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 âive 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã or recapitulation which is proved by âive 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Now when the even was come not when the even was ended His second answer that all the other three Evangelists prove that Iudas was present at the Sacrament is but petitio principii Thirdly saith he the Sacrament was not instituted after Supper but as they sat at Supper Answ. It was indeed instituted while they were sitting at supper or before they rose from supper so that they were still continuing in a Table gesture yet the actions must needs be distinguished for they did not at the same instant receive the Sacrament and eate of another supper too And though it be said of the bread that as they did eate Jesus tooke bread yet of the cup Paul and Luke say that Jesus tooke it after Supper that is after they had done eating therefore certainly after Iudas got the sop and went away at which instant they had not done eating Neither is there any ground at all Luke 22. 17. to prove that he tooke the cup during supper as M r Prynne conceiveth But finding no strength herein he addeth that some learned men are of opinion that Christ had that night first his paschall supper at the close whereof he instituted his own Supper Secondly an ordinary supper which succeeded the institution of his own in imitation whereof the Corinthians and Primitive Christians had their love feasts which they did eat immediately after the Lords Supper and this is more then intimated John 13. v. 2 12 to 31 c. therefore Lukes after Supper he tooke the cup must be meant onely after the Paschall supper not thâ⦠other Supper Answ. I verily believe that beside the Paschall and Eucharisticall suppers Christ and his Disciples had that night a common or ordinary supper and so think Calvin and Beza upon Matth. 26. 20. Pareus upon Matth. 26. 21. Fulk on 1. Cor. 11. 23. Cartwright ibid. and in his Harmony lib. 3. pag. 173. Pelargus in Ioh. 13. quaest 2. Tossanuâ⦠in Matth. 26. Tolet and Maldonâ⦠upon Iohn 13. 2. Iansenius cone evang cap. 131. and divers others I am very glad that M r Prynnâ⦠grants it and I approve his reason that in the Paschall supper we read of no sops nor ought to dip them in The Jewes indeed tell us of a sauce in the Passeover which they call Chareseth but I suppose Christ kept the Passeover according to the Law and did not tie himselfe to rites which had come in by tradition I could bring other reasons to prove an ordinary supper if it were here necessary But what gaineth M r Prynne hereby surely he loseth much aâ shall appeare afterwards 2. Whereas he thinks the common supper at which Christ did wash his Disciples feet and discover Iudas and give him the sop was after the Sacrament as I know not those learned men that thinke as he doth in this point so ât is more than he can prove The contrary hath been proved from Matthew and Marke who record that the discourse concerning Iudas was while they were eating that supper which preceded the Sacrament so that the giving of the sop to Iudas must be before the Sacrament But after the Sacrament both Matthew and Marke doe immediately adde and when they had sung a hymne they went out into the mount of Olives 3. As for that of the Corinthians the very place cited by himselfe maketh against him 1 Cor. 11. 21. for when they came together to eate the Lords Supper every one did ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã first take his owne supper and that in imitation of Christ who gave the Sacrament after supper So Aquinas Lyra and others following Augustine This taking first or before hath reference to the Sacrament because it is spoken of every one who came to the Lords Table every one taketh before his owne supper which made such a disparity that one was hungry and another drunken at the Sacrament the poore having too little and the rich too much at their owne supper 4. The example of the ancient Christians will helpe him as little I finde no such thing in Tertullians Apologetik as the eating of the love feasts immediately after the Lords Supper But I finde both in the African Canons and in Augustine and in Walafridus Strabo that once in the yeere and oftner by divers the Sacrament was received after the ordinary meat for a commemoration of that which Christ did in the night wherein he was betrayed It had been formerly in use among diverâ to take the Sacrament ordinarily after meat till the African Councell discharged it as Laurentius de la barre observeth in the notes upon Tertullian pag. 339. edit Paris 1580. Augustine epist. 118. cap. 5. 6. answereth certaine quaeries of Ianuarius concerning eating or not eating before the Sacrament He saith that Christ did indeed give the Sacrament after supper and that the Corinthians did also take it after supper but that the Scripture hath not tied us to follow these examples but left us at liberty And upon this ground he defendeth the Churches custome at that time of taking the Sacrament fasting for greater reverence to the Ordinance But in this he speakes plainly that when Christ was eating with the Disciples and telling them that one of them should betray him he had not then given the Sacrament With Augustines judgement agreeth that Epistle of Chrysostome where answering an objection which had been made against him that he had given the Sacrament to some that were not fasting he denieth the fact but addeth if he had done so it had been no sinne because Christ gave the Sacrament to the Apostles after they had supped ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Let them depose saith he the Lord himselfe who gave the communion after supper In commemoration whereof the ancient Church even when they received the Sacrament fasting at other times yet upon the passion day called Good Friday received it after meales as I proved before And this I also adde by the way that though Paul condemneth the Corinthians for eating their love feast in the Church yet he allowes them to eate at home before they come to the Lords Table as the Centurists cent 1. lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 384. prove from 1 Cor. 11. 34. And if any man hunger let him eate at home that ye come not altogether unto condemnation Casaubon Exerc. 16. pag. 367. edit Francof 1615. thinks it was in imitation of Christs example that those Egyptians mentioned by Socrates did take the Sacrament at night after they had liberally supped ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã being filled with all sorts of meats I conclude therefore that when Luke saith after supper he took the cup the meaning is after both paschall and common supper and that there was no other eating after the Sacrament that night and so consequently the giving of the sop to Iudas must needs be before the Sacrament and his going out immediately after the sop proves that he did not
these two things 1. It is the opinion of divers who hold two Sanhedrins among the Jewes one Civill and another Ecclesiasticall that in causes and occasions of a mixed nature which did concerne both Church and State both did consult conclude and decree in a joynt way and by agreement together Now Ezra 10. the Princes Elders Priests and Levites were assembled together upon an extraordinary cause which conjuncture and concurrence of the Civill and the Ecclesiasticall power might occasion the denouncing of a double punishment upon the contumacious forfeiture and excommunication But 2. The objection made doth rather confirme me that Excommunication is intended in that place For this forfeiture was ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã a making sacred or dedicating to an holy use as I have shewed out of Iosephus The originall word translated forfeited is more properly translated devoted which is the word put in the margin of our bookes The Greek saith ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã anathemstizabitur which is the best rendring of the Hebrew ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã It was not therefore that which we call forfeiture of a mans substance Intellige saith Grotius ita ut Deo sacra fiat And so the excommunication of a man and the devoting of his substance as holy to the Lord were joyned together and the substance had not been anathematized if the man had not been anathematized I doe not say that Excommunication ex natura rei doth inferre and draw after it the devoting of a mans estate as holy to the Lord. No Excommunication can not hurt a man in his worldly estate further than the Civill Magistrate and the Law of the Land appointeth And there was Excommunication in the Apostolical Churches where there was no Christian Magistrate to adde a Civill mulct But the devoting of the substance of Excommunicated persons Ezra 10. as it had the authority of the Princes and Rulers for it so what extraordinary warrants or instinct there was upon that extraordinary exigence we can not tell Finally M. Selden de Jure nat Gentium lib. 4. cap. 9. p. 523. agreeth with Lud. Capellus that the separation from the Congregation Ezra 10. 8. plane ipsum est ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã fieri it is the very same with casting out of the Synagogue which confuteth further that which M. Prynne holds that the casting out of the Synagogue was not warranted by Gods word but was onely a humane invention I know some have drawne another argument for the Jewish Excommunication from Nehem. 13. 25. I contended with them and cursed them id est anathematizavi excommunicavi saith C. a lapide upon the place So Tirinus upon the same place Mariana expounds it anathema dixi Aben Ezra understands it of two kinds of Excommunication Niddui and Cherem For my part I lay no weight upon this unlesse you understand the cursing or malediction to be an act of the Ecclesiasticall power onely authorised or countenanced by the Magistrate Which the words may well beare for neither is it easily credible that Nehemiah did with his owne hand smite those men and plucke off their hayre but that by his authority he tooke care to have it done by civill Officers as the cursing by Ecclesiasticall Officers The Dutch annotations leane this way telling us that Nehemiah did expresse his zeale against them as persons that deserved to be banned or cut off from the people of God Another Text proving the Jewish Excommunication is Luke 6. 22. When they shall separate you and shall reproach you and ââ¦ast out your name as evill It was the most misapplied censure in the world in respect of the persons thus cast out but yet it proves the Jewish custome of casting out such as they thought wicked and obstinate persons This ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Beda upon the place understandeth of casting out of the Synagogue Separent Synagoga depellant c. yet it is a more generall and comprehensive word then the casting out of the Synagogue It comprehendeth all the three degrees of the Jewish Excommunication as Grotius expounds the place Which agreeth with Munsterus Dictionar Trilingue where ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is the onely Greeke word given both for the three Hebrew words Niddui Cherem and Shammata and for the Latine Excommunicatio Wherefore ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in this place is extermino excommunico repudio which is one of the usuall significations of the word given by Stephanus and by Scapula It is a word frequently used in the Canons of the most ancient Councels to expresse such a separation as was a Church-censure and namely suspension from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper For by the ancient Canons of the Councels such offences as were punished in a Minister by ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that is deposition were punished in one of the people by ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that is segregation or sequestration Zonaras upon the 13 th Canon of the eighth generall Councell observeth a double ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã used in the ancient Church âne was a totall separation or casting out of the Church which is usually called Excommunication another was a suspension or sequestration from the Sacrament onely Of which I am to speak more afterward in the third Booke I hold now at the Text in hand which may be thus read according to the sence and letter both when they shall excommunicate you c. Howbeit the other reading when they shall separate you holds forth the same thing which I speake of separate from what our Translators supply from their company but from what company of theirs not from their civill company onely but from their sacred or Church assemblies and from religious fellowship it being a Church-censure and a part of Ecclesiasticall discipline in which sence as this word frequently occurreth in the Greeke fathers and ancient Canons when they speake of Church discipline so doubtlesse it must be taken in this place 1. Because as Grotius tels us that which made the Jewes the rather to separate men in this manner from their society was the want of the Civill coercive power of Magistracy which sometime they had And I have proved before that the civill Sanhedrin which had power of criminall and capitall judgements did remove from Ierusalem and cease to execute such judgement forty yeeres before the destruction of the Temple 2. Because in all other places of the new Testament where the same word is used it never signifieth a bare separation from civill company but either a conscientious and religious separation by which Church members did intend to keep themselves pure from such as did walke or were conceived to walke disorderly and scandalously Acts 19. 9. 2 Cor. 6. 17. Gal. 2. 13. or Gods separating between the godly and the wicked Matth 13. 49. 25. 32. or the setting apart of men to the ministery of the Gospell Acts 13. 2. Rom. 1. 1. Gal. 1. 15. Thirdly a Civill separation is for a Civill injury but this separation
Tabernacle till he was cleansed Lev. 15. Others were separated both from the holy things and from the company or society of their Neighbours yet not cast out of the camp for this he gives the case of women having an issue of blood who were put apart seven dayes Lev. 15. and for the same space a woman after the birth of a male Child was uncleane so farre as to be kept apart from human society but she did continue uncleane three and thirty dayes longer as to the Sanctuary and hallowed things during which space of the three and thirty dayes she was not separated from company and society as in the first seven dayes onely she was forbidden to touch any hallowed thing or to come into the Sanctuary There was a third sort separated not onely from the Sanctuary and from humane society but also cast out of the camp which was the case of Lepers I conclude all uncleane persons whatsoever were excluded from the Tabernacle Lev. 15. 31. and from eating of the flesh of the Sacrifices Lev. 7. 20. 21. Neither might any of the Sonnes of Aaron having his uncleannesse upon him eat of the holy things though it was his Food Lev. 22. v. 2. to 7. in which places cutting off is appointed to be the punishment not for unclean persons their being in the camp but for their coming to the Tabernacle or for their eating of the holy things and accordingly it is said 2 Chro. 23. 19. that Ichojada set the Porters at the Gates of the house of the Lord that none which was uncleane in any thing should enter in But we never read that none which was uncleane in any thing was permitted to enter in at the Gates of Ierusalem or to converse among the people 3 Whereas Master Prynne thinkes that uncleane persons were excluded from all Ordinances as well as from the Passeover first what saith he to that which Erastus holdeth and as he thinkes grounded upon Scripture namely that all uncleane persons as well as others were admitted to the feast of expiation Next what saith he to that which is observed by Master Selden and divers others namely that some uncleane persons might come not onely to the mountaine of the house of the Lord but might also enter into the intermurale Into that utmost Court the heathens might come and pray so might the Israelites that were not legally cleane saith Arias Montanus The fourth and fifth Answers which M r. Prynne gives that there is no such warrant for keeping back scandalous persons from the Lords Table as there was for keeping back the uncleane from the Passeover and that suspension for legall uncleannesse proves not suspension for morall uncleannesse These I say doe but petere principium and therefore to be passedover because he takes for granted what is in controversie I shall therefore proceed to that which he addeth in the next place in answer to an argument of mine in my controversall fast Sermon as he miscalleth it The argument as I did propound it was this Those scandalous sinners that were not admitted to offer a trespasse offering which was reconciling ordinance without confession of sinne and Declaration of their Repentance for the same were much lesse admitted to the Passeover which was a sealing Ordinance without confession of known and scandalous sins if they had committed any such But circumcised persons if they were scandalous sinners were not admitted to offer a trespasse offering which was a reconciling Ordinance without confession of sinne and Declaration of their Repentance for the same Lev. 5. 5. 6. Ergo M r Prynne answereth pag. 17. it s a meer non-sequitur 1. Because contradicted as he thinks by 1 Cor. 10. which is a contrarious argument and I shall answer it in the proper place 2. He saith that examination of the Conscience Repentance and Confession are no where required of such as did eate the Passeover it being onely a commemoration of Gods mercy in passing over the Israelites first borne when he slew the Egyptians but there being no remission without confession it was necessary that those who came to offer a trespasse-offering for some particular sinnes should confesse those very sinnes yet not to the Priest but to God alone Answ. 1. If examination of the Conscience Repentance and confession were not required in those that did eate the Passeover and if there might be a worthy eating of it without this as he plainly intimateth when he saith that this is no where required in Scripture of such as did eat the Passeover though all circumstances and necessaries for the worthy eating of it he most punctually enumerated And if the Passeover was but onely a commemoration of Gods infinite mercy in passing over the Israelites first borne as he saith which was but a temporall mercy Then he must needs say either that in the Sacrament of the Passeover or confirmation of faith increase of grace nor spirituall mercy was given or that in that Sacrament this grace yea by his Principles conversion and regeneration it selfe was conferred ex opere operato And he must either say the like of the Lords Supper or otherwise hold that the Sacraments of the new Testament differ from those of the old specifically and that the Passeover did not seale the same covenant of grace for the substance which is now sealed by the Lords Supper 2 What was the meaning of the bitter Herbs with which the Passeover was commanded to be eaten Were not the people of God thereby taught the necessity of Repentance in that very action And what means it that at Hezekiahs Passeover the people are called to turne againe unto the Lord 2 Chron. 30. 6. that the Priests and the Levites were ashamed and sanctified themselves vers 15. offered Peace-offerings made confession to the Lord God of their fathers vers 22. where I understand confession of sinne according to the Law which appointed confession of sinne to be made with the Peace offerings which confession was signified by laying hands upon the head of the offering Lev. 3. 2. 8. 13. compared with Lev. 16. 21. and so we find Repentance joyned with peace offerings Iudg. 20. 26. finally read we not of the peoples preparing of their heart to seeke God at the Passeover 2 Chro. 30. 19. which as it could not be without Repentance and examination of their consciences so Hezekiah mentioneth it as that without which the peoples eating of the Passeover could not have been in any wise accepted 3. That it was not a private confession to God alone but a publike penitentiall confession in the Temple and before the Priests I have before Chap. 8. made it to appear both out of the Text and out of Philo the Iew. This I adde here The Confession of the sin was made in the place of offering the trespasse offering before the Priest at the laying on of hands between the horns of the beast therefore it was not made in secret to God onely which
sentence of either as is evident by that disjunctive Law Deut. 17. 12. And the man that will do presumptuously and will not hearken unto the Priest that is to the Priests as vers 9. or unto the Judge that is the Assembly or Court of Judges as I have cleared else-where even that man shall die But I have also answered more fully this objection concerning co-ordination Chap. 8. 4. Object Ministers have other work to do and such as will take up the whole man To this Argument saith Mr. Hussey pag. 8. Mr. Gilespie maketh no answer at all though Saint Paul useth the very self same Argument to discharge the Preachers from oversight of the poor Act. 6. 2. God forbid we should leave the care of the word of God and serve at Tables It will not be unseasonable to mind both him and Mr. Prynne that the canonized names by them used Stylo Romano Saint Paul Saint Matthew Saint Mark c. ought to be laid aside except they will use it of all Saints and why not as well Saint Moses and Saint Aarââ¦n whom the Psalmist calls the Saint of the Lord or why not Saint Aquila Saint Apollos Saint Epaphras c. Methinks men professing Reformation ought not to satisfie themselves in using this forme of speech onely of such as have been canonizâdat Rome and inrolled Saints in the Popes Calender And as strange it is that Mr. Hussey makes Paul to act in the businesse Act. 6. before he was either Saint or Apostle Now to the Argument I did answer at first though Mr. Hussey is pleased not to take notice of it pag. 36. that where Mr. Coleman objected Ministers have other work to do he might as well have added that when Ministers have done that other work and all that ever they can yet without the power of Church-government they shall not keep themselves nor the Ordinances from pollution that is Church-Government is a part of their work and a necessary part which hath been proved I thought it enough to touch an answer where an objection was but touched another objection in that very place being more insisted on and with more colour of reason concerning the fear of an ambitious ensnarement And for the objection now in hand Mr. Hussey hath made it no whit stronger by his instance from Act. 6. For 1. the Apostles did not wholy lay aside the care of the poor Sure Paul afterward an Apostle took great care of the poor at diverse times and in diverse places as himself recordeth but such taking care of the poor as did distract and hinder them from the main work of preaching the Gospel this was it which they declined and in that respect the work of baptizing also did give place to the work of preaching 1 Cor. 1. 17. Likewise the work of Discipline must be so ordered as may not hinder the principal work of preaching the Gospel which is very possible yea probatum est for where Church-government is exercised there are as painful Preachers as any in the World and such as neglect none of their other work 2. To take speciall and particular care of the poor did belong by Christs institution whose mind was no doubt known to the Apostles to the office of Deacons and for that reason the Ministers of the word ought in like manner to be relieved of that burthen by Deacons but Church-Government doth belong to the Elders of the Church of whom some labour both in Doctrine and Government others in Government onely But neither must the Argument go so I have another thing to ask what is that other work which will take up the whole man Mr. Hussey pag. 12. expounds Mr. Colemans meaning that the preaching of the Gospel would take up the whole man especially in our time our knowledge of the Scriptures is to be acquired by ordinary means c. And in his Epistle to the Parliament he saith I found the Minister charged onely with preaching and baptizing which being performed with such zeal and diligence as is needful is aboundantly a sufficient employment And so he takes off the Minister not onely from Government but from visiting particular families especially the sick from catechising and examining those who are to be admitted to the Lords Supper from the celebration of the Lords Supper it self to say nothing of the solemnization of marriage yea from disputations in Schools concerning the controversies of the time which yet himself so much calls for And why the Minister hath other work to do and such as will take up the whole man which is to preach and baptize 5. Object If acts of Government be put in the hands of Church-Officers there is fear of an ambitious ensnarement which Mr. Coleman proved by an arguing from his owne heart to the hearts of other men Mr. Gilespies answer to the matter of ambition saith Mr. Hussey pag. 10. is onely by involving the Civil Magistrate in the same danger of ambition And here he falleth out into a concertation professedly with my answer but really with Mr. Colemans Argument for the foundation of his Argument was universal Might I measure others by my selfe and I know not why I may not God fashioneth mens hearts alike and as in warer face answers to face so the heart of man to man c. Hereupon I replyed Is this corruption onely in the hearts of Ministers or is it in the hearts of all other men I suppose he will say in all mens hearts and then his Argument will conclude against all Civil Government And now per omnes musas I beseech him which of us involveth the Magistrate in ambition Must I be charged with involving the Magistrate because I discovered that Mr. Colemans Argument involveth the Magistrate He might as truly say he is not the Traytor that commits Treason but he is the Traytor that ãâã Treason And why saith he that my answer was onely concerning that involving of the Magistrate Did I not first shew that the two Scriptures on which Mr. Colemans Argument was grounded did not prove it though now Mr. Hussey tells us Mr. Coleman did but allude to those Scriptures I am sure it was all the Scripturall proof which was brought for that Argument upon which so much weight was laid which I will not trouble my Reader withall saith he A pretty shift when a man cannot defend the Argument then forsooth he will not trouble the Reader Next did I not deny that which Mr. Coleman did take for granted that we may reason from this or that particular corruption in one mans heart to prove the same particular corruption in all other mens hearts and that Paul taught us not so Phil. 2. 3. Did I not also answer in his owne words that his Brethrens wisedom and humility may safely be trusted with as large a share of Government as themselves desire Did I not lastly answer that if his whole Argument were granted it cannot prove that there ought to be no Church-Government
Harm evang cap. 171. Brachmand Tom. 3. pag. 2082. Neither doe the Lutherans make any such use of Iudas his receiving of the Sacrament as Master Prynne doth for they hold that not onely excommunicated persons but scandalous and notorious sinners not yet excommunicated ought to be kept backe from the Lords Table See Gerhard loc com Tom. 5. 180 181 182. where he proves distinctly that all these ought to be excluded from the Lords Supper 1. Hereticks 2. Notorious scandalous sinners 3. Excommunicated persons 4. Possessed persons furious persons and idiots 5. Infamous persons who use unlawfull arts as Magitians Negromancers c. and for the exclusion of scandalous sinners he citeth the Ecclesiasticall Electorall Constitutions L. Osiander Enchir. contra Anabap. cap. 6. quaest 3. tels us that the Lutheran Churches exclude all known scandalous persons from the Sacrament But it is strangest to me that M r Prynne will not give credit to some of the Testimonies cited by himselfe Theophylact. enar in Matth. 26. saith Quidam autem dicunt quod egresso Juda tradidit Sacramentum aliis Discipulis proinde nos sic facere debemus malos à Sacramentis abarcere Idem enar in Marc. 14. Quidam dicunâ⦠but who they were appeares not saith M r Prynne in any extant worke of theirs Iudam non fuisse participem Sacramentorum sed egressum esse priusquam dominus Sacramenta traderet Shall we take this upon M r Prynnes credit that it doth not appeare in any extant worke of theirs Nay let him take better heed what he saith and whereof he affirmeth In the next page he himselfe excepteth one which is Hilary but except him onely he saith that all the Ancients unanimously accord herein without one dissenting voyce But see now whether all is to be believed that M r Prynne gives great words for T is well that he confesseth we have Hilary for us First therfore let the words of Hilary be observed Next I will prove what he denieth namely that others of the Ancients were of the same opinion Clemens lib. 5. constit Apost cap. 13. after mention of the Paschall or typicall supper addeth these words as of the Apostles ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã But when he had delivered to us the antitype mysteries so called in reference to the Paschall supper of his precious body and blood Judas not being present with us I doe not owne these eight bookes of the Apostolicall constitutions as written by that Clemens who was Pauls fellow-labourer Phil. 4. yet certainly they are ancient as is universally acknowledged Dionysius Areopagita or whosoever he was that anciently wrote under that name de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia cap. 3. part 3. sect 1. speaking of the same bread and the same cup whereof all the communicants are partakers he saith that this teacheth them a Divine conformity of manners and withall cals to mind Christs supper in the night when he was betrayed ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã In quo caena so Ambrose the Monke in his Latine translation and Iudoeus Clichtoveus in his Commentary In which supper for ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã relates to ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the supper before mentioned and signifieth the time of supper or after supper was begun so the Graecians use to say ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to signifie in the time of sicknesse the authour himselfe of those Symbols doth most justly deprive or cast out him Judas who had not holily and with agreement of mind supped together with him upon holy things By these holy things he understands it should seem the Typicall or Paschall supper of which Iudas had eaten before and peradventure that night also in the opinion of this Ancient Iudocus Clichteveus in his Commentary saith onely that Iudas did that night eate together with Christ cibum meate he saith not Sacramentum This ancient writer is also of opinion that Christ did excommunicate Iudas or as Clichtoveus expounds him à caeterorum discipulorum caetu aequissime separavit discrevit dispescuit If you thinke not this cleare enough heare the ancient Scholiast Maximus to whom the Centurists give the Testimony of a most learned and most holy man He flourished in the seventh Century under Constans he was a chiefe opposer of the Monothelites and afterwards a martyr His Scholia upon that place of Dionysius maketh this inference ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that after Judas had gone forth from supper Christ gave the mystery to his Disciples Againe ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Where note that to him also that is to Iudas he Christ gave of a mysticall bread meaning the unleavened bread of the Passeover and cup meaning the cup drunke at the Paschall supper but the mysteries that is the Eucharisticall bread and cup commonly called the mysteries by ancient writers he gave to his Disciples after Judas went forth from supper as it were because Judas himselfe was unworthy of these mysteries Adde hereunto the Testimony of Georgius Pachymeres who lived in the thirteenth Century in his Paraphrase upon that same place of Dionysius he saith that Christ himselfe the author and institutor of this Sacrament ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Christ doth cast out and separate or excommunicate most justly Judas who bad not holily supped together with him For having given to him also of a mysticall bread and cup he gave the mysteries to the Disciples alone after be went forth from Supper thereby as it were shewing that Judas was unworthy of these mysteries By the mysteries which Maximus and Pachimeres speake of and which they say Christ gave to his Disciples after Iudas was gone forth I can understand nothing but the Eucharisticall supper the Elements whereof are very frequently called the mysteries by the ancients as hath been said And if any man shall understand by these mysteries the inward graces or things signified in the Lords Supper then what senoe can there be in that which Maximus and Pachimeres say for Christ could as easily keepe backe from Iudas and give to his other Disciples those graces and operations of his Spirit when Iudas was present among them as when he was cast out So that it could not be said that Christ did cast out Iudas in order to the restraining from him and giving to the other Disciples the invisible inward grace signified in the Sacrament as if the other Apostles had not received that grace at the receiving of the Sacrament but that Iudââ¦s must first be cast out before they could receive it or as if Iudas had received the inward grace if he had not gone out from supper The sence must therefore be this that Iudas as an unworthy person was cast out by Christ before he thought fit to give the Sacrament of his Supper unto his other Apostles Unto all these Testimonies adde Ammonius Alexandrinus de quatuor Evangeliorum consonantia cap. 155. where he hath the story of Iudââ¦s his receiving of the sop and his going forth immediately after he had
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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ââ¦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
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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
that moral carnal Christians and all such as are not convicted of scandalous sins are to be admitted to the Sacrament Thrrefore doubtlesse saith he it is and was intended by Christ for a converting Ordinance to all such as these to turn them from their evil waies and work saving grace within their hearts since it can have no other proper primary effect in such Certainly God and Christ bestow no Ordinances upon men in vain therefore their intentions in instituting this Supper even for such visible moral unregenerate Christian as well as real Saints must necessarily be for their conversion not their confirmation and sealing onely Answ. Lapsus in initio mali augurii est He confoundeth here things most different 1. He confoundeth our admitting of Communicants with Gods intention to do good to their souls and his Argument runs upon this mistake that God intendeth good to the souls of all who come to the Lords Table though wicked close Hypocrites and since this good cannot be sealing onely it must be conversion But it is neither sealing nor conversion nor any good at all which God intends by that Ordinance to them that perish yet it is not in vain for he himself tells us pag. 34. that even in these the Minister administring the Sacrament is a sweet savour to God who hath appointed the Sacrament secundarily and contingently to be a means of aggravating mens sins and condemnation to magnifie his justice 2. There is a most dangerous mistake in that which he saith of the intentions of God and of Christ. If he mean of what God intendeth or purposeth in the Councel of his own will that in this sence God intendeth the conversion of those that perish is to make void and frustraneous the decree will and intention of God which is grosse Arminianisme and Jesuitisme But if he mean finis operis the proper end for which the Sacrament was instituted and the good which the Word of God tells us we ought to seek and may through the grace of God find in the Sacrament Then in that sence to say that Christs intention in instituting this Sacrament was for conversion of moral unregenerate Christians is meerly a begging of what is in question The like I say of that proper primary effect of the Sacrament in such If he mean the proper primary effect decreed in the secret counsel of God he myres himself in Arminianisme If he mean the proper primary effect of the Sacrament in respect of its own nature this is but petere principium 3. All who pretend right to the Sacrament are either visible Saints qualified according to the rule of Christ and such as the Eldership examining their profession and practice according to the rules of the word judgeth fit to be admitted to the Sacrament or they are not such If they be such then the end and use of the Sacrament in reference to them is to be a sealing Ordinance for the Eldership judgeth and supposeth them fit to be sealed and confirmed so far as they can understand and in that capacity do admit them God onely being able to judge close Hypocrites If they be not qualified as I have said then we do not grant that they ought to be admitted His second Argument hath no strength at all All Ordinanâes which strengthen grace do more or lesse begin or beget it and the Directory it self calls the Sacraments means of grace pag. 52. What then The Directory calls this Sacrament means of grace because by it Christ and all his benefits are applied and sealed up unto us and we are sealed up by his Spirit to an assurance of happinesse and everlasting life But saith he why may not the Sacraments convert as well as confirm I have given many reasons for it If he could prove that what confirms doth also convert why did he not do it If he could not prove it why brings he a strong affirmation instead of an Argument As for that which he addeth that the Lords Supper is received not once as Baptism but frequently For this very end that those who often fall into sin through infirmity may likewise by this Supper often rise again be refreshed comforted and get strength against their corruptions and sins and is it not then a converting as well as a confirming Ordinance What a wavering is here Is the raising refressiing and comforting of those who often fall through infirmity the conversion or first grace which now we dispute of Or whether doth he not here yeeld the cause For the refreshing and comforting and strengthening of those that fall through infirmity is the effect of a confirming not of a converting Ordinance And in this sence Divines have given a reason why we are but once baptized but do often receive the Lords Supper because Baptisme is the Sacrament of our initiation the laver of regeneration I mean not that which hath been called Baptismal regeneration fancied to be common to all the baptized but I mean that which is wrought in and sealed to the Elect baptized the Lords Supper is the Sacrament of our spiritual nourishment and strengthening and it is enough to be once born once regenerate but we must be often nourished and strengthened His third Argument is this The very receiving of the Sacrament even in ââ¦nregenerate persons is accompanied with such things as are most effectual to convert As 1. With a previous external serious examination of their own hearts and estates between God and their own Consciences 2. A solemn searching out of all their open or secret sins and corruptions past or present accompanied with a serious particular privat confession of them a hearty contrition and humiliation for them c. 3. Pious soul ravishing meditations c. which make deep temporary impressions on their hearts 4. Flexanimous exhortations admonitions comminations directions prayers by the Ministers in the Congregation before in and after this dutie Whereupon he leaveth it to every mans Conscience to judge whether this Sacrament is not more likelie to regenerate and change their hearts and lives then the bare Word preached or any other Ordinance Answ. 1. Here is a lump of wild uncouth and most erroneous Divinity Who ever heard of an external examination of mens hearts between God and their own Consciences Or 2. That unregenerate persons can and do seriously examine their own hearts and search out all their sins with a hearty contrition and humiliation for them c. Or 3. That deep temporary impressions on their hearts are most effectual to convert and regenerate for he doth enumerate all these as particulars most effectual to convert Or 4. That in the very receiving of the Sacrament men hear the Ministers prayers in the Congregation 5. That this Sacrament is more likely to regenerate then the bare Word preached I suppose he means not the word without the Spirit for nobody holds the bare word in that sence to regenerate but preaching without other concurring Ordinance or any other
of his Passion this was the onely point of his accusation which was confessed and avouched by himselfe was most aggravated prosecuted and driven home by the Iewes was prevalent with Pilate as the cause of condemning him to die and was mentioned also in the superscription upon his crosse And although in reference to God and in respect of satisfaction to the Divine justice for our sinnes his death was ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã a price of redemption yet in reference to men who did persecute accuse and condemne him his death was ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã a Martyrs Testimony to seale such a truth This Kingly Office of Iesus Christ as well as his Propheticall is administred and exercised not onely inwardly and invisibly by the working of his Spirit in the soules of particular persons but outwardly also and visibly in the Church as a visible politicall ministeriall body in which he hath appointed his own proper Officers Ambassadours Courts Laws Ordinances Censures and all these administrations to be in his own name as the onely King and Head of the Church This was the thing which Herod and Pilate did and many Princes Potentates and States doe looke upon with so much feare and jealousie as another Government co-ordinate with the civill But what was darke upon the one side to them hath been light upon the other side to those servants of Iesus Christ who have stood contended and sometime suffered much for the Ordinance of Church-Government and Discipline which they looked upon as a part of Christs Kingdome So Bucer So Parker So M. Welseh my countreyman of precious memory who suffered much for the same truth and was ready to seale it with his blood Beside divers others who might be named especially learned Didoclavius in his Altare Damascenum Cap. 1. and throughout I am not ignorant that some have an evill eye upon all government in a Nation distinct from civill Magistracy and if it were in their power they would have all Anti-Erastians and so consequently both Presbyterians and Independents lookt upon as guilty of Treason at least as violaters of and encroachers upon the rights and priviledges of Magistracy in respect of a distinct Ecclesiasticall government And indeed it is no new thing for the most faithfull Ministers of Iesus Christ to be reproached and accused as guilty of Treason which was not onely the lot of M. Calderwood and as hath been now shewed of M. Welsch and those that suffered with him but of M. Knox before them as likewise of many Martyrs and confessors and of the Apostles themselves Yet if we will judge righteous judgement and weigh things in a just ballance we doe not rob the Magistrate of that which is his by giving unto Christ that which is Christs We desire to hold up the honour and greatnesse the power and authority of Magistracy against Papists Anabaptists and all others that despise dominion and speake evill of dignities We doe not compare as Innocentius did the civill and the ecclesiasticall powers to the two great lights that to the Moone this to the Sunne We hold it is proper to Kings Princes and Magistrates to be called Lords and Dominators over their Subjects whom they governe civilly but it is proper to Christ onely to be called Lord and Master in the Spirituall government of the Church and all others that beare office therein ought not to usurpe Dominion therein nor be called Lords but onely Ministers Disciples and Servants We acknowledge and affirme that Magistracy and civill Government in Empires Kingdomes Dominions and Cities is an Ordinance of God for his owne glory and for the great good of mankind so that whoever are enemies to Magistracy they are enemies to mankind and to the revealed will of God That such persons as are placed in authority are to be beloved honoured feared and holden in a most reverend estimation because they are the Lieutenants of God in whose seat God himselfe doth sit and judge We teach that not onely they are appointed for civill policy but also for maintenance of the true Religion and for suppressing of Idolatry and superstition whatsoever We confesse that such as resist the supreame power doing that thing which appertaineth to his charge doe resist Gods Ordinance and therefore cannot be guiltlesse And further we affirme that whosoever deny unto them their ayd counsell and comfort whilest the Princes and Rulers vigilantly travell in execution of their Office that the same men deny their help support and counsell to God who by the presence of his Lieutenant doth crave it of them We know and believe that though we be free we ought wholly in a true faith holily to submit our selves to the Magistrate both with our body and with all our goods and endeavour of mind also to performe faithfulnesse and the oath which we made to him so far forth as his government is not evidently repugnant to him for whose sake we doe reverence the Magistrate That we ought to yeeld unto Kings and other Magistrates in their owne stations feare honour tribute and custome whether they be good men or evill as likewise to obey them in that which is not contrary to the Word of God It being alwaies provided that in things pertaining to our soules and consciences we obey God onely and his holy Word We believe that God hath delivered the Sword into the hands of the Magistrates to wit that offences may be repressed not onely those which are committed against the second Table but also against the first We doe agree and avouch that all men of what dignity condition or state soever they be ought to be subject to their lawfull Magistrates and pay unto them Subsidies and Tributes and obey them in all things which are not repugnant to the word of God Also they must poure out their prayers for them that God would vouchsafe to direct them in all their actions and that we may lead a peaceable and quiet life under them with all godlinesse and honesty We teach that it doth belong to the authority and duty of the Magistrate to forbid and if need be to punish such sinnes as are committed against the ten Commandements or the Law naturall as likewise to adde unto the Law naturall some other lawes defining the circumstances of the naturall Law and to keepe and maintaine the same by punishing the transgressors We hold that the lawes of the Realme may punish Christian men with death for heynous and grievous offences And that it is lawfull for Christian men at the command of the Magistrate to beare Arme and to serve in just warres All these things we doe sincerely really constantly faithfully and cheerfully yeeld unto and assert in behalfe of the civill Magistrate So that the cause which I now take in hand doth not depresse but exalt doth not weaken but strengthen Magistracy I doe not plead against
is I have not declined them but encountered yea sought them out where their strength was greatest where their Arguments were hardest and their exceptions most probable so no man may decline or dissemble the strength of my Arguments Inferences Authorities Answers and Replies nor thinke it enough to lift up an Axe against the uttermost branches when he ought to strike at the root Thirdly if there be any acrimony let it be in a reall and rationall conviction not in the manner of expression In which also I aske no other measure to my selfe than I have given to others T is but in vaine for a man to help the bluntnesse of reason with the sharpnesse of passion for thereby he loseth more than he gaineth with intelligent Readers the simpler sort may peradventure esteem those ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã those despicable nothings to be something but then they are delu ded not edified Therefore let not a man cast sorth a flood of passionate words when his Arguments are like broken cisternes which can hold no water If any Replyer there be of the Erastian party who will confine himselfe within these Rules and Conditions as I doe not challenge him so if God spare me life and liberty I will not refuse him But if any shall so reply as to prevaricate and doe contrary to these just and reasonable demands I must to his greater shame call him to the Orders and make his tergiversation to appeare I shall detaine thee good Reader no longer The Lord guide thee and all his people in waies of truth and peace holinesse and righteousnesse and grant that this Controversie may I trust it shall have a happy end to the glory of God to the embracing and exalting of Iesus Christ in his Kingly Office to the ordering of his House according to His owne will to the keeping pure of the Ordinances to the advancing of Holinesse and shaming of prophanesse and finally to the peace quiet wel-being comfort and happinesse of the Churches of Christ. These things without thoughts of provoking any either publike or private person the searcher of hearts knoweth to be desired and intended by him who is Thine to please thee for thy good to edification GEO. GILLESPIE THE CONTENTS The first Booke Of the Jewish Church Government CHAP. I. That if the Erastians could prove what they alledge concerning the Iewish Church Government yet in that particular the Iewish Church could not be a president to the Christian. THe Jewish Church a patterne to us in such things as were not typicall or temporall If it could be proved that the Jewes had no supreme Sanhodrin but one and it such as had the power of civill Magistracy yet there are foure reasons for which that could be no president to the Christian Church Where the constitution manner of proceedings and power of the Sanhedrin ure touched Of their Synagoga Magna what it was That the Priests had great power and authority not onely in occasionall Synods but in the civill Sanhedrin it selfe CHAP. II. That the Iewish Church was formally distinct from the Iewish State or Commonwealth WE are content that the Erastians appeale to the Jewish government Seven distinctions between the Jewish Church and the Jewish State Of the proselytes of righteousnesse and that they were imbodied into the Jewish Church not into the Jewish State CHAP. III. That the Iewes had an ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin and Government distinct from the civill DIvers Authors cited for the ecclesiastcal Sanhedrin of the Jews The first Institution thereof Exo. 24. That the choosing calling forth of these 70 Elders is not coincident with the choosing of the 70 Elders mentioned Num. 11. nor yet with the choosing of Judges Exod. 18. The institution of two coordinate Governments cleared from Deut. 17. A distinct Ecclesiasticall government setled by David 1 Chro. 23. and 26. The same distinction of Civill and Church government revived by Iehoshaphat 2 Chro. 19. That Text vindicated Two distinct Courts one Ecclesiasticall another Civill proved from Ierem. 26. Another argument for an Ecclesiasticall Senate from Ierem. 18. 18. Who meant by the wise men of the Jewes Another argument from Ezech. 7. 26. Another from 2 Kings 6. 32. and Ezech. 8. 1. Another from Psal. 107. 32. Another from Zech. 7. 1 2 3. That Ezech. 13. 9. seemeth to hold forth an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin That the Councell of the chiefe Priests Elders and Scribes so often mentioned in the Gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles was an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin and not a civill Court of Justice as Erastus and M. Prynne suppose which is at length proved That the civill Sanhedrin which had power of life and death did remove from Hierusalem 40 yeeres before the destruction of the Temple and City and consequently neere three yeeres before the death of Christ. The great objection that neither the Talmud nor Talmudicall Writers doe distinguish a civill and an ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin answered Finally those who are not convinced that there was a distinct ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin among the Jewes may yet by other Mediums be convinced that there was a distinct ecclesiasticall Government among the Jewes as namely the Priests judgement of cleannesse or uncleannesse and so of admitting or shutting out CHAP. IV. That there was an Ecclesiasticall Excommunication among the Iewes and what it was FIfteen witnesses brought for the Ecclesiasticall excommunication among the Jewes all of them learned in the Jewish antiquities Of the 24 causes of the Jewish excommunication which were lookt upon formally qua scandals not qua injuries Of the three degrees of their excommunication Niddui Cherem and Shammata The manner and form of their Excommunication sheweth that it was a solemne Ecclesiasticall censure Formula anathematis The excommunication of the Cuthites The excommunication among the Jewes was a publique and judicial act and that a private or extrajudicial excommunication was voyd if not ratified by the Court The effects of the Jewish excommunication That such as were excommunicated by the greater excommunication were not admitted to come to the Temple He that was excommunicated with the lesser excommunication was permitted to come yet not as other Israelites but as one publiquely bearing his shame The end of their excommunication was spirituall CHAP. V. Of the cutting of from among the people off God frequently mentioned in the Law THe sence of the Hebrew word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã scanned That the commination of cutting off a man from his people or from the Congregation of Israel is neither meant of eternall death nor of dying without children nor of capitall punishment from the hand of the Magistrate nor yet of cutting off by the immediate hand of God for some secret sinne Reasons brought against all these That Excommunication was meant by that cutting off proved by six reasons CHAP. VI. Of the casting out of the Synagogue THe casting out of the Synagogue is understood by Interpretârs and others to be an excommunication from the Church assemblies and
the very same he makes to have been before the Sacrament to prove that Iudas was a scandalous sinner when he was admitted to the Sacrament He yeeldeth upon the matter that Iudas received not the Sacrament That before Iudas went forth none of the Apostles knew him to be the Traytor except Iohn yea some hold that Iohn knew it not That Christs words to Iudas Thou hast said did not make known to the Apostles that he was the Traitor and if they had yet by their principles who hold that Iudas received the Sacrament these words were not spoken before the Sacrament Divers Authors hold that Iudas was a secret not a scandalous sinner at that time when it is supposed he received the Sacrament yea M. Prynne himselfe holdeth so in another place He loseth much by proposing as a president to Ministers what Christ did to Iudas in the last Supper Christ did upon the matter excommunicate Iudas which many gather from these words That thou dost doe quickly And if Christ had admitted him to the Sacrament it could be no president to us CHAP. XI Whether it be a full discharge of duty to admonish a scandalous person of the danger of unworthy communicating And whether a Minister in giving him the Sacrament after such admonition be no way guilty Mr Prynne doth here mistake his marke or not hit it whether the Question be stated in reference to the Censure of Suspension or in reference to the personall duty of the Minister Five duties of the Minister in this businesse beside Admonition Admonition no Church censure properly Six conclusions promised by M Prynne examined His Syllogism concerning the true right of all visible members of the visible Church to the Sacrament discussed Four sorts of persons beside children and fooles not able to examine themselves and so not to be admitted to the Lords Supper by that limitation which M. Prynne yeedeth His Argument from the admission of carnall persons to Baptisme upon a meere externall sleight profession answered His eleven reasons for the affirmative of this present Question answered The Erastian Argument from 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let a man examine himselfe not others nor others him faileth many waies M. Prynne endeavours to pacifie the consciences of Ministers by perswading them to believe that a scandalous person is outwardly fitted and prepared for the Sacrament How dangerous a way it is to give the Sacrament to a scandalous person upon hopes that Omnipotency can at that instant change his heart and his life Of a mans eating and drinking judgement to himselfe CHAP. XII Whether the Sacrament of the Lords Supper be a converting or regenerating Ordinance Mr Prynne in this controversie joyneth not onely with the more rigid Lutherans but with the Papists The testimonies of Calvin Bullinger Ursinus Musculus Bucerus Festus Honnius Aretius Vossius Pareus the Belgicke confession and forme of administration the Synod of Dort Gerhardus Walaeus Chamierus Polanus Amesius are produced against M. Prynne all these and many others denying the Lords Supper to be a converting Ordinance How both Lutherans and Papists state their controversie with Calvinists as they call them concerning the efficacy of the Sacraments M. Prynnes distinctions of two sorts of conversion and two sorts of sealing being duely examined doe but the more open his errour instead of covering it Of the words Sacrament and Seale concerning which M. Prynne as he leaneth toward the Socinian opinion so he greatly cals in question that truth without the knowledge whereof the Ordinance of Parliament appointeth men to be kept backe from the Sacrament Foure distinctions of my own premised that the true state of the Question may be rightly apprehended The 1. Distinction between the absolute power of God and the revealed will of God 2. Between the Sacrament it selfe and other Ordinances which doe accompany it 3. Between the first grace and the following graces 4. Between visible Saints and invisible Saints CHAP. XIII Twenty Arguments to prove that the Lords Supper is not a converting Ordinance 1. FRom the nature of signes instituted to signifie the being or having of a thing The significancy of Sacraments à parte ante 2. Sacraments suppose faith and an interest had in Christ therefore doe not give it 3. The Lords Supper gives the new food therefore it supposeth the new life 4. It is a seale of the righteousnesse of faith therefore instituted for justified persons onely 5. From the example of Abrahams Justification before circumcision 6. From the duty of self-examination which an unregenerate person cannot performe 7. From the necessity of the wedding garment 8. Faith comes by hearing not by seeing or receiving 9. Neither promise nor example in Scripture of conversion by the Lords Supper 10. Every unconverted and unworthy person if he come while such to the Lords Table cannot but eate and drink unworthily therefore ought not to come 11. The wicked have no part in an Eucharisticall consolatory Ordinance 12. Christ calleth none to this Feast but such as have spirituall gracious qualifications 13. They that are visibly no Saints ought not to partake in the Communion of Saints 14. Baptisme it selfe at least when administred to persons of age is not a regenerating but a sealing Ordinance 15. From the necessity of the precedency of Baptisme before the Lords Supper 16. From the method of the Parable of the lost sonne 17. From the doctrinall dehorting of all impenitent unworthy persons from comming to the Sacrament unlesse they repent reforme c. allowed by M. Prynne himselfe which a Minister may not doe if it be a converting Ordinance 18. From the incommunicablenesse of this Ordinance to Pagans or to excommunicated Christians for their conversion 19. From the instrumentall causality of a converting Ordinance which in order doth not follow but precede conversion and therefore is administred to men not qua penitent but qua impenitent which can not be said of the Sacrament 20. Antiquity against M. Prynne in this point Witnesse the Sancta Sanctis Witnesse also Dionysius Areopagita Justin Martyr Chrysostome Augustine Isidorus Pelusiotâ⦠Prosper Beda Isidorus Hispalensis Rabanus Maurus besides Scotus Alensis and other Schoolmen CHAP. XIV Master Prynne his twelve Arguments brought to prove that the Lords Supper is a converting Ordinance discussed and answered HIs first Argument answered by three distinctions His second proveth nothing against us but yeeldeth somewhat which is for us His third charged with divers absurdities His fourth concerning the greatest proximity and most immediate presence of God and of Christ in the Sacrament retorted against himselfe and moreover not proved nor made good by him His fifth Argument hath both universall grace and other absurdities in it His sixth concerning conversion by the eye by the booke of nature by Sacrifices by Miracles as well as by the eare examined and confuted in the particulars His seventh not proved Nor yet his eighth concerning conversion by afflictions without the word His ninth concerning the rule of contraries
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 distinâions 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 Albaspinââ¦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 Ampsinâius Dutch Annotations English Annotations Apollânius 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 Bullingâr 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 Chamiârus 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 Aâgid de Coninck Barthol Coppen Balthasar âorderius Corpus Disciplinae M r Cotoon Tomes of Councels Richardus Cowsin Cyprian Cyrill D DAnâus R. David Ganz Demosâhenes M. David Dickson Didoclavius Lud. de Dieu Mich. Dilherrus Diâdati The Directory of both Kingdomes Dioâyfins ãâã Synâd of Dort Iesuits of Doway I. Drusius Duârenus Durandus Duranâs E ELias R. Eliâser C â Empereur Erastus Erasmus C. Espenâus Esâius Euthymius Aben Ezra F FAâritius 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 Statuâes of Genevah Genebrardus Geo. Genzius I. ârhardus Gesnerus Sâl Glassius Godwyn Gomarus Gorranus Gregorius Magnus Gregorius Thaumaturgus Professors of Groning Grotius Gualther H HArmony of confessions Harmonia Synoderân Belgicarum Haymo Helmichius Hemmiugius Heshusius Hesychius Hierâ Hilarius M. Hildersham P. Hinkelmannus Fraâ Holy-Oke ãâã Honnius Hâgo de S. Uictâre Hugâ Cardiâlis L. Humfredus Aegid Hâius M. Hussey Hutterus I KIng Iames Iansenâus I'lyricus Iânocentius 3. Iosephus Iosuae levitae Halichoth Olam Isidorus Hispâlensis Isidorus ãâã Iulius Caesar Fr. Iunius Iustinus Martyr K KEâerm ânnus D r Kâllet C. Kirâerus L COrn a Lapide Lavater Laurentius de la barre M r Leigh Nieolaus Lambardus Lorinus Lutheâus Lyrâ M MAccovius Maimonides Maldonat Manâsseh Ben. Israel Conciliaâor 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 Remonstranâs Revius Rittangelius D. Rivetus Rupertus Tuitiensis M. Rutherfurd S EManuel Sa Salmasius Salmeron M. Salâmarsh Sanctius Saravia I. Scaliger Scapula Schindlerus Ionas Schlichtingius The Booke of Discipline of Scotland Scotus Subtilis M. Selden The ãâã âeius F. Socinâs âipingius Fr. Spanbemiât Spelman Stegmannus Strigelius Suarez Suidas Suâlivius 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 Weyâes of Craigton Mr Iohn Weimes of Lathoâker Westhemerus Whitgift Whittakerus Willet I. Winkelmannus Wolphius V GR. de Valentia Vatablus Uazquez Uedelius Uictor Antiochenus
least yea a great share in Ecclesiasticall government for so they had in the Supreme Sanhedrin of the Jewes And further the Jewes had their Synagoga magna which Grotius on Matth. 10. 17. distinguisheth from the Sanhedrin of 71. for both Prophets and others of place and power among the people praeter ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã besides the members of that Sanhedrin were members of that extraordinary assembly which was called the great Synagogue such as that Assembly Ezra 10. which did decree forfeiture and separation from the Congregation to be the punishment of such as would not gather themselves unto Ierusalem in which assembly were others beside those of the Sanhedrin Of the men of the great Synagogue I read in Tzemach David pag. 56. ââ¦dit Hen. Vors that they did receive the traditions from the Prophets and it is added Viri Synagogae magnae ordinarunt nobis preces nostras The men of the great Synagogue did appoint unto us our prayers meaning their Liturgies which they fancy to have been so instituted The Hebrews themselves controvert whether all the men of the great Synagogue did live at one and the same time or successively but that which is most received among them is that these men did flourish all at one time as is told us in the passage last cited where also these are named as men of the great Synagogue Haggai Zechariah Malachi Zerubbabel Mordechai Ezra Jehoshua Seria Rehaliah Misphar Rechum Nehemias Rambam addeth Chananiah Mischael and Azariah Finally as Prophets Priesâs and Scribes of the Law of God had an interest in the Synagoga magna after the Captivity so we read of occasionall and extraordinary Ecclesiasticall Synods before the Captivity as that assembly of the Priests and Levites under Hezekiah 2 Chro. 29. 4. 15. and that erring Synod of the 400 Prophets 1 Kings 22. 6. Herod also gathered together the chiefe Priests and Scribes Matth. 2. 4. I conclude that if it should be granted there was no Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin among the Jewes distinct from the civill yet as the necessity of a distinct Ecclesiasticall Government among us is greater then it was among them in respect of the foure considerations above mentioned so likewise the Priests had a great deale more power and authority in the Jewish Church not onely by occasionall Synods but by their interest in Synagoga magna and in the civill Sanhedrin it selfe then the Erastians are willing that Church officers should have in the Christian Church CHAP. II. That the Iewish Church was formally distinct from the Iewish State or Common-wealth IT hath been by some with much confidence and scorne of all who say otherwise averred that Excommunication and Church-government distinct from the Civill hath no patterne for it in the Jewish Church I am sure saith M r Coleman in his Brotherly examination re-examined pag. 16. the best reformed Church that ever was went this way I meane the Church of Israel which had no distinction of Church government and Civill government Hast thou appealed unto Caesar unto Caesar shalt thou goe Have you appealed to the Jewish Church thither shall you goe Wherefore I shall endeavour to make these five things appeare 1. That the Jewish Church was formally ãâã from the Jewish State 2. That there was an Eccleâiasticall Sanhedrin and Government distinct from the Civill 3. That there was an Ecclesiasticall Excommunication ãâã from Civill punishments 4. That in the Jewish Church there was also a publike exomologesis or declaration of repentance and thereupon a reception or admission againe of the offender to fellowship with the Church in the holy things 5. That there was a suspension of the prophane from the Temple and Passeover First the Jewish Church was formally diâtinct from the Jewish State I say formally because ordinarily they were not distinct materially the same persons being members of both But formally they were distinct as now the Church and State are distinct among us Christians 1. In respect of distinct lawes the Ceremoniall Law was given to them in reference to their Church state the Judiciall Law was given to them in reference to their Civill State Is. Abrabanel de capite fidei cap. 13. putteth this difference between the Lawes given to Adam and to the sonnes of Noah and the divine Law given by Moses that those Laws were given for conservation of humane society and are in the classis of Judiciall or civill Laws But the divine Law given by Moses doth direct the soule to its last perfection and end I doe not approve the difference which he puts between these Lawes This onely I note that he distinguisheth Judiciall or Civill Laws for conservation of society though given by God from those Laws which are given to perfect the soule and to direct it to its last end such as he conceives the whole morall and ceremoniall Law of Moses to be Halichoth Olam tract 5. cap. 2. tels us that such and such Rabbies were followed in the ceremoniall Lawes other Rabbies followed in the Judiciall Lawes 2. In respect of distinct acts they did not worship God and offer Sacrifices in the Temple nor call upon the name of Lord nor give thanks nor receive the Sacraments as that State but as that Church They did not punish evill doers by mulcts imprisonment banishment burning stoning hanging as that Church but as that State 3. In respect of controversiâs some causes and controversies did concerne the Lords matters some the Kings matters 2 Chro. 19. 11. To judge between blood and blood was one thing To judge between Law and Commandement between Statutâs and judgements that is to give the true sence of the Law of God when it was controverted was another thing 4. In respect of Officers the Priests and Lâvites were Church-officers Magistrates and Judges not so but were Ministers of the State The Priests might not take the Sword out of the hand of the Magistrates The Magistrates might not offer Sacrifice nor exercise the Priests office 5. In respect of continuance when the Romans tooke away the Jewish State and civill Government yet the Jewish Church did remaine and the Romans did permit them the liberty of their religion And now though the Jewes have no Jewish State yet they have Jewish Churches Whence it is that when thây tell where one did or doth live they doe not mention the Town but the Church In the holy Church at Uenice at Frankford c. See Buxtorf lex Rabin pag. 1983. 6. In respect of variation The constitution and Government of the Jewish State was not the same but different under Moses and Ioshua under the Iudges under the Kings and after the Captivity But we cannot say that the Church was new modelld as oft as the State was 7. In respect of members For as M. Selden hath very well observed concerning that sort of Proselytes who had the name of Prââ¦selyti Justitiae they were initiated into the Jewish religion by Circumcision Baptisme and Sacrifice and they were
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 Aââ¦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 referânce to the morall Law it might âe a trespasse against the first Table not against the second 2. Even in the case of a personall or civill injury or whatsoâver 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
shall not finde councell nor the understanding of the law saith Sanctius Polanus upon the place draweth an Argument against the infallibility of counsels because the law and counsell did perish not onely saith he from the Priests here and there in the Cities but also from the high Priest and the other Priests and Elders who were together at Ierusalem If this Text be rightly applied by him and so it is by other Protestant Writers to prove against Papists that Councels may erre then here was an Ecclesiasticall councell Eightly even without Ierusalem and Iââ¦da there was a Senate or assembly of Elders which did assist the Prophets in overseeing the manners of the people censuring sin and deliberating of the common affairs of the Church This C. Bertramus de polit Jud. c. 16. collecteth from 2 Kings 6. 32. But Elisha sate in his house and the Elders sate with him I know some think that those Elders were the Magistrates of Samaria but this I cannot admit for two reasons 1. Because Iosephus Antiq. lib. 9. cap. 2. cals them Elishaes disciples and from him Hugo Cardinalis Carthusianus and others doe so expound the Text. They are called Elishas Disciples as the Apostles were Christs Disciples by way of Excellency and eminency all the disciples or sonnes of the Prophets were not properly Elders but those onely who were assumed into the Assembly of Elders or called to have a share in the mannaging of the common affaires of the Church 2. Cajetan upon the place gives this reason from the Text it selfe to prove that these Elders were spirituall men as he speaketh because Elisha asketh them See ye how this sonne of a murderer hath sent to take away my head What expectation could there be that they did see a thing then secret and unheard of unlesse they had been men familiar with God Now these Elders were sitting close with Elisha in his house It was not a publike or Church assembly for worship but for counsell deliberation and resolution in some case of difficulty and publike concernment So Tostatus and Sanctius on the place A paralell place there is Ezech. 8. 1. I sate in mine house and the Elders of Iudah sate before me Whether those Elders came to know what God had revealed to the Prophet concerning the state of Iudah and Ierusalem as Lavater upon the place supposeth or for deliberation about some other thing it is nothing like a civill Court but very like an Ecclesiasticall senate Now if such there was out of Ierusalem how much more in Ierusalem where as there came greater store of Ecclesiasticall causes and controversies concerning the sence of the Law to be judged so there was greater store of Ecclesiastical persons âit for government whatsoever of this kind we finde elsewhere was but a Transsumpt the Archetype was in Ierusalem Ninthly that place Zeââ¦h 7. 1 2 3. helpeth me much The Jews sent Commissioners unto the Temple there to speake unto the Priests which were in the house of the Lord of Hosts and to the Prophets the Chaldee hath and to the Scribes saying Should I weepe in the first moneth c. Here is an Ecclesiasticall assembly which had authority to determine controversies concerning the worship of God Grotius upon the place distinguisheth these Priests and Prophets from the civill Sanhedrin yet he saith they were to be consulted with in controverted cases according to the Law Deut. 17. 9. If so then their sentence was authoritative and binding so far that the man who did presumptuously disobey them was to die the death Deut. 17. 12. Tenthly let it be considered what is that Moshav Zekenim consessus or Cathedra seniorum Psal. 107. 32. for though every argument be not an infâllible demonstration yet cuncta juvant let them exalt him also in the Congregation or Church of the people and praise him in the Assembly of the Elders Compare this Text with Psalm 115. 9 10 11. as likewise with Psalm 118. 2 3 4. In all the three Texts there are three sorts of persons distinguished and more especially called upon to glorifie God Oh that men would praise the Lord for his goodnesse saith the Text in hand Psalm 107. 31. for that you have in the other two places Ye that feare the Lord c. for the congregation of the peple you have in the other two places Israel and the house of Israel For the Assembly of the Elders you have in the other Texts the house of Aaron I will not here build any thing upon the observation of Hugo Cardinalis on Psalm 107. 32. that the congregation of the Princes is not mentioned in this businesse because not many mighty not many noble c. One thing I am sure of there were Elders in Israel clearly distinct both from the Princes Judges and civill Magistrates Ios. 23. 2. 2 Kings 10. 1. Ezra 10. 14. Acts 4. 5. and elsewhere And the parallel Texts afore cited doe couple together these Elders and the house of Aaron as Pastors and ruling Elders now are and as the Priests and Elders are found conjoyned elsewhere in the old Testament Exod. 24. 1. Deut. 27. 1. with vers 9. Ezech. 7. 26. Ier. 19. 1. So Matth. 26. 59. The work also of giving thanks for mercies and deliverances obtained by the afflicted and such as have been in distresse the purpose which the Psalmist hath in hand extended also to the deliverances of particular persons is more especially commended to those who are assembled in an Ecclesiasticall capacity Even as now among our selves the civill Courts of Justice or Magistrates and Rulers or Judges assembled by themselves in a politick capacity use not to be desired to give thanks for the delivery of certain persons from a danger at Sea or the like But it were very proper and fit to desire thanks to be returned 1. by those that feare God for as we should desire the prayers so likewise the praises of the Saints 2. By the Church or Congregation of which they that have received the mercy are members 3. By the Eldership yea if therebe occasion by a Synod of Elders who as they ought to watch over the City of God and to stand upon their watch-tower for observing approaching dangers so they ought to take speciall notice of exemplary mercies bestowed upon the afflicted members of the Church and be an ensample to the flocke in giving thanks as well as in other holy duties The eleventh place which seemeth to hold forth unto us an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin is Ezech. 13. 9. where its said of the Prophets that did see vanity and Divine lies they shall not be in the assembly of my people neither shall they be written in the writing of the house of Israel neither shall they inter into the Land of Israel Where as Diodati and Grotius observe the speech riseth by degrees 1. they shall not any more be admitted into the assembly or councell to have any voice there as Prophets in those daies had saith
excommunication and sub formalitate criminis with capitall punishment And who knoweth not that a capitall crime is a cause of excommunication which is also sometimes the sole punishment the Magistrate neglecting his duty If a known blasphemer or incestuous person be not cut off by the Magistrate as he ought by the Law of God shall he therefore not be cut off by excommunication If he had proved that all the causes of cutting off in the Law were capitall crimes he had said much but that will never be proved CHAP. VI. Of the casting out of the Synagogue WE read of a casting out of the Church which was pretended to be a matter of conscience and religion and such as did more especially concerne the glory of God Isa. 66. 5. Your brethren that hated you that cast you out for my names sake said let the Lord be glorified Such was the casting out of the Synagogue mentioned in the Gospell Ioh. 9. 22. 12. 42. 16. 2. Arias Montanus de arcano Sermone cap. 47. expounds it of excommunication from Church Assemblies So the Magdeburgians cent 1. lib. 1. cap. 7. and Corn. Bertramus de repub Ebraeor cap. 7. Godwyn in his Moses and Aaron lib. 3. cap. 4. lib. 5. cap. 2. Wherein the interpreters also upon the places cited doe generally agree Erasmus Brentius Tossanus Diodati Cartwright in his harmony Gerhard c. So likewise M. Leigh out of Paulus Tarnovius ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã dicitur ejectus e ãâã sacro Ecclesiae excommunicatus See Critica Sacra of the new Test. pag. 391. So doth Aretius Theol. Probel loc 133. though cited by our Opposites againstus he saith though it was abused by the Pharisees yet it sheweth the Antient use of the the thing it self that there was such a discipline in the Jewish Church It is not much materiall to dispute which of the degrees of the Jewish Excommunication or whether all the three were meant by that casting out of the Synagogue Drusius and Grotius expound Io. 9. 22. of Niddui Gerhard expounds Io. 16. 2. of all the three Niddui Cherem and Shammata It is enough for this present argument if it was a spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Censure not a civill punishment Master Prynne Vindic. pag. 48 49. tels us First this casting out of the Synagogue was not warranted by Gods Word but was onely a humane invention Secondly as it was practiced by the Jewes it was a diabolicall institution Thirdly that it was meerly a civill Excommunication like to an Outlary whereby the party cast out was separate from civill conversation onely or from all company with any man but was not suspended from any Divine Ordinance Fourthly that it was inflicted by the Temporall Magistrate Fifthly that in the Jewish Synagogues at that time there was neither Sacrament nor Sacrifice but onely Reading Expounding Preaching Disputing and Prayer so that it cannot prove suspension from the Sacrament To the first I answer it was not onely warranted by the cutting off mentioned in the Law but Erastus himselfe gives a warrant for it from Gods word He saith pag. 315. the casting out of the Synagogue was vel idem vel simile quidpiam with that separating from the congregation Ezââ¦a 10. 8. To the second Aretius hath answered The best things in the world may be abused To the third I offer these eight considerations to prove that it was an Ecclesiasticall not a civill Censure First the causes for which men were put out of the Synagogues were matters of scandall offences in point of Religion and we read of none cast out of the Synagogue for a civill injury or crime It was for confessing Christ Io. 9. 22. 12. 42. then counted heresie and for Preaching of the Gospell Io. 16. 2. Secondly The Synagogicall Assembly or Court was Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall as Ludoviens de Dieu noteth upon Matth 10. 17. we read of the Rulers of the Synagogue Act. 13. 15. among whom he that did preâde and moderate was called the chiefe Ruler of the Synagogue Act. 18. 8. 17. names never given to civill Magistates or Judges Therefore Brughton makes this of the Rulers of the Synagogue to be one of the paralells betweene the Jewish and the Christian Church Seâ his exposition of the Lords Prayer pag. 14. 16. As for that Assembly of the Pharisees which did cast out or excommunicate the blind man Io. 9. Tossanus upon the place calls it Senatus Ecclesiasticus and Brentius argueth from this example against the infallibility of Councells because this Councell of the Pharisees call'd Christ himselfe a finner 3 The Court of civill Judgement was in the Gates of the City not in the Synagogue 4 Such as the Communion and fellowship was in the Synagogue such was the casting out of the Synagogue But the Communion or fellowship which one enjoyed in the Synagogue was a Church-Communion and Sacred fellowship in acts of Divine worship Therefore the casting out of the Synagogue was also Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall not civill or temporall 4 The end was Sacred and Spirituall to glorifie God Is. 66. 5. to doe God good service Io. 16. 2. in that which did more immediately and neerly touch his name and his glory Though the Pharisees did falsely pretend that end their error was not in mistaking the nature of the Censure but in misapplying it where they had no just cause 5 Master Prynne himself tells us pag. 49. That this excommunication from the Synagogue was of force forty dayes though I beleeve he hath added ten more then enough and if he look over his Bookes better he will find he should have said thirty yet so as that it might be shortned upon repentance But I pray are civill punishments shortned or lengthened according to the parties repentance I know Church Censures are so But I had thought the end of civill punishments is not to reclaime a mans soule by repentance and then to be taken off but to guard the Lawes of the Land to preserve Justice Peace and good order to make others feare to doe evill to uphold the publike good The Magistrate must both punish and continue punishments as long as is necessary for those ends whether the party be penitent or not 6 How is it credible that the holy Ghost meaning to expresse a casting out from civill company or conversation onely which was not within but without the Synagogue would choose such a word as signifieth the casting out from an Ecclesiasticall or Sacred Assembly for such were the Synagogues in which the Jewes had Reading Expounding Preaching and Prayer as Master Prynne tells us Christ himselfe distinguisheth the Court or Judicatory which was in the Synagogue from civill Magistracy Luk. 12. 11. And when they bring you unto the Synagogues and unto Magistrates and Powers Magistrates and Powers are civill Rulers supreame and subordinate but the Synagogues are distinct Courts from both these 7 Our Opposites cannot give any other rationall interpretation of the word
the Talmud it selfe proving that whether the sinne was expiated by Sacrifice or by death it was alwayes to be confessed from the same example of Achan doth P. Galatinus lib. 10. cap. 3. prove that Declaration of repentance was to be made by word of mouth and that the sinne was to be particularly confessed which he further proveth by another rabbinicall passage In the fourth place Io. 9. 24. seemeth to hold forth a judiciall publike confession of sinne to have been required of scandalous sinners The Pharisees being upon an examination of him that was born blind and was made to see they labour to drive him so farre from confessing Christ as to confesse sinne and wicked collusion Give God the Praise say they we know that this man is a sinner Which is to be expounded by Ios. 7. 19. Give glory to the Lord God of Israel and make confession Fifthly as the Jewes had an Excommunication so they had an absolution and that which interveened was Confession and Declaration of Repentance And hence came the Arabik ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã nadam he hath repented and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã nadim a penitent the Niddui made the nadim for when a man was excommunicated by the lesser Excommunication the Consistory waited first 30. dayes and then other 30. dayes and as some thinke the third time 30. dayes to see whether the offender were penitent which could not be known without confession and would seek absolution which if he did not but continued obstinate impenitent then they proceeded to the greater excommunication Which doth prove a publike Confession at least in the case of the excommunicated Sixthly we find a publike penitentiall confession Ezra 10. 10. 11. And Ezra the Priest stood up and said unto them ye have transgressed and have taken strange wives to encrease the trespasse of Israel Now therefore make confession unto the Lord God of your Fathers and doe his pleasure and separate your selves from the people of the land and from the strange wives Marke here the foresaking of the sinne could not suâfice without confessing the sinne All Israel had sworne and covenanted to doe the thing to put away the strange wives vers 5. But Ezra the Priest tells them they must also make confession of their sinne confession of their former trespasse must be joyned with Reformation for the future All which the people promise to doe as Ezra had said vers 12. But what was this confession was it onely a private confession to God alone or was it onely a generall confession made by the whole congregration of Israel at a solemne Fast and humiliation Nay that there was a third sort of Confession differing from both these appeareth by vers 13. neither is this a worke of one day or two for we are many that have transgressed in this thing yea three Moneths are spent in the businesse vers 16 17. during which space all that had taken strange wives came at appointed times out of every City and were successively examined by Ezra the Priest and certaine chiefe of the Fathers and Levites such of both as were not themselves guilty before whom such as were found guilty did make Confession The Sons of the Priests made Confession as well as others yea with the first and gave their hands that they would put away their wives and being guilty they offerered a Ram of the Flock for their trespasse With which trespasse offering confession was ever joyned as hath been before shewed from the Law Seventhly Master Hildersham of worthy memory in his 34. Lecture upon Psal. 51. draweth aâ Argument from Davids example for the publike Confession of a scandalous sinne before the Church He made saith he publike Confession of his sinne to the Congregation and Church of God for we see in the Title of this Psalme 1. That he committed this Psalme that containeth the acknowledgement of his sinne and profession of his repentance to the chief musitian to be published in the Sanctuary and Temple 2 That in this publication of his Repentance he hideth not from the Church his sinne nor cloketh it at all but expresseth in particular the speciall sinne c. Adde hereunto this publike Confession was made after ministeriall conviction by Nathan who did convince David of the greatnesse of that scandalous sinne in which he had then continued impenitent neer a yeer or thereabout The Doctrin which Master Hildersham draweth from Davids example is this That they whose sinnes God hath detected and brought to light whose sinnes are publike and notorious scandalous and offensive to the congregations where they live ought to be willing to confesse their sins publikely to make their Repentance as publike and notorious as their sinne is He addeth in his explanation when they shall be required to doe it by the Discipline of the Church Marke one of his applications which is the Subject of the 37. Lecture The second sort that are to be reproved by this Doctrine are such as having authority to enjoyne publike Repentance to scandalous sinners for the satisfying of the Congregation when they are detected and presented unto them refuse or neglect to doe it And here he complaineth that the publike acknowledgement of scandalous sinnes was grown out of use and that though it was ordered by authority yet it was not put in execution The Canons of our Church saith he can 26. straightly charge every Minister That he shall not in any wise admit to the Communion any of his flock which be openly known to live in sinne notorious without Repentance And the Booke of Common Prayer in the rubrike before the Communion commandeth that if any be an open and notorious evill liver so that the Congregation by him is offended the Minister shall call him and advertise him in any wise not to presume to the Lords Table till he hath openly declared himself to have truly repented that the Congregation may thereby be satisfied which were afore offended So that you may see the Lawes and Discipline of our Church require that open and scandalous sinners should dââ¦e open and publike Repentance yea give power to the Minister to repell and keepe back such from the Communion that refuse to doe it Where it may be observed by the way that the Power of Elder-ships for suspending scandalous persons not Excommunicated from the Sacrament now so much contented against by Master Prynne is but the same Power which was granted by authority to the Ministery even in the prelaticall times And he hath upon the matter endeavoured to bring the Consciences of a whole Elder-ship into a greater servitude under this present Reformation then the Conscience of a single Minister was formerly brought under by Law in this particular Eightly Master Hildersham Ibid. Lect. 34. argueth not onely â⦠pari but â⦠fortiori If a necessity of satisfying an offended Brother how much more a necessity of satisfying an offended Church which will equally hold both for the old and
the first I answer it rather confirmeth then confuteth what I have said For 1. The Text saith Vers. 13. the Publican stood afarre off the Pharisee not so Grotius upon the place Verse 11. noteth that the Pharisees fault was not in this particular that he came further into the Temple then the Publican for the custome was such that the Publicans were to stand in the Court of the Gentiles the Pharisees in the Court of Israel Camer myroth in Luke 18. is also of opinion that the Publican stood in the Court of the Gentiles or in that first Court into which Iosephus lib. 2. contra Appion saith that all even Heathens might come 2. And though our opposites could prove that the Publican came into the Court of Israel which they will never be able to doe yet this place helpes them not at all unlesse they can prove that this was a scandalous and prophane Publican It is certaine that divers of the Publicans were religious and devout men and that this was one of them we may more then conjecturally know by the Pharisees owne words for when he hath thanked God that he is not as other men adulterers unjust extortioners he addeth with a disjunction or even as this Publican thus preferring himselfe not onely to the infamous and scandalous Publicans but even to this devout Publican More of this place afterward in the debate of Matth. 18. To the other objection from Iohn 8. 2 3. where it is said that the Pharisees brought a woman taken in adultery into the Temple and set her before Christ First I answer with Const. l'Empereur annot in Cod. Middoth cap. 2. pag. 45. by the Temple in that place we are to understand the Intermurale the utter Court or Court of the Gentiles which was without the Court of Israel which utter Court saith he both the Evangelists and Iosephus call by the name of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the Temple Yea the whole mountaine of the Temple even comprehending that part of it which was without the Intermurale had the name of the Temple as M. Selden noteth de Jure nat Gent. l. 3. c. 6. p. 298. And lib. 4. cap. 5. he expounds that of the Money-changers in the Temple to be meant of the court of the Gentiles This answer doth the better agree to Iohn 8. because V. 2. tels us it was in the place where all the people came unto Jesus and he taught them Now it is certaine that both Christ and his Apostles did often teach the people in the Coutt of the Gentiles and in Solomons porch which was without the Court of Israel in the Intermurale that all might have the better occasion of hearing the Gospell even they who were not permitted to enter into the Court of Israel Wherefore since the Text tels us that when the Pharisees brought the woman to Christ he was teaching in such a place where all the people had accesse to heare him this agreeth better to the Intermurale then to the Court of Israel Secondly I answer that woman did not come as a priviledged person free to come and worship âin the Court of Israel with the Church of Israel but she is brought as an accused person that in the most publique and shamefull manner she might be sentenced and condemned and made vile before all the people so that it was in her paena non privilegium The Sanhedrin also did sit in the Temple so that such as were to be examined and judged must be brought to that place where the Sanhedrin was which sate in that part of the Temple that was called Gazith This might be the occasion of bringing some to the Temple as parties to be judged who were not admitted to the Ordinances of worship in the Court of Israel Even as the prohibition of reading atheisticall or hereticall bookes Sanhedrin cap. 11. sect 1. was not violated by the Councels reading or searching of them for a Judiciall triall and examination as is rightly observed by Dionysius Vossius annot in Maimon de Idol pag. 25. And now having taken off the two principall objections we shall take notice of such Scriptures as either directly or at least by consequence prove that notorious and scandalous sinners were not allowed to be admitted into the Temple and partake in all the ordinances 1. God reproveth not onely the bringing of strangers into his Sanctuary who were uncircumcised in the flesh but the bringing of those who were uncircumcised in heart that is known to be such for de secretis non judicat Ecclesia Ezech. 44. 7 9. Such ought not to have had fellowship in the holy things No stranger uncircumcised in flesh shall enter into my Sanctuary of any stranger that is among the children of Israel It is a law concerning proselytus domicilii such proselytes as having renounced idolatry and professing to observe the seven precepts given to the sonnes of Noah were thereupon permitted to dwell and converse among the children of Israel Of which more elsewhere Such a one ought not be admitted into the Sanctuary or place of the holy assemblies there to pertake in all the Ordinances with the Church unlesse he be both circumcised in flesh and also in regard of his profession and practice a visible Saint or one supposed to be circumcised in heart The disjunction Nor tels us that if he were either uncircumcised in flesh or known to be uncircumcised in heart God did not allow him to be admitted to coÌmunion with the children of Israel in al publik ordinances 2. There is a Law Deut. 23. 18. forbidding to bring the hire of a whore into the house of the Lord and that because it was the price of a whore how much more was it contrary to the will of God that the whore her selfe being knowne to be such should be brought to the house of the Lord For propter quod ununiquââ¦que est tale id ipsum est magis tale This argument is hinted by Philo the Jew 3. The Lord sharply contendeth with those who did steale murther and commit adultery and sweare falsely and burne Incense to Baal and yet presumed to come and stand before him in his owne house Is this house which is called by my name saith the Lord become a den of robbers in your eyes Ierem. 7. 9 10 11. A den of robbers is the place which receives robbers and saith Vatablus upon the place as robbers after their robbing come to their denne so doe these even after their stealing murthering c. come to the Temple To the same purpose is that challenge Ezech. 23. 38 39. Moreover this they have done unto me they have defiled my Sanctuary in the same day and have prophaned my Sabbaths For when they had slaine their children to their Idols then they came the same day into my Sanctuary to prophane it But God would not have the Temple to be a receptacle for such When Christ applieth that Scripture
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 ââ¦on to such saith Diââ¦dati and ãâã 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 communâcate 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã to the Sanctuary but such as had the markes or characters there enumerated so farre as men can âudge of these markes that is so faâe 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 ãâã âs 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 ãâã 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 Chriât 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 sâranger as well as the Israelite might come and pray in it 2 Chro. 6 32. So ãâã 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
exclusion of prophane scandalous persons from the passeover THat which Master Prynne in his Vindication pag. 15 16. pleadeth for his opinion from the Law of the passeover may be as I conceive with no great difficulty answered and I shall doe it very shortly being to insist further in answering Erastus who said much more for that point which deserveth ân answer First in answer to our argument from the keeping back of the unclean Num. 9. he saith that all circumcised persons whatsoever had a right to eat the passeover c. being bound to eat the passeover in its season except in cases of necessity disability by reason of a journey or of legall uncleannesse onely not spirituall as is cleer by Exo. 12. 3. 43. to 50. Num. 9. 1. to 15. Deut. 16. 16 17. Ezra 6. 19 20 21. 2 Kings 23. 21 27 2. Chron. 35. 6 7. 13. 17. 18. where we read that all the people and all the males that were present received the passeover not one of them being excluded from eating it Answ. 1. If it was so doth not this make as much against himselfe as against us unlesse he will say that the Analogy must hold so farre that all Baptized persons whatsoever none excepted if it be not in cases of necessity or disability how scandâlous impenitent and obstinate soever they be ought to be admitted to the Lords Table so there shall be no excommunication at all which yet himselfe granteth for if any Baptized person though such as Master Prynne himselfe would have to be excommunicated shall be shut out from the Church and from all publike Ordinances and so from the Lords Supper because of his obstinacy and continuance in some foule scandall after previous admonitions in so doing we shall by his principles doe contrary to the Law of the passeover in the point of Analogy 2. The Texts cited by him prove that men were debarred for legall uncleannesse but there is not one of them which will prove that men were debarred onely for legall uncleannesse and no man for morall uncleannesse Yea one of those Texts Ezra 6. 21. tells us that those who were admitted to the passeover were such as had separated themselves from the silthynesse of the heathen of the Land to seeke the Lord God of Israel 3. That morall uncleannesse I meane known prophannesse or scandalous sinnes did render men uncapable of eating the passeover I shall prove anone by divers arguments unto which I remit Master Prynne That which hee objecteth from 1 Cor. 10. I am to answer also distinctly by it selfe His second reply is that those who were legally uncleane at the day appointed for the passeover so as they could not then receive it were yet peremptorily enjoyned to eat it the 14. day of the second moneth c. Num. 9. 11. 12. he must not be suspended from it above one moneth Answ. The Scripture cited proves no such thing except upon supposition that they be clean the 14. day of the following moneth And what if any of them were in the second moneth also uncleane by the touch of a deadbody or otherwise Were they not kept off in the second moneth as well as in the first Is it not plainly said of the second passeover vers 12. the very plaâe cited by himselfe according to all the Ordinances of the passeover they shall keep it and one of those Ordinances was the keeping back the uncleane Thirdly he saith that he who was legally uncleane was kept back neither by the Priest nor Magistrate but by those of the same Family as vers 6 7. imports And the true reason saith he in this Text why his uncleannesse did seclude him from eating the passeover was because it quite excluded him out of the camp for a time not Tabernacle or Temple and so by necessary consequence from the house wherein he was to eat the passeover c. and by like reason it debarred him from all other Ordinances Answ. 1 The Text Num. 9 6 7. tells us the unclean were kept back but by whom they were kept back it tells not That it was neither left free to the unclean person to eat of the passeover nor to the Family to admit him but that there was an authoritative restraint I prove by this argument He that was uncleane and before his cleasing did eat of the flesh of the Peace-offerings was cut off from among his people Lev. 7. 20. 21 Therefore he that in his uncleannesse did eat the passeover was to be cut off also No man will say that there was any lesse punishment intended for the pollution of the passeover than for the pollution of Peace-offerings And if the uncleane were not permitted under the Law to eat of the Flesh of the Sacrifices or if they did they were cut off shall not as great care be had to keep the body of Jesus Christ which was signified by the flesh of the sacrifices and the bloud of the Covenant from being trod under Foot by Dogges and Swine 2. Neither is there any such reason in that Text Num. 9. as the excluding quite out of the camp those who were uncleane by a dead body and so by consequence from the passeover Nay the Text rather intimateth that they were in the camp for they came before Moses and Aaron on that day when the passeover was kept and said We are defiled by the dead body of a man Wherefore are we kept back vers 6. 7. I hope Moses and Aaron were not without the camp I knew the Lepers and some other uncleane persons were put out of the camp but there is not one of the Texts cited by him which gives the least shadow of reason to prove that the uncleane by the dead body of a man were quite excluded out of the Camp except Num. 5. 2. And if he will beleive the Hebrew Doctors and others upon that place there were three Camps the Camp of Israel the Camp of the Levites and the Camp of Divine Majesty The uncleane by the dead were free say they to be in the first two Camps and were onely excluded from the third However it s agreed that some uncleane persons were excluded from the Sanctuary who were not excluded from the camp of the Chidren of Israel as is observed by Tostatus in Lev. 12. Quaest. 21. Menochius in Num. 5. 2. the English Annotations on Num. 5. 2. and others And if Master Prynne can prove that those uncleane persons who were excluded from the Sanctuary were not excluded from the Passeover let him try it That this thing may be yet better understood let us observe with Tostatus in Levit. 22. Quest. 7. a threefold separation of the uncleane under the Law some were separate onely from the Sanctuary and the holy things for he that had but touched a man or a woman who had an issue or had touched the Bed Clothes or any thing else which had been under him or her was not permitted to come unto the
doth further appear by the âawes 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 âinne 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
might not eat the Passeover Whether it were the coming into the house of Pilate he being a man uncircumcised or whether it were which I rather think a litigious action upon a Holy-day which might have defiled them this is plaine that they thought there was a morall uncleannesse signified by the ceremoniall uncleanesse which might keep men from the Passeover The fifth animadversion shall be this whereas Erastus holdeth pag. 106. that under the law every one was judged cleane or uncleane according to his owne judgement and conscience aud not according to the Priests the Lepers onely excepted Also that when a man had committed any sinne it was in the free will of the sinner to expiate his sinne when he pleased and he was no way compelled to it I answer If every uncleane person except the Leper was allowed to judge and pronounce himself cleane when he pleased then to what purpose did that Law serve Lev. 7. 20. 21. or that whoever was uncleane and had not purified himself was not to be admitted to come into the Tabernacle and if he presumed to come he was to be cut off from the congregation Num. 19 By Erastus his principles no man should have been cut off if he had pleaded himself not to be uncleane and how many would doe so if that could save them from being cut off Is it not also plaine from Levit. 15. 15. 30. 31. that both men and women who were uncleane by their issues not by Leprosie were to bring an offering to the Priest for their cleansing otherwise were not to be accounted cleane but lookt upon as defilers of the Tabernacle in their uncleannesse whatever they might thinke of themselves So women that were unclean after Child-Birth had not power to pronounce themselves cleane and were not free to come to the Sanctuary when they pleased but they were first to bring a sinne offering and the Priest was to make atonement for them Lev. 12. 6. 7. 8. There was a certaine number of dayes appointed for the cleansing both of women after Child-Birth and of men who had an issue yea when the dayes of the cleansing were full-filled they were not free to come unto the Tabernacle except they brought their offering for atonement Lev. 12. 6. 7. 15. v. 13. 14. 15. Philo the Jew de vita Mosis lib. 3. pag. 531. tells us there was a certaine definit time till the expiring whereof those that were uncleane by a dead body were excluded from the Temple Iosephus antiq Iud. lib. 3. cap. 10. records the like not onely of Lepers but of those that had an issue or were defiled by the dead that till the set time was fulfilled all these were kept back from the congregration The other thing which Erastus saith that it was left free to the sinner to expiate his sinne when he pleased doth no better agree with the Word for it was commanded that upon the very knowledge of the sinne the trespasse offering should be brought and the sinne confessed Levit. 4. 14. 28. 5. 3. 4. 5. Sixthly whereas Erastus pag. 105. urgeth the universall Law by which all are commanded to keep the Passeover except the uncleane and those in a journey therefore all others how flagitious or scandalous soever in their lives were bound to keep it I answer Who knows not that many universalls in Scripture are to be restricted and not to be understood as the words at first sound as Io. 2. 10. every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine that is every Master of a feast Luk. 13. 15. doth not each one of you on the Sabbath lose his Oxe or his Asse that is each one that hath an Oxe or an Asse Io. 10. 8. all that ever came before me were Theeves and Robbers meaning whoever before him did make himself the true doore by which the sheep must enter in So Ioel. 2. 28. I will poure out my spirit upon all flesh yet not upon all and every one but upon those onely whom he receiveth in Covenant Rev. 13. 8. and all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him the Beast whose names are not written in the Booke of life yet there have been many reprobates who neither worshipped the Pope nor knew him but it is meant of all under the power of the Beast So when all are commanded to keep the Passeover it must be understood of all sit persons and such as were not to be excepted You will say the Law excepteth none but the unclean and those in a journey therefore all others not excepted were to keep it for where an exception is made from an universall Rule that Rule is the more sure and certaine concerning all other particulars not excepted To that I answer Erastus himself addeth another exception and that is of the sick who could not be present The Hebrewes make divers other exceptions for they say Women and Servants are not bound to appear but all men are bound except the deaf and the Dumb and the Foole and the little-Child and the Blinde and the Lame and the defiled and the uncircumcised and the old man and the sick and the tender and weake which are not able to goe up on their Feet All these eleven are discharged c. See Ainsworth on Exo. 23. 17. And compare this with Maimonides de Idolol châo 11. Sect. 18. where he that hearkens to Sooth-sayers Wizards Charmers and the like is said to be reckoned among Fooles and Children whose reason is imperfect Therefore these were to be excepted as well as Fools and Children and so were other scandalous persons which I shall prove anon A Seventh Animadversion shall be this Erastus in these Arguments of his from the Law doth confound Sacraments with Sacrifices as I touched in the beginning yea he argueth expressely that whoever were admitted to expiate their Sinne by Sacrifices were thereby admitted to Sacraments because saith he all these Sacrifices were true Sacraments So he speaketh in other places that he might seeme to dispute the more appositely for promiscuous admission to the Sacrament of the Lord Supper But Sacrifices and Sacraments are as different as Giving and Receiving In Sacrifices man is the giver God is the Receiver In Sacraments God is the Giver Man is the Receiver In Sacrifices Peace is made with God In Sacraments it is sealed and supposed to be made They therefore that hold the Passeover was a Sacrifice an opinion partly grounded on Deut. 16. 2. and partly taken from the Jewes dispersed who though they observe divers paschall rites yet they doe not kill the Paschall Lambe nor keep the Passeover according to the Law it being to them unlawfull to offer Sacrifices except in the Land of Canaan have the shorter evasion from Erastus his Argument touching the admission to the Passeover But I have given other answers And this much shall suffice for answer to the Erastian Arguments drawn from the Law of Moses which some suppose
ãâã So that when they retalne the same word in rendering ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in this Text of Ezekiel they doe thereby intimate that the latter word will reach a power which was more then doctrinall as well as the former Which I doe the rather assert because ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is taken by the Septuagints not seldome as agreeing in signification with ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã de voluntate sua certiorem reddidit constituit decrevit so that it will reach the making of others to know a thing not onely doctrinally but by rules Canons Statutes and Government Yea ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã will reach the teaching or making men to know by censures or punishments inflicted as Iudg. 8. 16. Gedeon tooke briars and thornes ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Pagnin confregit and he brake with these the men of Succoth Hierome contrivit The Septuagints ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã comminuiâ⦠The English Translation and with these be taught in the Margent made to know the men of Succoth For this signification of the word namely conterere Arias Montanus in his Hebrew Lexicon citeth Isa. 53. 3. Ezech. 19. 7. So conteri Psalm 74. 5. Prov. 10. 9. Upon this last place Mercerus tels us that the Hebrews doe not onely admit this sence of that Text but in other places also take the same word pro confringi So that without the least violence to the Text in Ezekiel it may be thus read They have not separated or put difference between the holy and prophane neither have they broken or divided between the uncleane and the cleane The latter part seemeth to charge the Priests with the admission of such as were legally uncleane the former part with the admission of such as were morally uncleane or prophane to such ordinances as were appointed onely for the holy and cleane Tenthly Heathens or strangers who were not Proselytes of the covenant or of righteousnessè were not permitted to eate of the Passeover Now one that is by profession a Church member but living in prophanesse and scandalous wickednesse ought to be esteemed as an Heathen Matth. 18. 17. yea as worse than an Infidell 1 Tim. 5. 8. Hence was it that the word Heathen was used for an irreligious or wicked man as is observed by Mathias Martinius in lexic. philol pag. 717. 718. and as a discriminating name from believers so Zonaras in Cone Carthag Can. 24. When David speaks of his persecuting wicked enemies though Israelites he cals them strangers and heathen Psal. 54. 3. Psal. 59. 5. How then can it be supposed that those who were esteemed as heathens were admitted to all Church priviledges as well as the best Israelites Eleventhly that which was among the Jewes a sufficient cause to deny circumcision to him who desired to be admitted and received into the Jewish Church as ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Ger ben berith a proselyte sonne of the covenant or ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Ger tsedeck a proselyte of righteousnesse was also a sufficient cause to deny the Passeover to a proselyte who desired to eate it Even as now that for which we may and ought to refuse Baptisme to one that desireth it must needs be also a cause and reason to refuse the Lords Supper to him that desireth to receive it for he that is not fit to be baptized is much lesse fit to receive the Lords Supper But prophanesse or a scandalous conversation was among the Jewes a sufficient cause and reason to refuse Circumcision Yea as D r Buxtorf tels us in Lexic Chald. Talm. Rabbin pag. 408. before the Jewes would circumcise or baptize a proselyte for after circumcision they did baptize him they did first examine him exactly and prove him narrowly whether he desired to be a proselyte from covetousnesse ambition feare the love of an Israelitish virgin or the like sinister end If upon examination it did appeare that he was not moved by any worldly consideration but by affection to Religion and the glory of God then they proceeded to set before his eyes the strictnesse of the law and how strait and narrow a path he must walke in telling him also of the persecutions and tribulations of Israel If after all this triall they found him stedfast in his desires and resolutions then they received him he being first instructed in the Articles of their faith and in the Commandements of the Law How much lesse would they have circumcised a scandalous person being so farre from any hopefull signes of sincerity that he had the blacke markes of a worker of iniquity And if they would not receive such a scandalous flagitious person to circumcision how could they receive such a one being circumcised to the Passeover Twelfthly compare Ezra 6. 21. with Ezra 10. 16 17. First it is marked Ezra 6. 21. that such proselytes did eate the Passeover with the children of Israel as had separated themselves unto them from the silthinesse of the Heathen of the Land to seeke the Lord God of Israel If those who did eate were thus qualified it is not obscurely intimated that those who were not thus qualified did not eate And if no proselyte who did not separate himselfe from the filthinesse of the Heathen was allowed to eat the Passeover then muchlesse was an Israelite who did not separate himselfe from the silthynesse of the Heathen allowed to eat it I like well Beda his observation upon Ezra 10. 16 17. Israel was purged from unlawfull marriages and the strange wives put away and this worke was ended against the beginning of the first moneth to the intent that none defiled with unlawfull mariages might eate the Passeover Ut ante initium mensis primi consummarentur omnes qui prophano erant connubio maculati id est a tali scelere purgarentur quatenus ipsum mensem primum in quo erat pascha faciendum mundi intrarent mundi paschalia festa peragerent c. Thirteenthly I argue from the signification of the legall or ceremoniall uncleannesse and from that which was signified by the exclusion of those that were legally uncleane Without all controversie the keeping backe of such was a significant ceremony For all the legall ceremonies concerning cleannesse or uncleannesse were teaching ceremonies and are therefore called Doctrines Matth. 15. 9. Col. 22. 2. What was taught and signified thereby I have before shewed namely that prophane ones be not admitted to fellowship with Gods people in their holy things Yea was not prophannesse and open wickednesse more hatefull to God than legall uncleannesse yes saith Erastus pag. 144. because God appointed greater punishments for the former then for the latter the greater crimes were punished by fire and sword stoning hanging the smaller by mulcts and stripes But yet say I by his grounds the legall uncleannesse was more hatefull to God than prophanesse and wickednesse in reference to fellowship in the holy things for that is the point He holds that the most flagitious and prophane were
the Passeover which is not at all meant in this Text but even from the Manna and the water of the Rock those scandalous sinners were cut off by death except such of them as did repent and turn for whom atonement was made to God As soon as Moses came into the camp he gave a charge to slay every man his Brother and every man his companion which had committed the sinne of Idolatry and for the rest who survived Moses made atonement and got an answer of Peace from God concerning them Exo. 32. 33. We read also that the Lord plagued the people because of their Idolatry Exo. 32. 35. and the people did mourn and humble themselves and cast off their Ornaments Exo. 33. 4. So that I am sure the first case mentioned by the Apostle maketh much against our Opposites The second example is the matter of Peor where they did fall both into Idolatry and Fornication together but what came of it Moses gave a charge to the Judges of Israel to slay every one his men that were joyned to Baal Peor Numb 25. 5. and there died also of the Plague 24000. v. 9. But what was the peoples part in Repenting vers 6. tells us that all the congregation of the Children of Israel were weeping before the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation and for those that remained alive Phinehes made atonement and the Lord smelled a savour of rest vers 11. 13. As for the third case instanced by the Apostle which is the tempting of Christ much people of Israel dyed for it and the remnant did repent and confesse that particular sinne that they had spoken against the Lord and against Moses and therefore did desire Moses to pray unto the Lord for them Num. 21. 6. 7. Lastly for that of murmuring those that had the chiefe hand in it died of the Plague Num. 14. 37. and the people mourned greatly and confessed We have sinned vers 34. 40. And thus by searching for an Answer to our Opposites argument we have found this argument against them If God himself did execute such Discipline upon those who were tainted with the grosse and scandalous sinnes of Idolatry Fornication c. That he would not permit them to enjoy their former liberty of eating of the Manna and drinking of the Water of the Rock being spirituall meat and spirituall drink as Typifying Christ though appointed of God also for ordinary daily food and drink to his people untill they mourned repented confessed and atonement was made for them It is much lesse the will of God that such scandalous sinners as are manifestly impenitent and manifestly not reconciled to God should be admitted and received to the Lords Supper which is an Ordinance purely spirituall But the former part is true Therefore so is the latter 6. Another Answer I shall adde though I need adde no more Those sinnes mentioned by the Apostle were not scandals given by a few persons nor yet by a few Families nor by a Tribe but they were common nationall sinnes and so fall not within the verge of our Controversie which is not concerning the suspending of a scandalous Nation from the Sacrament for some nationall sinne but concerning the suspension of scandalons persons for their personall publike offences If it be objected unto me that the Apostle saith that some of them were Idolaters and some of them did commit Fornication c. I answer when he saith some he saith so in reference to the All which had gone before that is all the Israelites who did eat of the Manna and drink of the water of the Rock during the 40 yeers in the wildernesse successively so that he makes a distribution of Israel in the wildernesse comparing one passage with another not distributing those that lived together at one and the same time And that it must needs be so understood I prove from Exo. 32. where we find all the people falling into Idolatry so Num. 14. 2. And all the Children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron The other two are also called the sinnes of the people and of Israel and the people were punished and for one of them all the Heads of the people commanded to be hanged Num. 21. 5. 6. 25. 3. 4. Peradventure every one did not act in each of these sinnes but yet they were nationall as we call nationall sinnes the generality of the Children of Israel either acting or partaking therein In such a case Augustine thought fit to suspend the exercising of Excommunication for the sinne of drunkennesse rather than to excommunicate all Africa These are my six answers to Master Prynnes unanswerable argument The end of the first Book AN APPENDIX To the First Booke Containing an additionall debate concerning the Jewish Church-Government and Censures I Have said enough as I suppose of a Church-Government and Church-Censures distinct from Magistracy and civill Justice among the Jewes whereby the seeming Old Testament strength of the Erastians is sufficiently yea abundantly broken And now it appeareth how ill grounded that Assertion is which did lately come abroad in the Discourse entituled The difference about Church-government ended Pag. 8. Moses was first the sole Ruler c. Afterwards when Kings reigned in Israel King Solomon put Abiathar the high Priest from his Office setting up Zadok and David distinguished the courses of the Priests and other godly Kings from time to time ruled in things Ecclesiasticall and Priests never till that after their returne from the Babylonish captivity c. And no better grounded are the first five questions in M r Prynne his Diotrephes catechised in which he doth intimate that there was no distinct Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction among the Jewes and that all scandalous sinnes and offences now pretended to be of Ecclesiasticall cognisance were by Gods owne institution throughout the old Testament inquireable examinable determinable and punishable onely by the temporall Magistrates or âivill powers not by any Ecclesiasticall persons or Officers But when he should prove that there was no Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction distinct from the civill he brings many Scriptures to prove that there was a civill jurisdiction and civill or temporall punishments in the Old Testament How cold the consequence from hence will be against Church-Government the intelligent Reader cannot but perceive The most of that strength which doth militate against these Erastian Principles is presented and drawn up in this preceding Booke That which I now intend is onely an additionall debate And first of all it is to be observed that the same point of Controversie is debated with the Anabaptists they holding as the Erastians doe that in the old Testament there was but one kind of government one kind of jurisdiction one kind of punishment and that it was Civill or Temporall but an Ecclesiasticall Judicature or censure in the old Testament they deny Wherein they are contradicted by those that writ against them Secondly we must distinguish with great caution
whole Diocesse consisting it may be of some hundreds of Congregations holding that the Ministers of particular Congregations did preach the Word and minister the Sacraments in his name by vertue of authority and order from him and because he could not act by himself in every Congregation The Presbyteriall Government acknowledgeth no Pastorall charge of preaching the Word and ministring the Sacraments to more Congregations then one and doth acknowledge the Pastors of particular Churches being lawfully called to have power and authority for preaching the Word and ministring the Sacraments in the name of Christ and not in the name of the Presbyterie 5. The Prelates as they denyed the power and authority of Pastors so they utterly denyed the very offices of ruling Elders and Deacons for taking more especiall care of the poor in particular Congregations 6. They did not acknowledge Congregationall Elderships nor any power of discipline in particular Congregations which the Presbyteriall Government doth 7. They intruded Pastors oft times against the consent of the Congregation and reclamante Ecclesiâ which the Presbyteriall Government doth not 8. They ordained Ministers without any particular charge which the Presbyterial Government doth not 9 In Synods they did not allow any but the Clergie alone as they kept up the name to have decisive suffrage The Presbyterial Government gives decisive voices to ruling Elders as well as to Pastors 10. The Prelates declined to be accountable to and censurable by either Chapters Diocesan or Nationall Synods In Presbyteriall Government all in whatsoever Ecclesiasticall administration are called to an account in Presbyteries Provinciall and Nationall Assemblies respectively and none are exempted from Synodicall censures in case of scandall and obstinacy 11. The Prelates power was not meerly Ecclesiasticall they were Lords of Parliament they held Civil places in the State which the Presbyterial Government condemneth 12. The Prelats were not chosen by the Church Presbyters are 13. The Prelates did presume to make Lawes binding the Conscience even in things indifferent and did persecute imprison fine depose excommunicate men for certain Rites and Ceremonies acknowledged by themselves to be indifferent setting aside the will and authority of the Law makers This the Presbyteriall Government abhorreth 14. They did excommunicate for money matters for trifles Which the Presbyteriall Government condemneth 15. The Prelates did not allow men to examine by the Judgement of Christian and private discretion their Decrees and Canons so as to search the Scriptures and look at the Warrants but would needs have men think it enough to know the things to be commanded by them that are in place and power Presbyteriall Government doth not lord it over mens consciences but admitteth yea commendeth the searching of the Scriptures whether these things which it holds forth be not so and doth not presse mens Consciences with Sic volo sic jubeo but desireth they may doe in faith what they do 16. The Prelates held up pluralities non-residencies c. Which the Presbyteriall Government doth not 17. As many of the Prelates did themselves neglect to preach the Gospel so they kept up in diverse places a reading non-preaching Ministery Which the Presbyteriall Goverment suffereth not 18. They opened the door of the Ministery to diverse scandalous Arminianized and popishly affected men and locked the door upon many worthy to be admitted The Presbyteriall Government herein is as contrary to theirs as theirs was to the right 19. Their Official Courts Commissaries c. did serve themselves Hâires to the sons of Eli Nay but thou shalt give it me now and if not I will take it by force The Presbyterial Government ãâã such proceedings 20. The Prelates and their High-Commission Court did assume potââ¦statem utriusque gladij the power both of the Temporall and Civil Sword The Presbyteriall Government medleth with no Civil nor Temporall punishments I do not intend to enumerate all the differences between the Papal and Prelatical Government on the one side and the Presbyterial Government on the other side in this point of unlimitednesse or arbitrarynesse These differences which I have given may serve for a consciencious caution to intelligent and moderate men to beware of such odiouâ and unjust comparisons as have been used by some and among others by Mr. Salââ¦marsh in his Parallel between the Prelacy and Presbyterie Which as it cannot strike against us nor any of the Reformed Churches who acknowledge no such Presbyterie as he describeth and in some particulars striketh at the Ordinance of Parliament as namely in point of the Directory so he that hath a mind to a Recrimination might with more truth lay diverse of those imputations upon those whom I beleeve he is most unwilling they should be laid upon In the third place The Presbyterian Government is more limited and lesse arbitrary than the Independent Government of single Congregations which exempting themselves from the Presbyterial subordination and from being accountable to and censurable by Classes or Synods must needs be supposed to exercise a much more unlimited or arbitrary power than the Presbyterial Churches do especially when this shall be compared and laid together with one of their three grand Principles which disclaimeth the binding of themselves for the future unto their present judgement and practice and avoucheth the keeping of this reserve to alter and retract See their Apologetical narration pag. 10 11. By which it appeareth that their way will not suffer them to be so far moulded into an Uniformity or bounded within certain particular rules I say not with others but even among themselves as the Presbyterian way will adâit of Finally The Presbyterial Government hath no such liberty nor arbitrarinesse as Civil or Military Government hath there being in all civil or temporal affairs a great deal of latitude ãâã to those who manage the same so that they command nor act nothing against the Word of God But Presbyterial Government is tyed up to the rules of Scripture in all such particulars as are properly spiritual and proper to the Church Though in other particular occasional circumstances of times places accommodations and the like the same light of nature and reason guideth both Church and State yet in things properly Spiritual and Ecclesiastical there is not near somuch latitude left to the Presbytery as there is in civil affairs to the Magistrate And thus I have made good what I said That Presbyterial Government is the most limited and least arbitrary Government of any other All which Vindication and clearing of the Presbyterial Government doth overthrow as to this Point Master Hussey's Observation pag. 9. of the irregularity and arbitrarinesse of Church-government And so much of my fourth Concâssion The fifth shall be this 'T is far from our meaning that the Christian Magistrate should not meddle with matters of Religion or things and causes Ecclesiastical and that he is to take care of the Common-wealth but not of the Church Certainly there is much power and Authority which
be previous admonitions and the party admonished prove obstinate and impenitent The eighth difference stands in their correlations The Correlatum of Magistracy is people embodied in a Common-wealth or a Civil corporation The Correlatum of the Ecclesiastical power is people embodied in a Church or Spiritual corporation The Common-wealth is not in the Church but the Church is in the Common-wealth that is One is not therefore in or of the Church because he is in or of the Common-wealth of which the Church is a part but yet every one that is a Member of the Church is also a Member of the Common-wealth of which that Church is a part The Apostle distinguisheth those that are without and those that are within in reference to the Church who were notwithstanding both sorts within in reference to the Common-wealth 1 Cor. 5. 12 13. The Correlatum of the Ecclesiastical power may be quite taken away by persecution or by defection when the Correlatum of the civil power may remain And therefore the Ecclesiastical and the civil power do not se mutuò ponere tollere Ninthly There is a great difference in the ultimate termination The Ecclesiastical power can go no further then Excommunication or in case of extraordinary warrants and when one is known to have blasphemed against the holy Ghost to Auathema Maranatha If one be not humbled and reduced by Excommunication the Church can do no more but leave him to the Judgement of God who hath promised to ratifie in Heaven what his Servants in his Name and according to his Will do upon Earth Salmasius spends a whole chapter in confuting the Point of the coactive and Magistratical Jurisdiction of Bishops See Walo Messal cap. 6. He acknowledgeth in that very place pag. 455 456 459 462 that the Elders of the Church have in common the power of Ecclesiastical Discipline to suspend from the Sacrament and to excommunicate and to receive the offender again upon the evidence of his repentance But the Point he asserteth is That Bishops or Elders have no such power as the Magistrate hath and that if he that is excommunicate do not care for it nor submit himself the Elders cannot compel him But the termination or Quo usque of the civil power is most different from this It is unto death or to banishment or to confiscation of goods or to imprisonment Ezra 7. 26. Tenthly They differ in a divided execution That is the Ecclesiastical power ought to censure sometime one whom the Magistrate thinks not fit to punish with temporal or civil punishments And again the Magistrate ought to punish with the temporal Sword one whom the Church ought not to cut off by the Spiritual Sword This difference Pareus gives Explic Catech. quaest 85. art 4. and it cannot be denied For those that plead most for Liberty of conscience and argue against all civil or temporal punishments of Hereticks do notwithstanding acknowledge that the Church whereof they are Members ought to censure and excommunicate them and doth not her duty except she do so The Church may have reason to esteem one as an Heathen and a Publican that is no Church-Member whom yet the Magistrate in prudence and policy doth permit to live in the Common-wealth Again the most notorious and scandalous sinners blasphemers murtherers adulterers incestuous persons robbers c. when God gives them repentance and the signes thereof do appear the Church doth not binde but loose them doth not retain but remit their sins I mean ministerially and declaratively Notwithstanding the Magistrate may and ought to do Justice according to Law even upon those penitent sinners CHAP. V. Of a twofold Kingdom of Iesus Christ a general Kingdom as he is the eternal Son of God the Head of all Principalities and Powers raigning over all creatures and a particular Kingdom as he is Mediator raigning over the Church onely THe Controversie which hath been moved concerning the civil Magistrate his Vicegerentship and the holding of his Office of and under and for Jesus Christ as he is Mediator hath a necessary coherence with and dependance upon another Controversie concerning a twofold Kingdom of Jesus Christ one as he is the eternal Son of God raigning together with the Father and the holy Ghost over all things and so the Magistrate is his Vicegerent and holds his Office of and under him another as Mediator and Head of the Church and so the Magistrate doth not hold his Office of and under Christ as his Vicegerent Wherefore before I come to that Question concerning the origination and tenure of the Magistrate's Office I have thought good here to premise the enodation of the Question concerning the twofold Kingdom of Jesus Christ. It is a distinction which Master Hussey cannot endure and no marvel for it overturneth the foundation of his opinion He looks upon it as an absurd assertion pag. 25. Shall he have one Kingdom as Mediator and another as God He quarrelleth all that I said of the twofold Kingdom of Christ and will not admit that Christ as Mediator is King of the Church onely pag. 25 26 27 35 36 37. The Controversie draweth deeper then he is aware of for Socinians and Photinians finding themselves puzzled with those arguments which to prove the eternal Godhead of Jesus Christ were drawn from such Scriptures as call him God Lord the Son of God also from such Scriptures as ascribe Worship and Adoration to him and from the Texts which ascribe to him a Supreme Lordship Dominion and Kingdom over all things For this hath been used as one Argument for the Godhead of Jesus Christ and his consubstantiality with the Father The Father raigns the Son raigns the holy Ghost raigns Vide lib. Isaaci Clari Hispani adversus Varimadum Arianum Thereupon they devised this answer That Jesus Christ in respect of his Kingly Office and as Mediator is called God and Lord and the Son of God of which see Fest. Honnij Specimen Controv. Belgic pag. 24. Ionas Schlichtingius contra Meisnerum pag. 436. and that in the same respect he is worshipped that in the same respect he is King and that the Kingdom which the Scripture ascribeth to Jesus Christ is onely as Mediator and Head of the Church and that he hath no such Universal Dominion over all things as can prove him to be the eternal Son of God This gave occasion to Orthodox-Protestant-Writters more fully and distinctly to assert the great difference between that which the Scripture saith of Christ as he is the eternal Son of God and that which it saith of him as he is Mediator and particularly to assert a twofold Kingdom of Jesus Christ and to prove from Scripture that besides that Kingdom which Christ hath as Mediator he hath another Kingdom over all things which belongs to him onely as he is the eternal Son of God This the Socinians to this day do contradict and stisly hold that Christ hath but one Kingdom which he exerciseth as
the World Ibid. vers 22. to 30. Neither can the names of Jesus and Christ prove that what is said there must needs be meant of him as Mediator mark how well grounded Mr. Husseys arguments are Iesus sate at meat in Simon the Pharisees house Luke 7. 37. Iesus wept for Lazarus because he loved him Iohn 11. 35. 36. Must we needs therefore say that as Mediator he sate at meat in the Pharisees house and as Mediator he wept for Lazarus Christ is the Son of David Matth. 22. 42. Must we therefore say that as Mediator he is the Son of David Christ is God over all blessed for ever Rom. 9. 5. Must we therefore say that this is meant of Christ onely as Mediator What is more ordinary then to use the names of Jesus and Christ when the thing which is said is meant in reference to one of the natures Secondly Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords even as Mediator not in Mr. Husseys sence as if Kings had their commission from Christ and did reigne in his stead as he is Mediator but in the sence of the Hebraisme Vanity of vanities that is most vain holy of holies that is most holy so King of kings and Lord of lords that is the most excellent glorious King of all others the excellency splendor dignity and majesty of Kings may be compared without any subordination Drusius Prââ¦terit lib. 8. upon this very place which Mr. Hussey objecteth saith that this forme of speech King of kings and Lord of lords was taken from the Persians and Assyrians who called a great King King of kings and Lord of lords Thirdly The Kingdom of Christ saith Mr. Hussey is aâ⦠ample as his Prophecy but the Prophecie of Christ is extended to all Nations as may appear by the commission Gâ⦠teach all Nations But 1. I throw back the argument Christs Kingdom and his Prophecie are commensurable therefore as his prophecie is not actually extended to all Nations except successively as the Gospel commeth among them so his Kingdom as he is Mediator is extended no further then the Church not to all Nations 2. His argument therefore is a miserable fallacy à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter Christs prophecy is extended to all Nations successively and when the Gospel comes among them therefore his Kingdom is simply extended to all Nations and is not bounded within the Church onely Fourthly He tells us pag. 17. if kings may be called holy if their Offices may be accounted holy Offices or not sinful they must be held off and under Christ. Answ. If he mean holy in opposition to civil humane worldly secular I denie the office of kings to be holy if he mean holy in opposition to sinful unlawful unholy as it seems he doth then I confesse the office of Kings is lawful not sinful and themselves are holy when sanctified but this proves not that they hold their office of and under Christ more then carters or coblers hold their office of and under Christ I am far from making a paralel between the Magistrate and these but this I say Mr. Husseys plea for the Magistrate is no other than agreeth to these And where he addeth out of Calvin Kings have place in the Church and flock of Christ and are not spoiled of their Crown and Sword that they may be admitted into the Church this in reference to the conclusion he driveth at is no more than if he had argued thus carters and coblers have place in the Church and flock of Christ and are not necessitated to quit their secular calling that they may be admitted into the Church of Christ therefore they hold their offices of and under Christ. Fifthly He argueth thus That Office which Christ hath declared to be of God and bounded and limited in his Gospel that Office is held under Christ as Mediator But the Civil Magistrate is so Rom. 13. 4. Answ. 1. His proposition is most false and will never be proved 2. If this argument hold good then the Pagan Magistrate holds his office under Christ as Mediator for of such Magistrates then in being the Apostle meaneth Rom. 13. So that either he must recall what he saith here or what he saith afterward that the office of the Pagan Magistrate is sinful and unlawful 3 By Mr. Husseys medium one might prove that servants hold their office under Christ as Mediator because he hath declared their office to be of God and hath bounded and limited the same in his Gospel Eph. 6. 5 6 7 8. Sixthly He saith they be the same persons that are under Christ and under the Magistrate and further Christs ends and the Kings ends are both one 1 Tim. 2. 2. that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godlinesse and honesty Now either the office of the Mediators Kingdom is superior or inferior or co-ordinate in reference to the Magistrates office Answ. 1. Very often they are not the same persons that are under Christ and under the Magistrate For 1 Cor. 5. 11 12. the Apostle distinguisheth those that were within or those that were called brethren from those that were without both were under the Magistrate both were not under Christ and now the Jews in diverse places are under the Christian Magistrate not under Christ. 2. The ând of ãâã kingly office and the end of Magistracy are so different that to say they are the same iâ to offer indignity and dishonour to Jesus Christ. Kings are indeed appointed that we may live under them a quiet and peaceable life in all godlinesse and honesty But herein he hath answered himself pag. 29. the civil Magistrate may require of the people that they will attend upon the means out of natural Principles Deum esse colendum More of the ends of Magistracy I have spoken before whether I remit him The ends of Christs Kingly Office are quite another thing namely to destroy all our soules enemies Satan the flesh the wicked world death to put all his enemies under his feet to send out his officers and ministers for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the ministery for the edifying of the body of Christ to govern his people by his Word and Spirit and to keep them by the power of God through faith unto salvation 3. The comparison between Christs Kingly office as Mediator and the Magistrates office is neither to be drawn from superiority and inferiority nor co-ordination for they are disparata and differ toto genere And now I shall proceed for methods sake to examine other four Arguments from Scripture upon which Mr. Hussey though he doth not joyn them to the former six afterward layeth no small weight for upholding that opinion that the Magistrate holds his office of and under Christ as he is Mediator The seventh argument therefore shall be that which he draweth from Matth. 28. 18. pag. 25. Whereunto I have two answers according to two different applications of
of baptizing thus I baptize thee in the name of Iesus Christ. But I spake of the action not of the expression even as in the other instance I gave our assembling together is in the name of Christ though we do not say in terminis We are now assembled in the name of Christ. In baptisme Christ doth not command us to say either these words I baptize thee in the Name of Christ or these words I baptize thee in the Name of the Father Son and holy Ghost but we are commanded to do the thing both in the name of Christ as Mediator and in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost But in different respects A minister of Christ doth both preach and baptize in the name of Christ as Mediator that is vice Christi in Christs stead and having authority for that effect from Christ as Mediator for Christ as Mediator gave us our commission to preach and baptize by Mr. Husseys confession So that to preach and baptize ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which we find both of preaching Luk. 24 47. and of baptizing Act. 2. 38. comprehendeth a formall commission power and authority given and derived from Christ I say not that it comprehendeth no more but this it doth comprehend But when Christ biddeth us baptise ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã unto or into or in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost Mat. 28. 19. this doth relate to the end and effect of baptisme or the good of the baptized if we understand the words properly not the authority of the baptizer as if a formall commission were there given him from the Father Son and holy Ghost So that to baptize one in or unto the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost is properly meant both of sealing the parties right and title to the enjoyment of God himself as their God by covenant and their interest in the love of God the grace of Christ and the communion of the holy Ghost and of dedicating the party to the knowledge profession saith love and obedience of God the Father Son and holy Ghost I return The next branch of my Argument was that we excommunicate in the name of Christ 1 Cor. 5 5. Mr. Hussey pag. 22. saith I make great hast here deliver to Sathan saith he is not to excommunicate c. But grant that it were excommunication c. the decree was Pauls and not the Corinthians What is meant by delivering to Sathan belongs to another debate Call it an Apostolicall act or call it an Ecclesiasticall act or both yet it was done in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ the like whereof we find not in Scripture of any act of the civil Magistrate Why doth he not attend to the drift of the Argument And as to his exceptions they are no other then Prelats Papists and Socinians have made before him and which are answered long agoe That the Apostle commandeth to excommunicate the incestuous man is acknowledged by Mr. Prynne That he who is excommunicated may be truly said to be delivered to Sathan is undeniable for he that is cast out of the Church whose sins are retained on whom the Kingdom of heaven is shut and locked whom neither Christ nor his Church doth owne is delivered to Sathan who reignes without the Church That this censure or punishment of excommunication was a Church act and not an Apostolicall act onely may thus appear 1. The Apostle blameth the Corinthians that it was not sooner done he would not have blamed them that a miracle was not wrought 2. He writeth to them to do it when they were gathered together not to declare or witnesse what the Apostle had done but to joyne with him in the authoritative doing of it vers 4. 5. again he saith to them vers 7. Purge out therfore the old leaven vers 12. Doe not ye judge them that are within vers 13. Put away from among your selves that wicked person 3. It was a censure inflicted by many 2. Cor. 2. 6 not by the Apostle alone but by many 4. The Apostle doth not absolve the man but writeth to them to forgive him 2 Cor. 2. 7. Lastly the Syriack maketh for us which runneth thus vers 4. That in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ you all may be gathered together and I with you in the Spirit with the power of our Lord Iesus Christ vers 5. That you may deliver him to Sathan c. But now at last Mr. Hussey comes home and gives this answer to my third Argument A thing may be said to be done in the name of Christ or of God when men do any thing in confidence that God will assist us so Psal. 20 5. In the name of our God will we set up our banners in confidence God will assist us Thus I hope the Parliament and other Christians may undertake the businesse in the name of Christ c. Secondly In the name of Christ a thing is said to be done that is done in the authority room and place of Christ c. So he pag. 24. seeking a knot in the rush In the first part of his distinction he saith nothing to my Argument neither saith he any more of the Parliament then agreeth to all Christians the poorest and meanest for every Christian servant every Christian Artificer is bound to do whatsoever he doth in the name of Christ Colos. 3. 17. But what is that to the Argument Come to the other member of his distinction The Ministers of Christ do act in the name of Christ that is in the authority room and place of Christ We are Ambassadors for Christ and we preach in Christs stead 2 Cor. 5. 20. This he doth not nor cannot denie which makes good my Argument Why did he not shew us the like concerning Magistracy I suppose he would if he could this is the very point which he had to speak to but hath not done it My fourth Argument against the Magistrates holding of his office of and under and for Christ that is in Christs room and stead as Mediator shall be that which was drawn from Luk. 12. 14. The Jewes were of the same opinion which Mr. Coleman and Mr. Hussey have followed namely that civil government should be put in the hands of Christ which they collected from Ier. 23. 5. He shall execute justice and judgement in the earth and such other Prophecies by them mis-understood And hence it was that one said to Christ Master Speak to my brother that he divide the inheritance with me Our Lords answer was Man who made me a Judge or a divider over you Whatsoever act of authority is done by a Deputy or Vicegerent as representing his Master and Soveraigne may be done by the King himself when personally present If therefore the Magistrate judge civil causes and divide inheritances as the Vicegerent of Christ and of Christ as Mediator then Christ himself when present in the dayes of his flesh had power as Mediator to
out of the Church And for his antiquity he hath given here no small wound to the Reputation of his skill in Antiquities Which will more fully appear Chap. 17. Meane while how can any that hath read Tertullian or Cyprian not know that some failings and falls in time of persecution and other smaller offences were not punished by excommunication but by suspension from the Sacrament till after publike Declaration of Repentance and confession of the offence the offender was admitted to the Sacrament And for the places he citeth I find in Tertullians Book de poenitentia much of that Exomologesis and publike Declaration of Repentance but that all scandalous persons brought under Church-censures were wholly cast out of the Church I find not In the 39 Chapter of his Apologetick there is no such thing as is alledged but the contrary plainly intimated concerning severall degrees of Ecclesiasticall Discipline and that if any mans offence was so great as to deserve excommunication then he was excommunicate and wholly cast out of the Church And as in the Antient Churches there were and in the reformed Churches there now are different degrees of censures according to the different degrees of offences so in the Jewish Church the like may be observed both concerning Ceremoniall uncleannesse and morall offences Touching the former that Law Num. 5. 2. command the children of Israel that they put out of the Camp every Leper and every one that hath an issue and whosoever is desiled by the dead hath been understood by the Jewish Doctors respectivè that is that the Leper was put out of all the three Camps the Camp of Israel the Camp of the Levites and the Camp of divine Majesty which was the Tabernacle he that had an issue might be in the Camp of Israel but was put out of the other two He that was defiled by the dead was onely restrained from the Camp of divine Majesty for which also see before Book 1. Chââ¦p 10. And touching morall offences there were severall Steps and degrees in the Jewish excommunication as Master Selden hath observed from the Talmudists for first a man was separate from the Congregation for 30 dayes and if thereafter he was found obstinate he was separate for other 30 dayes and if after 60 dayes he did not repent then they passed from the lesser excommunication to the greater that is from Niddui and Shammatha as he thinketh to Cherem or Anathema The Author of the Quaeries while he argueth in that first Quaere against the suspending from the Sacrament of a person not excommunicated nor whollâ cast out of the Church closeth in this particular with them of the Separation which I beleeve he did it not intend to doe for they in one of their Letters in answer to the second Letter of Fr. Junius written to them where they bring eleven Exceptions against the Dutch Churches one of these Exceptions was that they use a new censure of Suspension which Christ hath not appointed They doe hold Excommunication to be an Ordinance of Christ but doe reject the distinction of Suspension and Excommunication as Master Prynne doth Tenthly the true state of the present Question is not whether the Parliament should establish the power of suspending scandalous persons from the Sacrament as Iure divino nay let Divines assert that and satisfie peoples consciences in it but let the Parliament speak in an authoritative and legislative way in adding their civill sanction Nor whether there ought to be any suspension from the Sacrament of scandalous persons not yet excommunicated and cast out of the Church and that the Elder-ship should doe it for the Ordinance of Parliament hath so farre satisfied the desires of the Reverend Assembly and of the generality of godly people that there is to be a suspension of scandalous persons not excommunicated from the Sacrament and power is granted to the Eldership to suspend from the Sacrament for such scandals as are enumerate in the Ordinances of Octob. 20. 1645. and March 14. 1645. Which Ordinances doe appoint that All Persons Or any Person that shall commit such or such an offence shall be by the Eldership suspended from the Sacrament upon confession of the party or upon the Testimony of two credible witnesses So that in truth the stream of Master Prynnes exceptions runneth against that which is agreed and resolved upon in Parliament and his arguments if they prove any thing must necessarily conclude against that power already granted by Parliament to Elder-ships And now if he will speak to that point which is in present publike agitation he must lay aside his Querees and his Vindication thereof and write another Book to prove that the Assembly and other godly ministers and people ought to rest satisfied in point of conscience with the power granted to Elderships to suspend from the Sacrament in the enumerate cases and that there is not the like reason to keep off scandalous persons from the Sacrament for other scandalls beside these enumerate in the Ordinance of Parliament Nay and he must confine himself within a nearower circle then so for the Parliament hath been pleased to think of some course for new emergent cases that the door may not be shut for the future upon the Remonstrances of Elderships concerning cases not expressed I know the Gentleman is free to choose his own Theme to treat of and he may handle what cases of Conscience he shall think fit for the Churches edification But since he professeth in the Conclusion of his foure Questions and in the Preface before his Vindication and in divers other passages that his scope is to expedite a regular settlement of Church Discipline without such a power of suspending the scandalous as is now desired to be setled in the new Elderships and manifestly reflecteth upon one of the Assemblies Petitions concerning that businesse as hath been said yea the first words of his Queres tell us he spoke to the point in present publike agitation the case standing thus I must put him in mind under favour that he hath not been a little out of the way nor a little wide from the mark And if the Question were which of these Tenents Master Prynnes or ours concerning Suspension doth best agree with the mind of the Parliament let us heare their own Ordinance dated March 14. 1645. the words are these yet were the fundamentalls and substantiall parts of that Government long since setled in persons by and over whom it was to be exercised and the nature extent and respective subordination of their power was limitted and defined onely concerning the administration of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper how all such persons as were guilty of notorious and scandalous Offences might be suspended from it some difficulty arising not so much in the Matter it self as in the Manner how it should be done and who should be the Judges of the Offence The Lords and Commons having it alwayes in their purpose and
Intention and it being accordingly declared and Resolved by them That all sorts of notorious scandalous Offenders should be suspended from the Sacrament Which is the very point so much opposed by Master Prynne for the controversie moved by him is not so much concerning the manner or who should be the Judges as concerning the matter it selfe he contending that all sorts of notorious scandalous offenders should not be suspended from the Sacrament but onely such as are excommunicated and excluded from the hearing of the Word Prayer and all other publique Ordinances Having now removed so many mistakes of the true state of the question that which is in controversie is plainly this Whether according to the word of God there ought to be in the Elderships of Churches a spirituall power and authority by which they that are called brethren that is Church members or Officers for the publique scandall of a prophane life or of pernicious doctrine or for a private offence obstinately continued in after admonitions and so growing to a publique scandall are upon proofe of such scandall to be suspended from the Lords Table untill signes of repentance appeare in them and if they continue contumacious are in the name of Jesus Christ to be excommunicate and cut off from all membership and communion with the Church and their sinnes pronounced to be bound on earth and by consequence in Heaven untill by true and sincere repentance they turne to God and by the declaration of such repentance be reconciled unto the Church The affirmative is the received doctrine of the reformed Churches whereunto I adhere The first part of it concerning Suspension is utterly denyed by M r Prynne which breaketh the concatenation and order of Church discipline held forth in the question now stated Whether he denieth also Excommunication by Elderships to be an Ordinance and Institution of Christ and onely holdeth it to be lawfull and warrantable by the word of God I am not certaine If he do then he holds the totall negative of this present question However I am sure he hath gone about to take away some of the principall Scripturall foundations and pillars upon which Excommunication is builded As touching the gradation and order in the question as now stated it is meant positively and exclusively that such a gradation not onely may but ought to be observed ordinarily which M r Prynne denieth although I deny not thaâ for some publique enormous haynous abominations there may be without such degrees of proceeding a present cutting off by Excommunication But this belongs not to the present controversie CHAP. II. Whether Matth. 18. 15 16 17. prove Excommunication THe second point of difference is concerning Matth. 18. M r Prynne in the first of his foure questions told us that the words Matth. 18. 17. Let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican are meant onely of personall private trespasses between man and man not publique scandalous sinnes against the Congregation and that t is not said Let him be to the whole Church but let him be to Thee c. This I did in my Sermon retort For if to thee for a personall private trespasse much more to the whole Church for a publique scandalous sinne whereby he trespasseth against the whole Congregation Yea it followeth upon his interpretation that he may account the whole Church as Heathens and Publicans if all the members of the Church doe him a personall injury whereupon I left this to be considered by every man of understanding whether if a private man may account the whole Church as Heathens and Publicans for a personall injury done to himselfe alone it will not follow that much more the whole Church may account a man as a Heathen and Publican for a publique scandalous sinne against the whole Church M r Prynne in his Vindication pag. 3. glanceth at this objection but he takes notice onely of the halfe of it and he is so farre from turning off my retortion that he confirmeth it for pag. 4. he confesseth that every Christian hath free power by Gods word to esteeme not onely a particular brother but all the members of a Congregation as Heathens and Publicans if he or they continue impenitent in the case of private injuries after admonition Now my exception against his Quere remains unanswered If I may esteem the whole Church as Heathens and Publicans when they doe me an injury and continue impenitent therein may not the whole Church esteem me as an Heathen man and a Publican when I commit a publique and scandalous trespasse against the whole Church and continues impenitent therein Shall a private man have power to cast off the whole Church as Heathens and Publicans and shall not the whole Church have power to cast off one man as an Heathen and Publican I know he understands those words Let him be to thee as a Heathen man and a Publican in another sence then either the reformed Churches doe or the ancient Churches did and takes the meaning to be of avoyding fellowship and familiarity with him before any sentence of Excommunication passed against the offender But however my argument from proportion will hold If civill fellowship must be refused because of obstinacy in a civill injury why shall not spirituall or Church-fellowship be refused to him that hath committed a spirituall injury or trespasse against the Church If private fellowship ought to be denied unto him that will not repent of a private injury why shall not publique fellowship in eating and drinking with the Church at the Lords Table be denied unto him that will not repent of a publique scandall given to the Congregation Are the rules of Church fellowship looser and wider than the rules of civill fellowship or are they straiter Is the way of communion of Saints broader than the way of civill communion or is it narrower Peradventure he will say that the whole Church that is all the members of the Church have power to withdraw from an obstinate scandalous brother that is to have no fraternall converse or private Christian fellowship with him Well then If thus farre he be as a Heathen and a Publican to the whole Church distributively how shall he be as a Christian brother to the whole Church collectively If all the members of the Church severally withdraw fellowship from him even before he be excommunicated how shall the whole Church together be bound to keepe fellowship with him till he be excommunicated Instead of loosing such knots M r Prynne undertakes to prove another thing that this Text of Matthew is not meane of Excommunication or Church censures and that the Church in this Text was not any Ecclesiasticall Consistory here he citeth Iosephus as if he had spoken of that Text but onely the Sanhedrin or Court of civill Justice But though all this were true which he saith yet there may be a good argument drawn by necessary consequence from this Text to prove Excommunication Which
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 ââ¦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 Fornicâtors 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 Idolatâies 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
carry thnmselves filthily yea unnaturally as they had done formerly concerning whom he adviseth that now after so long a time they might be upon their spontaneous confession of their hainous offence received againe into the Church Hereupon Balsamonn oteth Those are said to be delivered to Satan who are separated from the communion of Christians CHAP. VIII Whether Judas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper M r. Prynne hath filled up a good part of his Vindication with the case of Iudas as going very farre in the deciding of this present contoversie But as Protestant writers answer the Papists in the case of Peter that it cannot be proved thaâ Peter was ever Bishop of Rome but rather that he was noâ and if he had this cannot prove the Popes Supremacy the like I say of this case of Iudas M. Prynne shall never be able to prove that Iudas did receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and if he could prove it yet it shall not at all helpe that cause which he maintaineth I begin with the matter of fact whether Iudas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper as well as the other Apostles which is the question by him stated For decision whereof I hold it necessary first of all that these two things be premised concerning the harmony of the Evangelists in that matter of Iudas the use whereof we shall see afterwards Matthew and Marke tell us Christs discourse of the Traytor at Table and the discovery of Iudas before the institution of the Sacrament Luke hath the same thing after the institution and distribution of the Sacrament So that either Matthew and Marke speak by anticipation or Luke speaketh by a recapitulation that is either Matthew and Marke put before what was done after or Luke puts after what was done before Now that there is in Luke an ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã a narration of that after the institution which was indeed before the institution of the Sacrament may thus appeare 1. That very thing which Luke placeth after the institution and distribution of the Sacrament Luk. 22. 21 22 23. Behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the Table And truly the sonne of man goeth as it was determined but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed And they began to enquire among themselves which of them it was that should doe this thing The very same thing doe Matthew and Marke record before the institution of the Sacrament Matth. 26. 21. to 26. Marke 14. 18. to 22. and it is more credible that one of the Evangelists is to be reduced to the order of two rather than two to the order of one 2. Especially considering that Luke doth not relate the businesse of the last supper according to that order wherein things were acted or spoken as is manifest by Luke 22. 17. 18. And he tooke the cup and gave thanks and said Take this and divide it among your selves This though related before the taking and breaking of the bread yet it is but by an anticipation or preoccupation occasioned by that which had preceded vers 16. so to joyne the protestation of not drinking againe with that of not eating againe the Passeover with his Disciples therefore Beza Salmeron Maldonat and others following Augustine and Euthymius doe resolve it is an anticipation even as Paul mentioneth the cup before the bread 1 Cor. 10. 16. I know some understand the cup mentioned Luke 22. 17. to be the Paschall cup others to be the cup in the ordinary supper but to me its plaine that it was the Eucharisticall cup yea M r Prynne takes it so pag. 25. because that which Luke saith of that cup that Christ tooke it and gave thankes and gave it to the Disciples that they might all drinke of it and told them he would not drinke with them any more of the fruit of the Vine till the Kingdome of God should come all this is the very same which Matthew and Marke record of the Eucharisticall cup. Therefore our Non-conformists were wont to argue from that place that the Minister ought not to give the Sacramentall elements to each communicant out of his owne hand but that the communicantâ ought to divide the elements among themselves because Christ saith in that place of the cup Divide it among your selves 3. Luke saith not that after Supper or after they had done with the Sacrament Christ told his Disciples that one of them should betray him onely he addeth after the History of the Sacrament what Chrst said concerning the Traytor But Matthew and Marke doe not onely record Christs words concerning the Traytor before they make narration concerning the Sacrament but they record expresly that that discourse and the discovery of the Traytor was ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã as they did eate Matth. 26. 21. Marke 14. 18. Now when the evening was come he sate down with the twelve and immediately followeth as the first purpose which Christ spake of and as they did eate he said verily I say unto you that one of you shall betray me Which could not be so if Luke relate Christs words concerning the Traytor in that order in which they were first uttered for Luke having told us verse 22. that Christ tooke the cup after Supper and said This cup is the new Testament c. addeth But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the Table So that if this were the true order Christ did not tell his Disciples concerning the Traytor as they did eate which Matthew and Marke doe say but after they had done eating If it be said that ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã may suffer this sence when they had eaten or having eaten I answer the context will not suffer that sence for they were indeed eating in the time of that discourse Matth. 26. 23. He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish the same shall betray me Jos. 13. 26. He it is to whom I shall give a sop after I have dipped it 4. Musculus in loc com de caen dom pag. 362. gives this reason out of Rupertus why Lukes narration of Christs words concerning the Traytor is placed by a recapitulation after the Sacrament because Luke is the onely Evangelist who writeth distinctly of the Paschall Supper and what Christ said at that Supper and having once fallen upon that purpose the connexion of the matter did require that he should immediately adde the story of the Eâcharisticall Supper without interlacing that of the Traytor Which reason will passe for good with such as think Iudas did eate of the Paschalll Supper and that Christs words concerning him were spoken at the Paschall Supper which I greatly doubt of 5. M r Prynne pag. 18. doth in effect grant the same thing that I say for he saith that Matthew and Marke record that immediatly before the institution of the Sacrament as they sate at meat Jesus said unto the twelve Verily one of you shall betray me
whereupon they began to be sorrowfull and to say unto him c. He addeth that Iudas was the last man that said Is it I immediately before the institution as Matthew records But of Luke he saith onely thus much that he placeth these words of Christ concerning Judas his betraying him after the institution and distribution of the Sacrament not before it If it be thus as M r Prynne acknowledgeth that Matthew and Marke record that Christ had that discourse concerning Iudas before the institution of the Sacrament then most certainly it was before the institution of the Sacrament because it must needs be true which Matthew and Marke say Whence ât will necessarily follow that Luke doth not mention that discourse concerning Iudas in its proper place and this doth not offer the least violence to the Text in Luke because he doth not say that Christ spake these words after the Sacrament onely he placeth these words after the Sacrament as M r Prynne saith rightly When Scripture saith that such a thing was done at such a time it must be so believed But when Scripture mentioneth one thing after another that will not prove that the thing last mentioned was last done More plainly Master Prynne pag. 26 27. tels us that the Sacrament was given after Christ had particularly informed his Disciples that one of them should betray him which he proves from Ioh. 13. 18. to 28. Matth. 26. 20. to 36. Marke 14. 18. to 22. Luke 22. 21 22 23. Whence it follows inevitably by his owne confession that Matthew and Marke recording that discourse about Iudas after the Sacrament doe place it in the proper order and that Luke mentioning that discourse about Iudas after the Sacrament doth not place it in its owne place This is the first thing which I thought good to premise which will easily take off the strongest argument which ever I heard alledged for Iudas his receiving of the Sacrament namely this that Luke immediately after the institution and distribution of the Sacrament addeth But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me at the Table If these words were not uttered by Christ in that order wherein Luke placeth them which I have proved then the argument is not conclusive The second thing to be premised is this that the story which we have Ioh 13. from the beginning to verse 31. concerning the Supper at which Christ discoursed of Iudas and gave him the sop after which he went immediately out was neither in Bethany two daies before the Passeover as the Antidote Animadverted tels us pag 5. nor yet after the institution of the Sacrament as M r Prynne tels us Vindic. pag. 25. herein differing either from himselfe or his friend That Supper in Bethany the Pamphlet saith was two daies before the Passeover but some Interpreters collect from Iohn 12. 1 2. it was longer before Christ having come to Bethany six daies before and after that Supper the next day Christ did ride into Ierusalem on a young Asse and the people cried Hosanna Joh. 12. 12. the very story which we have Matth. 21. Marke saith that two daies before the Passeover the chiefe Priests and Scribes sought how to put Christ to death but he doth not say that the Supper in Bethany was two daies before the Passeover But of this I will not contend whenever it was it is not much materiall to the present question there was nothing at that Supper concerning Iudas but a rebuking of him for having indignation at the spending of the Alabaster box of Oyntment and from that he sought opportunity to betray Christ But the discourse between Christ and his Apostles concerning one of them that should betray him and their asking him one by one Is it I was in the very night of the Passeover as is cleare Matth. 26. 19 20 to 26. Marke 14. 16 to 22. So that the story Ioh. 13. 18. to 30. being the same with that in Matthew and Marke could not be two daies before the Passeover And if two daies before Christ had discovered to Iohn who should betray him by giving the sop to Iudas how could every one of the Disciples and so Iohn among the rest be ignorant of it two daies after which made every one of them to aske Is it I Finally that very night in which the Lord Jesus did institue the Sacrament the Disciples began to be sorrowfull and began to enquire which of them it was that should betray him Matth. 26. 22. Marke 14. 19. Luke 22. 23. But if Christ had told them two daies before that one of themselves who did sit at Table with him should betray him surely they had at that time begun to be sorrowfull and to aske every one Is it I That which hath been said doth also discover that other mistake that the discourse at Table concerning the Traytor and the giving of the sop to Iudas Ioh. 13. was after the institution of the Sacrament If it were after then either that in Iohn is not the same with the discourse concerning the Traytor mentioned by Matthew and Marke or otherwise Matthew and Marke speake by anticipation But I have proved both that the true order is in Matthew and Marke and that the discourse concerning the Traytor mentioned by Iohn must be in the Evangelicall harmony put together with that in Matthew and Marke as making one and the same story And if this in Iohn had been posterior to that in Matthew then why doth M r Prynne himselfe joyn these together as one pag. 18 19. These things premised I come to the arguments which prove that Iudas did not receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper The first argument which was by me touched in that Sermon so much quarrelled by M r Prynne is this It is said of Iudas Ioh. 13. 30. He then having received the sop went immediatly out But this sop or morsell was given him before the Sacrament whiles they were yet eating the other Supper at the end whereof Christ did institute the Sacrament Therefore Iudas went away before the Sacrament Let us heare M r Prynnes four answers to this argument pag. 24 25. First saith he Iudas went not out till after Supper Iohn 13. 2. and Supper being ended c. Answ. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã will not prove that the Supper was fully ended The Centurists Gent. 1. lib. 1. cap. 10. explaine Iohn 13. 2. thus Magnâ caenae hujus parte peractâ A great part of this Supper being done yea the Greek may be as well turned thus When they were at Supper as the late English Annotations have it Ludovicus de Dieu chooseth this sence Salmeron and others proue it from verse 4. He riseth from Supper with vers 12 he sate down againe to Supper and dipped the sop Take but two like instances in this same story of the passion Matth. 26. 6. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Now when Jesus was in Bethany not after Jesus was in Bethany Matth. 26. 20. ãâã
or meaning could not have place in the Sonne of God For as Spanhemius doth rightly argue in his late learned Exercitations de gratia universali pag. 746. it doth not become either the wisdome or goodnesse of God to will and intend a thing upon such a condition as neither is nor can be And pag. 829. he saith that this conditionall destination or intention cannot be conceived as being incident onely to such as doe neither foreknow nor direct and order the event and in whose hand it is not to give the faculty and will of performing the thing Which can not without impiety be thought or said of God Thus he The third argument which I shall now adde is that whereby Hilarius Can. 30. in Matth. and Innocentius the third lib. 4. de mysterio miss cap. 13. prove that Iudas received not the Sacrament neither was present at the receiving of it Because that night while Iudas was present Christ in his gracious and comfortable expressions to his Apostles did make an exception as Iohn 13. 10 11. Ye are cleane but not all For he knew who should betray him therefore said he ye are not all cleane vers 18. I speak not of you all I know whom I have chosen So vers 21. even as before Joh. 6. 70. Have not I chosen you twelue and one of you is a divell But at the Sacrament all his sweet and gracious speeches are without any such exception This is my body which is given for you c. Yea he saith positively of all the Apostles to whom he gave the Sacrament I will not drinke henceforth of this fruit of the Vine untill that day when I drinke it new with you in my Fathers Kingdome Matth. 26. 29. and this he saith nnto them all as it is cleare from vers 27. Drinke ye all of it Againe Luke 22. 28 29 30. Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptatoons And I appoint unto you a Kingdome as my Father hath appointed unto me That ye may eate and drinke at my Table in my Kingdome and sit on Thrones judging the twelve Tribes of Israel Would not Christ much more have excepted Iudas in these expressions if he had been present seeing he had so often excepted him before As for M r Prynnes reasons from Scripture to prove that Iudas did receive the Sacrament they are extreamely inconcludent First he saith that Matthew Marke and Luke are all expresse in terminis that Christ sate down to eate the Passeover and the twelve Apostles with him that Iudas was one of those twelvâ and present at the Table that as they sate at meat together Jesus tooke Bread c. that he said of the cup drinke ye all of it and Marke saith they all dranke of it Answ. 1. The three Evangelists are all expresse in terminis that when Even was come Christ sate down with the twelve as likewise that the twelve did eate with him that night but that the twelve Apostles were with him in the eating of the Passeover they are not expresse in terminis and I have some reasons which move me to thinke that Iudas did not eate so much as of the Passeover that night whereof in the proper place 2. And if he had been at the Passeover that proves not he was at the Lords Supper When Christ tooke the cup and said Drink ye all of it it was after supper that is after the Paschall supper as M r Prynne himselfe gives the sence 3. When Marke saith They all dranke of it he means all that were present but Iudas was gone forth His argument supposeth that Iudas was present which being before disproved there remaines no more strength nor life in his argument That which he addeth pag. 18 19. if it have either strength or good sence I confesse the dulnesse of my conception He would prove from Matthew and Marke that immediately before the institution of the Sacrament Christ told his Disciples that one of them should betray him and they all asked Is it I and that therefore certainly the Sacrament was given to Iudas because he was the last man that said Is it I immediately before the institution And further saith he Luke placeth these words of Christ concerning Iudas his betraying of him after the institution which manifesteth that Iudas was present at the Sacrament His inference is this that seeing Iohn averreth Chap. 13. v. 2. that all this discourse and the giving of the sop to Iudas was after supper and the other three Evangelists agreeing that Christ instituted and distributed the Sacrament as they did eate before supper quite ended it must follow that Iudas did receive the Sacrament Answ. 1. But how doth this hang together first to argue that Iudas received the Sacrament because Christs discourse concerning Iudas and Iudas his question Is it I were immediately before the institution of the Sacrament and againe to prove that Iudas did receive the Sacrament because Christs discourse about Iudas was after supper ended and after the Sacrament which was instituted before supper ended the one way of arguing destroyeth the other 2. For that in Matthew and Marke that Christ discoursed of the Traytor and that Iudas said Is it I before the institution of the Sacrament I confesse but that it was immediately before the institution of the Sacrament the Evangelists doe not say neither doth he prove it Iudas went out after that discourse and the sop and how much of the consolatory and valedictory Sermon which beginneth Iohn 13. 31. was spent before the distribution of the Sacrament who is so wise as to know 3. For that in Luke I have proved that though he sets down the things yet not in that order wherein they were done which is also the opinion of Grotius upon that place And for that Iohn 13. 2. Supper being ended I have answered before Shall we in the next place have a heape of humane testimonies concerning Iudas his receiving of the Sacrament I see so much light from Scripture to the contrary that I shall not be easily shaken with the authority of men yet it shall not be amisse a little to trie whether it be altogether so as he would make us believe He saith we goe against all antiquity pag. 18. and against the most and best of Protestant writers pag. 23. yea that all ages have received it as an indubitable verity that Iudis received the Sacrament pag. 19. No Sir soft a little The truth is the thing hath been very much controverted both among the Fathers and among Papists and among Protestant writers I have found none so unanimous for Iudas his receiving of the Sacrament as the Lutherans endeavouring thereby to prove that the wicked hypocrites and unbelievers doe in the Sacrament eate the true body of Christ and drinke his true blood yet as hot as they are upon it they acknowledge it is no indubitable verity they cite authorities against it as well as for it See Gerhard
received it thereafter cap. 156. he addeth the institution and distribution of the Lords Supper as being in order posterior to Iudas his going forth So likewise before him Tacianus doth make the History of the institution of the Sacrament to follow after the excluding of Iudas from the company of Christ and his Apostles which neither of them had done if they had not believed that Iudas was gone before the Sacrament With all these agreeth Innocentius the third who holdeth expresly that the Sacrament was not given till Iudas had gone forth and that there is a recapitulation in the narration of Luke Moreover as it is evident by the forementioned Testimonies of Theophylact that some of the Ancients did hold that Christ gave not the Sacrament to Iudas so also the Testimony cited by M r Prynne out of Victor Antiochenus beareth witnesse to the same thing sunt tamen qui Judam ante porrectam Eucharistiae Sacamentum exivisse existiment But yet saith he there are who conceive that Judas went forth before the Sacrament of the Eucharist was given And with these words M r Prynne closeth his citation out of Victor Antiochenus But I will proceed where he left off The very next words are these Sane Johannes quiddam ejusmodi subindicare videtur Certainly Iââ¦hn seemeth to intimate some such thing Which is more then halfe a consenting with those who thinke that Iudas went forth before the Sacrament of the Lords Supper I shall end with two Testimonies of Rupertus Tuitiensis one upon the sixth another upon the thirteenth of Iohn The latter of the two speaketh thus being Englished But we must know that as it hath been also said before us if Judas after the sop did goe forth immediately as a little after the Evangelist saith without doubt he was not present with the Disciples at that time when our Lord did distribute unto them the Sacrament of his owne body and blood And a little after Therefore by the Lords example the good ought indeed to tolerate the bad in the Church untill by the fanne of judgement the graine be separated from the chaffe or the tares from the wheate but yet patience must not be so farre void of discerning as that they should give the most sacred mysteries of Christ to unworthy persons whom they know to be such As for moderne writers this present question hath been debated by Salmeron Tom. 9. Tract 11. and by D r Kellet in his Tricaenium lib. 2. cap. 14. both of them hold that Iudas did not receive the Lords Supper Mariana on Luke 22. 21. citeth authors for both opinions and rejecteth neither Gerhard Harm Evang. cap. 171 citeth for the same opinion that Iudas did not receive the Lords Supper beside Salmeron Turrianus and Barradius and of ours Danaeus Musculus Kleinwitzius Piscator alii complures saith he and many others Adde also Zanchius upon the fourth Command Gomarus who professedly handleth this question upon Iohn 13. Beza puts it out of question and Tossanns tels us it is the judgement of many learned men as well as his owne Musculus following Rupertus concludeth that certainly Iudas was gone forth before Christ gave the Sacrament to his Apostles So likewise Diodati and Grotius By this time it appeareth that M r Prynne hath no such consent of writers of his opinion or against mine as he pretendeth As for those Ancients cited by M r Prynne some of them as Origen and Cyrill did goe upon this great mistake that the sop which Christ gave to Iudas was the Sacrament which errour of theirs is observed by Interpreters upon the place No marvell that they who thought so were also of opinion that Iudas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper for how could they choose to thinke otherwise upon that supposition But now the later Interpreters yea M r Prynne himselfe having taken away that which was the ground of their opinion their Testimonies will weigh the lesse in this particular Chrysostome thinks indeed that Iudas received the Sacrament but he takes it to be no warrant at all for the admission of scandalous persons for in one and the same Homily Hom. 83. in Matth. he both tels us of Iudas his receiving of the Sacrament and discourseth at large against the admission of scandalous persons As for Bernard M r Prynne doth not cite his words nor quote the place Oecumenius in the passage cited by M r Prynne saith that the other Apostles and Iudas did eate together communi mensa at a common Table But he saith not at the Sacrament of the Lords Supper That which Oecumenius in that place argueth against is the contempt of the poore in the Church of Corinth and the secluding of them from the love feasts of the richer sort Now saith he if Christ himselfe admitted Iudas to eate at one and the same Table with his other Disciples ought not we much more admit the poore to eate at our Tables M r Prynne tels us also that Nazianzen in his Christus patiens agreeth that Iudas did receive the Lords Supper together with the other Apostles I answer first I finde no such thing in that place Next those verses so entituled are thought to be done by some late author and not by Nazianzen as Io. NeW enklaius in his Censure upon them noteth and giveth reason for it Cyprians Sermon de ablutione pedum as it is doubted of whether it be Cyprians so the words cited by M r Prynne doe not prove the point in controverfie The other Testimony cited out of Cyprians Sermon de caena Domini as it is not transcribed according to the originall so if M r Prynne had read all which Cyprian saith in that Sermon against unworthy receivers peradventure he had not made ãâã of that testimony The words cited out of Ambrose doe not hold forth clearely Iudas his receiving of the Eucharisticall Supper The words cited out of Augustine epist. 162. Iudas accepit pretium nostrum are not there to be found though there be something to that sence It is no safe way of citations to change the words of Authors This by the way As for his other three citations out of Augustine Tract 6. 26. 62. in Ioh. I can not passe them without two Animadversions First the greatest part of those words which he citeth as Augustines words and also as recited by Beda in his Commentary on 1 Cor. 11. is not to be found either in Augustine or Beda in the places by him cited viz. these words Talis erat Judas tamen cum sanctis Discipulis undecinâ⦠intrabat exibat Ad ipsam caenam Dominicam pariter accessit conversari cum iis potuit eos inquinare non potuit De uno pââ¦ne Petrus accipit Judas tamen quae pars fideli infideli Petrus enim accepit ad vitam manducat Judas ad mortem Qui enim comederunt indigne judicium sibi manducat
bibit SIBI NON TIBI c. Of which last sentence if M r Prynne can make good Latine let him doe it for I can not and when he hath done so he may be pleased to looke over his Bookes better to seeke those words elsewhere if he can finde them for as yet he hath directed us to seeke them where they are not My next Animadversion shall be this The words of Augustine which M r Prynne alledgeth for Iudas his receiving of the Sacrament are these Tract 6. in Joh. Num enim mala erat buccella quae tradita est Judae à Domino Absit Medicus non daret venenum salutem medicus dedit sed indigne accipiendo ad perniciem accepit quia non pacatus accepit Thus the originall though not so recited by M r Prynne but that I passe so long as he retaines the substance Yet how will he conclude from these words that Iudas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper unlesse he make Augustine to contradict himselfe most grossely for Tract 62. in Joh. another place whether M r Prynne directeth us speaking of Christs giving of that buccella or sop to Iudas he saith Non autem ut putant quidam negligenter legentes tunc Judas Christi corpus accepit but Judas did not at that time receive the body of Christ as some negligently reading doe thinke Which words Beda also in his Comment on Ioh. 13. hath out of Augustine It is Augustines opinion that the Sacrament was given before that time at which Iudas was present That which M r Prynne citeth out of Algerus a Monke who in that same booke writeth expresly for Transubstantiation maketh more against him then for him For Algerus takes the âeason of Christs giving the Sacrament to Iudas to be this because his perverse conscience though knowne to Christ was not then made manifest Iudas not being accused and condemned so that he was a secret not a scandalous sinner Thus farre we have a taste of M r Prynnes citations of the Ancients Peradventure it were not hard to finde as great flaws in some other of those citations But it is not worth the while to stay so long upon it Among the reâ he citeth Haymo Bishop of Halberstat for Iudas his receiving of the Sacrament But he may also be pleased to take notice that Haymo would have no notorious scandalous sinner to receive the Sacrament and holds that a man eats and drinks unworthily qui gravioribus criminibus commaculatus praesumit illud sacramentum sumere that is who being defiled with haynous crimes presumeth to take the Sacrament but if he had thought it as Master Prynne doth the most effectuall ordinance and readiest meanes to worke conversion and repentance he could not have said so That which M r Prynne pag. 23. citeth out of the two confessions of Bohemia and Belgia doth not assert that for which he citeth them For neither of them saith that Iudas did receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper The Belgik confession saith an evill man may receive the Sacrament unto his own condemnation As for example Judas and Simon Magus both of them did receive the Sacramentall signe I can subscribe to all this for it is true in respect of the baptisme both of Iudas and Simon Magus But I must here put M r Prynne in minde that the thing which he pleads for is extreamly different from that which the Belgick Churches hold For Harmonia Synodorum Belgicarum cap. 13. saith thus Nemo ad Caenam dominicam admittatur nisi qui fidei Confessionem ante reddiderit Disciplinae Ecclesiasticae se subjecerit vitae inculpatae testes fideles produxerit Let no man be admitted to the Lords Supper except he who hath first made a confession of his faith and hath subjected himselfe to the Church Discipline and hath proved himselfe by faithfull witnesses to be of an unblameable life The other confession of Bohemia saith that Iudas received the Sacrament of the Lord Christ himselfe did also execute the function of a Preacher and yet he ceased not to remaine a divell an hypocrite c. This needeth not be expounded of the Lords Supper which if he had received how did he still remaine an hypocrite for that very night his wickednesse did breake forth and was put in execution but of the Passeover received by Iudas once and againe if not the third time That Chapter is of Sacraments in generall and that which is added is concerning Ananias and his wife their being baptised of the Apostles However the very same Chapter saith that Ministers must throughly looke to it and take diligent heed lest they give holy things to dogs or cast Pearles before swine Which is there applied to the Sacraments and is not understood of preaching and admonishing onely as M r Prynne understands it Also the Booke entituled Ratio Disciplinae ordinisque Ecclesââ¦astici in unitate fratrum Bohemorum cap. 7. appointeth not onely Church-discipline in generall but particularly suspension from the Lords Table of obstinate offenders Finally whereas M. Prynne citeth a passage of the antiquated Common prayer Booke as it hath lost the authority which once it had so that passage doth not by any necessary inference hold forth that Iudas received the Sacrament as D. Kellet sheweth at some length in his Tricaenium The citation in which M. Prynne is most large is that of Alexander Alensis part 4. Quaest. 11. membr 2. art 1. sect 4. though not so quoted by him But for a retribution I shall tell him three great points in which Alexander Alensis in that very dispute of the receiving of the Eucharist is utterly against his principles First Alexander Alensis is of opinion that the precept Matth. 7. 6. Give not that which is holy to dogs neither cast ye Pearles before swine doth extend to the denying the Sacrament to known prophane Christians for both in that Section which hath been cited and art 3. sect 1. answering objections from that Text he doth not say that it is meant of the word not of the Sacrament and of Infidels Hereticks Persecutors not of prophane ones but he ever supposeth that the Ministers are forbidden by that Text to consent to give the Sacrament to prophane scandalous sinners Secondly Alexander Alensis holds that Christs giving of the Sacrament to Iudas is no warrant to Ministers to give the Sacrament to publique notorious scandalous sinners though they doe desire it And thus he resolveth Ib. art 3. sect 1. If the Priest know any man by confession to be in a mortall sinne he ought to admonish him in secret that he approach not to the Table of the Lord and he ought to deny unto such a one the body of Christ if he desire it in secret But if he desire it in publique then either his sinne is publique or secret Iâ⦠publique he ought to deny it unto him neither so doth he reveale sinne because it is publique If private he must give it lest
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 Judââ¦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 conceivâth 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. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã some Greeke copies have ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and Nonnus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã so the sence were as Augustine expounds Supper being prepared and ready and set on Table But be it ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã or ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the matter is not great for there is no necessity of expounding ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 Aââ¦binus Flââ¦us Alcuinus lib. de divinis Officiis Artic. de Caena Domini Circa vââ¦speram vero caenâ factâ id est paratâ ad convivantium mensam usque perductâ non transactâ neque ââ¦initâ surgit Jesus à caenâ pââ¦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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã
ãâã may very well be translated when supper was begun or when they were at Supper as I have before shewed by like instances in the New Testament Matth. 26. 6. 20. Things permanent as a house or the like are said to be factae when they are ended and compleate But things which are successive are said to be factae when they are begun as dies factus not when the day is ended but when it is begun So here there can be no more proved from the words but that supper was begun or they were at supper This sence is given by Osiander Erasmus ââ¦ossanus harm evang part 3. cap. 1. beside the Centuriâts Salmeron and Lud. de Dieu before cited The other argument may be this Matthew Marke and Luke after they have told of the making ready of the Passeover adde that Christ sate ãâã with the Twelve Ans. 1. It cannot be proved that this is meant of sitting down to eate the Passeover nay it rather appeareth from the Text that it was to eate that other supper at which the sop was given to Iudas The same discourse and questioning concerning the Traytor which Iohn sets down before Iudas his getting of the sop and going out is recorded by Maââ¦thew and Marke to have been in that first supper unto which Christ sate down with the twelve when even was come Therefore Christs sitting down with the twelve Matth. 26. 20 21. Mark 14. 17 18. âeing spoken of that supper at which Christ told his Disciples that one of them should betray him and every one asked Is it I which by M r Prynnes confession was not the Paschall but the ordinary supper It followeth that the sitting down with the twelve is not meant of the Passeover but of an ordinary supper before the Passeover 2. The same words of Christs sitting down with the twelve are expounded though upon other considerations as spoken in reference not to the Paschall but the ordinary or common supper by Lorinus in Psal. 101. 6. following Maldonat and by Gerhard Harm Evang. cap 170. p. 403. Their reason is because according to the Law the Passeover was to be eaten standing not sitting but that is more then can be proved from the Law which doth not so much as speake of standing at the first Passeover It is no necessary consequence they had their stavâs in their hands ergo they were standing This by the way 3. Granting that Christs sitting downe with the twelve were spoken of the Paschall supper yet the paschall supper being after the other supper at which Iudas got the sop and went away which I now suppose for the reasons before-mentioned till I see better reasons to the contrary It might be said after Iudas was gone that Christ sate down with the twelve as well as 1 Cor. 15. 5. it is said of Christ risen from the dead he was seen of Cephas then of the twelve though he was seen onely of the eleven and Iudas was gone to his place Which answers all that can be said from Luke 22. 14 15. If I have not said so much as to put it out of all question that Iudas did not eate of the Passeover with Christ and his Apostles yet I am sure I have cleared so much as this that Master Prynne will not be able to prove convincingly that Iudas did eate of the Passeover that âight with Christ. I will conclude with the pious observation of M r Cartwright that it was not a vaine or idle question which the Disciples propounded being commanded to prepare the Passeover they aske where wilt thou that we prepare Luke 22. 8 9. for Christ having commanded them that into whatsoever City they entered they should enquire who were godly therein and turne in to such to lodge and to eate there They did thereby easily understand that if in common and ordinary eating together then much more in this sacred feast they must turne in to the families of the godly and avoyd the prophane especially considering that they who were of that houshold were to eate the Passeover with Christ and his Disciples according to the Law From this very example of the Passeover he drawes an argument for keeping off all ungodly and prophane persons from the Sacrament so farre as is possible Thus Cartwright Harm Evang. lib. 3. pag. 162. The like observation Chrysostome hath upon Matth. 26. 18. I will keepe the Passeover at thy house with my Disciples He bids us marke those words with my Disciples not with prophane or scandalous ones but with my Disciples To the like purpose Titus Bostrorum Episcopus in Luke 22. hath this observation Non manducat autem hoc pascha cum Judaeis sed tantum cum Discipulis suis Siquidem Judaei propter obstinatam incredulitatem hoc paschate indigni erant Yet he eateth not this Passeover with the Jewes but onely with his own Disciples for as much as the Jews because of their obstinate incredââ¦lity were unworthy of this Passeover 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 I Have now done with the first part of this Controversie concerning Iudas and have disproved that which M r Prynne hath said either for Iudas his receiving of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper or for his eating of the Passeover In which particulars though learned and godly Divines who are against the admission of scandalous sinners to the Sacrament are not all of one opinion yet all looke upon it as a matter of debate and I know none that ever cried downe with scorne and contempt the opinion of Iudas his not receiving of the Sacrament excepâ M r Prynne whose grounds are oftimes weakest where his assertions are strongest I proceed to the second answer Granting that Iudââ¦s did receive the Sacrament that can make nothing for the admission of scandalons sinners whose prophannesse and ungodly conversation is knowne and maketh their name to stinke in the Church For Iudas his wickednesse was not publique nor knowne before he had got the sop and gone out and left the company of Christ and the Apostles And moreover he who argueth from Christs receiving of Iudas to the Sacrament when though his sinne was yet secret yet Christ knew him to be a divell to prove that the Eldership may and ought to admit one to the Sacrament whom they know to be a Iudas a Divell may as well argue from Christs choosing of Iudas to be an Apostle when he knew him to be a Divell to prove the lawfulnesse of the Elderships choosing of a Minister whom they know to be a divell But now for that point of the scandall or secresie of Iudas his sinne let us heare M r Prynnes reply pag. 26 27. He gives it foure feet to runne upon But the truth is it hath but two the same things being twice told and those how foundered you shall see by and by First he saith that
knowne to none of the Disciples at that time but to Christ himselfe onely Nay the Testimony cited by M r Prynne himselfe out of Algerus de Sacram. maketh strongly against him in this particular Quia enim saith Algerus Judas accusatus damnatus non fuerat ideo Christus conscientiam ejus perversam quamvis sibi notam damnare noluit For because Judas was not accused condemned therefore Christ would not condemne openly his perverse conscience though known to himself Innocentius 3. in the place above cited De myst Missae lib. 4. cap. 13. after he hath asserted that Iudas did not receive the Lords Supper he addeth that if it should be granted that Iudas did receive it this onely will follow at most that Ministers are to admit to the Sacrament such as are not known to the Church to be impious or wicked as Iudas his wickednesse was not at that time knowne to the Disciples Likewise both Chrysostome and Theophylact upon Iohn 13. are cleare in this that Iudas hypocrisie was not detected to the Apostles till Christ did separate him and he went forth Moreover I shall minde M r Prynne how he himselfe doth apply this example of Iudas in his Independency examined pag. 8 9. he argueth thus Whether Independents refusââ¦ll to admit such Christians who are not notoriously scandalous in their lives nor grossely ignorant in the principles of Religion to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper c. onely upon this suspition or apprehension that they are but carnall men not truly regenerated or sanctified by Gods Spirit though they can not certainly judge of their present spirituall conditions infallibly known to God alone be not a very uncharitable arrogant yea unchristian practice contrary to our Saviours owne immediate example who at the first institution of this Sacrament admitted Iudas to his last Supper as well as his Disciples though he certainly knew him to be both a Traytor and a Divell In which argumentation he himself supposeth that Iudas was not notoriously scandalous nor knowne to the Disciples but to God and Christ alone to be a Traytor and Divell For otherwise he could not in any reason argue thus against the Independents because if this supposition be not laid downe that Iudas was an unregenerate yet not a scandalous person then the Independents had this obvious answer that if his Argument prove any thing it doth conclude the admission not onely of unregenerated and unsanctified but of scandalous persons to the Sacrament whereas he brings it to prove against them that persons not scandalous though unregenerate ought not to be refused the Sacrament And now he brings the same thing against us to prove that scandalous persons ought to be admitted if not excommunicated and desirous to receive the Sacrament He tels us by the way of Iudas his theevish covetous as well as traiterous disposition Iohn 12. 6. both which did make him scandalous But he might have observed that the holy Ghost sheweth plainly that in that act Iudas was not a scandalous sinner in the esteeme of the other Disciples for his theevish covetous disposition was not known to the Disciples yea the pretext of his care for the poore was so plausible to them though abominable to Christ who knew his heart that it is said not onely of Iudas but of the Disciples by his instigation they had indignation at the wasting of that which might have been sold for much and given to the poore Matth. 26. 8. Let us now heare M r Prynnes other answer Vindic. pag. 26 27. he tels us that though perchance the other Disciples did not know that Iudas was a Traytor and a Divell yet Christ himselfe did infallibly know all this of Iudas and did notwithstanding admit him to the Sacrament Whereupon he beseecheth all Ministers not to make themselves wiser holier rigider in this point then Christ himselfe Answ. 1. If Ministers did take upon them to suspend men from the Sacrament upon their owne private knowledge of some secret sinnes whereof those men are guilty his argument might say somewhat But the question being of suspension by the Eldership upon the notoreity or proofe of the offence and consisâoriall formall conviction of the offender he saith here nothing to that point 2. What a Minister should do when he certainly knows one of the Congregation not convict nor notoriously scandalous to be a Iudas a Traytor a Divell I will not now dispute But surely M r Prynnes reason why the minister ought to admit such a one is not rightly applied for Christ did then know Iudas to be a Traytor and a Divel but how not as man by sight information or the like but as God and as omniscient that is he knew Iudas by that same knowledge whereby he knows close hypocrites in whom no eye of man hath seen any thing scandalous but rather good and promising signes some of this kind no doubt are admitted to the Sacrament both among Presbyterians and Independents whom Christ knowes to be Iudasses because he knows what is in man But now for a Minister to know not the heart and the reines as Christ doth but ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã some foule act which a man hath done and some wicked profession which a man hath made though in private and not yet known to the world this is a very different case from the other and if Christ had admitted Iudas to the Sacrament knowing him by his divine knowledge to be a Traytor this could not prove that a Minister ought to admit a Traytor whom by his humane knowledge he knows to be such 3. And if that which Christ did in this particular ought to be a president to Ministers what to doe in like cases Then as Christ had a most sad and moving discourse about the Traytor till Iudas himselfe was made to understand that Christ knew his traiterous purpose and then he said to him That thou dost doe quickly which diverse doe rightly conceive to be as much as if Christ had said to him Get you gone I have no more to doe with you He spake it ut a consortio suo recederet that he might be gone out of his company as Ambrose takes it and thus did by the Sword of his mouth chase away and as it were excommunicate Iudas before the Sacrament So should a Minister if he see one in the Congregation whom he certainly knows to be a Iudas and to be living in some abominable wickednesse even whiles he comes with a professed desire to receive the Sacrament tell the Congregation that he knows and sees one amongst them whom he certainly knows to be guilty of such a particular secret horrible sinne and if it be possible make the sinner himselfe to know by such or such a signe that he is the man whom he speakes of and not to leave off powerfull checks sharpe rebukes terrible comminations till by the blessing of God and the power of the word he get such
able to examine themselves 3. Are men of corrupt minds and erroneous yea prophane principles who call evill good and pervert Scripture to the defending of some grosse sinnes are these able to examine themselves 4. Are those who are known that they had never any worke of the law upon their consciences to convince or humble them for by the Law is the knowledge of sinne able to examine themselves If the answers be affirmative then surely this selfe-examination is not riâhtly apprehended what it is If the answers be negative then those who in their addressâs to the Lords Table are found ignorant or drunke or defenders of sinne or presumptuous and unconvinced and doe manifestly appeare such though they be not excommunicated and being professed Christians and desiring the Sacrament yet ought not to be admitted I proceed to his second conclusion the strength whereof so farre as I am able to gather from his discourse may be drawn together into this Argument Such as in all ages yea by the very Apostles themselves have been deemed fit to receive and could not be denied the Sacrament of Baptisme ought to be being baptised and unexcommunicated and willing to communicate admitted to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper But in all Churches from Christs time till this present all externall professors of Christ even carnall persons onely upon a bare externall profession of faith and repentance were deemed fit to receive and were never denied the Sacrament of Baptisme yea saith he we read in the very Apostles times that a meere externall sleight confession of sinne and profession of the Christian faith was sufficient to enable sinners to be baptized Ergo all externall professors of Christ c. ought to be admitted to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Answ. 1. I retort the Argument thus Such as have been deemed by the Apostles and by all well constituted Churches unworthy to be admitted to Baptisme ought also to be deemed unworthy though baptised to be admitted to the Lords Supper But all known wicked and prophane livers how able and willing so ever to make confession of the true Christian faith have been by the Apostles and all wâll conâituted Churches deemed unworthy to be admitted to Baptisme Ergo all known wicked c. More of this afterward Chap 13. and Chap 15. Secondly I answer directly I distinguish the Major I deny the Minor I distinguish the Major Those who have been admitted to Baptisme ought to be admitted to the Lords Supper caeteris paribus if the proportion hold in the particulars and if they be as free of scandalous sines now when they desire to receive the Lords Supper as they were when they desired to receive Baptisme He needed not make so great a matter of our suspending from the Sacrament a person formerly deemed fit to receive Baptisme For why the person is a scandalous person now which he was not thân My limitation of caeteris paribus he himselfe must admit otherwise how will he defend his owne Principle that the flagicious abominable and obstinate sinners who cannot be reduced by Admonitions may and ought to be excommunicated and so to be cut off from the Lords Supper and all other publike Ordinances although formerly deemed sit to receive baptisme The Minor I utterly deny as most false and as a reproach caâ upon the Apostles themselves M r Prynnes Rule is so large that Turkes or Pagans who practically live in Idolatry common swearing adultery drunkennesse murthering stealing or the like and are known to live in those abominable scandalous sinnes ought neverthelesse upââ¦n a meere externall sleight confession of sinne and profession of the Christian faith be baptised When I expected his proofe from the Apostles times he onely tels us that Philip baptized Simon Magus though he were in the gall of bitternesse and bond of iniquity Acts 8. Yea saith he many other who turned Wolves Apostates Hereticks were baptised by the very Apostles Acts 20. 2. Tim. 3. If he had proved that Simon Magus was known to be in the gall of bitternesse and bond of iniquity when Philip did baptize him or that the Apostles did baptise any upon a sleight externall profession who were then known to be Wolves Apostates and Hereticks he had said more for his cause then all his booke saith beside But to tell us that some persons baptized he might as well have said that some persons who received the Lords Supper did appeare afterward to be in the gall of bitternesse Wolves Apostates Heretickes is as much as to travell and to bring forth nothing For how shall ever this reach the admission of known prophane persons to the Lords Supper That which he had to prove was the admission not of hypocrites but of knowne scandalous profane persons to Baptisme His third conclusion that it is the Ministers bounden duty to administer the Sacraments to their people as well as to preach and pray no man will deny it so that the Ministers doe it debito modo and according to the rule of Christ they are stewards of the mysteries of God moreover it is required in stewards that a man be found faithfull 1 Cor. 4 1 2. It is the bounden duty of Stewards to give the childrens bread to children and not to dogges and swine It is not the duty of Ministers to preach peace to the wicked and much lesse to seale it to them who are knowne to be such The fourth conclusion that the Word and Sacraments are set accidentally for the fall and ruine as wel as for the salvation of men maketh nothing to the purpose in hand Whatever the secret intention of God be and his unsearchable judgement upon the soule of this or that man it is no rule of duty to the Minister or Eldership To the Law and to the Testimony Secret things belong to God The fifth that God onely infallibly knows the hearts and present state of all men is no whit neerer the point The Eldership âudggeth of words and works professions and practises By their fruits ye shall know them The sixth that no Ministers private judgement or conscience ought to be the rule of his admitting any to or suspending them from the Sacrament is also wide from the controversie in hand which is concerning the Elderships not the Ministers power Of the Ministers personall duty I have spoken before These six conclusions premised M r Prynne proceeds to prove that a Minister in delivering the Sacrament to a scandalous unexcommunicated person who after admonition of the danger doth earnestly desire to receive it c. becomes no way guilty of his sinne or punishââ¦ent in case be eate or drinke judgement by his unworthy receiving of it His first reason because this receiver hath a true right to this Sacrament as a visible member of the visible Church is the same thing which I have already answered His second reason because ââ¦e the Minister hath no Commission from Christ to keep back such a person doth not conclude
that the Minister becomes no way guilty c. He had to prove that a Minister hath no commission touching this businesse but onely to admonish the person of the danger I hold there are other five duties incumbent to the Minister Of which before If any of these duties be neglected the Minister is guilty Whether such a person ought to be kept backe is the point in controversie and therefore he ought not have taken the negative pro confessò His third reason pag. 33. is the same which was used by Erastus as one of his arguments against Excommunication that the Apostle saith Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of that bread and drink of that cup. 1 Cor. 11. 28. Therefore a mans fitnesse or unfitnesse for the Sacrament is not to be judged by others but by himselfe onely and if he judge himselfe fit the Eldership hath no power to exclude him The same Scripture is here pressed against us by M r Prynne to prove that if a man judge himselfe fitly prepared joynes with others in the publique confession of his sinnes and promiseth newnesse of life the Minister he should say the Eldership ought in point of charity to deem him so and hath no commission from Christ to exclude him c. Let a man therefore examine himselfe not others or others him I answer 1. The self-examination there spoken of is not mentioned as exclusive for it is not said Let a man examine himselfe onely 2. Yet I can grant it to be exclusive it being understood of that judging of a mans selfe which prevents the judgement of God vers 31. no mans examining of another can doe this but his examining of himselfe That which can give us confidence and boldnesse before God and assure our hearts before him 1 Joh. 3. 19. is not the examination or approbation of others but of our owne conscience for what man knowes the things of a man save the spirit of man which is in him 1 Cor. 2. 11. The Pastors and Elders of Corinth had admitted some to the Lords Table whom they judged sit and worthy Communicants but God judged otherwise of them Therefore saith the Apostle let a man make a narrow search of his owne conscience and not rest upon the judgement of others 3. If it be enough for a man to examine himselfe by what warrant doth M r Prynne require more namely that a man joyn with others in the publique confession of his sinnes and promise newnesse of life 4. It is not enough for a notorious scandalous sinner to judge himselfe nor yet to joyne with others in publique confession but he must publiquely and particularly confesse his owne sinne which he must doe personally or for his own part and others can not doe it with him 5. Augustine tels us when a man hath examined himselfe he must also edifie the Church which before he scandalized by a publique declaration of repentance for his scandalous sinne 6. M r Prynne himselfe Vindic. pag. 50. will not have an excommunicated person to be againe received and admitted to the Lords Supper till publique satisfaction given for the scandall and open profession of amendment of life accompanied with externall symptomes of repentance And why all this examination should not be required for a prevention of excommunication yea of suspension I know not M r Prynnes fourth reason is because the Minister administers the Sacrament to that scandalous unexcommunicated person as to a person outwardly fitted and prepared the inward preparation of whose heart for ought he knows may be sincere towards God and really changed from what it was before I appeale to every godly Minister whether this can pacifie or secure his conscience that a scandalous unexcommunicated person living in known prophannesse and wickednesse is or may be esteemed a person outwardly fitted and prepared for the Sacrament yea that the inward preparation of his heart while he is living in grosse scandalous sinnes may be sincere towards God and really changed from what it was before and that therefore he the Minister in delivering the Sacrament to a scandalous unexcommunicated person who after admonition of the danger doth earnestly desire to receive it as conceiving himselfe in his ownâ⦠heart and conscience meet to participate of it becomes no way guilty c The Lord save me from that Divinity which holds that a scandalous person in the Church may be admitted to the Lords Supper as a person outwardly fittâd and prepared for that Sacrament Fifthly he argueth from the holinesse and lawfulnesse of administring the Sacrament and the Ministers good intention to benefit all and hurt none by it Answ. The first part of this reason is a fallacy ab ignoratione Elenchi the point he had to prove was that the administration of the Sacrament to a scandalous person is a holy lawfull action The latter part doth not conclude A good intention can not justifie a sinfull action Sixthly saith he because such a persons unworthy rââ¦eiving is onely contingent and casuall no Minister or creature being able infallibly to judge whââ¦ther God at this instant may not by the omnipotent working of his Spirit c. change both his ââ¦eart and his life Answ. 1. By this principle the Minister shall become no way guilty if he deliver the Sacrament to an Heathen to an excommunicated person for the same reason will have place in that case as much as in this viz. God may at the very instant before or in the act of receiving change the heart and life of such a Heathen or excommunicate person 2. A scandalous prophane person his unworthy receiving is casuall and contingent in sensu diviso but not in sensu compositâ⦠that is peradventure God will give him repentance and change his heart and his life which done he shall come worthily and receive worthily but while he is yet scandalous and neither heart nor life yet changed his receiving in that estate will certainly be an unworthy receiving for it implies a contradiction and impossibility to say that a mans life can be changed while it is not changed in sensu compositâ⦠or that a man can be worthy while he is unworthy 3. It is a most sinfull tempting of the Almighty to caâl his word behind us and then expect the working of Omnâpotency for that whereof we have neither promise nor example in the word Seventhly he argueth from our Concessions that Ministers may administer the Sacrament to masked hypocrites and yet are not guilty of their unworthy receiving This he saith is a yeelding our objection false in the case of scandalous persons too But his reason is âust as if he had said Ministers are not guilty when they give the Sacrament to those who are not scandalous Ergo they are not guilty when they give the Sacrament to those that are scandalous Or as if he had argued thus He thât harboureth a Traytor whom he doth not nor cannot know to be such is not
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 ãâã 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 Queâion 2. There is an unworthy giving as well as an unworthy receiving The unworthy giving is a sinâull act of the Minister which makes him also accessary to the sinne of unworthy receiving and so partake of other mens âinnes 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 Bââ¦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 Redeââ¦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
Supper the Disciples oââ¦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 thââ¦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 oâely 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 ââ¦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 Calviââ¦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 ãâã 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
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 warraââ¦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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 sââ¦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
kind can make the Sacrament a converting Ordinance 3. We must distinguish even in conversion between gratia praeveniens subsââ¦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 Aâguments 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 Eââ¦nuch said See here is water what doth hinder me to be baptized And Philip said If thou beleevest with all thinâ⦠heart ãâã
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 Circâmcision 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã For of what shall it be a signe or of what shall it be a seal when there is none to be sealed ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 uncircumcisââ¦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
who eat and drink at the Lords Table and consequently that those who are children of disobedience and wrath and strangers to Christ and the Covenant of Grace apparently and manifestly such though not professedly ought not to be admitted to the Lords Table under colour of a converting Ordinance it being indeed a seal of the Covenant of grace Sixthly That Ordinance which is appointed onely for such as can and do rightly examine themselves concerning their spiritual estate regeneration repentance faith and conversation is no converting Ordinance But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is an Ordinance which is appointed onely for such as can and do rightly examine themselves concerning their spiritual estate regeneration repentance faith and conversation Ergo it is no converting Ordinance The reason of the Proposition is because unconverted persons cannot nor do not rightly examine themselves concerning their spiritual estate regeneration c. For such are a generation pure in their own eyes and yet not washed from their filthinesse Proverb 16. 2. and 21. 2. and 30. 12. and the natural man cannot know the things of the Spirit of God because they are spiritually discerned But he that is spiritual judgeth all things 1 Cor. 2. 14. 15. The carnal mind is enmity against God Rom. 8. 7. The Assumption is proved by 1 Cor. 11. 28. But let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that Cup. This self-examination Interpreters say must be concerning a mans knowledge repentance faith and conversation The Apostle expounds himself 2 Cor. 13. 5. Examine your selves whether ye be in the Faith prove your own selves how that Jesus Christ is in you except ye be reprobates or counterfeit and unapproved This self examination as it is requisite at other times so especially before our comming to the Lords Table and an unconverted man can no more do it truly and rightly according to the Apostles meaning then he can convert himself And here that which Mr. Prynn did object maketh against himself the Apostle saith Let a man examine himself not others for the examination there spoken of belongs to the Court of a mans own Conscience and to the inward man saith Martyr upon the place not to the Ecclesiastical Court But a natural unconverted man may possibly examine others and espie a mote in his brothers eye he cannot in any right or acceptable manner examine his own Conscience nor go about the taking of the beam out of his own eye He therefore who either cannot through ignorance or doth not through impenitency and hardnesse of heart examine himself and is known to be such a one by his excusing justifying or not confessing his scandalous sin or continuing in the practice thereof ought not to be admitted to that holy Ordinance which is instituted onely for such as can and do humbly and soundly examine themselves and consequently not intended for unconverted impenitent persons Seventhly That Ordinance unto which one may not come without a wedding garment is no converting Ordinance But the Supper of the Lord the marriage feast of the Kings son is an Ordinance unto which one may not come without a wedding garment Ergo. The Proposition hath this reason for it If a man must needs have a wedding garment that comes then he must needs be converted that comes for what-ever ye call the wedding garment sure it is a thing proper to the Saints and not common to unconverted sinners and the want of it doth condemn a man into utter darknes Matth. 22. 13. The Assumption is clear from Matth. 22. 11. 12. When the King came in to see the Guests he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment And he saith unto him Friend how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment and he was speechlesse If he had been of Mr. Prynns opinion he needed not be speechlesse for Mr. Prynns divinity might have put this answer in his mouth Lord I thought this to be a converting Ordinance and that thou wouldest not reject those that come in without a wedding garment provided that here at the marriage feast they get one But we see the King condemneth the man for comming in thither without a wedding garment Eightly That Ordinance which is not appointed to work faith is no converting ordinance But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not appointed to work faith Ergo. The proposition must be granted unlesse a man will say that conversion may be without faith The Assumption is proved by Rom. 10. 14. men cannot pray if they do not beleeve and they cannot beleeve if they do not hear the Word v. 17. So then faith commeth by hearing and hearing by the word of God If faith commeth by hearing then not by seeing if by the word then not by the Sacrament Ninthly That Ordinance which hath neither a promise of the grace of conversion annexed to it nor any example in the Word of God of any converted by it is no converting Ordinance But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper hath neither a promise of the grace of conversion annexed to it nor is there any example in all the Scripture of any ever converted by it Therefore it is no converting Ordinance Tenthly That Ordinance whereof Christ would have no unworthy person to partake is not a converting Ordinance But the Lords Supper is an Ordinance whereof Christ would have no unworthy person to partake Ergo. The proposition I prove thus It is not the will of Christ that converting Ordinances should be dispenced to no unworthy person for else how should they be converted but onely he hath forbidden to dispence unto unworthy persons such Ordinances as belong to the Communion Saints The Assumption I prove from 1 Cor. 11. 27. Whosoever though otherwise a worthy person one converted to the state of grace shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily shal be guilty of the body blood of the Lord. v. 29. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself not discerning the Lords body If the unworthines of that particular act in respect of the manner of doing it make a man so guilty and liable to such judgement how much more the unworthinesse of the person that eats and drinks For a mans state the course of his life and the frame of his Spirit is more then one single act This therefore doth prove that he that is an unworthy person if he come to the Lords Table doth eat and drink unworthily Whence is that where the Apostle saith vers 29. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily the Syriack Interpreter hath it he that eateth and drinketh thereof being unworthy or indignus existens Which may be also gathered from the interweaving of vers 28. between vers 27. and vers 29. He that eats and drinks not having before rightly examined himself eats and drinks unworthily But he that is an unworthy person and comes to the
1. What better reason of the necessity of this precedency of Baptisme than that Baptisme is the Sacrament of regeneration the Lords Supper the Sacrament of our spiritual nourishment and one must be borne before he eat and drink 2. The Apostle saith Gal. 3. 27. As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Rom. 6. 4. We are buried with him by Baptisme into death Col. 2. 12. Buried with him in Baptisme wherein also you are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God Therefore if the Sacrament of the Lords Supper be intended onely for the baptized then it is intended onely for such as are supposed to have put on Christ are buried and raised again with him through faith and consequently it is not intended for unconverted persons to convert them but for converted persons to confirme them Sixteenthly The Method of the parable of the forlorne Son maketh very much against Mr. Prynns opinion The Lord is indeed ready to forgive and hath compassion upon the poor sinner and falls on his neck and kisseth him and saith to his servants Bring forth the best robe and put it on him and put a ring on his hand and shoes on his feet and bring hither the fatted calf and kill it and let us eat and be merry Luke 15. 20. 22 23. And this is done in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper more especially and more manifestly then in any other Ordinance But when not while the man is yet playing the prodigal wasting his substance with riotous living nor yet while he is filling his belly in a far Countrey with the husks which the Swine did eat But it was when he came to himself when he came to his Father and said Father I have sinned against Heaven and in thy sight and am no more worthy to be called thy Son Then and not till then doth the father bestow upon him the best robe and the fatted calf For this my son was dead saith the Father and is alive again was lost and is found Had the best robe and the fatted calf been given him before he repented and came to himself he had belike been so much the more carelesse of comming home to his father But we see these love tokens this feast and this mirth is for entertaining a poor penitent not for converting an impenitent sinner Seventeenthly I shall draw another Argument both out of the Directory for the publike Worship of God throughout the three Kingdoms and out of Mr. Prynn himself Thus it is That Ordinance from which the Minister in the Name of Christ ought concionaliter or Doctrinally to excommunicate all impenitent prophane persons is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance But the Lords Supper is an Ordinance from which the Minister ought in the Name of Christ concionaliter or Doctrinally to excommunicate all impenitent prophane persons Ergo. The Proposition ariseth from this ground we ought not to dehort impenitent prophane men from converting Ordinances but rather exhort them to come and partake thereof The Assumption I prove First from the Directory in the head of the Lords Supper which speaketh of the Minister thus Next he is in the Name of Christ on the one part to warn all such as are ignorant scandalous prophane or that live in any sin or offence against their knowledge or Conscience that they presume not to come to that holy Table shewing them that he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgement to himself And on the other part he is in especial manner to invite and encourage all that labour under the sence of the burthen of their sins and fear of wrath and desire to reach out unto a greater progresse in grace then yet they can attain unto to come to the Lords TÃ ble Is it not here held forth as the will of Christ that no prophane impenitent unconverted person ought or may come to the Lords Table but onely such as have somewhat of the work of grace in them But let us hear Mr. Prynn himself The seventh difference which he stateth between his Antagonists and himself pag. 28. is this Whether the Minister hath not fully discharged his Duty and Conscience if he give warning to unworthy Communicants of the danger they incurr by their unworthy approaches to the Lords Table and seriously dehort them from comming to it unlesse they repent reform and come prepared If this be a right stating of that difference and if it be true which Mr. Hussey in his Epistle to the Parliament pag. 7. saith that it is a very great and dangerous sin if they come without repentance faith and charity wherein the Minister must instruct his people publikely and privatly Then I suppose that Mr. Prynn will not deny that a Minister ought in duty and conscience to do all this to admonish a scandalous unworthy person and seriously dehort c. Onely he contends that the Minister is not bound in duty and conscience after all this to keep back such from the Sacrament Well I take for the present what he grants and even by that I prove the Lords Supper is no converting Ordinance for if it were 1. How dare any Minister seriously dehort any unworthy person from approaching to it May we forbid sinners to use the means of their conversion especially if they be such as are not excommunicated nor cast out of the Church and do desire to receive the Sacrament which are the cases often put by Mr. Prynn 2. How can the Minister warn such persons not to come to the Sacrament unlesse they repent reform and come prepared If it be not a sealing Ordinance intended onely for such as do repent and reform the Minister may not say so 3. And otherwise the sence were this that such persons ought not to come to a converting Ordinance unlesse they be converted for to repent reform and come prepared are things which none can do who are not converted Finally By Mr. Prynn his principles we may as well yea rather dehort men from comming to hear the Word unlesse they repent and reform For pag. 44. he saith that the Sacrament is as converting yea a more humbling regenerating converting Ordinance then the Word Which if it be so then we may more warrantably and with lesse danger to the souls of those who do not repent and reform dehort them from comming to the Word then from comming to the Sacrament Eighteenthly That Ordinance which is not communicable to Heathens or Pagans nor to excommunicated Christians for their conversion from darknesse to light from the power of Sathan to God from the state of sin to the state of repentance is not a converting Ordinance But the Lords Supper is such Ergo. The Reason of the Proposition is because converting Ordinances are communicable to Heathens and thence proceeded the general Commission to preach the Gospel to every creature and to teach all Nations Matth. 28. 19 Mark 16. 15. which accordingly
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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
Ordinance Which if it be he cannot choose but allow to give the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to excommunicated persons and to the unbaptized whether Heathens or Jews being of age and desiring to receive it Secondly If all the whole Antecedent part of his Argument were granted the consequence is naught for this must be the consequence If examination of mens hearts the searching out of all their sins confession contrition prayers vowes meditations exhortations which do accompany the Sacrament be most effectual to convert and to beget grace then the Sacrament is a converting Ordinance Which consequence he will never prove Put the case that self-examination confession prayers vowes meditations exhortations at the calling of a Parliament at the going out of an Army at the choosing of Magistrates or Ministers at the death of Parents friends c. prove effectual to conversion Shall we therefore say that the calling of a Parliament the going out of the Army the choosing of Ministers or Magistrates the death of Parents or friends are converting Ordinances His fourth Argument alone is syllogistical I wish all his Arguments throughout his whole book had been such that the strength or weaknesse thereof might the sooner appear That Ordinance whereââ¦n we most immedietly converse with God and Christ and have more intimate visible sensible communion with them then in any other is certainly the most powerful and effectual Ordinance of all others to humble regenerate convert and beget true grace within us c. But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper by our Antagonists own confession is such Ergo. Answ. 1. I retort his Argument against himself That Ordinance wherein we most immediatly converse with God and Christ and have more intimate communion with them then in any other is a sealing confirming but not a converting Ordinance For they who are converting have not such intimate communion and immediat conversing with God and Christ as they who are already converted and do walk with God as Enoch did and are filled with all joy and peace in beleeving Rom. 15. 13. even with joy unspeakable and full of glory 1 Pet. 1. 8. The daughters of Ierusalem being sick of love for Christ yet are far from that communion with him which his Spouse longer acquainted with him did enjoy therefore they ask at her whither her beloved was gone that they might seek him with her Cant. 6 1. Hath the child fed with milk more communion and conversing with his father then the son come to years who eateth and drinketh at his fathers Table Do we not see often a servent convert like Apollos whom an Aquila and Priscilla must take and expound unto him the way of God more perfectly Act. 18. 25 26. 2. I deny his Proposition as he frames it for the plain English of it is this If it be a sealing comforting confirming Ordinance then it is a converting Ordinance which I clear thus He takes his Medium from his Antagonists concession for they accord saith he that we have more immediate communion with God in this Ordinance then in any other for as much as in this Sacrament Christ is more particularly applied and the remission of our sins more sensibly sealed to us then in any other Ordinance from whence I thus infallibly conclude against these opposites Then follows his Argument which is no other then a putting of the converted in the condition of the unconverted or the unconverted in the capacity of the converted or to prove it converts because it seals 3. If this Sacrament be the most powerful and effectual Ordinance of all others to humble regenerate convert and beget true grace it will follow that we ought at least may give the Sacrament not onely to the most ignorant and scandalous within the Church but to Turks Pagans Jews and to excommunicated persons as I said before 4. He challengeth his Antagonists for crying up and magnifying this Sacrament above the Word preached and by way of opposition tells them that he hath in some former Tractates proved Gods presence and Spirit to be as much as really present in other Ordinances as in this Vindic. pag. 37 yet now I see no man who doth so much as himself magnifie the Sacrament above the Word 5. Whereas he brings this proof for his Major Proposition because the manifestation revelation and proximity of God and Christ to the soul is that which doth most of all humble and convert it If this hold true in the generality as he propounds it then the Spirits of just men made perfect and glorified are converted by the revelation and proximity of God and of Christ whereof they have unconceaveably more then the Saints on earth But neither in this world doth the manifestation and revelation of God and of Christ prove conversion and regeneration to be in fieri at that instant when God so manifesteth and revealeth himself which is the thing he had to prove I give instance in divers of those Scriptures cited by himself Gods revealing of himself to Iob chap. 38. and 42. to Isaiah chap. 6. Christs manifesting of his power to Peter Luke 5. was after not at their conversion so that Psal. 148. 14. But heteregeneous impertinent quotations of Scripture are usual with him I am sorry I have cause to say it Some other Scriptures which here he citeth may be expounded of Gods proximity to us and ours to God in Conversion Isa. 55. 6. Zeph. 3. 2. Eph. 2. 17. Iam. 4. 7. But that this kind of proximity which doth convert is in the Sacrament he hath supposed but not proved His fifth Argument is taken from the converting power of the Word that which makes conversion by the Word is the particular application of Christ and the promises Now the Sacrament doth most particularly and effectually apply Christ and the promises unto every Communicants eyes ears heart and soul far livelier then the Word preached Answ. 1. This is a meer fallacy à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter and easily discovered The Sacrament applyeth Christ but to whom not to the unconverted and unbeleevers for that were to give a seal without a charter but to those that are supposed to be converted and beleevers He had this to prove That the Sacrament doth apply Christs death passion and merits to unconverted persons and to unbeleevers yea to their heart and soul. 2. That the Sacrament doth apply the death passion and merits of Christ to the Communicants ears and that far livelier than the word preached is to me a riddle which I think will trouble Mr. Prynn himself to expound 3. A great controversie there hath been about the orall or corporal manducation of the body of Christ in the Sacrament But Mr. Prynn out-runneth here all Ubiquitaries in the World for he hath said no lesse then that every Communicant eateth spiritually and by faith the body of Christ even unconverted persons for he saith that this Sacrament doth most particularly fully lively and sensibly
apply the promises yea the death passion and merits of Christ unto EVERY Communicants eyes ears HEART and SOUL Which is plainly universal grace to all who ever received this Sacrament and so to Iudas according to his principles and to all who ever shall receive it 4. Whereas he would confirm this which he saith by his Antagonists Confession I do not think he can give any conscientious account of that word Who said it or where He must needs hold universal grace hold it who will 5. Here lies the strength of his Argument The Word converts by applying Christ therefore the Sacrament which doth more lively apply Christ to every Communicant must be a converting Ordinance Which necessarily implyeth that all who receive the Sacrament are converted Yea if application inferre conversion as the effect of the Application the Saints and Beleevers themselves must be again constituted in the first Article of Conversion and transition from the estate of nature and unregeneration 6. The Application of Christ in the Word unto Conversion is a thing of another nature than the Sacramental application of Christ and therefore like effects ought not to be ascribed unto these Ordinances For the Application of Christ made in the Word preached to the unconverted to convert them is per influxum Physicum by a most efficacious life-giving influence as when Elisha applyed himself to the Shunnamites dead child or like that Ezek. 16. 6. Iohn 5. 25. and 11. 43. But this manner of influence or causality is denied to the Sacrament by many of the Schoolmen and Papists themselves So much of his fifth Argument which I thought to answer in two words if the many absurdities in it had given me leave His sixth Argument is this All grant that God doth as effectually convert by the eye as by the ear All grant I deny it and I verily beleeve he can produce very few Authors if any for it He ought not to speak so great words without good warrants which here I am sure he hath not Well but he will prove the thing it self First he tells us of the book of Nature and of the Creatures by which we are instructed c. But either he means that the very book of Nature can and doth effectually and savingly convert to Faith in Christ and to true sanctification or not If the affirmative then the Heathens who lived and died in Paganisme had sufficient means and helps to conversion and faith in Christ for those Pagans had the book of the Creatures to instruct them as is expressed in some Scriptures cited by himself and so there may be salvation and the means thereof without the Church If this be not his meaning but that the book of Nature instructeth us concerning many things of God yet doth not teach us to know Christ and all things necessary to salvation far lesse doth effectually and savingly convert then he hath said nothing to that point which he had to prove 2. He saith that all the Sacrifices of the old Law and Circumcision and the Passeover did teach Gods people who participated of them or were present at them by the eye and were converting Ordinances as all do and must acknowledge Answ. Here is another tinckling Cymbal Do all acknowledge that the Sacraments of the Old Testament were converting Ordinances There can be no rational account given hereof Certainly our Writers before cited and diverse others who denie the Sacraments of the New Testament to be converting Ordinances never meant to admit that the Sacraments of the old Testament were converting Ordinances 2. How Circumcision did teach by the eye those who did participate of that Ordinance and so Infants is another riddle 3. If Sacrifices under the Law had been converting Ordinances yet that cannot be a just parallel to Sacraments except seeking to make the Lords Supper a converting Ordinance we convert it self into a Sacrifice for sin as Papists do But neither doth he offer the least colour of reason to prove that all the external Sacrifices of the old Law were converting Ordinances which here he affirmeth The Apostle speaketh otherwise of the Legal Sacrifices which he saith could not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to the Conscience Heb. 99. and therefore calls all those rites carnal Ordinances vers 10. for though they were spiritual in respect of their signification and typifying of Christ and sealing the Covenant of grace to the faithful in the Old Testament yet they were not spiritual in regard of their giving of grace or working conversion or purging the Conscience for they had no such operation nor effect Fourthly Mr. Prynn confirms his present Argument by the miracles of the Prophets Christ and the Apostles which saith he converted thousands without preaching did convert and regenerate men by the eye without the ear For proof whereof he cites abundance of Texts of Scripture which do not prove what he saith nay some of them prove the contrary Some of the Scriptures cited do not prove conversion and regeneration by miracles but either confirmation as Iohn 2. 11. after the miracle it is added and his Disciples beleeved on him Or some preparatory initial work before regeneration as that Iohn 3. 2. Mr. Prynn will hardly prove that Nicodemus was already regenerated at that instant when he knew not what regeneration was Or that those Iohn 2. 23. who beleeved on Christ when they saw his miracles at the feast had any more then a temporary faith it being said of them that Iesus did not commit himself unto them because he knew all men Act. 2. 12. Luke 5. 25. 26. tell us of some who at the sight of miracles were stricken with fear and amazement and gave glory to God which proves not that miracles did convert but convince The like I say of 1 Kings 18. 38. 39. Other Texts cited by him make expresse mention of the Word as a mean of the conversion which was wrought as Iohn 4. 50. the man beleeved the Word that Jesus had spoken and this was before the miracle Iohn 7. 31. many beleeved but they heard Christ preach vers 14. So Iohn 11. 45. those Jewes who beleeved on Christ after they had seen the miracle did also hear that which Christ said yea their beleeving is mentioned as an effect of their hearing vers 41. 42. So Act. 6. 8. Stephen did indeed great miracles but the multiplying of the number of the Disciples is referred to the Word vers 7. Act. 8. 6. it is expressely said And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake hearing and seeing the miracles which he did Quâ fide hath Mr. Prynn cited this very Text to prove that men were converted by miracles without the Word by the eye without the ear Some other Scriptures by him quoted prove onely a popular confluence and the multitudes following of Christ. Having seen his miracles as Iohn 6. 2. and 11. 47. 48. Matth. 15. 30. 31. For
therefore Marriage is evil Virginity is pure therefore Marriage is impure Whereas Marriage and single life are not opposed in the point of good and evil purity and impurity but in the point of immunity from worldly cares and troubles So it is a bad consequence at least against us unworthy receiving of the Sacrament is an instrument of obduration Ergo Worthy receiving of it is a mean of conversion For we hold that worthy receiving and unworthy receiving are not opposed in point of conversion but in point of sealing the worthy receiving seals remission and salvation the unworthy receiving seals judgement But Mr. Prynn still takes for granted what he had to prove viz. That this particular is one of those differentiae quibus dissident ista Opposita Come on to his tenth Argument It s taken from the ends for which this Sacrament was ordained 1. The keeping in memory Christs death 2. The ratification and sealing of all the promises and Covenant of grace unto the receivers souls 2. To be a pledge and symbole of that most neer and effectual communion which Christians have with Christ and that spiritual union which they enjoy with him 4. To feed the communicants souls in assured hope of eternal life 5. To be a pledge of their resurrection 6. To seal unto them the assurance of everlasting life 7. To binde them as it were by an oath of fidelity to Christ Whereupon he asketh how it is possible that this Sacrament should not both in Gods intention and Christs ordination be a converting as well as a sealing Ordinance since that which doth seal all these particulars to mens souls c. must needs more powerfully perswade pierce melt relent convert an obdurate heart and unregenerate sinner then the Word it self Answ. 1. His Argument may be strongly retorted against himself divers of these ends of the Sacrament being such as are incompetent and unapplicable to obdurate and unregenerate sinners How did he imagine that even to such as these the Sacrament doth ratifie and seal to their souls all the promises and Covenant of grace they not having yet closed with Christ in the Covenant Or how will he make it to appear that this Sacrament is a pledge of a most neer union and communion with Christ even to those who are yet far from any union with Christ Or how shall they be fed in hope and sealed in assurance of everlasting life who are yet under the curse of the Law and state of condemnation Surely Master Prynne granting here that the Sacrament is ordained of Christ to seal and that it doth seal all these particulars to mens souls doth thereby yeeld the whole cause For that which doth seal all these particulars to mens souls most certainly doth not convert but presuppose conversion 2. If this Sacrament be by Gods intention a converting Ordinance and Gods intention being by him distinguished from Christs ordination whether doth it not necessarily follow both from this and from his first Argument unto which this gives more light that God did in the secret counsel of his Will intend and decree the Conversion of the flintiest heart and obdurest spirit as he speaketh and that either this effect is wrought by the Sacrament in the flintiest heart and obduratest spirit which I believe he dare not say or that Gods decree and intention is frustrate 3. And if the Sacrament must needs more powerfully perswade pierce melt relent convert an obdurate heart and unregenerate sinner then the Word it self how then can he either seclude Pagans or dehort impenitent unworthy persons from the Sacrament His eleventh Argument is the grossest and palpablest petitio principii of any that ever I met with and to be offered to none except such as cannot distinguish between that which is affirmed and that which is proved First he tells us what true conversion is and then asks if any thing be so prevalent to effect this as the Sacrament This therefore I passe His twelfth and last Argument is an appealing to the experience of Christians But a part of his appeal is of no use that is Whether this Sacrament doth not strengthen against corruptions and tentations which doth not touch this present Controversie It is as little to the purpose which he saith of conversion by preparations to the Sacrament which may be by the Word Prayer c. But that many thousands of converted Christians will experimentally affirm that the receiving of the Sacrament was the first effectual means of their conversion yea that they had not been converted had they been debarred from it for their former scandalous sins I do as confidently deny it as he affirmeth it and if any who hath been a scandalous liver whose heart was never yet turned humbled broken changed by the Word nor by any other mean of grace should affirm that his very receiving of the Sacrament did effectually convert him I durst not herein give credit to him For to the Law and to the Testimony If they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them And whereas he concludes For shame therefore disclaim this absurd irreligious paradox for which there is not the least shadow of Scripture or solid reason I shall wish him for shame to disclaim this and many such like expressions more bold and arrogant then either prudent or conscientious And the intelligent Reader who considereth my twenty Arguments for that which he calls so absurd and my Answers to all his twelve Arguments will easily judge where the shame and irreligiousnesse will lie If at his door let him look to it Alba ligustra cadunt vaccinââ¦a nigra leguntur All that he addeth pag. 45 46 47 being at best rhetorical not rational and a superstructure upon that foundation that the Lords Supper is a Converting Ordinance it needs no battering but falls of it self the foundation being taken away And as we ought not nor cannot without sin suspend scandalous sinners from the Sacrament if it be a Converting Ordinance upon which supposition also both the Advice of the Assembly of Divines and the Ordinance of Parliament concerning Suspension from the Sacrament were most sinful and unlawful So if it be not a converting but a sealing Ordinance which I hope is now luce clarius there needs no other Argument for the suspension of scandalous sinners living in grosse reigning sins but this That the end and use for which this Sacrament was instituted is not conversion which these need but sealing and confirmation of which they are incapable they being such as ought to be kept back à signis gratiae divinae as Divines speak For how shall these that in words professe God but in their works deny him be sealed with the seals or marked with the marks of the favour and grace of God Most certainly this Question concerning the nature end and use of the Sacrament casts the ballance of the whole Controversie concerning Suspension which I have therefore been the
larger upon And whereas Master Prynne concludeth pag. 47 with a large citation out of Lucas Osiander Enchir. contra Anabapt cap. 6. quaest 3. for that he shall have this return First all that Osiander there saith is brought to prove this point against the Anabaptists quod et si unum aut alterum videamus in Ecclesia aliqua flagitiosum propterea neque secessionem faciendam neque à sacris congressibus aut Coena Domini Christiano abstinendum That although in some Church we see some one or other flagitious person yet a Christian is not therefore either to make a separation or to abstain from the sacred Assemblies or the Lords Supper Which is not the Question now agitated between us Secondly after that passage cited against us Master Prynne might have taken notice of another passage which maketh against himself Where the Anabaptists did object to the Lutheran Churches their admitting of scandalous persons to the Sacrament Osiander denieth it for saith he although we cannot help hypocrites their coming to the Lords Table nos tamen scienter neminem admittimus nisi peccatores poenitentes c. Yet we admit none willingly except penitent sinners who confesse their sins and sorrow for them Thirdly Osiander ibid. Quaest. 2. holdeth Excommunication to be an Ordinance of God and groundeth it upon Matth. 18. 15 16 17. Therefore Master Prynne must seek another Patron then Osiander And now the nature of the Ordinance being cleared there needeth no more to confute Master Prynne in that which he makes the eighth thing in controversie between him and his Antagonists namely Whether Ministers may not as well refuse to preach the Word to such unexcommunicated grosse impenitent scandalous Christians whom they would suspend from the Sacrament Certainly it is not lawful but commanded as a duty to preach both to the converted and to the unconverted without excluding the most scandalous impenitent sinners whosoever But the Lords Supper being according to its institution and the minde of Jesus Christ a sealing or confirming Ordinance onely it cannot without a violation of the Institution be given to known impenitent scandalous persons Other particulars in his Debate concerning this eighth point of difference which do require any Answer I will take occasion to speak unto them in the next Chapter CHAP. XV. Whether the admission of scandalous and notorious sinners to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper be a pollution and profanation of that holy Ordinance And in what respects it may be so called MAster Hussey in his Plea pag. 2. doth very much mistake his mark when in opposition to what I had said concerning the polluting of the Sacrament by the admission of the scandalous he tells me out of Beza that the Sacraments remain effectual to the good though evil men come to them and thereupon concludeth that the Sacrament is holy and pure to the believer notwithstanding the unpreparednesse of the wicked Which is not the thing in question much lesse is it the Question Whether there be any such thing as a pollution of the Sacrament for this Master Coleman hath yeelded though before he quarrelled that phrase of polluting the Ordinances giving instance in the using of Cheese instead of Bread Male dicis pag. 12. But the true state of the Controversie may be laid open in these few distinctions First as Scotus in lib. 4. Sent. Dist. 3. Quaest. 2. distinguisheth two sorts of things which may be called necessary to a Sacrament necessarium simpliciter and necessarium aliqualiter the former he calls that without which the Sacrament is no Sacrament the later that without which they that give the Sacrament cannot avoid sin or the want whereof maketh the Ministery guilty so do I distinguish two sorts of pollution of the Sacrament one which makes the Sacrament no Sacrament but a common or unhallowed thing to those that do receive it as for instance if the Sacrament were given by those that are no Ministers oâ to those that are no Church or without the blessing and breaking of bread Another which makes the ministration of the Sacrament hic nunc and with such circumstances to be sinful and those that do so administer it to be guilty and so whatsoever is done in the ministration of the Sacrament contrary to the revealed will of God is a pollution of that Ordinance The present Question is of the later not of the former Secondly some wicked men by their receiving the Sacrament do onely draw judgement upon themselves and these are close hypocrites Others by their receiving of the Sacrament do involve not themselves onely but others also into sin and Gods displeasure and these are scandalous notorious sinners Thirdly the sin of those who pollute the Sacrament by using it contrary to the nature and institution of it may be the sin of others and those others accessary to such pollution of the Sacrament two ways either it is the sin of the whole Church none excepted so that none that communicateth then and there can be free of the sin as where the bread is elevated and worshipped all the communicants are eo ipso that they joyn in the Sacrament then and there partakers of the sin of bread-worship though perhaps some of them do not joyn in the act of worshipping the bread but have done what they could to prevent or hinder it Or it is the sin onely of so many as have not done what they ought and might have done for observing the Institution rule and example of Jesus Christ. And of this sort is the sin of communicating with scandalous and profane men If private Christians have interposed by admonitions given to the offender and by petitions put up to those that have authority and power for restraining the scandalous from the Lords Table they have discharged their consciences and may without sin communicate though some scandalous members be admitted for such persons sin in taking the Sacrament but worthy communicants are not partakers of their sin But if Church-officers who have a charge and authority from Jesus Christ to receive none whom they know to be unworthy profane and scandalous shall not withstanding admit such persons they are thereby partakers of their sin so that their receiving or rather polluting of the Sacrament is imputed not to themselves onely but to the Church-officers who had authority to keep them back and did it not Fourthly the suffering of a mixture of known wicked persons among the godly in the Church doth sometime defile us with sin sometime not It doth not defile us when we use all lawful and possible remedies against it and namely when we exercise the Discipline of Excommunication and other Church-censures saith Augustine lib. contra Donatistas post collationem cap. 4. Tom. 7. But it doth defile us and we do incur sin and wrath when the means of redressing such known evils are neglected indisciplinata patientia it is Augustines word so to bear with wicked men as not to execute
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 sâals 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
Catechumene a Jew or a Pagan professing a resolution to turn Christian he being manifestly under the power of abominable reigning sins and being still a prophane and wicked liver although he were able to give a sound and Orthodox Confession of Faith then it is also a prophanation of the Lords Supper to admit unto it abominable and prophane livers But it were a prophanation of the Sacrament of Baptisme c. Augustine lib. de fide operibus cap. 18. tells us that the Church did not admit whores and such other scandalous persons to Baptisme Et nisi egerint ab his mortuis operibus poenitentiam accedere ad Baptismum non sinuntur And except they repent saith he from these dead works they are not suffered to come unto Baptisme Divers Arguments he brings in that Book for this thing as 1. That Peter saith Act. 2. 38. Repent and be baptized 2. That the Apostle Heb. 6. 1 2. joyneth repentance from dead works with Baptisme 3. That Iohn preached the Baptisme of Repentance 4. That fornicators adulterers theeves c. shall not inherit the Kingdom of God therefore such as are known to live in these sins without repentance ought not to be baptized 5. He argueth from 2 Cor. 6. 14 15 16. c. Now I offer this Quaere Shall an abominable wicked life murther adultery swearing cursing lying or the like keep back a man from so much as entering into the visible Church by the door of Baptism and shall not the like abominations keep back a man from Fellowship with the Saints at the Lords Table Is there more evidencâ of Saintship required in those who come to be baptized then in those who come to the Lords Table If there be let our Opposites speak it out and open up the riddle If there be not then how can their Tenent avoid the prophanation of the Lords Table Sixthly That Ordinance which is prophaned by admitting Infants and Idiots who can make no good use of it is much more prophaned by admitting abominable and known prophane persons who make a very bad use of it But the Lords Supper is prophaned by admitting Infants and Idiots who can make no good use of it Ergo. Mr. Prynn pag. 29. yeeldeth that children fools and distracted men are by a natural disability made uncapable of receiving the Lords Supper because unable to examine themselves to which saith he not withstanding they have been admitted in some Churches In what Churches fools and distracted men have been admitted to the Lords Supper I should have willingly learned from him for as yet I know not any such thing Children I know were somtime admitted by the Ancients who did afterward discover their own great error in that particular However He yeelds as I take it children and fools to be uncapable of the Lords Supper And why because unable to examine themselves in regard of natural disability But where there is no disability in the natural faculties may not a sinful disability which a man hath drawn upon himself as ignorance drunkennesse corrupt and atheistical opinions presumptuous excusing or defending of sin make him unable to examine himself Shall men that are unable to examine themselves be admitted to the Sacrament because not disabled by any natural disability Sure this was far from Pauls thoughts when he delivered that rule concerning examining our selves before the Sacrament Whoever they be who are unable to examine themselves whether naturally or sinfully much more they who manifâstly appear unwilling to examine themselves if they be admitted and allowed to come to the Lords Supper it is a high and haânous prophanation of that Ordinance Wherefore to prosecute my Argument Why do we exclude Infants and Idiots because ãâã Apostle saith Let a man examine himself and so let him ãâã Bread and drink of that Cup but Infants and Idiots ãâã examine themselves Now a positive prophanation of the Sacrament is worse then a negative prophanation of it abuti is more then non bene uti We know that prophane impenitent sinners will not onely make no good use of the Sacrament nor examine themselves aright but will abuse it to the worst use that can be even to slatter themselves in their wickednesse and to harden themselves in sin and impenitency Mr. Prynn will tell us we know not but God may convert such at the Sacrament But there is not the least hint in all the Word of God of any impenitent sinner converted by the Sacrament And beside it is as easie for God to give an Idiot or distracted man his right wits and to illuminate him with a self-examining knowledge and light in the very instant of approaching to or sitting down at the Table And if a possibility a per adventure it may be and who knoweth but it may convert and do them good be a warrantable ground for Ministers to administer the Sacrament to prophane and scandalous persons as Mr. Prynn holds pag. 47. why shall not the same ground be as warrantable for admitting Idiots Seventhly If the Temple was polluted and prophaned by the comming of prophane and abominable persons into it then is the Sacrament of the Lords Supper also profaned by such persons their participation of it But the Temple was polluted and prophaned c. The reason of the consequence in the Proposition is because as the Temple had a Sacramental signification of Christ and a certain Ceremonial holinesse as well as the Lords Table so it will be durââ¦s sermo and I presume none of our Opposites will adventure to say it that such prophanesse as did of old keep back men from the Temple cannot now exclude them from the Sacrament The Assumption is largely proved in the first Book both from Scripture and from Jewish writers That one place Ezek 23. 38. 39. beside divers others cleareth it Moreover this they have done unto me they have defiled my Sanctuary in the same day and have prophaned my Sabbaths For when they had slain their children to their Idols then they came the same day into my Sanctuary to prophane it You see the Temple was prophaned and polluted not onely by those that were ceremonially unclean but by Idolaters and Murtherers when any such presumed to come into the Temple Eighthly I desire the scope of that place Hag. 2. 11 12 13 14. may be considered The Lord is teaching his people that a thing legally holy could not by the touch thereof sanctifie that which by the Law was common and not holy yet he which was legally unclean did defile whatsoever he touched yea though it were legally holy So is this people and so is this Nation before me saith the Lord and so is every work of their hands and that which they offer there is unclean The legal holinesse and uncleannesse were significant ceremonies to teach the people the hecessity of moral holinesse and the evil or danger of moral uncleannesse Hence God himself argues from the significant ceremony to the morality so
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 âgainst the excluding of scandalous sinners from the Lords Supper âxamined 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 signâs 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 thân 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 themsââ¦lves being not baptized of him There is a controversie whether thâse be the words of our Saviour Christ or of the Evangelist Luke But there can be no controversie of this that the Pharisees and Lawyeâs were not baptized of Iohn but the people and the puâlicans 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
O Generation of Vipers who hath forewarned you to flee from the wrath to come Which insinuateth a coincidency of these two stories related Matth. 3. and Iohn 1. Salmeron thinks that message was sent to Iohn out of honour and respect to him and he endeavours to confute the Centurists but among all his answers he doth not averre which had been his best reply if he had thought it probable that those words O Generation of Vipers were not spoken to the Pharisees that were sent from Ierusalem to Iohn Yea Salmeron himself doth in another place observe divers coincidencies between the story of that which passed between Iohn and the Pharisees that came to his baptism and the story of that which passed between Iohn and the Pharisees that were sent to him from Ierusalem 4. Erastus argueth from the admission of a generation of Vipers to Baptisme to prove the lawfulnesse of admitting a generation of Vipers to the Lords Supper But I argue contrariwise Such persons as desire to be received into the Church by Baptisme if they be prophane and scandal us persons ought not to be baptized but refused baptisme as Augustine proveth in his Book De Fide Operibus Therefore prophane and scandalous persons ought much lesse be admitted unto the Lords Supper Of which Argument more before I conclude with the Centurists Iohn did not cast pearls before swine he did not admit rashly any that would to Baptisme but such as confessed their sins that is onely such as were tryed and did repent but the contumacious and the defenders of their impieties or crimes he did reject CHAP. XVII Antiquity for the suspension of all scandalous persons from the Sacrament even such as were admitted to other publik Ordinances MR. Prynn in his first Quaere would have us beleeve that in the primitive times scandalous sinners were ever excommunicated and wholy cast out of the Church and sequestred from all other Ordinances as well as from the Sacrament And since saith he in the primitive times as is evident by Tertullians Apologie cap. 39. De poenitentia lib. and others scandalous persons were ever excommunicated and wholy cast out of the Church extra gregem dati not barely sequestred from the Sacrament But for further clearing of the ancient discipline concerning suspension I have thought good here to take notice of the particulars following First That great Antiquary Albaspinaeus proving that Church communion or fellowship was anciently larger than partaking of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper he proves it by this Argument because many of those who had scandalously fallen were admitted to communion with the Church in prayer and all other Ordinances the Eucharist onely excepted Next It is well known to the searchers of Antiquity that there were four degrees of publike declaration of repentance ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Which the Latines call flââ¦us auditio substratio consistentia After all which followed ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the participation of the Sacrament which they were at last admitted unto and is therefore mentioned by some as the fifth degree though to speak properly it was not poenal nor any degree of censure as the other four were First The penitent was kept weeping at the Church door beseeching those that went in to pray for him thereafter he was admitted to hear the Word afar off among the Catechumens In the third place there was a preparatory reconciliation or reception into the Church with prayer and imposition of hands which being done the man was in some sort admitted into Christian fellowship and acknowledged for a brother yet after the Word and Prayer he went forth with the Catechumens before the Sacrament But there was a fourth degree after all this he might stay in the Church and see and hear in the celebration of the Sacrament after the Catechumens and the three first sort of penitents were dismissed yet still he was suspended from partaking of the Sacrament for a certain time after he was brought to this fourth and last step So cautious were those Ancients in admitting of men to the Sacrament till they perceived lasting continuing clear and real evidences of true repentance Three of the degrees above-mentioned are found in the Canons of the Councel of Ancyra and of the Councel of Nice namely the three last The first which did not admit a man so much as into the Church to the hearing of the Word as it was afterwards added so it is not so justisicable as the other three But here is the point I desire may be well observed that of old in the fourth and fifth yea in the third Century men were admitted not only to the hearing of the Word but to prayer with the Church who yet were not admitted to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper The Councel of Ancyra held about the year 308. Can. 16. appointeth some scandalous persons to shew publike signes of repentance for 15. years before they be admitted to fellowship with the Church in prayer and for 5. years thereafter to be kept off from the Sacrament The Councel of Nice doth plainly intimate the same thing That some were admitted to Prayer but not to the Sacrament The different steps of the reception of those that had fallon may be likewise proved from the Councel of Arles I. Mich. Dilherrus Lib. 2. Electorum Cap. 1. After the mention of those ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã doth observe that as Antiquity did goe too far so the later times have fallen too short And this is a chief cause why Christian Religion doth hear very ill among many because Ecclesiastical Discipline hath waxed cold So much by the way This of the several degrees of Penitents I shall yet further insist upon because this alone will prove that we have Antiquity for us Gregorius Thaumaturgus in his Canonical Epistle concerning those who in the time of the incursion of the Barbarians had eaten things sacrificed to Idols and had committed other scandalous sins doth plainly distinguish these five things thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The weeping is without the gate of the Church where the sinner must stand beseeching the faithfull that come in to pray for him ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The hearing is within the Gate in the Porch where the sinner may come no nearer then the Catechumens and thence go out again c. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The substration is that standing within the Church door he go forth with the Catechumens ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The consistency is that he stand still together with the faithful and do not go forth with the Catechumens ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã In the last place the participation of the holy Mysteries or Sacrament He that will read the Epistles of Basilius magnus to Amphilochius will find these five degrees more particularly distinguished applyed to several cases and bounded by distinct intervalls of time It were too long to transcribe all
I shall onely give you some most plain passages to prove that there was in Basils time a suspension from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper alone or that a man was suspended from the Sacrament when he was not suspended from hearing and praying among the faithful For further confirmation of the same thing read Conc. Ancyr Can. 4. Can. 5. Can. 6. Can. 7. Can. 8. Can. 9. Coââ¦t Nican Can. 11. Can. 12. Can. 13. Can. 14. I do not mean to approve the too great severity of this ancient Discipline nor do I hold it agreeable to the Will of Christ that such as give good signes of true Repentance and do humbly confesse and really forsake their sin having also made publike declaration of their Repentance to the Church for removing the publike scandal ought notwithstanding of all this to be suspended from the Sacrament when they desire to receivâ it For the Word doth not warrant the suspending of scandalous sinners from the Sacrament until such a set determinate time be expired but onely till they give sufficient evidence of Repentance But setting aside this and such like circumstances the thing it self the suspending of a scandalous person from the Sacrament who is not nor ought not to be suspended from assembling hearing and praying with the Church is the Will of Christ as I have proved and was the commendable practice of the Ancient Church which is the point I now prove against Mr. Prynne The Councel of Ancyra Can. 5. 16. doth also appoint the time of suspension from the Sacrament to be made shorter or longer according as the signes of true Repentance should sooner or later more or lesse appear in the offender So doth the Councel of Nice Can. 12. And the Councel of Carthage held under Honorius and Theodosius the lesser Can. 46. If any man shall objâct against me and say Peradventure the Penitents before spoken of were onely such as did manifest their repentance after excommunication and these several degrees afore-mentioned were but the degrees of their reception or admission into the Church so that all this shall not prove the suspension from the Sacrament of persons not excommunicated I answer he that will think so will be found in a great mistake and my Argument from Antiquity will yet stand good for suspending from the Sacrament persons not excommunicated For first neither do the Canons of the Councels of Ancyra and Nice nor of Gregorius Thaumaturgus and Basilius magnus nor yet the Commentators Zonaras and Balsamon apply these five degrees above mentioned to persons who had been excommunicated but they speak generally of persons who had committed scandalous sins and afterward were converted and appeared penitent for instance those who did backslide and fall in time of persecution as multitudes did under Licinius and other persecuters when they converted and professed repentance they were received again into the Church by certain steps and degrees some more some fewer according to the quality of their offence No man that hath searched antiquity will say that all who did fall in time of persecution were excommunicated for that offence nor yet that they were all put to the ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to the weeping at the Church door but yet all of them even those whose offence was least as the Libellatici who had taken Writs of protection from the Enemy or Persecuter were put to the ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã or consistentia which was a suspension or abstention from the Sacrament even when the person was admitted to hear and pray with the Church Wherefore the degrees afore-mentioned were degrees of receiving into the Communion of the Church scandalous persons professing repentance Secondly The 61. Canon of Basil to Amphilochius speaketh thus He that hath stolen if repenting of his own accord he accuse himself shall be for a year restrained from the Communion of the holy Mysteries onely But if he be convict the space of two yeers shall be divided to him unto substration and consistency then let him be thought worthy of the Communion Will any man imagine that a penitent theef accusing himself was excommunicated It is more then manifest that here was a suspension of an offender not excommunicated For assoon as the offence was known by the offenders accusing of himself he was suspended from the Sacrament alone for a year and then admitted to the Sacrament Yea he that was convict of theft was not by this Canon excommunicated nor yet put either to the ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã or to the ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã but onely to the third and fourth degrees Thirdly By the 13th Canon of Basil to Amphilochius he that had killed another though in a lawful war was for the greater reverence to the Sacrament suspended for three yeers and by the 55. Canon he also that killed a Robber was suspended from the Sacrament I do not justifie these Canons but only I cite them to prove that by the Ancient Discipline Persons not excommunicated were suspended from the Sacrament for no man can imagine that a Souldier shedding blood in a lawful war or a man killing a Robber on the high way was therefor excommunicated Fourthly The eighth general Councel called Synodus prima secunds held about the yeer 869. in the thirteenth Canon speaking of certain turbulent Schismaticks not being of the Clergie as the Canon speaketh but Laicks or Monks appointeth this censure ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Let them be totally or altogether separated from the Church Which intimateth that there was a lesser degree of being separated or suspended from communion with the Church Zonaras upon that Canon doth so understand it and distinguisheth a double ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã For it is also a separation saith he to be excluded or restrained from the receiving of the Divine Mysteries onely But there is another separation which is to be cast out of the Church which the Canon calleth a total separation as being the heavier or greater Censure Which is the very same distinction with that which was afterward expressed under the terms of major minor the greater and lesser excommunication For which also I shall give you another proof as clear and older too taken from the 61. Canon of the sixth general Councel where it is decreed that those who resort to Magicians Charmers Fortune-tellers and such others who professe curious and unlawful arts shall fall under the Canon of six years separation But as for those who perââ¦ist in such things and do not turn away nor flee from these pernicious and Heathenish studies ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã We appoint them to be altogether cast out of the Church Mark the gradation in the Canon and the ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã And hear Balsamon his explanation upon it Note from this present Canon saith he that he who sinneth and converteth obtaineth favour ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and is punished in a lesser measure But he who persevereth in the evil and is not willingly reduced to
that which is better ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is to be east out or expelled from the Church adde what he had said before ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and shall not thenceforth converse with the Orthodox Which intimateth as plainly as any thing can be that there was an ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to be segregated for six years c. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to be separate sometimes ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to be sequestred from communion to wit in the exercise of the Ministery or ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã not to minister There was a higher censure then this which was deposition or degradation called ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the honour or degree of Presbytership to be taken away Basils phrase is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to a Minister and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã might fall upon a minister so a further censure after that ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 Pââ¦lusiota who flourished about the year 431. or as others say 440. In the first Book of his Epistles Epist. 143 to Thalelââ¦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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 lââ¦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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
been scandalous and vile he resolveth that so many of them as did professe repentance and forsake such scandalous conversing and companying together if they were still Virgins were to be again received to communicate with the Church namely in the Sacrament from which they had been kept back with premonition given to them that if they should after relapse into the like offence they should be cast out of the Church graviore censura with a heavier censure but that if they were found to have lost their Virginity they should make out the whole course of publike Declaration of repentance and so not be so soon admitted to but longer susspended from the Sacrament Adde hereunto a passage in Augustine plainly intimating that at that time beside reprehension degradation and excommunication there were other censures daily used in the Church according to the Apostles commandement 1 Thess. 3. 14. 15. He is speaking of the mixture of good and bad in the Church and that wicked men may be in some sort suffered in the Church provided saith he that the discipline of Excommunication and the other usual censures in the Church be not neglected but duly executed where it is possible But what were those other censures if not the suspension of scandalous and prophane persons not excommunicated from the Sacraments I appeal for further proof hereof to one passage more of Augustine de fide operibus cap. 18. Whores Stage-players and others whosoever they be that are Professors of publike filthinesse except such bonds of Wickednesse be loosed and broken are not permitted to come unto the Sacraments of Christ which forsooth according to their judgment that is such as would have profane persons baptized as well as others should be all admitted unlesse the holy Church should retain the ancient and vigorous custom which commeth from the most clear truth by which she hath it for certain that they who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God Whence it will certainly follow that all who were excluded from the Lords Table were not excommunicated persons For first The Church did keep back such scandalous persons upon this ground because those who are known to live without repentance in any of those sins of which the Apostle saith that they who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God are not fit to be admittrd unto the Sacrament for this were to give the Seals of salvation to those whom the Word pronounceth to be in a state of damnation Secondly Augustine is there confuting the opinion of some whom he calls Fratres qui aliter sapiunt Brethren who otherwise understood themselves well whose Principles did admit to the Sacraments all uncleane and scandalous persons which cannot be meant of excommunicated persons For there was never any such opinion maintained in the Church that all excommunicated persons ought or may be received to the Sacrament Lastly Lest his meaning should be restricted to the Sacrament of Baptisme onely of which principally and purposely he treateth in that Book he speaketh in the plural of the Sacraments of Christ. Observe also these passages of Gregory called the great Epist. Lib. 2. Cap. 65. Sicut exigente culpâ quis à Sacramento communionis dignè suspenditur ita insontibus nullo modo talis debet irrogari vinaicta Ibid. Cap. 66. Et si in vestra cognitione cujusquam ââ¦um facinorosi criminis reum esse patuerit tunc ex nostra auctoritate non solum Dominici Corporis Sanguinis communione privatuâ⦠fit verumââ¦tiam in Monasterium ubi poenitentiam agere debeat retrudatur And so much for Antiquity in this Question CHAP. XVIII A Discovery of the instability and loosenesse of Mr. Prynn his Principles even to the contradicting of himself in twelve particulars I Shall not need to insist upon his tenth point of difference Vindic. pag. 49. nor upon his four following Quaerees and Conclusion in all which there is no new material point but a repetition of divers particulars spoken to and debated else-where As touching that hint of a new Argument pag. 56. Consider the Parablâ⦠of the mariage of the Kings son where the King sent forth his servants to invite guests to the wedding Supper who gathered together ALL they found both BAD and good that the wedding might be furnished with guests Matth. 22. 1. to 11. I answer 1. Some understand here by the bad vers 10. those who had formerly before they were called and brought home by the Gospel been the worst and most vicious among the Heathens so that the words both bad and good make not a distinction of two sorts of Christians or Church-members but of two sorts of Heathens not yet called some of them were good some of them bad comparitively that is some of them much better then others some of them much worse So Grotius and long before him Hierome and Theophylact upon the place 2. Others as Bucerus Tossanus Cartwright Gomarus understand by the bad close Hypocrites who appear good so far as the Ministers and Officers of the Church are able to judge of them These by a Synecdoche of the Genus for the Species may be understood by the bad And so the Text will not comprehend scandalous and known prophane persons That Synecdoche generis is often used in Scripture is proved by Sal. Glassius Philolog sacrae lib. 5. Tract 1. Cap. 14. 3. I throw back an Argument from the same Parable against himself for the King sheweth his servants that he will have unworthy persons kept back from the marriage feast vers 8. Then saith he to his servants the Wedding is ready but they which were bidden were not worthy Luk. 14. 24. For I say unto unto you that none of those men which were bidden shall tast of my Supper The King makes it also known that he alloweth none to come in to this Mariage Feast except such onely as have the Wedding garment or as the Syriak Wedding garments upon them All which is inconsistent with Mr. Prynns principles concerning the admission of known scandalous unworthy persons to the Sacrament as to a converting Ordinance 4. And if all must be brought in or let in to the Lords Supper both bad and good promiseuously and without distinction then it should follow that the Ordinances of Parliament concerning the suspension of all sorts of scandalous persons from the Sacrament are contrary to the Will of Christ And that Mr. Prynn himself in yeelding ââ¦ag 50. and else-where that scandalous impenitent obstinate persons ought to be not onely suspended but excommunicated doth yeeld what his Argument concludes to be unlawful And so I come to that which I have here proposed viz. the instability and loosenesse of Mr. Prynns principles in this controversie By comparing divers passages together I find that he doth professe and pretend to yeeld the Question which yet he doth not yeeld really and indeed First It is to be observed that he deserteth Erastus and that
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 fââ¦ct is notorious the pââ¦oofs ãâã the sentence of excommunication ready to be pronounced against them as persons impenitently scandalous and inââ¦orrigible ââ¦erchance the Presbyterie or ââ¦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 rigââ¦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 pâst 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 slââ¦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 Judicâi dâem judicant c Mihi ante Presbyterum legendum fortasse Presbyterium sedere non licet illi si peccavero liâet 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 câuore Nunc veâò inobediens spirituali mucrone truncatur aut ejectus de Ecclesia âabido daemonum ore discerpâtur 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 Mââ¦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 viââ¦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 excommunicaâi Tossanus ibid. Quod cibum non vult sumi cum iis pertinet id quidem ad disciplinam excommunicaâionis 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 ãâã ãâã oftendit non ââ¦emerè aut quomodolibet sed per judicium ââ¦uferondos esse ãâã 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 vinciââ¦t ad gehennam The same hath Bedâ⦠upon the place out of Augustine So likewise Ambrââ¦se and the Centurists before cited * The 13 verse he yeeldeth to be a warrant for Excommunication yet he ãâã concerning that also in Diotreâ⦠catechised 1 Cor. 11. 21 22. Terââ¦ul apolog d ãâã ceâ⦠1. lib. 2. cap. 6. cap. 384. edit 1624. apud Corinthios invaluârat âlle abusus ut anâe caenam Dominicam inter se concertarent alii ibi suas coenas instruerent benepoti caenam Domini acciperenâ e ââ¦od cââ¦non eccl Afriâ⦠can 41. Ut Sacramenta altaris ãâã niâi 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 âanquam ad insigniorem commemorationem post cibos offerti accipi liceat corpus sânguinem Domini c. hoc tamen non arbitror instituâum nisi quia plures propè omnes in plerisque locis eo die caenare consueverunt g Walafridus Strabo de reb eccl cap. 19. Hoc quâque commemorandum videtur quod ipsa Sacramentâ quidam interdum jejuni interdum pransi percâpisse leguntur He tels us out of Socrates that the Egyptians neâre Alexandria as likewise those in Thebais did often take the Sâcrament after they had eaten libârally 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 fâerat 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 traditcââ¦em per recapitualtionem potost intelligi Quia saepe ââ¦it in Scriptura ut ' quod prius sactum sserat posterius enarretur That whole Chapter is spânt in the debating of this questioâ m In Iââ¦h 6. de participatione autem coâpo râs sanguinis ejus potest aliquis opinari quod ille Judas intersuerit Sed profecto diligentius Evangelistarum natratione doctorumque ânsiderata diversitate citius deprehendi huic quoque Sacramento illum nequaquam interâ Nam cum accepisâet buccellam qua traditor designatus est exivit continuo n Idem in Io. 13. Sciendum ãâã ò est quia sicut ante nos dictum est si post bucellam continuo Judas âxivit sicut paulò post Evangelista dicit proculâubio 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 donâc ventilabro Judicii granum à palea vel à tritico separentur zizanâa ãâã eâ non âo usque indisâ eta debet esse patientia ut indigâis quos noverunt Sacrosancta Christi tradant mysteria o Beza iâ⦠Jo. 13. 30. certa videtur esse corum sententia âui existimant Judam institutioni sacrae caenae non interfuisse p Tessanus in Joh. 13. ita ut Judae quâdem laverit pedes Christus sed postea egresâus caenae Sacramentali non interfuerit sicut âruditi multi ex hoc capite colligunt q Musculus in loc com de canâ⦠Dom. p. 352. Mâhi 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. ââ¦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 paschâlis 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
sancti percipiunt ita excludendi inde sunt qui vita sua se extra âanc communionem esse maâifesto probant g Fideles enim ante usum Sacramentorum hanc gratiam omninâ habeât neque ad Sacramentorum usum accedere debent qui eaâ gratiam pro aetatis modo non habeat neque admittendi sunt qui eam non habere meriâo praesumuntur h Quemadmodum autem Sacramenta duplici nomine praesiant verbo itidem verbum duobus nominibus praferendum Sacramentis Vno quod verbum in adultis generet fidem genitam foveat atque alat Sacramenta vero âam non gignant sed tantum genitam conserveât atque augeant Altero quod absque verbo non salvâmur c. i Credimus confitâmur Iesuâ Christum servatorem nostrum sanctae Coenae Sacramentum ârdinasse instituisse ut ea nutriat sustentet eos quos jam regeneravit c. At vero ad conservationem vitae spâritualis câestis quam fideles jam habent Deuâ illis paneâ ãâã misit c. k Quem ad modum autem Deo placuit opus hoc suum gratiae per predicationem Evangelii in nobis inchoâre ita pâr ejusdem auditum lectionem meditationem adhortationes minas promissa nec non per usum Sacramentorum illud conservat continuat et persicit l Explic. Catech. Quaest. 67. Verbum est instrumentum Spiritus sancti per quod inclââ¦oat confirmat in nobis fidem ideoque verbum debet praeire Sacramenta sunt organa Spiritus sancti per quae fidem inchoatam confirmat ideoque Sacramenta debent sequi Ibid. Quaest. 81. Art 1. Sacramenta tantum sunt instituta fidelibus conversis ut his promissionem Evangelii obsignent fidem confirment Verbum quidem est conversis non conversis commune ut conversi confirmentur nondum conversi convertantur Sacramenta vero ad solos fideles perââ¦inent m Loc. com Tom. 5. pag. 1. Per Baptismam regeneramur ac reââ¦ovamur per Sacramentum Coenae alimur ac nutrimur ad vitam aeternum In Baptismâ⦠praesertim Infanââ¦um per Spiritum S. fides accenditur in usu sacrae Coenae augetur confirmatur obsignatur Per Baptisââ¦num Christo inserimur in quo spirituale incrementum salutari Coenae usu accipimus n Tom. 1. pag. 477. At an non per Sacramenta etiam fides regeneratio exhibetur Resp. Distinguendum inter primum fidei resipiscentiae initium confirmationem ejus ac augmentum Nemo admitââ¦tur ad Sacramenta nisi pro fideli poenitente habeatur quemadmodum verba clara sunt Quisquis crediderit baptizatus fuerit Inââ¦ntes habentur pro foederatis ac proinde etiam pro iis qui Spiritum fidei acceperunt sed de hac repostea Sic in Coena requiritur ut ãâã probet se an sit in fide ut digne manducet infidelibus enim vel nondum credentibus nullae fiunt promissiones ac proinde nec obsignantur Perperam ergo statuunt ipsa Sacramenta esse causâ⦠primae regenerationis aut justificationis tum Pontificii tum Lutherani quidam Sed si fidei regenerationis confââ¦atio augmentum spectetur recte tribuitur Sacramentis ut causis instrumentalibus o Becanus Theol. Schol. part 4. Tract de Sâcram Quaest. 7. Omnia Sacramenta ââ¦ovae legis sââ¦mper conferunt gratiam habituââ¦lem seu ãâã non ponentibus obicem ac proinde gratia habitualis est communis quidam esfectus omââ¦ium Sacramentorum Est communiâ⦠sententia p Tannerus in Thomam Tom. 4. Disp. 3. Qaest 3. Dub. 5. ââ¦mo omnia Sacramenta de facto nonnunquam possunt ex opere operato how much more if there be also opus operantis conferââ¦e primam grââ¦am Haec est sententia magis pia probabilior quam docet S. Thomas c. eandem communiter sequuntur Tââ¦omistae He confirms it thus Quia quaedam Sacramââ¦nta per se proââ¦riesolum instituta ad dindam primaâ⦠gratiam tossunt conserre ãâã Ergo etiam per se instituta ad honc toterunt conferre primam c. Atque hoc etiam sensu admitti potest quod nonnulli dixeruââ¦t omnibus Sacramentis sub ratione saltem generica Sacramenti novae Legis etsi non specifica per se coââ¦venire ut gratiam primam conferant q Faustus Socinus de Coena Dom. Tract brev terum quod omnes fere opinantur hoc ritu quem Sacramentum appellant confirmari saltem fidem nostram ne id quidem verum censeri debet cum nec ullo sacro testimonio comprobetur nec ulla ratio sit cur id fièri possit Quomodo enim potest nos in fide confirmare id quod nos ipsi facimus quodque licet a Domino institutum opus tamen nostrum est Smalc Disp. 12. de Coena Vox Sacramenti in hac significatione barbara vel saltem sacris liter is incognita est ââ¦b hominibus vero otiosis qui ceremoniis hujusmodi nescio quid praeter sacram Scripturam superstitiââ¦sum aut etiââ¦m Idololatricum ex parte ãâã non sunt ãâã ad ãâã dolum ãâã r Chamier contract Tom 4. lib. 2. cap. 9. Quia ut efficientia toto genere suo differt a significatione ita diversa ratio est instituendi in stââ¦umenta efficientia significantia c. 2. prob inductione Quia nulla signa sive miraculosa sive alia sunt efficientia Polanus Synt. lib. 6. cap. 49. Elementum Sacramentale significat testatur obsignat ââ¦redentibus rem verbo Dei promissam eam autem nequaquam causat efficit aut producit s Synops. Pur. Theol. Disp. 43. Thes. 35. Duo tantum esse non plura Sacramenta affirmamus quoniam unum est initiationis seu regenerationis alterum nutritionis seu alimoniae So Matthias Martinius lexic. Philol. pag. 3272. makes this distinction between baptisme and the Lords Supper that is a Sacrament of initiation and ââ¦doption this of confirmation and ââ¦urishment t Polan Synt lib. 6. cap. 56. He holds that omnes illi qui scandala praebent non resipiscunt serio a mensa Domini sunt arcendi 1. Quia si infideles impoenitèntes ad Coenam Domini admitterentur profanaretur foedus Dei tam communicando Symbola foederis iis quibus Deus nihil promittit quam usuââ¦pando Symbola sacra sine fide resipistentia 2. Quia polluerent contaminarent eibum potum consecraââ¦um quem Christus non destinavit nisi suis domesticis fidelibus c. 6. Quia incredulos manifeste impios Christus prohibuit admitti ad sacram Coenam nam instituit illam solis fidelibus u Ubi supra pag. 395. x Bullinger Decad. 5. serm 7. Quis praeterca iââ¦de non colligat nos qui filii Abrahae sumus non alia ratione justificari quam pââ¦trem justificaââ¦um constat ac Sacramenta nostra in nobis non aliud
the Magistrate may command Church-officers to suspend or excommunicate all obstinate and scandalous persons he may command the Classis to ordain able and godly ministers and no other he may command a Synod to meet to debate and determine such or such a controversie Consequently also when the thing is examined judged resolved or done by the Ecclesiasticall power the Magistrate hath power and authority to adde his civil sanction confirmation ot ratification to make the Ecclesiasticall sentence to be obeyed and submitted unto by all whom it concerneth In all which the Christian Magistrate doth exceeding much for the conservation and purgation of Religion not eliciââ¦ndo actus doing or exercising by himself or by his owne authority acts of Church Government or discipline but taking care that such and such things be done by those to whom they do belong 3. Distinguish the directive part and the coercive part The directive part in the conservation or purgation of Religion doth belong to the Ministers and ruling Officers of the Church assembled together In administring therefore that which concerneth Religion and peoples spirituall good the Magistrate not onely juvatur but dirigitur is not onely helped but directed by the Ecclesiastical directive power Fest. Hon. Disp. 30. Thes. 6. Magistracy may say to Ministery as Moses said to Hobab Thou mayest be to us in stead of eyes Ad sacrae Religionis informationem fidââ¦lis Magistratus verbi divini administris veluti oculis uti debet and for that end he is to make use of consistoriall and Synodicall Assemblies say the Professors of Lââ¦yden Synopspur ãâã Disp. 50. Thes. 44. But the coercive part in compelling the obstinate and unruly to submit to the Presbyteriall or Synodicall sentence belongs to the Magistrate Not as if the Magistrate had nothing to do but to be an executioner of the pleasure of Church-officers or as if he were by a blind and implicite faith to constrain all men to stand to their determination God forbid The Magistrate must have his full liberty to judge of that which he is to compell men to do to judge of it not onely judicio apprehââ¦nsivo by understanding and apprehending âright what it is but judicio discretivo by the judgement of Christian prudence and discretion examining by the Word of God the grounds reasons and warrants of the thing that he may in Faith and not doubtingly adde his authority thereto In which judging he doth Iudicare but not Iudicem agere that is he is Iudex suarum actionum he judgeth whether he ought to adde his civil authority to this or that which seemeth good to Church-officers and doth not concur therewith except he be satisfied in his Conscience that he may do so yet this makes him not supreme Judge or Governour in all Ecclesiastical causes which is the Prerogative of Jesus Christ revealing his will in his word nor yet doth it invest the Magistrate with the subordinate ministeriall forensicall directive judgement in Ecclesiastical things or causes which belongeth to Ecclesiasticall not to civil Courts 4. Distinguish between a Cumulative and a Privativâ⦠authority The Magâstrate hath indeed an authoritative influence into matters of Religion and Church-Government but it is cumulative that is the Magistrate takes care that Church-officers as well as other Subjects may do those things which ex officio they are bound to do and when they do so he aideth assisteth strengtheneth ratifieth and in his way maketh effectuall what they do But that which belongs to the Magistrate is not privative in reference to the Ecclesiastical Government It is understood salvo jure Ecclesiastico for the Magistrate is a nursing Father not a step Father to the Church and the Magistrate as well as other men is under that tye 2 Cor. 13. 8. We can do nothing against the Truth but for the Truth This Proviso therefore is justly made that whatever power the Magistrate hath in matters of Religion it is not to hinder the free exercise of Church discipline and censures against scandalous and obstinate sinners As the Casuists in other cases distinguish Lucrum cessans and damnum emergens so must we distinguish between the Magistrate his doing no good to the Church and his doing evil to the Church between his not assisting and his opposing between his not allowing or authorizing and his forbidding or restraining It doth properly and of right belong to the Magistrate to adde a civil sanction and strength of a law for strengthning and aiding the exercise of Church discipline or not to add it And himself is Judge whether to add any such cumulative act of favour or not But the Magistrate hath no power nor authority to lay bands and restraints upon Church-officers to hinder any of Christs ordinances or to forbid them to do what Christ hath given them a commission to do And if any such restraints of prohibitions or lawes should be laid on us we ought to obey God rather than men 5. Distingue tempora Whatever belongs to the Magistrate in matters of Religion more then falls under the former distinctions is extraordinary and doth not belong to ordinary Government In extraordinary reformations the Magistrate may do much by his owne immediate authority when Synods have made defection either from the truth of doctrine or from holinesse and godlinesse yet in such a case he ought to consult with such orthodox godly Divines as can be had either in his owne or from other Dominions Fest. Hon. Disp. 30. Thes. 5. And so much be spoken of the Magistrate his power and duty in things and causes Ecclesiasticall As we do not deny to the Magistrate any thing which the Word of God doth allow him so we dare not approve his going beyond the bounds and limits which God hath set him And I pray God that this be not found to be the bottome of the controversie Whether Magistracy shall be an arbitrary Government if not in civil yet in Ecclesiastical things Whether the Magistrate may do or appoint to be done in the matter of Church-Government admission to or exclusion from the Ordinances of Christ what ever shall seem good in his eyes And whether in purging of the Church he is obliged to follow the rules of Scripture and to consult with learned and godly Ministers although Erastus himself as is before observed and Sutlivius a great follower of him de Presbyt cap. 8. are ashamed of and do disclaim such assertions CHAP. IX That by the Word of God there ought to be another Government beside Magistracy âr Civil Goveramânt âamely an Ecclesiastical Government properly so callâd in the hands of Church-officârs THis Question hath arisen from Mr. Colemans third and fourth rule which he offered to the Parliament excluding all Government of Church-officers Ministers and Elders that is as he expounds himself all corrective government leaving them no power except what is meerly doctrinal and appropriating all government properly so called to the Magistrate onely Mr. Hussey following him
falls in the same ditch with him The Question is not whether Church-officers ought to have any share in the Civil Government Nor whether Church-officers may have any Lordly government or imperious domination over the Lords heritage Nor whether Church-Officers may exercise an arbitrary irregular Government and rule as themselves list God forbid But the Question plainly is Whether there may not yea ought not to be in the Church a Ministeriall or Ecclesiastical Government properly so called beside the civil Government or Magistracy Mr. Coleman did and Mr. Hussey doth hold there ought not I hold there ought and I shall propound for the affirmative these Arguments The first Argument I draw from 1 Tim. 5. 17. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Elders that rule well Mr. Hussey pag. 8. askes whether the word Elder be prima or secunda notio If prima notio why must not Elder women be Church-officers as well as Elder men If secunda notio for a ruling Officer Parliament men Kings and all Civil Governours are such Elders I know no use which that distinction of prima and secunda notio hath in this place except to let us know that he understands these Logicall termes Egregiam vero laudem He might have saved himself the labour for who knowes not Hieromes distinction Elder is either a word of age or of office but in Ecclesiasticall use it is a word of office Mr. Husseys first notion concerning Elder women is no masculine notion His second notion is an anti-parliamentary notion For the honourable Houses of Parliament in the first words of their Ordinance concerning ordination of Ministers have declared that by the word of God a Bishop and a Presbyter or Elder are all one for thus beginneth the Ordinance Whereas the word Presbyter that is to say Elder and the word Bishop do in the Scripture intend and signifie one and the same function c. Therefore Parliament men and civil Governors cannot be the Elders mentioned by the Apostle Paul except Mr. Hussey make them Bishops and invest them with power of ordination Besides this if Kings and Parliament men be such Elders as are mentioned in this Text then the Ministers of the Word must have not onely an equall share in Government but more honour and maintenance then Kings and Parliament men See how well Mr. Hussey pleadeth for Christian Magistracy It is also an anti-Scripturall notion for some of those Elders that ruled well did labour in the Word and Doctrine as Paul tells us in the very same place these sure are not civil Governours Wherefore Mr. Hussey must seek a third notion before he hit the Apostles meaning It is not hujus loci to debate from this Text the distinction of two sorts of Elders though among all the answers which ever I heard or read Mr. Husseys is the weakest pag. 11. that by Elders that labour in the Word and Doctrine are meant those Ministers whose excellencie lies in Doctrine and instruction and that by Elders that rule are meant those that give reproof He contradistinguisheth a reproving minister from a minister labouring in the Word and Doctrine The very reproof given by a minister will be it seemes at last challenged as an act of government It is as wide from the mark that he will have the two sorts of Elders to differ thus that the one must governe and not preach the other must preach and not govern not observing that the Text makes ruling to be common to both The one doth both rule and labour in the Word and Doctrine The other ruleth one y and is therefore called ruling Elder non quia solus praeest sed quia solum praeest But to let all these things be laid aside as heterogeneous to this present Argument the point is here are Rulers in the Church who are no civil Rulers Yea this my Argument from this Text was clearly yeelded by Mr. Coleman in his Maledicis pag. 8. But I will deal clearly saith he these Officers are Ministers which are instituted not here but else-where and those are the Rulers here mentioned Ergo he yeeldeth Ecclesiastical rulers and those instituted distinct from Magistracy Neither is it a Lordly but a ministeriall ruling of which our Question is For my part saith Mr. Hussey I know not how Lordship and Government doth differ one from another Then every Governour of a ship must be a lord Then every Steward of a great house must be lord of the House There is an oeconomicall or ministerial government and of that we mean My second Argument I take from 1 Thes. 5. 12. And we beseech you brethren to know them which labour among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã qui praesunt vobis Hence doth Calvin conclude a Church Government distinct from civil government for this is a spirituall Government it is in the Lord that is in the name of the Lord or as others in things pertaining to God Hence also Beza argueth against Episcopall Government because the Elders in the Apostolique Churches did govern in common But saith Mr. Hussey pag. 18. Pasor telleth us that ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã with a genitive case signifieth praecedo and then it signifieth no more but them that go before you either by Doctrine or example I answer first to the matter next to the force of the Word For the matter certainly the ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã or ruling power of ministers is not meerly doctrinall or perswasive as is manifest by 1 Tim. 5. 17. where those who are not convinced of two sorts of Elders are yet fully convinced of two sorts of acts the act of ruling and the act of teaching Whatsoever that Text hath more in it or hath not this it hath that those who labour in the Word and Doctrine are Rulers but they are more especially to be honoured for their labouring in the Word and Doctrine Next as to the force of the Word if it be true which Mr. Hussey here saith then the English Translators that read are over you Calvin Beza Bullinger Gualther and others that here follow Hierome and read praesunt vobis Arias Montanus who reads praesidentes vobis have not well understood the Greek But if Mr. Hussey would needs correct all these and many more Why did he not at least produce some instances to shew us where the words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã or ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã or ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã or ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã or ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã are used for no more but a meer going before either by doctrine or example without any power or authority of Government Yea if this here be no more but a going before either by Doctrine or example then every good Christian who goeth before others by good example is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Neither will that of the genitive case help him for see the like 1 Tim. 3. 4. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã one that ruleth well his