be proved that God invites Pagans to the Sacrament See more in him Erastus hath another Argument If the Apostle did here forbid these scandalous sinners the Sacrament he had contradicted himselfe But he doth not contradict himselfe The major lies upon the Doctor to prove His loose lines must be thus formed Hee that should here forbid scandalous persons the Sacrament Etenim paulo post licentius viventibus non interdicit nec interdicere jubet Sacramentorum usumâ—sed judicium Dei proponit Erast confirm thes p. 249 and a little after cap. 11. not forbid loose livers the Sacrament onely set before them their danger contradicts himselfe I will go no further here 's enough to be denyed Is it a contradiction I wonder if I should write a letter to my friends and in the beginning of it say I will not have you come in such a gamesters company a little after in the same Letter tell my friends I heare some of them have been in gamesters company and God will be revenged of them if they follow such courses I have not eyes to see it if it be This is the very case here must Paul needs forbid that cap. 11. that which he forbids cap. 5. or doth he contradict himselfe This is all that Erastus hath to say for it which is to little purpose That learned and worthy Gentleman whom I am loth to name in this cause pretends to give three reasons why the Sacramentall eating is not here meanâ— First because there is not a word of receiving the Lords Supper in this Chapter Vind. p. 9.10 and in the 10 and 11. Chapters he saith no such thing though he professedly treats of it His Learned Adversary sufficiently answers him 1. Gillespies Aarons rod. l. 3. c. 7 Desiring him to prove that the 7. 8. verse of this Chapter is not meant of the Lords Supper 2. Telling him that in the 24 page of his book himselfe confesseth from this Chapter that the Passeover and the Lords Supper are the same for substance and that Aretius so expounds it Aret. prob loc 80. To that I have spoke already Mr Prinn objects that 1 Cor. 10.16 17. the Apostle saies they were all partakers of one bread yet in he Church of Corinth were some scandalous some druntards that came so to the Table c. Mr Gillespy answers him That the word all can be of no larger extent then visible Saints such as were those to whom the Epistle was directed and surely visible workers of iniquity cannot be visible Saints Saith Mr Gillespy he shall never prove that those that were drunk at the Sacrament in the Church of Corinth came thither such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or were drunk the night before or knowne drunkards if they were drunk it was there which the Apostle could not know before they came where by the way I desire my Reader to take notice of the invalidity of this plea of Mr Boatman's for the admitting such as are knowne before hand to be scandalous sinners Plus satis bibit Gâ—otius ad loc Quanquam ego non existimarem de eâ sermonem fieri qua homines alienati a sensu mente fusi jacent sed potius de larga compotatione ita ut liberalius bibendo plus aequo exbilarati essent P. Mart. ad loc I add further that he shall never be able to prove they were drunk the word there used is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which doth not alwaies signifie to drink drunke but often to drink liberally and well So Io. 2.10 The sence is onely this you come to the Table of the Lord in parties disorderly first one company comes and they drink liberally more then they need then the others come and they have none to drink Nor is this a new notion I find it in Peter Martyr Grotius Estius ad loc Beza in Io. 2.10 translateth this word affatim bibere and why he might not have done so here if it had pleased him I cannot tell This Dr Drake hinted Mr Humfry of and Mr Humfry in his late vindication is so ingenious as to allow it So I hope now it may passe currant and wee shall heare this pleaded no more by Mr Humfry or Mr Boatman that drunkards were admitted to the Sacrament in the Church of Corinth 4. Especially considering what Mr Gillespy hath already said that although it could be proved that there were drunkards and other scandalous sinners there yet it can never be proved that they were admitted to the Sacrament 5. I will add one thing more the Apostle doth not say 1 Cor. 10.16 17. you are all partakers of one bread which if he had it would have been something more to have proved that the scandalous sinners in the Church of Corinth were admitted to this Ordinance but he saith no such thing he saith we are all partakers of one bread that is while we who are Saints wair upon God in that Ordinance we partake of one bread and are one body yea and that he saith they were one body he plainly proves that the scandalous sinners did not partake of that one Bread But of that more anon 6. Lastly suppose this were true that some of the Corinthians were notoriously scandalous 2. That these were admitted to the Lords Supper that St Paul doth not in so many words command their suspension how doth this yet prove that scandalous sinners ought to be admitted till Mr Humfry or Mr Boatman have proved 1. That the Church of Corinth did nothing amisse 2. That because the Apostle did not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in so many words say drunkards keep away therefore he did allow them to come any more then it will prove women ought to keep away because Paul no where saith expresly you beleeving women come as well as men So that this reason which is purely negative though urged by Erastus Mr Prin Mr Humphry and Mr Boatman will never inferre that it is lawfull to administer the Sacrament to all much lesse prove that Sacramentall eating is not meant in the Text. Mr Prins second Argument is because if we should so expound it most of our members must be excluded But Mr Gillespy hath told him Aarons rod. p. 426. this is nothing to the purpose 't is quickly answered 1. Let God be true and his Word true though men be found lyars Fiat justitia pereat Mundus 2. We hope most of our members are not scandalously under those qualifications Man judgeth by the outward appearance Mr Prins third and last reason is because it is clearly meant of civill familiarity So saith Erastus Vind. 4. serious quest p. 10.3 Erast confirm thes l. 4. cap. 3. vind p. 84. Rejoinder p. 261 so Mr Humfry so many others which wee will allow if they will not understand it exclusively But let us see how they can prove it that it must needs onely be understood of civill eating 1. Saith Mr Prin he had
Responsoria Bipartita SIVE Vindiciae suspensionis Ecclesiasticae ut et Presbyterii EVANGELICI A double Reply containing a Vindication of the antient practice of the Church according to the rule of the word suspending the ignorant and scandalous from the Lords Supper As also of Ecclesiastical Presbyteries as the subject of Church Government The first in answer to one M. Boatmans challenge of all the Ministers on earth to make suspension of any but Turks Jews Pagans and excommunicate persons from the Lords Supper appear from Scripture In answer to whom the said censure is justified by several arguments from Scripture and the universal practice of the Church the Magisterial vanity also of his Sermon Decem. 13. and March 28. in Peters Church in Norwich is discovered by animadversions on each In which answer also some objections of Erastus Mr. Prin and Mr. Humfry are collaterally considered and answered The second part in answer to Theophilus Brabourn who hath talked something in a little pamphlet against the Lord Jesus Christ as Lord of his Church and Lord of the Sabbath against whom it is proved he hath said nothing to any purpose but to discover his own weakness To which is prefixed an Epistle giving account of the whole and fully answering whatsoever Mr. Thomas Morshall in his three Sermons lately printed upon Mat. 22 8. Mr. Barksdale in a letter of his dated May 26. 1652. and printed with a disputation at Winchcomb Nov. 9. 1653. and Mr. Timson in his late book in answer to Dr. Drake have said in these for promiscuous communion By JOHN COLLINGS B.D. and Pastor of the Church of Christ in Stephens Parish in Norwich In ipsa Catholica Ecclesia magnopere curardum est ut id teneamus quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est hoc est enim vere proprieque Catholicum Vincent Lirinensis con haer cap. 3. London Printed by H. Hills for Richard Tomlins and are to be sold at his house at the sign of the Sun and Bible neer Py-Corner To all those who love the Lord Iesus in sincerity especially such of them whose lot is cast in the City of NORWICH Beloved Friends and Brethren IT is not for my own sake nor for the sake of those who are my Brethren in the work of reformation here or elsewhere that I am come out into these lists both my self and I suppose all of them could either have been content to have come up to Mr. Boatmans principles and practice and so endeared our selves to all our people or at least have born with patience the names of Pharisees Dremers such as do things wiser ages never thought of Recusants Presbyterian Reformadoes Calvins fellows which are the Rhetorical terms that M. John Boatman M. Thomas Marshall have bestowed upon us securing our selves in the assurance of our innocence and pittying their ignorance who if they had been better acquainted with the Scriptures and the practice of the Church would have spake more modestly Nor is it for their sakes because I think they have said any thing worth the answering We know 't is an easy thing for one to stand in a pulpit and cry out against the way of God as a Pharisaical way a Pharisaical invention a dream an impleding Scripture and to set upon the Title page of a book The Kings censure of Recusdants he that hath but got a mastery over his conscience and a bold face may do such things cheap enough In the mean time we know the Gentlemen will eat their words when they are challenged for them It is for your sakes dearly beloved Brethren and for our Lord Jesus Christs sake and for his Churches sake that we cannot be silent for the Lords sake whose sacred Ordinance we cannot with patience see prostituted and his blood counted as an unholy thing For his Churches sake that what she hath believed and practised in all times and ages might neither be judged heresy or novelty for your sakes that you may not be seduced by the great adversary of reformation or any that drive on his designs though possibly not wittingly into an alienation of heart from and an enmity to the great work of the Lord in cleansing the Sanctuary and refining of Zion which we have hoped the Lord is about in England and hath been for some years yea and for their souls sake who are angry with us that we will not let them eat and drink judgement to themselves towards the good of whose souls our bowells yern and we are loth that by our means they should increase their guilt and more and more harden themselves to eternall ruin was it not my beloved Brethren the burthen that lay upon the souls of the old Non-Conformists that there was no bar to keep any from the Lords Table but one which superstition made was it our just grief then that we had no bar and is it our work now to remove the bars yea the Lords and the Churches antient land marks shall not the Popish faction rise up in judgement against us at the last day and say Aquinas Vasquez Bonaventura Lord we disputed whither a secret sinner might be received to the Sacrament and these reformers plead for open sinners receiving yea and the Prelatical party which we condemned shall say Lord we gave the Minister authority to keep any from the Sacrament for any notorious sins yea for speaking against the prayer book or the Kings authority in things Ecclesiastical These pretend to reform us and cryed out against us yet do not only admit but plead for the admission of such as speak against Jesus Christ the great King of Zion Thus we have justified our Elder Sister Sodom and our younger Samaria yea neither of them would plead for the wickedness which we do This hath brought me into the lists now I am there I shall desire but fair play If our adversaries can prove all primitive Churches and modern Churches in an errour and themselves onely in the right though we must needs be concluded to err with good company yet I hope I shall not stop my ears against due conviction But we must crave leave to try them with the two weapons of Scriptural Reason and Antiquity to prove that we are not cowards in this Cause of God Since my book was sent to the Press three others have came to my hands all pleading for promiscuous communions I crave your patience for a backblow for them much of them I have answered before hand I shall subjoin a few animadversions more upon what they have in them An answer to Mr. Thomas Marshall The first contains two or thee Sermons preached by one Mr. T. Marshall on Matth 22.8 As I discern in him a spirit which from any Sober man deserves rather flight than answer from those ill favoured passages p. 21. where he chargeth us with sequestring first the bodily bread from the Pastors and then the bread of Christ from the peoples
8. 1. Many of their arguments will fail as I shall observe anon 2. Some may be suspended 3. I must enquire what it is then which joined with Church-membership doth entitle them I cannot find Mr. Humfrey nor Mr. Timson speaking plainly to this the latter spends time to prove the ignorant and scandalous are more capable then Infants and mad men but he is not clear in telling us wherein their capacity lies whether in this that they have more years which fails in mad men or in this that they have more wit if I understand them them think they are in a more capacity to exercise their reason Well then is this the thing that conjoined with Church-membership gives all a right to the Sacrament then it follows That all Church-members who are able to exercise their reason ought to be admitted to the Table of the Lord. Why are Drunkards then excepted by M. Timson p. 4. excep he means only during the time of their drunkenness But if Mr. Timpson remembers p. 5. he tells us the Church is to enquire what is agreeable to the will of God revealed So then it being granted both by Mr. Humfry and Mr. Timson that meer Church-membership doth not give a plenary right to the Sacrament for then infants and distracted persons and drunkards must not be excepted we in enquiring what else must be conjoined with it must have an eye to the will of God revealed And let Mr. Timson shew us the least shadow of Scripture to prove that a capacity of exercising their reason is that other thing which superadded to Church-membership gives a plenary right and we will be his bond-men In the mean time thus far it is agreed betwixt us that meer Church-membership doth not give one a right Then Mr. Timson hath granted his question against himself for some Church-members not rightly excommunicated may not come to the Lords Table But this then is the question between us what it is which superadded to Church-membership which gives only jus ad rem haereditarium et remotum must give a man jus in re aptitudinarium proximum a plenary full right to the Sacrament Mr. Humfry and Mr. Timson if I understand them say as I said before a capacity to exercise their reason we say Knowledge and Faith which works by holiness Here is the question by whom shall we be tryed By God and the Country saith the Malefactor by God and the Church say we By God speaking to us in his word and inabling us by vertue of that candle set up in us to fetch true conclusions from sacred principles comparing spiritual things with spiritual 1. First I plead against their opinion thus If a meer capacity to exercise reason entituleth a Church-member to the Sacrament than every Church member in such a capacity hath an undoubted right This consequcence stands upon such foundation of reason that he who doth not want the capacity mentioned in it must confess it I assume then But every Church-member that hath a capacity to exercise reason hath not an undoubted right to the Lords Supper Ergo. What Mr. Timson thinks I cannot tell but I am sure Mr. Humfry is almost angry with the Dâ—ctor that he should understand him of such as of right ought to be excommunicated Now surely it is possible that one may be in a capacity to exercise reason and yet so notoriously scandalous that of right he ought to be excommunicated Suppose one had committed incest or adultery and that immediately before a Sacrament such a wretch may be in a capacity to exercise reason yet surely Mr. Timson hath large principles if he thinks such wretches have a plenary right to the Ordinance Let Mr. Humfry and Mr. Timson say what they can Something besides Church-membership must be added to give one a plenary right to the Sacrament or else Infants and distracted persons must have a plenary right And something besides an ability to exercise reason or else an incestuous person immediately after his vileness hath as full a right as any and the like might be said for a Drunkard a Murtherer any profane person openly defending his profaness for one who doth not know whether Christ were a man or a woman c. 2. Secondly I urge further according to Mr. Timsons principles He must be able to discern the Lords body from common Bread But many men may be Church-members and rational and yet not able to do this Ergo something else must be superadded 3. A child of five or six years old is able to exercise reason and is a Church-member if baptized if these two things give a plenary right such children ought undoubtedly to be admitted This is sufficient to shew the vanity of this Conceit That meer Church-membership with a capacity to exercise Reason gives one a plenary right to the Lords Supper And if meer Church-membership doth not do it no nor that with this second thing added I Query what it is doth it Surely it must be something above these we say a Knowledge of the things of God conjoined with faith in Christ such a faith as is evidenced by holiness It will stand Mr. Humfrey and Mr. Timson in hand either to speak clearly to this and tell us what gives a plenary right or to acknowledge with us that these things superadded to Church-membership do which if they grant us Let them say what they will Dr. Drake saith true that by the same reason that Mr. Humfry and Mr. Timson except infants and persons distracted ignorant and scandalous persons are to be excepted and Mr. Humfrys excepting out of his opinion infants and persons distracted is but a crafty trick to prevent those arguments which he foresaw he could not answer like some late Arminians who tell us Christ died to purchase a possibility of salvation for all but such as shall dy impeninent And the Reader may easily perceive the sores of M. Humfrys book by his kickings in his Rejoinder where the Doctor touched him I say Mr. Humfry and Mr. Timson must hold that a meer natural capacity to exercise reason in one who is a Church-member gives him a full right to the Sacrament or else there is a par ratio for keeping away the ignorant and scandalous as for infants and persons distracted And if they hold so I have shewed them what follows upon it When Mr. Timson speaks clearly to this point we will more strictly examine his judgement He spends his 8 9 10. pages in entering his exceptions against the Presbyterian Discipline where he chargeth the friends of it sufficiently and dâ—als as unbrotherly with some hundreds of Learned and Reverend men as he chargeth Dr. Drake to have done with Mr. Humphry and something more Considering that the Reverend Doctor if he be a little smart with his adversary yet withall he answers his adversary Et miscuit utile amaro But Mr. Timson hath answered nothing said in the defence of those practices which he so deeply censureth
his book to sell but that were the way to make the sent of his book spread it self further I shall therefore promise thee nothing but silence If but a rational School-boy shall send me word that he judgeth me answered in any one point it is ten to one but I may vindicate my self otherwaies I shall think him more an object of pitty than any revenge for this age tels us there are some who both want wit to write and discretion to hold their peace And now my dearly beloved friends I am almost tyâ—ed with Polemical writing and I will not promise you much more of that nature I have endeavoured in two or three treatises to vindicate some truth viz. Concerning the Divine Ordinance and Office of the Ministery in my Vindicâ—ae Ministerii Evangelici and answer to Mr. Sheppard 2. The preheminecy of the Lord day above Christmas day in my answer to Mr. Fisher c. 3. The divine right of Church Government in the hand of the Ministers and Elders against Mr. Brabourn And now this divine ordinance and antient practice of suspending the ignorant and scandalous from the Lords Supper These scufflings have hindered me from some things possibly more profitable I have part of a discourse neer ready which I have promised the world concerning Temptations if my adversaries disturb me not I shall in the next place apply my self to that work I have been willing to let it sleep while I dispatched this because by this I hope I may be useful to the whole Church and in that but to particular souls which I desire may be my excuse to you But I fear lest the City should run out at the gates Bowing therefore my knees to the God of peace and truth that you may be guided into all truth and established in the right ways of the Lord I rest Chaplyfield-house in Norwich July 16. 1654. Your Cordial friend and servant in the work of the Gospel I. COLLINGS To the Right Wor ll John Mann Esq Mayor of the City of Norwich Much Honoured Sir AS the Influence which that eminent place in this City to which God hath called you and the Engagements which your goodnesse hath laid upon those few Ministers in it who have laboured against great opposition to promote an Ecclesiastick Reformation have justly challenged our observance to you so your eminent appearing not only for it but in it accepting the Office of a Ruler in one of the Congregations of it and your appearing for the restoring of that eminent servant of Christ to his Pastorall charge there again where these unhappy flames of our division have kindled which by the piety and prudence of that Reverend man would have been prevented hath challenged for you the more speciall Dedication of this Tract What you shall find in it the Preface will tell you And the Preface is that alone which needs your Patronage nor should that stand in need of it if some men had not the confidence to deny that the Sunne shines at noon-day whether what is there related be truth or no your selfe can in a great measure satisfie the Enquirer For the substance of the Booke when you have examined it I shall be content you should dismisse it your protection and shall my selfe attend the vindication of it from its adversaries who are ordinarily more clamorous then argumentative If my paines may contribute any thing Sir to encourage your perseverance in that good worke to which the Lord hath quickned you to put your hand as it will be a great matter of encouragement and joy to all of us who are working for the Lord in the refining of Sion while we are almost stifled with the drosse which the corruption of former times hath begot so it will be a great addition to your crown in the day of the Lord and a great crown to him who is Chapâ—yfield house April 19. 1654. SIR Your most humble and much obliged servant in the Lord Iesus J. COLLINGS The PREFACE To my Christian Reader IT is growne into a fashion for him who entertaines the world in a Book to parley first a little with his gueft at the threshold And although the righteous Judges of Areopagus needed no such complement yet I cannot but judge it a little necessary in this sinfull time and the more in regard of the different complexions of mens perswasions disposing them to faction and to judge unrighteous judgment from the dictate of some particular prejudice What thou art into whose hands my Tract shall come I cannot tell I shall only endeavour to cleare thy eyes from the mist that prejudice and particular affection may have cast before them and be ambitious no further to reconcile thee to me then unto truth It treats of an unpleasing subject The divine Right and Primitive practise of suspending such from the Supper of the Lord who as yet have not their senses exercised to discerne between good and evill and cannot discerne the Lords body such as were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of old and such who since their Baptisme have returned with the dog to the vomit and are yet with the Swine wallowing in the mire of their lusts This is the great bone of contention in the Church of God this day every one would be fellow commoner with the Saints at the Table of childrens bread and those who have not grace to make them worthy yet want patience to beare a being judged unworthy of the highest Gospell-priviledges Reader I suppose thou canst not be so unjust to thy owne reason but to thinke that if the godly Ministers of England durst consult with flesh and bloud that could furnish them with strong Arguments drawne from the augmentation of their livelihood in places where it is arbitrary and from the universall love of their people to compell them into Master Humfryes or Master Boatmans faith Alas what doe we get by our stricter dealings with the soules committed to us except the frownes and reproaches of such whom we durst not cast the holy thing of the Sacrament before It is Gods will that Religion and humane Policy should now and then divide and we humbly submit to God and desire rather to be faithfull Stewards for him then providers for our selves and ours Surely there is so much ingenuity at least in some of the godly Ministers of England as would intitle them to a desire of the love of all and so much earthinesse in all their hearts as exposeth them to some temptations to use all endeavours for a 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
declared himselfe privately against Ruling Elders Presbyter haud ame te nec possum dicere quare Hoc tantùm possum dicere non amo te For his judgement in that point or indeed in any other it is not much considerable for we doe not thinke he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and we can easily beleeve that we have more to say yea that more hath already been said to prove the divine Right of that O ficer in the Church then Mr Boatman can answer About the beginning of December after about six weeks residence amongst a people he had never seen before except as a guest for a forthnight nay and as I remember of that six weeks he was absent for a fortnight too He declares he intended to administer a Sacrament on Christmas day some honest people of his Congregation being dissatisfied at it went to him and told him so in regard of the superstitious conceit of that day which many in this City have One of his friends told me they had prevailed with him so far as that the next day he would unbid it againe but in stead of it the next Lords day in stead of unbidding it girding at those who had received this offence he openly proclaimes foure Sacraments together The first upon the eighteenth day of December the second upon the five and twentieth c. and proclaimed likewise a Fast Preparatory to them upon the thirteenth of December At which Fast Reader thou must thinke there was much people to see which way he would row though they needed not if they had considered the wind and tyde For my selfe I was not there having with some other of my Brethren refused to heare him who refuseth to let us know by what Authority he preaches and conceiving that the Pastorall Right to that people belongs not to him besides other things which discover him to us to be no friend to any kind of Reformation At his Fast he preached on Rom. 14.12 His discourse in the forenoone was harmlesse in the afternoon he disgorged himselfe I shall give thee a short account of that part of his Sermon which concernes this businesse as it was taken and given me by an ingenuous judicious Schollar from his owne mouth in short hand and by one who was before that Sermon much his friend An Account of the latter part of Mr Boatmans Sermon preached at St Peters in Norwich upon the 13th of December 1653. upon Rom. 14.12 being a perfect count of his Sermon from his last Use With short Animadversiâ—ns upon it SIxthly Sect. 1 and lastly though I said but rather forgot when I said that that should be the last Take this Lesson from the point all in generall viz. the Apostles advice 1 Cor. 11. Judge your selves consider your selves aright lay things aright to heart condemne your selves else God will condemne you Passe a particular account with your selves but that you will say is impossible Who can tell his errors or number his infirmities Doe it as far as you are able and in a generall way take the whole burthen on your soules licke the dust cry out with Job I am exceeding vile humble your selves in dust and ashes And let me make the last Use more particular to alarum you to a preparation to the great Ordinance of the Lords Supper if you must give an account to God as you have heard of all your carriages and enjoyments of all the precious Ordinances of the Gospell of which the Word and Sacraments are not the least but of the highest nature then put your selves into a posture of humiliation thinke with your selves O God! how often have we eaten unworthily It is not one of the least serious thoughts I have entertained a great while together in relation to this Ordinance the generall want of it amongst the people of God in the Church of God it filleth me with wonder that it hath been so long suspended and almost all the Pastors of the Church of Christ so amused either their minds disturbed or their hearts hardened or by one way or other diverted that it hath been too void of the spirituall food of the Gospell The world dictates and cryes out one against such a Pastor others against such and such persons but will you have my verdict The sinne of Pastor and people in the enjoyment of that great Ordinance is the cause and ground that God hath found out away and by away of his owne finding out which a man would have thought at first should never have prevailed which hath hindred the people of the enjoyment of that great Ordinance of the communion of the body and bloud of Christ. Let this humble us This Paragraph containes little in it to the present purpose hitherto he is making way for his work but yet in this loose discourse to passe by the Tautologies and Grammaticall Errors here are some passages that speak not much of a Divine as to say That God hath found out wayes to hinder people of his Ordinances God indeed doth sometimes give up his people to spirituall judgment but it is scarce truth to say God finds out wayes for men to walke contrary to his will in surely man finds them out though God suffers them to walke in them But let us heare a little further And you of this Flocke Sect. 2 I beseech you by the mercies of Christ looke to it as you will answer me at the great day nay which is more to Jesus Christ himselfe how you approâ—ch Looke to your soules hearts and consciences you have lived under the Ministry and Administrations of able Pastors so long together and should you be ignorant of the rudiments of Religion I would not for a thousand worlds attribute so little to your constancy and your paines especially in such times nor in former viz. so much as makes you capable of and fit for the Sacrament For my owne particular I question not your duty but beseech you according to the knowledge you have received seriously to prepare your selves take heed be thinke your selves humble your selves for your miscarriages heretofore in the enjoyment of it goe home and say O how often have I gone hand over head and carried an envicus heart a lustfull wrathfull heart full of indignation to thy holy Table I have gone with prejudice with resolutions of revenge to the communion of the body and bloud of Christ which should keep the unity of the spirit and the bond of peace If I could but prevaile with you to set your selves thus beforehand and judge your selves I dare secure you in your approach to that Table Let me speake to two sorts of men Sect. 3 some looke upon themselves as they suppose to have tasted of the powers of the world to come and have dranke full draughts of that new wine which Christ hath prepared for his children in his Kingdome Blessed be God! All honour praise glory be to the name of God in your behalfe I beseech you by the
account p 16. l. 25. r. judgements p. 22. l. 10. dele never p. 23. l. 1. r. are these l. 5. dele that the Apostle r. gave other order l. 20. r. tell us p. 27. in marg r. Aretii Phoblem l. 16. r. would not these p. 31. l. 30. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 39. l. 15. dele at ib. r. returne p. 39. r. us p 41. l 25. â— there were ib. l. 33. r. the people In the book p. 9. in marg r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. 36â— p. 11. l. 3. r. I doubt p. 12. l. 32. r. not To. p. 14. l 9. r. Reverend p. 15. l. 6. r. Thus we see p 16. l. 13. r. first for p. 18. l. 4 r. swine are p. 22. l. 29. r. having appointed p. 24. l. 12. r. yet these l 13. r. heare men p. 26. l. 26. r. some such in p. 28. l. 4. r. jure p. 28. l. 29. r. be might p. 29. l. 1. r. rush p. 32 in marg r. edit Lutetiae p. 35. l 12 r. is chiding p. 37 l. 20 r. except at that time l. ult r. observes p. 39. l. 31. r. purged For. p. 40. l. 25. r. three things p. 41. l. 25. r. it for p. 42. l. 13. dele that p. 43. l 25. ingenuous p. 48. l. 21. dele so l. 22. r. things forbidden p 49. l. 2. dele may be true l. 2. dele it l. 15. r. true in l. 28. r. untied l. ult dele first p. 53. l. 16. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 54 l 32. r. nay it p. 55. l. 13. r. he hath p. 57. l 6. if but baptized p. 71. l. 11. r. was to be eaten in p. 72. l. 4 r. was caten p. 73. l. 10. r. art p 74 l. 32. r. the twelve p. 76. l. q. r. be did not p. 77. l. 32. r. fourth dâ—sh l. 33. r. rest Immediately saith the Doctor p. 78. l. 9. r. Aphicomen l. 19. r. did cat l. 28. r. the Doctor p. 79. l. 9. r. ingenuous p. 82. l. 31. r. fourth cup. p. 83. l. 21. dele secondly p. 84. l. 1. r. with it one p. 87. l. 9. r. keep pure p. 95. l. 24. r. If a grossely c. l. 35. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. â—1 l. penult r. one bread p. 113. l. 33. r. of the elements p. 121 l. 1. r. conecssions l. 16. r. releeve me l. 18. r. I shall l. 27. 1. Eldership judge p. 125. l. 1. r juridicall p. 128 l. 7. r. the Constitutions and some c. p. 129 l 2. Catechumeni l. 10 r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 130. l. 2. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 4. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 7. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 10 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 33. r. de-la-Barre p. 131. l. 4. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 132. in marg r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 133. l. 14. r. of none of p. 134 l. 12. r. Binius i. 29. r. in this Century p. 137. l. 33. dele to p. 140. l. 3. r. demonstrandam p. 141. l. 10. r. that he should be p 143. l. 12. r. that some p. 147. l. 23. r. penitus deploratos p â—48 l. 13. in marg dele Anthony p. 155. l. 24. r. Dr de-Lawne p. 161. l. 29. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 31. dele And. l. 33. r. constitutions p. 166. l. 12. r. augeatur l. 25. r. minding p. 167. l. 12. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 CHAPTER I. Containing the State of the question QVESTION I. Whether the Suspension of some persons from the Lords Supper be deducible from Scripture or Reason THE termes of this Question are two 1. Suspension of some persons from the Supper of the Lord that is the subject 2. Deducible from Scripture or Reason that is the predicate in question betwixt us 1. As to Suspension of some persons from the Supper wee meane no more then a denyall of that Ordinance to some This suspension is usually distinguished into Juridicall and Pastorall or privative and positive 1. Positive suspension which is called Juridicall is an act of the Officers of the Church whereby having had due cogrisance of the party that desires the Supper of the Lord and finding him unfit or unworthy though he hath formerly been admitted Yet they by vertue of the trust reposed by Christ in them warne him to abstaine from the Lords Table and deny the Ordinance to him if he intrudes 2. Privative Suspension which I also call pastorall is an act of the Minister of the Gospell whereby hee alone the Church wanting other Officers finding some persons though formerly admitted not able to examine themselves or unworthy in respect of open scandall to come to that Holy Table doth not only as their Pastor admonish them to forbeare but withholds the elements from them if they presume to come to the Lords Table God willing I shall anon speake to the second of these whether privative suspension be lawfull or no. But that is not my present businesse But supposing there be an eldership constituted in a Congregation whether this eldership may keep away any from the Lords Table for ignorance or knowne scandall if he be a Christian and not de facto Excommunicated This is that which Mr Boatman cals a Pharisaicall dreame an usurpation of Christs authority a thing not deducible from Scripture That which he humbly and boldly challengeth all the Ministers on Earth to make good if he durst have stood to his word 2. Nor could his meaning bee any thing else For in his Congregation there is an eldership established according to Ordinance of Parliament by a due election of the major part of the Congregation present after publike notice given three Lords daies each after other which he hath throwne downe and publisheth this Doctrine that he might prepare his people for a prostitution of that sacred Ordinance As to the second terme Deducible from Scripture I take it for granted that my indifferent Reader will grant me that to be sufficiently deduced and proved from Scripture which is evinced from it by necessary consequence if it be there either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If Mr Boatman or any other will deny me that any thing is to be proved from Scripture but what is there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He makes our Saviour a very insufficient Logician who thus proves the resurrection Mat. 22.31 32. Mat. 22.32 33. and his Auditors very weake who the Evangelist saith were very well satisfied with the proofe And those who agree with the Anabaptists in that whimzy will be bound to reconcile that of St James James 5.4 to truth Iames 5.4 by shewing us where the Scripture saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The spirit that dwelleth in you lusteth to envy Yet the Apostle saith the Scripture saith it But I will suppose Mr Boatman
to regulate these argumentations Their rules are these I will examine the truth of them as I goe along Propositions therefore wherein the greater is proved to be denyed because the lesser may be true 1. Erastus saith it may be true in gifts In donis non autem in poenis Confirm thesâ— l. 3. p. 250. but not in punishments Mr Rutherford tels him it is true enough for us if it be true in gifts for fellowship with the Saints is a guift and priviledge and surely if one may have not the lesser priviledge he may not have the greater Rutherford's divine right of Presbyt p. 366. 2. It must also hold in punishments when the lesser is inflicted for the cause of the higher is it not a good argument think we such a man condemned to dy must not come into the Castleyard till his Execution Ergo much lesse may he go where he list about the Country Secondly saith Erastus Erast ibid. Mr Prin. p. 11. this Argument is true iâ— things of the same kind but not in things of diverse kinds So Mr Prin so Mr Humfry If this be true saith Mr Gillespy the Scripture is ful of false Logick Num. 12.14 If Miriams father had spet in her face Gillespy Aarons rod. l. 3 c. 7 Rutherford proves both these of the same kind lib. praediâ— ib. should not shee have been ashamed seven dayes how much more when God hath smitten her with leprosy Hag. 1.4 You have built to your selves ceiled houses how much more ought you to have built the Lords house Jo 3.12 If I have told you earthly things and you beleeve not how shal you beleeve if I tell you heavenly things 1. Cor. 6.3 Know yee not that we shall judge Angels how much more things that pertaine to this life Now mark Reader how Mr Humfry hath united this knot by accusing God himselfe Jesus Christ his Prophets his Apostles all of false arguings Thirdly saith Erastus Erast ibid. Mr Prin. ibid. it must be in things that are free not in such things that are not of our owne power one being commanded of God and the other not as these are But first Erastus should have done well to have told us first where we are commanded to eat with scandalous sinners at the Lords Table Secondly ibid. saith Mr Rutherford he should have proved that it is a thing free to us to doe or not to doe to have civill Communion with scandalous sinners wee alwayes thought we had not been free in that point but enjoined to a negative Lastly saith Mr Gillespy what becomes of that Scripture Argument then Gillespy ibid. How much better is it to get wisdome then Gold and understanding then Silver Wisdome surely is not in our owne power to get 4. Mr Prin ibid. Mr Prin adds another case wherein he thinks this Argument not concluding in case the two things compared fall not under the same precept which is the case here But Mr Gillespy rightly tels him this is new Logick for not to reproach Gods name is forbidden in the third precept not to reproach man under the sixth and ninth But I hope this is a good Argument if we may not reproach our neighbour much lesse may we reproach our Maker My Gil. l. 3. c. 7. And it is surely as good if we may not have an intimacy of civill Communion with scandalous sinners much less may we have the nearest Church fellowship and Communion with him Thus have I done what indeed was done before at least gathered together what have been said by divers more able to strengthen this Argument CHAP. V. VVherein a fifth Argument is brought whereby is proved that hitherto none bath brought any Scripture precept or president sufficient to warrant promiscuous administration of the Lords Supper I proceed to a fifth ARGVMENT What the Officers of the Church have neither any precept obliging them to doe nor president to justifie them in doeing that in the worship of God is sinfull and unlawfull for them to do THE proposition standeth upon this bottome That nothing is lawfull in the worship of God but what we have precept or president for Which whoso denies opens a door to all Idolatry and superstition and will-worship in the world Besides the Sacrament of the Lords Supper being a piece of instituted worship we are in the Administration of it to be guided according to the precepts given upon the institution and for the Administration of it and according to the example of the Lord Iesus Christ and his Apostles The example of Christ who first instituted it and gave us an example for the perpetuall celebration of it and of the Apostles who being the first who celebrated it questionlesse did it in the purest Order and most conformely to the will of Christ with which they were best acquainted Now I assume But for the Officers of the Church to give the Sacrament to such as are visibly scandalous though they be not excommunicated is for them to doe that in the worship of God which neither any precept nor example of Christ or his Apostles will justify them in doing Ergo. It is enough for us to affirme the minor till our opposites produce some precept or example of Christ or his Apostles justifying them in this practice In regard some are pretended I shall turn aside a little to examine the precepts or examples offered in the cause 1. Some think that our Saviours words Mark 14.23 Drink you all of it containes a command given by our Saviour to all to drink of the Sacramentall cup and so vertually a command to his Ministers to give it out promiscuously But let us before we grant this examine who those All were The twelve saith Mr Humfry we will examine that more strictly anon By all there out of all question are meant no more then all present and these were no more then the twelve if all of them which wants proofe too But suppose all the twelve were there yet not one of them was discovered to be a scandalous sinner but even Iudas himselfe was both in the Disciples eyes and in Christs eyes acting not as an omniscient God but as a Minister of the Gospell a visible Saint Which was the answer as I remember of Bonaventure I am sure of Halensis and Salmeron long since and is the generall answer of our Divines to that cavill Nor hath Mr Humfry in his Rejoinder said any thing to prove Iudas then scandalous for though as Erastus noted before him he had then treason in his heart and supposing that to be true which Erastus and Mr Humfry so much plead but I searce beleeve that he had before covenanted with the High Priests yet all this was secret and he was not discovered till upon Christ giving him the sop he asking is it I Christ said thou saiest it and that reply of Christ was before as some think Grotius well observes that Christ did but whisper
it to him for it is plaine from Iohn 13. that the Disciples knew it not till then and he then having received the sop went out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Iohn which by the way as I shall prove more anon was both before the eating of the Paschall Lambe and before the institution of the Lords Supper too It is worth our observing that Christ did not so much as call up those of the same house which it is more then probable that he would have done if he had intended it for a converting Ordinance or for all promiscuously Nay surely Christ had more disciples then the twelve but the twelve onely if all of them were present 2. Some think that they have a precept for promiscuous administring this Ordinance from Mat. 28.19 20. where we have our commission in these words Goe teach all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father the Senne and the Holy Ghost 1. To that I answer 1. There is nothing exprest concerning the administration of the Lords Supper and our opposites who are so nimble at every turn to call for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should remember that by it they oblige themselves to doe the like But secondly admit that there is an implicit precept likewise for the administration of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper yet surely by the same rule that the Apostles notwithstanding that precept did not think themselves obliged to baptize any but such as beleeved and confessed their sins we may also expound the included part of the precept and must administer this Ordinance to none but such as are able to examine themselves and to discerne the Lord Body So that this will not serve their turne Thirdly Erastus and Mr Humfry and Mr Boatman make a great stir with the wedding Supper Mat. 22. to which all were invited c. But 1. They should remember that old and true rule Theologia parabolica non est argumentativa No argument can be fetcht from Parables but from the generall scope of them v Mr Humfrie's rejoinder p. 52.53.54 Now he that runs may read that our Saviours main scope in that Parable was not to shew who might or might not come to the Lords Table but to shew how angry God was with the Jewes for not comming to Christ by which unbeliefe of theirs they procured destruction to themselves and God would now call in the Heathens and those who before were not his people to be his people and to fill up his Feast 2. If Mr Humfry or Mr Beatman thinke they may argue from any of the foure feet of that parable as to this cause they may prove it to be their duty not onely to stand in a Pulpit and invite all the Lords Table but to goe into high waies and hedges too and bring in all they meet with yea and to compell them to come in Now it will prove too that they ought to fetch in Pagans who are chiefly meant in the latter part of the Parable And thus they shall not need to want company at the Lords Table 3. Doctor Drake answered Mr Humfry well I think when he told him that Christ is the Feast meant in that Parable and although all be invited to the Feast Christ yet the question is whether all be invited to eat of that dish in the Feast viz. Dr Drakes Bâ—â— to free admission p. 30. Mr Humfries rejoinder p. 54. the Sacrament of the Lords Supper as wel as they are invited to hear the Gospel Here now M. Humfry hath a mind more to shew his wit then his honesty thus he answers him p. 54. This is something ingenuous but whoreas he applies this that a man may be invited to a Feast yet not to the dish in the Feast it is very fine c. then he tels us a tale of the two egs and concludes let us have the dishes of the Feast and what will become of Mr Drakes Feast How falsly hath he abused Dr Drake let the Reader judge Dr Drake doth not say they are not invited to any dish but they are not invited to every dish and if the dish of the Sacrament be removed there will a Feast still remaine But the truth is it was properest for Mr Humfry to abuse his Adversary when he could not answer him If this and other passages of the same nature in that unworthy book be not enough to make it stink in the nostrils of conscientious Christians let them but read his language p. 269. and the application of Scripture to serve his nastie intentions and they may help a little towards it 4. I never heard of any more Scripture precepts pretended onely that 1 Cor. 11.24 where I desire the Reader to consider 1. That the Apostle doth but repeat the words of our Saviour which were spoke to none but visible Saints 2. The Apostle delivers the same words to them he bids them Doe that c. Which by the way is not a command to their Pastors to administer it but to the Church to receive the Sacrament and surely doth not concerne those who in that Chapter are commanded to examine themselves c. and are not able to doe it The question is whether the Apostle v. 24. doth command them to receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper who could not examine themselves according his rule v. 28. nor discern the Lords body or who if they did partake must necessarily eat and drink their owne damnation and make themselves guilty of the body and blood of Christ Surely this was very absurd to say If not this precept is nothing to the purpose sounding no more then this you that are fit to doe this doe this We are now come to examine if they have any examples I never heard but of three pretended indeed they are great ones and enough if they be made appeare for their purpose The first that of Christ who admitted Iudas as some think The second Mr Humfry mentions Acts 2.41.42 The third is of the Church of Corinth I will speak of the latter two first The first then is Acts 2.41 42. in the 41 verse 3000 soules were added to the Church verse 42. it is said they continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayers To this I answer 1. I should put our opposites hand to it to prove that the breaking of bread here spoke of was the Sacramentall action I could tell them of many who are of another mind A phrase like this Luke 24.30 he took bread and blessed and brake it c. is used to express common eating at our own Tables 2. But I confess I encline to to think it was Sacramentall breaking of bread and so the Syriack version reads it So the phrase is used 1 Cor. 10.16 But who were those that brake berad together such as verse 37. were prickt at the heart and had cryed out v. Mr Palmerâ— answer to Humfry p. 51. Men and Brethren
have been long enough beating the bush and if this notion prove true it will follow 1. That Iudas had not so much as compacted with the Chiefe Priests when his hand was with Christ on the Table 2 That he was gone before the Lord instituted his supper yea 3. That he was not there at the eating of the Paschall Lambe I have but proposed my thoughts and shall submit to better reason having learned to attribute nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and being prone to think the worse of any notion which I judge my owne I know I dissent in this from very many Holy and Learned men But secondly it is no matter of Faith or Practice but a piece of Order in Holy Story 2. I see they cannot agree amongst themselves 3. I shall peaceably dissent 4. I shall keep an eare open for better proofe against me in the meane time I desire my Readers Charity they are some of the Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have been enquiring into some Histerologies must be allowed in the Gospell I see not but with such allowance this my sense may passe And now to shut up this discourse of Iudas I could wish our Masters of the opposite perswasion would allow us but the favour that ordinary Fencing Masters will allow their scholars First they will take up one weapon and try them with one while here another while there if they see they cannot hit them with this trick nor the other they will lay downe that weapon and take another not the same againe to no purpose but meerely to tire out their Scholars For this weapon of Iudas his being at the Sacrament with which they think to knock suspension Erastus tried it at Beza Beza defended himself Mr Prin tried it at Mr Gillespy Mr Gillespy defended the cause that he never touched it with a Cudgell Now Mr Humfry hath got it up and Dr Drake defended himselfe the same way which Gillespy and Beza had done Mr Humfry hath made never a new stroke Let us lay downe this weapon let 's heare what they say to prove Iudas was there Object 1. They all sate downe together This doth not prove they all rose up together Object 2. Christ saith the hand of him that betrayeth me is on the Table That is at the sop but Iohn 13.30 immediately upon that Iudas went out which was before the Sacrament Object 3. Christ speaks nothing Iohn 13. of the Sacrament But he speakes of the Passeover which was before it and saies at the beginning of that he went out Object 4. O but wee have many Authors of our side that he was there Origen Cyprian Ambrose Chrysostome Victor Theodoret Remigius Paschasius Oecumenius Algerus c. 1. This question they did not speake purposely to 2. God knowes whether the places quoted be spurious or no. 3. We have matches for them too Dionysius Areopagita Maximus Pachimeres Ammonius Talianus Innocentius Hilary Salmeron Kellet Mariana Gerard Turrianus Barradus Danaeus Musculus Piscator Cum multis aliis quos nunc perscribere longum est Let 's have done therefore with this Cudgell and blot no more paper with saying what hath been said over and over and over againe and can never be cleared on our adversaries side I have tried something on our side I shall add no more to this Argument I conclude there are no precepts to command nor presidents to warrant generall admissions of scandalous persons though not excommunicated Ergo. CHAP. VII Containing a sixth Argument drawne from the duty incumbent upon the Officers of the Church to keep the fellowship of the Church pure I am come now to a sixth ARGVMENT I still keep my principall syllogisme which was this If the Officers of a Church may not lawfully admit some to the Sacrament who are not as yet de facto excommunicated then they may law fully suspend some from it But Ergo. MY sixth Argument to prove Argument six that there may be some in the Church whom the Officers of a Church cannot without sinne admit to the Sacrament though at present they be not excommunicated is this If there may be some in the Church not yet cast out with whom the communion of the Church in the Lords Supper cannot be pure then there may be some in the Church not yet excommunicated whom the Officers may not without sinne admit to the Lords Supper But there may be some in the Church not yet excommunicated with whom the communion of the Church in that Ordinance cannot be pure Ergo. I will prove the major first then the minor First for the major If it be the duty and businesse of the Officers of the Church to keep the communion of the Church then it is their duty to keep its fellowship pure in that Ordinance and consequently not to admit such to it with whom the communion of the Church cannot be pure This proposition stands upon these foundations 1. That it is the duty of the Officers of a Church to keep the fellowship of the Church pure This none will deny that is but mentis compos if any be inclined to deny it he should doe well first to think to what purpose the rod of discipline is else put into their hands 2. How to expound 1 Cor. 5.7 13. and those many other Texts in Scripture which looke this way 2. That it is their especiall duty to keep the fellowship of the Church as to this Ordinance pure As this was proved before upon the opening of the 1 Cor. 5.8 So upon the concession of the former it is no lesse clear from reason It is apparent that of all other Ordinances this Ordinance alone is appointed for such as have something of Grace in them The Word is called the bread of life and it is to bee offered to dead soules to quicken them Heathens were ever admitted to heare those who are the profanest persons are the objects of Discipline the excommunicate may and ought to be admonished as Brethren I know not wherein the Officers of the Church can have a worke to keep the communion of a Church pure if not in this Ordinance and as to this which the Scripture plainly saith cannot be partaked of worthily without examining our selves and being able to discerne the Lords Body For the minor proposition That there may be some in the Church not yet cast out with whom the fellowship of the Church in this Ordinance cannot be pure I prove If there may be some in the Church who apparently are not fit subjects to receive this holy thing then there may be some in the Church with whom the fellowship of the Church in this Ordinance cannot be pure But there may be some in the Church who apparently are not fit subjects to receive this holy thing Ergo. He that denies the major must maintaine that a communion of such as are appearingly fit for it and appearingly notoriously unfit for it and unable to it is a pure communion and by that time he
in him lies to satisfie Suppose a man hath stollen I should thinke he must not only resolve but if he be able make restitution before he comes to the Lords Table 3. It is a question whether any lying under the guilt of any sin not quotidiana incursionis be bound in duty to come to the Lords Table before he hath evidenced his repentance by the contrary practice To me the negative is out of question But in the last place Though the Ordinance be not polluted by the presence of a scandalous sinner nor the conscience of the worthy Communicant who hath prepared his own heart and done what in him lies towards the reformation and suspension of the scandalous 3. Yet the Officers of the Church are polluted because they have not done their duty for they should have admonished him and being under censure suspended him till he had satisfied the Church Lastly 4. The Fellowship of the Church in generall is polluted the Apostle teacheth us 1 Cor. 5. that the continuing of one scandalous person in the bosome of the Church leavens the whole Lumpe the neglect of a private member redounds indeed but to his owne guilt and defilement but the neglect of the Officers of a Church redounds to the guilt and defilement of the whole Church and justly 1. Partly because they are the representative part of the Church 2. Because it is in the Churches power to remove them if not in the power of a Congregationall Church yet in the power of a Synodicall Church But I shall enlarge no further on this Argument CHAP. VIII Wherein by a seventh Argument the lawfulnesse of suspension is proved because there can lie no Obligation upon the Officers of the Church to give the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to such as visibly are not bound to Receive ARGUMENT 7. Either it is lawfull for the Officers of the Church to deny the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to such as they find ignorant and scandalous and impenitent Or they are bound to give it to such But they are not bound to give it to any such Ergo THe major is unquestionably evident The Minor is to be proved which I prove thus The Officers of the Church are not bound to administer the Ordinance to those who they know are not bound to receive it But grosly ignorant and impenitent scandalous sinners are visibly such as are not bound to receive it Ergo. I shall first open and prove the Major and then come to the Minor 1. I grant that the Minister of the Gospell may be bound to administer an Ordinance to such a one as is not bound to receive it because he may otherwise appeare to him and his unworthinesse may be hid from him We are bound to hold out the Promise as an object of faith to all who appeare to have their hearts smitten with the sense of sin though some of them be Hipocrites we know not who are so 2. But it seems strange to me considering that a Ministers giving the Sacrament and the peoples receiving are relate acts that a Minister should be bound to give to such as he knows are not bound to receive can any one thinke that there should lye an Obligation upon us to preach to our people if it could be proved that there lay no Obligation upon them to heare Now I assume But grossely ignorant and impenitent scandalous sinners are such as visibly appeare not bound to receive the Lords Supper Ergo. That a grossely ignorant and scandalous impenitent sinner while such is bound to receive then he is bound To make himselfe guilty of the body and bloud of Christ To eate and drinke his own damnation To run upon the hazard of being made sick and weake and falling asleep which are all strange things for a man to be bound in conscience unto Let none thinke to avoid this Argument by saying they are bound first to repent and then to receive So that their sin doth not lye in receiving but in not repenting This is plainly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The question is whether the ignorant and impenitent while such if not cast out are bound to receive and it is a begging the question to say they sin in not repenting but not in receiving In receiving saith the Apostle they make themselves guilty of the body and bloud of Christ and they eate and drinke their own damnation And surely if such sinners be not bound to receive the Officers of the Church cannot be bound to give the Ordinance to them the ceasing of their Obligation in reason must also suspend his CHAP. IX Wherein an Eighth and Ninth Argument are brought to prove that Suspension distinct from Excommunication is justifiable from Scripture and sound Reason ARGUMENT 8. If none may be suspended from the Sacrament but those who are Excommunicated then none must be kept away but those who are contumacious But some may be kept away that are not Contumacious Ergo. THe Major is plaine 1. From Scripture Mat. 18. none must be accounted as an Heathen or a Publican but he who refuseth to heare the Church Thus also Divines generally determine So Bonaventure Estius Aquinas Suarez Durandus besides a numberlesse number of Protestant Divines The Minor only needs proofe 1. Surely those that are under admonition ought to be kept away though as yet they declare no Contumacy and it be uncertaine whether they will or no. 2. Suppose one should come to the Minister the morning he were to receive and blaspheme Christ and tell him he came for nothing but to abuse the Church ought this man to be admitted think we Suppose one should come drunke shall he be admitted Mr Humfry saies no what Mr Boatman thinks in that case I cannot tell if he shall not then there is Suspension distinct from Excommunication Suppose a Minister should know one of his Communicants had committed Murther Theft Incest Whoredom the night before according to M Boatmans Doctrine he must be admitted to the Lords Table for Suspension of any person not Excommunicated is a Pharisaicall dream Suppose a Minister upon examination found that his Communicant did not know whether Christ were God or Man a Man or a Woman nor any thing of the Story of the Gospell must he be admitted too He is neither Turke nor Jew nor Pagan nor Excommunicated person Ergo He is holy and must come A Doctrine sure that every one who hath any thing of God in him will see the folly and filth of and which no sober pious or learned man ever yet durst undertake to defend and it is a shame it should be named amongst Christians If profane Argument 9 scandalous persons though Circumcised and not cast out of the Jewish Church nor legally uncleane were yet to be debarred from some Ordinances and the Passeover then such though Baptized and not Excommunicated may be suspended from the Lords Supper But profane scandalous persons though Circumcised and not cast out of the Jewish Church nor