from the Sacrament only Nay the Church is not blamed for their giving the Sacrament to that incestuous member but for not punishing him for his sin by excommunication hence we may doe things that are commanded and lawful with scandalous brethren not cast out by Excommunication Although this incestuous person was in Church Communion and fellowship with them in all the Ordinances yet the Apostle in the 10. chapter tels them vers 17. We being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of that one bread meaning the Sacrament and the incestuous person was one of that all and they were commended for keeping the Ordinances of the Church chap. 11.2 and not blamed nor punished for any such cause as their admitting of an incestuous person nor was he punished with others that the Lord was angry with for the profaning his Ordinance in the very time of that observance therefore it 's not well doing in one that is scandalous and not cast out that doe leaven the whole but his doing and living in that which is wicked and being let alone through Church negligence that leavens the lump The Apostle no where saith if one that is called a Brother be an ignorant person or unregenerate or one that cannot pray ex tempore c. with such doe not eat but he instances in scandalous sins only I confesse Mr. Collins hath a great many words about this no not eat with such which had he applyed to a Brother Excommunicate it would be yeelded him but his argument is a different thing for it 's of a Brother not cast out by Excommunication 1. Can any disoblige a brother from his necessary duties of instituted Worship that is not under the binding power of the keyes of Christs Kingdome 2. Are we as much to decline friendly familiarity to a scandalous brother within and not so much as brought to his tryal as to one that is cast out for continuing obstinate in his sin 3. As the case doth not hold so much as to necessary company and civil eating as hath been hinted much lesse will it hold in duties of commanded worship Christs commands are of more force to oblige his visible subjects then the private prohibitions of a single Pastor with his intruded Elders It 's true they can excommunicate as well as suspend from the Sacrament but I humbly desire such to be sure that they are intrusted with the exercise of Church Discipline of binding and loosing before they put it into execution Now I shall examine what he hath drawn from 1 Cor. 10.21 to prove suspension distinct from Excommunication his argument is this It is unlawful to give the Sacrament to those that cannot eat or drink it but there may be some in the Church not excommunicated who cannot drink of the Lords Cup. Ergo. In his explaining the tearms he understands cannot eat in a moral sense and then the sense is you cannot lawfully and warrantably eat and drink the Cup of the Lord and the cup of Devils the sum of all is 1. Such as God hath forbidden to come to that Ordinance Or 2. Such as if they rush upon the Ordinance yet can have no Communion with Christ no benefit by it this he makes to be the sense and then doubts not but he shall make good his argument pag. 27 28 29. Give me leave to search into the Apostles sense and then examine how Mr. Answ 1 Collins and the holy Apostle doe agree in the sense of this Text 1 Cor. 10.21 I have said something unto this already upon another account I will be as brief as I can This is the fourth publick fault the Apostle deals with the Corinthians about First he chides them for their factious respect had about their Ministers upon which they ran into divisions and making of parties chap. 1.3 Secondly he chides them for indulging and tolerating a known member amongst them in an incestuous marriage which hath been largely handled chap. 5. Thirdly he chides them for their unnecessary suits of Law Brother with Brother in Infidel Courts before Heathen Judges Fourthly he blames them for eating of things offered in Sacrifice unto Idols at their Idolatrous Festivals in the Idol Temple chap. 8. And to that end he might reform them and take them off that were guilty as in the other different faults he applyed himself unto them with different remedies and means of reforming which would be too tedious to speak unto so here in this as it is a different fault he deals with the offenders in a different way to the former His concession with them that the thing it self to them that had knowledge was not simply a sin for an Idol was nothing and unto them there was but one God and meat commends not unto God though they had this knowledge and stood upon their liberty he tels them If you doe eat you are not the better if you doe not eat you are never the better vers 4.8 But then he tels them that this practice was dangerous and of evill consequence in respect of some circumstances 1. In respect of the Heathen that out of conscience eat it as a thing offered unto the Idol the presence of Christians emboldened them in their Idolatry 2. In respect of weak Brethren that have not that clear knowledge in the nature of the thing it self as some had which upon such Precedents was ready to venture upon the same practice and not having knowledge of himself his conscience were defiled by the liberty and practice of the other v. 10. and so by consequence it became a sin unto the strong vers 12. c. 3. Then he comes to perswade with them to forbear that practice upon several considerations and reasons 1. He urges Christian Charity in order unto the edification of others before knowledge in their liberty so as to use it to the prejudice of the weak 2. Tels them his own tendernesse in such a case rather then he by meat should make his brother to offend he would eat no flesh while the world stands 3. Then commends unto them himself and Barnabas for an ensample in another case ch 9. That although they had power as well as other Apostles to marry require maintenance from them which was no more then Christ had ordained and appointed for the Preachers of the Gospel yet they used not this power nor required any such maintenance from them and though he was free from all yet he became servant unto all to the Jew he became a Jew to the weak he became as weak that he might save some and this he did for the Gospel sake c. and then applyes it Know ye not that they which run in a race run all even so run that you may obtain even as himself denyed himself in many things which he might have lookt after for their sakes and the Gospels looking for a better prize or reward hereafter so he would have them to deny themselves
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
then be any plea for thee at the Judgement seat of Jesus Christ for he will say unto all such false hearted profane Christians at the last Depart from me ye workers of iniquity c. In the next place we come to the Sacramental Actions he says I have argued learnedly when I say the unregenerate have a hand to take and a mouth to eat which the reverent Doctor denyed because they have not faith c. I desired him to prove that faith was that hand but Mr. Collins hath prevented him and given his proof of it in John 6.54 53 56. compared with vers 40.35 50. Ephes 4.17 Joh. 3.36 The 6. of John doth prove Answ that a sincere saving faith in the person of Christ is of absolute necessity unto salvation Christ is the bread of life which came down from heaven to give life unto the dead world he that believes in him shall never hunger and thirst more but shall have everlasting life and be raised up at the last day And the very humane body of Christ as consisting of flesh and bloud without which he could not have been made a perfect Sacrifice for sin nor satisfied the justice of God for mankinde that had sinned was this bread of God which whosoever believed not hath no part in But what is this to prove that faith is the only hand to receive the outward signs of the body and bloud of our Lord Doth it follow that the same faith is as necessary to receive an outward sign as the benefits that come by Christ unto salvation This chapter proves no such thing it having no reference at all to the Sacrament of the holy Supper for these words were spoken long before the Sacrament of the Supper was instituted and ordained I hope the real flesh and bloud of Christs humane body is not to be received under the forms of bread and wine nor indeed at all for it 's the Spirit of Christ that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing The words of Christ unto his they are Spirit and life I am sorry the Papists should see our Divines applying this 6. of John to the Sacrament I say still as before that taking and eating are bodily actions and to be understood according to the rules of institution which the unregenerate Christians are capable to doe and act as well as any And it remains still to prove by Mr. Collins favour that take and eat c. is meant of faith to be the hand and mouth to take and eat with his quotations are drawn too much awry to speak his opinion I must demand further proof or else he will not clear the thing I am sure I grant that unto actual receiving of the signes there should be in every one both a knowing and a believing that Christs bloud were shed for many for remission of sins and that themselves take and eat the outward elements of bread and wine in that remembrance in hope that they are of that unmber which Christ laid down his life for I grant it necessary that every one that comes to the Lords Table come in the warranty of faith and to be fully perswaded of the lawfulnesse of their own receiving for whatsoever is not of faith is sin And hence all the Church as professing themselves Christs subjects must plead for their warranty Christs command Doe this in remembrance of him I grant it good and lawful for them that truly can in the act of receiving to exercise an act of faith in appropriating and applying the true real spiritual bread of life Jesus Christ himself with all the saving benefits of his death unto their souls but yet I deny that this is of necessity required of all that come thither to serve Christ in his own Ordinance I grant that the outward signes are holy in a relative sense as respecting their end and so are objects of faith and of the minde but as they are signs simply and elementary they are only objects of the outward senses and not of faith properly I grant that the Sacraments are of fingular use for the encrease and growth in grace of the most eminent Christians in the Church and yet have their special use for the weakest babes in the Church for knowledge and Christian obedience even the worst of members as it is Gods Ordinance may receive good by it where God is pleased to give his blessing as in all his other Ordinances set up in his Church for the spiritual good thereof Mr. Collins had thought the taking eating and drinking the outward signs must be spiritual by faith he sayes I think there is but few of his minde in Answ this for certainly nothing more clear theâ— that to take eat and drink of the signs iâ— natural and bodily which is necessary to be done by every one from the words of institution And as they are elements or creature fit to eat and drink they are properly objects of the outward senses and not of faith as I said before which natural actions are appointted unto a spiritual end which end requires the exercise of the minde memory heart and conscience faith in Christ being supposed in all that are baptized and admited thither I mean a profession of faith 〈◊〉 be saved by Jesus Christ at least And hoâ— Mr. Collins can prove that all the actions about giving and receiving must be spiritual by faith I know not unlesse he can tell how to make a Sacrament of every action aboâ—â— the Sacramental administration the which to doe will finde him some work Let hiâ— prove that take and eat is a sign of our spiritual taking and eating by faith which is more easie to be proved then the other that to take and eat must be spiritual by faith for then all natural actions are needlesse if faith be all that is meant And if those actions be significant and instruct the receiver to receive Christ by a particular applicatory act of faith I hope the unregenerate have as much need to be taught and encouraged unto this by the Sacrament as any I know nâ—â— incongruity in this I said in my Book pag. 38 39. The language of the Sacrament was in general and indefinite terms This cup is the New Testament in my bloud shed for many for remission of sins c. Mr. Collins asks who those many are and answers himself and saith disciples of Christ It 's true Answ 1 Christs Disciples are of those many Christ shed his bloud for And what doth Mr. Collins conceive of Church-members baptized and not excommunicate Are not they Christs disciples if not let him prove them Infidels if he can When the Lord Jesus said he shed his bloud for many he means not only his disciples in present being that are called and sanctified but the whole number of his elect in all ages and places of the world for remission of sins and the Sacramental cup is a token and seal thereof to be received at all times by the
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
will give you an acquittance or a release from Excommunication keep but from the Sacrament you need not fear any examination adomonition or excommunication if you can but dispense with your conscience carelessely to neglect this Ordinance you may freely enjoy all the rest as well as a Heathen or an Excommunicate person Nay it may be if you will but keep from the Sacrament he will allow you the title of Brethren as well as an Excommunicate person but if you will not be satisfied unlesse you may receive the Sacrament in remembrance of Christ for remission of sins then you must look to be called Hogs and Dogs unbelievers murderers of Christ the profane world that are without hope and God in the world This argument of his doth better become a Brownist then one that pretends to a friendly owning of our Church but the poor Church may say these slanders divisions Separations and confusions are the wounds that she hath received by the hands of such friends All that he saith in proof of his Minor hath been sufficiently answered already both by my learned friend Mr. Humfrey and my self I intend brevity for there is nothing left in his following arguments much considerable His seventh Argument Either it 's lawful for the Officers to deny the Sacrament to such as they finde ignorant scandalous and impenitent or they are bound to give into such But they are not bound to give it to such Ergo. His proof of the Minor is The Officers are not bound to administer the Ordinance to those who they know are not bound to receive it but the ignorant and scandalous are visibly such as are not bound to receive it Ergo. His main proof of this Minor is this If such be bound to receive then they are bound to make themselves guilty of the body and bloud of Christ and to eat and drink their own damnation which are strange things for a man to be bound in conscience unto This argument is wholly founded upon that grosse mistake of personal unworthinesse Answ which I have so clearly confuted at large in it's place where I shall refer the Reader for full satisfaction His eight Argument If none may be suspended but those who are excommunicated then none must be kept away but those that are contumacious But some may be kept away who are not contumacious Ergo. The major is plain Mat. 18. The minor only needs proof saith he 1. Surely those that are under admonition are to be kept away 2. Suppose one should come to the Minister the morning he were to receive and blaspheme Christ and tell him he came for nothing but to abuse the Church or suppose a Minister should know one of his people had committed murder theft incest whoredome the night before c. shall such be admitted they not being excommunicate if not then there is suspension distinct from Excommunication pag. 98. The Major admits of some question Answ 1 for Matth. 18.15 speaks not very clearly unto all cases that instance is of particular trespasses between private brethren which are things of a lesser nature yet these persisted in unto contumacy after the Churches admonition makes one lyable unto Excommunication but I question whether all publike notorious open scandalous sinners in the Church be thus to be proceeded against especially when their scandalous sinning is of long continuance and doth offend the Congregation the whole Congregation in such a case is to be satisfied which cannot be by a private repentance should it be supposed upon the admonitionof the Church I think the incestuous Corinth was not dealt withall according to that rule Matth. 18.15 Publike sins should have publike shame that others may fear and the offender be brought to a serious and notorious repentance before the Church declare themselves satisfied and receive them into holy Communion so that I think for the Church to proceed gradually in some cases as such as Mr. Collins doth instance in is not alwayes necessary nor to wait untill the offender appears to be obstinate but ipso facto to be forthwith censured But these cases are not to be left to the discretion of every particular Pastor to judge of but to the discretion and grave judgement of the ruling part of the whole Church Besides I question whether one that hath been often reproved in the publike Ministery and yet lives in scandalous sins of whoredome drunkennesse cursing and swearing variance and contention c. is not to be judged contumacious and upon that account the Church being in a capacity and informed should upon sufficient proof without delay Excommunicate him I leave these things to better Judgements but yet I am inclinable to conceive that Matth. 18. most properly respects private trespasses which are not openly known and how that rule should hold to be applyed in the same manner to open scandals that cause the name of God and the true profession of Religion to be blasphemed and reproached I am not very clear But now we shall examine his Minor But some may be kept away from the Sacrament that are not contumacious So may some be Excommunicate that are not contumacious as I have hinted at Answ which if that be true then the argument fals to nothing of it self But he saith surely Those that are under admonition are to be kept away This he begs how will he prove it For where the offence will admit of hearing the Churches admonition and upon that give hope or satisfaction of amendment why should they be kept from the Sacrament more then the other Ordinances they not being authoritatively put out of Church Communion is it rational for to execute before sentence be given Unto his suppositions I shall answer him first they are no proof If such may be Juridically suspended then they may be Juridically excommunicated for it is Juridical Suspension that is now in question And as it is stated the Church may as well doe the one as the other And the Church need not be long in giving sentence in such cases if there be clear proof besides the Sacrament may rather be rejourned for a short time then that any should justly be offended or that a single Minister should doe that which is not regular Murder thest incest whoredome is Felony by the civil Law of the Nation and if any can discover any such they should attach and put them into the custody of the Civil Officers these are gaol sins and to be punished by the Judges And I know no rule that doth warrant the Church to censure those that are under the penalty of the course of civil Courts of Justice If one should grant that in an extraordinary case some extraordinary course at the present might be taken as suppose some profane abuse at the Sacrament as to disturb the administration by some disorder I doubt not but the Churchwardens might thrust them out of the Church do the like to any that should come drunk or mad but what is
stated it pag. 20. These were not excluded any Communion for ignorance but for disorderly walking And we allow some examination to finde out offenders in the exercise of discipline but deny that the Church upon finding her members greatly defective in knowledge for that she may exclude them from fellowship in some Ordinances without better proof But because both reverend and learned Interpreters are uncertain and in doubt of the practical part of the Apostles directions as touching the offending Brethren I shal here contribute that little of my dark apprehensions I have at present towards the searching after the sense of the place And in so doing three things are to be inquired after especially First The quality or condition of the person Secondly The nature of the sin Thirdly The remedy prescribed to reform the sinner In the first there is no difficulty at all that the Apostle meant a brother one that was within and a Christian all agree so as touching the nature of the sin writ about it is clear enough How Mr. Saunders should be so wide is to be admired in applying the remedy to wrong persons vers 2. It 's certain the fault or sin intended was this there was one or some of that Christian Church that altogether neglected the workes of their particular calling and lived in idlenesse not working at all vers 11. and not only so but that such were guilty of that common vice that alwayes attends idle persons they were busie bodies in the same verse and this is usual when a mans minde is not taken up in some lawful calling he is subject to those temptations for want of businesse of his own he will busie himself with other mens and for want of necessaries of his own which idlenesse brings upon him he is ready to thrust in where he can and backbite flatter invent tales tending to the disquiet and contention of the places where such are this seems to be intimated ver 12. In the first part of the remedy he commanding them in the authority of Christ that with quietnesse they work eating their own bread yet they might the rather be gently dealt with because they having newly received the knowledge of Christian hope of eternal life by him they might be so taken with this mercy that it might take some off from their necessary occasions and make them think that they should alwayes be talking and speaking of the things of Christ they not considering the inconveniences that would follow thereupon not only the burdening of the Church but giving an occasion of the growth and putting forth such vitious corruptions hinted at before that the corrupt nature of all men are more or lesse inclined unto The remedy prescribed consists of several parts I shall but touch at things A command in a double respect The first was when he was with them in person vers 10. and this ran upon a penalty This we commanded you that if any would not work neither should he eat notwithstanding this charge the Church was carelesse and remisse in putting this into execution and did relieve them and too much countenance them in that disorderly course insomuch that some complaint was made against the thing For we hear saith the Apostle that there are some that walk disorderly not working at all c. vers 11. and in order to this sinful connivence of the Church he layes a strict injunction in the authority of Christ upon the Church to withdraw from such vers 6. in respect of civil familiarity and maintenance according to their charge as before He repeats the command again in his absence and that in the authority of Christ and in positive tearms That with quietnesse they work and eat their own bread vers 12. and further tels them if any one shall refuse to be obedient according to this Epistle the Church should note them by some sign of distinction declining that wonted and friendly familiarity as to others that lived orderly and so doing would be a means to bring them into some shame and amendment and clear the Church of the guilt of such disorders I mean the Church in general Besides I should have taken notice how the Apostle presseth upon them his own practice when he was amongst them vers 7 8 9. for the Apostles they wrought with labour c. but not because they had not power and liberty to forbear working but to make themselves an ensample unto all in the Church to follow them and that they might not be chargeable to any But last of all lest the Church should run on the other hand into too much severity and in stead of healing and amending of the offender destroy and loose him by expelling him out of their society as they would an enemy the Apostle puts in a moderate caution yet count him not as an enemy or Infidel as we judge of one that is Excommunicate but admonish him as a brother or one within under a more gentle cure So that I conceive the most severity here intended was to decline all friendly fellowship with them by withdrawing their friendly countenance and kindenesse and rather to reprove and admonish them for their amendment this seems to be but a particular drawn from a more general rule Ephes 5.11 Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darknesse but rather reprove them nor partake in other mens sins But Mr. Saunders saith This sense that I pitch upon in respect of the penalty is too little as Excommunication is too much quoting Erasmus pag. 140. he saith further it must be such a noting and withdrawing as tends to the saving and reforming of scandalous and misliving brethren suspension from eivil society is lesse shaming 1. Answ They may doe well to give some reasons why the declining all friendly familiarity in respect of civil courtesies and charity is too little to bring such brethren to shame considering those times and of what necessity it was of to have the love and furtherance of the Church all Christians being so lyable persecutors unlesse they were such that would revolt from their Christian profession upon the least danger 2. The punishment in a civil sense was so sharp that had all in that Church but done their duty in putting it into execution the offender must either have reformed or have been pined to death or forsake the Church for every member was under an Apostolical command If any would not work neither should he eat had the whole together or a part made conscience of their duty they might have humbled the proudest and brought them under some yoke or other I warrant you 3. If this was too little for scandalous misliving brethren as he saith then why is not suspension from the Lords Supper too little especially where most in a Church are upon the matter suspended as with them of their way many of which are neither ignorant nor scandalous nor any way of a misliving course and can it be imagined that