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
in the least pertinent to prove any one of the qualifications as laid down to be necessary to this end namely to admission to the holy Supper And how would you have your people to come up to your tearms when you so evidently wrest the sense of Scriptures to justifie the boldnesse of venting forth your own fancies in the name of the Lord This is the way you are agreed of and you rejoyce in your comforts and applaud it for purity and you are resolved thus to walk and you cry up Gospel rule and yet your actings are not consonant to any rule the Scripture teach for any thing you have said in defence of your way May not your comforts be suspected as well as others whose wayes and courses are dangerous and to be avoided I would have you consider of it for these unnecessary separations in a true Church as you confesse of ours are absolutely schismatical and your people are bound to decline your way and to keep their station in the Church into which they are imbodyed and to use all their indeavours to partake of Gods Ordinances where they may without running themselves into such dangerous schisms that directly tend to the confusion of the whole And without doubt if you will be as ingenuous as you expresse you must either return to your distracted flocks and perform those relative duties you stand bound unto or persist in wayes of your own choosing meerly without the words warranty which is scandalous in the Church of Christ so to doe and deserves to be censured Mr. Saunders after his arguments he gives some motives which he would have his Reader lay to heart the evils following the neglect of them or the like course 1. And chiefly God is provoked to remove our Candlestick for neglect of Church censures upon scandalous offenders A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump 1 Cor. 5.6 I deny that the way defended hath any thing of the Church censures in it according to that text Answ for Mr. Saunders saith they excommunicate none and Excommunication alone is meant by this Scripture The Apostle doth not say Separate the meal from the leaven but purge out the leaven from the meal he doth not say exclude the scandalous from the Sacrament but put out from among your selves such wicked persons that is out of all Christian Communion civill or sacred What is their course to this Text when they Juridically censure none nor indeed are in a capacity so to doe Casting out of the Church and leaving out from the Sacrament those that are within are huge different things the first is lawful and according to Gospel rule the other unlawful as being against all Gospel rules or precedents It 's true the neglect of Church censures where a Church is in such a capacity is a great evill that doth much provoke the Lord to punish such neglect and that we are in this capacity at present some have more to answer for then I fear they are sensible of nor humbled under that direful guilt my prayer to God is to make us all sensible of our malady and in his due time restore unto this poor rent and divided Church that remedy of holy discipline His second evil is The confusion of souls by ordinary and common profanation eating and drinking their own damnation This is high indeed for words Answ but hath not that dreadful doome in it as he reports without better proof ordinary and common profanation in the Scripture sense was never read of The Church of Corinth lay under the guilt of high profanation but it was not ordinary or common I think 'T is probable they never offended so again nor any other Church what their sin was should be enquired after more strictly and the punishment inflicted and then judge whether the Sacrament be for the confusion of souls it was a temporal chastisement to prevent the damnation of souls This to the punishment The sin was a sacrilegious misuse of holy things to carnal and common ends in the very act of administration which I have largely given my thoughts of and shewed that not any Congregations in our Church did ever or rarely so offend and what he meanes by common profanation must be some other thing that the Scripture no where condemns otherwise then in every other Ordinance of God that is too carelesly performed As all other Ordinances so this was instituted for the spiritual good of the Church Christ commands nothing for the hurt of his visible subjects they conforming thereunto according to their present capacity the Lord gives his laws and Ordinances for our good only Sometimes he permits a people for their punishment to chuse Ordinances and statutes of their own making for their hurt as Israel of old did I conclude then that this evil the confusion of souls c. is a slander of Gods Ordinance and an evill of mens own making when applied to the Sacrament more then to all other Ordinances in the Church Next He saith in his third place Abuse of the bloud of Christ by being too prodigal hereof 1. Answ They properly abuse the signs of Christs bloud that slight Sacraments as too mean and carnal to use to that end they were instituted for 2. They who admit Heathens and give the holy Supper to persons unbaptized or excommunicate or to those that come on purpose to abuse the signs to common ends But to administer the Sacrament unto serious professing Christians that come reverently and demean themselves orderly according to the external part of this observance is that which is according unto Gospel rule and the administration holy and warrantable Christ that gave himself for his Church doth not think much of giving the signs and representations of himself body and bloud to the members thereof And who will plead for any but Church-members who are under the obligation of this observance of their Lord And to deny it to such is to be more withholding then is meet and a dishonour to Jesus Christ who came into the world to save sinners His fourth is Obstructing the reformation of the Churches we live in And what is reformation in the Church Answ but to draw on the whole to a conformity to all the Laws of Jesus Christ externally at least For the Church can goe no further it is the only work of God to reform the hearts of men And the whole Church are as much bound to a conformity to this law of receiving the Sacrament in remembrance of Christ as to any other act of obedience in the Church He that commands all the rest of obedience commands this too And therefore they understand not what Reformation is that are busie in such reformings in their Churches that the greatest part of Christs subjects are out of carlessenesse neglected and exempted from their duty of obedience Nay those that would serve their redeeming Lord and Saviour in the command of his own worship as they are believing Christians in hope of
clear upon sufficient proof the Christian Magistrate hath to doe with them those things being punishable by death in our Law And such malefactors cannot ordinarily escape the penalty of the Law if the Magistrate will nâ— doe his duty The Church may assooâ— judicially excommunicate as suspend suâ— And it 's a question that wiser men then I haâ— need to answer Whether such scandaloâ— sinners as Mr. Collings speaks of ought noâ— most properly to be punished by the Judge in a Christian Common-wealth according to the penalties the Law of God directs iâ— such cases And whether the Church has 〈◊〉 doe at all with such or no in point of censures is a question as for other forts of sinners that the Laws of this Common-wealth doth more indulge the Churches cognisance in point of discipline may reach 〈◊〉 she be in that capacity otherwise she caâ— but instruct the ignorant warn the unruly reâ—buke in publick the open offender admonish all anâ— have patience towards all men Every Christian in his place to doe what in them lyes to reform themselves and not suffer sinne to lye upon their brother But as for that knack of excommunicable and meerly upon that account keep members back without any tryal whether their offendings bâ— out of weaknesse or wilfulnesse or without any legal proceedings in order to their amendment is a very bold part Such precedents are of pernicious consequence in these times where we have none to make our appeal unto knowing how that Brownism hath too much leavened the greatest part of the most knowing men Ministers and others in the Church of England Well let not any presume upon sin themselves in pretence of punishing sin in others If you cannot act orderly according to clear rule make not such haste to reform as to goe about it in an unwarrantable way as for Church-members that are in possession of their right according to law doe not dispossesse them untill the Church authoritatively hath given out judgement against them Let not our Church-men be more irrational then our Lawyers for subjects in the Common-wealth And as for that he saith Church-members not knowing whether Christ were a man or a woman I am sorry that any should be so grossely ignorant I thank God I never have known any such if Mr. Collings have I hope not in his Parish And I cannot but judge it a reproach of our Church and Ministry if any such can be found amongst us But it 's a lamentable thing notwithstanding our scruples about Sacramental Communion so many years together but few that have prepared their people ever the more by doubling their diligence in catechizing of them plainly and familiarly in publick and private Which I fear some that appear forward for a purer Communion in seven years time never did so much as in a friendly way spend so much as an hour with their poor ignorant people in private to inform them better and to know their conditions and incourage them to learn the things of God in order to their better profiting in publick administrations How long is it that we have been excepting against poor ignorant brethren and yet not ordinary means used to prevent it more then heretofore if so much for in the Bishops times care was taken that all did learn the Lords Prayer the Creed and the ten Commandements with the explanations of them and other parts of the Churches Catechising we had our set Prayers that people were apt to learn but now in many places people never hear the Lords Prayer Creed nor Commands scarse in the year nor have in use any common plain Catechism c. Ah poor souls that care is not towards them I verily judge as good Shepheards have of their Masters dumb sheep who will see to every particular one that it be kept in order and that nothing obstruct its growth and feeding and if any sheep goe astray he diligently seeks it and bringeth it to his fellows and when either flye or scab doth hinder its prosperity he will not let it alone untill the poor sheep come to him though he should call it but he will goe to it and gently catch it although it's so silly to flee from him and mercifully help it he will not let them goe till they be infectious and then separate the broken from the whole but endeavour to keep every one in that order that all may fold together Act. 20.28 Take heed therefore unto your selves and to all over the which the holy Ghost hath made you overseers to feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own bloud If you have that love to your Lord and Master as you should you will feed his sheep and lambs that they may fold together Reverend Elders we are fallen into carelesse times in respect of the Worship of God little or no care is taken that our people constantly frequent the publick assemblies ignorant persons are left to watch to themselves you have the more cause to apply your selves to them in private even from house to house and be tender unto them as a nurse cherisheth her children to insinuate your selves in a friendly familiar way into them will gain in them a reverent esteem of you in their hearts which will give you the advantage of perswading them to receive instruction from you both in publick and private It 's an easie businesse to make a separation in your flocks and to cast off the relation of Pastor and people and to neglect relative duties and to fill your people with prejudices divisions and discontents and to break the peace and union of the whole but a work of commendable difficulty when with care prudence and diligence you so apply your selves unto all as they that must give an account unto God of every particular soul committed to your charge Remember the bloud of souls and judge your selves bound to deal with the worst of your people as members of the body of Christ while they remain children of the Kingdom and not reckon them dogs and Swine untill they be legally put out of Church-Communion and hate to be reformed by the Churches censures Mr. Pag. 24. Collings urgeth against my principles thus He must be able to discern the Lords Body from commâ—n bread But many men may be Church members and rational and yet not able to doe this therefore something else must he added The Minor wants prof Answ and so is but a reproach to Church-members reflecting upon our Teachers that have opportunity enough to inform the meanest capacity of years more then so And that reverent and trembling approaching generally every where doth prove that they judge otherwise of the consecrated signes then of common bread why should Mr. Collings be so uncharitable to any that professe their desires and offer themselves reverently in conscience of this service he knowing that there is enough in the words of institution consecration by Word and Prayer the words used in the
the Apostle spake of habitual unworthinesse oâ— actual when all he drives at is nothing else unto his admitting to the Sacrament If I can but undermine him in that one prop his whole building will fall and the controversie come to some good issue for what Mr. Collings can doe in it let him doe the best can In the next place he saith he dares not deny but the disorderly eating in the Church of Corinth was an unworthy eating and might be a cause of their punishment vers 30. We know God is very tender of his own order and brings that instance of Uzziahs case c. This I take to be a good concession to my anwer of the 3. 4. query pag. 16 17 18. Answ The Bar removed But I see he is very unwilling to come off clearly in it mark he doth but say their unworthy eating might be a cause of their punishment The holy Apostle saith plainly for this cause many are weak and sick some dead That is the cause is plain vers 29. Their not discerning was more out of carelesnesse and profanenesse then simply out of ignorance their eating and drinking unworthily which he further explains to be their not discerning the Lords body but used the bare elements as common bread not discerning the body and bloud of the Lord they were consecrated to represent with other particular miscarriages in the time of administration for this cause saith our Apostle they were punished this were a cause saith our Author but not all the cause for which they were punished with death Who shall carry the sense now of these two competitors our Apostle or Mr. Collings I need not again urge what have formerly spoke to this Scripture 〈◊〉 Mr. Collings or any other first answer 〈◊〉 what I have done in clearing the set of the place and let them prove that were for personal unworthinesse if thâ— can or for any other sins that they wâ— guilty of before they met together for tâ— time of administration c. Let them gâ—â— us some clear demonstrations of it if they câ—â— if they cannot let them be so ingenuâ— as to give us their consent and trouble seâ—ful consciences no longer with such kind trifling uncertainties that here follow 〈◊〉 our Author Mr. Collings hath given us three argumeâ— to shew us why â—e cannot digest the seâ— that I have given of the 1 Cor. 11.20 toâ— end He saith because the Apostle chap. 5. had them of Corinth that they could not keep 〈◊〉 feast with the old leaven of malice and wickedneâ— And bidden them purge out the old leaven vers 7. And not eat with one called a brother who shâ— be a fornicator or idolater c. And agaiâ— chap. 10.21 had told them they could 〈◊〉 drink of the cup of the Lord and of the cup divels What then why did he not malâ— his conclusion that we might have clearâ— understood to what end he quotes thoâ— Scriptures as a reason But let us a little follow him in thesâ— Scriptures and examine what they will make to prove these two things 1. That the Lord punished the Corinthians for personal unworthinesse 2. That they were punished for some other sins then what they were guilty of in the time of administration which is the main thing in hand As for 1 Cor. 5. he tels us not the Apostle that they could not keep the feast with malice c. the Apostle exhorts them to purge out the old leaven meaning that of the incestuous person speaking by way of an allusion to the law of the Passeover which were to purge their houses of all leaven against that feast which continued seven days resemblably he would have them purge themselves of that wicked person whom they had indulged amongst them and made the name of God to be evill spoken of by tolerating such sins amongst them as is not so much as named amongst the Gentiles that one should have his fathers wife c. therefore deliver him to Satan purge your selves of your former connivence and indulging such and then saith he let us keep the feast but not with malice and wickednesse c. but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth meaning that he would have them spend their whole lives so the Apostle tels them what he would have them doe and how they should keep the feast Mr. Collins tels us he told them they could not keep the feast c. but he that hath but half an eye may easily discern what this place is for his purpose This proves that scandalous persons should be cast out of all Christian Communion for the conclusion of the whole is in the last verse cast out from amongst your selves that wicked person which is the thing that I all along contend for the just censures of the Church but I would have none debarred their right till then But Mr. Collings might have given us some probable grounds to prove that the feast mentioned was the holy Supper and not to leave us to such uncertainties for if it be not meant of the holy Supper what is this to his purpose Let him shew us where the Supper of the Lord is called a feast and that this feast must needs be that but this is but a shift to hold up the old interest So hard a thing it is to come off from the authority of men especially when themselves are ingaged in such wayes that men have framed But then he goes on vers Answ 11. And not eat with one called a Brother This Scripture is more fully opened hereafter as also the 1 Cor. 10.21 who should be a fornicator an Idolater c. Mr. Collings should have cleared unto us what is meant by not eat whether not eat in a civil friendly necessary sense or not eat at the holy Supper with such during their actual abode in the Church If he mean the latter in reference to the Sacrament I shall demand of him where that word eat alone is to be taken for the holy Supper and if it be not meant of the holy Supper what is this to the thing in hand The 9 10. verses doe give us some light of the Apostles meaning He had wrote an Epistle to them not to keep company with the fornicators of the world But in this Epistle he mollifies the former with some liberty else they must goe out of the world his meaning is not to keep company in a civil friendly sense unnecessarily but if a brother be such a one keep no civil friendly company with him at all no not to eat upon unnecessary occasion And so for that 10. chap. 21. They could not drink of the cup of the Lord and of the cup Divels too The main sin the Apostle aims at in this chapter is Idolatry vers 14. These Corinthians being grafted into the Christian Church did bear up themselves upon their Church priviledges too high And hence grew fearlesse of Gods judgements notwithstanding
their manifold sins as that of Idolatry in this chapter the Apostle tels them that the Church of the Jews was invested with the like priviledges as they are and yet for their provoking sins God was not well pleased with them but destroyed many of them for their murmurings whoredomes Idolatries c. and therefore warns them of the like in general And then in the 14. verse he applyes himself unto them in particular Wherefore my beloved brethren fly from Idolatry I speak to wise men judge what I say for this is the thing that comes neer you which some of you are guilty of And that he might throughly convince them of the hainous nature of this sin he draws an argument from the nature of that holy Communion they had together in the holy Supper which supposes them to be all of one Christian body for they all eat of one bread and drink of one cup c. Hence he would have them see what an inconsistent thing it were for them to be of this Christian body and of another Heathenish body too in point of Communion they could not be of both of Christ and Belial this were a mixture unsufferable to drink the cup of the Lord at one time in the Church of Christ and then at another time to drink the cup of Divels in his Temple Will you thus provoke the Lord c. you must either forbear the one or the other for you cannot serve God and the Devil And this he aggravates the more because it was such an offence and scandal to the weak amongst them the which they that were the strongest Christians offended in as the latter end of the chapter doth clearly give it and that about indifferent things and it became thus sinful in regard of some evil circumstances But now what is this to prove that this sin was in their eating and drinking unworthily in the 11 chap. as Mr. Collins would have it for here you may conceive that at most the offenders were but implicitly threatned with punishment but in the 11. ch they were already punished when this Epistle was sent unto them the which will trouble Mr. C. to reconcile Besides had the Apostle in ch 11. meant their actual offending in the 5. 10. ch then he would have said for these causes some are punished or for this and divers other but as he meant no other so he writes and terminates the only cause of their punishment was their profaning the holy Sacrament of the body and bloud of the Lord as hath been spoken to For this cause c. His second reason to prove he cannot digest the sense I have given is because it seems very absurd to him that a man who should but offend in a point of order should be guilty of the body and bloud of Christ and so of judgement and he who comes raking with the guilt of scandalous sins should not at all be guilty or lyable to Gods judgements Why will Mr. Answ Collins thus mince their sin Was their being drunk and their using a sacred Ordinance of Christ appointed for so spiritual an end but as a civil or common Supper but offending in a point of order if this did not strike at the very essence and nature of the Ordinance I know not what doth doth not the Apostle tell them plainly This is not to eat the Lords Supper but their own this profanation of the instituted signs rendered them guilty of polluting the very body and bloud of Christ that the signs did represent and will he say this were but to offend in a point of order I might adde their offending in point of order to the main But then to the latter part Touching them that come in scandalous sins that they should not at all be guilty or lyable to the judgements of God Who ever said such a word Answ Doth it sollow because the Corinthians were punished for no other cause but their prophaning this Ordinance that therefore I must needs hold that they that come in other scandalous sins are not lyable to any of Gods judgements for their other sins I say tribulation anguish and woe to every soul that doth evill And yet I say too it 's possible a scandalous sinner may come to the Sacrament and not at all be guilty of the Corinthians sinning nor as to his receiving be lyable to the judgements of God provided he come as prepared and carry himself as reverently at the administration as he can for his scandalous life doth not disingage him from Christian observance while he is within and not under the just censures of the Church to reform him thereby I know for carnal wretched impenitent sinners to come carelessely and customarily is a great sin and for them that out of carelessenesse and want of affection to it shall neglect it when they are invited to it is a great sin also and both punishable by the Lord. I wish all due and lawful means were used for the reforming of both so might we expect a greater blessing of grace upon all in a holy use of Gods own appointments in the mean time let us all reform what we regularly can and mourn for what we are wanting in Mr. Collings third reason is because he cannot conceive that God should be so unlike himself as to look upon one legally unclean unworthy to eat the Passeover under the Old Testament and yet look upon one morally unclean as worthy under the New It is too bold to call the blessed God unto mans bar Answ because he is not like to men that are not able to reach the reason of his declared will God cannot be unlike himself be sure but it 's possible Mr. Collings may be unlike the truth in what he saith pag. 28. how doth he know that God lookt upon one that was legally unclean as unworthy to eat the Passeover We know that that uncleannesse was incident to good men as well as others It will set him hard to prove I think that it took away the habitual worthinesse of a godly man or that relative worthinesse of membership if not such were not lookt upon as unworthy of the Passeover but were under a contingent necessity by the will of God that they could not observe it but they should make the sacrifice unclean for by the will of God it was declared unto them that whatsoever they touched in their uncleannesse should be unclean And we know it was a case the Lord indulged equally with those that were in a necessary journey appointing them another day of purpose the next month nor were they so much denyed the benefit of this Ordinance as of others that they lost the profit of during their uncleannesse there being not the like provision appointed as to the Passeover Again let me ask Mr. Collins why the whole Church were to observe the Passeover upon their lives and yet he cannot deny but in that Church in their best estate there were many that
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
are known to be scandalous in some actual offendings and doth not give such satisfaction of their amendment as is required shall the Eldership tell such persons they must not come to the Sacrament for if they doe they will eat and drink their own damnation be guilty of the bloud of Christ in the Apostles sense when they may be knowing persons and able to discern the Lords body and to carry themselves conformly as to the prescription of all Sacramental actions appertaining to that service it doth not follow I easily grant in this case that any sin indulged in a mans self or in the Church may hinder Gods blessing upon his own Ordinances For he that regardeth iniquity in his heart God will not hear his prayers and the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination unto the Lord but it will not hence follow that such must not pray nor offer sacrifice at all but they ought to reform the evill as well as doe the good if they expect that God should hear them I grant also that every scandalous sinner in the Church should be dealt withall according to divine rule the neglect thereof as it respects private members or the publick Officers either of Church or Commonwealth doth leaven accordingly but yet I deny that such sinners are to be debarred their necessary duties of worship untill they be juridically proceeded against by a lawful Court of Judicature I grant again that every scandalous sinner in Church is lyable to the judgements of God for his sinful enormities but yet I deny that those sinful enormities of swearing drunkennesse uncleannesse lying cousenage dishonesty c. is eating and drinking the body and bloud of the Lord unworthily which the Corinthians were punished for I grant again that such scandalous sinners continuing impenitent cannot communicate in the Supper without sin and it is unsutable and inconsistent with their Christian profâ—ssion and that which God upbraids sinners oft with in Scriptures but yet this doth not reach the Corinthians sinning at the time of the administration of the Supper but is applyable to all other worship as well as to the Sacrament For my part I cannot yet see one Scripture alleadged by any that doth prove that the moral unclean in the Church were debarred the Passeover or Supper more then the other parts of publick worship which is a thing of necessity to be proved by those that venture to debar from the one and yet allow them the liberty to enjoy the other What the Doctor hath said as to that hath been answered and what Mr. Ward hath said hath been answered also and what Mr. Collins hath said or can say aâ— to that I doubt not in the least but will be easily answered too And to this purpose 〈◊〉 shall take leave to examine some of Mr. Collins quotations pag. 101. Ezra 6 21. And the children of Israel which were come again out of the captivity and all such as had separated themselves unto them from the filthinesse of the Heathen of the land to seek the Lord God of Israel diâ— eat and kept the feast of unleavened bread seveâ— dayes c. How this proves that the morally unclean were debarred the Passeover 〈◊〉 know not he might have told us how that all that were returned from their captivity that were of the true Church and all such that separated from Heathenish idolatry and mixtures to the Church did eat the Passeover is true this implyes that those that would not seek the Lord God of Israel continued in Idolatrous practices and would not keep the Passeover Can Mr. Collins prove that some of the children of Israel that returned from their captivity was debarred the Passeover for their moral uncleannesse or can he prove hence that they were all free from that uncleannesse doubtlesse if he take notice of what follows in the 9.10 chap. he must acknowledg there were many guilty of moral uncleannesse and yet all kept the Passeover so that you may easily discern how pertinent this is for his purpose The next quotation is 2 Chron. 23.19 And he set the porters at the gates of the house of the Lord that none which were unclean in any thing should enter in From this Scripture he cryes up a suspension of some from some Ordinances that were not excommunicated c. but he cannot tell it seemes whether from the Passeover or no and then what is this for his purpose I think we never read of any other uncleannesse in Scripture but Heathenish uncleannesse and legal uncleannesse that were not to enter into Gods House or Sanctuary and as for Moral uncleannesse either it was such as was punished by the Judges according to their Judicial laws or such as they were cleansed from externally by their continual course of Sacrifices and offerings and hence there was no such thing at all nor were any ever bar'd from the Passeover upon any such account that I could ever finde in the Book of God and well might the Porters charge be to keep out those that were unclean in any thing because we know there were several kindes of personal uncleannesses that were legal besides the uncircumcised Heathen that might not enter into the Sanctuary Ezek. 44.7 8. nor eat of the Passeover Exod. 12. And the main reason why those that were but legally unclean might not eat the Passeover nor come to the Tabernacle to offer his Sacrifice as others in their season did and were accepted was this because the person that was unclean made every thing he toucht unclean too and he that neglected his time for cleansing and concealing it that soul was to be cut of from the Congregation he hath defiled the Lords Sanctuary Numb 19.13 20. That of Hag. 2.14 proves the same But I have answered his other quotations in my examine of the Scripture rule I need not insist upon these any longer for they are too triflingly urged to require any further answer Why doth he not shew us some Scripture to prove that some have bin suspended from the Passeover for moral uncleanness and allowed the liberty of all other publick worship the which is the whole subject of his great Book almost Yet I am certain he can finde nothing for his turn in Moses and the Prophets And I think he hath as little from Christ and his Apostles for the foundation of his suspension from the Sacrament only which is the question I should speak unto next But I shall let it alone unill I come in short to examine the quotations alledged in the New Testament to prove the affirmative by Mr. Collins in the main body of his last Book I shall now go on with answering to what he saith to mine My fift and sixt queries are 1. What is the remedy the Apostle prescribes to that Church to prevent future judgement and to enjoy present benefit 2. Whether the unregenerate and most ignorant person professing and owning the true Religion among them were not in some capacity
my self pag. 37. The Bar removed as touching the query in hand The end of the Sacrament is to put the Church in minde of the death of Christ and that satisfaction made by him by which all the saving blessings of the Covenant are procured unto faln man Christs bloud was shed for many for remission of sins That he might gather into one the children of God scattered abroad in all the world and ages thereof is the end of his death Joh. 11.52 And the Sacrament is to be observed in remembrance of this by all in the Church that professe they hope to be saved by the merits of his death which the unregenrate does whom we cannot exclude from being the sheep Christ dyed for and therefore it 's as proper and congruous for such to be put in mind of the death of Christ by the Sacrament for their spiritual good as others regenerating grace being a blessing of the Covenant procured by the death of Christ as well as salvation is Unto this Mr. Collins answers somewhat feebly 1. Restraining the benefits that come by the death of Christ unto those only that have a lively hope purifying themselves as God is pure c. 2. He queries How if such be ignorant of what Christ is and did how can such doe it in remembrance of him 3. Or how if by bloudy Oaths and blasphemies profane his bloud How can they doe it in a practical remembrance of him That the unregenerate as such Answ have not a lively hope c. I grant but that they have a warrantable hope as professing the true Christian Religion relying upon the mercy of God through the merits of Christs death Christ being the right object of all hope which is a good encouragement for such to use the means in hope of a blessing forasmuch as not any man in special can exempt himself from the saving benefits of his death whom they by the outward signs are put in minde of every Sacrament As before he would not have them objects of the promises of first grace because they have not faith to apply the promises c. So now he will have none to have any ground of hope to receive the saving benefits that are procured for sinners by the death of Christ which Sacraments represent but those in the Church that have a lively hope Doth Mr. Collins think thas a man may have faith to apply the promise before he hath grace Or doth he think those promises have no object Or that any shall have grace to whom it is not promised in the Church So likewise if none but those that have a lively hope can receive benefit by the death of Christ then it will follow 1. That the first regenerating grace is not a benefit that flows from the death of Christ except a man can have this lively hope before he be regenerate 2. That regeneration as it is a benefit of the death of Christ belongs to none but regenerate persons that have a lively hope and then we shall exclude the unregenerate from all benefit or hope by Christ unlesse they can convert themselves which they cannot and so exclude them from the day of grace and mercy and make them aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel strangers to the Covenant of promise and without hope and God in the world equal with the Pagan world which upon grosse mistake he hath done all along in this present Controversie But I hope enough hath been spoke to satisfie my Reader as to that particular And therefore the unregenerate being so much concerned in the benefits of the death of Christ which Sacraments are remembrancers of it 's very meet and sutable they should partake of the signes that are so much concerned in the thing represented and exhibited thereby Unto his second I If they be so ignorant Answ they ought to be instructed better which hath been spoken to already Hardly can any be excepted against for ignorance that are intelligent if a Minister will doe his duty to instruct them in a plain familiar way And for such as are scandalous they should be dealt withall in a regular way for their amendment that their actual miscarriages indulged doe not leaven the whole and hinder the blessing of every Ordinance from themselves And although a practical remembrance may be desired of all yet in the visible Church we shall alwayes meet with many loose carnal wretched sinners that will offend scandalously and so abuse the grace of Gospel Ordinances to their utter ruine if the Lord prevent it not by giving them his grace to repent The Sacrament is a means to ingage unto amendment as proper as any other Ordinance untill they be Juridically cast out Nothing else can disoblige them from duties of publick worship as the Sacrament is I confesse it is a sad and a lamentable condition that such wretched miserable persons are in that wofully abuse the Grace of the Gospel and make such desperate returns for such exceeding rich grace and mercy abusing the patience and long-suffering of God which should lead to repentance How dare any profane persons bear up themselves upon the name of the Lord and hope they shall be saved by Jesus Christ and yet live in licentious courses and hate instruction and will not have Christ to rule over them by his Word and Scepter Why consider this yea that forget God lest he tear you in peices and there be none to deliver doe not flatter your selves the more because you are in the visible Church for so long as you are but chaffe and tares you are lyable every moment to be pluckt up and burnt in unquenchable flames What though thou mayst escape the censures of the Church be sure thou shall not escape the judgement of God if thou continuest thy rebellion against him It may be thou art spared for the sake of some precious wheat of Gods Elect whom he will cause to spring out of thy roots though a wicked tare thy self and thy ancestors before thee Remember Judas that desperate Traytor and son of perdition that was false to the Lord Jesus his false heart and unworthy actions to his Lord whom he religiously professed made him swell untill he burst asunder and all his bowels gushed out If thou wilt swear blaspheme be drunk and scoffe at godlinesse and live an idle filthy voluptuous life and yet hope to be saved by Christ and professest thy self a Christian it may be thou hadst as good have been that Judas as such a wretch as thou art adding obstinacy unto thy former rebellion untill the wrath of the Lord and his jealousie smoake against thee bringing all the plagues written in his Book upon thee and blot out thy name from under heaven Either doe what in thee lies to walk up to thy profession of the true Religion that Sacraments oblige thee unto or else be sure thy profession will rather aggravate thy abominable doings and sink thee deeper in the bottomelesse pit
He says That Sacraments are strong meat which weak Christians are not able to digest and that they are seals of faith only He denyes the Sacrament to be a converting Ordinance because then Heathens should come c. And will not have the unregenerate Christians to come under any duty but what is converting He affirms that in an unlearned Congregation a single Minister may suspend from the Sacrament he being the ruling part of the Church c. And yet in all other thing seeme to bear himself much upon the authority of men With such like things as these he thinks he hath loosened all that I have built upon and hence thinks that the whole will fall but he must take a great deal of pains more then yet he hath done if he think to be the man that must give satisfaction in this Controversie And I believe he must speak a great deal more then hath been spoken by any if in the least he can make good suspension from the Sacrament more then from any other part of holy Communion in sacred worship I mean of Church-members of years of discretion as the question is stated He must not think that the authority of men will carry the thing it being a businesse of this consequence that on which the peace and settlement depends which can never be as to our condition so long as men make habitual worthinesse in a real sense that which alone gives one right to the Sacrament 2. And set up the distinction of Believer and Infidel in the Church 3. And level the unregenerate part of the Church with the world in respect of Covenant relation promises of first grace work of the Ministry feals of the Covenant c. Such like interferings in a visible Church doth destroy it and pluck up the very foundation on which the Church of England stands My constant prayer to the Lord is and shall be that he will so favour us with the blessings of his people as to give us Magistrates and Ministers that may be tender in protecting and defending the Vine which himself hath planted And it 's pity that Mr. Collins and divers others of his judgement should not see where truth and the Churches peace lyes I have done with him as to what he hath excepted against my Book in particular I shall very briefly examine his strength for Suspension from the Lords Supper FINIS I shall in the next place annex a short Answer to or an Examination of Mr. Collins Quotations and Arguments for that which he cals A Juridical Suspension from the Lords Supper the main Subject of his late Book BEloved Friends I am sorry that our Author should take such a deal of pains to make good that thing that hath and doth so much trouble and hinder the edification and peace of the Church and hath been the occasion of the extirpation of the Churches Discipline and the main impediment of an establishment of Discipline at the present And how impossible it is that the Church of England should be preserved and secured in a Church state from the common reproaches of adversaries upon his principles let them that are sober judge when himself is equalling the most of her members to the Infidel world disobliging them from duties of instituted worship and observance under this pretence that they are unbelievers and no disciples nor brethren that are within and hence he will allow them just as much priviledge in the Church as he doth unto Pagans except baptizing their Infants which he will hardly doe upon their own parents faith but upon their remote predecessors And thus he makes a great stir about suspension from the Sacrament and by this groundlesse censure doth hinder or make invalid other necessary commands of Jesus Christ to the great prejudice of the Church of Christ As namely the benefit of Gods Ordinance of Sacrament and just excommunications according to the practice of Apostolical Churches when this suspension was not known nor heard of And therefore I having spoke so much already in defence of this priviledge and and right of a Church-member and that being already ingaged in this Controversie give me leave further to answer to what I can finde urged against the friends of my judgement that hath not as yet been spoken unto as may satisfie the plain minded Christian that is not able to unravel so many subtil needlesse syllogisms that Mr. Collins abounds with in his elaborate Book But I intend brevity And therefore expect not my answer unto every thing but to his main grounds he hath laid for suspension In stating of the question Mr. Collins sayes 1. As to suspending of some persons from the Supper he means no more then a denyal of that Ordinance from some pag. 1. 2. He distinguisheth of Suspension To be either Juridical or Pastoral Positive or Primitive 3. Of a Presbytered Church he saith They finding some of their members grossely ignorant or seandalous not excommunicated in the Name of the Lord Jesus are to warn them to forbear coming to the Lords Table for a time and if they presse in to deny it them declaring the Church hath no Communion with them pag. 3. I shall speak unto that suspension he cals Juridical and Positive only Answ 1 for if I can break him in the proof of that his other will appear to be a dream But to the question 1. He saith They mean no more by suspension then a denyal of that Ordinance of the Supper from them for a time Then 2. In case they will come to deny it them declaring the Church hath no communion with them Here you may take notice how clear Mr. Collins is in stating the question 1. He makes suspension no more but a deâ—yal of the Sacrament from some for a time And then secondly the Church declares they have no Communion with them so that he in stating the question layes foundation for a Suspension and Excommunication both For if excommunidation consists not in putting out of all Church Communion I know not what it is He so confounds these that I know not how to take him And therefore I must query him a little further about the question stated I query whether a Minister with his Parochial Lay Elders be a Presbytery that can saspend their members Juridically I judge this but the same with a Pastor denying the Sacrament at his private will and pleasure Such Elders have no more to do with the exercise of discipline then with the administrations of all publique worship They have not so much as a name nor the lineaments of an Office known in Scripture And it is a businesse of the like difficulty to prove lay rulere in the Church distinct from Ministerial rulers as to prove Juridicall Suspension from the Sacrament only distinct from Excommunication I query whether in suspending of members from the Sacrament their proceedings be according to that known rule Matth. 18.15 16 17 c. and how they can apply
some spiritual Gospel Feast and the Supper is a part of the Gospel Feast the relation the text hath to the Passeover and the liberty of Communion with an incestuous person in the other Ordinances 1. Is he sure that all Mosaical Feasts were then out of use 2. That their Feasts of Charity may have no reference to this Feast Jude tels us that scandalous loose heretical persons in the Church were spots in their Feasts of Charity And this scandalous person is said to leaven them and nothing more opposite to their Feasts of Charity then to feast together with malice and wickednesse 3. Is there no difference to be put between that one Sacrifice of Christ himself once for all and the Paschal Lambe an outward sign thereof that the Apostles analogie must needs be restrained unto the Sacrament succeeding The rest have been answered Let him prove that the Sacrament is any where called a Feast it doth not become him to give Jesus Christ a nick name I must confesse for my own part I most incline to those that understand by keeping holy Communion in the Profession of the Gospel thoughout the whole course of our lives not denying but that the Sacrament is involved in this General of a holy life And my reasons are these The Apostles motive thus to keep the Feast holds unto all holy duties and to all times for Christ is always our Passeover that was sacrificed for the Church We have alwayes cause of purging out the old leaven out of our own hearts and lives and purging of our selves from all sinful connivence and indulging of scandalous brethren that leaven the whole when Church discipline is carelessely out of coldnesse neglected The rule or remedy prescribed in the text as touching scandalous offenders to amend them is upon that particular occasion drawn out into a general that holds always as I shall make good in answer unto his next argument drawn from this text But what if I should grant him what he can never prove that by Feast is meant the Sacrament only will it follow that scandalous brethren must only be left out or barely denyed the Sacrament only when the Apostle chides the Church of Corinth for not grieving it so as to provoke them unto zeal to put away that person from among them vers 2. Besides if such scandalous sinners in the Church as the Apostle reckons up ver 11. ought not to be excommunicate then not any at all and is it safe for the Church to deny such the Sacrament only whom they ought to Excommunicate and put out of all Communion whatsoever Suppose the Church had done no more but put that wicked person from the Sacrament doe you think they had put that Apostolical sentence into execution vers 4.5 Let him prove that ever any Church in the Apostles age suspended their members from the Sacrament only as he would have it The truth is he affects to draw up many syllogisms but he is not able to prove any one of them I could wish he would either study his things better or else give over his writing about this controversie His second Argument from this text is this If there be some in the Church not yet cast out by Excommunication who are Fornicators or covetous or Idolaters or Raylers or Drunkards or Extortioners then there may be soâ—e in the Church with whom a Christian ought not to eat the Lords Supper But there may be such in the Church Ergo He sayes the Minor will easily be granted the Major is grounded on 1 Cor. 5.11 And he further sayes all that can be said in this case is that the eating there forbidden is not eating the Lords Supper so saith the friends of my opinion If no more can be said and proved but that Answ 1 it 's enough to break his argument But he is a little too confident and looks too overly upon the Text. For 1. the proof of his major doth not say that in the Church of Corinth there were such But if a man that is called a Brother be a Fornicator c. which implyes that there may be such in a true Church as well as a Brother that was an incestuous person Suppose that there be such in a true Church doth not the Apostle reminde them of the rule how the Church should deal with such namely as with the incestuous person with such no not to eat vers 11. and then gives the reason vers 12. for what have I to do to judge them that are without Doe not ye judge them that are within but them that are without God judgeth therefore put from among your selves that wicked person There was one of their Church that was actually guilty others might be as any shall be guilty of such and such scandalous sins at any time in the Church the Church ought to judge them by putting them out of all Communion as in that particular case of incest If such as the Apostle nominates for scandalous brethren be not objects of excommunication not only my self but all reformed Churches in Christendome are hugely out Can any have the least shew of reason to conceive that the Apostle should be so severe against an incestuous person and the Church for not putting him away from among them vers 2. and say nothing to their conniving and indulging an Adulterer Idolater c. That were then such guilty persons known amongst them as he for incest or that suppose there were such can we imagine that they were suspended from the Sacrament only as a sufficient punishment for those sins as Mr. Collins would And so uppon the matter lose this Ordinance of Excommunication except it be for incest Beloved Friends I beseech you mark the Apostles order and scope and you may easily conceive his sense he had wrote an Epistle unto them before not to company with fornicators covetous Extortioners or Idolaters of the world but upon this occasion of a members miscarriage in the Church in this Epistle he mollifies with lenity his former Epistle and tels them now yet not altogether forbear company with such such of the world for then you must goe out of the world but now I have written unto you not to keep company not to eat upon another stricter account if a Brother be such a one as an Infidel Pagan is put them out of your Communion altogether And thus he drawes out a general rule from this particular case of the incestuous person leaving the Infidel world to the judgement of God but sets up a judging in the Church for the destruction of the flesh that scandalous Brethren may be reformed and their souls saved in the day of the Lord Jesus as I have spoke already And if I mistake not Reverend Calvin speaks to the same purpose upon the same place in his 12. chap. 4. book 5. Section Of his Institutions Upon the second end of Excommunication 'T is true he sayes in the administration of the Supper choise
scandalous member not cast out is warned not to take it upon pain of damnation I know no such text and it remains still to prove that the Corinths were threatned or punished for any scandalous sins committed before they came or for admitting any scandalous brethren at all but only for their actual miscarriage in the very act of administration I have said more for the negative then Mr. Collins will be able to answer this two dayes He saith None can without sin knowingly expose the Ordinance of God to necessary abuse and profanation but to administer it to one that cannot have Communion with Christ profanes it Ergo. Let him prove the consequence if he can Answ 1. The Apostle proves that all the Corinthians that drank of the Lords cup and eat of that bread had Communion with Christ and he sayes We that are many are one bread ch 10.16 17. And doubtlesse those that made divisions and lived in incest and eat of things offered unto Idols and that opprest one another by needlesse and scandalous suits at law in the Heathen Courts and those that were guilty of such great schisms and disorders in the Church were a part of that many The very outward actions of eating and drinking according to the institution is a Sacramental Communion which is a holy Communion in the relation the signes have to the thing signified thereby And in the relation the receiver hath to the benefit and profit thereof Sacraments being instituted to that end for the Church as hath been proved But he tels us how a thing is abused 1. When it is not turned to a right use 2. When no difference is put between the holy and profane Ezek. 22.26 The first is answered Answ his latter I shall speak to his quotation is meant of the legal clean and unclean that her Priests through carelesnesse made no difference and so profaned the holy things by admitting such to bring their sacrifices that during their uncleannesse made every thing they touched unclean but there is no such difference to be made in the Gospel Church now that difference is taken away Heathen uncleannesse remains still but we doe not plead their admittance into Church Communion He sayes further That he cannot see but every scandalous sinner Drunkard Swearer Adulterer c. hath as great a fellowship with Devils as the Corinthians had He must see a great deal more fellowship with devils in such Answ then in the Corinthians or else he can conclude nothing for his purpose for it 's certain the Corinthians were not kept from the Sacrament nor forbid it upon that account His first argument for Suspension is That nothing is lawful in the worship of God but what we have precept or president for but to give the Sacrament to such as are visibly scandalous not Excommunicate is to doe that in the worship of God which neither precept nor example doth justifie Ergo Sacraments are parts of institute worship and in the administrations we are to be guided according to the precepts given upon the institution of them and according to the example of the Lord Jesus who at the first institutiō of the Supper gave us an example for the perpetual celebration of it c. p. 51 52. His Major is good Answ but his Minor is false and to be denyed matter of scandal doth not disoblige any that are within and of Christs family and Kingdome from precepts of institute worship as the Sacrament is confessed to be but rather it is thus that this precept of institute Worship doth oblige all Church-members that are within to reform their other scandalous actions 'T is true Christ gave to none but his Disciples And the Apostles directed this observance only unto the visible Churches which consisted of visible Saints by their profession and external calling at least And who will plead for any but visible Saints professing the true Religion externally at least while they are Church-members and within we plead the priviledges of that estate as all Scripture Churches alwayes practised and yeelded unto their members And so long as our Antagonists own our Church for the Church of Christ and our members true members of the Church they doe but discover their own nakednesse in all they say against us and what 's this argument in hand but the same with the Anabaptists if not a great deal lesse rational then they use it for Had we but that clear precept or precedent for Insant baptism that we have for baptized members of the visible Church to receive the Sacrament in remembrance of Christ I doubt not but there is hundreds of those that would quit the argument and reform their practise Christ sayes to his Disciples when it was first instituted drink ye all of it The Apostle Paul understands this precept as respecting the whole Church of Corinth for he directs that Church in general to act according to the institution of Christ for he delivered what he received from the Evangelists that did hear and see the institution That question about Judas is not very material to the Controversie whether he did receive the Sacrament or not 't is certain he eat the Passeover and what was the Paschal Lambe but a sign of the body and bloud of Christ and the Bread and the Wine is no more Besides he might have taken the Sacrament if he had had a minde to have continued with them during that service who hindered him or forbad him if he did not he had done better to have adhered unto Christ in the observance of his holy Ordinances though but a hypocrite then by giving way to the Devils temptation to turn his back upon Gods Ordinance and seek for opportunity how to betray his Lord and Master into the hands of his bloudy enemies but for my own part I incline to believe that Judas did receive the Sacrament but I need not trouble my self with that dispute I have said enough as from that of Matth. 28.19 20. compared with 1 Cor. 11.24 to satisfie any that are impartial I need adde no more in proof of this that it is a duty incumbent upon all Church-members to observe the Sacrament as any other publique duties of Worship This we shall with more case and lesse time make good against all opposition of men then our adversaries who oppose us will free themselves from what the Pharises were charged withall namely in making void the commands of God by their own Traditions As for Precedents the Analogy of the Passeover the practice of the Apostolical Churches which have been urged sufficiently to satisfie any that are sober of the Presbyterians judgement that have not such clearnesse of reason from the Analogy of circumcision nor new Testament Precedents for Infant baptism as we for free admission of Church-members baptized and not excommunicated unto the Supper and hence were they but as rational in the one as the other the controversie would cease amongst us that are for a National
Israel were accepted of in their keeping the Passeover although many of them did eat the Passeover otherwise then was written for some that were unclean did eat thereof 2 Chron. 30.18 19 20. 6. It was the will of God that declared that such things upon a man should be unclean and all things he touched should be so by his institution only but there is no such thing declared by the will of God touching moral uncleannesse in the Church as to debar them the Passeover or any other Ordinanceâ— all his and other mens quotations have been sufficiently examined as to this and fully answered unlesse it be one of Mr. Collins Deut. 23.18 Thou shall not bring the price of a whore or the price of a Dogge into the House of the Lord for any vow for these are abomination to the Lord if not the price then not the Whore or Dogge He argues from the lesser to the greater Answ Doth it follow that because they might not offer any of those two for any vow that therefore they might not bring their Lambe in its season to the House of the Lord and offer it before him according to Gods command It was an abomination to doe those things that God forbad therefore it is abomination to doe that which God commands that 's all the text will prove as to debarring of the moral unclean from the Passeover Away with such trifling and impertinent applications of holy Scriptures The truth is men of his judgement must do more then they have yet done I had almost said more then they can doe or else had better never to have said any thing about this argument drawn from the Analogy of the Passeover all that man can say against us from that doth but discover their own weaknesse in fighting against the Truth His tenth Argument It 's a sin in a Minister to declare those one visible Body who are not one body with visible Saints but scandalous sinners are not one body with visible Saints And be that gives the Lords Supper declares those to whom he gives it unto to be one visible Body Ergo. 1. Answ Is it a sin to say the visible Church is the visible body of Christ and this visible body consists of good and bad Wheat and Tares c. Is it a sin to declare this 2. Are not all that are baptized into one Body of that Body and are not the scandalous in the Church baptized and is it a sin for one to declare that the baptized are one visible body with visible Saints What is a visible Saint but a baptized visible professing Christian that is a member of the true visible Church Is not an offending brother a brother and within while he is within If the Sacrament of baptism doe initiate into that one body and the Sacrament of the Supper bespeaks them so too that are baptized Is it a sin for a Minister to give the Sacrament to such by declaring that which is true and which no man can deny that holds our Church a true visible Church Who can you say is not a real member of Christ in particular And one that he dyed not for The Apostle affirmed it of all in the Church of Corinth that they were one body What if Gillespy will not be perswaded the Apostle would say it of all we finde it so written and I think it safe to be perswaded of the truth of what is written the authority of Scripture shall perswade with me before the authority of men His eleventh Argument The Sacrament is not to be given to any who are not Christs Disciples but scandalous sinners are none of his disciples Ergo. The Major is true Answ but the Minor is to be distinguished into scandalous sinners out of the Church and such like sinners in the Church to the former it 's granted but to the latter it 's denyed What are Church-members but Disciples What are all that professe the true Christian Religion and only call upon the name of the Lord Jesus in hope of eternal life by him but Disciples if they be not Disciples and within then they are Heathens and without whom the Church have nothing to doe to judge in order to their amendment and if they be without and strangers from the Covenant of promises why doe you baptize their children or presse them to any duties of Gospel worship as incumbent upon them as Christians If they be Christians and within why should they not have their proper titles and priviledges of that estate If you can make them neither within the Church nor without then it 's possible you may doe something in this argument and when you have done that I doubt not but you will be answered His 12.13 arguments I have answered in my answer to what he hath excepted against The Bar removed His fourteenth Argument It is unlawful to partake of other mens sins Ephes 5.7 But he that gives the Sacrament wittingly to an ignorant scandalous person partakes with him in his sin Ergo. I grant his Major Answ but deny his Minor because giving and receiving the Sacrament is a most necessary duty of worship which both Minister and people stand mutually ingaged to observe and perform as any other duty of worship in the Church and the Sacrament being given and received with that reverence and order according to the form of holy institution there is no sin as to the matter it self and as for the manner as in every thing we fail all so in this and if this were sufficient to forbear the Sacrament then we must give over all worship In all duties better to doe as well as we can then not at all so that it follows that those that deny the Sacrament to those that are bound to receive it are partakers of their sin in not allowing them to doe their duty for ignorance and other offendings doe not excuse from precepts of institute Worship and the holy Supper more then all other Gospel Worship while persons are within Shall mans impotency and iniquity pull down Gods authority If in all other duties of Gospel Worship such had better obey as wel as they can then neglect Gods worship altogether it 's but a begging the question to deny it in the observance of the Sacrament It 's true a Minister may be guilty of his peoples ignorance and may fear and tremble at that guilt if he neglect all or any due and probable principles of the true Religion that may in some measure prepare them to profit by every Ordinance in the Church But having done his duty he need not fear to give them the Sacrament but tremble at the neglect of that administration and discouraging weak and ignorant Christians from it True it is also that a Minister and the Church may make themselves accessory to the sins of offending brethren in the Church by their carelesse indulging of them in their evill wayes by not reproving admonishing censuring c. by which sinners
prepared in order unto the exercise of discipline I doubt not but when our principles are more the minde of Scriptures in regard of the blessed and priviledged state of the whole visible Church in Covenant relation with God the Lord will favour us in his great kindenesse by putting the poore despised Church of the Nation into a possession of that discipline that is most the minde of Jesus Christ revealed in the Word In the mean time we have all need to pray much for we are under an hour of temptation and many are scared by it I come to his seventh proof pag. 148. 1 Tim. 5.22 Neither be partakers of other mens sins The sum of what he saith to this was not enough for a Minister to give the unworthy warning of the danger or to reprove and denounce Gods judgements against the impenitent to free him from other mens sins This may clear him as a Preacher but not as a Ruler or Steward for if the same Minister shall loose the same men by giving them the seals of the New Covenant which is to tell them that they are interessed in Gospel priviledges and promises he fears that the guilt that was thrust out of the fore doore comes in again at the back doore 1. The main of the question lies in this Answ whether the Minister admits any such who are by the Authority of Scriptures forbid to come he not doing what he regularly may to exclude them I shall easily grant that a Minister through carelesnesse and unfaithfulnesse may be involved in the guilt of their peoples sins as touching the Sacrament but the question is when a Minister hath laboured to instruct his people and hath given warning of the danger of eating and drinking unworthily and hath stirred them up to come reverently and orderly carrying themselves sutable to the external actions there required hath not done his duty in an Evangelical sense as to that of his that every Minister is a Ruler and therefore to urge upon them acts of discipline and Jurisdiction as a Ruler when the whole Church is without discipline is such a boldnesse that never any pretending to sober principles assumed untill these exorbitant times we are fallen into for want of holy discipline But he grants that in respect of all the Minister doing his duty as before is clear as a Preacher And that is sufficient from his own mouth to justifie those that dare assume no other power in the Church at present but what they have by vertue of their Ministerial Office And as Stewards they are bound to be faithful in the dispensing of that leaving the issue to the blessing of their Master And it concerns Mr. Saunders to prove himself a Ruler and impowered with the actual exercise of the Keyes of Jurisdiction in his Church before he take upon him to binde and loose at his pleasure if he be so impowered why doth he not reform his own Congregation and administer all the Ordinances in his own Church Why doth he not by his authority convent the scandalous before him and admonish rebuke Excommunicate without any fear or scruple and practise all Church Communion in all the Ordinances to the other not at all under his censure Will he blame another in that which he neglects himself If there be none in his Congregation over whom he rules lyable to his censures to amend them why doth he neglect to administer the holy Sacrament unto them If there be scandalous members in his Church why doth he connive at their wickedness and suffer himself to be leavened by his carelesse indulgence towards them partaking of their sins forasmuch as he neglects the only means to reform them by Juridical Excommunication 1 Cor. 5. If he say he keeps them from the Sacrament I answer But the Church of Corinth were commanded to do more Was it ever read of in the Scripture that a Pastor refused to administer the holy Suppeâ— to his flock to keep the scandalous from communicating with them What though you plead but for Suspension ought not that to be Juridical as you are a Ruler impowered so to act And have you so proceeded with all your people that are excluded the holy Supper I pray you Sir satisfie me in these things either by some Scripture grounds or by your Reformation as you are a Christian and a Minister of the holy Gospel As to the rest of this Paragraph I wish you would better study the nature of the New Covenant and whom it respects And how the Sacraments may be said to be seals thereof and what they seal to in the Covenant which things I have insisted somewhat upon in my other writings both in answer to Dr. Drake and Mr. Collins whither I refer you intending hast at present In his next Paragraph he speaks to the text in hand The Apostle speaks of Ordination of Ministers wherein by not examining the persons to be ordained guilt is contracted ordaining without proving as 1 Tim. 3.10 is too sudden so likewise the giving of the Sacrament is sudden and guilty though but once in a year where no difference or tryal is made of them that come but he that will though of the basest of the people may be a guest at the Lords Table Men may put all this off by thinking the fault is not theirs while the act is others mens but others mens sins may be ouâ—s As incivil Judicatories there are principals and accessories So before God there will be too and non-examiners are accessories before the fact thus far he p. 150 This text is quoted either for illustration Answ or probation of the thing in question If but for illustration then it 's not argumentative and the inference but begged If for proof of the thing in question the consequence must be this as the Presbytery is guilty of others mens sins when they ordain into the Ministry suddenly without tryal of their gifts and life so in like manner those Ministers are guilty of others mens sins that receive al to the Sacrament without Examination To this I answer by pleading non-sequitur it remains for him to prove the necessity of the latter equal with the former let the like proof and reason be given for the one as the other they being of themselves things distinct to each other and different things in the premises will not bear the same conclusions And therefore that which the text intends I grant but deny the other untill further proof And for his distinction in principals and accessories in sin And non-examiners are accessories before the fact Still the question is but beg'd it 's still to prove that examination is the duty of every Minister in order to excluding the ignorant c. his distinction holds only in those sins or actions that are absolutely forbid in that which iâ— sin in its own nature but I deny that giving and receiving the Sacrament is so to baptized Christians of years and of the Church I have
6 7. Mark 14.1 3. Luk. 21.1 3. Joh. 13. 1 2. all the doubt is of this of John whether it be the same with the other three Answ Consult the words and circumstances v. 1. Now before the Feast of the Passeover c. Matthew and Mark hath it You know that after two dayes is the Feast of the Passeover Luke upon the same saith Now the Feast of unleavened bread drew nigh which is called the Passeover thus far you see there is no disagreement only Matthew and Mark are more punctual for the space of time before namely two dayes then Luke and John 2. They all agree in this that Judas began his treason made his bargain before the Passeover night or Supper 1 Joh. 13.1 2. compared Now before the Feast of the Passeover and Supper being ended the Devill having now put into the heart of Judas to betray him Even now before the Passeover came at a private civill Supper in Simon the Leapers house the Devil first put it into Judas heart to betray him And then Luke relates the same chap. 22.3 1. put together Now the Feast of the Passeover drew nigh Then entred Satan into Judas one of the twelve and he went his way and communed with the chief Priests how he might betray him unto them And they were glad and covenonted to give him money and he promised and sought opportunity to betray him in the absence of the people vers 4 5 6. Then after this came the Passeover vers 7. Thus it is clear the Devill entered into Judas before the Passeover Supper Now if the sop John spake of had been at the Passeover Supper which preceded Satans entring and prevailing putting Judas upon treason then how will Luke be reconciled and the other Matthew and Mark which spake the very same with Luke And from that time he sought to betray him Matth. 26.16 that is after he had made his bargain for thirty pieces of silver vers 15. all this was done before they went into the City or could tell where to keep the Passeover vers 17 18. The very same is in Mark 14.10 11. Thus far we see an agreement of all the Evangelists that the Devill entred Judas and he had plotted and contracted the treason before the Passeover Supper and therefore this of John cannot be meant of the Passeover night 1. Because the sop preceding Satans entring was before that night as Luk. 22.3 is expresse 2. Because that Supper Joh. 13.1 2. was before the Passeover 3. Because the sop in Joh. 13.27 was that which did immediately precede Satans entrance prevailing with Judas to betray his Master 4. Because when after the sop our Saviour saith What thou dost doe quickly the other Disciples not knowing what it meant thought because it was spoken to Judas he having the bag that Jesus had bid him buy those things that they had need of against the Feast vers 28 29. and therefore it was before the Passeover Feast began there being no lawful buying and selling when the Feast of the Passeover was begun If any shall say that St. Mark chap. 14.20 speaks the same with John and it 's clear that of St. Marks was spoken in relation to the Passeover Supper and therefore the dipping a sop in John was at the Passeover for they seem both to relate to the same thing Answ I grant St. Mark hath relation to the Passeover Supper but then I deny that both these dippings were the same and at the same time Marke saith Jesus said Verily I say unto you one of you that eateth with me shall betray me v. 18. Nay Christ came nearer and said it was one of the twelve that dipped with him in the dish and so left it in the general amongst them which caused every one to suspect himself But this in John seems to be a different thing for this of dipping and giving was occasioned by Johns private question vers 25. Lord who is it saith John leaning on Jesus breast being put on by Peter to move the question Jesus gave this sign privately only in answer to John He it is to whom I shall give a sop when I have dipped it and he gave it to Judas and said What thou dost doe quickly This discovered the Traytor unto John only For no man at the Table knew for what intent Christ spake thus unto him this is a far different thing to that of Marke there one of the twelve that did eat with him in the same dish which all did here he it is that Christ gave a sop unto when he had dipped it there one of the twelve here which of the twelve there none could be satisfied who was the Traytor here John only could tell that it was Judas and indeed John knew the Traytor but did not discover him Many more things might be added but I have done more then I intended to clear up the Evangelical Harmony in relation to Judas his receiving the Lords Supper Matthew Mark Luke are clear for the affirmative and John you may clearly see in his 13. ch speaks not at all of the Passeover Supper but of that Supper at Bethany which all the other make mention of too as well as he they larger in relating of some particulars he of other particulars for the perfecting of this holy History Hence it may be clearly concluded that Judas received the Sacrament And they all drunk of it Mark 14.23 And now you may easily see what foundation Mr. Saunders first convincing argument stands upon to prove that there should be Examination and differencing of men in order to Reformation and preventing unworthy receivers Christ though he knew Judas to be a Devil and had discovered him to be the Traytor unto John yet he gives both the Passeover and Sacrament of his body and bloud to Judas amongst the rest without any differencing act of exclusion yet not without telling him smartly of his sin and the judgements of God ready to follow thereupon which left him more without excuse I come now to his second Argument The means and the end come under the same command Now we finde the end commanded unworthy ones are forbidden and denyed Who will say that Ignorant and scandalous in life are to be admitted Now this being granted any proper and sufficient way to this end Namely the exclusion of the unfit cannot want a probation from the Word for the end is attained by means and is in vain set forth without them pag. 157. I grant those that are forbidden to come Answ there are means to be used to exclude them but I deny the Minor that Church-members for ignorance meerly or scandalous lives are forbidden to come untill all due means have been used to reform them as namely admonition private and authoritative Excommunication untill then I will say all Church-members of years ought to be admitted That which is the onely thing in question he would have it granted him as that unworthy ones as he