heathens Placuit ut aliquanto tempore à communione separentur Their fourteenth Canon determines a Suspension till death for those who falsely accuse their Brethren indeed the words are Can. 3. A communione abstineri Can. 4. A communione separari So Can. 5.11 but by communio is meant the Communion of the body and bloud of Christ only as is plaine from the last Canon and from the sins mentioned Can. 3 4 5. not deserving absolute and plenary Excommunication After this time Pag. 47. saith Sir Henry Spilman till Austins time in regard of the great troubles of Brittaine through the continuall inrodes of the Saxons the Bishops themselves being forced to retire into Wales were very few Synods in England In Ireland saith Sir Henry Spilman anno 450. was a Synod held He hath a Copy of the Canons agreed upon at it in their fourteenth Canon They determine a yeare for repentance to any who had killed any committed fornication or consulted a wizard Can. 15. they determine twenty daies poenitence in case of theft this they distinguish as is apparent from their other Canons from one who is anathematizandus Can. 19. in case of adultery they determine Excommunication This is all the Record I find concerning our Churches in that time excepting only some imperfect Records mentioning some single acts of Censure Monricus was excommunicated for the murther of Cynetu in a Synod at Landaff anno 560. another Synod there enjoyned King Morcant penance for murthering his Uncle Frioc and at a third Synod there Guidnerth was excommunicated for the murther of his Brother But a more perfect account I cannot find From the time of Austine the Monkes comming over till King Henry the eighth our Church was Popish and ruled by the order of the Romish Church who we know allows Suspension as I have sufficiently proved by their Schoolemen In the time of King Hen. 8. Reformation began to dawn He directed a Commission to thirty two persons to draw up a body of Ecclesiasticall Laws Afterwards King Edward 6. by his Commission dated November 11. in the fifth yeare of his Reigne revived and perfected the worke Cranmer Peter Martyr Dr Cox Dr May Dr Taylor of Hadly and some others being his Commissioners to perfect the body oâ— the Laws which was called Reformatio Legum Eccesiasticarum and was printed at London anno 1641. In which book the judgement of those eminent men the Fathers of our Church two of which viz. Cranmer and Taylor were Martyrs afterward is evident p. 151 152 153 154. they have nine Chapters concerning Suspension In the second Chapter they shew the causes of Suspension amongst which this they alledge as the maine Because in lesser offences Excommunication cannot proceed Quoniam magra lequeretur bâ—norum pertuâ—hatio si cum hujusmodi person is infamibus Sacramenta communicarent and oft-times suspicions of grosse sins which may scandalize the Church may appeare where the fact cannot be fully proved which they say must be taken notice of by the Church For it would cause a great disturbance in the Church if the members of it should receive the Sacrament with infamous persons In their fourth Chapter they determine that he who continues a whole yeare suspended shall be Excommunicated c. In their fourth Chapter they determine that he who continues a whole yeare suspended shall be Excommunicated c. Soone after this the Bishops prevailed to have the Common Prayer and Rubrick confirmed and from thence as to this we may know the judgement of our Church till the yeare 1641. It is true they were as tender of the businesse of Suspension as they were free of their Excommunications But yet we have thus much in the Rubrick prefixed to the forme for administring the Lords Supper If any be an open and notorious liver so that by him the Congregation is offended or have done any wrong to his Neighbour by word or deed the Curate having knowledge thereof shall call him and advertise him in any wise not to presume to come to the Lords Table V. The Book of Common Prayer concerning the order for the administration of the Lords Supper untill he hath openly declared himselfe to have truly repented and amended his former naughty life that the Congregation may thereby be satisfied which before were offended and that he hath recompenced the persons whom he hath done wrong unto or at least declare himselfe to be in full purpose so to do as soone as conveniently he may The same order shall the Curate use with those betwixt whom he perceiveth malice and hatred to reigne not suffering them to be partakers of the Lords Table untill he know them to be reconciled and if one of the parties so at variance be contented to forgive from the bottome of his heart all that the other hath trespassed against him and to make amends for that he himselfe hath offended and the other party will not be perswaded to a godly Unity but remaine still in his frowardnesse and malice the Minister in that case ought to admit the penitent person to the Communion and not the obstinate Thus you see our Church while it was under Episcopall Discipline yet allowed Suspension distinct from Excommunication After that Episcopacy was voted downe and Presbytery established Forme of Church Government p. 29. first by an Ordinance for three years then for ever by the Form of Church Government past and printed 1648. sine die All may read the Presbyterian Judgement for Suspension distinct from Excommunication a. p. 27. of that booke to the end For our dissenting Brethren it is their practice when once they have admonished an offender to suspend him from the Sacrament till he repent or be wholly cast out of the Church At this time in this City is one who hath been so suspended these twelve Months if he be not lately restored nor Excommunicated Lest any one should not thinke the Rubrick cleare enough to shew the Judgement of our Church in Episcopall times I shall produce a proofe or two more There was a Provinciall Synod held at London anno 1603. where it was decreed Canon 26 27. Constitut Canons printed 1628. Can. 26 27. That no Minister shall in any wise admit to the Communion any of his Cure or Flock which be openly known to live in sin notorious without repentance nor malicious persons nor unfaithfull Churchwardens nor such as refuse to be present at publike prayers nor to any that depraved the Book of Common Prayer nor who spake against the Kings Authority Let Reverend Deane Nowell speake Dr Nowels Catechism p. 647. who in his Catechisme Greeke-Latine printed London 1573. tels us That if it doth appeare openly that one is unworthy the Pastor must not admit him because he cannot do it without the profanation of the Sacrament and in order to the keeping of them away the Deane tells us in well ordered Churches Elders were chosen and joyned with the Pastor
there is a guilt may be contracted by a participation of the sins of others otherwise the Apostle forgot himself in warning us we should take heed of it and the Schoolmen have spent their time ill to tell us how many waies it may be incurred The question is whether the Minister giving the Sacrament to the unworthy incurs this guilt Page 31. if Mr. M. thinks he doth not let him speak out and we will join issue with him upon that He saies we are commanded to give it but he hath not proved it by Luke 22.19 He thinks he hath nicked it by a distinction of cooperations he saies the Minister doth onely cooperate to the sinners sin in receiving in actu primo not in acti secundo 1. If this distinction will serve the turn it will excuse giving it to Turks 2. But we must tell him that the actus primus is sin It is sin for an ignorant scandalous person to receive 3. I do not well understand what Mr. Marshall means by the actus secundus if he saies his receiving sinfully is actus secundus I cannot understand how his sinfulness can make a distinct act if he means receiving damnation this indeed may more properly be so called but then he that by giving to him contributes to the cause doth doubtless contribute to the effect for surely if he be causa causae he must be also causa causati He thinks our third Argument from the scandal of godly Communicants is invalid 1. Because he conceives we are commanded to give it to all 2. Because he conceives it is not scandalum datum a scandal given but only taken but we deny both these we find no such command 3. It is a scandal given for we are commanded not to keep the Feast not to eat with such not to give holy things to dogs c. of which see more in the following sheets He sayes the Minister must exclude none of himself Page 33. I have examined that chap. 11. he saies it belongs to a Court of Judicature I wonder what Court he means for Elderships he hath declared against them The Common prayer Book gave this power to a single member so do the Canons 1603. In the latter end of the second Sermon he lets fly against Presbytery But what hath the man to say against it Pag. 33 34. why it hath been thrice endeavoured to be established to no purpose He forgets that it is the onely Government now established in England by the Form of Church-Government passed sine die by both Houses of Parliament 1648. And I believe it may stand long enough if it stands but till M. Marshall be able to dispute it down I find no more In him to this purpose Page 46. onely one passage in his third Sermon stumbles me where he tells us that communicants may be worthy dignitate Congruentiae or ex merito congrui What others may I cannot tell I do not understand that Divinity if he means honestly he is at best unhappy in his expressions Since I had read over this Pamphlet An answer to M. Barksdales letter printed with the disputation at Winchcomb there came to my hands a Book entituled a disputation at Winchcomb in which I find a letter dated May 26. 1652. from one Mr. Barksdale to one Mr. Helm wherein he propounds 14. Arguments for promiscuous communion I will shortly turn them into form and shew you where they halt If we must fulfil Christs precept do this in Remembrance of me Argum. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then we must administer the Sacrament to all But we must fulfill Christs precept Ergo. The Consequence is false Christ onely spake to his disciples to do it in communion of his disciples no other were there he that administers it in a scandalous communion doth not do that in remembrance of Christ If Christ washed Judas his feet Argum. 2 and admitted him to the Sacrament then we ought to admit all But Christ washed Judas his feet and admitted him to the Sacrament Ergo. 1. The consequence is false for Judas was no scandalous Sinner 2. The Minor cannot be proved Judas indeed sate down with the twelve but went out immediately upon the Sop Joh. 13. which was before the paschal Lamb was eaten long before the Supper was administred as I prove in the following sheets If the Lords death must be shewed to the ear in hearing Argum. 3 then also to the eye in the Sacrament to all men But it must be shewed to all to the ear in hearing Ergo. The consequence is false and 1. will conclude for receiving heathens to the Sacrament 2. Nothing must be done in Gods worship but what he hath appointed he hath appointed the word to be preached to all but he hath not appointed the Sacraments for all Besides the word is by Gods appointment a converting ordinance so is not the Sacrament 4. The Sacrament is not an Ordinance for meer presenting Christs death but for sealing our interest in it If there be the same danger upon hearing unworthily Argum. 4 as receiving the Sacrament unworthily then those who are admitted to hear may be admitted to receive But there is the same danger upon unworthy hearing the word being to some the savour of death Ergo. 1. The consequence is feeble for admit there were the same danger upon the one or the other yet the praerequisite duties are not the same through an inability to perform which those who are sounable are to be excluded 2. I doubt whether either the sin of unworthy hearing or the danger be so great as the sin and danger of unworthy receiving There are degrees of sin I know not how we should better judge the greatness of sin than by Scripture expressions The Scripture saith He who eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself and is guilty of the body and blood of Christ it is made equall to the sin of Judas which surely was greater than the sin of Peter in denying his Master For the danger 't is true in exitu the danger of both is the same but it seems God is quicker in judgement with such as by unworthy receiving the Sacrament trample under foot the blood of Christ for this cause saith the Apostle some of you are sick and weak and some are fallen asleep The Scripture saith Blood-thirsty and deceitful men shall not live out half their dayes This concludes Bloodthirstiness of more dangerous consequence than other sins If the Apostles baptized whole multitudes upon profession of faith Argum. 6 and afterwards admitted them all to the Sacrament though many of them afterwards appeared not right then we may administer the Sacrament to all But the Apostle baptized whole multitudes upon profession of faith and afterwards admitted them to the Sacrament though many were not right Ergo Here is fallacia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Profession of Faith is an ambiguous term it signifyeth either a meer verbal profession or
All that I shall say is we hope Longe aliter in Coelo quam Boudenae de Presbyterio conclusum est Jesus Christ and Mr. Timson are not both of a mind But in the mean time Qâ—is tulerâ— Gracchos de seditione querentes why doth Mr. â—imson inveigh against unbrotherly uncharitable weak dealing before he hath apologized for his own dealing in that manner with so many men and Churches too I think the impartial Reader of his book may see enough of it in his book Thus we see not onely what he observes That good men are apt to reprove others in things controverted but also for things they will do themselves In his 12. and 13. pages he puts some Quaeries upon the 1 Cor. 11. an ingenuous answer to which he thinks would moderate our rigour as he calls it and therefore he hath favoured us with his opinion as to them p. 14 15 16 17. c. Because indeed all his superstructure stands upon the foundation he here laies I shall crave leave to examine a little what he saies here 1. I observe that in propounding them he forgot the rule of Frusta fiâ— per plura quod fieri possit per pauciora For his four first quaeries are reducible to this one 1. Q Whether the unworthy Receiving mentioned 1 Cor. 11.29 for which the Corinthians were chastned v. 30. was personal or habitual or meerly actual miscarriages in reference to the order in which they ought to have received His fifth sixth and seventh are reducible to this second 2. Q. Whether the duty of self-examination prescribed by the Apostle as a Remedy to prevent future Judgements were not such as the unregenerate and most ignorant person might use c. 3. Q. His eighth Whether an incapacity to perform this duty or neglect of it did give a writ of ease from the precept of publique duty and service Do this in Remembrance of me 4. Q. His last quaery is Whether there be any thing in the institution nature language and actions of the Sacrament in the Context or elsewhere incongruous to the unregenate mans receiving As to the first of these Queries Mr. Timson thinks p. 14. That they are not blamed for their personal unworthynesse for chap. 1. ver 1 2. they were all sanctified in Christ Jesus called to be Saints I see no great harm is like to come of it if we should grant that the Apostle there doth not primarily speak of habitual personal unworthiness but actual But Mr. Timson in his answer to the second and third Query thinks the unworthy eating signifies only their disorderly eating and for this onely p. 14. he thinks they were punished v. 30. this is the Summ of what he saies p. 14 15. 16 17 18. To which I answer 1. T is not much materiall to dispute whether the Apostle there speaks of habitual unworthiness or only actual That there is a personal unworthyness himself must grant or else Turks and Excommunicated persons cannot be excluded 2. Whether every unregenerate man as unregenerate be personally unworthy Mr. Timson seems to doubt we believe but there is no need to dispute it here For 3. We grant that every Church member is by us to be lookt upon as habitually worthy unless by some actual miscarriage he declares himself actually unworthy which we believe may be done as well by his ignorance discovering his actual misimproving of the means of grace as by his scandalous life and conversation Yet we believe their Church-membership is not that which makes them habitually worthy but their interest in Christ which charity obligeth us to believe they have till by some fruits they discover to us the contrary 4. We dare not deny but the disorderly eating in the Church of Corinth was an unworthy eating and might be a cause of their punishment ver 30. we know God is very tender of his own order God hath made a breach upon us saith David in Vzzah's case because we sought him not in due order 5. But that a man should not be capable of eating unworthily except by such disorderly receiving or that all the unworthy eating of the Corinthians should be their disorderly eating or that this should be the only sin for which they were punished with death These things we cannot digest without some good Arguments to crowd them down 1. Because the Apostle chap. 5. had told the Corinthians they could not keep the Feast with the old leaven of malice and wickedness and bidden them purge out the old leaven ver 7 8. and not eat with one called a Brother who should be a Fornicator an Idolator c. And again chap. 10. ve 21. had told them They could not drink of the cup of the Lord and of the cup of Devils and that they could not be partakers of the Table of the Lord and of the Table of Devils 2. Because it seems very absurd to us that a man who should offend but in a point of order should be guilty of the body and blood of Christ and eat and drink damnation to himself which are the two things predicated of the unworthy Receiver and he who comes reaking with the guilt of scandalous sins should not at all be guilty or lyable to Gods Judgements Thirdly because we cannot conceive that God should be so unlike himself as to look upon one legally unclean unworthy to eat the Passeover under the old Testament and yet look upon one morally unclean as worthy under the New Testament We therefore humbly conceive till Mr. Timson makes the contrary appear to us that the Subject of those propositions 1 Cor. 11.27 29 viz. He who eateth and drinketh unworthily must be expounded as well by the fiâ—th and tenth chapters as by what precedeth in this and that those did as well eat and drink unworthily who kept the Feast with old leaven who did partake of the Cup of Devils chap. 10. as those who came in disorderly parties to the Lords Table and mingled that Feast with their Love-feasts And â—hat they were as well punished for the former as the latter sins I have done with his four first Quaeries His fifth and sixth quaeries are What Remedy the Apostle prescribes whether the most ignorant person owning the true religion and the unregenerate might not use it so far as to prevent the Judgements and receive benefiâ— Mr. Timson saies the remedy propounded is by Instruction and Direction Instruction to which purpose he remembers them of the Institution True he doth so but whether as a mean to convince them of their sin or a Remedy I think may be a question 2 Then saith he he directs them to examine themselves and to tarry for one another True but is this all in case there be scandalous sinners in the Church are the ministers and officers of the Church to do nothing else but bid them examine themselves This we are told indeed Mr. Boatman told us so too I remember but I hope in the fifth chap. the
owne bloud to the prophane then the body and bloud of Christ and of Ambrose who ventured the losse of his head as well as the love of Theodosius so it will not need much of thy charity to interpret their actions conscientious pieces of self-deniall for the interest of their deare and blessed Saviour yea and of their soules too who are kept away it being certaine if Iudas were at the Sacrament which can never be proved the next worke he did was to hang himselfe through horror of conscience and for that sinne of unworthy receiving in the Church of Corinth Many saith the Apostle were sick and weak and many fallen asleep How unjustly therefore we are raged against who durst not give the bloud of Christ to those to drinke who are in a burning feaver of open lusts and so dangerous a knife into the hands of those whom we see distracted with sinne and in a spirituall Delirium We hope any equitable standers by will judge and measure our actions by the duly and orderly practise of Physitians in bodily tempers considering we are ready as to such Patients to allow them what they will drinke of the Barley water of Repentance which we conceive more proper for them and are ready to restore their knives to them when they shall by any moderate account given us let us know that God hath restored them so much of his Image in spirituall wisdome that they will not murther their precious soules with them And we doubt not but if ever the Lord shall give them an heart to repent and restore their desperately distempered soules to health in that day it shall be no more griefe of heart to them that they have been kept away then it is to the recovered Patient that his Physitian denyed him flesh and wine in his feaver or a knife in his distraction and at that time we shall expect their thanks in the meane time we shall beare their rage and reproach with paience knowing it is for the Lord we suffer it For the Lord who suffered more in the shedding of his bloud for us then we can doe in the vindication of it and preserving it from being prophaned by unhallowed mouths If it pleaseth the Lord they dye in their spirituall distempers and go raging to their graves we must be content to expect our thanks from our Lord and Master at the great day and our vindication there except Reader thou wilt shew thy felfe so ingenuous and judicious as in thy thoughts to acquit us As to the subject of this Tract the truth is so much hath been said in the defence of what I plead for of old by all the Schoolmen and since by Calvin Vrsin Zanchy and by Reverend Beza and Master Rutherford in answer to Erastus and by learned and Reverend Gillespy in answer to Master Prynne besides what hath been spoken by Master Philip Goodwin in his excellent Book called the Evangelicall Communicant and by many others that were it not for the importunate clamours of those who would get that by their importunity and clamorous tongues and pens which the justice of their Cause and strength of their Arguments will not allow to them nor gaine for them both my selfe and others might have had an eternall supersedeas for this Worke. I scarce find any thing in Erastus and Beza but what I meet with in the Schoolmen nor any thing in Master Prynne or Master Humfry considerable but what I find in Erastus That if our Brethren of the contrary perswasion would not have troubled the world with their opinions without answering first what had been said against them we had long ere this time had our Quietus est for I durst undertake to yeeld him the cause who sufficiently answers but one Book wrote upon this subject viz. Master Gillespies Aarons Rod blossoming so that the truth is the advantage our opposites have of us in this point is mostly upon such as have not knowledge of what hath been said against their opinions or are not supplyed with money to buy the Books nor able to gaine time to read them or upon such whose particular engagements and over-much love to the whimzies of their owne braines or malice or prejudice at least to the truth or love to their cursed lusts which yet they would keep and have the Sacrament too and be thought unworthy of no Gospell-priviledge hath outlawed their Reason and so stopt their eares that they are made incapable of a boaring with the sharpest and most convincing Arguments that Scripture and Reason can afford and thus they only captivate those who are first led captive by their owne lusts Possibly thou wilt be inquisitive to know what hath made me write if I have judged enough already said I must crave a little of thy partience to satisfie thee as to this I have often thought that it would be a rare expedient in order to the ending of all controversies of these times relating to the order of the Church if some judicious man would out of all the considerable Books wrote upon each Controversie within these twelve or thirteen yeares candidly state each Controversie and transcribe the Arguments relating to them with the Exceptions and Answers given to any digesting them in a due method and it might please the civill power then to Enact That no one should write more upon any of those Questions but should be engaged either to bring New Arguments on the part he would defend or vindicate those brought on the part he would defend from the various Answers given to them Were this taske but imposed upon new Scriblers the world would be lesse full of impertinent Discourses and Disputes would not run as they doe in infinitum I doe not pretend a specimen of such a Worke I have neither purse nor Library nor time fit for it But the truth is as I find in Mr Humfry and heare from Mr Boatman nothing more then Erastus long since said and hath been more then once already answered so I have not studied for a new Argument but out of severall Authors have rallyed up an old force and have candidly told thee what hath been by any whom I have met with said against them as also what hath been answered in their defence All being admitted to the Passover as some conceive Iohn Baptists universall Baptisme Iudas his being admitted to the Lords Supper The generall invitation to the Wedding Supper in the Gospell some being drunke at the Lords Supper in the Church of Corinth No evident testimony in Scripture for Suspension 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These are all old tooles and scarce newly whetted Yet what hath Master Humfry said or what doth Master Boatman say more But for the more particular occasion of this Tract I must desire of thee Reader to understand that in this great City there are as I take it about thirty Parishes within the Wals to none of which excepting only two one of which hath about thirty pounds
suspending the Sacrament in the Church of England then ever it did in Queen Mary's dayes To my owne knowledge of the persons the Arguments they use the place and County I referre you to 'T is Lincolneshire they say where is your Church of England now where are the marks the Word and Sacraments which the Orthodox and Ancient accounted the only true marks of the Church You have indeed Preaching and Baptisme but where is the Lords Supper no where unlesse as the Papists private Masse here and there in a corner There are none but may see and understand doth not the Church of God lose by this Is it not the Popes harvest Nay in time the suspension of this great Ordinance will take men off from hearing unlesse it be a company of men which come to heare for novelty and so none will owne the Church of Christ This is the great Reason besides the Authority of Scriptures whereby I have proved it perswading me to the Administration of it They cannot have the Sacrament they can have the Eucharist at Rome they will goe thither nay more I have knowne particularly and could name them that have been first amused then amazed and after by subtle and ingenuous cheats drawne to the Church of Rome Now I have no desire you should be Papists and therefore have a great desire to entertaine you as members of the Church of England Now we have got the conscience-startling Reason Master Boatman must give the Sacrament to all and he thinks we would doe it too if we did but consider 1. That the neglect of this Ordinance hath given occasion to the Papist to say where is your Church where are your Sacraments But in the first place Est inter Tanaim quiddam socerumque Viselli 1. Cannot we set up courses of Sacraments but we must keep open house for all profane persons This aimes only to urge a necessity of administring the Ordinance it proves nothing against suspension of the unworthy 2. The Papists are very busie to aske indeed where is our Church Chamier Whitaker c. have told them where it is 't is well we have some better Doctors I see to answer for us then Master Boatman for he thinks the Question unanswerable if Sacraments be not constantly administred in every part of our Church and every one admitted to it Well by my consent he shall never be appointed to answer Bellarmine 3. No wise man ever thought That the suspension of the Administration of the Ordinance of the Sacrament in a corrupted Church till it could be set in order the Church yet in judgment defending the Ordinance and thirsting for a time to administer it orderly did unchurch a Church where was then the Church of the Jewes for 40 yeares together wanting Circumcision Surely one might tell a Papist the Sacrament is administred constantly in some hundreds of Congregations in England in the Churches in London Lancashire Suffolk Essex c. 5. What makes Master Boatman cry it is no where except as the Papists private Masse here and there in a corner I cannot tell surely London is no corner but many of his hearers thought that by that he reflected upon my Administration of it in the Chappell belonging to this Noble Family If he did he may please to know the Lady in whose Chappell it is is an Earles eldest Daughter and now the Widow of a Noble Gentleman who was Knight and Baronet in either of whose Rights the Law allowes her a place of Publike Worship and a Chaplaine and makes her Chappell a place of Publike Worship her house especially being distinct from all other Parishes and an entire Liberty within it selfe But we must tell him his carrying the Sacrament the other day to a private chamber for a Viaticum to a sicke person was a great deale more like private Masse or if you will carrying The Hoast We saith Beza Bezae tract de coena Domini contra Joachimum Westphalum in oct ex edit Sâ—eph 1559. p. 160. speaking in the name of Protestants doe not use to administer the Sacrament of the Lords Supper privately to our sicke people nor doe they desire it for they are so well taught as to know that their salvation doth not depend upon their receiving the Sacraments a privation of which is not damnable but a contempt only Now they to whom the Lord hath denied liberty to come into the publike Congregation cannot seem to contemne the Ordinance So Aretius Illud autem omni defensione justa caret quod ad aegros desertur tanquam viaticum morituris qui mos inolevit ut opinor cum persuasum esset plebi quosdam piè mori non posse nisi prius coenaÌ„ Domini sumpsissent c. Arist Probl. loc 82. Chrysost in Mat. Hom. 3. The administration of the Sacrament saith he is a publike action and for private Sacraments they seeme to us to be repugnant to the nature of that Ordinance which is a Communion So Aretius also Lastly surely a wise Protestant would tell a Papist That if we had one Sacrament too few they have five too many which would argue as much against the truth of their Church as the want of one could against the truth of ours Thus you see the Papists Mr Boatman is so gravell'd with may be answered without a promiscuous communion But 2. he thinks Many will turne Papists if they may not have the Sacrament here Would there not be fine Communicants thinke we that are so ready to turne Papists upon every teach 2. But so long as Sequestrations hold I thinke we need not feare men of Estates turning Papists the consciences of such as we must deny the Sacrament to are not so strict for others indeed there may be some feare 3. But is this a good Argument thinke we Suppose a debauched swearer or drunkard should come to us and tell us If we will not give him the Sacrament he will turne Papist must we therefore prophane Gods Ordinance Chrysostome tels us he would sooner give his body to death and his bloud to be shed then he would pollute Gods Ordinance by giving it to scandalous sinners Suppose an impudent Queane should come to one and tell him if he would not marry her she would turne whore were this a good Argument thinke you to perswade a Gentleman to marry her or rather â—o nomine to refuse her Master Boatmans reason is just such another Now Reader thou seest what the startling Reason we heard comes to a meer poker in reality just nothing Againe to the Exhortation I beseech you make no evill use of what hath been said because it is the truth and nothing but the truth of God And I say againe that it is not in the power of any particular Minister or Congregation without cleare conviction and Condemnation to keep a man from the Sacrament if he will rush no man hath any thing to do with him And if you will rush do your bloud be
quae inscribitur ad illust Prin Fredericum de excommunicatione and saith Mr Gillespy 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 or the like Those two eminent servants of God thought there was something in this Argument there are these three Questions in it 1. Whether the Minister declares all to whom he gives the Supper to be one visible body That the Apostle determines 1 Cor. 10.17 2. Whether it be a sin in a Minister to declare those one visible body who are not so Reason will easily determine that affirmatively 3. Whether visibly scandalous sinners be one visible body with visible Saints Visibly scandalous sinners have a visible different head But it is a question whether that distinction of Membra in Ecclesia and Membra Ecclesiae hath any thing in it and whether Christ be called the head of the visible Church only as it is taken conjunctim or viritim of every member in it and that will bring us to question whether the Church as to the community of it be Corpus homogeneum or het erogeneum I shall not intangle my selfe with these disputes but shall desire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to this Argument and leave it to wiser heads to consider The Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not to be given to any who are not Christs Disciples Arg. 11 for we are to follow Christs example who administred it to none others But scandalous sinners are none of Christs Disciples Ergo. This is Mr P. Goodwins Argument Evangelicall Communicant p. 5 6 7 8. V. Zanchium in ep praed and I refer the Reader to him to make it out there are these two things to be questioned in it 1. Whether Christs example in admission be a rule of ours 2. Whether Christ admitted any such Disciples as were actually scandalous I thinke I have proved the contrary Those who if they were Heathens might not be baptized Argument 12 V. Zach. Urs doct Christ p. 2. de clavibus q 3. sect 11. though they be baptized and in a Church ought not to be admitted to the Lords Supper The reason is this 1. Mr Humfry himselfe confesseth In adult is eadem est ratio utriusque Sacramenti 2. Besides it is against reason to say the contrary But those who are ignorant and scandalous if they were Heathens should not be baptized Ergo. I do not say the children of such ought not there is another reason for them but that they should not hath been granted by the Universall judgement and practice of the Primitive Church Erast Thesis 14 Mr Humfrie's vind p. 10. Beza de excom p. 23. Aarons rod l. 3. c. 16. Mr. Palmer c. against Mr Humfry p. 49. Dr Drakes bar to free admission p. 32 33. Rutherford's divine right of Presbyteries c. 5. q. 2. Arg. 13. I know Erastus and Mr Humfry tell us John baptized all who came yea some whom he cals Vipers but Beza long since and Gillespy more lately mind Erastus that John baptized none but such as confessed their sins Mat. 3. Mr. Palmer c. and Dr Drake have told Mr Humfry too as much to which he hath discreetly replied nothing This is one of that incomparably learned Mr Rutherford's Arguments in his Divine right of Presbyteries Strong meat belongs to those who are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who have made proficiency in the waies of God and are of full age who by reason of an habit have their senses exercised to discerne good and evill Heb. 5. w. But the Sacrament is strong meat Therefore it doth not belong to those who are Babes in knowledge and consequently though of the house not to be given to them by him who is the Lords Steward to give all in the Family their Portion in the due season Luk. 12.42 The major is a generall proposition given by the Apostles Requirit igitur coena domini quatenus est mystica convivas qui sensibus exercitatis iuterna mysteria ab eo quod oculis patet distinguere valint Musc Loc. Com. de coena A Physicall maxime applied in a spirituall case and holds as well to any strong meat as that which he there speakes of for he doth not say This strong meat That the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is strong meat is evident That meat which is of hardest digestion and concoction and requires the strongest operations of the stomack to turne it into nourishment and which not duly digested proves most pernicious to the body is strong meat in a physicall sense But such is the Sacrament of the Lords Supper The spirituall stomack must be more extraordinarily prepared for it 1 Cor. 11.28 It is not tasted nor digested well without the knowing of the greatest mysteries in Religion in some measure viz. the union of Christ with the Father 2. The Union of the two natures in the person of Christ 3. The mysticall Vnion of the soule with Christ 4. The mysterious exercise of faith in applying the Soule to the Promise and the Promise to the Soule while it sits at that Table Not duly received it proves most pernicious The Soule seales its damnation becomes guilty of the body and bloud of Christ eates judgement to it selfe It is unlawfull to partake of other mens sins Eph. 5.7 Arg. 14 Mr Ambrose his media p. 260 Rutherford in his Divine right c. c. 5. q. 2. and in his peaceable plea. cap. 12. Gillespie's Aarone rod. l. 3. P. Goodwins Evang. Com. Vindication of the jus divinum of Presbytery But he that gives the Sacrament wittingly to an ignorant or scandalous person partakes with him in his sin Ergo. This Argument is urged by Learned Rutherford Reverend Gillespy in the two sore-mentioned books and holy Mr Ambrose to whom I refer my Reader for fuller proofe Many Arguments more might be produced in this cause but the truth is scarce any but what are to be found either in Mr Rutherford or Mr Gillespy or the London Ministers Vindication or Mr Philip Goodwin or Mr Ambrose M Ambrose his Media p. 260. If any one hath a mind to write on this subject against us they should deale ingenuously to answer all the Arguments produced in those books against them and when they have done that it is like that either the Reverend Authors of those books or some of their Brethren will undertake their vindication But if they take Mr Humfrie's course to publish books to divulge opinions confuted long since by solid Arguments and take no paines to answer any thing or if any thing first to make their Adversaries Arguments weake by curtilation and imperfect proposall of them and then to scoffe instead of answering Or thinke it enough with Mr Boatman to cry down suspension as a Pharisaicall dreame and a Pharisaicall way of dealing with people and the Patrons of it as Vsurpers of an undue authority
declared himselfe privately against Ruling Elders Presbyter haud ame te nec possum dicere quare Hoc tantùm possum dicere non amo te For his judgement in that point or indeed in any other it is not much considerable for we doe not thinke he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and we can easily beleeve that we have more to say yea that more hath already been said to prove the divine Right of that O ficer in the Church then Mr Boatman can answer About the beginning of December after about six weeks residence amongst a people he had never seen before except as a guest for a forthnight nay and as I remember of that six weeks he was absent for a fortnight too He declares he intended to administer a Sacrament on Christmas day some honest people of his Congregation being dissatisfied at it went to him and told him so in regard of the superstitious conceit of that day which many in this City have One of his friends told me they had prevailed with him so far as that the next day he would unbid it againe but in stead of it the next Lords day in stead of unbidding it girding at those who had received this offence he openly proclaimes foure Sacraments together The first upon the eighteenth day of December the second upon the five and twentieth c. and proclaimed likewise a Fast Preparatory to them upon the thirteenth of December At which Fast Reader thou must thinke there was much people to see which way he would row though they needed not if they had considered the wind and tyde For my selfe I was not there having with some other of my Brethren refused to heare him who refuseth to let us know by what Authority he preaches and conceiving that the Pastorall Right to that people belongs not to him besides other things which discover him to us to be no friend to any kind of Reformation At his Fast he preached on Rom. 14.12 His discourse in the forenoone was harmlesse in the afternoon he disgorged himselfe I shall give thee a short account of that part of his Sermon which concernes this businesse as it was taken and given me by an ingenuous judicious Schollar from his owne mouth in short hand and by one who was before that Sermon much his friend An Account of the latter part of Mr Boatmans Sermon preached at St Peters in Norwich upon the 13th of December 1653. upon Rom. 14.12 being a perfect count of his Sermon from his last Use With short Animadversiâ—ns upon it SIxthly Sect. 1 and lastly though I said but rather forgot when I said that that should be the last Take this Lesson from the point all in generall viz. the Apostles advice 1 Cor. 11. Judge your selves consider your selves aright lay things aright to heart condemne your selves else God will condemne you Passe a particular account with your selves but that you will say is impossible Who can tell his errors or number his infirmities Doe it as far as you are able and in a generall way take the whole burthen on your soules licke the dust cry out with Job I am exceeding vile humble your selves in dust and ashes And let me make the last Use more particular to alarum you to a preparation to the great Ordinance of the Lords Supper if you must give an account to God as you have heard of all your carriages and enjoyments of all the precious Ordinances of the Gospell of which the Word and Sacraments are not the least but of the highest nature then put your selves into a posture of humiliation thinke with your selves O God! how often have we eaten unworthily It is not one of the least serious thoughts I have entertained a great while together in relation to this Ordinance the generall want of it amongst the people of God in the Church of God it filleth me with wonder that it hath been so long suspended and almost all the Pastors of the Church of Christ so amused either their minds disturbed or their hearts hardened or by one way or other diverted that it hath been too void of the spirituall food of the Gospell The world dictates and cryes out one against such a Pastor others against such and such persons but will you have my verdict The sinne of Pastor and people in the enjoyment of that great Ordinance is the cause and ground that God hath found out away and by away of his owne finding out which a man would have thought at first should never have prevailed which hath hindred the people of the enjoyment of that great Ordinance of the communion of the body and bloud of Christ. Let this humble us This Paragraph containes little in it to the present purpose hitherto he is making way for his work but yet in this loose discourse to passe by the Tautologies and Grammaticall Errors here are some passages that speak not much of a Divine as to say That God hath found out wayes to hinder people of his Ordinances God indeed doth sometimes give up his people to spirituall judgment but it is scarce truth to say God finds out wayes for men to walke contrary to his will in surely man finds them out though God suffers them to walke in them But let us heare a little further And you of this Flocke Sect. 2 I beseech you by the mercies of Christ looke to it as you will answer me at the great day nay which is more to Jesus Christ himselfe how you approâ—ch Looke to your soules hearts and consciences you have lived under the Ministry and Administrations of able Pastors so long together and should you be ignorant of the rudiments of Religion I would not for a thousand worlds attribute so little to your constancy and your paines especially in such times nor in former viz. so much as makes you capable of and fit for the Sacrament For my owne particular I question not your duty but beseech you according to the knowledge you have received seriously to prepare your selves take heed be thinke your selves humble your selves for your miscarriages heretofore in the enjoyment of it goe home and say O how often have I gone hand over head and carried an envicus heart a lustfull wrathfull heart full of indignation to thy holy Table I have gone with prejudice with resolutions of revenge to the communion of the body and bloud of Christ which should keep the unity of the spirit and the bond of peace If I could but prevaile with you to set your selves thus beforehand and judge your selves I dare secure you in your approach to that Table Let me speake to two sorts of men Sect. 3 some looke upon themselves as they suppose to have tasted of the powers of the world to come and have dranke full draughts of that new wine which Christ hath prepared for his children in his Kingdome Blessed be God! All honour praise glory be to the name of God in your behalfe I beseech you by the
therefore Mr Boatman may know what he hath to do and Mr Brabourne may have something to do now he hath taken his hand from the Plough which many I confesse never thought him fâ—t for though the Bishops judged otherwise I have engaged in this Controversie in the defence of all the eminent Saints and Servants of God of former Ages other Reformed Churches and our own Church and of that Reverend Assembly so boldly aspersed both by Mr Boatman and Mr Brabourne in which my selfe knew so many holy and learned and Reverend men that I beleeve since the Nicene Councill there was never so many and so holy and learned men met in any Ecclesiasticall Councill Some of whom I know would not turne their heads in any point of Divinity from the most learned Hereticks that are or ever were in Christendome and having such an opinion of that eminent Assembly I hope thou wilt pardon me Reader if I take their part in what was their declared Judgement especially against two such Adversaries as these are with whom it is far more fit that some of their youngest Sons should dispute than themselves leaving those Fathers to grapple with more learned and considerable Adversaries I am one of the yongest sons of those Reverend Prophets but yet I have a little duty for them and shall engage for Norfolke or Norwich to attempt at least their vindication from any who shall in these parts appeare in publike against what was according to Gods Word agreed upon by them if he hath not a proper Adversary and if I be not over-powred by Legions of Pamphlets But I returne to my former Discourse The second Question I have spoken to is Whether Ministeriall or privative Suspension be justifiable or no I have on purpose spoken to this partly because I heare some say this was Mr Boatman's meaning though he restrained not himselfe so by any passage and if it be how doth he tell others that he doth keep away some himselfe But that he might not have this refuge I have spoke a little to that I confesse it is a tender point which many godly men are dis-satisfied in Whether in case there wants a Presbytery in the Congregation the Minister may keep back any by his own power or rather ought to administer it to all In the first place I desire my Reader to observe that those who are of the Episcopall perswasion and own no Congregationall Presbyteries which is Mr Boatman's judgement they say make not this question but alwaies took the Affirmative for granted witness the Schoolemen Canonists c. the Rubrick to the Book of Common Prayer the Canons agreed on in the Synod at London 1603. Some of my Reverend and learned Fathers and Brethren of the Presbyterian perswasion indeed scruple it because they think all Suspension is an act of Rule and the Rule of the Church belongs to the Minister and Elders amongst whom is Reverend and learned Mr Jeanes whom though I know not yet I honour for his learned Tract on that Subject and for his Midwifry in helping into the world that last piece of our great and learned Twisse I crave leave to dissent in this point from those few of my Brethren who are so perswaded and conceive that to avoid promiscuous Communion the Minister may in some cases suspend his own act though not formally passe a Censure yea and I thinke he ought Though I confesse when the state of the Church is such that this cannot be done without a necessary and great breach of the peace of it the case is more disputable because the Amity and Edification of the Church is the high end of all Church-Censures Augustine in his third book contra Epistolam Parmeniani and in many other places thinkes Church Censures should be spared when the Major part of the Church is corrupted and the execution of Censures may cause Schismes and much he saies for it But I must confesse I am of Peter Martyrs mind Iste Augustini timor nimius videtur quasi debeamus verbum Dei relinquere ut schismata tumult us evitemus sequamur quod praecipit Deus eventus autem providentiae illius committamus He answers all which Augustine saith for his opinion and concludes That it were better to have lesser Churches than so large and ample ones defiled But I shall not dispute that businesse 3. In the last place I have enquired what hath been the judgement of the eminent Servants and Churches of Christ in all Ages Having first enquired our Fathers mind the Judgement and practice of our Elder Brethren is not inconsiderable especially when we are charged with Innovation and doing that which never entred into the heads of wiser Ages I have proved that it hath been the practice of the Church in all Ages the Judgement of our Church before and ever since the Reformation and of all reformed Churches in the World some Churches of the Protestant Switzers only excepted And now Reader I shall cast my selfe upon thy Charity I hope thou wilt excuse me for my undertaking The zeale of the Lords house for the precious body and bloud of Jesus Christ hath eaten me up as to this point Had not we been openly challenged the judgement and practice of the Churches and Servants of God openly aspersed I should have found other worke to do besides engaging Mr Boatman I have given thee here a faithfull and impartiall Narrative of the Originall and Progresse of this Contest If Mr Brabourne be at the Charge to reply I desire thee not to expect my answer I beleeve thou wilt whoever thou art be able thy self to answer what he can say I shall leave him to one more fit for him having been sufficiently chidden by some learned Friends for losing so much time as to meddle with his other peece But if Mr Boatman answers and either denies any thing here said as matter of fact or makes such a reply to any Arguments as any Licencer of the Presse will let passe I shall reply to him and prove whatever shall be denied and make good my Arguments provided he confutes them better than he did my Sermon I shall keep thee no longer in the Porch but give thee leave to enter Read and then judge and pray for this poore City where are so many thousand soules and so few fit to take charge of them The Lord keep thee Reader in these evill times from the errours of them and an ever lover both of Gospell-purity and Unity So praies Chaply-field-house in Norwich April 18 1654. Thy meane unworthy Servant in the Gospell of the Lord Jesus Christ JOHN COLLINGS Errata Reader I Cannot own these sheets till thou hast corrected these following erraâ—aes in them In the Title page read ob hoc vel maxime In the Preface p. 3 l. penult r. duty p. 9 l. 16. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 27. r. considering p. 13. l. 10. r. December after l. 12. r. fortnight p. 15 l. 2. r.
ought to have no company that he may be ashamed Erast Explic. Graviss quaest thes 94. I know Thomas Erastus tels us it must be meant of Preaching the word But besides that there is no ground in the Text for this there is lesse in other places of Scripture For the Word must be preached to Heathens Mat. 28. and much more to them who are but as Heathens and to scandalous sinners Nor is there any reason to appropriate this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the word onely It seemes to me that our Saviour had an especiall eye to Sacramentall Ordinances not onely because in other Scriptures there is an expresse command to admit the most sorts of Dogs to heare the word but also because if any one Ordinance may be called more holy then other it is this of the Supper which is The new Testament in his blood The Communion of the body and blood of Christ But to say this Ordinance is excluded is not onely to speake contrary to Scripture but to common sense too Which made Erastus in the same thefis thinke it safer to insist upon a distinction of Dogs then adhere to his first distinction of holy things This Scripture therefore using a generall terme which is not restrained by any preceding or subsequent words and no other Scripture plainly allowing of the holy thing of the Lords supper to be given to Swine and Dogs I conceive he that desires his words may goe along with the truth and beare a proportion to his owne reason if he be endued with so much as an humane soule doth intitle all but mad men and fooles unto will not say but that the Lords Supper is here couched at least in the number of the holy things and pearles here specified Especially when I shall have made it evident by the different applications of this Scripture amongst the Ancients and large expositions of it by Moderne sober Writers That they thought not the holy things here spoken of were Admonition or Preaching onely but other holy administrations also Clemens Alexandrinus expounds it generally for all the flowings out of living water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 2. ex edit Lutet 1629 p. 368. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas in dial 1 de Trin. sub initio p. 138. t. 2. impr 1606 in offic Commetiana Tertul. 9. l. 2 de matrimonie cum Gentilibus c. 5. lib. de praescrip contra haereticos cap. 26. lib. de Baptisme cap. 17. v. Cypr. opera ep 26. lib. contra Demetrianum sub initio l. 3. Testim ad Quirinum Chrysost in 1. Hem. in cap. 7. Math. in prologo ad expos Iohannis Homil 20. in 10 cap. Heb. lib. de compunctione cordis Immundis impuritatibus sacra consortia non imperuenda 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which surely are in all divine Ordinances Athanasius makes use of this Text to justify himselfe in not giving an account of his faith to enemies of the Truth In his first Dialogue concerning the Trinity inter Orthodoxum Anomoeuns Arrianistum In the beginning of it Anomoeus asking Orthodoxus whether he was a Christian or no hee tels him yes he was Anomoeus going on and asking him what Christianity was he tels him it was necessary for him to tell him the first but not safe for him to tell him the latter Anomoeus asking him why he answers him that if he did not know who he was that askt he might give Holy things to Dogs and cast Pearles before Swine Tertullian in his second Book concerning the marriage of Heathens with Christians applyeth this place as forbidding Christians to marry with Heathens because their conversation was an holy thing which must not be cast unto Dogs Yet it is plaine he doth not restraine it for in his Book de praescrip contra haereticos he plainly applyes it to the Preaching of the Gospell and in the 17 Chap. of his Book de Baptismo he applies it to Baptisme By which it is plaine hee understood it in generall of all holy things Moyses and Maximus and Ruffinus in their Epistle to Cyprian understand it of absolution and all divine Ordinances Cyprian himselfe makes use of this Text to justify his not writing to Demetrianus a wretched enemy of the Truth and how he useth it elsewhere may be seen in l. 3. Test ad Quirinum where he brings it to prove this head Sacramentum fidei non est profanandum Basil the Great applies but doth not restrain it to preaching the Gospel Chrysostome in his first Homily on the seventh Chapter of Matthew applies it to the Preaching of the Word to warrant him if he saw his hearers negligent to shut up his book So he doth in his Prologue to his Exposition of the Gospell of St Iohn And againe in his Homily de cruce dominicâ But in his twentieth Homily upon the tenth Chapter to the Hebrewes he applies it to the Lords Supper And in his Book de compunctione cordis to all the mysteries of our Salvation and from this Scripture takes occasion to chide those Ministers who gave out the Sacrament promiscuously and saies this was the reason why they were trampled upon and rent by the wicked according to this Text. Hierem cals the holy things the childrens bread and the Gospell Pearls I might also weary my selfe and the Reader with many quotations out of Ambrose Gregor Mag. Origen which plainly shew their expounding this Text in a latitude Isid Pelus l. 4. n. 181. ep ad Hieracem l. 1. ep 143. Aug. in Serm. in monte l. de fide c. Hieron in Mat. 7. Chemnit harm c. 51. c. 66. n. 8. Alex. Halenfis sum theel p. 4. q. 11. art 1. soct 4. not restraining it to this or that holy thing The judgement of Isidorus Pelusiota and Augustine may be read in many places the latter of which though once he applies it to fraternall correption yet hath many different applications of it Chemnitius in his Harmony â—â—on the place tels us that the Word and Sacraments are the holy things here meant And in the 66 Chapter of his Harmony n. 3. tels us that wicked men are to be kept from the Lord's Table upon the command in this Text. Alexander Halensis brings this Argument to prove that our Saviour did not give the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to Iudas because he should have then have acted contrary to his owne precept in this place where he forbad holy things to be given to Dogs whether that Argument be good or no I doubt he answers it but it is plaine hee thought that by holy things the Sacrament of the Lords Supper was meant in part Rutherfords divine right c. 5 q. 1. Gillespy Aarons rod. l. 3. cap. 15. Learned Rutherford makes an Argument of this Text for this very purpose and vindicates it from Erastus his Cavils Gillespy stands upon the same Argument and vindicates it from Erastus and Mr Prin. By all this is plaine in what sence the
out such as might have been found Dogs or Swine if he thinks they must be excommunicated first we are not so hasty in that dreadfull sentence What is Mr Humfries case I cannot tell but their principles and the practise of one of them at least makes some think that they will never take any course to find out who be Swine or Dogs and declare them such except such Dogs as have lost their tailes and cannot fawne enough on them But very zealous they are to declare that all Dogs that are not hang'd by excommunication must be fed with the childrens bread The Lord forgive them this iniquity 3 We have seen what is meant by holy things and have proved that there is no reason to exclude the Sacrament of the Lords Supper We have also shewed who are meant by Dogs There remaines onely to be considered to whom this precept is given Surely all will grant me To those who have holy things to give those whom God hath betrusted with the dispensation of his Ordinances unto others I ask no more and will not enter into a debate here who these are whether the Minister alone or the whole Presbytery c. So then the sense of this place is this You whom I have betrusted with the dispensation of my holy Ordinances take heed you doe not dispense any of them out to impure sinners who will but trample upon them and teare you excepting onely such of my Ordinances as I appointed them as proper meanes for their conversion have other where expresly commanded you to give unto them Nor is that any unjustifiable interpretation for that precept thou shalt not kill must be understood with exception of those whom as Magistrates executing Justice or Souldiers fighting Gods Battles are commanded to kill and the whole Word of God is his Law no piece of which contradicteth other So that the Argument from this Text will hold till Mr Humfry or Mr Boatman doe shew us â—â—om other Scriptures where God hath commanded this Sacrament to be given to all but excommunicated persons which will be hard to find Learned and Reverend Gillespy hath observed Erast l. 3. cap. 5 Gillespy Aarons rod. p. 551. that this Argument gained so much upon Erastus that he restricted himselfe to the admission of such onely to the Sacrament as acknowledge and confesse their sins and promise amendment and desire to use the Sacrament rightly with the rest so far as we are able to judge which concession as he saith rightly will goe very far And I find as much in another place of Erastus Tertium est nos de illis solis loqui qui doctrinam intelligunt probant amplectuntur peccata sua se cognoscere verò ajunt Sacramentis secundum institutionem Christi cum ecclesiâ uti cupiunt ilâ—d Erast confirm the sium in praefat where hee tels us that he onely speakes for such sinners who understand and approve of and imbrace the doctrine of the Gospell who affirme that they doe truly acknowledge and abominate their sins and desire to enjoy the Sacraments with the Church according to Christs institution We desire but one thing more for let it but appeare to us that any doe thus much and let them be content further if their sin have been scandalous to give us some proofe by a better conversation that this profession is in truth And none of those I plead for will suspend him from the Ordinance But Erastus his Scholers are something more loose then their Master Mr Humfry doth not know what to say for ignorant persons because of Heb. 5.2 but the Apostle could determine those unworthy 1 Cor. 11. who discerned not the Lords body And for the scandalous they must be admonished twice or thrice first Oh how tender the good man is lest he should offend Jesus Christ in not giving his blood to one who profanes it by swearing by it every day Mr Humfry's vindicat p. â—1 But it would be enquired whither Mr Humfry be as carefull to enquire into the state of his flock and to admonish scandalous sinners as he is to plead for the Lords Supper for those be they what they will who are not first admonished twice or thrice Conscience is uniforme and will oblige him sure as well to the latter as the former I neither know him nor his people and have no reason either to judge them scandalous or him negligent but it is usually observed that those who pretend a great deale of tendernesse of Conscience in this point Oh they durst not keep any from the Sacrament except they were excommunicated which they know they cannot be as our Church stands at present But these men durst be in company with scandalous sinners and heare sweare and ly and jeer at Godlinesse and yet never admonish them no there they must use Christian prudence admonition is an holy thing must not be given to Dogs but the Sacrament is none belike that may There are two sorts of men in the world are very large in their principles as to admissions to this Ordinance 1. Such as pretend conscience against those Officers in the Church whom the Scripture cals ruling Elders 2. Such as professe their judgement for them 1. Some professe their judgement against ruling Elders as Judges of communicants fitnesse with the Minister though Deane Nowell tels them they were Officers in the Primitive Church used to that purpose in his Catechism Gr. Lat. of old Edit as is yet to be seen in many Copies and especially in the Latine Copies of it in 4 to though some have unworthily left it out in the late Edit Now would these men themselves take upon them the strict inspection of their flock and make it their businesse to goe from house to house and take account of their peoples knowledge and strictly to observe their lives and admonish them for their miscarriages and not admit any notorious sinners to the Sacrament before publick satisfaction in causes of publick scandall either taking upon them themselves according to the old Rubrick to put them by or finding some other course to have them debarred though my judgement would condemn them as neglecting an Ordinance of Christ yet my charity would beare with them till they were further convinced 2 Others professe their judgements to stand for Presbyteries but they know not how to get any yet they think they are bound to administer the Ordinance Would these men first doe what in them lies to set up the Government of Christ in the bands of his proper Officers and in the meane time 1. Not onely in the Pulpit exhort c. but indeavour to be acquainted with all in their flock going from house to house and taking account of their spirituall estate and observe and enquire concerning their conversations and 3. Pastorally admonish those that they find ignorant of that great sin of Affected ignorance and unprofitablenesse under the meanes of grace and this not only in the
Pulpit generally but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 personally and particularly I could say something to excuse them at least à tanto for administring the Ordinance without a Presbytery and they might have a little plea made for them though they kept away none as the state of our Church stands though for my owne part I durst undertake to justifie them in withholding the Sacrament from known scandalous sinners who after pastorall admonition where no more can be shall yet presume to intrude But I heare Mr Humâ—ry and Mr Boatman cry they must be excommunicated first and the latter cry he knows none ignorant nor scandalous if they were yet they both agree that they must be juridically excommunicated But doe these tender men set up this same Court in which the scandalous and ignorant should be first judged or doe they by enquiry of others or observation or examination first endeavour to know such as they invite to the Lords Table and not administer the Ordinance till they have done what in them lies to know whether there be none in their congregations that are ignorant or excommunicate de jure For one of them I can say something though nothing to perswade me or any other that it is from a tendernesse of conscience he is so free I shall now shut up this first Argument it amounts to thus much The holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper is one of those holy things which our Saviour Christ in Mat. 7.6 forbids us to give unto Dogs or to cast before Swine They have the nature of holy things there is no reason to exclude them Expositors generally have so judged Men of impure lives and conversations are Dogs and Swine in Scripture phrase and such as will trample upon the Ordinance It will be an easie conclusion If God hath required those whom he hath betrusted with his holy things not to give them out to such as his word describes to be Dogs and Swine then though there may be some in the Church not yet excommunicated yet they ought not to have the holy thing of the Sacrament given to them But I have proved this to be the will of Christ from this Text Ergo If Mr Boatman can finde out a medium betwixt not giving the Sacrament to them and denying it to them I shall listen to him otherwise by his leave here is a Scripture-prohibition for some to be kept away who are neither Turks nor Jewes nor Heathens nor excommunicated persons and he needed not have challenged all the Ministers on the earth to this task CHAP. III. VVherein a second Argument is brought to prove suspension distinct from excommunication from 1 Cor. 10.21 A second Argument is this It is unlawfull to give the Sacrament to those who cannot eatâ—r drink it But there may be some in the Church not excommunicated who cannot drink of the Lords cup. Ergo I will prove both propositions 1. For the major BEfore I prove it it will be necessary that we consider in what sense the Apostle useth this phrase in the place I allude to 1 Cor. 10.21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the question is what Impotency is there meant 1. That it is not to be understood of the want of a Physicall power is plaine enough for so they might eat at the Table of the Lord and the Devils Table 100. 2. It must therefore be understood in a morall sense Id tantum possumus quodjur possumus You cannot that is lawfully and warrantably you cannot drink of the cup of the Lord and the cup of Devils Grotius minceth this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too small v. Grotium ad loc when he expounds it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Pareus observes against him well that it is a manifest depraving of the sense v. Pareum ad loc the Apostles designe being to shew a plain inconsistency betwixt a fellowship with Christ in his Ordinances and with Devils at Idols Feasts not a meere indecorum in it This is one of the senses which Musculus gives of the Text. 3. Musc ad loc I find indeed a third sense of the words hinted by some reverend Expositors You cannot drink of the cup of the Lord and of the cup of Devils You cannot eat of the Table of the Lord and of the Table of Devils That is say they though you may enjoy an outward Communion in the Ordinance yet you cannot enjoy an inward spirituall Communion with Christ in it As Augustine supposing Judas was at the Lords Supper saith that he did eat Panem Domins but not Panem Dominum But I think Learned Beza saith something against this sense when he tels us that by the Table is meant the Elements upon the Table and by the cup the wine in the cup. If the Apostle had said you cannot eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ if you have fellowship with Devils the Apostle might possibly have been so interpreted but his Argument is plainly to prove the unlawfulnesse of their comming to the Table being guilty of such sinns But the summe of all amounts to this that those who cannot drink the cup and eat at the Table of the Lord in the sense of this Text are either 1. Such as God hath forbidden comming to that Ordinance Or secondly such as if they sush upon the Ordinance yet can have no Communion with Christ no benefit by it I will take it in either sense and I say It is sinfull for any to administer the Ordinance of the Supper to those whom he knowes to be such as are forbidden to meddle with it or whom he knowes to be such as considering their present state cannot have Communion with Christ in it This I hope will easily be proved For surely it will be granted that it is sinfull for any to give it to those to whom he is not commanded to give it for he is the steward of the mysteries of God and must expect his masters order before he deales them out nor will it be enough to say he is not forbidden for his very Office forbids him and in that he is not commanded he is expresly forbidden Now a Minister is not commanded any where surely to give it to those who are forbidden to receive it To say no more in this case I hope we have all too reverent thoughts of the wisdome of God to think that he should lay his Minister under an obligation to administer his Ordinance to those whom he hath warned upon pain of damnation not to take it Though this were enough for those who encline to the other sense doe cleerly yet grant that those who partook of the Table of Devils are here either forbidden that Table or the Lords Table which if it be true as questionlesse it is our Adversaries must maintaine that they are commanded to give the Sacrament to those whom the same God forbids to take it yet possibly the other part may be more disputable viz. Whether a Minister
is a good continuall cause of joy and rejoycing The other is Ravanella in Verbo Festum Is 25. of which by and by Ravanella ranks all the usages of the terme in the Old Testament where it is taken for the whole or any part of the Jewish Worship under the metaphoricall acceptation and tels us that Zach. 14.16 18 19. it is taken for all the Gospell-worship For the Jewish worship all their service almost might properly be called a Feast because they had literall Feasts at them But 't is certaine the Apostle here doth not exhort the Corinthians to keep the Jewish Feasts Nor can feast be taken for joy and mirth as Pro. 15.15 for then the sense is this Let us keep a Feast of joy which any reader will see was not the Apostles meaning It remains therefore that we expound it by Is 25.6 where the Lord promises to make a Feast of fat things By which he promiseth all Gospell-Ordinances and a Gospell-Communion with his people God makes the Feast in giving us Christ and his Ordinances we keep the feast in waiting upon God in all the duties of Church-Communion Let us keep the Feast is Let us walk in a communion in Gospell Ordinances Let us enjoy Gospell Ordinances and worship God together under the Gospell Not with the leaven of malice and unrighteousness not in a scandalous communion c. Thomas Erastus saith that by feast is meant here Confirm thes 1. cap. 6. So Mr Humfry 's vind p. 85 v Chrys in or atione contra eos qui novilunia observant Homil. 40. c. in 12. cap. Mat. a Christians whole conversation I confesse I find some Reverend Expositors of his mind though it may be not wholly Chrysostome is the most Ancient who in his Oration against those who observed new Moons and brought dancings into the City expounds it thus against them teiling his hearers that a Christians whole life is a Feast and to be so spent And he saith as much as I remember in his fourth Homily on the twelth Chapter of Matthew Theophylact followes him and yet neither of them restraine it to that No more doth Beza Calv. ad loe who yet stretcheth it to that latitude Calvin also hints it but adds Si Christi carne sanguine pasci velimus afferamus ad hoc epulum sinceritatem veritatem whence may easily be gathered that Mr Calvin thought the Sacament of the Body and Blood of Christ was also here intended which is enough for me I acknowledge many reverend Expositors expound it of an holy life Ego vero soli scripturae hunc bonorem deserendum censco c. Hâ—eron 't is enough for me that they doe not exclude the Lords Supper and I must be excused if for the reasons before specified I think it chiefly meant For I have learned with Hierom to give this honour onely to the sacred Word of God to beleeve what it saith because it faith it First therefore I say 1. The Lords Supper is a part of the Gospell-Feast and the onely proper Feast of it 2. The relation this Text hath to the Passeover seemes to me to prove it 3. It was doubtless chiefly in reference to this Communion that the Church was to be purged for some civill Communion and some Communion with an incestuous person in other Ordinances may be allowed But if we should admit this that the meaning were that we should not in our conversation have Communion with scandalous sinners I see no harme at all would follow upon it For surely if we ought not to converse with such in our civill conversation much less is it lawfull for us to have Communion with such at the Lords Table And surely if it be unlawfull for Christians to have Communion with such though in the Church it is unlawfull for the Officers of the Church to admit such to Communion with them But this we shall fall in with anon in the mean time I maintaine that the clear sense of that place is that we ought not to have a Communion at the Lords Supper with scandalous sinners But I shall come to a second Argument Argument 2 If there may be some in the Church not yet cast out by excommunication who are Fornicators or Covetous or Idolaters or Railers or Drunkards or Extortioners then there may be some such in the Church with whom a Christian ought not to eat the Lords Supper But there may be such in the Church Ergo. The minor will be easily granted The major I ground on 1 Cor. 5.11 All that can be said in the case is that the eating there forbidden is not eating the Lords Supper So saith Thomas Erastus Confirm thesi p. 258. l. 3. c. 8. vind p. 83.84 Mr Prins vind of 4 serious questions p. 9. so Mr Prin so Mr Humfry To this two things have been already answered and except I see need I shall add little of my own 1. That it can never be proved that it is not meant of Sacramentall eating but of civil eating 2. That there are grounds for the contrary opinion 3. That admitting it yet the Argument stands strong First I desire to know a reason why our adversaries will needs restraine that Text to a civill Communion Erastus gives these reasons 1. The Apostles precept concerning denying Communion must not be so interpreted as to contradict Christs precept But Christ commanded all to receive Beza grants both Beza de Presh excom p. 70. and answers that Christ might command his Apostles to doe that which considering the time he did not But although I reverence Beza yet I think he hath granted too much and besides that his answer is not to the objection which is founded not on Christs practice but his precept I deny the Assumption therefore and demand of Erastus and all his followers Erast theses thesi 26.27 28. where Christ commands to give the Sacrament to all Erastus tels us he hath proved it but where none knowes all that I find in him looking that way is but a negative argument Christ did not forbid any nor doe we find that he left his disciples any such order nor ever reproved any that they did come to the Sacrament all which comes short of this that Christ did command the administration to all thesi 30. and it is too weake that Erastus hath thesi 30. that Christ said drink ye all of it for those all were all visible saints though Judas was there which shall never be proved yet Judas was not discovered to the communicants It is worth the observing that Christ did not so much as call up the Jewes in the same house which he would have done probably if he had intended for all Erastus saith page 249. Christ inviteth all to repentance Ergo to the Sacrament If the syllogisme be put in forme saith Mr Rutherford the major is blasphemy Ruth divine right page 362. for by the same argument might
it to him for it is plaine from Iohn 13. that the Disciples knew it not till then and he then having received the sop went out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Iohn which by the way as I shall prove more anon was both before the eating of the Paschall Lambe and before the institution of the Lords Supper too It is worth our observing that Christ did not so much as call up those of the same house which it is more then probable that he would have done if he had intended it for a converting Ordinance or for all promiscuously Nay surely Christ had more disciples then the twelve but the twelve onely if all of them were present 2. Some think that they have a precept for promiscuous administring this Ordinance from Mat. 28.19 20. where we have our commission in these words Goe teach all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father the Senne and the Holy Ghost 1. To that I answer 1. There is nothing exprest concerning the administration of the Lords Supper and our opposites who are so nimble at every turn to call for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should remember that by it they oblige themselves to doe the like But secondly admit that there is an implicit precept likewise for the administration of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper yet surely by the same rule that the Apostles notwithstanding that precept did not think themselves obliged to baptize any but such as beleeved and confessed their sins we may also expound the included part of the precept and must administer this Ordinance to none but such as are able to examine themselves and to discerne the Lord Body So that this will not serve their turne Thirdly Erastus and Mr Humfry and Mr Boatman make a great stir with the wedding Supper Mat. 22. to which all were invited c. But 1. They should remember that old and true rule Theologia parabolica non est argumentativa No argument can be fetcht from Parables but from the generall scope of them v Mr Humfrie's rejoinder p. 52.53.54 Now he that runs may read that our Saviours main scope in that Parable was not to shew who might or might not come to the Lords Table but to shew how angry God was with the Jewes for not comming to Christ by which unbeliefe of theirs they procured destruction to themselves and God would now call in the Heathens and those who before were not his people to be his people and to fill up his Feast 2. If Mr Humfry or Mr Beatman thinke they may argue from any of the foure feet of that parable as to this cause they may prove it to be their duty not onely to stand in a Pulpit and invite all the Lords Table but to goe into high waies and hedges too and bring in all they meet with yea and to compell them to come in Now it will prove too that they ought to fetch in Pagans who are chiefly meant in the latter part of the Parable And thus they shall not need to want company at the Lords Table 3. Doctor Drake answered Mr Humfry well I think when he told him that Christ is the Feast meant in that Parable and although all be invited to the Feast Christ yet the question is whether all be invited to eat of that dish in the Feast viz. Dr Drakes Bâ—â— to free admission p. 30. Mr Humfries rejoinder p. 54. the Sacrament of the Lords Supper as wel as they are invited to hear the Gospel Here now M. Humfry hath a mind more to shew his wit then his honesty thus he answers him p. 54. This is something ingenuous but whoreas he applies this that a man may be invited to a Feast yet not to the dish in the Feast it is very fine c. then he tels us a tale of the two egs and concludes let us have the dishes of the Feast and what will become of Mr Drakes Feast How falsly hath he abused Dr Drake let the Reader judge Dr Drake doth not say they are not invited to any dish but they are not invited to every dish and if the dish of the Sacrament be removed there will a Feast still remaine But the truth is it was properest for Mr Humfry to abuse his Adversary when he could not answer him If this and other passages of the same nature in that unworthy book be not enough to make it stink in the nostrils of conscientious Christians let them but read his language p. 269. and the application of Scripture to serve his nastie intentions and they may help a little towards it 4. I never heard of any more Scripture precepts pretended onely that 1 Cor. 11.24 where I desire the Reader to consider 1. That the Apostle doth but repeat the words of our Saviour which were spoke to none but visible Saints 2. The Apostle delivers the same words to them he bids them Doe that c. Which by the way is not a command to their Pastors to administer it but to the Church to receive the Sacrament and surely doth not concerne those who in that Chapter are commanded to examine themselves c. and are not able to doe it The question is whether the Apostle v. 24. doth command them to receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper who could not examine themselves according his rule v. 28. nor discern the Lords body or who if they did partake must necessarily eat and drink their owne damnation and make themselves guilty of the body and blood of Christ Surely this was very absurd to say If not this precept is nothing to the purpose sounding no more then this you that are fit to doe this doe this We are now come to examine if they have any examples I never heard but of three pretended indeed they are great ones and enough if they be made appeare for their purpose The first that of Christ who admitted Iudas as some think The second Mr Humfry mentions Acts 2.41.42 The third is of the Church of Corinth I will speak of the latter two first The first then is Acts 2.41 42. in the 41 verse 3000 soules were added to the Church verse 42. it is said they continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayers To this I answer 1. I should put our opposites hand to it to prove that the breaking of bread here spoke of was the Sacramentall action I could tell them of many who are of another mind A phrase like this Luke 24.30 he took bread and blessed and brake it c. is used to express common eating at our own Tables 2. But I confess I encline to to think it was Sacramentall breaking of bread and so the Syriack version reads it So the phrase is used 1 Cor. 10.16 But who were those that brake berad together such as verse 37. were prickt at the heart and had cryed out v. Mr Palmerâ— answer to Humfry p. 51. Men and Brethren
ibid. ibid. A third Argument he useth which is Dr Drakes fifth Arg. is because all those comfortable expressions Christ used while Iudas was there were with exceptions Iohn 13.10 11. You are clean but not all So ver 18. ver 21. which were left out at the Supper To these Mr Humfry replies what all did Christ never speake graciously to Judas amongst the rest Rejoind p. 9 10. Pray see at leisure Wee may look long enough where after this time he spake comfortably to him wee desire Mr Humfry to shew us But as for Iohn 13.10 11 18 21. he saies it is not in him to answer them I suppose hee meanes God shall give an answer rf peace But he tels us Christ saith he is a Devill but I have chosen him to what to be an Apostle he was not apparently so when he chose him He saies that Christ saies Iudas was not clean yet he washes his feet but the Text saies it not 2. Suppose he did this was but to teach him humility and charity not to entitle him to the Lords Supper 4. Dr Drake adds Because Christ knew him to be a reprobaâ—e To this Mr Humfry onely endeavours to little purpose to fasten a contradiction on the Dr because the Doctor had said before supposing he had knowne him to be so yet Christ as a Minister probably would not exclude him Let the Doctor speak for himselfe 5. Dr Drake adds a fifth Because Christs blood was shed for the remission of those who received Mr Humfry answers 1 Iohn 2.2 And not for ours onely but for the sins of the whole world that is the Pagans as well as the Jewes viz. such of them as being fore ordained to life should beleeve but what is this to the purpose What Mr Humfry meanes by holding universall redemption as to the visible Church so far as reacheth to the tenour and tender of the conditionall Covenant though not of the absolute is too profound for me to fathome Universall redemption Conditionall Covenant Two Convenants one absolute another conditionall are notions in Divinity I doe not understand and think them hardly reconcilable to truth if to sense they are the canting language of those that would supply Franciscus de Sancta Clara's place as to reconciling us and Arminians and are no better then Arminianisme minced for the better digestion Dr Drake also hath another Argument which Mr Gillespy also hints because Christ promised to drinke new wine in his Fathers Kingdome with those who received To this Mr Humfry answereth But he doth not say with all Let him remember that and shew us where it is said that all the twelve were present at the institution of the Supper There is thus much spoken all which possibly will not compell but surely in good natured people it will induce some little perswasion of a probability that Judas was not there Let us now heare what is pleaded on the Traitours side 1. Mat. 26.20 It is said he sate down with the twelve Mar. 14.17 He came with the twelve Luke 22.14 He sate down and the twelve Apostles with him Here 's three Evangelists asserting it they cry But what doe they assert that at their first sitting downe the twelve were all there who denies it the question is not whether they sate downe together but whether they rose up together whether they are the Sacrament together Iohn telling us that Judas went out assoone as he had eaten the sop John 13.30 But Luke tels us that after the institution of the Supper Christ said behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the Table and Lukes Gospell is true Dr Drake answers that there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke puts a piece of the story behind which should have been before Mr Humfry out of his pretended zeale for Saint Luke who he saies could not else speake truth saith that though the Scripture sometimes puts a whole story after another which in order of time was before it yet where shall we find such an histerology as to take a piece of a former story and joine it to another as a part of it Mr Humfries rejoind p. 12 13. to which â—f it be taken as belonging it becomes a manifest fâ—lshood and saies we will not abate a jot or tittle of the truth of Saint Lukes Gospell That those words of Saint Luke should have been placed before is plaine 1. From St Luke himselfe for their hands were now all off the Table the Supper done and the last cup drunke besides he adds ver 23. that the Disciples all wondred who should doe the thing now surely they knew before this time or else Iudas as Mr Humfry would have him could not be scandalous at this time his fact not known to his Disciples 2. St Maâ—thew plainly placeth them before the Administration of the Supper Mat. 26.20 21 22 23 24. So doth Marke ch 14 18 19 20 21. So Saint Iohn Io 13.21 22. which plainly proves it an histerology in Luke 3. Nor is it as Mr Humfry would insinuate a taking a piece of one story and joining it to another which would make it false but onely a misplacing of a piece of the same story which is no unusuall thing amongst the Evangelists 4. Nor will it amount to so much as an invalidating the truth of Lukes Gospell which we desire to be as tender of as Mr Humfry any more then the order he pleades for would invalidate the truth of the other three Lukes being dictated by an infallible spirit doth not oblige us to beleeve every punctilio of order to have been as he describes it contrary to the testimony of the other three Besides Iohn saith plainly he went out But he tels us we are mistaken in Iohn 13. for that was a Supper I know not when nor where two dayes before the Passcover and for this he cites a marginall quotation in our Bibles pointing him to Mat. 26.2 which he bids us look 1. I must confesse this well proved would be something to his purpose it would plainly prove that the sop was eaten by Judas two dayes before the Passeover was celebrated or the Lords Supper instituted and that Judas two dayes before was discovered scandalous to all the Disciples and that two dayes before he deserted Christ and the other Disciples onely if Mr Humfry could prove this it would stand him in hand to prove his coming back well to eat the the Passeover or the Supper 2. But we will yield him nothing he bids us look the margent of our Bibles the place we insist upon is Io. 13.30 where our ordinary Bibles have nothing in the margent so that in obedience to him we must tell him we have enquired but non est inventum in Biblâ—is nostris Indeed to the first verse of that chap. is affixed in marg Mat. 26.2 But thirdly he dreames that the Supper spoken of where Iudas had the sop was a Feast two dayes before the
hath proved that he may have proved that a communion made up of a Saint a Hog a Dog a mad man and a foole is yet a pure communion Surely the appearing purity of a communion in this Ordinance lies in the appearing capacity and worthinesse of all to receive it But I say there may some in the Church who apparently are not fit subjects to receive this holy thing This I easily prove Those that cannot examine themselves that cannot discerne the Lords body or that doe partake of the cup of Devils are apparently not fit subjects to receive the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11.28 29. 1 Cor. 10.21 But there may be such in the Church Ergo. Object Mr Humfry's vind p. 35.36 But Mr Humfry tels us this is false Logick to argue from mens inability to our duty 2. Most men are incapable to heare and pray yet they must doe both 3. Every man must do what he can 4. There is a difference between worthy receiving and receiving worthily To this Doctor Drake hath sufficiently answered Dr Drake's Bar c. p. 114 115 116 117. Scripture Raile p. 92 93 94. c pag. 114 115 136 117 118. And Mr Palmer c. 62 93 94. Dr Drake tels him that visible unfitnesse is the rule of suspension Now with Mr Humfrie's leave we must say that it is good Logick to argue from the visible inability unworthinesse and unfitnesse of the Person that would receive the Sacrament to our duty who are to give it Otherwise for ought I know we might feed Hogs with those Mysteries Will any one not mad say That it is not the duty of us whom God hath betrusted with the dispensing of those Mysteries not to give them to such as are apparently such as God hath declared unable unfit and unworthy to receive them Let any but consider that we are but Trustees with Gods Ordinances and not to deliver them out to any without our Masters Order such as he gives us command to give them to and then this will follow according to Mr Humfrie's Doctrine Either 1. That God hath given us order to give them to those whom he forbad under paine of damnation to receive them nay who have the Markes of such as cannot take them Or secondly 2. That it is Gods will they should take whom his Word declares to be such as cannot take them and if they do they are guilty of the body and bloud of Christ Or thirdly 3. That which we say That if there be any such in the Church they ought by the Officers to be suspended The two former are little lesse than blasphemy implying an inconsistency of the Edicts of the Divine Will each with other But Mr Humfry hath a trick for us Rejoinder pag. 159. For in his rejoynder he tols us it is not a visibility of reall worthinesse is the ground of admission but the visibilâ—ty of Relative worthinesse it is well he askes pardon for that new terme though we understand not the Notion yet the Interpreter he hath sent along with it makes it speake thus It is mens being within the externall Covenant Baptized and in the Church that gives them the right c. I alwaies thought this had been the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whether all baptized persons might be admitted to the Lords Table though ignorant or scandalous if not cast out of the Church Or whether if such they ought to be suspended We say they ought to be suspended not admitted and argue from their unworthiness their reall unworthinesse and incapacity visibly appearing to our duty in denying the Sacrament to them What saies Mr Humfry to this Saies he they are not unworthy relatively though they be visibly unworthy really Strange Language say we what spells it Saies he they are Baptized and not excommunicated if this be not petere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know not what is for we brought our Argument to prove that a visibility of reall unworthinesse made a relative unworthinesse So that Mr Humfry saies this in short They are not unworthy because they are not unworthy For what he saies else upon this Head I shall not meddle with it it little concerneth my businesse I leave him to his proper Adversaries Object But will some say by this Argument you will conclude that the presence of scandalous persons pollutes those who are worthy and pollutes the Ordinance and this is ridiculous This Mr Humfry and Mr Boatman both laugh at So did Erastus their Master Mr Humfry 's vind p. 77. Erasti theses thesi 67. Beza l. de excom Presbyt 68. Sol. To this Beza answered long since It is an easie thing thing to make a man of straw and then pelt him with stones First I know none saies that the Ordinance is polluted I thinke that predicate cannot in any case be properly and strictly predicated of a divine institutions the Ordinance is holy and though it may be abused and profaned yet it is not capable of intrinsecall pollution Secondly It is vanity to say that the presence of a scandalous person can defile a private Member who hath discharged his duty towards him and towards God Christians have incumbent upon them 1. A duty towards God 2. Towards their Brethren if a Communicant hath examined and prepared himself and discharged his duty towards scandalous persons viz. 1. telling them of it 2. Then taking two or three with him and admonishing them 3. Then informing the Officers of the Church I beleeve such a Christian may lawfully communicate with a scandalous person it is nothing can defile him but sin in not doing his duty But with Mr Humfrie's leave and Mr Boatmans too that Christian who knowingly partakes with scandalous sinners not having done this duty to them is defiled not by partaking with them but not having done their duty to them before where by the way we see what snares these Patrons of promiscuous Communion run their godly Communicants into when it may be for one godly person they have ten scandalous communicate with them How impossible is it they should do that duty which is requisite from them to discharge their owne soules without the doing of which they cannot without sin communicate with them Mr Humfry heales the wound of the Daughter of the Lords people slightly Rejoynder pag. 263. when he saies If thy conscience tels thee it is a sin thou art to repent of it by resolving to take the next opportunity to do it and so come 1. So then not doing our duty in order to scandalous persons is sin or not sin according as Conscience tels us This comes up to the Ranters Atheism Nothing is sin but what a man thinkes sin I should have thought that that If should have been lest out for it is plainly our duty Mat. 18.18 and the neglect our sâ—n 2. I doubt whether a man lying under the conscience of any sin against his Neighbour can lawfully partake till he hath done what
in him lies to satisfie Suppose a man hath stollen I should thinke he must not only resolve but if he be able make restitution before he comes to the Lords Table 3. It is a question whether any lying under the guilt of any sin not quotidiana incursionis be bound in duty to come to the Lords Table before he hath evidenced his repentance by the contrary practice To me the negative is out of question But in the last place Though the Ordinance be not polluted by the presence of a scandalous sinner nor the conscience of the worthy Communicant who hath prepared his own heart and done what in him lies towards the reformation and suspension of the scandalous 3. Yet the Officers of the Church are polluted because they have not done their duty for they should have admonished him and being under censure suspended him till he had satisfied the Church Lastly 4. The Fellowship of the Church in generall is polluted the Apostle teacheth us 1 Cor. 5. that the continuing of one scandalous person in the bosome of the Church leavens the whole Lumpe the neglect of a private member redounds indeed but to his owne guilt and defilement but the neglect of the Officers of a Church redounds to the guilt and defilement of the whole Church and justly 1. Partly because they are the representative part of the Church 2. Because it is in the Churches power to remove them if not in the power of a Congregationall Church yet in the power of a Synodicall Church But I shall enlarge no further on this Argument CHAP. VIII Wherein by a seventh Argument the lawfulnesse of suspension is proved because there can lie no Obligation upon the Officers of the Church to give the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to such as visibly are not bound to Receive ARGUMENT 7. Either it is lawfull for the Officers of the Church to deny the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to such as they find ignorant and scandalous and impenitent Or they are bound to give it to such But they are not bound to give it to any such Ergo THe major is unquestionably evident The Minor is to be proved which I prove thus The Officers of the Church are not bound to administer the Ordinance to those who they know are not bound to receive it But grosly ignorant and impenitent scandalous sinners are visibly such as are not bound to receive it Ergo. I shall first open and prove the Major and then come to the Minor 1. I grant that the Minister of the Gospell may be bound to administer an Ordinance to such a one as is not bound to receive it because he may otherwise appeare to him and his unworthinesse may be hid from him We are bound to hold out the Promise as an object of faith to all who appeare to have their hearts smitten with the sense of sin though some of them be Hipocrites we know not who are so 2. But it seems strange to me considering that a Ministers giving the Sacrament and the peoples receiving are relate acts that a Minister should be bound to give to such as he knows are not bound to receive can any one thinke that there should lye an Obligation upon us to preach to our people if it could be proved that there lay no Obligation upon them to heare Now I assume But grossely ignorant and impenitent scandalous sinners are such as visibly appeare not bound to receive the Lords Supper Ergo. That a grossely ignorant and scandalous impenitent sinner while such is bound to receive then he is bound To make himselfe guilty of the body and bloud of Christ To eate and drinke his own damnation To run upon the hazard of being made sick and weake and falling asleep which are all strange things for a man to be bound in conscience unto Let none thinke to avoid this Argument by saying they are bound first to repent and then to receive So that their sin doth not lye in receiving but in not repenting This is plainly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The question is whether the ignorant and impenitent while such if not cast out are bound to receive and it is a begging the question to say they sin in not repenting but not in receiving In receiving saith the Apostle they make themselves guilty of the body and bloud of Christ and they eate and drinke their own damnation And surely if such sinners be not bound to receive the Officers of the Church cannot be bound to give the Ordinance to them the ceasing of their Obligation in reason must also suspend his CHAP. IX Wherein an Eighth and Ninth Argument are brought to prove that Suspension distinct from Excommunication is justifiable from Scripture and sound Reason ARGUMENT 8. If none may be suspended from the Sacrament but those who are Excommunicated then none must be kept away but those who are contumacious But some may be kept away that are not Contumacious Ergo. THe Major is plaine 1. From Scripture Mat. 18. none must be accounted as an Heathen or a Publican but he who refuseth to heare the Church Thus also Divines generally determine So Bonaventure Estius Aquinas Suarez Durandus besides a numberlesse number of Protestant Divines The Minor only needs proofe 1. Surely those that are under admonition ought to be kept away though as yet they declare no Contumacy and it be uncertaine whether they will or no. 2. Suppose one should come to the Minister the morning he were to receive and blaspheme Christ and tell him he came for nothing but to abuse the Church ought this man to be admitted think we Suppose one should come drunke shall he be admitted Mr Humfry saies no what Mr Boatman thinks in that case I cannot tell if he shall not then there is Suspension distinct from Excommunication Suppose a Minister should know one of his Communicants had committed Murther Theft Incest Whoredom the night before according to M Boatmans Doctrine he must be admitted to the Lords Table for Suspension of any person not Excommunicated is a Pharisaicall dream Suppose a Minister upon examination found that his Communicant did not know whether Christ were God or Man a Man or a Woman nor any thing of the Story of the Gospell must he be admitted too He is neither Turke nor Jew nor Pagan nor Excommunicated person Ergo He is holy and must come A Doctrine sure that every one who hath any thing of God in him will see the folly and filth of and which no sober pious or learned man ever yet durst undertake to defend and it is a shame it should be named amongst Christians If profane Argument 9 scandalous persons though Circumcised and not cast out of the Jewish Church nor legally uncleane were yet to be debarred from some Ordinances and the Passeover then such though Baptized and not Excommunicated may be suspended from the Lords Supper But profane scandalous persons though Circumcised and not cast out of the Jewish Church nor
faithfull is plaine not only first from reason but secondly from the expresse words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 4.2 All the Question lies upon the Assumption Whether a Minister of the Gospell cannot discharge the faithfulnesse of a Steward if he delivers the Lords Supper to one that is ignorant or scandalous That he cannot I prove If the faithfulnesse of a Steward lies wholly as to the distribution of his Masters goods in this Praeceptum naturale est ut dispensator qui bona domini dispensat sit fidelis ac prudent in dispensandâ— ergo praeceptum naturale est ut non dispenset homini indigno contra voluntatem institutionem suidomini quia hoc esset contra fidelitatem prudentiam quam in dispensandâ— debet servare c. Becanus in tertia p. de sacram in Com. cap. 5. q. 8. that he doth dispense them to such as his Master hath Commanded him to give them 2. That he dispenseth them to no other and the Minister be a steward and the Sacraments the Lord his Masters goods and he not commanded by his Master to deliver them to the ignorant and scandalous then he cannot shew himselfe a faithfull steward in giving them to such But the Antecedent is true Ergo. To prove the Assumption I must prove these things That the faithfulnesse of a steward as to the dealing out his Masters goods betrusted to him to distribute lies chiefly if not only in this that he gives them out to such and none other but such as his Master commands him to give them to This is so evident to reason that none can deny it but will be posed to assign any other thing wherein he can shew his faithfulnesse more or so much Surely any mans reason will tell him that if his Master gives him a thousand pounds to distribut amongst such and such people his faithfulnesse lies in distributing it to such and none but such though they aske it 2. It is already proved that the Minister is the Lords Steward and the Sacraments are Christs goods committed to him to distribute to others 3. It is as evident that he hath no command from Christ his Master to give them out to such as are apparently scandalous or ignorant Surely it were very absurd to say that Christ should command me his Minister to give out his Ordinances to such as he lets me know are forbidden upon paine of damnation to receive Saint John saith That for such as we know have sinned the sin against the Holy Ghost we should not pray 1 Joh. 5.16 Why Because Prayer can do him no good because we know God will not heare our prayers And shall we thinke that we are bound by Christs Command to administer the Lords Supper to such as wee know it to be the will of God they should not take it Indeed if we do not know it the case is otherwise but for such as we know cannot discerne the Lords body and such as we know are Drunkards Fornicators c. we know the Ordinance can do them no good and we know it is the will of God they should not take it I shall refer it therefore to the judicious Reader to consider whether it can be reasonably judged that when Christ said Driâ—ke you all of it he meanes all you whom I have elsewhere told that if you do drink you shall drinke your own damnation and become guilty of my body and bloud and you who if you do eate and drinke there I will make you sick and weake and fall asleep for it I confesse Mr Jeanes p. 124 125. edit octo I find Reverend and Learned Mr Jeanes speaking something to answer this Argument two things he saith 1. By way of retortion That the faithfulnesse of a Steward lies in going no further than his Masters Commission and he conceives we have no Commission to keep back any but the Commission is directed to us and others 2. He tels us that if we understand by the will of God voluntas signi It is not the will of God viz. the Command of God that we should keep away any But I humbly conceive this is little better than petere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For this is the question 1. Whether we have no command to keep away the ignorant and scandalous though at present the Church be not presbyterated We conceive we have and to that purpose we bring that Text 1 Cor. 4.1 where we are required to be faithfull as Stewards 2. He saies the faithfulnesse of the Steward lies in going no further than our Commission that is but halfe the truth for it lies in going so far as well as no farther Now we say we should not go so far as our Commission Mat. 7.6 if we should administer it promiscuously we plead to go as far as that extends 3. If he meanes we have no Commission 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the word Sacrament is used we grant it but we have proved that we have a Commission 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to sound consequence from Scripture and that it is voluntas signi Gods Command at least implicite if not explicite 4. We desire where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if he stands upon that he can shew us our Commission from Scripture for suspension to be directed to us and others 5. We say that if we should give the Ordinance to any known ignorant and scandalous we should in Mr Jeanes his sence go beyond our Commission having neither precept nor president for it I shall need add no more though I might adde the concurrent Judgement of Divines antient and moderne But I will refer that to the next question where I shall prove that Mr Boatman's tongue ran a little too fast when he said Suspension was a Pharisaicall dreame CHAP. XII Wherein are answered the Objections brought against privative Suspension by the single Minister I Acknowledge that as I have a great many with me in the Affirmative of this Question so have I some very Reverend men who are otherwise perswaded some of which rather thinke that in such cases as these the Ordinance should be wholly omitted Others that the Minister in such cases hath discharged his duty if he hath delivered the truth doctrinally and used his spirituall Rhetorick to deterr or disswade the ignorant and unworthy and these Reverend Brethren are not without some considerable objections I must adde a word or two in answer to them so far as I am able The whole question is Whether the Minister in such cases hath a morall power to deny the Ordinance or no I plead he hath for the same precept that saies to him give not holy things to dogs Minister Sacramentorum per se loquendo habet proprium ac speciale praeceptum quo prohibetur indignu ministrare Sacramentum Becan sum tertia p. tract 2. cap. 5. q. 8. that commands him as a Steward of Gods mysteries to be faithfull that commands him as well as others
former severity and instead of Excommunicating or denying the Sacrament till death which before were very frequent ensures they determined that scandalous persons should being admonished and approving themselves to the Church by these steps be restored to a plenary Communion And now I have given my Reader as good an account as I can find of this Primitive Discipline from whence he may observe 1. That we who desire the Presbyterian reformamation in the exercise of our Disâ—â—pâ—ine require no more than the recovery of this ancient Custome of the Churches of Christ It is as cleare as the light 1. That they admitted none to the Sacrament but such as before had approved themselves to the Church to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enlightened with the knowledge of the Principles of Christian Religion 2. Such as were free from all grosse and scandalous sins and if they did fall into any they required not only a verball profession of their sorrow and a promise of their amendment but that according to the nature of their offence they should be kept from the Sacrament till by an humble contrary walking for some time they had manifested their hearty sorrow and repentance To which purpose they set 1 2 5 10 15 20 yeares for them we plead not for such a time but for a convenient time for them to stand ashamed and to evidence their true repentance And though as to every particular circumstance we do not justifie our Fathers yet in these two maine things we agree with them and insist on no more And for the point of examination so much bogled at it is only in order to the setling of our Churches and the correcting the abuses of corrupt Ministers formerly who should have look'd to that to have admitted no blind ignorant persons to the Lords Table which I have sufficiently evidenced was the Discipline of the ancient Church of Christ Secondly From what hath been said the Reader may judge how simply or maliciously Mr Boatman spake when he told his people that it never entred into the heads of wiser ages to determine for what sins any should be suspended from the Lords Table It is a signe he never read the Councils nor any part of them nor yet Basils Canonicall Epistles ad Amphilochium he would have seen there that for Manslaughter Adultery Fornication Perjury Apostacy and many sins more Suspension was determined I shall conclude this Chapter with that exclamation of Albaspinaeus with which he concludes the two and twentieth Observation of his second book O mirabilem sacrosanctae antiquitatis pietatem religionem O veteris disciplinae sanctitatem mirabilem c. O the admirable piety and Religion of sormer times O the wonderfull holinesse of the Church and strictnesse of her Discipline then In those daies if a Christian in the heat of persecution to save his life had but bowed to an Idoll or offered in their Temple though sorely against their will the Church did not only suspend him from the Sacrament but he could not be restored againe till his dying day or till after seven or ten yeares standing as a penitent Now if Christians give up themselves to their lusts and not to save their lives but to satisfie their beastly lusts only be drunke uncleane sweare lye c. yet if they will but wipe their mouths and say they will do so no more they must presently be admitted to the holy Table yea and they usurpe Christs authority that will keep them away if we may beleeve all that is told us Basil ep Canon ad Amphil. Then the Adulterer might not be admitted till by fifteene yeares holy conversation he had evidenced his repentance now we think fifteen months Ib. Can. 58. Ib. Can. 59. yea fifteene daies too much A Fornicatour must abstaine in those daies eight yeares two he must only beg prayers other two he must only heare other two he must mourne a seventh he must stand and merely look on in the eighth he might be admitted If one had stolne and confessed it himselfe Ib. Can. 61. he must have been kept away a yeare if he had not confessed it two yeares Now it is no more but Let him that hath stolne steale no more and come Ib. Can. 64. If a man had sworne falsly and forsworne himselfe then he must have been kept away eleven yeares now if he sweares profanely it is but a Veniall sin if he saies he is sorry our charity must shut her eyes and beleeve him a visible Saint Nay and we must be made beleeve that all former ages were as mad and as loose as we are No no Reader the feare of God was more upon our fore-fathers hearts they durst do no such things they rather offended by too much severity yet sinners in those daies had ten times more temptations to sin and those of the highest nature from the danger of their lives and spoyling their goods c. we may be as strict as we will and are not tempted but when we are drawn away by our own lusts and enticed O how inexcusable shall the Ministers and Elders of Congregations appeare before the Lord Jesus Christ for the exposing his body and bloud to profanation Shall not the Lord say Behold here my Servants Tertullian and Cyprian how strict they were in furious times Behold my Servant Chrysostome who would rather have suffered his own bloud to have been shed than my Sons to be profaned Behold my Servant Ambrose he was not afraid of the face of an Emperour Theodosius but in a just cause he denied him the Sacrament you were afraid of the face of a rich man afraid of losing ten shillings a yeare afraid of losing the love of those who hate me what shall we say How shall we appeare before the Lord Shall not blushing cover our faces that day The Lord grant it be laid to none of our charge FINIS An Appendix to the former Discourse containing a Discourse of Mr Boatmans in a publike Lecture at Peters in Norwich seeming to answer my first Argument upon the first Question by putting another interpretation upon Mat. 7.6 With some Animadversions tending to prove he said nothing to the purpose in the said Discourse Reader I Shall trouble thee a little further upon the twenty third of March as I told thee in my Preface being intreated by a Reverend Brother in the City to preach his Lecture I preached upon Mat. 7.6 My Sermon was the sum of my first Argument upon the first Question delivered in thesi without the least particular reflection Upon the Lords day after a Friend told me that he heard Mr Boatman did intend to confute me the next Tuesday Accordingly he tooke my Text what work he made with it thou shalt read in the following sheets containing a Copy of his Sermon taken in short-hand from his mouth by a faithfull hand as to the materiall passages which I have to do with I can prove them by many
you deale with and labour to do it in such a way as may not make sinners seeme dogs and swine unto you Indeed I read of some that wrest this Scripture and among many divers of the Romish Church they some of them expound it thus and tell us it may by consequence be reduced to the Sacrament and tell us they are not fit to come to the Sacrament that will not make auricular confession and it is a fond trick that is got up againe in our daies and some would faine bring into the Church but it hath no relation at all to that holy Ordinance For though wicked men which the Scripture calls dogs and swine unfit receivers may tremble when they dare put their hand to the body and bloud of the Lord Jesus Christ yet notwithstanding to preach such a thing from this Text is little better than to speake untruth in the Pulpit It is not truth but truth to purpose that men must speake from sacred Texts of the holy Word of God else they fasten that on the Holy Ghost which he never meant or dreamt and it is a dreadfull account which a great many men in the world have to give vainly to attempt to build any holy foundation on a Text which is either too weake for it or which it doth not at all concerne It is an easie matter to wring a Text so long by the nose as to make it bleed againe and all to little purpose Take notice whatsoever may be urged about this sacred Ordinance from any other place and at another time it is not meant here to speake of it here is to speake to no purpose not worth the speaking it is not the sense of the Holy Ghost I come to the conclusion The Doctrine which I shall gather hence is this It is the duty of every Christian Doctrine especially of every Minister to take heed to whom Paragraph and how they deliver divine truths lest delivering them to obstinate and irreproveable men they labour in vaine and they trample upon them This truth is not once only hinted to us in Scriptures you shall find it was the care of all the Children of God in all Ages and the speciall care of Christ himselfe not to deliver sound and saving truths to some sorts of men sometimes looke how cautelous holy David seemes to be Psal 39.1 2. he makes it one of the highest points of wisdome to consider before whom he uttered words that concerned Gods glory and did not while the notoriously obstinate incorrigible and irreproveable were present these instead of understanding more would turne their backs hate instruction be scoffers and mockers at the facred truths of God To this end and purpose we find how that unlesse in case of speciall Commission and God commanded them to speake home with the hazard of their lives they were alwaies very wary and prudent to whom what of and how they declared the mind of God you may see it at large at your leisure in Isaiah Jeremiah Exekiel you find God speaking of a rebellious stiffenecked people bids the Prophet meddle no more with them pray not for them as if he had said it will be vaine and uselesse altogether successelesse our Saviour Christ when on earth knowing the inveterate hatred of the Pharisees against the great truths delivered light being come into the world c. when he was among these men many times he would make no answer and when he did it was in darke sayings at a distance in Parables as wrapt up into the third heavens and all to let us see caution must be used in dealing with the wicked and obstinate in divine matters things sacred that concerne Gods glory and the honour of men For Reasons Paragraph 5 I need give you no more than what our Saviour Christ doth and the next businesse is to shew you the reason why dog-like Reasons and swine-like men make so little of precious truths and are so unreasonable as to go about to destroy men for endeavouring to do them good and then the application For I le dwell only this day on the Text. First Truths not wisely dispensed holy reproofes not warlly managed are trampled on There is nothing men had need have a greater care of than the honour of Divine Truth Now this is not only hazarded by prostituting sacred truths to this sort of men presently but adventuring on that is the cause they mock and scoffe and will not be reproved We by experience find it brings truth into disgrace makes them vilifie them and slight them by a nod with the head a winke with the eye a shake of the head and it will be very well as our Saviour Christ saith if there be not a spurne with the foot Now saith he never let such precious truths as these be hazarded to contempt and scorne take not such holy paines that might be otherwise imployed and more to purpose it makes them look with an evill eye scorne and scoffe It renders Religion odious and ridiculous to them they cannot see or rather will not see or heare but stop their eare with the adder and although there be an amiable lustre reall excellency and an inexpressible vertue and glory in them yet to them they appeare ridiculous We have examples enough of this in Scriptures John Baptist came into the world and spake for this purpose to see if he could reclaime an erring Generation It is true his words were not altogether ineffectuall Jerusalem and a great part of Judea go out to him yet marke what our Saviour Christ saith he came not eating or drinking and they said he had a devill This was all he got for his paines in abundance the man was mad he was a prating fellow he lookes like one that had lived indeed all his daies in a wildernesse as one out of his wits Our Saviour Christ comes in such a manner as would win the most refractary and hard heart and the most obstinate sinner with meeknesse patience tendernesse pitty he was ready to do every man good none evill he scorned no man he disdained not the Society of Publicans and sinners though the Pharisees made use of it to his disgrace so he might do them good Marke what he gets from others a wine-bibber c. as much scorne and contempt as a Pharisee knew well how to put upon a man heare St Paul that chosen vessell and Apostle of the Gentiles preaching and the next news you heare is what will this babler say That is all he got from another Generation of men such are the swine spoken of and that our Saviour knew before he said this therefore in his divine wisdome he cautioneth his Disciples and those that came after them c. Secondly Reason 2 They will turne againe and rend you not only scorn and rage this is from the ineffectualnesse successelesseness and uselessenesse of such endeavours thereby they endanger themselves as if he had said why will you do
holy counsell You may saith our Saviour do it but it will be very uselesse it will do no good it is a folly it is very dangerous you will be losers and neither God the Gospell the truth or your soules will have gaine You may have a reward in heaven not only when you do but when you suffer for Christs sake yet however take heed of the persons and labour to do it in such a way as may not make sinners seeme dogs and swine to you Here is a messe of stuffe now which doubtlesse was never well boyled by premeditation He makes our Saviour Christ speake strange things here or I am mistaken Our Saviour Christ faith 1. You may do it but where I wonder is do not give do not cast capable of such an interpretation as you may do it 2. Christ according to Mr Boatman saith you may do it but it is to no purpose it is a folly it is dangerous you will be losers and neither God the Gospell the truth nor your soules gaine Where I wonder doth Christ tell his people they may play the fooles and do things to no purpose Nay such things as neither shall redound to Gods glory nor their good Is not this learned Divinity thinke we nay is it not next dore to blasphemy But marke what follows immediately You may have a reward in heaven not only c. Just before Christ is brought in telling them their soules could have no gaine by it but here as if the Lord could so soone forget himselfe he is brought in againe telling them They should have a reward in heaven in doing and suffering c. But besides Christ must also say Take heed how you do it in such a way as may not make sinners appeare dogs and swine c. But where is this in the Text I wonder Christ saith Give not cast not he doth not say you may give but take heed how you give And is that man ever worthy to take the holy word of God into his mouth againe that hath so shamefully and simply perverted a Text as he hath done this For which I appeale to any to judge Now he hath ordered his forces he comes to give us battell and to that purpose tels us He reads of some that wrest this Scripture and amongst many dâ—vers of the Romish Church They some of them expound it thus and tell us it may by consequence be reduced to the Sacrament and tell us they are not fit to come to the Sacrament that will not make auricular Confession and it is a fond trick that some have got up againe in our daies and some would bring into the Church But it had no relation at all to that holy Ordinance for though wicked men which the Scripture cals dogs and swine unfit Receivers may tremble when they dare put their hand to the body and bloud of the Lord Jesus Christ yet notwithstanding to preach such a thing from this Text is little better than to speake untruth in the Pulpit c. Either here is a great deale of ignorance or malice or both discovered 1. Here are pretty odde termes me thinks he reads of some by and by they are many divers of the Romish Church then some of them againe expound it c. the truth is I beleeve he doth not know either how many or how few if he had he would have spoken more modestly 2. He would basely insinuate that they are generally Papists who thinke this Text may be interpreted by consequence of the Sacrament and that they do it to bring in Auricular Confession Both which charges are as notoriously false as can be I wonder who Mr Boatman thinkes Protestants I thinke I have already made it good by testimonies enough that we have some Protestants are of this mind Surely Ursin Chemnitius wollebius Wendelin Zepperus with a multitude of others were no Papists yet they all thinke an Argument may be brought from this Text for Auricular Confession which he seemes so afraid of either he knows not what it is or hath a mind to bespatter holy and Reverend men with falshoods and scandals I am very apt to beleeve Mr Boatman knows so much of Auricular Confession as to know 1. That the Romish Church requires it to be only made to their Priest and if there be any endeavour to bring such a thing now into the Church of all men in the world Mr Boatman and men of his straine should hold their peace for they are the men bring it in we plead for an open triall of Communicants before the Presbytery they say no they will try them alone this comes nearer Auricular Confession 2. But secondly we do not require any confession of secret or more open sins but only that they being proved so guilty they should be unwilling to testifie their humiliation or repentance before they are admitted to the Lords Table so that this whimzie amounts to no more than a gird at the godly Ministers of the Gospell who would bring sinners to a sense of their sins before they are admitted to the Lords Table and it smels ranke enough either of ignorance or malice and signifies nothing But Mr Boatman tels us the Text hath no relation to the Sacrament How doth he prove that Is not the Sacrament an holy thing How proves he it is not here meant Dr Hammond ad locum Dr Hammond ingenuously grants an analogicall relation Now he chargeth me to the purpose To preach such a thing from this Text is little better than to speake untruth in the Pulpit It is not truth but truth to the purpose that men must speake from sacred Texts of the holy Word of God else they fasten that on the Holy Ghost which he never meant or dreampt and it is a dreadfull account which a great many men in the world have to give vainly to attempt to lay any foundation on a Text which is either too weake for it or which it doth not at all concerne It is an easie matter to wring a Text so long by the Nose as to make it bleed againe and all to little purpose Take notice whatsoever may be urged about this Sacred Ordinance from another place and at another time it is not meant here to speake of it here is to speake to no purpose not worth the speaking it is not the sense of the Holy Ghost Here he speakes loud enough and falls upon me pell-mell but with no other weapons than his tongue he charges me with preaching untruth how doth that appeare Mr Boatman saies so and that is all He tels us of fastning somthing upon the Holy Ghost which he never dreampt of No Sir the Holy Ghost doth not use to dreame though fraile man may he carries no sleepy body about with him he tells us It is an easie matter to wring a Text about by the Nose he is much taken it seemes with that phrase but if he will be metaphoricall he should do well