the following words who shall dwell in thy holy hill which noteth a permanent and durable estate The Chaldee Paraphrase expoundeth the whole of such as were thought worthy to be admitted into the house of the Lord thus Lord who is worthy to abide in thy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and who shall be worthy to sojourne in the mountaine of the house of thy holinesse So Psalm 24. 3. the Chaldâ— readeth thus Who shall be worthy to ascend unto the mountaine of the house of the Sanctuary of the Lord So that the thing alluded unto in both these places is that the Priests and Levites did admit 〈◊〉 to the Sanctuary but such as had the markes or characters there enumerated so farre as men can â—udge of these markes that is so faâ—e as they are externall and discernable 7. The same thing seemeth also to be alluded unto Psalm 50. 16. Unto the wicked the Chaldee addes that repenteth not and prayeth in his transgression God saith what hast thou to doe to declare my Statutes or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth It is spoken to a scandalous prophane man Vers. 18 19 20. who yet will needs take upon him a forme of godlinesse Where Philo the Jew speakes of him that blasphemed the name of the Lord he addeth that it was not lawfull for all men to name the name of God no not for Honour or Religions sake but onely for good and holy men And this gives me occasion to adde in conclusion a further confirmation out of the Hebrew Doctors They held that an Israelite turning an Hereticke that is denying any of their thirteen fundamentall Articles to be as an Heathen man and did therefore permit a Jew to lend to him upon usury even as to an Heathen M. Selden de Jure nat Gentium lib. 6. cap. 10. They held that such a one an hereticall Israelite had no communion with the Church of Israel See Tzemach David translated by Hen. Vorstius pag. 67. Abrabanel de capite fidei cap. 3. dub 5. Ib. cap. 6. They esteemed an hereticall Jew more hereticall then a Christian and did excommunicate him even summarily and without previous admonition See Buxtorf lexic. Chald. Talm. Rabbin pag. 195. Moses Maimonides de fundam legis cap. 6. sect 10. tels us that if an Epicurean Israelite had written a coppy of the booke of the Law it was to be burnt with the name of that Epicurean wretch because he had not done it holily nor in the name of God They who did imagine the Scripture it selfe to be polluted and prophaned when it came thorough the hands of an Epicurean or Hereticall Israelite no doubt they thought the Temple polluted and prophaned if such a one should be suffered to come and worship in it From all which it appeareth how much reason L'Empereur had to say that they did not admit an Heretick into the inner part of the Intermurale or that part of the Temple which divided between the Israelites and Heathens If any man shall aske what I meane to inferre from all this Must all prophane persons be kept back from our 〈◊〉 â—s and publike Assemblies and so from hearing the word I answer God forbid The Analogy which I understand is to hold between the Jewish and Christian Church is this As prophane persons were forbidden to enter into the Temple because of the sacramentall and typicall holinesse thereof for the Temple was a Type of Christ so prophane persons are now much more to be kept back from the Sacrament of the Lord Supper which hath more of Sacramentall signification mystery and holinesse in it then the Temple of Ierusalem had and whereby more ample Evangelicall promises are set forth and sealed unto us And as prophane persons might of old come into the Court of the Gentiles and there heare the word preached in Solomons Porch where both Christ and his Apostles did Preach Io. 10. 23. Act 3. 11. Act. 5. 12. which Porch was in the utmost Court That is the Court of the Gentiles of which else-where out of Iosephus but might not come into the Court of Israel nor have communion in the Sacrifices so prophane obstinate sinners are to be excluded for their impiety from the Church communion of Saints though they may heare the word as Heathens also may doe Now that the Temple of Ierusalem had a Typicall Sacramentall resemblance of Christ may appear plainly in divers particulars 1. As the glory of the Lord dwelt in the Temple within the oracle above the Arke and the Mercy seat and at the dedication of the Temple the cloud of the glory of the Lord did visibly fill the whole house so in Christ the fulnesse of the God-head dwells bodily as the Apostle speakes 2. As the great God whom the heavens of heavens cannot containe was yet pleased to dwell on earth by putting his name in that place so notwithstanding of the infinite distance between God and man yet they are brought neer each to other to have fellow-ship together in Jesus Christ. 3. God revealed his will that he would accept no Sacrifices from his people but in the Temple onely after it was built So God hath revealed his will that 〈◊〉 spirituall Sacrifices cannot be acceptable to him except in Jesus Christ onely 4. The people of God were bound to set their Faces toward the Temple of Hierusalem when they prayed 1. Kings 8. 30. 48. Dan. 6. 10. So are we bound in Prayer to looke toward Jesus Christ with an eye of faith 5. As there was an ample promise of God to heare the Prayers which should be made in that place 2. Chro. 7. 15 16. so hath God promised to heare us and accept us if we seeke unto him in and through Jesus Christ. 6. God said of the Temple mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually 2 Chro. 6. 16. so he said of Chriâ—t This is my well beloved Son in whom I am well pleased 7. There was but one Temple so but one Mediator between God and man the man Jesus Christ saith Paul 8. As the Temple was appointed to be a house of Prayer for all Nations Isa. 56. 7. and the sâ—ranger as well as the Israelite might come and pray in it 2 Chro. 6 32. So 〈◊〉 is a propitiation not for the Jewes onely but for the Gentiles and whosoever beleeves on him Jew or Gentile shall not be confounded 9. Because of thy Temple at Hierusalem shall Kings bring presents unto thee saith the Prophet Ps. 68. 29. so because of Jesus Christ who hath got a name above every name and hath received all power in heaven and earth shall Kings submit themselves and bow the knee 10. Glorious things were spoken of Ierusalem the City of God but the Temple was the glory of Ierusalem so glorious things are spoken of the Church But Christ is the Churches glory Other like considerations might be added but these may suffice CHAP. X. A debate with Master Prynne concerning the
is misapplied by him His tenth concerning the ends of the Sacrament yeeldeth the cause and mireth himselfe His eleventh a grosse petitio principii His twelfth appealing to the experience of Christians rectified in the state and repelled for the weight That this debate concerning the nature end use and effect of the Sacrament doth clearely cast the ballance of the wholecontroversie concerning Suspension Lucas Osiander cited by M. Prynne against us is more against himselfe CHAP. XV. Whether the admission of scandalous and notorious sinners to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper be a pollution and prophanation of that holy Ordinance And in what respects it may be so called THe true state of this Question cleared by five distinâ—ions Nine Arguments to prove the affirmative That the admitting of the scandalous and prophane to the Sacrament gives the lie to the word preached and looseth those whom the word binddeth That it is a strengthning of the hands of the wicked T is a prophanation of Baptisme to baptise a Catechumene Jew or a Pagan being of a known prophane life although he were able to make confession of the true faith by word of mouth That such as are found unable to examine themselves whether through naturall or sinfull disability or manifestly unwilling to it ought not to be admitted to the Lords Supper The reason for keeping backe children and fooles holds stronger for keeping back known prophane persons Hag. 2. 11 12 13 14. explained A debate upon Matth. 7. 6. Give not that which is holy to dogs c wherein M. Prynne is confuted from Scripture from Antiquity from Erastus also and Grotius CHAP. XVI An Argument of Erastus drawn from the Baptisme of John against the excluding of scandalous sinners from the Lords Supper examined THat Iohn baptised none but such as confessed their sinnes and did outwardly appeare penitent T is a great question whether those Pharisees who came to his Baptisme Matth. 3. were baptised The coincidency of that story Matth. 3. with the message of the Pharisees to Iohn Baptist Ioh. 1. The Argument retorted CHAP. XVII Antiquity for the Suspension of all scandalous persons from the Sacrament even such as were admitted to other publique Ordinances Oâ— the foure degrees of Penitents in the ancient Church and of the Suspension of some unexcommunicated persons from the Lords Supper who did joyn with the Church in the hearing of the word and prayer Proved out of the ancient Canons of the Councels of Ancyra Nice Arles the sixth and eighth General Councels out of Gregorius Thaumaturgus and Basilius Magnus confirmed also out of Zonaras Balsamon Albaspinâ—…us The Suspension of all sorts of scandalous sinners in the Church from the Sacrament further confirmed out of Isidorus Pelusiota Dionysius Areopagita with his Scholiast Maximus and his paraphrast Pachimeres Also out of Cyprian Justin Martyr Chrysostome Ambrose Augustine Gregorius Magnus Walafridus Strabo CHAP. XVIII A discovery of the instability and loosenesse of M. Prynne his principles even to the contradicting of himselfe in twelve particulars AN Argument hinted by M. Prynne from the gathering together all guests to the wedding Supper both bad and good examined and foure answers made to it That M. Prynne doth professe and pretend to yeeld the thing for which his Antagonists contend with him but indeed doth not yeeld it his Concessions being clogged with such things as do evacuate and frustrate all Church Discipline That M. Prynne contradicteth himselfe in twelve particulars Foure Counter-quaerees to him A discourse of M. Fox the Author of the Booke of Martyrs concerning three sorts of persons who are unwilling that there should be a Discipline or power of Censures in the Church The Names of Writers or Workes cited and made use of in this Tractate IS Abrabanel Melchier Adamus Ainsworth Aeschines Albaspinaeus Albinus Flaccus Alcuinus Alex. Alensis Algerus Ambrosius Ambrose the Monke Ammonius Alexandrinus Ampsinâ—ius Dutch Annotations English Annotations Apollâ—nius Aquinas Arabick N. T. Aretius Arias Montanus Aristótle Arnobius Irish Articles of faith Augustinus Azorius B BAlsamon Io. Baptista derubcis Baronius Basilius Magnus M r Bayne Becanus Becmanus Beda Bellarmine Bertramus Beza Bilson Brentius Brochmand Brughton Mart. Bucerus Gers. Bucerus Budoeus Bullingâ—r Buxtorff C CAbeljavius Cajetanus Calvin I. Camero Camerarius Canons of the African Church L. Capellus D. Carthusianus Cartwright I. Casaubon The Magdeburgian Centurists Chaldee Paraphrase Chamiâ—rus Chemnitius Chrysostomus D. Chytraeus Is. Clarus Fr. à S. Clara Clemens Clemens Alexandrinus Nic. de Clemangis Iudocus Clichtoveus I. Cloppenburgius I. Coch M r Coleman Aâ—gid de Coninck Barthol Coppen Balthasar â—orderius Corpus Disciplinae M r Cotoon Tomes of Councels Richardus Cowsin Cyprian Cyrill D DAnâ—us R. David Ganz Demosâ—henes M. David Dickson Didoclavius Lud. de Dieu Mich. Dilherrus Diâ—dati The Directory of both Kingdomes Dioâ—yfins 〈◊〉 Synâ—d of Dort Iesuits of Doway I. Drusius Duâ—renus Durandus Duranâ—s E ELias R. Eliâ—ser C â— Empereur Erastus Erasmus C. Espenâ—us Esâ—ius Euthymius Aben Ezra F FAâ—ritius M r Fox Ch. Francken Hist. of the troubles at Franckeford The Disciplin of the reformed Churches of Franâ— D r Fulkâ— G P. Galatinus Phil. Gamachaeus Gelenius Laws and Statuâ—es of Genevah Genebrardus Geo. Genzius I. â—rhardus Gesnerus Sâ—l Glassius Godwyn Gomarus Gorranus Gregorius Magnus Gregorius Thaumaturgus Professors of Groning Grotius Gualther H HArmony of confessions Harmonia Synoderâ—n Belgicarum Haymo Helmichius Hemmiugius Heshusius Hesychius Hierâ— Hilarius M. Hildersham P. Hinkelmannus Fraâ— Holy-Oke 〈◊〉 Honnius Hâ—go de S. Uictâ—re Hugâ— Cardiâ—lis L. Humfredus Aegid Hâ—ius M. Hussey Hutterus I KIng Iames Iansenâ—us I'lyricus Iâ—nocentius 3. Iosephus Iosuae levitae Halichoth Olam Isidorus Hispâ—lensis Isidorus 〈◊〉 Iulius Caesar Fr. Iunius Iustinus Martyr K KEâ—erm â—nnus D r Kâ—llet C. Kirâ—erus L COrn a Lapide Lavater Laurentius de la barre M r Leigh Nieolaus Lambardus Lorinus Lutheâ—us Lyrâ— M MAccovius Maimonides Maldonat Manâ—sseh Ben. Israel Conciliaâ—or Marianae Marlorat Martial M. Martinius P. Martyr Maximus Medina Meisnerus Menochius Mercerus P. Maulin Munsterus Musculus N G. Nazianzen I. Newenklaius Nonnus Novarinus O OEcumenius Origen Luc. Osiander P PAchymeres M r Paget Pagnin Paraeus Parker Pasor Pelargus Pellicanus Pemble Philo the Iew Piscator Plato Polanus M r Prynne R RAbanus Maurus Raynolds The Remonstranâ—s Revius Rittangelius D. Rivetus Rupertus Tuitiensis M. Rutherfurd S EManuel Sa Salmasius Salmeron M. Salâ—marsh Sanctius Saravia I. Scaliger Scapula Schindlerus Ionas Schlichtingius The Booke of Discipline of Scotland Scotus Subtilis M. Selden The 〈◊〉 â—eius F. Socinâ—s â—ipingius Fr. Spanbemiâ—t Spelman Stegmannus Strigelius Suarez Suidas Suâ—livius Syariacâ— N. T. T TAcianus The Talmud Tannerus Tertullian Theodoretus Theophylactus Tilenus Tirinus Titus Bostrorum Episcapus Toletus Tostatus Tossanus Trelcatius Triglandius Tully W WAlaeus Walafridus Strabo M r Io. Welsh Mr Iohn Weyâ—es of Craigton Mr Iohn Weimes of Lathoâ—ker Westhemerus Whitgift Whittakerus Willet I. Winkelmannus Wolphius V GR. de Valentia Vatablus Uazquez Uedelius Uictor Antiochenus
Law but Gods owne Law which the Priests and Levites were to expound So that it was proper for that time and there is not the like reason that the Ministers of Jesus Christ in the New Testament should judge or rule in civill affairs nay it were contrary to the rule of Christ and his Apostles for us to do so yet the Levites their judging and governing in all the bufines of the Lord is a patterne left for the entrusting of Church officers in the New Testament with a power of Church government there being no such reason for it as to make it peculiar to the old Testament and not common to the New The fourth Scripture which proves an Ecclesiasticall government and Sanhedrin is 2 Chro. 19. 8 10 11. where Iehoshaphat restoreth the same Church government which was first instituted by the hand of Moses and afterward ordered and setled by David Moreover saith the Text in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set of the Levites and of the Priests and of the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel for the judgement of the Lord and for controversies c. It is not controverted whether there was a civill Sanhedrin at Ierusalem but that which is to be proved from the place is an Ecclesiasticall Court which I prove thus Where there is a Court made up of Ecclesiasticall members judging Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall causes for a Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall end moderated by an Ecclesiasticall president having power ultimately and authoritatively to determine causes and controversies brought before them by appeale or reference from inferiour Courts and whose sentence is put in execution by Ecclesiasticall officers There it must needs be granted that there was a supream Ecclesiasticall court with power of Government But such a Court we finde at Ierusalem in Iehoshaphats time Ergo. The Proposition I suppose no man wil deny For a Court so constituted so qualified and so authorised is the very thing now in debate And he that will grant us the thing which is in the assumption shall have leave to call it by another name if he please The assumption I prove by the parts 1. Here are Levites and Priests in this Court as members thereof with power of decisive suffrage and with them such of the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel as were joyned in the government of that Church Whence the Reverend and learned Assembly of Divines and many Protestant Writers before them have drawn an argument for Ruling Elders And this is one of the Scriptures alledged by our Divines against Bellarmin to prove that others beside those who are commonly but corruptly called the Clergy ought to have a decisive voyce in Synods 2. Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall causes were here judged which are called by the name of the judgement of the Lord V. 8. and the matters of the Lord distinguished from the Kings matters V. 11. so V. 10. beside controversies between blood and blood that is concerning consanguinity and the interpreting of the Laws concerning forbidden degrees in marriage it being observed by interpreters that all the lawfull or unlawfull degrees are not particularly expressed but some onely and the rest were to be judged of by parity of reason and so it might fall within the cognizance of the Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin Though it may be also expounded otherwise between blood and blood that is Whether the murther was wilfull or casuall which was matter of fact the cognisance whereof belonged to the civill Judge It is further added between Law and Commandement Statutes and Judgements noting seeming contradictions between one Law and another such as Manasseb Ben Israel hath spoken of in his Conciliator or when the sence and meaning of the Law is controverted which is not matter of fact but of right wherein speciall use was of the Priests whose lips should preserve knowledge and the Law was to be sought at his mouth Aâ—…al 2. 7. and that not onely ministerially and doctrinally but judicially and in the Sanhedrin at Ierusalem such controversies concerning the Law of God were brought before them as in 2 Chro. 19. the place now in hand Yea shall even warn them c. Which being spoken to the Court must be meant of a synedricall Decree determining those questions and controversies concerning the Law which should come before them As for that distinction in the Text of the Lords matters and the Kings matters Erastus page 274. saith that by the Lords matters is meant any cause expressed in the Law which was to be judged Whereby he takes away the distinction which the Text makes for in his sence the Kings matters were the Lords matters Which himselfe it seems perceiving he immediately yeeldeth our interpretation that by the Lords matters are meant things pertaining to the worship of God and by the Kings matters civill things Si per illas libet res ad cultum Dei spectantes per haec res civiles accipere non pugnabo If you please saith he by those to understand things pertaining to the worship of God by these civill things I will not be against it 3. It was for a Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall end ye shall even warne them that they trespasse not against the Lord. It s not said against one another but against the Lord for two reasons 1. Because mention had been made of the Commandements Statutes and Iudgements after the generall word Law V. 10. by which names Interpreters use to understand both in this and many other places of Scripture the Lawes morall Ceremoniall and Judiciall Now the case to be judged might be part of the Ceremoniall Law having reference to God and his Ordinances and not part of the Judiciall law or any injury done by a man to his neighbour And in referâ—nce to the morall Law it might â—e a trespasse against the first Table not against the second 2. Even in the case of a personall or civill injury or whatsoâ—ver the controversie was that was brought before them they were to warn the Judges in the Cities not to trespasse against the Lord by mistaking or mis-understanding the Law or by righting mens wrongs so as to wrong Divine right And for that end they were to determine the Ius and the intendment of the law when it was controverted 4. Whatsoever cause of their brethren that dwelt in the Cities should come unto them V. 10. whether it should come by appeale or by reference and arbitration this Court at Ierusalem was to give out an ultimate and authoritative determination of it So that what was brought from inferiour courts to them is brought no higher to any other Court 5. This Court had an Ecclesiasticall Prolocutor or moderator V. 11. Amariah the chiefe Priest is over you in all matters of the Lord Whereas Zebadiah the Ruler of the house of Iudah was Speaker in the civill Sanhedrin for all the Kings matters Amariah and Zebadiah were not onely with the Sanhedrin as members or as Councellors but over them as Presidents Eis summos Magistratus
us out of vindiciae contra Tyrannos with an approbatory and encomiastick close of his citation Ieremy being sent by God to denounce the overthrow of the City Jerusalem is for this first condemned citing in the Margin Ierem. 26. by the Priests and Prophets that is by the Ecclesiasticall Judgement or Senate after this by all the people that is by the ordinary Judges of the City to wit by the Captains of thousands and hundreds at last by the Princes of Judah that is by 71 men sitting in the new porch of the Temple his cause being made known he is acquitted The sixth place which intimateth an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin is Ierem. 18. 18. where the adversaries of Ieremiah say among themselves Come and let us dâ—…vise devices against Jeremiah for the Law shall not perish from the Priest nor counsell from the wise nor the word from the Prophet Come and let us smite him with the tongue The force of their argument as not onely our Interpreters but Maldonat also and Sanctius following Aquinas and Lyra tell us stands in this those who are of greatest authority in the Church the Priests Prophets and Elders with whom are the Oracles of truth doe contradict Ieremiah therefore he is a false Prophet But what was the ground of this consequence surely the ground was that which Bullinger and the late English Annotations doe observe namely the Popish error was also their error the Church cannot erre But let us yet follow the argument to the bottome How came they to thinke the Church cannot erre or what was that Church which they thought infallible No doubt they had respect to the Law of the Sanhedrin Deut. 17. 10 11 12. And thou shalt doe according to the sentence which they of that place which the Lord shall â—…hoose shall shew thee and thou shalt observe to doe according to all that they enforme thee According to the senâ—…ence of the Law which they shall teach thee and according to the judgement which they shall tell thee thou shalt 〈◊〉 thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee to the right hand or to the left And the man that will doe presumptuously and will not hearken unto the Priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God or unto the Judge even that man shall die From this Scripture misapplyed they drew an argument against Ieremiah Wherein their meaning could not be this that the doctrine of every individuall Priest or of every individuall Scribe is infallible for as the Law now cited did speak of the Sanhedrin not of individuall Priests so neither the Jewes of old nor the Papists after them have drawn the conceited infallibility so low as to every particular Priest But they mean collectively and point at an assembly or councell of Priests Wise-men and Prophets which as they apprehended could not erre and whose determination they preferred to the word of the Lord by Ieremiah for the Law that is saith Menochius the interpretation of the Law can not perish from the Priest nor counsell from the wise Now this was an Ecclesiasticall not a civill Sanhedrin which may appeare thus First they doe not make mention of the Judge mentioned Deut. 17. where the Priest the Judge are distinguished onely they mention the Priest the Prophet for which the Chaldee hath Scribe which is all one as to the 〈◊〉 argument for we finde both Prophets and Scribes in Ecclesiasticall assemblies as was said before and the wise By the wise are meant those that were chiefe or did excell among the Scribes or Doctors of the Law So Grotius annot in Matth. â—3 34. and it may be collected from Ierem. 8. 8 9. This is certâ—ine that these wise men were Church-officers for as they are 〈◊〉 from the Judges Esay 3. 2. so Jesus Christ speaking of 〈◊〉 and other Ministers of the Gospel whom he was to send forth expresseth himselfe by way of allusion to the Ecclesiasticall Ministers of the Jewes Matth 23. 34. Behold I send unto you Prophets and Wise men and Scribes which Luke ch 11. V. 49. hath thus I will send them Prophets and Apostles Secondly the civill Sanhedrin at this time did so far as we can finde contradict Ieremiah but when his cause came afterward before them Ierem. 26. they shew much favour and friendship to him Thirdly that which is added come and let us him smite with the tongue may be three waies read and every way it sutâ—th to the Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin whether themselves be the speakers in the Text or whether the people be the speakers of it as of that which they would deâ—ire and move the Sanhedrin to doe in the name of them all either thus Let us smite him for the tongue that is for an Ecclesiasticall cause for false Doctrine Or thus Let us smite him in the tongue so the Septuagint and Arias Montanus that is Let us smite him with an Ecclesiasticall censure and silence him and discharge him to preach any more to the people Or thus Let us smite him with the tongue that is with an Ecclesiasticall sentence or declaration smite him not with the Sword which belonged onely to the civill Magistrate but with the tongue by declaring him to be a false Prophet and by determining the case de jure what ought to be done with him according to the Law Seventhly consider another place Ezech. 7. 26. Then shall they seek a vision of the Prophet but the Law shall perish from the Priest and counsell from the ancients Here againe these are to be lookt upon collectively and conjunctly not diâ—tributively and severally and this I prove from the Text it selfe not onely because the counsell here sought for was not to be given by one ancient but by the ancients yea iâ— was a principall part of the curse or judgement that counsell could not be had from an assembly of ancients or Elders suppose it might be had from some individuall Elders here or there but also because the Antithesis in the Text intimateth a disappointment in that thing which was sought after They shall seeke a vision from the Prophet or as the Chaldee hath it discipline from the Scribe This they shall not finde and why because the Law shall perish from the Priest and counsell from the Ancients It was therefore Consistoriall or Synedricall counsell Judgement or Disscipline which should be sought but should not be found So that though a Prophet of the Lord shall peradventure be found who can reveale the councell of the Lord in a time of generall defection like Micaiah contradicting the 400 Prophets yet an Ecclesiasticall counsell of Prophets Scribes Priests and Elders sometime Israels glory shall turn to be Israels shame and that assembly which did sometime respondere dâ—… jure and pronounce righteous judgement and give light in difficult cases shall doe so no more the very light of Israel shall be darknesse the law and counsell shall perish from them that is they
these two things 1. It is the opinion of divers who hold two Sanhedrins among the Jewes one Civill and another Ecclesiasticall that in causes and occasions of a mixed nature which did concerne both Church and State both did consult conclude and decree in a joynt way and by agreement together Now Ezra 10. the Princes Elders Priests and Levites were assembled together upon an extraordinary cause which conjuncture and concurrence of the Civill and the Ecclesiasticall power might occasion the denouncing of a double punishment upon the contumacious forfeiture and excommunication But 2. The objection made doth rather confirme me that Excommunication is intended in that place For this forfeiture was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a making sacred or dedicating to an holy use as I have shewed out of Iosephus The originall word translated forfeited is more properly translated devoted which is the word put in the margin of our bookes The Greek saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 anathemstizabitur which is the best rendring of the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It was not therefore that which we call forfeiture of a mans substance Intellige saith Grotius ita ut Deo sacra fiat And so the excommunication of a man and the devoting of his substance as holy to the Lord were joyned together and the substance had not been anathematized if the man had not been anathematized I doe not say that Excommunication ex natura rei doth inferre and draw after it the devoting of a mans estate as holy to the Lord. No Excommunication can not hurt a man in his worldly estate further than the Civill Magistrate and the Law of the Land appointeth And there was Excommunication in the Apostolical Churches where there was no Christian Magistrate to adde a Civill mulct But the devoting of the substance of Excommunicated persons Ezra 10. as it had the authority of the Princes and Rulers for it so what extraordinary warrants or instinct there was upon that extraordinary exigence we can not tell Finally M. Selden de Jure nat Gentium lib. 4. cap. 9. p. 523. agreeth with Lud. Capellus that the separation from the Congregation Ezra 10. 8. plane ipsum est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fieri it is the very same with casting out of the Synagogue which confuteth further that which M. Prynne holds that the casting out of the Synagogue was not warranted by Gods word but was onely a humane invention I know some have drawne another argument for the Jewish Excommunication from Nehem. 13. 25. I contended with them and cursed them id est anathematizavi excommunicavi saith C. a lapide upon the place So Tirinus upon the same place Mariana expounds it anathema dixi Aben Ezra understands it of two kinds of Excommunication Niddui and Cherem For my part I lay no weight upon this unlesse you understand the cursing or malediction to be an act of the Ecclesiasticall power onely authorised or countenanced by the Magistrate Which the words may well beare for neither is it easily credible that Nehemiah did with his owne hand smite those men and plucke off their hayre but that by his authority he tooke care to have it done by civill Officers as the cursing by Ecclesiasticall Officers The Dutch annotations leane this way telling us that Nehemiah did expresse his zeale against them as persons that deserved to be banned or cut off from the people of God Another Text proving the Jewish Excommunication is Luke 6. 22. When they shall separate you and shall reproach you and â—…ast out your name as evill It was the most misapplied censure in the world in respect of the persons thus cast out but yet it proves the Jewish custome of casting out such as they thought wicked and obstinate persons This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beda upon the place understandeth of casting out of the Synagogue Separent Synagoga depellant c. yet it is a more generall and comprehensive word then the casting out of the Synagogue It comprehendeth all the three degrees of the Jewish Excommunication as Grotius expounds the place Which agreeth with Munsterus Dictionar Trilingue where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the onely Greeke word given both for the three Hebrew words Niddui Cherem and Shammata and for the Latine Excommunicatio Wherefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place is extermino excommunico repudio which is one of the usuall significations of the word given by Stephanus and by Scapula It is a word frequently used in the Canons of the most ancient Councels to expresse such a separation as was a Church-censure and namely suspension from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper For by the ancient Canons of the Councels such offences as were punished in a Minister by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is deposition were punished in one of the people by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is segregation or sequestration Zonaras upon the 13 th Canon of the eighth generall Councell observeth a double 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in the ancient Church â—ne was a totall separation or casting out of the Church which is usually called Excommunication another was a suspension or sequestration from the Sacrament onely Of which I am to speak more afterward in the third Booke I hold now at the Text in hand which may be thus read according to the sence and letter both when they shall excommunicate you c. Howbeit the other reading when they shall separate you holds forth the same thing which I speake of separate from what our Translators supply from their company but from what company of theirs not from their civill company onely but from their sacred or Church assemblies and from religious fellowship it being a Church-censure and a part of Ecclesiasticall discipline in which sence as this word frequently occurreth in the Greeke fathers and ancient Canons when they speake of Church discipline so doubtlesse it must be taken in this place 1. Because as Grotius tels us that which made the Jewes the rather to separate men in this manner from their society was the want of the Civill coercive power of Magistracy which sometime they had And I have proved before that the civill Sanhedrin which had power of criminall and capitall judgements did remove from Ierusalem and cease to execute such judgement forty yeeres before the destruction of the Temple 2. Because in all other places of the new Testament where the same word is used it never signifieth a bare separation from civill company but either a conscientious and religious separation by which Church members did intend to keep themselves pure from such as did walke or were conceived to walke disorderly and scandalously Acts 19. 9. 2 Cor. 6. 17. Gal. 2. 13. or Gods separating between the godly and the wicked Matth 13. 49. 25. 32. or the setting apart of men to the ministery of the Gospell Acts 13. 2. Rom. 1. 1. Gal. 1. 15. Thirdly a Civill separation is for a Civill injury but this separation
but publique and penitentiall was made in the Temple before and in the hearing of the Priest I prove from Philo the Jew In his booke de sacr Abelis Caini at the close speaking of the Levites ministery he saith that he did execute and performe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all those services which belong to a perfect Priesthood and to the bringing of man to God whether by burnt-offerings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aut pro peccatis quorum paenitet saith Gelenius the Interpreter meaning the trespasse-offerings But observe further he speaks of the penitentiall part as a publique thing or rather of the publique declaration of repentance Repentance of sinnes that is repentance declared or professed which was in the confession joyned with the trespasse-offerings was one of the chiefe things about which the Leviticall ministery was exercised which is the cleare sence of the place More plainly the same Philo lib. de victimis towards the close where he tels that certaine parts of the trespasse-offerings were eaten by the Priests and that these must be eaten in the Temple he gives this reason for it lest the penitents sinne and shame should be divulged and punished more then needs must which intimateth that the particular offence was so confessed that it was made knowne to such as were within the Temple The third Scripturall proofe is Num. 5. 6 7. When a man or a woman shall commit any sinne that men commit to doe a trespasse against the Lord and that person be guilty Then they shall confesse their sinne which they have done and he shall recompence his trespasse c. The Hebrews expound it thus All the precepts in the Law whether they command or forbid a thing if a man transgresse against any one of them either presumptuously or ignorantly when he maketh repentance and turneth from his sinne he is bound to confesse before the blessed God as in Numb 5. 7. This confession is with words and it is commanded to be done How doe they confesse He saith Oh God I have sinned I have done perversely I have trespassed before thee and have done thus and thus and loe I repent and am ashamed of my doings and I will never doe this thing againe And this is the foundation of confession And who so maketh a large confession and is long in this thing he is to be commended And so the owners of sinne and trespasse-offerings when they bring their oblations for their ignorant or for their presumptuous sinnes atonement is not made for them by their oblation untill they have made Repentance and Confession by word of mouth Likewise all condemned to death by the Magistrates or condemned to Stripes no atonement is made for them by their death or by their Stripes untill they have repented and confessed And so he that hurteth his Neighbour or doth him dammage though he pay him whatsoever he oweth him atonement is not made for him tell he confesse and turne away from doing so againe for ever as it is written in Num. 5. 6. Any of all the sinnes of men All this Ainsworth transcribeth out of Maimony in Misn. treat of Repentance Chap. 1. Sect. 1. See also the Latin Edition of the Jewish Canons of Repentance Printed at Cambridge Ann. 1631. Where beside that passage in the first Chapter concerning the necessity of confessing by word of mouth that sinne for which the Trespasse offering was brought you have another plaine passage cap. 2. for publike confession not of private sinnes known to God onely but of known sinnes by which others were scandalized In which passage I nnderstand by sinnes against God sinnes known to God onely 1. Because its forbidden to reveale those sinnes therefore they were secret 2. Because otherwise those Canons shall contradict themselves for cap. 1. it 's told us that all who brought trepasse offerings were bound to confesse by word of mouth the sinne which they had done without which confession they got not leave to make atonement by the trespasse-offering Now trespasse offerings were for sinnes against God as well as for sinnes against man 3. It should otherwise contradict the Law Num. 5. 6. which appointeth any sinne or trespasse against the Lord to be confessed 4. Those trespasses were to be publikely confessed for which in case of impenitency and obstinacy a man was excommunicated with Cherem or the greater Excommunication But a man was excommunicated for divers sinnes against God which did not at all wrong his Neighbour setting a side the scandall Which I have proved before These four reasons will prove either that the meaning of that Canon must be of private sinnes and not of publike and scandalous sinnes against the first Table or otherwise that the Canon is contrary to and inconsistent with both Scripture Reason and other Rabbinnicall writings From the Law Num. 5. thus explained observe concerning the Confession of sinne 1. It was for any scandalous sinne of commission or omission against the first or second Table 2. It was not free and voluntary to the offender I doe not say that he wâ—s compelled to it by any externall Force or coercive power but he was commanded and obliged by the Law to confesse Vatablus on Num. 5. 7. Fatebuntur 1. â— tâ—…nebuntur fateri they shall confesse that is they shall be bound to confesse and a man was not admitted with his trespasse offering except he confessed 3. It was done by word of mouth 4. And publikely before the Congregation that were present 5. The particular trespasse was named in the Confession 6. Sinnes both of Ignorance and Malice when scandalous were to be confessed 7. The sinner was not slinted to a Prescript forme of words in Confession but was to enlarge his confession as his heart was enlarged 8. In Criminall and Capitall cases beside the civill or corporall punishment confession was to be made because of the scandall which had been given Which doth further appeare from the Talmud it selfe in Sanhedrin cap. 6. Sect. 2. for that is observed in all who are put to death that they must confesse for whoever doth confesse he hath part in the world to come and namely it is recorded of Achan that Joshua said to him my Sonne give now Glory to the Lord God of Israel and make confession unto him And Achan answered Indeed I have sinned against the Lord God of Israel and thus and thus c. Whence is it collected that his confession did expiate his sinne And Joshua said why hast thou troubled us God shall trouble thee this day This day thou shalt be troubled not in the world to come The like you read of Achan in Pirke R. Elieser cap. 38. I know Achans confession was not in the Sanctuary nor at a Trespasse offering But I make mention of it because Erastus holdeth that under the Law confession was onely required in such cases where the sinne was not criminall or capitall Which is confuted by the afore-mentioned passages in Maimonides and
Ierem. 7. against those who bought and sold in the Temple Matth. 21. 12 13. he makes it cleare that the Temple was made a den of robbers not onely as it was made a place of gaine or a den where the robbers prey lies but even as it was a receptacle of the robbers or theeves themselves therefore he is not contented with the overthrowing of the Tables of money-changers and the seats of them that sold Doves but he did also cast out all them that sold and bought in the Temple that is he would neither suffer such things nor such persons in the Temple yea though it was onely in the utmost Court or the Court of the Gentiles as Grotius and M r Selden thinke how much lesse would he have suffered such persons in the Court of Israel Philo the Jew doth also apply what is said in the Prophets of Gods hating the Sacrifices of the wicked even to the excluding of prophane men from the Temple M r. Selden de jure nat Gent. lib. 4. cap. 5. doth so explaiue that casting out of the buyers and sellers out of the Temple that the argument in hand is not a little strengthned thereby He saith truly that those who were cast out had polluted and profaned that holy place ideo ipsi ut qui tum criminis aliorum participes tum suo infames pariter sie Templum seu montis Templi locum illum ipsis permissum profanabant ejiciendi He holdeth also that this which Christ did was done ex jure patrio to wit ex Zelotarum jure and that else it had been challenged by the Priests and Scribes if it had been contrary to the law or custome Zelots that is private persons zealously affected were permitted to scourge wound yea kill such as they saw publiquely committing atrocious wickednesse by which the holinesse either of the name of God or of the Temple or of the Nation of the Jewes was violated So M r. Selden sheweth out of the Talmudists Ib. cap. 4. Now saith he Zelotarum jure our Saviour though a private person for so he was lookt upon by the Priests and Scribes did scourge and cast out the buyers and sellers If so then certainly such wicked and abominable persons were not allowed to come to the Temple and if they did they ought to have been judicially and by authority cast out for that which was permitted to private persons in the executing of justice or inflicting of punishment out of their zeale to the glory of God was much more incumbent to such as had authority in their hands for correcting and removing the prophanation of the Temple in an authoritative judiciall and orderly way 4. The Levites had a charge to let none that were uncleane in any thing enter into the Temple 2 Chron. 23. 19. Now this is like that 1 Cor. 5. 11. with such a one no not to eate an argument from the deniall of that which is lesse to the deniall of that which is more So here it was a necessary consequence If those that were ceremonially uncleane were to be excluded from the Temple much more those who were morally or impiously uncleane For 1. the legall uncleannesse did signifie the sinfull uncleannesse and the exclusion of those that were known to be legally uncleane from the Temple did signifie the excluding of those who are knowne to be grossely and notoriously uncleane in their life and conversation Which shall be abundantly confirmed afterwards Therefore Bertramus de Rep. Ebr. cap. 7. saith rightly that the Levites had a charge to keepe from the Temple the uncleane aut etiam alio quovis modo indignos or those also who were any otherwaies unworthy 2. Godwyn in his Moses and Aaron lib. 5. cap. 2. makes a comparison betweene the three degrees of the Jewish excommunication and the three degrees of excluding the uncleane Numb 5. 2. which parallel if we please to make then as for any of the three sorts of uncleannesse the touch of the dead issue or leprosie a man was excluded from the campe of God or the Sanctuary so it will follow that even those who were cast out by the Niddui or lowest degree of Excommunication were foâ— a time suspended from communion with the Church in the Ordinances 3. The Levites were appointed to put a difference not onely betweene the cleane and the uncleane but betweene the holy and unholy Levit. 10. 10. or betweene the holy and profane Ezech. 22. 26. 44. 23. By cleane and uncleane I understand persons or things that were ceremonially such by holy and prophane persons that were morally such 5. I prove the same point from Psalm 118. 19 20. open to me the gates of righteousnesse I will goe into them and will praise the Lord. This gate of the Lord into which the righteous shall enter The Chaldee saith The gate of the house of the Sanctuary of the Lord. The gates of Gods Sanctuary are called gates of righteousness saith Ainsworth on the place because onely the just and cleane might enter into them We read also that it was written over the gates of some of the Jewish Synagogues This is the gate of the Lord into which the righteous shall enter Vatablus upon this place thinks that David speakes by way of antithesis to the former pollution of the Sanctuary by Saul and other wicked persons who by comming to the house of God had made it a denne of thieveâ— But now the righteous shall enter in it The righteous â—…on to such saith Diâ—…dati and 〈◊〉 to prophane persons it belongeth to enter in there 6. The same thing may be proved from Psalm 15. 1. Lord who shall abide in thy Tabernacle who shall dwell in thy holy hill He that walketh uprightly and worketh righteousnesse c. I know the chiefe intendment of God in this place is to describe such a one as is a true member of the Church invisible and shall enter into the Heavenly Ierusalem But certainly there is an allusion to the Sanctuary and the holy hill thereof in Ierusalem as to the type of that which is Spiriuall and eternall which Iansenius upon the place noteth and the Prophet here teacheth the people so to looke upon those offences for which men were excluded from the Sanctuary as to learne what kind of persons are true members of the Church and who not who shall be allowed to communâ—cate in all the Ordinances of the new Testament and who not who shall be received into everlasting life and who not and thus by the type he holds forth the thing tipyfied Gesnerus upon the place thinkes that communion with the Church in this world is meant in the first words Lord who shall sojourne so the word is jagur in the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek in thy Tabernacle the name of Tabernacle fitly expressing the moveable and military estate of the Church in this world and that reception into the Church Triumphant is meant in
doth further appear by the â—awes concerning such and such Sacrifices for such and such sinnes Lev. 5. and by the restitution which was also joyned with the confession Num. 5. 7. And it is also cleare from the Jewish Canones paenitentiae cap. 1. 2. where we find confession of â—inne to be made both by word of mouth and publikely before the congregation 4. In stead of making my argument a non-sequitur he makes it a clarè-sequitur for the first part of it not being taken off but rather granted by him because as he saith truly without confession of sin there is no remission of it hence the other part must needs follow for if it was in vaine so much as to sue for pardon in a reconciling Ordinance when the sinne was not confessed how much more had it been a taking in vaine of the name of God a prophaning of a sealing Ordinance to seale up pardon to a scandalous sinner who had not so much as confessed his scandalous sin but continued in manifest impetency But we will trie whether his third and last answer can relieve him It is this That every particular communicant before he comes to receive the Sacrament makes a publike confession of his sinnes to God with the rest of the congregation and in words at least voweth newnesse of life for the future there being no communicant that ever I heard of saith he so desperatly wicked and atheisticall as not to professe heartily sorrow for all his forepast sinnes or to avow impenitent continuance in them when he came to the Lords Table Behold what a latitude If the vilest sinner practically persevering in a scandalous sinne shall but joyne with and not gainsay the publique confession of the whole congregation wherein the best men doe and ought to joyne and in words promise newnesse of life and who will not promise to endeavour to live better nay if he have but so much wit as not to professe or avow impenitency then M r. Prynne alloweth his admission to the Sacrament But is this the confession that my argument did prove nothing like it It was a particular confession of such a sinne by name Levit. 5. 5. and it shall he when he shall be guilty in one of these things that he shall confesse that he hath sinned in that thing and with the confession there was a reall amendment For instance a recompencing of the trespasse with the principall and the addition of a fifth part when the case did so require Num. 5. 7. Then they shall confesse their sinne which they have done and he shall recompence his trespasse c. This is that my argument did drive at and it still stands in force to conclude that the confession of the particular sinne which hath given publique scandall together with the forsaking of it externally and in practice is so necessary that without these the admission of a scandalous sinner is a most horrible prophanation of the Sacrament But now finding the argument concerning the Passeover and legall uncleannesse to have been more fully prosecuted by Erastus than it is by M r. Prynne I doe resolve to trace it hard at the heeles whithersoever it goeth CHAP. XI A Confutation of the strongest arguments of Erastus namely those drawn from the Law of Moses AMong Erastus his arguments against Excommunication three of them namely the first the seventh and the sixteenth are all one for the substance the strength of them lying in this supposition that the Scripture doth not restraine nor keep off any from the Sacrifices nor any other Sacraments as he speaketh of the old Testament because of a wicked or scandalous conversation but contrariwise commandeth that all the males both Jewes and forreiners being circumcised and not being legally uncleane nor in a journey should compear thrice in the yeere before the Lord at Ierusalem to keepe the three solemn feasts of the Passeover Weeks and Tabernacles Now saith he Christ hath not in this thing destroyed nor altered the Law of Moses nor hath he made the rule straiter now then it was then but as then all circumcised so now all baptized persons must be acknowledged for Church members having a right to partake of Church priviledges and as then there was no discipline or punishment for the flagitious and wicked except by the hand of the Magistrate so ought it to be in like manner in the Christian Church This argument he trusteth very much unto And because it is the common opinion that the excluding and separating of the uncleane under the Law did signifie the excluding of scandalous sinners from communion with the Church he spendeth a long chapter against that opinion and laboureth to make it appeare that the legall uncleannesse did signifie the corruption of our nature and unbeliefe that exclusion from the Temple did signifie exclusion from the heavenly Paradice and that the cleansing and reception into the Temple did tipyfie the cleansing of our souls and the turning of us to God by the blood of Jesus Christ. Now here I shall make such animadversions as shall not onely enervate the strength which these arguments may seem to have against Church censures but also afford some strong reasonings against Erastus from those very grounds rightly apprehended from which upon misapprehensions he disputeth against the excluding of scandalous sinners First it is certaine that for divers sinnes against the morall Law the sinners were appointed not onely to bring their Trespasse-offerings but to confesse the sinne which they had committed and to declare their repentance for the same and till this was done the Trespasse-offering was not accepted Let us but have the like that is a confession of the sinne and declaration of repentance and then men shall not be excluded for scandals formerly given Erastus himselfe acknowledgeth that in this point of the confession of sinne the analogy must hold betwixt the old and new Testament onely he pleadeth that the very act the very desiring of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is really a confession that he is a sinner who desireth it and that much more it may suffice if sinners being asked by the Minister confesse themselves to be sinners and that they have not perfectly kept the Commandements of God But all this say I can not satisfie the argument drawn from that confession of sinne under the Law For 1. It was not a confession ipso facto by the bringing of the Trespasse-offerings but by word of mouth and thus it hath been expounded by the Hebrew Doctors The owners of siune and Trespasse-offerings when they bring their oblations for their ignorant or for their presumptuous sinnes atonement is not made for them by their oblation untill they have made repentance and confession by word of mouth 2. It was not a generall confession that one is a sinner and hath not perfectly kept the Commandements of God for who did ever refuse to make such a confession that were
to be the strongest CHAP. XII Fourteen Arguments to prove that scandalous and presumptuous Offenders against the morall Law though circumcised and not being legally uncleane were excluded from the Passeover THere is so much weight laid both by Erastus himself and by Master Prynne upon the universall Law commanding all that were circumcised to eat the Passeover except such as were legally uncleane or were in a journey that I am resolved once for all to demonstrate against them that men were excluded from the Passeover for scandalous and enormous Trespasses against the morall Law as well as for legall uncleannesse Peradventure it will seeme to some that I undertake to prove a paradox and to walke in an untrodden or obscure Path. Yet my Arguments are such as I trust shall weigh much with intelligent men The first Argument shall be this which is hinted by Ursinus and Pareus Explic. catechit Quest. 85. art 2. Whosoever by Gods appointment were excluded from the priviledges of Church Members and not to be reckoned among the Congregation of Israel those were by Gods appointment excluded from the Passeover But whosoever committed any scandalous sinne presumptuously or with an high hand were by Gods appointment excluded from the priviledges of Church Members and not to be reckoned among the Congregation of Israel Ergo. The Proposition hath this manifest reason for it Those all who were commanded to eat the Passeover cannot be understood to be of a larger extent then the Church of Israel Those therefore who were not to be acknowledged or used as Church-Members were by Gods appointment excluded from the Passeover The Assumption is proved from Numb 15. 30. 31. But the soule that doth ought presumptuously whether he be born in the land or a stranger the same reproacheth the Lord and that soule shall be cut off from among his people Because he hath despised the word of the Lord and hath broken his commandement that soule shall utterly be cut off his iniquity shall be upon him The presumption here spoken of is not onely the presumption of heart saith Cajetan of which God onely is Judge but a presumption manifested in word or work which he conceives to be intimated by the Hebrew phrase with an high hand Grotius understands one that either denyes that there is a God or that the Law was given by God or after admonition goeth on in his trespasse But sure he mistakes the punishment which he understands to be extrajudiciall and that he who finds one thus sinning presumptuously may kill him ex jure Zelotarum as Phinehes did kill Ziâ—…i and Cosbi I have spoken before of the cutting off which I will not here resume Onely this such presumptuous and contumacious sinners were not to be reckoned among the people of God nor to enjoy the priviledge of Church Members therefore not admitted to the Passeover Secondly Iosephus de bello Iud. lib. 7. cap. 17. speaking of such as were permitted to eat the Passeover in the time of Cestius doth thus designe them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being all of them pure and holy not onely pure from legall uncleannesse but such as were also esteemed holy But moreover it is clear from Io. 18. 28 they themselves the Jewes went not into the Judgement Hall lest they should be defiled but that they might eat the Passeover that the Jewes did so understand the Law that morall as well as ceremoniall uncleannesse did render them uncapable of the Passeover for they had no such ceremoniall Law that they who come into the Judgement Hall should be legally or ceremonially uncleane yet this had disabled them from eating the Passeover for they held litigious or forensicall actions unlawfull upon a holy day as Capellus and Casaubon above cited doe prove Such a finfull and scandalous act had kept them back from the Passeover Thirdly if we consult the Chaldee paraphrase upon Exod. 12. 43. it saith thus Every Sonne of Israel who is an Apostate shall not eat of it And upon the same place Master Ainsworth proves out of Maimonides that no Apostate nor Idolater was permitted to eat of the Passeover Yea some Israelites who were not apostates nor idolaters were for a seandalous action excluded from civill how much more from Ecclesiasticall fellow-ship See Maimon of Idolatry cap. 9. Sect. 15. With an Israelite who hath made defection to the worship of Idolls it is forbidden to have traffique or commerce either in his going or returning with another Israelite going to the Markets and Faires of Heathens we are onely forbidden to have commerce in his returning If it was unlawfull to them so much as to have civill commerce with an Israelite coming from the Markets of Heathens fearing lest he had sold some what which was dedicate to Idolatry as the reason is there given although he was no Apostate nor Idolater it is not easily â—imaginable that such a one was freely admitted to the Passeover Fourthly an Israelite though circumcised and not legally uncleane yet if he either turned Idolater or an Heretick or an Epicurean was no longer acknowledged to be in Church-Fellowship or Communion therefore rendred uncapable of the Passeover Is. Abrabanel in his Book de capite fidei as he sheweth whom they esteemed Apostats or Hereticks cap. 12. so he also intimateth that such were excluded from the communion of their Law Cap. 3. dub 5. none being acknowledged to be in the Communion of Israel who did not beleeve the Articles of faith professed in the Jewish Church Cap. 6. yea he tells us Cap. 24. which the Talmud it self saith â—…it Sanhedrin cap. 11. Sect. 1. that Hereticall or Epicurean Israelites were lookt upon as excluded from having portion in the world to come And as Doctor Buxtorf sheweth out of their owne writers they esteemed an Hereticall Israelite to be so abominable that they did straight and without delay excommunicate him Lexic Chald. Talm. Rabbin pag. 195. How is it then imaginable that they admitted such a one to eat the Passeover Let us heare R. Moses Maimonides himself de Idololatria cap. 2. Sect. 8. An Idolatrous Israelite is as an Heathen in all things which he doth c. So also Israelites who are Epicures are not esteemed to be Israelites in any action of theirs c. Now they are Epicures who aske counsell from the thoughts of their own mind being Ignorant of those things we have spoken of untill having transgressed the chief heads of the Law they offend by contumacy and presumption and say there is no sinne in this thing But it is forbidden to speake with them or to answer them for it is said come not neer the door of her house Prov. 5. 8. Therefore the whorish woman that Solomon speakes of was in the opinion of Maimonides such a one as was not to be esteemed as an Israelite nay nor such as was to be spoken with much lesse to be admitted to the Passeover yea Maimonides de Idal cap. 10. Sect. 2. saith yet more
the crime was of civill cognizance and Abiathar deserved to die for it That which Solomon did was an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a moderation of the punishment as Strigelius cals it when Solomon might justly have put him to death he onely banisheth him from Hierusalem to Anathoth there to enjoy his owne inheritance to live a private life and no more to intermeddle in State affaires Wherefore this example doth belong to the case of a capitall crime committed by a Minister but not to the case of scandall or mal-administration in his Ministery 2. Neither did Solomon directly or intentionally put Abiathar from the Priesthood for that offence but by consequence it followed upon his banishment from Hierusalem the place where the high Priest was to exercise his calling 1 King 2. 27. So that is in respect of banishment from Ierusalem mentioned in the verse immediately preceding Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord. A Minister now banished is not thereby thrust out from all exercise of his Ministery for he may exercise it in another place but Abiathar being thrust out from Hierusalem was eo ipso thrust from the calling of the high Priest which was necessarily to be exercised in that place 3. Solomon being a Prophet who knowes what warrants he had more then ordinary for that which he did to Abiathar that it was not without an extrordinary divine instinct some collect from the next words that he Solomon might fulfill the word of the Lord which he spake cencerning the house of Eli in Shilo 4. As for the investing of Zadok with the place and authority of the high Priest it doth not prove that the Magistrate hath a constitutive power to make or authorize Church officers for Zadok had been formerly chosen by the congregation of Israel and anointed to be high Priest 1 Chro. 29. 22. yea he did fall to the place Iure divino for the high Priesthood was given to Eleazar the eldest sonne of Aaron and was to remaine in the family of Eleazar from whom Zadok had lineally descended Whereas Abiathar was not of the family of Eleazar but of the family of Iâ—…hamar 6. Object Hezekiah did apply his regall power to the reformation of the Levites and to the purging of the Temple 2 Chr. 29. 5. and did also appoint the courses of the Priests and Levites every man according to his service 2 Chro. 31. So likewise did King Iosiah 2 Chro. 35. Answ. Hezekiah in exhorting the Levites to sanctifie themselves and to cleanse the Temple doth require no other thing than the Law of God did require Num. 8. 6. 11. 15. 18. 32. which Hezekiah himselfe pointeth at 2 Chro. 29. 11. And why should not the Magistrate command Ministers to do the duties of their calling according to the Word of God As for his appointing of the courses of the Pâ—iests and Levites he did nothing therein but what the Lord had commanded by his Prophets 2 Chro. 29. 25. The like I answer concerning King Iosiah for it is recorded that what hee did was after the writing of David and Solomon 2 Chro. 35. 4. and according to the Commandement of David and Asaph and Heman and Jeduthun the Kings seer Verse 15. as it is written in the booke of Moses v. 12. 7. Object King Ioash while hee yet did right in the dayes of Iebojada the Priest sent the Priests and Levites to gather from all Israel a collection for repairing the house of the Lord and when they dealt negligently in this businesse he discharged them to receive any more money so collected Ans. Joash did impose no other collections but those quae divino jure debebantur which were due by divine right saith Wolphius in 2 Kings 12. The thing was expressely commanded in the Law of Moses compare 2 Chro. 24. 6. Exo. 30 12 13 14. As for the Kings prohibition afterwards laid upon the Priests 1. the Priests had still neglected the worke till the three and twentieth yeare of his raigne was come 2. The Priests themselves consented to receive no more money 3. The high Priest had still a chiefe hand in the managing of that businesse in which also the Priests that kept the doore had an interest All which is plaine from 2 Kings 12. 6. 8 9 10. And beside all this it was a money matter concerning the hyring and paying of workemen and so did belong to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the extrinsecall not to the intrinsecall things of the Church 8. Object The Kings of the Jewes have purged the Land from Idolatry and Superstition have broken downe Altars cut down Groves destroyed high places and such like Idolatrous Monuments Ans. This was nothing but what was commanded in the Law of Moses whereunto also the secular coercivepower was necessary Let it be remembled concerning those godly reforming Kings of 〈◊〉 1. The case was extraordinary no matter of ordinary Government 2 Their reformation was Iure divino The Law of God was the rule and Ius Divinum was not then startled at but embraced 3. Sometime also the reformation was not without an assembly of the Prophets Priests and Elders as 2 Kings 23. 1. 9. Object Mr. Prynne in his Diotrephes Catechised Quest. 2. 〈◊〉 another objection from 2 Chr. 19. asking whether it be not clearly meant that as King Josiah himselfe he should have said Iehoshaphat did by his owne regall authority appoint Iudges in the Land and in Jerusalem in the preceeding 5 6 7 8 9. 10. Verses to dâ—…termine all controversies and punish all offences whatsoever accoâ—…ding to the Lawes of God and that Kingdome so hee did by the selfe same regall authority appoint Amariah then chiefe Priest over the Priests and Levites onely implyed in the word you not over the people of the Land in all matters of the Lord that is to Order direct the Priests and Levites under him in their severall courses and all matters whatsoever concerning the Worship c. Ans. 1. Mr. Prynne will never prove from that Text That Iehoshaphat by his regall authority did appoint or set Amariah the chiefe Priest to be over the rest The English translators expresse the sence by interlacing the word is Verse 11. And behold Amariah the chiefe Priest is over you in all matters of the Lord. 2. To restrict the word you to the Priests and Levites onely is an intolerable wresting of the Text for all these relatives Verse 9 10 11. them ye you must needs repeat the antecedent Verse 8. and so relate to the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel as well as to the Priests and Levites So that these words Amariah the chiefe Priest is over you are spoken to the Sanhedrin and the plaine meaning is that Amariah the chiefe Priest was at that time the Nasi or princeps Senatus the Prince or chiefe Ruler of the Senat as Grotius expounds it 3. That the high Priest was a Ruler of the People as well as of the Priests and Levites is
the law that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude I conceive that this separation was a casting out of the Church of Israel and is not meant here of a civill separation from honours and priviledges nor yet onely in reference to the dissolution of unlawfull marriages I understand also by the prohibition of entring into the congregation of the Lord Deut. 23. 1 2 3. that such were not to be received into Church communion Ostendit autem qui a caetibus fidelium debeant excludi He sheweth who ought to be excluded from the assemblies of the faithfull saith Aretius upon Deut. 23. 1. Hic dicitur Ecclesia Dei atrium mundorum quod non debebant tales ingredi Here that Court of the Temple which was appointed only for the clean is called the Congregation of God whereunto such persons ought not to enter saith Hugo Cardinalis upon the same place Audita lege de duabus inimicis gentibus anathematizandis c. Having heard the law concerning the two hostile Nations to be anathematized or accursed saith Beda on Nehem. 13. thereupon they separated the mixed multitude Pelargus on Deut. 23. citeth Theodoret Procpius and Rabanus besides the Canonills for this sence that the not entring into the Congregation of the Lord is meant of refusing Ecclesiasticall not civill priviledges I know that divers others understand Deut. 23. 1 2 3. of not admitting unto and Nehem. 13. 3. of separating from marriages with the Jewes and civill dignities or places of Magistrates or Rulers in that Commonwealth such a one shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord that is shall not be received into the Assembly or Court of Judges But there are some reasons which diswade me from this and incline me to the other interpretation First the Law Deut. 23. being read to the people Nebem 13. 3. upon the hearing of that law they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude It is not to be imagined that all this mixed multitude was married to Jewes muchlesse that they were all Magistrats Rulers or members of Courts and Judicatures in Israel But by the mixed multitude are meant all such as were in Israel but not of Israel or such as conversed and dwelt among the Jewes and had civill fellowship with them but had no part nor portion by right in Church-membership and Communion in which sence also the mixed multitude is mentioned Exod. 12. 38. Num. 11. 4. Secondly that this separation from Israel is to be understood in a spirituall and ecclesiasticall sence it appeareth by the instance and application immediately added Neb. 13. 4. to vers 10. And before this that is before this separation Eliashih the Priest being allied unto Tobiah had prepared for him a chamber in the Courts of the house of God but now when the separation of the mixed multitude was made Nehemiah did east out the stuffe of Tobiah and commanded to cleanse the chambers of the Temple which had been defiled by Tobiah Behold an instance of the separation in reference to the Temple or holy place not to any civill Court. Thirdly the Chaldee paraphrase helpeth me Deut. 23. 1 2 3. for instead of these words shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord Onkelos readeth shall not be clean to enter into the congregation of the Lord having respect to the law which did forbid uncleane persons to enter into the Temple Ita isti mundi reputabantur so likewise were these Ammonites Moabites bastards c. esteemed as unclean saith Tostatus in Deut. 23. quaest 1. Fourthly Edomites and Egytians might enter into the congregregation of the Lord in the third generation Deut. 22. 7 8. Was the meaning that Edomites and Egyptians should in the third generation marry with the Jewes or be Magistrates in Israel members of the Sanhedrin or Judges He that will thinke so will hardly prove that it was so To me it is not at all probable that God would allow his people either to marry with the Edomites and Egyptians or to prefer them to be Magistrates and Judges in Israel no not in the third generation But it is very probable that when an Edomite or Egyptian came to dwell in the Land of Israel as a proselyte indweller ob erving the seven precepts given to the sonnes of Noah the children of that Egyptian or Edomite in the third generation miâ—ht enter into the congregation of the Lord that is might upon their desire and submission to the whole law of Moses be received as proselytes of righteousnesse or of the Covenant and so free to come to the Court of Israel and in all Church relations to be as one of the Israelites themselves Fifthly Philo the Jew lib. de victimas offerentibus towards the end tels us that their Law did prohibit all unworthy persons from their sacred Assemblies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From the same sacred Assemblies of the Church he saith that their law did also exclude Eunuohs and bastards or such as were borne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word used by the LXX in Deut. 23. 2. where Philo most certainly hath respect to that Law Deut. 23. understanding by the congregation of the Lord in that plaâ—e neither a civill Court nor liberty of marriage but the sacred or Church Assembly There are but two objections which I finde brought against that which I have been now proving One is from Exod. 12. 48. a law which admitteth strangers to the Church and Passeover of the Jewes provided they were willing to be circumcised The other objection is from the example of Ruth the Moabitesse who was a member of the Church of Israel To the first I answer that Exod. 12. 48. will not prove that every stranger who desired to be circumcised and to eate the Passeover was to be immediately admitted upon that desire without any more adoe onely it proves that before any stranger should eate of the Passeover he must first be circumcised A stranger might not be Gertsedek a proselyte of righteousnesse when he pleased but he was first to be so and so qualified Besides this it may be justly doubted whether Deut. 23. 3. be not an exception from the rule Exod. 12. 48. for all strangers were not to be alike soon and readily received to be proselytes of righteousnesse but a great difference there was between those Nations which God had expressely and particularly devoted and accursed and others not so accursed To the other objection concerning Ruth Rabanus cited by Pelargus on Deut. 23. answereth that the tenth generation of the Moabites was past before Ruth did enter into the congregation of the Lord. And if it had not yet the case was extraordinary and one Swallow makes not Summer 14. Object But is there any patterne or president in the Jewish Church for keeping backe scandalous sinners from the Sacrament Ans. There is for I have proved a keeping back of notorious sinners both from the Passeover and from the Temple it selfe which had a Sacramentall
Ecclesiastica where he examineth the most substantiall Arguments of Erastus Antonius Walaeus de munere ministrorum Ecclesiae inspectione Magistratus circa illud Et in locâ—… com de clavivibus potestate Ecclesiastica Et Tom 2. Disp. de disciplina Ecclesiastica Helmichius de vocatione Pastorum institutione Consistoriorum D. Triglandius in differtatione de potestate civili Ecclesiastica D. Revius in examine libelli de Episcopatu Constantini magni D. Apollonij 〈◊〉 Majestatis circa sacra D. Cabeliavius de libertate Ecclesiae in exercenda disciplina spirituali Dr. Voqtius in his Politica Ecclesiastica especially his Disputations de potestate Politia Ecclesiarum Beside Acronius Thysius Ludov. a Renesse who were Champions against that unhappy error revived in the Low-Countries by Wâ—…enbogard a Proselyte of the Arminians But now while Eâ—…astianisme did thus lye a dying and like to breath its last is there no Physitian who will undertake the cure and endeavour to raise it up from the gates of death to life Yes Mr. Coleman was the man who to that purpose first appeared publikely First by a Sermon to the Parliament Next by debating the Controversie with my selfe in writing and lastly By engaging in a publike debate in the Reverend Assembly of Divines against this Proposition Iesus Christ as King and Head of His Church hath appointed a Governement in the Church in the hands of Church-Officers distinct from the Civil Governement After he had some dayes argued against this proposition having full liberty both to argue and reply as much as he pleased it pleased God to visit him with sicknesse during which the Assembly upon intimation from himself that he wished them to lay aside that Proposition for a time that if God should give him health again he might proceed in his debate did goe upon other matter and lay this aside for that season The Lord was pleased to remove him by death before he could do what he intended in this and other particulars One of his intentions was to translate and publish in English the Book of Erastus against Excommunication But through Gods mercy before the poison was ready there was one Antidote ready I mean Mr. Rutherford his answer to Erastus But though Mr. Coleman was the first man he was not the onely man that hath appeared in this present Controversie in England Others and those of divers professions are come upon the Stage I shall leave every man to his Judge and shall judge nothing before the time Onely I shall wish every man to consider sadly and seriously by what Spirit and Principles he is led and whether he be seeking the things of Christ or his owne things whether he be pleasing men or pleasing Christ whether sin be more shamed and holinesse more advanced this way or that way Which way is most agreeable to the Word of God to the example of the best Reformed Churches and so to the solâ—mne League and Covâ—nant The Controversie is now hot every faithfull servant of Christ will be carefull to deliver his owne soule by his faithfulnesse and let the lord do what seemeth him good The cause is not ours but Christs it stands him upon his Honour his Crowne his Lawes his Kingdom Our eyes are towards the Lord and we will wait for a divine decision of the businesse For the Lord is our Judge the Lord is our Law-giver The Lord is our King he will save us CHAP. II. Some Postulata or common Principles to be presupposed FOr a foundation to the following discourse I shall premise the particulars following which I hope shall be condescended upon and acknowledged as so many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. There must be a most conscientious and speciall care had that there be not a promiscuous admission of all sorts of persons that please or desire to partake in all the publike Ordinances of God but a distinction is to be made of the precious and the vile the clean and the unclean I mean those who are apparantly and visibly such This was a principle and rule among the Heathens themselves therefore when they came to doe sacrifice the prophane were bidden be gone and Caesar tells us that of old the Druides the Heathnish French Priests did interdict the flagitious from their sacrifices and holy things These Druides France had from England if the observation of Francis Holy-Oke out of Tacitus hold 2. That censures and punishments ought to be appointed and inflicted as for personal and private injuries between man and man so much more for publike and scandalous sins whereby God is very much dishonoured and the Church dangerously scandalized Tyberius his slighting maxime Deorum injurias Dijs curae esse may be entertained among Atheists but is exploded among all true Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Christian maxime Care is to be first taken of things pertaining to God 3. It is requisite and necessary that he who hath given publick scandall and offence to the Church and hath openly dishonoured God by a grosse notorious sin should honour God edifie others and so far as in him lyeth remove the offence by a publike confession of the sin and declaration of his sorrow and repentance for the saâ—ne and of his resolution through the grace of Christ to do so no more As many of the Beleevers at Ephesus did publikely confesse and shew their deeds Act. 19. 18. The Syriack addeth their offences A patterne of this confession we have in the Law of Moses and Jewish policie whereof else-where as likewise in the Baptisme of Iohn Matth. 3. 6. Of this publike Confession of sin see Festus Honnius disp 51. Thes 2. Mr. Hildersham on Psal. 51. Lect. 34. 37. and diverse others Both the Word of God and the example of the best Reformed Churches leadeth us this way The Centurists Cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. observe four kinds of confession in the New-Testament First a Confession of sin to God alone 1 Iohn 1. 9. Secondly a confession coram Ecclesia before the Church when men acknowledge publikcly their wicked and scandalous deeds and do professe their repenting and lothing of the same And for this they cite Act. 19. 18. Thirdly a confession one to another of particular private injuries and offences chiefly recommended to those who are at variance and have wronged one another Iam. 5. 16. Fourthly the confession or profession of the true Faith 1 Iohn 4. 2. 4. That publick shame put upon a scandalous sinner and the separating or casting out of such an one as the vlle from the precious is the fittest and most effâ—ctual means which the Church can use to humble him to break his heart and to bring him to the acknowledgement of his offence 5. That there may be and often are such persons in the Church whom we must avoid Rom. 16. 17. Withdraw from them 1 Tim 6. 5. 2 Tim. 3. 5. 2 Thes. 3. 6. Have no company with them 2 Thes.
3. but we are the servants both of Christ and of his Church We preach not our selves saith the Apostle but Christ Jesus the Lord and our selves your servants for Jesus sake 2 Cor. 4. 5. 3. That power of Government with which Pastors and Elders are invested hath for the object of it not the external man but the inward man It is not nor ought not to be exercised in any compulsive coercive corporal or civil punishments When there is need of coertion or compulsion it belongs to the Magistrate not to the Minister though the question be of a matter of Religion of Persons or things Ecclesiastical Which as it is rightly observed by Salmasius so he further asserteth against the Popish Writers that all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction hath for the object of it onely the inward man for consider the end of Church-censures saith he even when one is ex communicated or suspended from the Sacrament it is but to reduce him and restore him by repentance that he may again partake of the Sacrament rightly and comfortably which repentance is in the soule or inward man though the signes of it appear externally 4. Presbyterial Government is not an arbitrary Government for clearing whereof take these five Considerations 1. We can do nothing against the Truth but for the Truth and the power which the Lord hath given uâ— is to edification and not to destruction 2 Cor. 13 8 10. All Presbyterial proceedings must be levelled to this end and squared by this rule 2. Presbyters and Presbyteries are 〈◊〉 to the Law of the Land and to the corrective power of the Magistrate Quatenus Ecclesia est in Republica Reipub. pars non Respublica Ecclesiae In so far as the Church is in the Common-wealth and a part of the Common-wealth not the Common-wealth a part of the Church saith Salmasius appar ad lib. de Primatu pag. 292. for which pag. 300. he cites Optatus Milivitanus lib. 3. Non enim Respullica est in Ecclesia sed Ecclesia in Republica Ministers and Elders are Subjects and Members of the Common-wealth and in that respect punishable by the Magistrate if they transgresse the Law of the Land 3. Yea also as Church-Officers they are to be kept within the limits of their calling and compelled if need be by the Magistrate to do those Duties which by the clear Word of God and received principles of Christian Religion or by the received Ecclesiastical Constitutions of that Church they ought to do 4. And in corrupto Ecclesiae statu I mean if it shall ever happen which the Lord forbid and I trust shall never be that Presbyteries or Synods shall make defection from the Truth to Errour from Holinesse to Prophanesse from Moderation to Tyranny and Persecution censuring the innocent and absolving the guilty as Popery and Prelacy did and there being no hopes of redressing such enormities in the ordinary way by intrinsecal Ecclesiastical remedies that is by well-constituted Synods or Assemblies of Orthodox holy moderate Presbyters In such an extraordinary exigence the Christian Magistrate may and ought to interpose his Authority to do diverse things which in an ordinary course of Government he ought not to do for in such a case Magistracy without expecting the proper intrinsecal remedy of better Ecclesiasticall Assemblies may immediately by it self and in the most effectual manner suppresse and restrain such defection exorbitancy and tyranny and not suffer the unjust heretical tyrannical Sentences of Presbyteries or Synods to be put in execution Howbeit in Ecclesia bene constituta in a well constituted and Reformed Church it is not to be supposed that the condition of affairs will be such as I have now said We heartily acknowledge with Mr. Cartwright annot on Mat. 22. Sect. 3. That it belongeth to the Magistrate to reforme things in the Church as often as the Ecclesiastical persons shall either through ignorance or disorder of the affection of covetuousnesse or ambition dâ—…file the Lords Sanctuary For saith Iunius Animad in Bell. contr 4. lib. 1. cap. 12. 18. Both the Church when the concurrence of the Magistrate faileth may extraordinarily doe something which ordinarily she cannot and again when the Church faileth of her duty the Magistrate may extraordinarily procure that the Church return to her duty 5. I dare confidently say that if comparisons be rightly made Presbyterial Government is the most limitted and the least Arbitrary Government of any other in the world I should have thought it very unnecessary and superfluous to have once named here the Papal Government or yet the Prelatical but that Mr. Prynn in his preface to his four grand Questions puts the Reverend Assembly of Divines in mind that they should beware of usurping that which hath been even by themselves disclaimed against and quite taken away from the Pope and Prelats Mr. Coleman also in his Sermon brought objections from the usurpations of Pope Paul the fift and of the Archhbishop of Canterbury Well if we must needs make a comparison come on The Papal usurpations are many 1. The Pope takes upon him to determine what belongs to the Canon of Scripture what not 2. That he onely can determine what is the sence of Scripture 3. He addeth unwritten Traditions 4. He makes himself Judge of all controversies 5. He dispenseth with the Law of God it self 6. He makes himself above General Councels 7. His government is Monarchical 8. He receiveth appeals from all the Nations in the world 9. He claimeth Infallibility at least ex Cathedra 10. He maketh Lawes absolutely binding the Conscience even in things indifferent 11. He claimeth a Temporal Dominion over all the Kingdoms in the world 12. He saith he may depose Kings and absolve Subjects from their oath of allegiance 13. He persecuteth all with fire and sword and Anathema's who do not subject themselves to him 14. He claimeth the sole power of convocating general Councels 15. And of presiding or moderating therein by Himself or his Legates What Conscience or ingenuity can there now be in making any parallel between Papall and Presbyteriall Governement As little there is in making the comparison with Prelacy the power whereof was indeed arbitrary and impatient of those limitations and rules which Presbyteries and Synods in the Reformed Churches walkby For 1. The Prelate was but one yet he claimed the power of ordination and jurisdiction as proper to himself in his owne Diocesse We give the power of ordination and Church censures not uni but unitati not to one but to an Assembly gathered into one 2. The Prelate assumed a perpetual precedency and a constant priviledge of moderating Synods Which Presbyterial Government denyeth to any one man 3. The Prelate did not tye himself either to aske or to receive advice from his fellow Presbyters except when he himself pleased But there is no Presbyteriall nor Synodicall sentence which is not concluded by the major part of voices 4. The Prelate made himself Pastor to the
power hath for the matter of it the earthly Scepter and the Temporal Sword that is it is Monarchical and Legislative it is also punitive or coercive of those that do evil understand upon the like reason remunerative of those that do well The Ecclesiastical power hath for the matter of it the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven 1. The key of knowledge or doctrine and that to be administred not onely severally by each Minister concionaliter but also Consistorially and Synodically in determining controversies of Faith and that according to the rule of holy Scripture onely which is clavis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. The key of order and decency so to speak by which the circumstances of Gods Worship and all such particulars in Ecclesiastical affairs as are not determined in Scripture are determined by the Ministers and ruling Officers of the Church so as may best agree to the generall rules of the word concerning order and decency avoyding of scandall doing all to the glory of God and to the edifying of one another And this is clavis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. The key of corrective discipline or censures to be exercised upon the scandalous and obstinate which is clavis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. Adde also the key of Ordination or mission of Church-Officers which I may call clavis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the authorizing or power giving key others call it missio potestativa 3. They differ in their formes The power of Magistracy is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is an authority or dominion exercised in the particulars above mentioned and that in an immediate subordination to God for which reason Magistrates are called gods The Ecclesiastical power is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 onely It is meerly Ministeriall and Steward-like and exercised in an immediate subordination to Iesus Christ as King of the Church and in his name and authority 4. They differ in their ends The supreme end of Magistracy is onely the glory of God as King of Nations and as exercising dominion over the inhabitants of the earth And in that respect the Magistrate is appointed to keep his Subjects within the bounds of external obedience to the moral Law the obligation where of lyeth upon all Nations and all men The supreme end of the Ecclesiastical power is either proximus or remotus The neerest and immediate end is the glory of Iesus Christ as Mediator and King of the Church The more remote end is the glory of God as having all power and authority in heaven and earth You will say Must not then the Christian Magistrate intend the glory of Iesus Christ and to be subservient to him as he is Mediator and King of the Church Certainly he ought and must and God forbid but that he should do so But how not qua Magistrate but qua Christian. If you say to me again Must not the Christian Magistrate intend to be otherwise subservient to the Kingdom of Iesus Christ as Mediator then by personal or private Christian duties which are incumbent to every Christian I answer no doubt he ought to intend more even to glorifie Iesus Christ in the administration of Magistracy Which that you may rightly apprehend and that I be not misunderstood take this distinction It is altogether incumbent to the ruling Officers of the Church to intend the glory of Christ as Mediator even ex natura rei in regard of the very nature of Ecclesiasticall power and government which hath no other end and use for which it was intended and instituted but to be subservient to the Kingly office of Iesus Christ in the governing of his Church upon earth and therefore sublata Ecclesiâ perit regimen Ecclesiasticum take away the Church out of a Nation and you take away all Ecclesiasticall power of government which makes another difference from Magistracy as we shall see anon But the Magistrate though Christian and godly doth not ex natura rei in regard of the nature of his particular vocation intend the glory of Iesus Christ as Mediator and King of the Church but in regard of the common principles of Christian Religion which do oblige every Christian in his particular vocation and station and so the Magistrate in his to intend that end All Christians are commanded that whatever they do in word or deed they do all in the name of the Lord Iesus Col. 3. 17. that is according to the will of Christ and for the glory of Christ And so a Marchant a Mariner a Tradesman a School-master a Captain a Souldier a Printer and in a word every Christian in his own place and station ought to intend the glory of Christ and the good of his Church and Kingdom Upon which ground and principle if the Magistrate be Christian it is incumbent to him so to administer that high and eminent vocation of his that Christ may be glorified as King of the Church and that this Kingdom of Christ may flourish in his Dominions which would God every Magistrate called Christian did really intend So then the glory of Christ as Mediator and King of the Church is to the Ministery both finis operis and finis operantis To the Magistrate though Christian it is onely finis operantis That is it is the end of the godly Magistrate but not the end of Magistracy whereas it is not onely the end of the godly Minister but the end of the Ministery it self The Ministers intendment of this end flowes from the nature of their particular vocation The Magistrates intendment of the same end flowes from the nature of their general vocation of Christianity acting guiding and having influence into their particular vocation So much of the supreme ends Now the subordinate end of all Ecclesiastical power is that all who are of the Church whether Officers or members may live godly righteously and soberly in this present world be kept within the bounds of obedience to the Gospel void of all known offence toward God and toward man and be made to walk according to the rules delivered to us by Christ and his Apostles The subordinate end of the Civil power is that all publike sins committed presumptuously against the moral Law may be exemplarly punished and that peace justice and good order may be preserved and maintained in the Common-wealth which doth greatly redound to the comfort and good of the Church and to the promoting of the course of the Gospel For this end the Apostle bids us pray for Kings and all who are in Authority though they be Pagans much more if they be Christians that we may live under them a peaceable and quiet life in all Godlinesse and Honesty 1 Tim. 2. 2. He saith not simply that we may live in Godlinesse and Honesty but that we may both live peaceably and quietly and also live godly and honestly which is the very same that we
his place against the holy Ghost the said holy Spirit bearing the contrary record to his Conscience Testimonies taken out of the Harmony of the Confessions of the Faith of the 〈◊〉 Churches Râ—printed at London 1643. Pag. 238. Out of the confession of Helvetia FUrthermore there is another power of duty or ministerial power limited out by him who hath full and absolute power and authority And this is more like a Ministry then Dominion For we see that some master doth give unto the steward of his house authority and power over his House and for that cause delivereth him his keyes that he may admit or exclude such as his master will have admitted or excluded According to this power doth the Minister by his office that which the Lord hath commanded him to do and the Lord doth ratifie and confirm that which he doth and will have the deeds of his ministers to be acknowledged and esteemed as his own deeds unto which end are those speeches in the Gospel I will give unto thee the keyes of the Kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou bindest or loosest in earth shall be bound and loosed in heaven Again whose sins soever ye remit they shall be remitted and whose sins soever ye retain they shall be retained But if the minister deal not in all things as his Lord hath commanded him but passe the limits and bounds of Faith then the Lord doth make void that which he doth Wherefore the Ecclesiastical power of the Ministers of the Church is that function whereby they do indeed govern the Church of God but yet so as they do all things in the Church as he hath prescribed in his Word which thing being so done the faithful do esteem them as done of the Lord himself Pag. 250. Out of the confession of Bohemia THe 14th Chapter of Ecclesiastical doctrine is of the Lords keyes of which he saith to Peter I will give thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and these keyes are the peculiar function or Ministery and administration of Christ his power and his holy Spirit which power is committed to the Church of Christ and to the Ministers thereof unto the end of the world that they should not onely by preaching publish the holy Gospel although they should do this especially that is should shew forth that Word of true comfort and the joyful message of peace and new tydings of that favour which God offereth but also that to the beleeving and unbeleeving they should publikely or privately denounce and make known to wit to them his favour to these his wrath and that to all in general or to every one in particular that they may wisely receive some into the house of God to the communion of Saints and drive some out from thence and may so through the performance of their Ministery hold in their hand the Scepter of Christ his Kingdom and use the same to the government of Christ his Sheep And after Moreover a manifest example of using the power of the keyes is laid out in that sinner of Corinth and others whom St. Paul together with the Church in that place by the power and authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and of his Spirit threw out from thence and delivered to Sathan and contrariwise after that God had given him grace to repent he absolved him from his sins he took him again into the Church to the communion of Saints and Sacraments and so opened to him the Kingdom of Heaven again By this we may understand that these keyes or this divine function of the Lords is committed and granted to those that have charge of souls and to each several Ecclesiastical Societies whether they be smal or great Of which thing the Lord sayeth to the Churches Verily I say unto you whatsoever ye bind on earth shall be bound in heaven And straight after For where two or three are gathered together in my Name there am I in the middest of them Pag. 253. Out of the French Confession VVE beleeve that this true Church ought to be governed by that regiment or discâ—pline which our Lord Jesus Christ hath established to wit so that there be Pastors Elders and Deacons that the purity of doctrine may be retained vices repressed c. Pag. 257. Out of the Confession of Belgia VVE beleeve that this Church ought to be ruled and governed by that spiritual Regiment which God himself hath delivered in his word so that there be placed in it Pastors and Ministers purely to preach and rightly to administer the holy Sacraments that there be also in it Seniors and Deacons of whom the Senate of the Church might consist that by these means true Religion might be preserved and sincere doctrine in every place retained and spread abroad that vicious and wicked men might after a spiritual manner be rebuked amended and as it were by the bridle of discipline kept within their compasse Pag. 260. Out of the Confession of Auspurge AGain by the Gospel or as they term it by Gods Law Bishops as they be Bishops that is such as have the administration of the Word and Sacraments committed to them have no jurisdiction at all but onely to forgive sin Also to know what is true doctrine and to reject such Doctrine as will not stand with the Gospel and to debarre from the communion of the Church such as are notoriously wicked not by humane force and violence but by the word of God And herein of necessity the Churches ought by the law of God to perform obedience unto them according to the saying of Christ He that heareth you heareth me Upon which place the Observation saith thus To debar the wicked c. To wit by the judgement and verdict of the Presbyterie lawfully gathered together c. A Testimony out of the Ecclesiastical Discipline of the Reformed Churches in France Cap. 5. Art 9. THe knowledge of scandals and the censure or judgement thereof belongeth to the Company of Pastors and Elders Art 15. If it befalleth that besides the admonitions usually made by the Consistories to such as have done amisse there be some other punishment or more rigorous censure to be used It shall then be done either by suspension or privation of the holy communion for a time or by excommunication or cutting off from the Church In which cases the Consistories are to be advised to use all prudence and to make distinction betwixt the one and the other As likewise to ponder and carefully to examine the faults and scandals that are brought before them with all their circumstances to judge warily of the censure which may be required Harmonia Synodorum Belgicarum Cap. 14. Art 7. 8. 9. PEccata sua natura publica aut per admonitionis privatae contemtum publicata ex Consistorii totius arbitrio modo formâ ad aedificationem maximè accomodatis sunt Corrigenda Qui pertinaciter Consistorii admonitiones rejecerit à S. Coenae communione
out of the Church And for his antiquity he hath given here no small wound to the Reputation of his skill in Antiquities Which will more fully appear Chap. 17. Meane while how can any that hath read Tertullian or Cyprian not know that some failings and falls in time of persecution and other smaller offences were not punished by excommunication but by suspension from the Sacrament till after publike Declaration of Repentance and confession of the offence the offender was admitted to the Sacrament And for the places he citeth I find in Tertullians Book de poenitentia much of that Exomologesis and publike Declaration of Repentance but that all scandalous persons brought under Church-censures were wholly cast out of the Church I find not In the 39 Chapter of his Apologetick there is no such thing as is alledged but the contrary plainly intimated concerning severall degrees of Ecclesiasticall Discipline and that if any mans offence was so great as to deserve excommunication then he was excommunicate and wholly cast out of the Church And as in the Antient Churches there were and in the reformed Churches there now are different degrees of censures according to the different degrees of offences so in the Jewish Church the like may be observed both concerning Ceremoniall uncleannesse and morall offences Touching the former that Law Num. 5. 2. command the children of Israel that they put out of the Camp every Leper and every one that hath an issue and whosoever is desiled by the dead hath been understood by the Jewish Doctors respectivè that is that the Leper was put out of all the three Camps the Camp of Israel the Camp of the Levites and the Camp of divine Majesty which was the Tabernacle he that had an issue might be in the Camp of Israel but was put out of the other two He that was defiled by the dead was onely restrained from the Camp of divine Majesty for which also see before Book 1. Châ—…p 10. And touching morall offences there were severall Steps and degrees in the Jewish excommunication as Master Selden hath observed from the Talmudists for first a man was separate from the Congregation for 30 dayes and if thereafter he was found obstinate he was separate for other 30 dayes and if after 60 dayes he did not repent then they passed from the lesser excommunication to the greater that is from Niddui and Shammatha as he thinketh to Cherem or Anathema The Author of the Quaeries while he argueth in that first Quaere against the suspending from the Sacrament of a person not excommunicated nor whollâ— cast out of the Church closeth in this particular with them of the Separation which I beleeve he did it not intend to doe for they in one of their Letters in answer to the second Letter of Fr. Junius written to them where they bring eleven Exceptions against the Dutch Churches one of these Exceptions was that they use a new censure of Suspension which Christ hath not appointed They doe hold Excommunication to be an Ordinance of Christ but doe reject the distinction of Suspension and Excommunication as Master Prynne doth Tenthly the true state of the present Question is not whether the Parliament should establish the power of suspending scandalous persons from the Sacrament as Iure divino nay let Divines assert that and satisfie peoples consciences in it but let the Parliament speak in an authoritative and legislative way in adding their civill sanction Nor whether there ought to be any suspension from the Sacrament of scandalous persons not yet excommunicated and cast out of the Church and that the Elder-ship should doe it for the Ordinance of Parliament hath so farre satisfied the desires of the Reverend Assembly and of the generality of godly people that there is to be a suspension of scandalous persons not excommunicated from the Sacrament and power is granted to the Eldership to suspend from the Sacrament for such scandals as are enumerate in the Ordinances of Octob. 20. 1645. and March 14. 1645. Which Ordinances doe appoint that All Persons Or any Person that shall commit such or such an offence shall be by the Eldership suspended from the Sacrament upon confession of the party or upon the Testimony of two credible witnesses So that in truth the stream of Master Prynnes exceptions runneth against that which is agreed and resolved upon in Parliament and his arguments if they prove any thing must necessarily conclude against that power already granted by Parliament to Elder-ships And now if he will speak to that point which is in present publike agitation he must lay aside his Querees and his Vindication thereof and write another Book to prove that the Assembly and other godly ministers and people ought to rest satisfied in point of conscience with the power granted to Elderships to suspend from the Sacrament in the enumerate cases and that there is not the like reason to keep off scandalous persons from the Sacrament for other scandalls beside these enumerate in the Ordinance of Parliament Nay and he must confine himself within a nearower circle then so for the Parliament hath been pleased to think of some course for new emergent cases that the door may not be shut for the future upon the Remonstrances of Elderships concerning cases not expressed I know the Gentleman is free to choose his own Theme to treat of and he may handle what cases of Conscience he shall think fit for the Churches edification But since he professeth in the Conclusion of his foure Questions and in the Preface before his Vindication and in divers other passages that his scope is to expedite a regular settlement of Church Discipline without such a power of suspending the scandalous as is now desired to be setled in the new Elderships and manifestly reflecteth upon one of the Assemblies Petitions concerning that businesse as hath been said yea the first words of his Queres tell us he spoke to the point in present publike agitation the case standing thus I must put him in mind under favour that he hath not been a little out of the way nor a little wide from the mark And if the Question were which of these Tenents Master Prynnes or ours concerning Suspension doth best agree with the mind of the Parliament let us heare their own Ordinance dated March 14. 1645. the words are these yet were the fundamentalls and substantiall parts of that Government long since setled in persons by and over whom it was to be exercised and the nature extent and respective subordination of their power was limitted and defined onely concerning the administration of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper how all such persons as were guilty of notorious and scandalous Offences might be suspended from it some difficulty arising not so much in the Matter it self as in the Manner how it should be done and who should be the Judges of the Offence The Lords and Commons having it alwayes in their purpose and
his calling to minde those words in the rule of Prayer even as we forgive those who trespasse against us Others conceive the occasion of his Question was that which was said vers 19. Againe I say unto you if two of you shall agree on earth supposing that agreement and consequently forgiving of injuries is necessary to make our Prayers the more effectuall for my part I think it not improbable that whatever the occasion of the Question was vers 21 beginneth a new and distinct purpose Which I take to be the reason why the Arabik here makes an intercision and beginneth the eight and fiftieth Section of Matthew at those words Then came Peter and said Lord how oft c. 4. And if vers 21. have a dependence upon that which went before it may be conceived thus Christ had said If thy Brother trespasse against thee goe tell him his fault betweene thee and him alone which supposeth a continuance of the former Christian fellowship and fraternall familiarity and that we must not cast off a scandalous Brother as lost or as an Enemy but admonish him as a Brother This might give occasion to Peter to aske Lord how oft shall my Brother sinne against me that is scandalize me by his sinne against God for even in Luk. 17. 3. 4. that of forgiving one that trespasseth against us is added immediately after a Doctrine of scandals and I forgive him that is as Grotius expounds it restore him to the former degree of friendship and intimate familiarity to deale with him thus as with a Brother Which he well distinguisheth from that other forgiving which is a not revenging And so much of Master Prynnes first reason His second reason is because the Mention of two or three witnesses vers 16. relateth onely to the manner of trying civill capitall crimes as murders and the like before the civill Magistrates of the Jewes c. not to any proceedings in Ecclesiasticall causes in their Ecclesiasticall Consistories of which we find no president Answ. 1. If this hold then the Text must not be expounded indefinitely of civill injuries as he did before but of civill capitall injuries whereas Erastus takes the meaning to be of smaller offences onely and not of Capitall crimes 2. The Law concerning two or three witnesses is neither restricted to Capitall crimes nor to civill Judicatories I appeale to the Ordinance of Parliament dated Octo. 20. 1645. The Elder-ship of every Congregation shall judge the matter of scandall aforesaid being not Capitall upon the Testmiony of two credible Witnesses at the least That Law therefore of witnesses is alike applicable to all causes and Courts Ecclesiasticall and civill Deut. 19. 30. One witnesse shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity or for any sinne in any sin that he sinneth at the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses shall the matter be established 3. And the same Law is in the new Testament clearly applied to proceedings in Ecclesiasticall causes 2 Cor. 13. 1. again 1 Tim. 5. 19. Against the Elder receive not an accusation but before two or three witnesses which is not spoken to any civill Magistrate but to Timothy and others joyned with him in Church Government His third reason doth onely begge what is in Question that by the Church is not meant any Ecclesiasticall but a civill Court of the Jewes He needed not to cite so many places to prove that the Jewes had civill Courts If he could but cite one place to prove that they had no Ecclesiasticall Courts this were to the purpose Not that I grant that at this time the Jewes had any civill Jurisdiction or Jewish Court of Justice for after that Herod the great did kill Hircanus and the Sanhedrin in the opinion of many learned men the Jewes had no more any civill Jurisdiction Now Herod the great was dead before the time of Christs Ministery Others think they had some civill Jurisdiction a while after Hircanus death How ever he cannot prove that at this time when Christ said Tell the Church the Jewes had any civill Court of Justice which did exercise either Criminall or Capitall Judgements I have in the first Book shewed out of Buxtorf L'Empereur Casauhon and I. Coch. who prove what they say from the Talmudicall writers that 40 yeeres before the destruction of the Temple and so before Christ said Tell the Church the Court of civill Justice at Hierusalem did cease If Master Prynne make any thing of this Glosse of his he must prove 1. That there was no Ecclesiasticall Court among the Jewes I have before proved that that Councell of the Jewes in Christs time was an Ecclesiasticall Court though he conceives it was meerely civill 2. That a private civill injury might not then nor may not now be brought before a civill Court except after severall previous admonitions despised 3. That Chists Rule Tell the Church was antiquated and ceased when a civill Court of Justice among the Jewes ceased If he say that the same rule continueth for telling the civill Magistrate in case the offender prove obstinate after admonition then I aske â— how will he reconcile himself for pag. 4. he saith the Church in this Text is onely the Sanhedrin or Court of civill Justice among the Jewes 2. If this Text Mat. 18. was applicable to the primitive Church after the destruction of Ierusalem and when there was no Jewish Sanhedrin to goe to then the Pagan Magistracy must passe under the name of the Church for they had no other civill Court of Justice to goe to One thing I must needs take notice of that whereas he would prove here that Tell the Church is nothing but tell the civill Court of Justice among the Jewes commonly called the Councell saith he or Sanhedrin he doth hereby overthrow all that he hath been building for the Jewish Sanhedrin at that time had not power to judge civill nor criminall and least of all Capitall offences but onely causes Ecclesiasticall The Romans having taken from them their civill Government and left them no Government nor Jurisdiction except in matters of Religion I hope Master Prynne will not in this contradict Erastus And if so how shall his Glosse stand that this Text is to be understood of civill injuries yea and of these onely for remedy whereof he conceives that Christ sends his Disciples to the Jewish Sanhedrin How sweetly doe his Tenents agree together His fourth reason is that those words let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican cannot signifie excommunication because Heathen men being never members of the Church could never be excommunicated or cast out of it being uncapable of such a censure As for publicans those of them who were members of the Jewish Church though they were execrable to the Jewes by reason of their Tax-gatherings and oppressions yet we never read in Scripture that they were excommunicated or cast out of their Synagogues but
well stand together So Synop. pur Theol. disp 48. Thes. 40 and he alloweth of both these expositions and afterward in his common place of excommunication he speaketh of Gods cooperating with the Church censure by punishing the Excommunicate person with diabolicall vexations Sure I am an excommunicate person may truly be said to be delivered to Sathan who is the God and Prince of this world and reigneth in the Children of disobedience But Master Prynne will find himself difficulted to prove that tradere Satanae 1 Cor. 5. is onely meant of a miraculous or extraordinary act or to shew how or why the Apostle requireth the Assembling of the Church and their consent to the working of a miracle Which if there were no more may discover the weaknesse of Master Prynnes notions concerning delivering to Sathan 6 7 8. But as the full debate were long so it were not necessary since Master Prynne doth now himself acknowledge that the last verse of that Chapter proveth excommunication vindic pag. 2. I come therefore to the next which he calls the fourth difference whether 1 Cor. 5. 11. with such an one no not to eat be properly meant of excommunication or suspension from the Sacrament But whatsoever be properly meant by that phrase that which his debate driveth at is that this verse doth neither prove excommunication nor suspension from the Sacrament so much as by necessary consequence But let us see whether his reasons can weaken the proof of Suspension from vers 11. first he saith there is not one syllable of receiving or eating of the Lords Supper in this Chapter I answer the question is neither of syllables nor words but of things and how will he prove that vers 8. Let us keep the feast not with old leavon c. is not applicable to the Lords Supper I say not to it onely yet surely it cannot be excluded but must needs becomprehended as one part yea a principall part of the meaning the better to answer the Analogy of the passeover there much insisted upon He may be pleased also to remember that he himself pag. 24. proving the passeover and the Lords Supper to be the same for the substance for proof hereof citeth 1 Cor. 5. 7. and that Aretius Theol probl loc 80. expoundeth our Feast of the Passeover 1 Cor. 5. to be meant of the Lords Supper But he further objecteth from 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. We are all partakers of that one Bread if all were then partakers of this Bread certainly none were excluded from it in the Church of Corinth but at the Israelites under the Law did all eat the same spirituall Meat and all Drinke the same spirituall Drinke though God were displeased with many of them who were Idolaters tempters of God fornicators murmurers and were destroyed in the wildernesse 1 Cor. 10. 1. to 12. so all under the Gospell who were visible members of â—…he Church of Corinth did eat and drink the Lords Supper to which some drunkards whiles drunken did then resort as is clear by 1 Cor. 11. 20. 21. Which Paul indeed reprehends vers 22. Answ. 1 When Paul saith we being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of that one bread he speaketh of the communion of Saints the word all can be of no larger extent then visible Saints to whom the Epistle is directed 1 Cor. 1. 2. and cannot be applyed to visible workers of iniquity who continue impenitent and obstinate in so doing As we may joyn in communion with a visible Church which hath the externall markes of a Church though it be not a true invisible Church so we joyne with visible Saints to become one body with them in externall Church communion and to be partakers of one bread with them though they be not true or invisible Saints in the hid man of the heart But if these be visibly no Church we cannot joyne in Church Communion and if a man be visibly no Saint he ought not to be admitted to the communion of Saints I shall never be perswaded that the Apostle Paul would say of himselfe and the Saints at Corinth We are one body with known Idolaters Fornicators Drunkards and the like 2 If all in the Church of Corinth none excluded even drunkards whiles drunken and if all under the Gospell who are visible members of the Church ought to be admitted to eat the same spirituall meat and drinke the same spirituall drink at the Lords Table as he supposeth that in the wildernesse all the Israelites did the like who were Idolaters Fornicators c. Then I beseech you observe how Master Prynne doth by all this overthrow his owne rules for pag. 2. and elsewhere he tells us he would have notorious scandalous sinners who after admonition persevere in their iniquities without remorse of conscience or amendment to be excommunicated from the Church and from the society of the faithfull in all publike Ordinances If both in the Church of Israel and in the Church of Corinth all were admitted and none excluded even those who were Idolaters or drunkards whiles actually such without repentance or amendment how can Master Prynne straiten Christians now more then Moses did the Jewes or Paul the Corinthians Since therefore his Arguments drive at it it s best he should speak it out that all manner of persons who professe themselves to be Christians be they never so scandalous never so obstinate though they persevere in their iniquity after admonition without amendment yet ought to be admitted to the Lords Table 3 He shall never be able to prove either that those drunken persons 1 Cor. 11. 21. were drunken when they did resort to the Church for it was in the Church and in eating and drinking there that they made themselves drunke nor yet that the Idolaters and Fornicâ—tors in the wildernesse their eating of the spirituall meat and drinking of the spirituall drinke mentioned by the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. was after their Idolatâ—ies and Fornications But of this latter I have elsewhere spoken distinctly and by it self 4 To say that all who were visible members of the Church of Corinth were admitted and none excluded and to say it with a certainly is to make too bold with Scripture And the contrary will sooner be proved from 1 Cor. 10. 21. ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of Devills ye cannot be partakers of the Lords Table and of the Table of Devills So much for his first exception His second is concerning persons but not to the purpose that if we looke upon the catalogue of those with whom we are forbidden to eat not onely shall most of the Anabaptisticall and Independent Congregations but too many Presbyterian ministers and Elders who are most foreward to excommunicate others for Idolatry Fornication Drunkennesse must first be excommunicated themselves for their owne covetousnesse Answ. Let it light where it may Ministers doe not stand nor fall to his Judgement but where just
receive the Sacrament But M r Prynne gives us a fourth answer which is the last but a very weake refuge The word immediately saith he many times in our common speech signifieth soon after or not long after as we usually say we will doe this or that immediately instantly presently whenas we mean onely speedily within a short time Answ. 1. This is no good report which M r Prynne brings upon the English tongue that men promise to doe a thing immediately when they do not mean to doe it immediately I hope every conscientious man will be loath to say immediately except when he meanes immediately for I know not how to explaine immediately but by immediately and for an usuall forme of speaking which is not according to the rule of the word it s a very bad commentary to the language of the holy Ghost 2. And if that forme of speech be usuall in making of promises yet I have never known it usuall in writing of Histories to say that such a thing was done immediately after such a thing and yet divers other things intervened between them If between Iudas his getting of the sop and his going out did interveene the instituting of the Sacrament the taking blessing breaking distributing and eating of the bread also the taking and giving of the cup and their dividing it among themselves and drinking all of it how can it then be a true narration that Iudas went out immediately after his receiving of the sop 3. Neither is it likely that Satan would suffer Iudas to stay any space after he was once discovered lest the company and conference of Christ and his Apostles should take him off from his wicked purpose 4. Gerard having in his common places given that answer that the word immediately may suffer this sence that shortly thereafter Iudas went forth he doth professedly recall that answer in his Cotinuation of the Harmony cap. 171. p. 453. and that upon this ground because Iudas being mightily irritated and exasperated both by the sop and by Christs answer for when Iudas asked Is it I Christ answered Thou hast said would certainly breake away abruptly and very immediately So much of the first argument The second argument which I also touched in my Sermon was this As Christ said to the Communicants Drinke ye all of it Matth. 26. 27. and they all dranke Matth. 14. 23. so he saith to them all This is my Body which is broken for you This is the cup of the new covenant in my Blood which is shed for you Luke 22. 19. 20. But if Iudas had been one of the communicants it is not credible that Christ would have said so in reference to him as well as to the other Apostles This argument M r Prynne p. 25. doth quite mistake as if the strength of it lay in a supposed particular application of the words of the institution to each communicant which I never meant but dislike it as much as he The words were directed to all in the plurall This is my Body broken for you c. my Blood shed for you c. M r Prynne conceives that it might have been said to Iudas being meant by Christ onely conditionally that his Body was broken and his Blood was shed for him if he would really receive them by faith Jonas Schlichtingius a Socinian in his booke against Meisnerus pag. 803. though he supposeth as M r Prynne doth that Iudas was present at the giving of the Sacrament yet he holds that it is not to be imagined that Christ would have said to Iudas that his body was broken for him And shall we then who believe that the death of Jesus Christ was a satisfaction to the justice of God for sinne which the Sociniâ— believe not admit that Christ meant to comprehend Iudas â—mong others when he said this is my body which is broken for you Ministers doe indeed offer Christ to all upon condition of believing being commanded to preach the Gospell to every creature and not knowing who are reprobates but that Christ himselfe knowing that the sonne of perdition was now lost that the Scripture might be fulfilled Iohn 17. 12. would in the Sacrament which is more applicative then the word and particularizeth the promises to the receivers so speake as that in any sence those words might be applied to Iudas that even for him his body was broken and his blood shed and that thereupon the seales should be given him to me is not at all credible and I prove the negative by foure arguments though I might give many more 1. If Christ did in reference to Iudas meane conditionally that his body was broken and his blood shed for him if he would believe as M r Prynne holds then he meant conditionally to save the sonne of perdition whom he knew infallibly to be lost and that he should be certainly damned and goe to Hell and that in eating the Sacrament he would certainly eate and drinke judgement to himselfe all which M r Prynne himselfe pag. 26. saith Christ infallibly knew But who dare thinke or say so of Jesus Christ Suppose a Minister knew infallibly that such a one hath blasphemed against the holy Ghost which sinne the Centurists and others thinke to have been committed by Iudas which could not be hid from Christ and is irrecoverably lost and will be most certainly damned durst that Minister admit that person to the Sacrament and make those words applicable to him so much as conditionally This is the Lords body broken for you This is the blood of the new Covenant shed for you unto remission of sinne How much lesse would Christ himselfe say so or mean so in reference to Iudas 2. If Christ would not pray for Iudas but for his elect Apostles onely and such as should believe through the word of the Gospell then he meant not so much as conditionally to give his body and blood for Iudas for if he meant any good to Iudas so much as conditionally he would not have excluded him from having any part at all in his prayers to God But Christ doth exclude Iudas from his prayer Iohn 17. not onely as one of the reprobate world vers 9. but even by name vers 12. giving him over for lost and one that was not to be prayed for 3. Love and hatred in God and in his sonne Jesus Christ being eternall and unchangeable for actus Dei immanentes sunt aeterni it followeth that if there was such a decree of God or any such meaning or intention in Christ as to give his body and blood for Iudas whom he knew infallibly to be lost and since that same conditionall meaning or intention could not be without a conditionall love of God and of Christ to Iudas and his salvation this love doth still continue in God and in Christ to save Iudas now in Hell upon condition of his believing which every Christian I thinke will abominate 4. That conditionall love and conditionall intention
received it thereafter cap. 156. he addeth the institution and distribution of the Lords Supper as being in order posterior to Iudas his going forth So likewise before him Tacianus doth make the History of the institution of the Sacrament to follow after the excluding of Iudas from the company of Christ and his Apostles which neither of them had done if they had not believed that Iudas was gone before the Sacrament With all these agreeth Innocentius the third who holdeth expresly that the Sacrament was not given till Iudas had gone forth and that there is a recapitulation in the narration of Luke Moreover as it is evident by the forementioned Testimonies of Theophylact that some of the Ancients did hold that Christ gave not the Sacrament to Iudas so also the Testimony cited by M r Prynne out of Victor Antiochenus beareth witnesse to the same thing sunt tamen qui Judam ante porrectam Eucharistiae Sacamentum exivisse existiment But yet saith he there are who conceive that Judas went forth before the Sacrament of the Eucharist was given And with these words M r Prynne closeth his citation out of Victor Antiochenus But I will proceed where he left off The very next words are these Sane Johannes quiddam ejusmodi subindicare videtur Certainly Iâ—…hn seemeth to intimate some such thing Which is more then halfe a consenting with those who thinke that Iudas went forth before the Sacrament of the Lords Supper I shall end with two Testimonies of Rupertus Tuitiensis one upon the sixth another upon the thirteenth of Iohn The latter of the two speaketh thus being Englished But we must know that as it hath been also said before us if Judas after the sop did goe forth immediately as a little after the Evangelist saith without doubt he was not present with the Disciples at that time when our Lord did distribute unto them the Sacrament of his owne body and blood And a little after Therefore by the Lords example the good ought indeed to tolerate the bad in the Church untill by the fanne of judgement the graine be separated from the chaffe or the tares from the wheate but yet patience must not be so farre void of discerning as that they should give the most sacred mysteries of Christ to unworthy persons whom they know to be such As for moderne writers this present question hath been debated by Salmeron Tom. 9. Tract 11. and by D r Kellet in his Tricaenium lib. 2. cap. 14. both of them hold that Iudas did not receive the Lords Supper Mariana on Luke 22. 21. citeth authors for both opinions and rejecteth neither Gerhard Harm Evang. cap. 171 citeth for the same opinion that Iudas did not receive the Lords Supper beside Salmeron Turrianus and Barradius and of ours Danaeus Musculus Kleinwitzius Piscator alii complures saith he and many others Adde also Zanchius upon the fourth Command Gomarus who professedly handleth this question upon Iohn 13. Beza puts it out of question and Tossanns tels us it is the judgement of many learned men as well as his owne Musculus following Rupertus concludeth that certainly Iudas was gone forth before Christ gave the Sacrament to his Apostles So likewise Diodati and Grotius By this time it appeareth that M r Prynne hath no such consent of writers of his opinion or against mine as he pretendeth As for those Ancients cited by M r Prynne some of them as Origen and Cyrill did goe upon this great mistake that the sop which Christ gave to Iudas was the Sacrament which errour of theirs is observed by Interpreters upon the place No marvell that they who thought so were also of opinion that Iudas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper for how could they choose to thinke otherwise upon that supposition But now the later Interpreters yea M r Prynne himselfe having taken away that which was the ground of their opinion their Testimonies will weigh the lesse in this particular Chrysostome thinks indeed that Iudas received the Sacrament but he takes it to be no warrant at all for the admission of scandalous persons for in one and the same Homily Hom. 83. in Matth. he both tels us of Iudas his receiving of the Sacrament and discourseth at large against the admission of scandalous persons As for Bernard M r Prynne doth not cite his words nor quote the place Oecumenius in the passage cited by M r Prynne saith that the other Apostles and Iudas did eate together communi mensa at a common Table But he saith not at the Sacrament of the Lords Supper That which Oecumenius in that place argueth against is the contempt of the poore in the Church of Corinth and the secluding of them from the love feasts of the richer sort Now saith he if Christ himselfe admitted Iudas to eate at one and the same Table with his other Disciples ought not we much more admit the poore to eate at our Tables M r Prynne tels us also that Nazianzen in his Christus patiens agreeth that Iudas did receive the Lords Supper together with the other Apostles I answer first I finde no such thing in that place Next those verses so entituled are thought to be done by some late author and not by Nazianzen as Io. NeW enklaius in his Censure upon them noteth and giveth reason for it Cyprians Sermon de ablutione pedum as it is doubted of whether it be Cyprians so the words cited by M r Prynne doe not prove the point in controverfie The other Testimony cited out of Cyprians Sermon de caena Domini as it is not transcribed according to the originall so if M r Prynne had read all which Cyprian saith in that Sermon against unworthy receivers peradventure he had not made 〈◊〉 of that testimony The words cited out of Ambrose doe not hold forth clearely Iudas his receiving of the Eucharisticall Supper The words cited out of Augustine epist. 162. Iudas accepit pretium nostrum are not there to be found though there be something to that sence It is no safe way of citations to change the words of Authors This by the way As for his other three citations out of Augustine Tract 6. 26. 62. in Ioh. I can not passe them without two Animadversions First the greatest part of those words which he citeth as Augustines words and also as recited by Beda in his Commentary on 1 Cor. 11. is not to be found either in Augustine or Beda in the places by him cited viz. these words Talis erat Judas tamen cum sanctis Discipulis undecinâ—… intrabat exibat Ad ipsam caenam Dominicam pariter accessit conversari cum iis potuit eos inquinare non potuit De uno pâ—…ne Petrus accipit Judas tamen quae pars fideli infideli Petrus enim accepit ad vitam manducat Judas ad mortem Qui enim comederunt indigne judicium sibi manducat
bibit SIBI NON TIBI c. Of which last sentence if M r Prynne can make good Latine let him doe it for I can not and when he hath done so he may be pleased to looke over his Bookes better to seeke those words elsewhere if he can finde them for as yet he hath directed us to seeke them where they are not My next Animadversion shall be this The words of Augustine which M r Prynne alledgeth for Iudas his receiving of the Sacrament are these Tract 6. in Joh. Num enim mala erat buccella quae tradita est Judae à Domino Absit Medicus non daret venenum salutem medicus dedit sed indigne accipiendo ad perniciem accepit quia non pacatus accepit Thus the originall though not so recited by M r Prynne but that I passe so long as he retaines the substance Yet how will he conclude from these words that Iudas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper unlesse he make Augustine to contradict himselfe most grossely for Tract 62. in Joh. another place whether M r Prynne directeth us speaking of Christs giving of that buccella or sop to Iudas he saith Non autem ut putant quidam negligenter legentes tunc Judas Christi corpus accepit but Judas did not at that time receive the body of Christ as some negligently reading doe thinke Which words Beda also in his Comment on Ioh. 13. hath out of Augustine It is Augustines opinion that the Sacrament was given before that time at which Iudas was present That which M r Prynne citeth out of Algerus a Monke who in that same booke writeth expresly for Transubstantiation maketh more against him then for him For Algerus takes the â—eason of Christs giving the Sacrament to Iudas to be this because his perverse conscience though knowne to Christ was not then made manifest Iudas not being accused and condemned so that he was a secret not a scandalous sinner Thus farre we have a taste of M r Prynnes citations of the Ancients Peradventure it were not hard to finde as great flaws in some other of those citations But it is not worth the while to stay so long upon it Among the reâ— he citeth Haymo Bishop of Halberstat for Iudas his receiving of the Sacrament But he may also be pleased to take notice that Haymo would have no notorious scandalous sinner to receive the Sacrament and holds that a man eats and drinks unworthily qui gravioribus criminibus commaculatus praesumit illud sacramentum sumere that is who being defiled with haynous crimes presumeth to take the Sacrament but if he had thought it as Master Prynne doth the most effectuall ordinance and readiest meanes to worke conversion and repentance he could not have said so That which M r Prynne pag. 23. citeth out of the two confessions of Bohemia and Belgia doth not assert that for which he citeth them For neither of them saith that Iudas did receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper The Belgik confession saith an evill man may receive the Sacrament unto his own condemnation As for example Judas and Simon Magus both of them did receive the Sacramentall signe I can subscribe to all this for it is true in respect of the baptisme both of Iudas and Simon Magus But I must here put M r Prynne in minde that the thing which he pleads for is extreamly different from that which the Belgick Churches hold For Harmonia Synodorum Belgicarum cap. 13. saith thus Nemo ad Caenam dominicam admittatur nisi qui fidei Confessionem ante reddiderit Disciplinae Ecclesiasticae se subjecerit vitae inculpatae testes fideles produxerit Let no man be admitted to the Lords Supper except he who hath first made a confession of his faith and hath subjected himselfe to the Church Discipline and hath proved himselfe by faithfull witnesses to be of an unblameable life The other confession of Bohemia saith that Iudas received the Sacrament of the Lord Christ himselfe did also execute the function of a Preacher and yet he ceased not to remaine a divell an hypocrite c. This needeth not be expounded of the Lords Supper which if he had received how did he still remaine an hypocrite for that very night his wickednesse did breake forth and was put in execution but of the Passeover received by Iudas once and againe if not the third time That Chapter is of Sacraments in generall and that which is added is concerning Ananias and his wife their being baptised of the Apostles However the very same Chapter saith that Ministers must throughly looke to it and take diligent heed lest they give holy things to dogs or cast Pearles before swine Which is there applied to the Sacraments and is not understood of preaching and admonishing onely as M r Prynne understands it Also the Booke entituled Ratio Disciplinae ordinisque Ecclesâ—…astici in unitate fratrum Bohemorum cap. 7. appointeth not onely Church-discipline in generall but particularly suspension from the Lords Table of obstinate offenders Finally whereas M. Prynne citeth a passage of the antiquated Common prayer Booke as it hath lost the authority which once it had so that passage doth not by any necessary inference hold forth that Iudas received the Sacrament as D. Kellet sheweth at some length in his Tricaenium The citation in which M. Prynne is most large is that of Alexander Alensis part 4. Quaest. 11. membr 2. art 1. sect 4. though not so quoted by him But for a retribution I shall tell him three great points in which Alexander Alensis in that very dispute of the receiving of the Eucharist is utterly against his principles First Alexander Alensis is of opinion that the precept Matth. 7. 6. Give not that which is holy to dogs neither cast ye Pearles before swine doth extend to the denying the Sacrament to known prophane Christians for both in that Section which hath been cited and art 3. sect 1. answering objections from that Text he doth not say that it is meant of the word not of the Sacrament and of Infidels Hereticks Persecutors not of prophane ones but he ever supposeth that the Ministers are forbidden by that Text to consent to give the Sacrament to prophane scandalous sinners Secondly Alexander Alensis holds that Christs giving of the Sacrament to Iudas is no warrant to Ministers to give the Sacrament to publique notorious scandalous sinners though they doe desire it And thus he resolveth Ib. art 3. sect 1. If the Priest know any man by confession to be in a mortall sinne he ought to admonish him in secret that he approach not to the Table of the Lord and he ought to deny unto such a one the body of Christ if he desire it in secret But if he desire it in publique then either his sinne is publique or secret Iâ—… publique he ought to deny it unto him neither so doth he reveale sinne because it is publique If private he must give it lest
a worse thing fall out Thirdly Alexander Alensis holds the Sacrament of the Lords Supper not to be a converting but a confirming and conserving Ordinance Ibid. art 2. sect 2. His words I shall cite in the debating of that controversie CHAP. IX Whether Judas received the Sacrament of the Passeover that night in which our Lord was betrayed Mr Prynne distrusting peradventure the strength of his proofes for Iudas his receiving of the Lords Supper betakes himselfe to an additionall argument pag. 24. All our Antagonists saith he and the Evangelists clearely agree that Judâ—…s did eate the Passeover with Christ himselfe as well as the other Apostles now the Passeover was a type of the Lords Supper c. It seems he had not the notes of my Sermon truly though he endeavour to confute it for I did then and I doe still make a very great question of it whether Iudas did so much as eate the Passeover at that time with Christ and the other Apostles and I thinke I have very considerable reasons which make it probable that Iudas did not eate the Passeover that night with Christ and the Apostles The resolution of this question depends upon another whether Christ and his Apostles did eate the Passeover before that supper at which he did wash his Disciples feet and gave the sop to Iudas after the receiving whereof Iudas immediately went out or whether that supper was before the eating of the Passeover I finde some others as well as my selfe have been of opinion that it was before not after the Passeover yea that the Jewish custome was to eate their common Supper before the Passeover See M. Weemse his Christian Synagogue pag 120. I finde also Ammonius Alexandrinus de quatuor Evangeliorum consonantia cap. 154. placeth that supper mentioned Iohn 13. 2 4 12 18. at which Jesus did wash his Disciples feet and when he had done sate down againe and told them that he who was eating bread with him should betray him Then cap. 155. he proceedeth to the story of the Paschall supper in which he conceivâ—th the sop was given to Iudas but in this particular he did much mistake for the sop was given at the same supper mentioned Iohn 13. 2 4 12 18. and not at the Paschall Supper as M Prynne also acknowledgeth This is cleare that Ammonius placeth the common supper at which Christ did wash his Disciples feet and told them of the Traitor to have been before the Paschall supper I will first tell the reasons that incline me this way and then answer the objections which may seem to be against it The reasons are these 1. The orientall custome was to wash before meal not after they had begun to eate 2. This Supper in which the sop was given to Iudas whereupon he went away was before the Feast of the Passeover Joh. 13. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meaning immediately before the feast of the Passeover it being reckoned from the time of eating the Paschall Lambe and so before the Feast of the Passeover hath the same sence as Luke 11. 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Pharisee wondred that Christ had not washed before dinner that is immediately before dinner So here I undestand before the Feast of the Passeover that is immediately before the time of eating the Paschall Lambe which was the beginning of the Feast of the Passeover You will say perhaps that Christ did not eate the Passeover upon the same day that the Jewes did and so those words before the Feast of Passeover may be understood before the Passeover of the Jewes not before the Passeover of Christ. I answer whether Christ and the Jewes kept the Passeover at one time is much debated among Interpreters Baronius Toletus and divers others hold that Christ did eate the Paschall Lambe upon the same day with the Jewes Scaliger Causabon and others hold the contrary The question hath been peculiarly debated between Ioh. Cloppenburgius and Ludovicus Capellus yet so that Capellus who followes Scaliger and Casaubon acknowledgeth that both opinions have considerable reasons and both are straitned with some inconveniencies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de ultimo Christi paschate pag. 6. 22. For my part I shall not contend but admit the distinction of Christs Passeover and the Jewes Passeover yet saith Maldonat upon Ioh. 13. 1. I doubt not but Iohn understands Christs Passe-over for all the Evangelists in the story of the last Supper when they speake of the Passeover they mean Christs Passeover and it was the true Passeover according to the Law 3. That which makes many to thinke that Christ did eate the Passeover before that other Supper in which he gave the sop to Iudas is a mistake of the Jewish custome which as they conceive was to eate other meat after but none before the Paschall Lambe Now to me the contrary appeareth namely that whatsoever the Jewes did eate before the Paschall Supper in the night of the Passeover was eaten before the Paschall Supper and it was among them forbidden to eate any thing after the Paschall Supper Which may be proved not onely by that Talmudicall Canon cited by D. Buxtorf in hist. instit caenae Dom. which saith The Passeover is not eaten except after meal but also more plainly by Liber rituum paschalium lately translated and published by Rittangelius and by another Canon cited by Martinius But there are two arguments which may be brought to prove that Iudas did eate the Passeover with Christ and the Apostles 1. Because that Supper at which Iudas got the sop was after the Paschall supper for it is said Iohn 13. 2. Supper being ended Which must be meant of the Paschall supper I answer these words may very well be understood not of the Paschall supper but of that other supper at which the sop was given to Iudas And as for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some Greeke copies have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Nonnus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so the sence were as Augustine expounds Supper being prepared and ready and set on Table But be it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the matter is not great for there is no necessity of expounding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus when Supper was done or ended It may suffer other two sences One is that of Augustine when it was Supper time or when Supper was set on Table And this sence is followed by Aâ—…binus Flâ—…us Alcuinus lib. de divinis Officiis Artic. de Caena Domini Circa vâ—…speram vero caenâ factâ id est paratâ ad convivantium mensam usque perductâ non transactâ neque â—…initâ surgit Jesus à caenâ pâ—…it vestimenta c. So likewise Mariana upon Ioh. 13. 2. tels us that caenâ factâ may well be expounded caenâ paratâ or ante caenam or cum caenae tempus adesset which he cleareth by the like formes of speech in other Scriptures Secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
guilty Ergo he that harboureth a knowne Traytor is not guilty Eighthly for he hath given his seventh already he tels us that the Minister onely 〈◊〉 the Sacrament and the unworthy receiving is the receivers own personall act and sinne alone Answ 1. He begges againe and againe what is in Queâ—ion 2. There is an unworthy giving as well as an unworthy receiving The unworthy giving is a sinâ—ull act of the Minister which makes him also accessary to the sinne of unworthy receiving and so partake of other mens â—innes The ninth concerning Christs giving of the Sacrament to Iudas is answered before The tenth I have also answered before in his fourth conclusion The Minister is a sweet savour of Christ as well in those that perish by the Sacrament as in those that are benefited by it with this proviso that he hath done his duty as a faithfull Steward and that he hath not given that which is holy to dogs else God shall require it at his hands Finally he argueth from 1 Cor. 11. 29. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh not condemnation but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 judgement meaning some temporall judgement to himselfe not to the Minister or Communicants Answ. 1. Whatever be meant by judgement in this place certainly it is a punishment of sinne and such a thing as proceedeth from Gods displeasure and it is as certaine that unworthy receiving maketh a person lyable to a greater judgement then that which is temporall 2. If to himselfe be restrictive and exclusive in the case of close hypocrites such as are by Church-officers judging according to outward appearance admitted to the Sacrament yet how will it be made to appeare that the Apostle meant those words as restrictive and exclusive in the case of scandalous and knowne unworthy communicants 3. Such a scandalous person doth indeed eate and drink judgement to himselfe but this can neither in whole nor in part excuse but rather greatly aggravate the sinne of the Minister for when a wicked man dieth in his iniquity yet his blood God will require at the hands of the unfaithfull Minister who did strengthen his hands in his sinne CHAP. XII Whether the Sacrament of the Lords Supper be a converting or regenerating Ordinance I Had in answer to Mr. Prynns third Quaere given this reason why prophane and scandalous persons are to be kept off from the Sacrament and yet not from hearing the Word because the word is not onely a confirming and comforting but a converting Ordinance and is a mean appointed of God to turn sinners from darknes to light and from the power of Sathan to God Whereas the Sacrament is not a converting but a confirming and sealing Ordinance which is not given to the Church for the conversion of Sinners but for the Communion of Saints It is not appointed to put a man in the state of grace but to seal unto a man that interest in Christ and in the Covenant of Grace which he already hath Mr. Prynne doth with much eagernesse contradict me in this and argue at length the contrary Which is the marrow and fatnesse if there be any in his debate concerning the eighth point of difference Whereby he doth not onely contradict me but himself too as shall appear yea and joyn not onely with the more rigid Lutherans but with the Papists themselves against the Writers of the Reformed Churches For the very same thing which is controverted between him and me is controverted between Papists and Protestants The Papists hold that the Sacraments are instrumentalâ— to confer give or work grace yea ex opere operato as the School-men speak Our Divines hold that the Sacraments are appointed of God and delivered to the Church as sealing Ordinances not to give but to testifie what is given not to make but confirm Saints And they do not onely oppose the Papists opus operatum but they simply deny this instrumentality of the Sacraments that they are appointed of God for working or giving grace where it is not This is so well known to all who have studied the Sacramentarian controversies that I should not need to prove it Yet that none may doubt of it take here some few insteed of many testimonies Calvin holds plainly against the Papists that the Sacraments do not give any grace but do declare and shew what God hath given He clearâ— it in that chapter thus the Sacraments are like seals appended to writs which of themselves are nothing if the paper or parchment to which they are appended be blank Again they are like pillars to a house which cannot be a foundation but a strengthening of a house that hath a foundation We are built upon the Word the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Again Sacraments are to us from God that which messengers are which bring good newes from men they declare what is but do not so much as instrumentally make it to be These are Calvins similes Bâ—…llinger confuteth the Popish doctrine concerning the Sacraments conferring of grace by this principle that the Saints are justified and sanctified before they are sealed and confirmed by the Sacraments Ursinus speaks so fully and plainly for us that none can say more He distinguisheth between the Word and Sacraments as between converting and confirming Ordinances and argueth that the Sacraments do not confer grace because we receive not the thing by receiving the signe but we get the signe because it is supposed we have the thing Yea he speaks of it as a principle known to children Wolfangus Musculus in his common places saith thus Who seeth not what manner of persons we must be when we approach to this mystical Table of the Lord to wit not such as do therein first of all seek the fruition of the body and blood of the Lord as if we were yet destitute thereof but such as being already before partakers thereof by faith do desire to corroborate more and more in our hearts the grace once received by the Sacramental communication of the body and blood of the Lord and by the remembrance of his death and to give thanks to our Redeâ—…mer Martin Bucer upon Matth. 18. 17. puts this difference between the Word preached and the Lords Supper that the Word may be preached to the unconverted but the Lords Supper may not be given to any who by their lives do declare that they are out of communion with Jesus Christ. Which is the very point now in controversie Festus Honnius Disp. 43. Thes. 3. confuting the Popish opinion of the Sacraments working or giving grace brings this reason against it They that receive the Sacraments have this grace before they receive them neither are any to be admitted to the Sacraments who may be justly supposed not to be justified and sanctified Aretius Coment in Mark 14. loc 3. observeth Qui admissi sint ad istam Coenam discipuli solum Who were admitted to that eucharistical
Supper the Disciples oâ—…ely Hence he inferreth Quare mysteria haec ad solos fideles pertinent Wherefore these mysteries do pertain to the faithful alone that is to those who are supposed to be converted and beleevers Vossius Disp. de Sacram. effic part poster After he hath observed two respects in which the Sacraments do excel the Word 1. That Infants who are not capable of hearing the Word are capable of the Sacrament of Baptisme and are brought to the laver of regeneration 2. That the Sacraments do visibly and clearly set before our eyes that which is invisible in the Word He adds Thes. 49. other two respects in which the Word doth far excel the Sacraments 1. That the Word can both beget confirm faith the Sacraments cannot beget faith in those that are come to age but onely conserve and increase it 2. That without the word we cannot be saved for he that beleeves not is condemned now faith commeth by hearing but the Sacraments though profitable means of grace yet are not simply necessary The confession of the faith of the Church of Scotland in the Article entituled to whom Sacraments appertain saith thus But the Supper of the Lord we confesse to appertain to such onely as be of the houshold of faith and can try and examine themselves as well in their faith as in thâ—…ir duty towards their neighbours The Belgick Confession Art 33. saith of the Sacraments in generall that God hath instituted them to seal his promises in us to be pledges of his love to us and to nourish and strengthen our Faith And Art 35. They plainly hold that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is intended and instituted by Christ for such as are already regenerate and are already quickned with the life of grace The Synod of Dort in their Judgement of the fifth Article of the Remonstrants Sect. 14. ascribeth both the inchoation and conservation of grace to the Word but ascribeth oâ—ely to the Sacraments the conserving continuing and perfecting of that begun grace In the Belgick form of the administration of the Lords Supper See Corpus Disciplinae lately published by the Ministers and Elders of the Dutch Church at London pag. 16. it is said thus Those which do not feel this Testimony in their hearts concerning their examining of themselves touching their repentance faith and purpose of true obedience they eat and drink judgement to themselves Wherefore we also according to the Commandement of Christ and the Apostle Paul do admonish all those who find themselves guilty of these ensuing sins to refrain from comming to the Lords Table and do denounce unto them that they have no part in the Kingdom of Christ. Here follows an enumeration of diverse scandalous sins concluded with this general and all those which lead a scandalous life All these as long as they continue in such sins shall refrain from this spiritual food which Christ onely ordained for his faithful people that so their â—…udgement and damnation may not be the greater Which plainly intimates that they hold this Sacrament to be a sealing not a converting Ordinance And this they also signifie Ibid. pag. 17. And to the end we may firmly beleeve that we do belong to this gracious Covenant the Lord Jesus in his last Supper took bread c. Paraeus puts this difference between the Word and Sacraments that the Word is a mean appointed both for beginning and confirming faith the Sacraments means of confirming it after it is begun That the Word belongs both to the converted and to the unconverted the Sacraments are intended for those who are converted and do beleeve and for none others And though the Lutherans make some controversie with us about the effect of the Sacraments yet Ioh. Gerhardus doth agree with us in this point that the Lords Supper is not a regenerating but a confirming and strengthening Ordinance and this difference he puts between it and Baptisme Walaeus asserteth both against Papists and against some of the Lutherans that Sacraments do instrumentally confirme and increase faith and regeneration but not begin nor work faith and regeneration where they are not Petrus Hinkelmannus de Anabaptismo Disp. 9. cap. 1. Error 6. disputeth against this as a Tenent of the Calviâ—…ists Fideles habent Spiritum S. habent res signatas ante Sacramenta the faithful have the holy Spirit they have the things which are sealed before they receive the Sacraments Brochmand System Theol. Tom. 3. de Sacram. Cap. 2. Quaest. 1. condemneth this as one of the Calvinian errors Sacramenta non esse gratiae conferendae divinituâ—… ordinata media that Sacraments are not instituted and appointed of God to be means of conferring or giving grace Which he saith is the assertion of Zuinglius Beza Danaeus Musculus Piscator Vorstius The Lutheran opinion he propounds ibid. quaest 6. that the Sacraments are means appointed of God to confer grace to give faith and being given to increase it Esthius in Sent. lib. 4. dist 1. Sect. 9. stateth the opinion of the Calvinists as he calls us thus justificationem usu Sacramenti esse priorem obtentam nimirum per fidem quâ homo jam ante credidit sibi remitti peccata Sacramentum verò postea adhiberi ut verbo quidem promissionis fides confirmetur elemento verò ceu sigillo quodam diplomati appenso eadem fides obsignetur atque ita per Sacramentum declaretur testatumque fiat hominem jam prius esse per fidem justicatum This he saith is manifestly contrary to the doctrine of the Church of Rome from which saith he the Lutherans do not so far recede as the Calvinists Gregorius de Valentia in tertiam partem Thomae Disp. 3. Quaest. 3. punct 1. thus explaineth the Tenent which he holdeth against the Protestants concerning the Sacraments giving of grace Sacramenta esse veras causas qualitatis gratia non principales sed instrumentales hoc ipso videlicet quod Deus illis utitur ad productionem illius effectus qui 〈◊〉 gratia tamet si supra naturam seu efficacitatem naturaleâ—… ipsorum The Papists dispute indeed what manner of casuality or vertue it is by which the Sacraments work grace whether Phisica or Ethica whether infita or adsita In which questions they do not all go one way See Gamachaeus in tertiam partem Tho. Quest. 62. Cap. 5. But that the Sacraments do work or give grace to all such as do not ponere obicem they all hold against the Protestants They dispute also whether all the Sacraments give the first grace or whether Baptisme and Pennance onely give the first habitual grace and the other five Sacraments as they make the number give increase of grace But in this they all agree that habitual grace is given in all the Sacraments of the New-Testament the Thomists hold further that the very first grace is de facto given in any of the Sacraments See for the
former Becanus for the latter Tannerus You will say peradventure that Protestant Writers hold the Sacraments to be 1. Significant or declarative signes 2. Obsignative or confirming signes 3. Exhibitive signes so that the thing signified is given and exhibite to the soul. I answer That exhibition which they speak of is not the giving of grace where it is not as is manifest by the afore quoted Testimonies but an exhibition to beleevers a real effectual lively application of Christ and of all his benefits to every one that beleeveth for the staying strengthening confirming and comforting of the soul. Chamierus contractus Tom. 4. lib. 1. cap. 2. Docemus ergo in Sacramentorum perceptione effici gratiam in fidelibus hactenus Sacramenta dicenda efficacia Polan Syntag. lib. â— cap. 49. saith the visible external thing in the Sacrament is thus far exhibitive quia bona spiritualia per eam fidelibus significantur exhibentur communicantur obsignantur So that in this point Habenti dabitur is a good rule For unto every one that hath shall be given and he shall have abundance but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath Maith 25. 29. Our Divines do not say that the Sacraments are exhibitive Ordinances wherein grace is communicated to those who have none of it to unconverted or unbeleeving persons By this time it may appear I suppose that the controversie between us and the Papists concerning the effect of the Sacraments setting aside the opus operatum which is a distinct controversie and is distinctly spoken to by our Writers setting aside also the casualitas phisica and insita by which some of the Papists say the Sacraments give grace though diverse others of them hold the Sacraments to be onely moral causes of grace is thus far the same with the present controversie between Mr. Prynn and me that Protestant Writers do not onely oppose the opus operatum and the casualitas physica insita but they oppose as is manifest by the Testimonies already cited all casuality or working of the first grace of conversion and faith in or by the Sacraments supposing alwaies a man to be a beleever and within the Covenant of grace before the Sacrament and that he is not made such nor translated to the state of grace in or by the Sacrament This the Papists contradict and therein Mr. Prynn joyneth with them When Bellarmine brings an impertinent Argument The Sacraments saith he have not the same relation to faith which the Word hath Nam verbum Dei praecedit fidem Sacramenta autem sequuntur saltem in adultis The Word of God doth go before faith but the Sacraments follow after it at least in those who are of age Dr. Ames Bell. enerv Tom. 3. lib. 1. cap. 5. corrects his great mistake or oblivion Hoc illud est quod nos docemus Sacramenta confirmare fidem per verbum Dei prius ingeneratam saltem in adultis This saith he is that which we teach that the Sacraments confirm that faith which was first begotten by the Word of God at least in those who are of age Mr. Prynns assertion is that the Lords Supper is a converting as well as a sealing Ordinance for clearing whereof hâ— premiseth two distinctions There are two sorts both of conversion and sealing which he saith his Antagonists to delude the vulgar have ignorantly wilfully or injudiciously confounded Whether such language beseems a man fearing God or honouring them that do fear God let every one judge who knoweth any thing of Christian moderation See now if there be any reason for this grievous charge First saith he there is an external conversion of men from Paganisme or Gentilisme to the external profession of the faith of Christ. This he saith is wrought by the Word or by Miracles and effected by Baptisme in reference to infants of Christian Parents But how the Baptismâ— of such Infants is brought under the head of conversion from Paganisme to the external profession of Christ I am yet to learn Secondly saith he There is a conversion from a meer external formal profession of the Doctrine and Faith of Christ to an inward spiritual embracing and application of Christ with his merits and promises to our souls by the saving grace of Faith and to an holy Christian real change of heart and life In this last conversion the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not onely a sealing or confirming but likewise a regenerating and converting Ordinance as well as the Word He might upon as good reason have made a third sort of conversion from a scandalous and prophane life to the external obedience of the will and commandements of God But all this is to seek a knot in the rush for there is but one sort of conversion which is a saving conversion and that is a conversion from nature to grace from sin to sanctification from the power of Sathan to God whether it be from paganisme or from prophanenesse or from an external formal profession Now that conversion which Mr. Prynn ascribes to the Sacrament is a true sanctifying and saving conversion The other conversion which he ascribes not to the Sacrament is not a saving conversion for the external conversion of men from Paganisme or Gentilisme to the external profession of the faith of Christ without the other conversion to an inward spiritual embracing of Christ doth but make men seven fold more the children of Hell So that Mr. Prynn hath more opened his sore when he thought to cover and patch it The other distinction which he gives us is of a twofold sealing But by the way he tells us that Baptisme and the Lords Supper are termed Sacraments and Seals without any Text of Scripture to warrant it Hereby as he gratifieth the Socinians not a little who will not have the Lords Supper to be called either seal or Sacrament but an obediential act and a good work of ours and tell us that we make the Lords Supper but too holy to delude the vulgar So he correcteth all Orthodox Writers Ancient and Modern The Apostlâ— describeth Circumcision to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a seal of the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 4. 11. Whence Divines give the name of seals to all Sacraments Rectè autem saith Aretius Theol. Probl. Loc. 76. speciebus imis intermediis generibus eadem â—…ssignantur in definiendo genera Circumcision is a seal therefore a Sacrament is a seal as well as this Justice is a habit therefore vertue is a habit Man is a substance therefore a living creature is a substance And further if Circumcision was a seal the Lords Supper is much more a seal as we shall see afterwards The honourable Houses of Parliament after advice had with the Assembly of Divines have judged this point which Mr. Prynn so much quarrelleth to be not onely true but so far necessary and fundamental that in their Ordinance of October 20. 1645. for keeping
kind can make the Sacrament a converting Ordinance 3. We must distinguish even in conversion between gratia praeveniens subsâ—…quens operans co-operans excitans adjuvans or rather between habitual and actual conversion Habitual conversion I call the first infusion of the life and habits of grace actual conversion is the souls beginning to act from that life and from those habits The first or habitual conversion in which the sinner is passive and not at all active it being wholy the work of preventing exciting quickning grace is that which never is to be looked for in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper which is enough to overthrow that opinion that scandalous impenitent sinners having an external formal profession but known by a wicked abominable conversation to be dead in sins and trespasses in whom the holy Ghost hath never yet breathed the first breath of the life of grace may be admitted to the Lords Supper if they desire it not being excommunicated upon hopes that it may prove a converting Ordinance to them As for gratia subsequens co-operans adjuvans by which the sinner having now a spiritual life created in him and supernatural habits infused in his soul is said actually to convert repent and beleeve I consider even in this actual conversion repenting beleeving these two things 1. The inchoation 2. The progresse of the work Where the work is begun if it were but faith like a grain of mustard seed and where there is any thing of conversion which is true and sound the Sacrament is a blessed powerful means to help forward the work But I peremptorily deny that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is appointed or instituted by Christ as a regenerating converting Ordinance as well as the word or as a means of beginning actual much lesse habitual conversion 4. When I hold the Lords Supper not to be a converting but a sealing Ordinance the meaning is not as if I beleeved that all who are permitted to come to the Lords Table are truly converted or that they are such as the seals of the Covenant of Grace do indeed and of right belong unto for we speak of visible Churches and visible Saints But my meaning is that Christ hath intended this Sacrament to be the childrens read onely though the hired servants of the house have other bread enough and to spare and he alloweth this portion to none but such as are already converted and do beleeve and that they who are the ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God ought to admit none to this Sacrament except such as are quallified and fit so far as can be judged by their profession knowledge and practice observed and examined by the Eldership according to the rules of the Word no humane court being infallible to have part and portion in the communion of Saints and to receive the seals of the Covenant of Grace at least that they may not dare to admit any man whose known and scandalous wickednesse continued in without signes of repentance saith within their heart that there is no fear of God before his eyes These things premised which are to be remembred by the Reader but need not be repeated by me as we go along I proceed to the Arguments which prove my assertion that the Lords Supper is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance And thereafter I shall answer Mr. Prynns Arguments brought to the contrary CHAP. XIII Twenty Aâ—guments to prove that the Lords Supper is not a converting Ordinance First THat which is an institute significant signe to declare and testifie the being of that thing which is thereby signified is not an operating cause or mean which makes that thing signified to begin to be where it was not But the Sacrament is an instituted signe to declare and testifie the being of that thing which is thereby signified Ergo This is an Argument used by Protestant writers against Papists The Sacraments being by their definition Signes are not causes of that which they signifie neither are the things signified the effects of the Sacraments Wherefore the Sacrament of the Lords Supper being a signe of our spiritual life faith union with Christ and remission of sins is not instituted to convey these spiritual blessings to such as have them not Significancy is one thing efficiency another You will say by this Argument there is no grace exhibited nor given to beleevers themselves in the Sacrament Answ. Growth in grace and confirmation of Faith is given to beleevers in the Sacrament which the significancy hinders not because the Sacrament doth not signifie nor declare that the receiver hath much grace and a strong faith but that he hath some life of grace and some faith The very state of grace or spiritual life regeneration faith and remission of sins are signified declared testified and sealed but not wrought or given in the Sacrament The strengthening of faith and a further degree of communion with Christ is not signified in the Sacrament I mean it s not signified that we have it but that we shall have it or at most that we do then receive it So that beleevers may truly be said to receive at the Sacrament a confirmation or strengthening of their faith or a further degree of communion with Christ but it cannot be said that the very Sacramental act of eating or drinking being a signe of spiritual life and union with Christ as that which we have not which we shall have or at that instant receive is a mean or instrumental cause to make a man have that which it testifieth or signifieth he hath already There is no evasion here for one who acknowledgeth the Sacrament to be a signe declaring or shewing forth that we have faith in Christ remission of sins by him and union with him Mr. Prynn must either make blank the signification of the Sacrament à parte ante though not à parte post or else hold that the signification of the Sacrament is not applicable to many of those whom he thinks fit to be admitted to receive it Secondly That which necessarily supposeth conversion and faith doth not work conversion and faith But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper necessarily supposeth conversion and faith Ergo. The proposition is so certain that either it must be yeelded or a contradiction must be yeelded for that which worketh conversion and faith cannot suppose that they are but that they are not Therefore that which supposeth conversion and faith cannot work conversion and faith because then the same thing should be supposed both to be and not to be The Assumption I prove from Scripture Mark 16. 16. He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved Act. 2. 38. Repent and be baptized vers 41. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized Act. 8. 36. 37. And the Eâ—…nuch said See here is water what doth hinder me to be baptized And Philip said If thou beleevest with all thinâ—… heart 〈◊〉
who eat and drink at the Lords Table and consequently that those who are children of disobedience and wrath and strangers to Christ and the Covenant of Grace apparently and manifestly such though not professedly ought not to be admitted to the Lords Table under colour of a converting Ordinance it being indeed a seal of the Covenant of grace Sixthly That Ordinance which is appointed onely for such as can and do rightly examine themselves concerning their spiritual estate regeneration repentance faith and conversation is no converting Ordinance But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is an Ordinance which is appointed onely for such as can and do rightly examine themselves concerning their spiritual estate regeneration repentance faith and conversation Ergo it is no converting Ordinance The reason of the Proposition is because unconverted persons cannot nor do not rightly examine themselves concerning their spiritual estate regeneration c. For such are a generation pure in their own eyes and yet not washed from their filthinesse Proverb 16. 2. and 21. 2. and 30. 12. and the natural man cannot know the things of the Spirit of God because they are spiritually discerned But he that is spiritual judgeth all things 1 Cor. 2. 14. 15. The carnal mind is enmity against God Rom. 8. 7. The Assumption is proved by 1 Cor. 11. 28. But let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that Cup. This self-examination Interpreters say must be concerning a mans knowledge repentance faith and conversation The Apostle expounds himself 2 Cor. 13. 5. Examine your selves whether ye be in the Faith prove your own selves how that Jesus Christ is in you except ye be reprobates or counterfeit and unapproved This self examination as it is requisite at other times so especially before our comming to the Lords Table and an unconverted man can no more do it truly and rightly according to the Apostles meaning then he can convert himself And here that which Mr. Prynn did object maketh against himself the Apostle saith Let a man examine himself not others for the examination there spoken of belongs to the Court of a mans own Conscience and to the inward man saith Martyr upon the place not to the Ecclesiastical Court But a natural unconverted man may possibly examine others and espie a mote in his brothers eye he cannot in any right or acceptable manner examine his own Conscience nor go about the taking of the beam out of his own eye He therefore who either cannot through ignorance or doth not through impenitency and hardnesse of heart examine himself and is known to be such a one by his excusing justifying or not confessing his scandalous sin or continuing in the practice thereof ought not to be admitted to that holy Ordinance which is instituted onely for such as can and do humbly and soundly examine themselves and consequently not intended for unconverted impenitent persons Seventhly That Ordinance unto which one may not come without a wedding garment is no converting Ordinance But the Supper of the Lord the marriage feast of the Kings son is an Ordinance unto which one may not come without a wedding garment Ergo. The Proposition hath this reason for it If a man must needs have a wedding garment that comes then he must needs be converted that comes for what-ever ye call the wedding garment sure it is a thing proper to the Saints and not common to unconverted sinners and the want of it doth condemn a man into utter darknes Matth. 22. 13. The Assumption is clear from Matth. 22. 11. 12. When the King came in to see the Guests he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment And he saith unto him Friend how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment and he was speechlesse If he had been of Mr. Prynns opinion he needed not be speechlesse for Mr. Prynns divinity might have put this answer in his mouth Lord I thought this to be a converting Ordinance and that thou wouldest not reject those that come in without a wedding garment provided that here at the marriage feast they get one But we see the King condemneth the man for comming in thither without a wedding garment Eightly That Ordinance which is not appointed to work faith is no converting ordinance But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not appointed to work faith Ergo. The proposition must be granted unlesse a man will say that conversion may be without faith The Assumption is proved by Rom. 10. 14. men cannot pray if they do not beleeve and they cannot beleeve if they do not hear the Word v. 17. So then faith commeth by hearing and hearing by the word of God If faith commeth by hearing then not by seeing if by the word then not by the Sacrament Ninthly That Ordinance which hath neither a promise of the grace of conversion annexed to it nor any example in the Word of God of any converted by it is no converting Ordinance But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper hath neither a promise of the grace of conversion annexed to it nor is there any example in all the Scripture of any ever converted by it Therefore it is no converting Ordinance Tenthly That Ordinance whereof Christ would have no unworthy person to partake is not a converting Ordinance But the Lords Supper is an Ordinance whereof Christ would have no unworthy person to partake Ergo. The proposition I prove thus It is not the will of Christ that converting Ordinances should be dispenced to no unworthy person for else how should they be converted but onely he hath forbidden to dispence unto unworthy persons such Ordinances as belong to the Communion Saints The Assumption I prove from 1 Cor. 11. 27. Whosoever though otherwise a worthy person one converted to the state of grace shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily shal be guilty of the body blood of the Lord. v. 29. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself not discerning the Lords body If the unworthines of that particular act in respect of the manner of doing it make a man so guilty and liable to such judgement how much more the unworthinesse of the person that eats and drinks For a mans state the course of his life and the frame of his Spirit is more then one single act This therefore doth prove that he that is an unworthy person if he come to the Lords Table doth eat and drink unworthily Whence is that where the Apostle saith vers 29. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily the Syriack Interpreter hath it he that eateth and drinketh thereof being unworthy or indignus existens Which may be also gathered from the interweaving of vers 28. between vers 27. and vers 29. He that eats and drinks not having before rightly examined himself eats and drinks unworthily But he that is an unworthy person and comes to the
Lords Table unworthily and unpreparedly eats and drinks not having before rightly examined himself Ergo. What of that will you say Much to the point Every unconverted and unregenerate person is an unworthy person as the Scripture distinguisheth worthy persons and unworthy and comes unworthily and unpreparedly if he come while such to the Lords Table Therefore such a one if he come eats and drinks unworthily and so eats and drinks judgement to himself Augustine argueth promiscuously against those who come unworthily and those that eat and drink unworthily and applyeth the Apostles words of eating and drinking unworthily to all who come with polluted souls such as all unconverted have And Gualther Martyr and other Interpreters upon the place the Centurists also in the place last cited reckon those to eat and drink unworthily who come without the wedding garment and without faith and holinesse of conversation which intimateth that they who live unworthily do also eat the Lords Supper unworthily which is most plainly intimate in the Directory pag. 50. where ignorant scandalous and prophane persons are warned not to come to that holy Table upon this reason because he that eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgement to himself which necessarily implyeth that unworthy persons and prophane livers if they come to the Sacrament are not converted but sin more in eating and drinking unworthily I conclude therefore that the prohibition of eating and drinking unworthily doth necessarily imply a prohibition of unconverted unregenerate impenitent persons to come to the Lords Table and by consequence that it is no converting Ordinance Eleventhly That Ordinance which is Eucharistical and consolatory supposeth that such as partake of it have part and portion in that thing for which thanks are given and are such as are fit to be comforted But the Lords Supper is an Ordinance Eucharistical and consolatory Ergo. The Proposition needs no other proof but the third Commandement Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain Shall a man be called to give thanks for redemption reconciliation and remission of sins and to take comfort in Jesus Christ even while he is such a one of whom God hath said There is no peace to the wicked High talk becommeth not a fool Psal. 33. 1. Rejoyce in the Lord O ye righteous for praise is comely for the upright Psal. 50. 14. 16. Offer unto God thanksgiving c. But unto the wicked God saith What hast thou to do to declare my statutes or that thou shouldest take my Covenant in thy mouth The Assumption is acknowledged among all for as it hath the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so is the nature of it It is also a consolatory Ordinance in which we are called to spiritual joy and gladnesse it being a feast of fat things full of marrow and of wines on the lees well refined At this Ordinance of the holy Supper Christ spake many a sweet and consolatory word to the disciples and did not rebuke them nor chide them as he had done at other times Is it not then a healing slightly of the malady of impenitent unconverted sinners yea a betraying of their souls to bring them to joy and comfort and thanksgivings and songs of praise to eat of the marrow and fatnesse and to drink of the rivers of pleasure which are in the house of God when we ought rather call them to weeping and to mourning to make their peace with God and to flee from the wrath to come Twelfthly That Ordinance unto which Christ calleth none but such as have spiritual gracious qualifications is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance But the Lords Supper is an Ordinance unto which Christ calleth none but such as have spiritual and gracious qualifications Ergo. The Proposition I hope needs no proof because unconverted persons dead in sins and trespasses have no spiritual gracious qualifications The Assumption may be proved by many Scriptures If of any Ordinance chiefly of this it holds true that Christ inviteth and calleth none but such as labour and are heavie loaden Matth. 11. 28. such as are athirst for the water of life Iohn 7. 37. Isa. 55. 1. such as have the wedding garment Matth. 22. 12. such as examine themselves 1 Cor. 11. 28. such as are Christs friends Cant. 5. 1. Eat O friends drink yea drink abundantly O beloved Thirteenthly That Ordinance which is instituted for the Communion of Saints is intended onely for such as are Saints and not for unconverted sinners But the Lords Supper is an Ordinance instituted for the Communion of Saints and of those who are members of the same body of Christ 1 Cor. 10. 16. 17. compared with 1 Cor. 1. 2. Ergo. Martin Bucer de Regno Christi lib. 1. cap. 7. conceiveth that this Sacrament doth so far belong to the Communion of Saints that wicked and unworthy persons are not onely to be kept back from partaking but from the very beholding or being present in the Church at the giving of the Sacrament which yet is more then we have affirmed Fourteenthly If Baptisme it self at least when ministred to those that are of age is not a regenerating or converting Ordinance far lesse is the Lords Supper a regenerating or converting Ordinance But Baptisme it self at least when ministred to those that are of age is not a regenerating or converting Ordinance Ergo. The ground of the Proposition is because Baptisme hath a nearer relation to regeneration then the Lords Supper and therefore hath the name of the laver of regeneration The Assumption I prove thus 1. Because we read of no persons of age baptized by the Apostles except such as did professe faith in Christ gladly received the Word and in whom some begun work of the Spirit of grace did appear I say not that it really was in all but somewhat of it did appear in all 2. If the Baptisme of those who are of age be a regenerating Ordinance then you suppose the person to be baptized an unregenerated person even as when a Minister first preacheth the Gospel to Pagans he cannot but suppose them to be unregenerated But I beleeve no consciencious Minister would adventure to baptize one who hath manifest and infallible signes of unregeneration Sure we cannot be answerable to God if we should minister Baptisme to a man whose works and words do manifestly declare him to be an unregenerated unconverted person And if we may not initiate such a one how shall we bring him to the Lords Table Fifteenthly If the Baptisme even of those who are of age must necessarily precede their receiving of the Lords Supper then the Lords Supper is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance But the Baptisme even of those who are of age must necessarily precede their receiving of the Lords Supper Ergo. The Assumption is without controversie it being the order observed by Christ and by the Apostles and by all Christian Churches The Proposition I prove thus
the Apostles did Rom. 10. 18. Col. 1. 6. And if the Sacrament be a converting Ordinance for known impenitent scandalous prophane persons within the Church what reason is there imaginable why it is not also a converting Ordinance for Heathens Pagans Turks Jews Or where have we the least hint in Scripture that an Ordinance which may convert the prophanest unexcommunicated person within the Church cannot convert both Heathens and excommunicated Christians The Assumption I prove from Mr. Prynns own acknowledgement pag. 38. though the Sacrament saith he must not be administred to Heathens to whom the Gospel may and must be preached before they beleeve and professe Christ yet it must be administred to them as well as Baptisme after their beleef and profession of Christ. Where he clearly grants both Sacraments Baptisme and the Lords Supper to be onely sealing and confirming not converting Ordinances to Heathens and therefore not communicable to them till after they beleeve and professe Christ. Nineteenthly That Ordinance which is not communicable nor lawful to be administred to any known impenitent sinner under that notion but onely as penitent sinners truly repenting of their sins past is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is such Ergo. The Proposition I prove thus A converting Ordinance may be administred to known impenitent sinners under that notion or lookt upon as such wallowing in their blood and filthinesse Yea a converting Ordinance qua converting is not nor indeed can be administred to penitent sinners qua penitent or lookt upon as truly converted For as every effect is in order of nature posterior to its cause so a converting Ordinance being the instrumental cause of conversion regeneration and repentance it must needs be supposed that conversion and repentance doth not in order of nature precede but follow after the administration of the converting Ordinance The Assumption is granted by Mr. Prynn pag. 37. The Minister saith he doth not I suppose he will also say ought not administer the Sacrament to any known impenitent sinners under that notion but onely as penitent sinners truly repenting of their sins past and promising purposing to lead a new life for the future Therefore yet again by some of his own principles the Sacrament is not administred as instrumental to the first conversion of scandalous unworthy persons in the Church for where there is in any Ordinance an instrumental causality toward the conversion of a scandalous person that Ordinance must needs be administred to that person under the notion of an unconverted person and the effect of conversion lookt upon as consequent not as antecedent The twentieth Argument and the last is this As I have before shewed that Mr. Prynn in holding the Sacrament to be a converting Ordinance unto which unregenerate impenitent and unbeleeving persons not being excommunicated ought to be admitted doth joyn issue with Papists and dissenteth from the Protestant writers in a very special point and that the controversie draweth very deep So I will now make it to appear that he dissenteth as much from the Ancients in this particular Dionysius Areopagita de Eccles. Hierarch Cap. 3. Part. 3. speaking of the nature of this Ordinance of the Lords Supper tells us that it doth not admit those scandalous sinners who were in the condition of penitents before they had fully manifested their repentance much lesse prophane and unclean persons in whom no signe of repentance appeareth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not admitting him who is not altogether most holy Just in Martyr Apol. 2. lets us know that in his time the Lords Supper was given to none but to such a person as was lookt upon as a beleever and washed in the laver of regeneration and lived according to the rule of Christ. Chrysostome Hom. 83. in Matth. Augustine de side operibus Cap. 18. Isidorus Pelusiota lib. 1. Epist. 143. and others might be here added But I shall bring their full testimonies chap. 17. where I will shew Antiquity to be for the suspension of scandalous persons unexcommunicated Beside these I add also Beda upon 1 Cor. 11. who tells us both out of Augustine and Prosper that none ought to come to the Lords Table but a justified person and such a one as abideth in Christ and Christ in him Isidorus de Ecclesiast offic lib. 1. Cap. 18. citing the Apostles words He that eateth and drinketh unworthily addeth For this is to receive unworthily if any man receive at that time in which he should be repenting The same words hath Rabanus Maurus de Instit. Cleric lib. 1. cap. 31. Which plainly sheweth us that in their Judgement the Sacrament of the Lords Supper doth suppose conversion and repentance to be already wrought and if it be not wrought the receiving is an unworthy receiving Moreover that the Lords Supper was not anciently esteemed a converting Ordinance but a sealing Ordinance supposing conversion is more then apparent by the distinction of Missa Catechumenorum and Missa fidellum and by that proclamation in the Church before the Sacrament Sancta Sanctis the sence whereof Durantus de ritibus lib. 2. cap. 55. num 15. giveth out of Chrysostome and Cyrill that Sancta Sanstis was as much as to say Si quis non est sanctus non accedat If any man be not holy let him not approach Or as if it had been said to them The Sacrament is a holy thing sancti vos cum sitis sancto Spiritu donati and seeing you also are holy the holy Spirit being given unto you atque ita sancta sanctis conveniant and so holy things agreeing to holy persons If the Lords Supper be a holy thing intended onely for holy persons then sure it is no converting Ordinance I might also cite divers School-men against Mr. Prynn in this particular I shall instance but in two for the present Scotus in lib. 4. Sent. dist 9. Quaest. 1. proveth from 1 Cor. 11. 27. that it is a mortal sin for a man to come to the Sacrament at that time when he is living in a mortal sin and that he who is not spiritually a member of Christ ought not to receive the Sacrament which is a signe of incorporation into Christ. Alexander Alensis part 4. Quaest. 11. Membr 2. Art 2. Sect. 2. saith thus As there is a double bodily medicine curativa conservativa one for cure another for conservation so there is a double spiritual medine to wit curativa conservativa one for cure another for conservation repentance for the cure the Eucharist for conservation c. CHAP. XIIII Mr. Prynne his twelve Arguments brought to prove that the Lords Supper is a converting Ordinance discussed and answered IT shall be now no hard businesse to answer Mr. Prynns twelve Arguments brought by him to refute my assertion that that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is no converting Ordinance See Vindic. pag. 41. to 45. First he tells us we grant
the people were inclined to hearken to doctrine by miracles which moveth natural men to flock together to see strange things saith Mr. Hussey Plea for Christian Magistracy pag. 30. which he is pleased to clear by peoples flocking to a Mountebank Other Texts which he citeth speak of miracles but not a syllable of conversion or regeneration wrought by miracles as Act. 15. 12. Act. 19. 11. 12. Among the rest of the Texts he citeth Iohn 6. 26. Ye seek me not because ye saw the miracles but because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled And hence forsooth he will prove that miracles did convert and regenerate men I had not touched these particulars were it not that I desire Mr. Prynn himself in the fear of God may be convinced of his making too bold with the Scripture in citing and applying it very far amisse and that for the future his Reader may be wary and not take from him upon trust a heap of Scriptural quotations such as often he bringeth In the fourth place he tells us That the things we see with our eyes do more affect and beget deeper impressions in our hearts then the things we hear He means I think do more effectually convert for so he makes the Application that the very beholding of Christs Person passion without the Word were the most effectual means of working contrition conversion c. Well What is his proof He citeth Christs words to his Disciples Blessed are your eyes for they see without adding the rest and your ears for they hear and Simeons words Mine eyes have seen thy salvation as if forsooth either Simeon or the Apostles had been converted and regenerated by the seeing of Christs person He cites also Luk. 23. 46 47 48. as if all who beholding Christs passion and death smote upon their breasts had been by that sight converted and regenerated That the things we behold with our eyes if they be great or strange things work deep impressions there can be no doubt of it But that the hearing of great things may not work as deep impressions or that seeing without hearing doth convert and regenerate hath been strongly affirmed by Mr. Prynn but not yet proved I proceed to his seventh Argument which is this The most melting soul-changing meditation is the serious contemplation of Christs death and Passion No meditation comparable to this to regenerate and convert a carnal heart And is not this effectually represented to our eyes hearts in this very Sacrament in a more powerful prevailing manner then in the Word alone Answ. That which he had to subsume and prove is that this Sacrament worketh in a unregenerate carnal heart such soul changing meditations of the death and passion of Christ as it never had before the soul having never before been regenerate Which being the point to be proved why did he not prove it if he could No doubt the Sacrament is a most powerful mean to beget in the hearts of beleevers and regenerate persons most humbling and melting meditations concerning the death of Christ. But that it begetteth any soul changing or regenerating meditations in those in whom the Word hath never yet begun the work of regeneration and conversion I do as much disagree in this as I agree in the other The eighth Argument which he brings is from comparing the Sacrament with afflictions Our own corporal external afflictions are many times without the Word the means of our repentance and conversion unto God c. Then much more the Sacrament wherein the afflictions of Christ himself are so visibly set forth before our eyes Answ. 1. It is a very bad consequence for the strength resolves into this principle an unregenerate carnal man will be more affected and moved with the representation of Christs afflictions than with the feeling of his own corporal afflictions 2. Affliction doth not convert without the Word either going before or accompanying it unlesse we say that Pagans or Turks may be converted savingly by affliction before ever they hear the Word Psal. 94. 12. Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest and teachest him out of thy Law Job 36. 9. 10. 11. And if they be bound in fetters and holden in cords of affliction Then he sheweth them their work and their transgression that they have exceeded He openeth also their ear to Discipline and commandeth that they return from iniquity Behold conversion by afflictions but not without the Word While Mr. Prynn goeth about to prove that afflictions convert without the Word the first Text he citeth is Psal. 119. 67. 71. where expresse mention is made of the Word 3 As for Manasseh his conversion 2 Chron. 33. 11. 12. it was wrought by the means of affliction setting home upon his Conscience that Word of God mentioned in the verse imediatly preceding which saith and the Lord spake to Manasseh and to his people but they would not hearken Let him shew the like instance of the conversion by the Sacrament of such as would not hearken to the Word and I shall yeeld the cause The Word is expresse that affliction is one special powerful mean of conversion but it no where saith any such thing of the Sacrament 4. It was also incumbent to him to prove that afflictions do convert without the Word not onely at such times and in such places as do sequester a person from the liberty of hearing the Word preached but also when and where the Word is freely enjoyed Otherwise how far is he from concluding by Analogy the point he had to prove which is that an unregenerate person living under the Ministery of the Gospel and being an ordinary hearer never converted by the Word may neverthelesse according to the dispensation of the grace of God revealed in Scripture be converted by the Sacrament received His ninth Argument is this That Ordinance whose unworthy participation is a means of our spiritual obduration must by the rule of contraries when worthily received be the instrument of our mortification conversion salvation But the unworthy receiving of the Sacrament is a means c. Answ. 1. This Argument doth necessarily suppose that an unconverted unmortified unworthy person while such may yet worthily receive and so by that means be converted the contrary whereof I have demonstrated in my tenth Argument 2. If the Sacrament be not worthily received without repentance faith and self-examination for which cause men are dehorted to come except they repent c. then there is perfect non-sence in the Argument for to say that the Sacrament when worthily received is the instrument of conversion is as much as this The Sacrament is an instrument of conversion to those who are already converted 3. That rule of Contraries is extremely mis-applyed The rule is Oppositorum quatenus talia opposita sunt attributa Contraries have contrary attributes The comparison must be made secundum differentias quibus dissident Otherwise that old fallacy were a good Argument A single life is good
larger upon And whereas Master Prynne concludeth pag. 47 with a large citation out of Lucas Osiander Enchir. contra Anabapt cap. 6. quaest 3. for that he shall have this return First all that Osiander there saith is brought to prove this point against the Anabaptists quod et si unum aut alterum videamus in Ecclesia aliqua flagitiosum propterea neque secessionem faciendam neque à sacris congressibus aut Coena Domini Christiano abstinendum That although in some Church we see some one or other flagitious person yet a Christian is not therefore either to make a separation or to abstain from the sacred Assemblies or the Lords Supper Which is not the Question now agitated between us Secondly after that passage cited against us Master Prynne might have taken notice of another passage which maketh against himself Where the Anabaptists did object to the Lutheran Churches their admitting of scandalous persons to the Sacrament Osiander denieth it for saith he although we cannot help hypocrites their coming to the Lords Table nos tamen scienter neminem admittimus nisi peccatores poenitentes c. Yet we admit none willingly except penitent sinners who confesse their sins and sorrow for them Thirdly Osiander ibid. Quaest. 2. holdeth Excommunication to be an Ordinance of God and groundeth it upon Matth. 18. 15 16 17. Therefore Master Prynne must seek another Patron then Osiander And now the nature of the Ordinance being cleared there needeth no more to confute Master Prynne in that which he makes the eighth thing in controversie between him and his Antagonists namely Whether Ministers may not as well refuse to preach the Word to such unexcommunicated grosse impenitent scandalous Christians whom they would suspend from the Sacrament Certainly it is not lawful but commanded as a duty to preach both to the converted and to the unconverted without excluding the most scandalous impenitent sinners whosoever But the Lords Supper being according to its institution and the minde of Jesus Christ a sealing or confirming Ordinance onely it cannot without a violation of the Institution be given to known impenitent scandalous persons Other particulars in his Debate concerning this eighth point of difference which do require any Answer I will take occasion to speak unto them in the next Chapter CHAP. XV. Whether the admission of scandalous and notorious sinners to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper be a pollution and profanation of that holy Ordinance And in what respects it may be so called MAster Hussey in his Plea pag. 2. doth very much mistake his mark when in opposition to what I had said concerning the polluting of the Sacrament by the admission of the scandalous he tells me out of Beza that the Sacraments remain effectual to the good though evil men come to them and thereupon concludeth that the Sacrament is holy and pure to the believer notwithstanding the unpreparednesse of the wicked Which is not the thing in question much lesse is it the Question Whether there be any such thing as a pollution of the Sacrament for this Master Coleman hath yeelded though before he quarrelled that phrase of polluting the Ordinances giving instance in the using of Cheese instead of Bread Male dicis pag. 12. But the true state of the Controversie may be laid open in these few distinctions First as Scotus in lib. 4. Sent. Dist. 3. Quaest. 2. distinguisheth two sorts of things which may be called necessary to a Sacrament necessarium simpliciter and necessarium aliqualiter the former he calls that without which the Sacrament is no Sacrament the later that without which they that give the Sacrament cannot avoid sin or the want whereof maketh the Ministery guilty so do I distinguish two sorts of pollution of the Sacrament one which makes the Sacrament no Sacrament but a common or unhallowed thing to those that do receive it as for instance if the Sacrament were given by those that are no Ministers o◠to those that are no Church or without the blessing and breaking of bread Another which makes the ministration of the Sacrament hic nunc and with such circumstances to be sinful and those that do so administer it to be guilty and so whatsoever is done in the ministration of the Sacrament contrary to the revealed will of God is a pollution of that Ordinance The present Question is of the later not of the former Secondly some wicked men by their receiving the Sacrament do onely draw judgement upon themselves and these are close hypocrites Others by their receiving of the Sacrament do involve not themselves onely but others also into sin and Gods displeasure and these are scandalous notorious sinners Thirdly the sin of those who pollute the Sacrament by using it contrary to the nature and institution of it may be the sin of others and those others accessary to such pollution of the Sacrament two ways either it is the sin of the whole Church none excepted so that none that communicateth then and there can be free of the sin as where the bread is elevated and worshipped all the communicants are eo ipso that they joyn in the Sacrament then and there partakers of the sin of bread-worship though perhaps some of them do not joyn in the act of worshipping the bread but have done what they could to prevent or hinder it Or it is the sin onely of so many as have not done what they ought and might have done for observing the Institution rule and example of Jesus Christ. And of this sort is the sin of communicating with scandalous and profane men If private Christians have interposed by admonitions given to the offender and by petitions put up to those that have authority and power for restraining the scandalous from the Lords Table they have discharged their consciences and may without sin communicate though some scandalous members be admitted for such persons sin in taking the Sacrament but worthy communicants are not partakers of their sin But if Church-officers who have a charge and authority from Jesus Christ to receive none whom they know to be unworthy profane and scandalous shall not withstanding admit such persons they are thereby partakers of their sin so that their receiving or rather polluting of the Sacrament is imputed not to themselves onely but to the Church-officers who had authority to keep them back and did it not Fourthly the suffering of a mixture of known wicked persons among the godly in the Church doth sometime defile us with sin sometime not It doth not defile us when we use all lawful and possible remedies against it and namely when we exercise the Discipline of Excommunication and other Church-censures saith Augustine lib. contra Donatistas post collationem cap. 4. Tom. 7. But it doth defile us and we do incur sin and wrath when the means of redressing such known evils are neglected indisciplinata patientia it is Augustines word so to bear with wicked men as not to execute
discipline against them that certainly makes us partakers of their sin I mean in a reformed and well constituted Church where the thing is feasible But where it cannot be done because of persecution or because of the invincible opposition either of authority or of a prevalent profane multitude in that case we have onely this comfort left us Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousnesse and in magnis voluisse sat est Fifthly neither doth this Question concerning the pollution or profanation or abuse of the Sacrament concern those peccata quotidianae incursionis such sins of infirmity as all the godly or at least the generallay of the godly are subject unto and guilty of as long as they are in the world for then the Sacrament should be polluted to all for Who can say I have made my heart clean I am pure from my sins but onely grosse and scandalous sins such as make the Name of God and the profession of Religion to be evil spoken of and reproached those roots of bitternesse which spring up whereby many are like to be defiled those that are guilty of such sins and have given no evidence of true Repentance if they be received to the Sacrament it is a profaning of the Ordinance Now that the admission of scandalous and notorious sinners to the Sacrament in a reformed and constituted Church is a profanation or pollution of that Ordinance may be thus proved First Paraeus upon the 82 Question in the Heidelberg Catechism where it is affirmed that by the admission of scandalous sinners to the Sacrament the Covenant of God is profaned giveth this reason for it Because as they who having no Faith nor Repentance if they take the sâ—als of the Covenant do thereby profane the Covenant so they who consent to known wicked and scandalous persons their taking of the seals or to their coming to the Sacrament do by such consenting make themselves guilty of profaning the Covenant of God for the doer and the consenter fall under the same breach of law yea so far do they sin by such consenting as that they do thereby acknowledge the children of the devil to be the children of God and the enemies of God to be in Covenant and to have fellowship with God He distinguisheth these two things who ought to come to the Sacrament and who ought to be admitted None ought to come except those who truely believe and repent None ought to be admitted except such as are supposed to be believers and penitent there being nothing known to the contrary If any impenitent sinner take the Sacrament he profanes the Covenant of God If the Church admit to the Sacrament any known to live in wickednesse without repentance the Church profaneth the Covenant of God Secondly that Ordinance which is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance which is not appointed for the conversion of sinners but for the communion of Saints is certainly profaned and abused contrary to the nature institution and proper end thereof if those who are manifestly ungodly profane impenitent and unconverted be admitted to the participation thereof But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance c. which I have proved by infallible demonstrations Ergo. Thirdly That use of the Sacrament which is repugnant and contradictory to the Word truly and faithfully preached in the name of Christ is a prophaning of the Sacrament But to give the Sacrament to those who are known to live in grosse sins without repentance is an use of the Sacrament which is repugnant and contradictory to the Word truly and faithfully preached in the Name of Christ. Ergo. I suppose no man will denie that if we truly and faithfully preach the Word we may and ought to pronounce and declare such as live in sin impenitent and unconverted to be under Gods wrath and displeasure as long as they continue in that estate Be not deceived saith the Apostle neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankind nor theeves nor covetous nor drunkards nor revilers nor extortioners shall inherit the Kingdom of God 1 Cor. 6. 9. 10. See the like Ephes. 5. 5 6 7. Whence it is that doctrinally we warn the ignorant and scandalous and all such as live in known sins without repentance that they presume not to come and prophane that holy Table Of which Ministers are appointed by the Directory to give warning How then can we by giving the Sacrament to such as these give the lye to the Word For what other thing shall we do if those whom the Word pronounceth to have no part in the Kingdom of God nor of Christ shall be admitted as well as the Godly to eat and drink at the Lords Table while known to continue in the committing of their damnable sins or while it is known that they have not repented of the uncleannesse and fernication and lasciviousnesse which they have committed 2 Cor. 12. 21. What is this but to absolve in the Sacrament those who are condemned in the Word and to open the Kingdom of Heaven in the Sacrament unto those on whom the Word shutteth it Fourthly That use of the Sacrament which strengtheneth the hands of the wicked so that he turneth not from his wickednesse is an abuse and profanation of the Sacrament But the giving of the Sacrament to any known prophane impenitent person is such an use of the Sacrament as strengtheneth the hands of the wicked so that he turneth not from his wickednesse Ergo. I appeal to the experience of all godly and faithful ministers whether they have not found it a great deal more difficult to convince or convert such prophane men as have been usually admitted to the Sacrament then to convince or convert such as have been kept back from the Sacrament No marvel that such prophane ones as have usually received the seals of the Covenant of grace and joyned in the highest act of Church-communion live in a good opinion of their souls estate and trust in lying words Have we not eaten and drunken at thy Table The Sacrament The Sacrament as of old The Temple The Temple Mr. Prynn thinks that the Minister hath fully discharged his duty and conscience if he give warning to unworthy Communicants of the danger they incurre by their unworthy approaches to the Lords Table Vindic. pag. 28 29. But he may be pleased to receive an answer from himself pag. 43. The things we see with our eyes do more affect and beget deeper impressions in our hearts then the things we hear The Word preached is Verbum audibile the Sacrament is Verbum visibile How shall prophane ones be perswaded by their ears to beleeve that whereof they see the contrary with their eyes they will give more credit in Mr. Prynns own opinion to the visible Word then to the audible Word Fifthly If it were a prophanation of the Sacrament of Baptisme to baptize a
O Generation of Vipers who hath forewarned you to flee from the wrath to come Which insinuateth a coincidency of these two stories related Matth. 3. and Iohn 1. Salmeron thinks that message was sent to Iohn out of honour and respect to him and he endeavours to confute the Centurists but among all his answers he doth not averre which had been his best reply if he had thought it probable that those words O Generation of Vipers were not spoken to the Pharisees that were sent from Ierusalem to Iohn Yea Salmeron himself doth in another place observe divers coincidencies between the story of that which passed between Iohn and the Pharisees that came to his baptism and the story of that which passed between Iohn and the Pharisees that were sent to him from Ierusalem 4. Erastus argueth from the admission of a generation of Vipers to Baptisme to prove the lawfulnesse of admitting a generation of Vipers to the Lords Supper But I argue contrariwise Such persons as desire to be received into the Church by Baptisme if they be prophane and scandal us persons ought not to be baptized but refused baptisme as Augustine proveth in his Book De Fide Operibus Therefore prophane and scandalous persons ought much lesse be admitted unto the Lords Supper Of which Argument more before I conclude with the Centurists Iohn did not cast pearls before swine he did not admit rashly any that would to Baptisme but such as confessed their sins that is onely such as were tryed and did repent but the contumacious and the defenders of their impieties or crimes he did reject CHAP. XVII Antiquity for the suspension of all scandalous persons from the Sacrament even such as were admitted to other publik Ordinances MR. Prynn in his first Quaere would have us beleeve that in the primitive times scandalous sinners were ever excommunicated and wholy cast out of the Church and sequestred from all other Ordinances as well as from the Sacrament And since saith he in the primitive times as is evident by Tertullians Apologie cap. 39. De poenitentia lib. and others scandalous persons were ever excommunicated and wholy cast out of the Church extra gregem dati not barely sequestred from the Sacrament But for further clearing of the ancient discipline concerning suspension I have thought good here to take notice of the particulars following First That great Antiquary Albaspinaeus proving that Church communion or fellowship was anciently larger than partaking of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper he proves it by this Argument because many of those who had scandalously fallen were admitted to communion with the Church in prayer and all other Ordinances the Eucharist onely excepted Next It is well known to the searchers of Antiquity that there were four degrees of publike declaration of repentance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which the Latines call flâ—…us auditio substratio consistentia After all which followed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the participation of the Sacrament which they were at last admitted unto and is therefore mentioned by some as the fifth degree though to speak properly it was not poenal nor any degree of censure as the other four were First The penitent was kept weeping at the Church door beseeching those that went in to pray for him thereafter he was admitted to hear the Word afar off among the Catechumens In the third place there was a preparatory reconciliation or reception into the Church with prayer and imposition of hands which being done the man was in some sort admitted into Christian fellowship and acknowledged for a brother yet after the Word and Prayer he went forth with the Catechumens before the Sacrament But there was a fourth degree after all this he might stay in the Church and see and hear in the celebration of the Sacrament after the Catechumens and the three first sort of penitents were dismissed yet still he was suspended from partaking of the Sacrament for a certain time after he was brought to this fourth and last step So cautious were those Ancients in admitting of men to the Sacrament till they perceived lasting continuing clear and real evidences of true repentance Three of the degrees above-mentioned are found in the Canons of the Councel of Ancyra and of the Councel of Nice namely the three last The first which did not admit a man so much as into the Church to the hearing of the Word as it was afterwards added so it is not so justisicable as the other three But here is the point I desire may be well observed that of old in the fourth and fifth yea in the third Century men were admitted not only to the hearing of the Word but to prayer with the Church who yet were not admitted to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper The Councel of Ancyra held about the year 308. Can. 16. appointeth some scandalous persons to shew publike signes of repentance for 15. years before they be admitted to fellowship with the Church in prayer and for 5. years thereafter to be kept off from the Sacrament The Councel of Nice doth plainly intimate the same thing That some were admitted to Prayer but not to the Sacrament The different steps of the reception of those that had fallon may be likewise proved from the Councel of Arles I. Mich. Dilherrus Lib. 2. Electorum Cap. 1. After the mention of those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth observe that as Antiquity did goe too far so the later times have fallen too short And this is a chief cause why Christian Religion doth hear very ill among many because Ecclesiastical Discipline hath waxed cold So much by the way This of the several degrees of Penitents I shall yet further insist upon because this alone will prove that we have Antiquity for us Gregorius Thaumaturgus in his Canonical Epistle concerning those who in the time of the incursion of the Barbarians had eaten things sacrificed to Idols and had committed other scandalous sins doth plainly distinguish these five things thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The weeping is without the gate of the Church where the sinner must stand beseeching the faithfull that come in to pray for him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The hearing is within the Gate in the Porch where the sinner may come no nearer then the Catechumens and thence go out again c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The substration is that standing within the Church door he go forth with the Catechumens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The consistency is that he stand still together with the faithful and do not go forth with the Catechumens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the last place the participation of the holy Mysteries or Sacrament He that will read the Epistles of Basilius magnus to Amphilochius will find these five degrees more particularly distinguished applyed to several cases and bounded by distinct intervalls of time It were too long to transcribe all
pure voice doth also restrain those who cannot be joyned and knit together with such as do worthily communicate in those divine mysteries surely the multitude of those in whom vile lusts and passions do reigne is much more prophane and hath much lesse to do with the fight and communion of these holy things The old Scholiast Maximus upon that place saith thus Note that he reckoneth together with the Energumens those that continue without repentance in the allurements of bodily pleasures as fornicators lovers and frequenters of unlawful plaies such as the divine Apostle having mentioned doth subjoyn with such a one no not to eat Where Mr. Prynn may also note by the way how anciently 1 Cor. 5. 11. was applied so as might furnish an argument against the admission of scandalous persons to the Sacrament Let us also hear the Paraphrast Pachimeres upon the place For if the celebration of the divine mysteries refuse even those who are in the very course of repentance not admitting such because they are not throughly or wholy purified and sanctified as it were proclaiming it self invisible and incommunicable unto all who are not worthy to communicate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much more they who are yet impenitent are to be restrained from it If you please to search further take but one passage of Cyprian which speaks plainly to me for suspension from the Sacrament for he sharply reproves the receiving to the Sacrament such persons as were not excommunicate for if they had most certainly he had mentioned that as the most aggravating circumstance but having committed smaller offences had not made out the course of publike manifesting their repentance according to the discipline of the Church If we shall require more we have a most plain Testimony of Iustine Martyr telling us that at that time they admitted none to the Lords Supper except those onely who had these three qualifications 1. They must receive and beleeve the Doctrine preached and professed in the Church 2. They must be washed or baptized unto the remission of sins and regeneration 3. They must be such as live according to the rule of Christ. His words are these This food is with us called the Eucharist which is lawful for none other to partake of but to him that beleeveth those things to be true which are taught by us and is washed in the laver for remission of sins and for Regeneration and liveth so as Christ hath delivered or commanded g Walasridus Strabo a diligent searcher of the Ancients which were before him and of the old Ecclesiastical Rites who died about the year 849. mentioneth this suspension from the Sacrament as an Ecclesiastical censure received from the Ancient Fathers and he gives three reasons for it to prove that it is for the sinners own good to be thus suspended 1. That he may not involve himself in greater guiltinesse 2. That he may not be chastened of the Lord with sicknesse and such other afflictions as the profanation of that Sacrament brought upon the Corinthians 3. That being terrified and humbled he may think the more earnestly of repenting and recovering himself It was truly said that this discipline was received from the Ancient Fathers which as it appeareth from what hath been already said so the Testimony of Chrysostome must not be forgotten He in his tenth Homily upon Matthew expounding those words Matth. 3. 6. And were baptized of him in Jordan confessing their sins noteth that the time of confession belongeth to two sorts of persons to the prophane not yet initiated and to the baptized to the one that upon their repentance they might get leave to partake in the holy Mysteries to the other that being washed in Baptism from their filthinesse they might come with a clean Conscience to the Lords Table His meaning is That neither the unbaptized nor scandalous livers though they were baptized might be admitted to the Lords Table whereupon he concludeth Let us therefore abstain from this lâ—…ud and dissolute life The Latin Translation rendring the sence rather then the words speaketh more plainly But there is a most full and plain passage of Chrysostome in his 83. Homily upon Matthew neer the end thereof where he saith of the Lords Supper Let no cruel one no unmerciful one none any way impure come unto it I speak these things both to you that do receive and also to you that do administer Even to you this is necessary to be told that with great care and heedfulnes you distribute these gifts There doth no small punishment abide you if you permit any whose wickednesse you know to partake of this Table for his blood shall be required at your hands If therefore any Captain if the Consul if he himself that wears the Crown come unworthily restrain him which to do thou hast more authority then he hath And after But if you say how shall I know this man and that man I do not speak of those that are unknown but of those that are known I tel you a horrible thing it is not so ill to have among you those that are bodily possessed of the Divel as these sinners which I speak of c. Let us therefore put back not onely such as are possessed but ALL WITHOUT DISTINCTION WHOM WE SEE TO COME UNWORTHILY c. But if thou thy self darest not put him back bring the matter to me I will permit no such thing to be done I will sooner give up my life than I will give the body of the Lord unworthily and sooner suffer my blood to be poured out than give the Lords blood unworthily and contrary to my duty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to such as are horribly scandalous He concludeth that this discipline is medicinal and profitable in the Church and that the keeping back of the scandalous is the way to make many worthy Communicants Can any man imagine that all such unworthy persons were excommunicate and wholy cast out of the Church Do not all Chrysostomes Arguments militate against the admission of any scandalous and unworthy person known to be such saith he not that all simply or without distinction whom they perceived to come unworthily were to be put back If onely excommunicate persons were kept back from the Sacrament what needed all this exhortation to those that did administer the Sacrament to be so careful cautious and heedful whom they would admit And if none were to be excluded from the Sacrament but those that were branded with the publike infamy of excommunication what needed this objection to be moved how shall I know such Moreover Both Cyprian and Ambrose do most plainly and undeniably hold forth different degrees of Church censures and Cyprian is most full and clear concerning a suspension from the Sacrament of persons not excommunicated nor cast out of the Church For answering a case of Conscience put to him concerning certain young women whose conversation and behaviour with men had
the very same page he saith None were kept off from making their atonement by a trespasse offering if they did first confesse their sins to God though perchance his confession was not cordiall or such as the Priests approved but external onely in shew I beseech you how could it be at all judged of whether it was external and onely in shew if it was made to God alone Nay if it was made to God alone how could it be known whether he had confessed any sin at all and so whether he was to be admitted to the trespasse offering or not 2. Vindic. pag. 50. He freely granteth That ALL scandalous obstinate peremptory incorrigible notorious sinners who desperately and professedly persevere in their grosse scandalous fins to the dishonour of Christian Religion the scandal of the Congregation the ill example and infection of others after several solemn previous publike admonitions reprehensions rebukes contemned or neglected and full conviction of their scandal and 2. Vindic. pag. 57. Certainly the speediest BEST and ONLY WAY to suppresse ALL kind of sins schismes to reform and purge our Churches from ALL SCANDALOUS OFFENCES will be for Ministers NOT to draw out the sword of Excommunication and suspension against them which will do little good but the sword of the Spirit the powerful preaching of Gods Word and the sword of the Civil Magistrate impenitency may and OUGHT TO BE EXCOMMUNICATED suspended c. If this be the best and only way to suppresse sin and to reform and purge the Churches How is it that some scandalous sinners may and ought to be excommunicated 3. Vindic. pag. 50 Where the fâ—…ct is notorious the pâ—…oofs 〈◊〉 the sentence of excommunication ready to be pronounced against them as persons impenitently scandalous and inâ—…orrigible â—…erchance the Presbyterie or â—…l ssis may order a suspension from the Sacrament or any other Ordinances before the sentence of excommunication solemnly denounced if they see just cause 3. Yet all along he disputes against the su pending from the Sacrament of a person unexcommunicated and not suspended from all other publike Ord nances and society of Gods people And pag 50. arguing for the right of all visible members of the visible Church to the Sacrament he saith that nothing but an actual excommunication can suspend them from this their rigâ—…t 4. Vindic. pag. 17. He saith that a particular examination of the Conscience and Repentance for sin is no where required in Scripture of such who did eat the Passeover And herein he distinguisheth the Trespasse-offerings and the Passeover that in bringing a trespasse offering men came to sue for pardon and make atonement and that therefore confession of sin was necessary But in the Passeover 4. Ibid. pag. 24. He saith that the Passeover was the same in substance with the Eucharist under the Gospel wherein Christ was spiritually represented and received as well as in the Lords Supper But how can this be if repentance for sin was not necessary in the Passeover and if it was onely a commemoration of a by pâ—st temporal mercy in sparing the first born of the Israelites there was râ—… atonement c. but ONELY a commemoration of Gods infinite mercy in passing over the Israelites first born when he slâ—…w the Egyptians  5. Vindic. pag. 18. He saith that immediatly before the institution of the Sacrament Christ told his Disciples that one of them should betray him and that Iudas was the last man that said Is it I immediately before the Institution And pag. 27. he saith That the other disciples did eat the Sacrament with Iudas after Christ had particularly informed them and Iudas himself that he should betray him 5. Yet pag. 25. He reckoneth that very thing to have been after the Institution of the Sacrament for to that Objection that Iudas went out before Supper ended immediately after he received the sop whereas Christ did not institute the Sacrament till after Supper he makes this answer that the dipping of the sop at which time Iudas said is it I was at the common Supper which saith he succeded the Institution of the Sacrament so that the Sacrament was instituted after the Paschal not after the common Supper And pag. 19. He argues that Iudas did receive the Sacrament upon this ground that all this discourse and the giving of the sop to Judas was after Supper ended but Christ instituted and distributed the Sacrament at least the bread as he sate at meat as they were eating before Supper quite ended 6. Vindic. pag. 42. Speaking of ungodly scandalous sinners he plainly intimateth that the receiving of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is more likely to regenerate and change their hearts and lives then the Word preached And in that same page he holdeth that this Sacrament is certainly the most powerful and effectual Ordinance of all others to humble regenerate convert The like see pag. 44 45. and pag. 52. Yea no doubt many debosht Persons have been really reclaimed converted even by their accesse and admission to the Sacrament 6. Pag. 57. He ascribeth the power of godlinesse in many English Congregations to powerful preaching and saith that this sword of the Spirit the powerful preaching of Gods Word and the sword of the Civil Magistrate are onely able to effect this work to suppresse all kind of sinnes schismes to reform and purge the Churches If this be the speediest best and onely way to suppresse all kind of sinnes schismes to reform and purge our Churches from all scandalous offences as he there saith and if the Word and the Magistrate are onely able to effect this work How is it that the Lords Supper doth change mens hearts and lives and that more effectually then any other Ordinance Again pag. 37. he saith he hath in other Treatises of his proved Gods presence and Spirit to be as much as really present in other Ordinances as in this of the Lords Supper How then makes he this Sacrament to be the most powerful and effectual Ordinance of all others to humble regenerate convert 7. Pag. 40. He makes the Sacrament to be a seal to the sences of unworthy persons but not to their soules In this latter sence he saith it is a seal onely to worthy penitent beleeving receivers 7. Yet Pag. 44 45. the strength of his tenth Argument lies in this that the Sacrament sealeth unto the Communicants souls yea to the flintiest heart and obduratest spirit the promises an union with Christ assurance of everlasting life and therefore in regard of the sealing of all these particulars unto mens souls must needs convert an obdurate unregenerate sinner Which Argument were non-sence if it did not suppose the Sacrament to seal all these particulars even to the souls of unregenerate sinners Mark but these words of his own since that which doth seal all these particulars to mens souls and represent them to their saddest thoughts must needs more powerfully perswade pierce mels relent convert an obdurate heart
mayest Act. 10. 47. Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the holy Ghost as well as we Now if Baptisme it self which is the Sacrament of our initiation supposeth according to the tenor and meaning of Christs institution that the party baptized if of age doth actually convert and beleeve and if an infant supposeth an interest in Jesus Christ and in the Covenant of grace for if he be a child of an Heathen or an Infidel although taken into a Christian Family yet the Synod of Dort Sess. 19. adviseth not to baptize such a child till it come to such age as to be instructed in the principles of Christian Religion How much more doth the Lords Supper necessarily by Christs institution suppose that the receivers are not unconverted and unbeleeving persons The previous qualifications which are supposed in Baptisme must be much more supposed in the Lords Supper Thirdly That which gives us the new food supposeth that we have the new birth and spiritual life and that we are not still dead in sins and trespasses But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper gives us the new food Ergo it supposeth we have the new birth The proposition I prove thus A man must first be born by the new birth before he can be fed with the new food and how can a man eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ and yet be supposed not to have a spiritual life before that act but to get a spiritual life in that very act Doth a man get life because he eats and drinks or doth he not rather eat and drink because he lives The Assumption is a received and uncontroverted truth And hence do Divines give this reason why we are but once baptized but do many times receive the Lordâ— Supper because it is enough to be once born but not enough to be once nourished or strengthened See the Belgick confession Art 34. and D. Parei Miscellanea Catechetica pag. 79. I shall strengthen my Argument by the Confession of Bohemia Cap. 11. The Sacraments cannot give to any such which before was not inwardly quickened by the holy Ghost either grace or justifying and quickening faith and therefore they cannot justifie any man nor inwardly quicken or regenerate any mans Spirit for faith must go before And after For if a dead man or one that is unworthy do come to the Sacraments certainly they do not give him life and worthinesse c. See the Harmony of Confessions printed at London 1643. pag. 280. 281. To what end then is the Sacrament of the Lords Supper instituted For that see the Confession of Belgia Ibid. pag. 320. We beleeve and confesse that Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour hath instituted the holy Sacrament of his Supper that in it he might nourish and sustain those whom he hath regenerated and ingrafted into his Family which is the Church Both these Chapters did Mr. Prynn cite in the Question of Iudas which yet prove not what he affirmeth in that point as I have noted before but it seems he did not observe these passages which make directly against him in this Question of conversion or conferring of grace by the Sacrament I add also Mr. Pemble in his Christian disections for receiving the Sacrament The Sacrament saith he is appointed for our nourishment in grace where we grow not by it it is a signe this food was not digested but vomited up again Where faith repentance thankfulnesse and obedience are not increased there Christ crucified was not remembred But how can there be any nourishment in grace or any increase of grace in those who come to the Sacrament without the first grace or in the state of unregeneration Fourthly That Ordinance which is instituted onely for beleevers and justified persons is no converting but sealing Ordinance But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is instituted onely for beleevers and justified persons Ergo. The Proposition hath light enough in it self for converting Ordinances do belong even to unjustified and unconverted persons Therefore that which is instituted onely for beleevers is no converting Ordinance All the Question will be of the Assumption which I shall the rather confirm because it is the very principle from which Polanus and others argue for the suspension of scandalous persons from the Lords Table Now I prove the Assumption thus Every Sacrament even a Sacrament of initiation is a seal of the righteousnesse of Faith If Circumcision was a seal of the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 4. 11. then Baptisme which hath succeeded to Circumcision is also a seal of the righteousnesse of faith and that more fully and clearly then Circâ—mcision was and if Baptisme be a seal of the righteousnesse of faith much more is the Sacrament of the Lords Supper a seal of the righteousnesse of Faith which is also proved by Mat. 26. 28. For this is my blood of the new Covenant which is shed for many for the remission of sins Chrysostome on Rom. 4. considering those words vers 11. a seal of the righteousnesse of Faith hath this meditation upon it that a Sacrament is no signe no seal except where the thing is which is signified and sealed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For of what shall it be a signe or of what shall it be a seal when there is none to be sealed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For faith he if it be a signe of righteousnesse and thou hast not righteousnesse neither hast thou the signe If therefore a Sacrament be a seal of the righteousnesse of faith then it is instituted onely for beleevers and justified persons because to such onely it can seal the righteousnesse of faith Upon this ground saith Ursinus that the Sacraments are to the wicked and unbeleevers no Sacraments which agreeth with that Rom. 2. 25. If thou be a breaker of the Law thy Circumcision is made uncircumcisâ—…on Fifthly The Apostle argues that Abraham the father of the faithfull and whose justification is as it were a pattern of ours was not justified by Circumcision or as Aquinas confesseth upon the place that Circumcision was not the cause but the signe of Justification Rom. 4. 9. 10. 11. We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousnesse How was it then reckoned When he was in Circumcision or in uncircumcision Not in Circumcision but in uncircumcision And he received the signe of Circumcision a seal of the righteousnesse of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised If Abraham the father of the faithful got not so much as the Sacrament of initiation till after he was justified and sanctified how shall we think of receiving not onely the Sacrament of initiation but the Sacrament of spiritual nourishment while unjustified and unsanctified And if God did by his Word make a Covenant with Abraham before he received Circumcision the seal of that Covenant must it not much more be supposed that they are within the Covenant of grace
that moral carnal Christians and all such as are not convicted of scandalous sins are to be admitted to the Sacrament Thrrefore doubtlesse saith he it is and was intended by Christ for a converting Ordinance to all such as these to turn them from their evil waies and work saving grace within their hearts since it can have no other proper primary effect in such Certainly God and Christ bestow no Ordinances upon men in vain therefore their intentions in instituting this Supper even for such visible moral unregenerate Christian as well as real Saints must necessarily be for their conversion not their confirmation and sealing onely Answ. Lapsus in initio mali augurii est He confoundeth here things most different 1. He confoundeth our admitting of Communicants with Gods intention to do good to their souls and his Argument runs upon this mistake that God intendeth good to the souls of all who come to the Lords Table though wicked close Hypocrites and since this good cannot be sealing onely it must be conversion But it is neither sealing nor conversion nor any good at all which God intends by that Ordinance to them that perish yet it is not in vain for he himself tells us pag. 34. that even in these the Minister administring the Sacrament is a sweet savour to God who hath appointed the Sacrament secundarily and contingently to be a means of aggravating mens sins and condemnation to magnifie his justice 2. There is a most dangerous mistake in that which he saith of the intentions of God and of Christ. If he mean of what God intendeth or purposeth in the Councel of his own will that in this sence God intendeth the conversion of those that perish is to make void and frustraneous the decree will and intention of God which is grosse Arminianisme and Jesuitisme But if he mean finis operis the proper end for which the Sacrament was instituted and the good which the Word of God tells us we ought to seek and may through the grace of God find in the Sacrament Then in that sence to say that Christs intention in instituting this Sacrament was for conversion of moral unregenerate Christians is meerly a begging of what is in question The like I say of that proper primary effect of the Sacrament in such If he mean the proper primary effect decreed in the secret counsel of God he myres himself in Arminianisme If he mean the proper primary effect of the Sacrament in respect of its own nature this is but petere principium 3. All who pretend right to the Sacrament are either visible Saints qualified according to the rule of Christ and such as the Eldership examining their profession and practice according to the rules of the word judgeth fit to be admitted to the Sacrament or they are not such If they be such then the end and use of the Sacrament in reference to them is to be a sealing Ordinance for the Eldership judgeth and supposeth them fit to be sealed and confirmed so far as they can understand and in that capacity do admit them God onely being able to judge close Hypocrites If they be not qualified as I have said then we do not grant that they ought to be admitted His second Argument hath no strength at all All Ordinanâ—es which strengthen grace do more or lesse begin or beget it and the Directory it self calls the Sacraments means of grace pag. 52. What then The Directory calls this Sacrament means of grace because by it Christ and all his benefits are applied and sealed up unto us and we are sealed up by his Spirit to an assurance of happinesse and everlasting life But saith he why may not the Sacraments convert as well as confirm I have given many reasons for it If he could prove that what confirms doth also convert why did he not do it If he could not prove it why brings he a strong affirmation instead of an Argument As for that which he addeth that the Lords Supper is received not once as Baptism but frequently For this very end that those who often fall into sin through infirmity may likewise by this Supper often rise again be refreshed comforted and get strength against their corruptions and sins and is it not then a converting as well as a confirming Ordinance What a wavering is here Is the raising refressiing and comforting of those who often fall through infirmity the conversion or first grace which now we dispute of Or whether doth he not here yeeld the cause For the refreshing and comforting and strengthening of those that fall through infirmity is the effect of a confirming not of a converting Ordinance And in this sence Divines have given a reason why we are but once baptized but do often receive the Lords Supper because Baptisme is the Sacrament of our initiation the laver of regeneration I mean not that which hath been called Baptismal regeneration fancied to be common to all the baptized but I mean that which is wrought in and sealed to the Elect baptized the Lords Supper is the Sacrament of our spiritual nourishment and strengthening and it is enough to be once born once regenerate but we must be often nourished and strengthened His third Argument is this The very receiving of the Sacrament even in â—…nregenerate persons is accompanied with such things as are most effectual to convert As 1. With a previous external serious examination of their own hearts and estates between God and their own Consciences 2. A solemn searching out of all their open or secret sins and corruptions past or present accompanied with a serious particular privat confession of them a hearty contrition and humiliation for them c. 3. Pious soul ravishing meditations c. which make deep temporary impressions on their hearts 4. Flexanimous exhortations admonitions comminations directions prayers by the Ministers in the Congregation before in and after this dutie Whereupon he leaveth it to every mans Conscience to judge whether this Sacrament is not more likelie to regenerate and change their hearts and lives then the bare Word preached or any other Ordinance Answ. 1. Here is a lump of wild uncouth and most erroneous Divinity Who ever heard of an external examination of mens hearts between God and their own Consciences Or 2. That unregenerate persons can and do seriously examine their own hearts and search out all their sins with a hearty contrition and humiliation for them c. Or 3. That deep temporary impressions on their hearts are most effectual to convert and regenerate for he doth enumerate all these as particulars most effectual to convert Or 4. That in the very receiving of the Sacrament men hear the Ministers prayers in the Congregation 5. That this Sacrament is more likely to regenerate then the bare Word preached I suppose he means not the word without the Spirit for nobody holds the bare word in that sence to regenerate but preaching without other concurring Ordinance or any other
Ordinance Which if it be he cannot choose but allow to give the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to excommunicated persons and to the unbaptized whether Heathens or Jews being of age and desiring to receive it Secondly If all the whole Antecedent part of his Argument were granted the consequence is naught for this must be the consequence If examination of mens hearts the searching out of all their sins confession contrition prayers vowes meditations exhortations which do accompany the Sacrament be most effectual to convert and to beget grace then the Sacrament is a converting Ordinance Which consequence he will never prove Put the case that self-examination confession prayers vowes meditations exhortations at the calling of a Parliament at the going out of an Army at the choosing of Magistrates or Ministers at the death of Parents friends c. prove effectual to conversion Shall we therefore say that the calling of a Parliament the going out of the Army the choosing of Ministers or Magistrates the death of Parents or friends are converting Ordinances His fourth Argument alone is syllogistical I wish all his Arguments throughout his whole book had been such that the strength or weaknesse thereof might the sooner appear That Ordinance whereâ—…n we most immedietly converse with God and Christ and have more intimate visible sensible communion with them then in any other is certainly the most powerful and effectual Ordinance of all others to humble regenerate convert and beget true grace within us c. But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper by our Antagonists own confession is such Ergo. Answ. 1. I retort his Argument against himself That Ordinance wherein we most immediatly converse with God and Christ and have more intimate communion with them then in any other is a sealing confirming but not a converting Ordinance For they who are converting have not such intimate communion and immediat conversing with God and Christ as they who are already converted and do walk with God as Enoch did and are filled with all joy and peace in beleeving Rom. 15. 13. even with joy unspeakable and full of glory 1 Pet. 1. 8. The daughters of Ierusalem being sick of love for Christ yet are far from that communion with him which his Spouse longer acquainted with him did enjoy therefore they ask at her whither her beloved was gone that they might seek him with her Cant. 6 1. Hath the child fed with milk more communion and conversing with his father then the son come to years who eateth and drinketh at his fathers Table Do we not see often a servent convert like Apollos whom an Aquila and Priscilla must take and expound unto him the way of God more perfectly Act. 18. 25 26. 2. I deny his Proposition as he frames it for the plain English of it is this If it be a sealing comforting confirming Ordinance then it is a converting Ordinance which I clear thus He takes his Medium from his Antagonists concession for they accord saith he that we have more immediate communion with God in this Ordinance then in any other for as much as in this Sacrament Christ is more particularly applied and the remission of our sins more sensibly sealed to us then in any other Ordinance from whence I thus infallibly conclude against these opposites Then follows his Argument which is no other then a putting of the converted in the condition of the unconverted or the unconverted in the capacity of the converted or to prove it converts because it seals 3. If this Sacrament be the most powerful and effectual Ordinance of all others to humble regenerate convert and beget true grace it will follow that we ought at least may give the Sacrament not onely to the most ignorant and scandalous within the Church but to Turks Pagans Jews and to excommunicated persons as I said before 4. He challengeth his Antagonists for crying up and magnifying this Sacrament above the Word preached and by way of opposition tells them that he hath in some former Tractates proved Gods presence and Spirit to be as much as really present in other Ordinances as in this Vindic. pag. 37 yet now I see no man who doth so much as himself magnifie the Sacrament above the Word 5. Whereas he brings this proof for his Major Proposition because the manifestation revelation and proximity of God and Christ to the soul is that which doth most of all humble and convert it If this hold true in the generality as he propounds it then the Spirits of just men made perfect and glorified are converted by the revelation and proximity of God and of Christ whereof they have unconceaveably more then the Saints on earth But neither in this world doth the manifestation and revelation of God and of Christ prove conversion and regeneration to be in fieri at that instant when God so manifesteth and revealeth himself which is the thing he had to prove I give instance in divers of those Scriptures cited by himself Gods revealing of himself to Iob chap. 38. and 42. to Isaiah chap. 6. Christs manifesting of his power to Peter Luke 5. was after not at their conversion so that Psal. 148. 14. But heteregeneous impertinent quotations of Scripture are usual with him I am sorry I have cause to say it Some other Scriptures which here he citeth may be expounded of Gods proximity to us and ours to God in Conversion Isa. 55. 6. Zeph. 3. 2. Eph. 2. 17. Iam. 4. 7. But that this kind of proximity which doth convert is in the Sacrament he hath supposed but not proved His fifth Argument is taken from the converting power of the Word that which makes conversion by the Word is the particular application of Christ and the promises Now the Sacrament doth most particularly and effectually apply Christ and the promises unto every Communicants eyes ears heart and soul far livelier then the Word preached Answ. 1. This is a meer fallacy à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter and easily discovered The Sacrament applyeth Christ but to whom not to the unconverted and unbeleevers for that were to give a seal without a charter but to those that are supposed to be converted and beleevers He had this to prove That the Sacrament doth apply Christs death passion and merits to unconverted persons and to unbeleevers yea to their heart and soul. 2. That the Sacrament doth apply the death passion and merits of Christ to the Communicants ears and that far livelier than the word preached is to me a riddle which I think will trouble Mr. Prynn himself to expound 3. A great controversie there hath been about the orall or corporal manducation of the body of Christ in the Sacrament But Mr. Prynn out-runneth here all Ubiquitaries in the World for he hath said no lesse then that every Communicant eateth spiritually and by faith the body of Christ even unconverted persons for he saith that this Sacrament doth most particularly fully lively and sensibly