unto it being of no other religion then what the Gospel teacheth they may be said to be worthy whatever they are for sincerity and truth so again Matth. 22. concerning the invited guests to the marriage Supper which set forth the fat things of the Gospel administrations and the grace thereof the messengers were sent to call in the guests that were bidden but they made light of it and would not come and some went to their farms and others to their merchandize and others abused the servants that invited them c. Then the King was wroth and destroyed those murderers and said to his servants The wedding is ready but they that were invited were not worthy vers 8. This was meant of the unbelieving Jews that totally rejected Christ and would never come under his external administrations set up in his Church in order to salvation they are said you may see not to be worthy or unworthy but the Gentiles that came in though soâ—â— came absurdly and perished too at last yâ—â— there is no such thing said of them no the were worthy though they consisted of gooâ— and bad The invitation priviledged allâ— come there is no pleading I am unworth to come but refusal was that which the unworthinesse consisted in only From the hints of Scriptures we may conceive there no such thing as personal unworthinesse â— order to observance and duty of persoâ— in Covenant relation which all are the have entred Covenant though but in the parents untill they renounce the Covenanâ— or for their hating to be reformed by thâ— Churches just censures they be discovenanteâ— conditionally that if they never repent 〈◊〉 return to their obedience in a right way the are gone forever Now then I say if tâ— Scriptures charge not any with unworthynesse of person but such as I have instanced in who can imagin that the Churâ—â— of Corinth was punished for that I would gladly know of Mr. Collings of any other learned man where the Scriptureâ— threaten punishment against personal unworthinesse simply Or where can they give an instance that ever any wese punished for habitual unworthinesse at all in the Old or New Testament If you cannot finde such a thing in all the whole Bible what reason can you have to judge that the Corinths were punished for personal unworthinesse It 's true the sin of our natures derived from the first man is punished with death for we al dye in Adam but this natural death is a common lot appointed for all good and bad It 's appointed for all men once to dye Heb. 9.27 And we see death reigns over Infants that have not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression Rom. 5. but in this both original sin and death that follows thereupon is of unavoidable necessity by the decree of God So likewise as actual sin is the transgression of the law he that so transgresseth is lyable to the punishment of that law 1 Tim. 1.9 10. And the whole Law it self is made for the lawlesse and disobedient for the ungodly and for sinners for murderers for whoremongers for lyars and for perjured persons c. that is for the punishment of all wilful disobedience of men And so it is said of the Church If you will walk contrary to me I will walk contrary to you You have I known of all the families of the earth yet the Lord will punish them for their sins And wherefore doth living man complain for the punishment of his sin Lam. 3.39 all the punishments threatned in the Word and inflicted either by God or man were for actual offendings but we never read of any coming to the Ordinances that were punished for a meer want of regeneration circumcision of the heart an interest in Christ c. This is a case the Lord hath alwayes pityâ— and promised the cure of unto his Church forasmuch as no man can convert and reneâ— his own soul of himself nay of thosâ— that have the means and use the ordinarâ— means of their salvation as the Jews diâ— It 's said not of him that willeth nor of bâ— that runneth but it is God that sheweth mercy Râ— 9. Habitual unworthinesse in that respeâ— is unavoidable and is the common stateâ— all by nature as well them that are born the Church as those that are born out of iâ— Ephes 2. but the Covenants of promise aâ— made to the Church for the cure of this dâ— praved state And the Lord hath set up 〈◊〉 Ordinances of Word Sacraments and Prayâ— in the Church as the ordinary means foâ— men to use in their conversion and salvation revealed in the promises of the Covenant the neglect whereof is usually punishe with blindenesse and profanenesse not diligent frequenting of them But what iâ— God doth punish habitual or natural uâ—â— worthinesse it being an effect of Adams defection What is that to the Church that iâ— bounded by a rule May they contrary tâ— all rule judge of it and punish it therefore with suspension from the Sacrament Our blessed Saviour rebukes this rash humour in men saying Judge not lest you be judged It 's clear enough that we may judge of mens actions and finding them transgresfors we may punish their persons but we have nothing to doe to judge of mens persons let them be good or bad as to their persons that is nothing to us we must leave them to stand or fall to their own Master for what have we to doe to judge another mans servant But if either be found transgressors so far as their offendings come within the Churches cognisance to punish let them impartially doe it without respect of persons in the Church We read that those that are appointed to judge amongst their brethren Deut. 1 16 17. are to judge righteously between every man and his brother without respect of persons in judgement to hear the small as well as the great not fearing the face of any man for the judgement is the Lords and the cause that is too hard for man to judge of was to be brought before the Lord and he would hear it there is a rule given to judge of causes and actions between brother and brother And yet in point of causes and things external that brethren might differ in these might be too hard for men to judge of How much more hard is it to judge of the spirits of men within them whether they have an interest in Christ or no surely if in the other much more in this we are to refer it to the Lord besides you may see in judging about things which concerns the Church Matth. 18. 1. It must be of evill actions only 2. Upon sufficient proof 3. And in case of obstinacy refusing 〈◊〉 hear the Church c. before any judgement can issue out against them Tell me hoâ— you can apply this rule to personal unworâ— thinesse Can this be attested upon Oath oâ— is the Church able to convince any in particular of it Or is it
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
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
irrational and absurd And untill some better grounds be produced for the satisfaction hereof then Mr. Collins hath given I am not like to be answered in this very thing And let me tell Mr. Collins and all that are friends to his judgement that they must make out that very thing by holy Scriptures or else themselves will be forced to yeeld the cause and not so much as threaten their poor people any more with the murder of Christ and eating and drinking their own damnation for as to that which is visible which man is to judge of in the act of publick administration what fault can any of you finde I could wish that in all other publick Worship all persons would carry themselves as reverently and be as serious and intent in their attendance upon divine appointment It 's a strange thing to me that although you cannot charge upon your people the profanation of the holy Supper in that way that the Corinths were punished for yet you fright them with the same danger and are more severe in barring them from it then ever we read of by any Apostles or Elders in Scriptures In all other duties of publick worship you presse your people to be frequent in and to doe their homage to God as well as they can you will tell them is better then to neglect them And only touching this publick duty of the Sacrament you tell them they had better to forbear And it is a lesse sin not to come then to come although they come as prepared as they can When this is a duty incumbent to all in the Church that are baptized and of years sufficient to come under the obligation of positive precepts as any other is The usual grounds you have given will never hold because you have run your selves upon such mistakes about this main place of 1 Cor. 11. and I verily believe I have made such exceptions against the common interpretations of latter Divines that you will finde it a work of such difficulty to answer to satisfaction that you will be forc't either to deny our Church to be a true Church or else let the controversie fall I mean as it consists of all baptized members in general and act as true Scripture Churches have done both in the Old and New Testament I have seen what a deal of pains Mr. Collins hath taken to make good suspension from the Sacrament I have weighed his scripture arguments as heedfully as I am able with the judgement of the ancient and modern Divines and yet I cannot discern the least solid bottome for all that he hath said in that dispute to rest upon or trust in for my own satisfaction although God knows I have not the least prejudice against any authority he hath made use of but am willing to try all things And I purpose God willing to examine the main grounds of Scripture he hath concluded suspension from if I be not otherwise prevented hereafter in the mean time I shall goe on with this undertaking in hand I confesse were this true that personal unworthinesse in the Church did of necessity cause persons to eat and drink unworthily and so bring judgment or that the ignorant and scandalous amongst us that are actual offenders upon other accounts must of necessity eat and drink unworthily if they come and so bring judgement upon themselves for unworthy receiving there were some colour for to fright men and hinder them from coming to the Sacrament but if these things will not be sufficiently made good the ground of all our fears and scruples and devices is removed and taken away and we must conclude that so long as the outward administration is carryed on with reverence and external holinesse and goâ— order sutable to the institution and rules 〈◊〉 worship that there is no other unwortâ— communion in this part of Gods publiâ—â— worship then in the other parts thereof 〈◊〉 so much for the ignorant unregenerate Châ—â—stians are more carelesse and unreverent aâ— sluggish in hearing praying singing theâ— the Sacrament I cannot tell what men mâ— say to this I finde that Mr. Collins hâ— said but little to it notwithstanding my â—â—ging it so much in my Book he knowiâ—â— that if it be not fully answered all that 〈◊〉 hath said in favour of suspension will fall 〈◊〉 the ground and his book will be woâ—â— nothing I also shall in all humility desâ—â— Mr. Collins or any of his judgement to 〈◊〉 if they can make good the affirmative of tâ—â— next question Whether the Church be able to judge 〈◊〉 particular Quest what persons upon tryal wâ—â— eat and drink unworthily in the Apostlâ— sense Answ I say it 's a thing that the best Eldershâ—â— in the Church of England cannot certainlâ— know of any member beforehand for sâ—â— they finde one very ignorant of God anâ— Jesus Christ whom he hath sent and of Sâ—craments and all other worship yet 〈◊〉 being a baptized person and professing 〈◊〉 willingnesse to learn and to serve God it his publick worship as well as he can Upon what account can any disswade him from it as I have already proved in my Book the baptized as well as the circumcised come under all observance in the Church The which I shall have occasion to speak more fully unto hereafter when I come to that which Mr. Collins hath answered to that particular If you say such will eat and drink unworthily in the Apostles sense You cannot be sure of that which was seldome or never seen in our Congregations and for to disswade from a necessary duty of worship upon such a fear before hand that was seldome or never heard of is not very rational I shall easily grant that blinde obedience and service is sinful obedience And such lye under an unsutable frame of spirit to attempt any of the things of God that are holy and sacred But how doth this impotency and unsutable frame disengage them from duty and homage especially their reverential approaches unto Sacramental Communion being such as bears a good conformity to the main materials prescribed for the carrying on the external part of that service and men can judge but according to the outward appearance so that then there being no appearance of any open abuse and profaning holy things the Church cannot charge them with any other unworthy eating or drinking then praying and hearing and singing c. Which not any that are sober doth judge a ground competent to disswade from those duties Ignorant Church-members of years no objects of Church censures especially when they are willing to learn Besides ignorance is rather a meer want that cannot in many be helped for want of vision or plain instruction the which though it be threatned and punishable by the Lord yet comes not within the verge and cognisance of men to punish otherwise then it is punished in the effects of it yea even for the actual miscarriage of such c. Say again that some persons
will give you an acquittance or a release from Excommunication keep but from the Sacrament you need not fear any examination adomonition or excommunication if you can but dispense with your conscience carelessely to neglect this Ordinance you may freely enjoy all the rest as well as a Heathen or an Excommunicate person Nay it may be if you will but keep from the Sacrament he will allow you the title of Brethren as well as an Excommunicate person but if you will not be satisfied unlesse you may receive the Sacrament in remembrance of Christ for remission of sins then you must look to be called Hogs and Dogs unbelievers murderers of Christ the profane world that are without hope and God in the world This argument of his doth better become a Brownist then one that pretends to a friendly owning of our Church but the poor Church may say these slanders divisions Separations and confusions are the wounds that she hath received by the hands of such friends All that he saith in proof of his Minor hath been sufficiently answered already both by my learned friend Mr. Humfrey and my self I intend brevity for there is nothing left in his following arguments much considerable His seventh Argument Either it 's lawful for the Officers to deny the Sacrament to such as they finde ignorant scandalous and impenitent or they are bound to give into such But they are not bound to give it to such Ergo. His proof of the Minor is The Officers are not bound to administer the Ordinance to those who they know are not bound to receive it but the ignorant and scandalous are visibly such as are not bound to receive it Ergo. His main proof of this Minor is this If such be bound to receive then they are bound to make themselves guilty of the body and bloud of Christ and to eat and drink their own damnation which are strange things for a man to be bound in conscience unto This argument is wholly founded upon that grosse mistake of personal unworthinesse Answ which I have so clearly confuted at large in it's place where I shall refer the Reader for full satisfaction His eight Argument If none may be suspended but those who are excommunicated then none must be kept away but those that are contumacious But some may be kept away who are not contumacious Ergo. The major is plain Mat. 18. The minor only needs proof saith he 1. Surely those that are under admonition are to be kept away 2. Suppose one should come to the Minister the morning he were to receive and blaspheme Christ and tell him he came for nothing but to abuse the Church or suppose a Minister should know one of his people had committed murder theft incest whoredome the night before c. shall such be admitted they not being excommunicate if not then there is suspension distinct from Excommunication pag. 98. The Major admits of some question Answ 1 for Matth. 18.15 speaks not very clearly unto all cases that instance is of particular trespasses between private brethren which are things of a lesser nature yet these persisted in unto contumacy after the Churches admonition makes one lyable unto Excommunication but I question whether all publike notorious open scandalous sinners in the Church be thus to be proceeded against especially when their scandalous sinning is of long continuance and doth offend the Congregation the whole Congregation in such a case is to be satisfied which cannot be by a private repentance should it be supposed upon the admonitionof the Church I think the incestuous Corinth was not dealt withall according to that rule Matth. 18.15 Publike sins should have publike shame that others may fear and the offender be brought to a serious and notorious repentance before the Church declare themselves satisfied and receive them into holy Communion so that I think for the Church to proceed gradually in some cases as such as Mr. Collins doth instance in is not alwayes necessary nor to wait untill the offender appears to be obstinate but ipso facto to be forthwith censured But these cases are not to be left to the discretion of every particular Pastor to judge of but to the discretion and grave judgement of the ruling part of the whole Church Besides I question whether one that hath been often reproved in the publike Ministery and yet lives in scandalous sins of whoredome drunkennesse cursing and swearing variance and contention c. is not to be judged contumacious and upon that account the Church being in a capacity and informed should upon sufficient proof without delay Excommunicate him I leave these things to better Judgements but yet I am inclinable to conceive that Matth. 18. most properly respects private trespasses which are not openly known and how that rule should hold to be applyed in the same manner to open scandals that cause the name of God and the true profession of Religion to be blasphemed and reproached I am not very clear But now we shall examine his Minor But some may be kept away from the Sacrament that are not contumacious So may some be Excommunicate that are not contumacious as I have hinted at Answ which if that be true then the argument fals to nothing of it self But he saith surely Those that are under admonition are to be kept away This he begs how will he prove it For where the offence will admit of hearing the Churches admonition and upon that give hope or satisfaction of amendment why should they be kept from the Sacrament more then the other Ordinances they not being authoritatively put out of Church Communion is it rational for to execute before sentence be given Unto his suppositions I shall answer him first they are no proof If such may be Juridically suspended then they may be Juridically excommunicated for it is Juridical Suspension that is now in question And as it is stated the Church may as well doe the one as the other And the Church need not be long in giving sentence in such cases if there be clear proof besides the Sacrament may rather be rejourned for a short time then that any should justly be offended or that a single Minister should doe that which is not regular Murder thest incest whoredome is Felony by the civil Law of the Nation and if any can discover any such they should attach and put them into the custody of the Civil Officers these are gaol sins and to be punished by the Judges And I know no rule that doth warrant the Church to censure those that are under the penalty of the course of civil Courts of Justice If one should grant that in an extraordinary case some extraordinary course at the present might be taken as suppose some profane abuse at the Sacrament as to disturb the administration by some disorder I doubt not but the Churchwardens might thrust them out of the Church do the like to any that should come drunk or mad but what is