A Second Vindication of a Free Admission to the Lords Supper, Section 12
SECT. 12:
ANd this I take to be ſo true, full, and convincing, that I ſhould hardly need any thing more for the anſwering even the whole of thoſe arguments for juridical ſuſpenſion, which is of late put forth by Mr. Coll: in that book of his upon this ſubject, wherein I may truly ſay there is beſtowed a good deal of reading, only as it were to diſcover how little there is to be found in others, and nothing from himſelf (beſides humane authority) for his opinion.
I muſt confeſſe there are here Certain Scriptures and Reaſons urged by him, with ſo much pedantry, that is more than enough; and it will be neceſſary that I give my thoughts concerning the Scriptures, though for what is mere formalitie, oſtentation, or perſonal abuſe, it may paſſe. I pray God teach that author, and all of us, to become a little more vile in our own eys, that we may learn to vilifie others leſſe. The Scriptures are four or five.
The firſt is Mat. 7.6. Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, nor caſt ye your pearls before Swine, leſt they trample them under their feet, and rent you. For my judgement on this text, I conceive,
1. That this ſpeech was proverbial among the Jews; and I think I have read or heard it is in the Talmud.
2. That the purport or meaning, not the letter, is to be attended.
3. That this meaning or ſenſe hereof tends unto prudence, or a prudential managing of ſuch things as are deſigned to a good end.
4. That theſe holy things and pearls, (though they may more ſpecially in the coherence, and in the thing, agree with admonition) are to be taken in general for all ſuch things as have a ſubſerviency to holy uſes. 1. Becauſe the text limits them not. And 2. Becauſe there is no neceſſitie for us to do it.
5. That theſe doggs and ſwine are not to be taken in general for all ſorts of ſinners, for the ſame reaſons on the contrary.
1. Becauſe the text it ſelf does deſcribe them, to wit, to be ſuch as will trample the holy things under their feet, and turn again and rent us.
2. Becauſe there is likewiſe neceſſity ſo to do. For no holy thing or pearl can be given to dogs or ſwine by this precept, it being boldneſſe to limit what Chriſt hath not limited.
But ſome holy things (as the word, or admonition) may be given, and was given by Chriſt himſelf unto ſuch as are dogs and ſwine in general in other texts, as ſuppoſe ignorant and ſcandalous perſons; therefore muſt not the ſenſe of theſe dogs and Swine, be of all ignorant and ſcandalous ſinners in general; but on neceſſity be confined to the text in hand, in which ſenſe it is true, that no holy thing at all is to be given to ſuch.
6. By theſe holy things then and pearls, I underſtand all things, whether matters of Religion, which are more properly the holy things, (as wholeſom counſels in Scripture, pious conferences, opening our experiences, and in general, the ordinances;) or matters of morality, which may be more properly the pearls (as precious ſayings, wiſe ſerious contrivances, advice, actions) ſo far as they are either appointed of God, or made uſe of by reaſon for the Edification of others. And by dogs and ſwine I underſtand all perſons, whether ignorant, or not ignorant, ſcandalous or not ſcandalous otherwiſe, that are but like in the uſe hereof towards them, to trample on) he things, and rear the givers, that is both to contemn the one, and deſpite the other.
The ſubſtance then of this precept or counſel of Chriſt, as I am fully perſwaded, without binding others, comes to this, that every man in the managing of good things, ſhould be prudent, ſo far, as to have a care, and ſuch regard to the perſons (with other circumſtances) to whom he diſpenſes them, that we are to forbear, when we ſhall but exaſperate, give occaſion of contempt, and do no good by them.
For inſtance, ſuppoſe a man (otherwiſe godly) is in a paſſion, ſo that I ſee reproof, (which is a pearl and good thing in its ſeaſon) would be ſurely contemn'd, if I ſhould give it him at the preſent, and make him flie upon me, in this caſe now, under this dogged humour, this rule of Chriſt commands me in prudence to forbear, and take another opportunity to do my duty.
This foundation being laid, I ſhall here propoſe theſe two queſtions.
1. How can our delivering the Sacrament to our intelligent & unexcommunicate members, be a giving thereof unto dogs, ſeeing we are ſure they will not turn again upon us, and rent us for that; Or ſwine (which ſome diſtinguiſh) ſeeing they doe not trample thereupon, by neglect, vilipending, deſpiſing or rejecting of it (for that is trampling the holy things in the text) but ſo far as we can poſſibly ſee, do reverently receive it?
2. Whereas if we with old the Sacrament from them, unleſſe we could have a fair proceeding unto cenſure, which would ſtop their mouths, they on the contrary will turn upon us and rent us; withall trampling thereupon, by not caring at all for it: Whether or no is not this rather a plain breach (in the want of prudence) of this rule, ſeeing ſuſpenſion of them is ſuppoſed to be a holy thing and pearl, and theſe perſons in this caſe, unleſſe we could take farther order, we are ſure are doggs and ſwine in reference thereunto, in the very ſence of the text. Let thoſe tender Miniſters that have been ſo much ſcrupled about this buſineſſe, lay this conſideration well to their hearts, together with the wiſdom and ſweetneſſe of their Saviour, whoſe commands are not grievous, and they may happily find ſatisfaction, even in this very text, from which they may have likely received at firſt the deepeſt impreſſions towards the enſnaring of their conſciences.
The ſecond Scripture is 1 Cor. 10.21. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of Devils, ye cannot be partakers of the Lords table, and the table of Devils.
For the ſenſe of theſe words, I judge there is no difficultie. Many of the Corinths being brought over from Heatheniſm to Chriſtianity, and ſo members of that Church, made nevertheleſſe but little conſcience (as if it were a lawfull thing) of going to the temple of Idols, & eating there, of thoſe things that were ſacrificed to Devils; Now to reclaime them from this, and prove that they ought not ſo to doe, the Apoſtle uſes this argument; I ſpeak to you, ſaies he, as wiſe, that is, as rational men, Judge ye what I ſay; Doe not you know that the Sacrament which we celebrate is the communion of the body & bloud of Jeſus Chriſt, ſo that all that partake thereof are viſibly profeſſors of communion with him? So all that partake of thoſe meats ſacrificed to Idols, are viſible profeſſors of communion with theſe Devils. Now there is no agreement between Chriſt and theſe Idols, ſuch things are foreign, you cannot partake of the table of Lord, and the table of Devils.
In which words wee are to underſtand by this Cannot, foreign, a Logical cannot, that is, in reaſon you cannot; this is manifeſt, becauſe he lays it down by way of argument, which the more you conſider, will be the leſſe denied; and by theſe words, the cup and table of the Lord, and the cup and table of Devils, we muſt underſtand the outward elements in both, that is, the bread and wine in the Sacrament, and that meat offered to Devils in their Idol-temple, the reaſon being open, becauſe the Apoſtle argues from their partaking of the one, againſt their partaking of the other.
For thoſe Commentators (as Pareus) that reſtrain the ſenſe to inward ſpiritual communion, becauſe we Can (ſay they) partake of the outward things in both, they go but on a ſlight foundation; for this Cannot, we ſay, is not a natural cannot, but a logical cannot, A cannot argumentative. Ye cannot partake of this Sacrament (ſaies the Apoſtle) and of thoſe meats ſacrificed to Idols, becauſe there is no agreement between theſe things (he explains his own cannot) there is a plain inconſiſtency in reaſon between them; for by the one we profeſſe communion with Chriſt, by the other with devils; and I would not have you (ſaies he, v. 20.) have communion with devils.
To this purpoſe, that Note from Beza upon the word cup is pertinent, that it is not ſaid, you cannot partake of the body and blood of Chriſt, which would rather expreſſe this inward communion, but you cannot partake of the cup and table, which muſt intend the outward elements, and not the things ſignified only, the very drift, reaſon, and matter of the Apoſtle elſe is evacuated. Not as Mr. Col. urges, becauſe Pauls argument is plainly to prove the unlawfulnes of their comming to this table, while they were guilty of ſuch ſinnes, which is indeed a plain untruth, but becauſe his argument is from their partaking of the Lords table as their duty, being Chriſtians, to diſprove their partaking of the meats offer'd to Idols with the Heathens.
I know ſome interpret this Cannot morally, Id poſſumus ſolùm quod jure poſſumus, You cannot, that is, in few words, you ought not; which might be admitted, if they will apply it right, to wit, thus; You cannot, that is, you ought not, to goe to the Idol-temples, who are according to your profeſſion to bee partakers of the Lords table. But for them to apply it quite contrary, you go to the temple of Idols, and ſo you cannot, that is, you ought not, come to the Sacrament; This I muſt tell them cannot be admitted, Cannot, in the ſenſe of the Texts cannot, that is, cannot in any reaſon.
Let this cannot then here be underſtood, not of a phyſical cannot, nor a bare moral cannot, but a logical cannot, grounded if you will on a moral cannot on the one ſide, yet ſo long as you ſhall not be able to deny the moral Can, which the whole former part of the chapter enforces, on the other, here will be nothing at all for the adverſarie. The Apoſtle does not ſay any where before, You partake of the table of Idols, or have eaten of thoſe meats, & I would not have you have felloſhip with Chriſt; But he ſays plainly, you partake of the Lords Table, you are in communion with Chriſt, and I would not that ye ſhould have fellowſhip with devils.
Thus then the main being clear, I ſhall propoſe here four things.
1. Whether it can be denied that this action of theſe Corinths, in partaking of theſe Idol-tables, was ſcandalous? Scandalum being dictum vel factum minùs rectum praebens atteri occaſionem ruinae.
2. If it cannot, how then can any man gather an argument from this place (whatſoever they may do from others) for the keeping away perſons from the Sacrament for ſcandal, when the Apoſtle himſelf pleads the general priviledge of theſe perſons comming to the Sacrament, as an argument to reclaim them from their ſcandall?
3. Whether this argument here may not be irrefragably advanced; Thoſe that were by the A oſtles reaſoning engaged from partaking of the table of Idols, partook of the Lords Supper (for this is the ground upon which he proves they might not partake thereof) But not only thoſe Corinths that were more pious, but thoſe ſcandalous patricularly, were hereby engaged, and warned from partaking of thoſe tables of devils; Ergo, theſe Corinths, though ſcandalous, were admitted to the Sacrament. Thus much is not to be gain aid they were. I adde, and they ought to be (tid excommunicate) upon the ſame conſideration, becauſe elſe you make a ſinfull medium in the Apoſtles Argument.
4. Whether many of our godly brethren that take occaſion from theſe words, to ſeparate from us in our mixt communions, are not a little miſtaken in them, ſeeing the Apoſtle here pleads not againſt the comming of divers perſons (good and bad) to the ſame table, but againſt the ſame perſons, going to diverſe tables.
The third Scripture is, 1 Cor. 5.8. Therefore let us keep the feaſt not with the old leaven, &c.
For the meaning of theſe words, we find in the beginning of the chapter, the Apoſtle is ſpeaking to theſe Corinths about their gathering together in an eccleſiaſtical way, for the excōmunicating the inceſtuous perſon, as appears eſpecially from the laſt verſe, unto which with v. 7. and the word foreign in v. 5. what Eraſtus oppoſes I judge is ſtrain'd and inſufficient, though what he urges upon the words foreign, were plauſible otherwiſe. For this now St. Paul gives his plain reaſon, which yet he expreſſes metaphorically, Know ye not that a little leaven, leaveneth the whole lump? that is, one ſuch evil example tolerated, will bring a blot or infamy upon the whole Church, beſides the hurt it may doe through imitation. Purge out therefore the old leaven that you may be a new lump, that is, Caſt our of your ſociety therefore this perſon; For Chriſt our paſſeover is ſacrificed for us, that is, as to the ſenſe and matter agreeable to Tit. 3.14. Chriſt gave himſelf for us to redeem us from all iniquity, and to be a peculiar people zealous of good works: ſo that Chriſt being ſacrificed for us, is an argument to us, as to purge out ſin in our ſelves, ſo to purge out the old leaven from the Church. The word Old, happily may ſignifie, not every freſh ſinner for one lapſe, or ſo, but the veterate, and obſtinate therein. For the manner of the expreſſion, it is plainly brought in by way of elegancy, in purſuance of the Metaphor, as likewiſe the text that follows, therefore let us keep the feaſt. The words are foreign, Igitur epulemur, as the olo tranſlation; that is, Ita que ſolennitèr vivamus; or, vitam preſentem tranſeamus; Let us live feſtivally: or as the Margin of our Engliſh Bibles, moſt properly, Let us keep holy day, to wit, in our communion together as Chriſtians. Let us lead or paſſe our life, which ought to be a perpetual celebration of our redemption, Not with the old leaven, or the leven of malice or wickednes, but with the unleavened bread of ſincerity and truth; that is, what the Iſraelites did typically for 7 days, let us perform in the truth and thing ſignified, all the days of our lives, to wit, purging out the leven both of imbred corruption, and ſcandal from amongſt us. So that to make here a ſolemn enquiry what is this feaſt we are to keep in the text, ſeems to me, an injudicious and needleſs trouble, the ſubſtantive Feaſt being not in the text, but the Metaphor expreſt only in one verb foreign manifeſtly borrowed to follow the alluſion, or to ſuit with the reſt in the ſenſe I have ſpoken according to Athanaſius, Chryſoſtome, Theophilact, Lyra, Calvin, Beza, 'Diodate, our Aſſemblies annotations, with the moſt upon the place. From all which, it will appear, that though this text may be well urged, as it is by Beza and his followers againſt Eraſtus, to prove Excommunication, yet here is nothing againſt me, to prove Suſpenſion as diſtinct from Excommunication: which Mr. Rutherford acknowledges in his Divine right of Ch: Gov: p. 349. We contend not (ſaies he) that the debarring of men from any one Ordinance, was ſignified by the putting away of the leaven, but the putting a wicked perſon out of the church 1 Cor. 2. with v. 5, 6, 7, 13.
The Fourth Scripture is 1 Cor. 5.11. which with the words before is this, I wrote to you in an epiſtle not to company with fornicators; yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, for then must ye needs goe out of the world. But now I have wrote to you not to keep company, If any man that is called a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, with ſuch a one no not to eat.
In this text there is only one difficulty to our purpoſe, and that is, what is meant by this Company and Eating? Dr. Hammond in his Power of the Keyes, is ſomething willing to take it of ſacred communion only, as others both of ſacred & civil upon the cenſure of excommunication; Unto which, as I have ever confeſt my ſelf inclining, ſo am I now no leſſe than ever. Notwithſtanding there are theſe reaſons may be produced for the contrary, that it is to be taken only of common eating and ordinary familiarity, without cenſure.
1. Becauſe the Apoſtle ſeems to bring in this as a new matter from that before (which is more manifeſtly about excommunication) though ſuitable to it. I wrote to you in an epiſtle, &c.
2. Such as is the communion with theſe we are to avoid, ſuch is the eating, becauſe the one explains the extent of the other; But that ſeems to be of ordinary familiarity, Keep not company with them.
3. That company and eating is permitted in this place to an heathen fornicator, which is not to ſuch a one called a brother; But Sacramental eating or communion was not permitted to an Heathen; therefore it is not Sacramental eating, of which the place ſpeaks.
4. The manner of expreſſion, which is, by way of explanation, as to the extent, how farre this not keeping company reaches; with ſuch keep no company, no not to eat, as it ſhews this eating to be of the ſame kind with companying, ſo it ſeems plainly to hold it forth, as a thing the moſt common, or dinary, and the leaſt matter amongſt them to be admitted to, of any, No not to eat. But my oppoſers will hardly ſure conceive thus of this ſacred and ſolemn eating at the Sacrament. If they will, (it being of old in common with their love-feaſts, and and mingled with them) why ſhould they ſcruple at free-admiſſion as to this ordinance, above other parts of Chriſtian communion, from which they exclude none before excommunication?
5. There may be clear reaſon for a man to eat at the ordinance with ſuch a perſon, whom yet he is to avoid in his common familiarity, becauſe the one is neceſſary, which he is bound to obſerve as part of the ſervice of God; but the other (at leaſt as to the nature of the thing in its ſelf) is arbitrary, at his own liberty.
6. This may be exemplified in the Phariſees, who would not eat at their common table with any of the Publicans, whom yet they could not debarre the Sacrifices, Paſſeover, or ſervice of the temple, many of them being not only Jews; but devout men.
7. There may very probably be a difference between this foreign in v. 11. and an foreign in v. 13. & 2. It may be one thing to withdraw our ſelves from ſuch a man, and another to remove ſuch a man from amongſt us. The one may reſpect Church-cenſure, and not the other.
Upon theſe reaſons I confeſſe for my own part, before I read Eraſtus, (which to ſay the truth I had not done, nor yet ſeen him, till after my Rejoynder was abroad) I have been ſwayed to this opinion But ſince I have read him and ſome of hi… oppoſers, I am more indiffer…nt …oward the other.
1. Becauſe the moſt Commentators I ſee, and the ableſt of Eraſtus antagoniſts, do go that way, making theſe verſes, as the reſt of the Chapter, ſerve for excommunication, and I have no mind to approve of the taking away of Churchcenſure, which this text as well as others, may help to maintain.
2. Becauſe the Apoſtle ſpeaks of keeping company in general, and eating in general, and I begin to fear a man may be too bold to limit it to common familiarity onelyonly, as to ſacred only; Yet as to the limitations of that old verſe, Utile, lex, humile, res ignorata, neceſſe. I count theſe words in v. 10. will bear them out by way of proportion, to wit, Yet not altogether, for then muſt you needs goe out of the world.
3. Becauſe theſe reaſons I have laid down doe indeed ſeem to me cogent (at leaſt ſome of them) for the proving that common ſociety and eating muſt be underſtood here incluſively; but I think them not ſo cogent to prove it excluſively, that ſacred communion and eating may not be meant here alſo.
4. Becauſe I queſtion whether a man be bound to avoid every ſcandalous ſinner in civil communion, or ordinary eating, unle…e in caſe of partaking in their ſins, by acting with them, connivance or the like, until he is cenſured by the Church, and ſo this precept may be perhaps to be underſtood only upon ſuppoſition, that there is a precedent eccleſiaſtical judging, and declaring him to be avoided; for it ſeems a grievous thing to think, I may not eat with a covetous perſon, or the like, in our neighbouring invitations; yet indeed I may be bound not to chuſe ſuch for my Companions in intimate familiarity.
However, as unbyaſſed herein, and not more peremptory than the matter will afford; It ſhall ſuffice me to ſpeak to the text ſo far as it concerns my ſelf; To do which partially we muſt have recourſe to the following verſe, ver. 12. For what have I to do to judge them alſo that are without, doe not ye judge them that are within? The Illative, for, plainly brings the matter before to be concerned here, and the meaning of the words I take to be this; The Apoſtle may be ſaid to judge ſuch by preſcribing rules, or giving precepts concerning avoiding them, and the Church may be ſaid to judge them by doing anſwerable to his preſcriptions; Whether that muſt be neceſſarily underſtood in their Elders meeting together according to Order for the excluding ſuch by eccleſiaſtical cenſure; Or the people only every one avoiding ſuch by a judgement of private diſcretion, I cannot determine; but rather doubt, whether any reaſons can be ſo manifeſtly laid down on the one ſide, but that there will be reaſon leſt like wiſe for the other.
If this judging then, Doe not ye judge thoſe that are within? be meant of eccleſiaſtical cenſure, upon which, ſuch men are to be avoided, then muſt this cenſure be the cenſure of excommunication. For, That cenſure by which men are excluded Chriſtian Societie in general, and not the Sacrament only, is the cenſure of excommunication. But ſuch is this, in the expreſſe words, Keep not company with ſuch. It is not ſaid only, Eat not with ſuch, but Keep not company, no not to eat, explaining as I have ſaid, the extent thereof; And then you may have ſtill a text here, if you will, againſt Eraſtus, to prove excommunication; but here is nothing againſt me to prove Suſpenſion as diſtinct from Excommunication.
If by judging (Do not ye judge, &c.) be meant only a judgment of private diſcretion, and no Church-cenſure, then muſt this keeping company and eating, be meant only of common familiarity, and thoſe reaſons before mentioned will certainly evince it upon that ſuppoſitiō; For it is a moſt grievous and unreaſonable thing, that one private brother ſhould avoid another in any one of the publick Ordinances or worſhip of God upon his own private judgement. Privato cujuſquam ar bitrio hunc vel illum defugiendum relinquere nihil aliud eſt quā ſchiſmatibus & infinitis offendiculis januam aperire, ſaies Beza De Presb. p. 91. and ſo Gilleſpie, and others; and then this text makes nothing for Suſpenſion nor Excommunication neither.
There is but one thing here, which all have, can be urged: and that is this, If wee muſt avoid ſuch a perſon at our own table in common familiarity, then much more at the Lords table. But this objection is ſufficiently met withall in the laying down my matter. It is true, if this avoiding ſuch, be upon a Church-cenſure (which then I ſay is excommunication, not ſuſpenſion) the argument, à minori ad majus, may hold. That cenſure, that excludes a man from commō eating, does much more exclude him from the Lords table; if from commō familiarity, then much more from ſacred communion. But if this avoiding ſuch (which is ſuppoſed in the pleading hereof) be upon private diſcretion, the argument is no waies valid, becauſe the denyal of common eating at our own table is in every mans private hands, but the denial of eating at the Sacrament is in the Churches hands, and for one private brother to take upon him to avoid another at the publick ordinance, before Church-cenſure, will not I hope be maintained, by any that are not in love with Schiſm and ſeparation.
Unto this text I might adde a fifth, 2 Theſſ. 3.14. which is a parallel to it. If any man obey not our word by this Epiſtle, Note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be aſhamed.
Here we have the ſame foreign and I conceive the ſame difficulty. For ſome do look on this Note here as private, civil, common only; and ſome do take it to be Eccleſianical, authoritative, a Note of cenſure, for which Auſtine, Ambroſe, Chryſoſtom, Theophylact, Theoderet, are quoted among the Fathers, and the learned Anti-Eraſtians of late, do all go this way.
For my part therefore (without determining that which is dubious, and having no need to determine it) I ſhould anſwer to this text as to the laſt. If this Noting be private onelyonly, then does the Apoſtle command us onelyonly not to keep common company or familiarity with diſorderly perſons, and ſo the text concerns not the Sacrament at all. If this Note be Eccleſiaſtical, then does the Apoſtle command us to excommunicate ſuch perſons, and ſo the texts concerns the Sacrament as a part of company in general, and no otherwiſe, which is moſt plain and undeniable, in that there is not a tittle in the chapter to point out to us this Sacrament in particular.
For the former interpretation there may be theſe reaſons, 1. The perſons to be noted are the diſorderly in the verſes before, that went about idle, and would not work for their living; Now the bare denying ſuch perſons entertainment in their houſes, and not keeping them company, ſeems a direct and ſufficient courſe alone to reclaim them herein, and ſet them to work, eſpecially when they knew the Apoſtles precept, That if any would not labour, neither ſhould he eat, v. 10.2. Theſe words foreign may refer to the foreign, and be thus conſtrued, Hunc notum facite per epistolam, ſignifie that man by an epiſtle, to wit, that he may be cenſured if the caſe require, and not to be underſtood as already under cenſure. 3. The perſon that is under cenſure, is to be accounted as an Heathen, Matt. 18.17. but this perſon here is not to be accounted as an Heathen, (for ſo the word Enemy probably ſignifies, as in Rom. 11.28. Eph. 2.16.) but admoniſhed as a brother, v. 15.
For the other interpretation there may be theſe reaſon.
1. The perſon to be noted, is not only diſorderly, v. 11 but ſeems here alſo to be refractory; If any man obey nor, or will not obey.
2. The word foreign is judged more than a bare foreign indeed ſignifies barely indico, but foreign, notam imprimo.
3. The foreign (which I deſire may be moſt obſerved) Keep not companie (as in the text before) is general, and indefinite, comprehending all ſociety, both ſacred and civil, and there is nothing to limit the ſame in the text. Now to avoid a perſon ſo far, as to have no company in general with him, is not to be ſuppoſed, but upon an eccleſiaſtical cenſure.
4. The end wherefore the perſon is Noted, is the ſame with excommunication, to wit, that the man be brought to ſhame or repentance.
I muſt confeſſe, to deal ingenuouſly, If I were to chuſe out an argument to prove Suſpenſion, I ſhould pick out this text chiefly, which yet Mr. Coll: fore-quoted, hath not produced for one amongſt theſe others. And I would urge it thus, Here is a Noting of a perſon to this end, that he may be aſhamed, which is probably a Church-cenſure. But this cenſure is not excommunication, becauſe the excommunicate is to be counted as an heathen, Mat. 18. but this perſon is ſtill to be accounted as a brother, v. 15. (which reaſon is not the leaſt amongſt the reſt now mentioned) therefore muſt this cenſure be an Excluſion from the Sacrament only, or Suſpenſion. And this argument, I ſuppoſe, were more to the point, than any of thoſe I read in this reverend Brother, which generally doe labour ſtill in this one fault, that they prove Suſpenſion by Excommunication, when they ſhould prove the ſame as diſtinct from it.
Yet were not this argument neither to be thought ſufficient and convincing,
1. Becauſe the ground on which it ſtands, is at moſt but probable; We are not ſure this Noting here is eccleſiaſtical.
2. Becauſe thoſe Divines that do underſtand this text, as well as Mat. 18. of Excommunication, do reconcile them both pretty well together.
Some ſay the Excommunicate is not as a man quite diſmember'd, but as a diſeaſed member under cure. It is not ſaid foreign, but foreign. Some ſay he is caſt out, quoad us in ſe, not quoad jus ad rem. Others ſay he is indeed caſt hereby out of the Church, but this is conditionally, he is not as an heathen abſolutely, but that ſuch an expreſſion may be uſed. I will adde, A man may be Relatively put into the ſtate of a heathen, through ſome miſdemeanour, when yet Really he may be a Saint and a true child of God. 3. If this does not ſatisfie, but that you think here is a cenſure, and that not ſo high as excommunication, it will not follow for all this, that it muſt be neceſſarily this ſuſpenſion, becauſe it may be any thing elſe as well, unleſſe there was ſomething in the place, to diſcover that the Apoſtle had ſome aim here in particular at the Sacrament; which being a vain thing to affirm, if you ſhould frame twenty kinds of keeping not company, or excluſions, as well as from the Sacrament, and ſhould ſay the Text means one of them, you would have quite as much from the place to prove the one as well as the other.
To conclude then theſe Scriptures, (about which I have been ſomething long) Mr. Col. argues thus ſtill in the main (and in particular p. 87.) It is the duty of Church Officers to keep the fellowſhip of the Church pure, for to this end is the rod of Diſcipline put into their hands, Therefore muſt ſuch and ſuch perſons be excluded the Sacrament. But he ſhould ſay therefore they ſhould be excluded Church-fellowſhip; for to plead for ſuſpenſion from this Ordinance only, inſtead of caſting them out of fellowſhip in general, to this end that it may be kept pure, is nothing elſe but to yeeld openly, that Church-fellowſhip in other parts of it ſhould remain polluted and impure. And then will all theſe texts return moſt forcibly on himſelf, and overwhelme him. Chriſt does not ſay, keep the Sacrament only from Dogs and ſwine, but give no holy things at all to them. Paul does not ſay, Purge out the leaven from this ordinance only, but from the lump. He does not ſay, Keep not company only in the Sacrament; but Keep no company, Put ſuch a one from amongſt you; Let him be as an Heathen. The ſumme then is this, according to what hath been before. If theſe very Scriptures which are alleadged for ſuſpenſion, do reſpect the Sacrament no otherwiſe but as a part of Church-communion, that is, if they doe not prove a man is to be excluded from communion in the Sacrament at all, but only that they prove he is to be excluded communion in general, we ſhall not need any ſtronger proof againſt Suſpenſion, then that there is not ſuch a cenſure in Scripture, as diſtinct from Excommunication.