Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	book_n	church_n	doctrine_n	2,851	5	6.4197	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A42757	Aarons rod blossoming, or, The divine ordinance of church-government vindicated so as the present Erastian controversie concerning the distinction of civill and ecclesiasticall government, excommunication, and suspension, is fully debated and discussed, from the holy scripture, from the Jewish and Christian antiquities, from the consent of latter writers, from the true nature and rights of magistracy, and from the groundlesnesse of the chief objections made against the Presbyteriall government in point of a domineering arbitrary unlimited power / by George Gillespie ...	Gillespie, George, 1613-1648.	1646 (1646)	Wing G744; ESTC R177416	512,720	654

and as they say cum grano salis between that which was ordinary and that which was extraordinary in the Jewish Government We can not from extraordinary cases collect and conclude that which was the fixed setled ordinary rule The examples which have been alledged for the administration of Church-Government the purging away of scandals the ordering of the Ministery in the old Testament by the Temporall Magistrate or civill powers onely and by their owne immediate authority how truly alledged or how rightly apprehended shall appeare by and by this I say for the present diverse of them were extraordinary cases and are recorded as presidents for godly Magistrates their duty and authority not in a reformed and constituted Church but in a Church which is full of disorders and wholly out of course needing reformation So that the Erastian Arguments drawn from those examples for investing the Magistrate with the whole and sole power of Government and jurisdiction in Ecclesiasticall affaires are no whit better than the Popish and Prelaticall Arguments for the lawfulnesse of the civill power and places of Clergymen as they called them drawne from some extraordinary examples of Aaron his joyning with Moses and Eleazer with Ioshua in civill businesse of greatest consequence of the administration and Government of the Commonwealth by Eli the Priest and by Samuel the Prophet of the anointing of Iehu to be King by Elisha of the killing of Athaliah and the making of Ioash King by the authority of Iebojada the Priest of the withstanding and thrusting out of King Uzziah by fourscore valiant men of the Priests and such like cases Master Prynne himself in his Diotrephes catechised pag. 4. noteth that Ezra the Priest received a speciall commission from Artaxerxes to set Magistrates and Judges which might judge all the people Ezra 7. 11 25. from all which it appeareth that as Priests did extraordinary some things which ordinarily belonged to Magistracy so Magistrats did extraordinarily that which ordinarily did not belong to their administration I conclude this point with a passage in the second book of the Discipline of the Church of Scotland Chap. 10. And although Kings and Princes that be godly sometimes by their own authority when the Church is corrupted and all things out of order place Ministers and restore the true service of the Lord after the example of some godly Kings of Judah and divers godly Emperours and Kings also in the light of the new Testament yet where the Ministery of the Church is once lawfully constituted and they that are placed doe their Office faithfully all godly Princes and Magistrates ought to beare and obey their voyce and reverence the Majesty of the Sonne of God speaking in them In the third place let us take a particular survey of such Objections from which the Erastians doe conclude that the power of Church-gov●rnment in the old Testament was onely in the hand of the Magistrate And first concerning Moses it is objected that he being the supreme Magistrate did give Lawes and Ordinances for ordering the Church in things pertaining to God Answ. This he did as a Prophet from the mouth of the Lord yea as a type of Jesus Chri●t the great Prophet Deut. 18. 15. 18. not as civill Magistrate 2. Object We read not of an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin adjoyned with Moses but onely of a civill Sanhedrin Num. 11. Neither doth the Talmud mention any supreme Sanhedrin but one Answ. 1. If those 70 Elders Num. 11. be understood onely of the civill Sanhedrin which some doe not admit though for my part I doe not gainsay it yet we read of the con●itution of another Sanhedrin or Assembly of 70 before them Which I have before proved from Exod. 24. 1. 2. And if there had been no dis●inct Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin in Moses his time yet by the Law Deut. 17. when the people came into the Land of promise they were to have two distinct Courts in the place which the Lord should choose Of which also before And whereas M r Prynne in his Diotrephes catechised quaest 2. intimateth that by the Law Deut. 17. the Priests were onely ●oyntly and together with the temporall Judges to resolve hard civill cases or controversies this sence can neither agree with the dis●unction in the Text verse 12. the man that will not hearken unto the Priest or unto the Judge nor yet with the received interpretation of those words between stroke and stroke that is between leprosie and leprosie the decision whereof is no where in Scripture found to be either committed unto or assumed by the civill Judge As for the Talmud that of Babylon was not begun to be compiled before the yeere of 〈◊〉 367 nor finished before the yeere of Christ 500. The Ierusalem Talmud can pretend to no greater antiquity than the yeere of Christ 230. So that both were collected long after the dissolution of the Sanhedrin and government of the Jewes No marvell therefore if these declining times did weare out the memory of some part of their former government 3. Object The King was by Gods appointment entrusted with the custody of the booke of the Law Deut. 17. 18. 2 King 11. 12. Answ. 1. The principall charge of the custody of the Law was committed to the Priests and Levites Deut. 31. 9 24 25 26. Of the King it is onely said Deut. 17. 18. That he shall write him a coppy of this law in a Booke out of that which is before the Priests and Levites 2. I heartily yeeld that a lawfull Magistrate whether Christian or Heathen ought to be a keeper or guardian of both Tables and as Gods V●cegerent hath authority to punish haynous sinnes against either Table by civill or corporall punishments which proves nothing against a 〈◊〉 Church-government for keeping pure the Ordinances of Christ. 4. Object King David did appoint the Offices of the Levites and divided their courses 1 Chr●… 23. So likewise did Solomon appoint the courses and charges of the Priests Levites and Porters in the Temple Answ. David did not this thing as a King but as a Prophet 2 〈◊〉 8. 14. For so bad David the man of God commanded the same thing being also commanded by other Prophets of the Lord 2 hro 29. 25. According to the commandement of David and of G●…d the Kings seer and Nathan the Prophet for so was the commandement of the Lord by his Prophets Which cleareth also Solomons part for beside that himselfe also was a Prophet he received from David the man of God a patterne of that which he was to doe in the worke of the house of the Lord and directions concerning the courses of the Levites 1 Chro. 28. 11 12 13. 2 Chro. 8. 14. 5 Object King Solomon deposed Abiathar from his Priesthood and did put 〈◊〉 in his place Answ. Abiathar was guilty of high treason for assis●ing and ayding Adonijah against Solomon whom not onely his father David but God himselfe had designed to the Crowne So that

Intention and it being accordingly declared and Resolved by them That all sorts of notorious scandalous Offenders should be suspended from the Sacrament Which is the very point so much opposed by Master Prynne for the controversie moved by him is not so much concerning the manner or who should be the Judges as concerning the matter it selfe he contending that all sorts of notorious scandalous offenders should not be suspended from the Sacrament but onely such as are excommunicated and excluded from the hearing of the Word Prayer and all other publique Ordinances Having now removed so many mistakes of the true state of the question that which is in controversie is plainly this Whether according to the word of God there ought to be in the Elderships of Churches a spirituall power and authority by which they that are called brethren that is Church members or Officers for the publique scandall of a prophane life or of pernicious doctrine or for a private offence obstinately continued in after admonitions and so growing to a publique scandall are upon proofe of such scandall to be suspended from the Lords Table untill signes of repentance appeare in them and if they continue contumacious are in the name of Jesus Christ to be excommunicate and cut off from all membership and communion with the Church and their sinnes pronounced to be bound on earth and by consequence in Heaven untill by true and sincere repentance they turne to God and by the declaration of such repentance be reconciled unto the Church The affirmative is the received doctrine of the reformed Churches whereunto I adhere The first part of it concerning Suspension is utterly denyed by M r Prynne which breaketh the concatenation and order of Church discipline held forth in the question now stated Whether he denieth also Excommunication by Elderships to be an Ordinance and Institution of Christ and onely holdeth it to be lawfull and warrantable by the word of God I am not certaine If he do then he holds the totall negative of this present question However I am sure he hath gone about to take away some of the principall Scripturall foundations and pillars upon which Excommunication is builded As touching the gradation and order in the question as now stated it is meant positively and exclusively that such a gradation not onely may but ought to be observed ordinarily which M r Prynne denieth although I deny not tha● for some publique enormous haynous abominations there may be without such degrees of proceeding a present cutting off by Excommunication But this belongs not to the present controversie CHAP. II. Whether Matth. 18. 15 16 17. prove Excommunication THe second point of difference is concerning Matth. 18. M r Prynne in the first of his foure questions told us that the words Matth. 18. 17. Let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican are meant onely of personall private trespasses between man and man not publique scandalous sinnes against the Congregation and that t is not said Let him be to the whole Church but let him be to Thee c. This I did in my Sermon retort For if to thee for a personall private trespasse much more to the whole Church for a publique scandalous sinne whereby he trespasseth against the whole Congregation Yea it followeth upon his interpretation that he may account the whole Church as Heathens and Publicans if all the members of the Church doe him a personall injury whereupon I left this to be considered by every man of understanding whether if a private man may account the whole Church as Heathens and Publicans for a personall injury done to himselfe alone it will not follow that much more the whole Church may account a man as a Heathen and Publican for a publique scandalous sinne against the whole Church M r Prynne in his Vindication pag. 3. glanceth at this objection but he takes notice onely of the halfe of it and he is so farre from turning off my retortion that he confirmeth it for pag. 4. he confesseth that every Christian hath free power by Gods word to esteeme not onely a particular brother but all the members of a Congregation as Heathens and Publicans if he or they continue impenitent in the case of private injuries after admonition Now my exception against his Quere remains unanswered If I may esteem the whole Church as Heathens and Publicans when they doe me an injury and continue impenitent therein may not the whole Church esteem me as an Heathen man and a Publican when I commit a publique and scandalous trespasse against the whole Church and continues impenitent therein Shall a private man have power to cast off the whole Church as Heathens and Publicans and shall not the whole Church have power to cast off one man as an Heathen and Publican I know he understands those words Let him be to thee as a Heathen man and a Publican in another sence then either the reformed Churches doe or the ancient Churches did and takes the meaning to be of avoyding fellowship and familiarity with him before any sentence of Excommunication passed against the offender But however my argument from proportion will hold If civill fellowship must be refused because of obstinacy in a civill injury why shall not spirituall or Church-fellowship be refused to him that hath committed a spirituall injury or trespasse against the Church If private fellowship ought to be denied unto him that will not repent of a private injury why shall not publique fellowship in eating and drinking with the Church at the Lords Table be denied unto him that will not repent of a publique scandall given to the Congregation Are the rules of Church fellowship looser and wider than the rules of civill fellowship or are they straiter Is the way of communion of Saints broader than the way of civill communion or is it narrower Peradventure he will say that the whole Church that is all the members of the Church have power to withdraw from an obstinate scandalous brother that is to have no fraternall converse or private Christian fellowship with him Well then If thus farre he be as a Heathen and a Publican to the whole Church distributively how shall he be as a Christian brother to the whole Church collectively If all the members of the Church severally withdraw fellowship from him even before he be excommunicated how shall the whole Church together be bound to keepe fellowship with him till he be excommunicated Instead of loosing such knots M r Prynne undertakes to prove another thing that this Text of Matthew is not meane of Excommunication or Church censures and that the Church in this Text was not any Ecclesiasticall Consistory here he citeth Iosephus as if he had spoken of that Text but onely the Sanhedrin or Court of civill Justice But though all this were true which he saith yet there may be a good argument drawn by necessary consequence from this Text to prove Excommunication Which

the Magistrate may command Church-officers to suspend or excommunicate all obstinate and scandalous persons he may command the Classis to ordain able and godly ministers and no other he may command a Synod to meet to debate and determine such or such a controversie Consequently also when the thing is examined judged resolved or done by the Ecclesiasticall power the Magistrate hath power and authority to adde his civil sanction confirmation ot ratification to make the Ecclesiasticall sentence to be obeyed and submitted unto by all whom it concerneth In all which the Christian Magistrate doth exceeding much for the conservation and purgation of Religion not elici●…ndo actus doing or exercising by himself or by his owne authority acts of Church Government or discipline but taking care that such and such things be done by those to whom they do belong 3. Distinguish the directive part and the coercive part The directive part in the conservation or purgation of Religion doth belong to the Ministers and ruling Officers of the Church assembled together In administring therefore that which concerneth Religion and peoples spirituall good the Magistrate not onely juvatur but dirigitur is not onely helped but directed by the Ecclesiastical directive power Fest. Hon. Disp. 30. Thes. 6. Magistracy may say to Ministery as Moses said to Hobab Thou mayest be to us in stead of eyes Ad sacrae Religionis informationem fid●…lis Magistratus verbi divini administris veluti oculis uti debet and for that end he is to make use of consistoriall and Synodicall Assemblies say the Professors of L●…yden Synopspur 〈◊〉 Disp. 50. Thes. 44. But the coercive part in compelling the obstinate and unruly to submit to the Presbyteriall or Synodicall sentence belongs to the Magistrate Not as if the Magistrate had nothing to do but to be an executioner of the pleasure of Church-officers or as if he were by a blind and implicite faith to constrain all men to stand to their determination God forbid The Magistrate must have his full liberty to judge of that which he is to compell men to do to judge of it not onely judicio appreh●…nsivo by understanding and apprehending ●right what it is but judicio discretivo by the judgement of Christian prudence and discretion examining by the Word of God the grounds reasons and warrants of the thing that he may in Faith and not doubtingly adde his authority thereto In which judging he doth Iudicare but not Iudicem agere that is he is Iudex suarum actionum he judgeth whether he ought to adde his civil authority to this or that which seemeth good to Church-officers and doth not concur therewith except he be satisfied in his Conscience that he may do so yet this makes him not supreme Judge or Governour in all Ecclesiastical causes which is the Prerogative of Jesus Christ revealing his will in his word nor yet doth it invest the Magistrate with the subordinate ministeriall forensicall directive judgement in Ecclesiastical things or causes which belongeth to Ecclesiasticall not to civil Courts 4. Distinguish between a Cumulative and a Privativ●… authority The Mag●strate hath indeed an authoritative influence into matters of Religion and Church-Government but it is cumulative that is the Magistrate takes care that Church-officers as well as other Subjects may do those things which ex officio they are bound to do and when they do so he aideth assisteth strengtheneth ratifieth and in his way maketh effectuall what they do But that which belongs to the Magistrate is not privative in reference to the Ecclesiastical Government It is understood salvo jure Ecclesiastico for the Magistrate is a nursing Father not a step Father to the Church and the Magistrate as well as other men is under that tye 2 Cor. 13. 8. We can do nothing against the Truth but for the Truth This Proviso therefore is justly made that whatever power the Magistrate hath in matters of Religion it is not to hinder the free exercise of Church discipline and censures against scandalous and obstinate sinners As the Casuists in other cases distinguish Lucrum cessans and damnum emergens so must we distinguish between the Magistrate his doing no good to the Church and his doing evil to the Church between his not assisting and his opposing between his not allowing or authorizing and his forbidding or restraining It doth properly and of right belong to the Magistrate to adde a civil sanction and strength of a law for strengthning and aiding the exercise of Church discipline or not to add it And himself is Judge whether to add any such cumulative act of favour or not But the Magistrate hath no power nor authority to lay bands and restraints upon Church-officers to hinder any of Christs ordinances or to forbid them to do what Christ hath given them a commission to do And if any such restraints of prohibitions or lawes should be laid on us we ought to obey God rather than men 5. Distingue tempora Whatever belongs to the Magistrate in matters of Religion more then falls under the former distinctions is extraordinary and doth not belong to ordinary Government In extraordinary reformations the Magistrate may do much by his owne immediate authority when Synods have made defection either from the truth of doctrine or from holinesse and godlinesse yet in such a case he ought to consult with such orthodox godly Divines as can be had either in his owne or from other Dominions Fest. Hon. Disp. 30. Thes. 5. And so much be spoken of the Magistrate his power and duty in things and causes Ecclesiasticall As we do not deny to the Magistrate any thing which the Word of God doth allow him so we dare not approve his going beyond the bounds and limits which God hath set him And I pray God that this be not found to be the bottome of the controversie Whether Magistracy shall be an arbitrary Government if not in civil yet in Ecclesiastical things Whether the Magistrate may do or appoint to be done in the matter of Church-Government admission to or exclusion from the Ordinances of Christ what ever shall seem good in his eyes And whether in purging of the Church he is obliged to follow the rules of Scripture and to consult with learned and godly Ministers although Erastus himself as is before observed and Sutlivius a great follower of him de Presbyt cap. 8. are ashamed of and do disclaim such assertions CHAP. IX That by the Word of God there ought to be another Government beside Magistracy ●r Civil Goveram●nt ●amely an Ecclesiastical Government properly so call●d in the hands of Church-offic●rs THis Question hath arisen from Mr. Colemans third and fourth rule which he offered to the Parliament excluding all Government of Church-officers Ministers and Elders that is as he expounds himself all corrective government leaving them no power except what is meerly doctrinal and appropriating all government properly so called to the Magistrate onely Mr. Hussey following him

falls in the same ditch with him The Question is not whether Church-officers ought to have any share in the Civil Government Nor whether Church-officers may have any Lordly government or imperious domination over the Lords heritage Nor whether Church-Officers may exercise an arbitrary irregular Government and rule as themselves list God forbid But the Question plainly is Whether there may not yea ought not to be in the Church a Ministeriall or Ecclesiastical Government properly so called beside the civil Government or Magistracy Mr. Coleman did and Mr. Hussey doth hold there ought not I hold there ought and I shall propound for the affirmative these Arguments The first Argument I draw from 1 Tim. 5. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders that rule well Mr. Hussey pag. 8. askes whether the word Elder be prima or secunda notio If prima notio why must not Elder women be Church-officers as well as Elder men If secunda notio for a ruling Officer Parliament men Kings and all Civil Governours are such Elders I know no use which that distinction of prima and secunda notio hath in this place except to let us know that he understands these Logicall termes Egregiam vero laudem He might have saved himself the labour for who knowes not Hieromes distinction Elder is either a word of age or of office but in Ecclesiasticall use it is a word of office Mr. Husseys first notion concerning Elder women is no masculine notion His second notion is an anti-parliamentary notion For the honourable Houses of Parliament in the first words of their Ordinance concerning ordination of Ministers have declared that by the word of God a Bishop and a Presbyter or Elder are all one for thus beginneth the Ordinance Whereas the word Presbyter that is to say Elder and the word Bishop do in the Scripture intend and signifie one and the same function c. Therefore Parliament men and civil Governors cannot be the Elders mentioned by the Apostle Paul except Mr. Hussey make them Bishops and invest them with power of ordination Besides this if Kings and Parliament men be such Elders as are mentioned in this Text then the Ministers of the Word must have not onely an equall share in Government but more honour and maintenance then Kings and Parliament men See how well Mr. Hussey pleadeth for Christian Magistracy It is also an anti-Scripturall notion for some of those Elders that ruled well did labour in the Word and Doctrine as Paul tells us in the very same place these sure are not civil Governours Wherefore Mr. Hussey must seek a third notion before he hit the Apostles meaning It is not hujus loci to debate from this Text the distinction of two sorts of Elders though among all the answers which ever I heard or read Mr. Husseys is the weakest pag. 11. that by Elders that labour in the Word and Doctrine are meant those Ministers whose excellencie lies in Doctrine and instruction and that by Elders that rule are meant those that give reproof He contradistinguisheth a reproving minister from a minister labouring in the Word and Doctrine The very reproof given by a minister will be it seemes at last challenged as an act of government It is as wide from the mark that he will have the two sorts of Elders to differ thus that the one must governe and not preach the other must preach and not govern not observing that the Text makes ruling to be common to both The one doth both rule and labour in the Word and Doctrine The other ruleth one y and is therefore called ruling Elder non quia solus praeest sed quia solum praeest But to let all these things be laid aside as heterogeneous to this present Argument the point is here are Rulers in the Church who are no civil Rulers Yea this my Argument from this Text was clearly yeelded by Mr. Coleman in his Maledicis pag. 8. But I will deal clearly saith he these Officers are Ministers which are instituted not here but else-where and those are the Rulers here mentioned Ergo he yeeldeth Ecclesiastical rulers and those instituted distinct from Magistracy Neither is it a Lordly but a ministeriall ruling of which our Question is For my part saith Mr. Hussey I know not how Lordship and Government doth differ one from another Then every Governour of a ship must be a lord Then every Steward of a great house must be lord of the House There is an oeconomicall or ministerial government and of that we mean My second Argument I take from 1 Thes. 5. 12. And we beseech you brethren to know them which labour among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui praesunt vobis Hence doth Calvin conclude a Church Government distinct from civil government for this is a spirituall Government it is in the Lord that is in the name of the Lord or as others in things pertaining to God Hence also Beza argueth against Episcopall Government because the Elders in the Apostolique Churches did govern in common But saith Mr. Hussey pag. 18. Pasor telleth us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a genitive case signifieth praecedo and then it signifieth no more but them that go before you either by Doctrine or example I answer first to the matter next to the force of the Word For the matter certainly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or ruling power of ministers is not meerly doctrinall or perswasive as is manifest by 1 Tim. 5. 17. where those who are not convinced of two sorts of Elders are yet fully convinced of two sorts of acts the act of ruling and the act of teaching Whatsoever that Text hath more in it or hath not this it hath that those who labour in the Word and Doctrine are Rulers but they are more especially to be honoured for their labouring in the Word and Doctrine Next as to the force of the Word if it be true which Mr. Hussey here saith then the English Translators that read are over you Calvin Beza Bullinger Gualther and others that here follow Hierome and read praesunt vobis Arias Montanus who reads praesidentes vobis have not well understood the Greek But if Mr. Hussey would needs correct all these and many more Why did he not at least produce some instances to shew us where the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used for no more but a meer going before either by doctrine or example without any power or authority of Government Yea if this here be no more but a going before either by Doctrine or example then every good Christian who goeth before others by good example is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither will that of the genitive case help him for see the like 1 Tim. 3. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that ruleth well his

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 ●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 re● 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 Eccles●…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 I●… 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