Responsoria Bipartita, SIVE Vindiciae suspensionis Ecclesiasticae ut et Presbyterii EVANGELICI.

A double Reply, containing a Vindication of the an­tient practice of the Church (according to the rule of the word) suspending the ignorant and scandalous from the Lords Sup­per. As also of Ecclesiastical Presbyteries as the subject of Church Government.

The first in answer to one M. Boatmans challenge of all the Ministers on earth to make suspension of any but Turks, Jews, Pagans and excommunicate persons from the Lords Supper, appear from Scripture. In answer to whom the said censure is justified by several arguments from Scripture, and the universal practice of the Church, the Magisterial vanity also of his Sermon, Decem. 13. and March 28. in Peters Church in Norwich is discovered, by anim­adversions on each. In which answer also some objections of Erastus, Mr. Prin, and Mr. Humfry, are collaterally considered, and answered.

The second part in answer to Theophilus Brabourn, who hath talked something in a little pamphlet against the Lord Jesus Christ as Lord of his Church, and Lord of the Sabbath, against whom it is proved, he hath said nothing to any purpose but to discover his own weakness.

To which is prefixed an Epistle giving account of the whole, and fully answering whatsoever, Mr. Thomas Morshall, in his three Sermons lately prin­ted upon Mat. 22 8. Mr. Barksdale in a letter of his dated May 26. 1652. and printed with a disputation at Winchcomb Nov. 9. 1653. and Mr. Timson in his late book in answer to Dr. Drake have said in these for promiscuous commu­nion.

By JOHN COLLINGS, B.D. and Pastor of the Church of Christ in Stephens Parish in Norwich.

In ipsa Catholica Ecclesia magnopere curardum est, ut id teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est; hoc est enim vere proprieque Catholicum. Vincent. Lirinensis. con. haer. cap. 3.

London, Printed by H. Hills for Richard Tomlins, and are to be sold at his house at the sign of the Sun and Bible neer Py-Corner.

To all those who love the Lord Iesus in sincerity, especially such of them whose lot is cast in the City of NORWICH.

Beloved Friends and Brethren,

IT is not for my own sake, nor for the sake of those who are my Brethren in the work of reformation here or elsewhere, that I am come out into these lists; both my self (and I suppose all of them) could either have been content to have come up to Mr. Boatmans principles, and practice, and so endeared our selves to all our people, or at least have born with patience the names of Pha­risees, Dremers, such as do things wiser ages never thought of, Recusants, Presbyterian Reformadoes, Calvins fellows, (which are the Rhetorical terms that M. John Boatman, & M. Thomas Marshall, have bestowed upon us) securing our selves in the assurance of our innocence, and pittying their ig­norance, who if they had been better acquainted with the Scriptures, and the practice of the Church would have spake more modestly. Nor is it for their sakes, because I think they have said any thing worth the answering. We know 'tis an easy thing, for one to stand in a pulpit, and cry out against the way of God, as a Pharisaical way, a Pharisaical in­vention, a dream, an impleding Scripture, and to set upon the Title page of a book, The Kings censure of Recusdants; [Page 4]he that hath but got a mastery over his conscience, and a bold face, may do such things cheap enough. In the mean time we know: the Gentlemen will eat their words, when they are challenged for them. It is for your sakes (dearly beloved Brethren) and for our Lord Jesus Christs sake, and for his Churches sake, that we cannot be silent; for the Lords sake whose sacred Ordinance we cannot with patience see prosti­tuted, and his blood counted as an unholy thing: For his Churches sake, that what she hath believed and practised in all times and ages, might neither be judged heresy or no­velty: for your sakes that you may not be seduced by the great adversary of reformation, or any that drive on his de­signs (though possibly not wittingly) into an alienation of heart from, and an enmity to the great work of the Lord in cleansing the Sanctuary, and refining of Zion, which we have hoped the Lord is about in England, and hath been for some years; yea and for their souls sake who are angry with us, that we will not let them eat and drink judgement to themselves, towards the good of whose souls our bowells yern, and we are loth that by our means they should increase their guilt, and more and more harden themselves to eternall ruin: was it not (my beloved Brethren) the burthen that lay upon the souls of the old Non-Conformists, that there was no bar to keep any from the Lords Table (but one which superstition made?) was it our just grief then that we had no bar, and is it our work now to remove the bars, yea the Lords and the Churches antient land marks, shall not the Popish faction rise up in judgement against us at the last day and say, Aquinas Vas­quez. Bonaven­tura. Lord we disputed whither a secret sinner might be received to the Sacrament, and these reformers plead for o­pen sinners receiving; yea and the Prelatical party which we condemned shall say, Lord we gave the Minister authori­ty to keep any from the Sacrament for any notorious sins, yea for speaking against the prayer book, or the Kings authori­ty in things Ecclesiastical: These pretend to reform us, and cryed out against us; yet do not only admit but plead for the admission of such as speak against Jesus Christ the great King of Zion. Thus we have justified our Elder Sister Sodom, [Page 5]and our younger Samaria, yea neither of them would plead for the wickedness which we do. This hath brought me in­to the lists; now I am there, I shall desire but fair play If our adversaries can prove, all primitive Churches and modern Churches in an errour, and themselves onely in the right (though we must needs be concluded to err with good compa­ny) yet I hope I shall not stop my ears against due conviction. But we must crave leave to try them with the two weapons of Scriptural Reason and Antiquity, to prove that we are not cowards in this Cause of God.

Since my book was sent to the Press, three others have came to my hands, all pleading for promiscuous communions; I crave your patience for a backblow for them; much of them I have answered before hand. I shall subjoin a few animad­versions more upon what they have in them. An answer to Mr. Thomas Marshall.

The first contains two or thee Sermons preached by one Mr. T. Marshall on Matth 22.8. As I discern in him a spirit which from any Sober man deserves rather flight than answer from those ill favoured passages, p. 21. where he char­geth us with sequestring, first, the bodily bread from the Pa­stors and then the bread of Christ from the peoples souls. And page 25. where he hath this passage, Mr. Calvin and his fellowes whom the Presbyterian Reformadoes follow, perceiving what a jewel of auricular confession they have lost, &c. Christians! this same dispised Mr. Calvin, was one whose name will live and smell sweet when Mr. Thomas Marshalls will rot (it is a name too well known in the Church of Christ for Mr. Marshall to Ecclipse) but I say as these and many other ridiculous passages, sheweth me at first view what the author was, and how unworthy of an an­swer; So some others, (which I stumbled upon at first) assu­red me I should find nothing in him worth the answering? wit­ness his division of those words, The wedding is ready, into the wedding and the Propensity of it.

But to pass by that, and much other pittiful stuff (set out a little (like an old rusty suit) with an end or two of gold and silver lace taken our of the Fathers, Page 14. and much of that spoil­ed too either in the taking of, or setting on.)

In his 14. page he would make us believe, That the Feast meant chiefly Matt. 22. is The Lords Supper; and to prove this, he cites Origen in the Margent, who by his own confes­sion, onely saith it may be stretched to that (and all that know any thing of Origen, know he had a trick of stretching Me­taphors too far.) But doth Origen say, the Lords Supper, is chiefly meant? No surely he had more judgement by far. But I wonder who authorized Mr. Marshall to say this was the feast made for all Nations, Isaiah 25 9. surely then the Apo­stles were ill Stewards of the Lords house that did not first in­vite all the Heathens to this Supper. Page 15. But tis like those good men were old Presbyterian Reformadoes (inconsiderable) Calvins fellows too.

It was an hundred to one, that in the 15. page Mr. Marshall had not brought in Christmass Feasts into this Text, which would have been a New Argument for Christmass day, and worthy of such a Doctor, and then he might have proved from Scripture, that it is his and our duty to invite men to a Christ­mass Py. But he remembers something, (that he hath lost his New years gifts I suppose) and must sigh and lament he saies with Jeremy, That men do not keep Christmass day (for that he makes the English of not comming to the Solemn Feasts.)

I am come to his second Sermon.

He hath done with the wedding (he saies) (he hath made the Feast a very short one) now have at the Propensity to it (an hard word; he hath therefore here Englished it by preparation) though I think he is unhappy in this expression too, it being prepared, Page 21. not preparing; and preparation argues no more pre­vious acts sure. The feast he will have to be the Lords Sup­per, in spight of our teeth, but surely that was not ready when Christ spake this.

He falls heavily upon us, p. 21. for not having the Feast ready; Page 22. but he is mistaken, we have the Supper ready; and the question betwixt us is only whether all Mr. Marshalls guests be ready; Mr. Marshall thinks our master keeps an open house for all comers; we think he keeps an orderly house, and e­very servant must have his portion in their season.

He saies, We pretend peoples unworthiness; This he tells [Page 7]us will not excuse us: true if he can prove we are bound to give it to all; but if we be onely bound to give it to the visi­bly worthy, I hope it will. He saies true, (but nothing to the purpose) that some ignorance and sin repented of, will not make a man unworthy. The question is, whether a gross ignorance of the mysteries of religion and sin not repented of, will not? what he saies there of Judas his sin, and the disci­ples ignorance, is nothing to his purpose, till he proves we refuse some less ignorant then the Apostles; and that Judas was, 1. a communicant, 2. openly scandalous before that time. Page 23.

I wonder he will take notice of Ambrose his excluding the Emperour Theodosius, considering Theodosius was not ex­communicated, and yet kept back by Ambrose; and that not, as he would insinuate, by Rhetorick and swasion, but authoritatively, and something severely, Ambrose telling him, he would not administer till he was gone. For what he saith of the Church of Corinth, Page 26. I have answered it in the fol­lowing sheets.

He is very angry with them who come in to sequestred liv­ings; they are the Feast, Mat. 22. too it seems, for he applys Quomodo huc intrasti? to them who dare come in to them without the wedding garment of the scandalous Ministers leave: In the same place, afraid I suppose of the stool of Re­pentance in Scotland, he falls heavily upon Presbyterian dis­cipline. Alas good man! more hath been said for that disci­pline long ago than he is able to answer. Page 27.

He saies the Sacrament was administred by Christ, and Acts 2. without Elders; but he seeth not how lamely the ergo must hop after these premises, considring the order of the church was not then established. Page 28.

O but the Apostle saies nothing of Elders 1 Cor. 11. no more doth Moses Gen. 1.1. but what then? the Apostle is treating of the Sacrament, and yet saies nothing of them, but he spoke of them 1 Cor. 12. as Governments; and chap. 5. he had spoke of not eating with, and purging out scandalous sinners, which surely are acts of Government; and if there be Governments in the Church distinct from Apostles, Pro­phets, Teachers, as is plain 1 Cor. 12.28. if Mr. Marshall [Page 8]awakes his reason, Pag. 29, 30. it will see Elders concerned in this act of Government. He is mistaken in telling us Paul excommuni­cated the incestuous person, for he only gave order to the Go­vernours of the Church to do it, 1 Cor. 5.4.

He pretends to answer our arguments; he saith we say, The Sacrament will then be prophaned if all be admitted. He grants this himself as to personal profanation, and we plead for it further as to a defilement of the communion; but he saies we cannot help it. If he means it of men of his perswasion, I know not what to say: they indeed resolving to admit all, cannot help it. Page 31. But we think we can, and therefore suspend the scan­dalous and ignorant; for what he saies expounding Matth. 7.6. of Reproof, he agrees with Mr. Boatman; I have suffici­ently in the following sheets shewed the vanity of that restrict interpretation.

In his 31. page he pretends to answer a second Argument of ours drawn from the Ministers danger participating with the sins of others. As to what he saies upon this point, passing by his gird about the Covenant, he tells us the damnation mentioned 1 Cor. 11.29. Is not to the giver, but to the Re­ceiver.

But what is this to the purpose, if in giving we do partake of the sins of others, there is a damnation also will attend our giving it, and surely there is a guilt may be contracted by a participation of the sins of others, otherwise the Apo­stle forgot himself in warning us we should take heed of it, and the Schoolmen have spent their time ill to tell us how ma­ny waies it may be incurred. The question is, whether the Minister giving the Sacrament to the unworthy, incurs this guilt; Page 31. if Mr. M. thinks he doth not, let him speak out and we will join issue with him upon that. He saies we are com­manded to give it, but he hath not proved it by Luke 22.19.

He thinks he hath nicked it by a distinction of cooperati­ons; he saies the Minister doth onely cooperate to the sinners sin in receiving in actu primo, not in acti secundo.

1. If this distinction will serve the turn, it will excuse giving it to Turks.

2. But we must tell him that the actus primus is sin; It is sin for an ignorant scandalous person to receive.

3. I do not well understand what Mr. Marshall means by the actus secundus; if he saies his receiving sinfully is actus secundus, I cannot understand how his sinfulness can make a distinct act: if he means receiving damnation, this indeed may more properly be so called, but then he that by giving to him contributes to the cause, doth doubtless contribute to the effect; for surely if he be causa causae he must be also cau­sa causati.

He thinks our third Argument from the scandal of godly Communicants is invalid.

1. Because he conceives we are commanded to give it to all.

2. Because he conceives it is not scandalum datum (a scandal given) but only taken; but we deny both these we find no such command.

3. It is a scandal given, for we are commanded not to keep the Feast, not to eat with such, not to give holy things to dogs &c. of which see more in the following sheets.

He sayes the Minister must exclude none of himself. Page 33. I have examined that chap. 11. he saies it belongs to a Court of Ju­dicature. I wonder what Court he means, for Elderships he hath declared against them. The Common prayer Book gave this power to a single member, so do the Canons 1603.

In the latter end of the second Sermon he lets fly against Presbytery. But what hath the man to say against it? Pag. 33, 34. why it hath been thrice endeavoured to be established to no pur­pose. He forgets that it is the onely Government now esta­blished in England by the Form of Church-Government, passed sine die, by both Houses of Parliament, 1648. And I believe it may stand long enough if it stands but till M. Mar­shall be able to dispute it down.

I find no more In him to this purpose; Page 46. onely one passage in his third Sermon stumbles me where he tells us, that commu­nicants may be worthy dignitate Congruentiae, or ex merito congrui. What others may, I cannot tell. I do not under­stand that Divinity; if he means honestly, he is at best un­happy in his expressions.

Since I had read over this Pamphlet, An answer to M. Barksdales letter printed with the dis­putation at Winchcomb there came to my hands a Book, entituled a disputation at Winchcomb, in which I find a letter, dated May 26. 1652. from one Mr. Barksdale to one Mr. Helm, wherein he propounds 14. Arguments for promiscuous communion. I will shortly turn them into form and shew you where they halt.

If we must fulfil Christs precept do this in Remem­brance of me, Argum. [...]. then we must administer the Sacrament to all.

But we must fulfill Christs precept.

Ergo.

The Consequence is false; Christ onely spake to his disci­ples to do it in communion of his disciples; no other were there; he that administers it in a scandalous communion, doth not do that in remembrance of Christ.

If Christ washed Judas his feet, Argum. 2 and admitted him to the Sacrament, then we ought to admit all.

But Christ washed Judas his feet, and admitted him to the Sacrament.

Ergo.

1. The consequence is false, for Judas was no scandalous Sinner.

2. The Minor cannot be proved, Judas indeed sate down with the twelve, but went out immediately upon the Sop, Joh. 13. which was before the paschal Lamb was eaten; long be­fore the Supper was administred, as I prove in the following sheets.

If the Lords death must be shewed to the ear in hearing, Argum. 3 then also to the eye in the Sacrament to all men.

But it must be shewed to all to the ear in hearing. Ergo.

The consequence is false, and 1. will conclude for receiv­ing heathens to the Sacrament.

2. Nothing must be done in Gods worship, but what he hath appointed; he hath appointed the word to be preached to all; but he hath not appointed the Sacraments for all.

Besides the word is by Gods appointment a converting or­dinance, so is not the Sacrament:

4. The Sacrament is not an Ordinance for meer presenting [Page 11]Christs death, but for sealing our interest in it.

If there be the same danger upon hearing unworthily, Argum. 4 as receiving the Sacrament unworthily, then those who are ad­mitted to hear may be admitted to receive.

But there is the same danger upon unworthy hearing, the word being to some the savour of death.

Ergo.

1. The consequence is feeble; for admit there were the same danger upon the one or the other, yet the praerequisite duties are not the same, through an inability to perform which, those who are sounable are to be excluded.

2. I doubt whether either the sin of unworthy hearing, or the danger be so great as the sin, and danger of unworthy receiving. There are degrees of sin; I know not how we should better judge the greatness of sin than by Scripture ex­pressions: The Scripture saith, He who eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, and is guilty of the body and blood of Christ; it is made equall to the sin of Judas, which surely was greater than the sin of Peter in denying his Master. For the danger, 'tis true in ex­itu, the danger of both is the same; but it seems God is quicker in judgement with such as by unworthy receiving the Sacrament trample under foot the blood of Christ; for this cause (saith the Apostle) some of you are sick and weak, and some are fallen asleep. The Scripture saith, Blood-thirsty and deceitful men shall not live out half their dayes. This con­cludes Bloodthirstiness of more dangerous consequence than other sins.

If the Apostles baptized whole multitudes upon professi­on of faith, Argum. 6 and afterwards admitted them all to the Sacrament, though many of them afterwards appeared not right, then we may administer the Sacrament to all.

But the Apostle baptized whole multitudes upon profes­sion of faith, and afterwards admitted them to the Sacra­ment, though many were not right.

Ergo,

Here is fallacia [...]. Profession of Faith is an ambigu­ous term, it signifyeth either a meer verbal profession or such [Page 12]a prosession as is real, or at least not visibly contradicted.

The Apostles baptized and admitted to the Sacrament such as made a profession of the faith, not contradicting it by a lewd life; it doth not therefore follow, that we must admit to the Sacrament such as make indeed a verbal profession, but at the same time in works deny him to whom in words they profess; we deny the Sacrament to none who make as much profession of their faith as those did whom the Apostles Acts 2. admitted to the Sacrament.

The Sacrament ought to be administred to all Saints. Argum. 6

But all Christians are Saints. Saint Paul calls the Corin­thians so.

Ergo.

1 Here is the same fallacy again. The sacrament is to be administred to all Saints, That is, to all who visibly appear sanctified through the Spirit of grace; but all Christians are not Saints in that sense. So the minor is false.

1. In some sense all baptized persons are Saints, as they are separated from Heathens and by their baptism dedicated to God; if Saints be taken in this sense, the Major is false. Children of believing parents are called holy 1 Cor 7. that is Saints federally; but yet I hope Mr. Barksdale will con­cur with the reformed Churches in acknowledging the admis­sion of children the errour of some primitive Churches.

3. St. Paul calls all the Members of the visible Church Saints, but it will lie upon Mr. Barksdale to prove that he means it of them all viritim; I believe it a term applyed to them conjunctim, and the Denomination taken à parte me­liori.

Those who were admitted in the Church of Corinth, Argum 7 may be admitted in our Churches.

But disorderly persons were admitted in the Church of Corinth.

Ergo.

The Major presumes the Church of Corinth perfect, and that they did nothing amiss, the contrary to which is plain from 1 Cor. 5. else the Major is false; for wherein the Church [Page 13]of Corinth was sinfully remiss, they ought not to be our pat­tern.

But Mr. Barksdale tells us, They were not blamed for their comming together, but for their comming together for the worse. Be it so, and that which caused this was the scan­dalous persons amongst them with whom they ought not to have eaten, as he told them in the fifth chapter. But the Apo­stle doth not check the Minister and forbid him to offer the Sacrament, but onely bids them examine themselves. True, he saies no more, 1 Cor. 11. But it was because he had said enough before 1 Cor. 5.8, 10, 11, 12.

Those who may be admitted to join with us in prayers and singing Psalms may also be admitted to the Sacrament. Argum. 8

1. Either this Proposition is false, or let me assume.

1. But Turks and Indians may be admitted to pray and sing with us. Yet I hope Mr. Barksdale will not admit them to his Sacrament.

2. Prayer and praise are pieces of Natural worship, ho­mages due from God as their Creator. O come let us worship, and bow down and kneel before the Lord our Maker; re­ceiving the Sacrament is a piece of instituted worship for those who have interest in Christ as a Redeemer.

But Mr. Barksdale tells us we sing the hundred Psalm with them, We are his flock.

Sol. So we read in their ears, 1 Cor. 6.11. yet it will not follow all of them are washed, and justified and sanctified, &c. Yet they are his flock; in the sense of that Psalm he hath made them, and he feeds them, they are the sheep of his Pa­sture, so he doth the Young Ravens, Matth. 6. yet it will not follow they must have the Sacrament.

They are of the great flock, But Christ hath a little flock, to whom he will give the Kingdom; to these the Sacrament belongs only, not are we to give it to any but such as are visi­bly of this flock.

A converting, quickning Ordinance belongs to all. Argum. 9

But the Sacrament is a converting Ordinance.

Ergo.

The Major is granted; He proves the Minor, because the word is joined with it; and if the word alone be, much more when conjoined with the other.

At once to shew the Vanity of this opinion (which so pre­vails in the world) that the Sacrament is a converting Ordi­nance. Sol. I argue;

1. If it be so, then it is proper and consonant to Scripture to go amongst heathens, and as soon as we come, call them to a Sacrament in order to their conversion, as to preach the Gospel to them.

But surely none ever thought so, nor was it ever practised in the world yet; what it may be if these principles be well practised, I cannot tell.

2. Again, if it be a converting Ordinance, there can be no personal unworthiness sufficient to debar any from it; then come Turks, Indians, Papists, Incestuous persons, excom­municate persons, &c.

3. If it be a converting Ordinance, I see no reason why the Communicant should be bound to examine himself, and so eat, or whether he hath skill to discern the Lords body. But to answer distinctly.

1. When we speak of converting Ordinances, we mean Appointments of Jesus Christ for the conversion of souls to himself, distinguishing betwixt those things which may be use­ful ex accidente to convince and convert, and what ex insti­tuto is designed to that end. Hearing of the word is such, Faith comes by hearing, Rom. 10. Hear and your souls shall live, Isaiah 55. Let any one shew us any Scripture speaking to this purpose concerning the Lords Supper.

2. Besides the preaching of the word is one thing, but the readin [...] the word of Institution at a Sacrament is another thing; let Mr. Barksdale prove the latter appointed by Christ for conversion.

3. Either the word alone (read at the administration) is a converting Ordinance, or the Word and Elements making up the Sacrament. If it be only the word, wicked men (for ought I know) may stay and hear that; if he sayes more, he must prove it.

But to his tenth Argument.

Those whose children may be admitted to Baptism, Argum. 10 them­selves may be admitted to the Lords Supper.

But the children of the ignorant and scandalous may be admitted to Baptism.

Ergo.

Though some will deny the Minor, yet it shall satisfy me to put Mr. Barksdale to prove the Major.

1. Children are baptized in their parents right. I see no reason why it should necessarily be the immediate parent.

2. Besides there is no self-examination pre-required to baptism.

3. The children of the legally unclean were not forbidden circumcision.

1. But the parent must have a personal right to the Lords Supper.

2. He must examine himself, and so eat.

3. Of old if he were legally unclean he must not eat the Passover.

What we cannot help, we must do.

But we cannot help promiscuous admintstrations. Argum. 11

The Major is questionless true, ultra posse non datur esse.

But the Minor is false. Cannot must be expounded Physi­cally or Morally: if he means of the first, we can help it; Ambrose would not administer till Theodosius was content to withdraw. If he means it in a moral sense upon the account of that confessed maxim, Id tantum possumus quod jure pos­sumus, It is clearly petere [...], a begging of the questi­on, which is whither Gods word hath not given us power? To suspend the ignorant and scanda­lous. and I wonder Episcopal men should so far forget the Rubrick and Canons as to deny it. For our parts, besides the authority of Gods word, discharging our consciences, we think the Form of Government established 1648. by Parlament dis­chargeth our practice.

He goes on.

A separation in the Church is unlawfull. Argum. 12

But this practice of suspension makes a separation in the Church.

Ergo.

If the Major be true, the legally unclean could not law­fully be kept from the Passeover, yet God threatens the Priests for not doing it. Besides, Excommunication is a separation in the Church; for the excommunicate person is not out of all relation to the Church, but to be admonished as a brother; yet we are to separate from him (as a diseased member) both in respect of Sacramental communion, and intimacy of civil communion.

The unworthiness of some must not debar others of their right. Argum. 13

But (admitting suspension) this is done.

Ergo.

1. As to the Major if he means by debarring others of their right, devesting them of their right, it is true. 2. if he means hindring them for a time from enjoying their right, It is a question whither such a case may not be, suppose the peace of the Church must be broken, or suppose there be one or two have a right who cannot make a communion.

But to the Minor.

2. I see not how the admission of suspension enforceth the debarring of any their right. Let the worthy be received, and the unworthy suspended. The good mother will feed her chil­dren, but if the doggs be so many that she cannot at present, she will watch her time till they be shut out of doors.

To whom the tender of the Covenant belongs, Argum. 14 to those all the seals of it belong.

But to the ignorant and scandalous the tender of the Co­venant belong.

Ergo.

The Major is false; though the tender of the Covenant belongs to all, yet the seal belongs to none but those who have evidenced their acceptance of the covenant; God hath com­manded the offer of the Covenant to all, but not the setting of the Seal.

I find no more in that book looking thwart upon me; for I durst not defend Mr. Helms his Arguments. If Mr. Barks­dales friends have truly represented the dispute. I could either have wished Mr. B. stronger Opponents that day, or at least [Page 17]his Opponents stronger Arguments.

But I must not let pass a passage or two I find there in a letter from Mr. Barksdale to Collonel A. dated June 1653.

1. He tells the Collonel, and now the world that Judas was an hypocrite disclosed, when Christ admitted him; whe­ther Christ admitted him or no, I have shewed we have just reason to doubt, if not to conclude the contrary. But suppose he did, how it appears he was an hypocrite disclosed, I can­not tell; that Christ (who as God knew hearts) knew his heart is plain indeed, but is an hypocrite known only to an all see­ing God disclosed think we?

2. He tells the Collonell, Christ did not eate the Lamb. This is indeed Grotius his notion; to which more afterwards. But neither Grotius, nor Mr. Barksdale sure shall ever make sober Christians believe that Christ supped that night with a humane invention instead of a divine institution; the eating of that [...], was no fulfilling the Law, which we think Christ did in that last act.

In the same letter he tells us, That the sop Christ gave to Judas was the Sacramental bread; upon this very ground was founded the mistake of diverse of the Antients, from whence they concluded Judas was at the institution, and a communicant there, because they conceived this [...] was the sacramental bit. To this opinion, Cyrill, Euthymus, and (as I remember) Austin (somewhere) doth encline; I confess it startled me at first, because he hints me that [...] doth signify a bit of bread; and so doth Dr. D. Hammonds Annotations on John 13. Hammond in his late Annotations on the Gospel, who also puts in He­sychius for a witness should say (I know not where) that [...] signifies [...]; From whence he confidently concludes (as well he might) that Judas was at the Sacrament.

I must confess at first blush I had almost began to quit our notion of the sop being the bitter herbs dipt in the Charosheth, allowing the Dr. and other learned Expositors (in the same mistake) a great deal more Critical learning then I dare pre­tend to. But post [...], (which they say are best) [Page 18]remembring that they did not use to dip bread in the Char [...] ­sheth; and that if this were the Sacramental bread, it would enjoin us all to dip it before we give it (for I cannot allow the Doctors notion of [...], though I have not time now to enter my exceptions, I resolved to look a little before I subscribed. And first I find,

Hesychius saith no such thing; he saies indeed [...] so signifies, but saies nothing of [...], and it is a pittyful shift that the Doctor hath, faying [...] is a false print; for which

1. Suid. in verbo [...]. Scapulain Lex. Budeus in Lex. You have onely the Doctors word.

2. Suidas then is false printed too; for he saies the same [...].

3. If there had been no such word as [...], the Doctor might have been believed; but there is such a word in the Greek tongue which so signifies. Scapula expounds it Fru­stulum; Budeus, inferior pars pains, mica aut crustulum panis nimium assati.

4. If indeed (in Hesychius) [...] had stood in the place of [...], we might have been so charitable as to have be­lieved the Doctor, but Hesychius hath not [...] at all, but onely its Primitive [...], and there are nine or ten words which in their Alphabetical order intervene (I may mistake the number, but I believe not much if at all) now conside­ring this, why we should believe the Printer rather than the Doctor mistaken, I cannot tell; especially considering what others no less Criticks in the Greek tongue say.

5. Steph. Thesau­ru. Gr. Lin. Bnd. Comment. Gr. Lin. Bud. Lex. Gr. Suidasin verbo [...]. Phav. in Lex [...] Diog. Laertius in v. Diog. Eustathius in [...]om Od. l. 2. Stephen saies it signifies a crust of bread put into a mans mouth, a mouthful of bread, or any other edible thing. Budeus in his Commentataries tells us it signifies any mouth­ful, in his Lexicon he translates it by Buccella a mouth­full.

Suidas sayes it signifies Bread, and not only so, but Rei­esculente frustulum, quantum os capere potest, quod ideo Buccea vocatur sive Buccella, a morsel or mouthfull of any edible thing.

Phavorinus expounds [...] by [...], saith he, [...], (parts, little bits of things, [Page 19]thence it is joined with [...] (which it needed not if it signi­fied as much alone) and indeed for this there is a place plain enough in Diogenes Laertius in the life of Diogenes where we find [...], for which (saith Stephen) debuit di­cere [...]; what Phavorinus saith of [...] he hath borrowed verbatim from Eustathius, who saies the same thing in his comment on the ninth book of the Odysses; where we find Homers authority sufficient to spoil the Doctors and Mr. Barksdales notion, where it is said of the Cyclops being asleep,

— [...]
[...].—
Homer. Odyss. l. 9.

From whence it is plain that [...] doth onely signify a mouthful, a bit, and doth not designare materiam; and conformably to this Hesychius expounds it only by [...], (now surely [...] is but a pig of his own Sow) and being a diminutive derived from it, Hesyc. in Lex. doth not add to the significa­tion [...]. can be no more than a little [...], being daugh­ter to it; conformably to this is [...], another sprig from the same root, used Rom. 12.20. If thine enemy hunger, Rom. 12.20. [...], which surely need not be construed Give him a bit of bread to eat, and 1 Cor. 13.3. 1 Cor. 13.3. [...] where it cannot be construed of bits of Bread, except we will say Pauls estate was made up of nothing but loaves of bread. By all this the vanity of the Doctors and and Mr. Barksdales Criticism appears; as also how dange­rous a thing it is to build divinity conclusions upon vain cri­ticisms. [...] signifies onely a little mouthful; be it of what it will; for that must be understood by what is joined with it. Christ took [...] a little mouthfull and gave it to Judas; but it still remains to prove that this was bread; we say it was the herbs, which he dipt in the Charcsheth and gave it to Judas.

And so much may serve for Mr. Barksdale.

There is yet a third book come out since I sent my sheets to the Press, wrote by one Mr. Timson, An Answer to Mr. Timson. a private Christian of Great Bowden in Liecestershire. It is properly directed as an [Page 20]answer to Dr. Drake. I shall not take that learned mans work out of his hand, knowing how able he is to do it himself; yet (craving first pardon of the Doctor) now my hand is in, I shall subjoin an animadversion or two; especially upon such passages in his book as contain the principles on which his whole discourse is built, and where he speaks in thesi to the business.

The Authors study seems to be to beget in his Reader an o­pinion of his moderation, upon which he is something fro­ward with the Doctor for some harsh expressions (as he calls them p. 1.) words that might have been spared (he saith) p. 2. he calls it unbrotherly and uncharitable dealing; Qui alterum incusat probri, ipsum se intueri oportet. This had been capable of a very good interpretation, if Mr. Timson, had taken as much notice of his friend Mr. Humfreys (I had almost said) brutish reflections upon the Doctor, and abu­sing of Scripture to do it (witness the two last pages of his Rejoinder; and that vein of Security which runs through the whole book (to pass by his false and imperfect proposals of the Doctors answer, that he might have advantage to scoff him; and all this is prefaced in with such humble professions of self-denyal and piety, as are more then ordinary) I say if Mr. Timson had equally taken notice of this too, he might have been judged more unbiassed then we can now conceive him; especially considering his own reflections upon the poor Presbyterians p. 8, 9. whom he chargeth with setting up Of­ficers in the Church whom Christ never impowred with the keyes, &c. and such a way as no word doth warrant; and causing a careless forbearance of the Sacrament, and suspen­ding persons upon accounts for which thers not the least war­rant either of Rule or President, and making excommuni­cation both less, and more than it is, and doing many things. All which are beside the rule, p. 10. Tis well he mends it with I think; for we hope we are able to make learned men think otherwise, or else deny both Scripture and Reason too.

These are heavy charges and argue as unbrotherly and uncharitable dealings, with some hundreds of men in Eng­land, as learned and judicious as Mr. Timson complains of in [Page 21]the Doctor, especially considering there is (besides many o­ther) a book written in Mr. Timsons mother tongue too, cal­led Jus divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici with a Vindication of it, published by some learned Brethren of the Province of London, proving (past Mr. Timsons answering) those same offensive officers and that same unwarrantable way, and suspension. But thus much onely to let the Reader know that as Mr. Timson is much Mr. Humfries friend, so he hath imitated him a little too far in quarrelling with his brother for what himself intended to be ten times more guilty of.

In his fourth page he puts the Question, Whether all Church-members not rightly excommunicated may come to the Lords Supper; he is for the Affirmative; something larger he is in his principles then Mr. Humfry (his friend) who excepts those who are excommunicate de jure.

Mr. Humfry and Mr. Timson too except Infants, persons distracted, and drunken persons. The Doctor saies right, that by the same reason the Ignorant and scandalous are to be ex­cepted: I know Mr. Humfry is angry at this and doth not love to hear of it often (whence it is that in his Rejoinder he so ridiculously disturbs his Reader with dallyings) but to speak to the business, I demand of Mr. Humfry, and his friend Mr. Timson, what it is which gives one right to the Sacra­ment. I know they will say Church-membership. I proceed; Either this alone, or this and something else. If they say this alone, it must necessarily follow that according to their principles then all those who are Church-members have a right to it; for Quod convenit alicui quà tali must needs con­venire omni tali, and then Infants, and mad men, and d [...]un­kards must come, let them say what they can.

If they say that Church-membership alone doth not give them a plenary right. Timsons Bar removed, p. 5, 6, 7, 8.

1. Many of their arguments will fail, as I shall ob­serve anon. 2. Some may be suspended. 3. I must enquire what it is then which joined with Church-membership doth entitle them. I cannot find Mr. Humfrey nor Mr. Timson speaking plainly to this; the latter spends time to prove the ignorant and scandalous are more capable then Infants and mad men; but [Page 22]he is not clear in telling us wherein their capacity lies: whe­ther in this that they have more years, which fails in mad men, or in this that they have more wit; if I understand them them think they are in a more capacity to exercise their reason: Well then; is this the thing that conjoined with Church-membership, gives all a right to the Sacrament? then it fol­lows

That all Church-members, who are able to exercise their reason, ought to be admitted to the Table of the Lord.

Why are Drunkards then excepted by M. Timson p. 4. (ex­cep he means only during the time of their drunkenness) But if Mr. Timpson remembers, p. 5. he tells us, the Church is to enquire what is agreeable to the will of God revealed. So then it being granted both by Mr. Humfry and Mr. Timson; that meer Church-membership doth not give a plenary right to the Sacrament; for then infants and distracted persons and drunkards must not be excepted; we in enquiring what else must be conjoined with it, must have an eye to the will of God revealed.

And let Mr. Timson shew us the least shadow of Scripture to prove that a capacity of exercising their reason is that other thing, which superadded to Church-membership, gives a ple­nary right, and we will be his bond-men.

In the mean time thus far it is agreed betwixt us, that meer Church-membership doth not give one a right. Then Mr. Timson hath granted his question against himself; for some Church-members not rightly excommunicated may not come to the Lords Table.

But this then is the question between us, what it is which superadded to Church-membership, which gives only jus ad rem, haereditarium, et remotum, must give a man jus in re, aptitudinarium, & proximum, a plenary full right to the Sa­crament.

Mr. Humfry and Mr. Timson, if I understand them, say as I said before, a capacity to exercise their reason; we say

Knowledge and Faith which works by holiness.

Here is the question: by whom shall we be tryed? By God and the Country, saith the Malefactor; by God and [Page 23]the Church say we. By God speaking to us in his word, and inabling us by vertue of that candle set up in us to fetch true conclusions from sacred principles, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

1. First I plead against their opinion thus;

If a meer capacity to exercise reason entituleth a Church-member to the Sacrament, than every Church member in such a capacity hath an undoubted right.

This consequcence stands upon such foundation of reason, that he who doth not want the capacity mentioned in it must confess it.

I assume then;

But every Church-member that hath a capacity to ex­ercise reason, hath not an undoubted right to the Lords Supper.

Ergo.

What Mr. Timson thinks I cannot tell; but I am sure Mr. Humfry is almost angry with the D [...]ctor, that he should un­derstand him of such as of right ought to be excommunica­ted.

Now surely it is possible that one may be in a capacity to exercise reason, and yet so notoriously scandalous, that of right he ought to be excommunicated. Suppose one had com­mitted incest or adultery, and that immediately before a Sa­crament; such a wretch may be in a capacity to exercise rea­son, yet surely Mr. Timson hath large principles if he thinks such wretches have a plenary right to the Ordinance.

Let Mr. Humfry and Mr. Timson say what they can. Some­thing besides Church-membership must be added to give one a plenary right to the Sacrament; or else Infants and distra­cted persons must have a plenary right. And something be­sides an ability to exercise reason; or else an incestuous per­son immediately after his vileness hath as full a right as any; and the like might be said for a Drunkard, a Murtherer, any profane person, openly defending his profaness, for one who doth not know whether Christ were a man or a woman, &c.

2. Secondly I urge further according to Mr. Timsons prin­ciples,

He must be able to discern the Lords body from common Bread.

But many men may be Church-members and rational, and yet not able to do this.

Ergo something else must be superadded.

3. A child of five or six years old is able to exercise reason and is a Church-member if baptized; if these two things give a plenary right, such children ought undoubtedly to be admitted.

This is sufficient to shew the vanity of this Con­ceit, That meer Church-membership, with a capacity to exercise Reason, gives one a plenary right to the Lords Sup­per.

And if meer Church-membership doth not do it, no nor that with this second thing added:

I Query what it is doth it. Surely it must be something above these: we say a Knowledge of the things of God conjoined with faith in Christ, such a faith as is evidenced by holiness.

It will stand Mr. Humfrey and Mr. Timson in hand either to speak clearly to this, and tell us what gives a plenary right, or to acknowledge with us that these things (superadded to Church-membership) do: which if they grant us, Let them say what they will. Dr. Drake saith true, that by the same reason that Mr. Humfry and Mr. Timson except infants and persons distracted, ignorant and scandalous persons are to be excepted; and Mr. Humfrys excepting out of his opinion infants and persons distracted, is but a crafty trick to prevent those arguments which he foresaw he could not answer, like some late Arminians, who tell us, Christ died to purchase a possibility of salvation for all but such as shall dy impeni­nent.

And the Reader may easily perceive the sores of M. Hum­frys book, by his kickings in his Rejoinder, where the Do­ctor touched him. I say Mr. Humfry and Mr. Timson must hold that a meer natural capacity to exercise reason in one who is a Church-member, gives him a full right to the Sa­crament, or else there is a par ratio for keeping away the ig­norant [Page 25]and scandalous as for infants and persons distracted. And if they hold so I have shewed them what follows upon it. When Mr. Timson speaks clearly to this point, we will more strictly examine his judgement.

He spends his 8, 9, 10. pages in entering his exceptions a­gainst the Presbyterian Discipline where he chargeth the friends of it sufficiently, and d [...]als as unbrotherly with some hundreds of Learned and Reverend men, as he chargeth Dr. Drake to have done with Mr. Humphry, and something more.

Considering that the Reverend Doctor if he be a little smart with his adversary, yet withall he answers his adversary Et miscuit utile amaro.

But Mr. Timson hath answered nothing said in the defence of those practices which he so deeply censureth. All that I shall say is, we hope, Longe aliter in Coelo quam Boudenae de Presbyterio conclusum est.

Jesus Christ and Mr. Timson are not both of a mind. But in the mean time,

Q [...]is tuler [...] Gracchos de seditione querentes? why doth Mr. [...]imson inveigh against unbrotherly, uncharitable, weak dealing, before he hath apologized for his own dealing in that manner with so many men and Churches too? I think the impartial Reader of his book may see enough of it in his book.

Thus we see not onely what he observes, That good men are apt to reprove others in things controverted, but also for things they will do themselves.

In his 12. and 13. pages he puts some Quaeries upon the 1 Cor. 11. an ingenuous answer to which he thinks would moderate our rigour as he calls it; and therefore he hath fa­voured us with his opinion as to them, p. 14, 15, 16, 17. &c.

Because indeed all his superstructure stands upon the foun­dation he here laies,

I shall crave leave to examine a little what he saies here.

1. I observe that in propounding them he forgot the rule of Frusta fi [...] per plura quod fieri possit per pauciora.

For his four first quaeries are reducible to this one.

1. Q Whether the unworthy Receiving mentioned 1 Cor. 11.29. (for which the Corinthians were chastned v. 30.) was personal or habitual; or meerly actual miscarriages in re­ference to the order, in which they ought to have recei­ved?

His fifth, sixth and seventh are reducible to this second.

2. Q. Whether the duty of self-examination prescribed by the Apostle as a Remedy to prevent future Judgements, were not such as the unregenerate and most ignorant person might use? &c.

3. Q. His eighth, Whether an incapacity to perform this duty, or neglect of it did give a writ of ease from the pre­cept of publique duty and service, Do this in Remembrance of me?

4. Q. His last quaery is, Whether there be any thing in the institution, nature, language and actions of the Sacrament in the Context, or elsewhere incongruous to the unregenate mans receiving?

As to the first of these Queries. Mr. Timson thinks p. 14. That they are not blamed for their personal unworthynesse; for chap. 1. ver. 1, 2. they were all sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be Saints; I see no great harm is like to come of it, if we should grant that the Apostle there doth not prima­rily speak of habitual personal unworthiness, but actual. But Mr. Timson in his answer to the second and third Query, thinks the unworthy eating signifies only their disorderly eat­ing, and for this onely p. 14. he thinks they were punished, v. 30. this is the Summ of what he saies, p. 14, 15. 16, 17, 18.

To which I answer.

1. Tis not much materiall to dispute whether the Apo­stle there speaks of habitual unworthiness or only actual; That there is a personal unworthyness himself must grant, or else Turks and Excommunicated persons cannot be ex­cluded.

2. Whether every unregenerate man (as unregenerate) be personally unworthy, Mr. Timson seems to doubt, we believe, [Page 27]but there is no need to dispute it here. For

3. We grant that every Church member is by us to be lookt upon as habitually worthy, unless by some actual mis­carriage he declares himself actually unworthy, which we believe may be done as well by his ignorance, discovering his actual misimproving of the means of grace, as by his scan­dalous life and conversation. Yet we believe their Church-membership is not that which makes them habitually wor­thy but their interest in Christ, which charity obligeth us to believe they have till by some fruits they discover to us the contrary.

4. We dare not deny but the disorderly eating in the Church of Corinth, was an unworthy eating, and might be a cause of their punishment ver. 30. we know God is very tender of his own order. God hath made a breach upon us (saith David in Ʋzzah's case) because we sought him not in due order.

5. But that a man should not be capable of eating un­worthily, except by such disorderly receiving? or that all the unworthy eating of the Corinthians, should be their dis­orderly eating; or that this should be the only sin for which they were punished with death.

These things we cannot digest without some good Argu­ments to crowd them down.

1. Because the Apostle chap. 5. had told the Corinthians they could not keep the Feast with the old leaven of malice and wickedness, and bidden them purge out the old leaven, ver. 7, 8. and not eat with one called a Brother who should be a Fornicator, an Idolator, &c. And again chap. 10. ve. 21. had told them, They could not drink of the cup of the Lord, and of the cup of Devils, and that they could not be partakers of the Table of the Lord, and of the Table of Devils.

2. Because it seems very absurd to us that a man who should offend but in a point of order should be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, and eat and drink damnation to himself; which are the two things predicated of the unwor­thy Receiver, and he who comes reaking with the guilt of scandalous sins should not at all be guilty or lyable to Gods Judgements.

Thirdly because we 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 Testa­ment.

We therefore humbly conceive (till Mr. Timson makes the contrary appear to us) that the Subject of those propositi­ons 1 Cor. 11.27, 29▪ viz. He who eateth and drinketh un­worthily, must be expounded as well by the fi [...]th and tenth chapters, as by what precedeth in this; and that those did as well eat and drink unworthily, who kept the Feast with old leaven, who did partake of the Cup of Devils chap. 10. as those who came in disorderly parties to the Lords Table and mingled that Feast with their Love-feasts. And [...]hat they were as well punished for the former as the latter sins. I have done with his four first Quaeries. His fifth and sixth quaeries are,

What Remedy the Apostle prescribes, whether the most ignorant person, owning the true religion and the un­regenerate might not use it so far as to prevent the Judge­ments and receive benefi [...].

Mr. Timson saies the remedy propounded is by Instructi­on and Direction. Instruction, to which purpose he remem­bers them of the Institution. True, he doth so, but whe­ther as a mean to convince them of their sin, or a Remedy, I think may be a question.

2 Then saith he, he directs them to examine themselves, and to tarry for one another. True but is this all? in case there be scandalous sinners in the Church, are the ministers and officers of the Church to do nothing else but bid them exa­mine themselves? This we are told indeed (Mr. Boatman told us so too I remember) but I hope in the fifth chap. the Apostle had told them of another Remedy; Not keeping the Feast, not eating with them; doth it follow that because the Apostle doth not repeat it again here, therefore that is no remedy?

Self-examination is a personal Remedy, but there are o­ther Church remedies which the Apostle commandeth the use [Page 29]of as well as this. Mr. Timson quaeries whether the remedy be not such (I suppose self examination is that he means) as the most ignorant and the unregenerate may make use of, so far as to prevent the judgement threatned, and receive benefits thus he openeth himself in the seventh quaery. So then this que­ry amounts to this,

Whether a man be bound before the Sacrament to exa­mine himself any otherwise than an unregenerate person, and the most ignorant person professing and owning true Religion may do, about the meer notion of the Sacrament, the insti­tution, &c.

The Question is here concerning the nature of that self-examination, which is the duty of him who would partake worthily at the Lords Table; for when we have determined that, we shall easily judge whether an unregenerate or ignorant person be in a capacity to do it.

Pag. 21, 22. Mr. Timson is strongly enclined to believe that they are onely bound to examine themselves concerning the premises; and that Divines stretch this precept too far to expound it of any other, because he conceives the Apostle sutes the remedy to the malady.

Mr. Humfry submits his Judgement to other Divines in this thing in his Rejoinder p 6. 7. onely subjoineth three ho­nest cautions.

I cannot subscribe to Mr. Timsons inclinations, that the self-examination mentioned 1 Cor. 11.28. must be limitted by the premisses.

1. Then it will follow that the Apostles mind is a commu­nicant should onely ask himself,

First, Whether he takes his own Supper before the Lords Supper, v. 21.

Secondly, Whether he knows that what he doth is Christs institution, v. 23, 24, 25.

Thirdly, Whether he knows the Lords body from common bread (as Mr. Humfry and Mr. Timson expound that phrase of discerning the Lords body) v. 29. so let a man ex­amine himself and he may come, thinks Mr. Timson; this in­deed is short work. But surely,

2. The word [...] will not be satisfied with such a jejune interpretation; whether it be verbum forense, as some would have it. Surely Magistrates examine malefactors more strictly, or verbum mecchanicum, as others will have it, The Goldsmiths tryal of his Gold is a more searching trial; the Apostle expounds it 2 Cor. 13.5. Examine your selves whether you be in the faith or no, prove your selves.

3. That another kind of Examination is here required, hath been the concurrent Judgement of all Divines, especially those of the reformed Churches, which makes Mr. Humfry tender the leading the way to this loose interpretation, and to submit to their unanimous judgment, I heartily wish he had shewed himself as tender concerning the business of suspension which he might have done upon the same principle.

4. But if they be to examine themselves no more than whither they discern the Lords body, we conceive it enough, for it will ly upon Mr. Humfry and Mr. Timson to prove that the discerning there meant is no more than the distingu shing betwixt that feast and their Love-feasts; discerning must imply knowledge, I cannot discern the Lords body from another thing if I do not know it. I must know it as a body sacramen­tally; 2. as the Lords body: it will necessarily imply a know­ledge of the sign, and of the thing signified in the Sacrament, a knowledge of the two natures in the Lord Jesus Christ, and of what he hath done and suffered for me, and of the nature of the Sacrament, and what is held forth in it to the soul. And from hence will easily follow an answer to Mr. Timsons 6. query; That Ignorant persons though (pro formâ) they do own the Christian Religion, yet are not in a capacity to exa­mine themselves, so as to prevent the Judgement or receive the benefit.

Mr. Timsons 8. query is, Whether a careless neglect, or in­capacity to perform this duty, doth excuse and give a writ of ease from that precept, Do this in remembrance of me.

1. When Mr. Timson hath proved that that precept is an universal precept that concerns every individual person that is baptized and in a capacity to exercise reason, we may pos­sibly tell him, that his incapacity or careless neglect makes [Page 31]him doubly guilty, and so doth not give a writ of ease but on­ly laies another action upon him. We conceive that precept only to concern the Disciples of Christ, and none but true dis­ciples. Though I do not see what Mr. Timson can make of it, if we say all within the Church are obliged by that precept in sensu composito, that is first to examine and then to eat; but not in sensu diviso. Nor will it much trouble us which Mr. Timson saies p. 23. where he saies, The Apostles were bound to call upon those to whom they preached to observe all that he had commanded. Either that Argument will prove, that they were to call upon Pagans, children, &c. to come to the Sacrament, or else it saies nothing but this, that we are bound to call upon all to observe such things as he hath commanded them respectively, and then it still remains to prove that Christ hath commanded an ignorant profane person while such to come to the Sacrament.

For Mr. Timson's query p. 24. Whether any instance can be given, of any under the Law admitted to the other Ordi­nances yet debarred the Passeover; we conceive there may. It will pose Mr. Timson to prove that those who had touched the dead body of a man might come at no ordinances but we can prove that they might not come at the Passover, Num. 9.

Nor is that whimzy of his p. 25. at all better, by which he would prove the receiving the Sacrament a duty incumbent upon all because included in the first table. For besides that it will pose Mr. Timson to prove that the specifical duty of re­ceiving of the Lords Supper is commanded in the first Table: If it were, yet I hope preaching the word is so also, which yet is not a duty enjoined to all, but those only who are appointed thereto.

Whether it be sense or no I cannot tell, sure I am it hath no great strength of reason that he saies self-examination is a private duty, and so subordinate to the Publique. Who de­nies it? but if he means that we must not neglect the publiqu because we cannot perform, or have not performed the Pri­vate; Besides that we question whether upon such an incapa­city or neglect the publique be a duty, we conceive that where a private duty as commanded in order to prepare us for the [Page 32]publique, we cannot without sin perform the publique before we have performed the private; cleansing was the unclean per­sons private duty: yet till it was done, we think he might not come to the Passeover.

For his notion p 27. that the Receiving the Sacrament is the End, and Self-examination the means, it is so far from making for him, that it will conclude that he who cannot or hath not examined himself, can no more receive the Sacrament without sin, neglecting the due means to make him a worthy receiver, then Mr. Timson can prove the wicked ought to re­ceive without Scripture or reason, or write another book without an hand, pen, ink of paper; I had thought due means must be necessarily supposed to the end.

His 9. query is, Whether there be any thing in the nature, language, actions or end of the Sacrament in 1 Cor. 11. or elsewhere, incongruous to the unregenerates receiving.

Whether in 1 Cor. 11. there be any thing there or no, I shall not dispute. I have said something to that already, and it is enough if we find it elsewhere, and we conceive there is something contrary to the receiving of the ignorant and scandalous, which is the question, for the Church judgeth not of secret things.

1. In the institution for Christ gave it to none such:

2. In the nature of it, for it is strong meat, and the seal of the righteousness of faith.

3. In the language of it for the ignorant cannot do it in a notional remembrance of Christ, nor the scandalous in a pra­ctical remembrance of him.

4. In the actions required, for we conceive the communi­cant is spiritually as well as corporally to eat and drink, viz. to exercise faith.

5 In the end for we conceive it was instituted, not to convey faith but to seal it.

But before Mr. Timson can tell us his mind, he must lay down six postulata, and if we will grant them he will do something.

1. First he conceives, that this Sacrament is instituted for the good of every particular member of the Church. We [Page 33]conceive so too; therefore they have jus ad rem, but how doth this prove that therefore every particular member ought in his present state to come to it, and coming ought to be ad­mitted. 1. Was not the Passover so appointed, yet I think the unclean persons might not come during their uncleanness. 2. I know many reverend men think the excommunicate per­son is yet a member of the Catholike Church, and I am sure we shall not baptize him again upon his repentance, and he yet possibly owns the Christian Religion. So that he is a bap­tized person owning the Christian Religion, and so a member of the Church Catholike, and doubtless (supposing his Repen­tance) the Sacrament is instituted for his good: but I hope it will not therefore follow he ought in his state of Excommuni­cation to be received to that Communion.

2. For his second, we will grant it him that the Church confists of good and bad.

3. And his third, That the unregenerate are the proper objects of the promise of first grace. Though that must be un­derstood with a grane of salt, and I had rather say that the unregenerate are the only objects of first grace; then the only objects of the promises. For the promises profit not any with­out faith, and how the unregenerate should exert an act of faith, to apply a promise I cannot tell, and I doubt whether it be truth to say any promises belong to men as unregenerate for if they belong to them as unregerate, they may apply them as unregenerate.

4. His fourth thing is, That the whole administration of the Covenant belongs to those in the Church who are the im­mediate objects of the absolute promise [...]: they being of years of discretion to use the same in order to the Lords putting the promises into execution.

How [those in the Church] and [being of years of discreti­on] comes in, I cannot tell, unless it be to prevent an answer for if Mr. Timsons argument be good it is fetch from the right, which an interest in the Covenant promises gives one to the Seals of it. And then it must hold universally▪ and if the un­regenerate out of the Church be is much objects of the pro­mises of the first grace, as those within there is no reason for that restriction.

But to speak to his Argument.

To those to whom the absolute promises of the Covenant belong, to those the whole administration, and so the seals of it belong.

But to the unregenerate in the Church and of years the promises belong.

Ergo,

If Mr. Timson will clear this Syllogism from the fallacy of 4 terms, the answer will be easy. Let but belong in each pro­pofition be understood in the same sense, and the argument is weak.

If by belonging he means no more then this, that the un­regenerate are those onely upon whom God shines with first grace, or to whom God hath declared he will give first grace, we deny the major; for by this argument heathens may come.

If by belonging, or being the objects, he means that those are they only who by faith can apply them and make use of them for their salvation or consolation, his major is true; but his minor is false; for no promise doth so belong to any unre­generate man, viz. as his portion which he may claim and make use of in his unregeneracy.

To his fifth, That the Sacraments being visible repre­sentations of the death of Christ on which those promises are founded, and by which they are confirmed; The use of the Sacrament doth belong to those whom those promises do re­spect. To this I answer;

1. That the promises are founded upon Christs death, and confirmed by it, I grant.

2. I grant also the Sacraments are visible representations of Christs death. But that is not all, they are seals as well as signs.

3. It is false, That the use of the Sacraments belongs to such as the promises of first grace do respect. For then the use of it belongs to heathens; but the use of it belongs to those only who by faith apply the promises.

6. That those in the Church whom we cannot exclude from Covenant relation [being of year] must not be excluded from the Sacrament, because they are seals of covenant love to that [Page 35]people that are i [...] possession of Covenant administrations.

I wonder again how that term [being of years] comes in, for the argument is to prove a right for covenant Seals for such as are in covenant relation, now children are in covenant, rela­tion. That exception plainly implies that covenant relation is not enough. I know if Mr. Timson had thought of it too, he would have excepted mad men; for they are in covenant rela­tion, and this argument pleads their right: the upshot is, Mr. Timson grants here by excepting those not of years, that cove­nant relation is not enough to give right to covenant scals, so he hath answered himself. For his argument fails if covenant relation be not enough, and we still demand what must be su­peradded? if he says only years, then mad men have a right, if he adds a capacity to exercise reason too. 1. Let him shew us Scripture for these [...] things to be added. 2. I spoke to it already.

He tels us the elect before conversion are in the writing, and in the Church, therefore the Sacraments seal to them. That the elect are enrolled in the everlasting covenant I dare not de­ny; but that they are fully in covenant is false, Christ indeed hath covenanted for them before they believe; but they are not said to be completly in covenant till upon the tender of the co­venant to them in the Gospel they have accepted the condition. And the Sacrament doth not seal to the everlasting covenant, but to the acceptation of the covenant to which faith must be supposed. For what Mr. T. saies about baptism hath been an­swered again and again. He thinks it hard to say any in the Church are not in covenant. Concerning the everlasting cove­nant, I know none will say it de individuis; yet surely Judas was out though a member of the first church, but those who are in a state of unbelief, though they may be objects for Gods first free grace, yet surely are not in covenant.

In the 2 or 3 next p. he puts us in hope of 2 or 3 new ar­guments, I would fain see them, for I have not seen one brought in this case many a day. H [...]s first is from the nature of a Sacra­ment; That it is a visible Gospel representing Christ crucifi­ed to all the senses: what then? therefore the unregenerate have need of it. Bravely concluded! he was afraid if he had concluded, Therefore they have right to it, we should have [Page 36]denied the consequence. The unregenerate have need of Christ and all his grace and glory, but have they therefore a right to him? This argument is as old as Pauls steeple too. But from need to right is wide concluding. His second is from the end of the Sacrament. viz. To remember Christ; what then? The Sacrament is to be observed in remembrance of Christ by all those who profess hope of being saved by his death. If he had put in lively hope, or will grant me that he means those who having that hope purify themselves as God is pure (wch is the evidence of that hope) I yield it, otherwise I quaery. But how if they be ignorant of what Christ was or did? How shall they do it in remembrance of him? or how if they by pro­fane oaths and blasphemies profane his blood? how shall they do it in a practical remembrance of him? Thirdly, he argues learnedly, They have an hand to take and a mouth to eat. This argument will prove a Monkies right to it; I had thought the taking, eating and drinking must be spiritual by faith: he asks how we will prove it? if he pleaseth to compare Jo. 6.54, 53, 56. with v. 40, 35.50.51, 53. Eph. 4.17. Jo. 3.36. he may find proof for it. 4. The language of the Sacrament runs in ge­neral, he saith, for many, for you, and who were they? Christs disciples.

It sounds very harsh he saies to say the Sacrament is not a converting Ordinance. How harshly it sounds in Mr. Timsons ears I cannot tell. Mr. Gillespy hath proved it is not by 20 ar­guments, which M.T. hath not answered, and it will be more hard for M.T. to prove, That Christ appointed it for an or­dinary means to convert souls. His argument is worth nothing because it is an essential piece of the Ministers work, and be­cause it was appointed to shew forth Christs death. Let him prove the consequence of these that therefore Christ hath ap­pointed it for conversion; if it were appointed to that end, doubtless they excōmmunicate should not be debarred.

3. His thred bare argumnt p. 40. hath a great hole in it. For though the word and prayer are means of conversion, and they do constantly attend the Sacrament, yet it doth not fol­low that the Sacrament quà a Sacrament is so; nor is there a­ny need for conversion that the unregenerate should be at it; [Page 37]for they may hear and pray and not receive. But M. T. tels us if bare presence answer the end, much more would receiving. We cannot promise them their presence will do them good, but we are sure their receiving will not, and therefore M. Ts. consequence is nought. In his 3 next pages he falls upon the Doctor who is able to speak for himself. In the other part of his book. I find nothing in thesi to prove the right of the igno­rant and scandalous, he is altogether dealing with the Doctor and the Glocestershire ministers, answering what they have said against promiscuous communion. I am afraid my Pre­face will swell too much, I shall therefore turn him over to my elder Brethren.

I think I have endeavoured to loosen the Foundation upon which his whole building stands; and if I mistake not these rotten pillars uphold it.

1. Church membership with a proportion of years, and a ca­pacity to exercise reason gives one full right to the Sacrament.

2. Any superficial examination, if we know the nature of the institution is all required.

3. Those who are in any covenant relation have right to all covenant seals.

4. The Sacrament is a converting Ordinance.

5. Do this in remembrance of me, is an universal precept, which concerns all in the Church, yea and they are bound to do this, though they cannot do what is prerequisite to it.

6. Receiving the Sacrament in remembrance of Christ is, nothing but a bodily eating the bread and drinking the wine, and a notional remembrance of the history of the passion of Christ.

7. The Sacrament belongs to all believers, and in Scripture sense there are no unbelievers in the Church, p. 48.

These are the rotten principles of divinity, which he makes his heads for his arguments, which how contrary they are to Scripture, to reason, to the Judgement of all Divines, enquire and judge.

Being past these I shall leave the remaining Structure, Suis & ipse viribus liber ruit: If these principles be false his book hath not much truth in any one page of it.

I shall now dismiss thee from my porch; onely let me give thee a caution or two. Thou wilt find many slips either of my pen or the Printer, for which I beg thy pardon: Some I have noted in my first part, yet two sheets of the preface, and two at the end of that escaped me; and in the other sheets some also slipped me after twice reading over, besides Com­ma's and Periods, and other stops misplaced, for which I must beg thy pardon; possibly they might be my faults writing in hast.

I hear of some intentions in M. Brabourn to reply to me. He hath nothing else to do. I have. I am assured in that he will do nothing to the purpose; he is at ten or twelve pound charge to get an answer printed; tis pitty, that it should not be worth so many farthings when it is done, and that he should not have all the advantage given him can be to help him off with his copies. If with a good conscience I could, I should be wil­ling to answer him out of charity to help his book to sell, but that were the way to make the sent of his book spread it self further. I shall therefore promise thee nothing but silence. If but a rational School-boy shall send me word that he judgeth me answered in any one point, it is ten to one but I may vin­dicate my self, otherwaies I shall think him more an object of pitty than any revenge; for this age tels us there are some who both want wit to write, and discretion to hold their peace.

And now (my dearly beloved friends) I am almost ty [...]ed with Polemical writing, and I will not promise you much more of that nature. I have endeavoured in two or three trea­tises to vindicate some truth, viz. Concerning the Divine Or­dinance and Office of the Ministery, in my Vindic [...]ae Mini­sterii Evangelici, and answer to Mr. Sheppard.

2. The preheminecy of the Lord; day above Christmas day in my answer to Mr. Fisher, &c.

3. The divine right of Church Government in the hand of the Ministers and Elders against Mr. Brabourn. And now this divine ordinance and antient practice of suspending the ignorant and scandalous from the Lords Supper. These scufflings have hindered me from some things (possibly more [Page 39]profitable) I have part of a discourse neer ready, which I have promised the world, concerning Temptations, if my adversa­ries disturb me not. I shall in the next place apply my self to that work; I have been willing to let it sleep while I dispat­ched this, because by this I hope I may be useful to the whole Church, and in that but to particular souls, which I desire may be my excuse to you.

But I fear lest the City should run out at the gates. Bowing therefore my knees to the God of peace and truth, that you may be guided into all truth, and established in the right ways of the Lord, I rest,

Chaplyfield-house in Norwich July 16. 1654.
Your Cordial friend and servant in the work of the Gospel, I. COLLINGS.

To the Right Worll John Mann Esq Mayor of the City of Norwich.

Much Honoured Sir,

AS the Influence which that eminent place in this City, to which God hath called you, and the Engagements which your goodnesse hath laid upon those few Ministers in it, who have la­boured against great opposition, to pro­mote an Ecclesiastick Reformation, have justly challenged our observance to you; so your eminent appearing, not only for it, but in it, accepting the Office of a Ru­ler in one of the Congregations of it, and your appearing for the restoring of that eminent servant of Christ to his Pastorall charge there again, where these unhappy flames of our division have kindled (wch by the piety and prudence of that Reve­rend [Page]man would have been prevented) hath challenged for you the more spe­ciall Dedication of this Tract. What you shall find in it, the Preface will tell you; And the Preface is that alone, which needs your Patronage, nor should that stand in need of it, if some men had not the confidence to deny that the Sunne shines at noon-day, whether what is there related be truth or no, your selfe can in a great measure satisfie the En­quirer. For the substance of the Booke, when you have examined it, I shall be content you should dismisse it your pro­tection, and shall my selfe attend the vindication of it from its adversaries, who are ordinarily more clamorous then argumentative. If my paines may contribute any thing Sir to encourage your perseverance in that good worke to which the Lord hath quickned you to put your hand, as it will be a great matter of encouragement and joy to all of us who are working for the Lord in [Page]the refining of Sion (while we are almost stifled with the drosse which the cor­ruption of former times hath begot) so it will be a great addition to your crown in the day of the Lord, and a great crown to him who is,

Chap [...]yfield house, April. 19. 1654.
SIR;
Your most humble and much obliged servant in the Lord Iesus, J. COLLINGS.

The PREFACE.
To my Christian Reader.

IT is growne into a fashion for him who entertaines the world in a Book, to parley first a little with his gueft at the threshold: And although the righteous Judges of Areopagus needed no such complement, yet I cannot but judge it a lit­tle necessary in this sinfull time, and the more in regard of the different complexions of mens per­swasions, disposing them to faction, and to judge unrighteous judgment, from the dictate of some particular prejudice. What thou art into whose hands my Tract shall come, I cannot tell. I shall only endeavour to cleare thy eyes from the mist, that prejudice, and particular affection may have cast before them, and be ambitious no further to reconcile thee to me, then unto truth. It treats of an unpleasing subject, The divine Right and Primitive practise of suspending such from the Sup­per of the Lord, who as yet have not their senses exercised to discerne between good and evill, and cannot discerne the Lords body, such as were [Page]the [...] of old, and such who since their Baptisme have returned with the dog to the vo­mit, and are yet with the Swine wallowing in the mire of their lusts. This is the great bone of contention in the Church of God this day, every one would be fellow commoner with the Saints at the Table of childrens bread, and those who have not grace to make them worthy, yet want pati­ence to beare a being judged unworthy of the highest Gospell-priviledges. Reader, I suppose thou canst not be so unjust to thy owne reason, but to thinke that if the godly Ministers of En­gland durst consult with flesh and bloud, that could furnish them with strong Arguments, drawne from the augmentation of their livelihood (in pla­ces where it is arbitrary) and from the universall love of their people to compell them into Master Humfryes or Master Boatmans faith. Alas! what doe we get by our stricter dealings, with the soules committed to us, except the frownes and reproaches of such whom we durst not cast the holy thing of the Sacrament before. It is Gods will that Religion and humane Policy should now and then divide, and we humbly submit to God, and desire rather to be faithfull Stewards for him, then providers for our selves, and ours. Surely there is so much ingenuity at least in some of the godly Ministers of England, as would in­title them to a desire of the love of all, and so much earthinesse in all their hearts as exposeth them to some temptations, to use all endeavours for a [Page]comfortable subsistence in this life. If any of them neglects both that and this, and chuse ra­ther to venture the begging of their own bread, then to throw the childrens bread to dogs, rather to prostitute their owne names, and lose their inte­rest in the hearts of some people, then to prostitute the Lords sacred Ordinance, and give his name to a reproach, as in this they come short of Chry­sostome, who professeth, he would rather give his owne bloud to the prophane, then the body and bloud of Christ; and of Ambrose, who ventured the losse of his head as well as the love of Theo­dosius: so it will not need much of thy charity, to interpret their actions, conscientious pieces of self-deniall, for the interest of their deare and bles­sed Saviour, yea and of their soules too who are kept away, it being certaine, if Iudas were at the Sacrament (which can never be proved) the next worke he did was to hang himselfe, through hor­ror of conscience, and for that sinne of unwor­thy receiving in the Church of Corinth, Many, saith the Apostle, were sick and weak, and many fallen asleep. How unjustly therefore we are raged against, who durst not give the bloud of Christ to those to drinke who are in a burning feaver of open lusts, and so dangerous a knife into the hands of those whom we see distracted with sinne, and in a spirituall Delirium. We hope, any equitable standers by will judge and measure our actions, by the duly and orderly practise of Physitians in bodily tempers, consi­dering [Page]we are ready as to such Patients, to allow them what they will drinke of the Barley water of Repentance (which we conceive more proper for them) and are ready to restore their knives to them, when they shall (by any moderate ac­count given us) let us know that God hath resto­red them so much of his Image, in spirituall wisdome, that they will not murther their pre­cious soules with them. And we doubt not, but if ever the Lord shall give them an heart to re­pent, and restore their desperately distempered soules to health; in that day it shall be no more griefe of heart to them, that they have been kept away, then it is to the recovered Patient, that his Physitian denyed him flesh, and wine in his feaver, or a knife in his distraction, and at that time we shall expect their thanks, in the meane time we shall beare their rage and reproach with paience, knowing it is for the Lord we suffer it.

For the Lord, who suffered more, in the shed­ding of his bloud for us, then we can doe in the vin­dication of it, and preserving it from being pro­phaned by unhallowed mouths.

If it pleaseth the Lord they dye in their spi­rituall distempers, and go raging to their graves, we must be content to expect our thanks from our Lord and Master at the great day, and our vindication there, except Reader thou wilt shew thy felfe so ingenuous and judicious as in thy thoughts to acquit us.

As to the subject of this Tract, the truth is, so much hath been said in the defence of what I plead for, of old, by all the Schoolmen, and since by Calvin, Vrsin, Zanchy, and by Reverend Beza, and Master Rutherford in answer to Erastus, and by learned and Reverend Gillespy in answer to Master Prynne, besides what hath been spoken by Master Philip Goodwin in his excellent Book, called the Evangelicall Communicant, and by ma­ny others; that were it not for the importunate clamours of those who would get that by their importunity, and clamorous tongues and pens, which the justice of their Cause, and strength of their Arguments, will not allow to them, nor gaine for them, both my selfe and others might have had an eternall supersedeas for this Worke. I scarce find any thing in Erastus and Beza, but what I meet with in the Schoolmen, nor any thing in Master Prynne, or Master Humfry con­siderable, but what I find in Erastus: That if our Brethren of the contrary perswasion, would not have troubled the world with their opinions, without answering first what had been said a­gainst them: we had long ere this time had our Quietus est; for I durst undertake to yeeld him the cause, who sufficiently answers but one Book wrote upon this subject, viz. Master Gillespies Aarons Rod blossoming; so that the truth is, the advantage our opposites have of us in this point, is mostly upon such as have not knowledge of what hath been said against their opinions, or [Page]are not supplyed with money to buy the Books, nor able to gaine time to read them, or upon such whose particular engagements, and over-much love to the whimzies of their owne braines, or malice, or prejudice at least to the truth, or love to their cursed lusts, which yet they would keep and have the Sacrament too, and be thought un­worthy of no Gospell-priviledge: hath out­lawed their Reason, and so stopt their eares, that they are made incapable of a boaring with the sharpest and most convincing Arguments, that Scripture and Reason can afford; and thus they only captivate those, who are first led captive by their owne lusts. Possibly thou wilt be inquisi­tive, to know what hath made me write, if I have judged enough already said: I must crave a little of thy partience to satisfie thee as to this.

I have often thought that it would be a rare expedient in order to the ending of all contro­versies of these times, relating to the order of the Church; if some judicious man would out of all the considerable Books wrote upon each Controversie, within these twelve or thirteen yeares, candidly state each Controversie, and transcribe the Arguments relating to them, with the Exceptions and Answers given to any, digesting them in a due method, and it might please the civill power then to Enact, That no one should write more upon any of those Questions, but should be engaged either to bring New Argu­ments on the part he would defend, or vindicate those [Page]brought on the part he would defend from the vari­ous Answers given to them. Were this taske but imposed upon new Scriblers, the world would be lesse full of impertinent Discourses, and Disputes would not run as they doe in infinitum. I doe not pretend a specimen of such a Worke, I have neither purse nor Library, nor time, fit for it. But the truth is, as I find in Mr Humfry, and heare from Mr Boatman, nothing more then Erastus long since said, and hath been more then once already answered; so I have not studied for a new Argument, but out of severall Authors have rallyed up an old force, and have candidly told thee what hath been by any, whom I have met with, said against them, as also what hath been answered in their defence: All being ad­mitted to the Passover (as some conceive) Iohn Bap­tists universall Baptisme; Iudas his being admitted to the Lords Supper; The generall invitation to the Wedding Supper in the Gospell; some being drunke at the Lords Supper in the Church of Corinth. No evident testimony in Scripture for Suspension, [...]. These are all old tooles, and scarce newly whetted.

Yet what hath Master Humfry said, or what doth Master Boatman say more? But for the more particular occasion of this Tract,

I must desire of thee (Reader) to understand, that in this great City there are, as I take it, about thirty Parishes within the Wals, to none of which (excepting only two, one of which hath [Page]about thirty pounds per annum) is above ten or twelve pounds a yeare certaine legall mainte­nance; The most of the Parishes have nothing at all. Scandalous Livings are alwayes the nests of scandalous Ministers; The Parishes being little, and the maintenance Arbitrary, and many of the people seasoned with the old leaven of ignorance and superstition, many, if not most of our Parishes have been either without any Minister, or filled with such who were cast out of other places, or at least no friends to Reforma­tion.

For those Parishes in which were a more con­siderable number of godly and well disposed people, some of them were better supplyed; but in all the City we were able to doe very little to promote the worke of Reformation: Some of the Congregations either wanting godly Mini­sters, or persons fit to be chosen, as Helpers with them in Government, and the people in others wanting an heart to chuse; yet through much opposition, in two or three Parishes we procu­red an Election of Elders, amongst which Peters was one, being the most considerable place in the City, and furnished both with persons fit to be chosen, and a people willing to chuse, and a Reverend Pastor, Mr Carter. fit to goe in and out before them.

But the yoake of Jesus Christ (which is al­wayes easie to a gracious heart) doth always gall the necks of those who have made their lusts [Page]Lords, some of the people who had the taste of the flesh pots of Aegypt yet in their mouth, began to kick at this supposed burthen; some withdrew their stipends, in short, some one way, others another way, tyred out their Reverend and Lear­ned Pastor, who after severall thoughts of remo­vall from them, about May last resolved upon it.

About that time, one Master Boatman (some­times of Hull) was commended to them; we who were Ministers of the Gospell in the City, con­ceived it our duty, as we had opportunities, to enquire of him (to whom ere long it would be expected that we should give the right hand of fellowship.) Amongst others, my selfe, as I had occasion offered, [...], made some Enquiry concerning him, soone after speaking with a Minister, who sometimes lived in Yorkshire, I askt him if he knew such a Minister in their Countrey, and what he was. He told me he knew him very well, and he was a man who would preach frequently, and was a great enemy to Sectaries, but himselfe was neither Minister nor Graduate. Soon after, a Reverend and Godly Minister of Lincolne­shire comming to see me, I asked him the same Questions, who confirmed the same things. Concerning the thing established out of the mouths of two witnesses, I imparted it to two friends, one a Minister, the other a judicious Christian inhabiting in the Parish: And this I did the rather, because I heard they were about [Page]to invite him for a Probationer, and I my selfe (having a Moneth to spend in the University) was to be absent, that so if he came, these things might be enquired after. While I was in the University, I (occasionally at dinner at the Vice-chancellors chamber, & being at supper the same nightwith one of the Proctors) met with two Mi­nisters, one at each place, both of Lincolne-shire, where I knew Master Boatman had his residence, they both confirmed the same things, adding something more (which I shall spare, except Master Boatman provokes me to speake it) being desirous rather to vindicate my selfe then to asperse him. While I was absent, some of his friends had sufficiently branded me for saying he was no Graduate, when as he was a Reverend man, a Batchelour of Divinity (forsooth) of Katherine Hall: One of them fell upon me face to face at my returne, I told them I would not be over-confident, because it was but a Report, but I would soone satisfie them as to that point. Thereupon I wrote a Letter by the next Post, to a Learned friend, Fellow of that House, who certified me, That he knew him very well, That by admission he was two yeares my junior, That for de­grees, he was three degrees beneath a Batchelour in Divinity, having never commenced at all, nor staid in the Colledge above a yeare, or a yeare and halfe at utmost. Some other things he certified me, which I shall conceale, intending only my owne vindi­cation.

This was the only Letter I ever wrote to en­quire of him, (and that in my owne vindication too) though I heare he hath told his friends, he hath Copies of severall Letters I wrote to that purpose.

Soone after this, a Reverend Brother in this City had another Letter from a godly and lear­ned Minister, who was of his year and Colledge, to omit other passages in the Letter, he told him that he never commenced any thing but junior So­phister.

By all this we gathered, That an — Harry So­phister was the height of his University-Com­mencements. It was now about Iuly, when the Anabaptisticall party began to rage against Vniversity-Learning, and Degrees. We who were Ministers in this City, were a little sensible, (if we had been satisfied concerning him upon other accounts) what an ill sound it would make in the world, to be heard, that the greatest Congrega­tion in so famous a City as this, and a Congre­gation which ever had either a Doctor in Divi­nity, or some very reverend man in it, should now be supplyed with one, who had given no proofe in any Universitie of his abilities, or profici­encie in his Studies, nor so much as taken the lowest degree in the Schooles.

This made some of us, doe what in us lay, to move those who were our sober, pious friends in that Congregation, to act deliberately in so weighty a worke; in which the glory of God; [Page]the good of the City, the interest of their soules, and their credit and reputation would be so much concerned; and that before they agreed to his Election, they would enquire concerning his later conversation, and be satisfied that he were a Minister in Office at least. We thought, con­sidering that juncture of time, and the eminency of the place, it would also be fit, that at least he should be Mr of Arts.

At last he came to the Towne, and a party of the people elected him as their Pastor (one hun­dred and eleven having before subscribed Master Carter a new Call, promising to wait a yeare for him.) Diverse godly people dissented from the Election openly, and the rather, because he re­fused to satisfie them concerning his Ordina­tion. I shall referre to my Reader to enquire other passages concerning his Election. About three weeks after Michaelmas he came to reside, but before this he had declared himselfe for Episcopacy somthing plainly; (we suppose he was of another judgement when he preached at Hull.) He had also by this time declared him­selfe to a Reverend Minister in the City for pro­miscuous communions, and within a day or two af­ter told a godly man, pinching him upon that point, that he should well see he was not for promis­cuous communions; soon after his comming to re­side, we had heard he had declared himselfe pri­vately against Ruling Elders;

Presbyter, haud ame te, nec possum dicere quare, Hoc tantùm possum dicere, non amo te.

For his judgement in that point, or indeed in any other, it is not much considerable; for we doe not thinke he is [...], and we can easily beleeve that we have more to say, yea that more hath already been said to prove the divine Right of that O ficer in the Church, then Mr Boatman can answer.

About the beginning of December after, about six weeks residence amongst a people, he had ne­ver seen before (except as a guest for a forth­night) nay, and as I remember of that six weeks he was absent for a fortnight too; He declares he intended to administer a Sacrament on Christ­mas day, some honest people of his Congrega­tion being dissatisfied at it, went to him, and told him so, in regard of the superstitious conceit of that day, which many in this City have. One of his friends told me, they had prevailed with him so far, as that the next day he would unbid it againe, but in stead of it, the next Lords day, in stead of unbidding it (girding at those who had received this offence) he openly proclaimes foure Sacraments together. The first upon the eighteenth day of December; the second upon the five and twentieth, &c. and proclaimed like­wise a Fast Preparatory to them upon the thir­teenth of December: At which Fast (Reader) [Page]thou must thinke there was much people to see which way he would row, (though they needed not, if they had considered the wind and tyde) For my selfe, I was not there, having with some other of my Brethren refused to heare him, who refuseth to let us know by what Authority he preaches, and conceiving that the Pastorall Right to that people belongs not to him, (besides other things which discover him to us to be no friend to any kind of Reformation. At his Fast he preached on Rom. 14.12. His discourse in the forenoone was harmlesse, in the afternoon he disgorged himselfe.

I shall give thee a short account of that part of his Sermon which concernes this businesse, as it was taken (and given me by an ingenuous judicious Schollar) from his owne mouth in short hand; and by one who was (before that Sermon) much his friend.

An Account of the latter part of Mr Boatmans Sermon preached at St Pe­ters in Norwich, upon the 13th of December, 1653. upon Rom. 14.12.—being a perfect count of his Sermon from his last Use; With short Animadversi [...]ns upon it.

‘SIxthly, Sect. 1 and lastly, (though I said (but rather forgot when I said) that that should be the last) Take this Lesson from the point, all in generall, viz. the Apostles advice, 1 Cor. 11. Judge your selves, consider your selves a­right, lay things aright to heart. condemne your selves else God will condemne you. Passe a particular account with your selves, but that you will say is impossible. Who can tell his errors, or number his infirmities? Doe it as far as you are able, and in a generall way take the whole burthen on your soules, licke the dust, cry out with Job, I am exceeding vile, humble your selves in dust and ashes — And let me make the last Use more particular, to alarum you to a preparation to the great Ordinance of the Lords Supper, if you must give an ac­count to God (as you have heard) of all your carriages, and enjoyments of all the precious Ordinances of the Gospell (of which the Word and Sacraments are not the least, but of the highest nature) then put your selves into a posture of humiliation, thinke with your selves; O God! how often have we eaten unworthily? — It is not one of the least serious thoughts I have enter­tained a great while together in relation to this Ordi­nance, [Page]the generall want of it amongst the people of God in the Church of God: it filleth me with wonder that it hath been so long suspended, and almost all the Pa­stors of the Church of Christ so amused; either their minds disturbed, or their hearts hardened, or by one way or other diverted, that it hath been too void of the spirituall food of the Gospell: The world dictates and cryes out, one against such a Pastor, others against such and such persons; but will you have my verdict? The sinne of Pastor and people in the enjoyment of that great Ordinance, is the cause and ground that God hath found out away, and by away of his owne find­ing out, which a man would have thought at first should never have prevailed, which hath hindred the people of the enjoyment of that great Ordinance of the communion of the body and bloud of Christ. Let this humble us.’

This Paragraph containes little in it to the present purpose, hitherto he is making way for his work; but yet in this loose discourse, to passe by the Tautologies and Grammaticall Errors, here are some passages that speak not much of a Divine, as to say, That God hath found out wayes to hinder people of his Ordinances. God in­deed doth sometimes give up his people to spirituall judgment; but it is scarce truth to say, God finds out wayes for men to walke contrary to his will in, surely man finds them out, though God suffers them to walke in them. But let us heare a little further.

And you of this Flocke, Sect. 2 I beseech you by the mercies of Christ looke to it, as you will answer me at the great day, nay (which is more) to Jesus Christ himselfe, how you appro [...]ch; Looke to your soules hearts and consci­ences, you have lived under the Ministry, and Admini­strations of able Pastors so long together, and should you be ignorant of the rudiments of Religion? (I would not for a thousand worlds attribute so little to your constancy, [Page]and your paines, especially in such times, nor in former) viz. so much as makes you capable of, and fit for the Sa­crament. For my owne particular, I question not your duty, but beseech you according to the knowledge you have received, seriously to prepare your selves; take heed, be thinke your selves, humble your selves for your miscar­riages heretofore in the enjoyment of it, goe home and say. O how often have I gone hand over head? and car­ried an envicus heart, a lustfull, wrathfull heart, full of indignation to thy holy Table? I have gone with preju­dice, with resolutions of revenge to the communion of the body and bloud of Christ, which should keep the unity of the spirit, and the bond of peace. If I could but pre­vaile with you to set your selves thus beforehand, and judge your selves, I dare secure you in your approach to that Table.

Let me speake to two sorts of men; Sect. 3 some looke upon themselves as they suppose to have tasted of the powers of the world to come, and have dranke full draughts of that new wine which Christ hath prepared for his chil­dren in his Kingdome. Blessed be God! All honour, praise, glory be to the name of God in your behalfe. I be­seech you by the mercies of God looke to it, take heed how you approach unpreparedly, u [...]charitably, and prejudici­ally; lay aside all malice, envy, and as new borne babes, desire, and come, and drink the new wine in the Kingdome of Jesus Christ.

Another sort of men perhaps the world count loose and profane yet they professe the faith of Christ, they owne his name, they tell the world they are Christians, and they will be angry if you will not beleeve them so. Take the advice of the Spirit of God, whatsoever you are (for I know none) Let him that hath stolne steale no more, he that hath sworne sweare no more, he that hath been a frequent and common drunkard, and hath blasphemed and broken the Sabbath, despised Ordinances, scoffing at ho­linesse, [Page]and the profession of Religion, scoffe no more— so resolving and so doing, you may safely approach to the blessed Ordinance, and on termes of true repentance, enjoy communion with Christ. But saith one, Must every one have the Sacrament? Will you give it to all? I con­fesse I doe not intend to give it to a Jew, a Turke, nor a Pagan, to none of all three, but to every Christian.

Yea but there are some profane Christians; I know here lies the grand objection. I'le seriously give you my thoughts, and I'le engage you into one Society before we depart: Church-communion will engage you all to be Saints. 1. If any of you be profane I know not. But Sir, you cannot but imagine, that in such a Congregation there must be some: it is not possible but there must be some. Secondly therefore, unlesse by one or more he be brotherly dealt withall, by private and serious admoni­tion, and after that according to Christs rule by one or two more, and after excommunicated. I really professe, not­withstanding the Learning of all the Ministers on earth, no power on earth hath the least seeming or semblable Authority to keep such a one from the Sacrament, consi­red before that he be baptized, and not a Jew, but one that makes a Ve [...]ball profession of the Faith, and that desires the enjoyment of the Ordinance. I say he must be so deal [...] withall as Christ hath prescribed legally, according to Law; He must be excommunicated or else cannot be kept from the Sacrament. I say, It is a dreame of the Pharisees invented the businesse of Suspension distinct from Excommunication. I say, It is a Pharisaicall in­vention that hath found out an absolute distinction &c. Nay more then that, I humbly desire, yea I almost durst (though with great humility) challenge any man to shew me the least footsteps in the whole Booke of God, to keep any man from the Sacrament if he will presse to it upon his owne-score. I speak not besides my Booke: for Reasons I have some anon which peradventure will strike some of your consciences into amazement.

Here's now a messe of stuffe must be taken notice of. 1. It is ell-wide charity which he discovers there, where he tels us, he would not for a thousand worlds thinke that amongst eight or nine hundred Communi­cants (after his reckoning) for so many that Congre­gation consists of, there should be none ignorant of the rudiments of Religion; he doth well to smother it up, by telling them he will not question them, for if he did he might be convinced every one were not so know­ing.

But in the third Paragraph he comes to his worke: To passe by his large character of visible Saints (which may be also visible Devils) It is worth enquiring what he meanes by his application of that of the Apostle, Let him that hath stollen steale no more. If he meanes that no sinnes shall keep a man from the Sacrament after repentance evidenced, we agree with him: but if he meanes, that though one hath been scandalous by theft, drunkennesse, blasphemy, swearing, Sabbath-breaking, scoffing at holinesse, &c. and that very late­ly, and only sayes he will doe so no more, but hath evidenced the change of his heart by no contrary con­versation for any time, yet he should be admitted, we thinke him a strange Steward of Gods Mysteries. We are sure the whole Church of God in all Ages have been of another mind, and rather erred on the other side, by setting scandalous sinners, after a verball pro­fession; some 2, some 3, some 7, some 10, 11, 15, 20 yeares, to evidence their repentance for such sinnes before they admitted them to the Lords Table: Those who read Basils three Canonicall Epistles to Amphilo­chius, v. Basilii can. ep. ad Amphil. or any of the Primitive Councels, will see evi­dence enough of it.

He tels us he will not give the Sacrament to all (so indeed he told some godly Christians at his first com­ming, who feared him in that point, that they should [Page]well see he was not for promiscuous Communions.) But who will he keep away, Turkes, Jewes, Pagans, such as he hath none of in his Parish. 2. Such as will never come to him for it. But he openly professeth he will give it To all Christians. So then, if the Papists will they may have it. But he is afraid some will thinke him too free to give it to all profane persons. To this he answers in the first place;

That if any be profane he knowes it not] I cannot tell how he should, having not resided amongst that great people two moneths; but with what conscience doth he openly proclaime foure Sacraments together, and ap­point two hundred to come at a time, when he professeth that he doth not know his people? I have heard of a Gentleman, who being to make a speech, first shut his eyes, and then told his Hearers he was in the darke. I would know whether Master Boatman tooke a course to know them; whether he called the Eldership of the Congregation (as was his duty) and enquired of them the state of the flock, possibly they might have told him of some that were prophane. Or if (as I heare) Elders be an abomination to him, whether he visited them all [...], from house to house. I am sure he did neither of these, and 'tis no wonder he did not know them then. But he walks by another rule, for he professeth here, That except the profane be first admonished, then excommunicated (which he knowes now they cannot be, except by Elderships, which his judgement is not for belike) no power on the earth hath the least seeming or semblable Authority to keep any from the Sacra­ment, yea, and this is his Say (notwithstanding all the Learning of all the Ministers on earth: yea and he tels us so againe, [...]. For Suspension, it is a dreame of the Pharisees who invented it, yea a Phari­saicall invention. How? a dream? a Pharisaicall dream? a thing not to be maintained by the Learning of all the [Page]Ministers on earth? No Authority for it, neither seeming nor semblable? Bona verba quaso. Surely lesse Learning will be enough to deal with so yong a Rabbi, and to maintaine so ancient, so divine, so ration all an institution, at least against such an adversary. Softer words would have been better for one that had no harder Arguments for his opinion.

Nay more, he desires, nay he challengeth (with as much humility as we can thinke he hath, after he hath so boldly charged all the Churches of God, as Drea­mers, Pharisaicall Dreamers, &c.) any to shew him the least footsteps for it from the Word of God. This challenge he shall see anon is accepted. We will try what a combatant our Goliath is, he tels us he speaks not besides his Book. I know not what is in his Book, but I shall prove anon he speaks besides Gods Booke, and besides his Book too, if it were the Bible he had in the Pulpit (but possibly it was Master Humphrio's Rejoin­der.)

But he tels us he hath Reasons anon shall come forth, yea and those terrible ones too, such as shall amaze our consciences. Let us see what they are.

Trace the footsteps, Sect. 4 and they are very rare in Scrip­ture too that Christ hath laid downe in such a case as this, and till you have searched them, beleeve that a great deale of pride, and more uncharitablenesse, and worse then both hath been the cause of suspending so great an Ordinance so long, and maring such a breach in the Church of God. I find but once in the Booke of God, that it speaks directly in it, and then it speaks of no other remedy for all exorbitances committed in the Church, but, Let a man examine himselfe, &c. If you find any, show them. It is a moore Dreame, and Invention of men, which they pretend, to implode the Scriptures, and lay a barden on our shoulders, and an intollerable yoke. I say a Pharisaicall invention, and I speake plainly and [Page]home. When the Aprstle had taken a survey of the great enormities of some, he speaks Not a Word more, and that upon a fault which I beleeve not any man was guilty of in the English Church, viz. They were drunke at the Sacrament, and we doe not sind that he did suspend them, cast them out, or excommunicate them, only the Apostle fatherly, and Apostolically adviseth them to take a better care for the time to come. 2. Secondly (admit what some pretend, that there is just reason to suspend some from the Sacrament, whom it would never trouble the wisest heads in this Age, for it never entred into the heads of former Ages to tell) what distinct crimes they are, for which any are to be suspended. You are mistaken if you thinke for every whimzy gimeracke, or trifle that comes in a mans head, a man must be kept fram the Sacrament. The Apostle indeed adviseth the Corinthians to excom­municate the incestuous person; but the businesse was so highly aggravated, that the sinne was not so much as named amongst the Heathen. It is not every trifle be­cause a man is not of such a mans opinion in point of State-affaires, though I hope you are all of a mind now; therefore he must be kept from the Sacrament, not be­cause such or such a Pharisee saith a man keeps company with Publicanes and sinners, and so one himselfe (but not so) though called so, therefore he must be debarred from the Sacrament. What is all this from God? I dare safe­ [...]ier say, from the Devill. What, out of a private and par­ticular prejudice, and he hath hath taken it hath a little power that way, and interest in Admission, therefore the Party must be kept from the Sacrament. Quis talia fando? I had almost spoken something that had been a Solecisme. Did ever the Lord Jesus Christ thinke on earth this should have been done in his Church? and I tell you, the Holy Ghosts straine. No, either he must be convicted and adjudged, or I dare pronounce of him that denies it him on any other score, That he is a bold intruder on Christs Authority.

Are those the amazing reasons we heard of I won­der! Here's amazing language, and boldnesse, and con­fidence; here's nothing looks like a Reason, but only that the Gentleman doth not read that the Apostle in 1 Cor. 11. that the Apostle gave no other order, but, Let a man examine himselfe: But what if Christ him­selfe gave other order, Mat. 7.6. and by his owne ex­ample, admitting none but his Disciples, and the Apo­stles, Acts 2 admitting none out such as were prickt at the heart &c. And what needed the Apostle in the eleventh Chapter give order further, when in the fifth Chapter he had plainly forbidden them to keep the Feast with old Leaven? viz. scandalous sinners, as ver. 6. and to eat with any call'd brethren, that should be fornicators, covetous, idolaters, railers, drun­kards, extortioners; for the Corinthians being drunke at the Sacrament; There is nothing but our Transla­tion serves Master B: and we translate the same word otherwise, John 2.10. (of that more afterwards) But he tels, It will pose the wisest heads to find out for what sinnes any should be kept away; that is another dispute. We are now disputing whether any should or no, ac­cording to Master B's: Doctrine, if a man had sinned the sinne against the Holy Ghost he should not, this is all that looks like Reason, and here's a poore pit­tance of it; but besides this Reader, 1. Here's an impudent falshood affirmed in a Pulpit, That it never entred into the heads of former Ages to suspend any, thou wilt find I have proved it the constant practice of the Churches of God in all former Ages.

2. Here is a bold expression of Suspension. He tels us againe, that it is a meere Dreame, an Invention of men, a Pharisaicall invention.

3. Here is an impudent aspersion cast not only upon the eminent servants of God in former times, and Churches and Councels, but upon the generality of [Page]godly Ministers in this Age, whose judgment & practice hath been to suspend the ignorant and scandalous from the Lords Table. Master Boatman tels the people that They goe about to implode the Scriptures, to lay a bur­then and an intollerable yoke (so all Christs Ordinan­ces are to men captivated by their lusts) on their shoul­ders: That they make themselves wiser then any former Ages; That they are bold intruders on Christs Authority. Dost thou thinke Reader that he hath not said to himselfe, My tongue is my owne, and I will speak? The best of it is we thinke it no great slander, Let it run to its excesse of riot.

Fourthly, here is a malicious insinuation, That we keep men from the Sacrament for whimzies, and gim­eracks, and trifles, and differences in State-matters, and particular prejudices. Those who doe any such things are engaged to speake for themselves: I know none but abhorres these calumnies. But yet I am at a losse, for the reason should amaze our consciences.

Another Reason (which few understand, Sect. 5 but I would many did who suspend the Sacrament, it would make them looke to it, and about them) is, That the Church of Rome hath got more these two yeares by suspending the Sacrament in the Church of England, then ever it did in Queen Mary's dayes. To my owne knowledge, of the persons the Arguments they use, the place, and County, I referre you to: 'Tis Lincolneshire, they say, where is your Church of England now? where are the marks, the Word and Sacraments, (which the Orthodox, and Ancient accounted the only true marks of the Church) You have indeed Preaching and Baptisme, but where is the Lords Supper? no where, unlesse (as the Papists pri­vate Masse) here and there, in a corner. There are none but may see, and understand; doth not the Church of God lose by this? Is it not the Popes harvest? Nay in time the suspension of this great Ordinance, will take men [Page]off from hearing, unlesse it be a company of men which come to heare for novelty, and so none will owne the Church of Christ. This is the great Reason (besides the Authority of Scriptures, whereby I have proved it) per­swading me to the Administration of it. They cannot have the Sacrament, they can have the Eucharist at Rome, they will goe thither; nay more, I have knowne particularly, and could name them that have been first amused, then amazed, and after by subtle and ingenuous cheats drawne to the Church of Rome. Now I have no desire you should be Papists, and therefore have a great desire to entertaine you as members of the Church of En­gland.

Now we have got the conscience-startling Reason, Master Boatman must give the Sacrament to all, and he thinks we would doe it too if we did but consider, 1. That the neglect of this Ordinance hath given occasion to the Papist to say, where is your Church? where are your Sacraments? But in the first place, ‘Est inter Tanaim quiddam socerum (que) Viselli.’

1. Cannot we set up courses of Sacraments, but we must keep open house for all profane persons? This aimes only to urge a necessity of administring the Or­dinance, it proves nothing against suspension of the un­worthy.

2. The Papists are very busie to aske indeed where is our Church? Chamier, Whitaker, &c. have told them where it is; 'tis well we have some better Doctors, I see to answer for us, then Master Boatman; for he thinks the Question unanswerable, if Sacraments be not constantly administred in every part of our Church, and every one admitted to it. Well, by my con­sent, he shall never be appointed to answer Bellar­mine.

3. No wise man ever thought, That the suspension of the Administration of the Ordinance of the Sacra­ment in a corrupted Church, till it could be set in order, (the Church yet in judgment defending the Ordi­nance, and thirsting (for a time) to administer it order­ly) did unchurch a Church: where was then the Church of the Jewes for 40 yeares together wanting Circumcision?

Surely one might tell a Papist, the Sacrament is ad­ministred constantly in some hundreds of Congrega­tions in England, in the Churches in London, Lanca­shire, Suffolk, Essex, &c.

5. What makes Master Boatman cry, it is no where, except as the Papists private Masse, here and there, in a corner. I cannot tell, surely London is no corner; but many of his hearers thought that by that he reflected upon my Administration of it, in the Chappell belong­ing to this Noble Family. If he did, he may please to know, the Lady in whose Chappell it is, is an Earles el­dest Daughter, and now the Widow of a Noble Gen­tleman, who was Knight and Baronet; in either of whose Rights the Law allowes her a place of Publike Worship, and a Chaplaine, and makes her Chappell a place of Publike Worship, her house especially, being distinct from all other Parishes, and an entire Liberty within it selfe. But we must tell him, his carrying the Sacrament the other day to a private chamber for a Viaticum to a sicke person, was a great deale more like private Masse, or if you will, carrying The Hoast.

We (saith Beza, Bezae tract, de coena Domini contra Joachi­mum West­phalum in oct. ex edit. S [...]eph. 1559. p. 160. speaking in the name of Protestants) doe not use to administer the Sacrament of the Lords Supper privately, to our sicke people, nor doe they desire it; for they are so well taught as to know, that their sal­vation doth not depend upon their receiving the Sacra­ments, a privation of which is not damnable, but a con­tempt only. Now they to whom the Lord hath denied [Page]liberty to come into the publike Congregation cannot seem to contemne the Ordinance; So Aretius. Illud autem omni defensione justa caret, quod ad aegros deser­tur, tanquam viaticum mori­turis; qui mos inolevit, ut opi­nor, cum persua­sum esset plebi, quosdam piè mori, non posse nisi prius coenā Domini sump­sissent, &c. Arist Probl. loc. 82. Chrysost. in Mat. Hom. 3. The administration of the Sacrament (saith he) is a publike action, and for private Sacraments they seeme to us to be repugnant to the na­ture of that Ordinance which is a Communion. — So Aretius also.

Lastly, surely a wise Protestant would tell a Papist, That if we had one Sacrament too few, they have five too many; which would argue as much against the truth of their Church, as the want of one could against the truth of ours. Thus you see the Papists (Mr Boat­man is so gravell'd with) may be answered without a promiscuous communion.

But 2. he thinks, Many will turne Papists if they may not have the Sacrament here.

Would there not be fine Communicants thinke we, that are so ready to turne Papists upon every teach?

2. But so long as Sequestrations hold, I thinke we need not feare men of Estates turning Papists, the con­sciences of such as we must deny the Sacrament to are not so strict, for others indeed there may be some feare.

3. But is this a good Argument thinke we? Suppose a debauched swearer or drunkard should come to us, and tell us, If we will not give him the Sacrament he will turne Papist, must we therefore prophane Gods Ordinance? Chrysostome tels us he would sooner give his body to death, and his bloud to be shed, then he would pollute Gods Ordinance by giving it to scan­dalous sinners. Suppose an impudent Queane should come to one and tell him, if he would not marry her, she would turne whore; were this a good Argument thinke you to perswade a Gentleman to marry her? or rather, [...]o nomine to refuse her? Master Boatmans reason is just such another. Now Reader thou seest what the startling Reason we heard comes to; a meer poker, in reality just nothing.

Againe to the Exhortation, I beseech you make no evill use of what hath been said, because it is the truth, and nothing but the truth of God. And I say againe, that it is not in the power of any particular Mi­nister, or Congregation, without cleare conviction and Condemnation, to keep a man from the Sacrament, if he will rush, no man hath any thing to do with him. And if you will rush, do, your bloud be on your own soules. I have quitted mine hands this day before God, and his people. Looke to your selves, if your consciences tell you that you have not owned the Gospell, that you have been ashamed of Religion, that you have walked in evill; If your conversation bespeake your irregularities, I beseech, you reforme, refraine. It would be the greatest happiness and joy that ever I met withall in all my life, to have that scoffe become a reall truth, that you might prove all Saints at St Peters, that I might be able to present you to God (as your Pastor) an holy, and unblameable, and peculiar Congregation. Brethren, I beseech you labour (as much as in you lies) by considering, and laying to heart what hath been said, to refraine from those lusts which have been prevalent in your spirits.

In the next place to you that have not run into the same excesse of riot; and I blesse God with, and for you; but I have one exhortation to give you, that you would be pleased to fill your soules with charity. Look to your selves, beleeve every man his Brother better than him­selfe, this is Evangelicall counsell. Some will say, I see such, and such profane, advise them; hast thou done that? If not, thou hast sinned against the Gospell, and his sin is not so much his as thine; dost thou cry out of him, and hast not prayed for him? particularly admoni­shed him? and soberly? that for the time to come he would take a better course; hast thou done it with mode­ration, meeknesse, sobriety, tendernesse, and seasonably restored thy brother overtaken? Raile not, revile him [Page]not, cry not out against him; make not his private sin publike, let not every one take notice of it of which thou takest notice, do not sin against thy Brothers soule. — But some are not yet satisfied if the profane be ad­mitted, and the Sacrament be administred promiscuously the Ordinance will be defiled. A pretty dreame! Is not the Word as soone defiled because a profane man heares it? As soone that may as the Sacrament; what is another mans receiving unto thee if thou receivest worthily? I do not remember the Scripture tells us, that any man got any hurt by the man that came without the wedding gar­ment; nor did any man ever the more shun the roome or cast him out, only indeed the Master came, and he turned him out. Let the profane take heed left they be turned out, Christ may find them out. For this cause many are sick, and weake, &c. and he may cast them into utter darknesse. But although Christ hath this authority, I know no Minister hath any such. What have we to do if it be thus? Only these two things: and I desire you, especially of this Congregation, to joine with me in an humble and serious confession to God of our former pra­ctises. 2. As heartily to renew solemnly your Covenant made in Baptisme against the flesh, the world, and the de­vill, you know how guilty you have been all of the breach of it. That once done, I will take upon me on good grounds to call you holy to the Lord, and seriously in­vite you to this worke.

In this last Paragraph, the greatest part of it is something better than ordinary; men of this Gang could not so securely raile against examination by El­deships, and enquiries after the flock, if they did not pretend for a great deale of zeale for private examina­tion. There were some of old, that to devoure wid­dows houses the better made long prayers. I wish that all the pretended strictnesse of some, for selfe-exami­nation, be not only a vizard to mock the world with, [Page]while they rob the Church of the divine Ordinances of Presbyteries, and Suspension, &c. But yet in this Paragraph

First, he ownes all that he hath said before, and tels his people, It is the truth, and nothing but the truth of God; apply this to all he had said before: That Suspen­sion was a dreame, a meere dreame, a pharisaic all inven­tion, for which was not the least footstep in Gods word; that no power under heaven hath any seeming, or semblable authority to keepe any from the Sacrament that will press to it on their own score. That those who do it are proud, uncharitable, intruders upon Christs Office, that former Ages never thought of it; all this is the truth, he saith, and nothing but the truth of God: yea, and he saith it againe, That it is not in the power of any particular Minister or Congregation, without cleare conviction and condemnation, to keep any away; what he meanes by Conviction and Condemnation he told us before three or foure times over they must be Excom­municated.

Whether a single Minister hath power or no is a question some make, but Mr Boatman hath no rea­son (for he owneth no Eldership) and the Rubrick allowed it to a single Minister in some cases: but he had expounded himselfe before: No power on earth can do it. And in the very next words here, If he will rush, no man hath any thing to do with him. And now he tels his people, If they will rush they may, their bloud he upon their soules, he hath quitted his hands, &c. Thus Mat. 26.24. Pilate when he had condemned Christ, tooke water and washed his hands, saying, I am innocent of the bloud of this just person, see ye to it. It is a good wish he wisheth, that the scoffe might become a reall truth that all were Saints at Peters. The scoffe he referreth to we know not, unlesse it were one raised by one of his own friends, who having got [Page]their Pastor amongst them to a cup of Sack and a pipe of Tobacco, merrily told an honest man, that such a night their Pastor and some of Peters Christians were at such a place conferring together; whence some called those who frequent such meetings Peters Christians. But the wish was good.

His next counsell is good, only he should have told his people, that if the offence be notorious and pub­like that private admonition shall not need precede; Him that sinneth openly rebuke openly (saith the Apo­stle.)

He feares some will thinke the Ordinance is defi­led if the profane be admitted; this he calls a pretty dreame, and saies the Word is as much d [...]filed, &c. To this I shall speake hereafter, with Mr Boatmans leave, though the Ordinance be not capable of any intrin­secall pollution, yet the Communion is defiled by en­during profane persons in it, 1 Cor. 5.6. (if the Apo­stle knew what he said) yea, and the people that communicate are defiled if they do not their duty, admonishing them, informing the Church, &c. to be sure the Officers of the Church are defiled, for it was their duty to have hept them away.

But Mr Boatman doth not remember any man got hurt by the presence of him that wanted the wedding garment, nor shunned the roome for him, only the Ma­ster came and turned him out.

1. Before this will prove any thing to the purpose, he must prove that the Supper, there mentioned, was the Lords Supper, otherwise this is [...].

2. Secondly, he must prove, that that Guest did not only want the wedding garment, but that he wore an open filthy garment; an hypocrite wants the wedding Garment, yet I know none say, the presence of hy­pocrites defiles a Communion; why? because man cannot judge the heart; but the question is whether the [Page]presence of gross sinners defiles the Communion or no?

3. None saies, the bare presence of ascandalous sin­ner defiles the particular soule of a private member, but it defiles the Officers, and the Communion.

4. Mr Boatman doth remember the Master turn'd him out. So it is Christs will, belike, none should be there but such as have the wedding garment; and the question is, whether he (now he is ascended) hath left us sufficient power to do his will as to such wanters of the wedding garment as our eyes can dis­cover.

5. Holy Mr. Ambrose thinks that Christ, Ambrose his Media. p. 260. turning out him who wanted the wedding-garment, is a good Argument for to evince our duty to turne away such as appeare to us to want it, (we being, in Christs stead, his Embassadours, Stewards, &c.) But Mr Boat­man tels us againe we have no such authority; we will anon joyne issue with him in that point. In the last place, he exhorts his people to confession, and renew­ing their Covenant, and then he pronounceth his people all Holy to the Lord. I hope he meant in the largest sense of holinesse.

This Reader is a perfect account of that whole part of his Sermon which gave occasion to this ensu­ing Tract. I confesse, for my own part, I heard it not, no more did scarce any of our Ministers, some of us being resolved first to be satisfied, That he hath autho­rity to preach (which we have very good grounds to suspect he hath not;) but these notes were given me, upon my desire by an ingenious young man, who is a Schollar, who tooke them in short hand from Mr Boatman's mouth, and gives me leave, Reader, to tell thee that he will justifie, that they are a true account of that part of his Sermon, to Mr Boatman, or any other. I saw the severall other Notes, taken by others, [Page]though more imperfectly, because taken in long-hand, which yet have the same passages concerning Sus­pension, and those who practice it. If they be deni­ed, thou shalt have them in the next attested by six or seven more.

In the meane time I appeale to such Christians in this City, as heard that Sermon, whether those pas­sages, concerning Suspension, and those who practice it, be not faithfully recorded.

My selfe was that day employed in a meeting with other Ministers of the City; I was no sooner returned home at night to my Study, but there came to me foure or five honest men, exceedingly troubled at the Sermon, one of them almost in a rage, profes­sing he never heard so much audaciousnesse in a Pulpit; they were (indeed) all very much troubled, and read me their Notes. The next day was my Lecture day, in which I was to preach a preparation Sermon to the Sacrament; perceiving that we had been so bold­ly challenged, and so rudely reflected upon, I thought it my duty to take notice of it, and in my Sermon in thesi spake to it.

1. Proving that Suspension of the ignorant and scan­dalous from the Lords Table (though they were not Ex­communicated was justifiable from Scripture.

2. Proving that it was so far from being a pharisaicall dreame, that it had been the judgement and practice of the Servants and Churches of God in all ages, and of our owne ever since the first dawnings of Reformation amongst us in the daies of King Henry 8.

This was carried to him, and I heare that on the Lords day (which was his first Sacrament day) he was taken up with admiring the bold face of them who should say any such thing, &c. and that he quo­ted the Discipline of the French Church as a witnesse against Suspension, (how truly we will examine [Page]anon.) By this time the spirits of his friends were up, and a great cry there was about the Towne, that we could talke, but durst not dispute, with this new Champion, he had challenged us all, &c. and in par­ticular this was laid to my charge. I confesse I had so much pride as to thinke him an adversary something below me; but yet to stop his friends mouths, and especially to vindicate the truth, and Ordinances of God, and our own practice from him, by the advice of two or three Reverend Ministers, upon the twen­tieth of December, I drew up this ensuing Letter in the presence of two Reverend Ministers, and read it to them, and they approving it, upon the 21. I sent it to him by the hands of two honest men, his Parishi­oners. The Letter follows Verbatim.

Sir,

I am credibly informed, by the mouths of more than two or three witnesses, (which yet had been enough to have establish'd the thing) that in a dis­course this day seven-night you did first confidently maintaine,

1. That Suspension distinct from Excommunication was a dreame of the Pharisees. Secondly, as confi­dently

2. Challenge any Minister in the world to shew you any ground for it from Scripture.

And had these things been spoken but once, charity might have judged them Lapsus linguae, but being re­peated againe, and againe, and with a great deale of difference, and averred, and renewed since in pri­vate, (as I am assured) all must conclude them errores mentis. Nor have I heard it only as inculcated from your selfe againe and againe, but from divers others, (who possibly (some of them) had need be of that large perswasion) that you offer to dispute with any in the defence of it.

Sir, I know not wherefore God hath set me in this City but to stand up for his glory, and for the defence of his truth and Ordinances; and though I have not been a man of war from my youth, yet I must not now stand still and heare you defie the Churches, and Servants, and Ministers of the living God as Pha­risaicall dreamers, and this day after day. These are therefore to let you know, that I accept your chal­lenge, and (in opposition to what you said) shall be ready when, and where you please (so it be before a competent number of witnesses) to maintaine against you,

1. That the suspension of some persons from the Sa­crament, besides Turkes, Jews, and Heathens, and those who are cast out of the Church by Excommunication is grounded on the Scripture, and deducible from it.

2. That it is so far from being a pharisaicall dreame, that it hath been the constant judgement of the Servants of God in all times of other reformed Churches, and our own ever since the beginning of reformation.

Either of these (Sir) I shall maintaine against you, either in a more publike or private dispute. More pri­vately, (if you thinke fit) before as many Ministers as will come & twelve private Christians, chosen by each or more, (provided the number chosen be equall on both sides.) Or more publikely, in the Church, and in what Church you please; (such Laws being first agreed on as are fit to regulate such a dispute.) If you accept either of these, let me know the time and place, (provided it be not on my Lecture day) and I shall be ready to appeare in this cause of God against you. And to this I expect a sudden answer, otherwise I shall thinke my selfe bound to let the world know, that as your Charge favoured of too much Pharisaicall pride, to condemne so many as Pharisees, dreaming Pharisees too. So your challenge was but the noise [Page]of an impotent Bravado, and to deliver the Truth and Churches of God from your Scandalls, in a way commensurate to the offence.

Only I desire you to remember, it is not my chal­lenge, but an accepting of your challenge, and that I shall contend not for Masteries, but for truth: and in themeane time be

Subscribed, For Mr Iohn Boat­man present these.
Your friend in what I shall not dishonour God, and prove the truths adversary, J. C.

When my two friends brought him this Letter, and told him the import of it, and from whom it came, he taking the Letter, satis pro imperio, bid them tell that Trifle he would answer him, at at his next turn bid them tell that simple Fellow he would answer him, insomuch that one of the Messengers (a little troubled at the rudenesse of his language) bluntly told him: Bet­ter words would become his mouth. They come away, not doubting but he who was so big in words, & to whom we were such Trifles, would have shewn himselfe something in deeds, and have thought that his rude Language at least would have engaged him to dispute. That night he sent me this Letter, Superscribed

These for Mr John Collings Batchelour in Divinity.

Sir,

YOur unchristian incivilities have been so many to me, a meere stranger, that they might easily have pro­voked a very patient man; yet I have forborne, and they [Page]shall worke no other effect upon me for the future. I will not gratifie you, nor your backbiting companions, so much as to be angry. For your Charge (in your termes) it is all false; and for your foule language I shall say no more but the Lord rebuke you. What I delivered I shall justifie; then you shall see that there was neither the lapse of the tongue, nor an errour of mind; For the dispute you mention I do not intend, magno conatunugas agere, (which must needs be, considering what a strange Spirit you shew your selfe to be of) I have seen often enough what issue these publike contests have had. If you write, and appeare in publike (for such a thing you intimate, which I know you love to do) if any thing there sufficient­ly reflect upon me or truth, I know what I have to do. In the meane while, till I have satisfaction from you for your grosse deportment, which concernes me as a Gen­tleman, a Christian, and which is more, a Minister of the Gospell, I shall avoid you as a wrangler, and one that loves contention, which is very much against the spi­rit of

John Boatman Pastor of St Peters in Norwich.

—teneat cornicula risum?

Reader! I hope thou wilt judge this Letter did not deserve an answer, and if I durst not have trusted thee with my credit against this adversary, thou shouldst not have seen it, but I perceive it mis-represented in the world, and cried up as the meekest, humblest Let­ter, &c. Now read, and I shall make thee (who ever thou art) my Judge, only take a few notes to help thee better to understand it.

1. I did a little wonder at the Superscription that he should own me under the Notion of a Batchelour in Divinity. I confesse, I have performed the exercises [Page]required of him who takes that degree in our Schooles, and the University hath pleased to give me their Seale, to let others know that they have been pleased to conferre that degree upon me; but for Mr Boatman, sure indignus est qui dicat, of all men he should have taken no notice of it, having so liberally in the morning called me Trifle, simple fellow, &c. especially considering that himselfe is not yet Batche­lour of Arts.

2. In the beginning of this Letter he tels me of unchristian incivilities I have offered him. I never yet came in his company, how I should use him so uncivil­ly I know not. My nature doth dispose me to as much civility I hope as anothers, and I would be loath to be uncivill to mine enemy, much lesse to a stranger. I professe, Reader, thou hast heard all I have been ever guilty of, and I referre it to thee to consider, whe­ther it were uncivill for a Minister of the Gospell in a City, hearing of one called to a place of eminency in the City, as he had occasion to enquire of him, espe­cially being one who lived at three or fourescore miles distance, and was not known in these parts, and to informe the people faithfully what he heard. If I, hearing the man was no graduate, no Minister, nay, far more which I shall conceale, (though as to other things I shall not desire to asperse him) did perswade my friends amongst the people to be deliberate in their choice and first to enquire. I hope this was so far from incivility, that it was my duty. I appeale to all the world to charge me with any other incivillities than these which I apprehend my duty.

3. Thou seest, Reader, he denies the charge, how justly judge by the Notes of the Sermon before; surely he hath a great measure of confidence to deny what he so often inculcated, but he adds, he denies it [in those termes] what termes he meanes I cannot [Page]tell. Logicall termes are proper to a question, and so the termes are two. The Subject, Suspension. The Pre­dicate, that it is a dreame of the Pharisees. I thinke thou wilt find these the termes in his Sermon. But perhaps he meanes Grammaticall termes, Letters, and Syllables, and words, if he did, it is a pitifull shift.

4. But it had been enough to me for him to have eaten his words, but that he licks them up againe, and saies, What he said he will justifie, and I shall see it was neither lapsus linguae, nor an errour of the mind. So the businesse is to prove he said so only, for he will avouch what he said; that he said so, I have pro­ved already, and if it be openly denied, I will under­take to prove it by more than three or foure witnes­ses; and I appeale to those who heard him that day for witnesses.

5. Disputing he doth not love; no, he tels us, he will not take a great deale of paines for trifles. Thus, Reader thou seest it is easier to make a challenge than to defend it: Who I wonder would have challenged him? I know no Ministers in this City but would have looked upon him as an improper match for them, had he not openly challenged us, and loudly enough charged both us, and the Churches, and Servants of God, as Dreamers, pharisaicall Dreamers, bold intru­ders upon Christs authority, such as do things contrary to all former ages, who devise things to implode Scrip­tures, &c. Thus he talkes, we turne againe to give him battle he runs away, and tells us, he will not be­stow paines to so little purpose; valiantly done! Is it not thinke you?

6. But he tels me, if I appeare in publike, &c. he shall then know what he hath to do. In obedience to him, and conceiving him at some little losse as to that point, I have wrote; what he will do now I do not know nor care.

7. He charges me sufficiently thou seest, as 1. A Companion of Backebiters. 2. One who hath given him foule language. So foule that it puts the good man to his prayers. 3. One of a strange spirit. 4. One who loves to appeare in publike. 5. One who have grossely deported my selfe to a Gentleman, &c. 6. A wrangler. 7. A lo­ver of contention.

Who are my Companions is sufficiently known in this City; and I hope those who observe Mr Boat­mans Companions and mine will not thinke his so far excelling. I desire to be a Companion of those who feare the Lord; who are his Companions let others observe and judge, I shall not judge any.

I thinke the rule good, — Noscitur ex socio qui non dignoscitur ex se, that a man who is not known of himselfe is known by his Companion, which laies a little obligation upon me, besides what Gods Word laies.

For the foule Language in my Letter, read, and judge how just the Charge is, if it were just, I hope he hath fitted me. —hoc sumus ergo pares.

For my strange spirit, Indeed I am one of those who know not what spirit I am of; the Lord sanctifie me yet more in body and mind and spirit.

For my love to appeare in Print, I can say somthing to vindicate my selfe. I have Printed nothing but three or foure practicall discourses, at whose sollicitations, and after how many sollicitations, some very neare me can tell; and I have some Letters from very Re­verend mento testifie. And two or three polemicall discourses the glory of God required them of me in these sinfull times. I know not what should make me so love that work: not honour sure. It is almost a scan­dall in this Age to be seen under the Presse, so shame­fully is it prostituted. Not Gaine. I never yet sold a Copy to my Stationer; nay, besides fifty or sixty Co­pies, [Page]given me for my friends, I have been forced to buy usually as many more. Surely it is no pleasure. Those who know what it is, first to study, then to transcribe a tract, then to review the sheets, and to make Tables, find it no pleasant worke. It was not to employ my selfe. Those who know me, know I have worke enough, and those with whom I live, know, that all the time almost I can get for any such eccen­trick work I am forced to steale from my sleep.

8. For my grosse deportment I am charged with, Reader, thou hast the truth, and the whole truth: Be thou my Judge.

For his other charges, it is no new thing for the adver­saries of truth to fasten such termes upon the Patrons of it. Mr Boatman must impudently defie the Truths, Churches, Servants of the living God, but no body must call him to account for it but they must be wranglers, &c. If that be to wrangle, we must wrangle more.

He aggravates my grosse deportments (as he cals them) because they concerne him as a GENTLE­MAN, a Christian, and a Minister.

For his being a Christian, I never heard any say he was not baptized, nor ever said any thing tending to that purpose.

For his Gentlemanship—I was altogether ignorant, (having not seen his Pedegree) so that I have Pauls excuse, who when he was accused for reviling (as they called it) the High Priest, excused himselfe by saying, I did not know it was the High Priest; he was never reported to me under that notion; (I confesse I am not skilled in Heraldry,) I thinke Gentility comes in by Consanguinity, not affinity. But however I do not know that I said or did any thing against him which touched his Gentleman-concernments.

For his being a Minister, all I can say is He is con­fidently [Page]reported to me to be none, and that by Reve­rend men, who know what they say, and take heed to their words. If he hath been made such by some Irish Bishop, or the like, in a corner, since the first came hi­ther, so it is, but I know no reason we have to beleeve it, till some credible persons see his Letters of Ordi­nation, nor can we (at least till then) eye him as such.

In the last place he tels us, To love contention is ve­ry far from the spirit of John Boatman Pastour of Pe­ters in Norwich.

For his being Pastor of Peters in Norwich, we can­not own him as such, till we know at what doore he came in, having great grounds he climbed up some other way; besides, there are some sheep of that flock that will not heare his voice, nor follow him, looking upon him as a stranger; whether he loves Contention or no, let those who read his Sermon judge.

But thus much shall serve for his Letter.

After the receit of which I was resolved to have done no more but to have betaken my selfe to my Study, to see if the Church of God had been in an errour these 1500 yeares about Suspension. And to my Bible to search the Scriptures, to see whether it were so in very deed as this Doctor had told us that there was no footsteps there to keep any not excommunicated from the Sacrament. But (not­withstanding all this.) I heard his friends in the Town kept up their old Note, and decried us, as if we were indeed such Trifles, and simple fellows, that none of us durst grapple with this Champion, and none could induce a perswasion in them, that we durst dispute, or had made any offer to that purpose. Perceiving no other way so probably effectuall to satisfie people, up­on a Lords day soone after, my Sermon being done, before a great Congregation I made a short and mild speech to my people to this purpose;

That they had known, that it had been the judgement and practice of us who laboured in the worke of the Go­spell amongst them, to suspend the ignorant and scandalous from the Supper of the Lord, for which we conceived we had sufficient ground from the Word of God; and in it we acted but in a conformity to the practice of the Ser­vants and Churches of Christ in all Ages, to the practice of the most reformed Churches, and this was the declared judgement of our Church ever since the very beginnings of Reformation. But in opposition they had lately heard it delivered in this City in a publike Audi­tory, that for Suspension it was a dreame, yea, a Phari­saicall dreame, an invention of men to implode Scrip­tures, and those who practised it were openly charged as such who would implode Scriptures, lay an intollerable yoake on mens shoulders; such who were intruders on Christs authority, and did that which entred not into the heads of wiser Ages, for which was no authority in the Word of God &c. and an open challenge was made to us to defend the known judgement of our and other re­formed Churches, the truth of God (as we hoped it would prove) and our own practice. And I perceived people would not be satisfied that any of us durst encounter him who had so defied us, though enough had been done to satisfie them. Considering therefore that it lay upon us, especially in these times, to vindicate the truth, and our practice, and in some measure our persons from the re­proach of men. That their mouths might be stopt, I would read a Letter to them which my selfe had sent him, and the answer which the (over-confident) Author of the Challenge returned, by which they might judge whether or no we durst appeare in the defence of that piece of truth which we beleeved, and according to which we had walked, desiring them to make no other use of the Letter than this, to which purpose I read it.

After this, I read the Letters, how his uncivill Let­ter [Page]was resented there are enough to speake who were present.

After this we heard no more of their Brags, only some were so simple as to tell their friends that Mr Boatman scorned to dispute here, but if I would dis­pute at the University in the Schooles he would then answer me, either not knowing the order there, or forgetting that Mr Boatman is not in a capacity to dispute there, except in a Sophisters Gown, upon some philosophicall question.

This is, Reader, the true Story of this Contest: I shall refer thee to judge in it; what could we do lesse than accept his Challenge? And what milder Message than that in my Letter could be sent to let him know I was ready to accept it?

Since this, I must confesse, some of his friends have been with me, and told me, that he disclaimes that he holds any such opinion: As that none ought to be kept away from the Sacrament but those who are ex­communicated; and that if I write against that opinion it nothing concernes him; I shall but feigne my selfe an Adversary, &c. we have nothing to do with what he saies in private, his publike declared judgement and practice is contrary; what he said thou hast read, and he saies, he will justifie what he said. Nay, upon my knowledge he hath maintained it in private too to those he thinks he is able to grapple with. I know he hath in like manner told some Reverend Ministers, and godly people, that he hath conversed and is acquain­ted with all his people; that he turnes away many, and admits none without examination, but such as have be­fore approved, &c.

But how notoriously false this is (and so very un­worthy of one who calls himselfe a Minister) we who are upon the place know, and could give him in­stances (if need were) of some notoriously scanda­lous [Page]admitted, but none who were refused, (so far as I ever upon the strictest enquiry could heare of) and of some who told him they were never at the Sa­crament before, but were examined no more than what is your name? Where dwell you? Are you single or married? And then they were told, That he hoped they were fit, and so they were dismissed, (which forme of questions is merrily called by some Mr Boat­man's Catechisme.) This is the ground of my present undertaking. Now let me tell thee what thou shalt find in the ensuing Tract.

I have divided it into a Discourse upon three Que­stions.

Quest. 1. Whether Juridicall Suspension, distinct from Excommunication, be dedueible from Scripture? I have proved that it is by severall Arguments, upon some of which I have enlarged. In the last Chapter, on the first Question I have put foure or five Argu­ments, which some Reverend Authors have brought, I do not insist much on them, we have no great need of them. I have sent them out only as Probationers, with their Letters of Recommendation from some Reverend men, one of them is the issue of my crude thoughts concerning the nature of the Sacrament, which I apprehend strong meat.

In the handling of that Question thou wilt find one Chapter containing a digression, tending to prove, that Judas was neither at the Supper, nor at the eating of the Paschall Lambe and that he had not then made his compact with the the High Priests. And to prove that Christ kept the Passeover, and instituted his Sup­per two nights before the Jews that yeare, and that he suffered the second day after his apprehension. Possibly in that discourse (which thou mayest judge over criticall;) thou maiest find some new Notions; know I am not confident of them, though I see no­thing [Page]against them, but much seemingly for them: If they hold, I hope we shall be told no more of Christs giving the Sacrament to Judas, or of his eating the Passeover, or compacting with the High Priests before that time; and so being (supposedly) scandalous, (though a secret compact would not make him so) since I finished that discourse, communicating it to a Reverend friend; he lent me a criticall discourse con­cerning the day of Christs celebrating the Passeover, wrote by Ludovicus Capellus, Ludov. Capel. [...] ad amicam in­ter se, & Johan. Cloppen. Colla­tionem, &c. p. 120. in answer to Cloppen­bu gius, I have read it over. He determines Scaligers and Causabons opinion most probable, that Christ ce­lebrated the Passeover that time, not the same day the Jews did, the grounds of which he shews, p. 61, 62. ad p. 74.

Some new Notions he hath about the reason of the Jewish Translation of the day that yeare, &c. But I find nothing in him either to establish, or (rationally) to destroy my opinion. I leave it to thee, Reader, to judge if I have not probabilities on my side, and demonstrations will hardly be pro­duced on any side. My Arguments are most of them old, only newly reinforced, and vindicated from Era­stus, Mr Prin, Mr Humfrie's exceptions; Mr Boatman had the discretion to take notice of very few Argu­ments against him, so that I have had little to do with him as to the point of answering his Arguments, or Exceptions to ours, (though my whole discourse be directed against him (as its proper Antagonist) not against any of the other) whom I desire thee to take notice I only speake to as they come acrosse me, leaving Mr Humfry to his proper Adversaries, (with whom he will find enough to do) I must confesse, when I first entred upon the worke, I intended it against none in hypothesi, only in thesi, to vindicate our practice, and the practice of other eminent ser­vants [Page]of Christ, yea, and of the Churches of God in all Ages, especially our late reformed Churches, not med­dling with Mr Boatman, nor did I want perswasions to it from some learned men, who wondred what I would answer, considering he had only Magisterially maintained his opinion, basely aspersing the servants and Churches of God as dreamers, imploders of Scrip­ture, &c. and had not brought any thing towards the proofe of it, but a few loose passages which you could not go about to mould into a Syllogisme, but you would scare them out of common sense.

This made me at first resolve only to write against the opinion, and to have pleaded the cause [...], without any preamble, (as they were wont to do at Areopagus.) But others were of another opinion; yet this course had I taken, considering he made it his worke so constantly to deny that privately which he had spoken publikely, and to disown his opinion as often as he met with any godly Ministers of another mind; (this he did to Mr Corhet of this Country, and to divers others) who told me of it againe. In the meane time in his own Congregation he still cries it up, and sufficiently bespatters us who were of ano­ther perswasion; witnesse his Sermon, preached the fifteenth of February 1653. at Peters, upon Rev. 3.17. from which Text he had taken a great deale of paines to teach his people how to know others that were hypocrites (an Art, I beleeve, few Divines but himself are much skill'd in.) In that Sermon he gave them se­verall Notes to know Christians that were spiritually proud: his second note was this:

They cannot endure that any body but themselves should have any Gospell-priviledges allowed them, unlesse such as are common to Jews, Heathens, and Pagans. Indeed they may heare, and they may come to those com­mon promiscuous Ordinances (as they call them) but [Page]they must have no right to the Sacrament. That must be for such, and such, and many times none in the world worse than they; I speake to those that are guilty of these crimes, not to those who are not; doubtlesse many a man is unsatisfied, and we must beare with the weake.

If this be not plaine enough I know not what is; here are at once all the eminent Servants and Churches of God of former Ages, and our Age, branded as spiritually proud hypocrites, because they durst not admit all to the Sacrament; yea, and all Christians branded who are tender of their Communion in that Ordinance. Some of them are such as there are none in the world worse than they; The rest are weake, and on­ly to be borne with. Reader, I shall refer it to thee to judge whether our silence now were not a coward­ly deserting the cause of God, and of all Reformed Churches. I might tell thee more, that it is much suspected by some, who fear God, in this City, that it is the whole design of his preaching, to stir up animosities in a profane Party against those who are of stricter Principles, and to brand all strict Christians as Hypo­crites and Formalists, (the usuall Alehouse-termes for those against whom they have nothing else to say;) What meane else these unsavoury passages in his seve­rall Sermons? Some have an art to squeake out Jesus Christ; (by that neat terme he expounded Luthers cre­pare Christum,) which I had thought had been to crack, and make a vaine boast of Christ. And againe, The whining Christians are those who have been the ruin of Religion. And againe, Pride and Covetousnesse are the Saints great Sins. And againe, For a drunkard, or debaucht wretch I could hug him in my bosome, when I would spit in the face of an envious Professour. I con­fesse I heare none of this stuffe, but I shall refer thee to those godly persons, who have sometimes heard [Page]him, to enquire whether these things be true, I have heard them againe and againe, some of them have sca­red away some of his godly Auditors, and others of them have frighted away others. Besides, that ordina­ry expression which is his usuall complement with his people before a Sacrament: They shall not be dealt with in the pharisaicall way. These things are not spo­ken in secret, but in a Pulpit, yea, and in the greatest Congregation of the City. The Lord in mercy look upon us, our condition is sad enough. I shall adde to all this one thing yet more.

A Reverend Brother in this City, begging my assi­stance, to preach his Lecture the twenty third of March last, he having before entreated me, that if I had any thing ready on the Subject, I would preach something about Suspension at some time in his Con­gregation. I that day preached for him, and for my Sermon took that Text, Mat. 7.6. and preached my first Argument on the first Question, there thou wilt find all the doctrinall part of my Sermon. I left out every Syllable which might make my discourse unplea­sant to any, and (as all my hearers will judge) I had not the least reflexion upon any; only having pro­ved, That that Text was not to be restrained to this or that Ordinance, but to be understood of all Ordinances, all which are there forbidden to be dispensed to such as the Scripture calls dogs or swine in other places, (except­ing only such Ordinances as the Scripture elsewhere ex­presly allows to be given to dogs,) I concluded by way of Application.

I inferred, If that were truth, then there was a plaine Scripture-prohibition (though not [...], yet [...],) to suspend some (who yet might be in the Church) from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. 1. Because it is a pearle, and an holy thing. 2. Because there is no other Scripture allows the giving it out to dogs. 3. This Scripture forbids, &c.

The Lords day after I heard Mr Boatman intended to confute me the next Tuesday; some occasions drew me out of Town, but upon the Tuesday he aimed at it, taking my very Text; how well he confuted me, my Reader may judge by reading my first Argument on my first question, and then his Sermon which I have annexed at the latter end of my Tract, and my Notes upon it. I beleeve there was never such a businesse delivered in order to a confuting; yet for feare that a clamorous party should cry it up confuted, I have an­nexed it, having the Notes of it given me by a lear­ned and judicious man, who was his Auditor that day, and took the Sermon from him, and will justifie the Notes.

These things, Reader, made me take up a resolu­tion to give thee an account of the whole businesse, and openly to engage Mr Boatman as my proper An­tagonist; and the rather, because Theophilus Brabourne hath sent me word, that if I will write, he will de­fend Mr Boatman; (for every one he saith is not fit for disputing, but he will do it,) one would thinke he were not very fit that should read his last books. I sent him answer, I hoped to find him work enough to defend his own; but if he be so good at it, he shall find we are able to employ him. That therefore Mr Boatman may know what he hath to do, and Mr Brabourne may have something to do (now he hath taken his hand from the Plough, which many, I con­fesse, never thought him f [...]t for, though the Bishops judged otherwise) I have engaged in this Contro­versie in the defence of all the eminent Saints and Servants of God of former Ages, other Reformed Churches, and our own Church, and of that Reve­rend Assembly, so boldly aspersed both by Mr Boat­man and Mr Brabourne, in which my selfe knew so many holy, and learned, and Reverend men, that I [Page]beleeve, since the Nicene Councill, there was never so many, and so holy, and learned men met in any Ecclesiasticall Councill: Some of whom I know would not turne their heads in any point of Divini­ty from the most learned Hereticks that are, or ever were in Christendome; and having such an opinion of that eminent Assembly, I hope thou wilt pardon me, Reader, if I take their part in what was their decla­red Judgement, especially against two such Adversa­ries as these are, with whom it is far more fit that some of their youngest Sons should dispute than themselves, leaving those Fathers to grapple with more learned and considerable Adversaries. I am one of the yongest sons of those Reverend Prophets, but yet I have a little duty for them, and shall engage for Norfolke or Norwich, to attempt at least their vindi­cation from any who shall in these parts appeare in publike against what was (according to Gods Word) agreed upon by them, (if he hath not a proper Ad­versary, and if I be not over-powred by Legions of Pamphlets.) But I returne to my former Discourse.

The second Question I have spoken to, is: Whether Ministeriall, or privative Suspension be justifiable or no? I have on purpose spoken to this, partly, because I heare some say this was Mr Boatman's meaning, (though he restrained not himselfe so by any passage) and if it be, how doth he tell others that he doth keep away some himselfe? But that he might not have this refuge, I have spoke a little to that. I confesse, it is a ten­der point which many godly men are dis-satisfied in, Whether, in case there wants a Presbytery in the Congre­gation, the Minister may keep back any by his own power, or rather ought to administer it to all?

In the first place, I desire my Reader to observe, that those who are of the Episcopall perswasion, and own no Congregationall Presbyteries (which is Mr Boat­man's [Page]judgement they say) make not this question, but alwaies took the Affirmative for granted; witness the Schoolemen, Canonists, &c. the Rubrick to the Book of Common Prayer, the Canons agreed on in the Synod at London, 1603.

Some of my Reverend and learned Fathers and Brethren of the Presbyterian perswasion indeed scruple it, because they think all Suspension is an act of Rule, and the Rule of the Church belongs to the Minister and Elders, amongst whom is Reverend and learned Mr Jeanes, (whom though I know not, yet I honour for his learned Tract on that Subject, and for his Midwifry in helping into the world that last piece of our great and learned Twisse.) I crave leave to dis­sent in this point from those few of my Brethren who are so perswaded, and conceive, that to avoid promiscuous Communion, the Minister may in some cases suspend his own act, though not formally passe a Censure, yea, and I thinke he ought. Though I confesse, when the state of the Church is such that this cannot be done without a necessary and great breach of the peace of it, the case is more disputable, because the Amity and Edification of the Church is the high end of all Church-Censures. Augustine in his third book contra Epistolam Parmeniani, and in many other places thinkes Church Censures should be spared, when the Major part of the Church is cor­rupted, and the execution of Censures may cause Schismes, and much he saies for it.

But I must confesse, I am of Peter Martyrs mind. — Iste Augustini timor nimius videtur, quasi debea­mus verbum Dei relinquere, ut schismata & tumult us evitemus: sequamur quod praecipit Deus, eventus autem providentiae illius committamus. He answers all which Augustine saith for his opinion, and concludes, That it were better to have lesser Churches than so large and [Page]ample ones defiled. But I shall not dispute that busi­nesse.

3. In the last place I have enquired what hath been the judgement of the eminent Servants and Churches of Christ in all Ages. Having first enquired our Fa­thers mind, the Judgement and practice of our El­der Brethren is not inconsiderable, especially when we are charged with Innovation, and doing that (which never entred into the heads of wiser Ages.) I have proved, that it hath been the practice of the Church in all Ages, the Judgement of our Church, before, and ever since the Reformation, and of all reformed Churches in the World, some Churches of the Protestant Switzers only excepted.

And now (Reader) I shall cast my selfe upon thy Charity. I hope thou wilt excuse me for my under­taking. The zeale of the Lords house for the precious body and bloud of Jesus Christ hath eaten me up, as to this point. Had not we been openly challenged, the judgement and practice of the Churches and Ser­vants of God openly aspersed, I should have found other worke to do besides engaging Mr Boatman. I have given thee here a faithfull and impartiall Nar­rative of the Originall and Progresse of this Contest. If Mr Brabourne be at the Charge to reply, I desire thee not to expect my answer; I beleeve thou wilt (whoe­ver thou art) be able thy self to answer what he can say; I shall leave him to one more fit for him, (having been sufficiently chidden by some learned Friends for losing so much time as to meddle with his other peece.) But if Mr Boatman answers, and either denies any thing here said as matter of fact, or makes such a reply to any Arguments as any Licencer of the Presse will let passe, I shall reply to him, and prove whatever shall be denied, and make good my Arguments, provi­ded he confutes them better than he did my Sermon.

I shall keep thee no longer in the Porch, but give thee leave to enter; Read, and then judge, and pray for this poore City, where are so many thousand soules, and so few fit to take charge of them. The Lord keep thee (Reader) in these evill times from the errours of them, and an ever lover both of Gospell-purity, and Unity. So praies

Chaply-field-house in Nor­wich, April 18 1654.
Thy meane unworthy Servant in the Gospell of the Lord Jesus Christ JOHN COLLINGS.

Errata.

Reader,

I Cannot own these sheets till thou hast corrected these follow­ing erra [...]aes in them.

In the Title page read ob hoc vel maxime.

In the Preface p. 3 l. penult. r. duty. p. 9 l. 16. r. [...]. l. 27. r. considering. p. 13. l. 10. r. December, after. l. 12. r. fort­night. p. 15 l. 2. r. account. p 16. l. 25. r. judgements. p. 22. l. 10. dele ne­ver. p. 23. l. 1. r. are these. l. 5. dele that the Apostle. r. gave other order. l. 20. r. tell us. p. 27. in marg. r. Aretii Phoblem. l. 16. r. would not these. p. 31. l. 30. r. [...]. p. 39. l. 15. dele at. ib. r. re­turne. p. 39. r. us. p 41. l 25. [...]. there were. ib. l. 33. r. the people.

In the book. p. 9. in marg. r. [...]. & ib. 36 [...]. p. 11. l. 3. r. I doubt. p. 12. l. 32. r. not. To. p. 14. l 9. r. Reverend. p. 15. l. 6. r. Thus we see. p 16. l. 13. r. first for. p. 18. l. 4 r. swine are. p. 22. l. 29. r. having appoin­ted. p. 24. l. 12. r. yet these. l 13. r. heare men. p. 26. l. 26. r. some such in. p. 28. l. 4. r. jure. p. 28. l. 29. r. be might. p. 29. l. 1. r. rush p. 32 in marg. r. edit. Lutetiae. p. 35. l 12 r. is chiding p. 37 l. 20 r. (except at that time.) l. ult. r. observes. p. 39. l. 31. r. purged: For. p. 40. l. 25. r. three things. p. 41. l. 25. r. it for. p. 42. l. 13. dele that. p. 43. l 25. ingenuous. p. 48. l. 21. dele so. l. 22. r. things forbidden. p 49. l. 2. dele may be true. l. 2. dele it. l. 15. r. true in. l. 28. r. untied. l. ult. dele first. p. 53. l. 16. r. [...]. p. 54 l 32. r. nay it. p. 55. l. 13. r. he hath. p. 57. l 6. (if but baptized.) p. 71. l. 11. r. was to be eaten in. p. 72. l. 4 r. was caten. p. 73. l. 10. r. art. p 74 l. 32. r. the twelve. p. 76. l. q. r. be did not. p. 77. l. 32. r. fourth d [...]sh. l. 33. r. rest: Immediately (saith the Doctor.) p. 78. l. 9. r. Aphicomen. l. 19. r. did cat. l. 28. r. the Doctor. p. 79. l. 9. r. ingenuous. p. 82. l. 31. r. fourth cup. p. 83. l. 21. dele secondly. p. 84. l. 1. r. with it: one. p. 87. l. 9. r. keep pure. p. 95. l. 24. r. If a grossely, &c. l. 35. r. [...]. p. [...]1. l. penult. r. one bread. p. 113. l. 33. r. of the elements. p. 121 l. 1. r. conecssions l. 16. r. releeve me. l. 18. r. I shall. l. 27. 1. Elder­ship judge. p. 125. l. 1. r juridicall. p. 128 l. 7. r. the Constitutions and some, &c. p. 129 l 2. Catechumeni. l. 10 r, [...] p. 130. l. 2. r. [...]. l. 4. r. [...] l. 7. r. [...] l. 10 r. [...] l. 33. r. de-la-Barre. p. 131. l. 4. r. [...]. p. 132. in marg r. [...]. ibid. r. [...] p. 133. l. 14. r. of none of. p. 134 l. 12. r. Binius. i. 29. r. in this Century. p. 137. l. 33. dele to. p. 140. l. 3. r. demonstrandam. p. 141. l. 10. r. that he should be. p 143. l. 12. r. that some p. 147. l. 23. r. penitus deploratos. p [...]48. l. 13. & in marg. dele Anthony. p. 155. l. 24. r. Dr de-Lawne. p. 161. l. 29. r. [...] l. 31. dele And. l. 33. r. constitutions. p. 166. l. 12. r. augeatur. l. 25. r. minding. p. 167. l. 12. r. [...].

CHAPTER I. Containing the State of the question.

QVESTION I.

Whether the Suspension of some persons from the Lords Supper, be deducible from Scripture or Reason.

THE termes of this Question are two.

1. Suspension of some persons from the Supper of the Lord; that is the subject.

2. Deducible from Scripture or Reason, that is the predicate in question betwixt us.

1. As to Suspension of some persons from the Supper; wee meane no more then a denyall of that Ordinance to some. This suspension is usually distinguished into Juridicall and Pastorall, or privative and positive.

1. Positive suspension, which is called Juridicall, is an act of the Officers of the Church, whereby (having had due cogrisance of the party that desires the Supper of the Lord, and finding him unfit, or unworthy) though he hath formerly been admitted; Yet they by vertue of the trust reposed by Christ in them, warne him to ab­staine [Page 2]from the Lords Table, and deny the Ordinance to him if he intrudes.

2. Privative Suspension, which I also call pastorall, is an act of the Minister of the Gospell, whereby hee alone (the Church wanting other Officers) finding some persons (though formerly admitted) not able to exa­mine themselves, or unworthy in respect of open scan­dall to come to that Holy Table, doth not only as their Pastor, admonish them to forbeare, but withholds the elements from them, if they presume to come to the Lords Table.

God willing I shall anon speake to the second of these: whether privative suspension be lawfull or no. But that is not my present businesse. But supposing there be an eldership constituted in a Congregation, whether this eldership may keep away any from the Lords Table, for ignorance or knowne scandall, if he be a Christian, and not de facto, Excommunicated. This is that which Mr Boatman cals a Pharisaicall dreame; an usurpation of Christs authority, a thing not deducible from Scripture. That which he humbly (and boldly) challengeth all the Ministers on Earth to make good. (if he durst have stood to his word)

2. Nor could his meaning bee any thing else; For in his Congregation there is an eldership established according to Ordinance of Parliament, by a due ele­ction of the major part of the Congregation present after publike notice given three Lords daies each af­ter other, which he hath throwne downe, and pub­lisheth this Doctrine, that he might prepare his peo­ple for a prostitution of that sacred Ordinance.

As to the second terme, Deducible from Scripture, I take it for granted, that my indifferent Reader will grant me that to be sufficiently deduced and proved from Scripture, which is evinced from it by ne­cessary [Page 3]consequence, if it be there either [...], or [...], though not [...]. If Mr Boatman or any other will deny me, that any thing is to be proved from Scripture, but what is there [...] and [...], He makes our Saviour a very insufficient Logician, who thus proves the re­surrection. Mat. 22.31, 32. Mat. 22.32, 33. and his Auditors very weake, who (the Evangelist saith) were very well sa­tisfied with the proofe. And those who agree with the Anabaptists in that whimzy, will be bound to re­concile that of St James (James 5.4.) to truth, Iames 5.4. by shewing us where the Scripture saith [...]: The spi­rit that dwelleth in you, lusteth to envy. Yet the Apo­stle saith, the Scripture saith it. But I will suppose Mr Boatman so rationall, as to grant me this, or else he will be bound to deny the Sacrament to all women, Baptisme to all children, and the Lords day to be a Sab­bath. So that the question is this: ‘Whether supposing a Church have a Presbyte­ry, it be in the power of that Presbyterie, The Question stated. ha­ving found some persons (baptized and not ex­communicated) grosly ignorant or scandalous, in the name of the Lord Jesus, to warne them for a time to forbeare communicating at the Lords Table, and if they presse unto it, to deny it to them, by declaring the Church hath no Communion with them; or the like,—&c.’

In the proving the affirmative part of this Que­stion,

1. I shall not trouble my selfe to prove they may doe it. I shall sufficiently prove that, in proving They ought to doe it; for though a thing may be lawfull, and yet not expedient; yet a thing cannot be necessary and yet unlawfull. Nulla necessitas peccandi, we are not necessitated to sin.

2. I shall not enter into a particular enquiry, what [Page 4]degrees of ignorance render a person obnoxious to this censure, nor yet what vitious qualifications in point of scandall doe it; it is enough for me if I prove it concerning any, (how notoriously ignorant or erro­neous, or scandalous soever, (provided they be not absolutely excommunicated) for if any one sort of sinners, either ignorant, or haereticall, or scandalous (except Turkes, Jewes, Heathens and excommuni­cate persons) may have this Ordinance denied to them, though they presse to it, Mr Boatman's con­fident challenge will be answered, and he engaged to make it good, or recant for his rashnesse and presumpti­on. The question being thus stated; I accept this Bold challenge, and shall prove it by this principall syllogisme, which shall be the head of my ensuing Arguments.

To those to whom it may not lawfully be given, it may lawfully be denied. But there may be some Baptized persons in the Church, to whom it may not lawfully be given.—Ergo,

The Proposition cannot be denied, except we will say that we are necessitated to sinne; for if there may be some, to whom we can neither lawfully give the Ordinance, (though they come) nor lawfully deny it to them; we are obliged to sinne, there being no me­dium between them two. I shall therefore prove the assumption by severall Arguments. viz.

That there may be some Baptized persons, not yet absolutely cast out of the Church, to whom the Sacrament of the Lords Supper may not lawfully be given.

CHAP. II. Containing the first Argument, from Mat. 7.6. From whence is proved, that this Ordinance is an holy thing, and so not to be given to Dogs, nor cast before Swine.

My first Argument is this;

Holy things may not lawfully be given to Dogs, Argument 1 nor Pearles lawfully cast before Swine.

But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is an holy thing, and a Pearle, and there may be some in the Church, who in Scripture phrase, are Dogs and Swine.—Ergo.

THis is no new Argument; Erastus pretends to answer it, so doth Mr Prinn, and Mr Humfry.

The summe of all I meet with answered to it is this;

1. Say some, The Sacrament is none of the holy things there spoken of.

2. All sorts of sinners that are scandalous, are not [Page 6]the Dogs and Swine there meant: so that the Argu­ment as they say is a fallacy, à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter: To reinforce it against all their weake Cavils, two or three things must be ope­ned.

  • 1. What holy things are here spoken of.
  • 2. Who are the Dogs and Swine here spoken of.
  • 3. To whom this precept is directed.

Let us examine all these three a little.

1 Q. What holy things are here spoken of.

It is a good rule, Where the Law doth not distin­guish, we should not. Our Saviour Jesus Christ speakes not of this or that Holy thing; but sayes [...] and [...]; and it is a bold presumption in us to re­straine it without Scripture-warrant.

I think therefore every sober Christian will grant me these two things.

1. 1 That all those holy things and Pearles are here forbidden to be given to Dogs, and cast before Swine, which the Scripture doth not elswhere plainly allow to be given to Dogs or Swine; else they will be obliged to shew us another ground of restraint.

2. 2 I hope it will easily be granted to concerne such holy things as God hath betrusted us to give out: for it is to men Christ speakes.

Things are called holy in Scripture, upon a foure­fold account.

1. In respect of consecration, when a thing is set a­part for Gods service.

2. In respect of inherent purity. Thus God is holy, and his grace as holy.

3. In respect of a divine signature and impression upon them. Thus every command and every Ordi­nance of God is holy.

4. In respect of a designation, and subserviency of [Page 7]it to an holy use or end; in this sence also are all the Ordinances of God holy. And doubtlesse, these are the holy things here spoken of: and so all grant.

Upon the two last accounts, (saith Chemnitius) the Ordinances of God are rightly called holy. Now the Ordinances of God are of two sorts.

1 Private. 2 Publick. Chemnit. harm. cap. 51.

Private Ordinances are institutions of Christ to be performed by private persons, either in order to Gods glory, or our brethrens good, such are private instru­ctions and exhortations each of other. Private prayer; private admonitions, frequently commanded by God in Scripture. The publike Ordinances are, publike preaching and expounding Scripture before the Church, performed by persons in Office to it, publike Prayer, Church censures, &c. It is without all question, that the Ordinances of God, are the Holy things here for­bidden to be given to Dogs, or cast before Swine. But the question is, whether all these Holy things be for­bidden here to be so cast, or onely some?

I say there is no reason, but we should understand all those Ordinances, which in other places of Scrip­ture, are not commanded to be given to all. My reason is this; because it is boldnesse in us to restraine what God hath not limited.

And hence I perceive, that some, who have been inclined to thinke, that some one Ordinance is espe­cially meant here; yet dare not exclude others.

So Mr Jeanes, Mr Ieanes. p. 125, 126. 2 ed. of his book enti­tuled, Th [...] want of Church Go­vernment, &c. though he thinkes admonition and reproofe are chiefly meant; (supposing the words not to be a compleat precept in themselves, but to relate to the precedent words) yet he tels us, he will not deny, but it may be extended, and applied to the giving of the Lords Supper.

And Chemnitius determines it an unjust restriction to restraine it to reproofe. Besides that, admonition [Page 8]may be given to Dogs, yea to such Dogs as are shut out of the doores of the Church. 2 Thes. 3.15. He is not to be counted as an enemy, but admonished as a Brother; with whom we ought to have no company that he may be ashamed. Erast. Explic. Graviss. quaest. thes. 94.

I know Thomas Erastus tels us it must be meant of Preaching the word. But besides that, there is no ground in the Text for this, there is lesse in other pla­ces of Scripture. For the Word must be preached to Heathens, Mat. 28. and much more to them who are but as Heathens; and to scandalous sinners; Nor is there any reason to appropriate this [...] to the word onely.

It seemes to me, that our Saviour had an especiall eye to Sacramentall Ordinances, not onely because in other Scriptures there is an expresse command, to admit the most sorts of Dogs to heare the word: but also because if any one Ordinance may be called more holy then other, it is this of the Supper; which is, The new Testament in his blood. The Communi­on of the body and blood of Christ. But to say this Or­dinance is excluded, is not onely to speake contrary to Scripture, but to common sense too. Which made Erastus in the same thefis, thinke it safer to insist up­on a distinction of Dogs, then adhere to his first distin­ction of holy things.

This Scripture therefore using a generall terme, which is not restrained by any preceding or subse­quent words, and no other Scripture plainly allow­ing of the holy thing of the Lords supper to be given to Swine and Dogs, I conceive he that desires his words, may goe along with the truth, and beare a proportion to his owne reason, (if he be endued with so much as an humane soule, doth intitle all but mad men and fooles unto) will not say but that the Lords Supper is here couched at least in the number of the holy [Page 9]things and pearles here specified.

Especially when I shall have made it evident, by the different applications of this Scripture amongst the Ancients, and large expositions of it, by Moderne sober Writers; That they thought not the holy things here spoken of, were Admonition or Preaching onely, but other holy administrations also.

Clemens Alexandrinus expounds it generally for all the flowings out of living water. [...]. Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 2. ex e­dit. Lutet. 1629 p. 368. [...] Athanas. in di­al. 1 de Trin. sub initio. p. 138. t. 2. impr. 1606 in offic. Commetiana. Tertul. 9. l. 2 de matrimonie cum Gentilibus. c. 5. lib. de praescrip. contra haereti­cos. cap. 26. lib. de Baptisme cap. 17. v. Cypr. opera ep. 26. lib. contra De­metrianum sub initio l. 3. Te­stim. ad Quiri­num. Chrysost. in 1. Hem. in cap. 7. Math. in prologo ad expos. Io­hannis. Homil 20. in 10 cap. Heb. lib. de compun­ctione cordis. Immundis im­puritatibus, sa­cra consortia non imperuenda [...]; which surely are in all divine Ordinances.

Athanasius makes use of this Text to justify him­selfe, in not giving an account of his faith to enemies of the Truth. In his first Dialogue concerning the Trinity, inter Orthodoxum, Anomoeuns, & Arriani­stum. In the beginning of it, Anomoeus asking Or­thodoxus whether he was a Christian or no? hee tels him, yes, he was. Anomoeus going on, and asking him what Christianity was, he tels him, it was neces­sary for him to tell him the first, but not safe for him, to tell him the latter. Anomoeus asking him why? he answers him, that if he did not know who he was that askt, he might give Holy things to Dogs, and cast Pearles before Swine.

Tertullian in his second Book concerning the mar­riage of Heathens with Christians, applyeth this place, as forbidding Christians to marry with Heathens, be­cause their conversation was an holy thing which must not be cast unto Dogs. Yet it is plaine he doth not re­straine it; for in his Book de praescrip: contra haereti­cos, he plainly applyes it to the Preaching of the Gos­pell; and in the 17 Chap. of his Book de Baptismo, he applies it to Baptisme. By which it is plaine, hee understood it in generall of all holy things.

Moyses and Maximus and Ruffinus, in their Epistle to Cyprian, understand it of absolution, and all divine Or­dinances. Cyprian himselfe makes use of this Text, [Page 10]to justify his not writing to Demetrianus, a wretched enemy of the Truth; and how he useth it elsewhere, may be seen in l. 3. Test. ad Quirinum, where he brings it to prove this head, Sacramentum fidei non est profanandum. Basil (the Great) applies, but doth not re­strain it, to preaching the Gospel, Chrysostome in his first Homily, on the seventh Chapter of Matthew, applies it to the Preaching of the Word, to warrant him (if he saw his hearers negligent) to shut up his book. So he doth in his Prologue to his Exposition of the Gos­pell of St Iohn. And againe in his Homily de cruce dominicâ. But in his twentieth Homily upon the tenth Chapter to the Hebrewes, he applies it to the Lords Supper. And in his Book de compunctione cordis, to all the mysteries of our Salvation, and from this Scrip­ture takes occasion to chide those Ministers, who gave out the Sacrament promiscuously; and saies this was the reason why they were trampled upon, and rent by the wicked (according to this Text.) Hierem cals the holy things, the childrens bread, and the Gospell Pearls. I might also weary my selfe and the Reader, with many quotations out of Ambrose, Gregor. Mag. Ori­gen; which plainly shew their expounding this Text in a latitude, Isid. Pelus. l. 4. n. 181. ep. ad Hi­eracem & l. 1. ep. 143. Aug. in Serm. in monte l. de fide, &c. Hieron. in Mat. 7. Chemnit. harm. c. 51. c. 66. n. 8. Alex. Halenfis sum. theel. p. 4. q. 11. art. 1. soct. 4. not restraining it to this or that holy thing. The judgement of Isidorus Pelusiota, and Augustine, may be read in many places, the latter of which (though once he applies it to fraternall correp­tion) yet hath many different applications of it. Chem­nitius in his Harmony [...]on the place tels us, that the Word and Sacraments are the holy things here meant; And in the 66 Chapter of his Harmony, n. 3. tels us that wicked men are to be kept from the Lord's Table, upon the command in this Text. Alexander Halensis, brings this Argument to prove that our Saviour did not give the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to Iudas, because he should have then have acted contrary to [Page 11]his owne precept in this place, where he forbad holy things to be given to Dogs; whether that Argument be good or no, I doubt he answers it; but it is plaine, hee thought that by holy things, the Sacrament of the Lords Supper was meant in part. Rutherfords divine right. c. 5 q. 1. Gillespy Aa­rons rod. l. 3. cap. 15. Learned Rutherford makes an Argument of this Text, for this very purpose, and vindicates it from Erastus his Cavils. Gillespy stands upon the same Argument, and vindicates it from Erastus and Mr Prin. By all this is plaine, in what sence the eminent servants of Christ have in all ages understood this Text, though some of them, Piscator ad loc. Gualther ad loc. Pareus ad loc. Rutherford ib. ut prius. as Piscator, Gualther, Bucer, and others, thinke that ad­monition is chiefly meant; and Pareus, that the Prea­ching of the Gospell is chiefly meant, yet none of them durst exclude the other; nor was there any rea­son, when (as Learned Rutherford observeth) the word was ordained to be preached unto Dogs and Lyons, to make them Lambes and Converts, Is. 11.4.5, 6. Is. 2.3, 4. And Christ himselfe commanded the Word to be preached to Pharisees and Sadduces perse­cutors, who had sinned against the Holy Ghost. Mat. 12.31, 32. Iohn 9.39, 40, 41. Iohn 7.28. Iohn 8.21:

I have done with the first thing, and shewed that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is amongst the ho­ly things which are there forbidden to be given to Dogs: But the next question will be

Quest. Who are Dogs and Swine?

1. That by Dogs and Swine here are not means those Beasts we call so. I suppose will easily be granted me by any, that considers how needlesse such a prohibition would have been.

2. We must therefore acknowledge a Metaphor, and that the creatures to whom (in this place) holy things are here forbidden to be given, are some per­sons, [Page 12]men and women, who propeter vitia canina (as Musculus saith) for some morall depravations of mind, which have transformed them into the resemblance of Dogs and Swine, in their naturall dispositions are so called here by our Saviour. All the question will be, what those vitious qualifications are upon which our Saviour cals some here Dogs and Swine.

3. Every one knowes how dangerous it is to straine Metaphors, therefore it will be most safe to keep to a Scripture interpretation of them; and say, those are here meant by Dogs and Swine, whom the Scripture either here characterizeth by some vitious qualificati­ons, bearing a proportion to some naturall dispositions in those beasts; or whom the Scripture elsewhere ex­presseth under this notion.

4. If we can find them sufficiently characterized here, we need not seeke elsewhere, if we cannot, we must either say all such wicked men are here called Dogs and Swine, Respondeo Chri­stum de illis lo­qui qui Marga­ritas contem­nunt, ac pedibus calcan [...] & con­versi nos lani­ant, hoc est, de Evangelij hosti­bus, de quibus nequaquam agi­mus. —Praeterea lo­quitur hic Chri­stus non de sa­cramentis, sed de doctrinâ E­vangeli [...] cani­bus, & porcis, hoc est nolenti­bus & concul­cantibus non propononda. Ex­plic. Graviss. quaest. thesi. 64. as the Scripture expresseth by that Metaphor, or onely some of them.

5. If we say some of them onely, surely some suffici­ent reason must be given for it.

These things therefore premised, let us now come to a strict enquiry for the meaning of this place.

Erastus thinks, that the Dogs are sufficiently chara­cterized in the Text.

To this purpose he tels us, that Christ speaks of them who despise Pearles, and trample them under their feet, and turning againe teare us; that is of the ene­mies of the Church. For whom he saith he pleadeth not to the same purpose I perceive. Those reverend men also speaking, who understand this Text chiefly of the preaching the Gospel, and of Admonition.

But I shall propound a few considerations.

1. That persecutors are Dogs and Swine, none will [Page 13]deny; but the question is, whether they be the only Dogs here spoken of.

2. According to Erastus; if there be in the Church then, one that is an enemy of it, one who contemnes the Ordinances, and persecutes the servants of Christ, he ought to be suspended the Sacrament, (though not excommunicate) Then according to Erastus, there is such a thing as suspension.

3. Though Persecutors be properly called Dogs for their rending and tearing, yet for this they are not pro­perly called Swine, for Swine doe not use to teare, but we must not cast Pearles before Swine. Who are the Swine saith Mr Rutherford, and his learned Country­man.

4. If they be described in the Text, Gillespy. Aa­rons rod. c. 15. it is by a dou­ble character. First, trampling upon the holy things. Secondly, turning againe, and rending the givers. The first is proper to Swine, the second to Dogs. So then we are not to give holy things any more to such, that will trample them under their feet, then to them who will turne againe and teare us.

5. We desire no more should be suspended, then wil come under these two notions; such as will but tram­ple the Ordinance under their feet, or such as will turn againe and rend us. All unbeleevers will doe the first, we are sure.

Lastly, There are those that doubt whether the lat­ter part of the Text be Exegeticall of the former, and say, the terme lest doth infer a commination or threat­ning to those who give holy things to Dogs and Swine, wherein the Lord threatens, that if they doe it, the issue will be, 1. Those persons contempt of the Or­dinance. 2. Turning their Ministers enemies, and tea­ring them, being (through the just judgement of God) the Avengers of his holy Ordinance upon them. Who shall so presume to prostitute it.

I confesse I did not so much value this interpretati­on of the words, Chrysost. in Homil. de com­punctione cordit. (though I know they will beare it) till I found Chrysostome expressing so much as if he had some such thoughts of them, and fetching a rea­son from this Text; why the Ministers of the Gospell in his time, were so lamentably despised and persecuted, because they had given the holy Sacrament to profane persons; and while I had this Notion in my head, A Revered Brother in this Country was with me, and told me he had found it true in his owne experience, in a woman of the Parish, of which he was Minister, who lately dying in a sad condition, and under much (sup­posed) guilt, charged his administration of the Sacra­ment to her, as the great meanes of her hardning in sinne, which was no little wound to this godly mans spirit. Since, A Merchant of London hath told me of Mr Simmonds (sometimes of Iron-mongers Lane in London) going to visit one that was sick, and to whom he had a little before given the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, and questioning with her, about her eternall Salvation; shee askt him upon what account he came now to question her upon that, whereas himselfe a lit­tle before had assured her that the body of the Lord Jo­sus Christ was broken for her; which (saith my Author (as I remember from Mr Simmond's mouth) so woun­ded him, that he had almost suncke downe in the room, (which two stories may answer that one which Mr Humfry hath borrowed from Mr Fairclough, and prin­ted in his rejoinder to Dr Drake) we need not go so far. What makes the profane and loose party in most of the congregations of England this day, so hate & revile their godly Ministers this day, and endeavour to get them out, (because they dare no more give the Sacrament to them) But this their former sin in giving the holy thing of the Sacrament to these Dogs and Swine formerly. I would faine know saith Mr George Gillespy, what [Page 15]fruit godly Ministers find of their former promiscuous administrations, but ageneral hardning of heart amongst their people, and a blessing of themselves in a supposed good condition, because they are administred to all the priviledges of Saints, &c.

7. This we see, if these Dogs and Swine be to be in­terprated by the following words of the Text, they are such, as can or will make no other use of the Ordi­nance, then to trample upon it, and who will teare the Ministers who give them unto them; If the last sence of the words be admitted, we must seek for the interpretation of the Metaphor in other places of Scripture, where these termes are used to express wic­ked men or women.

8. I find men and women in Scripture, calling themselves, or others Dogs; and the Holy Ghost cal­ling some dogs upon six accounts.

1. Upon an account of worthlesnesse, and inconside­rablenesse. In this sense Goliah saith to David, am I a Dog? &c. 1 Sam. 17.43. David cals himselfe a dead Dog. 1 Sam. 24.14. Abner askes if he were a Dogs head. 2 Sam. 3.8. Mephibosheth cals himselfe a dead Dog, because unworthy to sit at David's Table. And Abishai cals Shimei a Dog. 2 Sam. 16.9.

2. Upon an account of cruelty; either cruell actions, in which sense, Hazael saith, Am I a Dog that I should doe this? 2 Kin. 8.13. And David prayes to be delivered from the Sword and the Dog. Psal. 22.20, 16. and saith ver. 16. Dogs had compassed him about. So Jer 15.3. or cruell words and threatnings. So the wicked are said to barke and make a noise like a Dog. Psal. 59.6, 14.

3. The false Prophets are called dumbe and greedy Dogs, because they were greedy of filthy lucre, and could not speake the Lords word. Isa 56.10, 11.

4. Wicked men are both in the old Testament, [Page 16] Pro. 26.11. and in the New. 2 Pet. 2.22. called dogs, because as the Dog filthily licks up his vomit; so when they have made some seeming confession of sins, or pofession of faith and holinesse, they forsake it and re­turne to their old wickednesse.

5. Heathens are called Dogs by our Saviour. Mat. 7.27. because they were none of Gods Family, or Chil­dren, but aliens to the Common. wealth of Israel, and because they abounded with filthy lusts, as the Apostle tels us. Rom. 1.

6. Sinners in generall are called Dogs. Phil. 3.2. Be­ware of Dogs, Musculus ad loc. where he meanes false Teachers, right­ly called Dogs, saith Musculus. For first, their greedi­nesse of filthy luere, Isa 56.11. 2. For their barking a­gainst the true Apostles. 3. For their returning to their old vomit, because they barkt onely to get food for their bellies, Calv. ad loc. saith Mr Calvin. So Rev. 22.15. With­out are Dogs, &c. That is, all sinners, (at least all not enumerated afterward)

For the terme Swine; I remember it but once more in Scripture. (taken Metaphorically) 2 Pet. 2.22. where wic [...]ed men are compared to Sows, for wallowing in the mire and filth of sin. Ravanella in verbo Porcus. Ravanella tels us that by Swine here are meant Infideles, impij, homines despora­tae malitiae, & impuritatis, quibus sordet verbum Dei, Epicurciprofani.

We have heard how the Scripture useth the meta­phor; now to apply it.

9. I conceive, except sufficient ceason can be shewed to the contrary, by Dogs and Swine here must be meant, all such wicked persons as the Scripture elsewhere expresseth under that notion.

10. If it may be expounded according to the first, or second, or sixth acceptation, we desire no more, then that holy things might not be given. 1. To any scan­dalous sinners. 2. To any unworthy persons. 3. To any [Page 17]who after profession in Baptisme, returne with the Dog to the vemit, to their old wickednesse. For the third u­sage there is no colour; for it is not said, give not holy things to dumbe Dogs or greedy Dogs.

11. If any say that by Dogs here are onely meant persecutors, according to the second usage. 1 They will be bound to shew reason why this Text should be ex­pounded rather by David Psal. 22.16, 20. Psal. 59. then Solomon. Pro. 26.11. or Peter. 2 Pet. 2.22. (which will be hard to assigne) 2. I have proved be­fore, that the word (which they say is the holy thing) ought to be preached to them. 3. For the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, if that must be denied to persecutors not excommunicated, then there is suspension distinct from excommunication, as to such yielded.

12. If they say that by Dogs are meant Heathen, as Mar. 7.27. 1. Then either those onely, or those amongst others. (2) If they say to those and some others we yield it, but it is nothing to the purpose. (3) If they say that the Heathen are the onely Dogs, to whom ho­ly things should be denied, then they ought to be given to persecutors, and excommunicate persons. (4) The Word ought to be preached to Heathens, therefore the Word cannot be the holy thing then. (5) There was no great probability of Christs Disciples giving the Sacrament to Pagans. (6) The Heathen are called Dogs, not onely because they were aliens to the Com­monwealth of Israel, but for their (vitia canina) beastly lusts, which others may have, and therefore by a pari­ty of reason meant here in this generall terme.

Indeed I find expositors, who would restraine the holy thing, and pearles to some one Ordinance; as ad­monition or preaching, generally lost in seeking the Dogs or Swine to whom they must not be given. Chemnitius who (though he grants the Word and Sa­craments to be the holy things here meant) yet seems to [Page 18]encline to think this Text chiefly forbids the preaching of the Word to some here characterized by the meta­phor of Dogs and Swine; yet is miserably lost, in deter­mining who those Dogs and Swine, Chemnit. harm. cap. 51. Pareus in 7 of Matthew. to whom the Word ought not to be preached; and I doubt whe­ther what he and Pareus at last determine, concer­ning refusing to preach the Gospell to some, be truth, and beleeve it may be proved, that Christ and his A­postles preached the Gospell to some such, as they de­termine against; and I thinke the same of what Gual­ther determines, Gualther ad loc. who expounds the place, as chiefly meant of admonition: The excommunicate Dog, must be admonished as a Brother; who yet if he would have heard the Church admonishing, should not need have been excommunicated. Bullinger ad loc. Nor doth Bullinger, who preceded Gualther, better satisfie, who seems to un­derstand it of private admonition, yet dares not deter­mine whether it may be denyed to any, as a Dog. And Bucer concludes that the spirit of God must guide the Minister in such cases, Bucer ad loc. to whom to preach, and to whom to refuse to preach the Word of God. But sure­ly we must find the Dogs determined in Scripture, be­fore our consciences will be warranted to justifie our practice in denying the Gospell to them. Theophylact saith, Theoph. ad loc. [...], that Heathens are Dogs, and Christians, that live filthy lives, are Swine, Chemnitius saies, We are all by Nature Dogs, and Swine. Bucer and Gualther both confesse, that sinners of impure lives, and unclean conversations, are Dogs and Swine; so saith Bullinger. But the Word, or admonition must not be denied to all such I am sure, and I know no ground for their restri­ction. The Lords supper indeed must, which makes me think, that that Ordinance is chiefly here meant, though not fingly. It is the onely Ordinance is to bee denied to all knowne Dogs; and herein I agree with [Page 19]my Learned Rutherford. Rutherford di­vine right. 254. (si non major sit quam ut meus d [...]ci possit, as he useth to say of our incomparable Twiss.) Brentius in his Commentary on the place, telleth us, Brentius ad loc cum autem in oculis ecclesiae sit poenitens non est vel ministri, ut eum contu­meliosè a coena rejiciat, &c. ib. Conrad. Pelli­canus in loc. Musc. in loc. the Word and Sacraments are the holy things, and that wicked and impure men are Dogs and Swine, though he rightly concludes, that the Word is not to be denied to all Dogs, nor any (though Dogs in Gods sight) to be kept from the Sacrament, (if penitent) Conradus Pellicanus expounds it with Musculus, of all Gospell mysteries, — Nolim Evangelicae sapientiae mysteria sine delectu tradi dignis & indiguis, and tels us that those are Dogs who abhorre holinesse, and those are Swine who wallow in filthy pleasures; he seemes to think the Gospell chiefly to be meant; but pinching himselfe with the perplexing question, what Dogs those are to whom Christ would not have his Gospell preached, he concludes with Bucer darkly — Nemo sine spiritu patris recte intelliget. Salmeron tels us, Salmeron t. 5. trac. 60. that this Text teacheth us how we should preach the Word, and Administer the Sacraments, and that by Dogs and Swine are meant Infidels, Hareticks, and carnall Christians, and (though a Papist) yet deter­mines honestly, That the Sacrament of the Lords Sup­per is to be given to none but him who hath duly tried himselfe, and proved himselfe, and saies, it is thought by many Judas was not at the Sacrament of the Supper, if he were, he was a secret sinner, not scandalous. Which is also Alex: Halensis his answer. But I have said enough to prove both from Scripture, Reason, and the consent of Learned men, that as the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is one of the holy things here meant; so, if we may either from Scripture or Reason, or the judgement of Holy men, conclude any thing; impure sinners are here meant by Dogs.

After all this, what Mr Humfry saith, Mr Humfry's vind. free ad­mission. is not worth taking notice of. — He will have those onely to be [Page 20] Dogs and Swine, who are so in the publick esteeme of the Church, viz. Juridically censured. So that with him; Give not hely things to Dogs and Swine, is, Give not holy things to excommunicate persons, and this seemes to be Mr Boatman's sense too, who excepts on­ly excommunicate Christians from the Lords Supper, and it is likely he plowed with his Heifer, not only by his commending of that loose Pamphlet to his Disci­ples, but by his bold censure of Suspension, as a Pha­risaicall dreame, which amounts to Mr Humfrie's non est inventa in balivâ nostrâ p. 82 which made me merry when I read it, (that being the usuall returne that Sher­riffs make, who have never looked for the party, no more then I beleeve Mr Humfry hath done for this Ordinance, or else, when they have lookt for him, with a resolution to overlook him.)

The truth, is both Mr Humfry, and Mr Boatman, had it from Erastus, Erast thesis. 64. or the same spirit at least. He was the first worker in this sort of Brasse; and what they say amounts to the same with his—Quos ecclesia ita judicavit. But let us see to how little purpose this is said.

1. The Text is plaine, that holy things are not to be given to Dogs or Swine. Now, I never knew that the shutting of a Dog out of the house, made him a Dog, I had thought he must have been a Dog first, be­fore he had been shut out of the house, but this Mr Humfry grants, onely not used like Dogs before.

2. Our question is, what are those Dogs here spoken of, whether these who have vitia canina, the beastly qualities of Dogs, or those onely who have the ill hap of Dogs, Petitio principij to be turn'd out of doors. I had thought that this Text had been brought to have proved, that those who have the nature and beastly qualities of Dogs, should be used like Dogs, and not have childrens bread given to them.

3. If excommunicate persons be meant here, surely this Text, or some other must justify the usage of this Metaphor, in that sence. But let Mr Humfry shew us but one Text of Scripture, where this terme Dogs is used to expresse excommunicate persons, or let him shew us any thing in the Text to enforce it here, other­wise we must tell him the Scripture cals all prophane siners Dogs, those who returne with the Dog to the vomit, and with the Swine to wallow in the mire, are Dogs and Swine in the Scripture sense; but I find ex­communicate persons call'd so no where upon the ac­count of their excommunication.

4. Nor is there any one Author on his side, that e­ver I met with, so that his interpretation is contra­ry to Scripture, Reason, and all Expositors.

But yet we say, though the Sacrament be denied to Dogs and Swine, because they are so, not because they are shut out of the houshold of God by excommunica­tion, yet in regard that man can judge but according to the outward appearance, they must first appeare to be so, before the Ordinance can be denied to them. Se­cret things belong to God. But to say that by Dogs here are only meant persons actually excommunicate, is a meer shift to avoid a strong argument, and but an idle dreams, which hath no reality of truth in it, and is justifiable neither from this Text nor any other Scrip­ture.

But these men who are so zealous for the profana­tion of an Ordinance, are observed very lazy as to the preserving the purity of Ordinances. They must be excommunicated, before you keep them from the Sa­crament, (saith Mr Boatman) so saies Mr Humfry, but why doc not these tender men then, take a course to declare such to be Dogs and Swine, as are so, and to cast them out? Mr Boatman hath an Eldership establi­shed in his congregation, why did he not first call them [Page 22]together, and inquire the state of his flock, and cast out such as might have been found Dogs or Swine? if he thinks they must be excommunicated first, (we are not so hasty in that dreadfull sentence.) What is Mr Humfries case I cannot tell, but their principles (and the practise of one of them at least) makes some think that they will never take any course to find out who be Swine or Dogs, and declare them such: (ex­cept such Dogs as have lost their tailes, and cannot fawne enough on them) But very zealous they are to declare that all Dogs (that are not hang'd by excom­munication) must be fed with the childrens bread. The Lord forgive them this iniquity.

3 We have seen what is meant by holy things, and have proved, that there is no reason to exclude the Sa­crament of the Lords Supper. We have also shewed, who are meant by Dogs. There remaines onely to be considered, to whom this precept is given. Surely all will grant me; To those who have holy things to give, those whom God hath betrusted with the dispensation of his Ordinances unto others. I ask no more, and will not enter into a debate here, who these are; whether the Minister alone, or the whole Presbytery, &c.

So then the sense of this place is this;

You whom I have betrusted with the dispensation of my holy Ordinances, take heed you doe not dispense any of them out to impure sinners, who will but trample up­on them, and teare you, excepting onely such of my Or­dinances as I (appointed them as proper meanes for their conversion) have other where expresly comman­ded you to give unto them. Nor is that any unjustifi­able interpretation for that precept, thou shalt not kill, must be understood with exception of those, whom as Magistrates executing Justice, or Souldiers fighting Gods Battles, are commanded to kill, and the whole Word of God is his Law, no piece of which contradi­cteth other.

So that the Argument from this Text will hold, till Mr Humfry or Mr Boatman doe shew us [...]om other Scriptures, where God hath commanded this Sacra­ment to be given to all but excommunicated persons; which will be hard to find.

Learned, and Reverend Gillespy hath observed, Erast. l. 3. cap. 5 Gillespy Aa­rons rod. p. 551. that this Argument gained so much upon Erastus, that he restricted himselfe to the admission of such onely to the Sacrament, as acknowledge and confesse their sins, and promise amendment, and desire to use the Sacra­ment rightly with the rest, so far as we are able to judge; which concession (as he saith rightly) will goe very far. And I find as much in another place of Erastus, Tertium est nos de illis solis lo­qui, qui doctri­nam intelligunt, probant, ample­ctuntur, peccata sua se cognosce­re verò ajunt, & Sacramentis secundum insti­tutionem Chri­sti, cum ecclesiâ uti cupiunt. il [...]d. Erast. con­firm. the sium. in praefat. where hee tels us, that he onely speakes for such sin­ners who understand, and approve of, and imbrace the doctrine of the Gospell, who affirme, that they doe truly acknowledge, and abominate their sins, and desire to enjoy the Sacraments with the Church, according to Christs institution. We desire but one thing more; for let it but appeare to us, that any doe thus much, and let them be content further, (if their sin have been scandalous) to give us some proofe by a better con­versation, that this profession is in truth. And none of those I plead for, will suspend him from the Ordi­nance.

But Erastus his Scholers, are something more loose then their Master; Mr Humfry doth not know what to say for ignorant persons, because of Heb. 5.2. (but the Apostle could determine those unworthy, 1 Cor. 11. who discerned not the Lords body.) And for the scandalous, they must be admonished twice or thrice first. (Oh how tender the good man is, lest he should of­fend Jesus Christ in not giving his blood to one who pro­fanes it by swearing by it every day!) Mr Humfry's vindicat. p. [...]1. But it would be enquired whither Mr Humfry be as carefull to enquire into the state of his flock, and to admonish scandalous [Page 24]sinners, as he is to plead for the Lords Supper for those,) be they what they will, who are not first ad­monished twice or thrice. Conscience is uniforme, and will oblige him sure, as well to the latter, as the former. I neither know him nor his people, and have no reason either to judge them scandalous, or him negligent; but it is usually observed, that those who pretend a great deale of tendernesse of Consci­ence in this point: Oh they durst not keep any from the Sacrament, except they were excommunicated: (which they know they cannot be as our Church stands at present) But these men durst be in company with scandalous sinners, and heare, sweare and ly, and jeer at Godlinesse, and yet never admonish them, (no, there they must use Christian prudence) admoni­tion is an holy thing must not be given to Dogs; but the Sacrament (is none belike) that may. There are two sorts of men in the world, are very large in their principles, as to admissions to this Ordinance.

1. Such as pretend conscience against those Offi­cers in the Church, whom the Scripture cals ruling El­ders.

2. Such as professe their judgement for them.

1. Some professe their judgement against ruling El­ders; as Judges of communicants fitnesse with the Minister. (though Deane Nowell tels them they were Officers in the Primitive Church, used to that pur­pose in his Catechism. Gr. Lat. of old Edit. as is yet to be seen in many Copies, and especially in the Latine Copies of it, in 4to; though some have unwor­thily left it out in the late Edit.) Now, would these men themselves, take upon them the strict inspection of their flock, and make it their businesse to goe from house to house, and take account of their peoples knowledge, and strictly to observe their lives, and ad­monish them for their miscarriages, and not admit [Page 25]any notorious sinners to the Sacrament, before pub­lick satisfaction in causes of publick scandall, either taking upon them themselves, (according to the old Rubrick) to put them by, or finding some other course to have them debarred? though my judgement would condemn them as neglecting an Ordinance of Christ, yet my charity would beare with them, till they were further convinced.

2 Others professe their judgements to stand for Pres­byteries, but they know not how to get any; yet they think they are bound to administer the Ordinance. Would these men first doe what in them lies, to set up the Government of Christ in the bands of his pro­per Officers, and in the meane time: 1. Not onely in the Pulpit exhort, &c. but indeavour to be acquain­ted with all in their flock, going from house to house, and taking account of their spirituall estate, and observe (and enquire concerning) their conversations; and 3. Pastorally admonish those that they find ignorant of that great sin of Affected ignorance, and unprofitable­nesse under the meanes of grace, and this not only in the Pulpit generally, but [...] personally, and par­ticularly, I could say something to excuse them at least à tanto, for administring the Ordinance without a Presbytery, and they might have a little plea made for them, though they kept away none, (as the state of our Church stands) though for my owne part, I durst undertake to justifie them in withholding the Sacra­ment, from known scandalous sinners, who after pa­storall admonition, (where no more can be) shall yet presume to intrude.

But I heare Mr Hum [...]ry and Mr Boatman cry they must be excommunicated first, and the latter cry, he knows none ignorant nor scandalous, if they were, yet they both agree, that they must be juridically excom­municated. But doe these tender men set up this same [Page 26]Court, in which the scandalous and ignorant should be first judged? or doe they by enquiry of others, or observation or examination, first endeavour to know such as they invite to the Lords Table, and not admi­nister the Ordinance, till they have done what in them lies, to know whether there be none in their congre­gations that are ignorant, or excommunicate de jure. For one of them I can say something, though nothing, to perswade me or any other, that it is from a tender­nesse of conscience he is so free.

I shall now shut up this first Argument, it amounts to thus much.

The holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper, is one of those holy things which our Saviour Christ in Mat. 7.6. forbids us to give unto Dogs, or to cast before Swine. They have the nature of ho­ly things, there is no reason to exclude them; Expo­sitors generally have so judged.

Men of impure lives and conversations, are Dogs and Swine in Scripture phrase, and such as will trample upon the Ordinance.

It will be an easie conclusion. If God hath requi­red those whom he hath betrusted with his holy things, not to give them out to such as his word de­scribes to be Dogs and Swine, then (though there may be some in the Church not yet excommuni­cated) yet they ought not to have the holy thing of the Sacrament given to them. But I have pro­ved this to be the will of Christ from this Text —Ergo

If Mr Boatman can finde out a medium betwixt, not giving the Sacrament to them, and denying it to them, I shall listen to him, otherwise (by his leave) here is a Scripture-prohibition for some to be kept away, who are neither Turks nor Jewes, nor Hea­thens, nor excommunicated persons, and he needed [Page 27]not have challenged all the Ministers on the earth, to this task.

CHAP. III. VVherein a second Argument is brought to prove suspension di­stinct from excommunication, from 1 Cor. 10.21.

A second Argument is this.

It is unlawfull to give the Sacrament to those who cannot eat [...]r drink it. But there may be some in the Church (not excommunicated) who cannot drink of the Lords cup.—Ergo

I will prove both propositions. 1. For the major.

BEfore I prove it, it will be necessary that we consider in what sense the Apostle useth this phrase, in the place I allude to. 1 Cor. 10.21. [...]. the question is, what Impotency is there meant.

1. That it is not to be understood of the want of a [Page 28]Physicall power, is plaine enough, for so they might eat at the Table of the Lord, and the Devils Table 100.

2. It must therefore be understood in a morall sense, Id tantum possumus quodjur possumus. You cannot, that is, lawfully, and warrantably, you cannot drink of the cup of the Lord, and the cup of Devils. Grotius min­ceth this [...] too small, v. Grotium ad loc. when he expounds it by [...]. And Pareus observes against him well, that it is a manifest depraving of the sense; v. Pareum ad loc. the Apostles de­signe being to shew a plain inconsistency betwixt a fel­lowship with Christ in his Ordinances, and with De­vils at Idols Feasts, not a meere indecorum in it. This is one of the senses which Musculus gives of the Text.

3. Musc. ad loc. I find indeed a third sense of the words hinted, by some reverend Expositors. You cannot drink of the cup of the Lord, and of the cup of Devils. You cannot eat of the Table of the Lord, and of the Table of Devils. That is, (say they) though you may enjoy an outward Com­munion in the Ordinance, yet you cannot enjoy an inward spirituall Communion with Christ in it. As Augustine (supposing Judas was at the Lords Supper) saith that he did eat Panem Domins, but not Panem Dominum. But I think Learned Beza saith some­thing against this sense, when he tels us, that by the Table is meant the Elements upon the Table, and by the cup, the wine in the cup. If the Apostle had said, you cannot eat the flesh, and drink the blood of Christ, if you have fellowship with De­vils, the Apostle might possibly have been so interpre­ted, but his Argument is plainly to prove the unlaw­fulnesse of their comming to the Table, being guilty of such sinns.

But the summe of all amounts to this; that those who cannot drink the cup, and eat at the Table of the Lord, (in the sense of this Text) are either,

1. Such as God hath forbidden comming to that Ordinance.

Or secondly such, as if they sush upon the Ordi­nance, yet can have no Communion with Christ, no benefit by it. I will take it in either sense, and I say

It is sinfull for any to administer the Ordinance of the Supper to those whom he knowes to be such, as are forbidden to meddle with it, or whom he knowes to be such as considering their present state, cannot have Com­munion with Christ in it. This I hope will easily be proved.

For surely it will be granted, that it is sinfull for a­ny to give it to those to whom he is not commanded to give it, for he is the steward of the mysteries of God, and must expect his masters order before he deales them out, nor will it be enough to say he is not for­bidden, for his very Office forbids him, and in that he is not commanded he is expresly forbidden.

Now, a Minister is not commanded, any where surely, to give it to those who are forbidden to receive it. To say no more in this case: I hope we have all too reverent thoughts of the wisdome of God, to think that he should lay his Minister under an obligation to administer his Ordinance to those whom he hath warned upon pain of damnation not to take it.

Though this were enough, (for those who encline to the other sense, doe cleerly yet grant, that those who partook of the Table of Devils, are here either forbidden that Table, or the Lords Table, which (if it be true, as questionlesse it is) our Adversaries must maintaine that they are commanded to give the Sa­crament to those whom the same God forbids to take it) yet possibly the other part may be more disputable, viz.

Whether a Minister of the Gospell and his Eldership, way without sin admit any to the supper of the Lord, con­cerning whom they know, that in their present state, they [Page 30]cannot have Communion with Christ in the Ordinance, &c.

I will try whether I can prove the Negative.

None can without sin, knowingly expose the Ordi­nance of God, to necessary abuse and profanation.

But who ever administers the Ordinance of the Sup­per to those concerning whom he or they know, they can­not have communion with Christ in the Ordinance, ex­poseth the Ordinance to a necessary abuse and profana­tion,—Ergo.

The major is plaine enough: the minor is as cleere, if we consider when or how an Ordinance is profaned or abused. Her Priests have violated my Law, and have profaned my holy things, they have put no diffe­rence between the holy and the profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean. Ezek. 22.26. A thing is then abused when it is not turned to a right use; but surely he can never turn the Ordinance to a right use, that cannot have Com­munion with Christ in it. I come to the minor.

I thinke enough is said to prove the major; that it is sin for any to give the Lords Supper to those that can­not eat and drink there; (that is) to such either [...]s are forbidden that Table, or such as cannot have Commu­nion with Christ in it.

But there may be some known in the Church, who are forbidden to come at the Lords Table, or who cannot have Communion with Christ in it,—Ergo.

That there may be some such in the Church, I sup­pose none will deny; but the question is, whether there may be some in the Church that may be known to be such? I prove there may.

If there may be some in the Church, who may be known to have fellowship with Devils, and to drink of the cup of Devils, then there may bee some in the Church, who may be known to be [Page 31]such as cannot drink of the cup of the Lord, nor eat at his Table.

But there may be some in the Church, who may bee known to have fellowship with Devils, and to drink of their cup.—Ergo.

The consequence is plaine from the Apostle. 1 Cor. 10.20, 21.

And the assumption is as plaine, for there were such in the Church of Corinth.—Ergo.

If any object; Object. But the Church is not bidden to keep them away if they doe come.

[...] we grant it; but I have already proved, Sol. that here is an implicit consequentiall prohibition of the Church, to admit such; and he had before forbidden them with Idolaters not to [...]at. 1 Cor. 5.11. (of which place more hereafter (God willing.)

But will some say, this was for an open horrid sin, Object. Idolatry, &c. having fellowship with Devils, &c.

Admit it; yet thus much we have gained; Sol. that Ido­laters though they be not excommunicated, yet they may be denied the Lords supper, as well as persecutors, by Mat. 7.6.

But secondly let us observe what fellowship these Corinthians had with Devils; they did not make a compact with Devils, they did not worship the Devill as some Idolaters; the businesse was only this: They being Members of a Gospell Church, did eat at Banquets of those Meates, which were before sacri­ficed to their Idols, they did not sacrifice with them, but only [...], they did [...]. After the Ido­laters had been sacrificing, they came to their Feasts, simply to eat the meat was nothing, nor had the Idol made it worse, and had it been sold in the Shambles the Apostle determined before, that they might have bought it, and eat it; that which altered the case, was onely the shew that it made to the Idolaters of their [Page 32]complying with them, and the circumstances of time and place; yet the Apostle determines this a fellow­ship with Devils and Idolatry, such a sin as they who are guilty of it, could have no communion with Christ in this Ordinance. Suppose they had made a compact with the Devill, or gone and worshipped the Idols, surely the Apostle would much more have said it of such.

3. I cannot see but every scandalous sinner, every Drunkard, Swearer, Adulterer, &c. hath as great a fellowship with Devils, as the Corinthians had.

One thing I desire you to observe. There might be latent grace in these Corinthians hearts, and doubtless was, yet while they lay under this scandall, the Apo­stle determines that they were such as could not eat at the Table, nor drink of the cup of the Lord. Whence I conclude, That there may be such in a Church, con­cerning whom it may be knowne that they cannot eat at the Lords Table, nor drink the Lords cup. It will not be enough to say, that God may give them repen­tance for ought we know at the time, or upon their receiving. In the mean time, till their repentance bee evident, they may be knowne, and ought to be judged by us, as such as cannot eat at the Lords Table, nor drink the Lords cup.

It is cleare, Clem: Alex. in paedagogo. l. 2. p. 143.144. edit. cut. 1629. Tertullianus spectac. l. c. 12. Cypr. in ep. 10. queest ad Cle­rum l. de lapsis non procul ab ini­tio. that the Ancients thought this having fellowship with Devils, was of vast extent; one ap­plies it to all such as intemperately use the Creatures; Tertullian applies it, to forbid any kind of presence at, or countenancing of any superstitious practices, though but a looking on, in his book de spectaculis. Cyprian, in his Tenth Epistle, chideth the Presbyters by ver­tue of this very Text, that they would admit to the Lords Supper, such as had sacrificed to Idols, (through feare) before they had sufficient evidence of their re­pentance, and tels us that the Church in in his time for [Page 33]lesser offences, was wont to require satisfaction be­fore Communion was allowed to the sinners: And in his book de lapsis, he doth sadly lament the hasty admis­sion of such to the Sacrament. Gualther ad loc. Gu [...]lther observes from this Text, the vanity of those who maintaine that any sinners how notoriously wicked soever, might yet par­take at this holy Table.

I shall adde no more to this second Argument. If it be unlawfull to give the Sacrament to such as are known to be such as God hath forbidden to take it, and as can­not have Communion with Christ in it, then it is unlaw­full to give it to some such, as may yet be within the bo­some of the Church. But I have proved the former un­lawfull.—Ergo I proceed.

CHAP. IV. VVhere'n a third and fourth Argument is brought to prove that suspension distinct from excommunication is de­ducible from Scripture; and the Ar­gument is vindicated from the ex­ceptions which Thomas Erastus, Mr Prin, Mr Humfry, &c. have made to it.

ARGVMENT 3.

It is unlawfull for the Officers of a Church, to give the Sacrament to such, with whom it is unlaw­full for themselves or their breehren to eat.

But there may be some in the Church not cast out, with whom it may be unlawfull for the Church to eat—Ergo.

THE major is cleer. The minor I will prove by an Argument or two.

It is unlawfull to keep the Feast with the old leaven of malice and wickednesse. Argument 1 But there may be such old leaven in the Church.—Ergo

Here I have two things to prove.

1. That there may be some such in the Church as the Apostle cals old Leaven.

2. That it is unlawfull to keep the feast of the Lords Supper with them.

Let us first enquire what the Apostle cals old Leaven. 1 Cor. 5.7.

Erastus is very loth to tell us what he meanes by it; Certe quicquid per f [...]rmentum intelligamus, &c. thesi. 17. onely like a good d [...]sputant, he denies the conclusion, that excommunication is not spoken of in that Text; but that is the [...].

It is a plaine case that the Apostle there, as chiding the Corinthians, that they did not cast out the incestu­ous person: and amongst other Arguments he useth this. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.: what the english of that is, I cannot tell, if it be not this. A knowne scandalous person amongst you, polluteth your Church; It followes immediately, Purge out there­fore the old leaven; is not the meaning of this think we, purge out the incestuous persons? ver. 8. Lot us keep the Feast not with the old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice or wickednesse. Surely he that hath not so sacrificed his reason to Erastus, that he is resol­ved jurare in verba Magistri, must say by the leaven of malice and wickednesse here, is meant scandalous sin­ners. The leaven that leaveneth the lump; (of which he spake before) and this is the primary sence, though I easily grant we are also here forbidden comming to it with malice and wickednesse in our owne hearts. Beza de Presby­terio & excom. p. 89.8. a. Nam & nos de illis solis dispu­tamus qui pec­catum suum, agnoscunt & meliora promit­tunt. Erast. lib. 3. cap. 7. And of this mind is Learned Beza (I am sure) in his answer to Erastus, and thinkes that he who denies it, would deny the Sun to shine at noon day too (if need were.) And this Argument so far prevailed upon E­rastus, that in his reply to Beza, he tels us he pleades for none to be admitted to the Sacrament, but such as acknowledge their sins, and promise reformation. [Page 36]And Mr Humfry is angry with Dr Drake, Mr. Humfrie's rejoinder. p. 21. that he should interpret him otherwise then of such to be kept away, as are excommunicate de jure or de facto: if I un­derstand Latine or School-termes; one de jure excom­municate, is such a one as is scandalous and perti­nacious, either-refusing conviction or reformation; we ask no more then this is. But the misery is this; these men tel us so, when they are put to a p [...]ch. But as Mr Ruthersord notes of Erastus so the reader may observe in Mr Humfry, Rutherford's divine right of Presbyt. p. 363. that all their Argu­ments in other places conclude for the admissions of such as are de jure excommunicate. Else Mr Humfry was not in his right wits, when he returned [...] no [...]est inventa upon suspension, onely I cannot allow Mr Humfrie's exposition of de jure, restraining it to such gaole sins as he doth, (surely the man thinkes he hath the Law in his owne hands, or else he would describe such to be excommunicated de jure, who according to [...]he Law of God, ought to be cast out of the Church, [...]nd those are all such as will not heare the Church, Mat. 18.18. [...]hough their scandals be lesse then an incestuous mar­ [...]age, or an act of adultery. But to returne, we have [...]ound [...]ut the old leaven to be scandalous si [...]ners. Now, [...]hat such may be in a Church besides this proose from [...]he Church of Corinth, our owne Church is suffici­ [...]nt evidence.

It remaines for me to prove that it is not lawfull to communicate with such.

That I prove by those words; Let us therefore keep the Feast, not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven [...]f malice and wickednesse. From whence is easily ga­hered, that Christians ought not to keep the Feast with candalous sinners.

All the question here is, whether the Feast of the [...]ords Supper be there intended. thesi. 17. Thomas Erastus [...]aith no, for then it would follow that men might be [Page 37]wicked at any other time, Beza de excom. page 90.91. onely then they must ab­staine. Learned Beza tels him of a fallacy in his argu­ment; for the Jewish 7 dayes signified our constant conversation, and as they were to abstaine from their leaven seven dayes; so we are to abstaine at all times from the leaven of sin and wickednesse. But besides this, Rutherford's divine right of Pres. page 349. Mr Rutherford hath sufficiently answered this ca­vill

But I admire at Erastus his consequence, or the force of his Argument.

For admit that by leaven here is meant scandalous sinners, I see no hurt of his argument; we will y [...]e [...]d him, that a Christian is not onely bound to avoid communion with scandalous sinners at the Lords Ta­ble, but all the yeare long.

2. Suppose that by leaven be meant sin and wicked­nesse, not considered with aggravation of scandall, how it will follow, that because we are bound to purge it out when we come to the Lords Supper, therefore we may let it alone all the yeare long. Beside, that time poseth my Logick, except Erastus thinkes that because the Jewes never medled with leaven but then. Therefore (the similitude running on all four belike) we must doe so so; which if he doth Beza hath answe­red him.

2. But what feast is this? Ruth. ibid. By this Feast I under­stand Church communion in the dainties of the Gospell which are set forth to us under the similitude of [...] east Matt. 22. Lu. 14 16 17, 18. Pro. 9.2, 3, 4, 5. Cant. 5.1. (saith Mr Rutherford.)

This place cannot be restrained to the Lords Supper onely, saith Reverend Gill s [...]y, Gillespy [...]a­rons rod. l. 3 c. 7 but the Lords Supper must needs be comprehended as one, yea, a great part of the meaning.

And surely there's all the reason in the world it should, considering what Mr S. Rutherford observee [Page 38]that Christians have no solemne spirituall Feasts but that, Rutherford di­vine right. cap. 11.9, 7. Gil. loc. praed. especially if we add (saith Mr Gillespy) the Ana­logy of the Passeover, there much insisted upon.

But I add further, what Feast is here meant I won­der? Surely the Apostle doth not speak of any civill ordinary Feast, nor any of the Mosaicall Feasts. It must then be of some spirituall Gospell-Feast. Let us consider how this metaphoricall expression is used elsewhere. I remember but two places in Scripture, where this terme Feast is used in a metaphoricall sense. Pro. 15.15. A good conscience is a continuall feast, that is, a good continuall cause of joy and rejoycing. The other is, Ravanella in Verbo. Festum. Is. 25. (of which by and by) Ravanella ranks all the usages of the terme in the Old Testament, where it is taken for the whole or any part of the Jewish Worship, under the metaphoricall acceptati­on; and tels us that Zach. 14.16, 18, 19. it is taken for all the Gospell-worship: For the Jewish worship all their service almost might properly be called a Feast, because they had literall Feasts at them.—But 'tis certaine the Apostle here doth not exhort the Co­rinthians to keep the Jewish Feasts: Nor can feast be taken for joy and mirth, as Pro. 15.15. for then the sense is this; Let us keep a Feast of joy; which any reader will see, was not the Apostles meaning.

It remains therefore that we expound it by. Is. 25.6. where the Lord promises to make a Feast of fat things. By which he promiseth all Gospell-Ordinances, and a Gospell-Communion with his people. God makes the Feast in giving us Christ and his Ordinances: we keep the feast in waiting upon God, in all the du­ties of Church-Communion. Let us keep the Feast is, Let us walk in a communion in Gospell Ordinances. Let us enjoy Gospell Ordinances, and worship God together under the Gospell. Not with the leaven of malice and unrighteousness, not in a scandalous commu­nion, &c.

Thomas Erastus saith that by feast is meant here, Confirm. thes. 1. cap. 6. So Mr Hum­fry's vind. p. 85 v Chrys. in or a­tione contra eos qui novilunia observant, & & Homil. 40. c. in 12. cap. Mat. a Christians whole conversation. I confesse I find some Reverend Expositors of his mind (though it may be not wholly. Chrysostome is the most Ancient, who in his Oration against those who observed new Moons, and brought dancings into the City; expounds it thus against them, teiling his hearers, that a Christians whole life is a Feast, and to be so spent. And he saith as much (as I remember) in his fourth Homily, on the twelth Chapter of Matthew. Theophylact followes him, and yet neither of them restraine it to that: No more doth Beza, Calv. ad loe. who yet stretcheth it to that lati­tude. Calvin also hints it, but adds. Si Christi carne & sanguine pasci velimus, afferamus ad hoc epulum sinceritatem & veritatem; whence may easily be ga­thered, that Mr Calvin. thought the Sacament of the Body and Blood of Christ was also here intended; which is enough for me.

I acknowledge many reverend Expositors expound it of an holy life; Ego vero soli scripturae hunc bonorem dese­rendum censco, &c. H [...]eron. 'tis enough for me that they doe not exclude the Lords Supper, and I must be excused if for the reasons before specified, I think it chiefly meant; For I have learned (with Hierom) to give this honour onely to the sacred Word of God, to beleeve what it saith, because it faith it. First therefore I say

1. The Lords Supper is a part of the Gospell-Feast, and the onely proper Feast of it.

2. The relation this Text hath to the Passeover seemes to me to prove it.

3. It was doubtless chiefly in reference to this Com­munion that the Church was to be purged for some civill Communion, and some Communion with an incestuous person in other Ordinances may be allow­ed.

But if we should admit this, that the meaning were, that we should not in our conversation have Commu­nion [Page 40]with scandalous sinners. I see no harme at all would follow upon it. For surely if we ought not to converse with such in our civill conversation, much less is it lawfull for us to have Communion with such at the Lords Table. And surely if it be unlawfull for Christians to have Communion with such (though in the Church) it is unlawfull for the Officers of the Church to admit such to Communion with them. But this we shall fall in with anon, in the mean time I main­taine that the clear sense of that place is, that we ought not to have a Communion at the Lords Supper with scandalous sinners.

But I shall come to a second Argument. Argument 2

If there may be some in the Church not yet cast out by excommunication, who are Fornicators, or Covetous, or Idolaters, or Railers, or Drunkards, or Extortioners, then there may be some such in the Church, with whom a Christian ought not to eat the Lords Supper. But there may be such in the Church,—Ergo.

The minor will be easily granted. The major I ground on 1 Cor. 5.11.

All that can be said in the case, is, that the eating there forbidden, is not eating the Lords Supper. So saith Thomas Erastus, Confirm. thesi. p. 258. l. 3. c. 8. vind. p. 83.84. Mr Prins vind. of 4 serious que­stions. p. 9. so Mr Prin, so Mr Humfry. To this two things have been already answered, and except I see need, I shall add little of my own.

1. That it can never be proved, that it is not meant of Sacramentall eating, but of civil eating.

2. That there are grounds for the contrary opini­on.

3. That admitting it, yet the Argument stands strong.

First, I desire to know a reason why our adversa­ries will needs restraine that Text to a civill Commu­nion. Erastus gives these reasons.

1. The Apostles precept concerning denying Com­munion, [Page 41]must not be so interpreted as to contradict Christs precept. But Christ commanded all to receive. Beza grants both, Beza de Presh. & excom. p. 70. and answers that Christ might command his Apostles to doe that which considering the time he did not.

But although I reverence Beza, yet I think he hath granted too much, and besides that, his answer is not to the objection, which is founded, not on Christs pra­ctice, but his precept. I deny the Assumption there­fore, and demand of Erastus, and all his followers, Erast. theses. thesi. 26.27 28. where Christ commands to give the Sacrament to all. Erastus tels us he hath proved it, but where, none knowes, all that I find in him looking that way, is but a negative argument. Christ did not forbid any, nor doe we find that he left his disciples any such order, nor ever reproved any that they did come to the Sa­crament; all which comes short of this, that Christ did command the administration to all, thesi. 30. and it is too weake that Erastus hath thesi. 30. that Christ said drink ye all of it, for those all were all visible saints; though Judas was there (which shall never be pro­ved) yet Judas was not discovered to the communi­cants: It is worth the observing, that Christ did not so much as call up the Jewes in the same house, which he would have done probably, if he had intended for all. Erastus saith, page. 249. Christ inviteth all to repentance—Ergo to the Sacrament. If the syllogisme be put in forme saith Mr Rutherford, the major is blasphemy; Ruth. divine right. page 362. for by the same argument might be proved, that God in­vites Pagans to the Sacrament.—See more in him.

Erastus hath another Argument. If the Apostle did here forbid these scandalous sinners the Sacrament, he had contradicted himselfe.—But he doth not contra­dict himselfe. The major lies upon the Doctor to prove.

His loose lines must be thus formed.

Hee that should here forbid scandalous persons the Sacrament, Etenim paulo post licentius viventibus non interdicit nec interdicere jubet Sacramentorum usum [...]sed judici­um Dei propo­nit. Erast. con­firm thes. p. 249 and a little after, cap. 11. not forbid loose livers the Sacrament, onely set before them their dan­ger, contradicts himselfe.

I will go no further, here's enough to be denyed. Is it a contradiction? I wonder if I should write a letter to my friends, and in the beginning of it say, I will not have you come in such a gamesters company & a little after in the same Letter, tell my friends, I heare some of them have been in gamesters company, and God will be revenged of them, if they follow such courses, I have not eyes to see it if it be. This is the very case here, must Paul needs forbid that, cap. 11. that which he forbids cap. 5. or, doth he contradict himselfe?

This is all that Erastus hath to say for it, which is to little purpose.

That learned and worthy Gentleman (whom I am loth to name in this cause) pretends to give three reasons why the Sacramentall eating is not here mean [...].

First, 1 because there is not a word of receiving the Lords Supper in this Chapter, Vind. p. 9.10. and in the 10 and 11. Chapters he saith no such thing (though he professedly treats of it.)

His Learned Adversary sufficiently answers him. 1. Gillespies Aa­rons rod. l. 3. c. 7 Desiring him to prove that the 7. 8. verse of this Chapter, is not meant of the Lords Supper 2. Tel­ling him that in the 24 page of his book, himselfe con­fesseth from this Chapter, that the Passeover and the Lords Supper are the same for substance, and that Are­tius so expounds it. Aret. prob. loc. 80. To that I have spoke already.

Mr Prinn objects that 1 Cor. 10.16, 17. the Apostle saies they were all partakers of one bread; yet in he Church of Corinth were some scandalous, some drun­tards that came so to the Table, &c.

Mr Gillespy answers him, That the word all can be of no larger extent then visible Saints, such as were those to [Page 43]whom the Epistle was directed, and surely visible wor­kers of iniquity, cannot be visible Saints.

Saith Mr Gillespy, he shall never prove that those that were drunk at the Sacrament, in the Church of Corinth, came thither such, [...]. or were drunk the night before, or knowne drunkards; if they were drunk, it was there, which the Apostle could not know before they came; where by the way, I desire my Reader to take notice of the invalidity of this plea of Mr Boat­man's, for the admitting such as are knowne before hand to be scandalous sinners. Plus satis bibit. G [...]otius ad loc Quanquam ego non existimarem de eâ sermonem fieri qua homi­nes alienati a sensu & mente fusi jacent, sed potius de larga compotatione ita ut liberalius bibendo plus ae­quo exbilarati essent. P. Mart. ad loc.

I add further, that he shall never be able to prove they were drunk; the word there used is [...], which doth not alwaies signifie to drink drunke, but often to drink liberally and well. So Io. 2.10. The sence is onely this, you come to the Table of the Lord in parties dis­orderly; first one company comes, and they drink li­berally, more then they need, then the others come, and they have none to drink. Nor is this a new noti­on, I find it in Peter Martyr, Grotius, Estius ad loc. Beza in Io. 2.10. translateth this word affatim bibere, and why he might not have done so here, if it had plea­sed him, I cannot tell. This Dr Drake hinted Mr Hum­fry of, and Mr Humfry in his late vindication, is so in­genious as to allow it. So I hope now it may passe currant, and wee shall heare this pleaded no more by Mr Humfry or Mr Boatman, that drunkards were ad­mitted to the Sacrament in the Church of Corinth.

4. Especially considering, (what Mr Gillespy hath already said) that although it could be proved that there were drunkards, and other scandalous sinners there, yet it can never be proved that they were ad­mitted to the Sacrament.

5. I will add one thing more, the Apostle doth not say, 1 Cor. 10.16, 17. you are all partakers of one bread, (which if he had, it would have been something more [Page 44]to have proved that the scandalous sinners in the Church of Corinth were admitted to this Ordinance, but he saith no such thing, he saith we are all parta­kers of one bread; that is, while we (who are Saints) wair upon God in that Ordinance, we partake of one bread, and are one body; yea, and that he saith they were one body, he plainly proves that the scandalous sinners did not partake of that one Bread. But of that more anon.

6. Lastly, suppose this were true, that some of the Corinthians were notoriously scandalous. 2. That these were admitted to the Lords Supper, that St Paul doth not in so many words command their suspension, how doth this yet prove, that scandalous sinners ought to be admitted, till Mr Humfry or Mr Boatman have pro­ved 1. That the Church of Corinth did nothing a­misse. 2. That because the Apostle did not [...] in so many words say, drunkards keep away, therefore he did allow them to come; any more then it will prove women ought to keep away, because Paul no where saith expresly, you beleeving women come, as well as men? So that this reason which is purely negative, though urged by Erastus, Mr Prin, Mr Humphry, and Mr Boatman will never inferre that it is lawfull to administer the Sacrament to all, much lesse prove that Sacramentall eating is not meant in the Text.

Mr Prins second Argument is, because if we should so expound it, most of our members must be exclu­ded.

But Mr Gillespy hath told him, Aarons rod. p. 426. this is nothing to the purpose; 'tis quickly answered. 1. Let God be true, and his Word true, (though men be found lyars. Fiat justitia, pereat Mundus. 2. We hope most of our members are not scandalously under those qualificati­ons. Man judgeth by the outward appearance.

Mr Prins third and last reason is, because it is clear­ly [Page 45]meant of civill familiarity. So saith Erastus, Vind. 4. serious quest. p. 10.3. Erast. confirm. thes. l. 4. cap. 3. vind. p. 84. Rejoinder. p. 261 so Mr Humfry; so many others which wee will allow, if they will not understand it exclusively. But let us see how they can prove it, that it must needs onely be un­derstood of civill eating.

1. Saith Mr Prin, he had expounded it twice be­fore, by that very phrase not to keep company, Gillespy p. 427 that phrase is indeed twice before; but saith Mr Gillespy, having twice before forbidden that, it appeares here he meanes something more.

I meet with one reason more in Mr Prin (saith he) it cannot be meant of eating at the Lords Table, ibid 4. be­cause this precept extends to those out of the Church also who were such as appeares by v. 10.11, 12, 13. compared together.

I answer, Sol. that those who are Christians should not have any Communion with Heathens that are profane I grant.

2. That they are forbidden here I cannot see. 2

Thirdly the Apostle saith, ver. 5. 3 If any man be called a brother, and be such or such, &c. and plainly tels them ver. 10. that his meaning was not that they should altogether forbeare company with the fornicators of the world.

Fourthly admit this, 4 That this precept concernes our carriage to Heathens as well as Brethren, though not equally as Mr Prin confesseth, yet how doth it fol­low that the not eating here cannot be understood of Sacramentall eating; indeed it will follow it cannot be meant of that onely which we doe not contend for.

I meet with no more pretended reasons. Mr Hum­fry hath magisterially told us he is of this mind, but hath given us no reason; neither in his vindication, nor his rejoinder.

I have done the first thing, shewing you that there [Page 46]hath not yet been made appear by any sufficient ground that the not eating here is to be restraind to civill Com­munion, if it were, it would be to no great pur­pose, onely it would make us make use of this Scrip­ture as a radix for an undeniable Argument, whereas yet we plead for a direct literall prohibition; but of that in the third place.

I come now to my second taske, 2 in which I shall do two things.

1. I shall shew you some grounds which may make us probably judge, that the Sacramentall eating, was the chiefe thing here intended.

2. Why civill Communion should not bee the one­ly thing here forbidden.

As to the first, take these grounds for my opini­on.

First, 1 by the Feast before mentioned, ver. 8. he meant the Sacrament, this immediately followes: That by the Feast v. 8. the Sacrament is meant I shewed be­fore.

Secondly, 2 there is no other Ordinance wherein people are to eat one with another but this, and when the Text contradicts not other Scriptures, doubtlesse it is not to be expounded by a figure.

The businesse of the Apostle was, 3 to command the casting out of the incestuous person out of Church Communion; in excommunication there are two parts.

The first is positive, A solemn delivering up the ob­stinate person to Satan. This he commanded before ver. 3.4. The other is privative, and consists in denying of the excommunicate person intimacy of civill Commu­nion. 2. Church Communion in some Ordinances; as for the first he had forbidden it, in these words keep no company with such a one. As to the second; he forbids here.—No nor eat with such a one.

I no where read, that the excommunicate person must not be preached to, for though he be as an Hea­then, yet not in a worse condition as to that sure. I read he must be admonished as a Brother. I read not that we may not pray with him. But we must have no Communion with him in such Ordinances which doe belong to a man as a member of the Church. The chiefe of these is the Sacrament of the Supper, there­fore the Apostle forbids to eat with him, that is, at the Lords Table, and so he hath given a perfect command for executing a sentence of excommunication on him, in all its branches, which he sums up, ver. 13. There­fore put away from amongst you that wicked per­son.

Fourthly, 4 either Sacramentall eating is here for­bidden, or civill eating, or both.

If the first or the last, 'tis all we ask.

I shall now prove the second thing.

2. That it it not probable that civill eating is here forbidden.

1. Civill Communion was twice forbidden before, under the notion of keep no company.

2. Civill Communion so far as eating goes, is law­full for Christians sure, with a Drunkard, a covetous person, or the like; or else as the Apostle tels us, wee must goe out of the world. This Erastus, and the wor­thy Gentleman (so often named) foresaw, and there­fore spent much paines to work themselves out of this hedge of difficulty. But I shall not digresse to follow them; the Reader may see Mr Prin (who saies most) sufficiently answered by his learned Antago­nist. Gillespy Aa­rons rod. l. 3. c. 7

I come to my third taske.

Admit that the meaning of this Text were what they would have, onely to interdi [...] Christians a civill Communion with scandalous sinners, yet 'tis nothing [Page 48]to the businesse, for thus we argue.

If from that text it may be concluded unlawfull for Christians to have civill Communion, Quod si multo­rum testium va [...] riâ & conso­nanti monitione docemur, cum del [...] q [...]entibus fratrious cibo ne quide [...] vesci, quanto magis debeat & à sa­crificio Christi arceri. Cyp. in l. de aleatoribus. Erast. theses thesi 66. vind. 4 serious quest. p. 11. vin. free admis­sion. p. 85. Beza in lib. de excom. & Presb. page 95. and to eat at their own Tables with scandalous sinners, then it is much more unlawfull for them to eat at the Lords Ta­ble.

But 'tis granted that it is unlawfull for them to have civill Communion with them.

This Argument hath troubled Erastus, and Mr Prin, and Mr Humfry to answer. Mr Humfry is sorry to see any gravelled with such a fallacy. Well if it be a fallacy, I hope we shall have it discovered.

1. Some tell us that there is no such Argument, not to have company, and not to eat, are both the same, so here is no comparation.

1. To this I answer.

1. That Beza hath well observed, that the particle here used doth import such an argumentation, where the lesser being denied, the greater is much more denyed. Brastus himselfe is so sensible, that [...] where it divi­deth, argues two things spoken of so that he is forced to confesse that there are two things. 1. Intimate fa­miliarity with such. 2. Eating with them.

But surely the man forgot himselfe, Vetat ergo duo primum ut non habeant arctam cum talibus consuetudinem, deinde ut ne quidem edant cum eis. Erast. confir. thesium lib. 3. for is it not law­full for us to eat with a covetous man at our own Ta­ble think we?

But secondly, I answer, this is nothing to the pur­pose, for we, supposing the Apostle speaks of civill ea­ting, raise our argument by consequence from that Scripture foundation.

Secondly therefore the most intelligent say, that the Argument is falsly drawn to conclude the prohibition of the greater from the lesse: 2 and to this purpose E­rastus gives us some rules, and Mr Prin, and Mr Hum­fry some, to regulate these argumentations. Their rules are these. (I will examine the truth of them as I goe [Page 49]along) Propositions therefore wherein the greater is proved to be denyed, because the lesser may be true.

1. Erastus saith it may be true in gifts, In donis non au­tem in poenis. Confirm. thes [...] l. 3. p. 250. but not in pu­nishments.

Mr Rutherford tels him, it is true enough for us, if it be true in gifts, for fellowship with the Saints is a guift and priviledge, and surely if one may have not the lesser priviledge, he may not have the greater. Rutherford's divine right of Presbyt. p. 366. 2. It must also hold in punishments, when the lesser is inflicted for the cause of the higher: is it not a good argument think we, such a man condemned to dy, must not come into the Castleyard, till his Execution. Ergo much lesse may he go where he list about the Country.

Secondly saith Erastus, Erast. ibid. Mr Prin. p. 11. this Argument is true i [...] things of the same kind, but not in things of diverse kinds. So Mr Prin, so Mr Humfry.

If this be true (saith Mr Gillespy) the Scripture is ful of false Logick. Num. 12.14. If Miriams father had spet in her face, Gillespy Aa­rons rod. l. 3 c. 7 Rutherford proves both these of the same kind. lib. praedi [...]. ib. should not shee have been ashamed seven dayes; how much more when God hath smitten her with leprosy? Hag. 1.4. You have built to your selves ceiled houses how much more ought you to have built the Lords house Jo 3.12. If I have told you earthly things, and you beleeve not; how shal you beleeve, if I tell you hea­venly things. 1. Cor. 6.3. Know yee not, that we shall judge Angels, how much more things that pertaine to this life. Now mark Reader, how Mr Humfry hath united this knot by accusing God himselfe, Jesus Christ, his Prophets his Apostles, all of false arguings.

Thirdly, saith Erastus, Erast. ibid. Mr Prin. ibid. it must be in things that are free, not in such things that are not of our owne pow­er, one being commanded of God, and the other not, as these are.

But first, Erastus should have done well to have told us first, where we are commanded to eat with scan­dalous [Page 50]sinners at the Lords Table.

Secondly, ibid. saith Mr Rutherford, he should have pro­ved, that it is a thing free to us to doe or not to doe, to have civill Communion with scandalous sinners, wee alwayes thought we had not been free in that point, but enjoined to a negative.

Lastly, saith Mr Gillespy, what becomes of that Scripture Argument then, Gillespy ibid. How much better is it to get wisdome then Gold, and understanding then Silver? Wis­dome surely is not in our owne power to get.

4. Mr Prin ibid. Mr Prin adds another case, wherein he thinks this Argument not concluding, in case the two things compared, fall not under the same precept, which is the case here. But Mr Gillespy rightly tels him, this is new Logick; for not to reproach Gods name, is forbidden in the third precept; not to reproach man under the sixth and ninth. But I hope this is a good Argument, if we may not reproach our neighbour, much lesse may we reproach our Maker. My Gil. l. 3. c. 7. And it is surely as good, if we may not have an intimacy of civill Communion with scandalous sinners, much less may we have the nearest Church fellowship and Communion with him.

Thus have I done, (what indeed was done before) at least gathered together what have been said by di­vers more able to strengthen this Argument.

CHAP. V. VVherein a fifth Argument is brought whereby is proved, that hitherto none bath brought any Scripture precept or president, sufficient to warrant promiscuous administra­tion of the Lords Supper.

I proceed to a fifth ARGVMENT.

What the Officers of the Church have neither any precept obliging them to doe, nor president to justifie them in doeing, that in the worship of God is sinfull and unlawfull for them to do.

THE proposition standeth upon this bottome, That nothing is lawfull in the worship of God, but what we have precept or president for. Which, who­so denies, opens a door to all Idola­try and superstition, and will-worship in the world. Besides the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, being a piece of instituted wor­ship, we are in the Administration of it, to be guided [Page 52]according to the precepts, given upon the institution and for the Administration of it, and according to the example of the Lord Iesus Christ and his Apostles. The example of Christ who first instituted it, and gave us an example for the perpetuall celebration of it, and of the Apostles, who being the first who celebrated it, questionlesse did it in the purest Order, and most con­formely to the will of Christ, with which they were best acquainted. Now I assume;

But for the Officers of the Church, to give the Sa­crament to such as are visibly scandalous, (though they be not excommunicated, is for them to doe that in the worship of God, which neither any pre­cept nor example of Christ, or his Apostles, will justify them in doing—Ergo.

It is enough for us to affirme the minor, till our op­posites produce some precept or example of Christ or his Apostles, justifying them in this practice. In re­gard some are pretended; I shall turn aside a little to examine the precepts or examples offered in the cause.

1. Some think, that our Saviours words, Mark 14.23. Drink you all of it, containes a command given by our Saviour to all, to drink of the Sacramentall cup, and so vertually a command to his Ministers to give it out promiscuously. But let us before we grant this, examine who those All were. The twelve saith (Mr Humfry) (we will examine that more strictly anon.) By all there, out of all question are meant no more then all present, and these were no more then the twelve, (if all of them) which wants proofe too. But suppose all the twelve were there, yet not one of them was discovered to be a scandalous sinner, but even Iudas himselfe was both in the Disciples eyes, and in Christs eyes, (acting not as an omniscient God, but as a Minister of the Gospell) a visible Saint. Which [Page 53]was the answer as I remember of Bonaventure, I am sure of Halensis and Salmeron, long since, and is the ge­nerall answer of our Divines to that cavill. Nor hath Mr Humfry in his Rejoinder, said any thing to prove Iudas then scandalous, for though (as Erastus noted be­fore him) he had then treason in his heart, and suppo­sing that to be true, which Erastus and Mr Humfry so much plead, (but I searce beleeve) that he had before covenanted with the High Priests, yet all this was se­cret, and he was not discovered, till upon Christ gi­ving him the sop, he asking, is it I? Christ said, thou saiest it; and that reply of Christ was before as some think. Grotius well observes, that Christ did but whisper it to him, for it is plaine, from Iohn 13. that the Disciples knew it not till then, and he then having received the sop, went out [...] (saith Iohn) which by the way, as I shall prove more anon) was both be­fore the eating of the Paschall Lambe, and before the institution of the Lords Supper too.

It is worth our observing, that Christ did not so much as call up those of the same house, which it is more then probable, that he would have done, if he had intended it for a converting Ordinance, or for all promiscuously. Nay surely Christ had more disciples then the twelve, but the twelve onely (if all of them) were present.

2. Some think that they have a precept for promis­cuous administring this Ordinance, from Mat. 28.19, 20. where we have our commission in these words; Goe teach all Nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Senne and the Holy Ghost.

1. To that I answer.

1. There is nothing exprest concerning the admini­stration of the Lords Supper, and our opposites who are so nimble at every turn to call for [...], should remem­ber, that by it they oblige themselves to doe the like.

But secondly, admit that there is an implicit pre­cept likewise for the administration of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, yet surely by the same rule that the Apostles (notwithstanding that precept) did not think themselves obliged to baptize any, but such as be­leeved, and confessed their sins; we may also expound the included part of the precept, and must administer this Ordinance to none but such as are able to examine themselves, and to discerne the Lord Body. So that this will not serve their turne.

Thirdly, Erastus, and Mr Humfry, and Mr Boatman, make a great stir with the wedding Supper, Mat. 22. to which all were invited, &c. But,

1. They should remember that old and true rule, Theologia parabolica non est argumentativa. No argu­ment can be fetcht from Parables, but from the generall scope of them. v Mr Hum­frie's rejoinder. p. 52.53.54. Now he that runs may read, that our Saviours main scope in that Parable, was not to shew who might, or might not come to the Lords Table, but to shew how angry God was with the Jewes, for not comming to Christ, by which unbeliefe of theirs, they procured destruction to themselves, and God would now call in the Heathens, and those who before were not his people, to be his people, and to fill up his Feast.

2. If Mr Humfry or Mr Beatman thinke they may argue, from any of the foure feet of that parable, as to this cause, they may prove it to be their duty, not onely to stand in a Pulpit, and invite all the Lords Table, but to goe into high waies and hedges too, and bring in all they meet with, yea and to compell them to come in. Now it will prove too, that they ought to fetch in Pa­gans (who are chiefly meant in the latter part of the Parable) And thus they shall not need to want com­pany at the Lords Table.

3. Doctor Drake answered Mr Humfry well I [Page 55]think, when he told him, that Christ is the Feast meant in that Parable, and although all be invited to the Feast [Christ] yet the question is, whether all be in­vited to eat of that dish in the Feast, viz. Dr Drakes B [...] to free ad­mission. p. 30. Mr Humfries rejoinder. p. 54. the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, as wel as they are invited to hear the Gospel. Here now M. Humfry hath a mind more to shew his wit then his honesty, thus he answers him p. 54. This is something ingenuous, but whoreas he applies this, that a man may be invited to a Feast, yet not to the dish in the Feast; it is very fine, &c. then he tels us a tale of the two egs, and concludes, let us have the dishes of the Feast, and what will become of Mr Drakes Feast.

How falsly hath he abused Dr Drake, let the Rea­der judge; Dr Drake doth not say they are not invited to any dish, but they are not invited to every dish, and if the dish of the Sacrament be removed, there will a Feast still remaine. But the truth is, it was properest for Mr Humfry to abuse his Adversary, when he could not answer him. If this, and other passages of the same nature in that unworthy book, be not enough to make it stink in the nostrils of conscientious Christians, let them but read his language, p. 269. and the application of Scripture, to serve his nastie intentions, and they may help a little towards it.

4. I never heard of any more Scripture precepts pretended, onely that, 1 Cor. 11.24. where I desire the Reader to consider.

1. That the Apostle doth but repeat the words of our Saviour, which were spoke to none but visible Saints.

2. The Apostle delivers the same words to them, he bids them, Doe that, &c.

Which (by the way) is not a command to their Pastors to administer it, but to the Church to receive the Sacrament, and surely doth not concerne those who in that Chapter are commanded to examine [Page 56]themselves, &c. and are not able to doe it.

The question is, whether the Apostle v. 24. doth com­mand them to receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, who could not examine themselves according his rule v. 28. nor discern the Lords body; or who if they did partake must necessarily eat and drink their owne damnation, and make themselves guilty of the body and blood of Christ: Surely this was very absurd to say; If not this precept is nothing to the purpose, sounding no more then this; you that are fit to doe this, doe this.

We are now come to examine if they have any ex­amples. I never heard but of three pretended, indeed they are great ones, and enough, if they be made ap­peare for their purpose.

The first, that of Christ, who admitted Iudas as some think.

The second Mr Humfry mentions. Acts 2.41.42.

The third is of the Church of Corinth.

I will speak of the latter two first.

The first then is Acts 2.41, 42. in the 41 verse, 3000 soules were added to the Church; verse 42. it is said they continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship, and breaking of bread, and prayers.

To this I answer.

1. I should put our opposites hand to it, to prove that the breaking of bread here spoke of, was the Sa­cramentall action. I could tell them of many who are of another mind. A phrase like this Luke 24.30. he took bread and blessed, and brake it, &c. is used to ex­press common eating at our own Tables.

2. But I confess, I encline to to think it was Sacra­mentall breaking of bread, and so the Syriack version reads it. So the phrase is used. 1 Cor. 10.16. But who were those that brake berad together? such as verse 37. [Page 57]were prickt at the heart, and had cryed out, v. Mr Palmer [...] answer to Humfry. p. 51. Men and Brethren, what shall we doe? such as continued sted­fastly in the Apostles Doctrine, and fellowship and prayers, such as durst owne Christ in those first and furious times. Whats this to prove that all ignorant scandalous sinners, of but baptized, and not excom­municated, ought to be admitted to the Lords Ta­ble?

2. In the next place, the example of the Church of Corinth is produced, where we are told, there were some came drunk to the Sacrament, or were drunk at the Sacrament; Fornicators, Covetous, Extortioners, I­dolaters, yet all were admitted.

1. I have before shewed, that there is no colour to say that any drunkards were in the Church of Corinth, such at least as came drunk to the Table, and if they were so there, it must be proved that they did not re­pent, and yet came againe the next time, or else no­thing is said, Rejoinder p. 48. but instead of this it cannot be proved (as I have shewn) they were drunk there, and Mr Hum­fry doth not disapprove it.

2 The Apostle plainly saith, that some of this Church were Foruicators, I dolaters, Adulterers, 1 Cor. 6.9, 10, 11. effemi­nate, abusers of themselves with man-kind, Theevs, Co­vetous, Drunkards, revilers, extortioners; but now they were washed, justified, sanctified, with what face we can say they were so after, let any judge.

3. There was an incestuous person, but they are bid to purge him out, not to eat, not to keep company with him: how this proves he was admitted, I cannot tell.

4. Supposing such were admitted, the Argument comes to nothing, for though the Apostles example binds us, yet every Churches example doth not in all things, especially when the Apostle writes to them, and tels them, they could not partake of the cup of the [Page 58]Lord, and of the cup of Devils. If they did admit Drun­kards, ibid. p. 48. Mr Humfry himselfe will acknowledge they did amisse, for he tels us, that he holds the Drunkard un­intelligent, and fit to be turned away from all Ordinan­ces, at least for the present.

3. Erast, thesis 28. But the greatest example is that of Christ, who they say, admitted Judas a reprobate, one whom he knew to be the sonne of perdition, &c. This Erastus tels us of, and Mr Humfry, iterum at (que) iterum.

Here are two things to be proved.

1: That Iudas was a scandalous sinner.

2. That he was admitted to the Lords Supper.

Wee shall fulle of the first proose, Beza de [...]resb. & excom. p 26. Gillespies Aa­ronsrad, l 3. c. 10 which was Be­za's answer to Erastus long since; and learned Gille­spies answer to Mr Prin, viz. That Iudas was no scan­dalous sinner, nor was his compact with the High Priest, knowne to the Disciples, and as for Christs knowledge, (supposing he had not gone out) he acted as a Minister, Martyr in 1 Cor. 5. Gerard. loc. comd. 5. p. 181. Algerus de Sa­eram. Halensis sum. th [...]ol. p. 4.9.11. art. 1. sect 4. Dr Drakes Bar, &c. p. 9. Mr. H [...]mfries rejomd. p. 1516. and not as an omniscient God, and those who peruse that Chapter in Mr Gillespies book, will find that this was the opinion of Peter Martyr, Ge­rard, Algerus, Durantus, Alexander Halensis, Ioannes Baptista de Rubeis, &c. The same answer Dr Drake gives Mr Humfry, all that his Adversary saith, is but the same over and over againe. He had compacted with the High Priest, (but this was secretly) Christ he saith, had revealed it. But thats false as to a particu­lar discovery, for it is plaine, that till he gave the sop to him they suspected themselves rather then him. The businesse is this.

Jesus Christ there, as Arch Bishop and first Bishop of his Church, at once both institutes the Ordinance, and intends to set us a rule for the celebration, he there­fore takes none but his disciples with him, whether Indas was there or no, all the time of the action, is un­certaine, (supposing he was) this we say, though [Page 59]Christ knew his secret compact with the Pharisees, yet it was not knowne to the Disciples, but to him as omniscient, and to teach us that we must not judge hearts, but actions, he turnes him not away.

And Mr Gillespy saith well, Gil. l. 3. cap. 10. that if it could be pro­ved that Iudas was present, yet it would no more prove that we ought to admit all seandalous sinners to the Ordinance, because Christ admitted Iudas, (as is sup­posed) then it would prove that we ought to admit any notorious Drunkard, Whoremonger, or other sinner, who is openly knowne to us to be such to the Office of the Ministry, because Christ admitted Iudas to the Apostleship, who he knew was a Devill, which may stop Erastus and Mr Humfries mouth, for the time to come, as to this Argument, except these can prove Iudas was so scandalous, as Jesus Christ, (meerly as man) might have discovered it.

But secondly, 2 it can never be proved that Iudas was there at the Supper. I question whether at the ea­ting of the Lambe or no, and I will anon shew you some ground for it. Beza tels us, Beza de Presb. page 27. Erast. theses th. 28. Mr Prins vind. 4 ser. quest. p. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. that he assents to those that think he was not there. Erastus himselfe disco­vers no great confidence in this Article of the new Creed. Mr Prin quotes many Authors in the affir­mative. Origen, Cyprian, Ambrose, Chrysostome, Nazi­anzen, Cyrill, Augustine, Victor Antiochenus, Theodo­ret, Remigius, Rathertus, Oecumenius, Algerus, Theo­phylact, Bernard, besides Canonists, Schoolmen, and Pro­testant writers.

Mr Gillespy shewes him his mistake in many of the quotations, Aarons rod. p. 456, 457. p. 451 452, 453, 454. and the ground of some of the Ancients mistake in this (taking the sop for the Supper. And further tels him, that Gerard and Brockman, and Theo­phylact, all confesse it a disputable businesse, and with all gives him account of diverse who were of another mind; and that Chrysostome and Theophylact, &c. [Page 60]jointly agree, that scandalous persons were to be exclu­ded. But let us examine Scripture and reason in the case. Mr Gillespy gives these reasons in the nega­tive.

1. Gillespy ibid. Dr Drakes Bar, &c. page 6. Mr Prins vind. p. 24. Gil. p. 441, &c. Rejoinder p. 9. p 446, 447. Saint Iohn saith, Iohn 13.30. That he having re­ceived the sop, went immediately out. This is likewise Doctor Drakes fourth reason. To this Mr Prin excepts, but is sufficiently answered by Mr Gillespy. Mr Humfry like wise excepts, that the Supper, Iohn 13. was not that, at which the Lord instituted the Sacrament, but two dayes before, (though the best authority he hath for it, be a marginall quotation which surely was not wrote there, by the infallible finger of God.) It is a materiall exception, we will scan it anon.

2. Mr Gillespies second Argument was, because it was not probable Christ would have said to Iudas, this is my body which is broken for thee. This Argument he vindicates from Mr Prins exceptions.

3. Dr Drake. p. 6. ibid. ibid. A third Argument he useth (which is Dr Drakes fifth Arg.) is, because all those comfortable expressi­ons Christ used while Iudas was there, were with ex­ceptions, Iohn 13.10, 11. You are clean, but not all. So ver. 18. ver. 21. which were left out at the Supper. To these Mr Humfry replies, what all, did Christ never speake graciously to Judas amongst the rest? Rejoind. p. 9, 10. Pray see at leisure. Wee may look long enough, where after this time, he spake comfortably to him, wee desire Mr Humfry to shew us. But as for Iohn 13.10, 11, 18, 21. he saies it is not in him (to answer them I suppose hee meanes) God shall give an answer rf peace.

But he tels us, Christ saith he is a Devill, but I have chosen him, to what? to be an Apostle; he was not apparently so, when he chose him. He saies that Christ saies Iudas was not clean, yet he washes his feet; but the Text saies it not. 2. Suppose he did, this was but to teach him humility and charity, not to entitle him to the Lords Supper.

4. Dr Drake adds. Because Christ knew him to be a reproba [...]e. To this Mr Humfry onely endeavours (to little purpose) to fasten a contradiction on the Dr, be­cause the Doctor had said before, supposing he had knowne him to be so, yet Christ as a Minister (proba­bly) would not exclude him. Let the Doctor speak for himselfe.

5. Dr Drake adds a fifth. Because Christs blood was shed for the remission of those who received.

Mr Humfry answers, 1 Iohn 2.2. And not for ours onely, but for the sins of the whole world, that is, the Pagans as well as the Jewes, viz. such of them as being fore ordained to life, should beleeve; but what is this to the purpose? What Mr Humfry meanes by holding universall redemption as to the visible Church, so far as reacheth to the tenour and tender of the condi­tionall Covenant, though not of the absolute, is too pro­found for me to fathome. Universall redemption; Conditionall Covenant. Two Convenants, one abso­lute, another conditionall, are notions in Divinity I doe not understand, and think them hardly reconcila­ble to truth, (if to sense) they are the canting lan­guage of those that would supply Franciscus de San­cta Clara's place, as to reconciling us and Arminians, and are no better then Arminianisme minced for the better digestion.

Dr Drake also hath another Argument, (which Mr Gillespy also hints) because Christ promised to drinke new wine in his Fathers Kingdome, with those who recei­ved.

To this Mr Humfry answereth. But he doth not say with all. Let him remember that, and shew us where it is said, that all the twelve were present at the institution of the Supper.

There is thus much spoken, all which possibly will not compell, but surely in good natured people it will [Page 62]induce some little perswasion of a probability that Ju­das was not there.

Let us now heare what is pleaded on the Traitours side.

1. Mat. 26.20. It is said he sate down with the twelve, Mar. 14.17. He came with the twelve, Luke 22.14. He sate down, and the twelve Apostles with him. Here's three Evangelists asserting it they cry.

But what doe they assert? that at their first sitting downe the twelve were all there, who denies it? the question is not whether they sate downe together, but whether they rose up together, whether they are the Sacrament together? Iohn telling us that Judas went out assoone as he had eaten the sop, John 13.30.

But Luke tels us, that after the institution of the Supper, Christ said, behold, the hand of him that be­trayeth me, is with me on the Table, and Lukes Gospell is true.

Dr Drake answers, that there is [...]. Luke puts a piece of the story behind, which should have been before. Mr Humfry, out of his pretended zeale for Saint Luke who (he saies) could not else speake truth, saith, that though the Scripture sometimes puts a whole story after another, which in order of time was before it, yet where shall we find such an histerology, as to take a piece of a former story, and joine it to another as a part of it, Mr Humfries rejoind. p. 12, 13. to which [...]f it be taken as belonging, it becomes a manifest f [...]lshood, and saies we will not abate a jot or tittle of the truth of Saint Lukes Gospell.

That those words of Saint Luke should have been placed before, is plaine.

1. From St Luke himselfe, for their hands were now all off the Table the Supper done, and the last cup drunke; besides he adds ver. 23. that the Disciples all wondred who should doe the thing; now surely they [Page 63]knew before this time, or else Iudas (as Mr Humfry would have him) could not be scandalous at this time, his fact not known to his Disciples.

2. St Ma [...]thew plainly placeth them before the Administration of the Supper. Mat. 26.20, 21, 22, 23, 24. So doth Marke ch. 14 18, 19, 20, 21. So Saint Iohn, Io, 13.21, 22. which plainly proves it an histerology in Luke.

3. Nor is it as Mr Humfry would insinuate, a taking a piece of one story, and joining it to another, which would make it false, but onely a misplacing of a piece of the same story, which is no unusuall thing amongst the Evangelists.

4. Nor will it amount to so much, as an invalidating the truth of Lukes Gospell, (which we desire to be as tender of as Mr Humfry) any more then the order he pleades for, would invalidate the truth of the other three. Lukes being dictated by an infallible spirit, doth not oblige us to beleeve every punctilio of order, to have been as he describes it, contrary to the testimo­ny of the other three.—Besides, Iohn saith plainly he went out.

But he tels us, we are mistaken in Iohn 13. for that was a Supper (I know not when nor where) two dayes before the Passcover, and for this he cites a marginall quotation in our Bibles, pointing him to Mat. 26.2. which he bids us look.

1. I must confesse this well proved would be some­thing to his purpose, it would plainly prove that the sop was eaten by Judas two dayes before the Passeover was celebrated, or the Lords Supper instituted, and that Judas two dayes before was discovered scandalous to all the Disciples, and that two dayes before, he deserted Christ and the other Disciples; onely if Mr Humfry could prove this, it would stand him in hand to prove his coming back well, to eat the the Passeover or the Supper.

2. But we will yield him nothing, he bids us look the margent of our Bibles, the place we insist upon, is, Io. 13.30. where our ordinary Bibles have nothing in the margent, so that in obedience to him, we must tell him we have enquired, but non est inventum in Bibl [...]is nostris. Indeed to the first verse of that chap. is affixed in marg. Mat. 26.2.

But thirdly, he dreames that the Supper spoken of, where Iudas had the sop, was a Feast two dayes before the Passeover. Indeed we read Mat. 26.1, 2. Mar. 14.1. of some consultation of the Chiefe Priests, two daies before the Passeover, to take Christ. But that there was any supper besides this at the Passeover, will pose Mr Humfry to prove.

CHAP. VI. Containining a digression, in which there is an attempt to prove that Christ did, eat the Passeover two daies before the Jewes did eat it that yeare, and that he was not crucified till the second day af­ter he was apprehended, and that at the Passover there was but one supper, as is plaine by the comparing the Jewish or­der of celebration, with the story of the foure Evangelists concerning this, and that Iudas was not present at the Passeo­ver nor the Supper.

IT seems to me very conducible to­wards the clearing of this matter of fact, whether Iudas received the Supper or no, to find out 1. What day Christ celebrated the passeover and instituted his supper.

2. To examine the Iewish order of celebrating the [Page 66]Passcover, and to compare it with what the Evangelists have, concerning Christs actions in it.

Towards the first, I shall offer these following con­siderations.

1. It is cleer from Scripture, that the time God set for the celebration of the Passeover, was the 14 day of the first month at even. Ex. 12.18, 19. Lev. 23. v. 6. Num. 28.16, 17.

2. It is as cleer, that it was to be 7 dayes, in all which time they were to eat no unleavened bread.

3. Dr Lightfoots Temple service. cap. 12.4. The Lambe (at least for the first Passover) was taken up the tenth day, whether this held or no, is doubted, and by many denyed, it was at first, Ex. 12.7.

4. It is cleare, that the Jewes reckoned the begin­ning of their day, from the setting of the Sunne the night before.

5. When the daies of unleavened bread should have begun, it is cleer. Lev. 23.6. on the fifteenth day, they were to eat unleavened bread, that is, from the evening succeeding Sun-set the fourteenth day. Therefore Ex. 12.18, 19. it is said on the fourteenth at evening you shall eat unleavened bread, which fourteenth at eve­ning, was the beginning of the fifteenth, and that is clear, for they were to end the 21 at even, and to hold but seven daies. Grotius in Mar. 6. Dr Willet in Ex. 12.9, 7. Grotius saies there were eight daies of unleavened bread. So Iosephus tels him. But Dr Willet tels us, Iosephus must not be credited in it, it being expresly against Scripture. Rupertus is in the same error, but we must not yield it.

6. Yet because on the fourteenth day they kill'd the Passcover, and at even began the first of unleave­ned bread, it is plaine they called the fourteenth day the first of unleavened bread, Dr Light. Tem. service. cap. 12. and so saith Dr. Lightfoot, it is called in Scripture, in the New Testament, and so it is called both by Mark and Luke. The first day of unleavened bread, when the passover was killed. Saint [Page 67] Luke, when the Passover ought to be killed. So that in strict account, the dayes of unleavened bread began not till the Sun-set of the fourteenth day, yet in vulgar reckoning they began before, and the whole fourteenth day was so called.

7. And I conceive for another reason, ibid. Bux [...]. synag. Iud. cap. 12. which both Buxtorf and Dr Lightfoot hint us, and that was a cu­stome the Jewes had, to send an Officer assoon as ever Sunne was set on the thirteenth day, to search for leaven in all houses; which he did narrowly with Candles, and this search continued till the next day at noon, at which time they threw what they found this way and that way. Hence I conceive the whole space of time from the thirteenth at Sun-set, till the fourteenth at Sun-set, was called the first of unleaven­ed bread, not that it was strictly so, but that it was called so from this fashion. And in this, Grotius in. Mat. 26.17. Grotius a­grees with me, though not upon this reason. It is plain both by Mark and Luke, that the fourteenth day is called the first of unleavened bread, which fourteenth began at Sunset the thirteenth day.

8. For the time in which Christ celebrated the Passover, and instituted his Supper, it is plaine from the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11.23. it was the same night in which he was betrayed.

For the day wherein he was crucified; Beda de ratione temporum. Dr Wil. in 12. Ex. qu. 11. Beda tels us, that no Christian must doubt but it was the fifteenth day of the month; Dr Willet saith it is the received opinion. But Learned Scaliger with others, con­clude the contrary. It is certaine, that the day whereon he was Crucified, was the day, or day before the preparation to the Jewish Passover and Sabbath. Mat. 15.42. Luke 23.54. Iohn 19.14, 42.

9. Scali. de emend. temp. l. 6. p. 566. That he was Crucified before the noon of the day, is cleare, from Mar. 15.25. it was about the third houre. And Mat, 26.45, 46. after he had been some [Page 68]time on the Cross, was the sixth houre when the dark­ness began. Now the Jewes reckoning their houres, from our six to six, the third houre was nine of the clock, at which time saith Mark, he was Crucified, and the sixth houre was twelve of the clock, at which time the darkness began, and lasted till three.

10. For the better finding out therefore of the night wherein he was betrayed, (in which he institu­ted the Supper (saith St Paul) Let us consider what the Gospell saies was done, from the time of the insti­tution of the Supper till his death.

Some think that excellent Sermon Iohn 14.15, 16. was preach'd in the chamber where he administred the Supper. Some think it was, as he was going to the Mount of Olives and Gethsemane. Certaine it is, it was after the Supper. On the mount of Olives he sings an hymne; after this he goeth to Gethsemane, and is in an agony, prayeth thrice (besides that prayer John 17.) After this, Mat. 27.1, 2. Mar. 15.1, 2. Judas comes and apprehends him, he is car­ried before Caiphas the High Priest, there he is kept in examination till the morning, then the Priests consult what to doe with him, they resolve to send him to Pi­late, there he is largely examin'd. Mat. 27. ver. 11. to ver. 27. Pilate resolves to fend him to Herod the King, he is examin'd before him, mockt, crown'd with thornes, &c. Then he is sent back againe to Pilate; Pi­late examines him againe, scourgeth him, and delivers him to be Crucified. Two things observe, or three. 1. It was the morning before he was sent to Pilate at all. 2. It is said Pilate sate in Judgement on him at the sixth hour. Iohn 19.14. which was twelve of the clock. 3. he was examined in two severall Courts, and twice in one of them.

11. Which (to speak the least) makes it seem probable to me, that the night wherein Christ was betraied (which was the night wherein he instituted the Sup­per) [Page 69]was not the immediate night before he died, for then you can allow him for his two tryals before Pi­late and Herod, Mar. 15.25. but from the morning till nine of the clock, at nine saith Mark he was Crucified. It was the morning saith Matthew and Marke, before they car­ried him to Pilate. Nay more, Iohn saies, Iohn 19.14. that at the sixth houre Pilate fate in judgement on him, which could not be if he were Crucified the same day, for saith Marke at the third houre he was Crucified. Gerard. Harm. in pass. cap. 11.

12. I know learned Gerard indeavours to untie this knot, and to that purpose tels us, that as the Jewes divided their night into foure watches, each consisting of three houres, so they divided their day into foure quarters; The first from six a clock, which was their first houre, to nine, which was their third houre; The second from nine their third houre, to twelve their sixth houre; The third from twelve their sixth houre, to three their ninth houre; The fourth from three their ninth houre, to six their twelfth houre; and he saies, that when it is said Pilate sate in judgement at the sixth houre, Iohn 19.14. it must be meant not pre­cisely at twelve of the clock, but at some time between nine and twelve. And when Marke saith he was Cru­cified at the third houre, it must be meant the third part of the day between twelve and three of the clock. But besides that, this is not warranted from Scripture. I doe no where find, that they call'd their third quarter of the day, the third houre. H [...]sto. Eccles. Magd [...]h. l. 1. c. 10 m [...]censor [...]de natal. cap. 10. Though indeed the Mag­deburgenses, and others, mention their division of the day into foure parts, yet I doe not find that they call'd their second division the second houre, much lesse the sixth; nor their third quadrant the third. Mark saith expressely, it was [...]. Besides though some in­deed say, that the Hebrews divided the [...] into four vigils for the night, and foure quadrants for the day; yet Scaliger seems to contradict them, he tels us, [Page 70] Totum [...] Hebraei in quatuor partes divide­bant quas vigilias vocabant, Scali. de emend. temp. lib. 1. c. de horis, &c. prima vigiliaerat à vespe­re, secunda à mediâ nocte, tertia à mane, quarta à meridie. But besides, we read in Scripture twice more of the third houre. Mat 20.3. in the Parable of the houshol­der, sending labourers into his vineyard, he sent some at the third, some at the sixth, ninth, eleventh houres; where the third houre cannot be meant of the third quadrant, no more then Acts 2.15. for it was no won­der men should bee fill'd with new Wine by twelve of the clock, or betwixt 12 and three. Now surely the third houre in Mark is the same with the third houre. Mat. 20.3. Acts 2.15.

But if wee may allow that he suffered the second day after his apprehension, we can put a faire inter­pretation, both upon Iohn 9.14. saying Christ was tri­ed before Pilate, about noon the day after his appre­hension, and the next day was crucified about nine of the clock the third houre, (as Saint Mark calleth it) and about twelve of the clocke the same day the prae­ter-naturall Eclypse began, and lasted till three, about which time he died.

13. This I am induced to beleeve, considering that the Jewish morning began at six of the clock, Mat. 27.1, 2. Mar. 15.1, 2. at which time saith Matthew and Marke, the High Priest and Elders met to take counsell to put him to death, and agreed to carry him to Pilate, who was the Romish Governour, and we can hardly imagine him to be upon a Judgement Seat before eight or nine of the clock, and though the Jewes were hasty to put him to death, yet no such thing appeares in Pilate, he was loth to doe it, Mat. 27.19. as appeares by the story, and spent some time in examining witnesses, was a little hindred by his wife, Lu. 23.9, 10, 11. then sent him to Herod, who being so great a man probably did not presently heare him; when he did, we must allow him some time. After this he was [Page 71]sent to Pilate againe, who sate in Judgement upon him at twelve of the clock, Iohn 19.14.

14. If this be true, the night wherein he admini­stred the Supper, must be two nights before his passi­on. It is plaine, he suffered the day before the Jewish Passeover, as I said before, not on that day (as some fondly thinke) for besides that, Scali. de emend. temp. l. 6. the Passover was that yeare on the Sabbath. Scaliger well observes, that it was too high a Festivall for the Jewes to doe any such worke in.

15. That the Jewish passover was to begin on the evening after the Sun-set of the fourteenth day, is plain from Scripture. Exod. 12. Lev. 23. So then Christ should have suffered on the fourteenth day of the month, which was their [...], the day of their preparation; and in vulgar account, the first day of unleavened bread, as I said before.

16. But it is plaine Christ did not suffer on that day, for all three Evangelists agree, that this day his Disci­ples came to him saying, Mat. 26.17. Mar. 14.12. Luke 22.7. Where wilt thou that we pre­pare the Passeover &c. And the night following he did [...]at it; they plainly say, it was the day wherein the Passeover was to be killed. How then did he dye on the preparation day?

17. Paulus Burgensis in his Annotations on Lyra, Paulus Bur­gensis in An­not. in Lyram. Sebast Mun­ster. in edit. Evang. Mat. Heb. c 26 Beza in Mat. 26. Grot. in loc. Bucer in loc. tels us, that by an Ancient tradition of the Rabbies, which Sebastian Murster saith, was a Law made un­der the a Temple, by the Jewish Sanhedrim; and de­livered to Rabbi Eliezer. The Jewes in case the Pass­over day fell out any yeare on the eve of the Sabbath, put off the Passover and kept them both together. This Beza approves of, though it distasts Grotius; and I find Bucer thus untying this knot. So then according to this rule, the day of the Passeover so falling out this yeare, they began their Passover the sixteenth at even, and kill'd their Lambe the fifteenth; so that this yeare [Page 72]strictly the fifteenth day was the day of their prepara­tion, in which Christ dyed.

18. I referre it to the Learned to enquire, whether when these cases hapned, that the Passeover was kept the sixteenth day, (being their Sabbath) they began to search for leaven the fourteenth day at Sun-set? or whether in this case they did not keep two dayes of preparation, and began their search for leaven at their usuall time, onely putting off the Paschall Supper; if they did, which I am apt to beleeve, then the first of their dayes of unleavened bread, according to vulgar account, began as usually the beginning of the four­teenth day, viz. immediately after Sun-set on the thir­teenth, and was two just dayes before the Passeover, (as that yeare fell) though in ordinary yeares but one day: this I confesse to me seems very probable.

19. Or else the Evangelists must be understood thus. The Disciples came to him the first day of unleavened bread, that is, that day on which the Passeover ought to be killed, according to Gods Law, in the evening precedent that day, which in ordinary yeares was call'd [...], and the day preceding the Passeover (though it were otherwise that yeare.

20. It is certaine that in a strict sence, it cannot be true that his Disciples came to him that day, on which the Passeover was killed that yeare, for then he must either be Crucified the first day of the Feast of the Passeover, or after; and then that night in which they should have are the Passeover, the High Priests were consulting to murder him, or else the Scripture must be denyed, which saies, he died before the Passe­over.

21. Christ doubtlesse died on the fifteenth day, (let Scaliger say what he please) which 15 day should have been according to Gods Law, the first of the Passeover; but was not that yeare, because of their tradition. Our [Page 73]Passeover was thus on the true Passeover day offered; this fifteenth day they that yeare kill'd their Passeover; and I am apt to beleeve that the Evangelists speak of that day, Mar. 14.12. Luke 22.7. not wherein the Passeover was killed that yeare, but wherein it ought to have been killed. Therefore Luke cals it the day [...]; which day was the fourteenth, and began the night before at Sun-set.

22. Yet here Grotius and Piscators [...] must helpe us; for if he eate the Passeover the fourteenth at even, that is, the evening after Sun-set, how could his disciples come to him the fourteenth day, to know where they should provide. Piscator saith, Piscator ad. loc. we must understand it of the day before, in the afternoon of the thirteenth day, when the fourteenth day, which was the [...] was just at hand, then the Disciples came to him, and said, Where wilt thou that we prepare the Passeover, &c. And that night which was the even of the fourteenth day he came and did eate it, which was two full daies before the Jewish Passeover that yeare, and the time when in former yeares they began to search for Leaven.

23. So we say, that Christ did that yeare antici­pate the time of the Passeover, both the Jewish time that yeare, which according to their tradition, was two dayes after, Scali. de emend. temp. l. 6. Grotius in Mat. 6. Pis. in Mat. 26. and the true time which was the night after. Scaliger and Grotius, and others, grant, he anticipated the Passeover. Piscator grants, that he an­ticipated the Jewish day that yeare. I beleeve he an­ticipated it two dayes, that so he might die that very day, which according to Gods Law, was to be the first of the Passeover, and so shew himselfe the true Passeover. Grotius gives us a good hint, that Christ gives a reason why he antedated the time of the Passe­over, Mat. 26.18. bidding his Disciples tell the Master of the house, my time is at hand, I will keep the Passe­over; [Page 74]that is, I know I shall be apprehended this night, and shall not be in a capacity to keep the Passeover at the due time, therefore I will keep it this night; which was after Sun-set the thirteenth day, in the beginning of the fourteenth, and then he dyed the fifteenth, which was as I said, usually their first great day, but this yeare, the preparation to the first day of the Passe­over.

24. I am far from thinking, that this notion of mine is liable to no exceptions, but I desire those who shall except, to think of a better way to reconcile those Texts, which plainly prove that he died upon one of their preparation daies. Mat. 27.62. Mar. 15.42. Luke 23.54. Iohn 19.42. with those Texts, which say, his Disciples came to him, saying, Where shall we prepare the Passeover, on the first day of unleavened Bread. whether in regard of their double Feast, they might not have that yeare a double preparation day? I refer to be enquired. I am apt to beleeve, that both the fourteenth and fifteenth dayes were both daies of preparation, that yeare, because of Iohn 18.28. Iohn 19.14. compared with Iohn 19.31, 42.

My opinion is, that on the thirteenth day of the month Nisan in the afternoon, two full daies before the Jewish Passeover that yeare began, the Priests met to consult how to take Christ, and put him to death, of which we read Mat. 26.3. Mar. 14 1. Luke 22.2. and that toward Sunset that night the Disciples came to Christ, saying, Where wilt thou that we prepare the Passeover. Christ directs them; and that night which was the even of the fourteenth day he came with twelve, amongst whom was Judas.

Thus much for the time, now let us consider the or­der of the whole action, which is fully described by no Evangelists singly, but by comparing them one with a­nother.

Luke expressely speaks of two cups that were dranke by him Luke 22.17, 20, John, as we have translated him, seems to speake of two Suppers. Iohn 13.2, 21, ver. Hence Saint Augustine of old, Aug. de consen­su Evangelist. thought he did eate of two Suppers, the one the Paschall Sup­per, the other a common supper. Arias Monta. in Mat. 26. Scali. de [...]mend. temp. p. 571. Of these we are also told by Arias Montanus, Grotius and Scaliger, Pelar­gus and Gerard, thinke there were three Suppers, upon which Mr Humfry from Godwin, puts an unlikely. (sup­posing they might eat as much as they would of the Lambe) Grotius hath likewise another fancy, viz. Grotius in Mat. 26. That Christ that yeare did not eate of the true Passe­over, which he cals [...], but only of a Passeover, Gerard Harm. cap. 170. Pelarg. qu in Mat. c [...] 3 sect. 2. Rejoinder. p. 9. the Jewes had devised in the Babylonish Captivity, which they call'd [...], because it onely served to keep alive in their memories, their de­liverance out of Egypt. But—Credat Judaeus Apel­la; Grotius shall never make me beleeve, that Christ kept a mock-Passeover, which had no Basis of divine institution, especially considering how little a friend Christ was to their traditions, and that he was now at Hierusalem, where the true Passeover might be obser­ved, and ought so to be.

Yet I must confesse, I am apt to beleeve, that Christ and his Disciples, did not keep the Feast of the Passe­over, according to all its legall formalities that yeare, for (besides that, I conceive he kept it the night be­fore the Jewes killed it at the soonest, admitting they kill'd it at the usuall houres on the fourteenth day) had he kept it in every formality of it, he must about ten or eleven of the clock with his Paschall society, have been at the Temple, and then killed it, and offered the fat, and sprinkled the blood; now he was that day absent from Hierusalem, and came not till the eve­ning, which makes me, though I think he did eat Pas­chall Lambe, and not keep the Jewish [...]; [Page 74] [...] [Page 75] [...] [Page 76]onely yet I beleeve he did not keep it accor­ding to the Jewish rites, the temple standing, but ra­ther according to the order of the first institution, Exo. 12. differing in that he did eat it standing.

But if I mistake not, a due consideration of the whole Jewish solemnity, in the celebration of the Pass­over will let us in sufficient light to expound the story of the Gospell about this Supper, without feigning two or three Suppers. Let me therefore 1. Turne aside to that, and then 2. See how wee find what the Gospell tels us of this solemne celebration suted to it.

I find the celebration of the Jewish Passeover, ex­cellently described by Buxtorfius, Dr Light. Tem. service. cap. 13. Bux. synag. Iud. cap. 13. in his Synagoga Iuda­ica. cap. 13. And also by our learned Countryman, Dr Lightfoot, in the 13 chap. of that excellent book of his, wherein with abundance of Rabbinicall learning, he discovers to us the whole Temple service, as it was a­mongst the Jewes in Christ's time, and in his 13 chap. digresseth to give us an account of their manner of celebrating the Paschall Supper in their private houses. The order they say was this.

1. On the fourteenth day after their evening sacri­fice, which they called Mincha, they went into their Schools, ibid. (saith Buxtorf.) and spent the time till it was dark in prayer and praise, not eating any thing (saith Dr Lightfoot) in the mean time saith Buxtor­fius, ibid. the women at home were dressing up their hou­ses, laying out al their fine things, preparing their tables and their seats, &c. for the poorest must sit (saith Buxtorfius.)

2. Late at night they come home, and every one sate in such a posture, that he might leane upon the table, Dr Light. ibid. Buxtorf. ibid. by that posture, shewing they were now no more slaves, but free men. In this Buxtorf. and the Doctor both agree; this is hinted to us, by Iohn's leaning on Christs bosome. Iohn 13.23. and (as our [Page 77]Doctor observes) doth expound it, he leaned on the Table next to Christ, with his back to his brest: Here­in they differed from their posture at their first Passe­over in Egypt, which may cure the mistake of those, that think the Supper in the Gospell must be distinct from the Passeover, because they conceit that was to be eaten standing, which is true of the first in Egypt; but no more as Buxtorf. and Doctor Lightfoot, Dr Willet in Ex. 12. and Dr Willet, and many more affirme and prove.

3. Buxtorf. saies the Table was first furnished, be­fore they sate downe, Dr Lightfoot saith after; but they both agree that the first thing they did, when they were set, was, they drank off one cup of Wine, over which they praised God.

4. After this they both agree, that in the next place they washed their hands.

5. Then faith Dr Lightfoot, the Table was furni­shed.

  • 1. There was set on a dish with two or three cakes of unleavened bread.
  • 2. Then the Paschall Lambe.
  • 3. Then a Sallet with bitter herbes, Lettice, En­dive, Succory, &c.
  • 4. Then a dish with thick sauce, which they called Charoseth.
  • 5. Then another dish or two (saith the Dr) of other meat which they added.

6. The Table being thus furnished, and one cup of Wine drank, Buxtorfius and the Dr agree, that the next thing the officiator did, was, he took some of the bitter herbes in the third dish, and dipt them in the thick sauce in the fourteenth dish, and eates himselfe, and gives to the rest immediately, saith the Doctor. The dishes are taken off, and they tell one another, and tell their children of the bitter affliction they suf­fered in Egypt, &c. when this is done.

7. The dishes are brought on againe, and the offi­ciator takes the unleavened bread, and the bitter herbes, and the Paschall Lambe, and consecrates them all severally, using certaine forms of words in the con­secration, and washeth his hands againe, and useth a short prayer; then they drink a second cup of Wine.

8. Then he takes one of the Cakes, and breaks it, ta­king part of it, and laying it upon the other, and the other part he puts under his Napkin for himselfe, saith Buxt; but Dr Lightfoot saith it was for the Aphicosin, the last bit, they were wont so to close their supper as the Dr saith. Buxtorfius tels us this breaking of the Cake was before, but doubtlesse it is a mistake, for it could not be before the consecration of all. When he hath thus disposed of the one piece, he takes the o­ther and gives it to the company, who eat it.

9. After this saith Dr Lightfoot, they give thanks, and eat their flesh-meat of the Paschall Lambe, to the quantity of an Olive; yet because this eating should be to satetie, he saies they usually eate something be­fore, then they wash their hands againe, and say grace over a third cup of Wine, (saith the Doctor) and then drink it off; this saith he they usually call the cup of blessing, in allusion to which, Saint Paul cals the Sa­cramentall cup so. Luke 22.17. 1 Cor. 10.16. And this (saith he) is the first cup spoken of by Luke.

10. Buxtorfius (to whom I must return againe, to see what becomes of the Aphicomen, or piece of unleave­ned bread, which Dr and he too, told us the officiator, even now laid under his Napkin) tels us, that now supper being done, Temple service. page 161. that is taken by the Master of the family, and given to the rest. With this likewise the Doctor agrees, telling us this was the bread which Christ took after the third cup, and blessed & brake it, and give it to them, saying, Take eat, this is my body, &c

11. Lastly, both the Dr and Buxtorf. agree, that af­ter [Page 79]all this, at this supper they drank a fourth cup of Wine, call'd the cup of Hillell, at which they sang some Psalmes, having begun over their second cup; so they concluded with praise and praier; of which see more in those two learned books.

This was the Jewish order at their private Passeovers, now let us see how Christ sutes this in his celebration.

I hope any ingenious Reader will grant me, that Christ was not tied precisely to any piece of this, that had no basis, but tradition. This supposed, I say that the Jewish Passeover being that year on the six­teenth day, or the fifteenth at even, (which is all one) because of the Sabbath, two full daies before this, viz. The thirteenth in the afternoon, Mat. 27.1, 2. Mar. 14.1, 2. the High Priests took counsell how to kill our Saviour; Iudas had not then bargain'd with them, for then that counsell had been needlesse. That very afternoon neare Sun-set, (at which time began the first of unleavened bread, in or­dinary yeares according to vulgar account) Christ sends his Disciples to prepare the Passeover, and when it be­gan to be dark, he and the twelve, came and found all prepar'd for them. There's the first thing.

  • 1. He came in the evening with the twelve.
  • 2. They all sate downe. So say all the Evange­lists.

Now Saint Iohn goes on, Iohn 13.2. [...] or [...]. Supper begin ended; so we translate it. So Tremellius and Beza, Tremel. Bib. Beza vers. Test. Tig. Versio. Pisc. in. loc. Erasm. Versio. Gerard Harm. cap. 170. but the Tigurine Version and Piscator translate it better; Coena facta, Quum Coena fieret; while they were at Supper, which indeed the phrase properly signifies: and Gerard quotes the like in the Septuagint. Erasmus agrees with the Tigurine Version, while they were set at this Paschall Supper, the Devill put thoughts into Iudas to betray his Ma­ster. Verse 4. Christ riseth from Supper, (it was not [Page 80]ended then) and laieth aside his garments, and takes a Towel and washeth his Disciples feet. This action of Christs, troubles Expositors, some would have it be­fore Supper, (expreslely contrary to Scripture) some after the Paschall Supper, some after all. But let who will say it, they shall never be able to prove, that it was an ordinary usage amongst the Jewes, either in supper time, or after supper, for the Mr. to rise, and wash his guests feet, much lesse at the Passeover. Though washing of feet were usuall amongst them be­fore they sate downe, when they came newly into the house, and washing of hands usuall at the Passcover, as I said before.

This action of Christs therefore, was questionlesse extraordinary, to teach his Disciples those two great lessons of Humility and Charity. I am apt to beleeve that whereas the Jewes at their Passeover, when they were sate, and had drank their first cup of Wine, washt their hands. So when they came to this action, (to which Christ was not tied, being no piece of the Law) he rose up and washt all their feet, and this was in­stead of the fourth action in the Passeover, before ob­served in the Jewish order; for the third, the drinking the first cup of wine, whether they did it or no, is not much materiall, if they did, no Evangelist speakes of it.

According to the Jewish order in the next place, the table was furnished, during the time of Christs wa­shing their feet, and their setting dishes on the Ta­ble, we may conceive all that spirituall discourse pas­sed betwixt Christ and his Disciples; which you have, Iohn 13.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 verses. Whether Iudas his feet were wash'd or no, is not ex­prest. Surely he was there.

Though the Author of that piece, Cypr. op. l. de ablutione pe­dum sub initio. in Cyprian's works de ablutione pedum denies it, yet I can see no ground for it.

The Table being thus furnished; the next thing we observed in the Jewish order, was the Offici­ators taking some of the Sallet, and sopping it, and giving to the rest. This you have excellently descri­bed by St John, chap. 13.18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. With which agrees, Mat. 26. v. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25. Mar. 14. v. 18, 19, 20, 21. Luke 22. v. 21, 22, 23. Christ first tels them, one of them should betray him, to fulfill that Scripture, Psal. 41.10. at this Christ was troubled. John 13.21. Then the Disci­ples were troubled looking one upon another; Pe­ter beckens to John, who leaned nearest Christs breast, to ask him who it was, he askes, Christ would give no other answer, but it is he to whom I shall give the sop when I have dipped it; upon this he dips it, and gives it to Judas; upon this, Jud is askes, Is it I Master, Mat. 26. he saies, thou saist it, John 13.27. Satan presently enters into him. Christ bids him, what he did doe quickly, none knew wherefore he said it, saith John, which makes Gro­tius think, he whispered Judas when he said, Thou saiest it, John 13.30. Judas having received the sop, went out immediately, hitherto, this Paschall socie­ty were onely, 1, Met at night. 2. Sate downe. 3. Possibly the first cup of Wine was drank off. (if they drank it all) 4. In stead of washing their hands the Lord had washt their feet. 5. The Table was fur­nished. 6. The Herbes sopt in the sowre sauce were given.—Now is Judas gone out; suppose about seven or eight of the clock at night, the same night which followed the afternoon, in which the Elders and Priests had been consulting to murther Christ; nor doe I beleeve that till now, Iudas had compa­cted with them; for it was at supper the Devill put these thoughts first into Iudas heart. Iohn 13.2. and Luke 22.3. Iudas his going to the High Priests, is [Page 82]made a subsequent action to Satans entring into him, which saith Iohn was upon his receiving the sop. I know in the other three Evangelists, his going to them, is set before. But I beleeve it an histerology, they not so punctually, as Iohn, des [...]ribing the former part of the supper: It was but in the afternoon, that these wretches were at losse, and taking coun­sell how to take Christ, which (as Gerard notes, to another purpose) argued Iudas had not then com­pacted with them. But now, Iudas knew where he was, he leaves them at supper; the Chiefe Priests were in the same City, he goes to them, and quick­ly makes a bargaine, and comes againe to take him.

In the mean time, this Pas [...]hall society, Christ and the eleven Disciples went on with the supper. Their next actions, according to the Jewish order, was for the Officiator to break the Cake, and give a part, and reserve a part, then to drink a second cup of Wine, then to eat their Lambe: Of all this, there is nothing in the foure Evangelists; Iohn brea­king off with the sop, and the other saying onely they sate down and did eat; Except we should say those words, Luke 22.15. were spoken by Christ, while they did eat the Lambe.—Their next worke was to drink a third cup of Wine; this in all proba­bility, is that first cup Luke mentions, Luke 22.17. To which the Apostle alludes, 1 Cor. 10.16. Their next work was the eating of the unleavened bread, reserv'd for the Aphicomen, the last bit, and their last, the drinking of the fourteenth cup of Wine, the latter was when the supper was done. Now, this bread and cup Christ did eat and drink and with them instituted his supper; these are not mentioned by Iohn, because so sully exprest by Luke, Marke, and Matthew. Thus you see, the supper was but one, [Page 83]and perfectly reported by Iohn, and the other Evan­gelists; Iohn reporting the first part, the other the second; you see also how many pieces of the Jew­ish order, are evident in the celebration.

Whether I have catcht the bird or no, I know not, confident I am, my Reader will judge I have been long enough beating the bush, and if this notion prove true, it will follow.

1. That Iudas had not so much as compacted with the Chiefe Priests, when his hand was with Christ on the Table.

2 That he was gone before the Lord institu­ted his supper; yea

3. That he was not there at the eating of the Pas­chall Lambe.

I have but proposed my thoughts, and shall sub­mit to better reason, having learned to attribute no­thing [...], and being prone to think the worse of any notion which I judge my owne, I know I dissent in this, from very many Holy and Learned men. But secondly, it is no matter of Faith or Practice, but a piece of Order in Holy Story. 2. I see they cannot agree amongst themselves 3. I shall peaceably dissent. 4. I shall keep an eare open for better proofe against me; in the meane time I desire my Readers Charity, they are some of the Scriptures [...] I have been enquiring into, some Histerologies must be allowed in the Gos­pell.

I see not, but with such allowance, this my sense may passe.

And now to shut up this discourse of Iudas.

I could wish our Masters of the opposite per­swasion, would allow us but the favour, that or­dinary Fencing Masters will allow their scholars: First they will take up one weapon, and try [Page 84]them with one while here, another while there; if they see they cannot hit them with this trick nor the other, they will lay downe that wea­pon, and take another, not the same againe, to no purpose, but meerely to tire out their Scho­lars.

For this weapon of Iudas his being at the Sa­crament, with which they think to knock sus­pension, Erastus tried it at Beza, Beza defended himself. Mr Prin tried it at Mr Gillespy, Mr Gil­lespy defended the cause, that he never touched it with a Cudgell. Now Mr Humfry hath got it up, and Dr Drake defended himselfe the same way which Gillespy and Beza had done. Mr Humfry hath made never a new stroke. Let us lay downe this weapon: let's heare what they say to prove Iudas was there.

Object 1. They all sate downe together. This doth not prove they all rose up together.

Object 2. Christ saith, the hand of him that betray­eth me is on the Table.] That is at the sop, but Iohn 13.30. immediately upon that Iudas went out, which was before the Sacrament.

Object 3. Christ speaks nothing, Iohn 13. of the Sacrament] But he speakes of the Passeover, which was before it, and saies at the beginning of that, he went out.

Object 4. O but wee have many Authors of our side, that he was there; Origen, Cyprian, Ambrose, Chrysostome, Victor, Theodoret, Remigius, Pascha­sius, Oecumenius, Algerus, &c. 1. This question they did not speake purposely to. 2. God knowes whether the places quoted, be spurious or no. 3. We have matches for them too. Dionysius Areopa­gita, Maximus, Pachimeres, Ammonius, Talianus, Innocentius, Hilary, Salmeron, Kellet, Mariana, [Page 85]Gerard, Turrianus, Barradus, Danaeus, Musculus, Piscator; Cum multis aliis quos nunc perscribere longum est. Let's have done therefore with this Cudgell, and blot no more paper with saying what hath been said over and over, and over againe, and can never be cleared on our adversaries side. I have tried some­thing on our side. I shall add no more to this Ar­gument: I conclude there are no precepts to com­mand, nor presidents to warrant generall admissions of scandalous persons, though not excommunicated. —Ergo.

CHAP. VII. Containing a sixth Argument, drawne from the duty incumbent upon the Officers of the Church, to keep the fellowship of the Church pure.

I am come now to a sixth ARGVMENT.

I still keep my principall syllogisme, which was this;

If the Officers of a Church may not lawfully admit some to the Sacrament, who are not as yet de facto excommunicated, then they may law fully suspend some from it. But—Ergo.

MY sixth Argument to prove, Argument six. that there may be some in the Church, whom the Officers of a Church cannot without sinne admit to the Sacra­ment, though at present they be not excommunicated, is this:

If there may be some in the Church, not yet cast out, with whom the communion of the Church in the Lords Supper cannot be pure; then there may be some in the [Page 87]Church not yet excommunicated, whom the Officers may not without sinne, admit to the Lords Supper.

But there may be some in the Church, (not yet ex­communicated) with whom the communion of the Church in that Ordinance cannot be pure.—Ergo.

I will prove the major first, then the minor.

First for the major.

If it be the duty and businesse of the Officers of the Church, to keep the communion of the Church, then it is their duty to keep its fellowship pure in that Ordi­nance; and consequently not to admit such to it, with whom the communion of the Church cannot be pure.

This proposition stands upon these foundations.

1. That it is the duty of the Officers of a Church, to keep the fellowship of the Church pure. This none will deny, that is but mentis compos, if any be inclined to deny it, he should doe well, first to think to what purpose the rod of discipline is else put into their hands. 2. How to expound 1 Cor. 5.7, 13. and those many other Texts in Scripture, which looke this way.

2. That it is their especiall duty, to keep the fellow­ship of the Church, as to this Ordinance, pure.

As this was proved before, upon the opening of the 1 Cor. 5.8. So upon the concession of the former, it is no lesse clear from reason. It is apparent, that of all other Ordinances, this Ordinance alone is ap­pointed for such as have something of Grace in them. The Word is called the bread of life, and it is to bee offered to dead soules to quicken them. Heathens were ever admitted to heare, those who are the profanest persons, are the objects of Discipline, the excommunicate may, and ought to be admonished as Brethren. I know not wherein the Officers of the Church can have a worke to keep the communi­on of a Church pure, if not in this Ordinance, and [Page 88]as to this, which the Scripture plainly saith, cannot be partaked of worthily, without examining our selves, and being able to discerne the Lords Body.

For the minor proposition, That there may be some in the Church, not yet cast out, with whom the fellowship of the Church in this Ordinance cannot be pure; I prove.

If there may be some in the Church, who apparent­ly are not fit subjects to receive this holy thing, then there may be some in the Church with whom the fel­lowship of the Church in this Ordinance cannot be pure.

But there may be some in the Church, who appa­rently are not fit subjects to receive this holy thing. —Ergo.

He that denies the major must maintaine, that a communion of such as are appearingly fit for it, and appearingly notoriously unfit for it, and unable to it, is a pure communion, and by that time he hath pro­ved that he may have proved, that a communion made up of a Saint, a Hog, a Dog, a mad man and a foole, is yet a pure communion. Surely the appearing purity of a communion in this Ordinance, lies in the appearing capacity and worthinesse of all to receive it.

But (I say) there may some in the Church, who appa­rently are not fit subjects to receive this holy thing.

This I easily prove. Those that cannot examine themselves, that cannot discerne the Lords body, or that doe partake of the cup of Devils, are apparently not fit subjects to receive the Lords Supper. 1 Cor. 11.28, 29. 1 Cor. 10.21.

But there may be such in the Church.—Ergo.

Object. Mr Humfry's vind. p. 35.36. But Mr Humfry tels us this is false Logick, to argue from mens inability to our duty. 2. Most men are incapable to heare and pray; yet they must doe [Page 89]both. 3. Every man must do what he can. 4. There is a difference between worthy receiving, and receiving worthily.

To this Doctor Drake hath sufficiently answered, Dr Drake's Bar, &c. p. 114, 115, 116, 117. Scripture Raile, p. 92, 93, 94. &c pag. 114, 115, 136, 117, 118. And Mr Palmer, &c. 62, 93, 94.

Dr Drake tels him, that visible unfitnesse is the rule of suspension.

Now, with Mr Humfrie's leave, we must say, that it is good Logick to argue, from the visible inabi­lity, unworthinesse, and unfitnesse, of the Person that would receive the Sacrament, to our duty, who are to give it: Otherwise, for ought I know, we might feed Hogs with those Mysteries. Will any one (not mad) say, That it is not the duty of us, whom God hath betrusted with the dispensing of those Mysteries, not to give them to such as are apparently such as God hath declared unable, unfit, and unworthy to receive them? Let any but consider, that we are but Trustees with Gods Ordinances, and not to deliver them out to any without our Masters Order, such as he gives us command to give them to, and then this will follow, according to Mr Humfrie's Doctrine: Either,

1. That God hath given us order, to give them to those whom he forbad, under paine of damnation to receive them; nay, who have the Markes of such as cannot take them. Or secondly,

2. That it is Gods will they should take whom his Word declares to be such as cannot take them, and if they do, they are guilty of the body and bloud of Christ. Or thirdly,

3. That which we say, That if there be any such in the Church they ought by the Officers to be sus­pended.

The two former are little lesse than blasphemy, im­plying [Page 90]an inconsistency of the Edicts of the Divine Will each with other.

But Mr Humfry hath a trick for us; Rejoinder, pag. 159. For in his re­joynder he tols us, it is not a visibility of reall worthi­nesse is the ground of admission, but the visibil [...]ty of Relative worthinesse; (it is well he askes pardon for that new terme,) though we understand not the No­tion, yet the Interpreter he hath sent along with it makes it speake thus: It is mens being within the externall Covenant; Baptized, and in the Church that gives them the right, &c. I alwaies thought this had been the [...],

Whether all baptized persons might be admitted to the Lords Table, though ignorant, or scandalous, if not cast out of the Church? Or whether, if such, they ought to be suspended?

We say, they ought to be suspended not admitted, and argue from their unworthiness their reall unwor­thinesse, and incapacity visibly appearing to our duty in denying the Sacrament to them; What saies Mr Humfry to this?

Saies he, they are not unworthy relatively, though they be visibly unworthy really. Strange Language, say we, what spells it? Saies he, they are Baptized, and not excommunicated; if this be not petere [...], I know not what is; for we brought our Ar­gument to prove, that a visibility of reall unworthinesse made a relative unworthinesse. So that Mr Humfry saies this in short: They are not unworthy, because they are not unworthy. For what he saies else upon this Head, I shall not meddle with it, it little concer­neth my businesse. I leave him to his proper Adver­saries.

Object. But will some say, by this Argument you will conclude, that the presence of scandalous persons pollutes those who are worthy, and pollutes the Ordinance, [Page 91]and this is ridiculous. This Mr Humfry and Mr Boat­man both laugh at. So did Erastus, their Master. Mr Humfry's vind. p. 77. Erasti theses, thesi. 67. Beza l. de ex­com. & Presbyt. 68.

Sol. To this Beza answered long since.

It is an easie thing thing to make a man of straw, and then pelt him with stones.

First, I know none saies, that the Ordinance is pollu­ted: I thinke that predicate cannot in any case be properly and strictly predicated of a divine instituti­ons the Ordinance is holy, and though it may be abused and profaned, yet it is not capable of intrinse­call pollution.

Secondly, It is vanity to say, that the presence of a scandalous person can defile a private Member, who hath discharged his duty towards him, and towards God. Christians have incumbent upon them, 1. A duty towards God. 2. Towards their Brethren; if a Communicant hath examined and prepared himself, and discharged his duty towards scandalous persons, viz. 1. telling them of it. 2. Then taking two or three with him, and admonishing them. 3. Then informing the Officers of the Church; I beleeve such a Christian may lawfully communicate with a scanda­lous person, it is nothing can defile him but sin in not doing his duty. But with Mr Humfrie's leave, and Mr Boatmans too, that Christian who knowingly partakes with scandalous sinners (not having done this duty to them) is defiled, not by partaking with them, but not having done their duty to them before; where by the way we see what snares these Patrons of promiscuous Communion run their godly Com­municants into; when it may be for one godly per­son they have ten scandalous communicate with them. How impossible is it they should do that duty which is requisite from them to discharge their owne soules, without the doing of which they cannot without sin communicate with them.

Mr Humfry heales the wound of the Daughter of the Lords people slightly, Rejoynder, pag. 263. when he saies, If thy con­science tels thee it is a sin thou art to repent of it, by re­solving to take the next opportunity to do it, and so come.

1. So then, not doing our duty, in order to scan­dalous persons, is sin or not sin, according as Con­science tels us. This comes up to the Ranters Atheism, Nothing is sin but what a man thinkes sin. I should have thought that that If should have been lest out, for it is plainly our duty, Mat. 18.18. and the neglect our s [...]n.

2. I doubt whether a man, lying under the consci­ence of any sin against his Neighbour, can lawfully partake till he hath done what in him lies to satisfie. Suppose a man hath stollen, I should thinke he must not only resolve, but, if he be able, make restitution before he comes to the Lords Table.

3. It is a question, whether any lying under the guilt of any sin, not quotidiana incursionis, be bound in duty to come to the Lords Table before he hath evidenced his repentance by the contrary practice. To me the negative is out of question.

But in the last place,

Though the Ordinance be not polluted by the pre­sence of a scandalous sinner, nor the conscience of the worthy Communicant, who hath prepared his own heart, and done what in him lies towards the reformation, and suspension of the scandalous;

3. Yet the Officers of the Church are polluted, be­cause they have not done their duty, for they should have admonished him, and being under censure sus­pended him till he had satisfied the Church. Lastly,

4. The Fellowship of the Church in generall is pollu­ted; the Apostle teacheth us, 1 Cor. 5. that the conti­nuing of one scandalous person in the bosome of the [Page 93]Church leavens the whole Lumpe; the neglect of a private member redounds indeed but to his owne guilt, and defilement, but the neglect of the Officers of a Church redounds to the guilt and defilement of the whole Church, and justly. 1. Partly, because they are the representative part of the Church. 2. Be­cause it is in the Churches power to remove them; if not in the power of a Congregationall Church, yet in the power of a Synodicall Church. But I shall enlarge no further on this Argument.

CHAP. VIII. Wherein, by a seventh Argument, the law­fulnesse of suspension is proved, because there can lie no Obligation upon the Of­ficers of the Church to give the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to such as visibly are not bound to Receive.

ARGUMENT 7.

Either it is lawfull for the Officers of the Church to deny the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to such as they find ignorant, and scandalous, and impenitent. Or they are bound to give it to such. But they are not bound to give it to any such. Ergo,

THe major is unquestionably evident. The Minor is to be proved, which I prove thus:

The Officers of the Church are not bound to administer the Ordinance to those who they know are not bound to receive it.

But grosly ignorant, and impenitent scandalous sinners are visibly such as are not bound to receive it,—Ergo.

I shall first open and prove the Major, and then come to the Minor.

1. I grant that the Minister of the Gospell may be bound to administer an Ordinance to such a one as is not bound to receive it; because he may otherwise appeare to him, and his unworthinesse may be hid from him. We are bound to hold out the Promise as an object of faith to all, who appeare to have their hearts smit­ten with the sense of sin, though some of them be Hipocrites, we know not who are so.

2. But it seems strange to me (considering that a Ministers giving the Sacrament, and the peoples re­ceiving are relate acts) that a Minister should be bound to give to such as he knows are not bound to receive; can any one thinke that there should lye an Obligation upon us to preach to our people, if it could be proved that there lay no Obligation upon them to heare? Now I assume,

But grossely ignorant, and impenitent scandalous sin­ners are such as visibly appeare not bound to receive the Lords Supper.—Ergo.

That a grossely ignorant, and scandalous impeni­tent sinner (while such) is bound to receive, then he is bound; To make himselfe guilty of the body and bloud of Christ. To eate and drinke his own damnation; To run upon the hazard of being made sick and weake, and falling asleep; which are all strange things for a man to be bound in conscience unto.

Let none thinke to avoid this Argument by saying, they are bound first to repent, and then to receive. So that their sin doth not lye in receiving, but in not repenting.

This is plainly [...]. The question is, whe­ther the ignorant, and impenitent, (while such) if not [Page 96]cast out) are bound to receive, and it is a begging the question to say, they sin in not repenting, but not in receiving; In receiving (saith the Apostle) they make themselves guilty of the body and bloud of Christ, and they eate and drinke their own damnation.

And surely if such sinners be not bound to receive, the Officers of the Church cannot be bound to give the Ordinance to them, the ceasing of their Obligation in reason must also suspend his.

CHAP. IX. Wherein an Eighth and Ninth Argument are brought to prove that Suspension di­stinct from Excommunication is justifia­ble from Scripture, and sound Reason.

ARGUMENT 8.

If none may be suspended from the Sacrament but those who are Excommunicated, then none must be kept away but those who are contumacious.

But some may be kept away that are not Contumaci­ous.—Ergo.

THe Major is plaine: 1. From Scrip­ture, Mat. 18. none must be ac­counted as an Heathen, or a Pub­lican, but he who refuseth to heare the Church: Thus also Divines generally determine. So Bonaven­ture, Estius, Aquinas, Suarez, Du­randus; besides a numberlesse number of Protestant Divines.

The Minor only needs proofe.

1. Surely those that are under admonition ought to be kept away, though as yet they declare no Con­tumacy, and it be uncertaine whether they will or no.

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, ought this man to be admitted think we? Suppose one should come drunke, shall he be admitted? Mr Hum­fry saies no; what Mr Boatman thinks in that case I cannot tell; if he shall not then there is Suspension di­stinct from Excommunication. Suppose a Minister should know one of his Communicants had commit­ted Murther, Theft, Incest, Whoredom the night before, according to M Boatmans Doctrine he must be admit­ted to the Lords Table, for Suspension of any person, not Excommunicated, is a Pharisaicall dream; Suppose a Minister, upon examination, found that his Com­municant did not know whether Christ were God or Man, a Man or a Woman, nor any thing of the Sto­ry of the Gospell, must he be admitted too? He is neither Turke, nor Jew, nor Pagan, nor Excommu­nicated person. —Ergo, He is holy and must come. A Doctrine sure that every one, who hath any thing of God in him, will see the folly and filth of; and which no sober, pious, or learned man ever yet durst undertake to defend; and it is a shame it should be named amongst Christians.

If profane, Argument, 9 scandalous persons, though Circumcised, and not cast out of the Jewish Church, nor legally un­cleane, were yet to be debarred from some Ordinances, and the Passeover, then such, though Baptized, and not Excommunicated, may be suspended from the Lords Supper.

But profane scandalous persons, though Circumcised, and [Page 99]not cast out of the Jewish Church, nor legally uncleanes yet were to be debarred from the Passeover, and other publike Ordinances.

The strength of the consequence appeares, not on­ly in the Analogy which is betwixt the Passeover and the Lords Supper: But also in our Adversaries conti­nuall arguing against us from a supposition of a generall admission to the Passeover. This Argument was the best shast in Erastus his quiver, Erasti theses thes. 12, 13. Mr Humfry's vind. p. 4. and the very best Mr Humfry hath.

The Minor therefore only needs proofe with those with whom we have to deale. And for the proofe of that

Beza proves it against Erastus from Ezra 6.21. Beza de Ex­com. p. 19, 20. where none did eate the Passeover but such as were se­parated from the filth of the Heathen of the Land to seeke the Lord; And from 2 Chron. 23.19. where Je­hojadah, restoring the Worship of God, set Porters to keep out of the Sanctuary those who were uncleane in anything. Mr Giltespy proves it against Mr Prin, Mr Gillespie's Aarons rod, &c. l. 1. c. 9. and Erastus too: 1. From the testimonies of Philo and Josephus; and answers the two objections from Luk. 18.11, 12, 13. and Joh. 8.2, 3. and proves it by seven Arguments in that Chapter; and follows it, Chap. 10.11, 12. in the twelfth Chapter he proves it by fourteen Arguments, which Mr Humfry should have done well to have answered, before he had told us so confidently that all were admitted to the Passe­over. Dr Drake's Bar, &c. p. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. M Palmer, &c. answ. to Mr Humfry vind. Presb Govern. p. 62. Dr Drake hath likewise sufficiently proved it against Mr Humfry. Mr Palmer, &c. hath done the like from Num. 15.30, 31. Ezra 10.8. Joh. 9.22. Ez. 22.26. Ezek. 44.7, 9, 13. The Province of Lon­don prove it from 2 Chron. 23.19. Ez. 44.7, 8. Lev. 10.10. Ez. 22.26.

I do not thinke it ingenuous, wittingly to passe by any thing I heare objected against an Argument, there­fore [Page 100]though for the maine I leave Mr Humfry to his proper Adversary, yet because he comes acrosse me, here I must give him a meeting.

First he addes to his Argument (from his supposed generall admission to the Passeover, Mr Humfrie's rejoinder, p. 43, 44, 45, 46, 47.) the example of Judas; but besides that I have before proved he was not scandalous, I have also said enough to make a ratio­nall man beleeve he was not there. Dr Drake had argued à concesso. Mr Humfry granted, that those who were legally uncleane were not to come. Dr Drake askes the reason, why? Surely because they polluted ho­ly things. Mr Humfry saies, he would not answer so sil­lily; well, what will this wise man answer I wist? He tels us, Because it was Gods positive command they should not come. But this is too short: For let a Christian but enquire further, Why should the Lord command, that one who is a leper, who hath touched a dead body &c. should not come to his Ordinance? Surely his reason must tell him, because he is an holy and pure God, and will be worshipped in a cleane and pure manner. And can we thinke that a pure God should determine him, who had a leprous sore upon him, unfit for his San­ctuary, &c. and yet admit him as worthy, who was a profane swearer, blasphemer, &c. that he who had had Nocturnam pollutionem involuntariam was to be judged uncleane, and the same God should judge him cleane who had polluted himselfe with an Harlot in the night?

A second place which Mr Humfry would answer is 2 Chron. Page 45. 23.19. and he tels us, that neither the Passe­over, nor Suspension, nor Morall uncleannesse are there spoken of.

1. Whether the Passeover only be there spoken of is nothing to the businesse; There were Porters set to keep some that were not excommunicated from the Gates of the Lords house. So that Suspension of some [Page 101]from some Ordinances who were not excommuni­cated is there proved.

2. Mr Humfry boldly saies, they were not to keep out the morally uncleane; the Text saith, they were to keep out the uncleane Lecal Dabar in any thing; so that if there were such a thing as morall unclean­nesse, and such persons as morally uncleane persons, they were to keep them out. Nor is it any thing to the purpose that Mr Humfry saith, the Levites in such a concourse could not try and examine them, for by the same rule they should not have kept out the legally uncleane; but surely those words signifie something, they were therefore doubtlesse tried and judged before, (for it was the Priests, not the Levites worke to judge or try the legally uncleane.) But what Mr Humfry saith in the last place, that the Le­vites could not hinder the uncleane from eating the Passe­over, for it was eaten in private houses, Either argues he hath a mind to cheat his credulous Reader, or that he was not so well acquainted with the Jewish Cu­stomes as he might have been. It is true, Dr Lightfoots Temple ser­vice, c. 12. the Passe­over was to be eaten in private houses, but it was to be first killed in the Temple, where the fat was to be burned, and the bloud sprinkled; and if the Levites kept them from comming to kill it, and to sacrifice it, I thinke they kept them from eating it as a Passe­over too; they might eate a Lambe indeed in their own, but no Paschall Lambe.

As to the maine places to prove that there was a Law to seclude the morally uncleane from the Passe­over, Ezra 6.21. Ez. 44.7, 8. Deut. 23.18. à minori ad majus. Jer. 7.9, 10, 11. Psal. 118.19, 20. Psal. 15.1. as they are urged by Mr. Gillespy, pag. 90, 91. Ez. 22.26. Hag. 2.11, 12, 13, 14. (which proves that morall wickednesse was uncleannesse then as well as now.) Mr Humfry hath the discretion to say nothing to [Page 102]them. But I have said enough to establish this Ar­gument.

CHAP. X. Wherein some other Arguments are mentio­ned, but not largely insisted upon.

THese are but some of those many Ar­guments brought by the learned and eminent Servants of God, both in this Generation, and also in those before us, to prove the divine right of this Ordinance. I will name two or three more which have been brought by others, not insisting upon them, because I thinke these are enough, and possibly some of them may be more disputable, and not generally allowed, by those who are [...] with me in this point.

It is sin in a Minister to declare those one visible body who are not one body visibly; Arg. 10 But scandalous sinners are not one visible body with visible Saints; and he that gives the Lords Supper declares those to whom he gives it to be one visible body.—Ergo.

This Argument holy Mr Burroughs urgeth in his book, called Gospell-Worship, it is founded on 1 Cor. [Page 103]10.17. Mr Gillespie's Aatons Rod, l. 3. c 7 p. 425. V. etiam Hi­eron. Z [...]nen. Epist. l. 1. in e­pistola quae in­scribitur ad il­lust. Prin Frede­ricum de excom­municatione. and (saith Mr Gillespy) I shall never be perswa­ded that the Apostle Paul would say of himselfe and the Saints at Corinth, we are one body with known Idola­ters, Fornicators, Drunkards, or the like. Those two eminent servants of God thought there was some­thing in this Argument; there are these three Que­stions in it.

1. Whether the Minister declares all to whom he gives the Supper to be one visible body? That the Apo­stle determines, 1 Cor. 10.17.

2. Whether it be a sin in a Minister to declare those one visible body who are not so? Reason will easily de­termine that affirmatively.

3. Whether visibly scandalous sinners be one visible body with visible Saints?

Visibly scandalous sinners have a visible different head; But it is a question, whether that distinction of Membra in Ecclesia, and Membra Ecclesiae hath any thing in it; and whether Christ be called the head of the visible Church, only as it is taken conjunctim, or viritim of every member in it, and that will bring us to question, whether the Church, as to the community of it, be Corpus homogeneum, or het ero­geneum. I shall not intangle my selfe with these dis­putes, but shall desire [...] as to this Argument, and leave it to wiser heads to consider.

The Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not to be given to any who are not Christs Disciples; Arg. 11 for we are to fol­low Christs example, who administred it to none others.

But scandalous sinners are none of Christs Dis­ciples.—Ergo.

This is Mr P. Goodwins Argument, Evangelicall Communicant. p. 5, 6, 7, 8. V. Zanchium in ep. praed. and I refer the Reader to him to make it out; there are these two things to be questioned in it:

1. Whether Christs example in admission be a rule of ours.

2. Whether Christ admitted any such Disciples as were actually scandalous? I thinke I have proved the contrary.

Those who if they were Heathens might not be bap­tized, Argument 12 V. Zach. Urs. doct. Christ. p. 2. de clavibus q 3. sect. 11. though they be baptized, and in a Church, ought not to be admitted to the Lords Supper.

The reason is this: 1. Mr Humfry himselfe con­fesseth; In adult is eadem est ratio utriusque Sacramen­ti. 2. Besides, it is against reason to say the con­trary.

But those who are ignorant and scandalous, if they were Heathens, should not be baptized.—Ergo.

I do not say, the children of such ought not, there is another reason for them; but that they should not, hath been granted by the Universall judgement and practice of the Primitive Church. Erast. Thesis. 14 Mr Humfrie's vind. p. 10. Beza de excom. p. 23. Aarons rod, l. 3. c. 16. Mr. Palmer, &c. against Mr Humfry, p. 49. Dr Drakes bar to free admission p. 32, 33. Rutherford's divine right of Presbyteries, c. 5. q. 2. Arg. 13. I know Erastus and Mr Humfry tell us, John baptized all who came, yea some whom he cals Vipers; but Beza (long since) and Gillespy more lately mind Erastus, that John bap­tized none but such as confessed their sins, Mat. 3. Mr. Palmer &c. and Dr Drake have told Mr Humfry too as much, to which he hath discreetly replied no­thing.

This is one of that (incomparably learned) Mr Ru­therford's Arguments in his Divine right of Pres­byteries.

Strong meat belongs to those who are [...], who have made proficiency in the waies of God, and are of full age, who by reason of an habit have their senses ex­ercised to discerne good and evill, Heb. 5. w.

But the Sacrament is strong meat. Therefore it doth not belong to those who are Babes in knowledge, and consequently (though of the house) not to be given to them by him, who is the Lords Steward to give all in the Family their Portion in the due season. Luk. 12.42. The major is a generall proposition given by the [Page 105]Apostles. Requirit igitur coena domini, quatenus est my­stica, convivas, qui sensibus exercitatis iu­terna mysteria ab eo quod ocu­lis patet, distin­guere valint. Musc. Loc. Com. de coena. A Physicall maxime applied in a spirituall case, and holds as well to any strong meat as that which he there speakes of, for he doth not say, This strong meat.

That the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is strong meat is evident.

That meat which is of hardest digestion, and con­coction, and requires the strongest operations of the stomack to turne it into nourishment, and which, not duly digested, proves most pernicious to the bo­dy, is strong meat in a physicall sense.

But such is the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.

The spirituall stomack must be more extraordina­rily prepared for it, 1 Cor. 11.28. It is not tasted nor digested well without the knowing of the greatest mysteries in Religion in some measure, viz. the union of Christ with the Father. 2. The Union of the two natures in the person of Christ. 3. The mysticall Vnion of the soule with Christ. 4. The mysterious exercise of faith in applying the Soule to the Promise, and the Promise to the Soule, while it sits at that Table. Not duly received it proves most pernicious: The Soule seales its damnation, becomes guilty of the body and bloud of Christ, eates judgement to it selfe.

It is unlawfull to partake of other mens sins, Eph. 5.7. Arg. 14 Mr Ambrose his media. p. 260 Rutherford in his Divine right, &c. c. 5. q. 2. and in his peaceable plea. cap. 12. Gillespie's Aa­rone rod. l. 3. P. Goodwins Evang. Com. Vindication of the jus divinum of Presbytery.

But he that gives the Sacrament wittingly to an ig­norant or scandalous person partakes with him in his sin.—Ergo.

This Argument is urged by Learned Rutherford, Reverend Gillespy, (in the two sore-mentioned books) and holy Mr Ambrose, to whom I refer my Reader for fuller proofe.

Many Arguments more might be produced in this cause, but the truth is, scarce any but what are to be found either in Mr Rutherford, or Mr Gillespy, or the London Ministers Vindication, or Mr Philip Goodwin, [Page 106]or Mr Ambrose. M Ambrose his Media, p. 260. If any one hath a mind to write on this subject against us, they should deale ingenu­ously to answer all the Arguments produced in those books against them; and when they have done that, it is like that either the Reverend Authors of those books, or some of their Brethren, will un­dertake their vindication. But if they take Mr Hum­frie's course, to publish books to divulge opinions, confuted long since by solid Arguments, and take no paines to answer any thing, or if any thing, first to make their Adversaries Arguments weake by curti­lation, and imperfect proposall of them, and then to scoffe instead of answering. Or thinke it enough, with Mr Boatman, to cry down suspension as a Pharisaicall dreame, and a Pharisaicall way of dealing with people, and the Patrons of it as Vsurpers of an undue authority, intruders upon Christs Office, Pharisees, Bedlams, Hot­spurs, Spiritually proud, Hypocrites. This is but barking, and grinning for want of teeth fit to bite; and thus they may vapour a little under the protection of an impudent forehead, & proclaime their want of learning and breeding too to the world, and shew their teeth against Gospell reformation, and deceive some poore filly soules, first led captive with their own lusts; but they will not deserve any sober mans taking further notice of them, then when he goes to God to say on the behalf of their poore soules, ‘Father forgive them they know not what they do.’

See many more Arguments shortly propounded in learned Zanchies Epistle ad Fredericum tertium, de Ex­communicatione, as also in Vrsini compendium doctrinae Christianae, p. 2. de clavibus, q. 3. sect. 11.

CHAP. XI.

QUEST. 2.

Whether ministeriall, or privative Suspen­sion be deducible from Scripture yea or no.

I Opened the termes of this Question before. In short it is thus:

Whether in no case it be lawfull for the Pastor of the Church (not having a formed Presbytery,) if he knows any of his Church to be igno­rant or scandalous, to deny to them the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, (though they be not excommunicated, nor juridically censured.)

Before I speake to this Question (that I may not be mis-interpreted) I will crave leave to premise some few things.

1. I grant, that the most regular and orderly way of administring the Ordinance of the Lords Supper in Congregations, is by the triall and judging of all the members by a Presbytery, consisting of the Minister [Page 108]and Ruling Elders: I looke upon Elders as an Ordi­nance of Jesus Christ, and Officers equally betrusted with the Minister in all acts of jurisdiction, and to a regular and ordinary suspension questionlesse an act of Jurisdiction is required.

2. I plead not for the sole power of Jurisdiction to be in the hands of a single Minister, this were to set up an Episcopacy, yea, more than an Episcopacy (al­most a papall power) in every Parish; as I thinke Ruling Elders are equally with him betrusted with the power of Jurisdiction and Government, so I thinke they must joyne with him in juridicall suspen­ding, &c.

3. I speak this and the sourth as my own private judgement, and shall not go a­bout to impose such a perswa­sion upon others, not knowing what upon fur­ther thoughts, I [...]y selfe might judge in these cases, but at present only thus limiting my question. I plead not for Ministers power in such places where are persons fit to be chosen as Officers who shall refuse the Office or people who shall refuse to choose, I thinke in such a case a Minister may lawfully forbear the administring the Ordinance, and giving Gospell-Priviledges to those who despise any Gospell-Ordi­nances, or shall deny any Gospell duty; yea, I cannot tell whether a Minister could discharge a good con­science in administring at all to such a people till the Lord had changed their hearts, and convinced them of their duty, and their sin in refusing it, being a scan­dall to all well ordered Churches.

4. I would not plead strongly for his power in this thing in a Congregation who had none fit to choose, but were scituated so nigh to some rightly organized Church that they could conveniently go and partake there; I rather thinke it the Ministers duty in such cases to perswade those who in his Congregation are fit for the Ordinance to joyne themselves to such a Church, (as to that Ordinance) and were it my own case, (if I saw that Church walked orderly, and kept the Ordinances pure) I my selfe would not only per­swade my people so to joyne, but my selfe rather so [Page 109]joyne than set up any extraordinary course.

5. In case there were a formed Classis of Triers, either established by the Civill power, or by a vo­luntary agreement of the godly Ministers in a County, which used to meet so neare the Congrega­tion that the godly people could go and submit to their triall, I do prefer this before a Ministers single Examination and Judgement.

But in such a case as this now Where there is in a Con­gregation a godly Minister, and a competent number of godly people to make up a Communion at the Lords Ta­ble, and these people are willing to do what in them lies to put themselves in order, and to choose Elders, and wish from their soules that they had some to choose, but at present they have none, nor are like to have any sud­denly, nor are nigh any Organized Church with which they can enjoy the Ordinance, nor any Classis to which they can approve themselves: Whether now, in such a case as this the Minister may not administer the Ordinance, and not only admonish the ignorant and scandalous to keep away, but take account of his peoples knowledge, and take all due courses to be informed of their lives, and if he finds any ignorant and scandalous, that, notwithstan­ding admonition, will presume to come whither he may not; yea, whether he ought not to deny the Elements to him?

6. I heartily wish, that either by the Civill power, or a voluntary act of the people, parochiall Congregati­ons were so united, that in every Precinct there might be found persons fit for Officers.

7. I thinke in such cases a Minister should act with a great deale of prudence; I would in such a case do nothing (as neare as I could) without the satisfaction of the Community. I meane, not being acted by their vote, but stating the businesse to them first at some meeting, and if it were possible gaining their consent and approbation.

And these things premised:

I humbly conceive, that a Minister of the Gospell in such a cause, may, by vertue of his Office, (wanting a Presbytery) deny the administration of the Elements to any such as he shall judge ignorant, and be able to prove so scandalous, as if he had a Presbytery, he might be juri­dically suspended.

I shall humbly propose my grounds for my opini­on in it (which yet is not mine alone.)

In such a case as this a Minister may either wholly omit the Ordinance, or else administer it promiscu­ously to all, be they never so ignorant or scandalous; or else thirdly by his own power thus deny it to such as he finds so. But in such a case he may not wholly omit the administration of the Ordinance, nor secondly admini­ster it promiscuously.—Ergo.

The disjunction cannot be denied, for there is no fourth expedient can be found but the way of our dissenting brethren, (and but some of them nei­ther) that all the members should have power, which I can never yeeld to till they can tell me whoshall be the Ruled if all be Rulers: But of my Brethren, who are of the Presbyterian perswasion, there are two diffe­rent opinions.

1. Some thinke, that in such a case he is bound whol­ly to omit the administration till he can have a Presby­tery. I must crave leave to dissent here.

And I thinke Mr Jeanes hath said enough to prove that the totall omission of the Ordinance in a non-presbyterated Church cannot be justifiable.

1. All Christs Commands are to be observed in a non-presbyterated Church. Do this, do it often, &c. are Christ Commands as well as any other.

2. Christ himselfe, and his Apostles, Act. 2.41. admi­nistred it in a none-presbyterate Church.

3. Here are fit Communicants, and here is a Minister, [Page 111]and this is an Ordinance of Christ for the perfecting of the Saints.

4. Christs death ought to be remembred in a non-presbyterated Church, and the Saints should grow in grace there as well as elsewhere.

These, and the rest of Mr Jeanes his Arguments, I must confesse, do much prevaile with me to make me thinke that the bare want of Ruling Elders in the Church cannot warrant a Ministers totall neglect of the administration of this Ordinance. Besides the ill consequences which would doubtlesse be of such an Omission. Such as 1. Peoples running to sepa­rate Churches. 2. Christians decay in grace, and spiri­tuall weaknesses for want of that great Ordinance for strength and quickning. 3. A blotting out of the memory of Christs death, or at least of that Ordi­nance out of Christians minds; these things make me conclude it sinfull for a godly Minister, who hath people fit for a Communion, wholly to omit the Or­dinance. So that a Minister cannot be bound to that.

2. Nor ean a Minister be bound to administer to those whom he knows to be ignorant and scandalous.

This most of my former Arguments prove.

1. He cannot be bound to give holy things to dogs, and cast pearls before swine, directly contrary to that Pre­cept, Mat. 7.

2. He cannot be bound to give it to those, whom he knows cannot drinke the Lords Cup, for then there would lye an Obligation upon him to profane the Lords Ordinances.

3. He cannot be bound to give it to those with whom it is unlawfull for him to keep that feast, or to eate, 1 Cor. 5.8, 11.

4. He cannot be bound to declare those one body, and make those one breast who visibly are not one body.

5. His Obligation must be from Scripture precepts or [Page 112]presidents: but I have shewed there are none to that purpose.

6. He cannot he bound to any act by which he is guilty of making the Communion of the Church im­pure.

7. There cannot lye an Obligation upon him to give the Ordinance to those who visibly appeare to be such as are not bound to receive.

8. He cannot be bound to give the Sacrament of the Supper to such as he might not lawfully baptize, in case they were not yet baptized.

I made good these Arguments before, and they conclude as well for ministeriall privative suspension as for positive suspension.

These two parts being such as he may not take,

1. He must either put the power of jurisdiction into the hand of the Community, and so by their major vote, suspend, or admit, or

2. He must by his own power (during this state of the Church) put by some not juridically censuring and sus­pending them, but suspending his own act as to such persons.

The former of these he may not do.

1. For Christ never committed any such power to them: they are no Officers in the Church.

2. That were to make Gods house an house of confusion: the body all one member, all head to rule, &c.

It remaines therefore that himselfe in such a case being the alone Officer of the Church, and bound virtute officii to know the state of his Flock, and to take care of their soules, do what in him lies: 1. To warne the ignorant and scandalous to abstaine. 2. That he deny the Sacrament to them if they presume to come.

That now in such a case, the Minister may, and [Page 113]ought to take an account of his flock, and pastorally to admonish the scandalous, and to deterr the unwor­thy what he can, is easily granted me. Mr Humfry will yeeld this, yea, and something more, that he may deny it to notorious sinners, such as he cals de jure excommunicati (by which he only meanes such as are fit to be hanged.) Mr Jeanes likewise will yeeld this, though he is not cleare in allowing to the Mi­nister more than a doctrinall power to keep away any. But all the question is, Whether the single Minister in such a case, if the ignorant and scandalous person will not keepe away, may deny the Ordinance to him.

1. That he cannot formally pronounce a Church cen­sure against him I yeeld.

2. That he cannot take him and turne him out by head and shoulders, I grant too.

The question therefore is narrowed up to this.

Suppose such a Minister knows one to be notoriously ignorant or scandalous, who hath given no evidence of his repentance, and this wretch, notwithstanding his Pastors admonition of him to keep away, will yet when the day of administration comes, presse in amongst the Com­municants, whether the Minister shall sin (if he delivers it from hand to hand) in passing by such a one, and not giving it to him, or if he delivers it at once to all, and seeth such an one there, and declares either more generally, that the Elements are only provided for, and given unto such as have approved themselves unto him: Or, if he thinks fit, to declare particularly, that whereas there are such and such there whom he hath found ignorant, or have been scandalous, and as yet given no satisfaction, he doth not intend them, or any of them, in his generall delivery of the Ordinance, I maintaine the Negative, that he shall not sin, yea, that he should sin if he should not do it, it being the only course he can take to fulfill Christs command, and not be guilty of giving holy things to dogs, &c.

To the fore-mentioned Arguments I shall adde one more.

If in such a case the Minister of the Gospell cannot shew himselfe a faithfull Steward of Gods mysteries: Argument 2 ex­cept he doth deny the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to the ignorant and scandalous (though he wants an El­dership) then he may (in case of such a defect in the Church) deny the Lords Supper to such.

But though there be an Eldership wanting in the Church, yet if the Minister gives that Ordinance to the ignorant and Scandalous, he cannot in it shew him­selfe a faithfull steward of Gods mysteries.—Ergo.

To prove the consequence, I shall need but prove these things:

1. That a Minister is steward of the mysteries of God.

2. That the Sacraments are some of those mysteries committed to his Stewardship.

3. That he must be faithfull in his stewardship.

1. That a minister is a steward of Gods myste­ries, is cleare; they are the words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 4.1.

2. That the Sacraments are some of those myste­ries, is cleare; 1. By considering that [...] is the known Greeke word to expresse a Sacrament, if not the only one. 2. From that which is generally gran­ted, that none but the Ministers may dispense them.

3. That they must be faithfull is plaine, not only first from reason, but secondly from the expresse words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 4.2.

All the Question lies upon the Assumption:

Whether a Minister of the Gospell cannot discharge the faithfulnesse of a Steward, if he delivers the Lords Supper to one that is ignorant or scandalous.

That he cannot I prove:

If the faithfulnesse of a Steward lies wholly as to the [Page 115]distribution of his Masters goods) in this, Praeceptum na­turale est ut dispensator qui bona domini dispensat sit fi­delis ac prudent in dispensand [...], ergo praeceptum naturale est ut non dispenset homini indigno contra volunta­tem, & instituti­onem suidomini; quia hoc esset contra fidelita­tem, & pruden­tiam quam in dispensand [...] de­bet servare, &c. Becanus in ter­tia p. de sa­cram. in Com. cap. 5. q. 8. that he doth dispense them to such as his Master hath Commanded him to give them. 2. That he dispenseth them to no other, and the Minister be a steward, and the Sacraments the Lord his Masters goods, and he not commanded by his Master to deliver them to the ignorant and scanda­lous, then he cannot shew himselfe a faithfull steward in giving them to such.

But the Antecedent is true.—Ergo.

To prove the Assumption I must prove these things.

That the faithfulnesse of a steward, as to the dealing out his Masters goods betrusted to him to distribute, lies chiefly, if not only, in this: that he gives them out to such, and none other but such, as his Master commands him to give them to.

This is so evident to reason, that none can deny it but will be posed to assign any other thing wherein he can shew his faithfulnesse more, or so much. Surely any mans reason will tell him, that if his Master gives him a thousand pounds to distribut amongst such and such people, his faithfulnesse lies in distributing it to such, and none but such though they aske it.

2. It is already proved, that the Minister is the Lords Steward and the Sacraments are Christs goods, committed to him to distribute to others.

3. It is as evident that he hath no command from Christ his Master to give them out to such as are ap­parently scandalous or ignorant.

Surely it were very absurd to say, that Christ should command me his Minister, to give out his Ordinan­ces to such as he lets me know are forbidden upon paine of damnation to receive. Saint John saith, That for such as we know have sinned the sin against the Holy Ghost we should not pray, 1 Joh. 5.16. Why? Because Prayer can do him no good, because we know God will not [Page 116]heare our prayers: And shall we thinke that we are bound by Christs Command to administer the Lords Supper to such as wee know it to be the will of God they should not take it. Indeed, if we do not know it, the case is otherwise; but for such as we know cannot discerne the Lords body, and such as we know are Drunkards, Fornicators, &c. we know the Ordi­nance can do them no good, and we know it is the will of God they should not take it. I shall refer it therefore to the judicious Reader to consider, whe­ther it can be reasonably judged that when Christ said, Dri [...]ke you all of it, he meanes, all you, whom I have elsewhere told, that if you do drink you shall drinke your own damnation, and become guilty of my bo­dy and bloud; and you, who if you do eate and drinke there, I will make you sick, and weake, and fall asleep for it.

I confesse, Mr Jeanes p. 124, 125. edit. octo. I find Reverend and Learned Mr Jeanes speaking something to answer this Argument; two things he saith, 1. By way of retortion; That the faithfulnesse of a Steward lies in going no further than his Masters Commission, and he conceives, we have no Commission to keep back any, but the Commission is directed to us and others. 2. He tels us, that if we understand by the will of God voluntas signi, It is not the will of God, viz. the Command of God that we should keep away any.

But I humbly conceive this is little better than pe­tere [...]. For this is the question:

1. Whether we have no command to keep away the ignorant and scandalous, though at present the Church be not presbyterated? We conceive we have, and to that purpose we bring that Text, 1 Cor. 4.1. where we are required to be faithfull as Stewards.

2. He saies, the faithfulnesse of the Steward lies in going no further than our Commission, that is but [Page 117]halfe the truth, for it lies in going so far as well as no farther. Now we say, we should not go so far as our Commission, Mat. 7.6. if we should administer it promiscuously we plead to go as far as that extends.

3. If he meanes we have no Commission, [...], where the word Sacrament is used, we grant it; but we have proved, that we have a Commission [...], according to sound consequence from Scrip­ture, and that it is voluntas signi, Gods Command, at least implicite, if not explicite.

4. We desire, where [...], (if he stands upon that) he can shew us our Commission from Scripture for suspension to be directed to us and others.

5. We say, that if we should give the Ordinance to any known ignorant and scandalous, we should, in Mr Jeanes his sence, go beyond our Commission, ha­ving neither precept nor president for it.

I shall need add no more though I might adde the concurrent Judgement of Divines antient, and mo­derne; But I will refer that to the next question, where I shall prove, that Mr Boatman's tongue ran a little too fast when he said, Suspension was a Phari­saicall dreame.

CHAP. XII. Wherein are answered the Objections brought against privative Suspension by the single Minister.

I Acknowledge, that as I have a great many with me in the Affirmative of this Question, so have I some very Reverend men who are other­wise perswaded: some of which rather thinke, that in such cases as these the Ordinance should be wholly omitted. Others that the Minister in such cases hath dischar­ged his duty if he hath delivered the truth doctri­nally, and used his spirituall Rhetorick to deterr or disswade the ignorant and unworthy, and these Reverend Brethren are not without some considera­ble objections: I must adde a word or two in an­swer to them, so far as I am able. The whole questi­on is,

Whether the Minister, in such cases, hath a mo­rall power to deny the Ordinance or no?

I plead he hath: for the same precept that saies [Page 119]to him, give not holy things to dogs, Minister Sacra­mentorum per se loquendo ha­bet proprium ac speciale praecep­tum quo prohi­betur indignu ministrare Sa­cramentum. Becan. sum. ter­tia p. tract. 2. cap. 5. q. 8. that commands him, as a Steward of Gods mysteries, to be faithfull; that commands him, as well as others, to keep the feast not with the leavened bread of malice and wicked­nesse, and forbids him to eat with brethren who are fornicatours, &c. gives him power, &c. But it is ob­jected:

Ob. 1. Suspension is an act of Jurisdiction. Acts of Ju­risdiction belong to the Church: Now the single Mini­ster is not the Church.—

Sol. 1. That Juridicall Suspension is a Church Cen­sure, and an act of Jurisdiction I yeeld: but whether this suspension of which I speake be, I question. Mr Jeanes thinkes the Schoolemen are out in deter­mining that it is not, but I cannot wholly close with him. Juridically suspension is a positive Act of the Governours of the Church, determining the party at present unworthy of that Ecclesiasticall Com­munion: This is but a Negative or privative Act, wherein the Minister, not passing any formall censure upon him, but referring him for that to the Presbytery to be judged at present forbeares his own act of ad­ministring the Ordinance to him, judging him in his own conscience such a one as is de Jure to be suspended, and being ready to submit himselfe to any Superiour Presbytery, to whom the Party shall ap­peale.

2. It is granted, that in Ecclesiâ constitu [...]a, in a formed organized Church, no kind of Censures should be past but by the Presbytery, the Eldership of the Church; but in a disordered Church, I hum­bly conceive some acts may be justifiably done that may looke like Censures by the Minister, Plebe non ra­tionaliter dissentiente, at least by the consent of the Church, or the Church not dissenting upon good grounds.

3. That the Minister is not (in one sence) the Church, viz. all the Officers that belong to a rightly ordered Church is granted, but whether in some ca­ses of necessity the single Minister may not be the Church, viz. the whole ruling part of it, and in power in such cases to some acts of rule, I thinke may be questioned; All will grant that he is a ruling, as well as a teaching, Elder. Now if there be such a case that through death, removall, or any defect, that he should be lest alone, and have no Elders, I cannot thinke that his power of rule must wholy sleep till his fellow-Rulers be recovered. So that in some sense he may be called the Church I conceive, which is no more (by interpretation) than that he is at that pre­sent the whole ruling part of the Church.

4. Tell the Church, Mat. 18. is chiefly meant in or­der to the great Excommunication, in which the sinner is made as an heathen and publican.

5. Againe, Admonition is a Church Censure, yet we allow not only a private fraternall correption, but al­so a pastorall admonition, which is quiddam majus, and I see no reason why (in such cases of necessity as these, where either such a course must be taken, or this great Ordinance wholy omitted or profaned) we may not also allow of pastorall suspension.

Object. 2. A second objection Mr Jeanes makes, viz. That all our Arguments to justifie the unlawful­nesse of a Ministers giving the Sacrament to such as he knows to be scandalous, will faile us in two cases in Pres­byterated Churches: 1. In case the major part of the Eldership will acquit the scandalous sinner, then he saies, we grant the Minister may admit them. Or 2. In case the scandall be known to the Minister alone, and no proofe can be made, and the party will not confesse.

Sol. I must confesse these are two hard cases, and the only hard cases I know which can be put as to this point.

1. But who are they that have been so free of their confessions to grant, that in cafe an Eldership, will contrary to the judgement of their Pastor, and directly contrary to the rule justifie the wicked, the Minister ought to give the Sacrament to them, I can­not tell. Suppose one be proved to have committed Incest the night before the Sacrament, and stands to justifie it, and the Minister calls his Eldership and proves the fact to them, and they in a faction will acquit him, shall this Minister be bound to admini­ster the Ordinance to this wretch? I hope Mr Jeanes shall never perswade me to that faith. No, but it is my duty in such, or such like evident cases to forbeare any administration, and appeale from the Congrega­tionall to the Classicall Presbytery, and if that will not relieve him, from thence to the Provinciall, and from thence, if need be, to a Nationall Assembly; it is to be hoped that by some of these he will be relie­ved, if not I should thinke it my duty to submit to their censure rather than profane Gods Ordinances: and wait till God reformed such Churches; if the case were doubtfull, the matter differs: but where the rule plainly judgeth, mens neglect of their duty will not justifie me in sinning against mine.

2. As to the second case, I know no reason but in such a cause the Minister may stand as a witnesse and the rest of his Eldership; I am sure it will be more justifiable than for him to give the Sacrament to one manifestly unworthy. Therefore I say, there is no necessity urging a Minister in any case to give the Lords holy things to dogs and swine; we may conceive necessities, but sinnings of this kind will prove our free acts.

Object. 3. A third Argument against us. Suarez in ter­tiam p. Thomae disp. 67. sect. 4. I find in Mr Jeanes, he saith he hath it out of Suarez in tertiam partem Thom. disp. 67. sect. 4. he urgeth it thus.

‘It is requisite for the common good, Mr Jeanes p. 116, 117. and con­venient order both of Church and Common­wealth that all common favours which are pub­likely to be dispensed and distributed according to the dignity of private persons should be dispensed by publike persons designed thereto, not according to the private knowledge of this or that man, nei­ther of that Minister, but according to a publike and notorious cognisance, and whosoever doth, by his offence against God, This is not a literall transla­tion of Suarez. lose his right and inte­rest to the holy things of God, he must lose it in the face of the Church before it can be denied him in the face of the Congregation, and he is to be judged as in all other cases, not by any mans, nor by any Ministers private knowledge, but accor­ding to proofes and allegations; for the common good necessarily requireth that such publique acti­ons of this nature should be regulated by a kind of publike, not private, knowledge, which once admitted into judicature would soone fill up the Church and State with a world of scandals, inju­ries, and inconveniences, for hereby a wicked, or a peevish, and pettish Minister may without con­troule publikely disgrace, and repell from the Supper whom he please &c.’

Sol. To this I answer: First, This Argument is but meerly rationall. And if a Ministers duty in this be (as we have endeavoured to prove) expresly concluded in Scripture, it is not to be considered against Scrip­ture Precept. Aqu. Rationes contra fidem sunt derisibiles. But secondly.

Let us consider the strength of this Reason: As it is brought by a Schooleman, so it is determined by a Schoo [...]eman insufficient. Gabriel Vasq. l. 2. in tertia p. Thomae disp. 209. q. 80. art. 6. cap. 40. Gabriel Vasques saith,

The invalidity of the Reason appeares in this. The due execution in Law is a common good in the [Page 123]Commonwealth, and doubtlesse ought to be (ordina­rily) administred to all impartially, according to the letter of the Law, it is every mans common favour. But now put the case, that two witnesses came and sware against the life of such a man: that he did such a murther on such a day in such a place, and the Judge knew that this man was at that time one hundred miles off that place, and were with him, and he should tell the Jury so, yet they would find this man guilty of the murther, will any man say, that it is the Judges duty to condemine him whom his cer­taine knowledge justifies in his cons [...]ience as wholly innocent? Exemplum eti­am judicis quod in confirmatio­nem allatum est, non puta­mus in univer­sum verum, quia accidere potest interdum, ut ip­se non possit uti scientia publuâ, sed propter sci­entiam suam privatam alio remedio uti de­b [...]at pro salvan­dâ vitâ inno­centis, &c. Gab. Vasq. ib. There is a dou­ble right, i [...]us hereditarium, this they have common, as bap­tized persons. 2. Jus aptitu­d [...]narium, this they have not in common. If mans Law should lay any such Obliga­tions upon the publike Minister, surely Gods holy Law doth not. So that the Maxime is not alwaies true, that common goods must be dispensed or denied, according to common publike cognisance. For if the executing of the Law (which is a publike common good) must tend to the breach of the divine Law, or doth evidently appeare against the end of the Law, if there should be a proceeding according to the strict rigour of it. The Judge may lawfully, yea, and ought to suspend his own act, and submit himselfe to the judgement of another Court.

2. Things that are common goods must be dispen­sed out to none but those who have a common right. It will easily be granted, that the ignorant and scanda­lous have not a common right with those who are knowing and holy. Let any but make out that they have a common right, (which, by the way, only saith in Christ can give them) and I know no Minister will deny them the Ordinance. The benefit of the Law is a common good, and to be denied to none that are Natives. Suppose a Stranger comes and demands the benefit of it, none knows but he is a Native, only the Judge knows, or at least hath vehement grounds [Page 124]to suspect he is none, shall not the Judge require him to prove that he is a native Englishman, or naturali­zed before he gives him the benefit of the Law.

3. For the disconveniences may come through the Ministers peevishnesse, &c. I confesse, there may be some, but I know not how they should be prevented; they may in some measure be cured by a liberty of ap­peale for the party, who shall conceive himselfe inju­red. to higher Presbyteries; If there be none such, I know no remedy while the Church is in that dis­order.

I have met with no more Objections, and shall need enlarge no farther upon this question: only I thinke Mr Jeanes his fourth Argument is conside­rable.

The power of administration of the Lords Supper is wholly committed to the Minister, Argument. the Eldership can­not deale it out. Now it is very improbable that the Lord should have left the administration wholly to them, and not a sufficient power to them in such exi­gents as these to preserve the purity of it.

Besides, it is easily evidenced, that in extraordi­nary cases something preter-regular and extraordina­ry may be done, yea, and ought to be done to pre­serve the purity of Ordinances; 2 Chro. 30.2. at Hezekiahs Passe­over, because the Priests were not sanctified, the Passe­over was deferred to the second month, ver. 17. The Le­vites killed the Passeover, yet the Lord accepted the service, ver. 20. God himselfe for the purity of his Ordinance, and his peoples Communion, dispensed with the Order which himself had instituted, Ex. 12. as may be seen Num. 9.

It is true, we ought to be tender of Gods Order, but some points of order may, for purity sake, be dispensed with for a time.

CHAP. XIII.

QUEST. 3.

Whether Suspension (juridically or ministe­riall, privative or positive) distinct from absolute Excommunication, be a dreame of the Pharisees or no, or whe­ther it hath not been the constant judge­ment and practice of the Servants and Churches of Christ in all ages?

MAster Boatman tells us, he saith it, yea, and againe he saith it, that Suspension distinct from Excommunication is a dreame of the Pharisees; yea, and it was a Pharisaicall dreame that inven­ted it. It is no matter what he saith, the question is whether it was so or no.

1. If he meanes by the Pharisees that particular Sect amongst the Jews so called, he scar e speakes sense, for they never owned the Ordinan [...]e of the Lords Supper, and how they should invent Suspensi­o [...] from it I cannot tell.

2. He speakes it ancient enough, as old as Christs time.

But because I am willing to beleeve he thought he spake sense, I conceive his meaning was,

That it was an invention of some particular men, who were of proud pharisaicall dispositions, and would bring in their inventions to mingle them with Gods Or­dinances.

If he spake sense, this was his meaning; and if it were, it was one of the most bold and ignorant slan­ders of the Churches and Servants of God in all Ages that hath been heard, and as impolitickly spoken for his own credit; when any one, who hath either lookt into Fathers, or Schoolemen, or Divines of any sort, Papists, or Protestants, and those of any perswasion, Episcopall, Presbyterian, or Independent, as to Church Government, is able to say, that either he spake against his knowledge, or else never read any of them, (the latter of which (out of charity to him) I am most apt to beleeve.) But if they were Pharisees, and dreaming Pharisees too, they were many of them holy and learned dreamers. And the Church of Christ hath from Christs time been in a dreame till Mr John Boatman awakened it; and we hope to prove anon that this confident Gentleman was the Dreamer himselfe, whose tongue ran (like a wild fancy in a dreame) when the eyes of his understanding were sealed up with lamentable ignorance of the generall practice of the Churches of God: It was bad enough for Josephs eleven Brethren to call him Dreamer, but surely it had been worse for him, the younger, to have called all them so. If Mr Boatman had been some grave Doctor in Divinity, some Bishop, or Archbishop, or Pope, the Censure had savoured of a great deale of more ignorance, and boldnesse, than judgement, or discretion; but for one who never so much as took [Page 127]the lowest degree, not staying at any University halfe so long as is required of him that would commence Batchelor of Arts, and if he had taken his degrees, had not yet been Master of Arts above foure or five yeares standing, to censure so many Reverend Fa­thers, Learned and Acute Schoolemen, so many ho­ly and Reverend Divines of all sorts, yea, and so ma­ny Churches, all as Dreamers, Pharisaicall Dreamers too, was enough to let the world know the Chara­cter of himselfe. But let us a little examine how ma­ny this young Rabbi hath at once called Dreamers, Pharisaicall Dreamers, bold usurpers of Christs autho­rity &c. I shall only premise this one thing.

That I shall not undertake to prove their judge­ment as to this, or that sort of Suspension, whether by the single Pastor, or the Presbytery. For although there be sufficient ground in Scripture to prove the divine right of Ruling Elders, and sufficient Record to prove that they were in the Primitive Church, as our Learned Brethren of the Province of London have proved out of Tertullian, Origen, Basil, Optatus, Vindication of sus divinum, p. 12. Tert. Apol. c 39. Orig. l. 3. con­t [...]a Celsum. Basil in Ps. 33. Optatus. l. 1. adv. Par [...]n. A [...]b [...]spin. ibid. H [...]er. in Is. [...].2. Aug. ep. 137. l. 3. con. [...]. c. 56. Serm. 19. in Psal. 3 [...]. Greg. Mag. l. 11. ep. 19. Al­baspineus, Hierom, Augustine, Gregorius Magnus, &c. And our learned Countryman Mr Brinsly hath pro­ved out of Deane Nowels Catechisme, which quo­tation is evidently true from the ancient Copies of that Catechisme Greeke Latine printed, as also in the Latine Copies, yet I know there are many that do question the divine right of the Ruling Elder.

But it is enough to me if I can prove that in all Ages some have been kept from the Lords Supper (by whom matters not whether by the Pre [...]bytery or sin­gle Minister, who yet were not excommunicated.

And this I hope to do; which i [...] I do, let the world judge whether it be such a dreame as we are ignorantly told it is.

And with what humility my Antagonist hath con­demned [Page 128]Fathers, Schoolemen, Divines of all sorts, in all Ages, of all perswasions, yea, all reformed Churches, and our own ever since the first reforma­tion, as dreamers, and usurpers of a new authority.

As for the first Century, or one hundred yeares af­ter Christ, we have no writings extant but those of the Apostles, except the constitution of some Canons of the Apostles, and some fragments of Clement, and of Dionysius Areopagita: (who was an ancient writer but judged by most long after) and some few Epistles of Ignatius, who according to Helvicus and Eusebi­us was made Bishop of Antioch one hundred yeares after Christ.

There is little credit to be given to the Canons, or the testimony of the pretended Areopagite, as to matters of fact in the first Century; for it is upon very good grounds supposed, that the Canons were made long after, and that Dionysius lived long after, but yet their writings being all the record can be pre­tended, let us examine what they say.

For Clements two Epistles I want them, and cannot examine what they say. In the pretended Canons of the Apostles, I find it sufficiently proved Canon 130.

If any Clergy man, [...], Canon. Apost. Canon 13. or Lay man, excommunicated or suspended, go to any other City, and be received into Communion there, let him that receives him, and he who is received be both excommunicated.

Here is plainly Suspension distinct from Excom­munication asserted; there were some [...] as well as [...].

For the pretended Areopagite, I see reason enough to beleeve he lived not in this Century, but admit [Page 129]he did, and he speakes plaine enough.

Here he tels us, that the Catecumeni, [...]. Dion. Areop. cap. Υ. ex edit Morellii octavo. 1562. p. 141. and the Poe­nitents, and Energumeni were excluded from the Lords Supper, which he tels us was administred to none but those who had perfect eyes to discerne the Lords body, &c. This is sufficient, but this is not all.

For presently after he subjoyneth, that if Peni­tents ought not to be admitted, much lesse ought profane persons, who lived in lusts, and testified no repentance; who he saies should be admitted to no other Ordinance but the preaching of the Word. I will transcribe the place.

[...], Ibid p. 144. [...], This quotation being so full to shew what per­sons in the Pri­mitive Church were suspended, yet not excom­municated, though it were something too large, yet I have transcribed it all. [Page 130] [...], &c.

I have been willing to transcribe this passage fully, because it speakes so fully to our case. Dionysius in this Chapter doth professedly treate concerning the Lords Supper, and here concerning the order of admini­string, in the first place he tels us, some were put away, or went away. 2. Then the Administration proceeded.

Now who were they who were enjoyned to go away? he reckons severall sorts:

1. [...], those who were yet not made compleat members of the Church, that had never yet been initiated in those holy mysteries; doubtlesse, by these he meanes the Catechumeni, such as God had begun to worke upon, and they had evi­denced some good affections to the doctrine of the Gospell, but had not yet sufficient knowledge to fit them for either Sacrament; In lib. 4. and this is conforme to what Renatus Laurentius de la Farre, in his Annota­tions on Tertullian, Tert. advers. Mare. tells us: This order of Converts were likewise by Tertullian and Cyprian, &c. called [Page 131] Audientes, & Auditores, and they had a particular Teacher. Euseb. l. 5. l. 6. cap. 3. Eusebius tels us Pantaenus was their first Tea­cher, then Clemens Alexand. afterward Demetrius made Origen their Teacher; and Cyprian tels us, Cypr. ep. 22. that with the consent of the Presbyters he after made Op­tatus their Teacher. Now there were the first sort, which were not come to the Table, saith Dionysius; and so Pachymeres expounds him [...].

2. The second sort excluded he saith are [...]. Those who had apostatized from an holy life. By these doubtlesse he meanes scandalous sinners who had been former Professors, otherwise they could not be Apostates. George Pachimeres ex­pounds it [...], men gi­ven up to vile affections, who had returned to their former lusts.

3. The third sort were those [...], &c. such as through the terrours of persecutors had been temp­ted to sin, and fallen into it, &c. There are two or three other sorts, mentioned by him, who were kept away, such as were Penitents, that is, who had fal­len into sin, and the Church had appointed them a time of shame, and repentance after the profession of their resolutions to amend; and lastly, those who were not altogether [...], without any scandall or spot, these were all removed, saith Dionysi­us, before the Lords Supper was administred, but surely these were not all excommunicated, here is not a word of that. Those who will see more may looke into Maximus and Pachymeres, the two Scholiasts upon Dionysius. I have not translated the passage because it was large. But Dionysius saith plain­ly, that such as are [...], &c. men given to their lusts, &c. should much more be kept from the Lords Table than either Catechumeni or Poenitentes.

I know none else in the first Century, but Ignatius, who hath left us any Writings, and it is questiona­ble whether any of these, or his either be [...] or no. But doubtlesse Dionysius was ancient, though I beleeve not thus ancient; his Scholiast Maximus li­ved within the fourth Century. Let us see what we have in the second Century, ad annum Christi 200.

In this Century we have Justin Martyr, who hath something considerable extant to tell us the practice of the Church in his time, and he hath spoken fully enough to our purpose in his second Apology for the Christians, [...]. Just. Mart. Apol. 2. ex edit. Lutet. Paris. 1615. p. 97, 98. which Helvicus saith he wrote about the yeare 160. where he tells us, how in those daies they administred the Ordinance of the Supper, and hath these words.

This nourishment (saith he) is with us called the Eucharist, of which none may partake with us but he, 1. That beleeves our Doctrine to be true. 2. He that is washed with the Laver of Regeneration for the remission of sins. 3. He that lives so as Christ hath Commanded.

We desire no more than the recovery of this anci­ent Discipline of the Church, viz. that none may be admitted to the Lords Supper but such as first are baptized. Secondly, Such as beleeve the Doctrine of the Gospell, which they must know before they can beleeve. 3. Such as do not live according to the rule of the Gospell; but if none else were admitted in Ju­stine Martyrs time, questionlesse there were some suspended who were not excommunicated.

In this Century also lived Tatianus, Melito, Ireneus, Theophilus Antioch. Policarpus, Apollinaris, Athenago­ras, Clemens, Alexandrinus, Pantaenus, Tertullian, &c.

If testimonies could be produced out of these it were to little purpose, Justin Martyr having suffici­ently evidenced for that Century. But the truth is, [Page 133]some of them have nothing extant, and others very little, and upon restrained subjects, in the handling of which they were not led to this theme. And in those pieces of Clemens Alexandrinus and Tertullian I find very little spoken concerning the discipline and order of the Chur [...]h. Something there is in Tertullian, but Justin Martyr hath already spoken enough for this Age considering the occasion of his speaking, it was in an Apology for all Christians in his Age, and Apo­logizing for them he sets out their pure worshipping of God, and inoffensive practice.

From the yeare two hundred to the yeare three hundred.

In this Century were severall Synods, but none of which we have any Record but only a Provinciall Sy­nod, called Consilium Anchyritanum by Gratian. Ge­nebrard in his Chronology puts this Synod anno 298. Helvicus anno 312. Caranza and Mr Gillespy anno 308. certaine it is it was either in the latter end of this, or the beginning of the next Century. I shall with learned Genebrard account it into this. Caranza saies it was before the Oecumenicall Councill of Nice, but in what Emperours time is not determined. But in that Councill we find Suspension established with a witnesse. That for some sins, if any committed them before he was twenty yeares old, he should spend fifteene yeares in penitence before he should be ad­mitted to pray with the Church, and five yeares he should have no more than a communion in Prayers with the Church, and afterwards be admitted to the Lords Table. This Canon may be seen in Caranza, p. 28. can. 16. I find the Greeke Copy thus else­where.

[...]; [Page 134] [...].

I neither justifie this Councill, nor this Canon of it in all things, but if there were such a Councill, and so ancient as we are told, it plainly shews us Suspen­sion distinct from Excommunication was so ancient in the Church of God; the same is also confirmed by the 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Canons of that Councill; the Co­pies of which may be seen either in the booke called [...] Greek-Latine, or La­tine in Caranza and Benius, &c. The two most Famous Fathers in this Century were Origen about the yeare 202. and Cyprian 250.

Origen hath some, not obscure, hints of the judg­ment of the Church in his time. O [...]ig. in Levit. Homil. 23. — Cibus iste San­ctus non est communis omnium, nec cujuscunque indig­ni sed Sanctorum est.

Severall other hints are in Origen, though he no where speakes directly to the case.

For Cyprian, he that reads his tenth Epistle ad cle­rum de Presbyteris. &c. or his book de lapsis, will find enough: I had thought to have transcribed some passages: but I am prevented by Mr Gillespy in his Aarons Rod l. 3. cap. 17. where the Reader shall find them quoted.

From the yeare three hundred to foure hun­dred.

In the Century, besides other Councils, was the famous Oecumenicall Councill of Nice, and for An­cients, Arnobius, Athanasius, Hilary, Macarius, Op­tatus, Basil, Greg. Nyssen. Nazianzen, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Chrysostome, Hierome, Austin; Some of these will doubtlesse tell us the practice of the Church in their times.

For the Councill of Nice we have an imperfect Record, but if those Canons, which are printed as theirs, be so, they speake plaine enough, Can. 11.

[...]. Concil. Nicen. Can. 11.

Reader, this Synod was questionlesse the most glorious Orthodox Synod that ever the Church of Christ could glory in. Here were 318 of the most eminent servants of Christ, in the worke of the Go­spell, which the world then afforded. These all de­termine, that such sinners as were scandalous, though they had sinned through temptation, for feare of their lives or estates, (worshipping Idols, I suppose they meant) though they did professe repentance, yet they should give three yeares proofe of it before they should have any communion with the Church; if in this time they were found not to contradict their profession, they were admitted to some Communion, but no otherwise than penitents for seven yeares more, after these ten yeares they must have no nea­rer communion than in prayer for two yeares longer; here was a Suspension of ten yeares for scandalous sins, distinct from Excommunication: were all these dreamers thinke we? For the length of time I do not justifie them, nor can I altogether condemne them, considering the juncture of time, and state of the Church then.

In this Century, they say, was Concilium Neocaesa­riense, if it were so, and we have a true account of [Page 136]their acts. In their second Canon they decree, that if a woman marry two brothers she should be re­jected to her death; [...], yet it is plaine she was not excommunicated so long, for in the same Canon they determine she might have the Sacrament given her in her dying houre.

In the same Century was Concilium Gangrense, who in the preface to their acts do plainely distinguish [...], one who is denied Communi­on with the Church, and one who is quite separated from it.

What the Councill of Arles, determined in the same Century is plaine.

The first Councill of Arles Can. 11. Can. 12. Can. 23. plainely establish Suspension distinct from Ex­communication.

The second Councill of Arles, Caranza p. 55. a. in the same Centu­ry, determines the Suspension of such from the Lords Supper for five yeares, as had, through feare in time of persecution, sacrificed to Idols. See also Canon 20, 25.

Concilium Elebertinum, in which, Caranza saith, were nineteene Bishops, doth plainly distinguish betwixt some sinners, to whom the Sacrament at death should be denied, and others who should be suspended from it, but yet might have it at their death, desiring it, which if they were excommunicated they could not, V. Can. 1, 2, 3, 14, 21, 31, 40, &c.

For particular men in this Century, Aarons rod, l. 3. c. 17. the Opinions of Basil, Thaumaturgus, Chrysostome, Ambrose, Au­gustine, are evident in their severall workes.

Basil is enough for all, in his Canonicall Epistles ad Amphilochium, see Canon 34, 38, 44, 56, 57, 58, 59. for murther, he determines twenty yeares suspension, Can. 36. for man-slaughter, eleven yeares, Can. 57. for Adultery, fifteene, Can. 58. for Fornication, eight yeares, [Page 137]Can 59. for theft, though the thiefe first accused himselfe, one yeare, Can. 61. for perjury eleven yeares, Can. 64. But if they before gave good evi­dence of their repentance and change, they were to be admitted sooner, Can. 74.

It were an easie but tedious worke to shew that this was the judgement of the succeeding Councils and Fathers, but if we could not, these were the most pure and incorrupted times of the Church: and surely the Servants of God were not all this time in a dreame.

For the time of Antichrists prevailing, betwixt the time of the purer Church and the beginnings of Re­formation by Luther and Calvin, we shall easily know what was the generall opinion by the Schoolemen, and by their decretalls and Councils: the Schoole­men most of them handle this Question.

An peccatori hoc Sacramentum petenti Sacerdos denegare debeat?

Whether if a Sinner desire the Sacrament of the Lords Supper the Priest ought to deny it him? They generally distinguish betwixt a secret sinner and a pub­like and notorious sinner, and betwixt his desiring it in private and in publike. Vasq. in tert. par. Thom. t. 3. q. 80. disp. 209. cap. 2. In quâ re scho­lastici omnes, ut dixi, constanter affi [...]mant, publi­co peccatori, ni­mirum de quo non constat, ad meliorem fru­gem fuisse con­versum publice etiam, Euchari­stiam done gan­dam esse, ibid.

1. They all generally determine, that if the sinner be a manifest open sinner, the Priest ought to deny it to him, (though not excommunicated) which is enough for to prove Suspension distinct from Excom­munication.

They are not so well agreed in determining who should be accounted publike notorious sinners: Nor whe­ther the Priest may not in some cases deny the Lords Supper to Occulto peccatori?

Gabriel Vasquez assures me that all the Schoole­men do agree, that the Sacrament of the Lords Sup­per is to be denied to an open sinner, of whose repen­tance there is no evidence.

I said before, they are not so well agreed who shall be judged a scandalous sinner. Adrianus, in his questions de Eucharistia, saies, he is a publike scan­dalous sinner if his sin be known to ten persons. Syl­vester and Navarrus thinke enough if it be known to six. Dominicus Sotus and Vasquez, thinke that suspi­cion is not enough, but the party must appeare scan­dalous, either 1. Per sententiam, he being declared so by the Judge; or 2. Per confessionem ab ipso in ju­dicio, or by his own confession in Court; or 3. Per rei evidentiam, when the thing is evident and cannot be denied. But though they disagree here, yet they plainely enough agree, as to the granting a Suspension distinct from Excommunication.

Now that this is the concurrent opinion of the Schoolemen, Bonavent. in l. 4 sent. dist. 9. art. 2. q. 4. Duran. in sent. d [...]st. 9. q 5. Etius in l. 4. sent. dist. 9. sect 4. Vasq. in 3. p. Tho [...]. 3 q. 8. art. 6. Alex H [...]len. in 4. p. sum. q. 11. art. 3. Aquin. sum. 3. p. q. 80 art. 6. Becan. In sum. Scholast. Thcol. p 3 c. 5. q 8. I shall prove by referring the Reader to those places in Bonaventure, Aquinas, Durandus, Beca­nus, Halensis, Estius, Vasquez; where they professedly handle the question and give Arguments for it. Vas­quez, as I said before, tels me, it is the unanimous Vote of all his Brethren of the Schooles; I am sure it is the determination of all these (which prove it the opinion of the Schoolemen in all Ages) Bonaven­ture, Aquinas, and Durandus being all betwixt 1250. and 1300. Vasquez (saith Helvicus) died 1604. and Estius died 1613. as may be seen in the account of his life, and Writings prefixed to his Commentaries on the Epistles.

If Suspension distinct from Excommunication be a Dreame, these were some of the learned Dreamers.

It remaines that we examine the judgement of o­thers, and it is no great matter to whom we turne, let them be Papists, Lutherans, or Calvinists, we shall find them all in this point [...]

As for Papists, I shall not trouble my Reader, with quotations out of them (though it were a very fa­cile [Page 139]thing to do) partly because the ignorance of some may judge it one of their superstitious pra­ctices, and partly because their Schoolemen have spo­ken enough to let us know their minds; to which Salmeron may be added, who hath spoken enough to prove it in a place I have before quoted. Salmeron. t 5. tract. 60.

For the opinion of the Churches of the Switzers it is not considerable in the cause, because most of their Churches have no Excommunication at all, and so could not hold Suspension as distinct from it, yet I observe that none of them plead for admission of any to the Lords Table, but such as make a profession of their faith and repentance, so Brentius, Bullinger, Gualther, &c.

Philip Melancthon, who was one of the first Re­formers in Germany, hath said enough, as it is recor­ded by Christophorus Pezelius. Pezelii pars oct. argum & resp. theol. con­texta ex scrip­tis Melanct. de Excom. p. 409.

In veteribus Canonibus duo gradus sunt poenarum, se­paratio [...] & excommunicatio [...]. Separatio est poena qua homo per sententiam Ecclesia co­gitur aliquantisper omittere officium publicum, & usum Sacramentorum, ut exploretur ejus obedientia an volens statim emendaturus sit, & veniam petiturus, Melancth. in Eth. 287. an vero con­tumaciter defensurus errorem. &c.

Altera poena ultima, & summa in Ecclesia est Ex­communicatio, &c.

This is plaine enough for our purpose.

The next which I shall name of those holy and learned men, whom Mr Boatman hath called Drea­mers, &c. amongst the rest is holy Bucer. Bucer in Com­ment. in Ephes. cap. 4.

Et Cavendum est Ecclesiis ne cui causam praebeant su­mendi sibi judicium, in sumendo Sacramento salutis quod faciunt quicunque, absque verâ peccatorum suorum Poe­nitentiâ Sacrament is Domini communicant. Quamob­rem siqui in gravius aliquod peccatum incidissent & in manifestum flagitium, ut Corinthius ille incestus inci­derat, [Page 140]eos priscae Ecclesia quae Christi disciplinam adhuc rectè tenebant, ligabant certo tempore ad agend [...]m, hoc est demonstrandum poenitentiam per opera, & fructus veros poenitentiae, etiamsi illos jam tum peccati sui poenitere appareret, id enim erat consenta­neum verae poenitentiae de tetriore lapsu, quae (ut dictum) si vera sit, aliquandiu haeret, tum utile ad cavendum pec­catum tam ipse qui ligabatur quam totae reliquae Eccle­siae, — Atque hinc est quod Divus Cyprianus tanto­pere urgebat, lapsis in persecutionibus, non ilico dandam esse veniam, sed diu, ac justo tempore eos agere poeni­tentiam, de quo v. Epist. ejus 2. & 3. lib. 1. & lib. 3. ab Ep. 14. ad 20. & in Sermone de lapsis. Item exem­plum Ambrosit inlegatione Theodosii apud Theod. l. 3. c. 18. & apud Sozom. l. 7. c. 24. Porro licet abstinendi sint ad tempus qui gravioribus peccatis Ecclesiam fu­nestarunt, tamen severior debet esse Excommunicatio eorum qui Ecclesiam non audiunt, &c.

In the next place let us heare what our Reverend Calvin saith, Calv. institut. l. 4. cap. 12. sect. 5, & 6. and he speakes plaine enough. In his fifth Paragraph, having spoken before of Church-Censures, he treats of the three ends which the Church aimes at in such Censures: 1. The glory of God. 2. The preservation of the Churches purity. 3. The amendment of the offender. In his sixth Pa­ragraph he comes to shew the method and order of the Churches proceedings in Church-Censures, that he doth by making use of a former distinction he had laid down between publike and more private sins. By private sins he tels us, he doth not mean such as none know of, such as are the sins of hypocrites, but such whose nature is not so scandalous, &c. For open, grosse, publike sins, he tells us the Church need not proceed so gradually; 1. By private admonition. 2. Then by admonition more publike, &c. For lesser sins the Church takes no cognisance of them till pri­vate [Page 141]admonition be refused when it comes to them; if the offence be lighter, sufficit verborum castigatio (saith he) it is enough for the Church at first to ad­monish, and that, saith he, must be levis & paterna, quae non exasperet peccatorem, nec confundat, sed redu­cat ad seipsum, ut magis gaudeat se correctum quam tri­stetur. But if the offences be of an higher nature, they must be corrected by a sharper remedy, for (saith he) it is not enough if one hath committed a scandalous sin, and grievously offended the Church, should be, reproved by words, Ibid. Sect. 7, 8, 9.10, 11, 12. but for a time he ought to be deprived of the Com­munion of the Lords Supper, till he hath given evidence of his repentance. — And this, saith he, was the way of the ancient and better Church, &c. But for Ex­communciation he determines that must be done af­ter a great deale of waiting, and with a great deale of wisdome and caution, &c. thou maiest read him at large, whose discourse is too large indeed to be transcribed: This is enough to shew thee that he is one of Mr Boatmans Pharisees and Dreamers too; (we shall have good company I hope anon.)

In this sixteenth Century were so many eminent men, that it were endlesse to transcribe all their te­stimonies to this truth; thou hast, Reader, already heard what Melancthon and Bucer, and Calvin have spoke, (who were all three within this Century,) I shall not trouble thee with many more. Zach. Ursinus in doct. Christ. 2. p. de Coenâ dom. q. 8.

What Reverend Vrsine thought may be read at large in his eighth Question de Coenâ Domini, where he speakes to these two Questions: 1. Qui ad coe [...]am accedere debent, who ought to come to the Lords Table. 2. Qui debeant admitti, who ought to be ad­mitted to it? In answer to the latter he determines;

‘Those are to be admitted by the Church, who by words and deeds professe true repentance, and who by the actions of their life expresse their professi­on [Page 142]of faith and repentance, but they are (saith he) not to be admitted who barely say, they beleeve all things; for he who saith he beleeveth, and shew­eth it not by his works, is a liar, and doth in deeds deny what in words he affirmeth.’ For this he gives reasons, and answers objections largely in that Chap­ter, which the Reader may see in Latine or English. And that he thought this Suspension ought to precede Excommunication is plaine, for in the same Book in his fifth Question de Clavibus, He determines that Excommunication must be used as the last remedy to correct those who are found impenitent. And in the preceding Question he proves by fourteen Arguments that scandalous persons ought to be kept from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper (which I wish those who are so zealous for the profanation of that Or­dinance would seriously weigh) possibly they might amaze their consciences (if they have any) more than Mr Boatman's startling reason scares us.

I confesse, in this Century I find severall of the Germane Divines pleading for promiscuous Com­munion, especially Wolfangus Musculus; but they are not so considerable in this cause, because their Judgements are also against all Church Discipline where there is a Christian Magistrate. The Lord hath made their names upon other accounts excee­ding famous, though in point of Church Discipline they have no name in the Church. God shall reveale this also to those Churches (as we hope.)

What was Peter Martyrs opinion is plaine from his common places, Pet. Mart. loc. com. Clas. 4. c. 5. sect. 7. where he tells us in what order the Churches of God formerly proceeded to the so­lemne sentence of Excommunication: he indeed tels us, that their severall degrees of Catechumeni, of which some were Audientes, some Competentes, and of their Poenitentes, of which they had foure sorts, [Page 143](all of which were kept in the Primitive Church from the Lords Table, at least all but their fourth degree of Penitents,) cannot be proved from Scripture. But in his fifteenth Section moving this Question, what should be done in reference to scandalous sinners, if the community refused to consent to their Excommu­nication, He answers: Saltem id curandum esse, ut damnatis atque convictis, de publicis & manifestis cri­minibus pastor Sacramenta non distribuat. Care at least must be taken that the Pastor doth not administer the Sacrament to such as are convicted of grosse sins; from whence it is plaine, that he judged some that might be kept from the Supper of the Lord who were not Excommunicated. And that Reverend mans judgement is not so clearely to be judged from his common places (which were collected out of his works by others, and by them published) as by the Book called Reformatio legum Ecclesiasticarum (of which more anon.)

In the next place let us heare what Polanus thought, Polan. Syntag. Theol l. 7. c. 18. Abstentio publi­ca usurpatur, cum coram Ec­clesia jubetur abstinere Sacrae Coenae usu is qui contra priva­tum interdi­ctum aliis ad mensam domini accedentibus se ingerit, &c. whose judgement the Reader shall find in the second part of his Syntagma, l. 7. c. 18.

Where he tels us, that the Publike Censures of the Church are three: 1. Admonitio. 2. Abstentio. 3. Ex­communicatio; Admonition, Suspension, and Ex­communication.

Publike Suspension, saith he, is when in the face of the Church he is commanded to abstaine from the Sa­crament of the Lords Supper, who either against a pri­vate prohibition intrudes, or whose sin is so scandalous that the Pastor of the Church cannot, without scandall to the faithfull, administer the Sacrament to him, So Ambrose suspended the great Emperour Theodo­sius.

Come we now to learned and Reverend Zanchy, who hath a large discourse upon this point in his first [Page 144]Book of Epistles, Zanch. in epist. l. 1. in ep. ad Fred tert. A [...]quorum pec­cata sunt omni­bus nota, & quo­rum etiam per­tinacia nemini est ignot A [...]bos ex verbo Dei cum totá vetu­state & doctis­sim is quibusque nostri saeculi contendimus ad Coonam Domini minimè esse ad­mittendos ib. in an Epistle to Fredericus tertius, where he determines that Excommunication is to proceed only in case of contumacy. But confirmes the keeping away of scandalous and impenitent sin­ners by thirteen Arguments, and saies, they are egre­giously charitable who would have none kept away, and determines the admission of the profane to be against piety, and charity, and answers the trite Ob­jections of Judas his receiving, and from that place, Let a man examine himselfe; Ergo, none else may ex­amine him, and determines the admission of the pro­fane; 1. Against the will of God. 2. A profanation of the Sacrament. 2. A scandall to the Church. In short, saith he, For those whose sins, and whose ob­stinacy in sinning is known to all, we contend, both in the behalfe of Gods word, and according to all Antiquity, and all the Learned of our Age, that they are not to be admitted to the Lords Table. He produceth the authority of Justin Martyr, Chrysostome in severall places, Cyprian, &c.

In the next place let us heare the judgement of Re­verend Danaeus, L [...]bert. Da­neus in Isagoge Christ p. 3 c. 59. p 4. l. 5. c. 53. and that may be read plaine enough in the third part of his Isagoge Christiana, cap. 59. where he distinguisheth the publike censures of the Church into Admonition, Suspension from the Lords Table and Excommunication; and in his fourth part, and fifth book, cap. 53. he sufficiently proves, that the Ignorant and Scandalous are to be kept away from the Lords Table, for which he gives reasons, and an­swers objections.

Of the same mind is Learned and Reverend Zep­perus, as may appeare at large from his Tract of the Sacraments in genere & specie, l. 4. de sacrâ Domini coenâ, cap. 5. where he handles this question, for whom Christ instituted the Sacrament of his Supper; and determines it was only for his Disciples, who [Page 145]these are he explaines from Joh. 8.31. Mat. 16.24. Zepperus in tract. de sa­cram. l. 4. de sacra Coenâ, cap. 5. Joh. 13.35. And determines that the scandalous and obstinate ought not to be admitted, because they are none of Christs Disciples, because holy things are not to be given to dogs, because it hath been the constant practice of the Church to keep them away, this he proves not only from the practice of the Je­wish Church, in reference to the Passeover, but from the Writings of Tertullian, Cyprian, Chryso­stome, &c. and answers the objection of Judas his supposed receiving.

I have a Book wrote in Latine, anno 1574. Ecclesiasticae di­sciplinae & An­glicanae. Ecclesiae ab ill â aberrati­onis plena dilu­cidatio. p. 127, 128, 129, 130. by some pious learned man, who I know not, I am in­formed it was Mr Dudly Fenners, it is called, Ecclesia­sticae Disciplinae & Anglicánae Ecclesiae ab illâ aberra­tionis plena è verbo Dei & dilucida explicatio; where Suspension, distinct from Excommunication, is main­tained and proved from Scripture and Antiquity.

What was Bucanus his Judgement is evident enough from his Institutions; in his 44. common place he propounds this as his tenth question: Quot sunt partes sive gradus Ecclesiasticae correctionis. How many degrees are there of Ecclesiasticall Censure? He answers three.

1. [...], seu [...], admonition.

2. Exclusio seu abstentio, &c. Bucan. inflit. theol. loc. 44. q. 10, &c. Suspension from the Lords Supper for a time.

3. Excommunication, (of which see more there.)

So that it is plaine, he also thought there was such a thing as Suspension distinct from Excommunication, viz. absolute Excommunication.

Reverend and Learned Beza's judgement is so known, that I need quote nothing out of him; but yet in regard that I am credibly informed, that M Boatman had the confidence to quote the French Churches, as if they were of his mind, and I have met with a [Page 146]passage in Beza, which not only speakes his Judge­ment, but the Judgement and Practi [...]e of the Churches of God in France, I shall transcribe it; it is in the Preface of the Book which he directs against Erastus, Beza de Pies­byterio & Ex­com. he calls it Tractatus pius & moderatus de ve­râ Excommunicatione & Presbyterio; In the Preface of that book you shall find this passage.

‘Consistorium igitur habemus, &c. We have, saith he, a Consistory, in which not only the Ministers of Gods word, but twice as many more, sit as Judges chosen (out of the lesser and greater Senate) not without publike notice first given to the peo­ple, Dissenters as to the received doctrine of the Church, are first friendly, and brotherly admoni­shed: if they will be quiet, they are commanded to remaine still for the time to come, and there is no further vote of disgrace put upon them; if they be stubborne, and a second more serious admoniti­on will not profit, then they are summoned to the Consistory: if they pertinaciously resist their admo­nition, then they are forbidden the Lords Supper, (being the seale of that doctrine in which they dis­sent from us) and the whole Senate is informed of them. The same course is taken against them who discover their profane mind by an open contempt of holy meetings. As to the manners of the seve­rall persons, when faults are secret, we use gentle admonitions, as the Lord prescribeth; nor is any one called to the Ecclesiasticall Judicatory for a pri­vate fault, (which is not conjoyned with the pub­like scandall of the Church) unlesse he contemneth private admonitions; but such as do contemne them, are againe admonished by the Church, and being convicted by due testimonies, if instead of asking pardon they shew themselves obstinate, they are according to the word of God, Mat. 18.17. [Page 147]commanded to keep from the Supper of the Lord till they declare a change of heart. As for more ma­nifest and infamous sins, which the Church cannot winke at, he that hath so offended (for an exam­ple to others) is summoned to the Consistory; but if he askes pardon, he is dismissed: but if he be admonished the second time, and doth not acknow­ledge his sin, and promise amendment, then as one who goes on scandalizing the Church, he is kept away from the Holy Supper, which is a seale of our mutuall communion with Christ, and each with other, untill he hath given evidence of his repen­tance. In more grosse and open sins, which de­serve greater than verball corrections only, the Church having first had lawfull cognisance of it, those that so sin are commanded to humble them­selves before the Lord, and to keep away from the Lords Table for some time, (in order to publique edification) untill it appeares that their sin is indeed grievous unto them. But for open and publike Ex­communication, denounced before all the Con­gregation, we do not use it but against persons al­together desperate and hopelesse, [non nisi in poenè deploratos] that is his phrase) yet, saith he, for Apo­states, we do not receive them to communion a­gaine, though they professe repentance in the Con­sistory, unlesse they also beg forgivenesse in the o­pen Congregation.’ Thus far this holy, and learned, and Reverend man, which speakes his judgement, and the French Churches, clearely enough.

Holy and learned Ames speakes clearely enough: Amesii medul­lae. theol. l 1. cap. 37. [...]. 19, 20, 21.

‘Excommunication, saith he, is not to be used un­lesse to the sin be added contumacy, n. 19. Mat. 18.17. The sinner being duly admonished must appeare poenitent or stubborne, he that is penitent ought not to be excommunicated, therefore the contuma­cio us only.’

N. 21. V. Amesium de conscientia & ejus jure & ca­sibus, l. 4. c. 29. q. 8. ‘When the businesse can admit delay, it is agreeable to Scripture and reason, that Excommu­ni [...]ation be begun first by Suspension and keeping away of the sinner from the Sacrament, and other Church-priviledges, this saith he, is the lesser Ex­communication.’

N. 22. ‘But the Church must not stay here, but urge the sinners repentance by this way, and in this time of his Suspension, and when they are out of hopes of that, they must proceed to a compleat se­paration of him from communion with the Church, this is the greater Excommunication.’

Anthony Wollebius, Ant Wollebii compendium Christ. theol. l. 1. cap. 26. Professor sometimes in Basil, is of the same mind.

Ligationis gradus suns, &c. The degrees of Cen [...] ­sures, saith he, are,

1. Severe admonition by the Presbytery, pri­vate admonition being rejected.

2. Suspension from the Lords Table, which he proves from Mat. 7.6.

3. Excommunication, by which the Party is cast out of the Church.

4. Anathema, when he is given over as one de­sperate.

I will adde the testimony of Wendeline, Wendelini l. 1. Christianae theo. cap. 23. thes. 18. who in his first book Christianae Theologiae, in his 23. Chapter in his 18. Thesis, determines, that he who is subjectum Coenae Dominicae, a Subject fit for the Lords Supper, must be 1. adultus, one grown up. 2. Doctrina fidei Chri­stianae imbutus eique addictus, one who is endued with a knowledge of the Doctrine of Christianity, and a friend to it. 3. Vitae Sanctae studiosus, one who is stu­dious of an holy life; therefore, saith he, these must be shut out from the Lords Table.

1. Infants, because they cannot remember the Lords death. 2. Because they cannot prepare themselves.

2. Those that are ignorant of the Doctrine of Christianity, or ab eâ alieni, ‘Because, saith he, this Sacrament is ordained for none but the Citizens of the Christian Church: and those who are parta­kers of the same saith, and who embrace and pro­fesse the doctrine of the Gospell; for as nothing is promised in the Gospell to those who know no­thing of Christ, or are enemies to the doctrine of the Gospell, but the wrath of God is denounced to such: so nothing is sealed to them, and therefore they are not to be admitted to the seale of the Promise.’

3. Lastly, such as are manifestly wicked and profane, and that for three causes:

1. Because by their impiety and profanenesse they profane the Lords Supper.

2. Because they eate and drinke unworthily, and so procure Judgement to themselves.

3. Because the Church admitting such provokes God to wrath against it, casting holy things and pearles before Dogs and Swine.

This is enough to shew the judgement of particu­lar men, who have been the eminent servants of Christ in all Ages. Let us now take in the judgement of whole Churches.

And it will be fit we should begin at home, out of our duty to our mother, and considering that of all the Churches of God, now in the world, the English is and hath been most famous.

The Church of England may be considered either in her state of Virginity, or of her pollution by the man of sin; or lastly, since her honest divorce from him.

For our Church, what her judgement was before, Austin the Monke was sent over to espouse her to the Romish Bishop; we have very little Record, the best [Page 150]which I know, Concilia Pan. Brittanica, p. 92. is in the learned book published by Sir Henry Spilman.

Austin came over anno 597.

The first councill that learned Knight tells us of, is that of Arles, held in Constantines time, and at his command, the place of their Session was in France; it was held, saith Binius, anno 326. Balaeus saith 350. Baronius saith 314. There were present for England at the Synod Eborius Bishop of Yorke. Restitutus Bi­shop of London, and Adelfius Bishop of London. Sa­cerdos a Presbyter, and Arminius a Deacon.

They made 22. Canons, their third Canon, and fourth, and fifth determine Suspension of Stage-play­ers, &c. So doth their eleventh Canon for young wo­men married to heathens. — Placuit ut aliquanto tempore à communione separentur. Their fourteenth Canon determines a Suspension till death for those who falsely accuse their Brethren; indeed the words are Can. 3. A communione abstineri. Can. 4. A com­munione separari. So Can. 5.11. but by communio is meant the Communion of the body and bloud of Christ only, as is plaine from the last Canon, and from the sins mentioned, Can. 3, 4, 5. not deserving absolute and plenary Excommunication.

After this time, Pag. 47. saith Sir Henry Spilman, till Austins time, in regard of the great troubles of Brittaine, through the continuall inrodes of the Saxons, the Bi­shops themselves, being forced to retire into Wales, were very few Synods in England.

In Ireland, saith Sir Henry Spilman, anno 450. was a Synod held. He hath a Copy of the Canons agreed upon at it in their fourteenth Canon. They determine a yeare for repentance to any who had killed any, com­mitted fornication, or consulted a wizard, Can. 15. they determine twenty daies poenitence in case of theft; this they distinguish (as is apparent from their [Page 151]other Canons) from one who is anathematizandus, Can. 19. in case of adultery they determine Excom­munication.

This is all the Record I find concerning our Churches in that time, excepting only some imper­fect Records, mentioning some single acts of Cen­sure; Monricus was excommunicated for the mur­ther of Cynetu in a Synod at Landaff, anno 560. ano­ther Synod there enjoyned King Morcant penance for murthering his Uncle Frioc; and at a third Sy­nod there, Guidnerth was excommunicated for the murther of his Brother.

But a more perfect account I cannot find. From the time of Austine the Monkes comming over till King Henry the eighth our Church was Popish, and ruled by the order of the Romish Church, who we know allows Suspension, as I have sufficiently pro­ved by their Schoolemen.

In the time of King Hen. 8. Reformation began to dawn; He directed a Commission to thirty two persons to draw up a body of Ecclesiasticall Laws. Afterwards King Edward 6. by his Commission dated November 11. in the fifth yeare of his Reigne revi­ved and perfected the worke. Cranmer, Peter Mar­tyr, Dr Cox, Dr May, Dr Taylor of Hadly, and some others, being his Commissioners to perfect the body o [...] the Laws, which was called Reformatio Legum Eccesiasticarum,, and was printed at London anno 1641. In which book the judgement of those emi­nent men, the Fathers of our Church (two of which, viz. Cranmer and Taylor were Martyrs after­ward) is evident, p. 151, 152, 153, 154. they have nine Chapters concerning Suspension. In the second Chapter they shew the causes of Suspension amongst which this they alledge as the maine.

Because in lesser offences Excommunication cannot [Page 152]proceed, Quoniam mag­ra lequeretur, b [...]norum pertu [...] ­hatio, si cum hu­jusmodi person is infamibus Sa­cramenta communicarent. and oft-times suspicions of grosse sins which may scandalize the Church may appeare where the fact cannot be fully proved, which they say must be taken notice of by the Church. For it would cause a great di­sturbance in the Church if the members of it should re­ceive the Sacrament with infamous persons.

In their fourth Chapter they determine, that he who continues a whole yeare suspended shall be Excommunicated, &c.

In their fourth Chapter they determine, that he who continues a whole yeare suspended shall be Excommunicated, &c.

Soone after this the Bishops prevailed to have the Common Prayer and Rubrick confirmed, and from thence, as to this, we may know the judgement of our Church till the yeare 1641. It is true they were as tender of the businesse of Suspension, as they were free of their Excommunications. But yet we have thus much in the Rubrick prefixed to the forme for administring the Lords Supper.

‘If any be an open and notorious liver, so that by him the Congregation is offended, or have done any wrong to his Neighbour by word or deed, the Curate, having knowledge thereof, shall call him and advertise him in any wise not to presume to come to the Lords Table, V. The Book of Common Prayer concerning the order for the administration of the Lords Supper. untill he hath openly de­clared himselfe to have truly repented and amen­ded his former naughty life, that the Congregati­on may thereby be satisfied, which before were offended, and that he hath recompenced the per­sons whom he hath done wrong unto, or at least declare himselfe to be in full purpose so to do as soone as conveniently he may. The same order shall the Curate use with those betwixt whom he perceiveth malice and hatred to reigne, not suf­fering them to be partakers of the Lords Table, un­till he know them to be reconciled, and if one of the parties so at variance be contented to forgive, from the bottome of his heart, all that the other [Page 153]hath trespassed against him, and to make amends for that he himselfe hath offended, and the other party will not be perswaded to a godly Unity, but remaine still in his frowardnesse and malice, the Minister in that case ought to admit the penitent person to the Communion, and not the obsti­nate.’

Thus you see our Church while it was under Epi­scopall Discipline, yet allowed Suspension distinct from Excommunication.

After that Episcopacy was voted downe, and Presbytery established, Forme of Church Government. p. 29. first by an Ordinance for three years, then for ever by the Form of Church Government past and printed 1648. sine die. All may read the Pres­byterian Judgement for Suspension distinct from Ex­communication, a. p. 27. of that booke to the end.

For our dissenting Brethren, it is their practice, when once they have admonished an offender, to suspend him from the Sacrament till he repent, or be wholly cast out of the Church. At this time, in this City, is one who hath been so suspended these twelve Months, if he be not lately restored nor Excommuni­cated.

Lest any one should not thinke the Rubrick cleare enough to shew the Judgement of our Church in Episcopall times, I shall produce a proofe or two more.

There was a Provinciall Synod held at London anno 1603. where it was decreed, Canon 26, 27. Constitut. & Ca­nons printed 1628. Can. 26, 27. That no Minister shall in any wise admit to the Communion any of his Cure or Flock which be openly known to live in sin notorious without repentance; nor malicious persons, nor unfaithfull Churchwardens; nor such as refuse to be present at publike prayers, nor to any that depraved the Book of Common Prayer, nor who spake against the Kings Authority.

Let Reverend Deane Nowell speake, Dr Nowels Ca­techism. p. 647. who in his Catechisme Greeke-Latine printed London 1573. tels us, That if it doth appeare openly that one is unworthy, the Pastor must not admit him, because he cannot do it without the profanation of the Sacrament; and in or­der to the keeping of them away the Deane tells us in well ordered Churches Elders were chosen and joyned with the Pastor, Ibid p. 652. &c

From all this it is plaine, That the Judgement and Practice of the Church of England in all times, ever since it was a Church, hath been to suspend some from the Table of the Lord, who yet were not Ex­communicated.

Let us look now into other Churches. The Re­formed Churches are either those in Germany, or in Holland or in France, or in Scotland.

For the Churches of the Switzers, they indeed practice no Discipline; but we shall find all other Churches concurring with us.

The Judgement of the Church of Scotland may be known, not only by the particular Writings of their eminent Gillespy and Rutherford, but by their forme of Church-Government, printed 1641. where they tell us p. 39.

‘All baptized persons when they come to age and discretion are not admitted to the Lords Table, The Govern­ment of the Church of Scot­land, p. 39, 40, &c. but such only as upon examination are found to have a competent measure of knowledge in the Principles of Religion, and do professe that they are belee­vers, and do live unblameably, &c. — But this not-admission to the Communion is one thing, and Excommunication of hainous, or obstinate of­fenders is another thing very different, &c.—’

The Judgement of the Church of God in Holland is cleare from their Corpus Disciplinae, printed here anno 1645. chap. 4. Concerning Ecclesiasticall Discipline, art. 8.

‘He that shall obstinately reject the admonition of the Consistory shall be suspended from the Supper of the Lord, 1 Thes. 3.14.’ that is in case of private of­fences.

Art. 10. He that hath committed a publike, Corpus discipli­nae Engl. pr. 1645. cap. 4. art. 8, 10, 11, 14. or other­wise hainous offence, shall also be suspended from the Lords Supper, though he should give signs of Repentance, according as the Consistory shall judge most fitting.

Art. 11. He that hath been suspended, if after di­vers admonitions he shall shew no signe of repentance, he shall be published to the Congregation.

Art. 14. And at length if he doth not repent followeth the Excommunication, &c.

I thinke here is Suspension before Excommunicati­on, and distinct from it.

I heare Mr Boatman hath quoted the Churches in France for him, how truly now my Reader shall see, when I had quoted them against him, a friend of mine telling him of it, he bad him aske Dr De-Lawne and he could satisfie him of the untruth of my quo­tation. I did not quote them by heare-say, but from Reverend Beza's account, which I quoted before. I conceived they had not altered their minds, yet I sent to my Reverend Friend Dr Lawn, for satisfacti­on he came to me April 9. and 1. assured me it was the daily practice of their Church to suspend the scan­dalous. 2. Promised me to send me all the books he had concerning the Discipline of their Churches to confirme me.

This day he sent me two, having left one with me. the first is called,

The Ecclesiasticall Discipline of the Reformed Chur­ches of France, printed London 1642.

They say so much for it that I cannot transcribe all, let him who doubts read the 19, 20, 21. p. n. 15. — ‘If it (say they) befalleth, that besides the ad­monitions [Page 156]usually made by the Consistory to such as have done amisse, Ecclesiasticall Discipline of the reformed Churches of France, p. 19, 20, 21. there be some other punish­ment, or more rigorous Censure to be used, it shall then be done either by Suspension, or privation of the Sacrament for a time, or by Excommunicati­on &c.’ So they go on directing to the execution of either, &c.

Another book is called, Ibid. p. 42, 43. Art. 15. The generall and particular Acts and Articles of the late Nationall Synod of the Reformed Churches of France, at Charenton 26. Decem. 1644. Printed at London 1646.

They plainely and largely determine Suspension, and charge their Consistories to distinguish it from Ex­communication. — The passages are too large to transcribe; Let the Reader view that book at his lei­sure p. 42, 43.

There is yet one book more, containing an Extract of the foure Nationall Synods of the Belgick Churches, viz. that of Embda, 1571. Dort 1578. Middleburgh 1581. the Hague 1586. the Booke is written in Latin, and called Harmonia Synodorum Bel­gicarum, in the 36 page having before spoken of pri­vate and publike admonition, they determine: N. 8. Let him who hath pertinaciously rejected the admoniti­ons of the Consistory be suspended from the Lords Sup­per. Qui pertinaci­ter Consistorii admonitiones rejecerit, à Sa­crae Coenae com­munione susp [...]n­detur. Harm. Syn. Belgie. Si suspensus post iteratas ad­monitiones nul­lum poenitentiae signum dederit, ad Excommu­nicationem pro­cedet Ecclesia. Ibid.

And againe Art. 9.

If he who is suspended, after iterated admonitions, shew no signe of Repentance, then let him be Excom­municated.

I thinke here is Suspension againe distinct from Excommunication.

As for our dissenting Brethren, I spake something before to prove it their practice let meadde one thing more.

Our Brethrn of New England are the most pure, [Page 157]and sober, and considerable Churches in the world of that perswasion, and those who alone would ever give us a joynt account of their faith as to Church-Discipline. Let us heare what they say; in their four­teenth Chupter, having spoken concerning publike ad­monition, they adde,

Which declaring the offender to lye under the publike offence of the Church doth thereby with-hold, A platforme of Church Disci­pline printed London 1653. Cap. 14. p. 21. n. 2. or suspend him front the holy fellowship of the Lords Supper till his offence be removed by penitent confession: If he still con­tinue obstinate, they are to cast him out by Excommuni­cation.

I thinke here is also Suspension granted precedane­ous to, and gradually distinct from Excommunicati­on.

There is only one thing to which I must speake a word or two wherein in our present practice we dif­fer from other setled Reformed Churches: As to the suspension of any whom we, since the late Reforma­tion, admitted to the holy Table, we agree both with other reformed Churches, with our owne in times of Episcopacy, and with our Brethren of the dissen­ting party, we will suspend none but after admonition for some scandalous sin, and indeed this only is pro­perly Suspension.

We deny the Sacrament indeed to others, viz. such as will not give account of their faith, and sub­mit to the order of the Church. But we would not have this lookt upon by our Brethren as if it were a standing principle of ours, or as if we intended to put Christians to give an account of their faith every time they come to the Sacrament, the contrary is evident in our practice; we must therefore be considered as a disordered, and now reforming Church. Had all those Ministers, who went before us in our Churches, done their duty, they had saved us our labour. They [Page 158]should have admitted none at first to the Sacrament but such as had a competent knowledge of the prin­ciples of Religion, and such as were blamelesse in their lives, the principles of the Episcopall Government required this.

But we find some of them made no conscience of it, but admitted any body for his two pence, and ca­red not how scandalous they were, (ordinarily they could not be worse than their Parson) we enter now into these mens harvests, and finding what slovenly worke they made, we cannot thinke it safe for us to worke after their rate: this made the Reverend As­sembly propound this expedient, to put us in order, that there might (pro primâ vice) be a review of all those who had been formerly admitted, and such as were found ignorant kept away, and so for the scan­dalous.

Nay, I will adde one thing more; Had our Bi­shops been conscientious in the businesse of Confir­mation, we had been spared this trouble and odium. For Confirmation was in order to the trying of peo­ples proficiency after Baptisme. And as none not confirmed should have come to the Lords Table, so he should have confirmed no ignorant scandalous persons though baptized: But we see the cleane con­trary practice.

And there was no way but this to begin any Re­formation amongst us, who by our way of admini­stration of that holy Ordinance had made our Churches a reproach to Papists, and a griefe of heart to all Protestants, and by it opened a way for Brow­nists and Anabaptists, and others, to fill their Con­gregations with those who were our strictest Pro­fessors formerly, though they quickly taught them otherwise. And I thinke this may serve to satisfie any conscientious Christians.

Nor shall any, how godly soever, or great so ever, have any just cause to stumble at it that they must be enjoyned to give account of their faith; For be­sides, that we stand not upon Examination, but shall be as well contented with a continued Narration of their faith from them, (which we are also ready to give to them) Christians should consider how much the glory of God, and the good of others is furthe­red by their open profession of their knowledge, and confession of what God hath done for their poore soules; and their Reason may informe them, that we cannot spare them without partiality, which we must not be guilty of.

And now, Reader, I have shewed thee, that the Churches and Servants of Christ in all ages, have owned and practised this so much decreed Ordinance of Suspension: Now judge whether Mr Boatman hath informed his people truly, in telling them it is a dreame of the Pharisees, which wiser ages before never thought of.

CHAP. XIV. Containing a digression, or rather a regres­sion, with an attempt to cleare from the Writings of the Ancients the severall degrees of persons not excommunicated, yet suspended from the Lords Supper.

I Shall returne a little to try a little further how far the practice of the Church in the Primitive times, as to the keeping some from the Lords Supper, who yet were not de facto cast out of the Church, and kept from all Ordinances, can be cleared from the Writings of the Ancients, or those learned Atiqua­ries, who have laboure'd to find it out before me, and spent their paines to very good purpose, though their writings be in Latine, and so not so obvious to all; this I shall do the rather,

1. Because I have heard of some holy and learned men that doubt it. 2. Because it will expound some pas­sages which I have already quoted out of the Councils, [Page 161]and the (pretended) Areopagite. 3. Because the clea­ring of this will plainely evidence the practice of the Primitive Church as to this point.

All Christians of old were distinguished into three sorts [...]. 1. Such as were Catechumeni under Catechisme. 2. Belee­vers. 3. Penitents. Hospites & vi­ciui fidelium. Raban. l. 1. de instit. cler. Penitents were such as had fallen into some sins for which they were denied the priviledges of the Church.

The Catechumeni were such as were probationers for Christianity, or Church-Fellowship, and were put under the care of some Teachers to be instructed in the Principles of Religion in order to it, when this practice first began in the Church is not certaine; the first Master of these Christian Pupils, which we read of in Ecclesiasticall History, was Pantaenus, who lived (saith Eusebius) anno 193. Euseb. l. 5.6.9, 10. & in Chron. Bellarm. de scriptor. Eccl. p. 76. Euseb. l. 6.6.7. and was Master of a Schoole of them at Alexandria; Clemens Alexan­drinus, Pantaenus his Scholler, succeeded him in that employment (saith Eusebius,) he lived anno 204 saith Bellarmine, but Eusebius saith 194. which was ten yeares before. Origen, his Schollar, was the next we read of, Eusebius reckons him anno 208. Bellarmine reckons his 226. That the [...] were an an­cient order of Christians is plaine from Gal. 6.6. From which place the Magdeburgenses conclude the Apostles lest formes of Catechisme; Centur. Magdeb. Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 7. it is probable to me that even from the Apos [...]les time there were in the Church [...], and [...], some that were Catechised, and some appointed to Catechize them, they are both of them Scripture termes. And And if we may admit the eight books of Apostolicall institutions to be wrote by Clement (which I durst not allow) they determine the case, Constit: Apost. l 7 c. 40. having a peculiar precept how those Catechumeni should be instituted, but (leaving them as spurious) it is cleare enough [Page 162]from severall places of Clemens Alexandrinus, Clem. Alex. l. 7. strom. who lived doubtlesse in the second Century, that they were an order in his time. Not only from that pas­sage which my learned friend Dr Young hath quoted out of him, [...], which is l. 7. strom. but also from divers other passages, as in his 6. strom. [...].

My fore-mentiond, Dr Young in his Dies Domi­nica. l. 2 c 14. Albaspin. obs. l. 2 observ. 2. Learned and Reverend friend saith, there was of these two sorts: Audientes, and Competentes. That learned Antiquary Albaspinaeus tells us of foure degrees; I will translate his words, or at least give his sense. As soone as divine light had shined upon any, and put in his heart to be a Christian;

1. He was taught in some private house concerning the cheats and doting superstitions of Pagans, but was not yet admitted to heare Gods word, &c. this was their first degree.

2. Then they had liberty to go a little further, they might come and heare Sermons; De Catechume­nis & Catechi­zandi ordine vi­de Rabanum Maurum. l. 1. de institut. cleric. Cap. 26. & 27. hence they were called Audientes, these might only heare, not come into the Church at Prayer.

3. After this they had liberty to joyne with the Church in Prayer, these were called Orantes & genu­flectentes.

4. When they had been thus far admitted, they were baptized, these were called Competentes.

I shall not trouble my selfe to search what privi­ledges each of these sorts had, it is certaine none of them were as yet admitted to the Lords Table, post sermonem fit missa Catechumenis (saith Augustine) manebant fideles. And indeed the very right under­standing of that terme fideles determines the busines, to the clearing of which I shall transcribe a passage out of that incomparable Antiquary.

Fidelis distinguitur à Catechumeno, & confirmato, [Page 163]non enim inter fideles adsumebantur, Albaspin. obs. l. 1. obs. 25. qui fidem in bap­tismo aut qui charismata & dona spiritus Sancti ipsum­que Spiritum Sanctum in confirmatione adepti essent, verùm ii solum censebantur, & appellabantur fideles, qui iis duobus Sacramentis muniti, Eucharistiâ insuper donarentur, cum enim ea sit summum Christianae Reli­gionis mysterium arcanum, & Sacramentum, non cuivis olim temere concedebatur; sed ei duntaxat qui multo antea morum & probitatis suae specimen exhibuisset, quique se it a fidum probasset, ut tutò ei mysteria divul­garipossent. Is igitur vocabatur fidelis, non qui baptiza­tus, aut confirmatus, sedqui Eucharistiae sacris partici­pâsset. In English to this purpose.

‘A Beleever is distinguish'd from a Catechume­nist, and from one who is confirmed, V. Etiam Pa­melii annot. 256. in c. 41. lib. Tert. de praesc. contra haeret. Catechumenos —cui fidelis op­pointur, qui jam plene edoctus, & instruct us erat in fide, jamque receptus, & ad­missus ad nostra mysteria perci­pienda. ib. for all those who had obtained faith in Baptisme, or who had received the gists of the Holy Spirit were not pre­sently reckoned amongst the Fideles; but those alone were thought worthy to be called, and were called Fideles,, who having been prepared by Bap­tisme and Confirmation [which he calls Sacraments] were surther admitted to the Lords Supper, for in regard that is the greatest Mystery, and Secret, and Sacrament of the Christian Religion; of old it was not headily granted to every one, but to him only who of a long time before had given proofe of his honest Conversation, and had approved himselfe so faithfull that those mysteries might safely be ad­ministred to him. He therefore was called Fidelis, not who was baptized, or confirmed, but who was admitted to the Holy Table.’

Clemens Alexandrinus saith, he is [...], Clem. Alex. strom. l. 2. impr. Lut. 1619. p. 371. [...], who keeps faithfully what is committed to him; [...] (saith he) [...]. One who [Page 164]keeps Gods Commandements is Fidelis, in his sense. But as to the Ecclesiasticall acceptation of Fideles, Albaspinaeus hath doubtlesse told us the truth.

It is out of all doubt, that the Catechumeni were not admitted to the Lords Table. Tert. cum not is —de la Bar. l. 4. contra Marcio­nem. l. de Poeni­tentiâ. Quis Catechu­menus, quis fi­delis, incertum est, omnes pari­ter orant, Tert. de praescrip. con. haeret. c. 41. Alcuinus de di­vinis offic. I siod. l. 6. Ety­mol. c. 19. Raban. Maurus de instit. cler. cap 32. Ino. Epist. 73. Aug S rm. Concil. Carth 4. Amb. l. 5. ep. 33. Concil. Laod. cap. 19. Dion. Areop. loc. praed. Athan. apol. 2. contra Arrian. Renatus Laurenti­us de la Barr tels us, that — In templo manebant donec Evangelium expossuisset Episcopus. Tum clamabas Le­vita Catechumeni exeunt, vel siquis Catechumenus re­mansit exeat; which sutes with that of Austin, be­fore specified. And this is plaine from Tertullian, who usually calls them Audientes, and Auditores, who saies, they might wish for the Sacrament of Baptism, but ought not to presume to it, then surely not to the Lords Table. Nay, they were not admitted to any Prayers with the Church, subsequent to the Ser­mon, whence Tertullian cries out of it as a disorder amongst the Hereticks, that none could distinguish their Catechumenists from their Fideles, for they all prayed alike; yet I conceive it a mistake of those who conceive the Catechumeni were present at no Prayers of the Church, for then we must suppose the Primitive Churches had no Prayers before their Ser­mons, which out of all question they had, and the dismission of the Catechumeni was not till the Sermon was done. Indeed, they might not be present at any prayers of the Church preceding the administration o [...] the holy Communion.

And thus much shall serve to have noted concern­ing the first order, the [...]; or (according to Pamelius) the second, for he makes the first [...].

Concerning the dismission of the Catechumeni they who desire further satisfaction may read the Authors quoted in the Margent. Cyril. in Joh. l. 12. c. 50. I will sum up all with what I find in Cyrill, in Book 12. Chap. 10. of his Com­mentary on John.

Prohibemus enim à sacrâ mensâ Catechumenos, quam vis veritatem jam cognoverint, & fidem magrâ voce consiteantur, quia nondum locupletati sunt spiritu San­cto, qui non habitat in ijs qui baptismate non sunt con­summati, &c.

From all this it appeares: 1. That they baptized none but were fully instructed in the Doctrine of faith, and had openly professed repentance. 2. That till they were baptized, they admitted them not to the Lords Table.

Let us now see whether they admitted all baptized persons.

3. Their third order were [...]. Let us ex­amine: 1. Who these were. 2. From what priviled­ges of the Church they were restrained, Which happily were originally the way of re­ceiving in poe­nitents, rather than the degrees of casting them out. Rejoinder p. 46. Dies dominica l. 2. c. 14. and how long. 3. When this Order came up in the Church.

I am amazed at that piece of news which M. Hum­fry suggests in his late Rejoynder, that the severall de­grees of penitence might be in order to admission in­to the Church, (except he meanes readmission after falling) for he is the first who ever suggested any such thing I thinke, (at least the first I ever met with who hinted any such thing.) But it is contrary to all I ever met with.

My highly honoured and learned Friend tells us right.

‘They were such as, having embraced the Chri­stian faith, and being baptized, Dr Young. and their names recorded in the Church, had afterwards fallen into some open wickednesse, by which they had forfeited their right to the priviledges of the faith­full, and were censured by the Church till such time as they should declare sufficient signes of their repentance.’

With him Albaspinaeus agrees, in his l. 2. Observat. Observ. 3. and doubtlesse this is the truth.

Of these Penitents, saith Dr Young, there were five degrees.

1. V. Dr. Young die. dom. l. 2. cap. 14. Albaspin. in obs. l. 2. obs. 22. Their first degree was called gradus [...]. These might not come into the Church but were to stand without and beg the peoples Prayers; of this first degree mention is made by Zonaras, Thaumatur­gus, and Ambrose. I will transcribe Ambrose his words.

Volo veniam reus speret, Ambr. de poen. l. 2. c. 16. petat eam lachrymis, petat gemitibus, petat populitotius fletibus, ut ignoscatur, & obsecret, & cum secundò, & tertio fuerit dilata ejus communio, credat remissius se supplicasse, fletus augeat miserabilior, &c.

Albaspinaeus thinkes, that in the two first Ages this was taken up by those that had fallen spontane­ously, afterward enjoyned by the Church as the first degree of penitence. He proves this degree out of Tertullian; Tert. l. de. poen. cap. 9. so doth Dr Young; but to leave that Criticall dispute, it is certaine they were not admit­ted to the Lords Table.

2. When they had thus continued a while, they were admitted to heare Sermons, as those of the Cate­chumeni, who were called Audientes: they had the same Tutors, the same, and no other priviledges then they had, Albaspin. ibid. Dr Young's di­es dom. ibid. saith Albaspin. the Church by this mending them, that by their sins they had declared themselves such as againe had need of that milke, not of strong meat; hence are those frequent passages in the Canons of the Councils; Stent inter Catechumenos. Quicun­que annos exigant inter Catechumenos, cum Catechume­nis discedant, Chrysost. Hom. 3. in Eph. Sic Hom. 79. ad pop. Antioch. &c. Chrysostome determines this case in his third Homily upon the Ephesians, where he tells us, that when they came to the administration of the Sacrament, the Preacher cried out: All you who are appointed to be Penitents depart; and in the same Ho­mily tells us, they might no more be there than the [Page 167] Catechumeni. They might not stay the administrati­on of the Sacrament, nor the prayers attending it, but they were at any other prayers, as might easily be proved, V. Liturgiae palm. in missa Basilii. especially by the Liturgies of the Greek Fa­thers, if any cried it may be allowed to them (for which I have little to say.) But it is an unworthy conceit of us for to thinke that they had no prayers before they came to administer the Sacrament, till which time they were not enjoyned to depart. This degree of penitence was called by the Greeks gradus [...].

3. The third degree they called [...], these the Latines call Substrati. when the scandalous sin­ner had for some time stood at the Church doores only, and begg'd of them who went in to pray for him, and for another time come into the Porch, V. Dr Young dies dom. ibid. but no farther, and there heard the Sermons, but when they were done, went away before any of the latter Service, then they came to be Substrati. That is, they were admitted to come just within the Church doores, and to stand behind some Pillar, at some di­stance from the Congregation, where they one while stood and mourned for their sin, by and by cast them­selves groveling upon the earth. Then the Minister came mourning to them, and mourned over them, he and the whole Church, falling down with them on the ground; then the Minister or Bishop riseth up and lifts them up, and praying for them dismisseth them. The Apostol. Constit. Constit Apost. l. 8. c. 11, 12. may be credited as to matter of fact in this case, though not for their an­tiquity; they give you the forme of Prayer used after which (say they) the Deacon bid the pe­nitents depart, V. Albaspin. obs. l 2. obs. 24. and then they went to prayer for the Communicants, and to the administration of the Supper; when it was said the former sort of penitents might not be present at prayers, it is to [Page 168]be meant of these prayers, and those that followed for the Fideles. Concil. Arcl. socund. Can. 11. This degree, saith Albaspinaeus, [...], is called poenitentia by the Fathers, and in the Canons; and this third sort [...] poenitentes, so the second Councill of Arles, — Triennio inter poe­nitentes habeantur à communione susp nsi, that is, inter substratos; and indeed here were most testifications of humiliations required. Those that desire to be satisfied more concerning the circumstances at­tending the penitents of this forme, let them read lear­ned Albaspinaeus, largely Obser. l. 2. Obser. 24. who tels us, they were wont to stay upon this forme some good time, and had some kind of absolution and les­ser reconciliation to the Church before they were re­moved from it; when they had done this, and had received imposition of hands for their absolution, they were judged to have jus Communionis, a right to Communion with the Church, saith Albaspi­naeus.

4. Then they might stay in the Church, (after the Catechument were gone with the three fore-menti­oned degrees of Penitents) they might not only stay while the prayers for the Catechumeni were done, Gradus [...]. (which the Catechumeni themselves might do) and the prayers for the other Poenitentes, Albaspin. obs. l. 2. obs. 25. Dr Young dies dom. l. 2. c. 14. Zonar. in Can. 4, 5. Concil. Ancyr. (at which they also might be present) but they might stay and joyne in the prayers made for those who were the Fideles, and in compleat communion, and see the Sacrament admi­nistred; but they might not themselves receive the Sacrament, nor offer, nor might their names be men­tioned in those prayers, Ambr. ep. 28. nor might the Priest offer while they were present, whereupon Ambrose refu­sed to offer while Theodosius, guilty of an unjust mur­ther, was present.

Dr Young reckons another degree of Penitents, which he and others call Subsistentes, when they were [Page 169]admitted to full Communion: but he tells us he doth not judge it a distinct degree, agreeing in it with Albaspinaeus, Loco praed. These now were the severall degrees of their Penitents, which were all suspended from the Lords Table, as is evident, yet were they all Baptized. For, for that penitence which was before Baptisme, Albaspinaeus, I thinke, proves strongly it was Voluntary, not imposed as a Church-Censure.

But yet there is one question to be spoken to be­fore we dismisse this particular, viz. whether all these were not first Excommunicated, and so these degrees of penance enjoyned them as testifications of their repentance before they were admitted againe into the Church? To this I answer.

I will not deny, but if any persons were Excom­municated, they might have their way in their returne to the Church lie through these foure doores.

But it will easily be made appeare, that some were adjudged to this penance who yet were not absolute­ly cut off, and cast out of the Church.

1. He who was excommunicated was not only denied the liberty of praying with the Church, but none might pray with him in a private house, Albaspin. Obs. l. 1 Obs. 1. & l. 2 Obs. 4. Synt. Antioch. 1. Can. 2. Concil. Carth. 4. Can. 73. Concil. Arel. 2. Can. 15, 16, 18. all de­spised and avoided him as a putrid member; —(on­ly he was to be admonished as a Brother) but they might not kindly salute him nor bid him God-speed, nor trade, nor eate, nor drinke with them. But we read of no such injunction concerning any of those who were Penitents, Can. Apost. 10. a man was to be suspended if he joyned in prayer with an excom­municated person. They might by no meanes eate or drinke with them, nortalke with them, as any one may read in a multitude of the Canons of the first Councils.

2. Besides, there are many instances may be [Page 170]produced both from the Councils, Concil. Tol. 1. Can. 3. and out of Basils three Canonicall Epistles, where the time of the peni­tence was limited to three, or soure, or five, or sixe, or seven yeares, according to the Nature of the sin; but it was never known that a Church limited a time in Excommunication, how long the party should so stand.

3. Albaspin. Obs. l. 2. Obs. 4. Those who were Excommunicate were not cen­sured and adjudged ad agendam poenitentiam, but did pet ere poenitentiam, as a favour of the Church.

There were some in the Church that were ad­judged ad perpetuam poenit entiam, for some scandalous sin, to their death never to be received to Commu­nion in the Lords Supper with the Church, but never was any adjudged to a perpetuall Excommunica­tion.

5. Many who were adjudged to some kind of pe­nance for some sin, yet were admitted to the Laick Communion, as they call it, as Albaspinaeus proves out of very many Canons in l. 1. Obser. Obser. 4. what that Lai [...]k Communion, was I shall not determine. Baronius, V. Pamelii an­no [...]. 37. in Cypr. ep. 52. Pamelius, and Durantus contend that it was to receive the Eucharist on the other side of the Railes, &c. others thinke it was receiving the Sa­cramentall bread only. Albaspinaeus confutes them both, and sufficiently proves, it was the fellowship of those Christians who were of the Laity. But those who were Excommunicated had no such priviledge allow­ed them.

By all this it evidently appeares: 1. That although those who were excommunicated did sometimes pe­tere poenitentiam, crave the favour of the Church in order to their restoring, that they might be admitted to stand as penitents, and approve themselves againe to the Church. 2. Or possibly when they desired re­stauration might by order of the Church be enjoy­ned [Page 171]to come in by those steps; yet those frequent Canons of the Church, wherein for severall sins men were adjudged to stand as penitents for shorter or longer time, cannot be understood to concerne ex­communicated persons, but such sinners as were guil­ty of those sins, and yet the Church did not think fit wholly to cut them off, but according to the rule—Cuncta prius tentanda, appointed them to be deprived of a partiall communion with the Church for some time, that they might see whether they were pertinacious, or whether God would give them an heart to repent, that they might be againe restored; and the time of their Suspension was set longer or shorter according to the nature of the sins which they committed. V. Concil. Binii. V. Basil. Canon. ep. Those who had been guilty of sins against Nature were suspended all their life time, (in Tertullian's times) afterwards in the Councill of An­cyra, they had time of repentance prefixed; so in Basils times for man-slaughter Theodosius the Empe­rour was suspended eight months, the Council of An­cyra gave them only the liberty of the Sacrament sub exitum vitae, when they were neare their death. Basil (as I remember) determines them fifteene or twenty yeares suspension. Adulterers before Cyprians time were suspended to their dying day, afterwards they had a shorter time set for to testifie their repen­tance.

3. Now we have seen what the practice of the Church was, let us consider how ancient this pra­ctice was; That it was very ancient is out of all doubt, but how ancient cannot easily be resolved; Tertullian was the first who wrote concerning it, who in his booke de poenitentia gives us hints of it, and as Albasphinaeus proves, hints the severall degrees of it. Helvicus reckons him within the second Cen­tury. Thaumaturgus, who lived in the next Centu­ry, [Page 172]in his Canonicall Epistle reckons up all the degrees, but that Epistle is suspected. Magdeb. Cent. 2 cap. 6. The Magdeburgenses tels us, that in the second Century there was a Cu­stome of setting sinners a time of publike repentance. But in the third Century is evident enough, about the yeare 210. O [...]ig. in Jos. hom. 7. Hom. 2. in. 37. Psal. and so forward. Origen in his se­venth Homily on Joshua tells us, they excommunica­ted none but those who were thrice admoni­shed and refused repentance; and in his second Ho­mily on the 37. Cypr. de lapsis Ser. 5. Tert. in lib. de poenitentia. Psal. gives us some account of their order in publike penance. Tertullian and Cyprian do it abundantly. Gregorius, Thaumaturgus (if the Canonicall Epistle be his) doth not only tell us the severall degrees, but tells us what places were as­sig [...]ed for them in the Church in their severall de­grees.

Qui vero excommunicati, Centur. l. 3. c. 6. aut non excommunicati, grav [...]ter out idolis sacrificando, aut haereticos deficiendo, lapsi essent, non nisi post publicam poenitentiam, & con­fessionem debitè peractam recipiebantur, (say the lear­ned Centuriators in this Century.) In this Century the time of their poenitence was appointed accor­ding to the nature of the offence; Cypr. l. 4. ep. 2. we learne out of Cyprian, that those Christians who had eagerly pro­fessed the Christian Faith, and in the time of persecu­tion fell away, had three yeares set them, all which time they were suspended; when the time set them was expired, if the Church judged they had duly manifested repentance, they took their names, and enrolled them, giving them a Ticket to this purpose: Admit this man to the Communion, Ib. l. 3. ep. 15, 16. Cypr. ep. 52. who, having for­merly fallen, hath shewen sufficient signes of repentance, so Cyprian; after which, as the Magdeburgenses prove out of Cyprian, they were examined and judged by their particular Churches after which upon their con­fession of their sins there also, they were admitted. [Page 173]It is more than probable, that Novatus his heresie, which was broached about this time, gave occa­sion to the Church to mitigate their Censure of Ex­communication, and denying the Communion till death to some scandalous sinners. For Cyprian tells us, that his Predecessors had refused to reconcile Adulterers at all to the Church, and, if I mistake not, the same was determined concerning Apostates, I thinke Albaspinaeus proves it. Novatus, say some, Albaspin. Obs. l. [...]. Obs. 21. deni­ed that any falling after baptisme could be restored by repentance; Albaspinaeus saith, it is a mistake, for his Errour was, That he denied that Christ had given power to the Church to absolve or restore any. In oppo­sition to whom the Church remitted something of her former severity, and instead of Excommunicating, or denying the Sacrament till death, (which before were very frequent (ensures) they determined that scanda­lous persons should, being admonished, and appro­ving themselves to the Church by these steps, be re­stored to a plenary Communion. And now I have given my Reader as good an account as I can find of this Primitive Discipline, from whence he may ob­serve.

1. That we who desire the Presbyterian reforma­mation, in the exercise of our Dis [...]p [...]ine, require no more than the recovery of this ancient Custome of the Churches of Christ. It is as cleare as the light.

1. That they admitted none to the Sacrament but such as before had approved themselves to the Church to be [...], enlightened with the know­ledge of the Principles of Christian Religion.

2. Such as were free from all grosse and scanda­lous sins, and if they did fall into any, they required not only a verball profession of their sorrow, and a promise of their amendment, but, that according to [Page 174]the nature of their offence, they should be kept from the Sacrament, till by an humble contrary walking for some time they had manifested their hearty sorrow and repentance.

To which purpose they set 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, yeares for them, we plead not for such a time, but for a convenient time for them to stand ashamed, and to evidence their true repentance. And though as to every particular circumstance we do not justifie our Fathers, yet in these two maine things we agree with them, and insist on no more.

And for the point of examination (so much bogled at) it is only in order to the setling of our Churches, and the correcting the abuses of corrupt Ministers for­merly, who should have look'd to that, to have ad­mitted no blind ignorant persons to the Lords Table, which I have sufficiently evidenced, was the Discipline of the ancient Church of Christ.

Secondly, From what hath been said the Reader may judge how simply, or maliciously Mr Boatman spake, when he told his people, that it never entred into the heads of wiser ages to determine for what sins any should be suspended from the Lords Table. It is a signe he never read the Councils, nor any part of them, nor yet Basils Canonicall Epistles ad Amphi­lochium, he would have seen there that for Man­slaughter, Adultery, Fornication, Perjury, Apostacy, and many sins more Suspension was determined.

I shall conclude this Chapter with that exclamati­on of Albaspinaeus, with which he concludes the two and twentieth Observation of his second book,

O mirabilem sacrosanctae antiquitatis pietatem & re­ligionem! — O veteris disciplinae sanctitatem mira­bilem! &c.—

‘O the admirable piety and Religion of sormer times! O the wonderfull holinesse of the Church, and strictnesse of her Discipline then!’ In those daies if a Christian in the heat of persecution to save his life had but bowed to an Idoll, or offered in their Temple, (though sorely against their will) the Church did not only suspend him from the Sacrament, but he could not be restored againe till his dying day, or till after seven or ten yeares standing as a penitent: Now if Christians give up themselves to their lusts, and not to save their lives, but to satisfie their beast­ly lusts only, be drunke, uncleane, sweare, lye, &c. yet if they will but wipe their mouths, and say they will do so no more, they must presently be admitted to the holy Table, yea, and they usurpe Christs authority that will keep them away (if we may beleeve all that is told us.) Basil. ep. Canon. ad Amphil. Then the Adulterer might not be admitted till by fifteene yeares holy conversation he had evi­denced his repentance; now we think fifteen months, Ib. Can. 58. Ib. Can. 59. yea, fifteene daies too much. A Fornicatour must ab­staine in those daies eight yeares; two he must only beg prayers; other two he must only heare; other two he must mourne; a seventh he must stand and merely look on; in the eighth he might be admitted. If one had stolne and confessed it himselfe, Ib. Can. 61. he must have been kept away a yeare, if he had not confessed it, two yeares. Now it is no more, but Let him that hath stolne steale no more, and come. Ib. Can. 64. If a man had sworne falsly, and forsworne himselfe, then he must have been kept away eleven yeares; now if he sweares profanely, it is but a Veniall sin, if he saies he is sor­ry, our charity must shut her eyes and beleeve him a visible Saint. Nay, and we must be made beleeve that all former ages were as mad, and as loose as we are. No, no, Reader, the feare of God was more upon our fore-fathers hearts, they durst do no such things, [Page 176]they rather offended by too much severity, yet sin­ners in those daies had ten times more temptations to sin, and those of the highest nature, from the danger of their lives, and spoyling their goods, &c. we may be as strict as we will, and are not tempted but when we are drawn away by our own lusts, and en­ticed. O how inexcusable shall the Ministers and El­ders of Congregations appeare before the Lord Jesus Christ for the exposing his body and bloud to profa­nation; Shall not the Lord say, Behold here my Ser­vants Tertullian, and Cyprian, how strict they were in furious times? Behold my Servant Chrysostome, who would rather have suffered his own bloud to have been shed than my Sons to be profaned. Behold my Servant Ambrose, he was not afraid of the face of an Emperour, Theodosius. but in a just cause he denied him the Sa­crament; you were afraid of the face of a rich man, afraid of losing ten shillings a yeare, afraid of losing the love of those who hate me; what shall we say? How shall we appeare before the Lord? Shall not blushing cover our faces that day? The Lord grant it be laid to none of our charge.

FINIS.

An Appendix to the former Dis­course, containing a Discourse of Mr Boatmans in a publike Lecture at Peters in Norwich, seeming to an­swer my first Argument upon the first Question, by putting another inter­pretation upon Mat. 7.6.
With some Animadversions tending to prove he said nothing to the purpose in the said Discourse.

Reader,

I Shall trouble thee a little further: up­on the twenty third of March (as I told thee in my Preface) being intreated by a Reverend Brother in the City to preach his Lecture, I preached upon Mat. 7.6. My Ser­mon was the sum of my first Argument upon the first Question delivered in thesi, without the least particular reflection. Upon the Lords day after, a Friend told me that he heard Mr Boatman did intend to confute me the next Tuesday.

Accordingly he tooke my Text, what work he made [Page 178]with it, thou shalt read in the following sheets, con­taining a Copy of his Sermon, taken in short-hand from his mouth by a faithfull hand: as to the mate­riall passages which I have to do with, I can prove them by many witnesses. If thou hast any faculty in judging, judge betwixt me and him; how well he con­futed me, or proved any thing which he said in op­position to me, or the truth I delivered, to help thee I have subjoyned a few Animadversions. There is a clamorous party which cries me up as sufficiently con­futed, &c. to vindicate my selfe and the truth, I have subjoyned these sheets. I aske no favour from thee, but only a just, and righteous judgment. I intend not to meddle with him in the Pulpit, if he hath any thing to reply with his Pen, I shall wait upon it. Or if he will dispute, I am ready for him: It is an easie thing for a man who hath confidence enough, and conscience little enough, to say, Here was untruth delivered, the Holy Ghost never dreamt it, it is nothing to the purpose. Here thou hast what was said before thy eyes, read, and judge, and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.

His Sermon follows,

The TEXT.

Mat. 7.6.

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, Mr Boatman at the Lecture, March 28. 1654 neither cast ye your pearles before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turne againe and rent you.

HAving the last day finished the first Doctrine propounded from Luk. 7.41. Paragraph. 1. I thought it not amisse, before I passed on to the other, to take occa­sion to redeeme a captive Text, such an one as is led about [...] and I may say with holy reverence, almost by the nose, to assert that which Christ never intended, as you shall presently see.

The Text is without any connexion at all, it seemes neither to have reference to what goes before, or what follows after, and so it may be called a proverbiall admo­nition, or dehortation, wherein you may consider these particulars.

1. A dehortation under a double notion, The Analysis of the Text. give not holy things to dogs, neither cast pearles before swine. Therein consider, 1. The Subject, and that is likewise under a double notion that which is holy and pearls. 2. The Object, laid down Negatively and expressely, likewise under a double notion, dogs, and swine.

2. The reason of the dehortation: 1. Because, saith our Saviour, the swine will trample them under their feet. 2. The dogs will returne againe and rent you. Paragraph. 2.

In the opening of the words (not to wind or wrest them in the least) you shall have the plaine scope and intention of the Holy Ghost, and I hope so plaine as he that runs may read it; I shall shew you: 1. What is meant by that which is holy. 2. What by dogs and swine. Then what it is to trample, and by that time you shall have the full scope and meaning of the Text, and then I shall draw a Conclusion, which I shall briefly prosecute.

1. Sect. 1 What is meant by holy things and pearles. It is the same thing expressed under a double Notion; Mr Boatman's restrict exposi­tion of holy things and pearles. sacred truths are meant, but especially, and more particular­ly holy reproofes and admonitions, and that is the ut­most the Text reacheth; severe and wholsome admo­nitions, and dehortations from evill, these are called holy and pearles for severall reasons. 1. Because of the Fountaine whence they flow; divine truths are of the brea [...] of God, therefore Christ is called the Word, and said to come from the bosome of the Fa­ther, Joh. 1. therefore by our Saviour Christ they are called holy.

Nothing is, or can be more holy. 2. As from the cause, so from the effect; the Word of God and di­vine truths set home by the work and spirituall power of God are effectuall to beget grace, and produce ho­linesse in the heart; hence we find, Rom. 1.16. the Gospell is called the power of God unto salvation; and 1 Cor. 5. Spirit and life, all signifie not only their power but purity. 2. Why are these truths especially sacred and wholsome reproofes, called pearles? 1. For their own innate and inward preciousnesse, though none in the world do own them, or take notice of [Page 181]them, but slight them, yet they are precious. 2. They are so to them that receive them, and possesse them; we find them therefore called riches, under the notion of wisdome, &c. So that in effect these holy things in the Text, and pearles spoken of are divine truths, wholesome reproofes and admonitions occasionally gi­ven.

The next thing is to see who are the dogs and the swine, Sect. 2 both signifie one and the same sort of men in generall, yet they speake a distinction between obsti­nate and wicked men; in the generall none but obsti­nate and very irreprovable men, these are the dogs and swine; they are called dogs in relation to their cruelty, fiercenesse and rage against the Gospell, when it is offered to them as a check to their lusts, and re­straint to their abominations, as dogs enraged will fly at a man, when they be whipt and beaten for the mischiefe they do they will turne againe and fly at his face: So saith our Saviour Christ, there are a sort of men in the world, to whom if you speake never so seriously, savourily, charitably, and holily, yet like dogs they will turne againe and rent you, By Swine he denotes another sort of obstinate opposers, one de­notes them furious; this luxurious — so as to be grown in love with their filthy waies, their sin and abomination, that they will not vaile to wholesome saving truths, &c.

Now let us see to our Saviours reason, Sect. 3 first they will trample, and that speakes the ineffectualnesse of such holy and savoury truths, when they meet with such uncapable Subjects, as if Christ had said, never do it, it is to no purpose, they will make no more of them, than swine do of pearles when they are thrown to them, that speakes the uselessenesse of them, and of dealing with such kind of men. The second is drawn from that injury that may accrue to the admoni­shers, [Page 182]when the lusts of obstinate men are reproved, instead of doing that they should, and saying as David, Let the righteous smite me, &c. they will re­turne evill for good, they will ruine you (if it be pos­sible) for going about to save them, they will undoe you, because you are so pittifull and mercifull to their erring and straying soules, as to bring them to the right and true way.

The whole Text briefly amounts to this: Paragr. 3 Mr Boa [...]mans sum of the Text, and pretended vindication of it. That it is to no purpose to deale with men of irreprovable and dog-like spirits these are not capable of reproofe, and divine admonition, and holy counsell; you may (saith our Saviour) do it, but it will be very uselesse, it will do no good, it is a folly, it is very dangerous, you will be losers, and neither God, the Gospell, the truth, or your soules will have gaine; you may have a reward in heaven, not only when you do, but when you suffer for Christs sake: yet however take heed of the persons you deale with, and labour to do it in such a way as may not make sinners seeme dogs and swine unto you.

Indeed, I read of some that wrest this Scripture, and among many, divers of the Romish Church, they (some of them) expound it thus, and tell us, it may by consequence be reduced to the Sacrament; and tell us, they are not fit to come to the Sacrament that will not make auricular confession; (and it is a fond trick that is got up againe in our daies, and some would faine bring into the Church,) but it hath no relation at all to that holy Ordinance; For though wicked men (which the Scripture calls dogs and swine) unfit receivers may tremble, when they dare put their hand to the body and bloud of the Lord Jesus Christ; yet notwithstanding to preach such a thing from this Text, is little better than to speake untruth in the Pulpit: It is not truth, but truth to purpose that men must [Page 183]speake from sacred Texts of the holy Word of God, else they fasten that on the Holy Ghost which he ne­ver meant, or dreamt; and it is a dreadfull account which a great many men in the world have to give, vainly to attempt to build any holy foundation on a Text which is either too weake for it, or which it doth not at all concerne; It is an easie matter to wring a Text so long by the nose as to make it bleed againe, and all to little purpose. Take notice, whatsoever may be urged about this sacred Ordinance from any other place, and at another time, it is not meant here, to speake of it here is to speake to no purpose, not worth the speaking, it is not the sense of the Holy Ghost. I come to the conclusion.

The Doctrine which I shall gather hence is this,

It is the duty of every Christian, Doctrine. especially of every Minister, to take heed to whom, Paragraph. and how they deliver di­vine truths, lest delivering them to obstinate and irre­proveable men, they labour in vaine, and they trample up­on them.

This truth is not once only hinted to us in Scrip­tures, you shall find it was the care of all the Chil­dren of God in all Ages, and the speciall care of Christ himselfe, not to deliver sound and saving truths to some sorts of men; sometimes looke how caute­lous holy David seemes to be, Psal. 39.1, 2. he makes it one of the highest points of wisdome to consider before whom he uttered words that concerned Gods glory, and did not while the notoriously obstinate, incorrigible, and irreproveable were present: these instead of understanding more would turne their backs, hate instruction, be scoffers, and mockers at the facred truths of God. To this end and purpose we find, how that (unlesse in case of speciall Commis­sion, and God commanded them to speake home with the hazard of their lives) they were alwaies very [Page 184]wary and prudent to whom, what of, and how they declared the mind of God; you may see it at large at your leisure in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Exekiel; you find God speaking of a rebellious stiffenecked people, bids the Prophet meddle no more with them, pray not for them, as if he had said, it will be vaine and uselesse, altogether successelesse; our Saviour Christ, when on earth, knowing the inveterate hatred of the Pha­risees against the great truths delivered, light being come into the world, &c. when he was among these men, many times he would make no answer, and when he did, it was in darke sayings, at a distance, in Para­bles as wrapt up into the third heavens, and all to let us see caution must be used in dealing with the wic­ked and obstinate in divine matters, things sacred that concerne Gods glory, and the honour of men.

For Reasons, Paragraph. 5 I need give you no more than what our Saviour Christ doth; and the next businesse is to shew you the reason why dog-like, Reasons. and swine-like men make so little of precious truths, and are so un­reasonable as to go about to destroy men for endea­vouring to do them good, and then the application; For Ile dwell only this day on the Text.

First, Truths not wisely dispensed, holy reproofes not warlly managed are trampled on; There is nothing men had need have a greater care of, than the honour of Divine Truth. Now this is not only hazarded by prostituting sacred truths to this sort of men pre­sently, but adventuring on, that is the cause they mock and scoffe, and will not be reproved. We by experience find it brings truth into disgrace, makes them vilifie them, and slight them by a nod with the head, a winke with the eye, a shake of the head, and it will be very well (as our Saviour Christ saith) if there be not a spurne with the foot. Now, saith he, never let such precious truths as these be hazarded [Page 185]to contempt and scorne, take not such holy paines, that might be otherwise imployed, and more to pur­pose, it makes them look with an evill eye, scorne, and scoffe; It renders Religion odious and ridi­culous to them; they cannot see, or rather will not see or heare; but stop their eare with the adder; and although there be an amiable lustre, reall excel­lency, and an inexpressible vertue and glory in them, yet to them they appeare ridiculous. We have ex­amples enough of this in Scriptures; John Baptist came into the world and spake for this purpose, to see if he could reclaime an erring Generation; It is true, his words were not altogether ineffectuall, Jerusalem, and a great part of Judea go out to him, yet marke what our Saviour Christ saith, he came not eating or drinking, and they said he had a devill; This was all he got for his paines in abundance, the man was mad, he was a prating fellow, he lookes like one that had lived indeed all his daies in a wildernesse, as one out of his wits. Our Saviour Christ comes in such a manner as would win the most refractary and hard heart, and the most obstinate sinner, with meeknesse, patience, tendernesse, pitty; he was ready to do every man good, none evill, he scorned no man, he disdained not the Society of Publicans and sinners (though the Pharisees made use of it to his disgrace) so he might do them good: Marke what he gets from others, a wine-bibber, &c. as much scorne and contempt as a Pharisee knew well how to put upon a man; heare St Paul that chosen vessell and Apostle of the Gen­tiles preaching, and the next news you heare is, what will this babler say? That is all he got from ano­ther Generation of men; such are the swine spoken of, and that our Saviour knew before he said this, therefore in his divine wisdome he cautioneth his Disciples, and those that came after them, &c.

Secondly, Reason 2 They will turne againe and rend you; not only scorn and rage; this is from the ineffectualnesse, successelesseness, and uselessenesse of such endeavours, thereby they endanger themselves; as if he had said, why will you do it when God does not necessarily require it, God puts none of his Messengers upon appa­rent hazzard, unlesse his honour lies at the st [...]ke; and a mans life and the propagation of sacred truths come in competition, he bids no man venture his life, be wise as serpents — weigh not only the substance but the circumstance of your administrations, if you do thus, you may save the truth and your selves too and hin­der a great evill; the hardening of others by the ex­ample of such obstinate ones; they will take occasion not only to sit and scorne, but to rise up in rebellion against the Kingdome of Christ, and so render the propagation of the Gospell a great deale more diffi­cult than before, these are the reasons.

Now it may seeme very strange that there should be any such men as these in the world. Paragraph 6 Sect. 1 For all you see and have heard of dogs and swine, I cannot say I have any one not one who accounts himselfe a Chri­stian, being wisely and fairely dealt with by counsell, and seasonable, and wholesome reproofe, whatso­ever noise you heare elsewhere, I heare no noise of such, and I feare they are no where more than among those whose mouths are fullest of those termes of dogs and swine. I know none that will bite a man giving them wholsome reproofe, or that will neglect or slight se­rious admonition. As for those dogs in the Text, I know no such at all; and a man would thinke it a strange thing that there should be any such that would ruine a man that goes about to save them, and yet no question there are such, our Saviour Christs Precept is not in vaine; he foresaw this, had experience of these, and that is the ground of his advice, there­fore [Page 187]he tels his Disciples, never thinke it strange that there are such beasts as these men are, &c. It may seeme strange, but it is not so strange as true. I shall therefore give some reasons how it comes to passe, how men come up to this temper, for it is wrought by degrees; when the Devill hath once set a man onward on sins way, he will then drive him on as far as he can; sin is little at first, most of all at last; if a man be acquainted with peccadilloes today, he will not scotch enormous crimes tomorrow. How do men sin away their light, fear resolutions, conscience, come to glory in sin, and when once come to that, they sleep in the scorne and contempt of all sacred truths, and rage against them, and the endeavours of the godly to do themselves good, and that to all eter­nity.

The reasons briefly.

First pride, Sect. 2 this is the cause of irreprovablenesse in many conceited men in the world, and of their sligh­ting scorning, and contemning the sacred truths of God; for this pride begets rage and scorne, therefore men do it, because they have high thoughts of their excellencies, of the state and condition they are in, of their wisdome and their knowledge, therefore they rage at, and scorne, and contemne whatsoever crosseth them, you may see this apparently in Scrip­tures. The Apostle Saint Paul the Doctor of the Gen­tiles comes with sacred truths to discover to the Church of Cori [...]th, &c. There were a party among them which counted themselves Greeks, & reputed all in the world besides barbarous, rude, unlearned, he delivered the great mysteries of the Gospell, and what begets him so much opposition as he meets with, but the pride of those vaine Philosophers in their pretended know­ledge and science which they had obtained; they could not endure to heare this, that there should [Page 188]come a man into the world wiser than themselves, he tels us the Gospell is foolishnesse to these; not so really, but he speakes their language only; They counted it folly, &c. This was the height of their pride; What made Pharaoh ready to execrte Moses for declaring the mind of God? This only, who is the Lord? &c. What am I, Lord over Egypt, the mighty Pharaoh, and shall I stoope to another whom you call a God, when I know not whence he is, nor whether be is bound? What must I submit and let go a Nation so serviceable to me? Mens pride, by rea­son of their knowledge, pra [...]es, authority, meanes, parts, &c. this hath made the Sons of men, in all Ages, storme and rage, Psal. 2. This is also given as a reason, the great wise, and mighty men men of great authority, and no small experien [...]e, they wal­ked in the waies o [...] their hearts, and their own ima­ginations, when the Kingdome of Christ comes to to be set up, which crosseth all their designes by such meanes, and in such a manner, they will not endure to heare of that, therefore say they, Let us breake his bonds asunder, — What, shall we bow to such a rule as this? No, our tongues are our own, we will speake what we list, &c. such men as these cannot endure to be accounted ignorant, or low; no, they must be at the height, and their knowledge must pass for all the mens about them; What was the reason Jobs friends were so hot and angry, and accounted him a foole in his knowledge? All because he would not acknowledge their wisdome and understanding which they pretended. Doubtlesse there are a Ge­neration of men in the word that thinke they are the men that know all, this is the reason, that any truth whi [...]h is declared, that crosseth them, they contemne and rage against.

Take an account of the grand reasons, why our [Page 189]Saviour Christ, in the daies of his flesh, met with so much oppo [...]tion in the world; he [...]ame not as a man that went about to overturne any one; How or­derly was he in his conversation? How obedient to the Magistrate under Laws and Governments? He paid Tribute, told them he came to ful [...]ll all righte­ousnesse, a man of a meek spirit; we hardly find any externall sor [...]e or severity in him, yet what a fa [...]e of rage was in the wor [...]d? the reason was: As the Ephe­sians were afraid to lose their craft, so these S [...]ribes & Pharisees feared Christ would carry all before him, the truth would be received from him without pre­judice, his Sacred and Divine Oracles would take place; and marke what they say, have any of the Ru­ler, beleeved on him? but ye (speaking of the Vul­gar) know not the Law, and are accursed. A Scribe could not endure any man should be thoug [...] wiser than himselfe, nor a Pharisee that another should take more place in the thoughts of the men of that Generation he lived in than himselfe; therefore let Christ bring salvation, tender gra [...]e, yet for all this all shall be contemned, slighted, and he hated for it; if they can they will ruine him for it, and do as these doggs in the Text. Though Gospell-truths be never so seriously declared in mens eares to the conversion of men, yet men of high, carnall, proud, and haugh­ty spirits, how are they ready to rage and roare, apt to designe, and contrive the death of such a man. When e [...]proceeded so many Martyrdoms in the daies of the Kings of Judah? Isaiah went under the saw; Jeremiah was in the dungeon; Micaiah was fed with the bread of affliction; even from the pride of all those wicked Kings and their officers, they wou [...]d not be controuled, sic volo — their will must be their law, though the will of the God of hea [...]en, de­clared faithfully and seriously, were contrary, &c. [Page 190]It would make a man amazed to see Ahab going up to Ramoth Gilead, Joash smiting Jehoi [...]da's Sons, Ze­dekiah breaking through the Hosts, when the Pro­phet told him it should be to his ruine, a man would wonder they are so bold; the reason is this, men of proud and carnall hearts cannot endure to come un­der the Power or Government of Jesus Christ, men had rather breake than bend, and be flexible, to di­vine will, they will run on their ruine inevitably be­fore they will stoop and that is signified by the expres­sion; which the Holy Ghost useth in relation to the Kingdome of Christ, Psal. 2. They are not flexible in­alterable, they well not give way— if you do any thing to alter them, you will break ruine them, make them wholy uselesse; they will submit to nothing but destruction, thus carnall pride renders stiffe soules, hard hearts, men impenitent, unteachable, they will not, cannot see, there is a great reason such men as these should be termed dogs and swine.

Secondly, Reason 2 because they delight in their lusts; that is the reason men rage when as the light comes, Sect. 3 Joh. 3.19. What was the reason the faithfull Prophets of God were not honoured? Jer. 5. ult. the people love to have it so; What people? My people. Men love their lusts, and delight in their abominations, and evill waies their darling Delilah sins, their right hands and eyes, their corruptions. Now the word crosses all, and cries up selfe-deniall, and cannot endure their abominations, this is the reason men rage. John Bap­tist preached severely to the world, had he come with plaine simple sentences, had he been a Messenger full of grace, peace, and life; had he preached placentia, he should have been entertained; had he lullabied men in the bed of carnall security, he had not been distur­bed; had he let the Adulterer alone in his un­cleannesse, the drunkard in his drunkennesse, the Pha­risees [Page 191]in their avarice, cruelty, and hypocrisie, and let them alone in their vaine preten [...]es of Religion, and not have opened these painted Sepulchres, all had been well; but because he reproved them therefore they rage, are so sterne & are troubled roared against the Prophet and his Message: all the while the Devill was lest quiet in those he possessed, he did no great mischiefe, but here and there one, but alwaies when he was to be dispossessed and come out, he rent and tare; as long as mens lusts are let alone, and they sleep secure in a­varice, cruelty, and viciousnesse with their lusts, and the devill in their bosome, the men are quiet; but if a man unmaskes them, and goes about to discover them, O they will storme, and dislike such men as these; all the while they can carry on their businesse unmole­sted, or undisturbed, O how faire, meeke, and con­tent will they be: but come to crosse that which they love, and set up in their hearts as an Idoll then they will rage; come and tell such a man of his Delilah, you shall find he will not be convinced, ta­ken off, or he will follow another fairer than the for­mer, and then (if you will) away with it; many men have false hearts, they are taken off one lust, but on to another; they are taken off open drunkennesse, and such profane and debauched courses that make the world cry shame of them, but then follow lying, falshood envy, and malice, over-reaching their bro­ther under-hand cruelty, racking others, couzenage, cheating, and the like, crosse these and then they will rave. Take heed of such men as these, (saith our Saviour) they will scorne you, and looke to your selves, you shall escape well if they ruine you not. As Ahab said of Micaiah, this fellow never speakes good of me, as wicked as he was he would faine be counted good.— I remember a story of Mahomet the great Ottoman Emperour, he was so delighted in [Page 192]his Sultana, that nothing could move him to part with her, but when he had a fairer offer, he was con­tent to leave that lust he enjoyed; these men will not part with their lusts, though never so abominable, odious, and hatefull, unlesse they can find them more pleasing, profitable, and honourable, else they will rage, &c.

Thirdly, Reason. 3 That which laies the ground and founda­tion of all the rest, Sect. 4 is positive and grosse ignorance in the things of God, they are dogs and swine, have not knowledge enough to make distinction between thing and thing, but they call light darknesse, and dark­nesse light, therefore they abuse, contemne, and de­spise all, and rage, Joh. 1.9. there is the reason, 1 Cor. 2.14. though he demonstrated more high mysteries than ever any wisdome pretended to before in the world, yet they refused, mocked, reviled, hated, persecuted, — that is another reason why our Sa­viour cals them dogs and swine; alas swine know not the price of a Pearle, they see no lustre in it; there are abundance of swine-eyed men in the world; of all Creatures in the world that ye know, or looke on, a swine hath externally the worst eye: such men as these see not, discerne not at all, in seeing they see not, as the Prophet saith, — in a great many men of the world there is much positive and grosse ignorance; such incurable darknesse and blindnesse, that for all the glory of divine truths that you can shew them, (as much as in you lies) and the Creature is capable of on this side heaven, they will not beleeve; what was the reason Christ was scorned, and persecu­ted of men? Isa. 53.1, 2. they saw no beauty in him—omnipotency stoopes to theem (as I may say, with reverence) to little purpose; the reason of all this is, because they are blind — but O the folly of men! this makes them as dogs and swine; Well, I shall [Page 193]expatiate no further, but make application.

First, By way of admonition; The Appli­cation. Paragraph. 7. Take heed you come not within the verge of this reproofe, that it doth not reach you, for (as the Apostle saies) I hope better things of you; let it never be said, whatsoever men fasten on you, however you are called doggs and swine, (beare it patiently) that you are truly so, and in the sense of the Text. Take heed of despising, refusing of, raging at, and trampling on divine truths. Oh! when a man comes to this there is litttle hope, and truly, brethren, till he does there is hope, — but if a man be once come to this, to an irreproveable spirit, there is more hope of a foole, (as Solomon saies in another case) of a mad man, I had almost said, of a Devill — Whatsoever you do take heed of this; never let it be said you are of such a spirit, as that you will not endure admonition; mistake not bre­thren, I say not, from all men you should beare it pati­ently, (though it is true, the more patience the bet­ter) for a man to be laden with the importinent, un­seasonable, giddy reproofes of every hair-brain'd man in the world: if thou canst have patience well, it is thy honour and praise, and a great testimony and evi­dence of grace; but take heed you never contemne serious, pious, meeke, and holy reproofes; labour to come up to that of David, Let the righteous smite me— breaking the head in such a case is as good, or better, than a plaister, as a precious balme and ointment, however it is accounted of with the wicked, and whatsoever some men thinke in their heate, a serious well-grounded reproofe is a precious pearle: it may be the way to bring a man seriously to sit downe and reflect upon himselfe, and blesse God for the same. Oh never come to that, if you do, the time will come when you will mourne, and say, O that such se­rious inward and holy reproofe should be stormed [Page 194]and raged against, such advice and counsell be re­jected and scorned and slighted that made so direct­ly for my soules welfare — O beware and take heed of this, till then I shall hope you are teachable, and in a capacity for the Word to become to your soules the savour of life, and the Power of God to Salvation; but if once you come to be irreproveable, and this to be the charge of your soules, I have little else to say but to take up the Prophets complaint: Lord, who hath beleeved our report? — To whom shall I speake?— And that you may not, take heed of those things which are the cause of this, down with that devill of pride in the heart, be content to be subjects, slaves, and vassals to truth, let it command and conquer, there is a power and Majesty in truth it selfe, let it be your Arbiter in all things, let its com­mands, precepts, and injunctions be unquestionable: never thinke so highly of your selves as to scorne to be reproved, checked, and admonished; Take heed likewise of doting on things; if heaven it selfe should speake, men sleeping in their lusts, and on the bed of carnall security, will not awake; if Sampson be in Dalilahs lap, nothing but the Philistines will awaken him; when the Children of Israel came once to be in love with Idolatry, the Prophets could do no good with them; when men come once to be in love with the Idols of their own braines, they will scorne all that you speake; all the language you shall heare is, I will and I will not, — Take heed of being locked up in positive ignorance; nothing is so sad as for a man not to be able to discerne at all the sweetnesse, and discover the preciousnesse of divine truths.

Secondly, Paragraph. 8. this is to warne and admonish good men, how (as much as in them lies) they render men dogs and swine, uncapable of reproofes; many a man is made a dog, a wicked man, that was not one in our [Page 195]Saviours sence, the fault is not so much his as thine, thou that art the reprover, and admonisher, for he may not be so to another man, though he may be so to thee, and how comes this to passe? From nothing but the rashnesse, inadvertency, and imprudence of men, they undertake to handle weapons which they are not able to weild; many men in too severe han­dling of a faulty person may render him a dog or a swine, uncapable of their reproofe; it is sad it should be so, howsoever men expresse themselves rashly and un­advisedly, if it be truth they speake, it is sad men will not endure it. Yet when men be too severely and ri­gidly admonished, they may be much exasperated, therefore Christ is wary in this respect. A soft answer pacifieth wrath, and so doth a soft admonition; some men wisely dealt withall will not be sturdy, who (if too fiercely handled) many admonitions will not serve. There is a necessity indeed of an holy earnest­nesse in reproving of sin, sincerity, down-right dea­ling, and plainenesse of spirit in men, and yet also of a great deale of prudence; I know not one busi­nesse wherein the prudence of a Christian either in his private or publike relation, is so concerned as in this of reproofe: If you would prevaile with the dogs and swine in the Text, you must deale with them with wisdome, and observe how mens tempers, and pre­sent humours are, these would be taken notice of, and you should watch your opportunity; a mans fault may be told him of too rashly; with what wisdome came the Prophet Nathan to David about Uriahs businesse, one would have thought it had been very justifiable had he rushed into the Kings Presence Chamber, and told him, Sir you are a Murtherer or an Adulterer; no, he comes with a Parable, and so winds himselfe into the Kings bosome; Sir, I have a case to put to you, There was a poore man which [Page 196]had but one Lambe, and that lay in his bosome, but the ri [...]h man had enough, a multitude, yet when he comes to make a seast he gives his guest entertainment with this poore mans Lambe; this was a wise way of conviction, and ye find David convinced now, I have sinned; if he had gone another way to worke, in­stead of saying, I have sinned, he might have said, Thou (Nathan) shalt dye for being so saucy, so rash, and uncivill. David might have said so, being a man subject to infirmities, even as Eliah also was; we must in reproofe mind the tempers and the callings of men, this is not minded by a great many Christians; hence as sometimes they speake not the truth, so sometimes little to the purpose; and hence many Mi­nisters speake and spend their labour in vaine.

Secondly, Do not make known to all a particular case, for many a man will heare one man that will not heare another; and many a man will heare in private when he will not heare before another; though you are to speake, yet you must not speake unseasonably; a word spoken in season is as apples of gold in pictures of silver; the least reproofe, never so precious and excellent in it selfe, is not so when out of time; it is not fit for a man to tell another of a private offence in the market place, or being in company, whom either he is not willing to have acquainted with his crime, or however it is not fit they should; thus instead of taking a course to help them forward in good, we are perhaps a meanes to carry them on further in evill; to reprove one wicked man in the presence of abun­dance more like himselfe, is the way to make them all joine to scoffe, and repudiate (it may be) to go about to ruine you; what a deale of madnesse in this respect is the world acquainted with. It is a sad losse to the Gospell in this relation, which is the next thing; well take heed you be not the cause, offences must [Page 197]come in the world, dogs and swine there will be in the sense of the Text take heed you be not the cause; it is sad when a man may say, yonder is a fellow gone resolutely & refractorily to hell, when as if he had been dealt mildly withall, he might have been saved possibly, I meane in relation to thee and thy admonitions, though in respect of the man and his capacity it was impossible; this will sadly reflect on thy spirit; think ye it would not have grieved the father of the Pro­digall instead of receiving his Son seasonably, and ta­king a fitter time to reprove him, if he had sent him away a dog, or a swine, if he had sent him away damned without remedy; what sad reflections of heart might this have caused? The Apostle gives advice to Fa­thers to reprove their Children, Masters their Ser­vants; for an ill servant reproofe is necessary, ay, and the rod too sometimes, as Solomon saies, but it must be in season, and proportion, done cautelously and warily. Ile adde but one more, (I shall put them to­gether, because I will wind up fast) if you would not make them dogs, nor give them cause to repudiate. Take heed, that what you reproove for be grounded in relation to truth, and pertinent, not triviall, that makes men not received amongst men; men take oc­casion to babble about impertinencies, and fall on a man to reprove him, because he is not so, and so, according to their fancies, and their wild and haire-brain'd imaginations; and thus they make a great op­position to more solid and serious administrations; when men rage in trifles what cares a man what he saith in solid things? That Minister shall never be beleeved when he speakes in earnest, who cries hell and damnation in jest; be sure that it be tantum that you speake, that the fault be commensurate, and not lesse than your expressions, yea, above them, at least equall with them. Cure, if possible, by a lenitive first [Page 198]before you use a corrosive, serious admonition in such a way gains the advantage of mens dispositions. Nor let it be a hearesay, that is, a lie, fama mala, we heare a man did so and so, we heare thus and thus of him; you shall heare a man, some imprudent Christi­an, come with open mouth, and reprove a man for such a thing that hath been declared to them, and they heare so; this is the ground of all that uncha­ritablenesse, and raging among men in the world; this makes them doggs to one another, that they will not heare one another; either men talke of imperti­nencies, and it is not tantum, whether it be so, or it be not, I have heard such a man will keep company, my neighbour will be drunke and sweare, when nei­ther is true; thus instead of making a man heare and being well pleased they give them cause to rage in fastning on them such aspersions as they are not guilty of: as impertinent, so uncertaine reproofes are evill. In a word, I blesse God you are not left in that estate and condition, not of an incorrigible spirit as yet, you are not yet shut out of Heaven; do you blesse God, and I will blesse God with you, ye are not yet dogs or swine; far be it from me to ju­stifie any of you in your enormities, in your sins, profanenesses, and debauched courses, if there be any such, if any be found guilty of it, thus much I dare say to your praise, (as the Apostle saith in another case) I hope better things of you though I thus speake; I know not a man among you, of an irre­provable spirit; I have not met with a dog or a swine that will rage at admonition, or be angry with me for Preaching, unlesse it be some selfe-conceited Pha­risee, that cannot endure any body should be accounted ho­ly as themselves. These indeed barke, and bite, rage and rave revile, scandalize, and asperse. Blesse God you are not dogs and swine, beware you be not so, [Page 199]reproofe is precious however, if seriously received. Blesse God you live one among another, and in any respect can build up one another in your holy faith, reforme, refraine, and restraine one another, but do it wisely and warily. And the peace of God which passeth all understanding, &c.

Animadversions upon the preceding Sermon, wherein the Reader may discover how weakely Mr Boatman that day (though with incredible confidence) (maintained that Admonition, and prea­ching of the Gospell was the utmost meant in Mat. 7.6. and Mr Collings is vin­dicated from preaching Ʋntruth in pleading there was no just reason to exclude the Sacrament from the num­ber of Pearles and holy things there spoken of.

Reader,

THou hast had now a Copy of the con­futing-Sermon. I durst trust it to any learned and judicious Reader to judge how my Argument is answe­red and doubt not but a small com­petency of Learning in any will be enough to make him cry out, multa dicit, nihil respon­det. But as our Saviour saith. all men have not faith. so in regard all men have not such a quicknesse of Judge­ment, I will help their eyes by an Animadversion or [Page 202]two: In the first place Reader, I desire thee to observe the force of my Argument, it lies thus: The Text containing a generall prohibition without any restriction, not saying this or that holy thing, or this or that pearle, it seems to be a great boldnesse in any to restraine it. It is therefore most consonant to reason, that it should be understood of all those holy things which God hath be­trusted man with the giving out, which he forbids to be given out to such persons, as for their vicious qualities are in Scripture language called dogs or swine. Nor is it to be restrained but by Scripture elsewhere dispensing with the giving out of some holy things to some such kinds of sinners. This I thinke is an equitable interpretation, and so candid, that it cannot be liable to any excepti­on. Locum unum sacrae Scriptu­rae exponere per alium, ejusdem Scripturae cla­riorem optima interpretatio. Aug. de Doct. Christ. c. 26. Remembring that golden observation of Augu­stines, That it is the best interpretation of Scripture to expound it by it selfe. And if this be true, it necessari­ly follows: Either that the Sacrament is not an holy thing; or else secondly, That there is plaine allowance in Scripture for that to be given to dogs, though some ho­ly things must not; Or else thirdly, (what I inferred) In the belly of this generall prohibition, is an evid [...]nt injunction for us unto giving out the Sacrament to any such as the Scripture calls dogs or swine.

I would faine know whether this proposition may not naturally be drawn from those words, Mat. 7.6.

Holy things, and Pearles, must not be given to dogs or swine.

The proposition is ind [...]finite, and reducible to [...]n universall or particular; we plead it is to be reduced to an universall, because the materia is necess [...]a [...]. It is a divine precept which we have nothing to do to li­mit without expresse warrant from other Scriptures. Mr Boatman thinks it is particular, and the sense this, Some holy things, and some pearles are not to be given to some dogs, &c. And these holy things here meant he [Page 203]saith, are only 1. Admonition. 2. Preaching the Gospell. I hope he hath good grounds for what he saith. Let us now examine; I have divided this Sermon into two severall Paragraphs, (marked in the Margine to guide my Readers eye) I will begin with the first Paragraph, where he prefaceth to his worke, and (after a fa­shion) analyzeth his Text.

He comes out like a man of war and makes a Trum­pet to sound before him, Paragraph. 1. that he is come forth to re­deeme a captive Text, such a one as is led about, and (he may say with holy reverence) almost by the Nose, to as­sert that which Christ never intended, as we shall pre­sently see. Thus the Trumpet sounds, (whether a bra­sen, or silver one, judge anon.) Let not him who puts on his barnesse boast like him who puts it off; I am a [...]raid Mr Boatman's force of Reason and Learning will be found too weake to rescue it, if it be such a Captive; and if it be led by the Nose, (as he irreverent­ly saith) I hope to prove that it is resoued but by the tongue. But we shall presently see what he will do.

‘The Text is without any Connexion at all, (he saith) it seemes neither to have reference to what goes before, nor what follows after.’

Here he hath cashiered at first the best sorce he hath, for those who expound the Text of Admoni­tion (though none I have met with restraines it to that) have no colour for their exposition, but a pre­tended connexion of these words with the former. Mr Boatman confesseth the words are nothing of kin to the former; this makes me thinke his Sermon was made in so much haste that he could not consult with his friends, for surely they would have advised him, seeing there could be so little said for his opinion, not at first to disclaime what was most considerable.

He resolves the words into a Proverbiall admoni­tion, and considers in them:

[Page 204]

1. The Propositi­on is, You are not to give holy things to dogs. Q What is the subject of this Axiom? A dehortation under a double notion: Give not, &c. Cast not, &c. Therein he saith is considera­ble, 1. The Subject, that which is holy and pearles; The Object laid down negatively and expresly under a double notion: Dogs and Swine.

He that runs may read here a sufficient want of Lo­gick. But I shall not be Criticall with him; only it were well, that except he were happier at the use of Logicall termes, he would use plainer phrases, which not only the Vulgar, but the Learned too would bet­ter understand than they do these so made use of.

The second part of the Text he saith containeth the reasons of the Dehortation. But I shall passe over that Paragraph, not containing in it any thing to­wards the delivering of the Nose of the Text (as he pleaseth to phrase it) which he conceits so captiva­ted.

2. Animadv. on Paragraph 2. In the beginning of his second Paragraph he speakes great words; he tels us, we shall have the plaine scope and intention of the Holy Ghost without winding or wresting; and so plaine it shall be, that he who runs may readit; in short it is this:

1. Sect. 1 That by holy things and pearles are meant sacred truths, and holy reproofes, and that is the utmost the Text reacheth; and there he runs a vagary to tell us why these are called holy. But Reader! how shall he that runneth read this? Or how shall this confident magisteriall dictate of Mr Boatmans be be­leeved to be the plaine meaning of the Holy Ghost? How doth it appeare to thee, or to Mr Boatman, that these are the holy things and pearles here meant? These, and these only. To prove this not a word, only an impertinent discourse to prove that these are holy things, because 1. They come from God. 2. Because they tend to make men holy.

1. Doth not the Sacrament also come from God, did not he institute it?

2. Doth it not also tend to make us holy?

So that by Mr Boatman's own Argument the Sa­crament is meant here too, and not preaching, and admonition only, or else he must give us better rea­son than this to restraine it. Doth Mr Boatman think we have such a reverend opinion of him as to beleeve that what he barely saith is the meaning of the Holy Ghost, that, and none but that? But Mr Boatman sets a face on it, and he saith it; that's enough for his Disciples (possibly) but not for others. The [...] must be more considerable, to whose [...] we will sub­mit. I thinke, Reader, I gave thee a considerable rea­son to induce a perswasion in thee that our Saviours meaning was to forbid the giving out of all holy things (not elsewhere dispensed with) to be given out to dogs; where the Law doth not limit we should not, but Mr Boatman limits and gives thee nothing pre­tending to a reason for it.

In the next place he comes to tell us who are meant by dogs and swine. ‘I told thee, Sect. 2 that it being gran­ted a metaphoricall expression, and it being so dange­rous to put our interpretations upon such expressions, I conceived it would be equitable to determine that such wicked men are here meant as the Scripture elsewhere expresseth under these Notions;’ I thinke this was a fair soundation for finding out the meaning of the Me­taphor. Mr Boatman tels us, none but obstinate and ir­reprovable men are meant; yet he grants, that by swine are meant the luxurious, (who are not alwaies obsti­nate.) But how doth he prove this? Because he promised us to make it so plaine that he who ran might read it.) Not a word for that, if you will take Mr Boatman's word you may, but he hath no reason for to convince you if you refuse. Thus he doth not only preach placentia, but Placets too. Surely he doth [Page 206]pretend something to an Enthusiastick spirit he could never else set off meere saies with such a confidence.

In the next place he comes to tell what is meant by trampling; Sect. 3 This he saith, speakes the ineffectualness of such holy and savoury truths. So then our Saviours Reason is this, Give not holy things to dogs and swine, because they will prove uselesse and ineffectuall to them. From whence I argue, If then the Sacrament will be uselesse and ineffectuall to profane men, that holy thing must not be given to them. The reason holds as much for that as any Ordinance, if not more.

In his third Paragraph he comes to sum up his fan­cies, Animadv. on Paragr. 3. (which he calls) the sum of the Text: That it is to no purpose to deale with men of irreprovable and dog-l [...]ke spirits, they are not capable of reproofe, and di­vine admonition, and holy counsell. You may (saith our Saviour) do it, but it will be very uselesse, it will do no good, it is a folly, it is very dangerous, you will be losers, and neither God the Gospell, the truth, or your soules will have gaine. You may have a reward in heaven, not on­ly when you do, but when you suffer for Christs sake, yet however take heed of the persons, and labour to do it in such a way as may not make sinners seeme dogs and swine to you.

Here is a messe of stuffe now which doubtlesse was never well boyled by premeditation. He makes our Sa­viour Christ speake strange things here or I am mista­ken. Our Saviour Christ faith, 1. You may do it; but where I wonder? is do not give, do not cast, capable of such an interpretation as you may do it.

2. Christ (according to Mr Boatman) saith, you may do it, but it is to no purpose, it is a folly, it is dan­gerous, you will be losers, and neither God, the Gospell, the truth, nor your soules gaine; Where I wonder doth Christ tell his people they may play the fooles, and do things to no purpose? Nay, such things as neither [Page 207]shall redound to Gods glory, nor their good? Is not this learned Divinity thinke we? nay, is it not next dore to blasphemy? But marke what follows imme­diately: You may have a reward in heaven, not only &c. Just before, Christ is brought in, telling them, their soules could have no gaine by it; but here (as if the Lord could so soone forget himselfe) he is brought in againe, telling them, They should have a reward in hea­ven, in doing and suffering, &c. But besides, Christ must also say, Take heed how you do it in such a way as may not make sinners appeare dogs and swine, &c. But where is this in the Text I wonder? Christ saith, Give not, cast not, he doth not say, you may give but take heed how you give. And is that man ever wor­thy to take the holy word of God into his mouth againe, that hath so shamefully and simply perverted a Text as he hath done this? For which I appeale to any to judge.

Now he hath ordered his forces, he comes to give us battell, and to that purpose tels us, He reads of some that wrest this Scripture, and amongst many d [...] ­vers of the Romish Church. They (some of them) ex­pound it thus, and tell us; it may by consequence be re­duced to the Sacrament; and tell us, they are not fit to come to the Sacrament that will not make auricular Confession, (and it is a fond trick that some have got up againe in our daies, and some would bring into the Church.) But it had no relation at all to that holy Or­dinance; for though wicked men (which the Scripture cals dogs and swine) unfit Receivers, may tremble when they dare put their hand to the body and bloud of the Lord Jesus Christ, yet notwithstanding to preach such a thing from this Text is little better than to speake un­truth in the Pulpit, &c.

Either here is a great deale of ignorance, or malice, or both discovered.

1. Here are pretty odde termes me thinks: he reads of some, by and by they are many; divers of the Romish Church, then some of them, againe ex­pound it, &c. the truth is, I beleeve he doth not know either how many, or how few, if he had he would have spoken more modestly.

2. He would basely insinuate, that they are gene­rally Papists who thinke this Text may be interpreted by consequence of the Sacrament, and that they do it to bring in Auricular Confession. Both which char­ges are as notoriously false as can be. I wonder who Mr Boatman thinkes Protestants? I thinke I have al­ready made it good by testimonies enough, that we have some Protestants are of this mind. Surely Ursin, Chemnitius, wollebius, Wendelin, Zepperus, with a multitude of others, were no Papists, yet they all thinke an Argument may be brought from this Text for Auricular Confession, (which he seemes so afraid of) either he knows not what it is, or hath a mind to bespatter holy and Reverend men with falshoods, and scandals.

I am very apt to beleeve Mr Boatman knows so much of Auricular Confession as to know:

1. That the Romish Church requires it to be only made to their Priest; and if there be any endeavour to bring such a thing now into the Church, of all men in the world Mr Boatman, and men of his straine should hold their peace, for they are the men bring it in; we plead for an open triall of Communicants before the Presbytery, they say no, they will try them alone; this comes nearer Auricular Confession.

2. But secondly, we do not require any confession of secret or more open sins, but only that they being proved so guilty, they should be unwilling to testifie their humiliation or repentance before they are ad­mitted to the Lords Table; so that this whimzie [Page 209]amounts to no more than a gird at the godly Mini­sters of the Gospell, who would bring sinners to a sense of their sins before they are admitted to the Lords Table, and it smels ranke enough either of ig­norance or malice, and signifies nothing. But Mr Boatman tels us, the Text hath no relation to the Sa­crament. How doth he prove that? Is not the Sa­crament an holy thing? How proves he it is not here meant? Dr Hammond ad locum. Dr Hammond ingenuously grants an analo­gicall relation.

Now he chargeth me to the purpose. ‘To preach such a thing from this Text is little better than to speake untruth in the Pulpit. It is not truth, but truth to the purpose that men must speake from sacred Texts of the holy Word of God, else they fasten that on the Holy Ghost which he never meant or dreampt; and it is a dreadfull account which a great many men in the world have to give, vainly to attempt to lay any foundation on a Text which is either too weake for it, or which it doth not at all concerne; It is an easie matter to wring a Text so long by the Nose as to make it bleed againe, and all to little purpose; Take notice whatsoever may be urged about this Sacred Ordinance from another place, and at another time, it is not meant here, to speake of it here is to speake to no pur­pose, not worth the speaking, it is not the sense of the Holy Ghost.’

Here he speakes loud enough, and falls upon me pell-mell, but with no other weapons than his tongue; he charges me with preaching untruth; how doth that appeare? Mr Boatman saies so, and that is all. He tels us of fastning somthing upon the Holy Ghost which he never dreampt of. (No Sir, the Holy Ghost doth not use to dreame, though fraile man may, he carries no sleepy body about with him;) he tells us, It is an easie matter to wring a Text about by the Nose; he is [Page 210]much taken, it seemes, with that phrase, but if he will be metaphoricall, he should do well to use handsomer than these, the Holy Ghosts not dreaming, and the Texts Noses, are phrases Divines have not been wont to use, and which speaketh in the heart of him that useth them small reverence of an holy God, or his holy Word. Againe, we must take notice, that what­ever may be urged about the Sacrament from other pla­ces it is not meant here, &c. And for all this you have Mr Boatman's word. I thinke I may safely say, I spend as many houres in my Study, and about my Sermons, as Mr Boatman doth, and consider as much, and con­sult with as many Commentatours, before I deliver the senfe of a Text, as he well can do; nor (blessed be God) am I without some naturall advantages to helpe me. Yet Reader, I desire thee to be of Hierom's mind, Give that honour to the Word of God only, to be­leeve it because it is his word; and for Mr Boatman and me about any Text, lay our Reasons in the ballance of the Sanctuary, provided thou forbearest his light gold the allowance of faction, and particular affe­ction, and let the Scale that is heaviest carry it, I aske no other favour; I professe I never read such an im­perious, magisteriall pack of Sentences without a dram of reason for his own say since I knew what be­longed to a book.

Now he is come to his Doctrine, Animadr, on Paragr. 4. which he de­livers thus.

It is the duty of every Christian, especially of every Minister, to take heed to whom, and how they deliver divine truths, lest, delivering them to obstinate and irre­provable men, they labour in vaine, and they trample upon them.

1. If this be the truth, yet I conceive it is not the whole truth of the Text.

2. Mr Boatman should have done well to have kept [Page 211]the termes holy things, and Pearles, except he had proved by Scripture or Reason that divine truths are the only holy things and pearles here meant.

3. I hope Mr Boatman will tell us how we shall know a man to be so irreprovable, that we may be justified in not preaching to him, nor admonishing him.

But I find it otherwise, he is loath to meddle with that nice Point; but he undertakes, 1. To prove that there are some to whom we must not deliver di­vine truths.

2. He undertakes to give us reasons:

First, he will prove that there are some such; this he thinks he can prove from Psal. 39.2. where David saith, He kept his mouth with a bridle while the wicked was before him. — he held his peace even from good.

Mr Boatman told us even now, that it must be truth to the purpose a man must deliver, as the sense of the Holy Ghost. That which Mr Boatman hath to prove is, that the Children of God should not deliver to wic­ked men, who are irreprovable, divine truth; to this purpose he brings that of David, who held his peace from good; what good? What, from admonishing them? There is no such thing in the Text. Mollerus expounds it of his own just and righteous cause the defending of that; Others expound it in generall of good that he was altogether silent, not in reference to the wicked, in respect of whom he restrained his pas­sions, ver. 1. but in reference to his trouble of spirit, which was such as stupified him.

In the next place he tels us how wary the Prophets were when people were incorrigible, but he that reads them will find they never left reproving them. He tells us God bids them not pray for them, that is true, Jer. 7. but in the same Chapter he is bid to preach to them and reprove them, ver. 2.

He hath but one instance more, and that is of our Saviour Christ, who, he saies, would sometimes make them no answer; but what is this to the purpose? did our Saviour ever forbeare reproving them, or preaching to them. Thus, Reader thou seest how well he hath proved his Doctrine, not one instance holds. Let us come to his Reasons.

He tells us, Animadv. on Paragraph 5. he will instance in those in the Text: 1. Because they will trample upon them. So he saies they did upon John Baptists Doctrine, and our Saviour Christs, and Pauls.

There needs no more than this to prove that prea­ching the Gospell, and admonition is not here meant only; sor first, the same reason will hold to the Sacrament, wicked men will trample on that too surely. 2. Though they trampled on John Baptists, and our Saviours, and the Apostles preaching to them, yet none of them left preaching the Gospell, nor admo­nishing them.

The second Reason is: They will turne againe and rend you, that is, (as Mr Boatman expounds it) you will endanger yourselves. I answer, this againe proves the preaching the Gospell is not the only thing here meant; for who knows not that the Apostles constant­ly preached the Gospell to the apparent hazard of their lives? Paul fights with beasts at Ephesus, is whip­ped, stoned, imprisoned, at other places, yet he prea­ches; and the Apostles durst not leave preaching to any upon any a count.

In the next large Paragraph Mr Boatman makes a digression to take away the wonder of the world, Animadv. on Paragraph. 6. that there should be any Christians so bad. Some he thinks there are, but he hath none of them; and he feares they are most amongst them who have their mouths fullest of such termes. The termes are our Sa­viour Christs own, I know none useth them with [Page 213]reference to any particular persons, but only to shew, such ought not to be admitted to holy things. Mr Boatman possibly is angry that our Saviour should so characterize those whom he, it may be, hath a more reverend opinion of; Whining Christians, Squeaking out Jesus Christ, The Noses of Texts, the dreamings of the Holy Ghost, I thinke are more Apocryphall termes than dogs and swine, applied to such as returne (after Baptisme) with the Dog to the vomit, and the Swine to wallow in the mire.

I do not well understand how this came into his Sermon, yet it is a third part of it to shew how men by degrees come to be so wicked as not to en­dure reproofe; (Any schollar must judge that it came in as the man brought in Hercules.) It is true, had Mr Boatman done his maine worke, to prove that Admonition was the only thing, or Preaching the only thing here meant, he might have been borne with, recreating himselfe with such a digression, which yet had been more proper for the Applica­tion.

I am apt to beleeve, that Pride, and Ignorance, and love of lusts, are the three great causes of mens not enduring wholsome reproofe; but what was this to Mr Boatman's purpose, who should have spent his time to prove:

1. That Admonition, and Divine truths are the only holy things and pearles here meant; And when he had done what he could for that, I would have had some body whispered him in the eare, and told him, surely he was not aware what he said, for if Dogs must not be admonished; nor preached to, surely they must not have the Sacrament given them.

2. He was to prove, that Divine truths and admo­nition must not be given to dogs, and there he should have described the dogs to whom the Gospell must not [Page 214]be preached, and who must not be admonished, and have given good warrant from Scripture, or Scriptu­rall reason for the Exposition, and when he had done that, I would have had him answered these two Obje­ctions.

Object. 1. If Admonition must not be given to dogs, what is the meaning of that of the Apostle, 2 Thes. 2.14, 15.

And if any man obey not our word by this Epistle, note that man, and have no company with him that he might be ashamed; yet count him not as an enemy, but admo­nish him as a Brother. An excommunicate person must needs be a dog in the highest sence; he must be so re­ally, viz. a very profane flagitious person, and judicial­ly adjudged so in Court, and so turned out of the house for his dog-like dispositions, he must be perti­nacious, and irreprovable, for till he hath refused the admonition of the Church he ought not to be cast out; yet when he is cast out, though private Christians must have no private Communion with him, nor the Church any fellowship with him, yet they ought to admonish him to repent, &c. Excommunication it selfe being in order to reformation of the person, not to his destruction.

Secondly, Did not the Apostles preach the Gospell to persecutors, and irreprovable men? Acts 3. Ch. 7. and in many other places.

Mr Boatman tels us that Pride is the cause of irre­provablenesse in men, and he proves it well enough from the instance of the false Apostles in the Church of Corinth, Pharaoh, the Heathen, Psal. 2. those who opposed our Saviour Christ, the enemies of the Prophets of old; yet it is to be observed, that Moses still admo­nished Pharaoh till God tooke him off; Paul Paul ceased not to reprove the false Apostles; nor did Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, our Saviour Christ cease to reprove their Adversaries.

He tels us, that love of Lusts is a second cause of mens irreprovablenesse; this he proves from our Sa­viour, John 3.19. Jer. 5. ul. the instance of John Bap­tist. This is true enough, but it is as true, that for all this, neither our Saviour Christ, nor Jeremiah, nor John Baptist ceased to preach to, or to admonish these wretches who loved their lusts.

He tells us right, that Ignorance is a third cause, Joh. 1.9. 1 Cor. 2.14. yet surely ignorant persons must be admonished and instructed.

Thus thou seest, Reader, how little all this is to his purpose.

Now he is come to the Application: Animadv. on Paragraph. 7. His first use is (as he cals it) of admonition to perswade his peo­ple that they would not be dogs and swine though men called them so, but endure admonition. — but he saies not that from all men they should beare it patiently; — they may be laden with the impertinent, unseaso­nable, giddy reproofes of haire-brain'd men.

1. Here he doth insinuate, that some called his par­ticular people dogs and swine; he should have done well to have told them who do so; we say, such as turne with the dog to the vomit, such as wallow in beastly lusts are so; this I hope is true in thesi; but we say not in hypothesi, this and that man is so; No, we leave that to the reflexion of every mans conscience, and the Judgement of the Church. This was but a meere trick to create animosities in profane men a­gainst those who preach the truth of God to them. I wonder who said, those of Peters Parish are dogs and swine.

For the maine of the Exhortation it was good, but I thinke he might have spared telling them, he did not say, they should beare patiently admonitions from any, for I thinke the person is not considerable, but the thing, and cause of it. Now they have enough to say [Page 216]to justifie their stopping their eares against reproofe. The reproofe was impertinent, unseasonable, he was a giddy hair-brain'd man that reproved me, and our Pa­stor told us, we need not beare his reproofes patiently.

The last Paragraph containes his second and last use directed to reprovers: Animadv. on Paragraph. 8. to perswade them so to order their reproofes, that they may not make men dogs nor swine.

Here he tells us honestly, that though men expresse themselves rashly, and inadvisedly, yet if it be truth they speake, it is sad men will not endure it; but he had told them before, He did not say they should be are it patient­ly, here he doth say, It is sad they will not; how do these two agree?

Though I do not thinke this Use proper to any Do­ctrine can be raised from this Text, and so is not truth to the purpose (as Mr Boatman lately taught us we should preach from Texts) yet I easily yield that ad­monition is a tender thing, and must be managed with prudence, and he must be allowed all he saith upon that point.

At last he comes to blesse himselfe, and to blesse his Congregation, that he had never a dog in it, (an hap­py house!) or rather he had met with none; that may be: There may be dogs enough in the Town, yet I may meet with none of them, it may be I never regard whether they beso; but he puts in

Unlesse it be some selfe-conceited Pharisees that can­not endure any body should be accounted holy as them­selves.

Who Mr Boatman meanes is sufficiently known, such as through tendernesse of conscience, and consci­ence of Gods Ordinances, cannot swallow promiscu­ous Sacraments. These are the only dogs Mr Boatman hath in his Congregation.

The Lord make him ashamed with a godly shame.

Now Reader, take the sum of my Sermon on that Text, and of his confuting discourse.

1. THe Text is absolute sence in it selfe, and stands in no relation to the former Verses: This Mr Boatman grants.

2. The Precept is without restriction: Holy things, Pearles, not this or that Pearle or holy thing.

3. All the Ordinances of God, especially the Sacra­ments, are holy things betrusted to men to give out.

4. There is therefore no reason to restraine the sense of this Text to this or that holy thing, but to understand it of all.

5. Yet the whole word of God, being but one piece, if any part of that licenseth us to administer some holy things to some dogs, we may do accordingly, notwith­standing this Text.

6. The Sacrament of the Supper, being an holy thing, it will follow from this generall Precept that it must not be given to such as the Scripture calls dogs or swine, except the Scripture elsewhere expresly com­mands us the contrary.

7. To expound it of preaching the Gospell, or ad­monition restrictively, is to speak without any ground, and to limit where Scripture doth not.

8. Besides, The Gospell must be preached to dogs, viz. persecutors, heathens, &c. and dogs must be admonished, 2 Thes. 3.14, 15.

9. It is ridiculous to say, that we are here forbidden to preach to some, and admonish them, and yet not for­bidden to give them the Sacrament, the latter follow­ing upon necessary consequence.

10. The dog will trample upon this Ordinance as well as the other.

11. Here is therefore a generall prohibition, from which will follow by a necessary deduction, that the Sacrament must not be given to such as the Scripture calls dogs: 1. It being an holy thing. 2. As much inclu­ded here as any other. 3. No where else allowed to dogs. 4. Such an Ordinance as they will trample on.

Now what saies Mr Boatman?

1. This Text is wrung by the Nose till bloud comes, and I will redeeme the Captive.

2. The utmost of the Holy Ghosts meaning by holy things and pearles is divine truths, and admonitions.

3. To stretch the Text further is to preach un­truth, nothing to purpose, &c.

4. Admonition and preaching are holy things.

5. We must take heed how we give them out to dogs.

6. For the proofe of the three first; you must take my word, or chuse whether you will beleeve it or no. And for answering any Objections, he is not at leisure.

Read and judge now how learnedly I am confuted. He came out like a man of war, but what hath he done?

The King of France with twenty thousand men
Came to the sea, and so went back agen.
FINIS.

Reader, these Books following are Printed, and are to be sold by Richard Tomlins at the Sun and Bible neare Pye Corner.

  • THe Generall Practice of Physick, Folio.
  • The Fortune Book in Fol. English.
  • Pleasant Notes upon Don Quixot, Fol.
  • Mr Collings his Cordials first, second, and third parts, quarto.
  • His Vindiciae Ministerii quarto.
  • His Answer to Mr. Sheppard, quart.
  • His Answer to Fisher and Hammond, quart.
  • Dr Holdsworth's twenty one Sermons, quart.
  • Euclids Elements in quart. Eng.
  • History of seven Champions, quart.
  • Packet of Letters, quart.
  • Cupids Messengers, quart.
  • The Birth of mankind, or womens Book, quart.
  • The Perfect Pharisee under Monkish holinesse, quart.
  • The false Jew, quart.
  • Mr Collings Five Lessons for a Christian to learn, oct.
  • His Faith and experience, octav.
  • Mr Wincolls Poems, octav.
  • Excellency of Christ, octav.
  • Erasmus Colloquis, octav.
  • Wings and Libourns Urania Practica, octav.
  • Velitationes Polemicae, octav.
  • Perkins Catechisme, octav.
  • Janua Linguarum, octav.
  • Brinsley's Cordelrus, Octav.
  • Watsons untaught Bridegroome, Twelves,

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.