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 Arg. 10 It is sin in a Minister to declare those one visible body who are not one body visibly 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. 10.17 Mr Gillespie's Aarons Rod l. 3. c. 7 p. 425. V. etiam Hieron Zanch. 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 Arg 11 The Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not to be given to any who are not Christs Disciples 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 Argument 12 Those who if they were Heathens might not be baptized 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 adultis 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. 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 Arg. 13 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Apostles Requirit igitur coena domini quatenus est mystica convivas qui sensibus exercitatis interna mysteria ab eo quod oculis patet distinguere valent 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 Arg. 14 It is unlawfull to partake of other mens sins Eph. 5.7 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 Aarons 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 fore-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
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 soure practicall discourses at whose sollicitations and after how many sollicitations some very neare me can tell and I have some Letters from very Reverend men to 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 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 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
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 fit 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 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 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 deb eamus 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 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
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 Christ inviteth all to repentance Ergo to the Sacrament page 249. 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 â—ec interdieere jubet Sacramentorum usum sed judicium Dei proponit Erast confâ—rm 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 meant First 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 Arâ—tius so expounds it Arâ—t 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 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 I add further Plus satis bibit Grotius ad loc Quanquam ego non existimarem de eâ sermonem fieri qua homines alienati a sensu mente susi jacent sed potius de larga compotatione ita ut liberalius bibendo plus aequo exhilarati essent P. Mart. ad loc 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 Grotins 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 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 wait upon God in that Ordinancé 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
keep the communion of a Church pure if not in this Ordinance and 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 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 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 tels us it is not a visibility of reall worthinesse is the ground of admission but the visibility 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 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 institution 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
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 who shall 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 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 can 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 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 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 Argument 2 If in such a case the Minister of the Gospell cannot shew himselfe a faithfull Steward of Gods mysteries 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
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 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 Sacordos 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 tempere 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 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 Landâ—ff 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 of 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 proceed Quoniam magra sequeretur b norum perturbatio si cum hujusmodi personis 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. 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 V. The Book of Common Prayer concerning the order for the administration of the Lords Supper and advertise him in any wise not to presume to come to the Lords Table 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 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. 27. 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
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 Paragr 3 The whole Text briefly amounts to this Mr Boatmans 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 speake from sacred Texts of the holy Word of God else they fasten that on the Holy Ghost which henever 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 Doctrine The Doctrine which I shall gather hence is this Paragragh 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 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 sacred 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 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 Paragraph 5 For Reasons 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 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 I le dwell only this day on the Text. Reasons First Truths not wisely dispensed holy reproofes not warily 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 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
to convince you if you refuse Thus he doth not only preach placentia but Placets too Surely he doth pretend something to an Enthusiastick spirit he could never else set off meere saies with such a confidence Sect. 3 In the next place he comes to tell what is meant by trampling 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-like 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 saith 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 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 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 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 Anricular 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 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
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 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 them with one while here another while there if they see they cannot hit them with this triâ—k 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 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 norpresidents 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 lawfully suspend some from it But Ergo. Argument 6 MY sixth Argument to prove 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 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