Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	great_a	holy_a	see_v	3,964	5	3.2444	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A80160	Responsoria bipartita, sive vindiciæ suspensionis ecclesiasticæ ut et presbyterii evangelici. A double reply, containing a vindication of the antient practice of the Church (according to the rule of the word) suspending the ignorant and scandalous from the Lords Supper. As also of ecclesiastical presbyteries ... The first in answer to one M. Boatmans challenge of all the ministers on earth to make suspension of any but Turks, Jews, pagans and excommunicate persons from the Lords Supper, appear from Scriptures. In answer to whom the said censure is justified by several arguments from Scripture, and the universal practice of the Church, the magisterial vanity also of his sermon, Decem. 13. and March 28. in Peters Church in Norwich is discovered, ... In which answer also some objections of Erastus, Mr. Prin, and Mr. Humfry, are coilaterally considered, and answered. The second part in answer to Theophilus Brabourn, who hath talked something in a little pamphlet against the Lord Jesus Christ ... / By John Collings, B.D. and pastor of the church of Christ in Stephens parish in Norwich.	Collinges, John, 1623-1690.	1655 (1655)	Wing C5333; Thomason E832_2; ESTC R207514	201,020	319

thing well take heed you be not the cause offences must come in the world dogs and swine there will be in the sense of the Text take heed you be not the cause it is sad when a man may say yonder is a fellow gone resolutely refractorily to hell when as if he had been dealt mildly withall he might have been saved possibly I meane in relation to thee and thy admonitions though in respect of the man and his capacity it was impossible this will sadly reflect on thy spirit think ye it would not have grieved the father of the Prodigall instead of receiving his Son seasonably and taking a fitter time to reprove him if he had sent him away a dog or a swine if he had sent him away damned without remedy what sad reflections of heart might this have caused The Apostle gives advice to Fathers to reprove their Children Masters their Servants for an ill servant reproofe is necessary ay and the rod too sometimes as Solomon saies but it must be in season and proportion done cautelously and warily I le adde but one more I shall put them together because I will wind up fast if you would not make them dogs nor give them cause to repudiate Take heed that what you reproove for be grounded in relation to truth and pertinent not triviall that makes men not received amongst men men take occasion to babble about impertinencies and fall on a man to reprove him because he is not so and so according to their fancies and their wild and haire-brain'd imaginations and thus they make a great opposition to more solid and serious administrations when men rage in trifles what cares a man what he saith in solid things That Minister shall never be beleeved when he speakes in earnest who cries hell and damnation in jest be sure that it be tantum that you speake that the fault be commensurate and not lesse than your expressions yea above them at least equall with them Cure if possible by a lenitive first before you use a corrosive serious admonition in such a way gains the advantage of mens dispositions Nor let it be a hearesay that is a lie fama mala we heare a man did so and so we heare thus and thus of him you shall heare a man some imprudent Christian come with open mouth and reprove a man for such a thing that hath been declared to them and they heare so this is the ground of all that uncharitablenesse and raging among men in the world this makes them doggs to one another that they will not heare one another either men talke of impertinencies and it is not tantum whether it be so or it be not I have heard such a man will keep company my neighbour will be drunke and sweare when neither is true thus instead of making a man heare and being well pleased they give them cause to rage in fastning on them such aspersions as they are not guilty of as impertinent so uncertaine reproofes are evill In a word I blesse God you are not left in that estate and condition not of an incorrigible spirit as yet you are not yet shut out of Heaven do you blesse God and I will blesse God with you ye are not yet dogs or swine far be it from me to justifie any of you in your enormities in your sins profanenesses and debauched courses if there be any such if any be found guilty of it thus much I dare say to your praise as the Apostle saith in another case I hope better things of you though I thus speake I know not a man among you of an irreprovable spirit I have not met with a dog or a swine that will rage at admonition or be angry with me for Preaching unlesse it be some selfe-conceited Pharisee that cannot endure any body should be accounted holy as themselves These indeed barke and bite rage and rave revile scandalize and asperse Blesse God you are not dogs and swine beware you be not so reproofe is precious however if seriously received Blesse God you live one among another and in any respect can build up one another in your holy faith reforme refraine and restraine one another but do it wisely and warily And the peace of God which passeth all understanding c. Animadversions upon the preceding Sermon wherein the Reader may discover how weakely Mr Boatman that day though with incredible confidence maintained that Admonition and preaching of the Gospell was the utmost meant in Mat. 7.6 and Mr Collings is vindicated from preaching Vntruth in pleading there was no just reason to exclude the Sacrament from the number of Pearles and holy things there spoken of Reader THou hast had now a Copy of the confuting-Sermon I durst trust it to any learned and judicious Reader to judge how my Argument is answered and doubt not but a small competency of Learning in any will be enough to make him cry out multa dicit nihil respondet But as our Saviour saith all men have not faith so in regard all men have not such a quicknesse of Judgement I will help their eyes by an Animadversion or two In the first place Reader I desire thee to observe the force of my Argument it lies thus The Text containing a generall prohibition without any restriction not saying this or that holy thing or this or that pearle it seems to be a great boldnesse in any to restraine it It is therefore most consonant to reason that it should be understood of all those holy things which God hath betrusted man with the giving out which he forbids to be given out to such persons as for their vicious qualities are in Scripture language called dogs or swine Nor is it to be restrained but by Scripture elsewhere dispensing with the giving out of some holy things to some such kinds of sinners This I thinke is an equitable interpretation and so candid that it cannot be liable to any exception Locum unum sacrae Scripturae exponere per alium ejusdem Scripturae clariorem optima interpretatio Aug. de Doct. Christ c. 26. Remembring that golden observation of Augustines That it is the best interpretation of Scripture to expound it by it selfe And if this be true it necessarily follows Either that the Sacrament is not an holy thing or else secondly That there is plaine allowance in Scripture for that to be given to dogs though some holy things must not Or else thirdly what I inferred In the belly of this generall prohibition is an evid●nt injunction for us unto giving out the Sacrament to any such as the Scripture calls dogs or swine I would faine know whether this proposition may not naturally be drawn from those words Mat. 7.6 Holy things and Pearles must not be given to dogs or swine The proposition is ind●finite and reducible to ●n universall or particular we plead it is to be reduced to an universall because the materia is necess●a●●● It is a divine precept

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

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 S●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 coenā 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 ●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

us and loudly enough charged both us and the Churches and Servants of God as Dreamers pharisaicall Dreamers bold intruders upon Christs authority such as do things contrary to all former ages who devise things to implode Scriptures c. Thus he talkes we turne againe to give him battle he runs away and tells us he will not bestow paines to so little purpose valiantly done Is it not thinke you 6. But he tels me if I appeare in publike c. he shall then know what he hath to do In obedience to him and conceiving him at some little losse as to that point I have wrote what he will do now I do not know nor care 7. He charges me sufficiently thou seest as 1. A Companion of Backebiters 2. One who hath given him foule language So foule that it puts the good man to his prayers 3. One of a strange spirit 4. One who loves to appeare in publike 5. One who have grossely deported my selfe to a Gentleman c. 6. A wrangler 7. A lover of contention Who are my Companions is sufficiently known in this City and I hope those who observe Mr Boatmans Companions and mine will not thinke his so far excelling I desire to be a Companion of those who feare the Lord who are his Companions let others observe and judge I shall not judge any I thinke the rule good Noscitur ex socio qui non dignoscitur ex se that a man who is not known of himselfe is known by his Companion which laies a little obligation upon me besides what Gods Word laies For the foule Language in my Letter read and judge how just the Charge is if it were just I hope he hath fitted me hoc sumus ergo pares For my strange spirit Indeed I am one of those who know not what spirit I am of the Lord sanctifie me yet more in body and mind and spirit For my love to appeare in Print I can say somthing to vindicate my selfe I have Printed nothing but three or foure practicall discourses at whose sollicitations and after how many sollicitations some very neare me can tell and I have some Letters from very Reverend mento testifie And two or three polemicall discourses the glory of God required them of me in these sinfull times I know not what should make me so love that work not honour sure It is almost a scandall in this Age to be seen under the Presse so shamefully is it prostituted Not Gaine I never yet sold a Copy to my Stationer nay besides fifty or sixty Copies given me for my friends I have been forced to buy usually as many more Surely it is no pleasure Those who know what it is first to study then to transcribe a tract then to review the sheets and to make Tables find it no pleasant worke It was not to employ my selfe Those who know me know I have worke enough and those with whom I live know that all the time almost I can get for any such eccentrick work I am forced to steale from my sleep 8. For my grosse deportment I am charged with Reader thou hast the truth and the whole truth Be thou my Judge For his other charges it is no new thing for the adversaries of truth to fasten such termes upon the Patrons of it Mr Boatman must impudently defie the Truths Churches Servants of the living God but no body must call him to account for it but they must be wranglers c. If that be to wrangle we must wrangle more He aggravates my grosse deportments as he cals them because they concerne him as a GENTLEMAN a Christian and a Minister For his being a Christian I never heard any say he was not baptized nor ever said any thing tending to that purpose For his Gentlemanship I was altogether ignorant having not seen his Pedegree so that I have Pauls excuse who when he was accused for reviling as they called it the High Priest excused himselfe by saying I did not know it was the High Priest he was never reported to me under that notion I confesse I am not skilled in Heraldry I thinke Gentility comes in by Consanguinity not affinity But however I do not know that I said or did any thing against him which touched his Gentleman-concernments For his being a Minister all I can say is He is confidently reported to me to be none and that by Reverend men who know what they say and take heed to their words If he hath been made such by some Irish Bishop or the like in a corner since the first came hither so it is but I know no reason we have to beleeve it till some credible persons see his Letters of Ordination nor can we at least till then eye him as such In the last place he tels us To love contention is very far from the spirit of John Boatman Pastour of Peters in Norwich For his being Pastor of Peters in Norwich we cannot own him as such till we know at what doore he came in having great grounds he climbed up some other way besides there are some sheep of that flock that will not heare his voice nor follow him looking upon him as a stranger whether he loves Contention or no let those who read his Sermon judge But thus much shall serve for his Letter After the receit of which I was resolved to have done no more but to have betaken my selfe to my Study to see if the Church of God had been in an errour these 1500 yeares about Suspension And to my Bible to search the Scriptures to see whether it were so in very deed as this Doctor had told us that there was no footsteps there to keep any not excommunicated from the Sacrament But notwithstanding all this I heard his friends in the Town kept up their old Note and decried us as if we were indeed such Trifles and simple fellows that none of us durst grapple with this Champion and none could induce a perswasion in them that we durst dispute or had made any offer to that purpose Perceiving no other way so probably effectuall to satisfie people upon a Lords day soone after my Sermon being done before a great Congregation I made a short and mild speech to my people to this purpose That they had known that it had been the judgement and practice of us who laboured in the worke of the Gospell amongst them to suspend the ignorant and scandalous from the Supper of the Lord for which we conceived we had sufficient ground from the Word of God and in it we acted but in a conformity to the practice of the Servants and Churches of Christ in all Ages to the practice of the most reformed Churches and this was the declared judgement of our Church ever since the very beginnings of Reformation But in opposition they had lately heard it delivered in this City in a publike Auditory that for Suspension it was a dreame yea a Pharisaicall dreame an invention of men

expounded it twice before by that very phrase not to keep company Gillespy p. 427 that phrase is indeed twice before but saith Mr Gillespy having twice before forbidden that it appeares here he meanes something more I meet with one reason more in Mr Prin saith he it cannot be meant of eating at the Lords Table ibid 4. because this precept extends to those out of the Church also who were such as appeares by v. 10.11 12 13. compared together I answer Sol. that those who are Christians should not have any Communion with Heathens that are profane I grant 2. That they are forbidden here I cannot see Thirdly the Apostle saith ver 5. If any man be called a brother and be such or such c. and plainly tels them ver 10. that his meaning was not that they should altogether forbeare company with the fornicators of the world Fourthly admit this That this precept concernes our carriage to Heathens as well as Brethren though not equally as Mr Prin confesseth yet how doth it follow that the not eating here cannot be understood of Sacramentall eating indeed it will follow it cannot be meant of that onely which we doe not contend for I meet with no more pretended reasons Mr Humfry hath magisterially told us he is of this mind but hath given us no reason neither in his vindication nor his rejoinder I have done the first thing shewing you that there hath not yet been made appear by any sufficient ground that the not eating here is to be restraind to civill Communion if it were it would be to no great purpose onely it would make us make use of this Scripture as a radix for an undeniable Argument whereas yet we plead for a direct literall prohibition but of that in the third place I come now to my second taske in which I shall do two things 1. I shall shew you some grounds which may make us probably judge that the Sacramentall eating was the chiefe thing here intended 2. Why civill Communion should not bee the onely thing here forbidden As to the first take these grounds for my opinion First by the Feast before mentioned ver 8. he meant the Sacrament this immediately followes That by the Feast v. 8. the Sacrament is meant I shewed before Secondly there is no other Ordinance wherein people are to eat one with another but this and when the Text contradicts not other Scriptures doubtlesse it is not to be expounded by a figure The businesse of the Apostle was to command the casting out of the incestuous person out of Church Communion in excommunication there are two parts The first is positive A solemn delivering up the obstinate person to Satan This he commanded before ver 3.4 The other is privative and consists in denying of the excommunicate person intimacy of civill Communion 2. Church Communion in some Ordinances as for the first he had forbidden it in these words keep no company with such a one As to the second he forbids here No nor eat with such a one I no where read that the excommunicate person must not be preached to for though he be as an Heathen yet not in a worse condition as to that sure I read he must be admonished as a Brother I read not that we may not pray with him But we must have no Communion with him in such Ordinances which doe belong to a man as a member of the Church The chiefe of these is the Sacrament of the Supper therefore the Apostle forbids to eat with him that is at the Lords Table and so he hath given a perfect command for executing a sentence of excommunication on him in all its branches which he sums up ver 13. Therefore put away from amongst you that wicked person Fourthly either Sacramentall eating is here forbidden or civill eating or both If the first or the last 't is all we ask I shall now prove the second thing 2. That it it not probable that civill eating is here forbidden 1. Civill Communion was twice forbidden before under the notion of keep no company 2. Civill Communion so far as eating goes is lawfull for Christians sure with a Drunkard a covetous person or the like or else as the Apostle tels us wee must goe out of the world This Erastus and the worthy Gentleman so often named foresaw and therefore spent much paines to work themselves out of this hedge of difficulty But I shall not digresse to follow them the Reader may see Mr Prin who saies most sufficiently answered by his learned Antagonist Gillespy Aarons rod. l. 3. c. 7 I come to my third taske Admit that the meaning of this Text were what they would have onely to interdi●● Christians a civill Communion with scandalous sinners yet 't is nothing to the businesse for thus we argue If from that text it may be concluded unlawfull for Christians to have civill Communion Quod si multorum testium va● riâ consonanti monitione docemur cum del● q●entibus fratrious cibo ne quide●● vesci quanto magis debeat à sacrificio Christi arceri Cyp. in l. de aleatoribus Erast theses thesi 66. vind 4 serious quest p. 11. vin free admission p. 85. Beza in lib. de excom Presb. page 95. and to eat at their own Tables with scandalous sinners then it is much more unlawfull for them to eat at the Lords Table But 't is granted that it is unlawfull for them to have civill Communion with them This Argument hath troubled Erastus and Mr Prin and Mr Humfry to answer Mr Humfry is sorry to see any gravelled with such a fallacy Well if it be a fallacy I hope we shall have it discovered 1. Some tell us that there is no such Argument not to have company and not to eat are both the same so here is no comparation 1. To this I answer 1. That Beza hath well observed that the particle here used doth import such an argumentation where the lesser being denied the greater is much more denyed Brastus himselfe is so sensible that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where it divideth argues two things spoken of so that he is forced to confesse that there are two things 1. Intimate familiarity with such 2. Eating with them But surely the man forgot himselfe Vetat ergo duo primum ut non habeant arctam cum talibus consuetudinem deinde ut ne quidem edant cum eis Erast confir thesium lib. 3. for is it not lawfull for us to eat with a covetous man at our own Table think we But secondly I answer this is nothing to the purpose for we supposing the Apostle speaks of civill eating raise our argument by consequence from that Scripture foundation Secondly therefore the most intelligent say that the Argument is falsly drawn to conclude the prohibition of the greater from the lesse and to this purpose Erastus gives us some rules and Mr Prin and Mr Humfry some

have been long enough beating the bush and if this notion prove true it will follow 1. That Iudas had not so much as compacted with the Chiefe Priests when his hand was with Christ on the Table 2 That he was gone before the Lord instituted his supper yea 3. That he was not there at the eating of the Paschall Lambe I have but proposed my thoughts and shall submit to better reason having learned to attribute nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and being prone to think the worse of any notion which I judge my owne I know I dissent in this from very many Holy and Learned men But secondly it is no matter of Faith or Practice but a piece of Order in Holy Story 2. I see they cannot agree amongst themselves 3. I shall peaceably dissent 4. I shall keep an eare open for better proofe against me in the meane time I desire my Readers Charity they are some of the Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have been enquiring into some Histerologies must be allowed in the Gospell I see not but with such allowance this my sense may passe And now to shut up this discourse of Iudas I could wish our Masters of the opposite perswasion would allow us but the favour that ordinary Fencing Masters will allow their scholars First they will take up one weapon and try them with one while here another while there if they see they cannot hit them with this trick nor the other they will lay downe that weapon and take another not the same againe to no purpose but meerely to tire out their Scholars For this weapon of Iudas his being at the Sacrament with which they think to knock suspension Erastus tried it at Beza Beza defended himself Mr Prin tried it at Mr Gillespy Mr Gillespy defended the cause that he never touched it with a Cudgell Now Mr Humfry hath got it up and Dr Drake defended himselfe the same way which Gillespy and Beza had done Mr Humfry hath made never a new stroke Let us lay downe this weapon let 's heare what they say to prove Iudas was there Object 1. They all sate downe together This doth not prove they all rose up together Object 2. Christ saith the hand of him that betrayeth me is on the Table That is at the sop but Iohn 13.30 immediately upon that Iudas went out which was before the Sacrament Object 3. Christ speaks nothing Iohn 13. of the Sacrament But he speakes of the Passeover which was before it and saies at the beginning of that he went out Object 4. O but wee have many Authors of our side that he was there Origen Cyprian Ambrose Chrysostome Victor Theodoret Remigius Paschasius Oecumenius Algerus c. 1. This question they did not speake purposely to 2. God knowes whether the places quoted be spurious or no. 3. We have matches for them too Dionysius Areopagita Maximus Pachimeres Ammonius Talianus Innocentius Hilary Salmeron Kellet Mariana Gerard Turrianus Barradus Danaeus Musculus Piscator Cum multis aliis quos nunc perscribere longum est Let 's have done therefore with this Cudgell and blot no more paper with saying what hath been said over and over and over againe and can never be cleared on our adversaries side I have tried something on our side I shall add no more to this Argument I conclude there are no precepts to command nor presidents to warrant generall admissions of scandalous persons though not excommunicated Ergo. CHAP. VII Containing a sixth Argument drawne from the duty incumbent upon the Officers of the Church to keep the fellowship of the Church pure I am come now to a sixth ARGVMENT I still keep my principall syllogisme which was this If the Officers of a Church may not lawfully admit some to the Sacrament who are not as yet de facto excommunicated then they may law fully suspend some from it But Ergo. MY sixth Argument to prove Argument six that there may be some in the Church whom the Officers of a Church cannot without sinne admit to the Sacrament though at present they be not excommunicated is this If there may be some in the Church not yet cast out with whom the communion of the Church in the Lords Supper cannot be pure then there may be some in the Church not yet excommunicated whom the Officers may not without sinne admit to the Lords Supper But there may be some in the Church not yet excommunicated with whom the communion of the Church in that Ordinance cannot be pure Ergo. I will prove the major first then the minor First for the major If it be the duty and businesse of the Officers of the Church to keep the communion of the Church then it is their duty to keep its fellowship pure in that Ordinance and consequently not to admit such to it with whom the communion of the Church cannot be pure This proposition stands upon these foundations 1. That it is the duty of the Officers of a Church to keep the fellowship of the Church pure This none will deny that is but mentis compos if any be inclined to deny it he should doe well first to think to what purpose the rod of discipline is else put into their hands 2. How to expound 1 Cor. 5.7 13. and those many other Texts in Scripture which looke this way 2. That it is their especiall duty to keep the fellowship of the Church as to this Ordinance pure As this was proved before upon the opening of the 1 Cor. 5.8 So upon the concession of the former it is no lesse clear from reason It is apparent that of all other Ordinances this Ordinance alone is appointed for such as have something of Grace in them The Word is called the bread of life and it is to bee offered to dead soules to quicken them Heathens were ever admitted to heare those who are the profanest persons are the objects of Discipline the excommunicate may and ought to be admonished as Brethren I know not wherein the Officers of the Church can have a worke to keep the communion of a Church pure if not in this Ordinance and as to this which the Scripture plainly saith cannot be partaked of worthily without examining our selves and being able to discerne the Lords Body For the minor proposition That there may be some in the Church not yet cast out with whom the fellowship of the Church in this Ordinance cannot be pure I prove If there may be some in the Church who apparently are not fit subjects to receive this holy thing then there may be some in the Church with whom the fellowship of the Church in this Ordinance cannot be pure But there may be some in the Church who apparently are not fit subjects to receive this holy thing Ergo. He that denies the major must maintaine that a communion of such as are appearingly fit for it and appearingly notoriously unfit for it and unable to it is a pure communion and by that time he

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