Office forbids him and in that he is not commanded he is expresly forbidden Now a Minister is not commanded any where surely to give it to those who are forbidden to receive it To say no more in this case I hope we have all too neverent thoughts of the wisdome of God to think that he should lay his Minister under an obligation to administer his Ordinance to those whom he hath warned upon pain of damnation not to take it Though this were enough for those who encline to the other sense doe cleerly yet grant that those who partook of the Table of Devils are here either forbidden that Table or the Lords Table which if it be true as questionlesse it is our Adversaries must maintaine that they are commanded to give the Sacrament to those whom the same God forbids to take it yet possibly the other part may be more disputable viz. Whether a Minister of the Gospell and his Eldership way without sin admit any to the supper of the Lord concerning whom they know that in their present state they cannot have Communion with Christ in the Ordinance c. I will try whether I can prove the Negative None can without sin knowingly expose the Ordinance of God to necessary abuse and profanation But who ever administers the Ordinance of the Supper to those concerning whom he or they know they cannot have communion with Christ in the Ordinance exposeth the Ordinance to a necessary abuse and profanation Ergo. The major is plaine enough the minor is as cleere if we consider when or how an Ordinance is profaned or abused Her Priests have violated my Law and have profaned my holy things they have put no difference between the holy and the profane neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean Ezek. 22.26 A thing is then abused when it is not turned to a right use but surely he can never turn the Ordinance to a right use that cannot have Communion with Christ in it I come to the minor I thinke enough is said to prove the major that it is sin for any to give the Lords Supper to those that cannot eat and drink there that is to such either as are forbidden that Table or such as cannot have Communion with Christ in it But there may be some known in the Church who are forbidden to come at the Lords Table or who cannot have Communion with Christ in it Ergo. That there may be some such in the Church I suppose none will deny but the question is whether there may be some in the Church that may be known to be such I prove there may If there may be some in the Church who may be known to have fellowship with Devils and to drink of the cup of Devils then there may bee some in the Church who may be known to be such as cannot drink of the cup of the Lord nor eat at his Table But there may be some in the Church who may bee known to have fellowship with Devils and to drink of their cup. Ergo. The consequence is plaine from the Apostle 1 Cor. 10.20 21. And the assumption is as plaine for there were such in the Church of Corinth Ergo. Object If any object But the Church is not bidden to keep them away if they doe come Sol. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we grant it but I have already proved that here is an implicit consequentiall prohibition of the Church to admit such and he had before forbidden them with Idolaters not to eat 1 Cor. 5.11 of which place more hereafter God willing Object But will some say this was for an open horrid sin Idolatry c. having fellowship with Devils c. Sol. Admit it yet thus much we have gained that Idolaters though they be not excommunicated yet they may be denied the Lords supper as well as persecutors by Mat. 7.6 But secondly let us observe what fellowship these Corinthians had with Devils they did not make a compact with Devils they did not worship the Devill as some Idolaters the businesse was only this They being Members of a Gospell Church did eat at Banquets of those Meates which were before sacrificed to their Idols they did not sacrifice with them but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After the Idolaters had been sacrificing they came to their Feasts simply to eat the meat was nothing nor had the Idol made it worse and had it been sold in the Shambles the Apostle determined before that they might have bought it and eat it that which altered the case was onely the shew that it made to the Idolaters of their complying with them and the circumstances of time and place yet the Apostle determines this a fellowship with Devils and Idolatry such a sin as they who are guilty of it could have no communion with Christ in this Ordinance Suppose they had made a compact with the Devill or gone and worshipped the Idols surely the Apostle would much more have said it of such 3. I cannot see but every scandalous sinner every Drunkard Swearer Adulterer c. hath as great a fellowship with Devils as the Corinthians had One thing I desire you to observe There might be latent grace in these Corinthians hearts and doubtless was yet while they lay under this scandall the Apostle determines that they were such as could not eat at the Table nor drink of the cup of the Lord. Whence I conclude That there may be such in a Church concerning whom it may be knowne that they cannot eat at the Lords Table nor drink the Lords cup. It will not be enough to say that God may give them repentance for ought we know at the time or upon their receiving In the mean time till their repentance bee evident they may be knowne and ought to be judged by us as such as cannot eat at the Lords Table nor drink the Lords cup. It is cleare Clem Alex. in paedagogo l. 2. p. 143.144 edit cut 1629. Tertullianus spectac l. c. 12. Cypr. in ep 10. quoest ad Clerum l. de lapsis non procul ab initio that the Ancients thought this having fellowship with Devils was of vast extent one applies it to all such as intemperately use the Creatures Tertullian applies it to forbid any kind of presence at or countenancing of any superstitious practices though but a looking on in his book de spectaculis Cyprian in his Tenth Epistle chideth the Presbyters by vertue of this very Text that they would admit to the Lords Supper such as had sacrificed to Idols through feare before they had sufficient evidence of their repentance and tels us that the Church in in his time for lesser offences was wont to require satisfaction before Communion was allowed to the sinners And in his book de lapsis he doth sadly lament the hasty admission of such to the Sacrament Gualther ad loc Gualther observes from this Text the vanity
scandalous sinner but even Iudas himselfe was both in the Disciples eyes and in Christs eyes acting not as an omniscient God but as a Minister of the Gospell a visible Saint Which was the answer as I remember of Bonaventure I am sure of Halensis and Salmeron long since and is the generall answer of our Divines to that cavill Nor hath Mr Humfry in his Rejoinder said any thing to prove Iudas then scandalous for though as Erastus noted before him he had then treason in his heart and supposing that to be true which Erastus and Mr Humfry so much plead but I scarce beleeve that he had before covenanted with the High Priests yet all this was secret and he was not discovered till upon Christ giving him the sop he asking is it I Christ said thou saiest it and that reply of Christ was before as some think Grotius well observes that Christ did but whisper it to him for it is plaine from Iohn 13. that the Disciples knew it not till then and he then having received the sop went out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Iohn which by the way as I shall prove more anon was both before the eating of the Paschall Lambe and before the institution of the Lords Supper too It is worth our observing that Christ did not so much as call up those of the same house which it is more then probable that he would have done if he had intended it for a converting Ordinance or for all promiscuously Nay surely Christ had more disciples then the twelve but the twelve onely if all of them were present 2. Some think that they have a precept for promiscuous administring this Ordinance from Mat. 28.19 20. where we have our commission in these words Goe teach all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father the Sonne and the Holy Ghost 1. To that I answer 1. There is nothing exprest concerning the administration of the Lords Supper and our opposites who are so nimble at every turn to call for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should remember that by it they oblige themselves to doe the like But secondly admit that there is an implicit precept likewise for the administration of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper yet surely by the same rule that the Apostles notwithstanding that precept did not think themselves obliged to baptize any but such as beleeved and confessed their sins we may also expound the included part of the precept and must administer this Ordinance to none but such as are able to examine themselves and to discerne the Lord Body So that this will not serve their turne Thirdly Erastus and Mr Humfry and Mr Boatman make a great stir with the wedding Supper Mat. 22. to which all were invited c. But 1. They should remember that old and true rule Theologia parabolica non est argumentativa No argument can be fetcht from Parables but from the generall scope of them v Mr Humfrie's rejoinder p. 52 53. 54 〈◊〉 Now he that runs may read that our Saviours main scope in that Parable was not to shew who might or might not come to the Lords Table but to shew how angry God was with the Jewes for not comming to Christ by which unbeliefe of theirs they procured destruction to themselves and God would now call in the Heathens and those who before were not his people to be his people and to fill up his Feast 2. If Mr Humfry or Mr Boatman thinke they may argue from any of the foure feet of that parable as to this cause they may prove it to be their duty not onely to stand in a Pulpit and invite all the Lords Table but to goe into high waies and hedges too and bring in all they meet with yea and to compell them to come in Now it will prove too that they ought to fetch in Pagans who are chiefly meant in the latter part of the Parable And thus they shall not need to want company at the Lords Table 3. Doctor Drake answered Mr Humfry well I think when he told him that Christ is the Feast meant in that Parable and although all be invited to the Feast Christ yet the question is whether all be invited to eat of that dish in the Feast Dr Drokes Bar to free admission p 30. Mr Humfries rejoinder p. 54. viz. the Sacrament of the Lords Supper as wel as they are invited to hear the Gospel Here now M. Humfry hath a mind more to shew his wit then his honesty thus he answers him p. 54. This is something ingenuous but whereas he applies this that a man may be invited to a Feast yet not to the dish in the Feast it is very fine c. then he tels us a tale of the two egs and concludes let us have the dishes of the Foast and what will become of Mr Drakes Feast How falsly hath he abused Dr Drake let the Reader judge Dr Drake doth not say they are not invited to any dish but they are not invited to every dish and if the dish of the Sacrament be removed there will a Feast still remaine But the truth is it was properest for Mr Humfry to abuse his Adversary when he could not answer him If this and other passages of the same nature in that unworthy book be not enough to make it stink in the nostrils of conscientious Christians let them but read his language p. 269. and the application of Scripture to serve his nastie intentions and they may help a little towards it 4. I never heard of any more Scripture precepts protended onely that 1 Cor. 11.24 where I desire the Reader to consider 1. That the Apostle doth but repeat the words of our Saviour which were spoke to none but visible Saints 2. The Apostle delivers the same words to them he bids them Doe that c. Which by the way is not a command to their Pastors to administer it but to the Church to receive the Sacrament and surely doth not concerne those who in that Chapter are commanded to examine themselves c. and are not able to doe it The question is whether the Apostle v. 24. doth command them to receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper who could not examine themselves according his rule v. 28. nor discern the Lords body or who if they did partake must necessarily eat and drink their owne damnation and make themselves guilty of the body and blood of Christ Surely this was very absurd to say If not this precept is nothing to the purpose sounding no more then this you that are fit to doe this doe this We are now come to examine if they have any examples I never heard but of three pretended indeed they are great ones and enough if they be made appeare for their purpose The first that of Christ who admitted Iudas as some think The second Mr Humfry mentions Acts 2.41.42 The third is of the Church of Corinth I will speak of the latter two
them How impossible is it they should do that duty which is requisite from them to discharge their owne soules without the doing of which they cannot without sin communicate with them Mr Humfry heales the wound of the Daughter of the Lords people flightly Rejoynder pag. 263. when he saies If thy conscience tels thee it is a sin thou art to repent of it by resolving to take the next opportunity to do it and so come 1. So then not doing our duty in order to scandalous persons is sin or not sin according as Conscience tels us This comes up to the Ranters Atheism Nothing is sin but what a man thinkes sin I should have thought that that If should have been left out for it is plainly our duty Mat. 18.18 and the neglect our sin 2. I doubt whether a man lying under the conscience of any sin against his Neighbour can lawfully partake tilthe hath done what in him lies to satisfie Suppose a man hath stollen I should thinke he must not only resolve but if he be able make restitution before he comes to the Lords Table 3. It is a question whether any lying under the guilt of any sin not quotidiana incursionis be bound in duty to come to the Lords Table before he hath evidenced his repentance by the contrary practice To me the negative is out of question But in the last place Though the Ordinance be not polluted by the presence of a scandalous sinner nor the conscience of the worthy Communicant who hath prepared his own heart and done what in him lies towards the reformation and suspension of the scandalous 3. Yet the Officers of the Church are polluted because they have not done their duty for they should have admonished him and being under censure suspended him till he had satisfied the Church Lastly 4. The Fellowship of the Church in generall is polluted the Apostle teacheth us 1 Cor. 5. that the continuing of one scandalous person in the bosome of the Church leavens the whole Lumpe the neglect of a private member redounds indeed but to his owne guilt and defilement but the neglect of the Officers of a Church redounds to the guilt and defilement of the whole Church and justly 1. Partly because they are the representative part of the Church 2. Because it is in the Churches power to remove them if not in the power of a Congregationall Church yet in the power of a Synodicall Church But I shall enlarge no further on this Argument CHAP. VIII Wherein by a seventh Argument the lawfulnesse of suspension is proved because there can lie no Obligation upon the Officers of the Church to give the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to such as visibly are not bound to Receive ARGUMENT 7. Either it is lawfull for the Officers of the Church to deny the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to such as they find ignorant and scandalous and impenitent Or they are bound to give it to such But they are not bound to give it to any such Ergo THe major is unquestionably evident The Minor is to be proved which I prove thus The Officers of the Church are not bound to administer the Ordinance to those who they know are not bound to receive it But grosly ignorant and impenitent scandalous sinners are visibly such as are not bound to receive it Ergo. I shall first open and prove the Major and then come to the Minor 1. I grant that the Minister of the Gospell may be bound to administer an Ordinance to such a one as is not bound to receive it because he may otherwise appeare to him and his unworthinesse may be hid from him We are bound to hold out the Promise as an object of faith to all who appeare to have their hearts smitten with the sense of sin though some of them be Hip ocrites we know not who are so 2. But it seems strange to me considering that a Ministers giving the Sacrament and the peoples receiving are relate acts that a Minister should be bound to give to such as he knows are not bound to receive can any one thinke that there should lye an Obligation upon us to preach to our people if it could be proved that there lay no Obligation upon them to heare Now I assume But grossely ignorant and impenitent scandalous sinners are such as visibly appeare not bound to receive the Lords Supper Ergo. That a grossely ignorant and scandalous impenitent sinner while such is bound to receive then he is bound To make himselfe guilty of the body and bloud of Christ To eate and drinke his own damnation To run upon the hazard of being made sick and weake and falling asleep which are all strange things for a man to be bound in conscience unto Let none thinke to avoid this Argument by saying they are bound first to repent and then to receive So that their sin doth not lye in receiving but in not repenting This is plainly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The question is whether the ignorant and impenitent while such if not cast out are bound to receive and it is a begging the question to say they sin in not repenting but not in receiving In receiving saith the Apostle they make themselves guilty of the body and bloud of Christ and they eate and drinke their own damnation And surely if such sinners be not bound to receive the Officers of the Church cannot be bound to give the Ordinance to them the ceasing of their Obligation in reason must also suspend his CHAP. IX Wherein an Eighth and Ninth Argument are brought to prove that Suspension distinct from Excommunication is justifiable from Scripture and sound Reason ARGUMENT 8. If none may be suspended from the Sacrament but those who are Excommunicated then none must be kept away but those who are contumacious But some may be kept away that are not Contumacious Ergo. THe Major is plaine 1. From Scripture Mat. 18. none must be accounted as an Heathen or a Publican but he who refuseth to heare the Church Thus also Divines generally determine So Bonaventure Estius Aquinas Suarez Durandus besides a numberlesse number of Protestant Divines The Minor only needs proofe 1. Surely those that are under admonition ought to be kept away though as yet they declare no Contumacy and it be uncertaine whether they will or no. 2. Suppose one should come to the Minister the morning he were to receive and blaspheme Christ and tell him he came for nothing but to abuse the Church ought this man to be admitted think we Suppose one should come drunke shall he be admitted Mr Humfry saies no what Mr Boatman thinks in that case I cannot tell if he shall not then there is Suspension distinct from Excommunication Suppose a Minister should know one of his Communicants had committed Murther Theft Incest Whoredom the night before according to M Boatmans Doctrine he must be admitted to the Lords Table for Suspension of any person not Excommunicated is
need quote nothing out of him but yet in regard that I am credibly informed that M Boatman had the confidence to quote the French Churches as if they were of his mind and I have met with a passage in Beza which not only speakes his Judgement but the Judgement and Practice of the Churches of God in France I shall transcribe it it is in the Preface of the Book which he directs against Erastus Beza de Presbyterio Excom he calls it Tractatus pius moderatus de verâ Excommunicatione Presbyterio In the Preface of that book you shall find this passage Consistorium igitur habemus c. We have saith he a Consistory in which not only the Ministers of Gods word but twice as many more sit as Judges chosen out of the lesser and greater Senate not without publike notice first given to the people Dissenters as to the received doctrine of the Church are first friendly and brotherly admonished if they will be quiet they are commanded to remaine still for the time to come and there is no further vote of disgrace put upon them if they be stubborne and a second more serious admonition will not profit then they are summoned to the Consistory if they pertinaciously resist their admonition then they are forbidden the Lords Supper being the seale of that doctrine in which they dissent from us and the whole Senate is informed of them The same course is taken against them who discover their profane mind by an open contempt of holy meetings As to the manners of the severall persons when faults are secret we use gentle admonitions as the Lord prescribeth nor is any one called to the Ecclesiasticall Judicatory for a private fault which is not conjoyned with the publike scandall of the Church unlesse he contemneth private admonitions but such as do contemne them are againe admonished by the Church and being convicted by due testimonies if instead of asking pardon they shew themselves obstinate they are according to the word of God Mat. 18.17 commanded to keep from the Supper of the Lord till they declare a change of heart As for more manifest and infamous sins which the Church cannot winke at he that hath so offended for an example to others is summoned to the Consistory but if he askes pardon he is dismissed but if he be admonished the second time and doth not acknowledge his sin and promise amendment then as one who goes on scandalizing the Church he is kept away from the Holy Supper which is a seale of our mutuall communion with Christ and each with other untill he hath given evidence of his repentance In more grosse and open sins which deserve greater than verball corrections only the Church having first had lawfull cognisance of it those that so sin are commanded to humble themselves before the Lord and to keep away from the Lords Table for some time in order to publique edification untill it appeares that their sin is indeed grievous unto them But for open and publike Excommunication denounced before all the Congregation we do not use it but against persons altogether desperate and hopelesse non nisi in poenè deploratos that is his phrase yet saith he for Apostates we do not receive them to communion againe though they professe repentance in the Consistory unlesse they also beg forgivenesse in the open Congregation Thus far this holy and learned and Reverend man which speakes his judgement and the French Churches clearely enough Holy and learned Ames speakes clearely enough Amesii medullae theol l 1. cap. 37. n. 19 20 21. Excommunication saith he is not to be used unlesse to the sin be added contumacy n. 19. Mat. 18.17 The sinner being duly admonished must appeare poenitent or stubborne he that is penitent ought not to be excommunicated therefore the contumacious only N. 21. V. Amesium de conscientia ejus jure casibus l. 4. c. 29. q. 8. When the businesse can admit delay it is agreeable to Scripture and reason that Excommunication be begun first by Suspension and keeping away of the sinner from the Sacrament and other Church-priviledges this saith he is the lesser Excommunication N. 22. But the Church must not stay here but urge the sinners repentance by this way and in this time of his Suspension and when they are out of hopes of that they must proceed to a compleat separation of him from communion with the Church this is the greater Excommunication Anthony Wollebius Ant. Wollebii compendium Christ theol l. 1. cap. 26. Professor sometimes in Basil is of the same mind Lagationis gradus sunt c. The degrees of Censures saith he are 1. Severe admonition by the Presbytery private admonition being rejected 2. Suspension from the Lords Table which he proves from Mat. 7.6 3. Excommunication by which the Party is cast out of the Church 4. Anathema when he is given over as one desperate I will adde the testimony of Wendeline Wendelini l. 1. Christianae theo cap. 23. thes 18. who in his first book Christianae Theologiae in his 23. Chapter in his 18. Thesis determines that he who is subjectum Coenae Dominicae a Subject fit for the Lords Supper must be 1. adultus one grown up 2. Doctrina fidei Christianae imbutus eique addictus one who is endued with a knowledge of the Doctrine of Christianity and a friend to it 3. Vitae Sanctae studiosus one who is studious of an holy life therefore saith he these must be shut out from the Lords Table 1. Infants because they cannot remember the Lords death 2. Because they cannot prepare themselves 2. Those that are ignorant of the Doctrine of Christianity or ab eâ alieni Because saith he this Sacrament is ordained for none but the Citizens of the Christian Church and those who are partakers of the same faith and who embrace and professe the doctrine of the Gospell for as nothing is promised in the Gospell to those who know nothing of Christ or are enemies to the doctrine of the Gospell but the wrath of God is denounced to such so nothing is sealed to them and therefore they are not to be admitted to the seale of the Promise 3. Lastly such as are manifestly wicked and profane and that for three causes 1. Because by their impiety and profanenesse they profane the Lords Supper 2. Because they eate and drinke unworthily and so procure Judgement to themselves 3. Because the Church admitting such provokes God to wrath against it casting holy things and pearles before Dogs and Swine This is enough to shew the judgement of particular men who have been the eminent servants of Christ in all Ages Let us now take in the judgement of whole Churches And it will be fit we should begin at home out of our duty to our mother and considering that of all the Churches of God now in the world the English is and hath been most famous The Church of England
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 fit 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 deb eamus 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
by or finding some other course to have them debarred though my judgement would condemn them as neglecting an Ordinance of Christ yet my charity would beare with them till they were further convinced 2 Others professe their judgements to stand for Presbyteries but they know not how to got any yet they think they are bound to administer the Ordinance Would these men first doe what in them lies to set up the Government of Christ in the hands of his proper Officers and in the meane time 1. Not onely in the Pulpit exhort c. but indeavour to be acquainted with all in their flock going from house to house and taking account of their spirituall estate and observe and enquire concerning their conversations and 3. Pastorally admonish those that they find ignorant of that great sin of Affected ignorance and unprofitablenesse under the meanes of grace and this not only in the Pulpit generally but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 personally and particularly I could say something to excuse them at least à tanto for administring the Ordinance without a Presbytery and they might have a little plea made for them though they kept away none as the state of our Church stands though for my owne part I durst undertake to justifie them in withholding the Sacrament from known scandalous sinners who after pastorall admonition where no more can be shall yet presume to intrude But I heare Mr Humfry and Mr Boatman cry they must be excommunicated first and the latter cry he knows none ignorant nor scandalous if they were yet they both agree that they must be juridically excommunicated But doe these tender men set up this same Court in which the scandalous and ignorant should be first judged or doe they by enquiry of others or observation or examination first endeavour to know such as they invite to the Lords Table and not administer the Ordinance till they have done what in them lies to know whether there be none in their congregations that are ignorant or excommunicate de jure For one of them I can say something though nothing to perswade me or any other that it is from a tendernesse of conscience he is so free I shall now shut up this first Argument it amounts to thus much The holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper is one of those holy things which our Saviour Christ in Mat. 7.6 forbids us to give unto Dogs or to cast before Swine They have the nature of holy things there is no reason to exclude them Expositors generally have so judged Men of impure lives and conversations are Dogs and Swine in Scripture phrase and such as will trample upon the Ordinance It will be an easie conclusion If God hath required those whom he hath betrusted with his holy things not to give them out to such as his word describes to be Dogs and Swine then though there may be some in the Church not yet excommunicated yet they ought not to have the holy thing of the Sacrament given to them But I have proved this to be the will of Christ from this Text Ergo If Mr Boatman can finde out a medium betwixt not giving the Sacrament to them and denying it to them I shall listen to him otherwise by his leave here is a Scripture-prohibition for some to be kept away who are neither Turks nor Jewes nor Heathens nor excommunicated persons and he needed not have challenged all the Ministers on the earth to this task CHAP. III. VVherein a second Argument is brought to prove suspension distinct from excommunication from 1 Cor. 10.21 A second Argument is this It is unlawfull to give the Sacrament to those who cannot eat or drink it But there may be some in the Church not excommunicated who cannot drink of the Lords cup. Ergo I will prove both propositions 1. For the major BEfore I prove it it will be necessary that we consider in what sense the Apostle useth this phrase in the place I allude to 1 Cor. 10.21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the question is what Impotency is there meant 1. That it is not to be understood of the want of a Physicall power is plaine enough for so they might eat at the Table of the Lord and the Devils Table too 2. It must therefore be understood in a morall sense Id tantum possumus quodjur possumus You cannot that is lawfully and warrantably you cannot drink of the cup of the Lord and the cup of Devils Grotius minceth this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too small v. Grotium ad loc when he expounds it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Parens observes against him well that it is a manifest depraving of the sense v. Pareum ad loc the Apostles designe being to shew a plain inconsistency betwixt a fellowship with Christ in his Ordinances and with Devils at Idols Feasts not a meere indecorum in it This is one of the senses which Musculus gives of the Text. 3. I find indeed a third sense of the words hinted Musc ad loc by some reverend Expositors You cannot drink of the cup of the Lord and of the cup of Devils You cannot eat of the Table of the Lord and of the Table of Devils That is say they though you may enjoy an outward Communion in the Ordinance yet you cannot enjoy an inward spirituall Communion with Christ in it As Augustine supposing Judas was at the Lords Supper saith that he did eat Panem Domint but not Panem Dominum But I think Learned Beza saith something against this sense when he tels us that by the Table is meant the Elements upon the Table and by the cup the wine in the cup. If the Apostle had said you cannot eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ if you have fellowship with Devils the Apostle might possibly have been so interpreted but his Argument is plainly to prove the unlawfulnesse of their comming to the Table being guilty of such sinns But the summe of all amounts to this that those who cannot drink the cup and eat at the Table of the Lord in the sense of this Text are either 1. Such as God hath forbidden comming to that Ordinance Or secondly such as if they sush upon the Ordinance yet can have no Communion with Christ no benefit by it I will take it in either sense and I say It is sinfull for any to administer the Ordinance of the Supper to those whom he knowes to be such as are forbidden to meddle with it or whom he knowes to be such as considering their present state cannot have Communion with Christ in it This I hope will easily be proved For surely it will be granted that it is sinfull for any to give it to those to whom he is not commanded to give it for he is the steward of the mysteries of God and must expect his masters order before he deales them out nor will it be enough to say he is not forbidden for his very
Lords Supper onely saith Reverend Gillespy Gillespy Aarons rod. l. 3 c. 7 but the Lords Supper must needs be comprehended as one yea a great part of the meaning And surely there 's all the reason in the world it should considering what Mr S. Rutherford observee that Christians have no solemne spirituall Feasts but that Rutherford divine right cap. 11.9 7. especially if we add saith Mr Gillespy the Analogy of the Passcover there much insilted upon Gil. loc praed But I add further what Feast is here meant I wonder Surely the Apostle doth not speak of any civill ordinary Feast nor any of the Mosaicall Feasts It must then be of some spirituall Gospell-Feast Let us consider how this meraphoricall expression is used elsewhere I remember but two places in Scripture where this terme Feast is used in a metaphoricall sense Pro. 15.15 A good conscience is a continuall feast that is a good continuall cause of joy and rejoycing The other is Is 25. Ravanella in Verbo Festum of which by and by Ravanella ranks all the usages of the terme in the Old Testament where it is taken for the whole or any part of the Jewish Worship under the metaphoricall acceptation and tels us that Zach. 14.16 18 19. it is taken for all the Gospell-worship For the Jewish worship all their service almost might properly be called a Feast because they had literall Feasts at them But 't is certaine the Apostle here doth not exhort the Corinthians to keep the Jewish Feasts Nor can feast be taken for joy and mirth as Pro. 15.15 for then the sense is this Let us keep a Feast of joy which any reader will see was not the Apostles meaning It remains therefore that we expound it by Is 25.6 where the Lord promises to make a Feast of fat things By which he promiseth all Gospell-Ordinances and a Gospell-Communion with his people God makes the Feast in giving us Christ and his Ordinances we keep the feast in waiting upon God in all the duties of Church-Communion Let us keep the Feast is Let us walk in a communion in Gospell Ordinances Let us enjoy Gospell Ordinances and worship God together under the Gospell Not with the leaven of malice and unrighteousness not in a scandalous communion c. Thomas Erastus saith that by feast is meant here Confirm thes â— cap. 6. So Mr Humfry's vind p. 85 v Chrys in oratione contra â—os qui novilunia observant Homil. 40. c. in 12. cap. Mat. a Christians whole conversation I confesse I find some Reverend Expositors of his mind though it may be not wholly Chrysostome is the most Ancient who in his Oration against those who observed new Moons and brought dancings into the City expounds it thus against them telling his hearers that a Christians whole life is a Feast and to be so spent And he saith as much as I remember in his fourth Homily on the twelth Chapter of Matthew Theophylact followes him and yet neither of them restraine it to that No more doth Beza who yet stretcheth it to that latitude Calv. ad loc Calvin also hints it but adds Si Christi carne sanguine pasci velimus afferamus ad hoc epulum sinceritatem veritatem whence may easily be gathered that Mr Calvin thought the Sacament of the Body and Blood of Christ was also here intended which is enough for me I acknowledge many reverend Expositors expound it of an holy life Egâ— vero soli scripturae hunc honorem dâ—serendum censeo c. Hieron 't is enough for me that they doe not exclude the Lords Supper and I must be excused if for the reasons before specified I think it chiefly meant For I have learned with Hierom to give this honour onely to the sacred Word of God to beleeve what it saith because it saith it First therefore I say 1. The Lords Supper is a part of the Gospell-Feast and the onely proper Feast of it 2. The relation this Text hath to the Passcover seemes to me to prove it 3. It was doubtless chiefly in reference to this Communion that the Church was to be purged-for some civill Communion and some Communion with an incestuous person in other Ordinances may be allowed But if we should admit this that the meaning were that we should not in our conversation have Communion with scandalous sinners I see no harme at all would follow upon it For surely if we ought not to converse with such in our civill conversation much less is it lawfull for us to have Communion with such at the Lords Table And surely if it be unlawfull for Christians to have Communion with such though in the Church it is unlawfull for the Officers of the Church to admit such to Communion with them But this we shall fall in with anon in the mean time I maintaine that the clear sense of that place is that we ought not to have a Communion at the Lords Supper with scandalous sinners Argument 2 But I shall come to a second Argument If there may be some in the Church not yet cast out by excommunication who are Fornicators or Covetous or Idolaters or Railers or Drunkards or Extortioners then there may be some such in the Church with whom a Christian ought not to eat the Lords Supper But there may be such in the Church Ergo. The minor will be easily granted The major I ground on 1 Cor. 5.11 All that can be said in the case is that the eating there forbidden is not eating the Lords Supper So saith Thomas Erastus Confirm thesi p. 258. l. 3. c. 8. vind p. 83 84. Mr Prins vind of 4 serious questions p. 9. so Mr Prin so Mr Humfry To this two things have been already answered and except I see need I shall add little of my own 1. That it can never be proved that it is not meant of Sacramentall eating but of civil eating 2. That there are grounds for the contrary opinion 3. That admitting it yet the Argument stands strong First I desire to know a reason why our adversaries will needs restraine that Text to a civill Communion Erastus gives these reasons 1. The Apostles precept concerning denying Communion must not be so interpreted as to contradict Christs precept But Christ commanded all to receive Beza grants both Beza de Presb excom p. 70. and answers that Christ might command his Apostles to doe that which considering the time he did not But although I reverence Beza yet I think he hath granted too much and besides that his answer is not to the objection which is founded not on Christs practice but his precept I deny the Assumption therefore and demand of Erastus and all his followers Erast theses thesi 26.27.28 where Christ commands to give the Sacrament to all Erastus tels us he hath proved it but where none knowes all that I find in him looking that way is but a
it would plainly prove that the sop was eaten by Judas two dayes before the Passeover was celebrated or the Lords Supper instituted and that Judas two dayes before was discovered scandalons to all the Disciples and that two dayes before he deserted Christ and the other Disciples onely if Mr Humfly could prove this it would stand him in hand to prove his coming back well to eat the the Passeover or the Supper 2. But we will yield him nothing he bids us look the margent of our Bibles the place we insist upon is Io. 13.30 where our ordinary Bibles have nothing in the margent so that in obedience to him we must tell him we have enquired but non est inventum in Bibltis nostris Indeed to the first verse of that chap. is affixed in marg Mat. 26.2 But thirdly he dreames that the Supper spoken of where Iudas had the sop was a Feast two dayes before the Passeover Indeed we read Mat. 26.1 2. Mar. 14.1 of some consultation of the Chiefe Priests two daies before the Passeover to take Christ But that there was any supper besides this at the Passeover will pose Mr Humfry to prove CHAP. VI. Containining a digression in which there is an attempt to prove that Christ did eat the Passeover two daies before the Jewes did eat it that yeare and that he was not crucified till the second day after he was apprehended and that at the Passover there was but one supper as is plaine by the comparing the Jewish order of celebration with the story of the foure Evangelists concerning this and that Iudas was not present at the Passeover nor the Supper IT seems to me very conducible towards the clearing of this matter of fact whether Iudas received the Supper or no to find out 1. What day Christ celebrated the passeover and instituted his supper 2. To examine the Iewish order of celebrating the Passeover and to compare it with what the Evangelists have concerning Christs actions in it Towards the first I shall offer these following considerations 1. It is cleer from Scripture that the time God set for the celebration of the Passeover was the 14 day of the first month at even Ex. 12.18 19. Lev. 23. v. 6. Num. 28.16 17. 2. It is as cleer that it was to be 7 dayes in all which time they were to eat no unleavened bread 3. Dr Lightfoots Temple service cap. 12.4 The Lambe at least for the first Passover was taken up the tenth day whether this held or no is doubted and by many denyed it was at first Ex. 12.7 4. It is cleare that the Jewes reckoned the beginning of their day from the setting of the Sunne the night before 5. When the daies of unleavened bread should have begun it is cleer Lev. 23 6. on the fifteenth day they were to eat unleavened bread that is from the evening succeeding Sun-set the fourteenth day Therefore Ex. 12.18 19. it is said on the fourteenth at evening you shall eat unleavened bread which fourteenth at evening was the beginning of the fifteenth and that is clear for they were to end the 21 at even and to hold but seven daies Grotius in Mar. 6. Dr Willet in Ex. 12.9 7. Grotius saies there were eight daies of unleavened bread So Iosephus tels him But Dr Willet tels us Iosephus must not be credited in it it being expresly against Scripture Rupertus is in the same error but we must not yield it 6. Yet because on the fourteenth day they kill'd the Passeover and at even began the first of unleavened bread it is plaine they called the fourteenth day the first of unleavened bread and so saith Dr Lightfoot it is called in Scripture Dr Light Tem. service cap. 12. in the New Testament and so it is called both by Mark and Luke The first day of unleavened bread when the passover was killed Saint Luke when the Passover ought to be killed So that in strict account the dayes of unleavened bread began not till the Sun-set of the fourteenth day yet in vulgar reckoning they began before and the whole fourteenth day was so called 7. And I conceive for another reason which both Buxtorf and Dr Lightfoot hint us ibid. Buxt synag Iud. cap. 12. and that was a custome the Jewes had to send an Officer assoon as ever Sunne was set on the thirteenth day to search for leaven in all houses which he did narrowly with Candles and this search continued till the next day at noon at which time they threw what they found this way and that way Hence I conceive the whole space of time from the thirteenth at Sun-set till the fourteenth at Sun-set was called the first of unleavened bread not that it was strictly so but that it was called so from this fashion And in this Grotius in Mat. 26.17 Grotius agrees with me though not upon this reason It is plain both by Mark and Luke that the fourteenth day is called the first of unleavened bread which fourteenth began at Sunset the thirteenth day 8. For the time in which Christ celebrated the Passover and instituted his Supper it is plaine from the Apostle 1 Cor. 11.23 it was the same night in which he was betrayed For the day wherein he was crucified Beda de ratione temporum Dr Wil. in 12. Ex. qu. 11. Beda tels us that no Christian must doubt but it was the fifteenth day of the month Dr Willet saith it is the received opinion But Learned Scaliger with others conclude the contrary It is certaine that the day whereon he was Crucified was the day or day before the preparation to the Jewish Passover and Sabbath Mat. 15.42 Luke 23.54 Iohn 19.14 42. 9. Scali de emend temp l. 6. p. 566 That he was Crucified before the noon of the day is cleare from Mar. 15.25 it was about the third houre And Mat 26.45 46. after he had been some time on the Cross was the sixth houre when the darkness began Now the Jewes reckoning their houres from our six to six the third houre was nine of the clock at which time saith Mark he was Crucified and the sixth houre was twelve of the clock at which time the darkness began and lasted till three 10. For the better finding out therefore of the night wherein he was betrayed in which he instituted the Supper saith St Paul Let us consider what the Gospell saies was done from the time of the institution of the Supper till his death Some think that excellent Sermon Iohn 14.15 16. was preach'd in the chamber where he administred the Supper Some think it was as he was going to the Mount of Olives and Gethsemane Certaine it is it was after the Supper On the mount of Olives he sings an hymne after this he goeth to Gethsemane and is in an agony prayeth thrice besides that prayer John 17. After this Mat. 27.1 2. Mar. 15.1 2. Judas comes and apprehends him he is carried before
a Minister may either wholly omit the Ordinance or else administer it promiscuously to all be they never so ignorant or scandalous or else thirdly by his own power thus deny it to such as he finds so But in such a case he may not wholly omit the administration of the Ordinance nor secondly administer it promiscuously Ergo. The disjunction cannot be denied for there is no fourth expedient can be found but the way of our dissenting brethren and but some of them neither that all the members should have power which I can never yeeld to till they can tell me who shall be the Ruled if all be Rulers But of my Brethren who are of the Presbyterian perswasion there are two different opinions 1. Some thinke that in such a case he is bound wholly to omit the administration till he can have a Presbytery I must crave leave to dissent here And I thinke Mr Jeanes hath said enough to prove that the totall omission of the Ordinance in a non-presbyterated Church cannot be justifiable 1. All Christs Commands are to be observed in a non-presbyterated Church Do this do it often c. are Christ Commands as well as any other 2. Christ himselfe and his Apostles Act. 2.41 administred it in a none-presbyterate Church 3. Here are fit Communicants and here is a Minister and this is an Ordinance of Christ for the perfecting of the Saints 4. Christs death ought to be remembred in a non-presbyterated Church and the Saints should grow in grace there as well as elsewhere These and the rest of Mr Jeanes his Arguments I must confesse do much prevaile with me to make me thinke that the bare want of Ruling Elders in the Church cannot warrant a Ministers totall neglect of the administration of this Ordinance Besides the ill consequences which would doubtlesse be of such an Omission Such as 1. Peoples running to separate Churches 2. Christians decay in grace and spirituall weaknesses for want of that great Ordinance for strength and quickning 3. A blotting out of the memory of Christs death or at least of that Ordinance out of Christians minds these things make me conclude it sinfull for a godly Minister who hath people fit for a Communion wholly to omit the Ordinance So that a Minister cannot be bound to that 2. Nor can a Minister be bound to administer to those whom he knows to be ignorant and scandalous This most of my former Arguments prove 1. He cannot be bound to give holy things to dogs and cast pearls before swine directly contrary to that Precept Mat. 7. 2. He cannot be bound to give it to those whom he knows cannot drinke the Lords Cup for then there would lye an Obligation upon him to profane the Lords Ordinances 3. He cannot be bound to give it to those with whom it is unlawfull for him to keep that feast or to eate 1 Cor. 5.8 11. 4. He cannot be bound to declare those one body and make those one breast who visibly are not one body 5. His Obligation must be from Scripture precepts or presidents but I have shewed there are none to that purpose 6. He cannot he bound to any act by which he is guilty of making the Communion of the Church impure 7. There cannot lye an Obligation upon him to give the Ordinance to those who visibly appeare to be such as are not bound to receive 8. He cannot be bound to give the Sacrament of the Supper to such as he might not lawfully baptize in case they were not yet baptized I made good these Arguments before and they conclude as well for ministeriall privative suspension as for positive suspension These two parts being such as he may not take 1. He must either put the power of jurisdiction into the hand of the Community and so by their major vote suspend or admit or 2. He must by his own power during this state of the Church put by some not juridically censuring and suspending them but suspending his own act as to such persons The former of these he may not do 1. For Christ never committed any such power to them they are no Officers in the Church 2. That were to make Gods house an house of confusion the body all one member all head to rule c. It remaines therefore that himselfe in such a case being the alone Officer of the Church and bound virtute officii to know the state of his Flock and to take care of their soules do what in him lies 1. To warne the ignorant and scandalous to abstaine 2. That he deny the Sacrament to them if they presume to come That now in such a case the Minister may and ought to take an account of his flock and pastorally to admonish the scandalous and to deterr the unworthy what he can is easily granted me Mr Humfry will yeeld this yea and something more that he may deny it to notorious sinners such as he cals de jure excommunicati by which he only meanes such as are fit to be hanged Mr Jeanes likewise will yeeld this though he is not cleare in allowing to the Minister more than a doctrinall power to keep away any But all the question is Whether the single Minister in such a case if the ignorant and scandalous person will not keepe away may deny the Ordinance to him 1. That he cannot formally pronounce a Church censure against him I yeeld 2. That he cannot take him and turne him out by head and shoulders I grant too The question therefore is narrowed up to this Suppose such a Minister knows one to be notoriously ignorant or scandalous who hath given no evidence of his repentance and this wretch notwithstanding his Pastors admonition of him to keep away will yet when the day of administration comes presse in amongst the Communicants whether the Minister shall sin if he delivers it from hand to hand in passing by such a one and not giving it to him or if he delivers it at once to all and seeth such an one there and declares either more generally that the Elements are only provided for and given unto such as have approved themselves unto him Or if he thinks fit to declare particularly that whereas there are such and such there whom he hath found ignorant or have been scandalous and as yet given no satisfaction he doth not intend them or any of them in his generall delivery of the Ordinance I maintaine the Negative that he shall not sin yea that he should sin if he should not do it it being the only course he can take to fulfill Christs command and not be guilty of giving holy things to dogs c. To the fore-mentioned Arguments I shall adde one more Argument 2 If in such a case the Minister of the Gospell cannot shew himselfe a faithfull Steward of Gods mysteries except he doth deny the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to the ignorant and scandalous though he wants an Eldership then he may in case of