the Apostles Canon who would have every man so to eat and drink i. e. upon his Repentance to receive but you deny him and whether this be Schisme or not I hope you can tell Your want of Charity appears in that you will suspect his Repentance to be but Verball when himself affirms it to be Real But for your sake be it admitted to be but Verball though I do not I dare not suppose it so or so suspect it yet it is not otherwise known to you then to be Reall because you know not his heart his sinne is onely thereby doubled for comming so unworthily your sinne is not lessened for denying to admit him because for ought you know he came worthily and if his Repentance were Reall as he protested and you by the rule of Charity ought to have believed your sinne is doubled in not admitting him and all this though he had acknowledged or made known so much to you and this you evidence against your self in your next Instance which is Opponent But Saint Paul saies Let a man examine himselfe 1 Cor. 11.28 he doth not bid the Minister or Church examine him Indeed I think none ought to be forc't to the Sacramen but such as desire to partake of it but because the Minister must have a hand with them in that act there is all Christian reason why they should be willing and ready to give him an account of their Knowledge Faith and of that change that God hath wrought upon their Soules If a Christian be bound to give a reason of his Faith and doings to everyone that shall not in an ensnaring way aske him a reason or account as Saint Peter hints he must 1 Pet. 3.15 how much more is he bound to doe it to his Pastor to whose care God hath committed him and who must give an account at the last day for him Therefore that Precept Let a man examine himself and so eate doth not hinder that the Minister with some godly judicious men deputed thereunto may examine all those that offer themselves to the Lords Table not presuming on an infallible but making a charitable discrimination that the Table of the Lord be not prephaned Respond And whence comes this Charitable discrimination whence comes the deputation of Godly judicious men to be joyn'd with the Minister to examine all those that offer themselves to the Lords Table è Praetorio or è Sanctuario Speak it if you know it From the Church of England it came not and therefore not from the Primitive Church For whatsoever the Primitive Church thought necessary either in Doctrine or Discipline the Church of England hath retained and enjoined From the Apostles it came not For Saint Paul who alone of all the Apostles hath been precise in delivering the substance and Circumstance the Doctrine and Discipline of this Sacrament though he knew the Church of Corinth did abound with sundry Errors and Corruption both in Faith and Manners did yet give order for the Excommunication of one only sinner that one a Contumacious a Notorious a Scandalous sinner and then sufficed himself with a generall proposall of the great danger of unworthy receiving and remitted every other particular Person to a self-Examination He gave order to none to exclude any from that holy Table upon their Examination nor indeed gave he order to any either Minister or Elder much lesse Lay-Elders as not being then planted to examine Nor doth Saint Peter thwart Saint Paul For Saint Peter there speaks of a godly mans giving an account of his hope to a wicked Persecutor as appears by the Context Saint Paul here advises a man to a self-examination that he may be a worthy receiver and therefore your inference is not good of all Christian reason For Reason and Christianity both tell us we may very well content our selves with that course the Apostle took in administring and receiving the holy Sacrament in a generall and promiscuous way unlesse you will be guilty of the next objection you frame which is Opponent But in denying us the Sacrament the children lose their Bread and Right Respond Yes indeed do they For if they be children they have right to that Bread and you that deny them rob them of it Answer it as you wil and how well you do it I shall now examine Opponent I answer First they may enjoy it elsewhere or in a more private way among themselves which in some cases cannot be denyed to be warrantable enough Respond Yes but it can and is in all cases to be any way warrantable amongst themselves Laicks have nothing to do in the administration of this Sacrament and if they receive it elsewhere what thanks is that to you or is you duty thereby discharged you said erewhile God had committed them to your charge and you must give an account for them at the last day and so you must for a Quis haec requisivit too and for a Quare haec denâ—gasti too Nor will your next Answer discharge you Opponent But secondly will the children clamour because it is suspended they knowing a way to get strength and comfort from Christ to get the thing signified notwithstanding the suspension of the Elements when they cannot enjoy it but their Fathers Table is sure to be polluted and his holy things perverted in their use and end For my part I think the children cannot but very much desire it but things standing as they do dane not clamour for it the not feeding of their sences therewith not at all threatning damnation to them Respond What a concatenation of Absurdities are here If they know a way to get Christ without the Elements they are worthy to receive the Elements and why then are the Elements suspended by whose fault why or by whom is their Fathers Table polluted if they are worthy to receive it and do not receive it not by themselves because they are worthy Certainly by some other who do receive it with them or without them unworthily How is the use end of the Sacrament perverted by their receiving if they be worthy or by whom Dic bone Damaetas For your part you think they may desire and for my part I think not I am sure you may not deny it It is against your duty and why then may they not clamour I take this word in the best construction for it because the not feeding of their sences how Popery in a Presbyterian wee feed not our Iences nor do our sences feed wee feed our Faith and our Faith feeds at the Sacrament therewith not at all threatning damnation to them but take heed your not feeding them i.e. your robbing them of their right threatens not your self I dare not say with damnation your last shift and not modest comparison is no Postern for you Oppon But as godly and learned men as your self constantly do it And as godly and learned as they I am sorry I am forc't to make the comparison
passage be allowed concerning Babylon in their signification Rome the seat of Antichrist Yet more then probable it is If the Pope were Head of the Church by vertue of such succession That the writers of the New Testament are frequently forewarning men of Heretiques of false Prophets of false Christs should never so much as once arme them against such Heretiques against such false Prophets against such false Christs by letting them know this onely meanes of avoiding them and turning them over to the Pope the Head of the Church That so great a part of the new Testament should be emploied against Antichrist and so little indeed nothing at all about the Vidar of Christ and Guide of the Faithfull the Pope or Bishop of Rome Strange it seemes to me that my blessed Saviour Jesus Christ should leave this the onely means for the ending of controversies and speak so obscurely and ambiguously of it that now our Judge is the greatest controversie and the greatest hinderance of ending them Strange it is to me That there should be better evidence in the Scripture to entitle the King to this Office who disclaimes it then the Pope who pretends it Strange it seems to me That if Saint Peter had been Head of the Church he should never exercise over the Apostles in generall or any one of them in particular any one Act of jurisdiction nor they nor any one of them should ever give him any one title of Authority over them Strange it seems to me That if the Apostles did know that Saint Peter was made Head over them when Christ said Thou art Peter c. they should still contend who should be the first and that Christ should not tell them St. Peter was the man Strange it appears to me if this were true That Saint Paul should say He was in nothing inferiour to the very chief Apostles Strange still it seems to me That the Catechumeni in the Primitive Church should never be taught this Foundation of their Faith That the Fathers Tertullian Saint Hierome and Optatus when they flew highest in the commendation of the Roman Church should attribute no more to her then to other Apostolicall Churches That in the Controversie about Easter the Bishops of Asia should be so ill catechised as not to know this principle of Christian Religion The necessity of Conformity with the Church of Rome That they should never be pressed with any such Conformity in all things but onely with the particular Tradition of the Western Church in that point That Frycanus and many other Bishops notwithstanding Ad hanc ecclesiam necesse est omnem Ecclesiam convenire should not yet think that to be a necessarie and sufficient ground of excommunication which the Church of Rome taught to be so That St. Cyprian and the Bishops of Africa should be so ill instructed in their Faith as not to know this Foundation of it That they were never urged with any such Conformity with the Church of Rome nor were charged with Heresie or Error for denying it That when Liberius joyned in Communion with the Arians and subscribed their Heresie the Arians then should not be the Church and guide of Faith That never any Heretiques for five ages after Christ were pressed with this Argument The Pope is the Head of the Church nor charged with the denyall of it as a detestable Heresie so that Aeneas Sylvius should have cause to say Ante tempora Concilii Niceni quisque sibi vivebat parvus respectus habebatur ad Ecclesiam Romanam That the Ecclesiasticall story of those times mention no Acts of Authority of the Church of Rome over other Churches as if there should be a Monarchy and Kings for some ages together should exercise no Acts of Jurisdiction in it That to supply this defect The Decretall Epistles should be so impudently forged which in a manner speak nothing but Reges Monarchas The Popes making Lawes for exercising Authority over all other Churches That the African Churches in Saint Austins time should be ignorant that the Pope was Head of the Church and Judge of Appeales Iure divino and that there was a necessity of conformity with the Church of Rome in this and all other points of Doctrine That the Popes themselves should be ignorant of the true ground of their Authority as to pretend to it not upon Scripture and Universall Tradition but upon an Imaginarie Canon of the Councill of Nice That Vincentius Lyrinensis seeking for a Guide of his faith and a preservative from Heresie should be ignorant of this so ready a one The Pope is the Head of the Church Sir These are some and enough of my many Reasons why I dare not be why you should not be a Papist If yet you cannot jumpe with me in my opinion or will not perform your promise upon my Non-conviction Yet I pray give me leave to subscribe my self Sir Your friend and Servant THO. SVVADLIN Sir the Question is Opponent Whether it be lawfull for a Minister to give the Sacrament of the Lords Supper in that generall and promiscuous way that was usuall in former times and many now desire and contend for I hold the Negative and that upon these ensuing grounds Respond Sir The Question was not this For it was never questioned untill now nor now by any but by your self and other of your selfish opinion The question should be this whether it be lawfull for a generall and promiscuous sinner to receive that Sacrament And so it had been determined without breach of Unity the Unity of Verity the Unity of Charity the Unity of Authority For he that receives it so receives it unworthyly whereas the question that you have started is the breach of all these Unities and some more viz. the Unity of Perswasion and the Unity of Necessity But Unity is the least desire of some men also the flames of Controversie had e're this been aslaked and extinguished and some godly or tolerable peace re-established in the Church even in this Church which is bleeding to death by the Spirits of Contention Spirits that straine at Gnats and swallow Camells Spirits that raise such questions and so many as may puzzle a wise man to answer and force a pious man to bedew with teares and rather require silence then words for satisfaction But you have proposed this question and in it you hold the Negative and that upon these three ensuing grounds Opponent 1. To administer it so seemes to me to be a manifest perverting of our Saviours intention and end in giving that Ordinance Respond In this question I hold the Affirmative and that upon these three ensuing grounds and they are your own to see if you will be the Master of your word and confesse a Conquest though I protest unto you it is not Conquest but Truth that I contend for Verity not Victory is my desire and will therefore confine my selfe to your Teddar and therefore I say 1. So to administer it
yesterday did notoriously and have a proportion of Faith you sinne against your duty if you deny such a man the Sacrament The stream that was foul yesterday may be clear to day and so your third ground is muddy It may be in your dispatch we shall find a more sufficient light For in your grounds we find a very light sufficiency your dispatch is to answer some Objections one you say may be this Oppon Do you not deliver your own Soul from sinne if you warne them of the danger of unworthy receiving And then you answer it thus Indeed in hearing the word preached if they make it the Savour of death to themselves it is enough to secure me if I warn them of it be-because God hath given the vilest sinners leave to hear the word and therefore when we have told them the danger of unprepared and unprofitable hearing we have delivered our selves and are a sweet Savour unto God in them that perish Rospond Pray Sir where have you a greater charge upon you in the Gospel for delivering this Sacrament then the Prophet had in the Law for delivering the word God assured the Prophet that if he gave the wicked man warning he should thereby deliver his own Soul Ezeck 2.19 and Saint Paul thought the same was enough for delivering this Sacrament read else that notorious Chapter 1 Cor. 11. and see if you can finde the Apostle denying it to any but onely telling all the danger of an unworthy receiving and their admitting all in a generall and promiscuous way There were as bad I presume in Corinth as there are in setting aside the sinns of Faction and Rebellion such indeed Saint Paul would have markt and cut off Rom. 16.17 but the Gluttons and Drunkards he onely tells them of the danger and so admits them the Geneva note upon that danger saies but thus Let them look to themselves which come to this Sacrament without reverence Let them look to themselves not Let the Minister put them by Nor doth the humble advise of your Assembly at Westminster give you power to deny the Sacrament to any onely they give you leave not to admit some i. e. Ignorant and ungodly Persons and them no longer then they remain such It is in pag. 62. Sect. 8. under the title of the Lords Supper Nor doth their Catechism enjoyne the Minister to examine the Communicants but the Communicants to examine themselves that they may worthily partake of the Lords Supper pag. 36. Opponent But God hath not allowed them to feed at his table till they shew themselves so and so qualified and adorned that their Knowledge Faith Repentance Love c. do appear upon them as a wedding Garment And if he have forbidden them to receive it surely he hath forbidden us to give it them and therefore to tell them the danger is not enough to excuse us we give his holy things to doggs It sufficeth not to tell them they are unclean There are some holy things of God wee must denie them as we would passe without rebuke another day Respond No surely The consequence is a very inconsequent though the Premises were true For where hath God forbidden them to receive it He hath onely told them the danger if they receive unworthily He hath not forbidden them to receive it But though God had forbidden them to receive it doth it therefore follow that he hath forbidden us to give it to them No surely God forbids the King to be a Tyrant doth he therefore forbid the people to be Subjects No surely God forbids my Parishioner to pray if he be not in charity doth he therefore forbid mee to admit him into the Church No surely my duty is to open the Church-door to invite him to pray to invite him to receive to tell him how he may pray effectually how he may receive worthily If he will pray malitiously If he will receive unworthily the fault is his I am discharged Hee should do his duty I must doe mine Else my not doing my duty because he does not his does but make me second his sinne or second in the sinne Surely Sir your Rational argument is somwhat unreasonable but you will make it clear by a Symbolical argument So you go on Opponent But to make it clearer If one standing by me with a drawn sword set to kill himself if my hands be bound behind me as in the case of the word they are then I have done my full duty if I tell him it is sinne and beseech him as he would not destroy Gods Image and send himself to Hell to forbear that act but if my hands be not bound and I stronger then he is it enough to warn and beseech him I trow not sure it is my duty to wrest the sword out of his hand or hold him that he cannot do that wickednesse But suppose the man come and tell me before what design is in his heart and I after telling him the danger and beseeching him put a sword into his hand to do it withall and this onely comes up to the case in hand am not I more guilty of the sinne then he himself is Sure I am Therefore it is not enough to warn open sinners of the danger of unworthy receiving Respond Sure you are yes sure you are sure you are guilty of infinite folly For will any wise man supponere non supponenda Did ever any man that intended to be Felo de se come and tell his Neighbour his Friend his Pastor that he would hang himself with his Garter or kill himself with his sword and that which was never done will any wise man suppose to be done Sapientia nihil supponit quod non ponitur But you suppose it and withall you suppose you put a sword into his hand to do it withall and this onely comes up to the case in hand am not I more guilty of the Murther then he himself is Sure I am Yes sure you are indeed and I will suppose a clearer supposition for you A Laick or Lay-man that hath a mind to shake off the yoak of obedience and turn the Sonne of Belial comes to you and tells you he would faine fight against the high Power and kill him if he were not affraid to receive damnation for his paines In this case indeed you should have wrested the sword of Disobedience out of his hand or if you tell him It is no Rebellion it is no sinne to fight against the higher Power and the higher Power or any of his party be killed you are more guilty of the Murther then himself Yes sure you are and if this sanctified Rebell comes to you to receive this Sacrament and you give it him without any sign of Repentance for his unsanctified Rebellion you adde guilt to guilt the guilt of Countenance to the guilt of Counsell But if a man that was drunk last week comes the next week and protests his Repentance for that sinne and desires to
receive the Sacrament as a Seal of forgivenesse for that very sinne and you deny it him you adde more guilt to your self the guilt of Partiality to your guilt of Scrupulosity For it is enough to warne any sinner any saving a notorious and obstinate sinner of the danger of unworthy receiving Opponent But did not our Saviour give the Sacrament to Judas whom he calls a devill and therefore why may not Ministers give the Sacrament to those they know to be willfull sinners Indeed Luke 22.21 brings in our Saviour first celebrating that Ordinance and then speaking these words Behold the hand of him that betraies me is with me on the table and therefore I am enclined to believe that Christ did give it him but thence can nothing be concluded against my Judgmēt Respond It may be nothing against your Judgement but something against your practise you may For Christ knew Judas to be a willfull sinner and yet rejected him not but admitted him you onely suspect some men to be willfull sinners for you cannot know any man to be a wilful sinner without his own acknowledgement and yet you admit them not bu reject them and therefore something may be hence concluded against your practise and it may be something against your Judgement too if your Judgement be as you say Oppon For 1. Our Saviour was God and as he had Power to forgive sinners upon Earth it might well be an Act of Divine Justice upon Judas for his Hypocrisie to seale him up in his sinne and make him fully ripe for Hell when it can be cleared that it is the duty and work of a Gospel-Minister to punish sinne then I think we may give the Sacrament to willfull sinners but it may safely be thought that Christ did it by a Power that is above any our Commission is invested withall Respond Yes our Saviour was God is God and will be God blessed for ever and as the Sonne of Man not God onely he had Power to forgive sinners upon Earth so farre we agree and I wish you if you are one of his Ministers to use that key of Power he hath trusted you with as well to open as to shut But in your next passage we are not so well agreed you say it might be and I say it might not be an act of Divine Justice to seal up Judas in his sinne Melius est dubitare de occultis quam litigare de incertis Take heed of comming too near this fire it may else burne your beard It becomes not a Gospel-Minister to say Christ did make any man fully ripe for Hell It is safer and better becomes a Gospel-Minister to say with the Gospel-Apostle Iesus Christ came into the World to save sinners the chiese of sinners 1 Tim. 1.15 and yet it is the duty of a Gospel-Minister to punish sin Else the Apostle would never have given so many charges to the Gospel Bishops to rebuke to correct and in some cases sharply too and yet neither that Apostle nor any other Apostle nor Jesus Christ himself hath given Power to any Bishop or Presbyter to give the Sacrament to a willfull sinner on purpose to make him ripe for Hell That is a Power indeed above any our Commission is invested withall Opponent But secondly I can answer thus Christ in that his transaction set a president to the Ministers of the Gospel how they might carry themselves in that Administration free from guilt Such as joyne themselves to the society of his people that do outwardly professe Christ and his truth do those duties of Religion materially that true Protestants doe and nothing scandalous can be laid to their charge though they be rotten Hypocrites Yet it not being any mans work to search hearts wee must think nothing but good of them admit them and though they be as unworthy Receivers as ever Judas was we are clear their blood lies upon their own heads So that instance of Judas his admission to the Sacrament in my apprehension makes not at all against me but for me If you can give an instance that our Saviour or his Desciples gave it to any that had their soars running upon them and easily to be observed by every Eye let us hear it and I shall confesse it is for your turne Respond Confesse then For this your own instance makes altogether against you though in your apprehension it makes onely for you Christ at this time supplyed the Ministers place He admitted the Communicants and amongst the rest he admitted Judas Judas a covetous wretch an arrant Traytor though in shew a zealous Saint and a provident Almoner His soar running upon him his very Hypocrisie as apparent to Christ as that mans impiety is that fights against Power to defend it Iudas that joyned himself to the society of Christs people Iudas that outwardly professed Christ and his truth Judas that did these duties of Religion that true Presbyterians do and yet intrinsecally was a Devill and all this well known to Christ Yes and to two of his Apostles at least if not to all the rest Saint Peter and Saint John Saint Peter that prompted Saint John to ask and Saint John that upon Saint Peters motion asked Christ who it was that should betray him even him by your own concession did Christ admit to his Table without any more ado then telling him the danger of his unworthy comming thither whence may certainly be inferr'd we shall not incurre any guilt for admitting the like Communicants though we but do tell them the danger of unworthy receiving And your next instance is as much for your purpose Opponent Why it may be you will tell me of the Church of Corinth their drunkenesse and sinne sate downe at Table with them but let it be supposed that Paul had come in when they were going to 't many of them in that condition I desire to know if you can believe he would have thought a reproose or telling them the danger sufficient for my part I verily think he would have had his arme pull'd out of his shoulder-blade rather then have given it to any such a one though truly in Jesus Christ and therefore much lesse would he have administred it to them whose sins daily testified them to be voide of Faith and the worke of grace in them Respond At your suppositions again and at impossible suppositions at least very unlikely very like a man overcome with drink I understand not those words otherwise going to many of them in that condition should go to receive the Sacrament I dare say you never saw any man offer it And then you think what do you think that such a one is truly in Iesus Christ pretty still Animally and in semine he may Actually and in sensu he is not and thence you conclude Therefore much lesse would he have administred it to them whose sinnes dayly testified them to be void of Faith and the work of grace in them Marke Sir if
this conclusion follow upon your premises or if you do not draw it against reason your Maior a supposition an unlikely if not an impossible supposition your Minor I think St. Paul would not your Conclusion therfore much lesse would he Well sir I shall not further commend your skill in Logick I shall onely help you to a better argument from your owne instance Upon what termes and in what way Saint Paul administred the Sacrament at Corinth upon the same termes and in the same way may Mr. administer the Sacrament at But upon exhortation and Information in a generall and promiscuous way did Saint Paul administer the Sacrament at Corinth Therefore upon Exhortation and Information in a generall and promiscuous way may Mr. administer the Sacrament at and this your next Instance will not gaine-say Opponent O but charity thinketh well 1. Cor. 13.5 and therefore you ought to make the best of your brother and not the worst The word will very well bear plotteth no ill in his minde against his brother Respond By the way you know the word will not bear it neither in the Latine nor Greek neither in the Latine Cogito or Meditor nor in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either of these words may signifie to consider to purpose to cast in mind but to Plot ill they signifie not and you are willing to wave and therefore you say Opponent But let it be taken for Suspecting his brother guilty of evill This t is true Charity will not doe where there is not just ground and cause for it If that grace of Charity work jealousies and evill surmisings concerning my brother it will not dwell in me but upon manifest ground and warrant I may suffer them to arise and consistent enough are they with that true grace of Charity in my heart If I know that such or such a man followes the pot gives himselfe ordinarily to wound and slander the good name of his neighbour that sets no watch before the door of his lips whose Religion is vain saies Iames that doth not read Scripture in his Family nor catechise and instruct his Family in the saving Principles of Iesus Christ nor pray constantly with his Family To swear by his Faith and Troth is ordinary in his discourse his tongue is so used to 't that he cannot forbear it in the company of his Minister If I certainly know a man living in any one of these or any other sinne name what you will the Charity which is of God will never forbid me to think evill of him I may think and if I be call'd to 't say that as yet Christ is not in him and that he is unworthy to be a guest at the Lords table till such time a Divine change and amendment appear in his conversation as his sin hath done Respond Confident enough but not concluding enough For though he live in any one of these sinnes yet it may be none of these sinnes live in him and the Apostles rule is observed where he saies Nè regnet not Nè sit Let not sinne reign in your mortall body Rom 6.12 he doth not say let not sinne be in your mortal body Be there it will so long as we be here in the very best of us all But be it admitted for your sake that the man lives in the sinne and the sinne lives in the man because you say If I know such a man followes the pot c. yet it is but for this time it may be untill the day or night before he come to receive the Lords supper you know not what a change what a Repentance what a godly sorrow God hath in that day or night wrought in him will you because this change doth not appeare in him account him unworthy and therefore forbid him the Lords Table and therefore force him from the Lords As the text you have quoted saies Charity thinks no ill i. e. It works no jealousies and evill surmisings concerning my brother according to your Exposition which Exposition I wish you had forborne for your Masters sakes So if you read two verses further which is within the Context you shall finde too Charity hopes the best your knowing him to follow those sinnes may work you to suspect him I will not say for want of Charity but I will say your ignorance or not knowing of this change in him may not move you to reject him if you have the hope of Charity But be it once more admitted for your sake That such a Change is not That noe change is wrought in the man what then why then he is unworthy to come to the Lords Table but it is not then your duty to put him or keepe him from that Table and therefore you are to blame by this and much more to blame by the Verdict of your next Instance Opponent But if men come to you and acknowledge such sinns they have lived in and say they are sorry for them why should not you believe they are reall 't is true repentance and so admit them Doubtlesse in that case wee are not to deny the truth of their repentance nor yet take it for granted upon their bare words but ought to desire them to hold forth that change in life and the graces contrary to his former vices and withall tell him that if this should be nothing but meer words and pretences that then he did eat and drink damnation to himself whereof the Minister too would be guilty But if his repentance be sound If a saving change and Faith be wrought in him it canno◠be unsafe or prejudiciall to him to forbear that Ordinance a little while because he may feed upon Christ and derive his comforts and vertues from his death by the lively working of Faith without the Elements 'T is not the want but contempt of the signes that hinders our partaking of Christ and his benefits and his forbearing for the Ministers or churches sake being great humility and self-denyall would doubtlesse be considered of God who would make up the losse of the Elements immediately by himself or spirit and double comforts to him when his conversation shall commend him to that table for a worthy receiver Respond Sir you have spoken much truth in this Paragraph but you have exprest little charity shewn much Schisme and hinted a grain of Heresie if other men had not Charity enough to believe the best of you Heresie it is to deny the Spirit of God to be God you do not deny it but you intimate it else why doe you say God would by himself or Spirit as if himselfe and Spirit were two several things but I believe the best of you you are not an Heretick I wish you were not a Schismatick but I must tell you you goe against the generall Custome of the Universall Church which hath alwaies willingly and chearfully admitted that man to receive who is penitent vos autem non sic and you observe not
dare not do it and so the scales hang even Respond No the scales doe not hang even Saint Paul as godly and learned a man as your self did do it at least did command it to be done and where is your man as godly and learned as he that now does it not dares not do it or why dares he not do it If he have been wrapt up into an higher heaven then St. Paul was and there received a new Illumination let him produce it till then you may be sorry for the Comparison and asham'd of it too I know no body forc't you to it Oppon Secondly upon what grounds those godly and learned men do it I know not I would to God they might be put forth into the light that so this pestering trouble between many Ministers and their people might be at an end Resp This trouble never pestered any before this wardship of Religion came amongst us by whom it may be you know I speak not which light is put forth your own language for you and other Ministers to view well which if you doe the people will soone see an end of this pestering trouble though yet Oppon Thirdly to me no examples are binding but those of Christ and his Apostles I am confident at the last day neither you nor I dare plead the Example of the holiest and ablest men that are now alive There is so much weaknesse in this objection though it hath still come in for one againct me that had it not been to satisfie the weak I would not have spent a penfull of inke upon it Respond And indeed your Answer is so full of weaknesse to this objection full of strength that had it not been to satisfie your self you and I had said the same thing and sent one another clean sheets I dare not as you dare not plead the Examples of the holiest and ablest men that are now alive at the last day but if the holiest and ablest men that are now alive do in this point follow the Examples of Christ and his Apostles I dare follow their Examples not because they are theirs but because they are Christs and his Apostles Christ instituted this Sacrament in a generall and promiscuous way by admitting Judas with the rest Saint Paul did the same both onely proposing the danger of unworthy receiving and I know Christ had and Saint Paul I believe as he thought had the Spirit of God and if for any respects I refuse to follow their Examples and cannot plead them at the last day I fear at that day they will plead against me Opponent I hope you see by this time that my non-administration of the Sacrament in that generall and promiscuous way it is desired doth not lie in a willfullnesse to hinder my people of their Priviledges and comforts If I know mine own heart I can be content to deny what of these Temporalls is most near and dear to me to spend and be spent in building them up Heaven-ward much lesse am I induced to it by some in the Family where I live as it is groundlesly and upon their own meer phansie I am assured reported I being of this judgement full two years since but these Scriptures and argumentations here have done it Resp In what Family you live I know not nor enquire If I did I should not think so thinly of you as to satisfie them you would decline your duty He that is ruled by the Laity in his Ministery is not fit for the Ministery If you can be content to deny Temporals to save your people I pray then deny them not this Spirituall least you starve your people You have been of this Judgement but two years yet I hope you knew these Scriptures if not these Argumentations too many years before and what was your Iudgement then If it were then that you might administer it in a generall and promiscuous way I hope by this time you see these Scriptures and Argumentations have no spell in them to alter your Judgement I will not yet say It is willfullnesse I would not have you say it is doubt fullnesse lest Saint Paul say to you Whatsoever is not of Faith is sin Rom. 14.23 All that I say more is this Sir you have an answer according to your Expectation To your plain Scripturall argumentative way I have not studied to shew my self in producing humane Authorities which but for your sake had been produced but to satisfie Conscience I change not your words giving your owne Scriptures their clear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and rationall deductions and waving your Zealous Menace I give you this one or two more genuine deductions in the best way of reasoning by Syllogism 1. What Saint Paul did in the administration of the Sacrament Ministers may do But Saint Paul did in a generall and promiscuous way administer the Sacrament Therefore Ministers may so do 2. Ministers must perform their duty in the administration of the Sacrament as Saint Paul performed his But Saint Paul performed his in a generall and promiscuous way of administration of the Sacrament Therefore Ministers must so do Sir you have a Licet you may and an Oportet you must administer the Sacrament in a generall and promiscuous way If still you think you may not or must not you may give me leave to belieue then in an Oportet a necessity upon Sir Your Friend THOMAS SVVADLIN FINIS