from Excommunication as himself hath stated it He hath taken some pains to prove it in the power of a single Minister to suspend from the Supper but I think it needlesse to examine him or answer him in that for I know that Mr. Collins will have work enough to maintain that Suspension from the Lords Supper which he cals Juridical he might first have tryed how he could have come off with this before he had shewed himself so forward to goe about to prove that which is so denyed by all that are Orthodox and sober And I know were there any thing in what he hath said of private Suspension considerable and worthy of a consutation that learned Reverend Gentleman Mr. Joanes whom he attempts to answer would call him to an acount of his forwardnesse of Spirit to Lord it over Gods heritage and to be a Pope in his own Congregation FINIS A BRIEF ANSWER TO THE ANTIDIATRIBE WRITTEN By Mr. Saunders Minister of Hollesworth in Devonshire Wherein his chief Strength in Defence of Separation in a Church and Examination in order to admitting To the LORDS-SVPPER Is Examined and the way he defends proved to be SCHISMATICAL LONDON Printed by E. Cotes for William Tomson at Harborough in Leicestershire 1655. ABRIEF ANSWER To Mr. SAUNDERS ANTIDIATRIBE IN the midst of these unhappy and dividing times in the Church of God I know not how such a worm as I should improve a few hours better after redious lâ—bor in my honest calling then by remembring the happy and ever to be desired Peace and Reformation of renowned Zion As it is my daily prayer so it is a part of my dayly care and study to endeavour that the Churches peace and truth may meet in one And hence it is that I so often appear against those who upon dangerous mistakes destroy and pluck up the main principles and foundations on which the Churches peace and reformation should stand and consist in How sad are our miseries like to be in the end when those that are our professed friends are ever hatching of new unheard of wayes of Separation and Schism Amongst others this unhappy Author doth bear his share by defending such a way that is rarely met withall and yet cryed up to be the way of truth and reformation according unto Gospel rule The way he defends in brief is this some certain Ministers and Christians have agreed to form up a Church in the choyce of a Pastor Officers and members in some one place The tearms agreed on unto admission to and exclusion from the sacred Communion of this Church as to the holy Supper is either a publick profession of faith or submitting to a Church examination in giving an account of their knowledge and faith unto satisfaction c. and so likewise as to practise they require not only a freedome from things scandalous but some real demonstrations of the faith of holinesse unto admittance This way it appears hath been rigorously carryed on against the consent of some able Ministers in those parts And something is excepted against their way by a solid reverend Gentleman I judge with several demands and queries and objections for them to answer and clear in defence of their way and practise Mr. Saunders in behalf of the rest hath taken some pains to give satisfaction unto others professing himself ready to stand or fall as the truth is with him or against
and which none ever was denyed in the Apostolical Churches during their abode in those Churches And to those that judge ours lawfully baptized and in a true Church cannot rationally refuse to admit them while they are within And again if the examination defended be a necessary duty why not binding unto all Church-members of the same kinde Necessary duties use to be universal How comes this to be restrained only to such as well may be suspected for incompetent knoweldge Sure if it be a necessary duty it is incumbent upon all in the Church or else to none at all if a Minister be at liberty to dispense with some a gift may blind their eyes at length But what Scriptures determine of the just measure of this competent knowledge that the Ignorant are to be examined of without which they must be excluded the Sacrament if no certain rule can be found to satisfie us in this how can men determine of it Then it will follow as in all other doubtful or groundless things so many men so many mindes and will but adde more fewel to our too many hot divisions already And know an unquestionable duty of publick worship should be made void upon such trifling uncertainties that not any are able to determine of seems to me too great a boldnesse in man Thus as briefly as I could I have not only questioned the question but have examined it in particulars thereof by explaining and yeelding something and by denying other things intended by the Author And I think the true question is this Whether it be the duty of all professing the true Religion and admitted into fellowship and Communion of the Church already by holy baptism and constantly attend the publick Worship of God to give an account of their knowledge and faith upon the command and examination of their Minister and Officers and either to be admitted or refused the Lords Supper as these examiners shall approve or not approve of the measure truth and soundnesse of the knowledge of all and whether all that refuse to submit to this duty are justly to be excluded the Sacrament I dare say that 's the proper question as to our case and now I come to examine the Scriptures and reasons laid down by Mr. Saunders to prove the affirmative Namely that all are bound to stand to this tryal before they can lawfully be admitted to the Lords Supper His quotations are many and he is something large upon them therefore I must desire the Readers patience in my answer yet I will promise thee I have laboured to avoid all tedious impertinences Mr. Saunders first proof 1 Cor. 14.40 Let all things be done decently and in order This he saith is a general rule serving till the worlds end to direct the Churches in matters of outward worship whereof this of admission to and exclusion from the Lords Supper is one Who knows not that the Apostle as in the 11. chapter Answ 1 reproves the Church of Cotinth for her divisions and disorders in their publick Assemblies in the very time of administring the Lords Supper and prescribes them rules and orders in special as to the reforming of those profane disorders so in this chapter he takes them up for some other disorders they were guilty of in the like assemblies in the carrying on of some other exercises of Religion amongst themselves as verse 26. doth intimate How is it then brethren when you come together every one of you hath a Psalm hath a doctrine hath a tongue hath a revelation hath an interpretation let all things be done to edifying The fault was this in the exercises of these different gifts by different persons they observed no order but made a confusion all exercising their particular gifts at once that not any could be edified by anothers gift either for his own or because so many spoke together that those that were hearers could not tell which to attend c. Therefore after many particular directions prescribed to particular cases lest the Apostle should omit some other things that might fall out about the ordering of Worship in the Church of God he gives them more general rules that might reach all other the like cases Let all things be done decently and in order The Apostle orders speech and silence in their Assemblies so as all may be edified and comforted but here is not a word of admission to and exclusion from the Sacrament nor any other Ordinance in the Church for they that were received into the Church were bound as Christians to attend upon all Ordinances of publick Worship while they were within this rule was given to direct us about some necessary circumstances in the ordering of necessary worship which other Scriptures inforce upon all in the Church to observe as time and place and external order in all parts of institute worship decent and reverent gesture silence and watchings authorized administrators c. But Mr. Saunders consequence is false for it is not such a general rule as he would have it namely to warrant a Minister to receive of his people to duties of necessary worship whom hee pleases and refuse whom he pleases is this to direct in matters or circumstances of outward worship to exclude Christians from their necessary duties of worship If this will warrant his excluding from one Ordinance of worship then from all at his pleasure if a persons admission and exclusion be but a circumstance of outward worship then our Bishops did well in forbidding preaching and hearing in the afternoon and punishing those that made conscience of their duty otherwise By this Church-members are not left at liberty to doe what Christ commands but what the Church commands we may see how ways of mens own chooseing will warp them If this consequence had been published by a Bishop in their times Christians would have startled at it But he goes on And supposes they had no particular warrant in Gods Word to bear them out yet saith he if our course be holy and orderly it hath warrant from that general rule 1. Answ That course cannot be holy and orderly that tends to a desperate schism in the Church as I have hinted already 2. That tends to their peoples hinderance and exclusion from their necessary duties of worship as Christians 3. That is warranted by no Scripture rule 4. The discovery of the fallacie of your consequence from this general rule makes your supposition nothing for your purpose The Apostle speaks of such a rational prudential decency and order in the Church that may be necessary and yet no where in the Scriptures determined of as to particulars either in commanding or forbidding And would Ministers take up an order under the same notion to instruct ask questions of their people to that end they may better profit by every Ordinance and be incouraged to a more diligent and frequent attendance thereon in hope of a blessing I conceive were nearer the minde of Christ from this
sufficiently proved that to be their necessary duty which will not be answered these two dayes And untill that be answered the argument doth reflect upon themselves not only by being accessories of their peoples neglects of institute worship but being principals of inforcing those neglects of necessary worship groundlesly hindering those that would 1. You must prove that the baptized rational members of the Church if ignorant and in some things offensive are forbid the Lords Supper and yet stand bound as members to all other observances of worship 2. That a scandalous member indulged leavens the Church by doing lawful and religious actions commanded 3. That the prime end in casting out the scandalous obstinate is to keep them from the Sacrament mainly I say that which leavens a Church is to connive at the scandalous by not doing what they are in a capacity to doe in acts of severe censures to reform them it being far from my heart to think that the good actions of a scandalous brother indulged doth leaven the whole but his evill actions not punished with severity of discipline according unto rule But why the Church should be leavened more by the admission of such to the Sacrament theâ— to holy prayer c. is to me a mysterie because the Scriptures are clear both in commanding spiritual qualifications in order to prayer and forbidding the evill and yet are silent as to these in order to the Sacrament 2. It cannot be denyed but the Sacraments are the most carnal Ordinances in the Gospel Church consisting of external matter that more suites with our bodily senses then any other And lastly the weaknesse of their argument that cry up the holy Supper above her fellows in the Church with the mischievous effects that follow thereupon inevitably Yet notwithstanding to prevent mistake I judg the Lords Supper equal in dignity and holinesse with the rest of holy appointments in the Church as being holy in respect of the holinesse of the Author institution use and ends requiring as much of preparation reverent approaches and divine adoration in this part of sacred Worship as any other part of worship prescribed His eight and ninth proofs are Heb. 13.17 1 Pet. 3.15 pag. 151. Obey them that have the rule over you c. be ready to give an answer to every one that asketh a reason of the hope that is in you The sum of that in Peter is but this he saith If this were to be given before an enemy then much more and easier is it to be made before friends such as desire to be helpers of mens faith not upbraiders of their weaknesse The Author shews some ingenuity upon this text Answ as if he were tender of wresting the sense he yeelds it concerns Christians under the tyranny of persecutors to be constant in their profession and therefore waves the consequence he had a minde to He doth not say if to enemies then much more it 's your duty as Christians to make profession of your faith and hope before friends as necessary to admission to the Sacrament Which he should had the text been for his purpose But he saith if this were to be given before an enemy then much more and easier is it to be made before friends So that here he insinuates by way of motive as helping their faith c. and I dare say it will be sooner yeelded unto upon that score then upon the account of a necessary duty and I shall highly honour those that are endeavouring to their utmost to draw on all their people to some profession of faith or other provided they doe it to no other ends but to help forward the weak and ignorant in faith and knowledge without the least infringement of the priviledges of the Ordinances in the Church they stand bound to observe as they are professing Christians But for men to urge it as a necessary duty in the name of Christ when he never commands it at all to any such â—nd they pretend that is in order to admission to and exclusion from the Sacrament is that which I think my self bound to oppose as superstitions pernicious and tyrannical in the Church of Christ And I doubt not but to make it good against all those that will acknowledge the constitution and form of our Church to be true at present though in some things out of order I confesse my expressions may be judged too harsh but I hope you will a little bear with my zeal it being in the behalf of the Church defending their just rights against those that thing they doe well to degrade them of the same That of Heb. 13.17 doth now come to be spoken to Mr. Saunders observes 1. That the people under them must be ruled and governed by them 2. Ministers must give an account of them which cannot be well done without taking knowledge of their estates 3. They must not only preach and exhort but doe all else which may conduce to the peoples salvation 4. If people obey not their Rulers in the Church they hurt themselves two wayes 1. By sinning against this command 2. By sadding their Pastors hearts and so lessening their profit by his Ministry All these are applicable to our purpose urging activity on the Ministers as well in discipline as in preaching calling for compliance from the people To his 1. where a Church is so happy Answ 1 as to have regular Rulers chosen by the whole and set a part to exercise holy discipline Authoritatively I grant that not only the people but every Minister ought to be ruled and governed by them in all lawful and profitable things but I deny that in the want of such Rulers and government any Minister or Ministers by vertue of that Function alone may assume to themselves an authoritative power to exercise acts of Jurisdiction over their people although the people out of ignorance should desire it I grant that the people should be obedient to their Ministers in the religious carrying of that Ministerial work accordingto Gospel rule but I deny that the Apostle intended the peoples obedience to every fancy that some have the boldnesse in these times to urge upon their people to their great prejudice and spiritual hurt in debarring them some necessary duty and Covenant blessing Therefore as children unto parents so people unto their Pastors must be obedient in all things but with this restriction in the Lord for this is right Ephes 6.7 To his second Ministers must give an account of them which cannot well be without taking knowledge of their estates Answ 1. He doth not keep to the tearms of the text The Apostle doth not say that Ministers must give an account of their people whether they be good or bad profitable or unprofitable but he saith for they watch for your souls as they that must give an account that they may doe it with joy and not with grief c. The sense is this they must perform all necessary duties
supposes faith It 's sufficient for our opinion because all in the Church doe accept of the Covenant and have faith And we doe not plead for Heathens untill they believe and come under baptism But surely the death of Christ confirmed the everlasting Covenant out of which faith with the fruits thereof freely flow And I think Sacraments are no other wayes seals then they are signs of his death as it is said This cup is the new Covenant in my bloud the cup was not really the new Covenant but a sign thereof representatively as I have hinted before Yet surely saith Mr. Collins those that are in a state of unbelief are not in Covenant though they may be objects of Gods first free grace Answ If they be not in the everlasting Covenant they cannot be said to be objects of Gods first free grace for doubtlesse God gives grace to none that are out of that Covenant himself grants that the elect are enrold in the everlasting Covenant and many of them may be in the Church I hope though in a state of unbelief in his sense and doubtlesse it is for the elects sake that we have an external administration a Church consisting of most bad that his elect may be gathered out of all sorts of sinners and others left without excuse is this wise contrivance of the ever blessed God And hence this mingled state of good and bad must grow together untill the harvest experience doth tell us what precious wheat hath sprung out of the roots of wicked tares And wicked tares have sprung out of the roots of the choycest wheat let that convince us Mr. Collins saith That argument about baptism hath been answered again and again The argument is this If parents that are ignorant and scandalous in the Church be so much in Covenant as to give their children right unto holy baptism a seal of the Covenant then themselves have right to the holy Supper it being but the seal of the same Covenant The antecedent is granted by Mr. Collins and all that are friends to his judgement and yet they deny the consequence because they say more is required to the Lords Supper then unto Baptism Unto this I answer It cannot be proved that in in the Apostles days more was required unto the Supper then to baptism of persons of years it 's clear enough that which prepared them for baptism brought them into the Church And that being once within they had the priviledges of the Church accordingly is without question Lesse is required unto Covenant seals of persons born in the Church they being free born to all the priviledges of this spiritual Corporation then of those that are aliens and strangers by birth these obtain their freedom upon the terms of faith and repentance The ignorant and scandalous are in as good a capacity of the Supper of the Lord as their children are of the baptism of the Lord they being under Church indulgence First They are in an active capacity of exercising the understanding heart and conscience memory with all the externals required unto that service their children are meerly passive for the other Secondly Parents are in possession of the feals of themselves but their children before baptism are not Parents in the Church derive as much right from their Ancestors as their children doe untill they be discovenanted if not more as being a generation neerer that right If parents Covenant relation be sufficient to give right to the seals for his childe then surely for himself Besides the contradiction in the other opinion of Mr. Collins as first he pleads the Covnaâ—nt for the parents unto their childrens baptism and then disputes them out of Covenant in his admission unto the holy Supper They shall be accounted believers as to the one but unbelievers as to the other The promise is to them and their children in order unto baptism but then in order to the holy Supper there is no more promise belongs unto them then unto Pagans And there is no promise made to any that have not faith to apply them and so exclude children from the promise too at last for they have not such a faith as to apply the promises Thus you may see he is a Presbyterian in practice and an Anabaptist in opinion For if his judgement be true about baptism then it 's false about the holy Supper if his judgement be true about the Supper then it 's false about baptism for both are the same seal of the same Covenant exhibited only by different figns People had need be well setled and satisfied of themselves in these times that keep their station in the Church where they have such Teachers and meet with such opinions that destroy all The truth is our straightnesse in the one and largenesse in the other doth destroy it self and doth occasion most intelligent Christians either to fall off from Infant baptism or else to restrain it to those that are judged fit to be received into holy Communion in the Lords Supper Had it not been for our own scruples about admitting to the Supper casting off the most of Church-members from Communion under the notion of ignorant and scandalous we had never known of these exorbitances in the Church which now we suffer under by the separations It is an easie thing for Mr. Collins to say the argument is answered again and again not telling us by whom nor how But if it be not better answered then he hath done it in his answer to Mr. Barksdel he must answer it again or else it must be unanswered and cleave close unto him still as such a Church-rent that he will never free himself of unlesse he alter his judgement which he will finde the readiest way of the two In his 15. pag. to Mr. Barksdels 10. argument for free admission he puts in three exceptions He grants children are baptized in their parents right but yet can see no reason why it should necessarily be the immediate parent True for sometimes it may fall out Answ that both parents may be excommunicate or turn'd Apostates in these cases it 's not necessary but otherwise being of the true Christian Church and faith the ignorant and scandalous being in actual Church-membership and baptized give as true a legal right to their childs baptism as any other member what ever so long as their own right holds their childs right doth also and that immediately from them is to the sober unquestionable Indeed if parents be never so really godly and unbaptized their childrens right to baptism must either be derived from Ancestors or else have none at all a visible peofession of faith in persons baptized gives a true right for their childe to the Sacramental seal and consequently for themselves to the same seal of the Supper there was the same danger for the neglect of the Passeover as for circumcision He saith further There is no self-examination prerequired unto baptism but to the Supper a man must
in some things that they might doe rather then to cause their Brother to offend so uncharitably But in the 10. chapter he comes more close and addes several arguments taken from their relation they had to God as they were of his Church and people and invested with such priviledges of gifts and graces and of Church Ordinances in which they had Communion with Christ and one with another as he instances in Sacramental Communion c. Well this he yeelds unto them and then draws his argument 1. From the Church of the Jews they were related unto God as near as we can be and they had the same Sacraments and other peculiar Ordinances of Gods own prescribing yet notwithstanding the Lord often punished them for their sins I and for as small sins as some of them were guilty of and therefore he would have the Corinthians and all others be warned and admonished by such precedents of Gods severity towards his own the particular instances thereof are written for our admonition Wherefore let him that think he stands take caution lest he fals It 's a dangerous thing to goe to the outside of your liberty and to put your selves upon such dangerous temptations as to go into the Idol Temple to feast with Idolaters Gods people before time have been drawn into Idolatry by such temptations and so might they And yet see the tendernesse and the good opinion the Apostle had of them he mingles his sharp with some sweet telling them that although some of them had miscarryed in this very thing yet there hath no temptation taken you but what is common unto frail imperfect man but God is faithfull who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able c. And hence exhorts to decline the temptation v. 14. Wherefore my beloved Brethren flee from Idolatry Two things to be noted 1. He doth not call them Idolaters but his beloved Brethren that were guilty of this fault 2. He doth not charge them with flat Idolatry but is earnest to perswade them to flee the temptations appearances occasions of Idolatry He spake unto wise men that as they gave offence this way so they were able to judge of his arguments and manner of dealing with them still yeelding unto them their deserts that his arguments might the better take with them to reform them but still goes on with further considerations that might further convince them and be prevailing to reform the evil by commending unto them the consideration of their Sacramental Communion vers 16 17. comprehending all The cup of blessing which we blesse is it not the Communion of the bloud of Christ Doubtlesse it was unto the whole Church in a Sacramental sense as follows For we being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of that one bread even those that were in fault were a part of that many and all we are all partakers of that one Sacramental bread and consequently of Christ Sacramentally as he gives a proof thereof vers 18. Behold Israel after the flesh are not they which eat of the Sacrifices partakers of the Altar this they could not deny but must yeeld it What say I then that the Idoll is any thing or that which is offered in Sacrifice to Idols is any thing He grants them that still which they so much stood upon but yet he saith This is something that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice unto Devils and not to God and I would not that you should have fellowship with Devils That 's the consequence and here lyes the argument If as you are Christians by eating the instituted bread you have Communion together and partake of Christ the end of that bread then as you eat and partake with the Gentiles in those things that are consecrated and sacrificed to the Devill you have communion with Devils or as Israel which eat of the Sacrifices of the Altar were partakers of the Altar even so Christians with Heathens that eat of the things sacrificed unto Devils were partakers of Devils This by consequence was a greater evil then they were aware of and therefore he tels them I would not that you should have fellowship with Devils which had they been aware of doubtlesse they would have declined it The Apostle having thus brought the sin home by such an argument that could not be evaded then he concludes from hence that you cannot drink of the cup of the Lord and of the cup of Devils Ye cannot be partakers of the Table of the Lord and of the table of Devils Doe you provoke the Lord to jealousie are you stronger then he c. vers 21 22. Well now we are come to the place that Mr. Collins makes the very bottome of his argument You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of Devils c. That I conceive is to be understood thus so long as they profest themselves for Christ and continued in his visible body the Church and were partakers of the Sacramental Communion with Christ they could not without sin drink the cup of Devils and be partakers of the table of Devils there was such a direct opposition in these two Tables that it was a thing inconsistent or a contradiction for one to partake of both as a Heathen might not drink the cup of the Lord so a Christian might not drink the cup of Devils there was a diametrical opposition in these two even as much as Christ and Belial Accordingly our blessed Saviour in another case No man can serve two Masters that is two Masters directly contrary ye cannot serve God and Mammom And so Elijah If the Lord be God follow him if Baal be God follow him they could not follow both who will or can imagine that our Saviour spoke this to forbid such to serve God Or that Elijah forbid the Israelites to follow God because he said they could not follow both And yet Mr. Collins strength of phancy hath wryed his reason that he will have the Corinths forbid the Sacrament and their serving of God therein because they could not doe both The Apostle's end in writing is to reform the evil by forbidding them the cup of Devils but Mr. Collins end in writing is to forbid them the cup of the Lord and that 's all the reformation that he drives at But the Apostle goes on and grants as much at the last as he did at the first All things are lawfull for me but all things are not expedient all things are lawfull but all things edifie not vers 23 24. meaning the things that were sacrificed unto Idols upon the same account as at first that an Idol is nothing in the world chap. 8. But the thing was inexpedient and uncharitable did rather destroy then edifie my self or brother and therefore adviseth not to seek our own but every man anothers wealth c. And so he hath done with that only he hints at another case upon their
civil and necessary occasions if they bought any such meat at the shambles they might lawfully eat it without scruple of conscience nay further if an unbeliever should bid a Christian to a civil feast he leaves them to their own liberty to goe and eat whatsoever was set before them But I have been too long already yet I was willing to search after the true sense of the place which is not easily discerned unlesse we minde heedfully the scope especially when a thing is in an intricate case and so much reasoning largely held out proving that to be evill by consequence as cloathed with some circumstances which in it's self in its own nature is lawful and good as here Now I shall examine Mr. Coll. argument what bottome it stands on his argument is It 's unlawful to give the Sacrament unto those that cannot eat it But there may be some in the Church not Excommunicate who cannot drink of the Lords cup Ergo c. His Major he saith is proved vers 21. I will confess that in this place we have the Sacrament spoken of and that those that the Apostle blames for drinking the cup of Devils were not Excommunicate but yet I deny that it was unlawful to give the Sacrament to such For 1. it 's a great question and will require some time for Mr. Collins to prove That eating of things offered unto Idols was a sin that came within the verge of the Church to punish with putting such out of Sacramental Communion In the 5. chapter as I take it those that the Apostle deals with in the 10. Chapter are not in that particular list vers 11. which the Church was to judge doubtlesse if they had been such Idolaters that in the 5. chap. 11. he speaks of he would have threatned the rod and given order unto the Elders of the Church to put out of their Communion such Idolaters for their connivence at Idolaters would leaven the lump as well as an incestuous person but herein not a word of any such thing But he will be ready to say The Apostle spoke of putting out of Comâ—union before in the 5. chap. therefore it was not necessary to repeat it again in the 10. I but how will these things hang together 1. To give a charge to the Church to cast out Idolaters and then himself using such mildnesse of speech and variety of argumentation as I have shewed to convince them that it was a sin granting the thing in it self lawfull but evill in respect of some circumstances 2. The main argument to prove their eating and drinking in the Idol Temple to be a sin was drawn from the nature of the Sacrament in which themselves as Christians are said to have Communion with Christ by being partakers of the cup and bread consicrated for to represent the body and bloud of Christ in like manner they were said to have Communion with Devils by being partakers of the cup and meat in the Idol Temple that was consecrated and offered unto Idols and hence the Apostle would not have them to have Communion with Devils as all his other reasons so this tends solely to reform them in that particular of eating in the Idol Temple and not a word of forbidding any such the Sacrament as Mr. Collins would have it when he saith The sum is they who cannot drink the cup of the Lord are either 1. Such as God hath forbidden coming thither 2. Or those that can have no Communion with Christ nor benefit by this Ordinance Those that give credit to that sense Answ must be such as adhere more to Mr. Collins fancy then the sense of holy Scriptures what are any of those two to the text in hand was any forbid the Sacrament that eat of things offered unto Idols 2. Doth not the Apostle affirm that they all had Communion with Christ in partaking of the cup of blessings Is not that the very medium of his argument the Apostle argues from their Sacramental Communion as Christians to decline Communion with Idolaters Mr. Collins argues from their Communion with Idols to a none Communion as Christians And thus the Judicious Reader may easily judge of the soundation of his argument who out of an inconsiderate rashnesse most grossely runs upon mistake and thence forms a silly syllogism pag. 29. I grant it a sin to deliver the Sacrament to those whom we know God hath forbid it But I deny that these of Corinth spoken of are in the least so much as blamed or in the least tittle forbid the Sacrament the Apostle proves they all took it and had Communion in Christ in it I wonder that ever a man pretending unto sober principles should be so fond as to think that those that the Apostles writes to as Saints sanctified in Christ Jesus his dearly beloved Brethren and writing unto them as wise men and such that had great gifts and largenesse of knowledge in their liberties by Jesus Christ that knew an Idol was nothing in the world and that which was offered was never the worse every creature of God was good and not to be resused c. as the Apostle yeelds I say how he comes to think that these should be forbidden the Sacrament and to be such as could not have Communion with Christ makes me wonder if Saints and the Apostles dearly beloved Brethren whom he argues so friendly with were not under Christs command of this necessary observance in the Church then here is not any that are but I have said enough to this already and all that he saith to this text is most irrational and impertinent to prove that some in the Church not excommunicated ought to be denyed the Sacrament this place proves that they did all partake of that one Sacramental bread 1 Cor. 10.17 and puts the thing past questioning He hath more things in making good his argument but having pluckt up his ground work it 's too tedious both for me to write and you to read the confutation of the rest for it will fall of it self you must grant him what he sayes to be true because he sayes it for he is not able in the least to bring any one argument from Scripture to prove suspension distinct from Excommunication as himself states it I will trouble you but with two things more of his in this argument for now I intend brevity in all he has further to say in defence of Suspension for I know not any one thing more much material that I have not fully answered in the former discourse in order to his several exceptions against the Bar removed He sayes He hopes we have all too reverend thoughts of the wisdome of God to think that he should lay an obligation upon his Ministers to give this Ordinance unto them whom he hath warned upon pain of damnation not to take it What is this but to beg the question Answ and thence insinuate upon us an absurdity let him first prove that a