Supper the Disciples oâ—…ely Hence he inferreth Quare mysteria haec ad solos fideles pertinent Wherefore these mysteries do pertain to the faithful alone that is to those who are supposed to be converted and beleevers Vossius Disp. de Sacram. effic part poster After he hath observed two respects in which the Sacraments do excel the Word 1. That Infants who are not capable of hearing the Word are capable of the Sacrament of Baptisme and are brought to the laver of regeneration 2. That the Sacraments do visibly and clearly set before our eyes that which is invisible in the Word He adds Thes. 49. other two respects in which the Word doth far excel the Sacraments 1. That the Word can both beget confirm faith the Sacraments cannot beget faith in those that are come to age but onely conserve and increase it 2. That without the word we cannot be saved for he that beleeves not is condemned now faith commeth by hearing but the Sacraments though profitable means of grace yet are not simply necessary The confession of the faith of the Church of Scotland in the Article entituled to whom Sacraments appertain saith thus But the Supper of the Lord we confesse to appertain to such onely as be of the houshold of faith and can try and examine themselves as well in their faith as in thâ—…ir duty towards their neighbours The Belgick Confession Art 33. saith of the Sacraments in generall that God hath instituted them to seal his promises in us to be pledges of his love to us and to nourish and strengthen our Faith And Art 35. They plainly hold that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is intended and instituted by Christ for such as are already regenerate and are already quickned with the life of grace The Synod of Dort in their Judgement of the fifth Article of the Remonstrants Sect. 14. ascribeth both the inchoation and conservation of grace to the Word but ascribeth oâ—ely to the Sacraments the conserving continuing and perfecting of that begun grace In the Belgick form of the administration of the Lords Supper See Corpus Disciplinae lately published by the Ministers and Elders of the Dutch Church at London pag. 16. it is said thus Those which do not feel this Testimony in their hearts concerning their examining of themselves touching their repentance faith and purpose of true obedience they eat and drink judgement to themselves Wherefore we also according to the Commandement of Christ and the Apostle Paul do admonish all those who find themselves guilty of these ensuing sins to refrain from comming to the Lords Table and do denounce unto them that they have no part in the Kingdom of Christ. Here follows an enumeration of diverse scandalous sins concluded with this general and all those which lead a scandalous life All these as long as they continue in such sins shall refrain from this spiritual food which Christ onely ordained for his faithful people that so their â—…udgement and damnation may not be the greater Which plainly intimates that they hold this Sacrament to be a sealing not a converting Ordinance And this they also signifie Ibid. pag. 17. And to the end we may firmly beleeve that we do belong to this gracious Covenant the Lord Jesus in his last Supper took bread c. Paraeus puts this difference between the Word and Sacraments that the Word is a mean appointed both for beginning and confirming faith the Sacraments means of confirming it after it is begun That the Word belongs both to the converted and to the unconverted the Sacraments are intended for those who are converted and do beleeve and for none others And though the Lutherans make some controversie with us about the effect of the Sacraments yet Ioh. Gerhardus doth agree with us in this point that the Lords Supper is not a regenerating but a confirming and strengthening Ordinance and this difference he puts between it and Baptisme Walaeus asserteth both against Papists and against some of the Lutherans that Sacraments do instrumentally confirme and increase faith and regeneration but not begin nor work faith and regeneration where they are not Petrus Hinkelmannus de Anabaptismo Disp. 9. cap. 1. Error 6. disputeth against this as a Tenent of the Calviâ—…ists Fideles habent Spiritum S. habent res signatas ante Sacramenta the faithful have the holy Spirit they have the things which are sealed before they receive the Sacraments Brochmand System Theol. Tom. 3. de Sacram. Cap. 2. Quaest. 1. condemneth this as one of the Calvinian errors Sacramenta non esse gratiae conferendae divinituâ—… ordinata media that Sacraments are not instituted and appointed of God to be means of conferring or giving grace Which he saith is the assertion of Zuinglius Beza Danaeus Musculus Piscator Vorstius The Lutheran opinion he propounds ibid. quaest 6. that the Sacraments are means appointed of God to confer grace to give faith and being given to increase it Esthius in Sent. lib. 4. dist 1. Sect. 9. stateth the opinion of the Calvinists as he calls us thus justificationem usu Sacramenti esse priorem obtentam nimirum per fidem quâ homo jam ante credidit sibi remitti peccata Sacramentum verò postea adhiberi ut verbo quidem promissionis fides confirmetur elemento verò ceu sigillo quodam diplomati appenso eadem fides obsignetur atque ita per Sacramentum declaretur testatumque fiat hominem jam prius esse per fidem justicatum This he saith is manifestly contrary to the doctrine of the Church of Rome from which saith he the Lutherans do not so far recede as the Calvinists Gregorius de Valentia in tertiam partem Thomae Disp. 3. Quaest. 3. punct 1. thus explaineth the Tenent which he holdeth against the Protestants concerning the Sacraments giving of grace Sacramenta esse veras causas qualitatis gratia non principales sed instrumentales hoc ipso videlicet quod Deus illis utitur ad productionem illius effectus qui 〈◊〉 gratia tamet si supra naturam seu efficacitatem naturaleâ—… ipsorum The Papists dispute indeed what manner of casuality or vertue it is by which the Sacraments work grace whether Phisica or Ethica whether infita or adsita In which questions they do not all go one way See Gamachaeus in tertiam partem Tho. Quest. 62. Cap. 5. But that the Sacraments do work or give grace to all such as do not ponere obicem they all hold against the Protestants They dispute also whether all the Sacraments give the first grace or whether Baptisme and Pennance onely give the first habitual grace and the other five Sacraments as they make the number give increase of grace But in this they all agree that habitual grace is given in all the Sacraments of the New-Testament the Thomists hold further that the very first grace is de facto given in any of the Sacraments See for the
mayest Act. 10. 47. Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the holy Ghost as well as we Now if Baptisme it self which is the Sacrament of our initiation supposeth according to the tenor and meaning of Christs institution that the party baptized if of age doth actually convert and beleeve and if an infant supposeth an interest in Jesus Christ and in the Covenant of grace for if he be a child of an Heathen or an Infidel although taken into a Christian Family yet the Synod of Dort Sess. 19. adviseth not to baptize such a child till it come to such age as to be instructed in the principles of Christian Religion How much more doth the Lords Supper necessarily by Christs institution suppose that the receivers are not unconverted and unbeleeving persons The previous qualifications which are supposed in Baptisme must be much more supposed in the Lords Supper Thirdly That which gives us the new food supposeth that we have the new birth and spiritual life and that we are not still dead in sins and trespasses But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper gives us the new food Ergo it supposeth we have the new birth The proposition I prove thus A man must first be born by the new birth before he can be fed with the new food and how can a man eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ and yet be supposed not to have a spiritual life before that act but to get a spiritual life in that very act Doth a man get life because he eats and drinks or doth he not rather eat and drink because he lives The Assumption is a received and uncontroverted truth And hence do Divines give this reason why we are but once baptized but do many times receive the Lordâ— Supper because it is enough to be once born but not enough to be once nourished or strengthened See the Belgick confession Art 34. and D. Parei Miscellanea Catechetica pag. 79. I shall strengthen my Argument by the Confession of Bohemia Cap. 11. The Sacraments cannot give to any such which before was not inwardly quickened by the holy Ghost either grace or justifying and quickening faith and therefore they cannot justifie any man nor inwardly quicken or regenerate any mans Spirit for faith must go before And after For if a dead man or one that is unworthy do come to the Sacraments certainly they do not give him life and worthinesse c. See the Harmony of Confessions printed at London 1643. pag. 280. 281. To what end then is the Sacrament of the Lords Supper instituted For that see the Confession of Belgia Ibid. pag. 320. We beleeve and confesse that Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour hath instituted the holy Sacrament of his Supper that in it he might nourish and sustain those whom he hath regenerated and ingrafted into his Family which is the Church Both these Chapters did Mr. Prynn cite in the Question of Iudas which yet prove not what he affirmeth in that point as I have noted before but it seems he did not observe these passages which make directly against him in this Question of conversion or conferring of grace by the Sacrament I add also Mr. Pemble in his Christian disections for receiving the Sacrament The Sacrament saith he is appointed for our nourishment in grace where we grow not by it it is a signe this food was not digested but vomited up again Where faith repentance thankfulnesse and obedience are not increased there Christ crucified was not remembred But how can there be any nourishment in grace or any increase of grace in those who come to the Sacrament without the first grace or in the state of unregeneration Fourthly That Ordinance which is instituted onely for beleevers and justified persons is no converting but sealing Ordinance But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is instituted onely for beleevers and justified persons Ergo. The Proposition hath light enough in it self for converting Ordinances do belong even to unjustified and unconverted persons Therefore that which is instituted onely for beleevers is no converting Ordinance All the Question will be of the Assumption which I shall the rather confirm because it is the very principle from which Polanus and others argue for the suspension of scandalous persons from the Lords Table Now I prove the Assumption thus Every Sacrament even a Sacrament of initiation is a seal of the righteousnesse of Faith If Circumcision was a seal of the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 4. 11. then Baptisme which hath succeeded to Circumcision is also a seal of the righteousnesse of faith and that more fully and clearly then Circâ—mcision was and if Baptisme be a seal of the righteousnesse of faith much more is the Sacrament of the Lords Supper a seal of the righteousnesse of Faith which is also proved by Mat. 26. 28. For this is my blood of the new Covenant which is shed for many for the remission of sins Chrysostome on Rom. 4. considering those words vers 11. a seal of the righteousnesse of Faith hath this meditation upon it that a Sacrament is no signe no seal except where the thing is which is signified and sealed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For of what shall it be a signe or of what shall it be a seal when there is none to be sealed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For faith he if it be a signe of righteousnesse and thou hast not righteousnesse neither hast thou the signe If therefore a Sacrament be a seal of the righteousnesse of faith then it is instituted onely for beleevers and justified persons because to such onely it can seal the righteousnesse of faith Upon this ground saith Ursinus that the Sacraments are to the wicked and unbeleevers no Sacraments which agreeth with that Rom. 2. 25. If thou be a breaker of the Law thy Circumcision is made uncircumcisâ—…on Fifthly The Apostle argues that Abraham the father of the faithfull and whose justification is as it were a pattern of ours was not justified by Circumcision or as Aquinas confesseth upon the place that Circumcision was not the cause but the signe of Justification Rom. 4. 9. 10. 11. We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousnesse How was it then reckoned When he was in Circumcision or in uncircumcision Not in Circumcision but in uncircumcision And he received the signe of Circumcision a seal of the righteousnesse of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised If Abraham the father of the faithful got not so much as the Sacrament of initiation till after he was justified and sanctified how shall we think of receiving not onely the Sacrament of initiation but the Sacrament of spiritual nourishment while unjustified and unsanctified And if God did by his Word make a Covenant with Abraham before he received Circumcision the seal of that Covenant must it not much more be supposed that they are within the Covenant of grace
his place against the holy Ghost the said holy Spirit bearing the contrary record to his Conscience Testimonies taken out of the Harmony of the Confessions of the Faith of the 〈◊〉 Churches Râ—printed at London 1643. Pag. 238. Out of the confession of Helvetia FUrthermore there is another power of duty or ministerial power limited out by him who hath full and absolute power and authority And this is more like a Ministry then Dominion For we see that some master doth give unto the steward of his house authority and power over his House and for that cause delivereth him his keyes that he may admit or exclude such as his master will have admitted or excluded According to this power doth the Minister by his office that which the Lord hath commanded him to do and the Lord doth ratifie and confirm that which he doth and will have the deeds of his ministers to be acknowledged and esteemed as his own deeds unto which end are those speeches in the Gospel I will give unto thee the keyes of the Kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou bindest or loosest in earth shall be bound and loosed in heaven Again whose sins soever ye remit they shall be remitted and whose sins soever ye retain they shall be retained But if the minister deal not in all things as his Lord hath commanded him but passe the limits and bounds of Faith then the Lord doth make void that which he doth Wherefore the Ecclesiastical power of the Ministers of the Church is that function whereby they do indeed govern the Church of God but yet so as they do all things in the Church as he hath prescribed in his Word which thing being so done the faithful do esteem them as done of the Lord himself Pag. 250. Out of the confession of Bohemia THe 14th Chapter of Ecclesiastical doctrine is of the Lords keyes of which he saith to Peter I will give thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and these keyes are the peculiar function or Ministery and administration of Christ his power and his holy Spirit which power is committed to the Church of Christ and to the Ministers thereof unto the end of the world that they should not onely by preaching publish the holy Gospel although they should do this especially that is should shew forth that Word of true comfort and the joyful message of peace and new tydings of that favour which God offereth but also that to the beleeving and unbeleeving they should publikely or privately denounce and make known to wit to them his favour to these his wrath and that to all in general or to every one in particular that they may wisely receive some into the house of God to the communion of Saints and drive some out from thence and may so through the performance of their Ministery hold in their hand the Scepter of Christ his Kingdom and use the same to the government of Christ his Sheep And after Moreover a manifest example of using the power of the keyes is laid out in that sinner of Corinth and others whom St. Paul together with the Church in that place by the power and authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and of his Spirit threw out from thence and delivered to Sathan and contrariwise after that God had given him grace to repent he absolved him from his sins he took him again into the Church to the communion of Saints and Sacraments and so opened to him the Kingdom of Heaven again By this we may understand that these keyes or this divine function of the Lords is committed and granted to those that have charge of souls and to each several Ecclesiastical Societies whether they be smal or great Of which thing the Lord sayeth to the Churches Verily I say unto you whatsoever ye bind on earth shall be bound in heaven And straight after For where two or three are gathered together in my Name there am I in the middest of them Pag. 253. Out of the French Confession VVE beleeve that this true Church ought to be governed by that regiment or discâ—pline which our Lord Jesus Christ hath established to wit so that there be Pastors Elders and Deacons that the purity of doctrine may be retained vices repressed c. Pag. 257. Out of the Confession of Belgia VVE beleeve that this Church ought to be ruled and governed by that spiritual Regiment which God himself hath delivered in his word so that there be placed in it Pastors and Ministers purely to preach and rightly to administer the holy Sacraments that there be also in it Seniors and Deacons of whom the Senate of the Church might consist that by these means true Religion might be preserved and sincere doctrine in every place retained and spread abroad that vicious and wicked men might after a spiritual manner be rebuked amended and as it were by the bridle of discipline kept within their compasse Pag. 260. Out of the Confession of Auspurge AGain by the Gospel or as they term it by Gods Law Bishops as they be Bishops that is such as have the administration of the Word and Sacraments committed to them have no jurisdiction at all but onely to forgive sin Also to know what is true doctrine and to reject such Doctrine as will not stand with the Gospel and to debarre from the communion of the Church such as are notoriously wicked not by humane force and violence but by the word of God And herein of necessity the Churches ought by the law of God to perform obedience unto them according to the saying of Christ He that heareth you heareth me Upon which place the Observation saith thus To debar the wicked c. To wit by the judgement and verdict of the Presbyterie lawfully gathered together c. A Testimony out of the Ecclesiastical Discipline of the Reformed Churches in France Cap. 5. Art 9. THe knowledge of scandals and the censure or judgement thereof belongeth to the Company of Pastors and Elders Art 15. If it befalleth that besides the admonitions usually made by the Consistories to such as have done amisse there be some other punishment or more rigorous censure to be used It shall then be done either by suspension or privation of the holy communion for a time or by excommunication or cutting off from the Church In which cases the Consistories are to be advised to use all prudence and to make distinction betwixt the one and the other As likewise to ponder and carefully to examine the faults and scandals that are brought before them with all their circumstances to judge warily of the censure which may be required Harmonia Synodorum Belgicarum Cap. 14. Art 7. 8. 9. PEccata sua natura publica aut per admonitionis privatae contemtum publicata ex Consistorii totius arbitrio modo formâ ad aedificationem maximè accomodatis sunt Corrigenda Qui pertinaciter Consistorii admonitiones rejecerit à S. Coenae communione
kind can make the Sacrament a converting Ordinance 3. We must distinguish even in conversion between gratia praeveniens subsâ—…quens operans co-operans excitans adjuvans or rather between habitual and actual conversion Habitual conversion I call the first infusion of the life and habits of grace actual conversion is the souls beginning to act from that life and from those habits The first or habitual conversion in which the sinner is passive and not at all active it being wholy the work of preventing exciting quickning grace is that which never is to be looked for in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper which is enough to overthrow that opinion that scandalous impenitent sinners having an external formal profession but known by a wicked abominable conversation to be dead in sins and trespasses in whom the holy Ghost hath never yet breathed the first breath of the life of grace may be admitted to the Lords Supper if they desire it not being excommunicated upon hopes that it may prove a converting Ordinance to them As for gratia subsequens co-operans adjuvans by which the sinner having now a spiritual life created in him and supernatural habits infused in his soul is said actually to convert repent and beleeve I consider even in this actual conversion repenting beleeving these two things 1. The inchoation 2. The progresse of the work Where the work is begun if it were but faith like a grain of mustard seed and where there is any thing of conversion which is true and sound the Sacrament is a blessed powerful means to help forward the work But I peremptorily deny that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is appointed or instituted by Christ as a regenerating converting Ordinance as well as the word or as a means of beginning actual much lesse habitual conversion 4. When I hold the Lords Supper not to be a converting but a sealing Ordinance the meaning is not as if I beleeved that all who are permitted to come to the Lords Table are truly converted or that they are such as the seals of the Covenant of Grace do indeed and of right belong unto for we speak of visible Churches and visible Saints But my meaning is that Christ hath intended this Sacrament to be the childrens read onely though the hired servants of the house have other bread enough and to spare and he alloweth this portion to none but such as are already converted and do beleeve and that they who are the ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God ought to admit none to this Sacrament except such as are quallified and fit so far as can be judged by their profession knowledge and practice observed and examined by the Eldership according to the rules of the Word no humane court being infallible to have part and portion in the communion of Saints and to receive the seals of the Covenant of Grace at least that they may not dare to admit any man whose known and scandalous wickednesse continued in without signes of repentance saith within their heart that there is no fear of God before his eyes These things premised which are to be remembred by the Reader but need not be repeated by me as we go along I proceed to the Arguments which prove my assertion that the Lords Supper is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance And thereafter I shall answer Mr. Prynns Arguments brought to the contrary CHAP. XIII Twenty Aâ—guments to prove that the Lords Supper is not a converting Ordinance First THat which is an institute significant signe to declare and testifie the being of that thing which is thereby signified is not an operating cause or mean which makes that thing signified to begin to be where it was not But the Sacrament is an instituted signe to declare and testifie the being of that thing which is thereby signified Ergo This is an Argument used by Protestant writers against Papists The Sacraments being by their definition Signes are not causes of that which they signifie neither are the things signified the effects of the Sacraments Wherefore the Sacrament of the Lords Supper being a signe of our spiritual life faith union with Christ and remission of sins is not instituted to convey these spiritual blessings to such as have them not Significancy is one thing efficiency another You will say by this Argument there is no grace exhibited nor given to beleevers themselves in the Sacrament Answ. Growth in grace and confirmation of Faith is given to beleevers in the Sacrament which the significancy hinders not because the Sacrament doth not signifie nor declare that the receiver hath much grace and a strong faith but that he hath some life of grace and some faith The very state of grace or spiritual life regeneration faith and remission of sins are signified declared testified and sealed but not wrought or given in the Sacrament The strengthening of faith and a further degree of communion with Christ is not signified in the Sacrament I mean it s not signified that we have it but that we shall have it or at most that we do then receive it So that beleevers may truly be said to receive at the Sacrament a confirmation or strengthening of their faith or a further degree of communion with Christ but it cannot be said that the very Sacramental act of eating or drinking being a signe of spiritual life and union with Christ as that which we have not which we shall have or at that instant receive is a mean or instrumental cause to make a man have that which it testifieth or signifieth he hath already There is no evasion here for one who acknowledgeth the Sacrament to be a signe declaring or shewing forth that we have faith in Christ remission of sins by him and union with him Mr. Prynn must either make blank the signification of the Sacrament à parte ante though not à parte post or else hold that the signification of the Sacrament is not applicable to many of those whom he thinks fit to be admitted to receive it Secondly That which necessarily supposeth conversion and faith doth not work conversion and faith But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper necessarily supposeth conversion and faith Ergo. The proposition is so certain that either it must be yeelded or a contradiction must be yeelded for that which worketh conversion and faith cannot suppose that they are but that they are not Therefore that which supposeth conversion and faith cannot work conversion and faith because then the same thing should be supposed both to be and not to be The Assumption I prove from Scripture Mark 16. 16. He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved Act. 2. 38. Repent and be baptized vers 41. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized Act. 8. 36. 37. And the Eâ—…nuch said See here is water what doth hinder me to be baptized And Philip said If thou beleevest with all thinâ—… heart 〈◊〉
Lords Table unworthily and unpreparedly eats and drinks not having before rightly examined himself Ergo. What of that will you say Much to the point Every unconverted and unregenerate person is an unworthy person as the Scripture distinguisheth worthy persons and unworthy and comes unworthily and unpreparedly if he come while such to the Lords Table Therefore such a one if he come eats and drinks unworthily and so eats and drinks judgement to himself Augustine argueth promiscuously against those who come unworthily and those that eat and drink unworthily and applyeth the Apostles words of eating and drinking unworthily to all who come with polluted souls such as all unconverted have And Gualther Martyr and other Interpreters upon the place the Centurists also in the place last cited reckon those to eat and drink unworthily who come without the wedding garment and without faith and holinesse of conversation which intimateth that they who live unworthily do also eat the Lords Supper unworthily which is most plainly intimate in the Directory pag. 50. where ignorant scandalous and prophane persons are warned not to come to that holy Table upon this reason because he that eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgement to himself which necessarily implyeth that unworthy persons and prophane livers if they come to the Sacrament are not converted but sin more in eating and drinking unworthily I conclude therefore that the prohibition of eating and drinking unworthily doth necessarily imply a prohibition of unconverted unregenerate impenitent persons to come to the Lords Table and by consequence that it is no converting Ordinance Eleventhly That Ordinance which is Eucharistical and consolatory supposeth that such as partake of it have part and portion in that thing for which thanks are given and are such as are fit to be comforted But the Lords Supper is an Ordinance Eucharistical and consolatory Ergo. The Proposition needs no other proof but the third Commandement Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain Shall a man be called to give thanks for redemption reconciliation and remission of sins and to take comfort in Jesus Christ even while he is such a one of whom God hath said There is no peace to the wicked High talk becommeth not a fool Psal. 33. 1. Rejoyce in the Lord O ye righteous for praise is comely for the upright Psal. 50. 14. 16. Offer unto God thanksgiving c. But unto the wicked God saith What hast thou to do to declare my statutes or that thou shouldest take my Covenant in thy mouth The Assumption is acknowledged among all for as it hath the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so is the nature of it It is also a consolatory Ordinance in which we are called to spiritual joy and gladnesse it being a feast of fat things full of marrow and of wines on the lees well refined At this Ordinance of the holy Supper Christ spake many a sweet and consolatory word to the disciples and did not rebuke them nor chide them as he had done at other times Is it not then a healing slightly of the malady of impenitent unconverted sinners yea a betraying of their souls to bring them to joy and comfort and thanksgivings and songs of praise to eat of the marrow and fatnesse and to drink of the rivers of pleasure which are in the house of God when we ought rather call them to weeping and to mourning to make their peace with God and to flee from the wrath to come Twelfthly That Ordinance unto which Christ calleth none but such as have spiritual gracious qualifications is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance But the Lords Supper is an Ordinance unto which Christ calleth none but such as have spiritual and gracious qualifications Ergo. The Proposition I hope needs no proof because unconverted persons dead in sins and trespasses have no spiritual gracious qualifications The Assumption may be proved by many Scriptures If of any Ordinance chiefly of this it holds true that Christ inviteth and calleth none but such as labour and are heavie loaden Matth. 11. 28. such as are athirst for the water of life Iohn 7. 37. Isa. 55. 1. such as have the wedding garment Matth. 22. 12. such as examine themselves 1 Cor. 11. 28. such as are Christs friends Cant. 5. 1. Eat O friends drink yea drink abundantly O beloved Thirteenthly That Ordinance which is instituted for the Communion of Saints is intended onely for such as are Saints and not for unconverted sinners But the Lords Supper is an Ordinance instituted for the Communion of Saints and of those who are members of the same body of Christ 1 Cor. 10. 16. 17. compared with 1 Cor. 1. 2. Ergo. Martin Bucer de Regno Christi lib. 1. cap. 7. conceiveth that this Sacrament doth so far belong to the Communion of Saints that wicked and unworthy persons are not onely to be kept back from partaking but from the very beholding or being present in the Church at the giving of the Sacrament which yet is more then we have affirmed Fourteenthly If Baptisme it self at least when ministred to those that are of age is not a regenerating or converting Ordinance far lesse is the Lords Supper a regenerating or converting Ordinance But Baptisme it self at least when ministred to those that are of age is not a regenerating or converting Ordinance Ergo. The ground of the Proposition is because Baptisme hath a nearer relation to regeneration then the Lords Supper and therefore hath the name of the laver of regeneration The Assumption I prove thus 1. Because we read of no persons of age baptized by the Apostles except such as did professe faith in Christ gladly received the Word and in whom some begun work of the Spirit of grace did appear I say not that it really was in all but somewhat of it did appear in all 2. If the Baptisme of those who are of age be a regenerating Ordinance then you suppose the person to be baptized an unregenerated person even as when a Minister first preacheth the Gospel to Pagans he cannot but suppose them to be unregenerated But I beleeve no consciencious Minister would adventure to baptize one who hath manifest and infallible signes of unregeneration Sure we cannot be answerable to God if we should minister Baptisme to a man whose works and words do manifestly declare him to be an unregenerated unconverted person And if we may not initiate such a one how shall we bring him to the Lords Table Fifteenthly If the Baptisme even of those who are of age must necessarily precede their receiving of the Lords Supper then the Lords Supper is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance But the Baptisme even of those who are of age must necessarily precede their receiving of the Lords Supper Ergo. The Assumption is without controversie it being the order observed by Christ and by the Apostles and by all Christian Churches The Proposition I prove thus
the Apostles did Rom. 10. 18. Col. 1. 6. And if the Sacrament be a converting Ordinance for known impenitent scandalous prophane persons within the Church what reason is there imaginable why it is not also a converting Ordinance for Heathens Pagans Turks Jews Or where have we the least hint in Scripture that an Ordinance which may convert the prophanest unexcommunicated person within the Church cannot convert both Heathens and excommunicated Christians The Assumption I prove from Mr. Prynns own acknowledgement pag. 38. though the Sacrament saith he must not be administred to Heathens to whom the Gospel may and must be preached before they beleeve and professe Christ yet it must be administred to them as well as Baptisme after their beleef and profession of Christ. Where he clearly grants both Sacraments Baptisme and the Lords Supper to be onely sealing and confirming not converting Ordinances to Heathens and therefore not communicable to them till after they beleeve and professe Christ. Nineteenthly That Ordinance which is not communicable nor lawful to be administred to any known impenitent sinner under that notion but onely as penitent sinners truly repenting of their sins past is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is such Ergo. The Proposition I prove thus A converting Ordinance may be administred to known impenitent sinners under that notion or lookt upon as such wallowing in their blood and filthinesse Yea a converting Ordinance qua converting is not nor indeed can be administred to penitent sinners qua penitent or lookt upon as truly converted For as every effect is in order of nature posterior to its cause so a converting Ordinance being the instrumental cause of conversion regeneration and repentance it must needs be supposed that conversion and repentance doth not in order of nature precede but follow after the administration of the converting Ordinance The Assumption is granted by Mr. Prynn pag. 37. The Minister saith he doth not I suppose he will also say ought not administer the Sacrament to any known impenitent sinners under that notion but onely as penitent sinners truly repenting of their sins past and promising purposing to lead a new life for the future Therefore yet again by some of his own principles the Sacrament is not administred as instrumental to the first conversion of scandalous unworthy persons in the Church for where there is in any Ordinance an instrumental causality toward the conversion of a scandalous person that Ordinance must needs be administred to that person under the notion of an unconverted person and the effect of conversion lookt upon as consequent not as antecedent The twentieth Argument and the last is this As I have before shewed that Mr. Prynn in holding the Sacrament to be a converting Ordinance unto which unregenerate impenitent and unbeleeving persons not being excommunicated ought to be admitted doth joyn issue with Papists and dissenteth from the Protestant writers in a very special point and that the controversie draweth very deep So I will now make it to appear that he dissenteth as much from the Ancients in this particular Dionysius Areopagita de Eccles. Hierarch Cap. 3. Part. 3. speaking of the nature of this Ordinance of the Lords Supper tells us that it doth not admit those scandalous sinners who were in the condition of penitents before they had fully manifested their repentance much lesse prophane and unclean persons in whom no signe of repentance appeareth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not admitting him who is not altogether most holy Just in Martyr Apol. 2. lets us know that in his time the Lords Supper was given to none but to such a person as was lookt upon as a beleever and washed in the laver of regeneration and lived according to the rule of Christ. Chrysostome Hom. 83. in Matth. Augustine de side operibus Cap. 18. Isidorus Pelusiota lib. 1. Epist. 143. and others might be here added But I shall bring their full testimonies chap. 17. where I will shew Antiquity to be for the suspension of scandalous persons unexcommunicated Beside these I add also Beda upon 1 Cor. 11. who tells us both out of Augustine and Prosper that none ought to come to the Lords Table but a justified person and such a one as abideth in Christ and Christ in him Isidorus de Ecclesiast offic lib. 1. Cap. 18. citing the Apostles words He that eateth and drinketh unworthily addeth For this is to receive unworthily if any man receive at that time in which he should be repenting The same words hath Rabanus Maurus de Instit. Cleric lib. 1. cap. 31. Which plainly sheweth us that in their Judgement the Sacrament of the Lords Supper doth suppose conversion and repentance to be already wrought and if it be not wrought the receiving is an unworthy receiving Moreover that the Lords Supper was not anciently esteemed a converting Ordinance but a sealing Ordinance supposing conversion is more then apparent by the distinction of Missa Catechumenorum and Missa fidellum and by that proclamation in the Church before the Sacrament Sancta Sanctis the sence whereof Durantus de ritibus lib. 2. cap. 55. num 15. giveth out of Chrysostome and Cyrill that Sancta Sanstis was as much as to say Si quis non est sanctus non accedat If any man be not holy let him not approach Or as if it had been said to them The Sacrament is a holy thing sancti vos cum sitis sancto Spiritu donati and seeing you also are holy the holy Spirit being given unto you atque ita sancta sanctis conveniant and so holy things agreeing to holy persons If the Lords Supper be a holy thing intended onely for holy persons then sure it is no converting Ordinance I might also cite divers School-men against Mr. Prynn in this particular I shall instance but in two for the present Scotus in lib. 4. Sent. dist 9. Quaest. 1. proveth from 1 Cor. 11. 27. that it is a mortal sin for a man to come to the Sacrament at that time when he is living in a mortal sin and that he who is not spiritually a member of Christ ought not to receive the Sacrament which is a signe of incorporation into Christ. Alexander Alensis part 4. Quaest. 11. Membr 2. Art 2. Sect. 2. saith thus As there is a double bodily medicine curativa conservativa one for cure another for conservation so there is a double spiritual medine to wit curativa conservativa one for cure another for conservation repentance for the cure the Eucharist for conservation c. CHAP. XIIII Mr. Prynne his twelve Arguments brought to prove that the Lords Supper is a converting Ordinance discussed and answered IT shall be now no hard businesse to answer Mr. Prynns twelve Arguments brought by him to refute my assertion that that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is no converting Ordinance See Vindic. pag. 41. to 45. First he tells us we grant
bondage Grotius his Interpretation of the word Church not inconsistent with ours Divers Authors of the best note for our Interpretation that is that by the Church here is meant the Elders of the Church assembled The name of the Church given to the Elders for four considerations CHAP. VI. Of the power of binding and loosing Matth. 18. 18. OUr Opposites extreamly difficulted and divided in this point Binding and loosing both among Hebrews Grecians authoritative forensicall words Antiquity for us which is proved out of Augustine Hierome Ambrose Chrysostome Isidorus Pelusiota Hilary Theophylact. That this power of binding and loosing belongeth neither to private persons nor to civill Magistrates but to Church officers and that in reference 1. to the bonds of sinne and iniquity 2. To the dogmaticall decision of controversies concerning the will of Christ. That this power of binding and loosing is not meerely doctrinall but juridicall or forensicall and meant of inflicting or taking off Ecclesiasticall censure This cleared by the coherence and dependency between verse 17. and 18 which is asserted against M. Prynne and further confirmed by eleven reasons In which the agreement of two on earth verse 19. the restriction of the rule to a brother or Church-member also Matth 16. 19. John 20. 23. Psalm 149. 6 7 8 9. are explained Another Interpretation of the binding and loosing that it is not exercised about persons but about things or Doctrines confuted by â—ive reasons How binding and loosing are acts of the power of the Keys as well as shutting and opening CHAP. VII That 1 Cor. 5. proveth Excommunication and bâ— a necessary consequence even from the Erastian Interpretation Suspension from the Sacrament of a person un excommunicated THe weight of our proofs not laid upon the phrase of delivering to Sathan Which phrase being set aside that Chapter will prove Excommunication verse 8. Let us keepe the Passeover c. applied to the Lords Supper even by M. Prynne himselfe Master Prynnes first exception from 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. 11. 20 21. concerning the admission of all the visible members of the Church of Corinth even drunken persons to the Sacrament answered His second a reflection upon the persons of men His third concerning these words No not to eate confuted Hence Suspension by necessary consequence His fourth exception taken off His three conditions which he requireth in Arguments from the lesser to the greater are false and doe not hold Our Argument from this Text doth not touch upon the rock of separation Eight considerations to prove an Ecclesiasticall censure and namely excommunication from 1 Cor. 5. compared with 2 Cor. 2. More of that phrase to deliver such a one to Sathan CHAP. VIII Whether Judas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper THe Question between M. Prynne me concerning Iudas much like unto that between Papists and Protestants concerning Peter Two things premised 1. That Matthew and Marke mentioning Christs discourse at Table concerning the Traytor before the Institution and distribution of the Lords Supper place it in its proper order and that Luke placeth it after the Sacrament by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or recapitulation which is proved by â—ive reasons 2. That the story Iohn 13. concerning Iudas and the sop was neither acted in Bethany two daies before the Passeover nor yet after the Institution of the Lords Supper The first Argument to prove that Iudas received not the Lords Supper from Ioh. 13. 30. he went out immediately after the sop Mr Prynnes foure answers confuted His opinion that Christ gave the Sacrament before the common supper is against both Scripture and Antiquity Of the word immediately The second Argument from Christs words at the Sacrament That which M. Prynne holds viz. that at that time when Christ infallibly knew Iudas to be lost he meant conditionally that his body was broken and his blood shed for Iudas confuted by three reasons The third Argument from the different expressions of Love to the Apostles with an exception while Iudas was present without an exception at the Sacrament M. Prynnes Arguments from Scripture to prove that Iudas did receive the Sacrament answered That Iudas received the Sacrament is no indubitable verity as Mr. Prynne cals it but hath been much controverted both among Fathers Papists and Protestants That the Lutherans who are much of M. Prynnes opinion in the point of Iudas his receiving of the Lords Supper that they may the better uphold their Doctrine of the wicked their eating of the true body of Christ yet are much against his opinion in the point of admitting scandalous persons not Excommunicated to the Sacrament M. Prynnes bold assertion that all the Ancients except Hilary onely doe unanimously accord that Iudas received the Lords Supper without one dissenting voyce disproved as most false and confuted by the testimonies of Clemens Dionysius Areopagita Maximus Pachymeres Ammonius Alexandrinus Tacianus Innocentius 3. Rupertus Tuitiensis yea by those very passages of Theophylact and Victor Antiochenus cited by himselfe Many moderne writters also against his opinion as of the Papists Salmeron Turrianus Barradius of Protestants Danaeus Kleinwitzius Piscator Beza Tossanus Musculus Zanchius Gomarus Diodati Grotius The testimonies cited by M. Prynne for Iudas his receiving of the Sacrament examined some of them found false others prove not his point others who thinke that Iudas did receive the Sacrament are cleare against the admission of known prophane persons The confession of Bohemia and Belgia not against us but against Master Prynne CHAP. IX Whether Judas received the Sacrament of the Passeover that night in which our Lord was betrayed THat Christ and his Apostles did eate the Passeover not before but after that Supper at which he did wash his Disciples feet and give the sop to Iudas These words before the Feast of the Passeover Joh. 13. 1. scanned The Jewes did eate the Passeover after meale but they had no meale after the Paschall supper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ioh. 13. 2. needeth not be turned supper being ended but may suffer two other readings Christs sitting down with the twelve is not meant of the Paschall supper and if it were it proves not that Iudas did eate of that Passeover more than 1 Cor. 15. 5. proves that Iudas did see Christ after his resurrection A pious observation of Cartwright Another of Chrysostome CHAP. X. That if it could be proved that Judas received the Lords Supper it maketh nothing against the Suspension of known wicked persons from the Sacrament CHrists admitting of Iudas to the Sacrament when he knew him to be a divell could no more be a president to us then his choosing of Iudas to be an Apostle when he knew also that he was a divell Iudas his sinne was not scandalous but secret at that time when it is supposed that he did receive the Sacrament The same thing which M. Prynne makes to have been after the Sacrament to prove that Iudas did receive the Sacrament
is misapplied by him His tenth concerning the ends of the Sacrament yeeldeth the cause and mireth himselfe His eleventh a grosse petitio principii His twelfth appealing to the experience of Christians rectified in the state and repelled for the weight That this debate concerning the nature end use and effect of the Sacrament doth clearely cast the ballance of the wholecontroversie concerning Suspension Lucas Osiander cited by M. Prynne against us is more against himselfe CHAP. XV. Whether the admission of scandalous and notorious sinners to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper be a pollution and prophanation of that holy Ordinance And in what respects it may be so called THe true state of this Question cleared by five distinâ—ions Nine Arguments to prove the affirmative That the admitting of the scandalous and prophane to the Sacrament gives the lie to the word preached and looseth those whom the word binddeth That it is a strengthning of the hands of the wicked T is a prophanation of Baptisme to baptise a Catechumene Jew or a Pagan being of a known prophane life although he were able to make confession of the true faith by word of mouth That such as are found unable to examine themselves whether through naturall or sinfull disability or manifestly unwilling to it ought not to be admitted to the Lords Supper The reason for keeping backe children and fooles holds stronger for keeping back known prophane persons Hag. 2. 11 12 13 14. explained A debate upon Matth. 7. 6. Give not that which is holy to dogs c wherein M. Prynne is confuted from Scripture from Antiquity from Erastus also and Grotius CHAP. XVI An Argument of Erastus drawn from the Baptisme of John against the excluding of scandalous sinners from the Lords Supper examined THat Iohn baptised none but such as confessed their sinnes and did outwardly appeare penitent T is a great question whether those Pharisees who came to his Baptisme Matth. 3. were baptised The coincidency of that story Matth. 3. with the message of the Pharisees to Iohn Baptist Ioh. 1. The Argument retorted CHAP. XVII Antiquity for the Suspension of all scandalous persons from the Sacrament even such as were admitted to other publique Ordinances Oâ— the foure degrees of Penitents in the ancient Church and of the Suspension of some unexcommunicated persons from the Lords Supper who did joyn with the Church in the hearing of the word and prayer Proved out of the ancient Canons of the Councels of Ancyra Nice Arles the sixth and eighth General Councels out of Gregorius Thaumaturgus and Basilius Magnus confirmed also out of Zonaras Balsamon Albaspinâ—…us The Suspension of all sorts of scandalous sinners in the Church from the Sacrament further confirmed out of Isidorus Pelusiota Dionysius Areopagita with his Scholiast Maximus and his paraphrast Pachimeres Also out of Cyprian Justin Martyr Chrysostome Ambrose Augustine Gregorius Magnus Walafridus Strabo CHAP. XVIII A discovery of the instability and loosenesse of M. Prynne his principles even to the contradicting of himselfe in twelve particulars AN Argument hinted by M. Prynne from the gathering together all guests to the wedding Supper both bad and good examined and foure answers made to it That M. Prynne doth professe and pretend to yeeld the thing for which his Antagonists contend with him but indeed doth not yeeld it his Concessions being clogged with such things as do evacuate and frustrate all Church Discipline That M. Prynne contradicteth himselfe in twelve particulars Foure Counter-quaerees to him A discourse of M. Fox the Author of the Booke of Martyrs concerning three sorts of persons who are unwilling that there should be a Discipline or power of Censures in the Church The Names of Writers or Workes cited and made use of in this Tractate IS Abrabanel Melchier Adamus Ainsworth Aeschines Albaspinaeus Albinus Flaccus Alcuinus Alex. Alensis Algerus Ambrosius Ambrose the Monke Ammonius Alexandrinus Ampsinâ—ius Dutch Annotations English Annotations Apollâ—nius Aquinas Arabick N. T. Aretius Arias Montanus Aristótle Arnobius Irish Articles of faith Augustinus Azorius B BAlsamon Io. Baptista derubcis Baronius Basilius Magnus M r Bayne Becanus Becmanus Beda Bellarmine Bertramus Beza Bilson Brentius Brochmand Brughton Mart. Bucerus Gers. Bucerus Budoeus Bullingâ—r Buxtorff C CAbeljavius Cajetanus Calvin I. Camero Camerarius Canons of the African Church L. Capellus D. Carthusianus Cartwright I. Casaubon The Magdeburgian Centurists Chaldee Paraphrase Chamiâ—rus Chemnitius Chrysostomus D. Chytraeus Is. Clarus Fr. à S. Clara Clemens Clemens Alexandrinus Nic. de Clemangis Iudocus Clichtoveus I. Cloppenburgius I. Coch M r Coleman Aâ—gid de Coninck Barthol Coppen Balthasar â—orderius Corpus Disciplinae M r Cotoon Tomes of Councels Richardus Cowsin Cyprian Cyrill D DAnâ—us R. David Ganz Demosâ—henes M. David Dickson Didoclavius Lud. de Dieu Mich. Dilherrus Diâ—dati The Directory of both Kingdomes Dioâ—yfins 〈◊〉 Synâ—d of Dort Iesuits of Doway I. Drusius Duâ—renus Durandus Duranâ—s E ELias R. Eliâ—ser C â— Empereur Erastus Erasmus C. Espenâ—us Esâ—ius Euthymius Aben Ezra F FAâ—ritius M r Fox Ch. Francken Hist. of the troubles at Franckeford The Disciplin of the reformed Churches of Franâ— D r Fulkâ— G P. Galatinus Phil. Gamachaeus Gelenius Laws and Statuâ—es of Genevah Genebrardus Geo. Genzius I. â—rhardus Gesnerus Sâ—l Glassius Godwyn Gomarus Gorranus Gregorius Magnus Gregorius Thaumaturgus Professors of Groning Grotius Gualther H HArmony of confessions Harmonia Synoderâ—n Belgicarum Haymo Helmichius Hemmiugius Heshusius Hesychius Hierâ— Hilarius M. Hildersham P. Hinkelmannus Fraâ— Holy-Oke 〈◊〉 Honnius Hâ—go de S. Uictâ—re Hugâ— Cardiâ—lis L. Humfredus Aegid Hâ—ius M. Hussey Hutterus I KIng Iames Iansenâ—us I'lyricus Iâ—nocentius 3. Iosephus Iosuae levitae Halichoth Olam Isidorus Hispâ—lensis Isidorus 〈◊〉 Iulius Caesar Fr. Iunius Iustinus Martyr K KEâ—erm â—nnus D r Kâ—llet C. Kirâ—erus L COrn a Lapide Lavater Laurentius de la barre M r Leigh Nieolaus Lambardus Lorinus Lutheâ—us Lyrâ— M MAccovius Maimonides Maldonat Manâ—sseh Ben. Israel Conciliaâ—or Marianae Marlorat Martial M. Martinius P. Martyr Maximus Medina Meisnerus Menochius Mercerus P. Maulin Munsterus Musculus N G. Nazianzen I. Newenklaius Nonnus Novarinus O OEcumenius Origen Luc. Osiander P PAchymeres M r Paget Pagnin Paraeus Parker Pasor Pelargus Pellicanus Pemble Philo the Iew Piscator Plato Polanus M r Prynne R RAbanus Maurus Raynolds The Remonstranâ—s Revius Rittangelius D. Rivetus Rupertus Tuitiensis M. Rutherfurd S EManuel Sa Salmasius Salmeron M. Salâ—marsh Sanctius Saravia I. Scaliger Scapula Schindlerus Ionas Schlichtingius The Booke of Discipline of Scotland Scotus Subtilis M. Selden The 〈◊〉 â—eius F. Socinâ—s â—ipingius Fr. Spanbemiâ—t Spelman Stegmannus Strigelius Suarez Suidas Suâ—livius Syariacâ— N. T. T TAcianus The Talmud Tannerus Tertullian Theodoretus Theophylactus Tilenus Tirinus Titus Bostrorum Episcapus Toletus Tostatus Tossanus Trelcatius Triglandius Tully W WAlaeus Walafridus Strabo M r Io. Welsh Mr Iohn Weyâ—es of Craigton Mr Iohn Weimes of Lathoâ—ker Westhemerus Whitgift Whittakerus Willet I. Winkelmannus Wolphius V GR. de Valentia Vatablus Uazquez Uedelius Uictor Antiochenus
Law but Gods owne Law which the Priests and Levites were to expound So that it was proper for that time and there is not the like reason that the Ministers of Jesus Christ in the New Testament should judge or rule in civill affairs nay it were contrary to the rule of Christ and his Apostles for us to do so yet the Levites their judging and governing in all the bufines of the Lord is a patterne left for the entrusting of Church officers in the New Testament with a power of Church government there being no such reason for it as to make it peculiar to the old Testament and not common to the New The fourth Scripture which proves an Ecclesiasticall government and Sanhedrin is 2 Chro. 19. 8 10 11. where Iehoshaphat restoreth the same Church government which was first instituted by the hand of Moses and afterward ordered and setled by David Moreover saith the Text in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set of the Levites and of the Priests and of the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel for the judgement of the Lord and for controversies c. It is not controverted whether there was a civill Sanhedrin at Ierusalem but that which is to be proved from the place is an Ecclesiasticall Court which I prove thus Where there is a Court made up of Ecclesiasticall members judging Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall causes for a Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall end moderated by an Ecclesiasticall president having power ultimately and authoritatively to determine causes and controversies brought before them by appeale or reference from inferiour Courts and whose sentence is put in execution by Ecclesiasticall officers There it must needs be granted that there was a supream Ecclesiasticall court with power of Government But such a Court we finde at Ierusalem in Iehoshaphats time Ergo. The Proposition I suppose no man wil deny For a Court so constituted so qualified and so authorised is the very thing now in debate And he that will grant us the thing which is in the assumption shall have leave to call it by another name if he please The assumption I prove by the parts 1. Here are Levites and Priests in this Court as members thereof with power of decisive suffrage and with them such of the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel as were joyned in the government of that Church Whence the Reverend and learned Assembly of Divines and many Protestant Writers before them have drawn an argument for Ruling Elders And this is one of the Scriptures alledged by our Divines against Bellarmin to prove that others beside those who are commonly but corruptly called the Clergy ought to have a decisive voyce in Synods 2. Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall causes were here judged which are called by the name of the judgement of the Lord V. 8. and the matters of the Lord distinguished from the Kings matters V. 11. so V. 10. beside controversies between blood and blood that is concerning consanguinity and the interpreting of the Laws concerning forbidden degrees in marriage it being observed by interpreters that all the lawfull or unlawfull degrees are not particularly expressed but some onely and the rest were to be judged of by parity of reason and so it might fall within the cognizance of the Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin Though it may be also expounded otherwise between blood and blood that is Whether the murther was wilfull or casuall which was matter of fact the cognisance whereof belonged to the civill Judge It is further added between Law and Commandement Statutes and Judgements noting seeming contradictions between one Law and another such as Manasseb Ben Israel hath spoken of in his Conciliator or when the sence and meaning of the Law is controverted which is not matter of fact but of right wherein speciall use was of the Priests whose lips should preserve knowledge and the Law was to be sought at his mouth Aâ—…al 2. 7. and that not onely ministerially and doctrinally but judicially and in the Sanhedrin at Ierusalem such controversies concerning the Law of God were brought before them as in 2 Chro. 19. the place now in hand Yea shall even warn them c. Which being spoken to the Court must be meant of a synedricall Decree determining those questions and controversies concerning the Law which should come before them As for that distinction in the Text of the Lords matters and the Kings matters Erastus page 274. saith that by the Lords matters is meant any cause expressed in the Law which was to be judged Whereby he takes away the distinction which the Text makes for in his sence the Kings matters were the Lords matters Which himselfe it seems perceiving he immediately yeeldeth our interpretation that by the Lords matters are meant things pertaining to the worship of God and by the Kings matters civill things Si per illas libet res ad cultum Dei spectantes per haec res civiles accipere non pugnabo If you please saith he by those to understand things pertaining to the worship of God by these civill things I will not be against it 3. It was for a Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall end ye shall even warne them that they trespasse not against the Lord. It s not said against one another but against the Lord for two reasons 1. Because mention had been made of the Commandements Statutes and Iudgements after the generall word Law V. 10. by which names Interpreters use to understand both in this and many other places of Scripture the Lawes morall Ceremoniall and Judiciall Now the case to be judged might be part of the Ceremoniall Law having reference to God and his Ordinances and not part of the Judiciall law or any injury done by a man to his neighbour And in referâ—nce to the morall Law it might â—e a trespasse against the first Table not against the second 2. Even in the case of a personall or civill injury or whatsoâ—ver the controversie was that was brought before them they were to warn the Judges in the Cities not to trespasse against the Lord by mistaking or mis-understanding the Law or by righting mens wrongs so as to wrong Divine right And for that end they were to determine the Ius and the intendment of the law when it was controverted 4. Whatsoever cause of their brethren that dwelt in the Cities should come unto them V. 10. whether it should come by appeale or by reference and arbitration this Court at Ierusalem was to give out an ultimate and authoritative determination of it So that what was brought from inferiour courts to them is brought no higher to any other Court 5. This Court had an Ecclesiasticall Prolocutor or moderator V. 11. Amariah the chiefe Priest is over you in all matters of the Lord Whereas Zebadiah the Ruler of the house of Iudah was Speaker in the civill Sanhedrin for all the Kings matters Amariah and Zebadiah were not onely with the Sanhedrin as members or as Councellors but over them as Presidents Eis summos Magistratus
Ierem. 7. against those who bought and sold in the Temple Matth. 21. 12 13. he makes it cleare that the Temple was made a den of robbers not onely as it was made a place of gaine or a den where the robbers prey lies but even as it was a receptacle of the robbers or theeves themselves therefore he is not contented with the overthrowing of the Tables of money-changers and the seats of them that sold Doves but he did also cast out all them that sold and bought in the Temple that is he would neither suffer such things nor such persons in the Temple yea though it was onely in the utmost Court or the Court of the Gentiles as Grotius and M r Selden thinke how much lesse would he have suffered such persons in the Court of Israel Philo the Jew doth also apply what is said in the Prophets of Gods hating the Sacrifices of the wicked even to the excluding of prophane men from the Temple M r. Selden de jure nat Gent. lib. 4. cap. 5. doth so explaiue that casting out of the buyers and sellers out of the Temple that the argument in hand is not a little strengthned thereby He saith truly that those who were cast out had polluted and profaned that holy place ideo ipsi ut qui tum criminis aliorum participes tum suo infames pariter sie Templum seu montis Templi locum illum ipsis permissum profanabant ejiciendi He holdeth also that this which Christ did was done ex jure patrio to wit ex Zelotarum jure and that else it had been challenged by the Priests and Scribes if it had been contrary to the law or custome Zelots that is private persons zealously affected were permitted to scourge wound yea kill such as they saw publiquely committing atrocious wickednesse by which the holinesse either of the name of God or of the Temple or of the Nation of the Jewes was violated So M r. Selden sheweth out of the Talmudists Ib. cap. 4. Now saith he Zelotarum jure our Saviour though a private person for so he was lookt upon by the Priests and Scribes did scourge and cast out the buyers and sellers If so then certainly such wicked and abominable persons were not allowed to come to the Temple and if they did they ought to have been judicially and by authority cast out for that which was permitted to private persons in the executing of justice or inflicting of punishment out of their zeale to the glory of God was much more incumbent to such as had authority in their hands for correcting and removing the prophanation of the Temple in an authoritative judiciall and orderly way 4. The Levites had a charge to let none that were uncleane in any thing enter into the Temple 2 Chron. 23. 19. Now this is like that 1 Cor. 5. 11. with such a one no not to eate an argument from the deniall of that which is lesse to the deniall of that which is more So here it was a necessary consequence If those that were ceremonially uncleane were to be excluded from the Temple much more those who were morally or impiously uncleane For 1. the legall uncleannesse did signifie the sinfull uncleannesse and the exclusion of those that were known to be legally uncleane from the Temple did signifie the excluding of those who are knowne to be grossely and notoriously uncleane in their life and conversation Which shall be abundantly confirmed afterwards Therefore Bertramus de Rep. Ebr. cap. 7. saith rightly that the Levites had a charge to keepe from the Temple the uncleane aut etiam alio quovis modo indignos or those also who were any otherwaies unworthy 2. Godwyn in his Moses and Aaron lib. 5. cap. 2. makes a comparison betweene the three degrees of the Jewish excommunication and the three degrees of excluding the uncleane Numb 5. 2. which parallel if we please to make then as for any of the three sorts of uncleannesse the touch of the dead issue or leprosie a man was excluded from the campe of God or the Sanctuary so it will follow that even those who were cast out by the Niddui or lowest degree of Excommunication were foâ— a time suspended from communion with the Church in the Ordinances 3. The Levites were appointed to put a difference not onely betweene the cleane and the uncleane but betweene the holy and unholy Levit. 10. 10. or betweene the holy and profane Ezech. 22. 26. 44. 23. By cleane and uncleane I understand persons or things that were ceremonially such by holy and prophane persons that were morally such 5. I prove the same point from Psalm 118. 19 20. open to me the gates of righteousnesse I will goe into them and will praise the Lord. This gate of the Lord into which the righteous shall enter The Chaldee saith The gate of the house of the Sanctuary of the Lord. The gates of Gods Sanctuary are called gates of righteousness saith Ainsworth on the place because onely the just and cleane might enter into them We read also that it was written over the gates of some of the Jewish Synagogues This is the gate of the Lord into which the righteous shall enter Vatablus upon this place thinks that David speakes by way of antithesis to the former pollution of the Sanctuary by Saul and other wicked persons who by comming to the house of God had made it a denne of thieveâ— But now the righteous shall enter in it The righteous â—…on to such saith Diâ—…dati and 〈◊〉 to prophane persons it belongeth to enter in there 6. The same thing may be proved from Psalm 15. 1. Lord who shall abide in thy Tabernacle who shall dwell in thy holy hill He that walketh uprightly and worketh righteousnesse c. I know the chiefe intendment of God in this place is to describe such a one as is a true member of the Church invisible and shall enter into the Heavenly Ierusalem But certainly there is an allusion to the Sanctuary and the holy hill thereof in Ierusalem as to the type of that which is Spiriuall and eternall which Iansenius upon the place noteth and the Prophet here teacheth the people so to looke upon those offences for which men were excluded from the Sanctuary as to learne what kind of persons are true members of the Church and who not who shall be allowed to communâ—cate in all the Ordinances of the new Testament and who not who shall be received into everlasting life and who not and thus by the type he holds forth the thing tipyfied Gesnerus upon the place thinkes that communion with the Church in this world is meant in the first words Lord who shall sojourne so the word is jagur in the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek in thy Tabernacle the name of Tabernacle fitly expressing the moveable and military estate of the Church in this world and that reception into the Church Triumphant is meant in
the following words who shall dwell in thy holy hill which noteth a permanent and durable estate The Chaldee Paraphrase expoundeth the whole of such as were thought worthy to be admitted into the house of the Lord thus Lord who is worthy to abide in thy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and who shall be worthy to sojourne in the mountaine of the house of thy holinesse So Psalm 24. 3. the Chaldâ— readeth thus Who shall be worthy to ascend unto the mountaine of the house of the Sanctuary of the Lord So that the thing alluded unto in both these places is that the Priests and Levites did admit 〈◊〉 to the Sanctuary but such as had the markes or characters there enumerated so farre as men can â—udge of these markes that is so faâ—e as they are externall and discernable 7. The same thing seemeth also to be alluded unto Psalm 50. 16. Unto the wicked the Chaldee addes that repenteth not and prayeth in his transgression God saith what hast thou to doe to declare my Statutes or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth It is spoken to a scandalous prophane man Vers. 18 19 20. who yet will needs take upon him a forme of godlinesse Where Philo the Jew speakes of him that blasphemed the name of the Lord he addeth that it was not lawfull for all men to name the name of God no not for Honour or Religions sake but onely for good and holy men And this gives me occasion to adde in conclusion a further confirmation out of the Hebrew Doctors They held that an Israelite turning an Hereticke that is denying any of their thirteen fundamentall Articles to be as an Heathen man and did therefore permit a Jew to lend to him upon usury even as to an Heathen M. Selden de Jure nat Gentium lib. 6. cap. 10. They held that such a one an hereticall Israelite had no communion with the Church of Israel See Tzemach David translated by Hen. Vorstius pag. 67. Abrabanel de capite fidei cap. 3. dub 5. Ib. cap. 6. They esteemed an hereticall Jew more hereticall then a Christian and did excommunicate him even summarily and without previous admonition See Buxtorf lexic. Chald. Talm. Rabbin pag. 195. Moses Maimonides de fundam legis cap. 6. sect 10. tels us that if an Epicurean Israelite had written a coppy of the booke of the Law it was to be burnt with the name of that Epicurean wretch because he had not done it holily nor in the name of God They who did imagine the Scripture it selfe to be polluted and prophaned when it came thorough the hands of an Epicurean or Hereticall Israelite no doubt they thought the Temple polluted and prophaned if such a one should be suffered to come and worship in it From all which it appeareth how much reason L'Empereur had to say that they did not admit an Heretick into the inner part of the Intermurale or that part of the Temple which divided between the Israelites and Heathens If any man shall aske what I meane to inferre from all this Must all prophane persons be kept back from our 〈◊〉 â—s and publike Assemblies and so from hearing the word I answer God forbid The Analogy which I understand is to hold between the Jewish and Christian Church is this As prophane persons were forbidden to enter into the Temple because of the sacramentall and typicall holinesse thereof for the Temple was a Type of Christ so prophane persons are now much more to be kept back from the Sacrament of the Lord Supper which hath more of Sacramentall signification mystery and holinesse in it then the Temple of Ierusalem had and whereby more ample Evangelicall promises are set forth and sealed unto us And as prophane persons might of old come into the Court of the Gentiles and there heare the word preached in Solomons Porch where both Christ and his Apostles did Preach Io. 10. 23. Act 3. 11. Act. 5. 12. which Porch was in the utmost Court That is the Court of the Gentiles of which else-where out of Iosephus but might not come into the Court of Israel nor have communion in the Sacrifices so prophane obstinate sinners are to be excluded for their impiety from the Church communion of Saints though they may heare the word as Heathens also may doe Now that the Temple of Ierusalem had a Typicall Sacramentall resemblance of Christ may appear plainly in divers particulars 1. As the glory of the Lord dwelt in the Temple within the oracle above the Arke and the Mercy seat and at the dedication of the Temple the cloud of the glory of the Lord did visibly fill the whole house so in Christ the fulnesse of the God-head dwells bodily as the Apostle speakes 2. As the great God whom the heavens of heavens cannot containe was yet pleased to dwell on earth by putting his name in that place so notwithstanding of the infinite distance between God and man yet they are brought neer each to other to have fellow-ship together in Jesus Christ. 3. God revealed his will that he would accept no Sacrifices from his people but in the Temple onely after it was built So God hath revealed his will that 〈◊〉 spirituall Sacrifices cannot be acceptable to him except in Jesus Christ onely 4. The people of God were bound to set their Faces toward the Temple of Hierusalem when they prayed 1. Kings 8. 30. 48. Dan. 6. 10. So are we bound in Prayer to looke toward Jesus Christ with an eye of faith 5. As there was an ample promise of God to heare the Prayers which should be made in that place 2. Chro. 7. 15 16. so hath God promised to heare us and accept us if we seeke unto him in and through Jesus Christ. 6. God said of the Temple mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually 2 Chro. 6. 16. so he said of Chriâ—t This is my well beloved Son in whom I am well pleased 7. There was but one Temple so but one Mediator between God and man the man Jesus Christ saith Paul 8. As the Temple was appointed to be a house of Prayer for all Nations Isa. 56. 7. and the sâ—ranger as well as the Israelite might come and pray in it 2 Chro. 6 32. So 〈◊〉 is a propitiation not for the Jewes onely but for the Gentiles and whosoever beleeves on him Jew or Gentile shall not be confounded 9. Because of thy Temple at Hierusalem shall Kings bring presents unto thee saith the Prophet Ps. 68. 29. so because of Jesus Christ who hath got a name above every name and hath received all power in heaven and earth shall Kings submit themselves and bow the knee 10. Glorious things were spoken of Ierusalem the City of God but the Temple was the glory of Ierusalem so glorious things are spoken of the Church But Christ is the Churches glory Other like considerations might be added but these may suffice CHAP. X. A debate with Master Prynne concerning the
doth further appear by the â—awes concerning such and such Sacrifices for such and such sinnes Lev. 5. and by the restitution which was also joyned with the confession Num. 5. 7. And it is also cleare from the Jewish Canones paenitentiae cap. 1. 2. where we find confession of â—inne to be made both by word of mouth and publikely before the congregation 4. In stead of making my argument a non-sequitur he makes it a clarè-sequitur for the first part of it not being taken off but rather granted by him because as he saith truly without confession of sin there is no remission of it hence the other part must needs follow for if it was in vaine so much as to sue for pardon in a reconciling Ordinance when the sinne was not confessed how much more had it been a taking in vaine of the name of God a prophaning of a sealing Ordinance to seale up pardon to a scandalous sinner who had not so much as confessed his scandalous sin but continued in manifest impetency But we will trie whether his third and last answer can relieve him It is this That every particular communicant before he comes to receive the Sacrament makes a publike confession of his sinnes to God with the rest of the congregation and in words at least voweth newnesse of life for the future there being no communicant that ever I heard of saith he so desperatly wicked and atheisticall as not to professe heartily sorrow for all his forepast sinnes or to avow impenitent continuance in them when he came to the Lords Table Behold what a latitude If the vilest sinner practically persevering in a scandalous sinne shall but joyne with and not gainsay the publique confession of the whole congregation wherein the best men doe and ought to joyne and in words promise newnesse of life and who will not promise to endeavour to live better nay if he have but so much wit as not to professe or avow impenitency then M r. Prynne alloweth his admission to the Sacrament But is this the confession that my argument did prove nothing like it It was a particular confession of such a sinne by name Levit. 5. 5. and it shall he when he shall be guilty in one of these things that he shall confesse that he hath sinned in that thing and with the confession there was a reall amendment For instance a recompencing of the trespasse with the principall and the addition of a fifth part when the case did so require Num. 5. 7. Then they shall confesse their sinne which they have done and he shall recompence his trespasse c. This is that my argument did drive at and it still stands in force to conclude that the confession of the particular sinne which hath given publique scandall together with the forsaking of it externally and in practice is so necessary that without these the admission of a scandalous sinner is a most horrible prophanation of the Sacrament But now finding the argument concerning the Passeover and legall uncleannesse to have been more fully prosecuted by Erastus than it is by M r. Prynne I doe resolve to trace it hard at the heeles whithersoever it goeth CHAP. XI A Confutation of the strongest arguments of Erastus namely those drawn from the Law of Moses AMong Erastus his arguments against Excommunication three of them namely the first the seventh and the sixteenth are all one for the substance the strength of them lying in this supposition that the Scripture doth not restraine nor keep off any from the Sacrifices nor any other Sacraments as he speaketh of the old Testament because of a wicked or scandalous conversation but contrariwise commandeth that all the males both Jewes and forreiners being circumcised and not being legally uncleane nor in a journey should compear thrice in the yeere before the Lord at Ierusalem to keepe the three solemn feasts of the Passeover Weeks and Tabernacles Now saith he Christ hath not in this thing destroyed nor altered the Law of Moses nor hath he made the rule straiter now then it was then but as then all circumcised so now all baptized persons must be acknowledged for Church members having a right to partake of Church priviledges and as then there was no discipline or punishment for the flagitious and wicked except by the hand of the Magistrate so ought it to be in like manner in the Christian Church This argument he trusteth very much unto And because it is the common opinion that the excluding and separating of the uncleane under the Law did signifie the excluding of scandalous sinners from communion with the Church he spendeth a long chapter against that opinion and laboureth to make it appeare that the legall uncleannesse did signifie the corruption of our nature and unbeliefe that exclusion from the Temple did signifie exclusion from the heavenly Paradice and that the cleansing and reception into the Temple did tipyfie the cleansing of our souls and the turning of us to God by the blood of Jesus Christ. Now here I shall make such animadversions as shall not onely enervate the strength which these arguments may seem to have against Church censures but also afford some strong reasonings against Erastus from those very grounds rightly apprehended from which upon misapprehensions he disputeth against the excluding of scandalous sinners First it is certaine that for divers sinnes against the morall Law the sinners were appointed not onely to bring their Trespasse-offerings but to confesse the sinne which they had committed and to declare their repentance for the same and till this was done the Trespasse-offering was not accepted Let us but have the like that is a confession of the sinne and declaration of repentance and then men shall not be excluded for scandals formerly given Erastus himselfe acknowledgeth that in this point of the confession of sinne the analogy must hold betwixt the old and new Testament onely he pleadeth that the very act the very desiring of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is really a confession that he is a sinner who desireth it and that much more it may suffice if sinners being asked by the Minister confesse themselves to be sinners and that they have not perfectly kept the Commandements of God But all this say I can not satisfie the argument drawn from that confession of sinne under the Law For 1. It was not a confession ipso facto by the bringing of the Trespasse-offerings but by word of mouth and thus it hath been expounded by the Hebrew Doctors The owners of siune and Trespasse-offerings when they bring their oblations for their ignorant or for their presumptuous sinnes atonement is not made for them by their oblation untill they have made repentance and confession by word of mouth 2. It was not a generall confession that one is a sinner and hath not perfectly kept the Commandements of God for who did ever refuse to make such a confession that were
to be the strongest CHAP. XII Fourteen Arguments to prove that scandalous and presumptuous Offenders against the morall Law though circumcised and not being legally uncleane were excluded from the Passeover THere is so much weight laid both by Erastus himself and by Master Prynne upon the universall Law commanding all that were circumcised to eat the Passeover except such as were legally uncleane or were in a journey that I am resolved once for all to demonstrate against them that men were excluded from the Passeover for scandalous and enormous Trespasses against the morall Law as well as for legall uncleannesse Peradventure it will seeme to some that I undertake to prove a paradox and to walke in an untrodden or obscure Path. Yet my Arguments are such as I trust shall weigh much with intelligent men The first Argument shall be this which is hinted by Ursinus and Pareus Explic. catechit Quest. 85. art 2. Whosoever by Gods appointment were excluded from the priviledges of Church Members and not to be reckoned among the Congregation of Israel those were by Gods appointment excluded from the Passeover But whosoever committed any scandalous sinne presumptuously or with an high hand were by Gods appointment excluded from the priviledges of Church Members and not to be reckoned among the Congregation of Israel Ergo. The Proposition hath this manifest reason for it Those all who were commanded to eat the Passeover cannot be understood to be of a larger extent then the Church of Israel Those therefore who were not to be acknowledged or used as Church-Members were by Gods appointment excluded from the Passeover The Assumption is proved from Numb 15. 30. 31. But the soule that doth ought presumptuously whether he be born in the land or a stranger the same reproacheth the Lord and that soule shall be cut off from among his people Because he hath despised the word of the Lord and hath broken his commandement that soule shall utterly be cut off his iniquity shall be upon him The presumption here spoken of is not onely the presumption of heart saith Cajetan of which God onely is Judge but a presumption manifested in word or work which he conceives to be intimated by the Hebrew phrase with an high hand Grotius understands one that either denyes that there is a God or that the Law was given by God or after admonition goeth on in his trespasse But sure he mistakes the punishment which he understands to be extrajudiciall and that he who finds one thus sinning presumptuously may kill him ex jure Zelotarum as Phinehes did kill Ziâ—…i and Cosbi I have spoken before of the cutting off which I will not here resume Onely this such presumptuous and contumacious sinners were not to be reckoned among the people of God nor to enjoy the priviledge of Church Members therefore not admitted to the Passeover Secondly Iosephus de bello Iud. lib. 7. cap. 17. speaking of such as were permitted to eat the Passeover in the time of Cestius doth thus designe them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being all of them pure and holy not onely pure from legall uncleannesse but such as were also esteemed holy But moreover it is clear from Io. 18. 28 they themselves the Jewes went not into the Judgement Hall lest they should be defiled but that they might eat the Passeover that the Jewes did so understand the Law that morall as well as ceremoniall uncleannesse did render them uncapable of the Passeover for they had no such ceremoniall Law that they who come into the Judgement Hall should be legally or ceremonially uncleane yet this had disabled them from eating the Passeover for they held litigious or forensicall actions unlawfull upon a holy day as Capellus and Casaubon above cited doe prove Such a finfull and scandalous act had kept them back from the Passeover Thirdly if we consult the Chaldee paraphrase upon Exod. 12. 43. it saith thus Every Sonne of Israel who is an Apostate shall not eat of it And upon the same place Master Ainsworth proves out of Maimonides that no Apostate nor Idolater was permitted to eat of the Passeover Yea some Israelites who were not apostates nor idolaters were for a seandalous action excluded from civill how much more from Ecclesiasticall fellow-ship See Maimon of Idolatry cap. 9. Sect. 15. With an Israelite who hath made defection to the worship of Idolls it is forbidden to have traffique or commerce either in his going or returning with another Israelite going to the Markets and Faires of Heathens we are onely forbidden to have commerce in his returning If it was unlawfull to them so much as to have civill commerce with an Israelite coming from the Markets of Heathens fearing lest he had sold some what which was dedicate to Idolatry as the reason is there given although he was no Apostate nor Idolater it is not easily â—imaginable that such a one was freely admitted to the Passeover Fourthly an Israelite though circumcised and not legally uncleane yet if he either turned Idolater or an Heretick or an Epicurean was no longer acknowledged to be in Church-Fellowship or Communion therefore rendred uncapable of the Passeover Is. Abrabanel in his Book de capite fidei as he sheweth whom they esteemed Apostats or Hereticks cap. 12. so he also intimateth that such were excluded from the communion of their Law Cap. 3. dub 5. none being acknowledged to be in the Communion of Israel who did not beleeve the Articles of faith professed in the Jewish Church Cap. 6. yea he tells us Cap. 24. which the Talmud it self saith â—…it Sanhedrin cap. 11. Sect. 1. that Hereticall or Epicurean Israelites were lookt upon as excluded from having portion in the world to come And as Doctor Buxtorf sheweth out of their owne writers they esteemed an Hereticall Israelite to be so abominable that they did straight and without delay excommunicate him Lexic Chald. Talm. Rabbin pag. 195. How is it then imaginable that they admitted such a one to eat the Passeover Let us heare R. Moses Maimonides himself de Idololatria cap. 2. Sect. 8. An Idolatrous Israelite is as an Heathen in all things which he doth c. So also Israelites who are Epicures are not esteemed to be Israelites in any action of theirs c. Now they are Epicures who aske counsell from the thoughts of their own mind being Ignorant of those things we have spoken of untill having transgressed the chief heads of the Law they offend by contumacy and presumption and say there is no sinne in this thing But it is forbidden to speake with them or to answer them for it is said come not neer the door of her house Prov. 5. 8. Therefore the whorish woman that Solomon speakes of was in the opinion of Maimonides such a one as was not to be esteemed as an Israelite nay nor such as was to be spoken with much lesse to be admitted to the Passeover yea Maimonides de Idal cap. 10. Sect. 2. saith yet more
others lusters after evill things others fornicators others tempters of Christ others murmurers against God and Moses The same argument he hinteth pag. 9. to prove the like under the Gospell It 's one of Erastus his argments Confirm Thes. pag. 118. 119. and as colourable as any other yet not unanswerable as Master Prynne holds For 1. though he saith the Apostle cleerly determines that those who were tainted with grosse and scandalous sinnes were admitted to the Passeover yet I finde nothing of the Passeover neither in the Text nor in the sence of any Interpreter which I have looked upon Nay it did not so much as fall in the thoughts of Erastus himself for Beza having objected to him that he ought to have compared our Sacraments with the purely sacred Feasts in the old Testament rather than with the manna and with the water of the Rock which were for corporall nourishment Erastus replyeth nothing concerning the Passeover which had been his best answer if he had seen any probability for it onely he saith that he compareth our Sacraments with the manna and the water of the Rock as the Apostle doth before him 2. The Text it self seemeth rather to determine clearly that the Passeover is not there intended for all the other particulars there mentioned did agree to all the Israelites men women and Children all these were under the Cloud and all these passed through the Sea and all these drank of the water of the Rock and why shall we not understand that all these did also eat of the same spirituall meat that is of the Manna not of the Passeover of which women and Children under 13 yeares of age did not eat neither did all the males above 13 yeares eat of it for the unclean were excluded by the Law those that were in a journey did not eat of it nor the hired Servant the sick saith Erastus did not eat of it the Jewes exclude also the Dumbe and the Deaf If it be said that vers 1. speaketh onely of the Fathers and that therefore the Text is not to be understood of women and Children also I answer This is as inconsequent as if one would argue Paul saith Men Brethren and Fathers therefore no women were among that multitude of the people Act. 21. 35. 36. 39. 40. or thus the Apostle saith Brethren pray for us therefore he desires not beleeving Sisters to pray for him In this same Text in hand the Apostle speakes to the whole Church of Corinth to make them afraid of Gods judgements if they sinne as the Israelites did If he had argued onely from the sinne and judgement of the men and not also of the women in the wildernesse the women in Corinth had so much the lesse applyed it to themselves But if I should grant which will never be proved that by the Fathers are understood the men onely yet it cannot be said that as all the men of Israel were Baptized in the Cloud and Sea and all of them drank of the same spirituall drink which came out of the Rock so all of them did eat the Passeover for even of the males divers were excluded from the Passeover as the unclean the hired Servant the Child the sick c. so that this would make the Apostles argumentation running upon a five-fold all to hang ill together I had not insisted at all upon this but to shew the weak grounds of M r. Prynnes strong confidence 3. If this argument of his hold good he must grant by Analogy that all Baptized persons must be admitted to the Lords Table though they be Idolaters fornicators c. which as it is contrary to the Ordinance of Parliament so to his own professed Tenents for he professeth otherwhere he is not for the admission of scandalous persons to the Sacrament and that he would have them in case of obstinacy not onely suspended from the Sacrament but excommunicated from all other Ordinances till publike satisfaction given for the scandall and till externall symptomes of repentance appear So the Antidote animadverted tells us and his owne vindication pag. 50. If this be his minde then it is incumbent to him to loose his owne knot all circumcised persons though Tainted with grosse scandalous sinnes as Idolatry and Fornication were admitted to the Passeover and so it ought to be under the Gospell If he say that those scandalous sinners in the wildernesse had not been admonished were not obstinate or that they professed repentance and promised amendment and did not in the meane while persevere in their wickednesse but satisfied for the scandall first how proves he that next in so saying he will answer for us as well as for himself and his argument if all granted cannot prove that such scandalous sinners as have manifest symptoms of impenitency or doe not confesse and forsake their sinne may be admitted to the Lords Table 4. The Manna and the water out of the Rock though they had a spirituall and evangelicall signification and diâ— typifie Jesus Christ yet they were also the ordinary Food and Drink of the people in the wildernesse so that if scandalous sinners had been excluded from partaking of these they had been deprived of their ordinary daily corporall nourishment which makes a vast difference between their case in the wildernesse and ours at the Lords Table 5. The Apostle speakes of those scandalous sinnes as committed not before but after the eating of that spirituall meat and drinking of that spirituall drink first this is cleer of their Baptisme in the Cloud and in the Sea which was at their passing through the Red Sea Exod. 14. before any of the grosse and scandalous sinnes there mentioned were committed and therefore was not pertinent to be objected Immediately thereafter they did eat of the spirituall meat that is of the manna Exo. 16. and drank of the spirituall drink that is of the Water out of the Rock which followed them Exod. 17. to give drink to my people my chosen saith the Lord Isa. 43. 20. Now after those men had eaten of the spirituall meat and drunk of the spirituall drink they did fall into Idolatry Fornication c. and this is all which the Apostle saith thereby warning the Corinthians not to presume upon their partaking in the Ordinances nor to think all well with themselves because they were Baptized and had eaten and drunk at the Lords Table for after all this they had need to take heed lest they fall in foule sinnes and lust after evill things and so draw upon themselves the heavier judgements That which Master Prynne takes for granted upon a marvellous mistake of the Apostles words he hath yet to prove that is that after some of them had fallen into Idolatry others into fornication others into murmuring against God those who were known to have committed those grosse and scandalous sinnes were allowed and admitted as before to eat of the spirituall meat and drink of the spirituall drink I mean not onely
the crime was of civill cognizance and Abiathar deserved to die for it That which Solomon did was an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a moderation of the punishment as Strigelius cals it when Solomon might justly have put him to death he onely banisheth him from Hierusalem to Anathoth there to enjoy his owne inheritance to live a private life and no more to intermeddle in State affaires Wherefore this example doth belong to the case of a capitall crime committed by a Minister but not to the case of scandall or mal-administration in his Ministery 2. Neither did Solomon directly or intentionally put Abiathar from the Priesthood for that offence but by consequence it followed upon his banishment from Hierusalem the place where the high Priest was to exercise his calling 1 King 2. 27. So that is in respect of banishment from Ierusalem mentioned in the verse immediately preceding Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord. A Minister now banished is not thereby thrust out from all exercise of his Ministery for he may exercise it in another place but Abiathar being thrust out from Hierusalem was eo ipso thrust from the calling of the high Priest which was necessarily to be exercised in that place 3. Solomon being a Prophet who knowes what warrants he had more then ordinary for that which he did to Abiathar that it was not without an extrordinary divine instinct some collect from the next words that he Solomon might fulfill the word of the Lord which he spake cencerning the house of Eli in Shilo 4. As for the investing of Zadok with the place and authority of the high Priest it doth not prove that the Magistrate hath a constitutive power to make or authorize Church officers for Zadok had been formerly chosen by the congregation of Israel and anointed to be high Priest 1 Chro. 29. 22. yea he did fall to the place Iure divino for the high Priesthood was given to Eleazar the eldest sonne of Aaron and was to remaine in the family of Eleazar from whom Zadok had lineally descended Whereas Abiathar was not of the family of Eleazar but of the family of Iâ—…hamar 6. Object Hezekiah did apply his regall power to the reformation of the Levites and to the purging of the Temple 2 Chr. 29. 5. and did also appoint the courses of the Priests and Levites every man according to his service 2 Chro. 31. So likewise did King Iosiah 2 Chro. 35. Answ. Hezekiah in exhorting the Levites to sanctifie themselves and to cleanse the Temple doth require no other thing than the Law of God did require Num. 8. 6. 11. 15. 18. 32. which Hezekiah himselfe pointeth at 2 Chro. 29. 11. And why should not the Magistrate command Ministers to do the duties of their calling according to the Word of God As for his appointing of the courses of the Pâ—iests and Levites he did nothing therein but what the Lord had commanded by his Prophets 2 Chro. 29. 25. The like I answer concerning King Iosiah for it is recorded that what hee did was after the writing of David and Solomon 2 Chro. 35. 4. and according to the Commandement of David and Asaph and Heman and Jeduthun the Kings seer Verse 15. as it is written in the booke of Moses v. 12. 7. Object King Ioash while hee yet did right in the dayes of Iebojada the Priest sent the Priests and Levites to gather from all Israel a collection for repairing the house of the Lord and when they dealt negligently in this businesse he discharged them to receive any more money so collected Ans. Joash did impose no other collections but those quae divino jure debebantur which were due by divine right saith Wolphius in 2 Kings 12. The thing was expressely commanded in the Law of Moses compare 2 Chro. 24. 6. Exo. 30 12 13 14. As for the Kings prohibition afterwards laid upon the Priests 1. the Priests had still neglected the worke till the three and twentieth yeare of his raigne was come 2. The Priests themselves consented to receive no more money 3. The high Priest had still a chiefe hand in the managing of that businesse in which also the Priests that kept the doore had an interest All which is plaine from 2 Kings 12. 6. 8 9 10. And beside all this it was a money matter concerning the hyring and paying of workemen and so did belong to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the extrinsecall not to the intrinsecall things of the Church 8. Object The Kings of the Jewes have purged the Land from Idolatry and Superstition have broken downe Altars cut down Groves destroyed high places and such like Idolatrous Monuments Ans. This was nothing but what was commanded in the Law of Moses whereunto also the secular coercivepower was necessary Let it be remembled concerning those godly reforming Kings of 〈◊〉 1. The case was extraordinary no matter of ordinary Government 2 Their reformation was Iure divino The Law of God was the rule and Ius Divinum was not then startled at but embraced 3. Sometime also the reformation was not without an assembly of the Prophets Priests and Elders as 2 Kings 23. 1. 9. Object Mr. Prynne in his Diotrephes Catechised Quest. 2. 〈◊〉 another objection from 2 Chr. 19. asking whether it be not clearly meant that as King Josiah himselfe he should have said Iehoshaphat did by his owne regall authority appoint Iudges in the Land and in Jerusalem in the preceeding 5 6 7 8 9. 10. Verses to dâ—…termine all controversies and punish all offences whatsoever accoâ—…ding to the Lawes of God and that Kingdome so hee did by the selfe same regall authority appoint Amariah then chiefe Priest over the Priests and Levites onely implyed in the word you not over the people of the Land in all matters of the Lord that is to Order direct the Priests and Levites under him in their severall courses and all matters whatsoever concerning the Worship c. Ans. 1. Mr. Prynne will never prove from that Text That Iehoshaphat by his regall authority did appoint or set Amariah the chiefe Priest to be over the rest The English translators expresse the sence by interlacing the word is Verse 11. And behold Amariah the chiefe Priest is over you in all matters of the Lord. 2. To restrict the word you to the Priests and Levites onely is an intolerable wresting of the Text for all these relatives Verse 9 10 11. them ye you must needs repeat the antecedent Verse 8. and so relate to the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel as well as to the Priests and Levites So that these words Amariah the chiefe Priest is over you are spoken to the Sanhedrin and the plaine meaning is that Amariah the chiefe Priest was at that time the Nasi or princeps Senatus the Prince or chiefe Ruler of the Senat as Grotius expounds it 3. That the high Priest was a Ruler of the People as well as of the Priests and Levites is
manifest from Acts 23. 5. where Paul applieth to the high Priest that Law Thou shalt not speake evill of the Ruler of thy people 4. Wherefore to retort the Objection Mr. Prynne doth here acknowledge upon the matter two distinct Governments to have beene at that time one civill another Ecclesiasticall distinct I say both objectively and subjectively objectively for hee expounds the Lords matters to be meant of the sacrifices and other services in the Temple The Kings matters hee takes to be the Kings Househould Lands Revenues Subjectively also for hee yeeldeth upon the matter both Amariah and Zebadiah to have had a certaine ruling or governing power in ordering and directing these over whom they were set which well agreeth both with the version of the 70 giving the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both to the one and to the other and with the Originall for he that is over the Sanhedrin it selfe must needs be a Ruler 10. Object The causes of Leprosy Lev. 13. 14. and jealousie Num. 5. are the onely cases wherein the Priests were appointed to be as Judges in the Old Testament So Mr. Prynne in his Diotrephes catechised quest 3. Ans. 1. If the Priests were Judges in these cases then so farre at least there was a judging decisive binding sentence of the Priests distinct from and not subordinate unto the civill Magistracy 2. But that these two were the onely cases wherein the Priests were appointed to be as Judges is easily confuted being an assertion contrary to diverse Texts of Scripture as first Deut. 21. 5. in the triall of secret murther the Law appointeth thus And the Priests the sonnes of Levi shall come neare c. and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke bee tried that is every controversy which was to be ended by purgations or purifications Oathes or confession as Pelargus noteth upon the place There is also a generall comprehensive expression concerning the Priests their judging and deciding of controversies forensically Ezech. 44. 24. And in controversy they shall stand in judgement and they shall judge it according to my judgements Likewise Deut. 17. 8 9 12. the Priest as well as the Judge hath authority to give forth a binding decree concerning hard matters brought from inferior Courts to Ierusalem Againe 2 Chron. 23. 19. the Porters of the Temple that is the Priests that kept the doore as they are designed 2 Kings 12. 9. of whom also it is said that Iâ—…hojadah the high Priest appointed Officers over the house of the Lord 2 Kings 11. 18. which Text Grotius following Iosephus doth parallell wiâ—h 2 Chro. 23. 19. had this charge that none which was unclean in any thing should enter in 11. Object If the Priests power of judging reached further than the cases of Leprosie and Jealousie the most was to judge of such as were uncleane in any thing and that according to their sentence the uncleane were to be excluded Ans. Not to insist now upon these Texts Deut. 17. 9. 12. 21. 5. Ezâ—… 44. 24. which hold forth the juridicall power of the Priests more generally and comprehensively without restricting it to cases of cleane and uncleane only nor yet to repeat diverse other answers before given in answer to Erastus and M. Prynne concerning legall and morall uncleannesse I shal here only give this one answer out of that Text 2 Chro. 23. 19. none which was unclean in any thing What cogent argument can now restrict this Text concerning the exclusion of uncleane persons from the Temple to such only who were legally or ceremonially unclean If we should suppose and grant that it is meant onely of the legall uncleannesse yet both by Analogy and à fortiori that Text affoordeth an argument against the Erastians and I have accordingly made use of it before Yet neverthelesse I believe it will puzle them to prove that this Text doth not comprehend those also that were morally uncleane that is scandalous prophane persons For my part I doe believe that it is meant of keeping back those that were morally unclean as well as those that were ceremonially such And my reasons are these 1. The Text saith generally none which was uncleane in any thing or as the 70 have it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as were uncleane in every or any word or if you will against any word that is against any Commandement of the Law 2. Because impiety profannesse and wickednesse hath the name of uncleannesse even in the old Testament such as commit sin and ungodlinesse are called unclean and are said to defile themselves as wel as those that were legally uncleane I shall not neede to expound Lev. 5. 3. if he touch the uncleannesse of man whatsoever uncleannesse it be that a man shall be defiled withall as if it were meant of fellowship with scandalous sinners which is Origens Interpretation Hom. 3. in Levit. who also taketh a commentary to that Text from 1 Cor. 5. 11. It will have more weight in it to observe Targum Onkelâ—…s Deut. 23. 2. Where the Law concerning Mamzer a bastard or whoores son is thus explained A bastard shall not be clean that he may enter into the Congregation of the Lord even unto the tenth Generation his sons shall not be clean that they may enter into the Congregation of the Lord. But I will give yet surer warrants for what I say Iob. 36. 14. their life is among the uncleane that is as Pagnin following the Chaldee paraphrase expresseth it inter scortatores Hierome inter effaeminatos others inter impudicos the same word is rendered Sodomites 1 Kings 14. 24. It commeth from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or per Antiphrasin signifieth to be impure or unclean and it is used of the legall uncleannesse Deut. 22. 9. lest the fruit of thy Vineyard be defiled So Hag. 2. 13 14. both he that touched a dead body and he that trespassed against the morall Law is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 uncleane for after the resolution concerning that which was legally uncleane it is added So is this people and so is this nation before me saith the Lord and so is every wâ—…rke of their hands and that which they offer there is unclean The same name is given to an ungodly person Eccle. 9. 2. where the godly person is called the cleane the notorious scandalous prophane person is called the unclean So wickednesse is frequently called uncleannesse as Ezra 9. 11. Ezec. 36. 25. Zech. 13. 1. I wil here adde a Testimony of Maimonides in More Nevochim part 3. cap. 47. Hence also the transgression of the Commandement is called uncleannesse or pollution and it is said of the principall and fundamentall Commandements of Idolatry of uncovering the nakednesse of the shedding of bloud Of Idolatry it is said Because he hath given of his seed unto Molech to defile my Sanctuary and to prophane my holy Name Of the uncovering of the nakednesse defile not
power hath for the matter of it the earthly Scepter and the Temporal Sword that is it is Monarchical and Legislative it is also punitive or coercive of those that do evil understand upon the like reason remunerative of those that do well The Ecclesiastical power hath for the matter of it the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven 1. The key of knowledge or doctrine and that to be administred not onely severally by each Minister concionaliter but also Consistorially and Synodically in determining controversies of Faith and that according to the rule of holy Scripture onely which is clavis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. The key of order and decency so to speak by which the circumstances of Gods Worship and all such particulars in Ecclesiastical affairs as are not determined in Scripture are determined by the Ministers and ruling Officers of the Church so as may best agree to the generall rules of the word concerning order and decency avoyding of scandall doing all to the glory of God and to the edifying of one another And this is clavis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. The key of corrective discipline or censures to be exercised upon the scandalous and obstinate which is clavis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. Adde also the key of Ordination or mission of Church-Officers which I may call clavis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the authorizing or power giving key others call it missio potestativa 3. They differ in their formes The power of Magistracy is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is an authority or dominion exercised in the particulars above mentioned and that in an immediate subordination to God for which reason Magistrates are called gods The Ecclesiastical power is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 onely It is meerly Ministeriall and Steward-like and exercised in an immediate subordination to Iesus Christ as King of the Church and in his name and authority 4. They differ in their ends The supreme end of Magistracy is onely the glory of God as King of Nations and as exercising dominion over the inhabitants of the earth And in that respect the Magistrate is appointed to keep his Subjects within the bounds of external obedience to the moral Law the obligation where of lyeth upon all Nations and all men The supreme end of the Ecclesiastical power is either proximus or remotus The neerest and immediate end is the glory of Iesus Christ as Mediator and King of the Church The more remote end is the glory of God as having all power and authority in heaven and earth You will say Must not then the Christian Magistrate intend the glory of Iesus Christ and to be subservient to him as he is Mediator and King of the Church Certainly he ought and must and God forbid but that he should do so But how not qua Magistrate but qua Christian. If you say to me again Must not the Christian Magistrate intend to be otherwise subservient to the Kingdom of Iesus Christ as Mediator then by personal or private Christian duties which are incumbent to every Christian I answer no doubt he ought to intend more even to glorifie Iesus Christ in the administration of Magistracy Which that you may rightly apprehend and that I be not misunderstood take this distinction It is altogether incumbent to the ruling Officers of the Church to intend the glory of Christ as Mediator even ex natura rei in regard of the very nature of Ecclesiasticall power and government which hath no other end and use for which it was intended and instituted but to be subservient to the Kingly office of Iesus Christ in the governing of his Church upon earth and therefore sublata Ecclesiâ perit regimen Ecclesiasticum take away the Church out of a Nation and you take away all Ecclesiasticall power of government which makes another difference from Magistracy as we shall see anon But the Magistrate though Christian and godly doth not ex natura rei in regard of the nature of his particular vocation intend the glory of Iesus Christ as Mediator and King of the Church but in regard of the common principles of Christian Religion which do oblige every Christian in his particular vocation and station and so the Magistrate in his to intend that end All Christians are commanded that whatever they do in word or deed they do all in the name of the Lord Iesus Col. 3. 17. that is according to the will of Christ and for the glory of Christ And so a Marchant a Mariner a Tradesman a School-master a Captain a Souldier a Printer and in a word every Christian in his own place and station ought to intend the glory of Christ and the good of his Church and Kingdom Upon which ground and principle if the Magistrate be Christian it is incumbent to him so to administer that high and eminent vocation of his that Christ may be glorified as King of the Church and that this Kingdom of Christ may flourish in his Dominions which would God every Magistrate called Christian did really intend So then the glory of Christ as Mediator and King of the Church is to the Ministery both finis operis and finis operantis To the Magistrate though Christian it is onely finis operantis That is it is the end of the godly Magistrate but not the end of Magistracy whereas it is not onely the end of the godly Minister but the end of the Ministery it self The Ministers intendment of this end flowes from the nature of their particular vocation The Magistrates intendment of the same end flowes from the nature of their general vocation of Christianity acting guiding and having influence into their particular vocation So much of the supreme ends Now the subordinate end of all Ecclesiastical power is that all who are of the Church whether Officers or members may live godly righteously and soberly in this present world be kept within the bounds of obedience to the Gospel void of all known offence toward God and toward man and be made to walk according to the rules delivered to us by Christ and his Apostles The subordinate end of the Civil power is that all publike sins committed presumptuously against the moral Law may be exemplarly punished and that peace justice and good order may be preserved and maintained in the Common-wealth which doth greatly redound to the comfort and good of the Church and to the promoting of the course of the Gospel For this end the Apostle bids us pray for Kings and all who are in Authority though they be Pagans much more if they be Christians that we may live under them a peaceable and quiet life in all Godlinesse and Honesty 1 Tim. 2. 2. He saith not simply that we may live in Godlinesse and Honesty but that we may both live peaceably and quietly and also live godly and honestly which is the very same that we
civil Magistrate or to lord it over the Lords Inheritance Nay here that rule must take place Luke 22. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that is chief as he that serveth Onely the holy Ghost gives to Church-officers those names of authority which are given to civil Magistrates thereby to teach the people of God their duty and that there is another Government beside the civil whereunto they ought to submit and obey in the Lord. Master Husseys next answer is that where our Books have it Obey them that have the rule over you the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is no more but Be perswaded For proof whereof he tells us out of Pasor that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is verbum foreuse a word whereby the Advocates perswade the Judges yet we cannot say that the Judges obey the Advocates I answer Let him make of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what he can the passive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth frequently signisie I obey or obtemper For which signification H. Stephanus in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 citeth out of Xenophon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Plutaroh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If we come to the Scripture phrase I am sure in some places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a thing of another nature then to be perswaded forensically as Iam. 3. 3 Behold we put bits in the horses mouthes that they may obey us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But here when we speak of the obedience of Church-members to Church-officers it is a free rational willing Christian obedience yet obedience it is which we owe to Spiritual Rulers as well as that which we owe to civil Magistrates Sure Gualther and Bullinger did understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here to be more then be perswaded for they apply this Text to the obedience due to Magistrates And M. Hussey might have also observed that Pasor renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by pareo obedio for which he citeth Gal. 3. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to obey the truth And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he renders inobediens refractarius as Rom. 1. 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disobedient to parents I know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is also used for to be perswaded but I verily believe M. Hussey is the first man that ever quarrelled the word obey in this Text and turned it to be no more but be perswaded Yet if he shall well observe that which followeth in the very next words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and submit your selves which in Theodorets opinion noteth here intense obedience They must not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yeeld but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yeeld with subjection and submission This relateth to authority nor can we say that the Judges do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Advocates nor travellers to their guides he himself shall be perswaded to cast away this glosse and to seek a better And if he will stand to it he shall but do a disservice to Magistracy whiles he would weaken the power of the Ministery for though there be much in the New Testament concerning subjection or submission to Magistrates yet the clearest fullest yea to my remembrance the onely expresse word for obedience to Magistrates is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is rightly translated in our Books to obey Magistrates but Master Hussey will make it no more but to be perswaded by Magistrates Yea the very simple and uncompounded Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the fore-cited passages of Xenophon and Plutarch is used where they speak of obedience to Magistrates and masters If this must fail him he hath yet another answer Let the word stand saith he as it is translated obey yet it is not alway correlative to the command of a Superiour and the holy Ghost requireth obedience here not by an argument from the authority of him that leadeth them but from the benefit that cometh to themselves for that is unprofitable for you He divideth what the Apostle joyneth for there are two sorts of Arguments in the Text by which the Apostle perswadeth them to this obedience one is taken from the authority of the Ministery which is intimated both by that name of authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by their subordination or submission which the Apostle calls for another from the benefit that cometh to themselves by their obedience and the hurt which they shall do to themselves by their disobedience Both these Arguments are wrapt up in these words For they watch for your souls which is the very same with that Acts 20. 28. To all the flock over the which the holy Ghost hath made you overseers The Apostle doth also perswade Christians to be subject to the Magistrate by an Argument taken from the benefit that cometh to themselves Rom. 13. 4. For he is the Minister of God to thee for good yet that doth not weaken but rather strengthen the Authority of the Magistrate The fourth Argument shall be taken from 1 Tim. 5. 19. Against an Elder receive not an accusation but before or under two or three witnesses Which is not a temporary charge laid upon Timothy as an Evangelist and so incompetent to ordinary Ministers for it is joyned with the rules of publike Rebuking of laying on of hands not partaking of other mens sins and such like things which are of ordinary concernment He is also charged to keep the Commandment till the appearing of Christ 1 Tim. 5. 14 which cannot be otherwise understood then as spoken to him in reference to the Ministery Now what is an act of Government if this be not to receive accusations and that against Elders and that under two or three witnesses The Apostle intendeth here the avoiding of these two evils first upon the one hand because veritas odium parit and Elders doing their duty faithfully will certainly be hated and slandered and evil spoken of by some that therefore every Diotrephes pratling against a servant of Christ with malicious words may not be able to blast his Christian reputation and good name Next upon the other part because the offences and scandals of Elders are not to be connived at but to be aggravated and censured more then the offences of others that therefore an accusation be received against them if it be under two or three witnesses Now where accusations ought to be received and that under two or three witnesses and not otherwise with special charge also to observe these things without partiality or preferring one before another vers 21. there is certainly a forensical proceeding and a corrective Jurisdiction or Government More of this Argument in Malè audis pag. 14. Fifthly what is that else but a corrective Jurisdiction Tit. 3. 10. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He speaks of a rejecting of persons not of things onely and of such a rejecting of persons as cannot be understood
both of them it seemeth having read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 however they understand the power related unto to be more then Doctrinall I conclude that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 16. 4. must be more then Doctrinal declarations and that it is meant of binding decrees that I may use Mr. Prynns phrase especially when joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there was a Judgement passed and given upon the making and sending of those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not the judgement of one or two but the judgement of the Apostles and Elders Synodically assembled So Acts 21. 25. Iames and the Elders speaking of that Synodical judgement say we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing c. These four considerations being laid together concerning an intrinsecall Ecclesiastical power of assembling together Synodically of choosing and sending Commissioners with a Synodical Epistle to the Churches in other parts of providing effectual and necessary remedies both for heresies scandals and schismes arising in the Church of making and imposing binding decrees on the Churches will infallibly prove from Scripture authority another Government in the Church beside Magistracy I might here adde other Arguments but so much for this time CHAP. X. Some Objections mâ—de against Ecclesiastical Government aâ—d Discipline answered MR. Hussey in his Epistle to my selfe objecteth thus What will your censure doe it will shame a few whores and knaves a great matter to shame them the Law of nature shameth All this in terminis might have been as justly objected against the Apostle Paul when he wrote to the Corinthians to put away from among themselves the incestuous man What will your censure do Paul a great matter to shame one whom the law of nature shameth The Lord save me from that Religion which will not shame Whores and Theeves and all other whom the Law of Nature shameth and that in a Church way as well as civilly if any such member fall into such impiety yet this is not all All Orthodox Writers that write of Church-censures will tell him that scandalls either of Doctrine or life either against the first or second Table fall under Ecclesiastical cognizance and censure Secondly He argueth thus Ibid. Sure in the day of our Lord there will be as good a returne of the word preached as of the censure And in his plea pag. 1. If the Word be able to make the man of God perfect then nothing is wanting to him perfectum cui nihil deest and it is a wonder how that Conscience should be wrought upon by humane authority with whom divine cannot prevail Answ. 1. This also he might as well have objected against the Apostle Paul who did require the Corinthians to put away from among them the incestuous man and Titus to rejâ—ct an Heretick after once or twice admonishing of him 2. He might object the same thing against Magistracy Shall there not be a better account of the word preached then of Magistracy and if the Word be able to make the man of God perfect there is no need of Magistracy Perfectum est cui nihil deest Surely many Erastian Arguments do wound Civil as well as Ecclesiastical Government 3. Church-censures are not acts of humane authority for they are dispensed in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and if clave non errante are ratified in heaven 4. Discipline is no addition to that Word which is able to make the man of God perfect for it is one of the directions of the Word 5. The comparison which some make between the efficacy of the Word preached and the efficacy of Church-discipline as to the point of converting and winning foules is a meer fallacy ab ignoratione â—…lenchi for Church discipline is not intended as a converting light-giving or life-giving Ordinance Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God and the Word is the power of God for salvation to every one that beleeveth But Ecclesiastical Discipline hath a necessary use though it hath not that use Discipline and censures in the Church are intended 1. For the glory of God that his name may not be blasphemed nor the doctrine of the Gospel reproached by occasion of uncensured scandalls in the Church 2. For keeping the Ordinances of Christ from prophanation and pollution that signa gratiae divinae the signes of Gods favour and grace and the seales of his Covenant may be denied to unworthy scandalous persons 3. For preserving the Church from the infection of bad and scandalous examples it is fit to put a black mark upon them and to put away the wicked person as the Apostle saith for a rotten member if it be not cut off and a scabbed sheep if not separated from the flock may infect the rest 4. For the good also of the offender himself that he may be ashamed and humbled 2 Thes. 3. 14. 2. Cor. 2. 7. This afflicting of the sinner with shame and sorrow may and shall by the blessing of God be a means to the destruction of the flesh 1 Cor. 5. 5. that is to tame and mortifie his lusts and so far removere prohibens that he may be the better wrought upon by the Word I conclude Church-Government being instituted by Christ and having a necessary use in the Church the Erastians gain nothing by comparing it with the Word Because it is not so necessary as the Word Ergo it is not necessary at all Or because it is not efficacious in the same manner as the word is Ergo it is not efficacious at all The Apostle saith Christ sent me not to baptizâ—… but to preach the Gospel 1 Cor. 1. 17. What if he had said Christ sent me not to rule but to preach the Gospel Then had the Erastians triumphed Yet this expression could not have proved that Church-government is not an Ordinance of Christ more then that can prove that Baptisme is not an Ordinance of Christ. A negative in the comparative will not inferre a negative in the positive 3. Object I could never yet see said Mr. Coleman how two co-ordinate governments exempt from Superiority and inferiority can be in one State Against this I instanced in the co-ordinate governments of a General and an Admiral of a Master and a Father of a Captain and a Master in one ship Mr. Hussey finding he can not make good Mr. Colemans word tells me pag. 7. that he meaneth two supreme co-ordinate Governments Where first he loseth ground and tacitely yeeldeth that Church-Government and Civil Government distinct each from other do well consist as long as they are not supreme but as two armes under one head No inconsistency therefore of Congregational and Classical Elderships and of Provinciall Assemblies with the subordinate Magistrates and civil Courts in Cities and Counties Next we shall find also in Scripture two co-ordinate supreme Governments for the civil and the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin of the Jewes were both supreme and co-ordinate and there was no appeal from the
well stand together So Synop. pur Theol. disp 48. Thes. 40 and he alloweth of both these expositions and afterward in his common place of excommunication he speaketh of Gods cooperating with the Church censure by punishing the Excommunicate person with diabolicall vexations Sure I am an excommunicate person may truly be said to be delivered to Sathan who is the God and Prince of this world and reigneth in the Children of disobedience But Master Prynne will find himself difficulted to prove that tradere Satanae 1 Cor. 5. is onely meant of a miraculous or extraordinary act or to shew how or why the Apostle requireth the Assembling of the Church and their consent to the working of a miracle Which if there were no more may discover the weaknesse of Master Prynnes notions concerning delivering to Sathan 6 7 8. But as the full debate were long so it were not necessary since Master Prynne doth now himself acknowledge that the last verse of that Chapter proveth excommunication vindic pag. 2. I come therefore to the next which he calls the fourth difference whether 1 Cor. 5. 11. with such an one no not to eat be properly meant of excommunication or suspension from the Sacrament But whatsoever be properly meant by that phrase that which his debate driveth at is that this verse doth neither prove excommunication nor suspension from the Sacrament so much as by necessary consequence But let us see whether his reasons can weaken the proof of Suspension from vers 11. first he saith there is not one syllable of receiving or eating of the Lords Supper in this Chapter I answer the question is neither of syllables nor words but of things and how will he prove that vers 8. Let us keep the feast not with old leavon c. is not applicable to the Lords Supper I say not to it onely yet surely it cannot be excluded but must needs becomprehended as one part yea a principall part of the meaning the better to answer the Analogy of the passeover there much insisted upon He may be pleased also to remember that he himself pag. 24. proving the passeover and the Lords Supper to be the same for the substance for proof hereof citeth 1 Cor. 5. 7. and that Aretius Theol probl loc 80. expoundeth our Feast of the Passeover 1 Cor. 5. to be meant of the Lords Supper But he further objecteth from 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. We are all partakers of that one Bread if all were then partakers of this Bread certainly none were excluded from it in the Church of Corinth but at the Israelites under the Law did all eat the same spirituall Meat and all Drinke the same spirituall Drinke though God were displeased with many of them who were Idolaters tempters of God fornicators murmurers and were destroyed in the wildernesse 1 Cor. 10. 1. to 12. so all under the Gospell who were visible members of â—…he Church of Corinth did eat and drink the Lords Supper to which some drunkards whiles drunken did then resort as is clear by 1 Cor. 11. 20. 21. Which Paul indeed reprehends vers 22. Answ. 1 When Paul saith we being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of that one bread he speaketh of the communion of Saints the word all can be of no larger extent then visible Saints to whom the Epistle is directed 1 Cor. 1. 2. and cannot be applyed to visible workers of iniquity who continue impenitent and obstinate in so doing As we may joyn in communion with a visible Church which hath the externall markes of a Church though it be not a true invisible Church so we joyne with visible Saints to become one body with them in externall Church communion and to be partakers of one bread with them though they be not true or invisible Saints in the hid man of the heart But if these be visibly no Church we cannot joyne in Church Communion and if a man be visibly no Saint he ought not to be admitted to the communion of Saints I shall never be perswaded that the Apostle Paul would say of himselfe and the Saints at Corinth We are one body with known Idolaters Fornicators Drunkards and the like 2 If all in the Church of Corinth none excluded even drunkards whiles drunken and if all under the Gospell who are visible members of the Church ought to be admitted to eat the same spirituall meat and drinke the same spirituall drink at the Lords Table as he supposeth that in the wildernesse all the Israelites did the like who were Idolaters Fornicators c. Then I beseech you observe how Master Prynne doth by all this overthrow his owne rules for pag. 2. and elsewhere he tells us he would have notorious scandalous sinners who after admonition persevere in their iniquities without remorse of conscience or amendment to be excommunicated from the Church and from the society of the faithfull in all publike Ordinances If both in the Church of Israel and in the Church of Corinth all were admitted and none excluded even those who were Idolaters or drunkards whiles actually such without repentance or amendment how can Master Prynne straiten Christians now more then Moses did the Jewes or Paul the Corinthians Since therefore his Arguments drive at it it s best he should speak it out that all manner of persons who professe themselves to be Christians be they never so scandalous never so obstinate though they persevere in their iniquity after admonition without amendment yet ought to be admitted to the Lords Table 3 He shall never be able to prove either that those drunken persons 1 Cor. 11. 21. were drunken when they did resort to the Church for it was in the Church and in eating and drinking there that they made themselves drunke nor yet that the Idolaters and Fornicâ—tors in the wildernesse their eating of the spirituall meat and drinking of the spirituall drinke mentioned by the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. was after their Idolatâ—ies and Fornications But of this latter I have elsewhere spoken distinctly and by it self 4 To say that all who were visible members of the Church of Corinth were admitted and none excluded and to say it with a certainly is to make too bold with Scripture And the contrary will sooner be proved from 1 Cor. 10. 21. ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of Devills ye cannot be partakers of the Lords Table and of the Table of Devills So much for his first exception His second is concerning persons but not to the purpose that if we looke upon the catalogue of those with whom we are forbidden to eat not onely shall most of the Anabaptisticall and Independent Congregations but too many Presbyterian ministers and Elders who are most foreward to excommunicate others for Idolatry Fornication Drunkennesse must first be excommunicated themselves for their owne covetousnesse Answ. Let it light where it may Ministers doe not stand nor fall to his Judgement but where just
a worse thing fall out Thirdly Alexander Alensis holds the Sacrament of the Lords Supper not to be a converting but a confirming and conserving Ordinance Ibid. art 2. sect 2. His words I shall cite in the debating of that controversie CHAP. IX Whether Judas received the Sacrament of the Passeover that night in which our Lord was betrayed Mr Prynne distrusting peradventure the strength of his proofes for Iudas his receiving of the Lords Supper betakes himselfe to an additionall argument pag. 24. All our Antagonists saith he and the Evangelists clearely agree that Judâ—…s did eate the Passeover with Christ himselfe as well as the other Apostles now the Passeover was a type of the Lords Supper c. It seems he had not the notes of my Sermon truly though he endeavour to confute it for I did then and I doe still make a very great question of it whether Iudas did so much as eate the Passeover at that time with Christ and the other Apostles and I thinke I have very considerable reasons which make it probable that Iudas did not eate the Passeover that night with Christ and the Apostles The resolution of this question depends upon another whether Christ and his Apostles did eate the Passeover before that supper at which he did wash his Disciples feet and gave the sop to Iudas after the receiving whereof Iudas immediately went out or whether that supper was before the eating of the Passeover I finde some others as well as my selfe have been of opinion that it was before not after the Passeover yea that the Jewish custome was to eate their common Supper before the Passeover See M. Weemse his Christian Synagogue pag 120. I finde also Ammonius Alexandrinus de quatuor Evangeliorum consonantia cap. 154. placeth that supper mentioned Iohn 13. 2 4 12 18. at which Jesus did wash his Disciples feet and when he had done sate down againe and told them that he who was eating bread with him should betray him Then cap. 155. he proceedeth to the story of the Paschall supper in which he conceivâ—th the sop was given to Iudas but in this particular he did much mistake for the sop was given at the same supper mentioned Iohn 13. 2 4 12 18. and not at the Paschall Supper as M Prynne also acknowledgeth This is cleare that Ammonius placeth the common supper at which Christ did wash his Disciples feet and told them of the Traitor to have been before the Paschall supper I will first tell the reasons that incline me this way and then answer the objections which may seem to be against it The reasons are these 1. The orientall custome was to wash before meal not after they had begun to eate 2. This Supper in which the sop was given to Iudas whereupon he went away was before the Feast of the Passeover Joh. 13. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meaning immediately before the feast of the Passeover it being reckoned from the time of eating the Paschall Lambe and so before the Feast of the Passeover hath the same sence as Luke 11. 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Pharisee wondred that Christ had not washed before dinner that is immediately before dinner So here I undestand before the Feast of the Passeover that is immediately before the time of eating the Paschall Lambe which was the beginning of the Feast of the Passeover You will say perhaps that Christ did not eate the Passeover upon the same day that the Jewes did and so those words before the Feast of Passeover may be understood before the Passeover of the Jewes not before the Passeover of Christ. I answer whether Christ and the Jewes kept the Passeover at one time is much debated among Interpreters Baronius Toletus and divers others hold that Christ did eate the Paschall Lambe upon the same day with the Jewes Scaliger Causabon and others hold the contrary The question hath been peculiarly debated between Ioh. Cloppenburgius and Ludovicus Capellus yet so that Capellus who followes Scaliger and Casaubon acknowledgeth that both opinions have considerable reasons and both are straitned with some inconveniencies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de ultimo Christi paschate pag. 6. 22. For my part I shall not contend but admit the distinction of Christs Passeover and the Jewes Passeover yet saith Maldonat upon Ioh. 13. 1. I doubt not but Iohn understands Christs Passe-over for all the Evangelists in the story of the last Supper when they speake of the Passeover they mean Christs Passeover and it was the true Passeover according to the Law 3. That which makes many to thinke that Christ did eate the Passeover before that other Supper in which he gave the sop to Iudas is a mistake of the Jewish custome which as they conceive was to eate other meat after but none before the Paschall Lambe Now to me the contrary appeareth namely that whatsoever the Jewes did eate before the Paschall Supper in the night of the Passeover was eaten before the Paschall Supper and it was among them forbidden to eate any thing after the Paschall Supper Which may be proved not onely by that Talmudicall Canon cited by D. Buxtorf in hist. instit caenae Dom. which saith The Passeover is not eaten except after meal but also more plainly by Liber rituum paschalium lately translated and published by Rittangelius and by another Canon cited by Martinius But there are two arguments which may be brought to prove that Iudas did eate the Passeover with Christ and the Apostles 1. Because that Supper at which Iudas got the sop was after the Paschall supper for it is said Iohn 13. 2. Supper being ended Which must be meant of the Paschall supper I answer these words may very well be understood not of the Paschall supper but of that other supper at which the sop was given to Iudas And as for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some Greeke copies have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Nonnus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so the sence were as Augustine expounds Supper being prepared and ready and set on Table But be it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the matter is not great for there is no necessity of expounding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus when Supper was done or ended It may suffer other two sences One is that of Augustine when it was Supper time or when Supper was set on Table And this sence is followed by Aâ—…binus Flâ—…us Alcuinus lib. de divinis Officiis Artic. de Caena Domini Circa vâ—…speram vero caenâ factâ id est paratâ ad convivantium mensam usque perductâ non transactâ neque â—…initâ surgit Jesus à caenâ pâ—…it vestimenta c. So likewise Mariana upon Ioh. 13. 2. tels us that caenâ factâ may well be expounded caenâ paratâ or ante caenam or cum caenae tempus adesset which he cleareth by the like formes of speech in other Scriptures Secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
guilty Ergo he that harboureth a knowne Traytor is not guilty Eighthly for he hath given his seventh already he tels us that the Minister onely 〈◊〉 the Sacrament and the unworthy receiving is the receivers own personall act and sinne alone Answ 1. He begges againe and againe what is in Queâ—ion 2. There is an unworthy giving as well as an unworthy receiving The unworthy giving is a sinâ—ull act of the Minister which makes him also accessary to the sinne of unworthy receiving and so partake of other mens â—innes The ninth concerning Christs giving of the Sacrament to Iudas is answered before The tenth I have also answered before in his fourth conclusion The Minister is a sweet savour of Christ as well in those that perish by the Sacrament as in those that are benefited by it with this proviso that he hath done his duty as a faithfull Steward and that he hath not given that which is holy to dogs else God shall require it at his hands Finally he argueth from 1 Cor. 11. 29. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh not condemnation but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 judgement meaning some temporall judgement to himselfe not to the Minister or Communicants Answ. 1. Whatever be meant by judgement in this place certainly it is a punishment of sinne and such a thing as proceedeth from Gods displeasure and it is as certaine that unworthy receiving maketh a person lyable to a greater judgement then that which is temporall 2. If to himselfe be restrictive and exclusive in the case of close hypocrites such as are by Church-officers judging according to outward appearance admitted to the Sacrament yet how will it be made to appeare that the Apostle meant those words as restrictive and exclusive in the case of scandalous and knowne unworthy communicants 3. Such a scandalous person doth indeed eate and drink judgement to himselfe but this can neither in whole nor in part excuse but rather greatly aggravate the sinne of the Minister for when a wicked man dieth in his iniquity yet his blood God will require at the hands of the unfaithfull Minister who did strengthen his hands in his sinne CHAP. XII Whether the Sacrament of the Lords Supper be a converting or regenerating Ordinance I Had in answer to Mr. Prynns third Quaere given this reason why prophane and scandalous persons are to be kept off from the Sacrament and yet not from hearing the Word because the word is not onely a confirming and comforting but a converting Ordinance and is a mean appointed of God to turn sinners from darknes to light and from the power of Sathan to God Whereas the Sacrament is not a converting but a confirming and sealing Ordinance which is not given to the Church for the conversion of Sinners but for the Communion of Saints It is not appointed to put a man in the state of grace but to seal unto a man that interest in Christ and in the Covenant of Grace which he already hath Mr. Prynne doth with much eagernesse contradict me in this and argue at length the contrary Which is the marrow and fatnesse if there be any in his debate concerning the eighth point of difference Whereby he doth not onely contradict me but himself too as shall appear yea and joyn not onely with the more rigid Lutherans but with the Papists themselves against the Writers of the Reformed Churches For the very same thing which is controverted between him and me is controverted between Papists and Protestants The Papists hold that the Sacraments are instrumentalâ— to confer give or work grace yea ex opere operato as the School-men speak Our Divines hold that the Sacraments are appointed of God and delivered to the Church as sealing Ordinances not to give but to testifie what is given not to make but confirm Saints And they do not onely oppose the Papists opus operatum but they simply deny this instrumentality of the Sacraments that they are appointed of God for working or giving grace where it is not This is so well known to all who have studied the Sacramentarian controversies that I should not need to prove it Yet that none may doubt of it take here some few insteed of many testimonies Calvin holds plainly against the Papists that the Sacraments do not give any grace but do declare and shew what God hath given He clearâ— it in that chapter thus the Sacraments are like seals appended to writs which of themselves are nothing if the paper or parchment to which they are appended be blank Again they are like pillars to a house which cannot be a foundation but a strengthening of a house that hath a foundation We are built upon the Word the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Again Sacraments are to us from God that which messengers are which bring good newes from men they declare what is but do not so much as instrumentally make it to be These are Calvins similes Bâ—…llinger confuteth the Popish doctrine concerning the Sacraments conferring of grace by this principle that the Saints are justified and sanctified before they are sealed and confirmed by the Sacraments Ursinus speaks so fully and plainly for us that none can say more He distinguisheth between the Word and Sacraments as between converting and confirming Ordinances and argueth that the Sacraments do not confer grace because we receive not the thing by receiving the signe but we get the signe because it is supposed we have the thing Yea he speaks of it as a principle known to children Wolfangus Musculus in his common places saith thus Who seeth not what manner of persons we must be when we approach to this mystical Table of the Lord to wit not such as do therein first of all seek the fruition of the body and blood of the Lord as if we were yet destitute thereof but such as being already before partakers thereof by faith do desire to corroborate more and more in our hearts the grace once received by the Sacramental communication of the body and blood of the Lord and by the remembrance of his death and to give thanks to our Redeâ—…mer Martin Bucer upon Matth. 18. 17. puts this difference between the Word preached and the Lords Supper that the Word may be preached to the unconverted but the Lords Supper may not be given to any who by their lives do declare that they are out of communion with Jesus Christ. Which is the very point now in controversie Festus Honnius Disp. 43. Thes. 3. confuting the Popish opinion of the Sacraments working or giving grace brings this reason against it They that receive the Sacraments have this grace before they receive them neither are any to be admitted to the Sacraments who may be justly supposed not to be justified and sanctified Aretius Coment in Mark 14. loc 3. observeth Qui admissi sint ad istam Coenam discipuli solum Who were admitted to that eucharistical
former Becanus for the latter Tannerus You will say peradventure that Protestant Writers hold the Sacraments to be 1. Significant or declarative signes 2. Obsignative or confirming signes 3. Exhibitive signes so that the thing signified is given and exhibite to the soul. I answer That exhibition which they speak of is not the giving of grace where it is not as is manifest by the afore quoted Testimonies but an exhibition to beleevers a real effectual lively application of Christ and of all his benefits to every one that beleeveth for the staying strengthening confirming and comforting of the soul. Chamierus contractus Tom. 4. lib. 1. cap. 2. Docemus ergo in Sacramentorum perceptione effici gratiam in fidelibus hactenus Sacramenta dicenda efficacia Polan Syntag. lib. â— cap. 49. saith the visible external thing in the Sacrament is thus far exhibitive quia bona spiritualia per eam fidelibus significantur exhibentur communicantur obsignantur So that in this point Habenti dabitur is a good rule For unto every one that hath shall be given and he shall have abundance but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath Maith 25. 29. Our Divines do not say that the Sacraments are exhibitive Ordinances wherein grace is communicated to those who have none of it to unconverted or unbeleeving persons By this time it may appear I suppose that the controversie between us and the Papists concerning the effect of the Sacraments setting aside the opus operatum which is a distinct controversie and is distinctly spoken to by our Writers setting aside also the casualitas phisica and insita by which some of the Papists say the Sacraments give grace though diverse others of them hold the Sacraments to be onely moral causes of grace is thus far the same with the present controversie between Mr. Prynn and me that Protestant Writers do not onely oppose the opus operatum and the casualitas physica insita but they oppose as is manifest by the Testimonies already cited all casuality or working of the first grace of conversion and faith in or by the Sacraments supposing alwaies a man to be a beleever and within the Covenant of grace before the Sacrament and that he is not made such nor translated to the state of grace in or by the Sacrament This the Papists contradict and therein Mr. Prynn joyneth with them When Bellarmine brings an impertinent Argument The Sacraments saith he have not the same relation to faith which the Word hath Nam verbum Dei praecedit fidem Sacramenta autem sequuntur saltem in adultis The Word of God doth go before faith but the Sacraments follow after it at least in those who are of age Dr. Ames Bell. enerv Tom. 3. lib. 1. cap. 5. corrects his great mistake or oblivion Hoc illud est quod nos docemus Sacramenta confirmare fidem per verbum Dei prius ingeneratam saltem in adultis This saith he is that which we teach that the Sacraments confirm that faith which was first begotten by the Word of God at least in those who are of age Mr. Prynns assertion is that the Lords Supper is a converting as well as a sealing Ordinance for clearing whereof hâ— premiseth two distinctions There are two sorts both of conversion and sealing which he saith his Antagonists to delude the vulgar have ignorantly wilfully or injudiciously confounded Whether such language beseems a man fearing God or honouring them that do fear God let every one judge who knoweth any thing of Christian moderation See now if there be any reason for this grievous charge First saith he there is an external conversion of men from Paganisme or Gentilisme to the external profession of the faith of Christ. This he saith is wrought by the Word or by Miracles and effected by Baptisme in reference to infants of Christian Parents But how the Baptismâ— of such Infants is brought under the head of conversion from Paganisme to the external profession of Christ I am yet to learn Secondly saith he There is a conversion from a meer external formal profession of the Doctrine and Faith of Christ to an inward spiritual embracing and application of Christ with his merits and promises to our souls by the saving grace of Faith and to an holy Christian real change of heart and life In this last conversion the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not onely a sealing or confirming but likewise a regenerating and converting Ordinance as well as the Word He might upon as good reason have made a third sort of conversion from a scandalous and prophane life to the external obedience of the will and commandements of God But all this is to seek a knot in the rush for there is but one sort of conversion which is a saving conversion and that is a conversion from nature to grace from sin to sanctification from the power of Sathan to God whether it be from paganisme or from prophanenesse or from an external formal profession Now that conversion which Mr. Prynn ascribes to the Sacrament is a true sanctifying and saving conversion The other conversion which he ascribes not to the Sacrament is not a saving conversion for the external conversion of men from Paganisme or Gentilisme to the external profession of the faith of Christ without the other conversion to an inward spiritual embracing of Christ doth but make men seven fold more the children of Hell So that Mr. Prynn hath more opened his sore when he thought to cover and patch it The other distinction which he gives us is of a twofold sealing But by the way he tells us that Baptisme and the Lords Supper are termed Sacraments and Seals without any Text of Scripture to warrant it Hereby as he gratifieth the Socinians not a little who will not have the Lords Supper to be called either seal or Sacrament but an obediential act and a good work of ours and tell us that we make the Lords Supper but too holy to delude the vulgar So he correcteth all Orthodox Writers Ancient and Modern The Apostlâ— describeth Circumcision to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a seal of the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 4. 11. Whence Divines give the name of seals to all Sacraments Rectè autem saith Aretius Theol. Probl. Loc. 76. speciebus imis intermediis generibus eadem â—…ssignantur in definiendo genera Circumcision is a seal therefore a Sacrament is a seal as well as this Justice is a habit therefore vertue is a habit Man is a substance therefore a living creature is a substance And further if Circumcision was a seal the Lords Supper is much more a seal as we shall see afterwards The honourable Houses of Parliament after advice had with the Assembly of Divines have judged this point which Mr. Prynn so much quarrelleth to be not onely true but so far necessary and fundamental that in their Ordinance of October 20. 1645. for keeping
back the ignorant and the scandalous from the Sacrament this truth That the Sacraments are seals of the Covenant of grace is enumerate among those points of Religion which all persons who shall be admitted to the Lords Supper ought to know and of which whosoever is ignorant shal not be admitted to the Lords Supper I hope Mr. Prynn shall not be willing to fall within the Category of ignorant persons and such as ought not be admitted to the Sacrament which yet by that Ordinance he must needs do if he will not know the Lords Supper to be a seal of the Covenant of grace Wherefore though he leaneth much that way both here and pag. 30. yet I shall expect he will rectifie himself in this particular His words are these There is a double sealing if we admit this Sacrament or Baptisme to be seals though never once stiled seals in any Scripture Text And in the Margent they are termed Sacraments and seals of the Covenant without any Text to warraâ—…t it Now Quaeritur whether Mr. Prynn doth know that the Sacraments are seals of the Covenant of grace and if he doth not know this whether doth not the Ordinance strike against him And now to return the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a Seal which makes most to our present purpose is a Scripture word As for the Word Sacrament we need not seek it in Scripture because it is a Latin Word and there is not either in the Hebrew or Greek the languages in which Scripture was written any word which properly closely and fully answereth to the Word Sacrament Sure we have the thing Sacrament though not the name in Scripture Peradventure Mr. Prynn is the more afraid of the Word Sacrament because some derive it à sacramente which suteth not so well to his notion of a converting Ordinance Well But what are nis two sorts of sealing 1. A visible external sealing of the pardon of sin and Gods promises in the blood of Christ to our outward sâ—…nces 2. An internal invisible sealing of them by the Spirit working in by the Word and Sacraments to our souls In the first sence he saith this Sacrament is a seal to all receivers even to those who are scandalous and unworthy who receive onely the outward Elements Again this first kind of sealing saith he seals all Gods promises and a free pardon of all our sins onely conditionally if we truly repent lay hold on Christ c. The second which is an absolute sealing he grants to belong onely to worthy penitent beleeving receivers Who doth now delude the vulgar When the Lords Supper is called a sealing Ordinance did ever any man understand this of a sealing to our outward sences onely or of receiving the outward Elements and no more Who can mistake the thing so far as to think that Christ hath instituted and ordained this Sacrament to be a meer external seal and no more When he grants that in the second sence this Sacrament is a seal onely to worthy penitent beleeving receivers who receive the inward invisible grace as well as the outward signes He grants that which I require that is that it is a sealing Ordinance intended for worthy penitent beleeving receivers not for the scandalous and unworthy God forbid we should make a sealing Ordinance to be an empty Ordinance The truth is his first kind of sealing without the second is no sealing yea worse then no sealing Where there is no charter how can there be a sealing except we seal blank paper and as we shall hear anon from Chrysostome we have not so much as the seal except we have that which is sealed I know it will be answered there is somewhat to be sealed even to the scandalous and unworthy that is the pardon of all their sins conditionally if they truly repent beleeve lay hold on Christ. In this very place Mr. Prynn tells us that all Gods promises and a free pardon is sealed even to scandalous and unworthy receivers conditionally that is as he explicates himself pag 37. upon condition that they become penitent and beleeving receivers But then say I he must upon as good reason grant that the Sacrament may be given to Pagans and Turks at least the first day of preaching the Gospel to them May it not be said to Pagans and Turks that if they repent and beleeve on Christ they shall have pardon of sin Here is the thing to be sealed in Mr. Prynn's opinion What then should hinder the sealing He shunneth to call the Sacrament a converting ordinance in reference to Pagans and now behold his principles will admit the giving of the Sacrament even to Pagans as a sealing Ordinance how much more then as a converting Ordinance We have now heard his two distinctions which if they have given any clearing to his assertion it is such as is little to his advantage I will now premise some distinctions of my owne to clear that which I hold 1. The Question is not de potentia Dei absoluta Whether God by his omnipotency can give the first grace of conversion in the instant of receiving the Sacrament But the Question is of the revealed will of God and the way of the dispensation of grace made known to us in the Gospel which must be the rule to us to walk by A peradventure it may be and who knoweth but the scandalous sinner may be converted is no warrantable ground to go upon in this case as Mr. Prynn would make it pag. 47. for we may as well adventure to delay repentance upon a peradventure it may be There is an example in the New-Testament of one who got repentance and mercy at his end and if we beleeve the Hebrews and divers Christian Interpreters there is another example of the same kind in the Old Testament which is the example of Achan Whereas there is no example in all the Scripture of any converted by the Sacrament But if a thing be contrary to the revealed will and commandement of God as both these are the delaying of repentance and the admission of scandalous persons to the Sacrament we may not dare to go upon peradventures To the Law and to the Testimony Search the Scriptures If the Word do not shew us any thing of conversion by the Sacrament we must not think of any such thing 2. We must distinguish between the Sacrament it self and those things that do accompany the Sacrament powerful preaching exhortation prayer or the like before or after the Sacrament Put case a sinner be effectually converted by a Sermon or a prayer which he heareth at the Ordination of a Minister will any man therefore say that Ordination is a converting Ordinance So if by most serious powerful exhortations convictions promises threatnings by prayer by Christian conference by reading or meditation before or after the Sacrament the Lord be pleased to touch the Conscience and convert the soul of an impenitent prophane wicked liver nothing of this
the people were inclined to hearken to doctrine by miracles which moveth natural men to flock together to see strange things saith Mr. Hussey Plea for Christian Magistracy pag. 30. which he is pleased to clear by peoples flocking to a Mountebank Other Texts which he citeth speak of miracles but not a syllable of conversion or regeneration wrought by miracles as Act. 15. 12. Act. 19. 11. 12. Among the rest of the Texts he citeth Iohn 6. 26. Ye seek me not because ye saw the miracles but because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled And hence forsooth he will prove that miracles did convert and regenerate men I had not touched these particulars were it not that I desire Mr. Prynn himself in the fear of God may be convinced of his making too bold with the Scripture in citing and applying it very far amisse and that for the future his Reader may be wary and not take from him upon trust a heap of Scriptural quotations such as often he bringeth In the fourth place he tells us That the things we see with our eyes do more affect and beget deeper impressions in our hearts then the things we hear He means I think do more effectually convert for so he makes the Application that the very beholding of Christs Person passion without the Word were the most effectual means of working contrition conversion c. Well What is his proof He citeth Christs words to his Disciples Blessed are your eyes for they see without adding the rest and your ears for they hear and Simeons words Mine eyes have seen thy salvation as if forsooth either Simeon or the Apostles had been converted and regenerated by the seeing of Christs person He cites also Luk. 23. 46 47 48. as if all who beholding Christs passion and death smote upon their breasts had been by that sight converted and regenerated That the things we behold with our eyes if they be great or strange things work deep impressions there can be no doubt of it But that the hearing of great things may not work as deep impressions or that seeing without hearing doth convert and regenerate hath been strongly affirmed by Mr. Prynn but not yet proved I proceed to his seventh Argument which is this The most melting soul-changing meditation is the serious contemplation of Christs death and Passion No meditation comparable to this to regenerate and convert a carnal heart And is not this effectually represented to our eyes hearts in this very Sacrament in a more powerful prevailing manner then in the Word alone Answ. That which he had to subsume and prove is that this Sacrament worketh in a unregenerate carnal heart such soul changing meditations of the death and passion of Christ as it never had before the soul having never before been regenerate Which being the point to be proved why did he not prove it if he could No doubt the Sacrament is a most powerful mean to beget in the hearts of beleevers and regenerate persons most humbling and melting meditations concerning the death of Christ. But that it begetteth any soul changing or regenerating meditations in those in whom the Word hath never yet begun the work of regeneration and conversion I do as much disagree in this as I agree in the other The eighth Argument which he brings is from comparing the Sacrament with afflictions Our own corporal external afflictions are many times without the Word the means of our repentance and conversion unto God c. Then much more the Sacrament wherein the afflictions of Christ himself are so visibly set forth before our eyes Answ. 1. It is a very bad consequence for the strength resolves into this principle an unregenerate carnal man will be more affected and moved with the representation of Christs afflictions than with the feeling of his own corporal afflictions 2. Affliction doth not convert without the Word either going before or accompanying it unlesse we say that Pagans or Turks may be converted savingly by affliction before ever they hear the Word Psal. 94. 12. Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest and teachest him out of thy Law Job 36. 9. 10. 11. And if they be bound in fetters and holden in cords of affliction Then he sheweth them their work and their transgression that they have exceeded He openeth also their ear to Discipline and commandeth that they return from iniquity Behold conversion by afflictions but not without the Word While Mr. Prynn goeth about to prove that afflictions convert without the Word the first Text he citeth is Psal. 119. 67. 71. where expresse mention is made of the Word 3 As for Manasseh his conversion 2 Chron. 33. 11. 12. it was wrought by the means of affliction setting home upon his Conscience that Word of God mentioned in the verse imediatly preceding which saith and the Lord spake to Manasseh and to his people but they would not hearken Let him shew the like instance of the conversion by the Sacrament of such as would not hearken to the Word and I shall yeeld the cause The Word is expresse that affliction is one special powerful mean of conversion but it no where saith any such thing of the Sacrament 4. It was also incumbent to him to prove that afflictions do convert without the Word not onely at such times and in such places as do sequester a person from the liberty of hearing the Word preached but also when and where the Word is freely enjoyed Otherwise how far is he from concluding by Analogy the point he had to prove which is that an unregenerate person living under the Ministery of the Gospel and being an ordinary hearer never converted by the Word may neverthelesse according to the dispensation of the grace of God revealed in Scripture be converted by the Sacrament received His ninth Argument is this That Ordinance whose unworthy participation is a means of our spiritual obduration must by the rule of contraries when worthily received be the instrument of our mortification conversion salvation But the unworthy receiving of the Sacrament is a means c. Answ. 1. This Argument doth necessarily suppose that an unconverted unmortified unworthy person while such may yet worthily receive and so by that means be converted the contrary whereof I have demonstrated in my tenth Argument 2. If the Sacrament be not worthily received without repentance faith and self-examination for which cause men are dehorted to come except they repent c. then there is perfect non-sence in the Argument for to say that the Sacrament when worthily received is the instrument of conversion is as much as this The Sacrament is an instrument of conversion to those who are already converted 3. That rule of Contraries is extremely mis-applyed The rule is Oppositorum quatenus talia opposita sunt attributa Contraries have contrary attributes The comparison must be made secundum differentias quibus dissident Otherwise that old fallacy were a good Argument A single life is good
discipline against them that certainly makes us partakers of their sin I mean in a reformed and well constituted Church where the thing is feasible But where it cannot be done because of persecution or because of the invincible opposition either of authority or of a prevalent profane multitude in that case we have onely this comfort left us Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousnesse and in magnis voluisse sat est Fifthly neither doth this Question concerning the pollution or profanation or abuse of the Sacrament concern those peccata quotidianae incursionis such sins of infirmity as all the godly or at least the generallay of the godly are subject unto and guilty of as long as they are in the world for then the Sacrament should be polluted to all for Who can say I have made my heart clean I am pure from my sins but onely grosse and scandalous sins such as make the Name of God and the profession of Religion to be evil spoken of and reproached those roots of bitternesse which spring up whereby many are like to be defiled those that are guilty of such sins and have given no evidence of true Repentance if they be received to the Sacrament it is a profaning of the Ordinance Now that the admission of scandalous and notorious sinners to the Sacrament in a reformed and constituted Church is a profanation or pollution of that Ordinance may be thus proved First Paraeus upon the 82 Question in the Heidelberg Catechism where it is affirmed that by the admission of scandalous sinners to the Sacrament the Covenant of God is profaned giveth this reason for it Because as they who having no Faith nor Repentance if they take the sâ—als of the Covenant do thereby profane the Covenant so they who consent to known wicked and scandalous persons their taking of the seals or to their coming to the Sacrament do by such consenting make themselves guilty of profaning the Covenant of God for the doer and the consenter fall under the same breach of law yea so far do they sin by such consenting as that they do thereby acknowledge the children of the devil to be the children of God and the enemies of God to be in Covenant and to have fellowship with God He distinguisheth these two things who ought to come to the Sacrament and who ought to be admitted None ought to come except those who truely believe and repent None ought to be admitted except such as are supposed to be believers and penitent there being nothing known to the contrary If any impenitent sinner take the Sacrament he profanes the Covenant of God If the Church admit to the Sacrament any known to live in wickednesse without repentance the Church profaneth the Covenant of God Secondly that Ordinance which is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance which is not appointed for the conversion of sinners but for the communion of Saints is certainly profaned and abused contrary to the nature institution and proper end thereof if those who are manifestly ungodly profane impenitent and unconverted be admitted to the participation thereof But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance c. which I have proved by infallible demonstrations Ergo. Thirdly That use of the Sacrament which is repugnant and contradictory to the Word truly and faithfully preached in the name of Christ is a prophaning of the Sacrament But to give the Sacrament to those who are known to live in grosse sins without repentance is an use of the Sacrament which is repugnant and contradictory to the Word truly and faithfully preached in the Name of Christ. Ergo. I suppose no man will denie that if we truly and faithfully preach the Word we may and ought to pronounce and declare such as live in sin impenitent and unconverted to be under Gods wrath and displeasure as long as they continue in that estate Be not deceived saith the Apostle neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankind nor theeves nor covetous nor drunkards nor revilers nor extortioners shall inherit the Kingdom of God 1 Cor. 6. 9. 10. See the like Ephes. 5. 5 6 7. Whence it is that doctrinally we warn the ignorant and scandalous and all such as live in known sins without repentance that they presume not to come and prophane that holy Table Of which Ministers are appointed by the Directory to give warning How then can we by giving the Sacrament to such as these give the lye to the Word For what other thing shall we do if those whom the Word pronounceth to have no part in the Kingdom of God nor of Christ shall be admitted as well as the Godly to eat and drink at the Lords Table while known to continue in the committing of their damnable sins or while it is known that they have not repented of the uncleannesse and fernication and lasciviousnesse which they have committed 2 Cor. 12. 21. What is this but to absolve in the Sacrament those who are condemned in the Word and to open the Kingdom of Heaven in the Sacrament unto those on whom the Word shutteth it Fourthly That use of the Sacrament which strengtheneth the hands of the wicked so that he turneth not from his wickednesse is an abuse and profanation of the Sacrament But the giving of the Sacrament to any known prophane impenitent person is such an use of the Sacrament as strengtheneth the hands of the wicked so that he turneth not from his wickednesse Ergo. I appeal to the experience of all godly and faithful ministers whether they have not found it a great deal more difficult to convince or convert such prophane men as have been usually admitted to the Sacrament then to convince or convert such as have been kept back from the Sacrament No marvel that such prophane ones as have usually received the seals of the Covenant of grace and joyned in the highest act of Church-communion live in a good opinion of their souls estate and trust in lying words Have we not eaten and drunken at thy Table The Sacrament The Sacrament as of old The Temple The Temple Mr. Prynn thinks that the Minister hath fully discharged his duty and conscience if he give warning to unworthy Communicants of the danger they incurre by their unworthy approaches to the Lords Table Vindic. pag. 28 29. But he may be pleased to receive an answer from himself pag. 43. The things we see with our eyes do more affect and beget deeper impressions in our hearts then the things we hear The Word preached is Verbum audibile the Sacrament is Verbum visibile How shall prophane ones be perswaded by their ears to beleeve that whereof they see the contrary with their eyes they will give more credit in Mr. Prynns own opinion to the visible Word then to the audible Word Fifthly If it were a prophanation of the Sacrament of Baptisme to baptize a
in the danger of death they were permitted to receive the Sacrament before that course was finished if they should desire it Then last of all after the Sacrament was the missa fidelium the dismission of the faithful Augustine lib. de fide operibus cap. 6. so applieth the prohibition of giving holy things to doggs that he thence argueth against the administration of Baptism to persons living in adultery although such as have embraced the Orthodox Doctrine which is also the scope of that whole Book Now if persons of a profane Conversation though orthodox in their Judgement and Profession be such doggs as ought to be refused Baptism when they desire it surely they are also such doggs as ought to be refused the Lords Supper Moreover the onely seeming advantage which Master Prynne catcheth is from the word doggs which yet is no advantage for that is applied generally to wicked and profane persons in the Scriptures above cited and so Revel 22. 15. but he shall do well to observe the word swine too for as Grotius upon the place following Chrysostome doth make the distinction the doggs are such as bark and contradict the swine such as do not bark and contradict but by an impure life saith he declare how little esteem they have of the holy things Which difference as he conceives the Text it self doth hint for it mentioneth not onely the turning again to rent which is the dogges part but the trampling of Pearls under feet which is the swines part Finally this Argument from Matth. 7. hath gained so much upon Erastus himself lib. 3. cap. 3. that he restricteth himself to the admission of such onely to the Sacrament as acknowledge and confesse their fault promise amendment and desire to use the Sacraments rightly with the rest so far as we are able to judge Which concession will go far CHAP. XVI An Argument of Erastus drawn from the Baptism of John â—gainst the excluding of scandalous sinners from the Lords Supper â—xamined THe strongest Arguments of Erastus drawn from the Old Testament I have before discussed Another Argument of his which deserveth an Answer for I take him in his greatest strength is this Iohn Baptist saith he did baptize all none excepted who came to him to be baptized yea even the Pharisees and Sadduces whom yet he called a generation of Vipers Answer 1. They that were baptized by Iohn did confesse their sins and professe Repentance and Erastus himself brings in Iohn Baptist speaking to those Pharisees on this manner I do not see into your hearts but he that cometh after me hath his fan in his hand and will separate the chaff from the wheat so that though ye may deceive me with a feigned repentance yet you cannot deceive him Hereupon Erastus concludeth that the Ministers of the Gospel ought not to deny the Sacraments to those that professe repentance and ought not take upon them to judge of mens hearts whether they do truely and unfeignedly repent Now all this maketh for the suspension from the Sacrament of all such as do not confesse their sins nor professe repentance for the same The drunkard that will not confesse his drunkennesse the unclean person that will not confesse his uncleannesse the Sabbath-breaker that will not confesse his breach of the Sabbath are by this ground to be excluded and so of other scandalous persons We are not to judge of mens hearts but we are to judge of the external signâ—s of repentance whether sin be confessed and repentance declared by some hopeful signes or not 2. Neither doth his argument fully reach admission to the Lords Table where some further and more exact proof must be had of ones fitnesse and qualification for the communion of Saints Even those that are of age when they are baptized are but Incipientes when they come to the Lords Table they are proficientes There is some more required in proficients then in Novices and beginners as there is more required to fit one for strong meat thâ—n for milk 3. It is also a question whether those Pharisees that came to the baptisme of Iohn were indeed baptized of him Tostatus tells us some think they were not baptized and they prove it from Luk. 7. 29 30. And all the People that heard him and the Publicans justifieâ—… God being baptized with the Baptisme of John But the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the Counsel of God against themsâ—…lves being not baptized of him There is a controversie whether thâ—se be the words of our Saviour Christ or of the Evangelist Luke But there can be no controversie of this that the Pharisees and Lawyeâ—s were not baptized of Iohn but the people and the puâ—licans were Which may very well be extended to those Pharisees of whom we read Matth. 3. 7. For the holy Ghost having said of the people that they were baptized of Iohn in Iordan confessing their sins he saith no such thing of the Pharisees but onely that they came to his Baptisme whether to see the fashion and the new Ceremony or whether with an intention to be baptized after which we read no more but that Iohn gave them a most sharp admonition and called them a generation of vipers and told them that they should not glory in being Abrahams children Whereupon it may seem they went away displeased and unbaptized But when I compare the Evangelists together that which appears to me to be meant Matth. 3. 7. concerning many of the Pharisees comming to the Baptisme of Iohn is that they were sent from Ierusalem with a message to ask Iohn Who art thou For they who were sent upon that message were of the Pharisees Iohn 1. 24. and they were sent to Bethabara beyond Iordan where Iohn was baptizing Iohn 1. 28. and a part of Iohns answer to them was I baptize with water but there standeth one among you whom ye know not c. Iohn 1. 26. In both passages Iohn speaks of him that was to come after him whom he preferreth before himself In both he professeth that he could do no more but baptize with Water or Ministerially In both he saith he was not worthy to unloose the latchet of Christs shoe So that many of the circumstances do agree with the story Matth. 3. and the other circumstances are not inconsistent In the other Evangelists it is I baptize you with water But that proves not that the Pharisees who were sent to Iohn were baptized for Luke doth plainly apply those words to the people Luke 3. 15. 16. 18. But when the Pharisees asked Iohn Why baptizest thou c. the answer to them was not I baptize you with Water but I baptize with Water The Centurists think that the Pharisees who were sent from Ierusalem to Iohn to ask him Who art thou John 1. were not sent from any good esteem which was had of Iohn but from malice and an intent to quarrel with him This they prove because Iohn saith to them
that which is better 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is greatly punished For here also he that commeth and confesseth the sin is to be punished with six yeers segregation but he that persevereth in the evil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be east out or expelled from the Church adde what he had said before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and shall not thenceforth converse with the Orthodox Which intimateth as plainly as any thing can be that there was an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a segregation or sequestration used in the ancient Church which was a lesser censure than casting out of the Church and from the company of Church-members Zonaras seemeth to understand the Canon otherwise for he saith nothing of the offenders converting and confessing his sin before the six years segregation but that for the offence it self committed not confessed a man was segregated six years and afterward if he did not repent but continue in the offence that then he was to be cut off and cast out of the Church wherein as I take it he did explain the mind of the Councel better then Balsamon However in that point which I now prove they are most harmonious namely concerning a greater and lesser excommunication Wherefore also the Fathers of this Synod saith Zonaras did ordain those who do such a thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be segregated for six years c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but if they continue therein to be also cut off from the Church Fifthly To suppose that there were no Poenitentes in the Ancient Church but such as were Excommunicati were a greater error then that it should need any Confutation Yea there were some poenitents who did of their own accord confesse their offences which could not have been otherwise known but by such voluntary confession and those saith Zonaras Annot. in Conc. Carth. Can. 46. were most properly called Poenitents I hope no man will imagine that such were excommunicated But so it was that all the Poenitents even such as had neither been excommunicated nor yet forensically convict by proof of scandal but did voluntarily confesse and convert were for some season kept back from the Sacrament as is manifest by that instance given out of Basilius magnus of theft voluntarily confessed for which notwithstanding the offender was for a year suspended from the Sacrament Sixthly It is manifest that there were several degrees of censure upon Bishops and Presbyters They were sometime suspended from giving the Sacrament and as it were sequestred from the exercise of their Ministery which suspension or sequestration is sometimes called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be separate sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be sequestred from communion to wit in the exercise of the Ministery or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to minister There was a higher censure then this which was deposition or degradation called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the honour or degree of Presbytership to be taken away Basils phrase is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are deposed from their degree These two censures a suspension or sequestration from the Ministery and a total deposition from the Ministery are distinguished by the eighteenth Canon of the Councel of Ancyra and the sixteenth Canon of the Councel of Nicâ—… compared with the fifteenth Canon of those called the Apostles which certainly were not the Apostles yet are ancient See also Zonaras in Can. 11. Apost Likewise both him and Balsamon in Conc. Nic. Can. 16. Again there was somthing beyond all this which was excommunication or to be wholy cast out of the Church a censure sometime not inflicted when the former were For a Minister might be suspended yea deposed from his Ministery yet permitted to communicate or receive the Sacrament among the people as is plainly determined Can. 15. Apost and Can. 32 Basilii ad Amphil. If there were such degrees of censure appointed for Bishops and Presbyters how shall we suppose that there was no lesse censure for Church-members then excommunication For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to a Minister and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to one of the people were paralel Whence it is that you will often find in the ancient Canons and namely of the sixth general Councel He that committeth such a fault if he be one of the laity let him be segregated if one of the Clergie let him be deposed As therefore a further censure after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might fall upon a minister so a further censure after that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be inflicted upon one of the people I have now made it to appear that the Practice Discipline and Canons of the ancient Church are for us in this present controversie about suspension from the Sacrament In the next place I will produce particular Testimonies of Fathers I shall take them as they fall to my hand without any curious order I begin with Isidorus Pâ—…lusiota who flourished about the year 431. or as others say 440. In the first Book of his Epistles Epist. 143 to Thalelâ—…us he disswadeth from giving the Sacrament to three sort of persons 1. To Jews 2. To Hereticks of both which he saith that they had once received the doctrine of truth but did after return with the dog to the vomit 3. To persons of a prophane and swinish conversation Unto all or any of these he holds it unlawful to give the Sacrament and that because of a divine prohibition Give not holy things to dogs neither cast ye pearls before swine And he concludeth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For saith he the giving of the mysteries to such persons is unto those who contemptuously give them a breach out of which they are not awaked Dionysius Areopagita whom I do not take to be that Areopagite converted by Paul Act. 17. But certainly he is an Ancient Writer as is manifest by the Scholia upon him written by Maximus who flourished about the year 657. He is also cited by the sixth general Councel and by some ancient writers de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia cap. 3. part 3. Sect. 6. 7. having spoken of the exclusion of the Catechumens Energumens and Penitents from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper though all these heard the word read and preached he addeth that unclean carnal prophane persons in whom Sathan reigneth by sin are worse and ought much lesse to be admitted to the Sacrament then those who were bodily possessed of the divel These therefore unclean and profane persons as the first and much rather then those Energumens let them be suspended or sequestrate by the judicial or discriminating voice of the Minister for it is not permitted unto them to partake of any other holy thing but the Ministery of the Word by which they may be converted For if this heavenly celebration of the divine Mysteries refuse or repel even penitents themselves although they were sometime partakers thereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not admitting him who is not altogether most holy c. for that most
pure voice doth also restrain those who cannot be joyned and knit together with such as do worthily communicate in those divine mysteries surely the multitude of those in whom vile lusts and passions do reigne is much more prophane and hath much lesse to do with the fight and communion of these holy things The old Scholiast Maximus upon that place saith thus Note that he reckoneth together with the Energumens those that continue without repentance in the allurements of bodily pleasures as fornicators lovers and frequenters of unlawful plaies such as the divine Apostle having mentioned doth subjoyn with such a one no not to eat Where Mr. Prynn may also note by the way how anciently 1 Cor. 5. 11. was applied so as might furnish an argument against the admission of scandalous persons to the Sacrament Let us also hear the Paraphrast Pachimeres upon the place For if the celebration of the divine mysteries refuse even those who are in the very course of repentance not admitting such because they are not throughly or wholy purified and sanctified as it were proclaiming it self invisible and incommunicable unto all who are not worthy to communicate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much more they who are yet impenitent are to be restrained from it If you please to search further take but one passage of Cyprian which speaks plainly to me for suspension from the Sacrament for he sharply reproves the receiving to the Sacrament such persons as were not excommunicate for if they had most certainly he had mentioned that as the most aggravating circumstance but having committed smaller offences had not made out the course of publike manifesting their repentance according to the discipline of the Church If we shall require more we have a most plain Testimony of Iustine Martyr telling us that at that time they admitted none to the Lords Supper except those onely who had these three qualifications 1. They must receive and beleeve the Doctrine preached and professed in the Church 2. They must be washed or baptized unto the remission of sins and regeneration 3. They must be such as live according to the rule of Christ. His words are these This food is with us called the Eucharist which is lawful for none other to partake of but to him that beleeveth those things to be true which are taught by us and is washed in the laver for remission of sins and for Regeneration and liveth so as Christ hath delivered or commanded g Walasridus Strabo a diligent searcher of the Ancients which were before him and of the old Ecclesiastical Rites who died about the year 849. mentioneth this suspension from the Sacrament as an Ecclesiastical censure received from the Ancient Fathers and he gives three reasons for it to prove that it is for the sinners own good to be thus suspended 1. That he may not involve himself in greater guiltinesse 2. That he may not be chastened of the Lord with sicknesse and such other afflictions as the profanation of that Sacrament brought upon the Corinthians 3. That being terrified and humbled he may think the more earnestly of repenting and recovering himself It was truly said that this discipline was received from the Ancient Fathers which as it appeareth from what hath been already said so the Testimony of Chrysostome must not be forgotten He in his tenth Homily upon Matthew expounding those words Matth. 3. 6. And were baptized of him in Jordan confessing their sins noteth that the time of confession belongeth to two sorts of persons to the prophane not yet initiated and to the baptized to the one that upon their repentance they might get leave to partake in the holy Mysteries to the other that being washed in Baptism from their filthinesse they might come with a clean Conscience to the Lords Table His meaning is That neither the unbaptized nor scandalous livers though they were baptized might be admitted to the Lords Table whereupon he concludeth Let us therefore abstain from this lâ—…ud and dissolute life The Latin Translation rendring the sence rather then the words speaketh more plainly But there is a most full and plain passage of Chrysostome in his 83. Homily upon Matthew neer the end thereof where he saith of the Lords Supper Let no cruel one no unmerciful one none any way impure come unto it I speak these things both to you that do receive and also to you that do administer Even to you this is necessary to be told that with great care and heedfulnes you distribute these gifts There doth no small punishment abide you if you permit any whose wickednesse you know to partake of this Table for his blood shall be required at your hands If therefore any Captain if the Consul if he himself that wears the Crown come unworthily restrain him which to do thou hast more authority then he hath And after But if you say how shall I know this man and that man I do not speak of those that are unknown but of those that are known I tel you a horrible thing it is not so ill to have among you those that are bodily possessed of the Divel as these sinners which I speak of c. Let us therefore put back not onely such as are possessed but ALL WITHOUT DISTINCTION WHOM WE SEE TO COME UNWORTHILY c. But if thou thy self darest not put him back bring the matter to me I will permit no such thing to be done I will sooner give up my life than I will give the body of the Lord unworthily and sooner suffer my blood to be poured out than give the Lords blood unworthily and contrary to my duty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to such as are horribly scandalous He concludeth that this discipline is medicinal and profitable in the Church and that the keeping back of the scandalous is the way to make many worthy Communicants Can any man imagine that all such unworthy persons were excommunicate and wholy cast out of the Church Do not all Chrysostomes Arguments militate against the admission of any scandalous and unworthy person known to be such saith he not that all simply or without distinction whom they perceived to come unworthily were to be put back If onely excommunicate persons were kept back from the Sacrament what needed all this exhortation to those that did administer the Sacrament to be so careful cautious and heedful whom they would admit And if none were to be excluded from the Sacrament but those that were branded with the publike infamy of excommunication what needed this objection to be moved how shall I know such Moreover Both Cyprian and Ambrose do most plainly and undeniably hold forth different degrees of Church censures and Cyprian is most full and clear concerning a suspension from the Sacrament of persons not excommunicated nor cast out of the Church For answering a case of Conscience put to him concerning certain young women whose conversation and behaviour with men had
party in the point of Excommunication For in the vindication of his four Questions pag. 2. he readily yeeldeth that grosse notorious scandalous obstinate sinners who presumptuously persevere in their iniquities after private and publike admonitions without remorse of Conscience or AMENDMENT may be justly excommunicated from the Church the society of the faithful and all publike Ordinances after due proof and legal conviction of their scandalous lives and that 1. Cor. 5. 13. warrants thus much The Antidote animadverted by P. in the first page yeeldeth that excommunication is an Ordinance of God And indeed 1 Cor. 5. 13. doth not onely warrant excommunication as lawful but injoyn and command it as necessary for the Apostles words are praeceptive and peremptory Therefore put away from among your selves that wicked person The thing was not indifferent but necessary and such as could not without sin be omitted However Mr. Prynn his asserting from that place that it may be is a deserting of the Erastian party 2. In the 50. page of his vindication he professeth that his Antagonists do contend for that which he granteth them with advantage They would have scandalous sinners suspended from the Sacrament He will have them not onely suspended from the Sacrament but excommunicated from all other publike Ordinances 3. He confesseth ibid. that in some cases a person not excommunicated may be suspended from the Sacrament But whatever his Concessions may seem to be they are really as good as nothing For 1. He will have none to be suspended from the Sacrament except such as are ripe for excommunication and against whom the sentence of excommunication is ready to be pronounced as persons incorrigible 2. He admitteth no suspension from the Sacrament till after several solemn previous publike admonitions reprehensions rebukes contemned or neglected See both these pag. 50. Whence you see that with Mr. Prynns consent all the votes of Parliament concerning several causes of suspension from the Lords Table shall be of no use to Presbyteries until after a long processe of time and after many previous publike admonitions So that if one in the Congregation commit a notorious incest or murther a day or two or a week before the celebration of the Sacrament and the thing be undeniably certified and proved before the Eldership yet the Eldership cannot suspend such an abominable scandalous sinner from the Sacrament hac vice but must first go through all those preparatory steps which are necessary and requisite before excommunication Well but after all those publike previous admonitions shall the sentence of excommunication follow Nay here also he will have Presbyteries to go through a very narrow lane for in the same place he thus describeth the persons whom he would have to be excommunicated They are scandalous obstinate peremptory incorrigible notorious sinners who desperately and professedly persevere in their grosse scandalous sins c. But I beseech you what if they persevere in their grosse scandalous sins neither desperately nor professedly Must they not then be excommunicate Shall not the offender be cast out of the Church after clear proof of the offence and several previous publike admonitions contemned or neglected Must we wait till the adulterer professe that he will persevere in his adultery and till the blasphemer professe that he will persevere in his blasphemy Nay further What if the offender do neither 〈◊〉 nor actually persevere in his grosse scandalous sin Put case he that hath blasphemed once do not blaspheme the second time and that he who grossely and scandalously prophaned the Lords day did it but once and hath not done it again since he was reproved Must this hinder the sentence of excommunication when that one grosse scandal is not confessed nor any signe of repentance appearing in the offender Moreover whereas Mr. Prynn in his fourth Quare and in several places of his Vindication seemeth to allow none to be admitted to the Lords Table except such as professe sincere repentance for sins past and promise newnesse of life for time to come If we expound his meaning by his own expressions in other places that which he granteth bordereth upon nothing for pag. 13. speaking of scandalous sinners their admission to the Sacrament if they professe sincere repentance for their sins past and reformation of their lives for time to come he addeth as all do at least in their general confessions before the Sacrament if not in their private meditations prayers c. and a little after he saith that all who come to receive do alwaies make a general and joynt confession of their sins before God and the Congregation c. And then he addeth pag. 14. Yea I dare presume there is no receiver so desperate that dares professe when he comes to receive he is not heartily sorry for his sins past but resolves to persevere impenitently in them for the future though afterward he relapse into them as the best Saints do to their old infirmities c. I know the best Saints have their sinful infirmities but whether the BEST do relapse to their OLD infirmities may be a Question And however he doth open a wide door for receiving to the Sacrament all scandalous sinners not excommunicated if they do but tacitely joyn in the general Confession of sins made by the whole Church or do not contradict those general Confessions and professe impenitency and persevering in wickednesse though in the mean time there be manifest real symptomes of impenitency and no confession made of that particular sin which hath given publike scandal Wherefore I say plainly with the Professors of Leyden Synops. Pur. Theol. Disp. 48. Thes. 35. The administration of this censure of suspension from the Lords Table hath place in these two different cases either when one that is called a Brother hath given some hainous scandal of life or Doctrine who after admonition doth indeed by word of mouth professe repentance but yet doth not shâ—…w the fruits meet for repentance that so the scandal might be taken away from the Church or when he doth not so much as in words promise or professe repentance c. Martin Bucer hath a notable speech to this purpose de Regno Christi lib. 1. Cap. 9. To hold it enough that one do professe by Word onely repentance of sins and say that he is sorry for his sins and that he will amend his life the necessarie signes and works of Repentance not being joyned with such profession It is the part of Antichrists priests not of Christs In the next place it is to be taken notice of how palpably and grossely Mr. Prynn contradicteth himself in divers particulars Which being observed may peradventure make himself more attentive in writing and others more attentive in reading such subitane lucubrations The particulars are these which follow 1. Vindicat pag. 17. he saith the Confession of sin which was made at the Trespasse offerings was not to the Priest Classis or Congregation but to God alone 1. In
the very same page he saith None were kept off from making their atonement by a trespasse offering if they did first confesse their sins to God though perchance his confession was not cordiall or such as the Priests approved but external onely in shew I beseech you how could it be at all judged of whether it was external and onely in shew if it was made to God alone Nay if it was made to God alone how could it be known whether he had confessed any sin at all and so whether he was to be admitted to the trespasse offering or not 2. Vindic. pag. 50. He freely granteth That ALL scandalous obstinate peremptory incorrigible notorious sinners who desperately and professedly persevere in their grosse scandalous fins to the dishonour of Christian Religion the scandal of the Congregation the ill example and infection of others after several solemn previous publike admonitions reprehensions rebukes contemned or neglected and full conviction of their scandal and 2. Vindic. pag. 57. Certainly the speediest BEST and ONLY WAY to suppresse ALL kind of sins schismes to reform and purge our Churches from ALL SCANDALOUS OFFENCES will be for Ministers NOT to draw out the sword of Excommunication and suspension against them which will do little good but the sword of the Spirit the powerful preaching of Gods Word and the sword of the Civil Magistrate impenitency may and OUGHT TO BE EXCOMMUNICATED suspended c. If this be the best and only way to suppresse sin and to reform and purge the Churches How is it that some scandalous sinners may and ought to be excommunicated 3. Vindic. pag. 50 Where the fâ—…ct is notorious the pâ—…oofs 〈◊〉 the sentence of excommunication ready to be pronounced against them as persons impenitently scandalous and inâ—…orrigible â—…erchance the Presbyterie or â—…l ssis may order a suspension from the Sacrament or any other Ordinances before the sentence of excommunication solemnly denounced if they see just cause 3. Yet all along he disputes against the su pending from the Sacrament of a person unexcommunicated and not suspended from all other publike Ord nances and society of Gods people And pag 50. arguing for the right of all visible members of the visible Church to the Sacrament he saith that nothing but an actual excommunication can suspend them from this their rigâ—…t 4. Vindic. pag. 17. He saith that a particular examination of the Conscience and Repentance for sin is no where required in Scripture of such who did eat the Passeover And herein he distinguisheth the Trespasse-offerings and the Passeover that in bringing a trespasse offering men came to sue for pardon and make atonement and that therefore confession of sin was necessary But in the Passeover 4. Ibid. pag. 24. He saith that the Passeover was the same in substance with the Eucharist under the Gospel wherein Christ was spiritually represented and received as well as in the Lords Supper But how can this be if repentance for sin was not necessary in the Passeover and if it was onely a commemoration of a by pâ—st temporal mercy in sparing the first born of the Israelites there was râ—… atonement c. but ONELY a commemoration of Gods infinite mercy in passing over the Israelites first born when he slâ—…w the Egyptians  5. Vindic. pag. 18. He saith that immediatly before the institution of the Sacrament Christ told his Disciples that one of them should betray him and that Iudas was the last man that said Is it I immediately before the Institution And pag. 27. he saith That the other disciples did eat the Sacrament with Iudas after Christ had particularly informed them and Iudas himself that he should betray him 5. Yet pag. 25. He reckoneth that very thing to have been after the Institution of the Sacrament for to that Objection that Iudas went out before Supper ended immediately after he received the sop whereas Christ did not institute the Sacrament till after Supper he makes this answer that the dipping of the sop at which time Iudas said is it I was at the common Supper which saith he succeded the Institution of the Sacrament so that the Sacrament was instituted after the Paschal not after the common Supper And pag. 19. He argues that Iudas did receive the Sacrament upon this ground that all this discourse and the giving of the sop to Judas was after Supper ended but Christ instituted and distributed the Sacrament at least the bread as he sate at meat as they were eating before Supper quite ended 6. Vindic. pag. 42. Speaking of ungodly scandalous sinners he plainly intimateth that the receiving of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is more likely to regenerate and change their hearts and lives then the Word preached And in that same page he holdeth that this Sacrament is certainly the most powerful and effectual Ordinance of all others to humble regenerate convert The like see pag. 44 45. and pag. 52. Yea no doubt many debosht Persons have been really reclaimed converted even by their accesse and admission to the Sacrament 6. Pag. 57. He ascribeth the power of godlinesse in many English Congregations to powerful preaching and saith that this sword of the Spirit the powerful preaching of Gods Word and the sword of the Civil Magistrate are onely able to effect this work to suppresse all kind of sinnes schismes to reform and purge the Churches If this be the speediest best and onely way to suppresse all kind of sinnes schismes to reform and purge our Churches from all scandalous offences as he there saith and if the Word and the Magistrate are onely able to effect this work How is it that the Lords Supper doth change mens hearts and lives and that more effectually then any other Ordinance Again pag. 37. he saith he hath in other Treatises of his proved Gods presence and Spirit to be as much as really present in other Ordinances as in this of the Lords Supper How then makes he this Sacrament to be the most powerful and effectual Ordinance of all others to humble regenerate convert 7. Pag. 40. He makes the Sacrament to be a seal to the sences of unworthy persons but not to their soules In this latter sence he saith it is a seal onely to worthy penitent beleeving receivers 7. Yet Pag. 44 45. the strength of his tenth Argument lies in this that the Sacrament sealeth unto the Communicants souls yea to the flintiest heart and obduratest spirit the promises an union with Christ assurance of everlasting life and therefore in regard of the sealing of all these particulars unto mens souls must needs convert an obdurate unregenerate sinner Which Argument were non-sence if it did not suppose the Sacrament to seal all these particulars even to the souls of unregenerate sinners Mark but these words of his own since that which doth seal all these particulars to mens souls and represent them to their saddest thoughts must needs more powerfully perswade pierce mels relent convert an obdurate heart
conficiunt per quos nos Christiani sumus Qui claves regni caelorum habentes quodammodo ante Judicâ—i dâ—em judicant c Mihi ante Presbyterum legendum fortasse Presbyterium sedere non licet illi si peccavero liâ—et tradere me Satanae in interitum catuis ut spiritus salvus fit Et in veteri quidem lege quicunque sacerdotibus non obtemperasset aut extra castra positus lapidabatur à populo aut gladio cervice subjecta contemptum expiabat câ—uore Nunc veâ—ò inobediens spirituali mucrone truncatur aut ejectus de Ecclesia â—abido daemonum ore discerpâ—tur a Sutlivius de presbyt cap. 14. p. 107. Apostoli religionis fidei à Christo cognitionem acceperunt haec enim pars est maxima clavium quas ille Apostolis suis commisit b Mâ—…gdeb Cent. 1 lib. 2. cap. 4. pag. 275. edit 1624 giving the sence of this very place they say Atque ita excludantur a communione Ecclesiae ut non modo arceantur ab usu sacramen orum sed etiam à commerció ne cibus quidem cum iis capiatur Novariuus upon the place expreseth the Apostles meaning in these words of Ambrose Cum fraire in quo viâ—…ia haec reperiuntur non solùm Sacramenta non edenda sed nec communem escam docet ut erubescat quum vitatur se currigat c Gualther archel in 1 Cor. 5. 11. Catalogus eorum qui debent excommunicaâ—i Tossanus ibid. Quod cibum non vult sumi cum iis pertinet id quidem ad disciplinam excommunicaâ—ionis Martyr ibid. Notandum praeterea non esse privatorum hominum ut quisque pro sus libidine ab hoc vel ab illo quem peccasse fortè suspicatus fuerit sese disjungere velit Ad commune judicium Ecclesiae pertinet Angust Hom. 50 joyneth 1 Cor. 5. v. 11. with v. 12 13. and then saith Quibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 oftendit non â—…emerè aut quomodolibet sed per judicium â—…uferondos esse 〈◊〉 ab Ecclesiae communione ut si per judicium auferri non possunt tolerentur potius ne perverse malos quisque evitando ab Ecclesia ipse discedens eos quos fugere videtur vinciâ—…t ad gehennam The same hath Bedâ—… upon the place out of Augustine So likewise Ambrâ—…se and the Centurists before cited * The 13 verse he yeeldeth to be a warrant for Excommunication yet he 〈◊〉 concerning that also in Diotreâ—… catechised 1 Cor. 11. 21 22. Terâ—…ul apolog d 〈◊〉 ceâ—… 1. lib. 2. cap. 6. cap. 384. edit 1624. apud Corinthios invaluâ—rat â—lle abusus ut anâ—e caenam Dominicam inter se concertarent alii ibi suas coenas instruerent benepoti caenam Domini acciperenâ— e â—…od câ—…non eccl Afriâ—… can 41. Ut Sacramenta altaris 〈◊〉 niâ—i à jejunis hominibus celebrentur excepto uno die anniversario quo caena dominica celebratur f August epist. 118. cap. 7. Sed nonnullos probabilis quaedam ratio delectavit ut uno certo die per annum quo ipsam caenam Dominus dedit â—anquam ad insigniorem commemorationem post cibos offerti accipi liceat corpus sâ—nguinem Domini c. hoc tamen non arbitror instituâ—um nisi quia plures propè omnes in plerisque locis eo die caenare consueverunt g Walafridus Strabo de reb eccl cap. 19. Hoc quâ—que commemorandum videtur quod ipsa Sacramentâ— quidam interdum jejuni interdum pransi percâ—pisse leguntur He tels us out of Socrates that the Egyptians neâ—re Alexandria as likewise those in Thebais did often take the Sâ—crament after they had eaten libâ—rally h Cum sero factum esset recumbebat cum duodecim manducantibus ois dixit Quoniam unus ex vobis me tradet Post enim tradidit Sacramentum i Gerhard loc com tom 5. pag. 186 187. Petrus Hinckelmannus de Anabaptismo disp 5. cap. 2. b Hilarius Can. 30. in Matth Post quae Judas proditor indicatur sine quo pascha accepto calice fracto pane conficitur dignus enim aeternerum sacramentorum communione non fâ—erat c. Neque sanè bibere cum eo poterat qui non erat bibeturus in regno l Lib. 4. de myster Misse cap. 13. Patet ergo quod Judas prius exiit quà m Christus traderet Eucharistiam Quod autem Lucas post calicem commemorat traditcâ—…em per recapitualtionem potost intelligi Quia saepe â—…it in Scriptura ut ' quod prius sactum sserat posterius enarretur That whole Chapter is spâ—nt in the debating of this questioâ— m In Iâ—…h 6. de participatione autem coâ—po râ—s sanguinis ejus potest aliquis opinari quod ille Judas intersuerit Sed profecto diligentius Evangelistarum natratione doctorumque â—nsiderata diversitate citius deprehendi huic quoque Sacramento illum nequaquam interâ— Nam cum accepisâ—et buccellam qua traditor designatus est exivit continuo n Idem in Io. 13. Sciendum 〈◊〉 ò est quia sicut ante nos dictum est si post bucellam continuo Judas â—xivit sicut paulò post Evangelista dicit proculâ—ubio nequaquam Discipulis tunc interfuit quando Domirus noster Sacramentum illis corporis sanguinis sui distribuit Et paulo post Igitur exemplo Domini tolerate quidem malos boni debent in Ecclesia donâ—c ventilabro Judicii granum à palea vel à tritico separentur zizanâ—a 〈◊〉 eâ— non â—o usque indisâ— eta debet esse patientia ut indigâ—is quos noverunt Sacrosancta Christi tradant mysteria o Beza iâ—… Jo. 13. 30. certa videtur esse corum sententia â—ui existimant Judam institutioni sacrae caenae non interfuisse p Tessanus in Joh. 13. ita ut Judae quâ—dem laverit pedes Christus sed postea egresâ—us caenae Sacramentali non interfuerit sicut â—ruditi multi ex hoc capite colligunt q Musculus in loc com de canâ—… Dom. p. 352. Mâ—hi sanè dubium non est egressum ad perficiendum traditionis scelus fuisse Judam priusquam Sacramentum hoc à Domino Disscipul is traderetuâ— r Diodati upon Ioh 13. 30. We may gather from hence that he Judas did not communicate of our Saviours Sacrament s Grotius annot in Mat. 26. 21 26. Luk 22. 21. â—…ch 13. holds that the Supper at which the sop was given to Iudas and from which he went forth was the common supper and that it was before the Lords Supper and that Luke doth not place Christs words concerning Iudas Luke 22. 21. in the proper place t Gerhard Harâ—… Evang. cap. 170. Quidam statuunt pedum lotionem ipsâ— etiam legali caenae sive agni paschâ—lis esui praemittendam esse w Non dimittunt caetum comedentium post esum agni paschalis cum bellariis Hoc est non sinunt caetum comedentium post esum agni paschalis comedere secundarum