Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	esq_n	john_n	right_a	10,198	5	10.2084	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A80160	Responsoria bipartita, sive vindiciæ suspensionis ecclesiasticæ 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 ... 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 Scriptures. 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, ... In which answer also some objections of Erastus, Mr. Prin, and Mr. Humfry, are coilaterally considered, and answered. The second part in answer to Theophilus Brabourn, who hath talked something in a little pamphlet against the Lord Jesus Christ ... / By John Collings, B.D. and pastor of the church of Christ in Stephens parish in Norwich.	Collinges, John, 1623-1690.	1655 (1655)	Wing C5333; Thomason E832_2; ESTC R207514	201,020	319

his book to sell but that were the way to make the sent of his book spread it self further I shall therefore promise thee nothing but silence If but a rational School-boy shall send me word that he judgeth me answered in any one point it is ten to one but I may vindicate my self otherwaies I shall think him more an object of pitty than any revenge for this age tels us there are some who both want wit to write and discretion to hold their peace And now my dearly beloved friends I am almost ty●ed with Polemical writing and I will not promise you much more of that nature I have endeavoured in two or three treatises to vindicate some truth viz. Concerning the Divine Ordinance and Office of the Ministery in my Vindic●ae Ministerii Evangelici and answer to Mr. Sheppard 2. The preheminecy of the Lord day above Christmas day in my answer to Mr. Fisher c. 3. The divine right of Church Government in the hand of the Ministers and Elders against Mr. Brabourn And now this divine ordinance and antient practice of suspending the ignorant and scandalous from the Lords Supper These scufflings have hindered me from some things possibly more profitable I have part of a discourse neer ready which I have promised the world concerning Temptations if my adversaries disturb me not I shall in the next place apply my self to that work I have been willing to let it sleep while I dispatched this because by this I hope I may be useful to the whole Church and in that but to particular souls which I desire may be my excuse to you But I fear lest the City should run out at the gates Bowing therefore my knees to the God of peace and truth that you may be guided into all truth and established in the right ways of the Lord I rest Chaplyfield-house in Norwich July 16. 1654. Your Cordial friend and servant in the work of the Gospel I. COLLINGS To the Right Wor ll John Mann Esq Mayor of the City of Norwich Much Honoured Sir AS the Influence which that eminent place in this City to which God hath called you and the Engagements which your goodnesse hath laid upon those few Ministers in it who have laboured against great opposition to promote an Ecclesiastick Reformation have justly challenged our observance to you so your eminent appearing not only for it but in it accepting the Office of a Ruler in one of the Congregations of it and your appearing for the restoring of that eminent servant of Christ to his Pastorall charge there again where these unhappy flames of our division have kindled which by the piety and prudence of that Reverend man would have been prevented hath challenged for you the more speciall Dedication of this Tract What you shall find in it the Preface will tell you And the Preface is that alone which needs your Patronage nor should that stand in need of it if some men had not the confidence to deny that the Sunne shines at noon-day whether what is there related be truth or no your selfe can in a great measure satisfie the Enquirer For the substance of the Booke when you have examined it I shall be content you should dismisse it your protection and shall my selfe attend the vindication of it from its adversaries who are ordinarily more clamorous then argumentative If my paines may contribute any thing Sir to encourage your perseverance in that good worke to which the Lord hath quickned you to put your hand as it will be a great matter of encouragement and joy to all of us who are working for the Lord in the refining of Sion while we are almost stifled with the drosse which the corruption of former times hath begot so it will be a great addition to your crown in the day of the Lord and a great crown to him who is Chap●yfield house April 19. 1654. SIR Your most humble and much obliged servant in the Lord Iesus J. COLLINGS The PREFACE To my Christian Reader IT is growne into a fashion for him who entertaines the world in a Book to parley first a little with his gueft at the threshold And although the righteous Judges of Areopagus needed no such complement yet I cannot but judge it a little necessary in this sinfull time and the more in regard of the different complexions of mens perswasions disposing them to faction and to judge unrighteous judgment from the dictate of some particular prejudice What thou art into whose hands my Tract shall come I cannot tell I shall only endeavour to cleare thy eyes from the mist that prejudice and particular affection may have cast before them and be ambitious no further to reconcile thee to me then unto truth It treats of an unpleasing subject The divine Right and Primitive practise of suspending such from the Supper of the Lord who as yet have not their senses exercised to discerne between good and evill and cannot discerne the Lords body such as were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of old and such who since their Baptisme have returned with the dog to the vomit and are yet with the Swine wallowing in the mire of their lusts This is the great bone of contention in the Church of God this day every one would be fellow commoner with the Saints at the Table of childrens bread and those who have not grace to make them worthy yet want patience to beare a being judged unworthy of the highest Gospell-priviledges Reader I suppose thou canst not be so unjust to thy owne reason but to thinke that if the godly Ministers of England durst consult with flesh and bloud that could furnish them with strong Arguments drawne from the augmentation of their livelihood in places where it is arbitrary and from the universall love of their people to compell them into Master Humfryes or Master Boatmans faith Alas what doe we get by our stricter dealings with the soules committed to us except the frownes and reproaches of such whom we durst not cast the holy thing of the Sacrament before It is Gods will that Religion and humane Policy should now and then divide and we humbly submit to God and desire rather to be faithfull Stewards for him then providers for our selves and ours Surely there is so much ingenuity at least in some of the godly Ministers of England as would intitle them to a desire of the love of all and so much earthinesse in all their hearts as exposeth them to some temptations to use all endeavours for a comfortable subsistence in this life If any of them neglects both that and this and chuse rather to venture the begging of their own bread then to throw the childrens bread to dogs rather to prostitute their owne names and lose their interest in the hearts of some people then to prostitute the Lords sacred Ordinance and give his name to a reproach as in this they come short of Chrysostome who professeth he would rather give his

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

his Lexicon he translates it by Buccella a mouthfull Suidas sayes it signifies Bread and not only so but Reiesculente frustulum quantum os capere potest quod ideo Buccea vocatur sive Buccella a morsel or mouthfull of any edible thing Phavorinus expounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 parts little bits of things thence it is joined with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which it needed not if it signified as much alone and indeed for this there is a place plain enough in Diogenes Laertius in the life of Diogenes where we find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for which saith Stephen debuit dicere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Phavorinus saith of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he hath borrowed verbatim from Eustathius who saies the same thing in his comment on the ninth book of the Odysses where we find Homers authority sufficient to spoil the Doctors and Mr. Barksdales notion where it is said of the Cyclops being asleep 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homer Odyss l. 9. From whence it is plain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth onely signify a mouthful a bit and doth not designare materiam and conformably to this Hesychius expounds it only by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now surely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is but a pig of his own Sow and being a diminutive derived from it Hesyc in Lex doth not add to the signification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can be no more than a little 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being daughter to it conformably to this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another sprig from the same root used Rom. 12.20 If thine enemy hunger Rom. 12.20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which surely need not be construed Give him a bit of bread to eat and 1 Cor. 13.3 1 Cor. 13.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where it cannot be construed of bits of Bread except we will say Pauls estate was made up of nothing but loaves of bread By all this the vanity of the Doctors and and Mr. Barksdales Criticism appears as also how dangerous a thing it is to build divinity conclusions upon vain criticisms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies onely a little mouthful be it of what it will for that must be understood by what is joined with it Christ took 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a little mouthfull and gave it to Judas but it still remains to prove that this was bread we say it was the herbs which he dipt in the Charcsheth and gave it to Judas And so much may serve for Mr. Barksdale There is yet a third book come out since I sent my sheets to the Press wrote by one Mr. Timson An Answer to Mr. Timson a private Christian of Great Bowden in Liecestershire It is properly directed as an answer to Dr. Drake I shall not take that learned mans work out of his hand knowing how able he is to do it himself yet craving first pardon of the Doctor now my hand is in I shall subjoin an animadversion or two especially upon such passages in his book as contain the principles on which his whole discourse is built and where he speaks in thesi to the business The Authors study seems to be to beget in his Reader an opinion of his moderation upon which he is something froward with the Doctor for some harsh expressions as he calls them p. 1. words that might have been spared he saith p. 2. he calls it unbrotherly and uncharitable dealing Qui alterum incusat probri ipsum se intueri oportet This had been capable of a very good interpretation if Mr. Timson had taken as much notice of his friend Mr. Humfreys I had almost said brutish reflections upon the Doctor and abusing of Scripture to do it witness the two last pages of his Rejoinder and that vein of Security which runs through the whole book to pass by his false and imperfect proposals of the Doctors answer that he might have advantage to scoff him and all this is prefaced in with such humble professions of self-denyal and piety as are more then ordinary I say if Mr. Timson had equally taken notice of this too he might have been judged more unbiassed then we can now conceive him especially considering his own reflections upon the poor Presbyterians p. 8 9. whom he chargeth with setting up Officers in the Church whom Christ never impowred with the keyes c. and such a way as no word doth warrant and causing a careless forbearance of the Sacrament and suspending persons upon accounts for which ther 's not the least warrant either of Rule or President and making excommunication both less and more than it is and doing many things All which are beside the rule p. 10. T is well he mends it with I think for we hope we are able to make learned men think otherwise or else deny both Scripture and Reason too These are heavy charges and argue as unbrotherly and uncharitable dealings with some hundreds of men in England as learned and judicious as Mr. Timson complains of in the Doctor especially considering there is besides many other a book written in Mr. Timsons mother tongue too called Jus divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici with a Vindication of it published by some learned Brethren of the Province of London proving past Mr. Timsons answering those same offensive officers and that same unwarrantable way and suspension But thus much onely to let the Reader know that as Mr. Timson is much Mr. Humfries friend so he hath imitated him a little too far in quarrelling with his brother for what himself intended to be ten times more guilty of In his fourth page he puts the Question Whether all Church-members not rightly excommunicated may come to the Lords Supper he is for the Affirmative something larger he is in his principles then Mr. Humfry his friend who excepts those who are excommunicate de jure Mr. Humfry and Mr. Timson too except Infants persons distracted and drunken persons The Doctor saies right that by the same reason the Ignorant and scandalous are to be excepted I know Mr. Humfry is angry at this and doth not love to hear of it often whence it is that in his Rejoinder he so ridiculously disturbs his Reader with dallyings but to speak to the business I demand of Mr. Humfry and his friend Mr. Timson what it is which gives one right to the Sacrament I know they will say Church-membership I proceed Either this alone or this and something else If they say this alone it must necessarily follow that according to their principles then all those who are Church-members have a right to it for Quod convenit alicui quà tali must needs convenire omni tali and then Infants and mad men and d●unkards must come let them say what they can If they say that Church-membership alone doth not give them a plenary right Timsons Bar removed p. 5 6 7

8. 1. Many of their arguments will fail as I shall observe anon 2. Some may be suspended 3. I must enquire what it is then which joined with Church-membership doth entitle them I cannot find Mr. Humfrey nor Mr. Timson speaking plainly to this the latter spends time to prove the ignorant and scandalous are more capable then Infants and mad men but he is not clear in telling us wherein their capacity lies whether in this that they have more years which fails in mad men or in this that they have more wit if I understand them them think they are in a more capacity to exercise their reason Well then is this the thing that conjoined with Church-membership gives all a right to the Sacrament then it follows That all Church-members who are able to exercise their reason ought to be admitted to the Table of the Lord. Why are Drunkards then excepted by M. Timson p. 4. excep he means only during the time of their drunkenness But if Mr. Timpson remembers p. 5. he tells us the Church is to enquire what is agreeable to the will of God revealed So then it being granted both by Mr. Humfry and Mr. Timson that meer Church-membership doth not give a plenary right to the Sacrament for then infants and distracted persons and drunkards must not be excepted we in enquiring what else must be conjoined with it must have an eye to the will of God revealed And let Mr. Timson shew us the least shadow of Scripture to prove that a capacity of exercising their reason is that other thing which superadded to Church-membership gives a plenary right and we will be his bond-men In the mean time thus far it is agreed betwixt us that meer Church-membership doth not give one a right Then Mr. Timson hath granted his question against himself for some Church-members not rightly excommunicated may not come to the Lords Table But this then is the question between us what it is which superadded to Church-membership which gives only jus ad rem haereditarium et remotum must give a man jus in re aptitudinarium proximum a plenary full right to the Sacrament Mr. Humfry and Mr. Timson if I understand them say as I said before a capacity to exercise their reason we say Knowledge and Faith which works by holiness Here is the question by whom shall we be tryed By God and the Country saith the Malefactor by God and the Church say we By God speaking to us in his word and inabling us by vertue of that candle set up in us to fetch true conclusions from sacred principles comparing spiritual things with spiritual 1. First I plead against their opinion thus If a meer capacity to exercise reason entituleth a Church-member to the Sacrament than every Church member in such a capacity hath an undoubted right This consequcence stands upon such foundation of reason that he who doth not want the capacity mentioned in it must confess it I assume then But every Church-member that hath a capacity to exercise reason hath not an undoubted right to the Lords Supper Ergo. What Mr. Timson thinks I cannot tell but I am sure Mr. Humfry is almost angry with the D●ctor that he should understand him of such as of right ought to be excommunicated Now surely it is possible that one may be in a capacity to exercise reason and yet so notoriously scandalous that of right he ought to be excommunicated Suppose one had committed incest or adultery and that immediately before a Sacrament such a wretch may be in a capacity to exercise reason yet surely Mr. Timson hath large principles if he thinks such wretches have a plenary right to the Ordinance Let Mr. Humfry and Mr. Timson say what they can Something besides Church-membership must be added to give one a plenary right to the Sacrament or else Infants and distracted persons must have a plenary right And something besides an ability to exercise reason or else an incestuous person immediately after his vileness hath as full a right as any and the like might be said for a Drunkard a Murtherer any profane person openly defending his profaness for one who doth not know whether Christ were a man or a woman c. 2. Secondly I urge further according to Mr. Timsons principles He must be able to discern the Lords body from common Bread But many men may be Church-members and rational and yet not able to do this Ergo something else must be superadded 3. A child of five or six years old is able to exercise reason and is a Church-member if baptized if these two things give a plenary right such children ought undoubtedly to be admitted This is sufficient to shew the vanity of this Conceit That meer Church-membership with a capacity to exercise Reason gives one a plenary right to the Lords Supper And if meer Church-membership doth not do it no nor that with this second thing added I Query what it is doth it Surely it must be something above these we say a Knowledge of the things of God conjoined with faith in Christ such a faith as is evidenced by holiness It will stand Mr. Humfrey and Mr. Timson in hand either to speak clearly to this and tell us what gives a plenary right or to acknowledge with us that these things superadded to Church-membership do which if they grant us Let them say what they will Dr. Drake saith true that by the same reason that Mr. Humfry and Mr. Timson except infants and persons distracted ignorant and scandalous persons are to be excepted and Mr. Humfrys excepting out of his opinion infants and persons distracted is but a crafty trick to prevent those arguments which he foresaw he could not answer like some late Arminians who tell us Christ died to purchase a possibility of salvation for all but such as shall dy impeninent And the Reader may easily perceive the sores of M. Humfrys book by his kickings in his Rejoinder where the Doctor touched him I say Mr. Humfry and Mr. Timson must hold that a meer natural capacity to exercise reason in one who is a Church-member gives him a full right to the Sacrament or else there is a par ratio for keeping away the ignorant and scandalous as for infants and persons distracted And if they hold so I have shewed them what follows upon it When Mr. Timson speaks clearly to this point we will more strictly examine his judgement He spends his 8 9 10. pages in entering his exceptions against the Presbyterian Discipline where he chargeth the friends of it sufficiently and d●als as unbrotherly with some hundreds of Learned and Reverend men as he chargeth Dr. Drake to have done with Mr. Humphry and something more Considering that the Reverend Doctor if he be a little smart with his adversary yet withall he answers his adversary Et miscuit utile amaro But Mr. Timson hath answered nothing said in the defence of those practices which he so deeply censureth

certaine none of them were as yet admitted to the Lords Table post sermonem fit missa Catechumenis saith Augustine manebant fideles And indeed the very right understanding of that terme fideles determines the busines to the clearing of which I shall transcribe a passage out of that incomparable Antiquary Fidelis distinguitur à Catechumeno confirmato non enim inter fideles adsumebantur Albaspin obs l. 1. obs 25. qui fidem in baptismo aut qui charismata dona spiritus Sancti ipsumque Spiritum Sanctum in confirmatione adepti essent verùm ii solum censebantur appellabantur fideles qui iis duobus Sacramentis muniti Eucharistiâ insuper donarentur cum enim ea sit summum Christianae Religionis mysterium arcanum Sacramentum non cuivis olim temere concedebatur sed ei duntaxat qui multo antea morum probitatis suae specimen exhibuisset quique se it a fidum probasset ut tutò ei mysteria divulgaripossent Is igitur vocabatur fidelis non qui baptizatus aut confirmatus sedqui Eucharistiae sacris participâsset In English to this purpose A Beleever is distinguish'd from a Catechumenist and from one who is confirmed V. Etiam Pamelii annot 256. in c. 41. lib. Tert. de praesc contra haeret Catechumenos cui fidelis oppointur qui jam plene edoctus instruct us erat in fide jamque receptus admissus ad nostra mysteria percipienda ib. for all those who had obtained faith in Baptisme or who had received the gists of the Holy Spirit were not presently reckoned amongst the Fideles but those alone were thought worthy to be called and were called Fideles who having been prepared by Baptisme and Confirmation which he calls Sacraments were surther admitted to the Lords Supper for in regard that is the greatest Mystery and Secret and Sacrament of the Christian Religion of old it was not headily granted to every one but to him only who of a long time before had given proofe of his honest Conversation and had approved himselfe so faithfull that those mysteries might safely be administred to him He therefore was called Fidelis not who was baptized or confirmed but who was admitted to the Holy Table Clemens Alexandrinus saith he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. strom l. 2. impr Lut. 1619. p. 371. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who keeps faithfully what is committed to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One who keeps Gods Commandements is Fidelis in his sense But as to the Ecclesiasticall acceptation of Fideles Albaspinaeus hath doubtlesse told us the truth It is out of all doubt that the Catechumeni were not admitted to the Lords Table Tert. cum not is de la Bar. l. 4. contra Marcionem l. de Poenitentiâ Quis Catechumenus quis fidelis incertum est omnes pariter orant Tert. de praescrip con haeret c. 41. Alcuinus de divinis offic I siod l. 6. Etymol c. 19. Raban Maurus de instit cler cap 32. Ino. Epist 73. Aug S rm Concil Carth 4. Amb. l. 5. ep 33. Concil Laod. cap. 19. Dion Areop loc praed Athan. apol 2. contra Arrian Renatus Laurentius de la Barr tels us that In templo manebant donec Evangelium expossuisset Episcopus Tum clamabas Levita Catechumeni exeunt vel siquis Catechumenus remansit exeat which sutes with that of Austin before specified And this is plaine from Tertullian who usually calls them Audientes and Auditores who saies they might wish for the Sacrament of Baptism but ought not to presume to it then surely not to the Lords Table Nay they were not admitted to any Prayers with the Church subsequent to the Sermon whence Tertullian cries out of it as a disorder amongst the Hereticks that none could distinguish their Catechumenists from their Fideles for they all prayed alike yet I conceive it a mistake of those who conceive the Catechumeni were present at no Prayers of the Church for then we must suppose the Primitive Churches had no Prayers before their Sermons which out of all question they had and the dismission of the Catechumeni was not till the Sermon was done Indeed they might not be present at any prayers of the Church preceding the administration o● the holy Communion And thus much shall serve to have noted concerning the first order the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or according to Pamelius the second for he makes the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concerning the dismission of the Catechumeni they who desire further satisfaction may read the Authors quoted in the Margent Cyril in Joh. l. 12. c. 50. I will sum up all with what I find in Cyrill in Book 12. Chap. 10. of his Commentary on John Prohibemus enim à sacrâ mensâ Catechumenos quam vis veritatem jam cognoverint fidem magrâ voce consiteantur quia nondum locupletati sunt spiritu Sancto qui non habitat in ijs qui baptismate non sunt consummati c. From all this it appeares 1. That they baptized none but were fully instructed in the Doctrine of faith and had openly professed repentance 2. That till they were baptized they admitted them not to the Lords Table Let us now see whether they admitted all baptized persons 3. Their third order were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us examine 1. Who these were 2. From what priviledges of the Church they were restrained Which happily were originally the way of receiving in poenitents rather than the degrees of casting them out Rejoinder p. 46. Dies dominica l. 2. c. 14. and how long 3. When this Order came up in the Church I am amazed at that piece of news which M. Humfry suggests in his late Rejoynder that the severall degrees of penitence might be in order to admission into the Church except he meanes readmission after falling for he is the first who ever suggested any such thing I thinke at least the first I ever met with who hinted any such thing But it is contrary to all I ever met with My highly honoured and learned Friend tells us right They were such as having embraced the Christian faith and being baptized Dr Young and their names recorded in the Church had afterwards fallen into some open wickednesse by which they had forfeited their right to the priviledges of the faithfull and were censured by the Church till such time as they should declare sufficient signes of their repentance With him Albaspinaeus agrees in his l. 2. Observat Observ 3. and doubtlesse this is the truth Of these Penitents saith Dr Young there were five degrees 1. V. Dr. Young die dom l. 2. cap. 14. Albaspin in obs l. 2. obs 22. Their first degree was called gradus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These might not come into the Church but were to stand without and beg the peoples Prayers of this first degree mention is made