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
Church in that remembrance And I doubt not but Christ has a great number of his Elect alwayes of the unregenerate in the Church What incongruity in all this Besides some other things I said It sounds very harsh in the Church to exclude this Ordinance of Christ from being a means of converting the unregenerate in the Church they being the most proper objects of converting grace as held out in in the promises for the putting of which into execution all the Ordinances in the Church seeme to be subservient And I verily believe this Ordinance of the holy Supper had never been denyed to convert in the Church had not Divines run themselves upon such great mistake about habitual unworthinesse from 1 Cor. 11. That very mistake hath occasioned this for if the unregenerate eat and drink unworthily as the Corinths did and were punished for of necessity then it were rational to deny it a converting Ordinance for as the Reverent Doctor argues rationally from that thus Natural men are guilty of the bloud of Christ and eaâ— and drink judgement to themselves and shall we think that that sinful act in unworthy receiving shall be so blest of God as to become a means of conversion to them c. This must needs be a consequence of the other mistake That being removed men will easily yeeld the other Mr. Collins tels us of twenty arguments of Mr. Gillespy that it is not for conversion the which he sayes I have not yet answered I must confesse it neither doe I know what they are for I have not his Book My friend Mr. Humfrey hath promised to answer those arguments Which I believe will be easie enough to doe unlesse they be stronger then the strongest of Mr. Collins in his answer to Mr. Barsdale upon the same argument pag. 14. the latter end of his Book the which argument of his I shall examine anon Let us first see what he hath excepted against mine Which I think are so much for the probability of the affirmative that the negative must remain doubtful unto the impartial intelligent Reader That one special end of the work of the Ministery in general is for conversion of the unregenerate in the Church will hardly be denyed But to the administration of the Sacrament the main essentials of that work of the Ministery in the Church are of necessity as Word and Prayer and breaking of Bread Act. 2.42 Therefore one special end of the Sacrament as it is an essential part of that work is for the converting the unregenerate in the Church The major proposition is bottomed from Ephes 4.8 10 11 12 13 verses Christ ascended far above the heavens that he might fill all things And he gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers for the gathering of Saints for the work of the Ministery for the edifying of the body of Christ till we all come into the union of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulnesse of Christ 1. Here it is plain that God hath ordained the work of the Ministry in the hands of Pastors and Teachers in the Church to edifie the body of Christ untill the whole number of his elect be united to him and made compleat c. And we know there is alwayes in the Church objects of conversion as well as of the promises to which the work of the Ministry is intended to unite them unto Christ c. And this is to be done by the work of the Ministry in general without any distinction of parts the whole work together without exception of any part is for conversion in the Church as is clear from this place Now unlesse Mr. Collins or any other what ever can give us some clear Scripture to exclude a part of this work from that end of conversion they must allow this end of conversion to the work of the Ministry in general but as that was never performed as yet so I think never will by any only men take the boldnesse to separate that which the holy Ghost doth joyn together upon meer mistake about unworthy receiving And it is a rule that Mr. Collins doth justifie from Matth. 7.6 Where the Scriptures dâ— not distinguish we must not distinguish If a principal end of the work of the Ministry in the Church be intended for conversion in general then the particular parts of that work for the particulars are included in the general And the most comprehensive sense iâ— to be taken of all Scripture-expressions unlesse some other Scriptures put some limitations of that sense and when any man caâ— shew me a Scripture that excludes the administration of the Sacrament from this principal end of conversion in the Church I will have done with this Argument And untill then the Argument is of more force then all the authority of men meerly can in the least overthrow We should distinguish of preaching the Gospel unto Pagans that are aliens to the Common-wealth of Israel and of the work of the Ministry consisting of the whole administration of the Gospel intended only for the spiritual good of the visible Church of Christ unto Infidels the preaching of the Gospel is appointed the ordinary way and means to convert them unto the faith and bring them into the Church but those that are in the Church as they are objects of the promises and under the obligation of all observances which Infidels are not so they are under greater advantages of converting them unto sincerity of faith and the power of godlinesse by the work of the Ministry in general of which Infidels are allowed but a part The minor proposition is evident that to the administration of the Sacrament it 's necessary that the main essentials of the work of the Ministry in the Church be performed as publishing not only the Word of institution but the History of Christs death and passion with exhortations sutable to the Ordinance in hand according to the practise and custom of our own Church with solemn prayers and praises considerably meet for so waighty an Ordinance unto which are adjoyned instituted signes to be given and taken in remembrance of the death of Christ all which concurring together in the act of administration doth comprise upon the matter the main essentials of publick worship wherein the work of the Ministry doth chiefly consist so that I cannot conceive how the premises can be denyed by any therefore the conclusion doth necessarily follow That the Sacrament as it is an essential part of the work of the Ministry is for conversion in the Church But Mr. Collins saith This argument is worth nothing But why did he not shew the weaknesse of it then his bare say so is no answer But he sayes Let it be proved that therefore Christ hath appointed it for conversion if it were doubtlesse the excommunicate should not be debarred I have made good 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
civil and necessary occasions if they bought any such meat at the shambles they might lawfully eat it without scruple of conscience nay further if an unbeliever should bid a Christian to a civil feast he leaves them to their own liberty to goe and eat whatsoever was set before them But I have been too long already yet I was willing to search after the true sense of the place which is not easily discerned unlesse we minde heedfully the scope especially when a thing is in an intricate case and so much reasoning largely held out proving that to be evill by consequence as cloathed with some circumstances which in it's self in its own nature is lawful and good as here Now I shall examine Mr. Coll. argument what bottome it stands on his argument is It 's unlawful to give the Sacrament unto those that cannot eat it But there may be some in the Church not Excommunicate who cannot drink of the Lords cup Ergo c. His Major he saith is proved vers 21. I will confess that in this place we have the Sacrament spoken of and that those that the Apostle blames for drinking the cup of Devils were not Excommunicate but yet I deny that it was unlawful to give the Sacrament to such For 1. it 's a great question and will require some time for Mr. Collins to prove That eating of things offered unto Idols was a sin that came within the verge of the Church to punish with putting such out of Sacramental Communion In the 5. chapter as I take it those that the Apostle deals with in the 10. Chapter are not in that particular list vers 11. which the Church was to judge doubtlesse if they had been such Idolaters that in the 5. chap. 11. he speaks of he would have threatned the rod and given order unto the Elders of the Church to put out of their Communion such Idolaters for their connivence at Idolaters would leaven the lump as well as an incestuous person but herein not a word of any such thing But he will be ready to say The Apostle spoke of putting out of Comâ—union before in the 5. chap. therefore it was not necessary to repeat it again in the 10. I but how will these things hang together 1. To give a charge to the Church to cast out Idolaters and then himself using such mildnesse of speech and variety of argumentation as I have shewed to convince them that it was a sin granting the thing in it self lawfull but evill in respect of some circumstances 2. The main argument to prove their eating and drinking in the Idol Temple to be a sin was drawn from the nature of the Sacrament in which themselves as Christians are said to have Communion with Christ by being partakers of the cup and bread consicrated for to represent the body and bloud of Christ in like manner they were said to have Communion with Devils by being partakers of the cup and meat in the Idol Temple that was consecrated and offered unto Idols and hence the Apostle would not have them to have Communion with Devils as all his other reasons so this tends solely to reform them in that particular of eating in the Idol Temple and not a word of forbidding any such the Sacrament as Mr. Collins would have it when he saith The sum is they who cannot drink the cup of the Lord are either 1. Such as God hath forbidden coming thither 2. Or those that can have no Communion with Christ nor benefit by this Ordinance Those that give credit to that sense Answ must be such as adhere more to Mr. Collins fancy then the sense of holy Scriptures what are any of those two to the text in hand was any forbid the Sacrament that eat of things offered unto Idols 2. Doth not the Apostle affirm that they all had Communion with Christ in partaking of the cup of blessings Is not that the very medium of his argument the Apostle argues from their Sacramental Communion as Christians to decline Communion with Idolaters Mr. Collins argues from their Communion with Idols to a none Communion as Christians And thus the Judicious Reader may easily judge of the soundation of his argument who out of an inconsiderate rashnesse most grossely runs upon mistake and thence forms a silly syllogism pag. 29. I grant it a sin to deliver the Sacrament to those whom we know God hath forbid it But I deny that these of Corinth spoken of are in the least so much as blamed or in the least tittle forbid the Sacrament the Apostle proves they all took it and had Communion in Christ in it I wonder that ever a man pretending unto sober principles should be so fond as to think that those that the Apostles writes to as Saints sanctified in Christ Jesus his dearly beloved Brethren and writing unto them as wise men and such that had great gifts and largenesse of knowledge in their liberties by Jesus Christ that knew an Idol was nothing in the world and that which was offered was never the worse every creature of God was good and not to be resused c. as the Apostle yeelds I say how he comes to think that these should be forbidden the Sacrament and to be such as could not have Communion with Christ makes me wonder if Saints and the Apostles dearly beloved Brethren whom he argues so friendly with were not under Christs command of this necessary observance in the Church then here is not any that are but I have said enough to this already and all that he saith to this text is most irrational and impertinent to prove that some in the Church not excommunicated ought to be denyed the Sacrament this place proves that they did all partake of that one Sacramental bread 1 Cor. 10.17 and puts the thing past questioning He hath more things in making good his argument but having pluckt up his ground work it 's too tedious both for me to write and you to read the confutation of the rest for it will fall of it self you must grant him what he sayes to be true because he sayes it for he is not able in the least to bring any one argument from Scripture to prove suspension distinct from Excommunication as himself states it I will trouble you but with two things more of his in this argument for now I intend brevity in all he has further to say in defence of Suspension for I know not any one thing more much material that I have not fully answered in the former discourse in order to his several exceptions against the Bar removed He sayes He hopes we have all too reverend thoughts of the wisdome of God to think that he should lay an obligation upon his Ministers to give this Ordinance unto them whom he hath warned upon pain of damnation not to take it What is this but to beg the question Answ and thence insinuate upon us an absurdity let him first prove that a