Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	canon_n	council_n	nice_a	2,852	5	10.4936	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A80160	Responsoria bipartita, sive vindiciæ suspensionis ecclesiasticæ ut et presbyterii evangelici. A double reply, containing a vindication of the antient practice of the Church (according to the rule of the word) suspending the ignorant and scandalous from the Lords Supper. As also of ecclesiastical presbyteries ... The first in answer to one M. Boatmans challenge of all the ministers on earth to make suspension of any but Turks, Jews, pagans and excommunicate persons from the Lords Supper, appear from Scriptures. In answer to whom the said censure is justified by several arguments from Scripture, and the universal practice of the Church, the magisterial vanity also of his sermon, Decem. 13. and March 28. in Peters Church in Norwich is discovered, ... In which answer also some objections of Erastus, Mr. Prin, and Mr. Humfry, are coilaterally considered, and answered. The second part in answer to Theophilus Brabourn, who hath talked something in a little pamphlet against the Lord Jesus Christ ... / By John Collings, B.D. and pastor of the church of Christ in Stephens parish in Norwich.	Collinges, John, 1623-1690.	1655 (1655)	Wing C5333; Thomason E832_2; ESTC R207514	201,020	319

after the profession of their resolutions to amend and lastly those who were not altogether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any scandall or spot these were all removed saith Dionysius before the Lords Supper was administred but surely these were not all excommunicated here is not a word of that Those who will see more may looke into Maximus and Pachymeres the two Scholiasts upon Dionysius I have not translated the passage because it was large But Dionysius saith plainly that such as are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. men given to their lusts c. should much more be kept from the Lords Table than either Catechumeni or Poenitentes I know none else in the first Century but Ignatius who hath left us any Writings and it is questionable whether any of these or his either be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or no. But doubtlesse Dionysius was ancient though I beleeve not thus ancient his Scholiast Maximus lived within the fourth Century Let us see what we have in the second Century ad annum Christi 200. In this Century we have Justin Martyr who hath something considerable extant to tell us the practice of the Church in his time and he hath spoken fully enough to our purpose in his second Apology for the Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just Mart. Apol. 2. ex edit Lutet Paris 1615. p. 97 98. which Helvicus saith he wrote about the yeare 160. where he tells us how in those daies they administred the Ordinance of the Supper and hath these words This nourishment saith he is with us called the Eucharist of which none may partake with us but he 1. That beleeves our Doctrine to be true 2. He that is washed with the Laver of Regeneration for the remission of sins 3. He that lives so as Christ hath Commanded We desire no more than the recovery of this ancient Discipline of the Church viz. that none may be admitted to the Lords Supper but such as first are baptized Secondly Such as beleeve the Doctrine of the Gospell which they must know before they can beleeve 3. Such as do not live according to the rule of the Gospell but if none else were admitted in Justine Martyrs time questionlesse there were some suspended who were not excommunicated In this Century also lived Tatianus Melito Ireneus Theophilus Antioch Policarpus Apollinaris Athenagoras Clemens Alexandrinus Pantaenus Tertullian c. If testimonies could be produced out of these it were to little purpose Justin Martyr having sufficiently evidenced for that Century But the truth is some of them have nothing extant and others very little and upon restrained subjects in the handling of which they were not led to this theme And in those pieces of Clemens Alexandrinus and Tertullian I find very little spoken concerning the discipline and order of the Chur●h Something there is in Tertullian but Justin Martyr hath already spoken enough for this Age considering the occasion of his speaking it was in an Apology for all Christians in his Age and Apologizing for them he sets out their pure worshipping of God and inoffensive practice From the yeare two hundred to the yeare three hundred In this Century were severall Synods but none of which we have any Record but only a Provinciall Synod called Consilium Anchyritanum by Gratian. Genebrard in his Chronology puts this Synod anno 298. Helvicus anno 312. Caranza and Mr Gillespy anno 308. certaine it is it was either in the latter end of this or the beginning of the next Century I shall with learned Genebrard account it into this Caranza saies it was before the Oecumenicall Councill of Nice but in what Emperours time is not determined But in that Councill we find Suspension established with a witnesse That for some sins if any committed them before he was twenty yeares old he should spend fifteene yeares in penitence before he should be admitted to pray with the Church and five yeares he should have no more than a communion in Prayers with the Church and afterwards be admitted to the Lords Table This Canon may be seen in Caranza p. 28. can 16. I find the Greeke Copy thus elsewhere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I neither justifie this Councill nor this Canon of it in all things but if there were such a Councill and so ancient as we are told it plainly shews us Suspension distinct from Excommunication was so ancient in the Church of God the same is also confirmed by the 4 5 6 7 8 9. Canons of that Councill the Copies of which may be seen either in the booke called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greek-Latine or Latine in Caranza and Benius c. The two most Famous Fathers in this Century were Origen about the yeare 202. and Cyprian 250. Origen hath some not obscure hints of the judgment of the Church in his time O●ig in Levit. Homil. 23. Cibus iste Sanctus non est communis omnium nec cujuscunque indigni sed Sanctorum est Severall other hints are in Origen though he no where speakes directly to the case For Cyprian he that reads his tenth Epistle ad clerum de Presbyteris c. or his book de lapsis will find enough I had thought to have transcribed some passages but I am prevented by Mr Gillespy in his Aarons Rod l. 3. cap. 17. where the Reader shall find them quoted From the yeare three hundred to foure hundred In the Century besides other Councils was the famous Oecumenicall Councill of Nice and for Ancients Arnobius Athanasius Hilary Macarius Optatus Basil Greg. Nyssen Nazianzen Epiphanius Ambrose Chrysostome Hierome Austin Some of these will doubtlesse tell us the practice of the Church in their times For the Councill of Nice we have an imperfect Record but if those Canons which are printed as theirs be so they speake plaine enough Can. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Nicen. Can. 11. Reader this Synod was questionlesse the most glorious Orthodox Synod that ever the Church of Christ could glory in Here were 318 of the most eminent servants of Christ in the worke of the Gospell which the world then afforded These all determine that such sinners as were scandalous though they had sinned through temptation for feare of their lives or estates worshipping Idols I suppose they meant though they did professe repentance yet they should give three yeares proofe of it before they should have any communion with the Church if in this time they were found not to contradict their profession they were admitted to some Communion but no otherwise than penitents for seven yeares more after these ten yeares they must have no nearer communion than in prayer for two yeares longer here was a Suspension of ten yeares for scandalous sins distinct from Excommunication were all these dreamers thinke we For the length of time I do not justifie them nor can I altogether condemne them considering the juncture of time and state of the Church then In

was content to withdraw If he means it in a moral sense upon the account of that confessed maxim Id tantum possumus quod jure possumus It is clearly petere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a begging of the question which is whither Gods word hath not given us power To suspend the ignorant and scandalous and I wonder Episcopal men should so far forget the Rubrick and Canons as to deny it For our parts besides the authority of Gods word discharging our consciences we think the Form of Government established 1648. by Parlament dischargeth our practice He goes on A separation in the Church is unlawfull Argum. 12 But this practice of suspension makes a separation in the Church Ergo. If the Major be true the legally unclean could not lawfully be kept from the Passeover yet God threatens the Priests for not doing it Besides Excommunication is a separation in the Church for the excommunicate person is not out of all relation to the Church but to be admonished as a brother yet we are to separate from him as a diseased member both in respect of Sacramental communion and intimacy of civil communion The unworthiness of some must not debar others of their right Argum. 13 But admitting suspension this is done Ergo. 1. As to the Major if he means by debarring others of their right devesting them of their right it is true 2. if he means hindring them for a time from enjoying their right It is a question whither such a case may not be suppose the peace of the Church must be broken or suppose there be one or two have a right who cannot make a communion But to the Minor 2. I see not how the admission of suspension enforceth the debarring of any their right Let the worthy be received and the unworthy suspended The good mother will feed her children but if the doggs be so many that she cannot at present she will watch her time till they be shut out of doors To whom the tender of the Covenant belongs Argum. 14 to those all the seals of it belong But to the ignorant and scandalous the tender of the Covenant belong Ergo. The Major is false though the tender of the Covenant belongs to all yet the seal belongs to none but those who have evidenced their acceptance of the covenant God hath commanded the offer of the Covenant to all but not the setting of the Seal I find no more in that book looking thwart upon me for I durst not defend Mr. Helms his Arguments If Mr. Barksdales friends have truly represented the dispute I could either have wished Mr. B. stronger Opponents that day or at least his Opponents stronger Arguments But I must not let pass a passage or two I find there in a letter from Mr. Barksdale to Collonel A. dated June 1653. 1. He tells the Collonel and now the world that Judas was an hypocrite disclosed when Christ admitted him whether Christ admitted him or no I have shewed we have just reason to doubt if not to conclude the contrary But suppose he did how it appears he was an hypocrite disclosed I cannot tell that Christ who as God knew hearts knew his heart is plain indeed but is an hypocrite known only to an all seeing God disclosed think we 2. He tells the Collonell Christ did not eate the Lamb. This is indeed Grotius his notion to which more afterwards But neither Grotius nor Mr. Barksdale sure shall ever make sober Christians believe that Christ supped that night with a humane invention instead of a divine institution the eating of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was no fulfilling the Law which we think Christ did in that last act In the same letter he tells us That the sop Christ gave to Judas was the Sacramental bread upon this very ground was founded the mistake of diverse of the Antients from whence they concluded Judas was at the institution and a communicant there because they conceived this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the sacramental bit To this opinion Cyrill Euthymus and as I remember Austin somewhere doth encline I confess it startled me at first because he hints me that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify a bit of bread and so doth Dr. D. Hammonds Annotations on John 13. Hammond in his late Annotations on the Gospel who also puts in Hesychius for a witness should say I know not where that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From whence he confidently concludes as well he might that Judas was at the Sacrament I must confess at first blush I had almost began to quit our notion of the sop being the bitter herbs dipt in the Charosheth allowing the Dr. and other learned Expositors in the same mistake a great deal more Critical learning then I dare pretend to But post 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which they say are best remembring that they did not use to dip bread in the Char●sheth and that if this were the Sacramental bread it would enjoin us all to dip it before we give it for I cannot allow the Doctors notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though I have not time now to enter my exceptions I resolved to look a little before I subscribed And first I find Hesychius saith no such thing he saies indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so signifies but saies nothing of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it is a pittyful shift that the Doctor hath faying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a false print for which 1. Suid. in verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Scapulain Lex Budeus in Lex You have onely the Doctors word 2. Suidas then is false printed too for he saies the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. If there had been no such word as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Doctor might have been believed but there is such a word in the Greek tongue which so signifies Scapula expounds it Frustulum Budeus inferior pars pains mica aut crustulum panis nimium assati 4. If indeed in Hesychius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had stood in the place of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we might have been so charitable as to have believed the Doctor but Hesychius hath not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at all but onely its Primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and there are nine or ten words which in their Alphabetical order intervene I may mistake the number but I believe not much if at all now considering this why we should believe the Printer rather than the Doctor mistaken I cannot tell especially considering what others no less Criticks in the Greek tongue say 5. Steph. Thesauru Gr. Lin. Bnd. Comment Gr. Lin. Bud. Lex Gr. Suidasin verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phav in Lex● Diog. Laertius in v. Diog. Eustathius in ●om Od. l. 2. Stephen saies it signifies a crust of bread put into a mans mouth a mouthful of bread or any other edible thing Budeus in his Commentataries tells us it signifies any mouthful in

therefore Mr Boatman may know what he hath to do and Mr Brabourne may have something to do now he hath taken his hand from the Plough which many I confesse never thought him f●t for though the Bishops judged otherwise I have engaged in this Controversie in the defence of all the eminent Saints and Servants of God of former Ages other Reformed Churches and our own Church and of that Reverend Assembly so boldly aspersed both by Mr Boatman and Mr Brabourne in which my selfe knew so many holy and learned and Reverend men that I beleeve since the Nicene Councill there was never so many and so holy and learned men met in any Ecclesiasticall Councill Some of whom I know would not turne their heads in any point of Divinity from the most learned Hereticks that are or ever were in Christendome and having such an opinion of that eminent Assembly I hope thou wilt pardon me Reader if I take their part in what was their declared Judgement especially against two such Adversaries as these are with whom it is far more fit that some of their youngest Sons should dispute than themselves leaving those Fathers to grapple with more learned and considerable Adversaries I am one of the yongest sons of those Reverend Prophets but yet I have a little duty for them and shall engage for Norfolke or Norwich to attempt at least their vindication from any who shall in these parts appeare in publike against what was according to Gods Word agreed upon by them if he hath not a proper Adversary and if I be not over-powred by Legions of Pamphlets But I returne to my former Discourse The second Question I have spoken to is Whether Ministeriall or privative Suspension be justifiable or no I have on purpose spoken to this partly because I heare some say this was Mr Boatman's meaning though he restrained not himselfe so by any passage and if it be how doth he tell others that he doth keep away some himselfe But that he might not have this refuge I have spoke a little to that I confesse it is a tender point which many godly men are dis-satisfied in Whether in case there wants a Presbytery in the Congregation the Minister may keep back any by his own power or rather ought to administer it to all In the first place I desire my Reader to observe that those who are of the Episcopall perswasion and own no Congregationall Presbyteries which is Mr Boatman's judgement they say make not this question but alwaies took the Affirmative for granted witness the Schoolemen Canonists c. the Rubrick to the Book of Common Prayer the Canons agreed on in the Synod at London 1603. Some of my Reverend and learned Fathers and Brethren of the Presbyterian perswasion indeed scruple it because they think all Suspension is an act of Rule and the Rule of the Church belongs to the Minister and Elders amongst whom is Reverend and learned Mr Jeanes whom though I know not yet I honour for his learned Tract on that Subject and for his Midwifry in helping into the world that last piece of our great and learned Twisse I crave leave to dissent in this point from those few of my Brethren who are so perswaded and conceive that to avoid promiscuous Communion the Minister may in some cases suspend his own act though not formally passe a Censure yea and I thinke he ought Though I confesse when the state of the Church is such that this cannot be done without a necessary and great breach of the peace of it the case is more disputable because the Amity and Edification of the Church is the high end of all Church-Censures Augustine in his third book contra Epistolam Parmeniani and in many other places thinkes Church Censures should be spared when the Major part of the Church is corrupted and the execution of Censures may cause Schismes and much he saies for it But I must confesse I am of Peter Martyrs mind Iste Augustini timor nimius videtur quasi debeamus verbum Dei relinquere ut schismata tumult us evitemus sequamur quod praecipit Deus eventus autem providentiae illius committamus He answers all which Augustine saith for his opinion and concludes That it were better to have lesser Churches than so large and ample ones defiled But I shall not dispute that businesse 3. In the last place I have enquired what hath been the judgement of the eminent Servants and Churches of Christ in all Ages Having first enquired our Fathers mind the Judgement and practice of our Elder Brethren is not inconsiderable especially when we are charged with Innovation and doing that which never entred into the heads of wiser Ages I have proved that it hath been the practice of the Church in all Ages the Judgement of our Church before and ever since the Reformation and of all reformed Churches in the World some Churches of the Protestant Switzers only excepted And now Reader I shall cast my selfe upon thy Charity I hope thou wilt excuse me for my undertaking The zeale of the Lords house for the precious body and bloud of Jesus Christ hath eaten me up as to this point Had not we been openly challenged the judgement and practice of the Churches and Servants of God openly aspersed I should have found other worke to do besides engaging Mr Boatman I have given thee here a faithfull and impartiall Narrative of the Originall and Progresse of this Contest If Mr Brabourne be at the Charge to reply I desire thee not to expect my answer I beleeve thou wilt whoever thou art be able thy self to answer what he can say I shall leave him to one more fit for him having been sufficiently chidden by some learned Friends for losing so much time as to meddle with his other peece But if Mr Boatman answers and either denies any thing here said as matter of fact or makes such a reply to any Arguments as any Licencer of the Presse will let passe I shall reply to him and prove whatever shall be denied and make good my Arguments provided he confutes them better than he did my Sermon I shall keep thee no longer in the Porch but give thee leave to enter Read and then judge and pray for this poore City where are so many thousand soules and so few fit to take charge of them The Lord keep thee Reader in these evill times from the errours of them and an ever lover both of Gospell-purity and Unity So praies Chaply-field-house in Norwich April 18 1654. Thy meane unworthy Servant in the Gospell of the Lord Jesus Christ JOHN COLLINGS Errata Reader I Cannot own these sheets till thou hast corrected these following erra●aes in them In the Title page read ob hoc vel maxime In the Preface p. 3 l. penult r. duty p. 9 l. 16. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 27. r. considering p. 13. l. 10. r. December after l. 12. r. fortnight p. 15 l. 2. r.

this Century they say was Concilium Neocaesariense if it were so and we have a true account of their acts In their second Canon they decree that if a woman marry two brothers she should be rejected to her death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet it is plaine she was not excommunicated so long for in the same Canon they determine she might have the Sacrament given her in her dying houre In the same Century was Concilium Gangrense who in the preface to their acts do plainely distinguish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one who is denied Communion with the Church and one who is quite separated from it What the Councill of Arles determined in the same Century is plaine The first Councill of Arles Can. 11. Can. 12. Can. 23. plainely establish Suspension distinct from Excommunication The second Councill of Arles Caranza p. 55. a. in the same Century determines the Suspension of such from the Lords Supper for five yeares as had through feare in time of persecution sacrificed to Idols See also Canon 20 25. Concilium Elebertinum in which Caranza saith were nineteene Bishops doth plainly distinguish betwixt some sinners to whom the Sacrament at death should be denied and others who should be suspended from it but yet might have it at their death desiring it which if they were excommunicated they could not V. Can. 1 2 3 14 21 31 40 c. For particular men in this Century Aarons rod l. 3. c. 17. the Opinions of Basil Thaumaturgus Chrysostome Ambrose Augustine are evident in their severall workes Basil is enough for all in his Canonicall Epistles ad Amphilochium see Canon 34 38 44 56 57 58 59. for murther he determines twenty yeares suspension Can. 36. for man-slaughter eleven yeares Can. 57. for Adultery fifteene Can. 58. for Fornication eight yeares Can 59. for theft though the thiefe first accused himselfe one yeare Can. 61. for perjury eleven yeares Can. 64. But if they before gave good evidence of their repentance and change they were to be admitted sooner Can. 74. It were an easie but tedious worke to shew that this was the judgement of the succeeding Councils and Fathers but if we could not these were the most pure and incorrupted times of the Church and surely the Servants of God were not all this time in a dreame For the time of Antichrists prevailing betwixt the time of the purer Church and the beginnings of Reformation by Luther and Calvin we shall easily know what was the generall opinion by the Schoolemen and by their decretalls and Councils the Schoolemen most of them handle this Question An peccatori hoc Sacramentum petenti Sacerdos denegare debeat Whether if a Sinner desire the Sacrament of the Lords Supper the Priest ought to deny it him They generally distinguish betwixt a secret sinner and a publike and notorious sinner and betwixt his desiring it in private and in publike Vasq in tert par Thom. t. 3. q. 80. disp 209. cap. 2. In quâ re scholastici omnes ut dixi constanter affi●mant publico peccatori nimirum de quo non constat ad meliorem frugem fuisse conversum publice etiam Eucharistiam done gandam esse ibid. 1. They all generally determine that if the sinner be a manifest open sinner the Priest ought to deny it to him though not excommunicated which is enough for to prove Suspension distinct from Excommunication They are not so well agreed in determining who should be accounted publike notorious sinners Nor whether the Priest may not in some cases deny the Lords Supper to Occulto peccatori Gabriel Vasquez assures me that all the Schoolemen do agree that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is to be denied to an open sinner of whose repentance there is no evidence I said before they are not so well agreed who shall be judged a scandalous sinner Adrianus in his questions de Eucharistia saies he is a publike scandalous sinner if his sin be known to ten persons Sylvester and Navarrus thinke enough if it be known to six Dominicus Sotus and Vasquez thinke that suspicion is not enough but the party must appeare scandalous either 1. Per sententiam he being declared so by the Judge or 2. Per confessionem ab ipso in judicio or by his own confession in Court or 3. Per rei evidentiam when the thing is evident and cannot be denied But though they disagree here yet they plainely enough agree as to the granting a Suspension distinct from Excommunication Now that this is the concurrent opinion of the Schoolemen Bonavent in l. 4 sent dist 9. art 2. q. 4. Duran in sent d●st 9. q 5. Etius in l. 4. sent dist 9. sect 4. Vasq in 3. p. Tho● 3 q. 8. art 6. Alex H●len in 4. p. sum q. 11. art 3. Aquin. sum 3. p. q. 80 art 6. Becan In sum Scholast Thcol. p 3 c. 5. q 8. I shall prove by referring the Reader to those places in Bonaventure Aquinas Durandus Becanus Halensis Estius Vasquez where they professedly handle the question and give Arguments for it Vasquez as I said before tels me it is the unanimous Vote of all his Brethren of the Schooles I am sure it is the determination of all these which prove it the opinion of the Schoolemen in all Ages Bonaventure Aquinas and Durandus being all betwixt 1250. and 1300. Vasquez saith Helvicus died 1604. and Estius died 1613. as may be seen in the account of his life and Writings prefixed to his Commentaries on the Epistles If Suspension distinct from Excommunication be a Dreame these were some of the learned Dreamers It remaines that we examine the judgement of others and it is no great matter to whom we turne let them be Papists Lutherans or Calvinists we shall find them all in this point 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As for Papists I shall not trouble my Reader with quotations out of them though it were a very facile thing to do partly because the ignorance of some may judge it one of their superstitious practices and partly because their Schoolemen have spoken enough to let us know their minds to which Salmeron may be added who hath spoken enough to prove it in a place I have before quoted Salmeron t 5. tract 60. For the opinion of the Churches of the Switzers it is not considerable in the cause because most of their Churches have no Excommunication at all and so could not hold Suspension as distinct from it yet I observe that none of them plead for admission of any to the Lords Table but such as make a profession of their faith and repentance so Brentius Bullinger Gualther c. Philip Melancthon who was one of the first Reformers in Germany hath said enough as it is recorded by Christophorus Pezelius Pezelii pars oct argum resp theol contexta ex scriptis Melanct. de Excom p. 409. In veteribus Canonibus duo gradus sunt poenarum separatio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉

heathens Placuit ut aliquanto tempore à communione separentur Their fourteenth Canon determines a Suspension till death for those who falsely accuse their Brethren indeed the words are Can. 3. A communione abstineri Can. 4. A communione separari So Can. 5.11 but by communio is meant the Communion of the body and bloud of Christ only as is plaine from the last Canon and from the sins mentioned Can. 3 4 5. not deserving absolute and plenary Excommunication After this time Pag. 47. saith Sir Henry Spilman till Austins time in regard of the great troubles of Brittaine through the continuall inrodes of the Saxons the Bishops themselves being forced to retire into Wales were very few Synods in England In Ireland saith Sir Henry Spilman anno 450. was a Synod held He hath a Copy of the Canons agreed upon at it in their fourteenth Canon They determine a yeare for repentance to any who had killed any committed fornication or consulted a wizard Can. 15. they determine twenty daies poenitence in case of theft this they distinguish as is apparent from their other Canons from one who is anathematizandus Can. 19. in case of adultery they determine Excommunication This is all the Record I find concerning our Churches in that time excepting only some imperfect Records mentioning some single acts of Censure Monricus was excommunicated for the murther of Cynetu in a Synod at Landaff anno 560. another Synod there enjoyned King Morcant penance for murthering his Uncle Frioc and at a third Synod there Guidnerth was excommunicated for the murther of his Brother But a more perfect account I cannot find From the time of Austine the Monkes comming over till King Henry the eighth our Church was Popish and ruled by the order of the Romish Church who we know allows Suspension as I have sufficiently proved by their Schoolemen In the time of King Hen. 8. Reformation began to dawn He directed a Commission to thirty two persons to draw up a body of Ecclesiasticall Laws Afterwards King Edward 6. by his Commission dated November 11. in the fifth yeare of his Reigne revived and perfected the worke Cranmer Peter Martyr Dr Cox Dr May Dr Taylor of Hadly and some others being his Commissioners to perfect the body o● the Laws which was called Reformatio Legum Eccesiasticarum and was printed at London anno 1641. In which book the judgement of those eminent men the Fathers of our Church two of which viz. Cranmer and Taylor were Martyrs afterward is evident p. 151 152 153 154. they have nine Chapters concerning Suspension In the second Chapter they shew the causes of Suspension amongst which this they alledge as the maine Because in lesser offences Excommunication cannot proceed Quoniam magra lequeretur b●norum pertu●hatio si cum hujusmodi person is infamibus Sacramenta communicarent and oft-times suspicions of grosse sins which may scandalize the Church may appeare where the fact cannot be fully proved which they say must be taken notice of by the Church For it would cause a great disturbance in the Church if the members of it should receive the Sacrament with infamous persons In their fourth Chapter they determine that he who continues a whole yeare suspended shall be Excommunicated c. In their fourth Chapter they determine that he who continues a whole yeare suspended shall be Excommunicated c. Soone after this the Bishops prevailed to have the Common Prayer and Rubrick confirmed and from thence as to this we may know the judgement of our Church till the yeare 1641. It is true they were as tender of the businesse of Suspension as they were free of their Excommunications But yet we have thus much in the Rubrick prefixed to the forme for administring the Lords Supper If any be an open and notorious liver so that by him the Congregation is offended or have done any wrong to his Neighbour by word or deed the Curate having knowledge thereof shall call him and advertise him in any wise not to presume to come to the Lords Table V. The Book of Common Prayer concerning the order for the administration of the Lords Supper untill he hath openly declared himselfe to have truly repented and amended his former naughty life that the Congregation may thereby be satisfied which before were offended and that he hath recompenced the persons whom he hath done wrong unto or at least declare himselfe to be in full purpose so to do as soone as conveniently he may The same order shall the Curate use with those betwixt whom he perceiveth malice and hatred to reigne not suffering them to be partakers of the Lords Table untill he know them to be reconciled and if one of the parties so at variance be contented to forgive from the bottome of his heart all that the other hath trespassed against him and to make amends for that he himselfe hath offended and the other party will not be perswaded to a godly Unity but remaine still in his frowardnesse and malice the Minister in that case ought to admit the penitent person to the Communion and not the obstinate Thus you see our Church while it was under Episcopall Discipline yet allowed Suspension distinct from Excommunication After that Episcopacy was voted downe and Presbytery established Forme of Church Government p. 29. first by an Ordinance for three years then for ever by the Form of Church Government past and printed 1648. sine die All may read the Presbyterian Judgement for Suspension distinct from Excommunication a. p. 27. of that booke to the end For our dissenting Brethren it is their practice when once they have admonished an offender to suspend him from the Sacrament till he repent or be wholly cast out of the Church At this time in this City is one who hath been so suspended these twelve Months if he be not lately restored nor Excommunicated Lest any one should not thinke the Rubrick cleare enough to shew the Judgement of our Church in Episcopall times I shall produce a proofe or two more There was a Provinciall Synod held at London anno 1603. where it was decreed Canon 26 27. Constitut Canons printed 1628. Can. 26 27. That no Minister shall in any wise admit to the Communion any of his Cure or Flock which be openly known to live in sin notorious without repentance nor malicious persons nor unfaithfull Churchwardens nor such as refuse to be present at publike prayers nor to any that depraved the Book of Common Prayer nor who spake against the Kings Authority Let Reverend Deane Nowell speake Dr Nowels Catechism p. 647. who in his Catechisme Greeke-Latine printed London 1573. tels us That if it doth appeare openly that one is unworthy the Pastor must not admit him because he cannot do it without the profanation of the Sacrament and in order to the keeping of them away the Deane tells us in well ordered Churches Elders were chosen and joyned with the Pastor

all despised and avoided him as a putrid member only he was to be admonished as a Brother but they might not kindly salute him nor bid him God-speed nor trade nor eate nor drinke with them But we read of no such injunction concerning any of those who were Penitents Can. Apost 10. a man was to be suspended if he joyned in prayer with an excommunicated person They might by no meanes eate or drinke with them nortalke with them as any one may read in a multitude of the Canons of the first Councils 2. Besides there are many instances may be produced both from the Councils Concil Tol. 1. Can. 3. and out of Basils three Canonicall Epistles where the time of the penitence was limited to three or soure or five or sixe or seven yeares according to the Nature of the sin but it was never known that a Church limited a time in Excommunication how long the party should so stand 3. Albaspin Obs l. 2. Obs 4. Those who were Excommunicate were not censured and adjudged ad agendam poenitentiam but did pet ere poenitentiam as a favour of the Church There were some in the Church that were adjudged ad perpetuam poenit entiam for some scandalous sin to their death never to be received to Communion in the Lords Supper with the Church but never was any adjudged to a perpetuall Excommunication 5. Many who were adjudged to some kind of penance for some sin yet were admitted to the Laick Communion as they call it as Albaspinaeus proves out of very many Canons in l. 1. Obser Obser 4. what that Lai●k Communion was I shall not determine Baronius V. Pamelii anno● 37. in Cypr. ep 52. Pamelius and Durantus contend that it was to receive the Eucharist on the other side of the Railes c. others thinke it was receiving the Sacramentall bread only Albaspinaeus confutes them both and sufficiently proves it was the fellowship of those Christians who were of the Laity But those who were Excommunicated had no such priviledge allowed them By all this it evidently appeares 1. That although those who were excommunicated did sometimes petere poenitentiam crave the favour of the Church in order to their restoring that they might be admitted to stand as penitents and approve themselves againe to the Church 2. Or possibly when they desired restauration might by order of the Church be enjoyned to come in by those steps yet those frequent Canons of the Church wherein for severall sins men were adjudged to stand as penitents for shorter or longer time cannot be understood to concerne excommunicated persons but such sinners as were guilty of those sins and yet the Church did not think fit wholly to cut them off but according to the rule Cuncta prius tentanda appointed them to be deprived of a partiall communion with the Church for some time that they might see whether they were pertinacious or whether God would give them an heart to repent that they might be againe restored and the time of their Suspension was set longer or shorter according to the nature of the sins which they committed V. Concil Binii V. Basil Canon ep Those who had been guilty of sins against Nature were suspended all their life time in Tertullian's times afterwards in the Councill of Ancyra they had time of repentance prefixed so in Basils times for man-slaughter Theodosius the Emperour was suspended eight months the Council of Ancyra gave them only the liberty of the Sacrament sub exitum vitae when they were neare their death Basil as I remember determines them fifteene or twenty yeares suspension Adulterers before Cyprians time were suspended to their dying day afterwards they had a shorter time set for to testifie their repentance 3. Now we have seen what the practice of the Church was let us consider how ancient this practice was That it was very ancient is out of all doubt but how ancient cannot easily be resolved Tertullian was the first who wrote concerning it who in his booke de poenitentia gives us hints of it and as Albasphinaeus proves hints the severall degrees of it Helvicus reckons him within the second Century Thaumaturgus who lived in the next Century in his Canonicall Epistle reckons up all the degrees but that Epistle is suspected Magdeb. Cent. 2 cap. 6. The Magdeburgenses tels us that in the second Century there was a Custome of setting sinners a time of publike repentance But in the third Century is evident enough about the yeare 210. O●ig in Jos hom 7. Hom. 2. in 37. Psal and so forward Origen in his seventh Homily on Joshua tells us they excommunicated none but those who were thrice admonished and refused repentance and in his second Homily on the 37. Cypr. de lapsis Ser. 5. Tert. in lib. de poenitentia Psal gives us some account of their order in publike penance Tertullian and Cyprian do it abundantly Gregorius Thaumaturgus if the Canonicall Epistle be his doth not only tell us the severall degrees but tells us what places were assig●ed for them in the Church in their severall degrees Qui vero excommunicati Centur. l. 3. c. 6. aut non excommunicati grav●ter out idolis sacrificando aut haereticos deficiendo lapsi essent non nisi post publicam poenitentiam confessionem debitè peractam recipiebantur say the learned Centuriators in this Century In this Century the time of their poenitence was appointed according to the nature of the offence Cypr. l. 4. ep 2. we learne out of Cyprian that those Christians who had eagerly professed the Christian Faith and in the time of persecution fell away had three yeares set them all which time they were suspended when the time set them was expired if the Church judged they had duly manifested repentance they took their names and enrolled them giving them a Ticket to this purpose Admit this man to the Communion Ib. l. 3. ep 15 16. Cypr. ep 52. who having formerly fallen hath shewen sufficient signes of repentance so Cyprian after which as the Magdeburgenses prove out of Cyprian they were examined and judged by their particular Churches after which upon their confession of their sins there also they were admitted It is more than probable that Novatus his heresie which was broached about this time gave occasion to the Church to mitigate their Censure of Excommunication and denying the Communion till death to some scandalous sinners For Cyprian tells us that his Predecessors had refused to reconcile Adulterers at all to the Church and if I mistake not the same was determined concerning Apostates I thinke Albaspinaeus proves it Novatus say some Albaspin Obs l. ● Obs 21. denied that any falling after baptisme could be restored by repentance Albaspinaeus saith it is a mistake for his Errour was That he denied that Christ had given power to the Church to absolve or restore any In opposition to whom the Church remitted something of her