Harm evang cap. 171. Brachmand Tom. 3. pag. 2082. Neither doe the Lutherans make any such use of Iudas his receiving of the Sacrament as Master Prynne doth for they hold that not onely excommunicated persons but scandalous and notorious sinners not yet excommunicated ought to be kept backe from the Lords Table See Gerhard loc com Tom. 5. 180 181 182. where he proves distinctly that all these ought to be excluded from the Lords Supper 1. Hereticks 2. Notorious scandalous sinners 3. Excommunicated persons 4. Possessed persons furious persons and idiots 5. Infamous persons who use unlawfull arts as Magitians Negromancers c. and for the exclusion of scandalous sinners he citeth the Ecclesiasticall Electorall Constitutions L. Osiander Enchir. contra Anabap. cap. 6. quaest 3. tels us that the Lutheran Churches exclude all known scandalous persons from the Sacrament But it is strangest to me that M r Prynne will not give credit to some of the Testimonies cited by himselfe Theophylact. enar in Matth. 26. saith Quidam autem dicunt quod egresso Juda tradidit Sacramentum aliis Discipulis proinde nos sic facere debemus malos à Sacramentis abarcere Idem enar in Marc. 14. Quidam dicunâ—… but who they were appeares not saith M r Prynne in any extant worke of theirs Iudam non fuisse participem Sacramentorum sed egressum esse priusquam dominus Sacramenta traderet Shall we take this upon M r Prynnes credit that it doth not appeare in any extant worke of theirs Nay let him take better heed what he saith and whereof he affirmeth In the next page he himselfe excepteth one which is Hilary but except him onely he saith that all the Ancients unanimously accord herein without one dissenting voyce But see now whether all is to be believed that M r Prynne gives great words for T is well that he confesseth we have Hilary for us First therfore let the words of Hilary be observed Next I will prove what he denieth namely that others of the Ancients were of the same opinion Clemens lib. 5. constit Apost cap. 13. after mention of the Paschall or typicall supper addeth these words as of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But when he had delivered to us the antitype mysteries so called in reference to the Paschall supper of his precious body and blood Judas not being present with us I doe not owne these eight bookes of the Apostolicall constitutions as written by that Clemens who was Pauls fellow-labourer Phil. 4. yet certainly they are ancient as is universally acknowledged Dionysius Areopagita or whosoever he was that anciently wrote under that name de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia cap. 3. part 3. sect 1. speaking of the same bread and the same cup whereof all the communicants are partakers he saith that this teacheth them a Divine conformity of manners and withall cals to mind Christs supper in the night when he was betrayed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In quo caena so Ambrose the Monke in his Latine translation and Iudoeus Clichtoveus in his Commentary In which supper for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 relates to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the supper before mentioned and signifieth the time of supper or after supper was begun so the Graecians use to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie in the time of sicknesse the authour himselfe of those Symbols doth most justly deprive or cast out him Judas who had not holily and with agreement of mind supped together with him upon holy things By these holy things he understands it should seem the Typicall or Paschall supper of which Iudas had eaten before and peradventure that night also in the opinion of this Ancient Iudocus Clichteveus in his Commentary saith onely that Iudas did that night eate together with Christ cibum meate he saith not Sacramentum This ancient writer is also of opinion that Christ did excommunicate Iudas or as Clichtoveus expounds him à caeterorum discipulorum caetu aequissime separavit discrevit dispescuit If you thinke not this cleare enough heare the ancient Scholiast Maximus to whom the Centurists give the Testimony of a most learned and most holy man He flourished in the seventh Century under Constans he was a chiefe opposer of the Monothelites and afterwards a martyr His Scholia upon that place of Dionysius maketh this inference 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that after Judas had gone forth from supper Christ gave the mystery to his Disciples Againe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where note that to him also that is to Iudas he Christ gave of a mysticall bread meaning the unleavened bread of the Passeover and cup meaning the cup drunke at the Paschall supper but the mysteries that is the Eucharisticall bread and cup commonly called the mysteries by ancient writers he gave to his Disciples after Judas went forth from supper as it were because Judas himselfe was unworthy of these mysteries Adde hereunto the Testimony of Georgius Pachymeres who lived in the thirteenth Century in his Paraphrase upon that same place of Dionysius he saith that Christ himselfe the author and institutor of this Sacrament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ doth cast out and separate or excommunicate most justly Judas who bad not holily supped together with him For having given to him also of a mysticall bread and cup he gave the mysteries to the Disciples alone after be went forth from Supper thereby as it were shewing that Judas was unworthy of these mysteries By the mysteries which Maximus and Pachimeres speake of and which they say Christ gave to his Disciples after Iudas was gone forth I can understand nothing but the Eucharisticall supper the Elements whereof are very frequently called the mysteries by the ancients as hath been said And if any man shall understand by these mysteries the inward graces or things signified in the Lords Supper then what senoe can there be in that which Maximus and Pachimeres say for Christ could as easily keepe backe from Iudas and give to his other Disciples those graces and operations of his Spirit when Iudas was present among them as when he was cast out So that it could not be said that Christ did cast out Iudas in order to the restraining from him and giving to the other Disciples the invisible inward grace signified in the Sacrament as if the other Apostles had not received that grace at the receiving of the Sacrament but that Iudâ—…s must first be cast out before they could receive it or as if Iudas had received the inward grace if he had not gone out from supper The sence must therefore be this that Iudas as an unworthy person was cast out by Christ before he thought fit to give the Sacrament of his Supper unto his other Apostles Unto all these Testimonies adde Ammonius Alexandrinus de quatuor Evangeliorum consonantia cap. 155. where he hath the story of Iudâ—…s his receiving of the sop and his going forth immediately after he had
the first I answer it rather confirmeth then confuteth what I have said For 1. The Text saith Vers. 13. the Publican stood afarre off the Pharisee not so Grotius upon the place Verse 11. noteth that the Pharisees fault was not in this particular that he came further into the Temple then the Publican for the custome was such that the Publicans were to stand in the Court of the Gentiles the Pharisees in the Court of Israel Camer myroth in Luke 18. is also of opinion that the Publican stood in the Court of the Gentiles or in that first Court into which Iosephus lib. 2. contra Appion saith that all even Heathens might come 2. And though our opposites could prove that the Publican came into the Court of Israel which they will never be able to doe yet this place helpes them not at all unlesse they can prove that this was a scandalous and prophane Publican It is certaine that divers of the Publicans were religious and devout men and that this was one of them we may more then conjecturally know by the Pharisees owne words for when he hath thanked God that he is not as other men adulterers unjust extortioners he addeth with a disjunction or even as this Publican thus preferring himselfe not onely to the infamous and scandalous Publicans but even to this devout Publican More of this place afterward in the debate of Matth. 18. To the other objection from Iohn 8. 2 3. where it is said that the Pharisees brought a woman taken in adultery into the Temple and set her before Christ First I answer with Const. l'Empereur annot in Cod. Middoth cap. 2. pag. 45. by the Temple in that place we are to understand the Intermurale the utter Court or Court of the Gentiles which was without the Court of Israel which utter Court saith he both the Evangelists and Iosephus call by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Temple Yea the whole mountaine of the Temple even comprehending that part of it which was without the Intermurale had the name of the Temple as M. Selden noteth de Jure nat Gent. l. 3. c. 6. p. 298. And lib. 4. cap. 5. he expounds that of the Money-changers in the Temple to be meant of the court of the Gentiles This answer doth the better agree to Iohn 8. because V. 2. tels us it was in the place where all the people came unto Jesus and he taught them Now it is certaine that both Christ and his Apostles did often teach the people in the Coutt of the Gentiles and in Solomons porch which was without the Court of Israel in the Intermurale that all might have the better occasion of hearing the Gospell even they who were not permitted to enter into the Court of Israel Wherefore since the Text tels us that when the Pharisees brought the woman to Christ he was teaching in such a place where all the people had accesse to heare him this agreeth better to the Intermurale then to the Court of Israel Secondly I answer that woman did not come as a priviledged person free to come and worship â—in the Court of Israel with the Church of Israel but she is brought as an accused person that in the most publique and shamefull manner she might be sentenced and condemned and made vile before all the people so that it was in her paena non privilegium The Sanhedrin also did sit in the Temple so that such as were to be examined and judged must be brought to that place where the Sanhedrin was which sate in that part of the Temple that was called Gazith This might be the occasion of bringing some to the Temple as parties to be judged who were not admitted to the Ordinances of worship in the Court of Israel Even as the prohibition of reading atheisticall or hereticall bookes Sanhedrin cap. 11. sect 1. was not violated by the Councels reading or searching of them for a Judiciall triall and examination as is rightly observed by Dionysius Vossius annot in Maimon de Idol pag. 25. And now having taken off the two principall objections we shall take notice of such Scriptures as either directly or at least by consequence prove that notorious and scandalous sinners were not allowed to be admitted into the Temple and partake in all the ordinances 1. God reproveth not onely the bringing of strangers into his Sanctuary who were uncircumcised in the flesh but the bringing of those who were uncircumcised in heart that is known to be such for de secretis non judicat Ecclesia Ezech. 44. 7 9. Such ought not to have had fellowship in the holy things No stranger uncircumcised in flesh shall enter into my Sanctuary of any stranger that is among the children of Israel It is a law concerning proselytus domicilii such proselytes as having renounced idolatry and professing to observe the seven precepts given to the sonnes of Noah were thereupon permitted to dwell and converse among the children of Israel Of which more elsewhere Such a one ought not be admitted into the Sanctuary or place of the holy assemblies there to pertake in all the Ordinances with the Church unlesse he be both circumcised in flesh and also in regard of his profession and practice a visible Saint or one supposed to be circumcised in heart The disjunction Nor tels us that if he were either uncircumcised in flesh or known to be uncircumcised in heart God did not allow him to be admitted to coÌ„munion with the children of Israel in al publik ordinances 2. There is a Law Deut. 23. 18. forbidding to bring the hire of a whore into the house of the Lord and that because it was the price of a whore how much more was it contrary to the will of God that the whore her selfe being knowne to be such should be brought to the house of the Lord For propter quod ununiquâ—…que est tale id ipsum est magis tale This argument is hinted by Philo the Jew 3. The Lord sharply contendeth with those who did steale murther and commit adultery and sweare falsely and burne Incense to Baal and yet presumed to come and stand before him in his owne house Is this house which is called by my name saith the Lord become a den of robbers in your eyes Ierem. 7. 9 10 11. A den of robbers is the place which receives robbers and saith Vatablus upon the place as robbers after their robbing come to their denne so doe these even after their stealing murthering c. come to the Temple To the same purpose is that challenge Ezech. 23. 38 39. Moreover this they have done unto me they have defiled my Sanctuary in the same day and have prophaned my Sabbaths For when they had slaine their children to their Idols then they came the same day into my Sanctuary to prophane it But God would not have the Temple to be a receptacle for such When Christ applieth that Scripture
suspendetur Si suspensus post iter atas admonitiones nullum poenitentiae signum dederit ad Excommunicationem procedet Ecclesia Melchior Adamus de vitis Germanorum Theologorum Pag. 342. CUmque sub id tempus Anno 1545. Fredericus Elector Palatinus qui Ludovico successerat de Ecclesiarum agitaret Reformatione composuit Melanchthon cum evocato venire integrum non esset scriptum de reformandis Ecclesiis cujus Synopsin aliquot regulis comprehendit quas addimus Vera salutaris gubernatio Ecclesiae Christi praecipuè in his sex Membris consistit PRimum In vera pura Doctrina quam Deus Ecclesiae suae patefecit tradidit doceri mandavit Secundo In legitime usu Sacramentorum Tertio In conservatione Ministerii Evangelici obedientiae erga Pastores Ecclesiarum sicut Deus vult postulat conservari Ministerium Evangelii servat ipse sua potentiâ presentiâ Quarto In conservatione honestae pia Disciplinae retinendae per judicia Ecclesiastica seu jurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam Quinto In conservandis studiis necessariae doctrinae Scholis Sexto Ad haec opus est defensione corporali facultatibus ad personas quae sunt in efficiis necessariis alendas The Irish Articles of Religion Art 58. NEither do we give unto him the Supreme Magistrate hereby the administration of the Word and Sacraments or the power of the keyes And Art 69. But particular and visible Churches consisting of those who make profession of the Faith of Christ and live under the outward means of Salvation be many in number wherein the more or lesse sincerely according to Christs Institution the Word of God is taught the Sacraments are administred and the authority of the keyes is used the more or lesse pure are such Churches to be accounted Laurentius Humfredus de Religionis conservatione Reformatione vera Ad Nobilitatem Clerum Populum Anglicanum PAg. 23. Nec satis mirari possum nec satis dolere cum intellgam in his locis repudiari disciplinam Ecclesiasticam vel nullam esse vel nimis laxam vel non satis vigilanter administratam in quibus tamen alioqui Religionis sincera efâ—igies cernitur quasi Evangelium esse possit ubi non vivitur Evangelicè aut quasi Christus laeto carnali voluptuario delectetur Evangelio c. At in Ecclesia manere debet censura jurisdictio non minus quam gladius in Repub. Pag. 25. Sit ergo haec prima Reformationis perfectae ratio nostri ac peccatorum recognitio emendatio Deinde severior adsit in Ecclesia castigatio animadversio ut illa laxit as remissio frnaeetur quo minus levius deinceps peccetur FINIS THE THIRD BOOKE OF Excommunication from the CHURCH AND Of Suspension from the LORDS TABLE CHAP. I. An opening of the true state of the question and of Master Prynnes many mistakes and mis-representations of our Principles HAving now by the light of Scripture and other helps asserted a Church-government distinct from civill Magistracy both in the Old and New Testament the last part of my present undertaking shall be to vindicate the particular Ordinances of Excommunication and Suspension called by the Schoolmen Excommunicatio major minor Of which also I have before spoken divers things occasionally for I have asserted an Excommunication and Suspension in the Jewish Church Booke 1. Chap. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. The nature grounds reasons uses and ends whereof were not proper to the Old Testament but such as concerne the Christian Church I have also brought arguments Booke 2. Chap. 9 10. which conclude not onely Church-government but Excommunication And so much of my worke is done Neverthelesse there is more to doe M r Prynne first in his foure grand Quaeres and thereafter in his Vindication of the same hath argued much both against the Suspension from the Sacrament of a person not Excommunicated and wholly cast out of the Church and against some of the most pregnant Scripturall proofes for Excommunication it selfe In his Vindication he hath branched forth the controversie into ten points of difference Two of these viz. the fifth concerning suspension from the Sacrament of the Passeover and the ninth concerning casting out of the Synagogue I have discussed before in the first Book Where I have also examined other assertions of his concerning the Jewish Sanhedrin Temple confession of sinne The other points of difference not handled before I am as the Lord will help me now to speak to The first point of difference is whether in those foure Quaeres of his he stated the Controversie aright He is offended that I in a Sermon of mine before the honourable House of Commons charged the Questionist with mistakes and that I did not take notice of the question concerning suspension from the Sacrament as he stated it Vindic. pag. 3. I had reason because he had mis-stated it and since it pleased him to interpose in a matter depending between the Honourable houses of Parliament and the Reverend Assembly of Divines and to publish a paper plainly reflecting upon a Petition of the Assembly I hope he can not think either the Assembly or me tied to his stating of the question If he will meddle with the businesse of the Assembly he must speak to it as it is And that it may now appeare how just cause I had to charge his Queres with mistakes of the state of the question which he still mistaketh I shall endeavour a more particular and full discovery of these his mistakes And first that which was desired by the Assembly was that such a rule may be established by authority of Parliament as may keep off all scandalous and notorious sinners from the Sacrament The question was not what Texts of Scripture doe warrant this thing It did not concerne me to debate whether the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament quoted by him prove suspension from the Lords Table The controversie was of the practicall conclusion and of establishing such a rule as may keep off scandalous persons from the Sacrament If the thing be done if the conclusion be consented to there is the greater liberty for men to abound in their own sence concerning the mediums to prove it Secondly and if he would needs debate what Texts of Scripture doe prove the thing and what precept or president in Scripture doth warrant it me thinks he had done better to have informed himselfe on what Scripturall proofs the Reverend Assembly had grounded the suspension of scandalous sinners from the Sacrament though not yet cast out of the Church The proofes from Scripture voted in the Assembly were these Because the Ordinance it selfe must not be prophaned And because we are charged to withdraw from those who walk disorderly And because of the great sinne and danger both to him that comes unworthily and also to the whole Church The Scriptures from which the Assembly did prove all
AARONS ROD BLOSSOMING OR The Divine Ordinance of Church-Government VINDICATED So as the present Erastian Controversie concerning the distinction of Civill and Ecclesiasticall Government Excommunication and Suspension is fully debated and discussed from the holy Scripture from the Jewish and Christian Antiquities from the consent of latter Writers from the true nature and rights of Migistracy and from the groundlesnesse of the chiefe Objections made against the Presbyteriall Government in point of a domineering arbitrary unlimited power By George Gillespie Minister at Edinburgh For unto us a child is born unto us a sonne is given and the government shall be upon his shoulder Isaiah 9. 6. Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour 1 Tim. 5. 17. And the spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets for God is not the Author of confusion but of peace 1 Cor. 14 32 33. August lib. contra Donatistas post collationem Cap. 4. Ne fortè aut indisciplinata patientia foveat iniquitatem aut impatiens disciplina dissipet unitatem Published by Authority London Printed by E. G. for Richard Whitaker at the signe of the Kings Armes in Pauls Church yard 1646. TO THE Reverend and Learned Assembly of DIVINES Convened at WESTMINSTER Right Reverend THough many faithfull servants of God did long agoe desire to see those things which we see and to heare those things which we heare Yet it hath been one of the speciall mercies reserved for this Generation and denied to the times of our Ancestors that Divines of both Kingdomes within this Island should be gathered and continued together to consult peaceably and freely concerning a Reformation of Religion in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government 'T is a mercy yet greater that two Nations formerly at so great a distance in the form of publike Worship and Churchgovernment should to their mutuall comfort and happines and to the further endearing of each to other through the good hand of God be now agreed upon one Directory of Worship and with a good progresse advanced as in one Confession of Faith so likewise in one forme of Church-government For all which as the other Reformed Churches in regard of their common interest in the Truth and Ordinances of Christ so especially your Brethren in the Church of Scotland are your debters Your name is as precious Oynment among them and they doe esteeme you very highly in love for your workes sake A worke which as it is extraordinary and unparalleld requiring a double portion of the Spirit of your Master so You have very many Hearts and Prayers going along with you in it that the pleasure of the Lord may prosper in your hand As for my Reverend Colleagues and my selfe it hath been a good part of our happinesse that we have been partakers of and Assistants in your grave and learned Debates Yet as we declared from our first comming amongst you we came not hither presuming to prescribe any thing unto You but willing to receive as well as to offer light and to debate matters freely and fairely from the Word of God the common Rule both to you and us As herein You were pleased to give testimony unto us in one of your Letters to the Generall Assembly of the Church of Scotland so the great respects which in other things and at other times you have expressed both towards that Church from which we are entrusted and particularly towards our selves doe call for a returne of all possible and publique testimonies of gratitude For which purpose I doe for my part take hold of this opportunity I know that I owe much more unto You then I have either ability to pay or Elocution to set forth Yet although I cannot retaliate your Favours nor render that which may be worthy of your selves I beseech you to accept this part of my retribution of respects I doe offer and entitle unto You this Enucleation of the Erastian Controversie which is Dignus vindice nodus I hope here is a word in season concerning it Others might have done better but such furniture as I had I have brought to the worke of the Tabernacle I submit what is mine unto your greater learning and better judgement and shall ever continue Yours to serve you GEO. GILLESPIE To the Candid Reader I Have often and heartily wished that I might not be distracted by nor ingaged into polemick Writings of which the World is too full already and from which many more learned and idoneous have abstained and I did accordingly resolve that in this Controversall age I should be slow to write swift to read and learne Yet there are certaine preponderating reasons which have made me willing to be drawn forth into the light upon this subject For beside the desires and sollicitations of diverse Christian friends lovers of truth and peace seriously calling upon me for an answer to M r Prynne his Vindication of his foure Questions concerning Excommunication and Suspension the grand importance of the Erastian controversie and the strong influence which it hath into the present juncture of asfaires doth powerfully invite me Among the many Controversies which have disquieted and molested the Church of Christ those concerning Ecclesiasticall Government and Discipline are not the least but among the chiefe and often mannaged with the greatest animosity and eagernesse of spirit whence there have growne most dangerous divisions and breaches such as this day there are and for the future are to be expected unlesse there shall be through Gods mercy some further composing and healing of these Church-consuming distractions which if we shall be so happy as once to obtaine it will certainely contribute very much toward the accommodation of civill and State-shaking differences And contrariwise if no healing for the Church no healing for the State Let the Gallio's of this time who care for no intrinsecall evill in the Church promise to themselves what they will surely he that shall have cause to write with Nicolaus de Clemangis a Booke of lamentation de corrupto Ecclesiae statu will finde also cause to write with him de lapsu reparatione Justitiae As the thing is of high concernment to these so much disturbed and divided Churches so the elevation is yet higher by many dègrees This controversie reacheth up to the Heavens and the top of it is above the clouds It doth highly concerne Iesus Christ himselfe in his glory royall prerogative and kingdome which he hath and exerciseth as Mediator and Head of his Church The Crowne of Iesus Christ or any part priviledge or pendicle thereof must needs be a noble and excellent Subject This truth that Iesus Christ is a King and hath a Kingdome and government in his Church distinct from the kingdomes of this World and from the civill Government hath this commendation and character above all other truths that Christ himselfe suffered to the death for it and sealed it with his blood For it may be observed from the story
civill Court of Justice had then removed from Hierusalem and had lost its authority in executing Justice I. Coch annot in Exc. Gem. Sanhedrin cap. 1. sâ—…ct 13. beareth witnesse to the same story above mentioned that forty yeeres before the destruction of the Temple the Sanhedrin did remove from its proper seat where he also mentions the ten stations or degrees of their removing and Iam tum cessarunt judicia capitalia saith he Now at that time the capitall judgements did cease Thus we have three witnesses singularly learned in the Jewish Antiquities Unto these adde Casauâ—…on exerc 16. anno 34. num 76. He holds that though the Councell of the Jewes had cognizance of the offence for otherwise how could they give a reason or cause when they demanded justice in which respect the Councell did judge Christ to be guilty of death Marke 14. 64. yet their Councell had then no more power of capitall punishments which saith he the more learned moderne writers doe demonstrate è Iuchasin and from other Talmudicall writings he addeth that this power of putting any man to death was taken from the Jewes some space before this time when they said to Pilate It is not lawfull for us to put any man to death for this power was taken from them saith he forty yeeres before the destruction of the second Temple as the Rabbinicall writers doe record I have thus largely prosecuted my last argument drawn from the New Testament mentioning the Councell of the Priests Elders and Scribes And I trust the twelve arguments which have been brought may give good satisfaction toward the proofe of an Ecclesiasticall Jewish Sanhedrin The chiefe objection which ever I heard or read against this distinction of a Civill Sanhedrin and an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin among the Jewes is this That neither the Talmud nor the Talmudicall writers mention any such distinction but speake onely of one supreme Sanhedrin of 71 and of other two Courts which sate the one at the doore of the Court before the Temple the other at the gate which entereth to the mountaine of the Temple There were also Courts in the Cities where capitall cases were judged by three and twenty pecuniall mults by three Answ. It must be remembred that not onely the Talmudicall Commentators but the Talmud it selfe is much later than the time of the Sanhedrin and the integrity of the Jewish government Yea later by some Centuries than the destruction of the Temple and City of Ierusalem So that the Objection which is made is no stronger than as if one should argue thus There is no mention of Elderships constituted of Pastors and Ruling Elders without any Bishop having preeminence over the rest neither in the Canon Law nor decretals of Popes nor in the Booke of the Canons of the Roman Church Therefore when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Church of Rome there was no such Eldership in that Church constituted as hath been said But if the Ecclesiasticall Government either of the Church of Rome or of the Church of the Jewes can be proved from Scripture as both may it ought to be no prejudice against those truths that they are not fouâ—d in the Writers of afâ—ertimes and declining ages Howbeit there may be seen some footsteps of a Civill and Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin even in the Talmudicall writers in the opinion of Constantinus L'Empereur and in that other passage cited by D. Buxtorf out of Elias Of which before And so much concerning an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin among the Jewes If after all this any man shall be unsatisfied in this particular yet in the issue such as are not convinced that there was an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin among the Jewes distinct from their civill Sanhedrin may neverthelesse be convinced not by the former arguments but by other Mediums that there was an Ecclesiasticall government among the Jewes distinct from their civill government For it belonged to the Priests not to the Magistrates or Judges to put difference between holy and unholy and between unclean and cleane And the Priests not the Magistrates are challenged for not putting difference between the holy and prophane Ezech. 22. 26. And this power of the Priests was not meerly doctrinall or declarative but decisive binding and juridicall so farre as that according to their sentence men were to be admitted as cleane or excluded as uncleane Yea in other cases as namely in trying and judging the scandall of a secret and unknown murther observe what is said of the Priests Deut. 21. 5. by their word shall every controversie and every stroke be tried Yea themselves were Judges of controversies Ezech. 44. 24. And in controversie they shall stand in judgement and they shall judge it according to my judgements Where the Ministers of the Gospell are principally intended but not without an allusion unto and parallel with the Priests of the old Testament in this point of jurisdiction Suppose now it were appointed by Law that Ministers shall separate or put difference between the holy and prophane that by their word every controversie concerning the causes of suspension or sequestration of men from the Sacrament shall be tried that in controversie they shall stand in judgement and judge according to the word of God Would not every one looke upon this as a power of government put into the hands of Ministers And none readier to aggravate such government then the Erastians Yet all this amounts to no more then by the plaine and undeniable Scriptures above cited was committed to the Priests Suppose also that men were kept backe from the Temple and from the Passeover not for any morall uncleannesse but for ceremoniall uncleannesse onely which is to be afterwards discussed yet the Priests their judging and deciding of controversies concerning mens legall uncleannesse according to which judgement and decision men were to be admitted to or kept backe from the Temple and Passover yea sometime their owne houses as in the case of leprosie could not choose but entitle them to a power of government which power was peculiar to them and is not in all the old Testament ascribed to Magistrates or Judges And as the exercise of this power did not agree to the Magistrate so the commission charge and power given to those who did keepe backe the uncleane was not derived from the Magistrate for it did belong to the intrinsecall sacerdotall authority 2 Kings 11. 18. The Priest Iehojada appointed Officers over the house of the Lord. The 70 thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These Officers or overseers over the Temple were appointed by Iehojada for keeping backe the uncleane as Grotius upon the place following Iosephus hath observed Compare 2 Chro. 23. 19. And he Iehojada set the Porters at the gates of the house of the Lord that none which was uncleane in any thing should enter in For the same end did he appoint these overseers over the Temple 2 Kings 11. It was also appointed by the Law that the man who should doe any thing
that there were three kinds of excommunication Niddui Cherem and Schammata Niddui is 〈◊〉 out but if he be not converted they smite him with Cherem and if neither so he repent they schammatize him These three Doctor Buxtorf thus distinguisheth not only out of Elias the common sentence of the but Hebrew Doctors The first and smallest excommunication is Niddui which is a simple separation for a certain time The greater excommunication is Cherem which is a separation with imprecations and curses The greatest of all is Schammata a finall excommunication without hope of returning to the Church So likewise Hen. Uorstius animad in Pirke pag. 230. And answerably hereunto some Divines have distinguished Excommunicatio Minor Major and Maxima The first is suspension from the Sacrament The second is a casting out of the Church and a delivering over to Sathan which yet is a medicinall excommunication for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved The third is Anathema Maranatha an accursing of a man to the comimg of Christ without hope of mercy which is excommunicatio exterminativa and cannot be done without a propheticall Spirit Corn. Bertramus de repub Ebraeor cap. 7. saith that our suspension from the Sacrament answereth to their Niddui our Excommunication to their Cherem And for their Schammata he thinks it was an adjudging of one to eternall death whereunto answereth the Apostles Anathema and the Churches devoting of Iulian the Apostate as one to be no more prayed for but to be prayed against Munsterus will have Schammata to be the same with Niddui Wherein Master Selden agreeth with him still holding a difference between Niddui and Cherem as between the lesser and the greater excommunication de Jure nat Gentium l. 4. c. 8. Of the same opinion is Io. Coch Annot. in Exc. Gem. Sanhedrin p. 149. But Constantinus l' Empereur annot in rempub Jud. tels us that the Talmudists in divers places do distinguish the three degrees of Excommunication as Bertramus doth and that Schammata was the highest Excommunication greater then either Niddui or Cherem he proves not onely by the Epitheton adonai added by the Chaldee paraphrase Num. 21. 25. Et percussit eum Israel per Schammata dei but further from the words of Rabbi Solomon comparing one excommunicated by Schammata to the fat cast in the Furnace which is wholly consumed and which never comes out so he that is Schammatized is lost for ever and without all remedy unto all eternity He confirmeth it also from the words of Elias above mentioned It is not much to my present argument to dispute whether the Jewes had three distinct degrees of excommunication or two only However it 's agreed that the Jews had their Excommunicatio Minor Major And Niddui was an Excommunication for 30. dayes during which time if the person man or woman repent well and good if not he was excommunicate for other 30. dayes Yea saith Doctor Buxtorf the time might be triplicate to 90. dayes And if after all that time he repent not then he was excommunicate with the greater excommunication Cherem And so much for the degrees As for the manner and rites of their excommunication it was done most solemnly Doctor Buxtorf tells us if the party was present the sentence of Excommunication was pronounced against him by word of mouth If he was absent there was a writ publikely affixed containing the sentence of Excommunication which writ was not published till the offence was proved at least by two witnesses It is certain from Pirke Rabb Elierser cap. 38. that Cherem was not without an assembly of ten at least And it is as certaine that Cherem was not onely in a solemn but in a sacred manner performed which is manifest from that Formula Anathematis which Doctor Buxtorf hath transcribed out of an old Hebrew Manuscript and from another forme which Hen. Vorstius taketh out of Col Bo both shewing that it was not a civill but a sacred businesse done in the name and authority of the God of heaven and the latter formula still used in most of the Jewish Synagogues as Vorstius informes us We read also in Pirke Rabb Elieser cap. 38. that the Cuthites who were also called Samaritans after they had been circumcised by Rabb Dâ—…stai and Rabbi Zacharias and had been taught by them out of the Book of the Law they were excommunicate by Ezra Zerubbabel and Ioshua the high Priest 300. Priests and 300. Disciples and the whole Church in the Temple the Trumpets sounding and the Levites singing they did even by the great name of God excommunicate the Cuthites that there should be no fellow-ship between any man of Israel and the Cuthites that no Proselyte should be received of the Cuthites and that they should have no part in the resurrection of the dead nor in the building of the house of God nor in Ierusalem This passage Doctor Buxtorf in his Rabbinicall Lexicon p. 2464. and Master Selden de Jure nat Gentium l. 4. c. 8. have observed out of Pirke and Doctor Buxtorf both there and dissert de lit Hebr. thes 49. noteth the three words used by the Hebrews in this relation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is they did excommunicate them both by Niddui Cherem and Schammata And so much for the manner and rites As for the authority by which a man was excommunicated we see by that which hath been already noted that it was a publike and judiciall act and it was necessary there should be at least an Assembly of ten Those formulae before cited make it evident that it was an authoritative sentence of an Ecclesiasticall Assembly and therefore done as it were in name of the Court of heaven to which purpose domus Judicii superioris seu coelestis was mentioned in the businesse and it was a juridicall or forensicall act and done solemnly in the Temple in that case of the Cuthites Drusius de tribus Sectis Judaeorum lib. 4. Num. 237. concerning the Discipline of the Essaeans and their Excommunicating of ungodly persons tells us it was done by a hundreth men Assembled together It is very true which M r. Selden observeth de Jure nat Gentium l. 4. c. 8. the Hebrews writ of a Judiciall excommunication and of an extrajudiciall excommunication by which one private man might excommunicate another Yet that extrajudiciall excommunication could not stand in force unlesse it were ratified by the Court and of it selfe it was rather optative or imprecative than obligative as is manifest by the Instance which Io. Coch gives us ex Gem. Moed Caton Two men having mutually excommunicated each other it commeth to an authoritative decision He that had excommunicated the other for that for which he ought to have been punished by a pecuniall mulct but not by excommunication was himself justly excommunicate by the other according to the last of the 24. causes of excommunication before mentioned
these two things 1. It is the opinion of divers who hold two Sanhedrins among the Jewes one Civill and another Ecclesiasticall that in causes and occasions of a mixed nature which did concerne both Church and State both did consult conclude and decree in a joynt way and by agreement together Now Ezra 10. the Princes Elders Priests and Levites were assembled together upon an extraordinary cause which conjuncture and concurrence of the Civill and the Ecclesiasticall power might occasion the denouncing of a double punishment upon the contumacious forfeiture and excommunication But 2. The objection made doth rather confirme me that Excommunication is intended in that place For this forfeiture was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a making sacred or dedicating to an holy use as I have shewed out of Iosephus The originall word translated forfeited is more properly translated devoted which is the word put in the margin of our bookes The Greek saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 anathemstizabitur which is the best rendring of the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It was not therefore that which we call forfeiture of a mans substance Intellige saith Grotius ita ut Deo sacra fiat And so the excommunication of a man and the devoting of his substance as holy to the Lord were joyned together and the substance had not been anathematized if the man had not been anathematized I doe not say that Excommunication ex natura rei doth inferre and draw after it the devoting of a mans estate as holy to the Lord. No Excommunication can not hurt a man in his worldly estate further than the Civill Magistrate and the Law of the Land appointeth And there was Excommunication in the Apostolical Churches where there was no Christian Magistrate to adde a Civill mulct But the devoting of the substance of Excommunicated persons Ezra 10. as it had the authority of the Princes and Rulers for it so what extraordinary warrants or instinct there was upon that extraordinary exigence we can not tell Finally M. Selden de Jure nat Gentium lib. 4. cap. 9. p. 523. agreeth with Lud. Capellus that the separation from the Congregation Ezra 10. 8. plane ipsum est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fieri it is the very same with casting out of the Synagogue which confuteth further that which M. Prynne holds that the casting out of the Synagogue was not warranted by Gods word but was onely a humane invention I know some have drawne another argument for the Jewish Excommunication from Nehem. 13. 25. I contended with them and cursed them id est anathematizavi excommunicavi saith C. a lapide upon the place So Tirinus upon the same place Mariana expounds it anathema dixi Aben Ezra understands it of two kinds of Excommunication Niddui and Cherem For my part I lay no weight upon this unlesse you understand the cursing or malediction to be an act of the Ecclesiasticall power onely authorised or countenanced by the Magistrate Which the words may well beare for neither is it easily credible that Nehemiah did with his owne hand smite those men and plucke off their hayre but that by his authority he tooke care to have it done by civill Officers as the cursing by Ecclesiasticall Officers The Dutch annotations leane this way telling us that Nehemiah did expresse his zeale against them as persons that deserved to be banned or cut off from the people of God Another Text proving the Jewish Excommunication is Luke 6. 22. When they shall separate you and shall reproach you and â—…ast out your name as evill It was the most misapplied censure in the world in respect of the persons thus cast out but yet it proves the Jewish custome of casting out such as they thought wicked and obstinate persons This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beda upon the place understandeth of casting out of the Synagogue Separent Synagoga depellant c. yet it is a more generall and comprehensive word then the casting out of the Synagogue It comprehendeth all the three degrees of the Jewish Excommunication as Grotius expounds the place Which agreeth with Munsterus Dictionar Trilingue where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the onely Greeke word given both for the three Hebrew words Niddui Cherem and Shammata and for the Latine Excommunicatio Wherefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place is extermino excommunico repudio which is one of the usuall significations of the word given by Stephanus and by Scapula It is a word frequently used in the Canons of the most ancient Councels to expresse such a separation as was a Church-censure and namely suspension from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper For by the ancient Canons of the Councels such offences as were punished in a Minister by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is deposition were punished in one of the people by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is segregation or sequestration Zonaras upon the 13 th Canon of the eighth generall Councell observeth a double 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in the ancient Church â—ne was a totall separation or casting out of the Church which is usually called Excommunication another was a suspension or sequestration from the Sacrament onely Of which I am to speak more afterward in the third Booke I hold now at the Text in hand which may be thus read according to the sence and letter both when they shall excommunicate you c. Howbeit the other reading when they shall separate you holds forth the same thing which I speake of separate from what our Translators supply from their company but from what company of theirs not from their civill company onely but from their sacred or Church assemblies and from religious fellowship it being a Church-censure and a part of Ecclesiasticall discipline in which sence as this word frequently occurreth in the Greeke fathers and ancient Canons when they speake of Church discipline so doubtlesse it must be taken in this place 1. Because as Grotius tels us that which made the Jewes the rather to separate men in this manner from their society was the want of the Civill coercive power of Magistracy which sometime they had And I have proved before that the civill Sanhedrin which had power of criminall and capitall judgements did remove from Ierusalem and cease to execute such judgement forty yeeres before the destruction of the Temple 2. Because in all other places of the new Testament where the same word is used it never signifieth a bare separation from civill company but either a conscientious and religious separation by which Church members did intend to keep themselves pure from such as did walke or were conceived to walke disorderly and scandalously Acts 19. 9. 2 Cor. 6. 17. Gal. 2. 13. or Gods separating between the godly and the wicked Matth 13. 49. 25. 32. or the setting apart of men to the ministery of the Gospell Acts 13. 2. Rom. 1. 1. Gal. 1. 15. Thirdly a Civill separation is for a Civill injury but this separation
policy and how can it be imagined that mankind multiplying upon the earth should have been without headship superiority order society govenment And what wonder that the law of nature teach all Nations some government Hicrome observeth that nature guideth the very reasonlesse creatures to a kind of Magistracy Eightly If the Scripture hold forth the same derivation or origination of Magistracy in the Christian Magistrate and in the heathen Magistrate then it is not safe to us to hold that the Christian Magistrate holds his office of and under Christ as Mediator But the Scripture doth hold forth the same derivation or origination of Magistracy in the Christian Magistrate and in the Heathen Magistrate Ergo The proposition hath this reason for it because the Heathen Magistrate doth not hold his office of and under Christ as Mediator neither doth Mr. Hussey herein contradict me onely he holds the heathen Magistrate and his Government to be unlawful wherein he is Anabaptistical and is confuted by my first Argument As for the Assumption it is proved from divers Scriptures and namely these Rom. 13. 1. the powers that be are ordained of God which is spoken of heathen Magistrates Dan. 2. 37. Thou O King art a King of Kings for the God of heaven hath given thee a Kingdom Power and Strength and Glory So saith Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar an Idolatrous and heathen King See the like Ier. 27. 6. Isa. 45. 1. God sent his servant the Prophet to anoint Hazael King over Syria 1 Kings 19. 15. Read to this purpose Augustine de civit Dei lib. 5. cap. 21. Where he saith that the same God gave a Kingdom and authority both to the Romans Assyrians Persians Hebrews and that he who gave the Kingdom to the best Emperors gave it also to the worst Emperors yea he that gave it to Constantine a Christian did also give it saith he to Iulian the apostate Tertullian Apol. cap. 30. speaking of the heathen Emperors of that time saith that they were from God à quo sunt secundi post quem primi ante omnes that he who had made them men did also make them Emperors and give them their power Ibid. cap. 33. Ut meritò dixerim noster est magis Caesar ut a nostro Deo constitutus so that I may justly say Caesar is rather ours as being placed by our God saith he speaking to the Pagans in the behalf of Christians Wherefore though there be huge and vast differences between the Christian Magistrate and the heathen Magistrate the former excelling the latter as much as light doth darknesse yet in this point of the derivation and tenure of Magistracy they both are equally interested and the Scripture sheweth no difference as to that point CHAP. VIII Of the Power and Priviledge of the Magistrate in things and causes Ecclesiastical what it is not and what it is THe new notion that the Christian Magistrate is a Church-officer and Magistracy an Ecclesiastical as well as a civil administration calls to mind that of the Wise-man Is there any thing whereof it may be said See this is new it hath been already of old time which was before us Plato in his Politicus a little after the middle of that book tells me that the Kings of Egypt were also Priests and that in many Cities of the Grecians the supream Magistrate had the administration of the holy things Notwithstanding even in this particular there still appeareth some new thing under the Sun For Plato tells me again Epist. 8. that those supreme Magistrates who were Priests might not be present nor joyne in criminall nor capitall judgements lest they being Priests should be defiled If you look after some other President for the union of civil and ecclesiastical Government secular and spirituall administrations in one and the same person or persons perhaps it were not hard to find such presidents as our opposites will be ashamed to owne I am sure Heathens themselves have known the difference between the office of Priests and the office of Magistrates Aristotle de Repub. lib. 4. cap. 15. speaking of Priests saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For this is another thing then civil Magistrates He had said before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For a civil society hath need of many Rulers but every 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is made by election or lot is not a civil Magistrate and the first instance he giveth is that of the Priests and so Aristotle would have the Priest to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Ruler but not a civil Magistrate So de Repub. lib. 7. cap. 8. he distingu sheth between the Priests and the Judges in a Citty But to the matter I will here endeavour to make these two things appear 1. That no administration formally and properly Ecclesiasticall and namely the dispencing of Church censures doth belong unto the Magistrate nor may according to the word of God be assumed and exercised by him 2. That Christ hath not made the Magistrate head of the Church to receive appeals properly so called from all Ecclesiasticall Assemblies Touching the first of these it is no other than is held forth in the Irish Articles of Faith famous among Orthodox and Learned men in these Kingdoms which do plainly exclude the Magistrate from the administration of the Word and Sacraments and from the power of the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven It is the unhappinesse of this time that this and other truths formerly out of controversie should be so much stuck at and doubted of by some Now that the corrective part of Church-Government or the censure of scandalous persons in reference to the purging of the Church and keeping pure of the ordinances is no part of the Magistrates office but is a distinct charge belonging of right to Ministers and Elders as it may fully appear by the Arguments brought afterwards to prove a government in the Church distinct from Magistracy which Arguments will necessarily carry the power of Church censures and the administration of the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven into other hands then the Magistrates so I shall here strengthen it by these confirmations First Church-censures must needs be dispensed by Ministers and Elders because they are heterogeneous to Magistracy For first the Magistrate by the power which is in his hand ought to punish any of his Subjects that doe evil and he ought to punish like siâ—s with like punishments But if the power of Church-censures be in the Magistrates hands he cannot walk by that rule For Church-censures are onely for Church-members not for all Subjects 1 Cor. 5. 10. 12. Secondly Church-censures are to be executed in the name of Christ Matth. 18. 20. with vers 17 18. 1 Cor. 5. 4. and this cannot be done in his name by any other but such as have commission from him to bind and loose forgive and retain sins But where is any such commission given to the civil Magistrate Christian more then Heathen Thirdly Church-censures
bibit SIBI NON TIBI c. Of which last sentence if M r Prynne can make good Latine let him doe it for I can not and when he hath done so he may be pleased to looke over his Bookes better to seeke those words elsewhere if he can finde them for as yet he hath directed us to seeke them where they are not My next Animadversion shall be this The words of Augustine which M r Prynne alledgeth for Iudas his receiving of the Sacrament are these Tract 6. in Joh. Num enim mala erat buccella quae tradita est Judae à Domino Absit Medicus non daret venenum salutem medicus dedit sed indigne accipiendo ad perniciem accepit quia non pacatus accepit Thus the originall though not so recited by M r Prynne but that I passe so long as he retaines the substance Yet how will he conclude from these words that Iudas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper unlesse he make Augustine to contradict himselfe most grossely for Tract 62. in Joh. another place whether M r Prynne directeth us speaking of Christs giving of that buccella or sop to Iudas he saith Non autem ut putant quidam negligenter legentes tunc Judas Christi corpus accepit but Judas did not at that time receive the body of Christ as some negligently reading doe thinke Which words Beda also in his Comment on Ioh. 13. hath out of Augustine It is Augustines opinion that the Sacrament was given before that time at which Iudas was present That which M r Prynne citeth out of Algerus a Monke who in that same booke writeth expresly for Transubstantiation maketh more against him then for him For Algerus takes the â—eason of Christs giving the Sacrament to Iudas to be this because his perverse conscience though knowne to Christ was not then made manifest Iudas not being accused and condemned so that he was a secret not a scandalous sinner Thus farre we have a taste of M r Prynnes citations of the Ancients Peradventure it were not hard to finde as great flaws in some other of those citations But it is not worth the while to stay so long upon it Among the reâ— he citeth Haymo Bishop of Halberstat for Iudas his receiving of the Sacrament But he may also be pleased to take notice that Haymo would have no notorious scandalous sinner to receive the Sacrament and holds that a man eats and drinks unworthily qui gravioribus criminibus commaculatus praesumit illud sacramentum sumere that is who being defiled with haynous crimes presumeth to take the Sacrament but if he had thought it as Master Prynne doth the most effectuall ordinance and readiest meanes to worke conversion and repentance he could not have said so That which M r Prynne pag. 23. citeth out of the two confessions of Bohemia and Belgia doth not assert that for which he citeth them For neither of them saith that Iudas did receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper The Belgik confession saith an evill man may receive the Sacrament unto his own condemnation As for example Judas and Simon Magus both of them did receive the Sacramentall signe I can subscribe to all this for it is true in respect of the baptisme both of Iudas and Simon Magus But I must here put M r Prynne in minde that the thing which he pleads for is extreamly different from that which the Belgick Churches hold For Harmonia Synodorum Belgicarum cap. 13. saith thus Nemo ad Caenam dominicam admittatur nisi qui fidei Confessionem ante reddiderit Disciplinae Ecclesiasticae se subjecerit vitae inculpatae testes fideles produxerit Let no man be admitted to the Lords Supper except he who hath first made a confession of his faith and hath subjected himselfe to the Church Discipline and hath proved himselfe by faithfull witnesses to be of an unblameable life The other confession of Bohemia saith that Iudas received the Sacrament of the Lord Christ himselfe did also execute the function of a Preacher and yet he ceased not to remaine a divell an hypocrite c. This needeth not be expounded of the Lords Supper which if he had received how did he still remaine an hypocrite for that very night his wickednesse did breake forth and was put in execution but of the Passeover received by Iudas once and againe if not the third time That Chapter is of Sacraments in generall and that which is added is concerning Ananias and his wife their being baptised of the Apostles However the very same Chapter saith that Ministers must throughly looke to it and take diligent heed lest they give holy things to dogs or cast Pearles before swine Which is there applied to the Sacraments and is not understood of preaching and admonishing onely as M r Prynne understands it Also the Booke entituled Ratio Disciplinae ordinisque Ecclesâ—…astici in unitate fratrum Bohemorum cap. 7. appointeth not onely Church-discipline in generall but particularly suspension from the Lords Table of obstinate offenders Finally whereas M. Prynne citeth a passage of the antiquated Common prayer Booke as it hath lost the authority which once it had so that passage doth not by any necessary inference hold forth that Iudas received the Sacrament as D. Kellet sheweth at some length in his Tricaenium The citation in which M. Prynne is most large is that of Alexander Alensis part 4. Quaest. 11. membr 2. art 1. sect 4. though not so quoted by him But for a retribution I shall tell him three great points in which Alexander Alensis in that very dispute of the receiving of the Eucharist is utterly against his principles First Alexander Alensis is of opinion that the precept Matth. 7. 6. Give not that which is holy to dogs neither cast ye Pearles before swine doth extend to the denying the Sacrament to known prophane Christians for both in that Section which hath been cited and art 3. sect 1. answering objections from that Text he doth not say that it is meant of the word not of the Sacrament and of Infidels Hereticks Persecutors not of prophane ones but he ever supposeth that the Ministers are forbidden by that Text to consent to give the Sacrament to prophane scandalous sinners Secondly Alexander Alensis holds that Christs giving of the Sacrament to Iudas is no warrant to Ministers to give the Sacrament to publique notorious scandalous sinners though they doe desire it And thus he resolveth Ib. art 3. sect 1. If the Priest know any man by confession to be in a mortall sinne he ought to admonish him in secret that he approach not to the Table of the Lord and he ought to deny unto such a one the body of Christ if he desire it in secret But if he desire it in publique then either his sinne is publique or secret Iâ—… publique he ought to deny it unto him neither so doth he reveale sinne because it is publique If private he must give it lest