Teacher and Cyprian tels us Cypr. ep 22. that with the consent of the Presbyters he after made Optatus their Teacher Now these were the first sort which were not come to the Table saith Dionysius and so Pachymeres expounds him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. The second sort excluded he saith are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those who had apostatized from an holy life By these doubtlesse he meanes scandalous sinners who had been former Professors otherwise they could not be Apostates George Pachimeres expounds it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men given up to vile affections who had returned to their former lusts 3. The third sort were those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. such as through the terrours of persecutors had been tempted to sin and fallen into it c. There are two or three other sorts mentioned by him who were kept away such as were Penitents that is who had fallen into sin and the Church had appointed them a time of shame and repentance after the profession of their resolutions to amend and lastly those who were not altogether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any scandall or spot these were all removed saith Dionysius before the Lords Supper was administred but surely these were not all excommunicated here is not a word of that Those who will see more may looke into Maximus and Pachymeres the two Scholiasts upon Dionysius I have not translated the passage because it was large But Dionysius saith plainly that such as are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. men given to their lusts c. should much more be kept from the Lords Table than either Catechumeni or Poenitentes I know none else in the first Century but Ignatius who hath left us any Writings and it is questionable whether any of these or his either be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or no. But doubtlesse Dionysius was ancient though I beleeve not thus ancient his Scholiast Maximus lived within the fourth Century Let us see what we have in the second Century ad annum Christi 200. In this Century we have Justin Martyr who hath something considerable extant to tell us the practice of the Churâ—h in his time and he hath spoken fully enough to our purpose in his second Apology for the Christians which Helvicus saith he wrote about the yeare 160. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΚΛΙ ' ΟυΤΩΣ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just Mart. Apol. 2. ex edit Lutet Paris 1615. p. 97 98. where he tells us how in those daies they administred the Ordinance of the Supper and hath these words This nourishment saith he is with us called the Eucharist of which none may partake with us but he 1. That beleeves our Doctrine to be true 2. He that is washed with the Laver of Regeneration for the remission of sins 3. He that lives so as Christ hath Commanded We desire no more than the recovery of this ancient Discipline of the Church viz. that none may be admitted to the Lords Supper but such as first are baptized Secondly Such as beleeve the Doctrine of the Gospell which they must know before they can beleeve 3. Such as do not live according to the rule of the Gospell but if none else were admitted in Justine Martyrs time questionlesse there were some suspended who were not excommunicated In this Century also lived Tatianus Melito Ireneus Theophilus Antioch Policarpus Apollinaris Athenagoras Clemens Alexandrinus Pantaenus Tertullian c. If testimonies could be produced out of these it were to little purpose Justin Martyr having sufficiently evidenced for that Century But the truth is some of them have nothing extant and others very little and upon restrained subjects in the handling of which they were not led to this theme And in those pieces of Clemens Alexandrinus and Tertullian I find very little spoken concerning the discipline and order of the Church Something there is in Tertullian but Justin Martyr hath already spoken enough for this Age considering the occasion of his speaking it was in an Apology for all Christians in his Age and Apologizing for them he sets out their pure worshipping of God and inoffensive practice From the yeare two hundred to the yeare three hundred In this Century were severall Synods but none of which we have any Record but only a Provinciall Synod called Consilium Anchyritanum by Gratian. Genebrard in his Chronology puts this Synod anno 298. Helvicus anno 312. Caranza and Mr Gillespy anno 308. certaine it is it was either in the latter end of this or the beginning of the next Century I shall with learned Genebrard account it into this Caranza saies it was before the Oecumenicall Councill of Nice but in what Emperours time is not determined But in that Councill we find Suspension established with a witnesse That for some sins if any committed them before he was twenty yeares old he should spend fifteene yeares in penitence before he should be admitted to pray with the Church and five yeares he should have no more than a communion in Prayers with the Church and afterwards be admitted to the Lords Table This Canon may be seen in Caranza p. 28. can 16. I find the Greeke Copy thus elsewhere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I neither justifie this Councill nor this Canon of it in all things but if there were such a Councill and so ancient as we are told it plainly shews us Suspension distinct from Excommunication was so ancient in the Church of God the same is also confirmed by the 4 5 6 7 8 9. Canons of that Councill the Copies of which may be seen either in the booke called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greek-Latine or Latine in Caranza and Benius c. The two most Famous Fathers in this Century were Origen about the yeare 202. and Cyprian 250. Origen hath some not obscure hints of the judgment of the Church in his time Orig. in Levit. Homil. 23. Cibus iste Sanctus non est communis omnium nec cujuscunque indigni sed Sanctorum est Severall other hints are in Origen though he no where speakes directly to the case For Cyprian he that reads his tenth Epistle ad clerum de Presbyteris c. or his book de lapsis will find enough I had thought to have transcribed some passages but I am prevented by Mr Gillespy in his Aarons Rod l. 3. cap. 17. where the Reader shall find them quoted From the yeare three hundred to foure hundred In the Century besides other Councils was the famous Oecumenicall Councill of Nice and for Ancients Arnobius Athanasius Hilary Macarius Optatus Basil Greg. Nyssen Nazianzen Epiphanius Ambrose Chrysostome Hierome Austin Some of these will doubtlesse tell us the practice of the Church in their times For the Councill of Nice we have an imperfect Record but if those Canons which are printed as theirs be so they speake plaine enough Can. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Nicen. Can. 11. Reader this Synod was questionlesse the most glorious
Arguments are most of them old only newly reinforced and vindicated from Erastus Mr Prin Mr Humfrie's exceptions Mr Boatman had the discretion to take notice of very few Arguments against him so that I have had little to do with him as to the point of answering his Arguments or Exceptions to ours though my whole discourse be directed against him as its proper Antagonist not against any of the other whom I desire thee to take notice I only speake to as they come acrosse me leaving Mr Humfry to his proper Adversaries with whom he will find enough to do I must confesse when I first entred upon the worke I intended it against none in hypothesi only in thesi to vindicate our practice and the practice of other eminent servants of Christ yea and of the Churches of God in all Ages especially our late reformed Churches not meddling with Mr Boatman nor did I want perswasions to it from some learned men who wondred what I would answer considering he had only Magisterially maintained his opinion basely aspersing the servants and Churches of God as dreamers imploders of Scripture c. and had not brought any thing towards the proofe of it but a few loose passages which you could not go about to mould into a Syllogisme but you would sâ—are them out of common sense This made me at first resolve only to write against the opinion and to have pleaded the cause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any preamble as they were wont to do at Areopagus But others were of another opinion yet this course had I taken considering he made it his worke so constantly to deny that privately which he had spoken publikely and to disown his opinion as often as he met with any godly Ministers of another mind this he did to Mr Corbet of this Country and to divers others who told me of it againe In the meane time in his own Congregation he still cries it up and sufficiently bespatters us who were of another perswasion witnesse his Sermon preached the fifteenth of February 1653. at Peters upon Rev. 3.17 from which Text he had taken a great deale of paines to teach his people how to know others that were hypocrites an Art I beleeve few Divines but himself are much skill'd in In that Sermon he gave them severall Notes to know Christians that were spiritually proud his second note was this They cannot endure that any body but themselves should have any Gospell-priviledges allowed them unlesse such as are common to Jews Heathens and Pagans Indeed they may heare and they may come to those common promiscuous Ordinances as they call them but they must have no right to the Sacrament That must be for such and such and many times none in the world worse than they I speake to those that are guilty of these crimes not to those who are not doubtlesse many a man is unsatisfied and we must beare with the weake If this be not plaine enough I know not what is here are at once all the eminent Servants and Churches of God of former Ages and our Age branded as spiritually proud hypocrites because they durst not admit all to the Sacrament yea and all Christians branded who are tender of their Communion in that Ordinance Some of them are such as there are none in the world worse than they The rest are weake and only to be borne with Reader I shall refer it to thee to judge whether our silence now were not a cowardly deserting the cause of God and of all Reformed Churches I might tell thee more that it is much suspected by some who fear God in this City that it is the whole design of his preaching to stir up animosities in a profane Party against those who are of stricter Principles and to brand all strict Christians as Hypocrites and Formalists the usuall Alehouse-termes for those against whom they have nothing else to say What meane else these unsavoury passages in his severall Sermons Some have an art to squeake out Jesus Christ by that neat terme he expounded Luthers crepare Christum which I had thought had been to crack and make a vaine boast of Christ And againe The whining Christians are those who have been the ruin of Religion And againe Pride and Covetousnesse are the Saints great Sins And againe For a drunkard or debaucht wretch I could hug him in my bosome when I would spit in the face of an envious Professour I confesse I heare none of this stuffe but I shall refer thee to those godly persons who have sometimes heard him to enquire whether these things be true I have heard them againe and againe some of them have scared away some of his godly Auditors and others of them have frighted away others Besides that ordinary expression which is his usuall complement with his people before a Sacrament They shall not be dealt with in the pharisaicall way These things are not spoken in secret but in a Pulpit yea and in the greatest Congregation of the City The Lord in mercy look upon us our condition is sad enough I shall adde to all this one thing yet more A Reverend Brother in this City begging my assistance to preach his Lecture the twenty third of March last he having before entreated me that if I had any thing ready on the Subject I would preach something about Suspension at some time in his Congregation I that day preached for him and for my Sermon took that Text Mat. 7.6 and preached my first Argument on the first Question there thou wilt find all the doctrinall part of my Sermon I left out every Syllable which might make my discourse unpleasant to any and as all my hearers will judge I had not the least reflexion upon any only having proved That that Text was not to be restrained to this or that Ordinance but to be understood of all Ordinances all which are there forbidden to be dispensed to such as the Scripture calls dogs or swine in other places excepting only such Ordinances as the Scripture elsewhere expresly allows to be given to dogs I concluded by way of Application I inferred If that were truth then there was a plaine Scripture-prohibition though not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to suspend some who yet might be in the Church from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper 1. Because it is a pearle and an holy thing 2. Because there is no other Scripture allows the giving it out to dogs 3. This Scripture forbids c. The Lords day aster I heard Mr Boatman intended to confute me the next Tuesday some occasions drew me out of Town but upon the Tuesday he aimed at it taking my very Text how well he confuted me my Reader may judge by reading my first Argument on my first question and then his Sermon which I have annexed at the latter end of my Tract and my Notes upon it I beleeve there was never such a businesse delivered in
he confutes them better than he did my Sermon I shall keep thee no longer in the Porch but give thee leave to enter Read and then judge and pray for this poore City where are so many thousand soules and so few fit to take charge of them The Lord keep thee Reader in these evill times from the errours of them and an ever lover both of Gospell-purity and Unity So praies Thy meane unworthy Servant in the Gospell of the Lord Jesus Christ JOHN COLLINGS Chaply-fieldhouse in Norwich April 18 1654. Errata Reader I Cannot own these sheets till thou hast corrected these following errataes in them In the Title page read ob hoc vel maximè In the Preface p. 3 l. penult r. duty p. 9. l. 16. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 27. r. considering p. 13. l. 10. r. December after l. 12. r. fortnight p. 15. l. 2. r. account p 16. l. 25. r. judgements p. 22. l. 10. dele never p. 23. l. 1. r. are these l. 5. dele that the Apostle r. gave other order l. 20. r. tell us p. 27. in marg r. Aretii Problem l. 16. r. would not these p. 31. l. 30. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 39. l. 15. dele at ib. r. returne p 39. r. us p 41. l. 25. r. there were ib. l. 33. r. the people In the book p. 9. in marg r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. 36.1 p. 11. l. 3. r. I doubt p. 12. l. 32. r. not To. p. 14. l 9. r. Reverend p. 15. l. 6. r. Thus we see p 16. l. 13. r. first for p. 18. l. 4 r. swine are p. 22. l. 29. r. having appointed p. 24. l. 12. r. yet these l 13. r. heare men p. 26. l. 26. r. some such in p. 28. l. 4. r. jure p. 28. l. 29. r. he might p. 29. l. 1. r. rush p. 32 in marg r. edit Lutetiae p. 35. l 12 r. is chiding p. 37. l. 20 r. except at that time l. ult r. observes p. 39. l. 31. r. purged For. p. 40. l. 25. r. three things p. 41. l. 25. r. it for p. 42. l. 13. dele that p. 43. l 25. ingenuous p. 48. l. 21. dele so l. 22. r. things forbidden p 49. l. 2. dele may be true l. 2. dele it l. 15. r. true in l. 28. r. untied l. ult dele first p. 53. l. 16. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 54. l. 32. r. nay it p. 55. l. 13. r. he hath p. 57. l 6. if but baptized p. 71. l. 11. r. was to be eaten in p. 72. l. 4 r. was eaten p. 73. l. 10. r. ate p 74 l. 32. r. the twelve p. 76. l 4. r. he did not p. 77. l. 32. r. fourth d sh l. 33. r. rest Immediately saith the Doctor p. 78. l. 9. r. Aphicomen l. 19. r. did eat l. 28. r. the Doctor p. 79. l. 9. r. ingenuous p. 82. l. 31. r. fourth cup. p. 83. l. 21. dele secondly p. 84. l. 1. r. with it one p. 87. l. 9. r. keep pure p. 95. l. 24. r. If a grossely c. l. 35. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 111. l. penult r. one bread p. 113. l. 33. r. of the elements p. 121 l. 1. r. concessions l. 16. r. releeve me l. 18. r. I shall l. 27. r. Eldership judge p. 125. l. 1. r â—uridicall p. 128 l. 7. r. the Constitutions and some c p. 129. l. 2. â— â—atâ—chumeni l. 10. r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 130. l. 2. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 4 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 7. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 10 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 33. r. de la. Barre p. 131. l. 4. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 132. in marg r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 133. l. 14. r. of none of p. 134 l. 12. r. Binius l. 29. r. in this Century p. 137. l. 33. dele to p. 140. l. 3. r. demonstrandam p. 141. l. 10. r. that he should be p 143. l. 12. r. that some p. 147. l. 23. r. penitus deploratos p 148. l. 13. in marg dele Anthony p. 155. l. 24. r. Dr de-Lawne p. 161. l. 29. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 31. dele And. l. 33. r. constitutions p. 166. l. 12. r. augeatur l. 25. r. minding p. 167. l. 12. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 CHAPTER I. Containing the State of the question QVESTION 1. Whether the Suspension of some persons from the Lords Supper be deducible from Scripture or Reason THE termes of this Question are two 1. Suspension of some persons from the Supper of the Lord that is the subject 2. Deducible from Scripture or Reason that is the predicate in question betwixt us 1. As to Suspension of some persons from the Supper wee meane no more then a denyall of that Ordinance to some This suspension is usually distinguished into Juridicall and Pastorall or privative and positive 1. Positive suspension which is called Juridicall is an act of the Officers of the Church whereby having had due cognisance of the party that desires the Supper of the Lord and finding him unfit or unworthy though he hath formerly been admitted Yet they by vertue of the trust reposed by Christ in them warne him to abstaine from the Lords Table and deny the Ordinance to him if he intrudes 2. Privative Suspension which I also call pastorall is an act of the Minister of the Gospell whereby hee alone the Church wanting other Officers finding some persons though formerly admitted not able to examine themselves or unworthy in respect of open scandall to come to that Holy Table doth not only as their Pastor admonish them to forbeare but withholds the elements from them if they presume to come to the Lords Table God willing I shall anon speake to the second of these whether privative suspension be lawfull or no. But that is not my present businesse But supposing there be an eldership constituted in a Congregation whether this eldership may keep away any from the Lords Table for ignorance or knowne scandall if he be a Christian and not de facto Excommunicated This is that which Mr Boatman cals a Pharisaicall dreame an usurpation of Christs authority a thing not deducible from Scripture That which he humbly and boldly challengeth all the Ministers on Earth to make good if he durst have stood to his word 2. Nor could his meaning bee any thing else For in his Congregation there is an eldership established according to Ordinance of Parliament by a due election of the major part of the Congregation present after publike notice given three Lords daies each after other which he hath throwne downe and publisheth this Doctrine that he might prepare his people for a prostitution of that sacred Ordinance As to the second terme Deducible from Scripture I take it for granted that my indifferent Reader will grant me that to be sufficiently deduced and proved from
London hath told me of Mr Simmonds sometimes of Iron-mongers Lane in London going to visit one that was sick and to whom he had a little before given the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and questioning with her about her eternall Salvation shee askt him upon what account he came now to question her upon that whereas himselfe a little before had assured her that the body of the Lord Jesus Christ was broken for her which saith my Author as I remember from Mr Simmond's mouth so wounded him that he had almost suncke downe in the room which two stories may answer that one which Mr Humfry hath borrowed from Mr Fairclough and printed in his rejoinder to Dr Drake we need not go so far What makes the profane and loose party in most of the congregations of England this day so hate revile their godly Ministers this day and endeavour to get them out because they dare no more give the Sacrament to them But this their former sin in giving the holy thing of the Sacrament to these Dogs and Swine formerly I would faine know saith Mr George Gillespy what fruit godly Ministers find of their former promiscuous administrations but a goneral hardning of heart amongst their people and a blessing of themselves in a supposed good condition because they are administred to all the priviledges of Saints c. 7. This we see if these Dogs and Swins be to be interpreted by the following words of the Text they are such as can or will make no other use of the Ordinance then to trample upon it and who will teare the Ministers who give them unto them If the last sence of the words be admitted we must seek for the interpretation of the Metaphor in other places of Scripture where these termes are used to express wicked men or women 8. I find men and women in Scripture calling themselves or others Dogs and the Holy Ghost calling some dogs upon six accounts 1. Upon an account of worthlesnesse and inconsiderablenesse In this sense Goliab saith to David am I a Dog c. 1 Sam. 17.43 David cals himselfe a dead Dog 1 Sam. 24.14 Abner askes if he were a Dogs head 2 Sam. 3.8 Mephibosheth cals himselfe a dead Dog because unworthy to sit at David's Table And Abishai cals Shimei a Dog 2 Sam. 16.9 2. Upon an account of cruelty either cruell actions in which sense Hazael saith Am I a Dog that I should doe this 2 Kin. 8.13 And David prayes to be delivered from the Sword and the Dog Psal 22.20 16. and saith ver 16. Dogs had compassed him about So Jer 15.3 or cruell words and threatnings So the wicked are said to barke and make a noise like a Dog Psal 59.6 14. 3. The false Prophets are called dumbe and greedy Dogs because they were greedy of filthy lucre and could not speake the Lords word Isa 56.10 11. 4. Wicked men are both in the old Testament Pró 26.11 and in the New 2 Pet. 2.22 called dogs because as the Dog filthily licks up his vomit so when they have made some seeming confession of sins or pofession of faith and holinesse they forsake it and returne to their old wickednesse 5. Heathens are called Dogs by our Saviour Mat. 7.27 because they were none of Gods Family or Children but aliens to the Common-wealth of Israel and because they abounded with filthy lusts as the Apostle tels us Rom. 1. 6. Sinners in generall are called Dogs Phil. 3.2 Beware of Dogs Musculus ad loc where he meanes false Teachers rightly called Dogs saith Musculus For first their greedinesse of filthy lucre Isa 56.11 2. For their barking against the true Apostles 3. For their returning to their old vomit because they barkt onely to get food for their bellies Caelv ad loc saith Mr Calvin So Rev. 22.15 Without are Dogs c. That is all sinners at least all not enumerated afterward For the terme Swine I remember it but once more in Scripture taken Metaphorically 2 Pet. 2.22 where wicâ—ed men are compared to Sows for wallowing in the mire and filth of sin Ravanella in verbo Porcus Ravanella tels us that by Swine here are meant Infideles impij homines desperata malitiae impuritatis quibus sordet verbum Dei Epicurei profani We have heard how the Scripture useth the metaphor now to apply it 9. I conceive except sufficient ceason can be shewed to the contrary by Dogs and Swine here must be meant all such wicked persons as the Scripture elsewhere expresseth under that notion 10. If it may be expounded according to the first or second or sixth acceptation we desire no more then that holy things might not be given 1. To any scandalous sinners 2. To any unworthy persons 3. To any who after profession in Baptisme returne with the Dog to the vomit to their old wickednesse For the third usage there is no colour for it is not said give not holy things to dumbe Dogs or greedy Dogs 11. If any say that by Dogs here are onely meant persecutors according to the second usage 1 They will be bound to shew reason why this Text should be expounded rather by David Psal 22.16 20. Psal 59. then Solomon Pro. 26.11 or Peter 2 Pet. 2.22 which will be hard to assigne 2. I have proved before that the word which they say is the holy thing ought to be preached to them 3. For the Sacrament of the Lords Supper if that must be denied to persecutors not excommunicated then there is suspension distinct from excommunication as to such yielded 12. If they say that by Dogs are meant Heathen as Mar. 7.27 1. Then either those onely or those amongst others 2 If they say to those and some others we yield it but it is nothing to the purpose 3 If they say that the Heathen are the onely Dogs to whom holy things should be denied then they ought to be given to persecutors and excommunicate persons 4 The Word ought to be preached to Heathens therefore the Word cannot be the holy thing then 5 There was no great probability of Christs Disciples giving the Sacrament to Pagans 6 The Heathen are called Dogs not onely because they were aliens to the Commonwealth of Israel but for their vitia canina beastly lusts which others may have and therefore by a parity of reason meant here in this generall terme Indeed I find expositors who would restraine the holy thing and pearles to some one Ordinance as admonition or preaching generally lost in seeking the Dogs or Swine to whom they must not be given Chemnitius who though he grants the Word and Sacraments to be the holy things here meant yet seems to encline to think this Text chiefly forbids the preaching of the Word to some here characterized by the metaphor of Dogs and Swine yet is miserably lost in determining who those Dogs and Swine to whom the Word ought not to be preached Chemnâ—t harm cap. 51. Pareus in
of those who maintaine that any sinners how notoriously wicked soever might yet partake at this holy Table I shall adde no more to this second Argument If it be unlawfull to give the Sacrament to such as are known to be such as God hath forbidden to take it and as cannot have Communion with Christ in it then it is unlawfull to give it to some such as may yet be within the bosome of the Church But I have proved the former unlawfull Ergo I proceed CHAP. IV. VVherein a third and forth Argument is brought to prove that suspension distinct from excommunication is deducible from Scripture and the Argument is vindicated from the exceptions which Thomas Frastus Mr Prin Mr Humfry c. have made to it ARGVMENT 3. It is unlawfull for the Officers of a Church to give the Sacrament to such with whom it is unlawfull for themselves or their breâ—hren to eat But there may be some in the Church not cast out with whom it may be unlawfull for the Church to eat Ergo. Argument 1 THE major is cleer The minor I will prove by an Argument or two It is unlawfull to keep the Feast with the old leaven of malice and wickednesse But there may be such old leaven in the Church Ergo Here I have two things to prove 1. That there may be some such in the Church as the Apostle cals old Leaven 2. That it is unlawfull to keep the feast of the Lords Supper with them Let us first enquire what the Apostle cals old Leaven 1 Cor. 5.7 Erastus is very loth to tell us what he meanes by it Cerâ—e quicquid per fâ—rmentum intelligamus c. thesi 17. onely like a good disputant he denies the conclusion that excommunication is not spoken of in that Text but that is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is a plaine care that the Apostle there as chiding the Corinthians that they did not cast out the incestuous person and amongst other Arguments he useth this A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump what the english of that is I cannot tell if it be not this A knowne scandalous person amongst you polluteth your Church It followes immediately Purge out therefore the old leaven is not the meaning of this think we purge out the incestuous persons ver 8. Let us keep the Feast not with the old leaven neither with the leaven of malice or wickednesse Surely he that hath not so sacrificed his reason to Erastus that he is resolved jurare in verba Magistrs must say by the leaven of malice and wickednesse here is meant scandalous sinners The leaven that leaveneth the lump of which he spake before and this is the primary sence though I easily grant we are also here forbidden comming to it with malice and wickednesse in our owne hearts Beza de Presoyterio excom p. 89.8 a. Nam nos de illis solis disputamus qui peccatum suum agnoscunt meliora promitâ—unt Erast lib. 3. cap. 7. And of this mind is Learned Beza I am sure in his answer to Erastus and thinkes that he who denies it would deny the Sun to shine at noon day too if need were And this Argument so far prevailed upon Erastus that in his reply to Beza he tels us he pleades for none to be admitted to the Sacrament but such as acknowledge their sins and promise reformation And Mr Humfry is angry with Dr Drake Mr Humfrie's rejoinder p. 21. that he should interpret him otherwise then of such to be kept away as are excommunicate de jure or de facto if I understand Latine or School-termes one de jure excommunicate is such a one as is scandalous and pertinacious either refusing conviction or reformation we ask no more then this is But the misery is this these men tel us so when they are put to a pinch But as Mr Rutherford notes of Erastus Rutherford's divine right of Presbyt p. 363. so the reader may observe in Mr Humfry that all their Arguments in other places conclude for the admissions of such as are de jure excommunicate Else Mr Humfry was not in his right wits when he returned a non est inventa upon suspension onely I cannot allow Mr Humfrie's exposition of de jure restraining it to such gaole sins as he doth surely the man thinkes he hath the Law in his owne hands or else he would describe such to be excommunicated de jure who according to â—he Law of God ought to be cast out of the Church and those are all such as will not heare the Church Mat. 18 18. â—hough their scandals be lesse then an incestuous marâ—age or an act of adultery But to returne we have â—ound â—ut the old leaven to be scandalous sinners Now â—hat such may be in a Church besides this proofe from â—he Church of Corinth our owne Church is sufficiâ—nt evidence It remaines for me to prove that it is not lawfull to communicate with such That I proveby those words Let us therefore keep the Feast not with the old leaven nor with the leaven â—f malice and wickednesse From whence is easily gahered that Christians ought not to keep the Feast with â—candalous sinners All the question here is whether the Feast of the â—ords Supper be there intended â—hesi 17. Thomas Erastus â—aith no for then it would follow that men might be wicked at any other time onely then they must abstaine Beza de excom page 90.91 Learned Beza tels him of a fallacy in his argument for the Jewish 7 dayes signified our constant conversation and as they were to abstaine from their leaven seven dayes so we are to abstaine at all times from the leaven of sin and wickednesse But besides this Rutherford's divine right of Pres page 349. Mr Rutherford hath sufficiently answered this cavill But I admire at Erastus his consequence or the force of his Argument For admit that by leaven here is meant scandalous sinners I see no hurt of his argument we will yield him that a Christian is not onely bound to avoid communion with scandalous sinners at the Lords Table but all the yeare long 2. Suppose that by leaven be meant sin and wickednesse not considered with aggravation of scandall how it will follow that because we are bound to purge it out when we come to the Lords Supper therefore we may let it alone all the yeare long Beside that time poseth my Logick except Erastus thinkes that because the Jewes never medled with leaven but then Therefore the similitude running on all four belike we must doe so to which if he doth Beza hath answered him 2. But what feast is this Ruth ibid. By this Feast I understand Church communion in the dainties of the Gospell which are set forth to us under the similitude of a Feast Matt. 22. La. 14 16 17 18. Pro. 9.2 3 4 5. Cant. 5.1 saith Mr Rutherford This place cannot be restrained to the
scandalous sinner but even Iudas himselfe was both in the Disciples eyes and in Christs eyes acting not as an omniscient God but as a Minister of the Gospell a visible Saint Which was the answer as I remember of Bonaventure I am sure of Halensis and Salmeron long since and is the generall answer of our Divines to that cavill Nor hath Mr Humfry in his Rejoinder said any thing to prove Iudas then scandalous for though as Erastus noted before him he had then treason in his heart and supposing that to be true which Erastus and Mr Humfry so much plead but I scarce beleeve that he had before covenanted with the High Priests yet all this was secret and he was not discovered till upon Christ giving him the sop he asking is it I Christ said thou saiest it and that reply of Christ was before as some think Grotius well observes that Christ did but whisper it to him for it is plaine from Iohn 13. that the Disciples knew it not till then and he then having received the sop went out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Iohn which by the way as I shall prove more anon was both before the eating of the Paschall Lambe and before the institution of the Lords Supper too It is worth our observing that Christ did not so much as call up those of the same house which it is more then probable that he would have done if he had intended it for a converting Ordinance or for all promiscuously Nay surely Christ had more disciples then the twelve but the twelve onely if all of them were present 2. Some think that they have a precept for promiscuous administring this Ordinance from Mat. 28.19 20. where we have our commission in these words Goe teach all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father the Sonne and the Holy Ghost 1. To that I answer 1. There is nothing exprest concerning the administration of the Lords Supper and our opposites who are so nimble at every turn to call for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should remember that by it they oblige themselves to doe the like But secondly admit that there is an implicit precept likewise for the administration of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper yet surely by the same rule that the Apostles notwithstanding that precept did not think themselves obliged to baptize any but such as beleeved and confessed their sins we may also expound the included part of the precept and must administer this Ordinance to none but such as are able to examine themselves and to discerne the Lord Body So that this will not serve their turne Thirdly Erastus and Mr Humfry and Mr Boatman make a great stir with the wedding Supper Mat. 22. to which all were invited c. But 1. They should remember that old and true rule Theologia parabolica non est argumentativa No argument can be fetcht from Parables but from the generall scope of them v Mr Humfrie's rejoinder p. 52 53. 54 〈◊〉 Now he that runs may read that our Saviours main scope in that Parable was not to shew who might or might not come to the Lords Table but to shew how angry God was with the Jewes for not comming to Christ by which unbeliefe of theirs they procured destruction to themselves and God would now call in the Heathens and those who before were not his people to be his people and to fill up his Feast 2. If Mr Humfry or Mr Boatman thinke they may argue from any of the foure feet of that parable as to this cause they may prove it to be their duty not onely to stand in a Pulpit and invite all the Lords Table but to goe into high waies and hedges too and bring in all they meet with yea and to compell them to come in Now it will prove too that they ought to fetch in Pagans who are chiefly meant in the latter part of the Parable And thus they shall not need to want company at the Lords Table 3. Doctor Drake answered Mr Humfry well I think when he told him that Christ is the Feast meant in that Parable and although all be invited to the Feast Christ yet the question is whether all be invited to eat of that dish in the Feast Dr Drokes Bar to free admission p 30. Mr Humfries rejoinder p. 54. viz. the Sacrament of the Lords Supper as wel as they are invited to hear the Gospel Here now M. Humfry hath a mind more to shew his wit then his honesty thus he answers him p. 54. This is something ingenuous but whereas he applies this that a man may be invited to a Feast yet not to the dish in the Feast it is very fine c. then he tels us a tale of the two egs and concludes let us have the dishes of the Foast and what will become of Mr Drakes Feast How falsly hath he abused Dr Drake let the Reader judge Dr Drake doth not say they are not invited to any dish but they are not invited to every dish and if the dish of the Sacrament be removed there will a Feast still remaine But the truth is it was properest for Mr Humfry to abuse his Adversary when he could not answer him If this and other passages of the same nature in that unworthy book be not enough to make it stink in the nostrils of conscientious Christians let them but read his language p. 269. and the application of Scripture to serve his nastie intentions and they may help a little towards it 4. I never heard of any more Scripture precepts protended onely that 1 Cor. 11.24 where I desire the Reader to consider 1. That the Apostle doth but repeat the words of our Saviour which were spoke to none but visible Saints 2. The Apostle delivers the same words to them he bids them Doe that c. Which by the way is not a command to their Pastors to administer it but to the Church to receive the Sacrament and surely doth not concerne those who in that Chapter are commanded to examine themselves c. and are not able to doe it The question is whether the Apostle v. 24. doth command them to receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper who could not examine themselves according his rule v. 28. nor discern the Lords body or who if they did partake must necessarily eat and drink their owne damnation and make themselves guilty of the body and blood of Christ Surely this was very absurd to say If not this precept is nothing to the purpose sounding no more then this you that are fit to doe this doe this We are now come to examine if they have any examples I never heard but of three pretended indeed they are great ones and enough if they be made appeare for their purpose The first that of Christ who admitted Iudas as some think The second Mr Humfry mentions Acts 2.41.42 The third is of the Church of Corinth I will speak of the latter two
it would plainly prove that the sop was eaten by Judas two dayes before the Passeover was celebrated or the Lords Supper instituted and that Judas two dayes before was discovered scandalons to all the Disciples and that two dayes before he deserted Christ and the other Disciples onely if Mr Humfly could prove this it would stand him in hand to prove his coming back well to eat the the Passeover or the Supper 2. But we will yield him nothing he bids us look the margent of our Bibles the place we insist upon is Io. 13.30 where our ordinary Bibles have nothing in the margent so that in obedience to him we must tell him we have enquired but non est inventum in Bibltis nostris Indeed to the first verse of that chap. is affixed in marg Mat. 26.2 But thirdly he dreames that the Supper spoken of where Iudas had the sop was a Feast two dayes before the Passeover Indeed we read Mat. 26.1 2. Mar. 14.1 of some consultation of the Chiefe Priests two daies before the Passeover to take Christ But that there was any supper besides this at the Passeover will pose Mr Humfry to prove CHAP. VI. Containining a digression in which there is an attempt to prove that Christ did eat the Passeover two daies before the Jewes did eat it that yeare and that he was not crucified till the second day after he was apprehended and that at the Passover there was but one supper as is plaine by the comparing the Jewish order of celebration with the story of the foure Evangelists concerning this and that Iudas was not present at the Passeover nor the Supper IT seems to me very conducible towards the clearing of this matter of fact whether Iudas received the Supper or no to find out 1. What day Christ celebrated the passeover and instituted his supper 2. To examine the Iewish order of celebrating the Passeover and to compare it with what the Evangelists have concerning Christs actions in it Towards the first I shall offer these following considerations 1. It is cleer from Scripture that the time God set for the celebration of the Passeover was the 14 day of the first month at even Ex. 12.18 19. Lev. 23. v. 6. Num. 28.16 17. 2. It is as cleer that it was to be 7 dayes in all which time they were to eat no unleavened bread 3. Dr Lightfoots Temple service cap. 12.4 The Lambe at least for the first Passover was taken up the tenth day whether this held or no is doubted and by many denyed it was at first Ex. 12.7 4. It is cleare that the Jewes reckoned the beginning of their day from the setting of the Sunne the night before 5. When the daies of unleavened bread should have begun it is cleer Lev. 23 6. on the fifteenth day they were to eat unleavened bread that is from the evening succeeding Sun-set the fourteenth day Therefore Ex. 12.18 19. it is said on the fourteenth at evening you shall eat unleavened bread which fourteenth at evening was the beginning of the fifteenth and that is clear for they were to end the 21 at even and to hold but seven daies Grotius in Mar. 6. Dr Willet in Ex. 12.9 7. Grotius saies there were eight daies of unleavened bread So Iosephus tels him But Dr Willet tels us Iosephus must not be credited in it it being expresly against Scripture Rupertus is in the same error but we must not yield it 6. Yet because on the fourteenth day they kill'd the Passeover and at even began the first of unleavened bread it is plaine they called the fourteenth day the first of unleavened bread and so saith Dr Lightfoot it is called in Scripture Dr Light Tem. service cap. 12. in the New Testament and so it is called both by Mark and Luke The first day of unleavened bread when the passover was killed Saint Luke when the Passover ought to be killed So that in strict account the dayes of unleavened bread began not till the Sun-set of the fourteenth day yet in vulgar reckoning they began before and the whole fourteenth day was so called 7. And I conceive for another reason which both Buxtorf and Dr Lightfoot hint us ibid. Buxt synag Iud. cap. 12. and that was a custome the Jewes had to send an Officer assoon as ever Sunne was set on the thirteenth day to search for leaven in all houses which he did narrowly with Candles and this search continued till the next day at noon at which time they threw what they found this way and that way Hence I conceive the whole space of time from the thirteenth at Sun-set till the fourteenth at Sun-set was called the first of unleavened bread not that it was strictly so but that it was called so from this fashion And in this Grotius in Mat. 26.17 Grotius agrees with me though not upon this reason It is plain both by Mark and Luke that the fourteenth day is called the first of unleavened bread which fourteenth began at Sunset the thirteenth day 8. For the time in which Christ celebrated the Passover and instituted his Supper it is plaine from the Apostle 1 Cor. 11.23 it was the same night in which he was betrayed For the day wherein he was crucified Beda de ratione temporum Dr Wil. in 12. Ex. qu. 11. Beda tels us that no Christian must doubt but it was the fifteenth day of the month Dr Willet saith it is the received opinion But Learned Scaliger with others conclude the contrary It is certaine that the day whereon he was Crucified was the day or day before the preparation to the Jewish Passover and Sabbath Mat. 15.42 Luke 23.54 Iohn 19.14 42. 9. Scali de emend temp l. 6. p. 566 That he was Crucified before the noon of the day is cleare from Mar. 15.25 it was about the third houre And Mat 26.45 46. after he had been some time on the Cross was the sixth houre when the darkness began Now the Jewes reckoning their houres from our six to six the third houre was nine of the clock at which time saith Mark he was Crucified and the sixth houre was twelve of the clock at which time the darkness began and lasted till three 10. For the better finding out therefore of the night wherein he was betrayed in which he instituted the Supper saith St Paul Let us consider what the Gospell saies was done from the time of the institution of the Supper till his death Some think that excellent Sermon Iohn 14.15 16. was preach'd in the chamber where he administred the Supper Some think it was as he was going to the Mount of Olives and Gethsemane Certaine it is it was after the Supper On the mount of Olives he sings an hymne after this he goeth to Gethsemane and is in an agony prayeth thrice besides that prayer John 17. After this Mat. 27.1 2. Mar. 15.1 2. Judas comes and apprehends him he is carried before
his right and interest to the holy things of God he must lose it in the face of the Church before it can be denied him in the face of the Congregation and he is to be judged as in all other cases not by any mans nor by any Ministers private knowledge but according to proofes and allegations for the common good necessarily requireth that such publique actions of this nature should be regulated by a kind of publike not private knowledge which once admitted into judicature would soone fill up the Church and State with a world of scandals injuries and inconveniences for hereby a wicked or a peevish and pettish Minister may without controule publikely disgrace and repell from the Supper whom he please c. Sol. To this I answer First This Argument is but meerly rationall And if a Ministers duty in this be as we have endeavoured to prove expresly concluded in Scripture it is not to be considered against Scripture Precept Aqu. Rationes contra fidem sunt derisibiles But secondly Let us consider the strength of this Reason As it is brought by a Schooleman so it is determined by a Schooleman insufficient Gabriel Vasq t. 2. in tertia p. Thomae disp 209. q. 80. art 6. cap. 40. Gabriel Vasques saith The invalidity of the Reason appeares in this The due execution in Law is a common good in the Commonwealth and doubtlesse ought to be ordinarily administred to all impartially according to the letter of the Law it is every mans common favour But now put the case that two witnesses came and sware against the life of such a man that he did such a murther on such a day in such a place and the Judge knew that this man was at that time one hundred miles off that place and were with him and he should tell the Jury so yet they would find this man guilty of the murther will any man say that it is the Judges duty to condemne him whom his certaine knowledge justifies in his conscience as wholly innocent Exemplum etiam judicis quod in confirmationem allatum est non putamus in universum verum quia accidere potest interdum ut ipse non possit uti scientia publicâ sed propter scientiam suam privatam alio remedio uti debâ—at pro salvandâ vitâ innocentis c. Gab. Vasq ib. There is a double right i. Jus here â—itarium this they have common as baptized persons 2. Jus aptitudinarium this they have not in common If mans Law should lay any such Obligations upon the publike Minister surely Gods holy Law doth not So that the Maxime is not alwaies true that common goods must be dispensed or denied according to common publike cognisance For if the executing of the Law which is a publike common good must tend to the breach of the divine Law or doth evidently appeare against the end of the Law if there should be a proceeding according to the strict rigour of it The Judge may lawfully yea and ought to suspend his own act and submit himselfe to the judgement of another Court 2. Things that are common goods must be dispensed out to none but those who have a common right It will easily be granted that the ignorant and scandalous have not a common right with those who are knowing and holy Let any but make out that they have a common right which by the way only faith in Christ can give them and I know no Minister will deny them the Ordinance The benefit of the Law is a common good and to be denied to none that are Natives Suppose a Stranger comes and demands the benefit of it none knows but he is a Native only the Judge knows or at least hath vehement grounds to suspect he is none shall not the Judge require him to prove that he is a native Englishman or naturalized before he gives him the benefit of the Law 3. For the disconveniences may come through the Ministers peevishnesse c. I confesse there may be some but I know not how they should be prevented they may in some measure be cured by a liberty of appeale for the party who shall conceive himselfe injured to higher Presbyteries If there be none such I know no remedy while the Church is in that disorder I have met with no more Objections and shall need enlarge no farther upon this question only I thinke Mr Jeanes his fourth Argument is considerable Argument The power of administration of the Lords Supper is wholly committed to the Minister the Eldership cannot deale it out Now it is very improbable that the Lord should have left the administration wholly to them and not a sufficient power to them in such exigents as these to preserve the purity of it Besides it is easily evidenced that in extraordinary cases something preter-regular and extraordinary may be done yea and ought to be done to preserve the purity of Ordinances 2 Chro. 30.2 at Hâ—zekiahs Passeover because the Priests were not sanctified the Passeover was deferred to the second month ver 17. The Levites killed the Passeover yet the Lord accepted the service ver 20. God himselfe for the purity of his Ordinance and his peoples Communion dispensed with the Order which himself and instituted Ex. 12. as may be seen Num. 9. It is true we ought to be tender of Gods Order but some points of order may for purity sake be dispensed with for a time CHAP. XIII QUEST 3. Whether Suspension juridically or ministeriall privative or positive distinct from absolute Excommunication be a dreame of the Pharisees or no or whether it hath not been the constant judgement and practice of the Servants and Churches of Christ in all ages MAster Boatman tells us he saith it yea and againe he saith it that Suspension distinct from Excommunication is a dreame of the Pharisees yea and it was a Pharisaicall dreame that invented it It is no matter what he saith the question is whether it was so or no. 1. If he meanes by the Pharisees that particular Sect amongst the Jews so called he scarâ—e speakes sense for they never owned the Ordinance of the Lords Supper and how they should invent Suspension from it I cannot tell 2. He speakes it ancient enough as old as Christs time But because I am willing to beleeve he thought he spake sense I conceive his meaning was That it was an invention of some particular men who were of proud pharisaicall dispositions and would bring in their inventions to mingle them with Gods Ordinances If he spake sense this was his meaning and if it were it was one of the most bold and ignorant slanders of the Churches and Servants of God in all Ages that hath been heard and as impolitickly spoken for his own credit when any one who hath either lookt into Fathers or Schoolemen or Divines of any sort Papists or Protestants and those of any perswasion Episcopall Presbyterian or Independent as to Church
may be considered either in her state of Virginity or of her pollution by the man of sin or lastly since her honest divorce from him For our Church what her judgement was before Austin the Monke was sent over to espouse her to the Romish Bishop we have very little Record the best which I know Concilia Pan. Brittanica p. 92. is in the learned book published by Sir Henry Spilman Austin came over anno 597. The first councill that learned Knight tells us of is that of Arles held in Constantines time and at his command the place of their Session was in France it was held saith Binius anno 326. Balaeus saith 350. Baronius saith 314. There were present for England at the Synod Eborius Bishop of Yorke Restitutus Bishop of London and Adelfius Bishop of London Sacordos a Presbyter and Arminius a Deacon They made 22. Canons their third Canon and fourth and fifth determine Suspension of Stage-players c. So doth their eleventh Canon for young women married to heathens Placuit ut aliquanto tempere à communione separentur Their fourteenth Canon determines a Suspension till death for those who falsely accuse their Brethren indeed the words are Can. 3. A communione abstineri Can. 4. A communione separari So Can. 5.11 but by communio is meant the Communion of the body and bloud of Christ only as is plaine from the last Canon and from the sins mentioned Can. 3 4 5. not deserving absolute and plenary Excommunication After this time Pag. 47. saith Sir Henry Spilman till Austins time in regard of the great troubles of Brittaine through the continuall inrodes of the Saxons the Bishops themselves being forced to retire into Wales were very few Synods in England In Ireland saith Sir Henry Spilman anno 450. was a Synod held He hath a Copy of the Canons agreed upon at it in their fourteenth Canon They determine a yeare for repentance to any who had killed any committed fornication or consulted a wizard Can. 15. they determine twenty daies poenitence in case of theft this they distinguish as is apparent from their other Canons from one who is anathematizandus Can. 19. in case of adultery they determine Excommunication This is all the Record I find concerning our Churches in that time excepting only some imperfect Records mentioning some single acts of Censure Monricus was excommunicated for the murther of Cynetu in a Synod at Landâ—ff anno 560. another Synod there enjoyned King Morcant penance for murthering his Uncle Frioc and at a third Synod there Guidnerth was excommunicated for the murther of his Brother But a more perfect account I cannot find From the time of Austine the Monkes comming over till King Henry the eighth our Church was Popish and ruled by the order of the Romish Church who we know allows Suspension as I have sufficiently proved by their Schoolemen In the time of King Hen. 8. Reformation began to dawn He directed a Commission to thirty two persons to draw up a body of Ecclesiasticall Laws Afterwards King Edward 6. by his Commission dated November 11. in the fifth yeare of his Reigne revived and perfected the worke Cranmer Peter Martyr Dr Cox Dr May Dr Taylor of Hadly and some others being his Commissioners to perfect the body of the Laws which was called Reformatio Legum Eccesiasticarum and was printed at London anno 1641. In which book the judgement of those eminent men the Fathers of our Church two of which viz. Cranmer and Taylor were Martyrs afterward is evident p. 151 152 153 154. they have nine Chapters concerning Suspension In the second Chapter they shew the causes of Suspension amongst which this they alledge as the maine Because in lesser offences Excommunication cannot proceed Quoniam magra sequeretur b norum perturbatio si cum hujusmodi personis infamibus Sacramenta communicarent and oft-times suspicions of grosse sins which may scandalize the Church may appeare where the fact cannot be fully proved which they say must be taken notice of by the Church For it would cause a great disturbance in the Church if the members of it should receive the Sacrament with infamous persons In their fourth Chapter they determine that he who continues a whole yeare suspended shall be Excommunicated c. Soone after this the Bishops prevailed to have the Common Prayer and Rubrick confirmed and from thence as to this we may know the judgement of our Church till the yeare 1641. It is true they were as tender of the businesse of Suspension as they were free of their Excommunications But yet we have thus much in the Rubrick prefixed to the forme for administring the Lords Supper If any be an open and notorious liver so that by him the Congregation is offended or have done any wrong to his Neighbour by word or deed the Curate having knowledge thereof shall call him V. The Book of Common Prayer concerning the order for the administration of the Lords Supper and advertise him in any wise not to presume to come to the Lords Table untill he hath openly declared himselfe to have truly repented and amended his former naughty life that the Congregation may thereby be satisfied which before were offended and that he hath recompenced the persons whom he hath done wrong unto or at least declare himselfe to be in full purpose so to do as soone as conveniently he may The same order shall the Curate use with those betwixt whom he perceiveth malice and hatred to reigne not suffering them to be partakers of the Lords Table untill he know them to be reconciled and if one of the parties so at variance be contented to forgive from the bottome of his heart all that the other hath trespassed against him and to make amends for that he himselfe hath offended and the other party will not be perswaded to a godly Unity but remaine still in his frowardnesse and malice the Minister in that case ought to admit the penitent person to the Communion and not the obstinate Thus you see our Church while it was under Episcopall Discipline yet allowed Suspension distinct from Excommunication After that Episcopacy was voted downe and Presbytery established Forme of Church Government p. 27. first by an Ordinance for three years then for ever by the Form of Church Government past and printed 1648. sine die All may read the Presbyterian Judgement for Suspension distinct from Excommunication a. p. 27. of that booke to the end For our dissenting Brethren it is their practice when once they have admonished an offender to suspend him from the Sacrament till he repent or be wholly cast out of the Church At this time in this City is one who hath been so suspended these twelve Months if he be not lately restored nor Excommunicated Lest any one should not thinke the Rubrick cleare enough to shew the Judgement of our Church in Episcopall times I shall produce a proofe or two more There was a Provinciall
Synod held at London anno 1603. where it was decreed Canon 26 27. Constitut Canons printed 1628. Can. 26 27. That no Minister shall in any wise admit to the Communion any of his Cure or Flock which be openly known to live in sin notorious without repentance nor malicious persons nor unfaithfull Churchwardens nor such as refuse to be present at publike prayers nor to any that depraved the Book of Common Prayer nor who spake against the Kings Authority Let Reverend Deane Nowell speake D. Nowels Catechism p. 647. who in his Catechisme Creeke-Latine printed London 1573. tels us That if it doth appeare openly that one is unworthy the Pastor must not admit him because he cannot do it without the profanation of the Sacrament and in order to the keeping of them away the Deane tells us in well ordered Churches Elders were chosen and joyned with the Pastor Ibid p. 652. c From all this it is plaine That the Judgement and Practice of the Church of England in all times ever since it was a Church hath been to suspend some from the Table of the Lord who yet were not Excommunicated Let us look now into other Churches The Reformed Churches are either those in Germany or in Holland or in France or in Scotland For the Churches of the Switzers they indeed practice no Discipline but we shall find all other Churches concurring with us The Judgement of the Church of Scotland may be known not only by the particular Writings of their eminent Gillespy and Rutherford but by their forme of Church-Government printed 1641. where they tell us p. 39. All baptized persons when they come to age and discretion are not admitted to the Lords Table The Government of the Church of Scotland p. 39 40 c. but such only as upon examination are found to have a competent measure of knowledge in the Principles of Religion and do professe that they are beleevers and do live unblameably c. But this not-admission to the Communion is one thing and Excommunication of hainous or obstinate offenders is another thing very different c. The Judgement of the Church of God in Holland is cleare from their Corpus Disciplinae printed here anno 1645. chap. 4. Concerning Ecclesiasticall Discipline art 8. He that shall obstinately reject the admonition of the Consistory shall be suspended from the Supper of the Lord 1 Thes 3.14 that is in case of private offences Art 10. He that hath committed a publike Corpus disciplinae Engl. pr. 1645. cap. 4. art 8 10 11 14. or otherwise hainous offence shall also be suspended from the Lords Supper though he should give signs of Repentance according as the Consistory shall judge most fitting Art 11. He that hath been suspended if after divers admonitions he shall shew no signe of repentance he shall be published to the Congregation Art 14. And at length if he doth not repent followeth the Excommunication c. I thinke here is Suspension before Excommunication and distinct from it I heare Mr Boatman hath quoted the Churches in France for him how truly now my Reader shall see when I had quoted them against him a friend of mine telling him of it he bad him aske Dr De-Lawne and he could satisfie him of the untruth of my quotation I did not quote them by heare-say but from Reverend Beza's account which I quoted before I conceived they had not altered their minds yet I sent to my Reverend Friend Dr Lawn for satisfaction he came to me April 9. and 1. assured me it was the daily practice of their Church to suspend the scandalous 2. Promised me to send me all the books he had concerning the Discipline of their Churches to confirme me This day he sent me two having left one with me the first is called The Ecclesiasticall Discipline of the Reformed Churches of France printed London 1642. They say so much for it that I cannot transcribe all let him who doubts read the 19 20 21. p. n. 15. If it say they befalleth that besides the admonitions usually made by the Consistory to such as have done amisse Ecclesiasticall Discipline of the reformed Churches of France p. 19 20 21. there be some other punishment or more rigorous Censure to be used it shall then be done either by Suspension or privation of the Sacrament for a time or by Excommunication c. So they go on directing to the execution of either c. Another book is called Ibid. p. 42 43. Art 15. The generall and particular Acts and Articles of the late Nationall Synod of the Reformed Churches of France at Charenton 26. Decem. 1644. Printed at London 1646. They plainely and largely determine Suspension and charge their Consistories to distinguish it from Excommunication The passages are too large to transcribe Let the Reader view that book at his leisure p. 42 43. There is yet one book more containing an Extract of the foure Nationall Synods of the Belgick Churches viz that of Embda 1571. Dort 1578. Middleburgh 1581. the Hague 1586. the Booke is written in Latin and called Harmonia Synodorum Belgicarum in the 36 page having before spoken of private and publike admonition they determine N. 8. Let him who hath pertinaciously rejected the admonitions of the Consistory be suspended from the Lords Supper Qui pertinaciter Consistorii admonitiones rejecerit à Sacrae Coenae communione suspendetur Harm Syn. Belgic Si suspensus post iteratas admonitiones nullum poenitentiae signum dederit ad Excommunicationem procedet Ecclesia Ibid. And againe Art 9. If he who is suspended after iterated admonitions shew no signe of Repentance then let him be Excommunicated I thinke here is Suspension againe distinct from Excommunication As for our dissenting Brethren I spake something before to prove it their practice let me adde one thing more Our Brethren of New England are the most pure and sober and considerable Churches in the world of that perswasion and those who alone would ever give us a joynt account of their saith as to Church-Discipline Let us heare what they say in their fourteenth Chupter having spoken concerning publike admonition they adde Which declaring the offender to lye under the publike offence of the Church doth thereby with-hold A platforme of Church Discipline printed London 1653. Cap. 14. p. 21. n. 2. or suspend him from the holy fellowship of the Lords Supper till his offence be removed by penitent confession If he still continue obstinate they are to cast him out by Excommunication I thinke here is also Suspension granted precedaneous to and gradually distinct from Excommunication There is only one thing to which I must speake a word or two wherein in our present practice we differ from other setled Reformed Churches As to the suspension of any whom we since the late Reformation admitted to the holy Table we agree both with other reformed Churches with our owne in times of Episcopacy and with our
his words or at least give his sense As soone as divine light had shined upon any and put in his heart to be a Christian 1. He was taught in some private house concerning the cheats and doting superstitions of Pagans but was not yet admitted to heare Gods word c. this was their first degree 2. Then they had liberty to go a little further they might come and heare Sermons hence they were called Audientes De Catechumenis Catechizandi ordine vide Rabanum Maurum l. 1. de institut cleric Cap. 26. 27. these might only heare not come into the Church at Prayer 3. After this they had liberty to joyne with the Church in Prayer these were called Orantes genuflectentes 4. When they had been thus far admitted they were baptized these were called Competentes I shall not trouble my selfe to search what priviledges each of these sorts had it is certaine none of them were as yet admitted to the Lords Table post sermonem fit missa Catechumenis saith Augustine mane bant fideles And indeed the very right understanding of that terme fideles determines the busines to the clearing of which I shall transcribe a passage out of that incomparable Antiquary Fidelis distinguitur à Catechumeno confirmato non enim inter fideles adsumebantur Albaspin obs l. 1. obs 25. qui fidem in baptismo aut qui charismata dona spiritus Sancti ipsumque Spiritum Sanctum in confirmatione adepti essent verùm ii solum censebantur appellabantur fideles qui iis duobus Sacramentis muniti Eucharistiâ insuper donarentur cum enim ea sit summum Christianae Religionis mysterium arcanum Sacramentum non cuivis olim temere concedebatur sed ei duntaxat qui multo antea morum probitatis suae specimen exhibuisset quique se it a fidum probasset ut tutò ei mysteria divulgaripossent Is igitur vocabatur fidelis non qui baptizatus aut confirmatus sed qui Eucharistiae sacris participâsset In English to this purpose A Beleever is distinguish'd from a Catechumenist V. Etiam Pamelii annot 256. in c. 41. lib. Tert. de praesc contra haeret Catechumenos cui fidelis opponitur qui jam plene edoctus instruct us erat in fide jamque receptus admissus ad nostra mysteria percipienda ib. and from one who is confirmed for all those who had obtained faith in Baptisme or who had received the gists of the Holy Spirit were not presently reckoned amongst the Fideles but those alone were thought worthy to be called and were called Fideles who having been prepared by Baptisme and Confirmation which he calls Sacraments were further admitted to the Lords Supper for in regard that is the greatest Mystery and Secret and Sacrament of the Christian Religion of old it was not headily granted to every one but to him only who of a long time before had given proofe of his honest Conversation and had approved himselfe so saithfull that those mysteries might safely be administred to him He therefore was called Fidelis not who was baptized or confirmed but who was admitted to the Holy Table Clemens Alexandrinus saith he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fidelis Clem. Alex. strom l. 2. impr Lut. 1619. p. 371. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who keeps faithfully what is committed to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One who keeps Gods Commandements is Fidelis in his sense But as to the Ecclesiasticall acceptation of Fideles Albaspinaeus hath doubtlesse told us the truth It is out of all doubt that the Catechumeni were not admitted to the Lords Table Tert. cum not ù de la Bar. l. 4. contra Marcionem l. de Poenitentiâ Quis Catechumenus quis sidelis incertum est omnes pariâ—er orant Tert. de praescrip con haeret c. 41. Alcuinus de divin is offic I siod l. 6. Etymol c. 19. Baban Maurus de instit cler cap 32. â—no Epist 75. Aug Sâ—rm Concil Carth. 4. Anâ—b l. 5 â—p 33. Concil Laâ—d cap. 19. Dion Areop loc praed Athan. apol 2. contra Aâ—rian Renatus Laurentius de la Barr tels us that In templo manebant donec Evangelium expossuisset Episcopus Tum clamabat Levita Catechumeni exeunt vel siquis Catechumenus reman sit exeat which sutes with that of Austin before specified And this is plaine from Tertullian who usually calls them Audientes and Auditores who saies they might wish for the Sacrament of Baptism but ought not to presume to it then surely not to the Lords Table Nay they were not admitted to any Prayers with the Church subsequent to the Sermon whence Tertullian cries out of it as a disorder amongst the Hereticks that none could distinguish their Catechumenists from their Fideles for they all prayed alike yet I conceive it a mistake of those who conceive the Catechumeni were present at no Prayers of the Church for then we must suppose the Primitive Churches had no Prayers before their Sermons which out of all question they had and the dismission of the Catechumeni was not till the Sermon was done Indeed they might not be present at any prayers of the Church preceding the administration oâ— the holy Communion And thus much shall serve to have noted concerning the first order the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or according to Pamelius the second for he makes the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concerning the dismission of the Catechumeni they who desire further satisfaction may read the Authors quoted in the Margent Cyril in Job l. 12. c. 50. I will sum up all with what I find in Cyrill in Book 12. Chap. 10. of his Commentary on John Prohibemus enim à sacrâ mensâ Catechumenos quam vis veritatem jam cognoverint fidem magâ—â voce consiteantur quia nondum locupletati sunt spiritu Sancto qui non habitat in ijs qui baptismate non sunt consummati c. From all this it appeares 1. That they baptized none but were fully instructed in the Doctrine of faith and had openly professed repentance 2. That till they were baptized they admitted them not to the Lords Table Let us now see whether they admitted all baptized persons 3. Their third order were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us examine 1. Who these were 2. From what priviledges of the Church they were restrained Which happily were originally the way of receiving in poenitents rather than the degrees of casting them out Rejoinder p. 46. Dies dominica l. 2. c. 14. and how long 3. When this Order came up in the Church I am amazed at that piece of news which M. Humfry suggests in his late Rejoynder that the severall degrees of penitence might be in order to admission into the Church except he meanes readmission after falling for he is the first who ever suggested any such thing I thinke at least the first I ever met with
as David Let the righteous smite me c. they will returne evill for good they will ruine you if it be possible for going about to save them they will undoe you because you are so pittifull and mercifull to their erring and straying soules as to bring them to the right and true way Paragr 3 The whole Text briefly amounts to this Mr Boatmans sum of the Text and pretended vindication of it That it is to no purpose to deale with men of irreprovable and dog-like spirits these are not capable of reproofe and divine admonition and holy counsell you may saith our Saviour do it but it will be very uselesse it will do no good it is a folly it is very dangerous you will be losers and neither God the Gospell the truth or your soules will have gaine you may have a reward in heaven not only when you do but when you suffer for Christs sake yet however take heed of the persons you deale with and labour to do it in such a way as may not make sinners seeme dogs and swine unto you Indeed I read of some that wrest this Scripture and among many divers of the Romish Church they some of them expound it thus and tell us it may by consequence be reduced to the Sacrament and tell us they are not fit to come to the Sacrament that will not make auricular confession and it is a fond trick that is got up againe in our daies and some would faine bring into the Church but it hath no relation at all to that holy Ordinance For though wicked men which the Scripture calls dogs and swine unfit receivers may tremble when they dare put their hand to the body and bloud of the Lord Jesus Christ yet notwithstanding to preach such a thing from this Text is little better than to speake untruth in the Pulpit It is not truth but truth to purpose that men must speake from sacred Texts of the holy Word of God else they fasten that on the Holy Ghost which henever meant or dreamt and it is a dreadfull account which a great many men in the world have to give vainly to attempt to build any holy foundation on a Text which is either too weake for it or which it doth not at all concerne It is an easie matter to wring a Text so long by the nose as to make it bleed againe and all to little purpose Take notice whatsoever may be urged about this sacred Ordinance from any other place and at another time it is not meant here to speake of it here is to speake to no purpose not worth the speaking it is not the sense of the Holy Ghost I come to the conclusion Doctrine The Doctrine which I shall gather hence is this Paragragh It is the duty of every Christian especially of every Minister to take heed to whom and how they deliver divine truths lest delivering them to obstinate and irreproveable men they labour in vaine and they trample upon them This truth is not once only hinted to us in Scriptures you shall find it was the care of all the Children of God in all Ages and the speciall care of Christ himselfe not to deliver sound and saving truths to some sorts of men sometimes looke how cautelous holy David seemes to be Psal 39.1 2. he makes it one of the highest points of wisdome to consider before whom he uttered words that concerned Gods glory and did not while the notoriously obstinate incorrigible and irreproveable were present these instead of understanding more would turne their backs hate instruction be scoffers and mockers at the sacred truths of God To this end and purpose we find how that unlesse in case of speciall Commission and God commanded them to speake home with the hazard of their lives they were alwaies very wary and prudent to whom what of and how they declared the mind of God you may see it at large at your leisure in Isaiah Jeremiah Exekiel you find God speaking of a rebellious stiffenecked people bids the Prophet meddle no more with them pray not for them as if he had said it will be vaine and uselesse altogether successelesse our Saviour Christ when on earth knowing the inveterate hatred of the Pharisees against the great truths delivered light being come into the world c. when he was among these men many times he would make no answer and when he did it was in darke sayings at a distance in Parables as wrapt up into the third heavens and all to let us see caution must be used in dealing with the wicked and obstinate in divine matters things sacred that concerne Gods glory and the honour of men Paragraph 5 For Reasons I need give you no more than what our Saviour Christ doth and the next businesse is to shew you the reason why dog-like and swine-like men make so little of precious truths and are so unreasonable as to go about to destroy men for endeavouring to do them good and then the application For I le dwell only this day on the Text. Reasons First Truths not wisely dispensed holy reproofes not warily managed are trampled on There is nothing men had need have a greater care of than the honour of Divine Truth Now this is not only hazarded by prostituting sacred truths to this sort of men presently but adventuring on that is the cause they mock and scoffe and will not be reproved We by experience find it brings truth into disgrace makes them vilifie them and slight them by a nod with the head a winke with the eye a shake of the head and it will be very well as our Saviour Christ saith if there be not a spurne with the foot Now saith he never let such precious truths as these be hazarded to contempt and scorne take not such holy paines that might be otherwise imployed and more to purpose it makes them look with an evill eye scorne and scoffe It renders Religion odious and ridiculous to them they cannot see or rather will not see or heare but stop their eare with the adder and although there be an amiable lustre reall excellency and an inexpressible vertue and glory in them yet to them they appeare ridiculous We have examples enough of this in Scriptures John Baptist came into the world and spake for this purpose to see if he could reclaime an erring Generation It is true his words were not altogether ineffectuall Jerusalem and a great part of Judea go out to him yet marke what our Saviour Christ saith he came not eating or drinking and they said he had a devill This was all he got for his paines in abundance the man was mad he was a prating fellow he lookes like one that had lived indeed all his daies in a wildernesse as one out of his wits Our Saviour Christ comes in such a manner as would win the most refractary and hard heart and the most obstinate sinner with meeknesse patience tendernesse pitty he was
to convince you if you refuse Thus he doth not only preach placentia but Placets too Surely he doth pretend something to an Enthusiastick spirit he could never else set off meere saies with such a confidence Sect. 3 In the next place he comes to tell what is meant by trampling This he saith speakes the ineffectualness of such holy and savoury truths So then our Saviours Reason is this Give not holy things to dogs and swine because they will prove uselesse and ineffectuall to them From whence I argue If then the Sacrament will be uselesse and ineffectuall to profane men that holy thing must not be given to them The reason holds as much for that as any Ordinance if not more In his third Paragraph he comes to sum up his fancies Animadv on Paragr 3. which he calls the sum of the Text That it is to no purpose to deale with men of irreprovable and dog-like spirits they are not capable of reproofe and divine admonition and holy counsell You may saith our Saviour do it but it will be very uselesse it will do no good it is a folly it is very dangerous you will be losers and neither God the Gospell the truth or your soules will have gaine You may have a reward in heaven not only when you do but when you suffer for Christs sake yet however take heed of the persons and labour to do it in such a way as may not make sinners seeme dogs and swine to you Here is a messe of stuffe now which doubtlesse was never well boyled by premeditation He makes our Saviour Christ speake strange things here or I am mistaken Our Saviour Christ saith 1. You may do it but where I wonder is do not give do not cast capable of such an interpretation as you may do it 2. Christ according to Mr Boatman saith you may do it but it is to no purpose it is a folly it is dangerous you will be losers and neither God the Gospell the truth nor your soules gaine Where I wonder doth Christ tell his people they may play the fooles and do things to no purpose Nay such things as neither shall redound to Gods glory nor their good Is not this learned Divinity thinke we nay is it not next dore to blasphemy But marke what follows immediately You may have a reward in heaven not only c. Just before Christ is brought in telling them their soules could have no gaine by it but here as if the Lord could so soone forget himselfe he is brought in againe telling them They should have a reward in heaven in doing and suffering c. But besides Christ must also say Take heed how you do it in such a way as may not make sinners appeare dogs and swine c. But where is this in the Text I wonder Christ saith Give not cast not he doth not say you may give but take heed how you give And is that man ever worthy to take the holy word of God into his mouth againe that hath so shamefully and simply perverted a Text as he hath done this For which I appeale to any to judge Now he hath ordered his forces he comes to give us battell and to that purpose tels us He reads of some that wrest this Scripture and amongst many divers of the Romish Church They some of them expound it thus and tell us it may by consequence be reduced to the Sacrament and tell us they are not fit to come to the Sacrament that will not make auricular Confession and it is a fond trick that some have got up againe in our daies and some would bring into the Church But it had no relation at all to that holy Ordinance for though wicked men which the Scripture cals dogs and swine unfit Receivers may tremble when they dare put their hand to the body and bloud of the Lord Jesus Christ yet notwithstanding to preach such a thing from this Text is little better than to speake untruth in the Pulpit c. Either here is a great deale of ignorance or malice or both discovered 1. Here are pretty odde termes me thinks he reads of some by and by they are many divers of the Romish Church then some of them againe expound it c. the truth is I beleeve he doth not know either how many or how few if he had he would have spoken more modestly 2. He would basely insinuate that they are generally Papists who thinke this Text may be interpreted by consequence of the Sacrament and that they do it to bring in Anricular Confession Both which charges are as notoriously false as can be I wonder who Mr Boatman thinkes Protestants I thinke I have already made it good by testimonies enough that we have some Protestants are of this mind Surely Ursin Chemnitius wollebius Wendelin Zepperus with a multitude of others were no Papists yet they all thinke an Argument may be brought from this Text for Auricular Confession which he seemes so afraid of either he knows not what it is or hath a mind to bespatter holy and Reverend men with falshoods and scandals I am very apt to beleeve Mr Boatman knows so much of Auricular Confession as to know 1. That the Romish Church requires it to be only made to their Priest and if there be any endeavour to bring such a thing now into the Church of all men in the world Mr Boatman and men of his straine should hold their peace for they are the men bring it in we plead for an open triall of Communicants before the Presbytery they say no they will try them alone this comes nearer Auricular Confession 2. But secondly we do not require any confession of secret or more open sins but only that they being proved so guilty they should be unwilling to testifie their humiliation or repentance before they are admitted to the Lords Table so that this whimzie amounts to no more than a gird at the godly Ministers of the Gospell who would bring sinners to a sense of their sins before they are admitted to the Lords Table and it smels ranke enough either of ignorance or malice and signifies nothing But Mr Boatman tels us the Text hath no relation to the Sacrament How doth he prove that Is not the Sacrament an holy thing How proves he it is not here meant Dr Hammond ad locum Dr Hammond ingenuously grants an analogicall relation Now he chargeth me to the purpose To preach such a thing from this Text is little better than to speake untruth in the Pulpit It is not truth but truth to the purpose that men must speake from sacred Texts of the holy Word of God else they fasten that on the Holy Ghost which he never meant or dreampt and it is a dreadfull account which a great many men in the world have to give vainly to attempt to lay any foundation on a Text which is either too weake for it or which it doth not at
PROVOCATOR PROVOCATVS OR An answer made to an open Challenge made by one M. Boatman in Peters Parisâ—â—n Norwich the 13th of December 1654. in a Sermon preached there at a Fast in which Answer these Questions are spoke to 1. Whether Juridicall Suspension of some persons from the Lords Supper be deducible from Scripture the Affirmative is proved 2. Whether Ministeriall or Privative Sâ—spâ—nsion be justifiable the Affirmative also is maintained 3. Whether the Suspension of the ignorant and scandalous be a Pharisaicall Invention A thing which wiser Ages nâ—ver thought of 〈◊〉 Mr Boatman falsly affirmed In opposition to which is proved That it hath been the judgment and practice of the eminent Saints and servants of Christ in all Ages of all other Reformed Churches and our Church in all times To the whole Discourse is prefixed a Narrative Preface giving account of the occasion of this Tract containing the Notes of a part of Mr Boatmans Sermon preached Decemb. 13. with Animadversions upon it with the Authors Letter to him after the preaching of it to let him know he would accept his challenge and dispute with him and Mr Boatmans uncivill Letter refusing to dispute There are subjoyned two Appendices The first clearing up from Antiquity the severall Orders of the Catechumeni and Poenitentes which were in the Primitive Church suspended and not excommunicated as is fully proved The latter containes a Vindication of the first Argument upon the first Question from an impertinent Discourse of Mr Bâ—atmans in a Sermon March 28. where you have the said Sermon and Animadversions discovering the Magisteriall vanity of his interpretation of Mat. 7.6 and the Author is vindicated from the charge of delivering untruth from that Text. In the managing of the severall Arguments on the first and second Question there is also full answer given to what Erastus Mr Prinne or Mr Humfry have excepted to them By John Collings B. D. Preacher of the Gospell in Norwich Sciendum enim à sanctis Patribus ab hoc vel maximè constitutum ut mortaliter peccantes à Sacramentis Dominicis arceantur ne indignè ea percipientes vel majori reatu involvantur ut Judas quem post panem temerè à Magistro susceptum Diabolus dicitur pleniùs invasisse ut crimen quod prius scelerata praemeditatione conceperat jam sceleratissimo consummareâ— effectu vel nè quod Apostolus de Corinthiis dicit infirmitatem corporis imbecillitatem ipsamque mortem praesumptores incurrant ut à communione suspensi terrore ejus exclusionis quodam condemnationis Anathemate compellantur studiosius paenitentiae medicamentum appetere avidius recuperandae salutis defideriis inhiare Walafridus Strabo lib. de reb Eccles cap. 17. London Printed for William Francklyng Bookseller in Norwich 1654. Collegium Jesu Cantabrigiensi J700 To the Right Wor ll John Mann Esq Mayor of the City of Norwich Much Honoured Sir AS the Influence which that eminent place in this City to which God hath called you and the Engagements which your goodnesse hath laid upon those few Ministers in it who have laboured against great opposition to promote an Ecclesiastick Reformation have justly challenged our observance to you so your eminent appearing not only for it but in it accepting the Office of a Ruler in one of the Congregations of it and your appearing for the restoring of that eminent servant of Christ to his Pastorall charge there again where these unhappy flames of our division have kindled which by the piety and prudence of that Reverend man would have been prevented hath challenged for you the more speciall Dedication of this Tract What you shall find in it the Preface will tell you And the Preface is that alone which needs your Patronage nor should that stand in need of it if some men had not the confidence to deny that the Sunne shines at noon-day whether what is there related be truth or no your selfe can in a great measure satisfie the Enquirer For the substance of the Booke when you have examined it I shall be content you should dismisse it your protection and shall my selfe attend the vindication of it from its adversaries who are ordinarily more clamorous then argumentative If my paines may contribute any thing Sir to encourage your perseverance in that good worke to which the Lord hath quickned you to put your hand as it will be a great matter of encouragement and joy to all of us who are working for the Lord in the refining of Sion while we are almost stifled with the drosse which the corruption of former times hath begot so it will be a great addition to your crown in the day of the Lord and a great crown to him who is SIR Your most humble and much obliged servant in the Lord Iesus J. COLLINGS Chaphyfield house April 19. 1654. The PREFACE To my Christian Reader IT is growne into a fashion for him who entertaines the world in a Book to parley first a little with his guest at the threshold And although the righteous Judges of Areopagus needed no such complement yet I cannot but judge it a little necessary in this sinfull time and the more in regard of the different complexions of mens perswasions disposing them to faction and to judge unrighteous judgment from the dictate of some particular prejudice What thou art into whose hands my Tract shall come I cannot tell I shall only endeavour to cleare thy eyes from the mist that prejudice and particular affection may have cast before them and be ambitious no further to reconcile thee to me then unto truth It treats of an unpleasing subject The divine Right and Primitive practise of suspending such from the Supper of the Lord who as yet have not their senses exercised to discerne between good and evill and cannot discerne the Lords body such as were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of old and such who since their Baptisme have returned with the dog to the vomit and are yet with the Swine wallowing in the mire of their lusts This is the great bone of contention in the Church of God this day every one would be fellow commoner with the Saints at the Table of childrens bread and those who have not grace to make them worthy yet want patience to beare a being judged unworthy of the highest Gospell-priviledges Reader I suppose thou canst not be so unjust to thy owne reason but to thinke that if the godly Ministers of England durst consult with flesh and bloud that could furnish them with strong Arguments drawne from the augmentation of their livelihood in places where it is arbitrary and from the universall love of their people to compell them into Master Humfryes or Master Boatmans faith Alas what doe we get by our stricter dealings with the soules committed to us except the frownes and reproaches of such whom we durst not cast the holy thing of the Sacrament before It is Gods will that Religion and humane
force and have candidly told thee what hath been by any whom I have met with said against them as also what hath been answered in their defence All being admitted to the Passover as some conceive Iohn Baptists universall Baptisme Iudas his being admitted to the Lords Supper The generall invitation to the Wedding Supper in the Gospell some being drunke at the Lords Supper in the Church of Corinth No evident testimony in Scripture for Suspension 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These are all old tooles and scarce newly whetted Yet what hath Master Humfry said or what doth Master Boatman say more But for the more particular occasion of this Tract I must desire of thee Reader to understand that in this great City there are as I take it about thirty Parishes within the Wals to none of which excepting only two one of which hath about thirty pounds per annum is above ten or twelve pounds a yeare certaine legall maintenance The most of the Parishes have nothing at all Scandalous Livings are alwayes the nests of scandalous Ministers The Parishes being little and the maintenance Arbitrary and many of the people seasoned with the old leaven of ignorance and superstition many if not most of our Parishes have been either without any Minister or filled with such who were cast out of other places or at least no friends to Reformation For those Parishes in which were a more considerable number of godly and well disposed people some of them were better supplyed but in all the City we were able to doe very little to promote the worke of Reformation Some of the Congregations either wanting godly Ministers or persons fit to be chosen as Helpers with them in Government and the people in others wanting an heart to chuse yet through much opposition in two or three Parishes we procured an Election of Elders amongst which Peters was one being the most considerable place in the City and furnished both with persons fit to be chosen and a people willing to chuse and a Reverend Pastor Mr Carter fit to goe in and out before them But the yoake of Jesus Christ which is alwayes easie to a gracious heart doth always gall the necks of those who have made their lusts Lords some of the people who had the taste of the flesh pots of Aegypt yet in their mouth began to kick at this supposed burthen some withdrew their stipends in short some one way others another way tyred out their Reverend and Learned Pastor who after severall thoughts of removall from them about May last resolved upon it About that time one Master Boatman sometimes of Hull was commended to them we who were Ministers of the Gospell in the City conceived it our duty as we had opportunities to enquire of him to whom ere long it would be expected that we should give the right hand of fellowship Amongst others my selfe as I had occasion offered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made some Enquiry concerning him soone after speaking with a Minister who sometimes lived in Yorkshire I askt him if he knew such a Minister in their Countrey and what he was He told me he knew him very well and he was a man who would preach frequently and was a great enemy to Sectaries but himselfe was neither Minister nor Graduate Soon after a Reverend and Godly Minister of Lincolneshire comming to see me I asked him the same Questions who confirmed the same things Concerning the thing established out of the mouths of two witnesses I imparted it to two friends one a Minister the other a judicious Christian inhabiting in the Parish And this I did the rather because I heard they were about to invite him for a Probationer and I my selfe having a Moneth to spend in the University was to be absent that so if he came these things might be enquired after While I was in the University I occasionally at dinner at the Vice-chancellors chamber being at supper the same nightwith one of the Proctors met with two Ministers one at each place both of Lincolne-shire where I knew Master Boatman had his residence they both confirmed the same things adding something more which I shall spare except Master Boatman provokes me to speake it being desirous rather to vindicate my selfe then to asperse him While I was absent some of his friends had sufficiently branded me for saying he was no Graduate when as he was a Reverend man a Batchelour of Divinity forsooth of Katherine Hall One of them fell upon me face to face at my returne I told them I would not be over-confident because it was but a Report but I would soone satisfie them as to that point Thereupon I wrote a Letter by the next Post to a Learned friend Fellow of that House who certified me That he knew him very well That by admission he was two yeares my junior That for degrees he was three degrees beneath a Batchelour in Divinity having never commenced at all nor staid in the Colledge above a yeare or a yeare and halfe at utmost Some other things he certified me which I shall conceale intending only my owne vindication This was the only Letter I ever wrote to enquire of him and that in my owne vindication too though I heare he hath told his friends he hath Copies of severall Letters I wrote to that purpose Soone after this a Reverend Brother in this City had another Letter from a godly and learned Minister who was of his year and Colledge to omit other passages in the Letter he told him that he never commenced any thing but junior Sophister By all this we gathered That an Harry Sophister was the height of his University-Commencements It was now about Iuly when the Anabaptisticall party began to rage against Vniversity-Learning and Degrees We who were Ministers in this City were a little sensible if we had been satisfied concerning him upon other accounts what an ill sound it would make in the world to be heard that the greatest Congregation in so famous a City as this and a Congregation which ever had either a Doctor in Divinity or some very reverend man in it should now be supplyed with one who had given no proofe in any Universitie of his abilities or proficiencie in his Studies nor so much as taken the lowest degree in the Schooles This made some of us doe what in us lay to move those who were our sober pious friends in that Congregation to act deliberately in so weighty a worke in which the glory of God the good of the City the interest of their soules and their credit and reputation would be so much concerned and that before they agreed to his Election they would enquire concerning his later conversation and be satisfied that he were a Minister in Office at least We thought considering that juncture of time and the eminency of the place it would also be fit that at least he should be Mr of Arts. At last he came to the Towne and a
party of the people elected him as their Pastor one hundred and eleven having before subscribed Master Carter a new Call promising to wait a yeare for him Diverse godly people dissented from the Election openly and the rather because he refused to satisfie them concerning his Ordination I shall referre to my Reader to enquire other passages concerning his Election About three weeks after Michaelmas he came to reside but before this he had declared himselfe for Episcopacy somthing plainly we suppose he was of another judgement when he preached at Hull He had also by this time declared himselfe to a Reverend Minister in the City for promiscuous communions and within a day or two after told a godly man pinching him upon that point that he should well see he was not for promiscuous communions soon after his comming to reside we had heard he had declared himselfe privately against Ruling Elders Presbyter haud amo te nec possum dicere quare Hoc tantùm possum dicere non amo te For his judgement in that point or indeed in any other it is not much considerable for we doe not thinke he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and we can easily beleeve that we have more to say yea that more hath already been said to prove the divine Right of that O ficer in the Church then Mr Boatman can answer About the beginning of December after about six weeks residence amongst a people he had never seen before except as a guest for a forth-night nay and as I remember of that six weeks he was absent for a fortnight too He declares he intended to administer a Sacrament on Christmas day some honest people of his Congregation being dissatisfied at it went to him and told him so in regard of the superstitious conceit of that day which many in this City have One of his friends told me they had prevailed with him so far as that the next day he would unbid it againe but in stead of it the next Lords day in stead of unbidding it girding at those who had received this offence he openly proclaimes foure Sacraments together The first upon the eighteenth day of December the second upon the five and twentieth c. and proclaimed likewise a Fast Preparatory to them upon the thirteenth of December At which Fast Reader thou must thinke there was much people to see which way he would row though they needed not if they had considered the wind and tyde For my selfe I was not there having with some other of my Brethren refused to heare him who refuseth to let us know by what Authority he preaches and conceiving that the Pastorall Right to that people belongs not to him besides other things which discover him to us to be no friend to any kind of Reformation At his Fast he preached on Rom. 14.12 His discourse in the forenoone was harmlesse in the afternoon he disgorged himselfe I shall give thee a short account of that part of his Sermon which concernes this businesse as it was taken and given me by an ingenuous judicious Schollar from his owne mouth in short hand and by one who was before that Sermon much his friend An Account of the latter part of Mr Boatmans Sermon preached at St Peters in Norwich upon the 13th of December 1653. upon Rom. 14.12 being a perfect count of his Sermon from his last Use With short Animadversions upon it Sect. 1 SIxthly and lastly though I said but rather forgot when I said that that should be the last Take this Lesson from the point all in generall viz. the Apostles advice 1 Cor. 11. Judge your selves consider your selves aright lay things aright to heart condemne your selves else God will condemne you Passe a particular account with your selves but that you will say is impossible Who can tell his errors or number his infirmities Doe it as far as you are able and in a generall way take the whole burthen on your soules licke the dust cry out with Job I am exceeding vile humble your selves in dust and ashes And let me make the last Use more particular to alarum you to a preparation to the great Ordinance of the Lords Supper if you must give an account to God as you have heard of all your carriages and enjoyments of all the precious Ordinances of the Gospell of which the Word and Sacraments are not the least but of the highest nature then put your selves into a posture of humiliation thinke with your selves O God! how often have we eaten unworthily It is not one of the least serious thoughts I have entertained a great while together in relation to this Ordinance the generall want of it amongst the people of God in the Church of God it filleth me with wonder that it hath been so long suspended and almost all the Pastors of the Church of Christ so amused either their minds disturbed or their hearts hardened or by one way or other diverted that it hath been too void of the spirituall food of the Gospell The world dictates and cryes out one against such a Pastor others against such and such persons but will you have my verdict The sinne of Pastor and people in the enjoyment of that great Ordinance is the cause and ground that God hath found out a way and by a way of his owne finding out which a man would have thought at first should never have prevailed which hath hindred the people of the enjoyment of that great Ordinance of the communion of the body and bloud of Christ. Let this humble us This Paragraph containes little in it to the present purpose hitherto he is making way for his work but yet in this loose discourse to passe by the Tautologies and Grammaticall Errors here are some passages that speak not much of a Divine as to say That God hath found out wayes to hinder people of his Ordinances God indeed doth sometimes give up his people to spirituall judgment but it is scarce truth to say God finds out wayes for men to walke contrary to his will in surely man finds them out though God suffers them to walke in them But let us heare a little further Sect. 2 And you of this Flocke I beseech you by the mercies of Christ looke to it as you will answer me at the great day nay which is more to Jesus Christ himselfe how you approach Looke to your soules hearts and consciences you have lived under the Ministry and Administrations of able Pastors so long together and should you be ignorant of the rudiments of Religion I would not for a thousand worlds attribute so little to your constancy and your paines especially in such times nor in former viz so much as makes you capable of and fit for the Sacrament For my owne particular I question not your duty but beseech you according to the knowledge you have received seriously to prepare your selves take heed bethinke your selves humble your selves for your miscarriages heretofore in the enjoyment of
they make themselves wiser then any former Ages That they are bold intruders on Christs Authority Dost thou thinke Reader that he hath not said to himselfe My tongue is my owne and I will speak The best of it is we thinke it no great slander Let it run to its excesse of riot Fourthly here is a malicious insinuation That we keep men from the Sacrament for whimzies and gimcracks and trifles and differences in State-matters and particular prejudices Those who doe any such things are engaged to speake for themselves I know none but abhorres these calumnies But yet I am at a losse for the reason should amaze our consciences Sect. 5 Another Reason which few understand but I would many did who suspend the Sacrament it would make them looke to it and about them is That the Church of Rome hath got more these two yeares by suspending the Sacrament in the Church of England then ever it did in Queen Mary's dayes To my owne knowledge of the persons the Arguments they use the place and County I referre you to 'T is Lincolneshire they say where is your Church of England now where are the marks the Word and Sacraments which the Orthodox and Ancient accounted the only true marks of the Church You have indeed Preaching and Baptisme but where is the Lords Supper no where unlesse as the Papists private Masse here and there in a corner There are none but may see and understand doth not the Church of God lose by this Is it not the Popes harvest Nay in time the suspension of this great Ordinance will take men off from hearing unlesse it be a company of men which come to heare for novelty and so none will owne the Church of Christ This is the great Reason besides the Authority of Scriptures whereby I have proved it perswading me to the Administration of it They cannot have the Sacrament they can have the Eucharist at Rome they will goe thither nay more I have knowne particularly and could name them that have been first amused then amazed and after by subtle and ingenuous cheats drawne to the Church of Rome Now I have no desire you should be Papists and therefore have a great desire to entertaine you as members of the Church of England Now we have got the conscience-startling Reason Master Boatman must give the Sacrament to all and he thinks we would doe it too if we did but consider 1. That the neglect of this Ordinance hath given occasion to the Papist to say where is your Church where are your Sacraments But in the first place Est inter Tanaim quiddam socerumque Viselli 1. Cannot we set up courses of Sacraments but we must keep open house for all profane persons This aimes only to urge a necessity of administring the Ordinance it proves nothing against suspension of the unworthy 2. The Papists are very busie to aske indeed where is our Church Chamier Whitaker c. have told them where it is 't is well we have some better Doctors I see to answer for us then Master Boatman for he thinks the Question unanswerable if Sacraments be not constantly administred in every part of our Church and every one admitted to it Well by my consent he shall never be appointed to answer Bellarmine 3. No wise man ever thought That the suspension of the Administration of the Ordinance of the Sacrament in a corrupted Church till it could be set in order the Church yet in judgment defending the Ordinance and thirsting for a time to administer it orderly did unchurch a Church where was then the Church of the Jewes for 40 yeares together wanting Circumcision Surely one might tell a Papist the Sacrament is administred constantly in some hundreds of Congregations in England in the Churches in London Lancashire Suffolk Essex c. 5. What makes Master Boatman cry it is no where except as the Papists private Masse here and there in a corner I cannot tell surely London is no corner but many of his hearers thought that by that he reflected upon my Administration of it in the Chappell belonging to this Noble Family If he did he may please to know the Lady in whose Chappell it is is an Earles eldest Daughter and now the Widow of a Noble Gentleman who was Knight and Baronet in either of whose Rights the Law allowes her a place of Publike Worship and a Chaplaine and makes her Chappell a place of Publike Worship her house especially being distinct from all other Parishes and an entire Liberty within it selfe But we must tell him his carrying the Sacrament the other day to a private chamber for a Viaticum to a sicke person was a great deale more like private Masse or if you will carrying The Hoast We saith Beza Bezae tract de coena Domini contra Joachimum Westphalum in oct ex edit Steph. 1559. p. 160. speaking in the name of Protestants doe not use to administer the Sacrament of the Lords Supper privately to our sicke people nor doe they desire it for they are so well taught as to know that their salvation doth not depend upon their receiving the Sacraments a privation of which is not damnable but a contempt only Now they to whom the Lord hath denied liberty to come into the publike Congregation cannot seem to contemne the Ordinance So Aretius Illud autem omni desensione justa caret quod ad aegros defertur tanquam viaticum morituris qui mos inolevit ut opinor cum persuasum esset plebi quosdam piè mori non posse nisi prius coenā Domini sumpsissent c. Arist Probl. loc 82. Chrysost in Mat. Hom. 3. The administration of the Sacrament saith he is a publike action and for private Sacraments they seeme to us to be repugnant to the nature of that Ordinance which is a Communion So Aretius also Lastly surely a wise Protestant would tell a Papist That if we had one Sacrament too few they have five too many which would argue as much against the truth of their Church as the want of one could against the truth of ours Thus you see the Papists Mr Boatman is so gravell'd with may be answered without a promiscuous communion But 2. he thinks Many will turne Papists if they may not have the Sacrament here Would there not be fine Communicants thinke we that are so ready to turne Papists upon every teach 2. But so long as Sequestrations hold I thinke we need not feare men of Estates turning Papists the consciences of such as we must deny the Sacrament to are not so strict for others indeed there may be some feare 3. But is this a good Argument thinke we Suppose a debauched swearer or drunkard should come to us and tell us If we will not give him the Sacrament he will turne Papist must we therefore prophane Gods Ordinance Chrysostome tels us he would sooner give his body to death and his bloud to be shed then he would pollute Gods
Ordinance by giving it to scandalous sinners Suppose an impudent Queane should come to one and tell him if he would not marry her she would turne whore were this a good Argument thinke you to perswade a Gentleman to marry her or rather eo nomine to refuse her Master Boatmans reason is just such another Now Reader thou seest what the startling Reason we heard comes to a meer poker in reality just nothing Againe to the Exhortation I beseech you make no evill use of what hath been said because it is the truth and nothing but the truth of God And I say againe that it is not in the power of any particular Minister or Congregation without cleare conviction and Condemnation to keep a man from the Sacrament if he will rush no man hath any thing to do with him And if you will rush do your bloud be on your own soules I have quitted mine hands this day before God and his people Looke to your selves if your consciences tell you that you have not owned the Gospell that you have been ashamed of Religion that you have walked in evill If your conversation bespeake your irregularities I beseech you reforme refraine It would be the greatest happiness and joy that ever I met withall in all my life to have that scoffe become a reall truth that you might prove all Saints at St Peters that I might be able to present you to God as your Pastor an holy and unblameable and peculiar Congregation Brethren I beseech you labour as much as in you lies by considering and laying to heart what hath been said to refraine from those lusts which have been prevalent in your spirits In the next place to you that have not run into the same excesse of riot and I blesse Godwith and for you but I have one exhortation to give you that you would be pleased to fill your soules with charity Look to your selves beleeve every man his Brother better than himselfe this is Evangelicall counsell Some will say I see such and such profane advise them hast thou done that If not thou hast sinned against the Gospell and his sin is not so much his as thine dost thou cry out of him and hast not prayed for him particularly admonished him and soberly that for the time to come he would take a better course hast thou done it with moderation meeknesse sobriety tendernesse and seasonably restored thy brother overtaken Raile not revile him not cry not out against him make not his private sin publike let not every one take notice of it of which thou takest notice do not sin against thy Brothers soule But some are not yet satisfi d if the profane be admitted and the Sacrament be administred promiscuously the Ordinance will be defiled A pretty dreame Is not the Word as soone defiled because a profane man heares it As soone that may as the Sacrament what is another mans receiving unto thee if thou receivest worthily I do not remember the Scripture tells us that any man got any hurt by the man that came without the wedding garment nor did any man ever the more shun the roome or cast him out only indeed the Master came and he turned him out Let the profane take heed lest they be turned out Christ may find them out For this cause many are sick and weake c. and he may cast them into utter darknesse But although Christ hath this authority I know no Minister hath any such What have we to do if it be thus Only these two things and I desire you especially of this Congregation to joine with me in an humble and serious confession to God of our former practises 2. As heartily to renew solemnly your Covenant made in Baptisme against the flesh the world and the devill you know how guilty you have been all of the breach of it That once done I will take upon me on good grounds to call you holy to the Lord and seriously invite you to this worke In this last Paragraph the greatest part of it is something better than ordinary men of this Gang could not so securely raile against examination by Eldeships and enquiries after the flock if they did not pretend for a great deale of zeale for private examination There were some of old that to devoure widdows houses the better made long prayers I wish that all the pretended strictnesse of some for selfe-examination be not only a vizard to mock the world with while they rob the Church of the divine Ordinances of Presbyteries and Suspension c. But yet in this Paragraph First he ownes all that he hath said before and tels his people It is the truth and nothing but the truth of God apply this to all he had said before That Suspension was a dreame a meere dreame a pharisaicall invention for which was not the least footstep in Gods word that no power under heaven hath any seeming or semblable authority to keepe any from the Sacrament that will press to it on their own score That those who do it are proud uncharitable intruders upon Christs Office that former Ages never thought of it all this is the truth he saith and nothing but the truth of God yea and he saith it againe That it is not in the power of any particular Minister or Congregation without cleare conviction and condemnation to keep any away what he meanes by Conviction and Condemnation he told us before three or foure times over they must be Excommunicated Whether a single Minister hath power or no is a question some make but Mr Boatman hath no reason for he owneth no Eldership and the Rubrick allowed it to a single Minister in some cases but he had expounded himselfe before No power on earth can do it And in the very next words here If he will rush no man hath any thing to do with him And now he tels his people If they will rush they may their bloud he upon their soules he hath quitted his hands c. Thus Mat. 26.24 Pilate when he had condemned Christ tooke water and washed his hands saying I am innocent of the bloud of this just person see ye to it It is a good wish he wisheth that the scoffe might become a reall truth that all were Saints at Peters The scoffe he referreth to we know not unlesse it were one raised by one of his own friends who having got their Pastor amongst them to a cup of Sack and a pipe of Tobacco merrily told an honest man that such a night their Pastor and some of Peters Christians were at such a place conferring together whence some called those who frequent such meetings Peters Christians But the wish was good His next counsell is good only he should have told his people that if the offence be notorious and publike that private admonition shall not need precede Him that sinneth openly rebuke openly saith the Apostle He feares some will thinke the Ordinance is defiled if the
profane be admitted this he calls a pretty dreame and saies the Word is as much defiled c. To this I shall speake hereafter with Mr Boatmans leave though the Ordinance be not capable of any intrinsecall pollution yet the Communion is defiled by enduring profane persons in it 1 Cor. 5.6 if the Apostle knew what he said yea and the people that communicate are defiled if they do not their duty admonishing them informing the Church c. to be sure the Officers of the Church are defiled for it was their duty to have kept them away But Mr Boatman doth not remember any man got hurt by the presence of him that wanted the wedding garment nor shunned the roome for him only the Master came and turned him out 1. Before this will prove any thing to the purpose he must prove that the Supper there mentioned was the Lords Supper otherwise this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Secondly he must prove that that Guest did not only want the wedding garment but that he wore an open filthy garment an hypocrite wants the wedding Garment yet I know none say the presence of hypocrites defiles a Communion why because man cannot judge the heart but the question is whether the presence of gross sinners defiles the Communion or no 3. None saies the bare presence of a scandalous sinner defiles the particular soule of a private member but it defiles the Officers and the Communion 4. Mr Boatman doth remember the Master turn'd him out So it is Christs will belike none should be there but such as have the wedding garment and the question is whether he now he is ascended hath left us sufficient power to do his will as to such wanters of the wedding garment as our eyes can discover 5. Holy Mr. Ambrose thinks that Christ Ambrose his Media p. 260. turning out him who wanted the wedding-garment is a good Argument for to evince our duty to turne away such as appeare to us to want it we being in Christs stead his Embassadours Stewards c. But Mr Boatman tels us againe we have no such authority we will anon joyne issue with him in that point In the last place he exhorts his people to confession and renewing their Covenant and then he pronounceth his people all Holy to the Lord. I hope he meant in the largest sense of holinesse This Reader is a perfect account of that whole part of his Sermon which gave occasion to this ensuing Tract I confesse for my own part I heard it not no more did scarce any of our Ministers some of us being resolved first to be satisfied That he hath authority to preach which we have very good grounds to suspect he hath not but these notes were given me upon my desire by an ingenious young man who is a Schollar who tooke them in short hand from Mr Boatman's mouth and gives me leave Reader to tell thee that he will justifie that they are a true account of that part of his Sermon to Mr Boatman or any other I saw the severall other Notes taken by others though more imperfectly because taken in long-hand which yet have the same passages concerning Suspension and those who practice it If they be denied thou shalt have them in the next attested by six or seven more In the meane time I appeale to such Christians in this City as heard that Sermon whether those passages concerning Suspension and those who practice it be not faithfully recorded My selfe was that day employed in a meeting with other Ministers of the City I was no sooner returned home at night to my Study but there came to me foure or five honest men exceedingly troubled at the Sermon one of them almost in a rage professing he never heard so much audaciousnesse in a Pulpit they were indeed all very much troubled and read me their Notes The next day was my Lecture day in which I was to preach a preparation Sermon to the Sacrament perceiving that we had been so boldly challenged and so rudely reflected upon I thought it my duty to take notice of it and in my Sermon in thesi spake to it 1. Proving that Suspension of the ignorant and scandalous from the Lords Table though they were not Excommunicated was justifiable from Scripture 2. Proving that it was so far from being a pharisaicall dreame that it had been the judgement and practice of the Servants and Churches of God in all ages and of our owne ever since the first dawnings of Reformation amongst us in the daies of King Henry 8. This was carried to him and I heare that on the Lords day which was his first Sacrament day he was taken up with admiring the bold face of them who should say any such thing c. and that he quoted the Discipline of the French Church as a witnesse against Suspension how truly we will examine anon By this time the spirits of his friends were up and a great cry there was about the Towne that we could talke but durst not dispute with this new Champion he had challenged us all c. and in particular this was laid to my charge I confesse I had so much pride as to thinke him an adversary something below me but yet to stop his friends mouths and especially to vindicate the truth and Ordinances of God and our own practice from him by the advice of two or three Reverend Ministers upon the twentieth of December I drew up this ensuing Letter in the presence of two Reverend Ministers and read it to them and they approving it upon the 21. I sent it to him by the hands of two honest men his Parishioners The Letter follows Verbatim Sir I am credibly informed by the mouths of more than two or three witnesses which yet had been enough to have establish'd the thing that in a discourse this day seven-night you did first confidently maintaine 1. That Suspension distinct from Excommunication was a dreame of the Pharisees Secondly as confidently 2. Challenge any Minister in the world to shew you any ground for it from Scripture And had these things been spoken but once charity might have judged them Lapsus linguae but being repeated againe and againe and with a great deale of difference and averred and renewed since in private as I am assured all must conclude them errores mentis Nor have I heard it only as inculcated from your selfe againe and againe but from divers others who possibly some of them had need be of that large perswasion that you offer to dispute with any in the defence of it Sir I know not wherefore God hath set me in this City but to stand up for his glory and for the defence of his truth and Ordinances and though I have not been a man of war from my youth yet I must not now stand still and heare you defie the Churches and Servants and Ministers of the living God as Pharisaicall dreamers and this day after day These are
Scripture which is evinced from it by necessary consequence if it be there either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If Mr Boatman or any other will deny me that any thing is to be proved from Scripture but what is there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He makes our Saviour a very insufficient Logician who thus proves the resurrection Mat. 22.32 33. Mat. 22.31 32. and his Auditors very weake who the Evangelist saith were very well satisfied with the proofe And those who agree with the Anabaptists in that whimzy will be bound to reconcile that of St James James 5.4 to truth Iames 5.4 by shewing us where the Scripture saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The spirit that dwelleth in you lusteth to envy Yet the Apostle saith the Soripture saith it But I will suppose Mr Boatman so rationall as to grant me this or else he will be bound to deny the Sacrament to all women Baptisme to all children and the Lords day to be a Sabbath So that the question is this Whether supposing a Church have a Presbytery The Question stated it be in the power of that Presbyterie having found some persons baptized and not excommunicated grosly ignorant or scandalous in the name of the Lord Jesus to warne them for a time to forbeare communicating at the Lords Table and if they presse unto it to deny it to them by declaring the Church hath no Communion with them or the like c. In the proving the affirmative part of this Question 1. I shall not trouble my selfe to prove they may doe it I shall sufficiently prove that in proving They ought to doe it for though a thing may be lawfull and yet not expedient yet a thing cannot be necessary and yet unlawfull Nulla necessitas peccandi we are not necessitated to sin 2. I shall not enter into a particular enquiry what degrees of ignorance render a person obnoxious to this censure nor yet what vitious qualifications in point of scandall doe it it is enough for me if I prove it concerning any how notoriously ignorant or erroneous or scandalous soever provided they be not absolutely excommunicated for if any one sort of sinners either ignorant or haereticall or scandalous except Turkes Jewes Heathens and excommunicate persons may have this Ordinance denied to them though they presse to it Mr Boatman's confident challenge will be answered and he engaged to make it good or recant for his rashnesse and presumption The question being thus stated I accept this Bold challenge and shall prove it by this principall syllogisme which shall be the head of my ensuing Arguments To those to whom it may not lawfully be given it may lawfully be denied But there may be some Baptized persons in the Church to whom it may not lawfully be given Ergo The Proposition cannot be denied except we will say that we are necessitated to sinne for if there may be some to whom we can neither lawfully give the Ordinance though they come nor lawfully deny it to them we are obliged to sinne there being no medium between them two I shall therefore prove the assumption by severall Arguments viz. That there may be some Baptized persons not yet absolutely cast out of the Church to whom the Sacrament of the Lords Supper may not lawfully be given CHAP. II. Containing the first Argument from Mat. 7.6 From whence is proved that this Ordinance is an holy thing and so not to be given to Dogs nor cast before Swine Argument 1 My first Argument is this Holy things may not lawfully be given to Dogs nor Pearles lawfully cast before Swine But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is an holy thing and a Pearle and there may be some in the Church who in Scripture phrase are Dogs and Swine Ergo. THis is no new Argument Erastus pretends to answer it so doth Mr Prinn and Mr Humfry The summe of all I meet with answered to it is this 1. Say some The Sacrament is none of the holy things there spoken of 2. All sorts of sinners that are scandalous are not the Dogs and Swine there meant so that the Argument as they say is a fallacy à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter To reinforce it against all their weake Cavils two or three things must be opened 1. What holy things are here spoken of 2. Who are the Dogs and Swine here spoken of 3. To whom this precept is directed Let us examine all these three a little 1 Q. What holy things are here spoken of It is a good rule Where the Law doth not distinguish we should not Our Saviour Jesus Christ speakes not of this or that Holy thing but sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it is a bold presumption in us to restraine it without Scripture-warrant I think therefore every sober Christian will grant me these two things 1. That all those holy things and Pearles are here forbidden to be given to Dogs and cast before Swine which the Scripture doth not elswhere plainly allow to be given to Dogs or Swine else they will be obliged to shew us another ground of restraint 2. I hope it will easily be granted to concorne such holy things as God hath betrusted us to give out for it is to men Christ speakes Things are called holy in Scripture upon a fourefold account 1. In respect of consecration when a thing is set apart for Gods service 2. In respect of inherent purity Thus God is holy and his grace as holy 3. In respect of a divine signature and impression upon them Thus every command and every Ordinance of God is holy 4. In respect of a designation and subserviency of it to an holy use or end in this sence also are all the Ordinances of God holy And doubtlesse these are the holy things here spoken of and so all grant Upon the two last accounts saith Chemnitius the Ordinances of God are rightly called holy Now the Ordinances of God are of two sorts 1 Private 2 Publick Chemnit harm cap. 51. Private Ordinances are institutions of Christ to be performed by private persons either in order to Gods glory or our brethrens good such are private instructions and exhortations each of other Private prayer private admonitions frequently commanded by God in Scripture The publike Ordinances are publike preaching and expounding Scripture before the Church performed by persons in Office to it publike Prayer Church censures c. It is without all question that the Ordinances of God are the Holy things here forbidden to be given to Dogs or cast before Swine But the question is whether all these Holy things be forbidden here to be so cast or onely some I say there is no reason but we should understand all those Ordinances which in other places of Scripture are not commanded to be given to all My reason is this because it
is boldnesse in us to restraine what God hath not limited And hence I perceive that some who have been inclined to thinke that some one Ordinance is especially meant here yet dare not exclude others So Mr Jeanes Mr Ieanes p. 125 126. 2 ed. of his bank entituled The want of Church Government c. though he thinkes admonition and reproofe are chiefly meant supposing the words not to be a compleat precept in themselves but to relate to the precedent words yet he tels us he will not deny but it may be extended and applied to the giving of the Lords Supper And Chemnitius determines it an unjust restriction to restraine it to reproofe Besides that admonition may be given to Dogs yea to such Dogs as are shut out of the doores of the Church 2 Thes 3.15 He is not to be counted as an enemy but admonished as a Brother with whom we ought to have no company that he may be ashamed I know Thomas Erastus tels us it must be meant of Preaching the word Erast Explic. Graviss quaest thes 94. But besides that there is no ground in the Text for this there is lesse in other places of Scripture For the Word must be preached to Heathens Mat. 28. and much more to them who are but as Heathens and to scandalous sinners Nor is there any reason to appropriate this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the word onely It seemes to me that our Saviour had an especiall eye to Sacramentall Ordinances not onely because in other Scriptures there is an expresse command to admit the most sorts of Dogs to heare the word but also because if any one Ordinance may be called more holy then other it is this of the Supper which is The new Testament in his blood The Communion of the body and blood of Christ But to say this Ordinance is excluded is not onely to speake contrary to Scripture but to common sense too Which made Erastus in the same thesis thinke it safer to insist upon a distinction of Dogs then adhere to his first distinction of holy things This Scripture therefore using a generall terme which is not restrained by any preceding or subsequent words and no other Scripture plainly allowing of the holy thing of the Lords supper to be given to Swine and Dogs I conceive he that desires his words may goe along with the truth and beare a proportion to his owne reason if he be endued with so much as an humane soule doth intitle all but mad men and fooles unto will not say but that the Lords Supper is here couched at least in the number of the holy things and pearles here specified Especially when I shall have made it evident by the different applications of this Scripture amongst the Ancients and large expositions of it by Moderne sober Writers That they thought not the holy things here spoken of were Admonition or Preaching onely but other holy administrations also Clemens Alexandrinus expounds it generally for all the flowings out of living water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 2. ex edit Lutes 1619 p. 368. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas in dial 1 de Trin. sub initio p. 138. t. 2. impr 1606 in offic Commetiana Tertul. 9. l. 2 de matrimonio cum Gentilibus c. 5. lib. de praescrip contra haeretices cap. 26. lib. de Baptismo cap. 17. which surely are in all divine Ordinances Athanasius makes use of this Text to justify himselfe in not giving an account of his faith to enemies of the Truth In his first Dialogue concerning the Trinity inter Orthodoxum Anomoeum Arrianistum In the beginning of it Anomoeus asking Orthodoxus whether he was a Christian or no hee tels him yes he was Anomoeus going on and asking him what Christianity was he tels him it was necessary for him to tell him the first but not safe for him to tell him the latter Anomoeus asking him why he answers him that if he did not know who he was that askt he might give Holy things to Dogs and cast Pearles before Swine Tertullian in his second Book concerning the marriage of Heathens with Christians applyeth this place as forbidding Christians to marry with Heathens because their conversation was an holy thing which must not be cast unto Dogs Yet it is plaine he doth not restraine it for in his Book de praescrip contrae haereticot he plainly applyes it to the Preaching of the Gospell and in the 17 Chap. of his Book de Baptisme he applies it to Baptisme By which it is plaine hee understood it in generall of all holy things Moyses and Maximus and Ruffinus in their Epistle to Cyprian understand it of absolution and all divine Ordinances Cyprian himselfe makes use of this Text to justify his not writing to Demetrianus v. Cypt. opera ep 26. lib. contra Demetrianum sub mitio l. 3. Testim ad Quirinum Chrysost in 1. Hom. in cap. 7. Math. in prologo ad expos Iohannis Homil 20. in 10 cap. Heb. lib. de compunctione cordis Immundis impuritatibus sacra consortia non impertienda a wretched enemy of the Truth and how he useth it elsewhere may be seen in l. 3. Test ad Quirinum where he brings it to prove this head Sacramentum fidei non est profanandum Basil the Great applies but doth not restrain it to preaching the Gospel Chrysostome in his first Homily on the seventh Chapter of Matthew applies it to the Preaching of the Word to warrant him if he saw his hearers negligent to shut up his book So he doth in his Prologue to his Exposition of the Gospell of St Iohn And againe in his Homily de oruce dominicâ But in his twentieth Homily upon the tenth Chapter to the Hebrewes he applies it to the Lords Supper And in his Book de compunctione cordis to all the mysteries of our Salvation and from this Scripture takes occasion to chide those Ministers who gave out the Sacrament promiscuously and saies this was the reason why they were trampled upon and rent by the wicked according to this Text. Hierom cals the holy things the childrens bread and the Gospell Pearls I might also weary my selfe and the Reader with many quotations out of Ambrose Gregor Mag. Origen which plainly shew their expounding this Text in a latitude not restraining it to this or that holy thing Isid Pelus l. 4. n. 181. ep ad Hicrâ—cem l. 1. ep 143. Aug. in Serm. in momte l. de side c. Hieron in Mat. 7. Chemnit harm c. 51. c. 66. n. 3. Alex. Halensis sum theol p. 4. q. 11. art 1. sect 4. The judgement of Isidorns Pelusiota and Angustine may be read in many places the latter of which though once he applies it to fraternall correption yet hath many different applications of it Chemnitius in his Harmony upon the place tels us that the Word and Sacraments are the holy things here meant And in the
66 Chapter of his Harmony n. 3. tels us that wicked men are to be kept from the Lord's Table upon the command in this Text. Alexander Halensis brings this Argument to prove that our Saviour did not give the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to Indas because he should have then have acted contrary to his owne precept in this place where he forbad holy things to be given to Dogs whether that Argument be good or no I doubt he answers it but it is plaine hee thought that by holy things the Sacrament of the Lords Supper was meant in part Rutherfords divine right c. 5 q. 1. Gillespy Aarons rod. l 3. cap. 15. Learned Rutherford makes an Argument of this Text for this very purpose and vindicates it from Erastus his Cavils Gillespy stands upon the same Argument and vindicates it from Erastus and Mr Prin. By all this is plaine in what sence the eminent servants of Christ have in all ages understood this Text though some of them as Piscator Gualther Bucer and others Piscater ad loc Gualther ad loc Pareus ad loc Rutherford ib. ut prius thinke that admonition is chiefly meant and Pareus that the Preaching of the Gospell is chiefly meant yet none of them durst exclude the other nor was there any reason when as Learned Rutherford observeth the word was ordained to be preached unto Dogs and Lyons to make them Lambes and Converts Is 11.4.5 6. Is 2.3 4. And Christ himselfe commanded the Word to be preached to Pharisees and Sadduces persacutors who had sinned against the Holy Ghost Mat. 12.31 32. Iohn 9.39 40 41. Iohn 7.28 Iohn 8.21 I have done with the first thing and shewed that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is amongst the holy things which are there forbidden to be given to Dogs But the next question will be Quest Who are Dogs and Swine 1. That by Dogs and Swine here are not meant those Beasts we call so I suppose will easily be granted me by any that considers how needlesse such a prohibition would have been 2. We must therefore acknowledge a Metaphor and that the creatures to whom in this place holy things are here forbidden to be given are some persons men and women who propter vitia canina as Musculus saith for some morall depravations of mind which have transformed them into the resemblance of Dogs and Swine in their naturall dispositions are so called here by our Saviour All the question will be what those vitious qualifications are upon which our Saviour cals some here Dogs and Swine 3. Every one knowes how dangerous it is to straine Metaephors therefore it will be most safe to keep to a Scripture interpretation of them and say those are here meant by Dogs and Swine whom the Scripture either here characterizeth by some vitious qualifications bearing a proportion to some naturall dispositions in those beasts or whom the Scripture elsewhere expresseth under this notion 4. If we can find them sufficiently characterized here Respondeo Christum de illis loqui qui Margaritas contemnunt ac pedibus caleâ—â— conversi nos laniant hee est de Evangelij hostibue de quibus nequaquam agimus Praetereae loquitur hic Christus non de sacramentis sed de doctrinâ Evangelis canibus porcis hoc est nolentibus conculcantibus non proponenda Explic Graviss quaest thesi 64. we need not seeke elsewhere if we cannot we must either say all such wicked men are here called Dogs and Swine as the Scripture expresseth by that Metaphor or onely some of them 5. If we say some of them onely surely some sufficient reason must be given for it These things therefore premised let us now come to a strict enquiry for the meaning of this place Erastus thinks that the Dogs are sufficiently characterized in the Text. To this purpose he tels us that Christ speaks of them who despise Pearles and trample them under their feet and turning againe teare us that is of the enemies of the Church For whom he saith he pleadeth not to the same purpose I perceive Those reverend men also speaking who understand this Text chiefly of the preaching the Gospel and of Admonition But I shall propound a few considerations 1. That persecutors are Dogs and Swine none will deny but the question is whether they be the only Dogs here spoken of 2. According to Erastus if there be in the Church then one that is an enemy of it one who contemnes the Ordinances and persecutes the servants of Christ he ought to be suspended the Sacrament though not excommunicate Then according to Erastus there is such a thing as suspension 3. Though Persecutors be properly called Dogs for their rending and tearing yet for this they are not properly called Swine for Swine doe not use to teare but we must not cast Pearles before Swine Who are the Swine saith Mr Rutherford and his learned Country-man 4. If they be described in the Text it is by a double character First trampling upon the holy things Gillespy Aarons rod. c. 15. Secondly turning againe and rending the givers The first is proper to Swine the second to Dogs So then we are not to give holy things any more to such that will trample them under their feet then to them who will turne againe and teare us 5. We desire no more should be suspended then wil come under these two notions such as will but trample the Ordinance under their feet or such as will turn againe and rend us All unbeleevers will doe the first we are sure Lastly There are those that doubt whether the latter part of the Text be Exegeticall of the former and say the terme lest doth infer a commination or threatning to those who give holy things to Dogs and Swine wherein the Lord threatens that if they doe it the issue will be 1. Those persons contempt of the Ordinance 2. Turning their Ministers enemies and tearing them being through the just judgement of God the Avengers of his holy Ordinance upon them Who shall so presume to prostitute it I confesse I did not so much value this interpretation of the words Chrysost in Homil. de compunctione cordit though I know they will beare it till I found Chrysostome expressing so much as if he had some such thoughts of them and fetching a reason from this Text why the Ministers of the Gospell in his time were so lamentably despised and persecuted because they had given the holy Sacrament to profane persons and while I had this Notion in my head A Revered Brother in this Country was with me and told me he had found it true in his owne experience in a woman of the Parish of which he was Minister who lately dying in a sad condition and under much supposed guilt charged his administration of the Sacrament to her at the great meanes of her hardning in sinne which was no little wound to this godly mans spirit Since A Merchant of
7 of Matthew and I doubt whether what he and Pareus at last determine concerning refusing to preach the Gospell to some be truth and beleeve it may be proved that Christ and his Apostles preached the Gospell to some such as they determine against and I thinke the same of what Gualther determines Gualther ad loc who expounds the place as chiefly meant of admonition The excommunicate Dog must be admonished as a Brother who yet if he would have heard the Church admonishing should not need have been excommunicated Bullinger ad loc Nor doth Bullinger who preceded Gualther better satisfie who seems to understand it of private admonition yet dates not determine whether it may be denyed to any as a Dog And Bucer concludes that the spirit of God must guide the Minister in such cases Bucer ad loc to whom to preach and to whom to refuse to preach the Word of God But surely we must find the Dogs determined in Scripture before our consciences will be warranted to justifie our practice in denying the Gospell to them Theophylact saith Theoph. ad loc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Heathens are Dogs and Christians that live filthy lives are Swine Chemnitius saies We are all by Nature Dogs and Swine Bucer and Gualther both confesse that sinners of impure lives and unclean conversations are Dogs and Swine so saith Bullinger But the Word or admonition must not be denied to all such I am sure and I know no ground for their restriction The Lords supper indeed must which makes me think that that Ordinance is chiefly here meant though not singly It is the onely Ordinance is to bee denied to all knowne Dogs and herein I agree with my Learned Rutherford Rutherford divine right 254. sinon major sit quam ut mens dici possit as he useth to say of our incomparable Twiss Brentius in his Commentary on the place telleth us Brentiuâ— ad loc cum autem in oculis ecclesiae sit poenitens non est vel ministri ut eum contumeliosè a coena reâ—iciat c. ib. Conrad Pellicanus in loc Musc in loc the Word and Sacraments are the holy things and that wicked and impure men are Dogs and Swine though he rightly concludes that the Word is not to be denied to all Dogs nor any though Dogs in Gods sight to be kept from the Sacrament if penitent Conradus Pellicanus expounds it with Musâ—ulus of all Gospell mysteries Nolim Evangelicae sapientiae mysteria sine delectu tradi dignis indignis and tels us that those are Dogs who abhorre holinesse and those are Swine who wallow in filthy pleasures he seemes to think the Gospell chiefly to be meant but pinching himselfe with the perplexing question what Dogs those are to whom Christ would not have his Gospell preached he concludes with Bucer darkly Nemo sine spiritu patris recte intelliget Salmeron tels us Salmeron l. 5. trac 60. that this Text teacheth us how we should preach the Word and Administer the Sacraments and that by Dogs and Swine are meant Infidels Hâ—reticks and carnall Christians and though a Papist yet determines honestly That the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is to be given to none but him who hath duly tried himselfe and proved himselfe and sales it is thought by many Judas was not at the Sacrament of the Supper if he were he was a secret sinner not scandalous Which is also Alex Halensis his answer But I have said enough to prove both from Scripture Reason and the consent of Learned men that as the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is one of the holy things here meant so if we may either from Scripture or Reason or the judgement of Holy men conclude any thing impure sinners are here meant by Dogs After all this what Mr Humfry saith Mr Humfry's vind frce admission is not worth taking notice of He will have those onely to be Dogs and Swine who are so in the publick esteeme of the Church viz. Juridically consured So that with him Give not holy things to Dogs and Swine is Give not holy things to excommunicate persons and this seemes to be Mr Boatman's sense too who excepts only excommunicate Christians from the Lords Supper and it is likely he plowed with his Heifer not only by his commending of that loose Pamphlet to his Disciples but by his bold censure of Suspension as a Pharisaicall dreame which amounts to Mr Humfrie's non est invent a in balivâ nostrâ p. 82 which made me merry when I read it that being the usuall returne that Sherriffs make who have never looked for the party no more then I beleeve Mr Humfry hath done for this Ordinance or else when they have lookt for him with a resolution to overlook him The truth is both Mr Humfry and Mr Boatman had it from Erastus or the same spirit at least Erast thesis 64. He was the first worker in this sort of Brasse and what they say amounts to the same with his Quos ecclesia â—ta judicavit But let us see to how little purpose this is said 1. The Text is plaine that holy things are not to be given to Dogs or Swine Now I never knew that the shutting of a Dog out of the house made him a Dog I had thought he must have been a Dog first before he had been shut out of the house but this Mr Humfry grants onely not used like Dogs before 2. Our question is what are those Dogs here spoken of whether these who have vitia canina the beastly qualities of Dogs or those onely who have the ill hap of Dogs to be turn'd out of doors Petitio principij I had thought that this Text had been brought to have proved that those who have the nature and beastly qualities of Dogs should be used like Dogs and not have childrens bread given to them 3. If excommunicate persons be meant here surely this Text or some other must justify the usage of this Metaphor in that sence But let Mr Humfry shew us but one Text of Scripture where this terme Dogs is used to expresse excommunicate persons or let him shew us any thing in the Text to enforce it here otherwise we must tell him the Scripture cals all prophane sinners Dogs those who returne with the Dog to the vomit and with the Swine to wallow in the mire are Dogs and Swine in the Scripture sense but I find excommunicate persons call'd so no where upon the account of their excommunication 4. Nor is there any one Author on his side that ever I met with so that his interpretation is contrary to Scripture Reason and all Expositors But yet we say though the Sacrament be denied to Dogs and Swine because they are so not because they are shut out of the houshold of God by excommunication yet in regard that man can judge but according to the out ward appearance they must first appeare
to be so before the Ordinance can be denied to them Secret things belong to God But to say that by Dogs here are only meant persons actually excommunicate is a meer shift to avoid a strong argument and but an idle dreame which hath no reality of truth in it and is justifiable neither from this Text nor any other Scripture But these men who are so zealous for the profanation of an Ordinance are observed very lazy as to the preserving the purity of Ordinances They must be excommunicated before you keep them from the Sacrament saith Mr Boatman so saies Mr Humfry but why doe not these tender men then take a course to declare such to be Dogs and Swine as are so and to cast them out Mr Boatman hath an Eldership established in his congregation why did he not first call them together and inquire the state of his slock and cast out such as might have been found Dogs or Swine if he thinks they must be excommunicated first we are not so hasty in that dreadfull sentence What is Mr Humfries case I cannot tell but their principles and the practise of one of them at least makes some think that they will never take any course to find out who be Swine or Dogs and declare them such except such Dogs as have lost their tailes and cannot fawne enough on them But very zealous they are to declare that all Dogs that are not hang'd by excommunication must be sed with the childrens bread The Lord forgive them this iniquity 3 We have seen what is meant by holy things and have proved that there is no reason to exclude the Sacrament of the Lords Supper We have also shewed who are meant by Dogs There remaines onely to be considered to whom this precept is given Surely all will grant me To those who have holy things to give those whom God hath be trusted with the dispensation of his Ordinances unto others I ask no more and will not enter into a debate here who these are whether the Minister alone or the whole Presbytery c. So then the sense of this place is this You whom I have betrusted with the dispensation of my holy Ordinances take heed you doe not dispense any of them out to impure sinners who will but trample upon them and teare you excepting onely such of my Ordinances as I appointed them as proper meanes for their conversion have other where expresly commanded you to give unto them Nor is that any unjustifiable interpretation for that precept thou shalt not kill must be understood with exception of those whom as Magistrates executing Justice or Souldiers fighting Gods Battles are commanded to kill and the whole Word of God is his Law no piece of which contradicteth other So that the Argument from this Text will hold till Mr Humfry or Mr Boatman doe shew us some other Scriptures where God hath commanded this Sacrament to be given to all but excommunicated persons which will be hard to find Learned and Reverend Gillespy hath observed Erast l. 3. cap. 5 Gillespy Aarons rod. p. â—51 that this Argument gained so much upon Erastus that he restricted himselfe to the admission of such onely to the Sacrament as acknowledge and confesse their sins and promise amendment and desire to use the Sacrament rightly with the rest so far as we are able to judge which concession as he saith rightly will goe very far And I find as much in another place of Erastus Tertium est nos de illis solis loqui qui doctrinam intelligunt probant amplectuntur peccata sua se cognoscere verò ajunt Sacrament is secundum institutionem Christi cum ecclesiâ uti cupiunt il â—d Erast confirm the sium in praefat where hee tels us that he onely speakes for such sinners who understand and approve of and imbrace the doctrine of the Gospell who affirme that they doe truly acknowledge and abominate their sins and desire to enjoy the Sacraments with the Church according to Christs institution We desire but one thing more for let it but appeare to us that any doe thus much and let them be content further if their sin have been scandalous to give us some proofe by a better conversation that this profession is in truth And none of those I plead for will suspend him from the Ordinance But Erastus his Scholers are something more loose then their Master Mr Humfry doth not know what to say for ignorant persons because of Heb. 5.2 but the Apostle could determine those unworthy 1 Cor. 11. who discerned not the Lords body And for the scandalous they must be admonished twice or thrice first Oh how tender the good man is lest he should offend Jesus Christ in not giving his blood to one who profanes it by swearing by it every day Mr Humfry's vindicat p. 81. But it would be enquired whither Mr Humfry be as carefull to enquire into the state of his flock and to admonish scandalous sinners as he is to plead for the Lords Supper for those be they what they will who are not first admonished twice or thriee Conscience is uniforme and will oblige him sure as well to the latter as the former I neither know him nor his people and have no reason either to judge them scandalous or him negligent but it is usually observed that those who pretend a great deale of tendernesse of Conscience in this point Oh they durst not keep any from the Sacrament except they were excommunicated which they know they cannot be as our Church stands at present But these men durst be in company with scandalous sinners and heare sweare and ly and jeor at Godlinesse and yet never admonish them no there they must use Christian prudence admonition is an holy thing must not be given to Dogs but the Sacrament is none belike that may There are two sorts of men in the world are very large in their principles as to admissions to this Ordinance 1. Such as pretend conscience against those Officers in the Church whom the Scripture cals ruling Elders 2. Such as professe their judgement for them 1. Some professe their judgement against ruling Elders as Judges of communicants fitnesse with the Minister though Deane Nowell tels them they were Officers in the Primitive Church used to that purpose in his Catechism Gr. Lat. of old Edit as is yet to be seen in many Copies and especially in the Latine Copies of it in 4 to though some have unworthily left it out in the late Edit Now would these men themselves take upon them the strict inspection of their flock and make it their businesse to goe from house to house and take account of their peoples knowledge and strictly to observe their lives and admonish them for their miscarriages and not admit any notorious sinners to the Sacrament before publick satisfaction in causes of publick scandall either taking upon them themselves according to the old Rubrick to put them
by or finding some other course to have them debarred though my judgement would condemn them as neglecting an Ordinance of Christ yet my charity would beare with them till they were further convinced 2 Others professe their judgements to stand for Presbyteries but they know not how to got any yet they think they are bound to administer the Ordinance Would these men first doe what in them lies to set up the Government of Christ in the hands of his proper Officers and in the meane time 1. Not onely in the Pulpit exhort c. but indeavour to be acquainted with all in their flock going from house to house and taking account of their spirituall estate and observe and enquire concerning their conversations and 3. Pastorally admonish those that they find ignorant of that great sin of Affected ignorance and unprofitablenesse under the meanes of grace and this not only in the Pulpit generally but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 personally and particularly I could say something to excuse them at least à tanto for administring the Ordinance without a Presbytery and they might have a little plea made for them though they kept away none as the state of our Church stands though for my owne part I durst undertake to justifie them in withholding the Sacrament from known scandalous sinners who after pastorall admonition where no more can be shall yet presume to intrude But I heare Mr Humfry and Mr Boatman cry they must be excommunicated first and the latter cry he knows none ignorant nor scandalous if they were yet they both agree that they must be juridically excommunicated But doe these tender men set up this same Court in which the scandalous and ignorant should be first judged or doe they by enquiry of others or observation or examination first endeavour to know such as they invite to the Lords Table and not administer the Ordinance till they have done what in them lies to know whether there be none in their congregations that are ignorant or excommunicate de jure For one of them I can say something though nothing to perswade me or any other that it is from a tendernesse of conscience he is so free I shall now shut up this first Argument it amounts to thus much The holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper is one of those holy things which our Saviour Christ in Mat. 7.6 forbids us to give unto Dogs or to cast before Swine They have the nature of holy things there is no reason to exclude them Expositors generally have so judged Men of impure lives and conversations are Dogs and Swine in Scripture phrase and such as will trample upon the Ordinance It will be an easie conclusion If God hath required those whom he hath betrusted with his holy things not to give them out to such as his word describes to be Dogs and Swine then though there may be some in the Church not yet excommunicated yet they ought not to have the holy thing of the Sacrament given to them But I have proved this to be the will of Christ from this Text Ergo If Mr Boatman can finde out a medium betwixt not giving the Sacrament to them and denying it to them I shall listen to him otherwise by his leave here is a Scripture-prohibition for some to be kept away who are neither Turks nor Jewes nor Heathens nor excommunicated persons and he needed not have challenged all the Ministers on the earth to this task CHAP. III. VVherein a second Argument is brought to prove suspension distinct from excommunication from 1 Cor. 10.21 A second Argument is this It is unlawfull to give the Sacrament to those who cannot eat or drink it But there may be some in the Church not excommunicated who cannot drink of the Lords cup. Ergo I will prove both propositions 1. For the major BEfore I prove it it will be necessary that we consider in what sense the Apostle useth this phrase in the place I allude to 1 Cor. 10.21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the question is what Impotency is there meant 1. That it is not to be understood of the want of a Physicall power is plaine enough for so they might eat at the Table of the Lord and the Devils Table too 2. It must therefore be understood in a morall sense Id tantum possumus quodjur possumus You cannot that is lawfully and warrantably you cannot drink of the cup of the Lord and the cup of Devils Grotius minceth this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too small v. Grotium ad loc when he expounds it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Parens observes against him well that it is a manifest depraving of the sense v. Pareum ad loc the Apostles designe being to shew a plain inconsistency betwixt a fellowship with Christ in his Ordinances and with Devils at Idols Feasts not a meere indecorum in it This is one of the senses which Musculus gives of the Text. 3. I find indeed a third sense of the words hinted Musc ad loc by some reverend Expositors You cannot drink of the cup of the Lord and of the cup of Devils You cannot eat of the Table of the Lord and of the Table of Devils That is say they though you may enjoy an outward Communion in the Ordinance yet you cannot enjoy an inward spirituall Communion with Christ in it As Augustine supposing Judas was at the Lords Supper saith that he did eat Panem Domint but not Panem Dominum But I think Learned Beza saith something against this sense when he tels us that by the Table is meant the Elements upon the Table and by the cup the wine in the cup. If the Apostle had said you cannot eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ if you have fellowship with Devils the Apostle might possibly have been so interpreted but his Argument is plainly to prove the unlawfulnesse of their comming to the Table being guilty of such sinns But the summe of all amounts to this that those who cannot drink the cup and eat at the Table of the Lord in the sense of this Text are either 1. Such as God hath forbidden comming to that Ordinance Or secondly such as if they sush upon the Ordinance yet can have no Communion with Christ no benefit by it I will take it in either sense and I say It is sinfull for any to administer the Ordinance of the Supper to those whom he knowes to be such as are forbidden to meddle with it or whom he knowes to be such as considering their present state cannot have Communion with Christ in it This I hope will easily be proved For surely it will be granted that it is sinfull for any to give it to those to whom he is not commanded to give it for he is the steward of the mysteries of God and must expect his masters order before he deales them out nor will it be enough to say he is not forbidden for his very
Office forbids him and in that he is not commanded he is expresly forbidden Now a Minister is not commanded any where surely to give it to those who are forbidden to receive it To say no more in this case I hope we have all too neverent thoughts of the wisdome of God to think that he should lay his Minister under an obligation to administer his Ordinance to those whom he hath warned upon pain of damnation not to take it Though this were enough for those who encline to the other sense doe cleerly yet grant that those who partook of the Table of Devils are here either forbidden that Table or the Lords Table which if it be true as questionlesse it is our Adversaries must maintaine that they are commanded to give the Sacrament to those whom the same God forbids to take it yet possibly the other part may be more disputable viz. Whether a Minister of the Gospell and his Eldership way without sin admit any to the supper of the Lord concerning whom they know that in their present state they cannot have Communion with Christ in the Ordinance c. I will try whether I can prove the Negative None can without sin knowingly expose the Ordinance of God to necessary abuse and profanation But who ever administers the Ordinance of the Supper to those concerning whom he or they know they cannot have communion with Christ in the Ordinance exposeth the Ordinance to a necessary abuse and profanation Ergo. The major is plaine enough the minor is as cleere if we consider when or how an Ordinance is profaned or abused Her Priests have violated my Law and have profaned my holy things they have put no difference between the holy and the profane neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean Ezek. 22.26 A thing is then abused when it is not turned to a right use but surely he can never turn the Ordinance to a right use that cannot have Communion with Christ in it I come to the minor I thinke enough is said to prove the major that it is sin for any to give the Lords Supper to those that cannot eat and drink there that is to such either as are forbidden that Table or such as cannot have Communion with Christ in it But there may be some known in the Church who are forbidden to come at the Lords Table or who cannot have Communion with Christ in it Ergo. That there may be some such in the Church I suppose none will deny but the question is whether there may be some in the Church that may be known to be such I prove there may If there may be some in the Church who may be known to have fellowship with Devils and to drink of the cup of Devils then there may bee some in the Church who may be known to be such as cannot drink of the cup of the Lord nor eat at his Table But there may be some in the Church who may bee known to have fellowship with Devils and to drink of their cup. Ergo. The consequence is plaine from the Apostle 1 Cor. 10.20 21. And the assumption is as plaine for there were such in the Church of Corinth Ergo. Object If any object But the Church is not bidden to keep them away if they doe come Sol. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we grant it but I have already proved that here is an implicit consequentiall prohibition of the Church to admit such and he had before forbidden them with Idolaters not to eat 1 Cor. 5.11 of which place more hereafter God willing Object But will some say this was for an open horrid sin Idolatry c. having fellowship with Devils c. Sol. Admit it yet thus much we have gained that Idolaters though they be not excommunicated yet they may be denied the Lords supper as well as persecutors by Mat. 7.6 But secondly let us observe what fellowship these Corinthians had with Devils they did not make a compact with Devils they did not worship the Devill as some Idolaters the businesse was only this They being Members of a Gospell Church did eat at Banquets of those Meates which were before sacrificed to their Idols they did not sacrifice with them but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After the Idolaters had been sacrificing they came to their Feasts simply to eat the meat was nothing nor had the Idol made it worse and had it been sold in the Shambles the Apostle determined before that they might have bought it and eat it that which altered the case was onely the shew that it made to the Idolaters of their complying with them and the circumstances of time and place yet the Apostle determines this a fellowship with Devils and Idolatry such a sin as they who are guilty of it could have no communion with Christ in this Ordinance Suppose they had made a compact with the Devill or gone and worshipped the Idols surely the Apostle would much more have said it of such 3. I cannot see but every scandalous sinner every Drunkard Swearer Adulterer c. hath as great a fellowship with Devils as the Corinthians had One thing I desire you to observe There might be latent grace in these Corinthians hearts and doubtless was yet while they lay under this scandall the Apostle determines that they were such as could not eat at the Table nor drink of the cup of the Lord. Whence I conclude That there may be such in a Church concerning whom it may be knowne that they cannot eat at the Lords Table nor drink the Lords cup. It will not be enough to say that God may give them repentance for ought we know at the time or upon their receiving In the mean time till their repentance bee evident they may be knowne and ought to be judged by us as such as cannot eat at the Lords Table nor drink the Lords cup. It is cleare Clem Alex. in paedagogo l. 2. p. 143.144 edit cut 1629. Tertullianus spectac l. c. 12. Cypr. in ep 10. quoest ad Clerum l. de lapsis non procul ab initio that the Ancients thought this having fellowship with Devils was of vast extent one applies it to all such as intemperately use the Creatures Tertullian applies it to forbid any kind of presence at or countenancing of any superstitious practices though but a looking on in his book de spectaculis Cyprian in his Tenth Epistle chideth the Presbyters by vertue of this very Text that they would admit to the Lords Supper such as had sacrificed to Idols through feare before they had sufficient evidence of their repentance and tels us that the Church in in his time for lesser offences was wont to require satisfaction before Communion was allowed to the sinners And in his book de lapsis he doth sadly lament the hasty admission of such to the Sacrament Gualther ad loc Gualther observes from this Text the vanity
Lords Supper onely saith Reverend Gillespy Gillespy Aarons rod. l. 3 c. 7 but the Lords Supper must needs be comprehended as one yea a great part of the meaning And surely there 's all the reason in the world it should considering what Mr S. Rutherford observee that Christians have no solemne spirituall Feasts but that Rutherford divine right cap. 11.9 7. especially if we add saith Mr Gillespy the Analogy of the Passcover there much insilted upon Gil. loc praed But I add further what Feast is here meant I wonder Surely the Apostle doth not speak of any civill ordinary Feast nor any of the Mosaicall Feasts It must then be of some spirituall Gospell-Feast Let us consider how this meraphoricall expression is used elsewhere I remember but two places in Scripture where this terme Feast is used in a metaphoricall sense Pro. 15.15 A good conscience is a continuall feast that is a good continuall cause of joy and rejoycing The other is Is 25. Ravanella in Verbo Festum of which by and by Ravanella ranks all the usages of the terme in the Old Testament where it is taken for the whole or any part of the Jewish Worship under the metaphoricall acceptation and tels us that Zach. 14.16 18 19. it is taken for all the Gospell-worship For the Jewish worship all their service almost might properly be called a Feast because they had literall Feasts at them But 't is certaine the Apostle here doth not exhort the Corinthians to keep the Jewish Feasts Nor can feast be taken for joy and mirth as Pro. 15.15 for then the sense is this Let us keep a Feast of joy which any reader will see was not the Apostles meaning It remains therefore that we expound it by Is 25.6 where the Lord promises to make a Feast of fat things By which he promiseth all Gospell-Ordinances and a Gospell-Communion with his people God makes the Feast in giving us Christ and his Ordinances we keep the feast in waiting upon God in all the duties of Church-Communion Let us keep the Feast is Let us walk in a communion in Gospell Ordinances Let us enjoy Gospell Ordinances and worship God together under the Gospell Not with the leaven of malice and unrighteousness not in a scandalous communion c. Thomas Erastus saith that by feast is meant here Confirm thes â— cap. 6. So Mr Humfry's vind p. 85 v Chrys in oratione contra â—os qui novilunia observant Homil. 40. c. in 12. cap. Mat. a Christians whole conversation I confesse I find some Reverend Expositors of his mind though it may be not wholly Chrysostome is the most Ancient who in his Oration against those who observed new Moons and brought dancings into the City expounds it thus against them telling his hearers that a Christians whole life is a Feast and to be so spent And he saith as much as I remember in his fourth Homily on the twelth Chapter of Matthew Theophylact followes him and yet neither of them restraine it to that No more doth Beza who yet stretcheth it to that latitude Calv. ad loc Calvin also hints it but adds Si Christi carne sanguine pasci velimus afferamus ad hoc epulum sinceritatem veritatem whence may easily be gathered that Mr Calvin thought the Sacament of the Body and Blood of Christ was also here intended which is enough for me I acknowledge many reverend Expositors expound it of an holy life Egâ— vero soli scripturae hunc honorem dâ—serendum censeo c. Hieron 't is enough for me that they doe not exclude the Lords Supper and I must be excused if for the reasons before specified I think it chiefly meant For I have learned with Hierom to give this honour onely to the sacred Word of God to beleeve what it saith because it saith it First therefore I say 1. The Lords Supper is a part of the Gospell-Feast and the onely proper Feast of it 2. The relation this Text hath to the Passcover seemes to me to prove it 3. It was doubtless chiefly in reference to this Communion that the Church was to be purged-for some civill Communion and some Communion with an incestuous person in other Ordinances may be allowed But if we should admit this that the meaning were that we should not in our conversation have Communion with scandalous sinners I see no harme at all would follow upon it For surely if we ought not to converse with such in our civill conversation much less is it lawfull for us to have Communion with such at the Lords Table And surely if it be unlawfull for Christians to have Communion with such though in the Church it is unlawfull for the Officers of the Church to admit such to Communion with them But this we shall fall in with anon in the mean time I maintaine that the clear sense of that place is that we ought not to have a Communion at the Lords Supper with scandalous sinners Argument 2 But I shall come to a second Argument If there may be some in the Church not yet cast out by excommunication who are Fornicators or Covetous or Idolaters or Railers or Drunkards or Extortioners then there may be some such in the Church with whom a Christian ought not to eat the Lords Supper But there may be such in the Church Ergo. The minor will be easily granted The major I ground on 1 Cor. 5.11 All that can be said in the case is that the eating there forbidden is not eating the Lords Supper So saith Thomas Erastus Confirm thesi p. 258. l. 3. c. 8. vind p. 83 84. Mr Prins vind of 4 serious questions p. 9. so Mr Prin so Mr Humfry To this two things have been already answered and except I see need I shall add little of my own 1. That it can never be proved that it is not meant of Sacramentall eating but of civil eating 2. That there are grounds for the contrary opinion 3. That admitting it yet the Argument stands strong First I desire to know a reason why our adversaries will needs restraine that Text to a civill Communion Erastus gives these reasons 1. The Apostles precept concerning denying Communion must not be so interpreted as to contradict Christs precept But Christ commanded all to receive Beza grants both Beza de Presb excom p. 70. and answers that Christ might command his Apostles to doe that which considering the time he did not But although I reverence Beza yet I think he hath granted too much and besides that his answer is not to the objection which is founded not on Christs practice but his precept I deny the Assumption therefore and demand of Erastus and all his followers Erast theses thesi 26.27.28 where Christ commands to give the Sacrament to all Erastus tels us he hath proved it but where none knowes all that I find in him looking that way is but a
negative argument Christ did not forbid any nor doe we find that he left his disciples any such order nor ever reproved any that they did come to the Sacrament all which comes short of this that Christ did command the administration to all thesi 30. and it is too weake that Erastus hath thesi 30. that Christ said drink ye all of it for those all were all visible saints though Judas was there which shall never be proved yet Judas was not discovered to the communicants It is worth the observing that Christ did not so much as call up the Jewes in the same house which he would have done probably if he had intended for all Erastus saith Christ inviteth all to repentance Ergo to the Sacrament page 249. If the syllogisme be put in forme saith Mr Rutherford the major is blasphemy Ruth divine right page 362. for by the same argument might be proved that God invites Pagans to the Sacrament See more in him Erastus hath another Argument If the Apostle did here forbid these scandalous sinners the Sacrament he had contradicted himselfe But he doth not contradict himselfe The major lies upon the Doctor to prove His loose lines must be thus formed Hee that should here forbid scandalous persons the Sacrament Etenim paulo post licentius viventibus non interdicit â—ec interdieere jubet Sacramentorum usum sed judicium Dei proponit Erast confâ—rm thes p. 249 and a little after cap. 11. not forbid loose livers the Sacrament onely set before them their danger contradicts himselfe I will go no further here 's enough to be denyed Is it a contradiction I wonder if I should write a letter to my friends and in the beginning of it say I will not have you come in such a gamesters company a little after in the same Letter tell my friends I heare some of them have been in gamesters company and God will be revenged of them if they follow such courses I have not eyes to see it if it be This is the very case here must Paul needs forbid that cap. 11. that which he forbids cap. 5. or doth he contradict himselfe This is all that Erastus hath to say for it which is to little purpose That learned and worthy Gentleman whom I am loth to name in this cause pretends to give three reasons why the Sacramentall eating is not here meant First because there is not a word of receiving the Lords Supper in this Chapter Vind. p. 9. 10. and in the 10 and 11. Chapters he saith no such thing though he professedly treats of it His Learned Adversary sufficiently answers him 1. Gillespies Aarons rod. l. 3. c. 7 Desiring him to prove that the 7.8 verse of this Chapter is not meant of the Lords Supper 2. Telling him that in the 24 page of his book himselfe confesseth from this Chapter that the Passeover and the Lords Supper are the same for substance and that Arâ—tius so expounds it Arâ—t prob loc 80. To that I have spoke already Mr Prinn objects that 1 Cor. 10.16 17. the Apostle saies they were all partakers of one bread yet in he Church of Corinth were some scandalous some druntards that came so to the Table c. Mr Gillespy answers him That the word all can be of no larger extent then visible Saints such as were those to whom the Epistle was directed and surely visible workers of iniquity cannot be visible Saints Saith Mr Gillespy he shall never prove that those that were drunk at the Sacrament in the Church of Corinth came thither such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or were drunk the night before or knowne drunkards if they were drunk it was there which the Apostle could not know before they came where by the way I desire my Reader to take notice of the invalidity of this plea of Mr Boatman's for the admitting such as are knowne before hand to be scandalous sinners I add further Plus satis bibit Grotius ad loc Quanquam ego non existimarem de eâ sermonem fieri qua homines alienati a sensu mente susi jacent sed potius de larga compotatione ita ut liberalius bibendo plus aequo exhilarati essent P. Mart. ad loc that he shall never be able to prove they were drunk the word there used is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which doth not alwaies signifie to drink drunke but often to drink liberally and well So Io. 2.10 The sence is onely this you come to the Table of the Lord in parties disorderly first one company comes and they drink liberally more then they need then the others come and they have none to drink Nor is this a new notion I find it in Peter Martyr Grotins Estius ad loc Beza in Io. 2.10 translateth this word affatim bibere and why he might not have done so here if it had pleased him I cannot tell This Dr Drake hinted Mr Humfry of and Mr Humfry in his late vindication is so ingenious as to allow it So I hope now it may passe currant and wee shall heare this pleaded no more by Mr Humfry or Mr Boatman that drunkards were admitted to the Sacrament in the Church of Corinth 4. Especially considering what Mr Gillespy hath already said that although it could be proved that there were drunkards and other scandalous sinners there yet it can never be proved that they were admitted to the Sacrament 5. I will add one thing more the Apostle doth not say 1 Cor. 10.16 17. you are all partakers of one bread which if he had it would have been something more to have proved that the scandalous sinners in the Church of Corinth were admitted to this Ordinance but he saith no such thing he saith we are all partakers of one bread that is while we who are Saints wait upon God in that Ordinancé we partake of one bread and are one body yea and that he saith they were one body he plainly proves that the scandalous sinners did not partake of that one Bread But of that more anon 6. Lastly suppose this were true that some of the Corinthians were notoriously scandalous 2. That these were admitted to the Lords Supper that St Paul doth not in so many words command their suspension how doth this yet prove that scandalous sinners ought to be admitted till Mr Humfry or Mr Boatman have proved 1. That the Church of Corinth did nothing amisse 2. That because the Apostle did not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in so many words say drunkards keep away therefore he did allow them to come any more then it will prove women ought to keep away because Paul no where saith expresly you beleeving women come as well as men So that this reason which is purely negative though urged by Erastus Mr Prin Mr Humphry and Mr Boatman will never inferre that it is lawfull to administer the Sacrament to all much lesse prove that Sacramentall eating is
is so sensible that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where it divideth argues two things spoken of so that he is forced to confesse that thene are two things 1. Intimate familiarity with such 2. Eating with them But surely the man forgot himselfe Vetat ergo duo primum ut non habeant arctam cum talibus consuetudinem deinde ut ne quidem edant cum eis Erast confir thesium lib. 3. for is it not lawfull for us to eat with a covetous man at our own Table think we But secondly I answer this is nothing to the purpose for we supposing the Apostle speaks of civill eating raise our argument by consequence from that Scripture foundation Secondly therefore the most intelligent say that the Argument is falsly drawn to conclude the prohibition of the greater from the lesse and to this purpose Erastus gives us some rules and Mr Prin and Mr Humfry some to regulate these argumentations Their rules are these I will examine the truth of them as I goe along Propositions therefore wherein the greater is proved to be denyed because the lesser may be true 1. Erastus saith it may be true in gifts but not in punishments In donis non autem in poenis Confirm thes l. 3. p. 250. Mr Rutherford tels him it is true enough for us if it be true in gifts for fellowship with the Saints is a guift and priviledge and surely if one may have not the lesser priviledge he may not have the greater 2. It must also hold in punishments Rutherford's divine right of Presbyt p. 366. when the lesser is inflicted for the cause of the higher is it not a good argument think we such a man condemned to dy must not come into the Castleyard till his Execution Ergo much lesse may he go where he list about the Country Secondly saith Erastus Erast ibid. Mr Prin. p. 11. this Argument is true in things of the same kind but not in things of diverse kinds So Mr Prin so Mr Humfry If this be true saith Mr Gillespy the Scripture is ful of false Logick Num. 12.14 If Miriams father had spet in her face should not shee have been ashamed seven dayes Gillespy Aarons rod. l. 3 c. 7 Rutherford proves both these of the same kind lib. praedic ib. how much more when God hath smitten her with leprosy Hag. 1.4 You have built to your selves ceiled houses how much more ought you to have built the Lords house Jo 3.12 If I have told you earthly things and you beleeve not how shal you beleeve if I tell you heavenly things 1. Cor. 6.3 Know yee not that we shall judge Angels how much more things that pertaine to this life Now mark Reader how Mr Humfry hath united this knot by accusing God himselfe Jesus Christ his Prophets his Apostles all of false arguings Thirdly saith Erastus it must be in things that are free Erast ibid. Mr Prin. ibid. not in such things that are not of our owne power one being commanded of God and the other not as these are But first Erastus should have done well to have told us first where we are commanded to eat with scandalous sinners at the Lords Table Secondly ibid. saith Mr Rutherford he should have proved that it is a thing free to us to doe or not to doe to have civill Communion with scandalous sinners wee alwayes thought we had not been free in that point but enjoined to a negative Lastly saith Mr Gillespy what becomes of that Scripture Argument then Gillespy ibid. How much better is it to get wisdome then Gold and understanding then Silver Wisdome surely is not in our owne power to get 4. Mr Prin ibid. Mr Prin adds another case wherein he thinks this Argument not concluding in case the two things compared fall not under the same precept which is the case here But Mr Gillespy rightly tels him this is new Logick for not to reproach Gods name is forbidden in the third precept not to reproach man under the sixth and ninth But I hope this is a good Argument if we may not reproach our neighbour much lesse may we reproach our Maker Mr Gil l. 3 c. 7. And it is surely as good if we may not have an intimacy of civill Communion with scandalous sinners much less may we have the nearest Church fellowship and Communion with him Thus have I done what indeed was done before at least gathered together what have been said by divers more able to strengthen this Argument CHAP. V. VVherein a fifth Argument is brought whereby is proved that hitherto none bath brought any Scripture precept or president sufficient to warrant promiscuous administration of the Lords Supper I proceed to a fifth ARGVMENT What the Officers of the Church have neither any precept obliging them to doe nor president to justifie them in doeing that in the worship of God is sinfull and unlawfull for them to do THE proposition standeth upon this bottome That nothing is lawfull in the worship of God but what we have precept or president for Which whoso denies opens a door to all Idolatry and superstition and will-worship in the world Besides the Sacrament of the Lords Supper being a piece of instituted worship we are in the Administration of it to be guided according to the precepts given upon the institution and for the Administration of it and according to the example of the Lord Iesus Christ and his Apostles The example of Christ who first instituted it and gave us an example for the perpetuall celebration of it and of the Apostles who being the first who celebrated it questionlesse did it in the purest Order and most conformely to the will of Christ with which they were best acquainted Now I assume But for the Officers of the Church to give the Sacrament to such as are visibly scandalous though they be not excommunicated is for them to doe that in the worship of God which neither any precept nor example of Christ or his Apostles will justify them in doing Ergo. It is enough for us to affirme the minor till our opposites produce some precept or example of Christ or his Apostles justifying them in this practice In regard some are pretended I shall turn aside a little to examine the precepts or examples offered in the cause 1. Some think that our Saviours words Mark 14.23 Drink you all of it containes a command given by our Saviour to all to drink of the Sacramentall cup and so vertually a command to his Ministers to give it out promiscuously But let us before we grant this examine who those All were The twelve saith Mr Humfry we will examine that more strictly anon By all there out of all question are meant no more then all present and these were no more then the twelve if all of them which wants proofe too But suppose all the twelve were there yet not one of them was discovered to be a
first The first then is Acts 2.41 42. in the 41 verse 3000 soules were added to the Church verse 42. it is said they continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayers To this I answer 1. I should put our opposites hand to it to prove that the breaking of bread here spoke of was the Sacramentall action I could tell them of many who are of another mind A phrase like this Luke 24 30. he took broad and blessed and brake it c. is used to express common eating at our own Tables 2. But I confess I encline to to think it was Sacramentall breaking of bread and so the Syriack version reads it So the phrase is used 1 Cor. 10.16 But who were those that brake berad together such as verse 37. were prickt at the heart and had cryed out v. Mr Palmers answer to Humfry p. 51. Men and Brethren what shall we doe such as continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship and prayers such as durst owne Christ in those first and furious times What 's this to prove that all ignorant scandalous sinners of but baptized and not excommunicated ought to be admitted to the Lords Table 2. In the next place the example of the Church of Corinth is produced where we are told there were some came drunk to the Sacrament or were drunk at the Sacrament Fornicators Covetous Extortioners Idolaters yet all were admitted 1. I have before shewed that there is no colour to say that any drunkards were in the Church of Corinth such at least as came drunk to the Table and if they were so there it must be proved that they did not repent and yet came againe the next time or else nothing is said but instead of this it cannot be proved as I have shewn they were drunk there Rejoinder p. 48. and Mr Humfry doth not disapprove it 2 The Apostle plainly saith that some of this Church were Fornicators Idolaters Adulterers effeminate abusers of themselves with man-kind Theevs 1 Cor. 6.9 10 11. Covetous Drunkards revilers extortioners but now they were washed justified sanctified with what face we can say they were so after let any judge 3. There was an incestuous person but they are bid to purge him out not to eat not to keep company with him how this proves he was admitted I cannot tell 4. Supposing such were admitted the Argument comes to nothing for though the Apostles example binds us yet every Churches example doth not in all things especially when the Apostle writes to them and tels them they could not partake of the cup of the Lord and of the cup of Devils ibid. p. 48. If they did admit Drunkards Mr Humfry himselfe will acknowledge they did amisse for he tels us that he holds the Drunkard unintelligent and fit to be turned away from all Ordinances at least for the present 3. Erast thesis 28. But the greatest example is that of Christ who they say admitted Judas a reprobate one whom he knew to be the sonne of perdition c. This Erastus tels us of and Mr Humfry iterum atque iterum Here are two things to be proved 1. That Iudas was a scandalous sinner 2. That he was admitted to the Lords Supper Wee shall faile of the first proofe Beza de â—resh excom p. 26. Gillespies Aarons rod 3. c. 10 which was Beza's answer to Erastus long since and learned Gillespies answer to Mr Prin viz. That Iudas was no scandalous sinner nor was his compact with the High Priest knowne to the Disciples and as for Christs knowledge supposing he had not gone out he acted as a Minister Martyr in â— Cor. 5. Gerard loc com l. 5. p. 181. Algeâ—us de Sacram Halensis sum theol p. 4. 9. 11 art 1. sect 4. Dr Drakes Bar c. p. 9. Mr Hâ—mfries rejoind p. 15 16. and not as an omniscient God and those who peruse that Chapter in Mr Gillespies book will find that this was the opinion of Peter Martyr Gerard Algerus Durantus Alexander Halensis Ioannes Baptista de Rubeis c. The same answer Dr Drake gives Mr Humfry all that his Adversary saith is but the same over and over againe He had compacted with the High Priest but this was secretly Christ he saith had revealed it But that 's false as to a particular discovery for it is plaine that till he gave the sop to him they suspected themselves rather then him The businesse is this Jesus Christ there as Arch Bishop and first Bishop of his Church at once both institutes the Ordinance and intends to set us a rule for the celebration he therefore takes none but his disciples with him whether Iudas was there or no all the time of the action is uncertaine supposing he was this we say though Christ knew his secret compact with the Pharisees yet it was not knowne to the Disciples but to him as omniscient and to teach us that we must not judge hearts but actions he turnes him not away And Mr Gillespy saith well Gal. l. 3. cap. 10. that if it could be proved that Iudas was present yet it would no more prove that we ought to admit all scandalous sinners to the Ordinance because Christ admitted Iudas as is supposed then it would prove that we ought to admit any notorious Drunkard Whoremonger or other sinner who is openly knowne to us to be such to the Office of the Ministry because Christ admitted Iudas to the Apostleship who he knew was a Devill which may stop Erastus and Mr Humfries mouth for the time to come as to this Argument except these can prove Iudas was so scandalous as Jesus Christ meerly as man might have discovered it But secondly it can never be proved that Iudas was there at the Supper I question whether at the eating of the Lambe or no and I will anon shew you some ground for it Beza tels us Beza de Presb. page 27. Erast theses th 28. Mr Prins vind 4 ser quest p. 19 20 21 22 23. that he assents to those that think he was not there Erastus himselfe discovers no great confidence in this Article of the new Creed Mr Prin quotes many Authors in the affirmative Origen Cyprian Ambrose Chrysostome Nazianzen Cyrill Augustine Victor Antiochenus Theodoret Remigius Rathertus Oecumenius Algerus Theophylact Bernard besides Canonists Schoolmen and Protestant writers Mr Gillespy shewes him his mistake in many of the quotations Aarons rod. p. 456 457 p. 451 452 453 454. and the ground of some of the Ancients mistake in this taking the sop for the Supper And further tels him that Gerard and Brockman and Theophylact all confesse it a disputable businesse and with all gives him account of diverse who were of another mind and that Chrysostome and Theophylact c. jointly agree that scandalous persons were to be excluded But let us examine Scripture and reason in the case Mr
Gillespy gives these reasons in the negative 1. Gillespy ibid. Dr Drakes Bar c. page 6. Mr Prins vind p. 24. Gil. p. 441 c. Rejoinder p. 9. p 446 445. Saint Iohn saith Iohn 13.30 That he having received the sop went immediately out This is likewise Doctor Drakes fourth reason To this Mr Prin excepts but is sufficiently answered by Mr Gillespy Mr Humfry likewise excepts that the Supper Iohn 13. was not that at which the Lord instituted the Sacrament but two dayes before though the best authority he hath for it be a marginall quotation which surely was not wrote there by the infallible finger of God It is a materiall exception we will scan it anon 2. Mr Gillespies second Argument was because it was not probable Christ would have said to Indas this is my body which is broken for thee This Argument he vindicates from Mr Prins exceptions 3. Dr Drake p. 6. ibid. ibid. A third Argument he useth which is Dr Drakes fifth Arg. is because all those comfortable expressions Christ used while Iudas was there were with exceptions Iohn 13.10 11. You are clean but not all So ver 18. ver 21. which were left out at the Supper To these Mr Humfry replies what all did Christ never speake graciously to Judas amongst the rest Râ—joind p. 9 10. Pray see at leisure Wee may look long enough where after this time he spake comfortably to him wee desire Mr Humfry to shew us But as for Iohn 13.10 11 18 21. he saies it is not in him to answer them I suppose hee meanes God shall give an answer â—f peace But he tels us Christ saith he is a Devill but I have chosen him to what to be an Apostle he was not apparently so when he chose him He saies that Christ saies Iudas was not clean yet he washes his feet but the Text saies it not 2. Suppose he did this was but to teach him humility and charity not to entitle him to the Lords Supper 4. Dr Drake adds Because Christ knew him to be a reprobaâ—e To this Mr Humfry onely endeavours to little purpose to fasten a contradiction on the Dr because the Doctor had said before supposing he had knowne him to be so yet Christ as a Minister probably would not exclude him Let the Doctor speak for himselfe 5. Dr Drake adds a fifth Because Christs blood was shed for the remission of those who received Mr Humfry answers 1 Iohn 2.2 And not for ours onely but for the sins of the whole world that is the Pagans as well as the Jewes viz. such of them as being fore ordained to life should beleeve but what is this to the purpose What Mr Humfry meanes by holding universall redemption as to the visible Church so far as reacheth to the tenour and tender of the conditionall Covenant though not of the absolute is too profound for me to fathome Universall redemption Conditionall Covenant Two Covenants one absolute another conditionall are notions in Divinity I doe not understand and think them hardly reconcilable to truth if to sense they are the canting language of those that would supply Franciscus de Sancta Clara's place as to reconciling us and Arminians and are no better then Arminianisme minced for the better digestion Dr Drake also hath another Argument which Mr Gillespy also hints because Christ promised to arinke new wine in his Fathers Kingdome with those who received To this Mr Humfry answereth But he doth not say with all Let him remember that and shew us where it is said that all the twelve were present at the institution of the Supper There is thus much spoken all which possibly will not compell but surely in good natured people it will induce some little perswasion of a probability that Judas was not there Let us now heare what is pleaded on the Traitours side 1. Mat. 26.20 It is said he sate down with the twelve Mar. 14.17 He came with the twelve Luke 22.14 He sate down and the twelve Apostles with him Here 's three Evangelists asserting it they cry But what doe they assert that at their first sitting downe the twelve were all there who denies it the question is not whether they sate downe together but whether they rose up together whether they are the Sacrament together Iohn telling us that Judas went out assoene as he had eaten the sop John 13.30 But Luke tels us that after the institution of the Supper Christ said behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the Table and Lukes Gospell is true Dr Drake answers that there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke puts a piece of the story behind which should have been before Mr Humfry out of his pretended zeale for Saint Luke who he saies could not else speake truth saith that though the Scripture sometimes puts a whole story after another which in order of time was before it yet where shall we find such an histerology as to take a piece of a former story and joine it to another as a part of it to which if it be taken as belonging it becomes a manifest falshood Mr Humfries rejoind p. 12 13. and saies we will not abate a jot or tittle of the truth of Saint Lukes Gospell That those words of Saint Luke should have been placed before is plaine 1. From St Luke himselfe for their hands were now all off the Table the Supper done and the last cup drunke besides he adds ver 23. that the Disciples all wondred who should doe the thing now surely they knew before this time or else Iudas as Mr Humfry would have him could not be scandalous at this time his fact not known to his Disciples 2. St Matthew plainly placeth them before the Administration of the Supper Mat. 26.20 21 22 23 24. So doth Marke ch 14.18 19 20 21. So Saint Iohn Io. 13.21 22. which plainly proves it an histerology in Luke 3. Nor is it as Mr Humfry would insinuate a taking a piece of one story and joining it to another which would make it false but onely a misplacing of a piece of the same story which is no unusuall thing amongst the Evangelists 4. Nor will it amount to so much as an invalidating the truth of Lukes Gospell which we desire to be as tender of as Mr Humfry any more then the order he pleades for would invalidate the truth of the other three Lukes being dictated by an infallible spirit doth not oblige us to beleeve every punctilio of order to have been as he describes it contrary to the testimony of the other three Besides Iohn saith plainly he went out But he tels us we are mistaken in Iohn 13. for that was a Supper I know not when nor where two dayes before the Passeover and for this he cites a marginall quotation in our Bibles pointing him to Mat. 26.2 which he bids us look 1. I must confesse this well proved would be something to his purpose
spoken by Christ while they did eat the Lambe Their next worke was to drink a third cup of Wine this in all probability is that first cup Luke mentions Luke 22.17 To which the Apostle alludes 1 Cor. 10.16 Their next work was the eating of the unleavened bread reserv'd for the Aphicomen the last bit and their last the drinking of the fourteenth cup of Wine the latter was when the supper was done Now this bread and cup Christ did eat and drink and with them instituted his supper these are not mentioned by Iohn because so sully exprest by Luke Marke and Matthew Thus you see the supper was but one and perfectly reported by Iohn and the other Evangelists Iohn reporting the first part the other the second you see also how many pieces of the Jewish order are evident in the celebration Whether I have catcht the bird or no I know not confident I am my Reader will judge I have been long enough beating the bush and if this notion prove true it will follow 1. That Iudas had not so much as compacted with the Chiefe Priests when his hand was with Christ on the Table 2 That he was gone before the Lord instituted his supper yea 3. That he was not there at the eating of the Paschall Lambe I have but proposed my thoughts and shall submit to better reason having learned to attribute nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and being prone to think the worse of any notion which I judge my owne I know I dissent in this from very many Holy and Learned men But secondly it is no matter of Faith or Practice but a piece of Order in Holy Story 2. I see they cannot agree amongst themselves 3. I shall peaceably dissent 4. I shall keep an eare open for better proofe against me in the meane time I desire my Readers Charity they are some of the Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have been enquiring into some Histerologies must be allowed in the Gospell I see not but with such allowance this my sense may passe And now to shut up this discourse of Iudas I could wish our Masters of the opposite perswasion would allow us but the favour that ordinary Fencing Masters will allow their scholars First they will take up one weapon and try them with one while here another while there if they see they cannot hit them with this triâ—k nor the other they will lay downe that weapon and take another not the same againe to no purpose but meerely to tire out their Scholars For this weapon of Iudas his being at the Sacrament with which they think to knock suspension Erastus tried it at Beza Beza defended himself Mr Prin tried it at Mr Gillespy Mr Gillespy defended the cause that he never touched it with a Cudgell Now Mr Humfry hath got it up and Dr Drake defended himselfe the same way which Gillespy and Beza had done Mr Humfry hath made never a new stroke Let us lay downe this weapon let 's heare what they say to prove Iudas was there Object 1. They all sate downe together This doth not prove they all rose up together Object 2. Christ saith the hand of him that betrayeth me is on the Table That is at the sop but Iohn 13.30 immediately upon that Iudas went out which was before the Sacrament Object 3. Christ speaks nothing Iohn 13. of the Sacrament But he speakes of the Passeover which was before it and saies at the beginning of that he went out Object 4. O but wee have many Authors of our side that he was there Origen Cyprian Ambrose Chrysostome Victor Theodoret Remigius Paschasius Oecumenius Algerus c. 1. This question they did not speake purposely to 2. God knowes whether the places quoted be spurious or no. 3. We have matches for them too Dionysius Areopagita Maximus Pachimeres Ammonius Talianus Innocentius Hilary Salmeron Kellet Mariana Gerard Turrianus Barradus Danaeus Musculus Piscator Cum multis aliis quos nunc perscribere longum est Let 's have done therefore with this Cudgell and blot no more paper with saying what hath been said over and over and over againe and can never be cleared on our adversaries side I have tried something on our side I shall add no more to this Argument I conclude there are no precepts to command norpresidents to warrant generall admissions of scandalous persons though not excommunicated Ergo. CHAP. VII Containing a sixth Argument drawne from the duty incumbent upon the Officers of the Church to keep the fellowship of the Church pure I am come now to a sixth ARGVMENT I still keep my principall syllogisme which was this If the Officers of a Church may not lawfully admit some to the Sacrament who are not as yet de facto excommunicated then they may lawfully suspend some from it But Ergo. Argument 6 MY sixth Argument to prove that there may be some in the Church whom the Officers of a Church cannot without sinne admit to the Sacrament though at present they be not excommunicated is this If there may be some in the Church not yet cast out with whom the communion of the Church in the Lords Supper cannot be pure then there may be some in the Church not yet excommunicated whom the Officers may not without sinne admit to the Lords Supper But there may be some in the Church not yet excommunicated with whom the communion of the Church in that Ordinance cannot be pure Ergo. I will prove the major first then the minor First for the major If it be the duty and businesse of the Officers of the Church to keep the communion of the Church then it is their duty to keep its fellowship pure in that Ordinance and consequently not to admit such to it with whom the communion of the Church cannot be pure This proposition stands upon these foundations 1. That it is the duty of the Officers of a Church to keep the fellowship of the Church pure This none will deny that is but mentis compos if any be inclined to deny it he should doe well first to think to what purpose the rod of discipline is else put into their hands 2. How to expound 1 Cor. 5.7 13. and those many other Texts in Scripture which looke this way 2. That it is their especiall duty to keep the fellowship of the Church as to this Ordinance pure As this was proved before upon the opening of the 1 Cor. 5.8 So upon the concession of the former it is no lesse clear from reason It is apparent that of all other Ordinances this Ordinance alone is appointed for such as have something of Grace in them The Word is called the bread of life and it is to bee offered to dead soules to quicken them Heathens were ever admitted to heare those who are the profanest persons are the objects of Discipline the excommunicate may and ought to be admonished as Brethren I know not wherein the Officers of the Church can have a worke to
keep the communion of a Church pure if not in this Ordinance and as to this which the Scripture plainly saith cannot be partaked of worthily without examining our selves and being able to discerne the Lords Body For the minor proposition That there may be some in the Church not yet cast out with whom the fellowship of the Church in this Ordinance cannot be pure I prove If there may be some in the Church who apparently are not fit subjects to receive this holy thing then there may be some in the Church with whom the fellowship of the Church in this Ordinance cannot be pure But there may be some in the Church who apparently are not fit subjects to receive this holy thing Ergo. He that denies the major must maintaine that a communion of such as are appearingly fit for it and appearingly notoriously unfit for it and unable to it is a pure communion and by that time he hath proved that he may have proved that a communion made up of a Saint a Hog a Dog a mad man and a foole is yet a pure communion Surely the appearing purity of a communion in this Ordinance lies in the appearing capacity and worthinesse of all to receive it But I say there may some in the Church who apparently are not fit subjects to receive this holy thing This I easily prove Those that cannot examine themselves that cannot discerne the Lords body or that doe partake of the cup of Devils are apparently not fit subjects to receive the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11.28 29. 1 Cor. 10.21 But there may be such in the Church Ergo. Object Mr Humfry 's vind p. 35. 36. But Mr Humfry tels us this is false Logick to argue from mens inability to our duty 2. Most men are incapable to heare and pray yet they must doe both 3. Every man must do what he can 4. There is a difference between worthy receiving and receiving worthily To this Doctor Drake hath sufficiently answered Dr Drake's Bar c. p. 114 115 116 117. Scripture Raile p. 92 93 94. c pag. 114 115 136 117 118. And Mr Palmer c. 62 93 94. Dr Drake tels him that visible unfitnesse is the rule of suspension Now with Mr Humfrie's leave we must say that it is good Logick to argue from the visible inability unworthinesse and unfitnesse of the Person that would receive the Sacrament to our duty who are to give it Otherwise for ought I know we might feed Hogs with those Mysteries Will any one not mad say That it is not the duty of us whom God hath betrusted with the dispensing of those Mysteries not to give them to such as are apparently such as God hath declared unable unfit and unworthy to receive them Let any but consider that we are but Trustees with Gods Ordinances and not to deliver them out to any without our Masters Order such as he gives us command to give them to and then this will follow according to Mr Humfrie's Doctrine Either 1. That God hath given us order to give them to those whom he forbad under paine of damnation to receive them nay who have the Markes of such as cannot take them Or secondly 2. That it is Gods will they should take whom his Word declares to be such as cannot take them and if they do they are guilty of the body and bloud of Christ Or thirdly 3. That which we say That if there be any such in the Church they ought by the Officers to be suspended The two former are little lesse than blasphemy implying an inconsistency of the Edicts of the Divine Will each with other But Mr Humfry hath a trick for us Rejoinder pag. 159. For in his rejoynder he tels us it is not a visibility of reall worthinesse is the ground of admission but the visibility of Relative worthinesse it is well he askes pardon for that new terme though we understand not the Notion yet the Interpreter he hath sent along with it makes it speake thus It is mens being within the externall Covenant Baptized and in the Church that gives them the right c. I alwaies thought this had been the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whether all baptized persons might be admitted to the Lords Table though ignorant or scandalous if not cast out of the Church Or whether if such they ought to be suspended We say they ought to be suspended not admitted and argue from their unworthiness their reall unworthinesse and incapacity visibly appearing to our duty in denying the Sacrament to them What saies Mr Humfry to this Saies he they are not unworthy relatively though they be visibly unworthy really Strange Language say we what spells it Saies he they are Baptized and not excommunicated if this be not petere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know not what is for we brought our Argument to prove that a visibility of reall unworthinesse made a relative unworthinesse So that Mr Humfry saies this in short They are not unworthy because they are not unworthy For what he saies else upon this Head I shall not meddle with it it little concerneth my businesse I leave him to his proper Adversaries Object But will some say by this Argument you will conclude that the presence of scandalous persons pollutes those who are worthy and pollutes the Ordinance and this is ridiculous This Mr Humfry and Mr Boatman both laugh at So did Erastus their Master Mr Humfry's vind p. 77. Erasti theses thesi 67. Beza l. de excom Presbyt 68. Sol. To this Beza answered long since It is an easie thing thing to make a man of straw and then pelt him with stones First I know none saies that the Ordinance is polluted I thinke that predicate cannot in any case be properly and strictly predicated of a divine institution the Ordinance is holy and though it may be abused and profaned yet it is not capable of intrinsecall pollution Secondly It is vanity to say that the presence of a scandalous person can defile a private Member who hath discharged his duty towards him and towards God Christians have incumbent upon them 1. A duty towards God 2. Towards their Brethren if a Communicant hath examined and prepared himself and discharged his duty towards scandalous persons viz. 1. telling them of it 2. Then taking two or three with him and admonishing them 3. Then informing the Officers of the Church I beleeve such a Christian may lawfully communicate with a scandalous person it is nothing can defile him but sin in not doing his duty But with Mr Humfrie's leave and Mr Boatmans too that Christian who knowingly partakes with scandalous sinners not having done this duty to them is defiled not by partaking with them but not having done their duty to them before where by the way we see what snares these Patrons of promiscuous Communion run their godly Communicants into when it may be for one godly person they have ten scandalous communicate with
them How impossible is it they should do that duty which is requisite from them to discharge their owne soules without the doing of which they cannot without sin communicate with them Mr Humfry heales the wound of the Daughter of the Lords people flightly Rejoynder pag. 263. when he saies If thy conscience tels thee it is a sin thou art to repent of it by resolving to take the next opportunity to do it and so come 1. So then not doing our duty in order to scandalous persons is sin or not sin according as Conscience tels us This comes up to the Ranters Atheism Nothing is sin but what a man thinkes sin I should have thought that that If should have been left out for it is plainly our duty Mat. 18.18 and the neglect our sin 2. I doubt whether a man lying under the conscience of any sin against his Neighbour can lawfully partake tilthe hath done what in him lies to satisfie Suppose a man hath stollen I should thinke he must not only resolve but if he be able make restitution before he comes to the Lords Table 3. It is a question whether any lying under the guilt of any sin not quotidiana incursionis be bound in duty to come to the Lords Table before he hath evidenced his repentance by the contrary practice To me the negative is out of question But in the last place Though the Ordinance be not polluted by the presence of a scandalous sinner nor the conscience of the worthy Communicant who hath prepared his own heart and done what in him lies towards the reformation and suspension of the scandalous 3. Yet the Officers of the Church are polluted because they have not done their duty for they should have admonished him and being under censure suspended him till he had satisfied the Church Lastly 4. The Fellowship of the Church in generall is polluted the Apostle teacheth us 1 Cor. 5. that the continuing of one scandalous person in the bosome of the Church leavens the whole Lumpe the neglect of a private member redounds indeed but to his owne guilt and defilement but the neglect of the Officers of a Church redounds to the guilt and defilement of the whole Church and justly 1. Partly because they are the representative part of the Church 2. Because it is in the Churches power to remove them if not in the power of a Congregationall Church yet in the power of a Synodicall Church But I shall enlarge no further on this Argument CHAP. VIII Wherein by a seventh Argument the lawfulnesse of suspension is proved because there can lie no Obligation upon the Officers of the Church to give the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to such as visibly are not bound to Receive ARGUMENT 7. Either it is lawfull for the Officers of the Church to deny the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to such as they find ignorant and scandalous and impenitent Or they are bound to give it to such But they are not bound to give it to any such Ergo THe major is unquestionably evident The Minor is to be proved which I prove thus The Officers of the Church are not bound to administer the Ordinance to those who they know are not bound to receive it But grosly ignorant and impenitent scandalous sinners are visibly such as are not bound to receive it Ergo. I shall first open and prove the Major and then come to the Minor 1. I grant that the Minister of the Gospell may be bound to administer an Ordinance to such a one as is not bound to receive it because he may otherwise appeare to him and his unworthinesse may be hid from him We are bound to hold out the Promise as an object of faith to all who appeare to have their hearts smitten with the sense of sin though some of them be Hip ocrites we know not who are so 2. But it seems strange to me considering that a Ministers giving the Sacrament and the peoples receiving are relate acts that a Minister should be bound to give to such as he knows are not bound to receive can any one thinke that there should lye an Obligation upon us to preach to our people if it could be proved that there lay no Obligation upon them to heare Now I assume But grossely ignorant and impenitent scandalous sinners are such as visibly appeare not bound to receive the Lords Supper Ergo. That a grossely ignorant and scandalous impenitent sinner while such is bound to receive then he is bound To make himselfe guilty of the body and bloud of Christ To eate and drinke his own damnation To run upon the hazard of being made sick and weake and falling asleep which are all strange things for a man to be bound in conscience unto Let none thinke to avoid this Argument by saying they are bound first to repent and then to receive So that their sin doth not lye in receiving but in not repenting This is plainly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The question is whether the ignorant and impenitent while such if not cast out are bound to receive and it is a begging the question to say they sin in not repenting but not in receiving In receiving saith the Apostle they make themselves guilty of the body and bloud of Christ and they eate and drinke their own damnation And surely if such sinners be not bound to receive the Officers of the Church cannot be bound to give the Ordinance to them the ceasing of their Obligation in reason must also suspend his CHAP. IX Wherein an Eighth and Ninth Argument are brought to prove that Suspension distinct from Excommunication is justifiable from Scripture and sound Reason ARGUMENT 8. If none may be suspended from the Sacrament but those who are Excommunicated then none must be kept away but those who are contumacious But some may be kept away that are not Contumacious Ergo. THe Major is plaine 1. From Scripture Mat. 18. none must be accounted as an Heathen or a Publican but he who refuseth to heare the Church Thus also Divines generally determine So Bonaventure Estius Aquinas Suarez Durandus besides a numberlesse number of Protestant Divines The Minor only needs proofe 1. Surely those that are under admonition ought to be kept away though as yet they declare no Contumacy and it be uncertaine whether they will or no. 2. Suppose one should come to the Minister the morning he were to receive and blaspheme Christ and tell him he came for nothing but to abuse the Church ought this man to be admitted think we Suppose one should come drunke shall he be admitted Mr Humfry saies no what Mr Boatman thinks in that case I cannot tell if he shall not then there is Suspension distinct from Excommunication Suppose a Minister should know one of his Communicants had committed Murther Theft Incest Whoredom the night before according to M Boatmans Doctrine he must be admitted to the Lords Table for Suspension of any person not Excommunicated is
a Pharisaicall dream Suppose a Minister upon examination found that his Communicant did not know whether Christ were God or Man a Man or a Woman nor any thing of the Story of the Gospell must he be admitted too He is neither Turke nor Jew nor Pagan nor Excommunicated person Ergo He is holy and must come A Doctrine sure that every one who hath any thing of God in him will see the folly and filth of and which no sober pious or learned man ever yet durst undertake to defend and it is a shame it should be named amongst Christians Argument 9 If profane scandalous persons though Circumcised and not cast out of the Jewish Church nor legally uncleane were yet to be debarred from some Ordinances and the Passeover then such though Baptized and not Excommunicated may be suspended from the Lords Supper But profane scandalous persons though Circumcised and not cast out of the Jewish Church nor legally uncleane yet were to be debarred from the Passeover and other publike Ordinances The strength of the consequence appeares not only in the Analogy which is betwixt the Passeover and the Lords Supper But also in our Adversaries continuall arguing against us from a supposition of a generall admission to the Passeover This Argument was the best shaft in Erastus his quiver Erasti theses thes 12 13. Mr Humfry's vind p. 4. and the very best Mr Humfry hath The Minor therefore only needs proofe with those with whom we have to deale And for the proofe of that Beza proves it against Erastus from Ezra 6.21 where none did eate the Passeover but such as were separated from the filth of the Heathen of the Land to seeke the Lord And from 2 Chron. 23.19 where Jehojadah Beza de Excom p. 19 20. restoring the Worship of God set Porters to keep out of the Sanctuary those who were uncleane in anything Mr Gillespy proves it against Mr Prin Mr Gillespie's Aarons rod c. l. 1. c. 9. and Erastus too 1. From the testimonies of Philo and Josephus and answers the two objections from Luk. 18.11 12 13. and Joh. 8.2 3. and proves it by seven Arguments in that Chapter and follows it Chap. 10.11 12. in the twelfth Chapter he proves it by fourteen Arguments which Mr Humfry should have done well to have answered before he had told us so confidently that all were admitted to the Passeover Dr Drake hath likewise sufficiently proved it against Mr Humfry Mr Palmer c. Dr Drake's Bar c. p. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. Mr Palmer c. answ to Mr Humfry vind Presb Govern p. 62. hath done the like from Num. 15.30 31. Ezra 10.8 Joh. 9.22 Ez. 22.26 Ezek. 44.7 9 13. The Province of London prove it from 2 Chron. 23.19 Ez. 44.7 8. Lev. 10.10 Ez. 22.26 I do not thinke it ingenuous wittingly to passe by any thing I heare objected against an Argument therefore though for the maine I leave Mr Humfry to his proper Adversary yet because he comes acrosse me here I must give him a meeting First he addes to his Argument from his supposed generall admission to the Passeover Mr Humfrie's rejoinder p. 43 44 45 46 47. the example of Judas but besides that I have before proved he was not scandalous I have also said enough to make a rationall man beleeve he was not there Dr Drake had argued à concesso Mr Humfry granted that those who were legally uncleane were not to come Dr Drake askes the reason why Surely because they polluted holy things Mr Humfry saies he would not answer so sillily well what will this wise man answer I wist He tels us Because it was Gods positive command they should not come But this is too short For let a Christian but enquire further Why should the Lord command that one who is aleper who hath touched a dead body c. should not come to his Ordinance Surely his reason must tell him because he is an holy and pure God and will be worshipped in a cleane and pure manner And can we thinke that a pure God should determine him who had a leprous sore upon him unfit for his Sanctuary c. and yet admit him as worthy who was a profane swearer blasphemer c. that he who had had Nocturnam pollutionem involuntariam was to be judged uncleane and the same God should judge him cleane who had polluted himselfe with an Harlot in the night A second place which Mr Humfry would answer is 2 Chron. 23.19 Page 45. and he tels us that neither the Passeover nor Suspension nor Morall uncleannesse are there spoken of 1. Whether the Passeover only be there spoken of is nothing to the businesse There were Porters set to keep some that were not excommunicated from the Gates of the Lords house So that Suspension of some from some Ordinances who were not excommunicated is there proved 2. Mr Humfry boldly saies they were not to keep out the morally uncleane the Text saith they were to keep out the uncleane Lecal Dabar in any thing so that if there were such a thing as morall uncleannesse and such persons as morally uncleane persons they were to keep them out Nor is it any thing to the purpose that Mr Humfry saith the Levites in such a concourse could not try and examine them for by the same rule they should not have kept out the legally uncleane but surely those words signifie something they were therefore doubtlesse tried and judged before for it was the Priests not the Levites worke to judge or try the legally uncleane But what Mr Humfry saith in the last place that the Levites could not hinder the uncleane from eating the Passeover for it was eaten in private houses Either argues he hath a mind to cheat his credulous Reader or that he was not so well acquainted with the Jewish Customes as he might have been It is true the Passeover was to be eaten in private houses Dr Light foots Temple service c. 12. but it was to be first killed in the Temple where the fat was to be burned and the bloud sprinkled and if the Levites kept them from comming to kill it and to sacrifice it I thinke they kept them from eating it as a Passeover too they might eate a Lambe indeed in their own but no Paschall Lambe As to the maine places to prove that there was a Law to seclude the morally uncleane from the Passeover Ezra 6.21 Ez. 44.7 8. Deut. 23.18 à minori ad majus Jer. 7.9 10 11. Psal 118.19 20. Psal 15.1 as they are urged by Mr. Gillespy pag. 90 91. Ez. 22.26 Hag. 2.11 12 13 14. which proves that morall wickednesse was uncleannesse then as well as now Mr. Humfry hath the discretion to say nothing to them But I have said enough to establish this Argument CHAP. X. Wherein some other Arguments are mentioned but not largely insisted upon THese are but some of those many Arguments
brought by the learned and eminent Servants of God both in this Generation and also in those before us to prove the divine right of this Ordinance I will name two or three more which have been brought by others not insisting upon them because I thinke these are enough and possibly some of them may be more disputable and not generally allowed by those who are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with me in this point Arg. 10 It is sin in a Minister to declare those one visible body who are not one body visibly But scandalous sinners are not one visible body with visible Saints and he that gives the Lords Supper declares those to whom he gives it to be one visible body Ergo. This Argument holy Mr Burroughs urgeth in his book called Gospell-Worship it is founded on 1 Cor. 10.17 Mr Gillespie's Aarons Rod l. 3. c. 7 p. 425. V. etiam Hieron Zanch. Epist l. 1. in epistola quae inscribitur ad illust Prin. Fredericum de excommunicatione and saith Mr Gillespy 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 or the like Those two eminent servants of God thought there was something in this Argument there are these three Questions in it 1. Whether the Minister declares all to whom he gives the Supper to be one visible body That the Apostle determines 1 Cor. 10.17 2. Whether it be a sin in a Minister to declare those one visible body who are not so Reason will easily determine that affirmatively 3. Whether visibly scandalous sinners be one visible body with visible Saints Visibly scandalous sinners have a visible different head But it is a question whether that distinction of Membra in Ecclesia and Membra Ecclesiae hath any thing in it and whether Christ be called the head of the visible Church only as it is taken conjunctim or viritim of every member in it and that will bring us to question whether the Church as to the community of it be Corpus homogeneum or het erogeneum I shall not intangle my selfe with these disputes but shall desire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to this Argument and leave it to wiser heads to consider Arg 11 The Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not to be given to any who are not Christs Disciples for we are to follow Christs example who administred it to none others But scandalous sinners are none of Christs Disciples Ergo. This is Mr P. Goodwins Argument Evangelicall Communicant p. 5 6 7 8. V. Zanchium in ep praed and I refer the Reader to him to make it out there are these two things to be questioned in it 1. Whether Christs example in admission be a rule of ours 2. Whether Christ admitted any such Disciples as were actually scandalous I thinke I have proved the contrary Argument 12 Those who if they were Heathens might not be baptized V. Zach. Urs doct Christ p. 2. de clavibus q 3. sect 11. though they be baptized and in a Church ought not to be admitted to the Lords Supper The reason is this 1. Mr Humfry himselfe confesseth In adultis eadem est ratio utriusque Sacramenti 2. Besides it is against reason to say the contrary But those who are ignorant and scandalous if they were Heathens should not be baptized Ergo. I do not say the children of such ought not there is another reason for them but that they should not hath been granted by the Universall judgement and practice of the Primitive Church Erast Thesis 14 Mr Humfrie's vind p. 10. Beza de excom p. 23. Aarons rod l. 3. c. 16. Mr. Palmer c against Mr Humfry p. 49. Dr Drakes bar to free admission p. 32 33. Rutherford's divine right of Presbyteries c. 5. q. 2. I know Erastus and Mr Humfry tell us John baptized all who came yea some whom he cals Vipers but Beza long since and Gillespy more lately mind Erastus that John baptized none but such as confessed their sins Mat. 3. Mr Palmer c. and Dr Drake have told Mr Humfry too as much to which he hath discreetly replied nothing This is one of that incomparably learned Mr Rutherford's Arguments in his Divine right of Presbyteries Arg. 13 Strong meat belongs to those who are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who have made proficiency in the waies of God and are of full age who by reason of an habit have their senses exercised to discerne good and evill Heb. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the Sacrament is strong meat Therefore it doth not belong to those who are Babes in knowledge and consequently though of the house not to be given to them by him who is the Lords Steward to give all in the Family their Portion in the due season Luk. 12.42 The major is a generall proposition given by the Apostles Requirit igitur coena domini quatenus est mystica convivas qui sensibus exercitatis interna mysteria ab eo quod oculis patet distinguere valent Musc Loc. Com. de coena A Physicall maxime applied in a spirituall case and holds as well to any strong meat as that which he there speakes of for he doth not say This strong meat That the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is strong meat is evident That meat which is of hardest digestion and concoction and requires the strongest operations of the stomack to turne it into nourishment and which not duly digested proves most pernicious to the body is strong meat in a physicall sense But such is the Sacrament of the Lords Supper The spirituall stomack must be more extraordinarily prepared for it 1 Cor. 11.28 It is not tasted nor digested well without the knowing of the greatest mysteries in Religion in some measure viz. the union of Christ with the Father 2. The Union of the two natures in the person of Christ 3. The mysticall Vnion of the soule with Christ 4. The mysterious exercise of faith in applying the Soule to the Promise and the Promise to the Soule while it sits at that Table Not duly received it proves most pernicious The Soule seales its damnation becomes guilty of the body and bloud of Christ eates judgement to it selfe Arg. 14 It is unlawfull to partake of other mens sins Eph. 5.7 Mr Ambrose his media p. 260 Rutherford in his Divine right c. c. 5. q. 2. and in his peaceable plea. cap. 12. Gillespie's Aarons rod. l. 3. P. Goodwins Evang. Com. Vindication of the jus divinum of Presbytery But he that gives the Sacrament wittingly to an ignorant or scandalous person partakes with him in his sin Ergo. This Argument is urged by Learned Rutherford Reverend Gillespy in the two fore-mentioned books and holy Mr Ambrose to whom I refer my Reader for fuller proofe Many Arguments more might be produced in this cause but the truth is scarce any but what are to be found either in Mr
Rutherford or Mr Gillespy or the London Ministers Vindication or Mr Philip Goodwin or Mr Ambrose M Ambrose his Media p. 260. If any one hath a mind to write on this subject against us they should deale ingenuously to answer all the Arguments produced in those books against them and when they have done that it is like that either the Reverend Authors of those books or some of their Brethren will undertake their vindication But if they take Mr Humfrie's course to publish books to divulge opinions confuted long since by solid Arguments and take no paines to answer any thing or if any thing first to make their Adversaries Arguments weake by curtilation and imperfect proposall of them and then to scoffe instead of answering Or thinke it enough with Mr Boatman to cry down suspension as a Pharisaicall dreame and a Pharisaicall way of dealing with people and the Patrons of it as Vsurpers of an undue authority intruders upon Christs Office Pharisees Bedlams Hot-spurs Spiritually proud Hypocrites This is but barking and grinning for want of teeth fit to bite and thus they may vapour a little under the protection of an impudent forehead proclaime their want of learning and breeding too to the world and shew their teeth against Gospell reformation and deceive some poore silly soules first led captive with their own lusts but they will not deserve any sober mans taking further notice of them then when he goes to God to say on the behalf of their poore soules Father forgive them they know not what they do See many more Arguments shortly propounded in learned Zanchies Epistle ad Fredericum tertium de Excommunicatione as also in Vrsini compendium doctrinae Christianae p. 2. de clavibus q. 3. sect 11. CHAP. XI QUEST 2. Whether ministeriall or privative Suspension be deducible from Scripture yea or no. I Opened the termes of this Question before In short it is thus Whether in no case it be lawfull for the Pastor of the Church not having a formed Presbytery if he knows any of his Church to be ignorant or scandalous to deny to them the Sacrament of the Lords Supper though they be not excommunicated nor juridically censured Before I speake to this Question that I may not be mis-interpreted I will crave leave to premise some few things 1. I grant that the most regular and orderly way of administring the Ordinance of the Lords Supper in Congregations is by the triall and judging of all the members by a Presbytery consisting of the Minister and Ruling Elders I looke upon Elders as an Ordinance of Jesus Christ and Officers equally betrusted with the Minister in all acts of jurisdiction and to a regular and ordinary suspension questionlesse an act of Jurisdiction is required 2. I plead not for the sole power of Jurisdiction to be in the hands of a single Minister this were to set up an Episcopacy yea more than an Episcopacy almost a papall power in every Parish as I thinke Ruling Elders are equally with him betrusted with the power of Jurisdiction and Government so I thinke they must joyne with him in juridicall suspending c. 3. I speak this and the fourth as my own private judgement and shall not go about to impose such a perswasion upon others not knowing what upon further thoughts I my selfe might judge in these cases but at present only thus limiting my question I plead not for Ministers power in such places where are persons fit to be chosen as Officers who shall refuse the Office or people who shall refuse to choose I thinke in such a case a Minister may lawfully forbear the administring the Ordinance and giving Gospell-Priviledges to those who despise any Gospell-Ordinances or shall deny any Gospell duty yea I cannot tell whether a Minister could discharge a good conscience in administring at all to such a people till the Lord had changed their hearts and convinced them of their duty and their sin in refusing it being a scandall to all well ordered Churches 4. I would not plead strongly for his power in this thing in a Congregation who had none fit to choose but were scituated so nigh to some rightly organized Church that they could conveniently go and partake there I rather thinke it the Ministers duty in such cases to perswade those who in his Congregation are fit for the Ordinance to joyne themselves to such a Church as to that Ordinance and were it my own case if I saw that Church walked-orderly and kept the Ordinances pure I my selfe would not only perswade my people so to joyne but my selfe rather so joyne than set up any extraordinary course 5. In case there were a formed Classis of Triers either established by the Civill power or by a voluntary agreement of the godly Ministers in a County which used to meet so neare the Congregation that the godly people could go and submit to their triall I do prefer this before a Ministers single Examination and Judgement But in such a case as this now Where there is in a Congregation a godly Minister and a competent number of godly people to make up a Communion at the Lords Table and these people are willing to do what in them lies to put themselves in order and to choose Elders and wish from their soules that they had some to choose but at present they have none nor are like to have any suddenly nor are nigh any Organized Church with which they can enjoy the Ordinance nor any Classis to which they can approve themselves Whether now in such a case as this the Minister may not administer the Ordinance and not only admonish the ignorant and scandalous to keep away but take account of his peoples knowledge and take all due courses to be informed of their lives and if he finds any ignorant and scandalous that notwithstanding admonition will presume to come whither he may not yea whether he ought not to deny the Elements to him 6. I heartily wish that either by the Civill power or a voluntary act of the people parochiall Congregations were so united that in every Precinct there might be found persons fit for Officers 7. I thinke in such cases a Minister should act with a great deale of prudence I would in such a case do nothing as neare as I could without the satisfaction of the Community I meane not being acted by their vote but stating the businesse to them first at some meeting and if it were possible gaining their consent and approbation And these things premised I humbly conceive that a Minister of the Gospell in such a cause may by vertue of his Office wanting a Presbytery deny the administration of the Elements to any such as he shall judge ignorant and be able to prove so scandalous as if he had a Presbytery he might be juridically suspended I shall humbly propose my grounds for my opinion in it which yet is not mine alone In such a case as this
a Minister may either wholly omit the Ordinance or else administer it promiscuously to all be they never so ignorant or scandalous or else thirdly by his own power thus deny it to such as he finds so But in such a case he may not wholly omit the administration of the Ordinance nor secondly administer it promiscuously Ergo. The disjunction cannot be denied for there is no fourth expedient can be found but the way of our dissenting brethren and but some of them neither that all the members should have power which I can never yeeld to till they can tell me who shall be the Ruled if all be Rulers But of my Brethren who are of the Presbyterian perswasion there are two different opinions 1. Some thinke that in such a case he is bound wholly to omit the administration till he can have a Presbytery I must crave leave to dissent here And I thinke Mr Jeanes hath said enough to prove that the totall omission of the Ordinance in a non-presbyterated Church cannot be justifiable 1. All Christs Commands are to be observed in a non-presbyterated Church Do this do it often c. are Christ Commands as well as any other 2. Christ himselfe and his Apostles Act. 2.41 administred it in a none-presbyterate Church 3. Here are fit Communicants and here is a Minister and this is an Ordinance of Christ for the perfecting of the Saints 4. Christs death ought to be remembred in a non-presbyterated Church and the Saints should grow in grace there as well as elsewhere These and the rest of Mr Jeanes his Arguments I must confesse do much prevaile with me to make me thinke that the bare want of Ruling Elders in the Church cannot warrant a Ministers totall neglect of the administration of this Ordinance Besides the ill consequences which would doubtlesse be of such an Omission Such as 1. Peoples running to separate Churches 2. Christians decay in grace and spirituall weaknesses for want of that great Ordinance for strength and quickning 3. A blotting out of the memory of Christs death or at least of that Ordinance out of Christians minds these things make me conclude it sinfull for a godly Minister who hath people fit for a Communion wholly to omit the Ordinance So that a Minister cannot be bound to that 2. Nor can a Minister be bound to administer to those whom he knows to be ignorant and scandalous This most of my former Arguments prove 1. He cannot be bound to give holy things to dogs and cast pearls before swine directly contrary to that Precept Mat. 7. 2. He cannot be bound to give it to those whom he knows cannot drinke the Lords Cup for then there would lye an Obligation upon him to profane the Lords Ordinances 3. He cannot be bound to give it to those with whom it is unlawfull for him to keep that feast or to eate 1 Cor. 5.8 11. 4. He cannot be bound to declare those one body and make those one breast who visibly are not one body 5. His Obligation must be from Scripture precepts or presidents but I have shewed there are none to that purpose 6. He cannot he bound to any act by which he is guilty of making the Communion of the Church impure 7. There cannot lye an Obligation upon him to give the Ordinance to those who visibly appeare to be such as are not bound to receive 8. He cannot be bound to give the Sacrament of the Supper to such as he might not lawfully baptize in case they were not yet baptized I made good these Arguments before and they conclude as well for ministeriall privative suspension as for positive suspension These two parts being such as he may not take 1. He must either put the power of jurisdiction into the hand of the Community and so by their major vote suspend or admit or 2. He must by his own power during this state of the Church put by some not juridically censuring and suspending them but suspending his own act as to such persons The former of these he may not do 1. For Christ never committed any such power to them they are no Officers in the Church 2. That were to make Gods house an house of confusion the body all one member all head to rule c. It remaines therefore that himselfe in such a case being the alone Officer of the Church and bound virtute officii to know the state of his Flock and to take care of their soules do what in him lies 1. To warne the ignorant and scandalous to abstaine 2. That he deny the Sacrament to them if they presume to come That now in such a case the Minister may and ought to take an account of his flock and pastorally to admonish the scandalous and to deterr the unworthy what he can is easily granted me Mr Humfry will yeeld this yea and something more that he may deny it to notorious sinners such as he cals de jure excommunicati by which he only meanes such as are fit to be hanged Mr Jeanes likewise will yeeld this though he is not cleare in allowing to the Minister more than a doctrinall power to keep away any But all the question is Whether the single Minister in such a case if the ignorant and scandalous person will not keepe away may deny the Ordinance to him 1. That he cannot formally pronounce a Church censure against him I yeeld 2. That he cannot take him and turne him out by head and shoulders I grant too The question therefore is narrowed up to this Suppose such a Minister knows one to be notoriously ignorant or scandalous who hath given no evidence of his repentance and this wretch notwithstanding his Pastors admonition of him to keep away will yet when the day of administration comes presse in amongst the Communicants whether the Minister shall sin if he delivers it from hand to hand in passing by such a one and not giving it to him or if he delivers it at once to all and seeth such an one there and declares either more generally that the Elements are only provided for and given unto such as have approved themselves unto him Or if he thinks fit to declare particularly that whereas there are such and such there whom he hath found ignorant or have been scandalous and as yet given no satisfaction he doth not intend them or any of them in his generall delivery of the Ordinance I maintaine the Negative that he shall not sin yea that he should sin if he should not do it it being the only course he can take to fulfill Christs command and not be guilty of giving holy things to dogs c. To the fore-mentioned Arguments I shall adde one more Argument 2 If in such a case the Minister of the Gospell cannot shew himselfe a faithfull Steward of Gods mysteries except he doth deny the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to the ignorant and scandalous though he wants an Eldership then he may in case of
such a defect in the Church deny the Lords Supper to such But though there be an Eldership wanting in the Church yet if the Minister gives that Ordinance to the ignorant and Scandalous he cannot in it shew himselfe a faithfull steward of Gods mysteries Ergo. To prove the consequence I shall need but prove these things 1. That a Minister is steward of the mysteries of God 2. That the Sacraments are some of those mysteries committed to his Stewardship 3. That he must be faithfull in his stewardship 1. That a minister is a steward of Gods mysteries is cleare they are the words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 4.1 2. That the Sacraments are some of those mysteries is cleare 1. By considering that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the known Greeke word to expresse a Sacrament if not the only one 2. From that which is generally granted that none but the Ministers may dispense them 3. That they must be faithfull is plaine not only first from reason but secondly from the expresse words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 4.2 All the Question lies upon the Assumption Whether a Minister of the Gospell cannot discharge the faithfulnesse of a Steward if he delivers the Lords Supper to one that is ignorant or scandalous That he cannot I prove If the faithfulnesse of a Steward lies wholly as to the distribution of his Masters goods in this Praeceptum naturale est ut dispensator qui bona domini dispensat sit fidelis ac prudens in dispensando ergo praeceptum naturale est ut non dispenset homini indigno contra voluntatem institutionem suidomini quia hoc esset contra fidelitatem prudentiam quam in dispensando debet servare c. Becanus in tertia p. de sacram in Com. cap. 5. q. 8. that he doth dispense them to such as his Master hath Commanded him to give them 2. That he dispenseth them to no other and the Minister be a steward and the Sacraments the Lord his Masters goods and he not commanded by his Master to deliver them to the ignorant and scandalous then he cannot shew himselfe a faithfull steward in giving them to such But the Antecedent is true Ergo. To prove the Assumption I must prove these things That the faithfulnesse of a steward as to the dealing out his Masters goods betrusted to him to distribute lies chiefly if not only in this that he gives them out to such and none other but such as his Master commands him to give them to This is so evident to reason that none can deny it but will be posed to assign any other thing wherein he can shew his faithfulnesse more or so much Surely any mans reason will tell him that if his Master gives him a thousand pounds to distribut amongst such and such people his faithfulnesse lies in distributing it to such and none but such though they aske it 2. It is already proved that the Minister is the Lords Steward and the Sacraments are Christs goods committed to him to distribute to others 3. It is as evident that he hath no command from Christ his Master to give them out to such as are apparently scandalous or ignorant Surely it were very absurd to say that Christ should command me his Minister to give out his Ordinances to such as he lets me know are forbidden upon paine of damnation to receive Saint John saith That for such as we know have sinâ—ed the sin against the Holy Ghost we should not pray 1 Joh. 5.16 Why Because Prayer can do him no good because we know God will not heare our prayers And shall we thinke that we are bound by Christs Command to administer the Lords Supper to such as wee know it to be the will of God they should not take it Indeed if we do not know it the case is otherwise but for such as we know cannot discerne the Lords body and such as we know are Drunkards Fornicators c. we know the Ordinance can do them no good and we know it is the will of God they should not take it I shall refer it therefore to the judicious Reader to consider whether it can be reasonably judged that when Christ said Driâ—ke you all of â—t he meanes all you whom I have elsewhere told that if you do drink you shall drinke your own dâ—mnation and become guilty of my body and bloud and you who if you do eate and drinke there I will make you sick and weake and fall asleep for it I confesse Mr Jeanes p. 124 125. edit octo I find Reverend and Learned Mr Jeanes speaking something to answer this Argument two things he saith 1. By way of retortion That the faithfulnesse of a Steward lies in going no further than his Masters Commission and he conceives we have no Commission to keep back any but the Commission is directed to us and others 2. He tels us that if we understand by the will of God voluntas signi It is not the will of God viz. the Command of God that we should keep away any But I humbly conceive this is little better than petere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For this is the question 1. Whether we have no command to keep away the ignorant and scandalous though at present the Church be not presbyterated We conceive we have and to that purpose we bring that Text 1 Cor. 4.1 where we are required to be faithfull as Stewards 2. He saies the faithfulnesse of the Steward lies in going no further than our Commission that is but halfe the truth for it lies in going so far as well as no farther Now we say we should not go so far as our Commission Mat. 7.6 if we should administer it promiscuously we plead to go as far as that extends 3. If he meanes we have no Commission 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the word Sacrament is used we grant it but we have proved that we have a Commission 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to sound consequence from Scripture and that it is voluntas signi Gods Command at least implicite if not explicite 4. We desire where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if he stands upon that he can shew us our Commission from Scripture for suspension to be directed to us and others 5. We say that if we should give the Ordinance to any known ignorant and scandalous we should in Mr Jeanes his sence go beyond our Commission having neither precept nor president for it I shall need add no more though I might adde the concurrent Judgement of Divines antient and moderne But I will refer that to the next question where I shall prove that Mr Boatman's tongue ran a little too fast when he said Suspension was a Pharisaicall dreame CHAP. XII Wherein are answered the Objections brought against privative Suspension by the single Minister I Acknowledge that as I have a great many with me in the Affirmative of this Question so have I some very Reverend men who are otherwise
Government is able to say that either he spake against his knowledge or else never read any of them the latter of which out of charity to him I am most apt to beleeve But if they were Pharisees and dreaming Pharisees too they were many of them holy and learned dreamers And the Church of Christ hath from Christs time been in a dreame till Mr John Boatman awakened it and we hope to prove anon that this confident Gentleman was the Dreamer himselfe whose tongue ran like a wild fancy in a dreame when the eyes of his understanding were sealed up with lamentable ignorance of the generall practice of the Churches of God It was bad enough for Josephs eleven Brethren to call him Dreamer but surely it had been worse for him the younger to have called all them so If Mr Boatman had been some grave Doctor in Divinity some Bishop or Archbishop or Pope the Censure had savoured of a great deale of more ignorance and boldnesse than judgement or discretion but for one who never so much as took the lowest degree not staying at any University halfe so long as is required of him that would commence Batâ—helor of Arts and if he had taken his degrees had not yet been Master of Arts above foure or five yeares standing to censure so many Reverend Fathers Learned and Acute Schoolemen so many holy and Reverend Divines of all sorts yea and so many Churches all as Dreamers Pharisaicall dreamers too was enough to let the world know the Character of himselfe But let us a little examine how many this young Rabbi hath at once called Dreamers Pharisaicall Dreamers bold usurpers of Christs authority c. I shall only premise this one thing That I shall not undertake to prove their judgement as to this or that sort of Suspension whether by the single Pastor or the Presbytery For although there be sufficient ground in Scripture to prove the divine right of Ruling Elders and sufficient Record to prove that they were in the Primitive Church as our Learned Brethren of the Province of London have proved out of Tertullian Origen Basil Optatus Albaspineus Vindication of â—us divinum p. 12. Tert. Apol. c. 39. Orig. l. 3. contra Celsum Basil in Ps 33. Optatus l. 1. adv Parmen Albaspin ibid. Hier. in Is 3.2 Aug. ep 137. l. 3. con Crescon c. 56. Serm. 19. in Psal 30. Greg. Mag. l. 11. ep 19. Hierom Augustine Gregorius Magnus c. And our learned Countryman Mr Brinsly hath proved out of Deane Nowels Catechisme which quotation is evidently true from the ancient Copies of that Catechisme Greeke Latine printed as also in the Latine Copies yet I know there are many that do question the divine right of the Ruâ—ing Elder But it is enough to me if I can prove that in all Ages some have been kept from the Lords Supper by whom matters not whether by the Presbytery or single Minister who yet were not excommunicated And this I hope to do which if I do let the wor d judge whether it be such a dreame as we are ignorantly told it is And with what humility my Antagonist hath condemned Fathers Schoolemen Divines of all sorts in all Ages of all perswasions yea all reformed Churches and our own ever since the first reformation as dreamers and usurpers of a new authority As for the first Century or one hundred yeares after Christ we have no writings extant but those of the Apostles except the constitution of some Canons of the Apostles and some fragments of Clement and of Dionysius Areopagita who was an ancient writer but judged by most long after and some sew Epistles of Ignatius who according to Helvicus and Eusebius was made Bishop of Antioch one hundred yeares after Christ There is little credit to be given to the Canons or the testimony of the pretended Areopagite as to matters of fact in the first Century for it is upon very good grounds supposed that the Canons were made long after and that Dionysius lived long after but yet their writings being all the record can be pretended let us examine what they say For Clements two Epistles I want them and cannot examine what they say In the pretended Canons of the Apostles I find it sufficiently proved Canon 130. If any Clergy man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Canon Apost Canon 13. or Lay man excommunicated or suspended go to any other City and be received into Communion there let him that receives him and he who is received be both excommunicated Here is plainly Suspension distinct from Excommunication asserted there were some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the pretended Areopagite I see reason enough to beleeve he lived not in this Century but admit he did and he speakes plaine enough Here he tels us that the Catecumeni and the Poenitents 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dion Areop cap. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex edit Morellii octavo 1562. p. 141. and Energumeni were excluded from the Lords Supper which he tels us was administred to none but those who had perfect eyes to discerne the Lords body c. This is sufficient but this is not all For presently after he subjoyneth that if Penitents ought not to be admitted much lesse ought profane persons who lived in lusts and testified no repentance who he saies should be admitted to no other Ordinance but the preaching of the Word I will transcribe the place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid p. 144. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This quotation being so full to shew what persons in the Primitive Church were suspended yet not excommunicated though it were something too large yet I have transcribed it all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I have been willing to transcribe this passage fully because it speakes so fully to our case Dionysius in this Chapter doth professedly treate concerning the Lords Supper and here concerning the order of administring in the first place he tels us some were put away or went away 2. Then the Administration proceeded Now who were they who were enjoyned to go away he reckons severall sorts 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who were yet not made compleat members of the Church that had never yet been initiated in those holy mysteries doubtlesse by these he meanes the Catechumeni such as God had begun to worke upon and they had evidenced some good affections to the doctrine of the Gospell but had not yet sufficient knowledge to fit them for either Sacrament and this is conforme to what Renatus Laurentius de la Farre In lib. 4. in his Annotations on Tertullian Tert. advers Marc. tells us This order of Converts were likewise by Tertullian and Cyprian c. called Audientes Auditores and they had a particular Teacher Eusebius tels us Pantaenus was their first Teacher Euseb l. 5 l. 6. cap. 3. then Clemens Alexand. afterward Demetrius made Origen their
Orthodox Synod that ever the Church of Christ could glory in Here were 318 of the most eminent servants of Christ in the worke of the Gospell which the world then afforded These all determine that such sinners as were scandalous though they had sinned through temptation for feare of their lives or estates worshipping Idols I suppose they meant though they did professe repentance yet they should give three yeares proofe of it before they should have any communion with the Church if in this time they were found not to contradict their profession they were admitted to some Communion but no otherwise than penitents for seven yeares more after these ten yeares they must have no nearer communion than in prayer for two yeares longer here was a Suspension of ten yeares for scandalous sins distinct from Excommunication were all these dreamers thinke we For the length of time I do not justifie them nor can I altogether condemne them considering the juncture of time and state of the Church then In this Century they say was Concilium Neocaesariense if it were so and we have a true account of their acts In their second Canon they decree that if a woman marry two brothers she should be rejected to her death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet it is plaine she was not excommunicated so long for in the same Canon they determine she might have the Sacrament given her in her dying houre In the same Century was Concilium Gangrense who in the preface to their acts do plainely distinguish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one who is denied Communion with the Church and one who is quite separated from it What the Councill of Arles determined in the same Century is plaine The first Councill of Arles Can. 11. Can. 12. Can. 23. plainely establish Suspension distinct from Excommunication The second Councill of Arles Caranza p. 55. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same Century determines the Suspension of such from the Lords Supper for five yeares as had through feare in time of persecution sacrificed to Idols See also Canon 20 25. Concilium Elebertinum in which Caranza saith were nineteene Bishops doth plainly distinguish betwixt some sinners to whom the Sacrament at death should be denied and others who should be suspended from it but yet might have it at their death desiring it which if they were excommunicated they could not V. Can. 1 2 3 14 21 31 40 c. For particular men in this Century the Opinions of Basil Aarons rod l. 3. c. 17. Thaumaturgus Chrysâ—stome Ambrose Augustine are evident in their severall workes Basil is enough for all in his Canonicall Epistles ad Amphilochium see Canon 34 38 44 56 57 58 59. for murther he determines twenty yeares suspension Can. 36. for man-slaughter eleven yeares Can. 57. for Adultery fifteene Can. 58. for Fornication eight yeares Can 59. for theft though the thiefe first accused himselfe one yeare Can. 61. for perjury eleven yeares Can. 64. But if they before gave good evidence of their repentance and change they were to be admitted sooner Can. 74. It were an easie but tedious worke to shew that this was the judgement of the succeeding Councils and Fathers but if we could not these were the most pure and incorrupted times of the Church and surely the Servants of God were not all this time in a dreame For the time of Antichrists prevailing betwixt the time of the purer Church and the beginnings of Reformation by Luther and Calvin we shall easily know what was the generall opinion by the Schoolemen and by their decretalls and Councils the Schoolemen most of them handle this Question An peccatori hoc Sacramentum petenti Sacerdos denegare debeat Whether if a Sinner desire the Sacrament of the Lords Supper the Priest ought to deny it him They generally distinguish betwixt a secret sinner and a publike and notorious sinner and betwixt his desiring it in private and in publike Vasq in tert par Thom. t. 3. q. 80 disp 209. cap. 2. In quâ re scholastici omnes ut dixi constanter affiâ—mant publico peccatori nimirum de quo non constat ad meliorem frugem fuisse conversum publice etiam Eucharistiam denegandam esse ibid. 1. They all generally determine that if the sinner be a manifest open sinner the Priest ought to deny it to him though not excommunicated which is enough for to prove Suspension distinct from Excommunication They are not so well agreed in determining who should be accounted publike notorious sinners Nor whether the Priest may not in some cases deny the Lords Supper to Occulto peccatori Gabriel Vasquez assures me that all the Schoolemen do agree that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is to be denied to an open sinner of whose repentance there is no evidence I said before they are not so well agreed who shall be judged a scandalous sinner Adrianus in his questions de Eucharistia saies he is a publike scandalous sinner if his sin be known to ten persons Sylvester and Navarrus thinke enough if it be known to six Dominicus Sotus and Vasquez thinke that suspicion is not enough but the party must appeare scandalous either 1. Per sententiam he being declared so by the Judge or 2. Per confessionem ab ipso in judicio or by his own confession in Court or 3. Per rei evidentiam when the thing is evident and cannot be denied But though they disagree here yet they plainely enough agree as to the granting a Suspension distinct from Excommunication Now that this is the concurrent opinion of the Schoolemen Bonavent in l. 4 sent dist 9. art 2. q. 4. Duran in sent dist 9. q 5. Etius in l. 4. sent dist 9. sect 4. Vasq in 3. p. Tho. l. 3 q. 8. art 6. Alex Halen in 4. p. sum q. 11. art 3. Aquin. sum 3. p. q 80. art 6. Becan in sum Scholast Thcol. p 3 c. 5. q 8. I shall prove by referring the Reader to those places in Bonaventure Aquinas Durandus Becanus Halensis Estius Vasquez where they professedly handle the question and give Arguments for it Vasquez as I said before tels me it is the unanimous Vote of all his Brethren of the Schooles I am sure it is the determination of all these which prove it the opinion of the Schoolemen in all Ages Bonaventure Aquinas and Durandus being all betwixt 1250. and 1300. Vasquez saith Helvicus died 1604. and Estius died 1613. as may be seen in the account of his life and Writings prefixed to his Commentaries on the Epistles If Suspension distinct from Excommunication be a Dreame these were some of the learned Dreamers It remaines that we examine the judgement of others and it is no great matter to whom we turne let them be Papists Lutherans or Calvinists we shall find them all in this point 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As for Papists I shall not trouble my Reader with quotations out of them though it were a very facile thing to
do partly because the ignorance of some may judge it one of their superstitious practices and partly because their Schoolemen have spoken enough to let us know their minds to which Salmeron may be added who hath spoken enough to prove it in a place I have before quoted Salmeron t 5. tract 50. For the opinion of the Churches of the Switzers it is not considerable in the cause because most of their Churches have no Excommunication at all and so could not hold Suspension as distinct from it yet I observe that none of them plead for admission of any to the Lords Table but such as make a profession of their faith and repentance so Brentius Bullinger Gualther c. Philip Melancthon who was one of the first Reformers in Germany hath said enough as it is recorded by Christophorus Pezelius Pezelii pars oct argum resp theol contexta ex scriptis Melanct. de Excom p. 409. In veteribus Canonibus duo gradus sunt poenarum separatio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 excommunicatio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Separatio est poena qua homo per sententiam Ecclesiae cogitur aliquantisper omittere officium publicum usum Sacramentorum ut exploretur ejus obedientia an volens statim emendaturus sit veniam petiturus Melancth in Eth. 287. an vero contumaciter defensurus errorem c. Altera poena ultima summa in Ecclesia est Excommunicatio c. This is plaine enough for our purpose The next which I shall name of those holy and learned men whom Mr Boatman hath called Dreamers c. amongst the rest is holy Bucer Bucer in Comment in Ephes cap. 4. Et Cavendum est Ecclesiis ne cui causam praebeant sumendi sibi judicium in sumendo Sacramento salutis quod faciunt quicunque absque verâ peccatorum suorum Poenitentiâ Sacramentis Domini communicant Quamobrem siqui in gravius aliquod peccatum incidissent in manifestum flagitium ut Corint hius ille incestus inciderat eos priscae Ecclesiae quae Christi disciplinam adhuc rectè tenebant ligabant certo tempore ad agendam hoc est demonstrandum poenitentiam per opera fructus veros poenitentiae etiamsi illos jam tum peccati sui poenitere appareret id enim erat consentaneum verae poenitentiae de tetriore lapsu quae ut dictum si vera sit aliquandiu haeret tum utile ad cavendum peccatum tam ipse qui ligabatur quam totae reliquae Ecclesiae Atque hinc est quod Divus Cyprianus tantopere urgebat lapsis inpersecutionibus non ilico dandam esse veniam sed diu ac justo tempore eos agere poenitentiam de quov Epist ejus 2. 3. lib. 1. lib. 3. ab Ep. 14. ad 20. in Sermone de lapsis Item exemplum Ambrosii inlegatione Theodosii apud Theod. l. 3. c. 18. apud Sozom. l. 7. c. 24. Porro licet abstinendi sint ad tempus qui gravioribus peccatis Ecclesiam funestarunt tamen severior debet esse Excommunicatio eorum qui Ecclesiam non audiunt c. In the next place let us heare what our Reverend Calvin saith Calv. institut l. 4 cap. 12. sect 5 6. and he speakes plaine enough In his fifth Paragraph having spoken before of Church-Censures he treats of the three ends which the Church aimes at in such Censures 1. The glory of God 2. The preservation of the Churches purity 3. The amendment of the offender In his sixth Paragraph he comes to shew the method and order of the Churches proceedings in Church-Censures that he doth by making use of a former distinction he had laid down between publike and more private sins By private sins he tels us he doth not mean such as none know of such as are the sins of hypocrites but such whose nature is not so scandalous c. For open grosse publike sins he tells us the Church need not proceed so gradually 1. By private admonition 2. Then by admonition more publike c. For lesser sins the Church takes no cognisance of them till private admonition be refused when it comes to them if the offence be lighter sufficit verborum castigatio saith he it is enough for the Church at first to admonish and that saith he must be levis paterna quae non exasperet peccatorem nec confundat sed reducat ad seipsum ut magis gaudeat se correctum quam tristetur But if the offences be of an higher nature they must be corrected by a sharper remedy for saith he it is not enough if one hath committed a scandalous sin and grievously offended the Church should be reproved by words but for a time he ought to be deprived ef the Communion of the Lords Supper Ibid. Sect. 7 8 9.10 11 12. till he hath given evidence of his repentance And this saith he was the way of the ancient and better Church c. But for Excommunciation he determines that must be done after a great deale of waiting and with a great deale of wisdome and caution c. thou maiest read him at large whose discourse is too large indeed to be transcribed This is enough to shew thee that he is one of Mr Boatmans Pharisees and Dreamers too we shall have good company I hope anon In this sixteenth Century were so many eminent men that it were endlesse to transcribe all their testimonies to this truth thou hast Reader already heard what Melancthon and Bucer and Calvin have spoke who were all three within this Century I shall not trouble thee with many more Zach. Ursinus in doct Christ 2. p de Coenâ dom q. 8. What Reverend Vrsine thought may be read at large in his eighth Question de Coenâ Domini where he speakes to these two Questions 1. Quiad coenam accedere debent who ought to come to the Lords Table 2. Qui debeant admitti who ought to be admitted to it In answer to the latter he determines Those are to be admitted by the Church who by words and deeds professe true repentance and who by the actions of their life expresse their profession of faith and repentance but they are saith he not to be admitted who barely say they beleeve all things for he who saith he beleeveth and sheweth it not by his works is a liar and doth in deeds deny what in words he affirmeth For this he gives reasons and answers objections largely in that Chapter which the Reader may see in Latine or English And that he thought this Suspension ought to precede Excommunication is plaine for in the same Book in his fifth Question de Clavibus He determines that Excommunication must be used as the last remedy to correct those who are found impenitent And in the preceding Question he proves by fourteen Arguments that scandalous persons ought to be kept from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper which I wish those who are so zealous
for the profanation of that Ordinance would seriously weigh possibly they might amaze their consciences if they have any more than Mr Boatman's startling reason scares us I confesse in this Century I find severall of the Germane Divines pleading for promiscuous Communion especially Wolfangus Musculus but they are not so considerable in this cause because their Judgements are also against all Church Discipline where there is a Christian Magistrate The Lord hath made their names upon other accounts exceeding famous though in point of Church Discipline they have no name in the Church God shall reveale this also to those Churches as we hope What was Peter Martyrs opinion is plaine from his common places Pet. Mart. loc com Clas 4. c. 5. sect 7. where he tells us in what order the Churches of God formerly proceeded to the solemne sentence of Excommunication he indeed tels us that their severall degrees of Catechumeni of which some were Audientes some Competentes and of their Poenitentes of which they had foure sorts all of which were kept in the Primitive Church from the Lords Table at least all but their fourth degree of Penitents cannot be proved from Scripture But in his fifteenth Section moving this Question what should be done in reference to scandalous sinners if the community refused to consent to their Excommunication He answers Saltem id curandum esse ut damnatis atque convictis de publicis manifestis criminibus pastor Sacramenta non distribuat Care at least must be taken that the Pastor doth not administer the Sacrament to such as are convicted of grosse sins from whence it is plaine that he judged some that might be kept from the Supper of the Lord who were not Excommunicated And that Reverend mans judgement is not so clearely to be judged from his common places which were collected out of his works by others and by them published as by the Book called Reformatio legum Ecclesiasticarum of which more anon In the next place let us heare what Polanus thought Polan Syntag. Theol l. 7. c. 18. Abstentio publica usurpatur cum coram Ecclesia jubetur abstinere Sacrae Coenae usu is qui contra privatum interdictum aliis ad mensam domini accedentibus se ingerit c. whose judgement the Reader shall find in the second part of his Syntagma l. 7. c. 18. Where he tels us that the Publike Censures of the Church are three 1. Admonitio 2. Abstentio 3. Excommunicatio Admonition Suspension and Excommunication Publike Suspension saith he is when in the Jace of the Church he is commanded to abstaine from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper who either against a private prohibition intrudes or whose sin is so scandalous that the Pastor of the Church cannot without scandall to the faithfull administer the Sacrament to him So Ambrose suspended the great Emperour Theodosius Come we now to learned and Reverend Zanchy who hath a large discourse upon this point in his first Book of Epistles Zanch. in epist l. 1. in ep ad Fred tert At quorum peccata sunt omnibus nota quorum etiam pertinacia â—emini est ignota hos ex verbo Dei cum totâ vetustate doctissimis quibusque nostri saeculi contendimus ad Coenam Domini minimè esse admittendos ib. in an Epistle to Fredericus tertius where he determines that Excommunication is to proceed only in case of contumacy But confirmes the keeping away of scandalous and impenitent sinners by thirteen Arguments and saies they are egregiously charitable who would have none kept away and determines the admission of the profane to be against piety and charity and answers the trite Objections of Judas his receiving and from that place Let a man examine himselfe Ergo none else may examine him and determines the admission of the profane 1. Against the will of God 2. A profanation of the Sacrament 2. A scandall to the Church In short saith he For those whose sins and whose obstinacy in sinning is known to all we contend both in the behalfe of Gods word and according to all Antiquity and all the Learned of our Age that they are not to be admitted to the Lords Table He produceth the authority of Justin Martyr Chrysostome in severall places Cyprian c. In the next place let us heare the judgement of Reverend Danaeus Lambert Daneus in Isagoge Christ p. 3 c. 59. p 4. l. 5. c. 53. and that may be read plaine enough in the third part of his Isagoge Christiana cap. 59. where he distinguisheth the publike censures of the Church into Admonition Suspension from the Lords Table and Excommunication and in his fourth part and fifth book cap. 53. he sufficiently proves that the Ignorant and Scandalous are to be kept away from the Lords Table for which he gives reasons and answers objections Of the same mind is Learned and Reverend Zepperus as may appeare at large from his Tract of the Sacraments in genere specie l. 4. de sacrâ Domini coenâ cap. 5. where he handles this question for whom Christ instituted the Sacrament of his Supper and determines it was only for his Disciples who these are he explaines from Joh. 8.31 Mat. 16.24 Zepperus in tract de sacram l. 4. de sacra Coenâ cap. 5. Joh. 13.35 And determines that the scandalous and obstinate ought not to be admitted because they are none of Christs Disciples because holy things are not to be given to dogs because it hath been the constant practice of the Church to keep them away this he proves not only from the practice of the Jewish Church in reference to the Passeover but from the Writings of Tertullian Cyprian Chrysostome c. and answers the objection of Judas his supposed receiving I have a Book wrote in Latine Ecclesiasticae disciplinae Anglicanae Ecclesiae ab ill â aberrationis plena dilucidatio p. 127 128 129 130. anno 1574. by some pious learned man who I know not I am informed it was Mr Dudly Fenners it is called Ecclesiasticae Disciplinae Anglicanae Ecclesiae ab illâ aberrationis plena è verbo Dei dilucida explicatio where Suspension distinct from Excommunication is maintained and proved from Scripture and Antiquity What was Bucanus his Judgement is evident enough from his Institutions in his 44. common place he propounds this as his tenth question Quot sunt partes sive gradus Ecclesiasticae correctionis How many degrees are there of Ecclesiasticall Censure He answer three 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 admonition 2. Exclusio seu abstentio c. Suspension from the Lords Supper for a time Bucan instit theol loc 44. q. 10 c. 3. Excommunication of which see more there So that it is plaine he also thought there was such a thing as Suspension distinct from Excommunication viz. absolute Excommunication Reverend and Learned Beza's judgement is so known that I
need quote nothing out of him but yet in regard that I am credibly informed that M Boatman had the confidence to quote the French Churches as if they were of his mind and I have met with a passage in Beza which not only speakes his Judgement but the Judgement and Practice of the Churches of God in France I shall transcribe it it is in the Preface of the Book which he directs against Erastus Beza de Presbyterio Excom he calls it Tractatus pius moderatus de verâ Excommunicatione Presbyterio In the Preface of that book you shall find this passage Consistorium igitur habemus c. We have saith he a Consistory in which not only the Ministers of Gods word but twice as many more sit as Judges chosen out of the lesser and greater Senate not without publike notice first given to the people Dissenters as to the received doctrine of the Church are first friendly and brotherly admonished if they will be quiet they are commanded to remaine still for the time to come and there is no further vote of disgrace put upon them if they be stubborne and a second more serious admonition will not profit then they are summoned to the Consistory if they pertinaciously resist their admonition then they are forbidden the Lords Supper being the seale of that doctrine in which they dissent from us and the whole Senate is informed of them The same course is taken against them who discover their profane mind by an open contempt of holy meetings As to the manners of the severall persons when faults are secret we use gentle admonitions as the Lord prescribeth nor is any one called to the Ecclesiasticall Judicatory for a private fault which is not conjoyned with the publike scandall of the Church unlesse he contemneth private admonitions but such as do contemne them are againe admonished by the Church and being convicted by due testimonies if instead of asking pardon they shew themselves obstinate they are according to the word of God Mat. 18.17 commanded to keep from the Supper of the Lord till they declare a change of heart As for more manifest and infamous sins which the Church cannot winke at he that hath so offended for an example to others is summoned to the Consistory but if he askes pardon he is dismissed but if he be admonished the second time and doth not acknowledge his sin and promise amendment then as one who goes on scandalizing the Church he is kept away from the Holy Supper which is a seale of our mutuall communion with Christ and each with other untill he hath given evidence of his repentance In more grosse and open sins which deserve greater than verball corrections only the Church having first had lawfull cognisance of it those that so sin are commanded to humble themselves before the Lord and to keep away from the Lords Table for some time in order to publique edification untill it appeares that their sin is indeed grievous unto them But for open and publike Excommunication denounced before all the Congregation we do not use it but against persons altogether desperate and hopelesse non nisi in poenè deploratos that is his phrase yet saith he for Apostates we do not receive them to communion againe though they professe repentance in the Consistory unlesse they also beg forgivenesse in the open Congregation Thus far this holy and learned and Reverend man which speakes his judgement and the French Churches clearely enough Holy and learned Ames speakes clearely enough Amesii medullae theol l 1. cap. 37. n. 19 20 21. Excommunication saith he is not to be used unlesse to the sin be added contumacy n. 19. Mat. 18.17 The sinner being duly admonished must appeare poenitent or stubborne he that is penitent ought not to be excommunicated therefore the contumacious only N. 21. V. Amesium de conscientia ejus jure casibus l. 4. c. 29. q. 8. When the businesse can admit delay it is agreeable to Scripture and reason that Excommunication be begun first by Suspension and keeping away of the sinner from the Sacrament and other Church-priviledges this saith he is the lesser Excommunication N. 22. But the Church must not stay here but urge the sinners repentance by this way and in this time of his Suspension and when they are out of hopes of that they must proceed to a compleat separation of him from communion with the Church this is the greater Excommunication Anthony Wollebius Ant. Wollebii compendium Christ theol l. 1. cap. 26. Professor sometimes in Basil is of the same mind Lagationis gradus sunt c. The degrees of Censures saith he are 1. Severe admonition by the Presbytery private admonition being rejected 2. Suspension from the Lords Table which he proves from Mat. 7.6 3. Excommunication by which the Party is cast out of the Church 4. Anathema when he is given over as one desperate I will adde the testimony of Wendeline Wendelini l. 1. Christianae theo cap. 23. thes 18. who in his first book Christianae Theologiae in his 23. Chapter in his 18. Thesis determines that he who is subjectum Coenae Dominicae a Subject fit for the Lords Supper must be 1. adultus one grown up 2. Doctrina fidei Christianae imbutus eique addictus one who is endued with a knowledge of the Doctrine of Christianity and a friend to it 3. Vitae Sanctae studiosus one who is studious of an holy life therefore saith he these must be shut out from the Lords Table 1. Infants because they cannot remember the Lords death 2. Because they cannot prepare themselves 2. Those that are ignorant of the Doctrine of Christianity or ab eâ alieni Because saith he this Sacrament is ordained for none but the Citizens of the Christian Church and those who are partakers of the same faith and who embrace and professe the doctrine of the Gospell for as nothing is promised in the Gospell to those who know nothing of Christ or are enemies to the doctrine of the Gospell but the wrath of God is denounced to such so nothing is sealed to them and therefore they are not to be admitted to the seale of the Promise 3. Lastly such as are manifestly wicked and profane and that for three causes 1. Because by their impiety and profanenesse they profane the Lords Supper 2. Because they eate and drinke unworthily and so procure Judgement to themselves 3. Because the Church admitting such provokes God to wrath against it casting holy things and pearles before Dogs and Swine This is enough to shew the judgement of particular men who have been the eminent servants of Christ in all Ages Let us now take in the judgement of whole Churches And it will be fit we should begin at home out of our duty to our mother and considering that of all the Churches of God now in the world the English is and hath been most famous The Church of England
Brethren of the dissenting party we will suspend none but after admonition for some scandalous sin and indeed this only is properly Suspension We deny the Sacrament indeed to others viz. such as will not give account of their faith and submit to the order of the Church But we would not have this lookt upon by our Brethren as if it were a standing principle of ours or as if we intended to put Christians to give an account of their faith every time they come to the Sacrament the contrary is evident in our practice we must therefore be considered as a disordered and now reforming Church Had all those Ministers who went before us in our Churches done their duty they had saved us our labour They should have admitted none at first to the Sacrament but such as had a competent knowledge of the principles of Religion and such as were blamelesse in their lives the principles of the Episcopall Government required this But we find some of them made no conscience of it but admitted any body for his two pence and cared not how scandalous they were ordinarily they could not be worse than their Parson we enter now into these mens harvests and finding what slovenly worke they made we cannot thinke it safe for us to worke after their rate this made the Reverend Assembly propound this expedient to put us in order that there might pro primâ vice be a review of all those who had been formerly admitted and such as were found ignorant kept away and so for the scandalous Nay I will adde one thing more Had our Bishops been conscientious in the businesse of Confirmation we had been spared this trouble and odium For Confirmation was in order to the trying of peoples proficiency after Baptisme And as none not confirmed should have come to the Lords Table so he should have confirmed no ignorant scandalous persons though baptized But we see the cleane contrary practice And there was no way but this to begin any Reformation amongst us who by our way of administration of that holy Ordinance had made our Churches a reproach to Papists and a griefe of heart to all Protestants and by it opened a way for Brownists and Anabaptists and others to fill their Congregations with those who were our strictest Professors formerly though they quickly taught them otherwise And I thinke this may serve to satisfie any conscientious Christians Nor shall any how godly soever or great so ever have any just cause to stumble at it that they must be enjoyned to give account of their faith For besides that we stand not upon Examination but shall be as well contented with a continued Narration of their faith from them which we are also ready to give to them Christians should consider how much the glory of God and the good of others is furthered by their open profession of their knowledge and confession of what God hath done for their poore soules and their Reason may informe them that we cannot spare them without partiality which we must not be guilty of And now Reader I have shewed thee that the Churches and Servants of Christ in all ages have owned and practised this so much decreed Ordinance of Suspension Now judge whether Mr Boatman hath informed his people truly in telling them it is a dreame of the Pharisees which wiser ages before never thought of CHAP. XIV Containing a digression or rather a regression with an attempt to cleare from the Writings of the Ancients the severall degrees of persons not excommunicated yet suspended from the Lords Supper I Shall returne a little to try a little further how far the practice of the Church in the Primitive times as to the keeping some from the Lords Supper who yet were not de facto cast out of the Church and kept from all Ordinances can be cleared from the Writings of the Ancients or those learned Atiquaries who have laboured to find it out before me and spent their paines to very good purpose though their writings be in Latine and so not so obvious to all this I shall do the rather 1. Because I have heard of some holy and learned men that doubt it 2. Because it will expound some passages which I have already quoted out of the Councils and the pretended Areopagite 3. Because the clearing of this will plainely evidence the practice of the Primitive Church as to this point All Christians of old were distinguished into three sorts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Such as were Catechumeni under Catechisme 2. Beleevers 3. Penitents Penitents were such as had fallen into some sins for which they were denied the priviledges of the Church Hospites vicini fidelium Riban l. 1. de instit cler The Catechumeni were such as were probationers for Christianity or Church-Fellowship and were put under the care of some Teachers to be instructed in the Principles of Religion in order to it when this practice first began in the Church is not certaine the first Master of these Christian Pupils which we read of in Ecclesiasticall History was Pantaenus who lived saith Eusebius anno 193. Euseb l. 5.6.9 10 in Chron. Bellarm. de scriptor Eccl. p. 76. Euseb l. 6. c. 7. and was Master of a Schoole of them at Alexandria Clemens Alexandrinus Pantaenus his Scholler succeeded him in that employment saith Eusebius he lived anno 204 saith Bellarmine but Eusebius saith 194. which was ten yeares before Origen his Schollar was the next we read of Eusebius reckons him anno 208. Bellarmine reckons his 226. That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were an ancient order of Christians is plaine from Gal. 6.6 From which place the Magdeburgenses conclude the Apostles lest formes of Catechisme Centur. Magdeb. Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 7. it is probable to me that even from the Aposâ—les time there were in the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some that were Catechised and some appointed to Catechize them they are both of them Scripture termes And And if we may admit the eight books of Apostolicall institutions to be wrote by Clement which I durst not allow they determine the case Constit Apost l 7 c. 40. having a peculiar precept how those Catechumeni should be instituted but leaving them as spurious it is cleare enough from severall places of Clemens Alexandrinus Clem. Alex. l. 7. strom who lived doubtlesse in the second Century that they were an order in his time Not only from that passage which my learned friend Dr Young hath quoted out of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is l. 7. strom but also from divers other passages as in his 6. strom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 My fore-mentiond Dr Young in his Dies Dominica l. 2 c. 14. Albaspin obs l. 2 observ 2. Learned and Reverend friend saith there was of these two sorts Audientes and Competentes That learned Antiquary Albaspinaeus tells us of foure degrees I will translate
who hinted any such thing But it is contrary to all I ever met with My highly honoured and learned Friend tells us right They were such as having embraced the Christian faith and being baptized Dr Young and their names recorded in the Church had afterwards fallen into some open wickednesse by which they had forfeited their right to the priviledges of the faithfull and were censured by the Church till such time as they should declare sufficient signes of their repentance With him Albaspinaeus agrees in his l. 2. Observat Observ 3. and doubtlesse this is the truth Of these Penitents saith Dr Young there were five degrees 1. V. Dr. Young die dom l. 2. cap. 14. Albaspin in obs l. 2. obs 22. Their first degree was called gradus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These might not come into the Church but were to stand without and beg the peoples Prayers of this first degree mention is made by Zonaras Thaumaturgus and Ambrose I will transcribe Ambrose his words Volo veniam reus speret petat eam lachrymis petat gemitibus Ambr. de poen l. 2. c. 16. petat populitotius fletibus ut ignoscatur obsecret cum secundò tertio fuerit dilata ejus communio credat remissius se supplicasse fletus augeat miserabilior c. Albaspinaeus thinkes that in the two first Ages this was taken up by those that had fallen spontaneously afterward enjoyned by the Church as the first degree of penitence He proves this degree out of Tertullian Tert. l. de poen cap. 9. so doth Dr Young but to leave that Criticall dispute it is certaine they were not admitted to the Lords Table 2. When they had thus continued a while they were admitted to heare Sermons as those of the Catechumeni who were called Audientes they had the same Tutors the same and no other priviledges then they had Albaspin ibid. Dr Young's dies dom ibid. saith Albaspin the Church by this mending them that by their sins they had declared themselves such as againe had need of that milke not of strong meat hence are those frequent passages in the Canons of the Councils Stent inter Catechumenos Quicunque annos exigant inter Catechumenos cum Catechumenis discedant Chrysost Hom. 3. in Eph. Sic Hom. 79. ad pop Antioch c. Chrysostome determines this case in his third Homily upon the Ephesians where he tells us that when they came to the administration of the Sacrament the Preacher cried out All you who are appointed to be Penitents depart and in the same Homily tells us they might no more be there than the Catechumeni They might not stay the administration of the Sacrament nor the prayers attending it but they were at any other prayers as might easily be proved especially by the Liturgies of the Greek Fathers V. Liturgiae palm in missa Basilii if any cried it may be allowed to them for which I have little to say But it is an unworthy conceit of us for to thinke that they had no prayers before they came to administer the Sacrament till which time they were not enjoyned to depart This degree of penitence was called by the Greeks gradus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. The third degree they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these the Latines call Substrati when the scandalous sinner had for some time stood at the Church doores only and begg'd of them who went in to pray for him and for another time come into the Porch V. Dr Young dies dom ibid. but no farther and there heard the Sermons but when they were done went away before any of the latter Service then they came to be Substrati That is they were admitted to come just within the Church doores and to stand behind some Pillar at some distance from the Congregation where they one while stood and mourned for their sin by and by cast themselves groveling upon the earth Then the Minister came mourning to them and mourned over them he and the whole Church falling down with them on the ground then the Minister or Bishop riseth up and lifts them up and praying for them dismisseth them The Apostol Constit Constit Apost l. 8. c. 11 12. may be credited as to matter of fact in this case though not for their antiquity they give you the forme of Prayer used after which say they the Deacon bid the penitents depart V. Albaspin obs l. 2. obs 24. and then they went to prayer for the Communicants and to the administration of the Supper when it was said the former sort of penitents might not be present at prayers it is to be meant of these prayers and those that followed for the Fideles Concil Arâ—l sâ—cund Can. 21. This degree saith Albaspinaeus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is called poenitentia by the Fathers and in the Canons and this third sort 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 poenitentes so the second Councill of Arles Triennio in er poenitentes habeantur à communione susp nsi that is inter substratos and indeed here were most testifications of humiliations required Those that desire to be satisfied more concerning the circumstances attending the penitents of this forme let them read learned Albaspinaeus largely Obser l. 2. Obser 24. who tels us they were wont to stay upon this forme some good time and had some kind of absolution and lesser reconciliation to the Church before they were removed from it when they had done this and had received imposition of hands for their absolution they were judged to have jus Communionis a right to Communion with the Church saith Albaspinaeus 4. Gradus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Then they might stay in the Church after the Câ—techument were gone with the three fore-mentioned degrees of Penitents they might not only stay while the prayers for the Catechumeni were done which the Catechumeni themselves might do and the prayers for the other Poenitentes Albaspin obs l. 2. obs 25. Dr Young dies dom l. 2. c. 14. Zonar in Can. 4 5. Concil Ancyr at which they also might be present but they might stay and joyne in the prayers made for those who were the Fideles and in compleat communion and see the Sacrament administred but they might not themselves receive the Sacrament nor offer nor might their names be mentioned in those prayers nor might the Priest offer while they were present Ambr. ep 28. whereupon Ambrose refused to offer while Theodosius guilty of an unjust murther was present Dr Young reckons another degree of Penitents which he and others call Subsistentes when they were admitted to full Communion but he tells us he doth not judge it a distinct degree agreeing in it with Albaspinaeus Loco praed These now were the severall degrees of their Penitents which were all suspended from the Lords Table as is evident yet were they all Baptized For for that penitence which was before Baptisme Albaspinaeus I thinke
proves strongly it was Voluntary not imposed as a Church-Censure But yet there is one question to be spoken to before we dismisse this particular viz. whether all these were not first Excommunicated and so these degrees of penance enjoyned them as testifications of their repentance before they were admitted againe into the Church To this I answer I will not deny but if any persons were Excommunicated they might have their way in their returne to the Church lie through these foure doores But it will easily be made appeare that some were adjudged to this penance who yet were not absolutely cut off and cast out of the Church 1. He who was excommunicated was not only denied the liberty of praying with the Church but none might pray with him in a private house all despised and avoided him as a putrid member Albaspin Obs l. 1 Obs 1. l. 2 Obs 4. Synt. Antioch 1. Can. 2. Concil Carth. 4. Can. 73. Concil Arel 2. Can. 15 16 18. only he was to be admonished as a Brother but they might not kindly salute him nor bid him God-speed nor trade nor eate nor drinke with them But we read of no such injunction concerning any of those who were Penitents Can. Apost 10. a man was to be suspended if he joyned in prayer with an excommunicated person They might by no meanes eate or drinke with them nor talke with them as any one may read in a multitude of the Canons of the first Councils 2. Besides there are many instances may be produced both from the Councils and out of Basils three Canonicall Epistles Concil Tol. 1. Can. 3. where the time of the penitence was limited to three or foure or five or sixe or seven yeares according to the Nature of the sin but it was never known that a Church limited a time in Excommunication how long the party should so stand 3. Those who were Excommunicate were not censured and adjudged ad agendam poenitentiam Albaspin Obs l. 2. Obs 4. but did pet ere poenitentiam as a favour of the Church There were some in the Church that were adjudged ad perpetuam poenitentiam for some scandalous sin to their death never to be received to Communion in the Lords Supper with the Church but never was any adjudged to a perpetuall Excommunication 5. Many who were adjudged to some kind of penance for some sin yet were admitted to the Laick Communion as they call it as Albaspinaeus proves out of very many Canons in l. 1. Obser Obser 4. what that Laiâ—k Communion was I shall not determine Baronius V. Pamelii annot 3â— in Cypr. ep 52. Pamelius and Durantus contend that it was to receive the Eucharist on the other side of the Railes c. others thinke it was receiving the Sacramentall bread only Albaspinaeus confutes them both and sufficiently proves it was the fellowship of those Christians who were of the Laity But those who were Excommunicated had no such priviledge allowed them By all this it evidently appeares 1. That although those who were excommunicated did sometimes petere poenitentiam crave the favour of the Church in order to their restoring that they might be admitted to stand as penitents and approve themselves againe to the Church 2. Or possibly when they desired restauration might by order of the Church be enjoyned to come in by those steps yet those frequent Canons of the Church wherein for severall sins men were adjudged to stand as penitents for shorter or longer time cannot be understood to concerne excommunicated persons but such sinners as were guilty of those sins and yet the Church did not think fit wholly to cut them off but according to the rule Cuncta prius tentanda appointed them to be deprived of a partiall communion with the Church for some time that they might see whether they were pertinacious or whether God would give them an heart to repent that they might be againe restored and the time of their Suspension was set longer or shorter according to the nature of the sins which they committed V. Concil Binii V. Basil Canon ep Those who had been guilty of sins against Nature were suspended all their life time in Tertullian's times afterwards in the Councill of Ancyra they had time of repentance prefixed so in Basils times for man-slaughter Theodosius the Emperour was suspended eight months the Council of Ancyra gave them only the liberty of the Sacrament sub exitum vitae when they were neare their death Basil as I remember determines them fifteene or twenty yeares suspension Adulterers before Cyprians time were suspended to their dying day afterwards they had a shorter time set for to testifie their repentance 3. Now we have seen what the practice of the Church was let us consider how ancient this practice was That it was very ancient is out of all doubt but how ancient cannot easily be resolved Tertullian was the first who wrote concerning it who in his booke de poenitentia gives us hints of it and as Albaspinaeus proves hints the severall degrees of it Helvicus reckons him within the second Century Thaumaturgus who lived in the next Century in his Canonicall Epistle reckons up all the degrees but that Epistle is suspected Magdeb. Cent. 2. cap. 6. The Magdeburgenses tels us that in the second Century there was a Custome of setting sinners a time of publike repentance But in the third Century is evident enough about the yeare 210. Oâ—ig in Jos hâ—m 7. Hom. 2. in 37. Psal and so forward Origen in his seventh Homily on Joshua tells us they excommunicated none but those who were thrice admonished and refused repentance and in his second Homily on the 37. Psal gives us some account of their order in publike penance Cypr. de lap sis Ser. 3. Teâ—t in lib. de poenitentia Tertullian and Cyprian do it abundantly Gregorius Thaumaturgus if the Canonicall Epistle be his doth not only tell us the severall degrees but tells us what places were assigâ—ed for them in the Church in their severall degrees Qui verò excommunicati Centur. l. 3. c. 6. aut non excommunicati gravitâ—r aut idolis sacrificando aut haereticos deficiendo lapsi essent non nisi post publicam poenitentiam confessionem debitè peractam recipiebantur say the learned Centuriators in this Century In this Century the time of their poenitence was appointed according to the nature of the offence we learne out of Cyprian Cypr. l. 4. ep 2. that those Christians who had eagerly professed the Christian Faith and in the time of persecution fell away had three yeares set them all which time they were suspended when the time set them was expired if the Church judged they had duly manifested repentanâ—e they took their names and enrolled them giving them a Ticket to this purpose Admit this man to the Communion Ib. l. 3. ep 15 16. Cypr. ep 52. who having formerly fallen hath shewen sufficient signes of