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 it be in the power of that Presbyterie The Question stated 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 My first Argument is this Holy things may not lawfully be given to Dogs Argument 1 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 concerne 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 book entituled Th◠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
Responsoria Bipartita SIVE Vindiciae suspensionis Ecclesiasticae ut et Presbyterii EVANGELICI A double Reply containing a Vindication of the antient practice of the Church according to the rule of the word suspending the ignorant and scandalous from the Lords Supper As also of Ecclesiastical Presbyteries as the subject of Church Government The first in answer to one M. Boatmans challenge of all the Ministers on earth to make suspension of any but Turks Jews Pagans and excommunicate persons from the Lords Supper appear from Scripture In answer to whom the said censure is justified by several arguments from Scripture and the universal practice of the Church the Magisterial vanity also of his Sermon Decem. 13. and March 28. in Peters Church in Norwich is discovered by animadversions on each In which answer also some objections of Erastus Mr. Prin and Mr. Humfry are collaterally considered and answered The second part in answer to Theophilus Brabourn who hath talked something in a little pamphlet against the Lord Jesus Christ as Lord of his Church and Lord of the Sabbath against whom it is proved he hath said nothing to any purpose but to discover his own weakness To which is prefixed an Epistle giving account of the whole and fully answering whatsoever Mr. Thomas Morshall in his three Sermons lately printed upon Mat. 22 8. Mr. Barksdale in a letter of his dated May 26. 1652. and printed with a disputation at Winchcomb Nov. 9. 1653. and Mr. Timson in his late book in answer to Dr. Drake have said in these for promiscuous communion By JOHN COLLINGS B.D. and Pastor of the Church of Christ in Stephens Parish in Norwich In ipsa Catholica Ecclesia magnopere curardum est ut id teneamus quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est hoc est enim vere proprieque Catholicum Vincent Lirinensis con haer cap. 3. London Printed by H. Hills for Richard Tomlins and are to be sold at his house at the sign of the Sun and Bible neer Py-Corner To all those who love the Lord Iesus in sincerity especially such of them whose lot is cast in the City of NORWICH Beloved Friends and Brethren IT is not for my own sake nor for the sake of those who are my Brethren in the work of reformation here or elsewhere that I am come out into these lists both my self and I suppose all of them could either have been content to have come up to Mr. Boatmans principles and practice and so endeared our selves to all our people or at least have born with patience the names of Pharisees Dremers such as do things wiser ages never thought of Recusants Presbyterian Reformadoes Calvins fellows which are the Rhetorical terms that M. John Boatman M. Thomas Marshall have bestowed upon us securing our selves in the assurance of our innocence and pittying their ignorance who if they had been better acquainted with the Scriptures and the practice of the Church would have spake more modestly Nor is it for their sakes because I think they have said any thing worth the answering We know 't is an easy thing for one to stand in a pulpit and cry out against the way of God as a Pharisaical way a Pharisaical invention a dream an impleding Scripture and to set upon the Title page of a book The Kings censure of Recusdants he that hath but got a mastery over his conscience and a bold face may do such things cheap enough In the mean time we know the Gentlemen will eat their words when they are challenged for them It is for your sakes dearly beloved Brethren and for our Lord Jesus Christs sake and for his Churches sake that we cannot be silent for the Lords sake whose sacred Ordinance we cannot with patience see prostituted and his blood counted as an unholy thing For his Churches sake that what she hath believed and practised in all times and ages might neither be judged heresy or novelty for your sakes that you may not be seduced by the great adversary of reformation or any that drive on his designs though possibly not wittingly into an alienation of heart from and an enmity to the great work of the Lord in cleansing the Sanctuary and refining of Zion which we have hoped the Lord is about in England and hath been for some years yea and for their souls sake who are angry with us that we will not let them eat and drink judgement to themselves towards the good of whose souls our bowells yern and we are loth that by our means they should increase their guilt and more and more harden themselves to eternall ruin was it not my beloved Brethren the burthen that lay upon the souls of the old Non-Conformists that there was no bar to keep any from the Lords Table but one which superstition made was it our just grief then that we had no bar and is it our work now to remove the bars yea the Lords and the Churches antient land marks shall not the Popish faction rise up in judgement against us at the last day and say Aquinas Vasquez Bonaventura Lord we disputed whither a secret sinner might be received to the Sacrament and these reformers plead for open sinners receiving yea and the Prelatical party which we condemned shall say Lord we gave the Minister authority to keep any from the Sacrament for any notorious sins yea for speaking against the prayer book or the Kings authority in things Ecclesiastical These pretend to reform us and cryed out against us yet do not only admit but plead for the admission of such as speak against Jesus Christ the great King of Zion Thus we have justified our Elder Sister Sodom and our younger Samaria yea neither of them would plead for the wickedness which we do This hath brought me into the lists now I am there I shall desire but fair play If our adversaries can prove all primitive Churches and modern Churches in an errour and themselves onely in the right though we must needs be concluded to err with good company yet I hope I shall not stop my ears against due conviction But we must crave leave to try them with the two weapons of Scriptural Reason and Antiquity to prove that we are not cowards in this Cause of God Since my book was sent to the Press three others have came to my hands all pleading for promiscuous communions I crave your patience for a backblow for them much of them I have answered before hand I shall subjoin a few animadversions more upon what they have in them An answer to Mr. Thomas Marshall The first contains two or thee Sermons preached by one Mr. T. Marshall on Matth 22.8 As I discern in him a spirit which from any Sober man deserves rather flight than answer from those ill favoured passages p. 21. where he chargeth us with sequestring first the bodily bread from the Pastors and then the bread of Christ from the peoples
his book to sell but that were the way to make the sent of his book spread it self further I shall therefore promise thee nothing but silence If but a rational School-boy shall send me word that he judgeth me answered in any one point it is ten to one but I may vindicate my self otherwaies I shall think him more an object of pitty than any revenge for this age tels us there are some who both want wit to write and discretion to hold their peace And now my dearly beloved friends I am almost tyâ—ed with Polemical writing and I will not promise you much more of that nature I have endeavoured in two or three treatises to vindicate some truth viz. Concerning the Divine Ordinance and Office of the Ministery in my Vindicâ—ae Ministerii Evangelici and answer to Mr. Sheppard 2. The preheminecy of the Lord day above Christmas day in my answer to Mr. Fisher c. 3. The divine right of Church Government in the hand of the Ministers and Elders against Mr. Brabourn And now this divine ordinance and antient practice of suspending the ignorant and scandalous from the Lords Supper These scufflings have hindered me from some things possibly more profitable I have part of a discourse neer ready which I have promised the world concerning Temptations if my adversaries disturb me not I shall in the next place apply my self to that work I have been willing to let it sleep while I dispatched this because by this I hope I may be useful to the whole Church and in that but to particular souls which I desire may be my excuse to you But I fear lest the City should run out at the gates Bowing therefore my knees to the God of peace and truth that you may be guided into all truth and established in the right ways of the Lord I rest Chaplyfield-house in Norwich July 16. 1654. Your Cordial friend and servant in the work of the Gospel I. COLLINGS To the Right Wor ll John Mann Esq Mayor of the City of Norwich Much Honoured Sir AS the Influence which that eminent place in this City to which God hath called you and the Engagements which your goodnesse hath laid upon those few Ministers in it who have laboured against great opposition to promote an Ecclesiastick Reformation have justly challenged our observance to you so your eminent appearing not only for it but in it accepting the Office of a Ruler in one of the Congregations of it and your appearing for the restoring of that eminent servant of Christ to his Pastorall charge there again where these unhappy flames of our division have kindled which by the piety and prudence of that Reverend man would have been prevented hath challenged for you the more speciall Dedication of this Tract What you shall find in it the Preface will tell you And the Preface is that alone which needs your Patronage nor should that stand in need of it if some men had not the confidence to deny that the Sunne shines at noon-day whether what is there related be truth or no your selfe can in a great measure satisfie the Enquirer For the substance of the Booke when you have examined it I shall be content you should dismisse it your protection and shall my selfe attend the vindication of it from its adversaries who are ordinarily more clamorous then argumentative If my paines may contribute any thing Sir to encourage your perseverance in that good worke to which the Lord hath quickned you to put your hand as it will be a great matter of encouragement and joy to all of us who are working for the Lord in the refining of Sion while we are almost stifled with the drosse which the corruption of former times hath begot so it will be a great addition to your crown in the day of the Lord and a great crown to him who is Chapâ—yfield house April 19. 1654. SIR Your most humble and much obliged servant in the Lord Iesus J. COLLINGS The PREFACE To my Christian Reader IT is growne into a fashion for him who entertaines the world in a Book to parley first a little with his gueft at the threshold And although the righteous Judges of Areopagus needed no such complement yet I cannot but judge it a little necessary in this sinfull time and the more in regard of the different complexions of mens perswasions disposing them to faction and to judge unrighteous judgment from the dictate of some particular prejudice What thou art into whose hands my Tract shall come I cannot tell I shall only endeavour to cleare thy eyes from the mist that prejudice and particular affection may have cast before them and be ambitious no further to reconcile thee to me then unto truth It treats of an unpleasing subject The divine Right and Primitive practise of suspending such from the Supper of the Lord who as yet have not their senses exercised to discerne between good and evill and cannot discerne the Lords body such as were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of old and such who since their Baptisme have returned with the dog to the vomit and are yet with the Swine wallowing in the mire of their lusts This is the great bone of contention in the Church of God this day every one would be fellow commoner with the Saints at the Table of childrens bread and those who have not grace to make them worthy yet want patience to beare a being judged unworthy of the highest Gospell-priviledges Reader I suppose thou canst not be so unjust to thy owne reason but to thinke that if the godly Ministers of England durst consult with flesh and bloud that could furnish them with strong Arguments drawne from the augmentation of their livelihood in places where it is arbitrary and from the universall love of their people to compell them into Master Humfryes or Master Boatmans faith Alas what doe we get by our stricter dealings with the soules committed to us except the frownes and reproaches of such whom we durst not cast the holy thing of the Sacrament before It is Gods will that Religion and humane Policy should now and then divide and we humbly submit to God and desire rather to be faithfull Stewards for him then providers for our selves and ours Surely there is so much ingenuity at least in some of the godly Ministers of England as would intitle them to a desire of the love of all and so much earthinesse in all their hearts as exposeth them to some temptations to use all endeavours for a comfortable subsistence in this life If any of them neglects both that and this and chuse rather to venture the begging of their own bread then to throw the childrens bread to dogs rather to prostitute their owne names and lose their interest in the hearts of some people then to prostitute the Lords sacred Ordinance and give his name to a reproach as in this they come short of Chrysostome who professeth he would rather give his
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 ascandalous 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 therefore to let you know that I accept your challenge and in opposition to what you said shall be ready when and where you please so it be before a competent number of witnesses to maintaine against you 1. That the suspension of some persons from the Sacrament besides Turkes Jews and Heathens and those who are cast out of the Church by Excommunication is grounded on the Scripture and deducible from it 2. That it is so far from being a pharisaicall dreame that it hath been the constant judgement of the Servants of God in all times of other reformed Churches and our own ever since the beginning of reformation Either of these Sir I shall maintaine against you either in a more publike or private dispute More privately if you thinke fit before as many Ministers as will come twelve private Christians chosen by each or more provided
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 he never 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 The Doctrine which I shall gather hence is this It is the duty of every Christian Doctrine especially of every Minister to take heed to whom Paragraph 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 facred 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 For Reasons Paragraph 5 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 Reasons 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. First Truths not wisely dispensed holy reproofes not warlly 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 ready to do every man good none evill he scorned no man he disdained not the Society of Publicans and sinners though the Pharisees made use of it to his disgrace so he might do them good Marke what he gets from others a wine-bibber c. as much scorne and contempt as a Pharisee knew well how to put upon a man heare St Paul that chosen vessell and Apostle of the Gentiles preaching and the next news you heare is what will this babler say That is all he got from another Generation of men such are the swine spoken of and that our Saviour knew before he said this therefore in his divine wisdome he cautioneth his Disciples and those that came after them c. Secondly Reason 2 They will turne againe and rend you not only scorn and rage this is from the ineffectualnesse successelesseness and uselessenesse of such endeavours thereby they endanger themselves as if he had said why will you do
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 faith 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 dâ—vers 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 Auricular 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 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 another 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 Here he speakes loud enough and falls upon me pell-mell but with no other weapons than his tongue he charges me with preaching untruth how doth that appeare Mr Boatman saies so and that is all He tels us of fastning somthing upon the Holy Ghost which he never dreampt of No Sir the Holy Ghost doth not use to dreame though fraile man may he carries no sleepy body about with him he tells us It is an easie matter to wring a Text about by the Nose he is much taken it seemes with that phrase but if he will be metaphoricall he should do well
notion p 27. that the Receiving the Sacrament is the End and Self-examination the means it is so far from making for him that it will conclude that he who cannot or hath not examined himself can no more receive the Sacrament without sin neglecting the due means to make him a worthy receiver then Mr. Timson can prove the wicked ought to receive without Scripture or reason or write another book without an hand pen ink of paper I had thought due means must be necessarily supposed to the end His 9. query is Whether there be any thing in the nature language actions or end of the Sacrament in 1 Cor. 11. or elsewhere incongruous to the unregenerates receiving Whether in 1 Cor. 11. there be any thing there or no I shall not dispute I have said something to that already and it is enough if we find it elsewhere and we conceive there is something contrary to the receiving of the ignorant and scandalous which is the question for the Church judgeth not of secret things 1. In the institution for Christ gave it to none such 2. In the nature of it for it is strong meat and the seal of the righteousness of faith 3. In the language of it for the ignorant cannot do it in a notional remembrance of Christ nor the scandalous in a practical remembrance of him 4. In the actions required for we conceive the communicant is spiritually as well as corporally to eat and drink viz. to exercise faith 5 In the end for we conceive it was instituted not to convey faith but to seal it But before Mr. Timson can tell us his mind he must lay down six postulata and if we will grant them he will do something 1. First he conceives that this Sacrament is instituted for the good of every particular member of the Church We conceive so too therefore they have jus ad rem but how doth this prove that therefore every particular member ought in his present state to come to it and coming ought to be admitted 1. Was not the Passover so appointed yet I think the unclean persons might not come during their uncleanness 2. I know many reverend men think the excommunicate person is yet a member of the Catholike Church and I am sure we shall not baptize him again upon his repentance and he yet possibly owns the Christian Religion So that he is a baptized person owning the Christian Religion and so a member of the Church Catholike and doubtless supposing his Repentance the Sacrament is instituted for his good but I hope it will not therefore follow he ought in his state of Excommunication to be received to that Communion 2. For his second we will grant it him that the Church confists of good and bad 3. And his third That the unregenerate are the proper objects of the promise of first grace Though that must be understood with a grane of salt and I had rather say that the unregenerate are the only objects of first grace then the only objects of the promises For the promises profit not any without faith and how the unregenerate should exert an act of faith to apply a promise I cannot tell and I doubt whether it be truth to say any promises belong to men as unregenerate for if they belong to them as unregerate they may apply them as unregenerate 4. His fourth thing is That the whole administration of the Covenant belongs to those in the Church who are the immediate objects of the absolute promiseâ— they being of years of discretion to use the same in order to the Lords putting the promises into execution How those in the Church and being of years of discretion comes in I cannot tell unless it be to prevent an answer for if Mr. Timsons argument be good it is fetch from the right which an interest in the Covenant promises gives one to the Seals of it And then it must hold universally and if the unregenerate out of the Church be is much objects of the promises of the first grace as those within there is no reason for that restriction But to speak to his Argument To those to whom the absolute promises of the Covenant belong to those the whole administration and so the seals of it belong But to the unregenerate in the Church and of years the promises belong Ergo If Mr. Timson will clear this Syllogism from the fallacy of 4 terms the answer will be easy Let but belong in each propofition be understood in the same sense and the argument is weak If by belonging he means no more then this that the unregenerate are those onely upon whom God shines with first grace or to whom God hath declared he will give first grace we deny the major for by this argument heathens may come If by belonging or being the objects he means that those are they only who by faith can apply them and make use of them for their salvation or consolation his major is true but his minor is false for no promise doth so belong to any unregenerate man viz. as his portion which he may claim and make use of in his unregeneracy To his fifth That the Sacraments being visible representations of the death of Christ on which those promises are founded and by which they are confirmed The use of the Sacrament doth belong to those whom those promises do respect To this I answer 1. That the promises are founded upon Christs death and confirmed by it I grant 2. I grant also the Sacraments are visible representations of Christs death But that is not all they are seals as well as signs 3. It is false That the use of the Sacraments belongs to such as the promises of first grace do respect For then the use of it belongs to heathens but the use of it belongs to those only who by faith apply the promises 6. That those in the Church whom we cannot exclude from Covenant relation being of year must not be excluded from the Sacrament because they are seals of covenant love to that people that are iâ— possession of Covenant administrations I wonder again how that term being of years comes in for the argument is to prove a right for covenant Seals for such as are in covenant relation now children are in covenant relation That exception plainly implies that covenant relation is not enough I know if Mr. Timson had thought of it too he would have excepted mad men for they are in covenant relation and this argument pleads their right the upshot is Mr. Timson grants here by excepting those not of years that covenant relation is not enough to give right to covenant scals so he hath answered himself For his argument fails if covenant relation be not enough and we still demand what must be superadded if he says only years then mad men have a right if he adds a capacity to exercise reason too 1. Let him shew us Scripture for these â— things to be added 2. I spoke
mercies of God looke to it take heed how you approach unpreparedly uâ—charitably and prejudicially lay aside all malice envy and as new borne babes desire and come and drink the new wine in the Kingdome of Jesus Christ Another sort of men perhaps the world count loose and profane yet they professe the faith of Christ they owne his name they tell the world they are Christians and they will be angry if you will not beleeve them so Take the advice of the Spirit of God whatsoever you are for I know none Let him that hath stolne steale no more he that hath sworne sweare no more he that hath been a frequent and common drunkard and hath blasphemed and broken the Sabbath despised Ordinances scoffing at holinesse and the profession of Religion scoffe no more so resolving and so doing you may safely approach to the blessed Ordinance and on termes of true repentance enjoy communion with Christ But saith one Must every one have the Sacrament Will you give it to all I confesse I doe not intend to give it to a Jew a Turke nor a Pagan to none of all three but to every Christian Yea but there are some profane Christians I know here lies the grand objection I 'le seriously give you my thoughts and I 'le engage you into one Society before we depart Church-communion will engage you all to be Saints 1. If any of you be profane I know not But Sir you cannot but imagine that in such a Congregation there must be some it is not possible but there must be some Secondly therefore unlesse by one or more he be brotherly dealt withall by private and serious admonition and after that according to Christs rule by one or two more and after excommunicated I really professe notwithstanding the Learning of all the Ministers on earth no power on earth hath the least seeming or semblable Authority to keep such a one from the Sacrament consired before that he be baptized and not a Jew but one that makes a Veâ—ball profession of the Faith and that desires the enjoyment of the Ordinance I say he must be so dealâ— withall as Christ hath prescribed legally according to Law He must be excommunicated or else cannot be kept from the Sacrament I say It is a dreame of the Pharisees invented the businesse of Suspension distinct from Excommunication I say It is a Pharisaicall invention that hath found out an absolute distinction c. Nay more then that I humbly desire yea I almost durst though with great humility challenge any man to shew me the least footsteps in the whole Booke of God to keep any man from the Sacrament if he will presse to it upon his owne-score I speak not besides my Booke for Reasons I have some anon which peradventure will strike some of your consciences into amazement Here 's now a messe of stuffe must be taken notice of 1. It is ell-wide charity which he discovers there where he tels us he would not for a thousand worlds thinke that amongst eight or nine hundred Communicants after his reckoning for so many that Congregation consists of there should be none ignorant of the rudiments of Religion he doth well to smother it up by telling them he will not question them for if he did he might be convinced every one were not so knowing But in the third Paragraph he comes to his worke To passe by his large character of visible Saints which may be also visible Devils It is worth enquiring what he meanes by his application of that of the Apostle Let him that hath stollen steale no more If he meanes that no sinnes shall keep a man from the Sacrament after repentance evidenced we agree with him but if he meanes that though one hath been scandalous by theft drunkennesse blasphemy swearing Sabbath-breaking scoffing at holinesse c. and that very lately and only sayes he will doe so no more but hath evidenced the change of his heart by no contrary conversation for any time yet he should be admitted we thinke him a strange Steward of Gods Mysteries We are sure the whole Church of God in all Ages have been of another mind and rather erred on the other side by setting scandalous sinners after a verball profession some 2 some 3 some 7 some 10 11 15 20 yeares to evidence their repentance for such sinnes before they admitted them to the Lords Table Those who read Basils three Canonicall Epistles to Amphilochius v. Basilii can ep ad Amphil. or any of the Primitive Councels will see evidence enough of it He tels us he will not give the Sacrament to all so indeed he told some godly Christians at his first comming who feared him in that point that they should well see he was not for promiscuous Communions But who will he keep away Turkes Jewes Pagans such as he hath none of in his Parish 2. Such as will never come to him for it But he openly professeth he will give it To all Christians So then if the Papists will they may have it But he is afraid some will thinke him too free to give it to all profane persons To this he answers in the first place That if any be profane he knowes it not I cannot tell how he should having not resided amongst that great people two moneths but with what conscience doth he openly proclaime foure Sacraments together and appoint two hundred to come at a time when he professeth that he doth not know his people I have heard of a Gentleman who being to make a speech first shut his eyes and then told his Hearers he was in the darke I would know whether Master Boatman tooke a course to know them whether he called the Eldership of the Congregation as was his duty and enquired of them the state of the flock possibly they might have told him of some that were prophane Or if as I heare Elders be an abomination to him whether he visited them all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from house to house I am sure he did neither of these and 't is no wonder he did not know them then But he walks by another rule for he professeth here That except the profane be first admonished then excommunicated which he knowes now they cannot be except by Elderships which his judgement is not for belike no power on the earth hath the least seeming or semblable Authority to keep any from the Sacrament yea and this is his Say notwithstanding all the Learning of all the Ministers on earth yea and he tels us so againe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For Suspension it is a dreame of the Pharisees who invented it yea a Pharisaicall invention How a dream a Pharisaicall dream a thing not to be maintained by the Learning of all the Ministers on earth No Authority for it neither seeming nor semblable Bona verba quaso Surely lesse Learning will be enough to deal with so yong a Rabbi and to maintaine so ancient so divine so
ration all an institution at least against such an adversary Softer words would have been better for one that had no harder Arguments for his opinion Nay more he desires nay he challengeth with as much humility as we can thinke he hath after he hath so boldly charged all the Churches of God as Dreamers Pharisaicall Dreamers c. any to shew him the least footsteps for it from the Word of God This challenge he shall see anon is accepted We will try what a combatant our Goliath is he tels us he speaks not besides his Book I know not what is in his Book but I shall prove anon he speaks besides Gods Booke and besides his Book too if it were the Bible he had in the Pulpit but possibly it was Master Humphrio's Rejoinder But he tels us he hath Reasons anon shall come forth yea and those terrible ones too such as shall amaze our consciences Let us see what they are Trace the footsteps Sect. 4 and they are very rare in Scripture too that Christ hath laid downe in such a case as this and till you have searched them beleeve that a great deale of pride and more uncharitablenesse and worse then both hath been the cause of suspending so great an Ordinance so long and maring such a breach in the Church of God I find but once in the Booke of God that it speaks directly in it and then it speaks of no other remedy for all exorbitances committed in the Church but Let a man examine himselfe c. If you find any show them It is a moore Dreame and Invention of men which they pretend to implode the Scriptures and lay a barden on our shoulders and an intollerable yoke I say a Pharisaicall invention and I speake plainly and home When the Aprstle had taken a survey of the great enormities of some he speaks Not a Word more and that upon a fault which I beleeve not any man was guilty of in the English Church viz. They were drunke at the Sacrament and we doe not sind that he did suspend them cast them out or excommunicate them only the Apostle fatherly and Apostolically adviseth them to take a better care for the time to come 2. Secondly admit what some pretend that there is just reason to suspend some from the Sacrament whom it would never trouble the wisest heads in this Age for it never entred into the heads of former Ages to tell what distinct crimes they are for which any are to be suspended You are mistaken if you thinke for every whimzy gimeracke or trifle that comes in a mans head a man must be kept fram the Sacrament The Apostle indeed adviseth the Corinthians to excommunicate the incestuous person but the businesse was so highly aggravated that the sinne was not so much as named amongst the Heathen It is not every trifle because a man is not of such a mans opinion in point of State-affaires though I hope you are all of a mind now therefore he must be kept from the Sacrament not because such or such a Pharisee saith a man keeps company with Publicanes and sinners and so one himselfe but not so though called so therefore he must be debarred from the Sacrament What is all this from God I dare safeâ—ier say from the Devill What out of a private and particular prejudice and he hath hath taken it hath a little power that way and interest in Admission therefore the Party must be kept from the Sacrament Quis talia fando I had almost spoken something that had been a Solecisme Did ever the Lord Jesus Christ thinke on earth this should have been done in his Church and I tell you the Holy Ghosts straine No either he must be convicted and adjudged or I dare pronounce of him that denies it him on any other score That he is a bold intruder on Christs Authority Are those the amazing reasons we heard of I wonder Here 's amazing language and boldnesse and confidence here 's nothing looks like a Reason but only that the Gentleman doth not read that the Apostle in 1 Cor. 11. that the Apostle gave no other order but Let a man examine himselfe But what if Christ himselfe gave other order Mat. 7.6 and by his owne example admitting none but his Disciples and the Apostles Acts 2 admitting none out such as were prickt at the heart c. And what needed the Apostle in the eleventh Chapter give order further when in the fifth Chapter he had plainly forbidden them to keep the Feast with old Leaven viz. scandalous sinners as ver 6. and to eat with any call'd brethren that should be fornicators covetous idolaters railers drunkards extortioners for the Corinthians being drunke at the Sacrament There is nothing but our Translation serves Master B and we translate the same word otherwise John 2.10 of that more afterwards But he tels It will pose the wisest heads to find out for what sinnes any should be kept away that is another dispute We are now disputing whether any should or no according to Master B's Doctrine if a man had sinned the sinne against the Holy Ghost he should not this is all that looks like Reason and here 's a poore pittance of it but besides this Reader 1. Here 's an impudent falshood affirmed in a Pulpit That it never entred into the heads of former Ages to suspend any thou wilt find I have proved it the constant practice of the Churches of God in all former Ages 2. Here is a bold expression of Suspension He tels us againe that it is a meere Dreame an Invention of men a Pharisaicall invention 3. Here is an impudent aspersion cast not only upon the eminent servants of God in former times and Churches and Councels but upon the generality of godly Ministers in this Age whose judgment practice hath been to suspend the ignorant and scandalous from the Lords Table Master Boatman tels the people that They goe about to implode the Scriptures to lay a burthen and an intollerable yoke so all Christs Ordinances are to men captivated by their lusts on their shoulders That 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 gimeracks 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 Another Reason which few understand Sect. 5 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 Sâ—eph 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 defensione justa caret quod ad aegros desertur tanquam viaticum morituris qui mos inolevit ut opinor cum persuasum esset plebi quosdam piè mori non posse nisi prius coenaÌ„ 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 â—o 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
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 scare 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 Corhet 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 after 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 order to a confuting yet for feare that a clamorous party should cry it up confuted I have annexed it having the Notes of it given me by a learned and judicious man who was his Auditor that day and took the Sermon from him and will justifie the Notes These things Reader made me take up a resolution to give thee an account of the whole businesse and openly to engage Mr Boatman as my proper Antagonist and the rather because Theophilus Brabourne hath sent me word that if I will write he will defend Mr Boatman for every one he saith is not fit for disputing but he will do it one would thinke he were not very fit that should read his last books I sent him answer I hoped to find him work enough to defend his own but if he be so good at it he shall find we are able to employ him That
therefore Mr Boatman may know what he hath to do and Mr Brabourne may have something to do now he hath taken his hand from the Plough which many I confesse never thought him fâ—t for though the Bishops judged otherwise I have engaged in this Controversie in the defence of all the eminent Saints and Servants of God of former Ages other Reformed Churches and our own Church and of that Reverend Assembly so boldly aspersed both by Mr Boatman and Mr Brabourne in which my selfe knew so many holy and learned and Reverend men that I beleeve since the Nicene Councill there was never so many and so holy and learned men met in any Ecclesiasticall Councill Some of whom I know would not turne their heads in any point of Divinity from the most learned Hereticks that are or ever were in Christendome and having such an opinion of that eminent Assembly I hope thou wilt pardon me Reader if I take their part in what was their declared Judgement especially against two such Adversaries as these are with whom it is far more fit that some of their youngest Sons should dispute than themselves leaving those Fathers to grapple with more learned and considerable Adversaries I am one of the yongest sons of those Reverend Prophets but yet I have a little duty for them and shall engage for Norfolke or Norwich to attempt at least their vindication from any who shall in these parts appeare in publike against what was according to Gods Word agreed upon by them if he hath not a proper Adversary and if I be not over-powred by Legions of Pamphlets But I returne to my former Discourse The second Question I have spoken to is Whether Ministeriall or privative Suspension be justifiable or no I have on purpose spoken to this partly because I heare some say this was Mr Boatman's meaning though he restrained not himselfe so by any passage and if it be how doth he tell others that he doth keep away some himselfe But that he might not have this refuge I have spoke a little to that I confesse it is a tender point which many godly men are dis-satisfied in Whether in case there wants a Presbytery in the Congregation the Minister may keep back any by his own power or rather ought to administer it to all In the first place I desire my Reader to observe that those who are of the Episcopall perswasion and own no Congregationall Presbyteries which is Mr Boatman's judgement they say make not this question but alwaies took the Affirmative for granted witness the Schoolemen Canonists c. the Rubrick to the Book of Common Prayer the Canons agreed on in the Synod at London 1603. Some of my Reverend and learned Fathers and Brethren of the Presbyterian perswasion indeed scruple it because they think all Suspension is an act of Rule and the Rule of the Church belongs to the Minister and Elders amongst whom is Reverend and learned Mr Jeanes whom though I know not yet I honour for his learned Tract on that Subject and for his Midwifry in helping into the world that last piece of our great and learned Twisse I crave leave to dissent in this point from those few of my Brethren who are so perswaded and conceive that to avoid promiscuous Communion the Minister may in some cases suspend his own act though not formally passe a Censure yea and I thinke he ought Though I confesse when the state of the Church is such that this cannot be done without a necessary and great breach of the peace of it the case is more disputable because the Amity and Edification of the Church is the high end of all Church-Censures Augustine in his third book contra Epistolam Parmeniani and in many other places thinkes Church Censures should be spared when the Major part of the Church is corrupted and the execution of Censures may cause Schismes and much he saies for it But I must confesse I am of Peter Martyrs mind Iste Augustini timor nimius videtur quasi debeamus verbum Dei relinquere ut schismata tumult us evitemus sequamur quod praecipit Deus eventus autem providentiae illius committamus He answers all which Augustine saith for his opinion and concludes That it were better to have lesser Churches than so large and ample ones defiled But I shall not dispute that businesse 3. In the last place I have enquired what hath been the judgement of the eminent Servants and Churches of Christ in all Ages Having first enquired our Fathers mind the Judgement and practice of our Elder Brethren is not inconsiderable especially when we are charged with Innovation and doing that which never entred into the heads of wiser Ages I have proved that it hath been the practice of the Church in all Ages the Judgement of our Church before and ever since the Reformation and of all reformed Churches in the World some Churches of the Protestant Switzers only excepted And now Reader I shall cast my selfe upon thy Charity I hope thou wilt excuse me for my undertaking The zeale of the Lords house for the precious body and bloud of Jesus Christ hath eaten me up as to this point Had not we been openly challenged the judgement and practice of the Churches and Servants of God openly aspersed I should have found other worke to do besides engaging Mr Boatman I have given thee here a faithfull and impartiall Narrative of the Originall and Progresse of this Contest If Mr Brabourne be at the Charge to reply I desire thee not to expect my answer I beleeve thou wilt whoever thou art be able thy self to answer what he can say I shall leave him to one more fit for him having been sufficiently chidden by some learned Friends for losing so much time as to meddle with his other peece But if Mr Boatman answers and either denies any thing here said as matter of fact or makes such a reply to any Arguments as any Licencer of the Presse will let passe I shall reply to him and prove whatever shall be denied and make good my Arguments provided he confutes them better than he did my Sermon I shall keep thee no longer in the Porch but give thee leave to enter Read and then judge and pray for this poore City where are so many thousand soules and so few fit to take charge of them The Lord keep thee Reader in these evill times from the errours of them and an ever lover both of Gospell-purity and Unity So praies Chaply-field-house in Norwich April 18 1654. Thy meane unworthy Servant in the Gospell of the Lord Jesus Christ JOHN COLLINGS Errata Reader I Cannot own these sheets till thou hast corrected these following erraâ—aes in them In the Title page read ob hoc vel maxime In the Preface p. 3 l. penult r. duty p. 9 l. 16. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 27. r. considering p. 13. l. 10. r. December after l. 12. r. fortnight p. 15 l. 2. r.
account p 16. l. 25. r. judgements p. 22. l. 10. dele never p. 23. l. 1. r. are these l. 5. dele that the Apostle r. gave other order l. 20. r. tell us p. 27. in marg r. Aretii Phoblem l. 16. r. would not these p. 31. l. 30. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 39. l. 15. dele at ib. r. returne p. 39. r. us p 41. l 25. â— there were ib. l. 33. r. the people In the book p. 9. in marg r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. 36â— p. 11. l. 3. r. I doubt p. 12. l. 32. r. not To. p. 14. l 9. r. Reverend p. 15. l. 6. r. Thus we see p 16. l. 13. r. first for p. 18. l. 4 r. swine are p. 22. l. 29. r. having appointed p. 24. l. 12. r. yet these l 13. r. heare men p. 26. l. 26. r. some such in p. 28. l. 4. r. jure p. 28. l. 29. r. be might p. 29. l. 1. r. rush p. 32 in marg r. edit Lutetiae p. 35. l 12 r. is chiding p. 37 l. 20 r. except at that time l. ult r. observes p. 39. l. 31. r. purged For. p. 40. l. 25. r. three things p. 41. l. 25. r. it for p. 42. l. 13. dele that p. 43. l 25. ingenuous p. 48. l. 21. dele so l. 22. r. things forbidden p 49. l. 2. dele may be true l. 2. dele it l. 15. r. true in l. 28. r. untied l. ult dele first p. 53. l. 16. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 54 l 32. r. nay it p. 55. l. 13. r. he hath p. 57. l 6. if but baptized p. 71. l. 11. r. was to be eaten in p. 72. l. 4 r. was caten p. 73. l. 10. r. art p 74 l. 32. r. the twelve p. 76. l. q. r. be did not p. 77. l. 32. r. fourth dâ—sh l. 33. r. rest Immediately saith the Doctor p. 78. l. 9. r. Aphicomen l. 19. r. did cat l. 28. r. the Doctor p. 79. l. 9. r. ingenuous p. 82. l. 31. r. fourth cup. p. 83. l. 21. dele secondly p. 84. l. 1. r. with it one p. 87. l. 9. r. keep pure p. 95. l. 24. r. If a grossely c. l. 35. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. â—1 l. penult r. one bread p. 113. l. 33. r. of the elements p. 121 l. 1. r. conecssions l. 16. r. releeve me l. 18. r. I shall l. 27. 1. Eldership judge p. 125. l. 1. r juridicall p. 128 l. 7. r. the Constitutions and some c. p. 129 l 2. Catechumeni l. 10 r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 130. l. 2. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 4. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 7. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 10 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 33. r. de-la-Barre p. 131. l. 4. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 132. in marg r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 133. l. 14. r. of none of p. 134 l. 12. r. Binius i. 29. r. in this Century p. 137. l. 33. dele to p. 140. l. 3. r. demonstrandam p. 141. l. 10. r. that he should be p 143. l. 12. r. that some p. 147. l. 23. r. penitus deploratos p â—48 l. 13. in marg dele Anthony p. 155. l. 24. r. Dr de-Lawne p. 161. l. 29. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 31. dele And. l. 33. r. constitutions p. 166. l. 12. r. augeatur l. 25. r. minding p. 167. l. 12. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 CHAPTER I. Containing the State of the question QVESTION I. Whether the Suspension of some persons from the Lords Supper be deducible from Scripture or Reason THE termes of this Question are two 1. Suspension of some persons from the Supper of the Lord that is the subject 2. Deducible from Scripture or Reason that is the predicate in question betwixt us 1. As to Suspension of some persons from the Supper wee meane no more then a denyall of that Ordinance to some This suspension is usually distinguished into Juridicall and Pastorall or privative and positive 1. Positive suspension which is called Juridicall is an act of the Officers of the Church whereby having had due cogrisance of the party that desires the Supper of the Lord and finding him unfit or unworthy though he hath formerly been admitted Yet they by vertue of the trust reposed by Christ in them warne him to abstaine from the Lords Table and deny the Ordinance to him if he intrudes 2. Privative Suspension which I also call pastorall is an act of the Minister of the Gospell whereby hee alone the Church wanting other Officers finding some persons though formerly admitted not able to examine themselves or unworthy in respect of open scandall to come to that Holy Table doth not only as their Pastor admonish them to forbeare but withholds the elements from them if they presume to come to the Lords Table God willing I shall anon speake to the second of these whether privative suspension be lawfull or no. But that is not my present businesse But supposing there be an eldership constituted in a Congregation whether this eldership may keep away any from the Lords Table for ignorance or knowne scandall if he be a Christian and not de facto Excommunicated This is that which Mr Boatman cals a Pharisaicall dreame an usurpation of Christs authority a thing not deducible from Scripture That which he humbly and boldly challengeth all the Ministers on Earth to make good if he durst have stood to his word 2. Nor could his meaning bee any thing else For in his Congregation there is an eldership established according to Ordinance of Parliament by a due election of the major part of the Congregation present after publike notice given three Lords daies each after other which he hath throwne downe and publisheth this Doctrine that he might prepare his people for a prostitution of that sacred Ordinance As to the second terme Deducible from Scripture I take it for granted that my indifferent Reader will grant me that to be sufficiently deduced and proved from Scripture which is evinced from it by necessary consequence if it be there either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If Mr Boatman or any other will deny me that any thing is to be proved from Scripture but what is there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He makes our Saviour a very insufficient Logician who thus proves the resurrection Mat. 22.31 32. Mat. 22.32 33. and his Auditors very weake who the Evangelist saith were very well satisfied with the proofe And those who agree with the Anabaptists in that whimzy will be bound to reconcile that of St James James 5.4 to truth Iames 5.4 by shewing us where the Scripture saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The spirit that dwelleth in you lusteth to envy Yet the Apostle saith the Scripture saith it But I will suppose Mr Boatman
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 fingly 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. si non major sit quam ut meus dâ—ci possit as he useth to say of our incomparable Twiss Brentius in his Commentary on the place telleth us Brentius ad loc cum autem in oculis ecclesiae sit poenitens non est vel ministri ut eum contumeliosè a coena rejiciat 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 Musculus of all Gospell mysteries Nolim Evangelicae sapientiae mysteria sine delectu tradi dignis indiguis 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 t. 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 Hareticks 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 saies 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 free 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 censured So that with him Give not hely 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 inventa 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 Erast thesis 64. or the same spirit at least He was the first worker in this sort of Brasse and what they say amounts to the same with his Quos ecclesia ita 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 Petitio principij to be turn'd out of doors 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 siners 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 outward 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 dreams 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 doc 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 flock and cast
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 Humâ—ry 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 eatâ—r 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 100. 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 Pareus 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. Musc ad loc I find indeed a third sense of the words hinted 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 Domins 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 reverent 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 â—s 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. If any object Object But the Church is not bidden to keep them away if they doe come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we grant it but I have already proved Sol. that here is an implicit consequentiall prohibition of the Church to admit such and he had before forbidden them with Idolaters not to â—at 1 Cor. 5.11 of which place more hereafter God willing But will some say this was for an open horrid sin Object Idolatry c. having fellowship with Devils c. Admit it yet thus much we have gained Sol. 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. queest 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 Guâ—lther observes from this Text the vanity 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. VVhere'n a third and fourth Argument is brought to prove that suspension distinct from excommunication is deducible from Scripture and the Argument is vindicated from the exceptions which Thomas Erastus 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 breehren 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. 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 Argument 1 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 Certe quicquid per fâ—rmentum intelligamus c. thesi 17. onely like a good dâ—sputant he denies the conclusion that excommunication is not spoken of in that Text but that is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is a plaine case 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. Lot 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 Magistri 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 Presbyterio excom p. 89.8 a. Nam nos de illis solis disputamus qui peccatum suum agnoscunt meliora promittunt 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 pâ—â—ch But as Mr Ruthersord notes of Erastus so the reader may observe in Mr Humfry Rutherford's divine right of Presbyt p. 363. 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 â— noâ—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 â—nd 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 siâ—ners Now â—hat such may be in a Church besides this proose 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 prove by 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 candalous sinners All the question here is whether the Feast of the â—ords Supper be there intended thesi 17. Thomas Erastus â—aith no for then it would follow that men might be wicked at any other time Beza de excom page 90.91 onely then they must abstaine 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 yâ—eâ—d 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 so 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 〈◊〉 east Matt. 22. Lu. 14 16 17 18. Pro. 9.2 3 4 5. Cant. 5.1 saith Mr Rutherford This place cannot be restrained to the Lords Supper onely saith Reverend Gill sâ—y Gillespy â—arons 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. Gil. loc praed especially if we add saith Mr Gillespy the Analogy of the Passeover there much insisted upon 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 metaphoricall 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 Ravanella in Verbo Festum Is 25. 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 1. cap. 6. So Mr Humfry 's vind p. 85 v Chrys in or atione contra eos 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 teiling 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 Calv. ad loe who yet stretcheth it to that latitude 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 Ego vero soli scripturae hunc bonorem deserendum censco c. Hâ—eron '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 faith 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 Passeover 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 But I shall come to a second Argument Argument 2 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 Presh 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 page 249. Christ inviteth all to repentance Ergo to the Sacrament 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
expounded it twice before by that very phrase not to keep company Gillespy p. 427 that phrase is indeed twice before but saith Mr Gillespy having twice before forbidden that it appeares here he meanes something more I meet with one reason more in Mr Prin saith he it cannot be meant of eating at the Lords Table ibid 4. because this precept extends to those out of the Church also who were such as appeares by v. 10.11 12 13. compared together I answer Sol. that those who are Christians should not have any Communion with Heathens that are profane I grant 2. That they are forbidden here I cannot see Thirdly the Apostle saith ver 5. If any man be called a brother and be such or such c. and plainly tels them ver 10. that his meaning was not that they should altogether forbeare company with the fornicators of the world Fourthly admit this That this precept concernes our carriage to Heathens as well as Brethren though not equally as Mr Prin confesseth yet how doth it follow that the not eating here cannot be understood of Sacramentall eating indeed it will follow it cannot be meant of that onely which we doe not contend for I meet with no more pretended reasons Mr Humfry hath magisterially told us he is of this mind but hath given us no reason neither in his vindication nor his rejoinder I have done the first thing shewing you that there hath not yet been made appear by any sufficient ground that the not eating here is to be restraind to civill Communion if it were it would be to no great purpose onely it would make us make use of this Scripture as a radix for an undeniable Argument whereas yet we plead for a direct literall prohibition but of that in the third place I come now to my second taske in which I shall do two things 1. I shall shew you some grounds which may make us probably judge that the Sacramentall eating was the chiefe thing here intended 2. Why civill Communion should not bee the onely thing here forbidden As to the first take these grounds for my opinion First by the Feast before mentioned ver 8. he meant the Sacrament this immediately followes That by the Feast v. 8. the Sacrament is meant I shewed before Secondly there is no other Ordinance wherein people are to eat one with another but this and when the Text contradicts not other Scriptures doubtlesse it is not to be expounded by a figure The businesse of the Apostle was to command the casting out of the incestuous person out of Church Communion in excommunication there are two parts The first is positive A solemn delivering up the obstinate person to Satan This he commanded before ver 3.4 The other is privative and consists in denying of the excommunicate person intimacy of civill Communion 2. Church Communion in some Ordinances as for the first he had forbidden it in these words keep no company with such a one As to the second he forbids here No nor eat with such a one I no where read that the excommunicate person must not be preached to for though he be as an Heathen yet not in a worse condition as to that sure I read he must be admonished as a Brother I read not that we may not pray with him But we must have no Communion with him in such Ordinances which doe belong to a man as a member of the Church The chiefe of these is the Sacrament of the Supper therefore the Apostle forbids to eat with him that is at the Lords Table and so he hath given a perfect command for executing a sentence of excommunication on him in all its branches which he sums up ver 13. Therefore put away from amongst you that wicked person Fourthly either Sacramentall eating is here forbidden or civill eating or both If the first or the last 't is all we ask I shall now prove the second thing 2. That it it not probable that civill eating is here forbidden 1. Civill Communion was twice forbidden before under the notion of keep no company 2. Civill Communion so far as eating goes is lawfull for Christians sure with a Drunkard a covetous person or the like or else as the Apostle tels us wee must goe out of the world This Erastus and the worthy Gentleman so often named foresaw and therefore spent much paines to work themselves out of this hedge of difficulty But I shall not digresse to follow them the Reader may see Mr Prin who saies most sufficiently answered by his learned Antagonist Gillespy Aarons rod. l. 3. c. 7 I come to my third taske Admit that the meaning of this Text were what they would have onely to interdiâ—â— Christians a civill Communion with scandalous sinners yet 't is nothing to the businesse for thus we argue If from that text it may be concluded unlawfull for Christians to have civill Communion Quod si multorum testium vaâ— riâ consonanti monitione docemur cum delâ— qâ—entibus fratrious cibo ne quideâ—â— vesci quanto magis debeat à sacrificio Christi arceri Cyp. in l. de aleatoribus Erast theses thesi 66. vind 4 serious quest p. 11. vin free admission p. 85. Beza in lib. de excom Presb. page 95. and to eat at their own Tables with scandalous sinners then it is much more unlawfull for them to eat at the Lords Table But 't is granted that it is unlawfull for them to have civill Communion with them This Argument hath troubled Erastus and Mr Prin and Mr Humfry to answer Mr Humfry is sorry to see any gravelled with such a fallacy Well if it be a fallacy I hope we shall have it discovered 1. Some tell us that there is no such Argument not to have company and not to eat are both the same so here is no comparation 1. To this I answer 1. That Beza hath well observed that the particle here used doth import such an argumentation where the lesser being denied the greater is much more denyed Brastus himselfe is so sensible that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where it divideth argues two things spoken of so that he is forced to confesse that there 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
it to him for it is plaine from Iohn 13. that the Disciples knew it not till then and he then having received the sop went out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Iohn which by the way as I shall prove more anon was both before the eating of the Paschall Lambe and before the institution of the Lords Supper too It is worth our observing that Christ did not so much as call up those of the same house which it is more then probable that he would have done if he had intended it for a converting Ordinance or for all promiscuously Nay surely Christ had more disciples then the twelve but the twelve onely if all of them were present 2. Some think that they have a precept for promiscuous administring this Ordinance from Mat. 28.19 20. where we have our commission in these words Goe teach all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father the Senne and the Holy Ghost 1. To that I answer 1. There is nothing exprest concerning the administration of the Lords Supper and our opposites who are so nimble at every turn to call for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should remember that by it they oblige themselves to doe the like But secondly admit that there is an implicit precept likewise for the administration of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper yet surely by the same rule that the Apostles notwithstanding that precept did not think themselves obliged to baptize any but such as beleeved and confessed their sins we may also expound the included part of the precept and must administer this Ordinance to none but such as are able to examine themselves and to discerne the Lord Body So that this will not serve their turne Thirdly Erastus and Mr Humfry and Mr Boatman make a great stir with the wedding Supper Mat. 22. to which all were invited c. But 1. They should remember that old and true rule Theologia parabolica non est argumentativa No argument can be fetcht from Parables but from the generall scope of them v Mr Humfrie's rejoinder p. 52.53.54 Now he that runs may read that our Saviours main scope in that Parable was not to shew who might or might not come to the Lords Table but to shew how angry God was with the Jewes for not comming to Christ by which unbeliefe of theirs they procured destruction to themselves and God would now call in the Heathens and those who before were not his people to be his people and to fill up his Feast 2. If Mr Humfry or Mr Beatman thinke they may argue from any of the foure feet of that parable as to this cause they may prove it to be their duty not onely to stand in a Pulpit and invite all the Lords Table but to goe into high waies and hedges too and bring in all they meet with yea and to compell them to come in Now it will prove too that they ought to fetch in Pagans who are chiefly meant in the latter part of the Parable And thus they shall not need to want company at the Lords Table 3. Doctor Drake answered Mr Humfry well I think when he told him that Christ is the Feast meant in that Parable and although all be invited to the Feast Christ yet the question is whether all be invited to eat of that dish in the Feast viz. Dr Drakes Bâ—â— to free admission p. 30. Mr Humfries rejoinder p. 54. the Sacrament of the Lords Supper as wel as they are invited to hear the Gospel Here now M. Humfry hath a mind more to shew his wit then his honesty thus he answers him p. 54. This is something ingenuous but whoreas he applies this that a man may be invited to a Feast yet not to the dish in the Feast it is very fine c. then he tels us a tale of the two egs and concludes let us have the dishes of the Feast and what will become of Mr Drakes Feast How falsly hath he abused Dr Drake let the Reader judge Dr Drake doth not say they are not invited to any dish but they are not invited to every dish and if the dish of the Sacrament be removed there will a Feast still remaine But the truth is it was properest for Mr Humfry to abuse his Adversary when he could not answer him If this and other passages of the same nature in that unworthy book be not enough to make it stink in the nostrils of conscientious Christians let them but read his language p. 269. and the application of Scripture to serve his nastie intentions and they may help a little towards it 4. I never heard of any more Scripture precepts pretended onely that 1 Cor. 11.24 where I desire the Reader to consider 1. That the Apostle doth but repeat the words of our Saviour which were spoke to none but visible Saints 2. The Apostle delivers the same words to them he bids them Doe that c. Which by the way is not a command to their Pastors to administer it but to the Church to receive the Sacrament and surely doth not concerne those who in that Chapter are commanded to examine themselves c. and are not able to doe it The question is whether the Apostle v. 24. doth command them to receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper who could not examine themselves according his rule v. 28. nor discern the Lords body or who if they did partake must necessarily eat and drink their owne damnation and make themselves guilty of the body and blood of Christ Surely this was very absurd to say If not this precept is nothing to the purpose sounding no more then this you that are fit to doe this doe this We are now come to examine if they have any examples I never heard but of three pretended indeed they are great ones and enough if they be made appeare for their purpose The first that of Christ who admitted Iudas as some think The second Mr Humfry mentions Acts 2.41.42 The third is of the Church of Corinth I will speak of the latter two first The first then is Acts 2.41 42. in the 41 verse 3000 soules were added to the Church verse 42. it is said they continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayers To this I answer 1. I should put our opposites hand to it to prove that the breaking of bread here spoke of was the Sacramentall action I could tell them of many who are of another mind A phrase like this Luke 24.30 he took bread and blessed and brake it c. is used to express common eating at our own Tables 2. But I confess I encline to to think it was Sacramentall breaking of bread and so the Syriack version reads it So the phrase is used 1 Cor. 10.16 But who were those that brake berad together such as verse 37. were prickt at the heart and had cryed out v. Mr Palmerâ— answer to Humfry p. 51. Men and Brethren
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 Rejoinder p. 48. but instead of this it cannot be proved as I have shewn they were drunk there and Mr Humfry doth not disapprove it 2 The Apostle plainly saith that some of this Church were Foruicators I dolaters Adulterers 1 Cor. 6.9 10 11. effeminate abusers of themselves with man-kind Theevs 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 If they did admit Drunkards ibid. p. 48. 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 fulle of the first proose Beza de â—resb excom p 26. Gillespies Aaronsrad l 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 1 Cor. 5. Gerard. loc comd 5. p. 181. Algerus de Saeram Halensis sum thâ—ol p. 4.9.11 art 1. sect 4. Dr Drakes Bar c. p. 9. Mr. Hâ—mfries rejomd p. 1516. 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 Indas 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 Gil. 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 seandalous 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 446 447. 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 like wise 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 Iudas this is my body which is broken for thee This Argument he vindicates from Mr Prins exceptions 3. Dr Drake p. 6.
have been long enough beating the bush and if this notion prove true it will follow 1. That Iudas had not so much as compacted with the Chiefe Priests when his hand was with Christ on the Table 2 That he was gone before the Lord instituted his supper yea 3. That he was not there at the eating of the Paschall Lambe I have but proposed my thoughts and shall submit to better reason having learned to attribute nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and being prone to think the worse of any notion which I judge my owne I know I dissent in this from very many Holy and Learned men But secondly it is no matter of Faith or Practice but a piece of Order in Holy Story 2. I see they cannot agree amongst themselves 3. I shall peaceably dissent 4. I shall keep an eare open for better proofe against me in the meane time I desire my Readers Charity they are some of the Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have been enquiring into some Histerologies must be allowed in the Gospell I see not but with such allowance this my sense may passe And now to shut up this discourse of Iudas I could wish our Masters of the opposite perswasion would allow us but the favour that ordinary Fencing Masters will allow their scholars First they will take up one weapon and try them with one while here another while there if they see they cannot hit them with this trick nor the other they will lay downe that weapon and take another not the same againe to no purpose but meerely to tire out their Scholars For this weapon of Iudas his being at the Sacrament with which they think to knock suspension Erastus tried it at Beza Beza defended himself Mr Prin tried it at Mr Gillespy Mr Gillespy defended the cause that he never touched it with a Cudgell Now Mr Humfry hath got it up and Dr Drake defended himselfe the same way which Gillespy and Beza had done Mr Humfry hath made never a new stroke Let us lay downe this weapon let 's heare what they say to prove Iudas was there Object 1. They all sate downe together This doth not prove they all rose up together Object 2. Christ saith the hand of him that betrayeth me is on the Table That is at the sop but Iohn 13.30 immediately upon that Iudas went out which was before the Sacrament Object 3. Christ speaks nothing Iohn 13. of the Sacrament But he speakes of the Passeover which was before it and saies at the beginning of that he went out Object 4. O but wee have many Authors of our side that he was there Origen Cyprian Ambrose Chrysostome Victor Theodoret Remigius Paschasius Oecumenius Algerus c. 1. This question they did not speake purposely to 2. God knowes whether the places quoted be spurious or no. 3. We have matches for them too Dionysius Areopagita Maximus Pachimeres Ammonius Talianus Innocentius Hilary Salmeron Kellet Mariana Gerard Turrianus Barradus Danaeus Musculus Piscator Cum multis aliis quos nunc perscribere longum est Let 's have done therefore with this Cudgell and blot no more paper with saying what hath been said over and over and over againe and can never be cleared on our adversaries side I have tried something on our side I shall add no more to this Argument I conclude there are no precepts to command nor presidents to warrant generall admissions of scandalous persons though not excommunicated Ergo. CHAP. VII Containing a sixth Argument drawne from the duty incumbent upon the Officers of the Church to keep the fellowship of the Church pure I am come now to a sixth ARGVMENT I still keep my principall syllogisme which was this If the Officers of a Church may not lawfully admit some to the Sacrament who are not as yet de facto excommunicated then they may law fully suspend some from it But Ergo. MY sixth Argument to prove Argument six that there may be some in the Church whom the Officers of a Church cannot without sinne admit to the Sacrament though at present they be not excommunicated is this If there may be some in the Church not yet cast out with whom the communion of the Church in the Lords Supper cannot be pure then there may be some in the Church not yet excommunicated whom the Officers may not without sinne admit to the Lords Supper But there may be some in the Church not yet excommunicated with whom the communion of the Church in that Ordinance cannot be pure Ergo. I will prove the major first then the minor First for the major If it be the duty and businesse of the Officers of the Church to keep the communion of the Church then it is their duty to keep its fellowship pure in that Ordinance and consequently not to admit such to it with whom the communion of the Church cannot be pure This proposition stands upon these foundations 1. That it is the duty of the Officers of a Church to keep the fellowship of the Church pure This none will deny that is but mentis compos if any be inclined to deny it he should doe well first to think to what purpose the rod of discipline is else put into their hands 2. How to expound 1 Cor. 5.7 13. and those many other Texts in Scripture which looke this way 2. That it is their especiall duty to keep the fellowship of the Church as to this Ordinance pure As this was proved before upon the opening of the 1 Cor. 5.8 So upon the concession of the former it is no lesse clear from reason It is apparent that of all other Ordinances this Ordinance alone is appointed for such as have something of Grace in them The Word is called the bread of life and it is to bee offered to dead soules to quicken them Heathens were ever admitted to heare those who are the profanest persons are the objects of Discipline the excommunicate may and ought to be admonished as Brethren I know not wherein the Officers of the Church can have a worke to keep the communion of a Church pure if not in this Ordinance and as to this which the Scripture plainly saith cannot be partaked of worthily without examining our selves and being able to discerne the Lords Body For the minor proposition That there may be some in the Church not yet cast out with whom the fellowship of the Church in this Ordinance cannot be pure I prove If there may be some in the Church who apparently are not fit subjects to receive this holy thing then there may be some in the Church with whom the fellowship of the Church in this Ordinance cannot be pure But there may be some in the Church who apparently are not fit subjects to receive this holy thing Ergo. He that denies the major must maintaine that a communion of such as are appearingly fit for it and appearingly notoriously unfit for it and unable to it is a pure communion and by that time he
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 tols us it is not a visibility of reall worthinesse is the ground of admission but the visibilâ—ty 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 institutions 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 slightly 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 lest out for it is plainly our duty Mat. 18.18 and the neglect our sâ—n 2. I doubt whether a man lying under the conscience of any sin against his Neighbour can lawfully partake till he 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 Hipocrites we know not who are so 2. But it seems strange to me considering that a Ministers giving the Sacrament and the peoples receiving are relate acts that a Minister should be bound to give to such as he knows are not bound to receive can any one thinke that there should lye an Obligation upon us to preach to our people if it could be proved that there lay no Obligation upon them to heare Now I assume But grossely ignorant and impenitent scandalous sinners are such as visibly appeare not bound to receive the Lords Supper Ergo. That a grossely ignorant and scandalous impenitent sinner while such is bound to receive then he is bound To make himselfe guilty of the body and bloud of Christ To eate and drinke his own damnation To run upon the hazard of being made sick and weake and falling asleep which are all strange things for a man to be bound in conscience unto Let none thinke to avoid this Argument by saying they are bound first to repent and then to receive So that their sin doth not lye in receiving but in not repenting This is plainly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The question is whether the ignorant and impenitent while such if not cast out are bound to receive and it is a begging the question to say they sin in not repenting but not in receiving In receiving saith the Apostle they make themselves guilty of the body and bloud of Christ and they eate and drinke their own damnation And surely if such sinners be not bound to receive the Officers of the Church cannot be bound to give the Ordinance to them the ceasing of their Obligation in reason must also suspend his CHAP. IX Wherein an Eighth and Ninth Argument are brought to prove that Suspension distinct from Excommunication is justifiable from Scripture and sound Reason ARGUMENT 8. If none may be suspended from the Sacrament but those who are Excommunicated then none must be kept away but those who are contumacious But some may be kept away that are not Contumacious Ergo. THe Major is plaine 1. From Scripture Mat. 18. none must be accounted as an Heathen or a Publican but he who refuseth to heare the Church Thus also Divines generally determine So Bonaventure Estius Aquinas Suarez Durandus besides a numberlesse number of Protestant Divines The Minor only needs proofe 1. Surely those that are under admonition ought to be kept away though as yet they declare no Contumacy and it be uncertaine whether they will or no. 2. Suppose one should come to the Minister the morning he were to receive and blaspheme Christ and tell him he came for nothing but to abuse the Church ought this man to be admitted think we Suppose one should come drunke shall he be admitted Mr Humfry saies no what Mr Boatman thinks in that case I cannot tell if he shall not then there is Suspension distinct from Excommunication Suppose a Minister should know one of his Communicants had committed Murther Theft Incest Whoredom the night before according to M Boatmans Doctrine he must be admitted to the Lords Table for Suspension of any person not Excommunicated is a Pharisaicall dream Suppose a Minister upon examination found that his Communicant did not know whether Christ were God or Man a Man or a Woman nor any thing of the Story of the Gospell must he be admitted too He is neither Turke nor Jew nor Pagan nor Excommunicated person Ergo He is holy and must come A Doctrine sure that every one who hath any thing of God in him will see the folly and filth of and which no sober pious or learned man ever yet durst undertake to defend and it is a shame it should be named amongst Christians If profane Argument 9 scandalous persons though Circumcised and not cast out of the Jewish Church nor legally uncleane were yet to be debarred from some Ordinances and the Passeover then such though Baptized and not Excommunicated may be suspended from the Lords Supper But profane scandalous persons though Circumcised and not cast out of the Jewish Church nor
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 The Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not to be given to any who are not Christs Disciples Arg. 11 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 Those who if they were Heathens might not be baptized Argument 12 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 adult is 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. Arg. 13. 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 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. w. 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 iuterna mysteria ab eo quod oculis patet distinguere valint 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 It is unlawfull to partake of other mens sins Eph. 5.7 Arg. 14 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 Aarone 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 sore-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 filly 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 sourth as my own private judgement and shall not go about to impose such a perswasion upon others not knowing what upon further thoughts I â—y 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 whoshall 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 ean 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 If in such a case the Minister of the Gospell cannot shew himselfe a faithfull Steward of Gods mysteries Argument 2 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
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 Schooâ—eman insufficient Gabriel Vasq l. 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 condemine him whom his certaine knowledge justifies in his consâ—ience 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 publuâ sed propter scientiam suam privatam alio remedio uti debâ—at pro salvandâ vitâ innocentis c. Gab. Vasq ib. There is a double right iâ—us hereditarium this they have common as baptized persons 2. Jus aptitudâ—narium 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 saith 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 The power of administration of the Lords Supper is wholly committed to the Minister Argument 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 Hezekiahs 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 had 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 scar e speakes sense for they never owned the Ordinanâ—e of the Lords Supper and how they should invent Suspensioâ— 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 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
after the profession of their resolutions to amend and lastly those who were not altogether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any scandall or spot these were all removed saith Dionysius before the Lords Supper was administred but surely these were not all excommunicated here is not a word of that Those who will see more may looke into Maximus and Pachymeres the two Scholiasts upon Dionysius I have not translated the passage because it was large But Dionysius saith plainly that such as are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. men given to their lusts c. should much more be kept from the Lords Table than either Catechumeni or Poenitentes I know none else in the first Century but Ignatius who hath left us any Writings and it is questionable whether any of these or his either be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or no. But doubtlesse Dionysius was ancient though I beleeve not thus ancient his Scholiast Maximus lived within the fourth Century Let us see what we have in the second Century ad annum Christi 200. In this Century we have Justin Martyr who hath something considerable extant to tell us the practice of the Church in his time and he hath spoken fully enough to our purpose in his second Apology for the Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just Mart. Apol. 2. ex edit Lutet Paris 1615. p. 97 98. which Helvicus saith he wrote about the yeare 160. where he tells us how in those daies they administred the Ordinance of the Supper and hath these words This nourishment saith he is with us called the Eucharist of which none may partake with us but he 1. That beleeves our Doctrine to be true 2. He that is washed with the Laver of Regeneration for the remission of sins 3. He that lives so as Christ hath Commanded We desire no more than the recovery of this ancient Discipline of the Church viz. that none may be admitted to the Lords Supper but such as first are baptized Secondly Such as beleeve the Doctrine of the Gospell which they must know before they can beleeve 3. Such as do not live according to the rule of the Gospell but if none else were admitted in Justine Martyrs time questionlesse there were some suspended who were not excommunicated In this Century also lived Tatianus Melito Ireneus Theophilus Antioch Policarpus Apollinaris Athenagoras Clemens Alexandrinus Pantaenus Tertullian c. If testimonies could be produced out of these it were to little purpose Justin Martyr having sufficiently evidenced for that Century But the truth is some of them have nothing extant and others very little and upon restrained subjects in the handling of which they were not led to this theme And in those pieces of Clemens Alexandrinus and Tertullian I find very little spoken concerning the discipline and order of the Churâ—h Something there is in Tertullian but Justin Martyr hath already spoken enough for this Age considering the occasion of his speaking it was in an Apology for all Christians in his Age and Apologizing for them he sets out their pure worshipping of God and inoffensive practice From the yeare two hundred to the yeare three hundred In this Century were severall Synods but none of which we have any Record but only a Provinciall Synod called Consilium Anchyritanum by Gratian. Genebrard in his Chronology puts this Synod anno 298. Helvicus anno 312. Caranza and Mr Gillespy anno 308. certaine it is it was either in the latter end of this or the beginning of the next Century I shall with learned Genebrard account it into this Caranza saies it was before the Oecumenicall Councill of Nice but in what Emperours time is not determined But in that Councill we find Suspension established with a witnesse That for some sins if any committed them before he was twenty yeares old he should spend fifteene yeares in penitence before he should be admitted to pray with the Church and five yeares he should have no more than a communion in Prayers with the Church and afterwards be admitted to the Lords Table This Canon may be seen in Caranza p. 28. can 16. I find the Greeke Copy thus elsewhere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I neither justifie this Councill nor this Canon of it in all things but if there were such a Councill and so ancient as we are told it plainly shews us Suspension distinct from Excommunication was so ancient in the Church of God the same is also confirmed by the 4 5 6 7 8 9. Canons of that Councill the Copies of which may be seen either in the booke called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greek-Latine or Latine in Caranza and Benius c. The two most Famous Fathers in this Century were Origen about the yeare 202. and Cyprian 250. Origen hath some not obscure hints of the judgment of the Church in his time Oâ—ig in Levit. Homil. 23. Cibus iste Sanctus non est communis omnium nec cujuscunque indigni sed Sanctorum est Severall other hints are in Origen though he no where speakes directly to the case For Cyprian he that reads his tenth Epistle ad clerum de Presbyteris c. or his book de lapsis will find enough I had thought to have transcribed some passages but I am prevented by Mr Gillespy in his Aarons Rod l. 3. cap. 17. where the Reader shall find them quoted From the yeare three hundred to foure hundred In the Century besides other Councils was the famous Oecumenicall Councill of Nice and for Ancients Arnobius Athanasius Hilary Macarius Optatus Basil Greg. Nyssen Nazianzen Epiphanius Ambrose Chrysostome Hierome Austin Some of these will doubtlesse tell us the practice of the Church in their times For the Councill of Nice we have an imperfect Record but if those Canons which are printed as theirs be so they speake plaine enough Can. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Nicen. Can. 11. Reader this Synod was questionlesse the most glorious Orthodox Synod that ever the Church of Christ could glory in Here were 318 of the most eminent servants of Christ in the worke of the Gospell which the world then afforded These all determine that such sinners as were scandalous though they had sinned through temptation for feare of their lives or estates worshipping Idols I suppose they meant though they did professe repentance yet they should give three yeares proofe of it before they should have any communion with the Church if in this time they were found not to contradict their profession they were admitted to some Communion but no otherwise than penitents for seven yeares more after these ten yeares they must have no nearer communion than in prayer for two yeares longer here was a Suspension of ten yeares for scandalous sins distinct from Excommunication were all these dreamers thinke we For the length of time I do not justifie them nor can I altogether condemne them considering the juncture of time and state of the Church then In
this Century they say was Concilium Neocaesariense if it were so and we have a true account of their acts In their second Canon they decree that if a woman marry two brothers she should be rejected to her death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet it is plaine she was not excommunicated so long for in the same Canon they determine she might have the Sacrament given her in her dying houre In the same Century was Concilium Gangrense who in the preface to their acts do plainely distinguish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one who is denied Communion with the Church and one who is quite separated from it What the Councill of Arles determined in the same Century is plaine The first Councill of Arles Can. 11. Can. 12. Can. 23. plainely establish Suspension distinct from Excommunication The second Councill of Arles Caranza p. 55. a. in the same Century determines the Suspension of such from the Lords Supper for five yeares as had through feare in time of persecution sacrificed to Idols See also Canon 20 25. Concilium Elebertinum in which Caranza saith were nineteene Bishops doth plainly distinguish betwixt some sinners to whom the Sacrament at death should be denied and others who should be suspended from it but yet might have it at their death desiring it which if they were excommunicated they could not V. Can. 1 2 3 14 21 31 40 c. For particular men in this Century Aarons rod l. 3. c. 17. the Opinions of Basil Thaumaturgus Chrysostome Ambrose Augustine are evident in their severall workes Basil is enough for all in his Canonicall Epistles ad Amphilochium see Canon 34 38 44 56 57 58 59. for murther he determines twenty yeares suspension Can. 36. for man-slaughter eleven yeares Can. 57. for Adultery fifteene Can. 58. for Fornication eight yeares Can 59. for theft though the thiefe first accused himselfe one yeare Can. 61. for perjury eleven yeares Can. 64. But if they before gave good evidence of their repentance and change they were to be admitted sooner Can. 74. It were an easie but tedious worke to shew that this was the judgement of the succeeding Councils and Fathers but if we could not these were the most pure and incorrupted times of the Church and surely the Servants of God were not all this time in a dreame For the time of Antichrists prevailing betwixt the time of the purer Church and the beginnings of Reformation by Luther and Calvin we shall easily know what was the generall opinion by the Schoolemen and by their decretalls and Councils the Schoolemen most of them handle this Question An peccatori hoc Sacramentum petenti Sacerdos denegare debeat Whether if a Sinner desire the Sacrament of the Lords Supper the Priest ought to deny it him They generally distinguish betwixt a secret sinner and a publike and notorious sinner and betwixt his desiring it in private and in publike Vasq in tert par Thom. t. 3. q. 80. disp 209. cap. 2. In quâ re scholastici omnes ut dixi constanter affiâ—mant publico peccatori nimirum de quo non constat ad meliorem frugem fuisse conversum publice etiam Eucharistiam done gandam esse ibid. 1. They all generally determine that if the sinner be a manifest open sinner the Priest ought to deny it to him though not excommunicated which is enough for to prove Suspension distinct from Excommunication They are not so well agreed in determining who should be accounted publike notorious sinners Nor whether the Priest may not in some cases deny the Lords Supper to Occulto peccatori Gabriel Vasquez assures me that all the Schoolemen do agree that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is to be denied to an open sinner of whose repentance there is no evidence I said before they are not so well agreed who shall be judged a scandalous sinner Adrianus in his questions de Eucharistia saies he is a publike scandalous sinner if his sin be known to ten persons Sylvester and Navarrus thinke enough if it be known to six Dominicus Sotus and Vasquez thinke that suspicion is not enough but the party must appeare scandalous either 1. Per sententiam he being declared so by the Judge or 2. Per confessionem ab ipso in judicio or by his own confession in Court or 3. Per rei evidentiam when the thing is evident and cannot be denied But though they disagree here yet they plainely enough agree as to the granting a Suspension distinct from Excommunication Now that this is the concurrent opinion of the Schoolemen Bonavent in l. 4 sent dist 9. art 2. q. 4. Duran in sent dâ—st 9. q 5. Etius in l. 4. sent dist 9. sect 4. Vasq in 3. p. Thoâ— 3 q. 8. art 6. Alex Hâ—len in 4. p. sum q. 11. art 3. Aquin. sum 3. p. q. 80 art 6. Becan In sum Scholast Thcol. p 3 c. 5. q 8. I shall prove by referring the Reader to those places in Bonaventure Aquinas Durandus Becanus Halensis Estius Vasquez where they professedly handle the question and give Arguments for it Vasquez as I said before tels me it is the unanimous Vote of all his Brethren of the Schooles I am sure it is the determination of all these which prove it the opinion of the Schoolemen in all Ages Bonaventure Aquinas and Durandus being all betwixt 1250. and 1300. Vasquez saith Helvicus died 1604. and Estius died 1613. as may be seen in the account of his life and Writings prefixed to his Commentaries on the Epistles If Suspension distinct from Excommunication be a Dreame these were some of the learned Dreamers It remaines that we examine the judgement of others and it is no great matter to whom we turne let them be Papists Lutherans or Calvinists we shall find them all in this point 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As for Papists I shall not trouble my Reader with quotations out of them though it were a very facile thing to do partly because the ignorance of some may judge it one of their superstitious practices and partly because their Schoolemen have spoken enough to let us know their minds to which Salmeron may be added who hath spoken enough to prove it in a place I have before quoted Salmeron t 5. tract 60. For the opinion of the Churches of the Switzers it is not considerable in the cause because most of their Churches have no Excommunication at all and so could not hold Suspension as distinct from it yet I observe that none of them plead for admission of any to the Lords Table but such as make a profession of their faith and repentance so Brentius Bullinger Gualther c. Philip Melancthon who was one of the first Reformers in Germany hath said enough as it is recorded by Christophorus Pezelius Pezelii pars oct argum resp theol contexta ex scriptis Melanct. de Excom p. 409. In veteribus Canonibus duo gradus sunt poenarum separatio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
excommunicatio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Separatio est poena qua homo per sententiam Ecclesia 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 Sacrament is Domini communicant Quamobrem siqui in gravius aliquod peccatum incidissent in manifestum flagitium ut Corinthius ille incestus inciderat eos priscae Ecclesia quae Christi disciplinam adhuc rectè tenebant ligabant certo tempore ad agendâ—m 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 in persecutionibus non ilico dandam esse veniam sed diu ac justo tempore eos agere poenitentiam de quo v. Epist ejus 2. 3. lib. 1. lib. 3. ab Ep. 14. ad 20. in Sermone de lapsis Item exemplum Ambrosit 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 Ibid. Sect. 7 8 9.10 11 12. but for a time he ought to be deprived of the Communion of the Lords Supper 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. Qui ad coeâ—am 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 face 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 Aâ—quorum peccata sunt omnibus nota quorum etiam pertinacia nemini est ignot Aâ—bos ex verbo Dei cum totá vetustate doctissim is quibusque nostri saeculi contendimus ad Coonam 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 Lâ—â—â—bert 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 anno 1574. Ecclesiasticae disciplinae Anglicanae Ecclesiae ab ill â aberrationis plena dilucidatio p. 127 128 129 130. by some pious learned man who I know not I am informed it was Mr Dudly Fenners it is called Ecclesiasticae Disciplinae Anglicánae 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 answers three 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 admonition 2. Exclusio seu abstentio c. Bucan inflit theol loc 44. q. 10 c. Suspension from the Lords Supper for a time 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 Practiâ—e 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 Piesbyterio 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. â— 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 contumacio us 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 Excommuniâ—ation 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 Ligationis gradus suns c. The degrees of Cenâ—â—sures 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 saith 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 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 Sacerdos 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 tempore à communione separentur Their fourteenth Canon determines a Suspension till death for those who falsely accuse their Brethren indeed the words are Can. 3. A communione abstineri Can. 4. A communione separari So Can. 5.11 but by communio is meant the Communion of the body and bloud of Christ only as is plaine from the last Canon and from the sins mentioned Can. 3 4 5. not deserving absolute and plenary Excommunication After this time Pag. 47. saith Sir Henry Spilman till Austins time in regard of the great troubles of Brittaine through the continuall inrodes of the Saxons the Bishops themselves being forced to retire into Wales were very few Synods in England In Ireland saith Sir Henry Spilman anno 450. was a Synod held He hath a Copy of the Canons agreed upon at it in their fourteenth Canon They determine a yeare for repentance to any who had killed any committed fornication or consulted a wizard Can. 15. they determine twenty daies poenitence in case of theft this they distinguish as is apparent from their other Canons from one who is anathematizandus Can. 19. in case of adultery they determine Excommunication This is all the Record I find concerning our Churches in that time excepting only some imperfect Records mentioning some single acts of Censure Monricus was excommunicated for the murther of Cynetu in a Synod at Landaff anno 560. another Synod there enjoyned King Morcant penance for murthering his Uncle Frioc and at a third Synod there Guidnerth was excommunicated for the murther of his Brother But a more perfect account I cannot find From the time of Austine the Monkes comming over till King Henry the eighth our Church was Popish and ruled by the order of the Romish Church who we know allows Suspension as I have sufficiently proved by their Schoolemen In the time of King Hen. 8. Reformation began to dawn He directed a Commission to thirty two persons to draw up a body of Ecclesiasticall Laws Afterwards King Edward 6. by his Commission dated November 11. in the fifth yeare of his Reigne revived and perfected the worke Cranmer Peter Martyr Dr Cox Dr May Dr Taylor of Hadly and some others being his Commissioners to perfect the body oâ— the Laws which was called Reformatio Legum Eccesiasticarum and was printed at London anno 1641. In which book the judgement of those eminent men the Fathers of our Church two of which viz. Cranmer and Taylor were Martyrs afterward is evident p. 151 152 153 154. they have nine Chapters concerning Suspension In the second Chapter they shew the causes of Suspension amongst which this they alledge as the maine Because in lesser offences Excommunication cannot proceed Quoniam magra lequeretur bâ—norum pertuâ—hatio si cum hujusmodi person is infamibus Sacramenta communicarent and oft-times suspicions of grosse sins which may scandalize the Church may appeare where the fact cannot be fully proved which they say must be taken notice of by the Church For it would cause a great disturbance in the Church if the members of it should receive the Sacrament with infamous persons In their fourth Chapter they determine that he who continues a whole yeare suspended shall be Excommunicated c. In their fourth Chapter they determine that he who continues a whole yeare suspended shall be Excommunicated c. Soone after this the Bishops prevailed to have the Common Prayer and Rubrick confirmed and from thence as to this we may know the judgement of our Church till the yeare 1641. It is true they were as tender of the businesse of Suspension as they were free of their Excommunications But yet we have thus much in the Rubrick prefixed to the forme for administring the Lords Supper If any be an open and notorious liver so that by him the Congregation is offended or have done any wrong to his Neighbour by word or deed the Curate having knowledge thereof shall call him and advertise him in any wise not to presume to come to the Lords Table V. The Book of Common Prayer concerning the order for the administration of the Lords Supper untill he hath openly declared himselfe to have truly repented and amended his former naughty life that the Congregation may thereby be satisfied which before were offended and that he hath recompenced the persons whom he hath done wrong unto or at least declare himselfe to be in full purpose so to do as soone as conveniently he may The same order shall the Curate use with those betwixt whom he perceiveth malice and hatred to reigne not suffering them to be partakers of the Lords Table untill he know them to be reconciled and if one of the parties so at variance be contented to forgive from the bottome of his heart all that the other hath trespassed against him and to make amends for that he himselfe hath offended and the other party will not be perswaded to a godly Unity but remaine still in his frowardnesse and malice the Minister in that case ought to admit the penitent person to the Communion and not the obstinate Thus you see our Church while it was under Episcopall Discipline yet allowed Suspension distinct from Excommunication After that Episcopacy was voted downe and Presbytery established Forme of Church Government p. 29. first by an Ordinance for three years then for ever by the Form of Church Government past and printed 1648. sine die All may read the Presbyterian Judgement for Suspension distinct from Excommunication a. p. 27. of that booke to the end For our dissenting Brethren it is their practice when once they have admonished an offender to suspend him from the Sacrament till he repent or be wholly cast out of the Church At this time in this City is one who hath been so suspended these twelve Months if he be not lately restored nor Excommunicated Lest any one should not thinke the Rubrick cleare enough to shew the Judgement of our Church in Episcopall times I shall produce a proofe or two more There was a Provinciall Synod held at London anno 1603. where it was decreed Canon 26 27. Constitut Canons printed 1628. Can. 26 27. That no Minister shall in any wise admit to the Communion any of his Cure or Flock which be openly known to live in sin notorious without repentance nor malicious persons nor unfaithfull Churchwardens nor such as refuse to be present at publike prayers nor to any that depraved the Book of Common Prayer nor who spake against the Kings Authority Let Reverend Deane Nowell speake Dr Nowels Catechism p. 647. who in his Catechisme Greeke-Latine printed London 1573. tels us That if it doth appeare openly that one is unworthy the Pastor must not admit him because he cannot do it without the profanation of the Sacrament and in order to the keeping of them away the Deane tells us in well ordered Churches Elders were chosen and joyned with the Pastor
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 suspâ—ndetur Harm Syn. Belgie 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 meadde one thing more Our Brethrn 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 faith 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 front 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 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 laboure'd 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 Hospites viciui fidelium Raban l. 1. de instit cler Penitents were such as had fallen into some sins for which they were denied the priviledges of the Church 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. 6.6.7 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 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 De Catechumenis Catechizandi ordine vide Rabanum Maurum l. 1. de institut cleric Cap. 26. 27. hence they were called Audientes 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
by Zonaras Thaumaturgus and Ambrose I will transcribe Ambrose his words Volo veniam reus speret Ambr. de poen l. 2. c. 16. petat eam lachrymis petat gemitibus 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 V. Liturgiae palm in missa Basilii especially by the Liturgies of the Greek Fathers 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 Arcl. socund Can. 11. 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 inter 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. Then they might stay in the Church after the Catechument were gone with the three fore-mentioned degrees of Penitents they might not only stay while the prayers for the Catechumeni were done Gradus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Ambr. ep 28. nor might the Priest offer while they were present 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 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.
all despised and avoided him as a putrid member only he was to be admonished as a Brother but they might not kindly salute him nor bid him God-speed nor trade nor eate nor drinke with them But we read of no such injunction concerning any of those who were Penitents Can. Apost 10. a man was to be suspended if he joyned in prayer with an excommunicated person They might by no meanes eate or drinke with them nortalke with them as any one may read in a multitude of the Canons of the first Councils 2. Besides there are many instances may be produced both from the Councils Concil Tol. 1. Can. 3. and out of Basils three Canonicall Epistles where the time of the penitence was limited to three or soure or five or sixe or seven yeares according to the Nature of the sin but it was never known that a Church limited a time in Excommunication how long the party should so stand 3. Albaspin Obs l. 2. Obs 4. Those who were Excommunicate were not censured and adjudged ad agendam poenitentiam but did pet ere poenitentiam as a favour of the Church There were some in the Church that were adjudged ad perpetuam poenit entiam for some scandalous sin to their death never to be received to Communion in the Lords Supper with the Church but never was any adjudged to a perpetuall Excommunication 5. Many who were adjudged to some kind of penance for some sin yet were admitted to the Laick Communion as they call it as Albaspinaeus proves out of very many Canons in l. 1. Obser Obser 4. what that Laiâ—k Communion was I shall not determine Baronius V. Pamelii annoâ— 37. in Cypr. ep 52. Pamelius and Durantus contend that it was to receive the Eucharist on the other side of the Railes c. others thinke it was receiving the Sacramentall bread only Albaspinaeus confutes them both and sufficiently proves it was the fellowship of those Christians who were of the Laity But those who were Excommunicated had no such priviledge allowed them By all this it evidently appeares 1. That although those who were excommunicated did sometimes petere poenitentiam crave the favour of the Church in order to their restoring that they might be admitted to stand as penitents and approve themselves againe to the Church 2. Or possibly when they desired restauration might by order of the Church be enjoyned to come in by those steps yet those frequent Canons of the Church wherein for severall sins men were adjudged to stand as penitents for shorter or longer time cannot be understood to concerne excommunicated persons but such sinners as were guilty of those sins and yet the Church did not think fit wholly to cut them off but according to the rule Cuncta prius tentanda appointed them to be deprived of a partiall communion with the Church for some time that they might see whether they were pertinacious or whether God would give them an heart to repent that they might be againe restored and the time of their Suspension was set longer or shorter according to the nature of the sins which they committed V. Concil Binii V. Basil Canon ep Those who had been guilty of sins against Nature were suspended all their life time in Tertullian's times afterwards in the Councill of Ancyra they had time of repentance prefixed so in Basils times for man-slaughter Theodosius the Emperour was suspended eight months the Council of Ancyra gave them only the liberty of the Sacrament sub exitum vitae when they were neare their death Basil as I remember determines them fifteene or twenty yeares suspension Adulterers before Cyprians time were suspended to their dying day afterwards they had a shorter time set for to testifie their repentance 3. Now we have seen what the practice of the Church was let us consider how ancient this practice was That it was very ancient is out of all doubt but how ancient cannot easily be resolved Tertullian was the first who wrote concerning it who in his booke de poenitentia gives us hints of it and as Albasphinaeus proves hints the severall degrees of it Helvicus reckons him within the second Century Thaumaturgus who lived in the next Century in his Canonicall Epistle reckons up all the degrees but that Epistle is suspected Magdeb. Cent. 2 cap. 6. The Magdeburgenses tels us that in the second Century there was a Custome of setting sinners a time of publike repentance But in the third Century is evident enough about the yeare 210. Oâ—ig in Jos hom 7. Hom. 2. in 37. Psal and so forward Origen in his seventh Homily on Joshua tells us they excommunicated none but those who were thrice admonished and refused repentance and in his second Homily on the 37. Cypr. de lapsis Ser. 5. Tert. in lib. de poenitentia Psal gives us some account of their order in publike penance Tertullian and Cyprian do it abundantly Gregorius Thaumaturgus if the Canonicall Epistle be his doth not only tell us the severall degrees but tells us what places were assigâ—ed for them in the Church in their severall degrees Qui vero excommunicati Centur. l. 3. c. 6. aut non excommunicati gravâ—ter out idolis sacrificando aut haereticos deficiendo lapsi essent non nisi post publicam poenitentiam confessionem debitè peractam recipiebantur say the learned Centuriators in this Century In this Century the time of their poenitence was appointed according to the nature of the offence Cypr. l. 4. ep 2. we learne out of Cyprian that those Christians who had eagerly professed the Christian Faith and in the time of persecution fell away had three yeares set them all which time they were suspended when the time set them was expired if the Church judged they had duly manifested repentance they took their names and enrolled them giving them a Ticket to this purpose Admit this man to the Communion Ib. l. 3. ep 15 16. Cypr. ep 52. who having formerly fallen hath shewen sufficient signes of repentance so Cyprian after which as the Magdeburgenses prove out of Cyprian they were examined and judged by their particular Churches after which upon their confession of their sins there also they were admitted It is more than probable that Novatus his heresie which was broached about this time gave occasion to the Church to mitigate their Censure of Excommunication and denying the Communion till death to some scandalous sinners For Cyprian tells us that his Predecessors had refused to reconcile Adulterers at all to the Church and if I mistake not the same was determined concerning Apostates I thinke Albaspinaeus proves it Novatus say some Albaspin Obs l. â— Obs 21. denied that any falling after baptisme could be restored by repentance Albaspinaeus saith it is a mistake for his Errour was That he denied that Christ had given power to the Church to absolve or restore any In opposition to whom the Church remitted something of her
former severity and instead of Excommunicating or denying the Sacrament till death which before were very frequent ensures they determined that scandalous persons should being admonished and approving themselves to the Church by these steps be restored to a plenary Communion And now I have given my Reader as good an account as I can find of this Primitive Discipline from whence he may observe 1. That we who desire the Presbyterian reformamation in the exercise of our Disâ—â—pâ—ine require no more than the recovery of this ancient Custome of the Churches of Christ It is as cleare as the light 1. That they admitted none to the Sacrament but such as before had approved themselves to the Church to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enlightened with the knowledge of the Principles of Christian Religion 2. Such as were free from all grosse and scandalous sins and if they did fall into any they required not only a verball profession of their sorrow and a promise of their amendment but that according to the nature of their offence they should be kept from the Sacrament till by an humble contrary walking for some time they had manifested their hearty sorrow and repentance To which purpose they set 1 2 5 10 15 20 yeares for them we plead not for such a time but for a convenient time for them to stand ashamed and to evidence their true repentance And though as to every particular circumstance we do not justifie our Fathers yet in these two maine things we agree with them and insist on no more And for the point of examination so much bogled at it is only in order to the setling of our Churches and the correcting the abuses of corrupt Ministers formerly who should have look'd to that to have admitted no blind ignorant persons to the Lords Table which I have sufficiently evidenced was the Discipline of the ancient Church of Christ Secondly From what hath been said the Reader may judge how simply or maliciously Mr Boatman spake when he told his people that it never entred into the heads of wiser ages to determine for what sins any should be suspended from the Lords Table It is a signe he never read the Councils nor any part of them nor yet Basils Canonicall Epistles ad Amphilochium he would have seen there that for Manslaughter Adultery Fornication Perjury Apostacy and many sins more Suspension was determined I shall conclude this Chapter with that exclamation of Albaspinaeus with which he concludes the two and twentieth Observation of his second book O mirabilem sacrosanctae antiquitatis pietatem religionem O veteris disciplinae sanctitatem mirabilem c. O the admirable piety and Religion of sormer times O the wonderfull holinesse of the Church and strictnesse of her Discipline then In those daies if a Christian in the heat of persecution to save his life had but bowed to an Idoll or offered in their Temple though sorely against their will the Church did not only suspend him from the Sacrament but he could not be restored againe till his dying day or till after seven or ten yeares standing as a penitent Now if Christians give up themselves to their lusts and not to save their lives but to satisfie their beastly lusts only be drunke uncleane sweare lye c. yet if they will but wipe their mouths and say they will do so no more they must presently be admitted to the holy Table yea and they usurpe Christs authority that will keep them away if we may beleeve all that is told us Basil ep Canon ad Amphil. Then the Adulterer might not be admitted till by fifteene yeares holy conversation he had evidenced his repentance now we think fifteen months Ib. Can. 58. Ib. Can. 59. yea fifteene daies too much A Fornicatour must abstaine in those daies eight yeares two he must only beg prayers other two he must only heare other two he must mourne a seventh he must stand and merely look on in the eighth he might be admitted If one had stolne and confessed it himselfe Ib. Can. 61. he must have been kept away a yeare if he had not confessed it two yeares Now it is no more but Let him that hath stolne steale no more and come Ib. Can. 64. If a man had sworne falsly and forsworne himselfe then he must have been kept away eleven yeares now if he sweares profanely it is but a Veniall sin if he saies he is sorry our charity must shut her eyes and beleeve him a visible Saint Nay and we must be made beleeve that all former ages were as mad and as loose as we are No no Reader the feare of God was more upon our fore-fathers hearts they durst do no such things they rather offended by too much severity yet sinners in those daies had ten times more temptations to sin and those of the highest nature from the danger of their lives and spoyling their goods c. we may be as strict as we will and are not tempted but when we are drawn away by our own lusts and enticed O how inexcusable shall the Ministers and Elders of Congregations appeare before the Lord Jesus Christ for the exposing his body and bloud to profanation Shall not the Lord say Behold here my Servants Tertullian and Cyprian how strict they were in furious times Behold my Servant Chrysostome who would rather have suffered his own bloud to have been shed than my Sons to be profaned Behold my Servant Ambrose he was not afraid of the face of an Emperour Theodosius but in a just cause he denied him the Sacrament you were afraid of the face of a rich man afraid of losing ten shillings a yeare afraid of losing the love of those who hate me what shall we say How shall we appeare before the Lord Shall not blushing cover our faces that day The Lord grant it be laid to none of our charge FINIS An Appendix to the former Discourse containing a Discourse of Mr Boatmans in a publike Lecture at Peters in Norwich seeming to answer my first Argument upon the first Question by putting another interpretation upon Mat. 7.6 With some Animadversions tending to prove he said nothing to the purpose in the said Discourse Reader I Shall trouble thee a little further upon the twenty third of March as I told thee in my Preface being intreated by a Reverend Brother in the City to preach his Lecture I preached upon Mat. 7.6 My Sermon was the sum of my first Argument upon the first Question delivered in thesi without the least particular reflection Upon the Lords day after a Friend told me that he heard Mr Boatman did intend to confute me the next Tuesday Accordingly he tooke my Text what work he made with it thou shalt read in the following sheets containing a Copy of his Sermon taken in short-hand from his mouth by a faithfull hand as to the materiall passages which I have to do with I can prove them by many
legally uncleanes 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 shast 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 Beza de Excom p. 19 20. 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 restoring the Worship of God set Porters to keep out of the Sanctuary those who were uncleane in anything Mr Giltespy 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's Bar c. p. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. M Palmer c. answ to Mr Humfry vind Presb Govern p. 62. Dr Drake hath likewise sufficiently proved it against Mr Humfry Mr Palmer c. 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 a leper 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. Page 45. 23.19 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 Dr Lightfoots Temple service c. 12. the Passeover was to be eaten in private houses 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 It is sin in a Minister to declare those one visible body who are not one body visibly Arg. 10 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 Aatons Rod l. 3. c 7 p. 425. V. etiam Hieron Zâ—nen Epist l. 1. in epistola
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 Batchelor 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 Vindication of sus divinum p. 12. Tert. Apol. c 39. Orig. l. 3. contâ—a Celsum Basil in Ps 33. Optatus l. 1. adv Parâ—â—n Aâ—bâ—spin ibid. Hâ—er in Is â— 2 Aug. ep 137. l. 3. con 〈◊〉 c. 56. Serm. 19. in Psal 3â— Greg. Mag. l. 11. ep 19. Albaspineus 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 Ruling 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 Preâ—bytery or single Minister who yet were not excommunicated And this I hope to do which iâ— I do let the world 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 few 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dion Areop cap. Î¥. ex edit Morellii octavo 1562. p. 141. and the Poenitents 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 In lib. 4. and this is conforme to what Renatus Laurentius de la Farre in his Annotations on Tertullian Tert. advers Mare tells us This order of Converts were likewise by Tertullian and Cyprian c. called Audientes Auditores and they had a particular Teacher Euseb l. 5. l. 6. cap. 3. Eusebius tels us Pantaenus was their first Teacher then Clemens Alexand. afterward Demetrius made Origen their Teacher and Cyprian tels us Cypr. ep 22. that with the consent of the Presbyters he after made Optatus their Teacher Now there 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