All that I shall say is we hope Longe aliter in Coelo quam Boudenae de Presbyterio conclusum est Jesus Christ and Mr. Timson are not both of a mind But in the mean time Qâ—is tulerâ— Gracchos de seditione querentes why doth Mr. â—imson inveigh against unbrotherly uncharitable weak dealing before he hath apologized for his own dealing in that manner with so many men and Churches too I think the impartial Reader of his book may see enough of it in his book Thus we see not onely what he observes That good men are apt to reprove others in things controverted but also for things they will do themselves In his 12. and 13. pages he puts some Quaeries upon the 1 Cor. 11. an ingenuous answer to which he thinks would moderate our rigour as he calls it and therefore he hath favoured us with his opinion as to them p. 14 15 16 17. c. Because indeed all his superstructure stands upon the foundation he here laies I shall crave leave to examine a little what he saies here 1. I observe that in propounding them he forgot the rule of Frusta fiâ— per plura quod fieri possit per pauciora For his four first quaeries are reducible to this one 1. Q Whether the unworthy Receiving mentioned 1 Cor. 11.29 for which the Corinthians were chastned v. 30. was personal or habitual or meerly actual miscarriages in reference to the order in which they ought to have received His fifth sixth and seventh are reducible to this second 2. Q. Whether the duty of self-examination prescribed by the Apostle as a Remedy to prevent future Judgements were not such as the unregenerate and most ignorant person might use c. 3. Q. His eighth Whether an incapacity to perform this duty or neglect of it did give a writ of ease from the precept of publique duty and service Do this in Remembrance of me 4. Q. His last quaery is Whether there be any thing in the institution nature language and actions of the Sacrament in the Context or elsewhere incongruous to the unregenate mans receiving As to the first of these Queries Mr. Timson thinks p. 14. That they are not blamed for their personal unworthynesse for chap. 1. ver 1 2. they were all sanctified in Christ Jesus called to be Saints I see no great harm is like to come of it if we should grant that the Apostle there doth not primarily speak of habitual personal unworthiness but actual But Mr. Timson in his answer to the second and third Query thinks the unworthy eating signifies only their disorderly eating and for this onely p. 14. he thinks they were punished v. 30. this is the Summ of what he saies p. 14 15. 16 17 18. To which I answer 1. T is not much materiall to dispute whether the Apostle there speaks of habitual unworthiness or only actual That there is a personal unworthyness himself must grant or else Turks and Excommunicated persons cannot be excluded 2. Whether every unregenerate man as unregenerate be personally unworthy Mr. Timson seems to doubt we believe but there is no need to dispute it here For 3. We grant that every Church member is by us to be lookt upon as habitually worthy unless by some actual miscarriage he declares himself actually unworthy which we believe may be done as well by his ignorance discovering his actual misimproving of the means of grace as by his scandalous life and conversation Yet we believe their Church-membership is not that which makes them habitually worthy but their interest in Christ which charity obligeth us to believe they have till by some fruits they discover to us the contrary 4. We dare not deny but the disorderly eating in the Church of Corinth was an unworthy eating and might be a cause of their punishment ver 30. we know God is very tender of his own order God hath made a breach upon us saith David in Vzzah's case because we sought him not in due order 5. But that a man should not be capable of eating unworthily except by such disorderly receiving or that all the unworthy eating of the Corinthians should be their disorderly eating or that this should be the only sin for which they were punished with death These things we cannot digest without some good Arguments to crowd them down 1. Because the Apostle chap. 5. had told the Corinthians they could not keep the Feast with the old leaven of malice and wickedness and bidden them purge out the old leaven ver 7 8. and not eat with one called a Brother who should be a Fornicator an Idolator c. And again chap. 10. ve 21. had told them They could not drink of the cup of the Lord and of the cup of Devils and that they could not be partakers of the Table of the Lord and of the Table of Devils 2. Because it seems very absurd to us that a man who should offend but in a point of order should be guilty of the body and blood of Christ and eat and drink damnation to himself which are the two things predicated of the unworthy Receiver and he who comes reaking with the guilt of scandalous sins should not at all be guilty or lyable to Gods Judgements Thirdly because we cannot conceive that God should be so unlike himself as to look upon one legally unclean unworthy to eat the Passeover under the old Testament and yet look upon one morally unclean as worthy under the New Testament We therefore humbly conceive till Mr. Timson makes the contrary appear to us that the Subject of those propositions 1 Cor. 11.27 29 viz. He who eateth and drinketh unworthily must be expounded as well by the fiâ—th and tenth chapters as by what precedeth in this and that those did as well eat and drink unworthily who kept the Feast with old leaven who did partake of the Cup of Devils chap. 10. as those who came in disorderly parties to the Lords Table and mingled that Feast with their Love-feasts And â—hat they were as well punished for the former as the latter sins I have done with his four first Quaeries His fifth and sixth quaeries are What Remedy the Apostle prescribes whether the most ignorant person owning the true religion and the unregenerate might not use it so far as to prevent the Judgements and receive benefiâ— Mr. Timson saies the remedy propounded is by Instruction and Direction Instruction to which purpose he remembers them of the Institution True he doth so but whether as a mean to convince them of their sin or a Remedy I think may be a question 2 Then saith he he directs them to examine themselves and to tarry for one another True but is this all in case there be scandalous sinners in the Church are the ministers and officers of the Church to do nothing else but bid them examine themselves This we are told indeed Mr. Boatman told us so too I remember but I hope in the fifth chap. the
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
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
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
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
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
such a prosession as is real or at least not visibly contradicted The Apostles baptized and admitted to the Sacrament such as made a profession of the faith not contradicting it by a lewd life it doth not therefore follow that we must admit to the Sacrament such as make indeed a verbal profession but at the same time in works deny him to whom in words they profess we deny the Sacrament to none who make as much profession of their faith as those did whom the Apostles Acts 2. admitted to the Sacrament The Sacrament ought to be administred to all Saints Argum. 6 But all Christians are Saints Saint Paul calls the Corinthians so Ergo. 1 Here is the same fallacy again The sacrament is to be administred to all Saints That is to all who visibly appear sanctified through the Spirit of grace but all Christians are not Saints in that sense So the minor is false 1. In some sense all baptized persons are Saints as they are separated from Heathens and by their baptism dedicated to God if Saints be taken in this sense the Major is false Children of believing parents are called holy 1 Cor 7. that is Saints federally but yet I hope Mr. Barksdale will concur with the reformed Churches in acknowledging the admission of children the errour of some primitive Churches 3. St. Paul calls all the Members of the visible Church Saints but it will lie upon Mr. Barksdale to prove that he means it of them all viritim I believe it a term applyed to them conjunctim and the Denomination taken à parte meliori Those who were admitted in the Church of Corinth Argum 7 may be admitted in our Churches But disorderly persons were admitted in the Church of Corinth Ergo. The Major presumes the Church of Corinth perfect and that they did nothing amiss the contrary to which is plain from 1 Cor. 5. else the Major is false for wherein the Church of Corinth was sinfully remiss they ought not to be our pattern But Mr. Barksdale tells us They were not blamed for their comming together but for their comming together for the worse Be it so and that which caused this was the scandalous persons amongst them with whom they ought not to have eaten as he told them in the fifth chapter But the Apostle doth not check the Minister and forbid him to offer the Sacrament but onely bids them examine themselves True he saies no more 1 Cor. 11. But it was because he had said enough before 1 Cor. 5.8 10 11 12. Those who may be admitted to join with us in prayers and singing Psalms may also be admitted to the Sacrament Argum. 8 1. Either this Proposition is false or let me assume 1. But Turks and Indians may be admitted to pray and sing with us Yet I hope Mr. Barksdale will not admit them to his Sacrament 2. Prayer and praise are pieces of Natural worship homages due from God as their Creator O come let us worship and bow down and kneel before the Lord our Maker receiving the Sacrament is a piece of instituted worship for those who have interest in Christ as a Redeemer But Mr. Barksdale tells us we sing the hundred Psalm with them We are his flock Sol. So we read in their ears 1 Cor. 6.11 yet it will not follow all of them are washed and justified and sanctified c. Yet they are his flock in the sense of that Psalm he hath made them and he feeds them they are the sheep of his Pasture so he doth the Young Ravens Matth. 6. yet it will not follow they must have the Sacrament They are of the great flock But Christ hath a little flock to whom he will give the Kingdom to these the Sacrament belongs only not are we to give it to any but such as are visibly of this flock A converting quickning Ordinance belongs to all Argum. 9 But the Sacrament is a converting Ordinance Ergo. The Major is granted He proves the Minor because the word is joined with it and if the word alone be much more when conjoined with the other At once to shew the Vanity of this opinion which so prevails in the world that the Sacrament is a converting Ordinance Sol. I argue 1. If it be so then it is proper and consonant to Scripture to go amongst heathens and as soon as we come call them to a Sacrament in order to their conversion as to preach the Gospel to them But surely none ever thought so nor was it ever practised in the world yet what it may be if these principles be well practised I cannot tell 2. Again if it be a converting Ordinance there can be no personal unworthiness sufficient to debar any from it then come Turks Indians Papists Incestuous persons excommunicate persons c. 3. If it be a converting Ordinance I see no reason why the Communicant should be bound to examine himself and so eat or whether he hath skill to discern the Lords body But to answer distinctly 1. When we speak of converting Ordinances we mean Appointments of Jesus Christ for the conversion of souls to himself distinguishing betwixt those things which may be useful ex accidente to convince and convert and what ex instituto is designed to that end Hearing of the word is such Faith comes by hearing Rom. 10. Hear and your souls shall live Isaiah 55. Let any one shew us any Scripture speaking to this purpose concerning the Lords Supper 2. Besides the preaching of the word is one thing but the readin◠the word of Institution at a Sacrament is another thing let Mr. Barksdale prove the latter appointed by Christ for conversion 3. Either the word alone read at the administration is a converting Ordinance or the Word and Elements making up the Sacrament If it be only the word wicked men for ought I know may stay and hear that if he sayes more he must prove it But to his tenth Argument Those whose children may be admitted to Baptism Argum. 10 themselves may be admitted to the Lords Supper But the children of the ignorant and scandalous may be admitted to Baptism Ergo. Though some will deny the Minor yet it shall satisfy me to put Mr. Barksdale to prove the Major 1. Children are baptized in their parents right I see no reason why it should necessarily be the immediate parent 2. Besides there is no self-examination pre-required to baptism 3. The children of the legally unclean were not forbidden circumcision 1. But the parent must have a personal right to the Lords Supper 2. He must examine himself and so eat 3. Of old if he were legally unclean he must not eat the Passover What we cannot help we must do But we cannot help promiscuous admintstrations Argum. 11 The Major is questionless true ultra posse non datur esse But the Minor is false Cannot must be expounded Physically or Morally if he means of the first we can help it Ambrose would not administer till Theodosius
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.
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
ibid. ibid. A third Argument he useth which is Dr Drakes fifth Arg. is because all those comfortable expressions Christ used while Iudas was there were with exceptions Iohn 13.10 11. You are clean but not all So ver 18. ver 21. which were left out at the Supper To these Mr Humfry replies what all did Christ never speake graciously to Judas amongst the rest Rejoind p. 9 10. Pray see at leisure Wee may look long enough where after this time he spake comfortably to him wee desire Mr Humfry to shew us But as for Iohn 13.10 11 18 21. he saies it is not in him to answer them I suppose hee meanes God shall give an answer rf peace But he tels us Christ saith he is a Devill but I have chosen him to what to be an Apostle he was not apparently so when he chose him He saies that Christ saies Iudas was not clean yet he washes his feet but the Text saies it not 2. Suppose he did this was but to teach him humility and charity not to entitle him to the Lords Supper 4. Dr Drake adds Because Christ knew him to be a reprobaâ—e To this Mr Humfry onely endeavours to little purpose to fasten a contradiction on the Dr because the Doctor had said before supposing he had knowne him to be so yet Christ as a Minister probably would not exclude him Let the Doctor speak for himselfe 5. Dr Drake adds a fifth Because Christs blood was shed for the remission of those who received Mr Humfry answers 1 Iohn 2.2 And not for ours onely but for the sins of the whole world that is the Pagans as well as the Jewes viz. such of them as being fore ordained to life should beleeve but what is this to the purpose What Mr Humfry meanes by holding universall redemption as to the visible Church so far as reacheth to the tenour and tender of the conditionall Covenant though not of the absolute is too profound for me to fathome Universall redemption Conditionall Covenant Two Convenants one absolute another conditionall are notions in Divinity I doe not understand and think them hardly reconcilable to truth if to sense they are the canting language of those that would supply Franciscus de Sancta Clara's place as to reconciling us and Arminians and are no better then Arminianisme minced for the better digestion Dr Drake also hath another Argument which Mr Gillespy also hints because Christ promised to drinke new wine in his Fathers Kingdome with those who received To this Mr Humfry answereth But he doth not say with all Let him remember that and shew us where it is said that all the twelve were present at the institution of the Supper There is thus much spoken all which possibly will not compell but surely in good natured people it will induce some little perswasion of a probability that Judas was not there Let us now heare what is pleaded on the Traitours side 1. Mat. 26.20 It is said he sate down with the twelve Mar. 14.17 He came with the twelve Luke 22.14 He sate down and the twelve Apostles with him Here 's three Evangelists asserting it they cry But what doe they assert that at their first sitting downe the twelve were all there who denies it the question is not whether they sate downe together but whether they rose up together whether they are the Sacrament together Iohn telling us that Judas went out assoone as he had eaten the sop John 13.30 But Luke tels us that after the institution of the Supper Christ said behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the Table and Lukes Gospell is true Dr Drake answers that there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke puts a piece of the story behind which should have been before Mr Humfry out of his pretended zeale for Saint Luke who he saies could not else speake truth saith that though the Scripture sometimes puts a whole story after another which in order of time was before it yet where shall we find such an histerology as to take a piece of a former story and joine it to another as a part of it Mr Humfries rejoind p. 12 13. to which â—f it be taken as belonging it becomes a manifest fâ—lshood and saies we will not abate a jot or tittle of the truth of Saint Lukes Gospell That those words of Saint Luke should have been placed before is plaine 1. From St Luke himselfe for their hands were now all off the Table the Supper done and the last cup drunke besides he adds ver 23. that the Disciples all wondred who should doe the thing now surely they knew before this time or else Iudas as Mr Humfry would have him could not be scandalous at this time his fact not known to his Disciples 2. St Maâ—thew plainly placeth them before the Administration of the Supper Mat. 26.20 21 22 23 24. So doth Marke ch 14 18 19 20 21. So Saint Iohn Io 13.21 22. which plainly proves it an histerology in Luke 3. Nor is it as Mr Humfry would insinuate a taking a piece of one story and joining it to another which would make it false but onely a misplacing of a piece of the same story which is no unusuall thing amongst the Evangelists 4. Nor will it amount to so much as an invalidating the truth of Lukes Gospell which we desire to be as tender of as Mr Humfry any more then the order he pleades for would invalidate the truth of the other three Lukes being dictated by an infallible spirit doth not oblige us to beleeve every punctilio of order to have been as he describes it contrary to the testimony of the other three Besides Iohn saith plainly he went out But he tels us we are mistaken in Iohn 13. for that was a Supper I know not when nor where two dayes before the Passcover and for this he cites a marginall quotation in our Bibles pointing him to Mat. 26.2 which he bids us look 1. I must confesse this well proved would be something to his purpose 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 scandalous to all the Disciples and that two dayes before he deserted Christ and the other Disciples onely if Mr Humfry 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 Biblâ—is 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
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