Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	time_n	write_v	year_n	7,404	5	4.7660	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A80157	Provocator provocatus. Or, An answer made to an open challenge made by one M. Boatman in Peters Parish in Norwich, the 13th of December, 1654. in a sermon preached there at a fast, in which answer these questions are spoke to. 1. Whether juridicall suspension of some persons from the Lords Supper be deducible from Scripture; the affirmative is proved. : 2. Whether ministeriall or privative suspension be justifiable; the affirmative also is maintained. : 3. Whether the suspension of the ignorant and scandalous be a pharisaicall invention; a thing which wiser ages never thought of, as Mr Boatman falsly affirmed. In opposition to which is proved, that it hath been the judgment and practice of the eminent saints and servants of Christ, in all ages, of all other reformed churches in all times ... / By John Collings ...	Collinges, John, 1623-1690.; Boatman, Mr.	1654 (1654)	Wing C5329A; ESTC R232871	174,209	280

Policy should now and then divide and we humbly submit to God and desire rather to be faithfull Stewards for him then providers for our selves and ours Surely there is so much ingenuity at least in some of the godly Ministers of England as would intitle them to a desire of the love of all and so much earthinesse in all their hearts as exposeth them to some temptations to use all endeavours for a comfortable subsistence in this life If any of them neglects both that and this and chuse rather to venture the begging of their own bread then to throw the childrens bread to dogs rather to prostitute their owne names and lose their interest in the hearts of some people then to prostitute the Lords sacred Ordinance and give his name to a reproach as in this they come short of Chrysostome who professeth he would rather give his owne bloud to the prophane then the body and bloud of Christ and of Ambrose who ventured the losse of his head as well as the love of Theodosius so it will not need much of thy charity to interpret their actions conscientious pieces of self-deniall for the interest of their deare and blessed Saviour yea and of their soules too who are kept away it being certaine if Iudas were at the Sacrament which can never be proved the next worke he did was to hang himselfe through horror of conscience and for that sinne of unworthy receiving in the Church of Corinth Many saith the Apostle were sick and weak and many fallen asleep How unjustly therefore we are raged against who durst not give the bloud of Christ to those to drinke who are in a burning feaver of open lusts and so dangerous a knife into the hands of those whom we see distracted with sinne and in a spirituall Delirium We hope any equitable standers by will judge and measure our actions by the duly and orderly practise of Physitians in bodily tempers considering we are ready as to such Patients to allow them what they will drinke of the Barley water of Repentance which we conceive more proper for them and are ready to restore their knives to them when they shall by any moderate account given us let us know that God hath restored them so much of his Image in spirituall wisdome that they will not murther their precious soules with them And we doubt not but if ever the Lord shall give them an heart to repent and restore their desperately distempered soules to health in that day it shall be no more griefe of heart to them that they have been kept away then it is to the recovered Patient that his Physitian denyed him flesh and wine in his feaver or a knife in his distraction and at that time we shall expect their thanks in the meane time we shall beare their rage and reproach with paience knowing it is for the Lord we suffer it For the Lord who suffered more in the shedding of his bloud for us then we can doe in the vindication of it and preserving it from being prophaned by unhallowed mouths If it pleaseth the Lord they dye in their spirituall distempers and go raging to their graves we must be content to expect our thanks from our Lord and Master at the great day and our vindication there except Reader thou wilt shew thy selfe so ingenuous and judicious as in thy thoughts to acquit us As to the subject of this Tract the truth is so much hath been said in the defence of what I plead for of old by all the Schoolmen and since by Calvin Vrsin Zanchy and by Reverend Beza and Master Rutherford in answer to Erastus and by learned and Reverend Gillespy in answer to Master Prynne besides what hath been spoken by Master Philip Goodwin in his excellent Book called the Evangelicall Communicant and by many others that were it not for the importunate clamours of those who would get that by their importunity and clamorous tongues and pens which the justice of their Cause and strength of their Arguments will not allow to them nor gaine for them both my selfe and others might have had an eternall supersedeas for this Worke. I scarce find any thing in Erastus and Beza but what I meet with in the Schoolmen nor any thing in Master Prynne or Master Humfry considerable but what I find in Erastus That if our Brethren of the contrary perswasion would not have troubled the world with their opinions without answering first what had been said against them we had long ere this time had our Quietus est for I durst undertake to yeeld him the cause who sufficiently answers but one Book wrote upon this subject viz. Master Gillespies Aarons Rod blossoming so that the truth is the advantage our opposites have of us in this point is mostly upon such as have not knowledge of what hath been said against their opinions or are not supplyed with money to buy the Books nor able to gaine ti●e to read them or upon such whose particular engagements and over-much love to the whimzies of their owne braines or malice or prejudice at least to the truth or love to their cursed lusts which yet they would keep and have the Sacrament too and be thought unworthy of no Gospell-priviledge hath outlawed their Reason and so stopt their eares that they are made incapable of a boaring with the sharpest and most convincing Arguments that Scripture and Reason can afford and thus they only captivate those who are first led captive by their owne lusts Possibly thou wilt be inquisitive to know what hath made me write if I have judged enough already said I must crave a little of thy patience to satisfie thee as to this I have often thought that it would be a rare expedient in order to the ending of all controversies of these times relating to the order of the Church if some judicious man would out of all the considerable Books wrote upon each Controversie within these twelve or thirteen yeares candidly state each Controversie and transcribe the Arguments relating to them with the Exceptions and Answers given to any digesting them in a due method and it might please the civill power then to Enact That no one should write more upon any of those Questions but should be engaged either to bring New Arguments on the part he would defend or vindicate those brought on the part he would defend from the various Answers given to them Were this taske but imposed upon new Scriblers the world would be lesse full of impertinent Discourses and Disputes would not run as they doe in infinitum I doe not pretend a specimen of such a Worke I have neither purse nor Library nor time fit for it But the truth is as I find in Mr Humfry and heare from Mr Boatman nothing more then Erastus long since said and hath been more then once already answered so I have not studied for a new Argument but out of severall Authors have rallyed up an old

Office forbids him and in that he is not commanded he is expresly forbidden Now a Minister is not commanded any where surely to give it to those who are forbidden to receive it To say no more in this case I hope we have all too neverent thoughts of the wisdome of God to think that he should lay his Minister under an obligation to administer his Ordinance to those whom he hath warned upon pain of damnation not to take it Though this were enough for those who encline to the other sense doe cleerly yet grant that those who partook of the Table of Devils are here either forbidden that Table or the Lords Table which if it be true as questionlesse it is our Adversaries must maintaine that they are commanded to give the Sacrament to those whom the same God forbids to take it yet possibly the other part may be more disputable viz. Whether a Minister of the Gospell and his Eldership way without sin admit any to the supper of the Lord concerning whom they know that in their present state they cannot have Communion with Christ in the Ordinance c. I will try whether I can prove the Negative None can without sin knowingly expose the Ordinance of God to necessary abuse and profanation But who ever administers the Ordinance of the Supper to those concerning whom he or they know they cannot have communion with Christ in the Ordinance exposeth the Ordinance to a necessary abuse and profanation Ergo. The major is plaine enough the minor is as cleere if we consider when or how an Ordinance is profaned or abused Her Priests have violated my Law and have profaned my holy things they have put no difference between the holy and the profane neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean Ezek. 22.26 A thing is then abused when it is not turned to a right use but surely he can never turn the Ordinance to a right use that cannot have Communion with Christ in it I come to the minor I thinke enough is said to prove the major that it is sin for any to give the Lords Supper to those that cannot eat and drink there that is to such either as are forbidden that Table or such as cannot have Communion with Christ in it But there may be some known in the Church who are forbidden to come at the Lords Table or who cannot have Communion with Christ in it Ergo. That there may be some such in the Church I suppose none will deny but the question is whether there may be some in the Church that may be known to be such I prove there may If there may be some in the Church who may be known to have fellowship with Devils and to drink of the cup of Devils then there may bee some in the Church who may be known to be such as cannot drink of the cup of the Lord nor eat at his Table But there may be some in the Church who may bee known to have fellowship with Devils and to drink of their cup. Ergo. The consequence is plaine from the Apostle 1 Cor. 10.20 21. And the assumption is as plaine for there were such in the Church of Corinth Ergo. Object If any object But the Church is not bidden to keep them away if they doe come Sol. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we grant it but I have already proved that here is an implicit consequentiall prohibition of the Church to admit such and he had before forbidden them with Idolaters not to eat 1 Cor. 5.11 of which place more hereafter God willing Object But will some say this was for an open horrid sin Idolatry c. having fellowship with Devils c. Sol. Admit it yet thus much we have gained that Idolaters though they be not excommunicated yet they may be denied the Lords supper as well as persecutors by Mat. 7.6 But secondly let us observe what fellowship these Corinthians had with Devils they did not make a compact with Devils they did not worship the Devill as some Idolaters the businesse was only this They being Members of a Gospell Church did eat at Banquets of those Meates which were before sacrificed to their Idols they did not sacrifice with them but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After the Idolaters had been sacrificing they came to their Feasts simply to eat the meat was nothing nor had the Idol made it worse and had it been sold in the Shambles the Apostle determined before that they might have bought it and eat it that which altered the case was onely the shew that it made to the Idolaters of their complying with them and the circumstances of time and place yet the Apostle determines this a fellowship with Devils and Idolatry such a sin as they who are guilty of it could have no communion with Christ in this Ordinance Suppose they had made a compact with the Devill or gone and worshipped the Idols surely the Apostle would much more have said it of such 3. I cannot see but every scandalous sinner every Drunkard Swearer Adulterer c. hath as great a fellowship with Devils as the Corinthians had One thing I desire you to observe There might be latent grace in these Corinthians hearts and doubtless was yet while they lay under this scandall the Apostle determines that they were such as could not eat at the Table nor drink of the cup of the Lord. Whence I conclude That there may be such in a Church concerning whom it may be knowne that they cannot eat at the Lords Table nor drink the Lords cup. It will not be enough to say that God may give them repentance for ought we know at the time or upon their receiving In the mean time till their repentance bee evident they may be knowne and ought to be judged by us as such as cannot eat at the Lords Table nor drink the Lords cup. It is cleare Clem Alex. in paedagogo l. 2. p. 143.144 edit cut 1629. Tertullianus spectac l. c. 12. Cypr. in ep 10. quoest ad Clerum l. de lapsis non procul ab initio that the Ancients thought this having fellowship with Devils was of vast extent one applies it to all such as intemperately use the Creatures Tertullian applies it to forbid any kind of presence at or countenancing of any superstitious practices though but a looking on in his book de spectaculis Cyprian in his Tenth Epistle chideth the Presbyters by vertue of this very Text that they would admit to the Lords Supper such as had sacrificed to Idols through feare before they had sufficient evidence of their repentance and tels us that the Church in in his time for lesser offences was wont to require satisfaction before Communion was allowed to the sinners And in his book de lapsis he doth sadly lament the hasty admission of such to the Sacrament Gualther ad loc Gualther observes from this Text the vanity

Teacher and Cyprian tels us Cypr. ep 22. that with the consent of the Presbyters he after made Optatus their Teacher Now these were the first sort which were not come to the Table saith Dionysius and so Pachymeres expounds him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. The second sort excluded he saith are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those who had apostatized from an holy life By these doubtlesse he meanes scandalous sinners who had been former Professors otherwise they could not be Apostates George Pachimeres expounds it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men given up to vile affections who had returned to their former lusts 3. The third sort were those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. such as through the terrours of persecutors had been tempted to sin and fallen into it c. There are two or three other sorts mentioned by him who were kept away such as were Penitents that is who had fallen into sin and the Church had appointed them a time of shame and repentance after the profession of their resolutions to amend and lastly those who were not altogether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any scandall or spot these were all removed saith Dionysius before the Lords Supper was administred but surely these were not all excommunicated here is not a word of that Those who will see more may looke into Maximus and Pachymeres the two Scholiasts upon Dionysius I have not translated the passage because it was large But Dionysius saith plainly that such as are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. men given to their lusts c. should much more be kept from the Lords Table than either Catechumeni or Poenitentes I know none else in the first Century but Ignatius who hath left us any Writings and it is questionable whether any of these or his either be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or no. But doubtlesse Dionysius was ancient though I beleeve not thus ancient his Scholiast Maximus lived within the fourth Century Let us see what we have in the second Century ad annum Christi 200. In this Century we have Justin Martyr who hath something considerable extant to tell us the practice of the Chur●h in his time and he hath spoken fully enough to our purpose in his second Apology for the Christians which Helvicus saith he wrote about the yeare 160. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΚΛΙ ' ΟυΤΩΣ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just Mart. Apol. 2. ex edit Lutet Paris 1615. p. 97 98. where he tells us how in those daies they administred the Ordinance of the Supper and hath these words This nourishment saith he is with us called the Eucharist of which none may partake with us but he 1. That beleeves our Doctrine to be true 2. He that is washed with the Laver of Regeneration for the remission of sins 3. He that lives so as Christ hath Commanded We desire no more than the recovery of this ancient Discipline of the Church viz. that none may be admitted to the Lords Supper but such as first are baptized Secondly Such as beleeve the Doctrine of the Gospell which they must know before they can beleeve 3. Such as do not live according to the rule of the Gospell but if none else were admitted in Justine Martyrs time questionlesse there were some suspended who were not excommunicated In this Century also lived Tatianus Melito Ireneus Theophilus Antioch Policarpus Apollinaris Athenagoras Clemens Alexandrinus Pantaenus Tertullian c. If testimonies could be produced out of these it were to little purpose Justin Martyr having sufficiently evidenced for that Century But the truth is some of them have nothing extant and others very little and upon restrained subjects in the handling of which they were not led to this theme And in those pieces of Clemens Alexandrinus and Tertullian I find very little spoken concerning the discipline and order of the Church Something there is in Tertullian but Justin Martyr hath already spoken enough for this Age considering the occasion of his speaking it was in an Apology for all Christians in his Age and Apologizing for them he sets out their pure worshipping of God and inoffensive practice From the yeare two hundred to the yeare three hundred In this Century were severall Synods but none of which we have any Record but only a Provinciall Synod called Consilium Anchyritanum by Gratian. Genebrard in his Chronology puts this Synod anno 298. Helvicus anno 312. Caranza and Mr Gillespy anno 308. certaine it is it was either in the latter end of this or the beginning of the next Century I shall with learned Genebrard account it into this Caranza saies it was before the Oecumenicall Councill of Nice but in what Emperours time is not determined But in that Councill we find Suspension established with a witnesse That for some sins if any committed them before he was twenty yeares old he should spend fifteene yeares in penitence before he should be admitted to pray with the Church and five yeares he should have no more than a communion in Prayers with the Church and afterwards be admitted to the Lords Table This Canon may be seen in Caranza p. 28. can 16. I find the Greeke Copy thus elsewhere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I neither justifie this Councill nor this Canon of it in all things but if there were such a Councill and so ancient as we are told it plainly shews us Suspension distinct from Excommunication was so ancient in the Church of God the same is also confirmed by the 4 5 6 7 8 9. Canons of that Councill the Copies of which may be seen either in the booke called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greek-Latine or Latine in Caranza and Benius c. The two most Famous Fathers in this Century were Origen about the yeare 202. and Cyprian 250. Origen hath some not obscure hints of the judgment of the Church in his time Orig. in Levit. Homil. 23. Cibus iste Sanctus non est communis omnium nec cujuscunque indigni sed Sanctorum est Severall other hints are in Origen though he no where speakes directly to the case For Cyprian he that reads his tenth Epistle ad clerum de Presbyteris c. or his book de lapsis will find enough I had thought to have transcribed some passages but I am prevented by Mr Gillespy in his Aarons Rod l. 3. cap. 17. where the Reader shall find them quoted From the yeare three hundred to foure hundred In the Century besides other Councils was the famous Oecumenicall Councill of Nice and for Ancients Arnobius Athanasius Hilary Macarius Optatus Basil Greg. Nyssen Nazianzen Epiphanius Ambrose Chrysostome Hierome Austin Some of these will doubtlesse tell us the practice of the Church in their times For the Councill of Nice we have an imperfect Record but if those Canons which are printed as theirs be so they speake plaine enough Can. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Nicen. Can. 11. Reader this Synod was questionlesse the most glorious

Synod held at London anno 1603. where it was decreed Canon 26 27. Constitut Canons printed 1628. Can. 26 27. That no Minister shall in any wise admit to the Communion any of his Cure or Flock which be openly known to live in sin notorious without repentance nor malicious persons nor unfaithfull Churchwardens nor such as refuse to be present at publike prayers nor to any that depraved the Book of Common Prayer nor who spake against the Kings Authority Let Reverend Deane Nowell speake D. Nowels Catechism p. 647. who in his Catechisme Creeke-Latine printed London 1573. tels us That if it doth appeare openly that one is unworthy the Pastor must not admit him because he cannot do it without the profanation of the Sacrament and in order to the keeping of them away the Deane tells us in well ordered Churches Elders were chosen and joyned with the Pastor Ibid p. 652. c From all this it is plaine That the Judgement and Practice of the Church of England in all times ever since it was a Church hath been to suspend some from the Table of the Lord who yet were not Excommunicated Let us look now into other Churches The Reformed Churches are either those in Germany or in Holland or in France or in Scotland For the Churches of the Switzers they indeed practice no Discipline but we shall find all other Churches concurring with us The Judgement of the Church of Scotland may be known not only by the particular Writings of their eminent Gillespy and Rutherford but by their forme of Church-Government printed 1641. where they tell us p. 39. All baptized persons when they come to age and discretion are not admitted to the Lords Table The Government of the Church of Scotland p. 39 40 c. but such only as upon examination are found to have a competent measure of knowledge in the Principles of Religion and do professe that they are beleevers and do live unblameably c. But this not-admission to the Communion is one thing and Excommunication of hainous or obstinate offenders is another thing very different c. The Judgement of the Church of God in Holland is cleare from their Corpus Disciplinae printed here anno 1645. chap. 4. Concerning Ecclesiasticall Discipline art 8. He that shall obstinately reject the admonition of the Consistory shall be suspended from the Supper of the Lord 1 Thes 3.14 that is in case of private offences Art 10. He that hath committed a publike Corpus disciplinae Engl. pr. 1645. cap. 4. art 8 10 11 14. or otherwise hainous offence shall also be suspended from the Lords Supper though he should give signs of Repentance according as the Consistory shall judge most fitting Art 11. He that hath been suspended if after divers admonitions he shall shew no signe of repentance he shall be published to the Congregation Art 14. And at length if he doth not repent followeth the Excommunication c. I thinke here is Suspension before Excommunication and distinct from it I heare Mr Boatman hath quoted the Churches in France for him how truly now my Reader shall see when I had quoted them against him a friend of mine telling him of it he bad him aske Dr De-Lawne and he could satisfie him of the untruth of my quotation I did not quote them by heare-say but from Reverend Beza's account which I quoted before I conceived they had not altered their minds yet I sent to my Reverend Friend Dr Lawn for satisfaction he came to me April 9. and 1. assured me it was the daily practice of their Church to suspend the scandalous 2. Promised me to send me all the books he had concerning the Discipline of their Churches to confirme me This day he sent me two having left one with me the first is called The Ecclesiasticall Discipline of the Reformed Churches of France printed London 1642. They say so much for it that I cannot transcribe all let him who doubts read the 19 20 21. p. n. 15. If it say they befalleth that besides the admonitions usually made by the Consistory to such as have done amisse Ecclesiasticall Discipline of the reformed Churches of France p. 19 20 21. there be some other punishment or more rigorous Censure to be used it shall then be done either by Suspension or privation of the Sacrament for a time or by Excommunication c. So they go on directing to the execution of either c. Another book is called Ibid. p. 42 43. Art 15. The generall and particular Acts and Articles of the late Nationall Synod of the Reformed Churches of France at Charenton 26. Decem. 1644. Printed at London 1646. They plainely and largely determine Suspension and charge their Consistories to distinguish it from Excommunication The passages are too large to transcribe Let the Reader view that book at his leisure p. 42 43. There is yet one book more containing an Extract of the foure Nationall Synods of the Belgick Churches viz that of Embda 1571. Dort 1578. Middleburgh 1581. the Hague 1586. the Booke is written in Latin and called Harmonia Synodorum Belgicarum in the 36 page having before spoken of private and publike admonition they determine N. 8. Let him who hath pertinaciously rejected the admonitions of the Consistory be suspended from the Lords Supper Qui pertinaciter Consistorii admonitiones rejecerit à Sacrae Coenae communione suspendetur Harm Syn. Belgic Si suspensus post iteratas admonitiones nullum poenitentiae signum dederit ad Excommunicationem procedet Ecclesia Ibid. And againe Art 9. If he who is suspended after iterated admonitions shew no signe of Repentance then let him be Excommunicated I thinke here is Suspension againe distinct from Excommunication As for our dissenting Brethren I spake something before to prove it their practice let me adde one thing more Our Brethren of New England are the most pure and sober and considerable Churches in the world of that perswasion and those who alone would ever give us a joynt account of their saith as to Church-Discipline Let us heare what they say in their fourteenth Chupter having spoken concerning publike admonition they adde Which declaring the offender to lye under the publike offence of the Church doth thereby with-hold A platforme of Church Discipline printed London 1653. Cap. 14. p. 21. n. 2. or suspend him from the holy fellowship of the Lords Supper till his offence be removed by penitent confession If he still continue obstinate they are to cast him out by Excommunication I thinke here is also Suspension granted precedaneous to and gradually distinct from Excommunication There is only one thing to which I must speake a word or two wherein in our present practice we differ from other setled Reformed Churches As to the suspension of any whom we since the late Reformation admitted to the holy Table we agree both with other reformed Churches with our owne in times of Episcopacy and with our

Brethren of the dissenting party we will suspend none but after admonition for some scandalous sin and indeed this only is properly Suspension We deny the Sacrament indeed to others viz. such as will not give account of their faith and submit to the order of the Church But we would not have this lookt upon by our Brethren as if it were a standing principle of ours or as if we intended to put Christians to give an account of their faith every time they come to the Sacrament the contrary is evident in our practice we must therefore be considered as a disordered and now reforming Church Had all those Ministers who went before us in our Churches done their duty they had saved us our labour They should have admitted none at first to the Sacrament but such as had a competent knowledge of the principles of Religion and such as were blamelesse in their lives the principles of the Episcopall Government required this But we find some of them made no conscience of it but admitted any body for his two pence and cared not how scandalous they were ordinarily they could not be worse than their Parson we enter now into these mens harvests and finding what slovenly worke they made we cannot thinke it safe for us to worke after their rate this made the Reverend Assembly propound this expedient to put us in order that there might pro primâ vice be a review of all those who had been formerly admitted and such as were found ignorant kept away and so for the scandalous Nay I will adde one thing more Had our Bishops been conscientious in the businesse of Confirmation we had been spared this trouble and odium For Confirmation was in order to the trying of peoples proficiency after Baptisme And as none not confirmed should have come to the Lords Table so he should have confirmed no ignorant scandalous persons though baptized But we see the cleane contrary practice And there was no way but this to begin any Reformation amongst us who by our way of administration of that holy Ordinance had made our Churches a reproach to Papists and a griefe of heart to all Protestants and by it opened a way for Brownists and Anabaptists and others to fill their Congregations with those who were our strictest Professors formerly though they quickly taught them otherwise And I thinke this may serve to satisfie any conscientious Christians Nor shall any how godly soever or great so ever have any just cause to stumble at it that they must be enjoyned to give account of their faith For besides that we stand not upon Examination but shall be as well contented with a continued Narration of their faith from them which we are also ready to give to them Christians should consider how much the glory of God and the good of others is furthered by their open profession of their knowledge and confession of what God hath done for their poore soules and their Reason may informe them that we cannot spare them without partiality which we must not be guilty of And now Reader I have shewed thee that the Churches and Servants of Christ in all ages have owned and practised this so much decreed Ordinance of Suspension Now judge whether Mr Boatman hath informed his people truly in telling them it is a dreame of the Pharisees which wiser ages before never thought of CHAP. XIV Containing a digression or rather a regression with an attempt to cleare from the Writings of the Ancients the severall degrees of persons not excommunicated yet suspended from the Lords Supper I Shall returne a little to try a little further how far the practice of the Church in the Primitive times as to the keeping some from the Lords Supper who yet were not de facto cast out of the Church and kept from all Ordinances can be cleared from the Writings of the Ancients or those learned Atiquaries who have laboured to find it out before me and spent their paines to very good purpose though their writings be in Latine and so not so obvious to all this I shall do the rather 1. Because I have heard of some holy and learned men that doubt it 2. Because it will expound some passages which I have already quoted out of the Councils and the pretended Areopagite 3. Because the clearing of this will plainely evidence the practice of the Primitive Church as to this point All Christians of old were distinguished into three sorts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Such as were Catechumeni under Catechisme 2. Beleevers 3. Penitents Penitents were such as had fallen into some sins for which they were denied the priviledges of the Church Hospites vicini fidelium Riban l. 1. de instit cler The Catechumeni were such as were probationers for Christianity or Church-Fellowship and were put under the care of some Teachers to be instructed in the Principles of Religion in order to it when this practice first began in the Church is not certaine the first Master of these Christian Pupils which we read of in Ecclesiasticall History was Pantaenus who lived saith Eusebius anno 193. Euseb l. 5.6.9 10 in Chron. Bellarm. de scriptor Eccl. p. 76. Euseb l. 6. c. 7. and was Master of a Schoole of them at Alexandria Clemens Alexandrinus Pantaenus his Scholler succeeded him in that employment saith Eusebius he lived anno 204 saith Bellarmine but Eusebius saith 194. which was ten yeares before Origen his Schollar was the next we read of Eusebius reckons him anno 208. Bellarmine reckons his 226. That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were an ancient order of Christians is plaine from Gal. 6.6 From which place the Magdeburgenses conclude the Apostles lest formes of Catechisme Centur. Magdeb. Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 7. it is probable to me that even from the Apos●les time there were in the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some that were Catechised and some appointed to Catechize them they are both of them Scripture termes And And if we may admit the eight books of Apostolicall institutions to be wrote by Clement which I durst not allow they determine the case Constit Apost l 7 c. 40. having a peculiar precept how those Catechumeni should be instituted but leaving them as spurious it is cleare enough from severall places of Clemens Alexandrinus Clem. Alex. l. 7. strom who lived doubtlesse in the second Century that they were an order in his time Not only from that passage which my learned friend Dr Young hath quoted out of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is l. 7. strom but also from divers other passages as in his 6. strom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 My fore-mentiond Dr Young in his Dies Dominica l. 2 c. 14. Albaspin obs l. 2 observ 2. Learned and Reverend friend saith there was of these two sorts Audientes and Competentes That learned Antiquary Albaspinaeus tells us of foure degrees I will translate