PROVOCATOR PROVOCATUS. OR, An answer made to an open Challenge made by one M. Boatman in Peter's Paris●●n Norwich, the 13th of December, 1654. in a Sermon preached there at a Fast, in which Answer these Questions are spoke to.  

1. Whether Juridical Suspension of some persons from the Lords Supper be deducible from Scripture; the Affirmative is proved.  
2. Whether Ministerial or Privative Suspension be justifiable; the Affirmative also is maintained.  
3. Whether the Suspension of the ignorant and scandalous, be a Pharisaical Invention; A thing which wiser Ages n●ver thought of, 〈◊〉 Mr Boatman falsely affirmed. In opposition to which is proved, That it hath been the judgement and practice of the eminent Saints and servants of Christ, in all Ages, of all other Reformed Churches, and our Church in all times.   
To the whole Discourse is prefixed a Narrative Preface, giving account of the occasion of this Tract, & containing the Notes of a part of Mr Boatmans' Sermon preached Decemb. 13. with Animadversions upon it; with the Author's Letter to him after the preaching of it, to let him know he would accept his challenge, and dispute with him, and Mr Boatmen uncivil Letter, refusing to dispute.  
There are subjoined two Appendices: The first clearing up from Antiquity the several Orders of the Catechumeni and Poenitentes, which were in the Primitive Church suspended, and not excommunicated, as is fully proved. The latter contains a Vindication of the first Argument upon the first Question, from an impertinent Discourse of Mr B●atmans in a Sermon, March 28. where you have the said Sermon, and Animadversions discovering the Magisteriall vanity of his interpretation of Mat. 7.6 and the Author is vindicated from the charge of delivering untruth from that Text.  
In the managing of the several Arguments, on the first and second Question, there is also full answer given, to what Erastus, Mr Prinne, or Mr Humphrey have excepted to them.  
By John Collings, B. D. & Preacher of the Gospel in Norwich.  
Sciendum enim, à sanctis Patribus, ab hoc vel maximè constitutum, ut mortaliter peccantes, à Sacramentis Dominicis arceantur: ne indignè ea percipientes, vel majori reatu involvantur, ut Judas quem post panem temerè à Magistro susceptum, Diabolus dicitur pleniùs invasisse, ut crimen quod prius scelerata praemeditatione conceperat, jam sceleratissimo consummare● effectu, vel nè quod Apostolus de Corinthiis dicit, infirmitatem corporis & imbecillitatem, ipsamque mortem praesumptores incurrant; & ut à communione suspensi terrore ejus exclusionis, & quodam condemnationis Anathemate compellantur studiosius paenitentiae medicamentum appetere; & avidius recuperandae salutis defideriis inhiare.  Walafridus Strabo, lib. de reb Eccles. cap. 17. 
London, Printed for William Franckling, Bookseller in Norwich. 1654.   

 blazon or coat of arms 
Collegium Jesu Cantabrigiensi J700    

To the Right Wor ll John Mann Esq; Mayor of the City of Norwich.  
Much Honoured Sir,  
AS the Influence which that eminent place in this City, to which God hath called you, and the Engagements which your goodness hath laid upon those few Ministers in it, who have laboured against great opposition, to promote an Ecclesiastic Reformation, have justly challenged our observance to you; so your eminent appearing, not only for it, but in it, accepting the Office of a Ruler in one of the Congregations of it, and your appearing for the restoring of that eminent servant of Christ to his Pastoral charge there again, where these unhappy flames of our division have kindled (which by the piety and prudence of that Reverend man would have been prevented) hath challenged for you the more special Dedication of this Tract. What you shall find in it, the Preface will tell you; And the Preface is that alone, which needs your Patronage, nor should that stand in need of it, if some men had not the confidence to deny that the Sun shines at noonday, whether what is there related be truth or no, yourself can in a great measure satisfy the Enquirer. For the substance of the Book, when you have examined it, I shall be content you should dismiss it your protection, and shall myself attend the vindication of it from its adversaries, who are ordinarily more clamorous than argumentative. If my pains may contribute any thing Sir to encourage your perseverance in that good work to which the Lord hath quickened you to put your hand, as it will be a great matter of encouragement and joy to all of us who are working for the Lord in the refining of Zion (while we are almost stifled with the dross which the corruption of former times hath begot) so it will be a great addition to your crown in the day of the Lord, and a great crown to him who is,  
SIR, Your most humble and much obliged servant in the Lord jesus, J. COLLINGS. Chaphyfield house, April 19 1654.   

The PREFACE.  
To my Christian Reader.  
IT is grown into a fashion for him who entertains the world in a Book, to parley first a little with his guest at the threshold: And although the righteous Judges of Areopagus needed no such compliment, yet I cannot but judge it a little necessary in this sinful time, and the more in regard of the different complexions of men's persuasions, disposing them to faction, and to judge unrighteous judgement, from the dictate of some particular prejudice. What thou art into whose hands my Tract shall come, I cannot tell. I shall only endeavour to clear thy eyes from the mist, that prejudice, and particular affection may have cast before them, and be ambitious no further to reconcile thee to me, then unto truth. It treats of an unpleasing subject, The divine Right and Primitive practice of suspending such from the Supper of the Lord, who as yet have not their senses exercised to discern between good and evil, and cannot discern the Lord's body, such as were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of old, and such who since their Baptism have returned with the dog to the vomit, and are yet with the Swine wallowing in the mire of their lusts. This is the great bone of contention in the Church of God this day, every one would be fellow commoner with the Saints at the Table of children's bread, and those who have not grace to make them worthy, yet want patience to bear a being judged unworthy of the highest Gospell-priviledges. Reader, I suppose thou canst not be so unjust to thy own reason, but to think that if the godly Ministers of England durst consult with flesh and blood, that could furnish them with strong Arguments, drawn from the augmentation of their livelihood (in places where it is arbitrary) and from the universal love of their people to compel them into Master Humfryes or Master Boatmans' faith. Alas! what do we get by our stricter deal, with the souls committed to us, except the frowns and reproaches of such whom we durst not cast the holy thing of the Sacrament before. It is Gods will that Religion and humane Policy should now and then divide, and we humbly submit to God, and desire rather to be faithful Stewards for him, then providers for ourselves, and ours. Surely there is so much ingenuity at least in some of the godly Ministers of England, as would entitle them to a desire of the love of all, and so much earthiness in all their hearts as exposeth them to some temptations, to use all endeavours for a comfortable subsistence in this life. If any of them neglects both that and this, and choose rather to venture the begging of their own bread, then to throw the children's bread to dogs, rather to prostitute their own names, and lose their interest in the hearts of some people, then to prostitute the Lords sacred Ordinance, and give his name to a reproach, as in this they come short of chrysostom, who professeth, he would rather give his own blood to the profane, than the body and blood of Christ; and of Ambrose, who ventured the loss 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-denial, for the interest of their dear and blessed Saviour, yea and of their souls too who are kept away, it being certain, if judas were at the Sacrament (which can never be proved) the next work he did was to hang himself, through horror of conscience, and for that sin 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 blood of Christ to those to drink who are in a burning fever of open lusts, and so dangerous a knife into the hands of those whom we see distracted with sin, and in a spiritual Delirium. We hope, any equitable standers by will judge and measure our actions, by the duly and orderly practise of Physicians in bodily tempers, considering we are ready as to such Patients, to allow them what they will drink 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 spiritual wisdom, that they will not murder their precious souls with them. And we doubt not, but if ever the Lord shall give them an heart to repent, and restore their desperately distempered souls to health; in that day it shall be no more grief of heart to them, that they have been kept away, than it is to the recovered Patient, that his Physician denied him flesh, and wine in his fever, or a knife in his distraction, and at that time we shall expect their thanks, in the mean time we shall bear 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 blood for us, than we can do in the vindication of it, and preserving it from being profaned by unhallowed mouths.  
If it pleaseth the Lord they die in their spiritual 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 show thyself 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 gain for them, both myself and others might have had an eternal 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 Humphrey considerable, but what I find in Erastus: That if our Brethren of the contrary persuasion, 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 yield him the cause, who sufficiently answers but one Book wrote upon this subject, viz. Master Gillespies Aaron's 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 supplied with money to buy the Books, nor able to gain ti●e to read them, or upon such whose particular engagements, and overmuch love to the whimsies of their own brains, 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 stopped their ears, 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 own 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 patience to satisfy 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 Controversy, within these twelve or thirteen years, candidly state each Controversy, 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 civil 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 task but imposed upon new Scribblers, the world would be less full of impertinent Discourses, and Disputes would not run as they do in infinitum. I do not pretend a specimen of such a Work, I have neither purse nor Library, nor time, fit for it. But the truth is, as I find in Mr Humphrey, and hear from Mr Boatman, nothing more than Erastus long since said, and hath been more than once already answered; so I have not studied for a new Argument, but out of several 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) john Baptists universal Baptism; judas his being admitted to the Lords Supper; The general invitation to the Wedding Supper in the Gospel; some being drunk at the Lords Supper in the Church of Corinth. No evident testimony in Scripture for Suspension, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. These are all old tools, and scarce newly whetted.  
Yet what hath Master Humphrey 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 Walls, to none of which (excepting only two, one of which hath about thirty pounds per annum) is above ten or twelve pounds a year certain legal maintenance; The most of the Parishes have nothing at all. Scandalous Live are always the nests of scandalous Ministers; The Parishes being little, and the maintenance Arbitrary, and many of the people seasoned with the old leaven of ignorance and superstition, many, if not most of our Parishes have been either without any Minister, or filled with such who were cast out of other places, or at lest no friends to Reformation.  
For those Parishes in which were a more considerable number of godly and well disposed people, some of them were better supplied; but in all the City we were able to do very little to promote the work of Reformation: Some of the Congregations either wanting godly Ministers, or persons fit to be chosen, as Helpers with them in Government, and the people in others wanting an heart to choose; yet through much opposition, in two or three Parishes we procured an Election of Elders, amongst which Peter was one, being the most considerable place in the City, and furnished both with persons fit to be chosen, and a people willing to choose, and a Reverend Pastor, 
Mr Carter.  fit to go in and out before them.  
But the yoke of Jesus Christ (which is always easy to a gracious heart) doth always gall the necks of those who have made their lust's Lords, some of the people who had the taste of the flesh pots of Egypt yet in their mouth, began to kick at this supposed burden; some withdrew their stipends, in short, some one way, others another way, tired out their Reverend and Learned Pastor, who after several thoughts of removal from them, about May last resolved upon it.  
About that time, one Master Boatman (sometimes of Hull) was commended to them; we who were Ministers of the Gospel in the City, conceived it our duty, as we had opportunities, to inquire of him (to whom ere long it would be expected that we should give the right hand of fellowship.) Amongst others, myself, as I had occasion offered, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, made some Enquiry concerning him, soon after speaking with a Minister, who sometimes lived in Yorkshire, I asked him if he knew such a Minister in their Country, and what he was. He told me he knew him very well, and he was a man who would preach frequently, and was a great enemy to Sectaries, but himself was neither Minister nor Graduate. Soon after, a Reverend and Godly Minister of Lincolnshire coming to see me, I asked him the same Questions, who confirmed the same things. Concerning the thing established out of the mouths of two witnesses, I imparted it to two friends, one a Minister, the other a judicious Christian inhabiting in the Parish: And this I did the rather, because I heard they were about to invite him for a Probationer, and I myself (having a Month to spend in the University) was to be absent, that so if he came, these things might be enquired after. While I was in the University, I (occasionally at dinner at the Vicechancellors chamber, & being at supper the same nightwith one of the Proctors) met with two Ministers, one at each place, both of Lincolne-shire, where I knew Master Boatman had his residence, they both confirmed the same things, adding something more (which I shall spare, except Master Boatman provokes me to speak it) being desirous rather to vindicate myself then to asperse him. While I was absent, some of his friends had sufficiently branded me for saying he was no Graduate, when as he was a Reverend man, a Bachelor of Divinity (forsooth) of Katherine Hall: One of them fell upon me face to face at my return, I told them I would not be over-confident, because it was but a Report, but I would soon satisfy them as to that point. Thereupon I wrote a Letter by the next Post, to a Learned friend, Fellow of that House, who certified me, That he knew him very well, That by admission he was two years my junior, That for degrees, he was three degrees beneath a Bachelor in Divinity, having never commenced at all, nor stayed in the College above a year, or a year and half at utmost. Some other things he certified me, which I shall conceal, intending only my own vindication.  
This was the only Letter I ever wrote to inquire of him, (and that in my own vindication too) though I hear he hath told his friends, he hath Copies of several Letters I wrote to that purpose.  
Soon after this, a Reverend Brother in this City had another Letter from a godly and learned Minister, who was of his year and College, to omit other passages in the Letter, he told him that he never commenced any thing but junior Sophister.  
By all this we gathered, That an— Harry Sophister was the height of his University-Commencements. It was now about july, when the anabaptistical party began to rage against university-learning, and Degrees. We who were Ministers in this City, were a little sensible, (if we had been satisfied concerning him upon other accounts) what an ill sound it would make in the world, to be heard, that the greatest Congregation in so famous a City as this, and a Congregation which ever had either a Doctor in Divinity, or some very reverend man in it, should now be supplied with one, who had given no proof in any University of his abilities, or proficiency in his Studies, nor so much as taken the lowest degree in the Schools.  
This made some of us, do what in us lay, to move those who were our sober, pious friends in that Congregation, to act deliberately in so weighty a work; in which the glory of God, the good of the City, the interest of their souls, and their credit and reputation would be so much concerned; and that before they agreed to his Election, they would inquire concerning his later conversation, and be satisfied that he were a Minister in Office at least. We thought, considering that juncture of time, and the eminency of the place, it would also be fit, that at least he should be Mr of Arts.  
At last he came to the Town, and a party of the people elected him as their Pastor (one hundred and eleven having before subscribed Master Carter a new Call, promising to wait a year for him.) Divers godly people dissented from the Election openly, and the rather, because he refused to satisfy them concerning his Ordination. I shall refer to my Reader to inquire other passages concerning his Election. About three weeks after Michaelmas he came to reside, but before this he had declared himself for Episcopacy something plainly; (we suppose he was of another judgement when he preached at Hull.) He had also by this time declared himself to a Reverend Minister in the City for promiscuous communions, and within a day or two after told a godly man, pinching him upon that point, that he should well see he was not for promiscuous communions; soon after his coming to reside, we had heard he had declared himself privately against Ruling Elders;  
Presbyter, haud amo 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 do not think he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and we can easily believe 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, than Mr Boatman can answer.  
About the beginning of December after, about six week's residence amongst a people, he had never seen before (except as a guest for a fortnight) 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 again, but in stead of it, the next Lord's day, in stead of unbidding it (girding at those who had received this offence) he openly proclaims four Sacraments together. The first upon the eighteenth day of December; the second upon the five and twentieth, etc. and proclaimed likewise a Fast Preparatory to them upon the thirteenth of December: At which Fast (Reader) thou must think there was much people to see which way he would row, (though they needed not, if they had considered the wind and tide) For myself, I was not there, having with some other of my Brethren refused to hear him, who refuseth to let us know by what Authority he preaches, and conceiving that the Pastoral 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 forenoon was harmless, in the afternoon he disgorged himself.  
I shall give thee a short account of that part of his Sermon which concerns this business, as it was taken (and given me by an ingenuous judicious Scholar) from his own 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 Saint Peter's 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 Animadversions upon it.  
Sect. 1 SIxthly, 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 general, viz. the Apostles advice, 1 Cor. 11. Judge yourselves, consider yourselves aright, lay things aright to heart, condemn yourselves else God will condemn you. Pass a particular account with yourselves, but that you will say is impossible. Who can tell his errors, or number his infirmities? Do it as far as you are able, and in a general way take the whole burden on your souls, lick the dust, cry out with Job, I am exceeding vile, humble yourselves in dust and ashes— And let me make the last Use more particular, to alarm 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 Gospel (of which the Word and Sacraments are not the least, but of the highest nature) then put yourselves into a posture of humiliation, think with yourselves; 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 general 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 spiritual food of the Gospel: The world dictates and cries out, one against such a Pastor, others against such and such persons; but will you have my verdict? The sin of Pastor and people in the enjoyment of that great Ordinance, is the cause and ground that God hath found out a way, and by a way of his own finding out, which a man would have thought at first should never have prevailed, which hath hindered the people of the enjoyment of that great Ordinance of the communion of the body and blood of Christ. Let this humble us.  
This Paragraph contains little in it to the present purpose, hitherto he is making way for his work; but yet in this lose discourse, to pass by the Tautologies and Grammatical Errors, here are some passages that speak not much of a Divine, as to say, That God hath found out ways to hinder people of his Ordinances. God indeed doth sometimes give up his people to spiritual judgement; but it is scarce truth to say, God finds out ways for men to walk contrary to his will in, surely man finds them out, though God suffers them to walk in them. But let us hear a little further.  
Sect. 2 And you of this Flock, I beseech you by the mercies of Christ look to it, as you will answer me at the great day, nay (which is more) to Jesus Christ himself, how you approach; Look to your soul's 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 world's attribute so little to your constancy, and your pains, especially in such times, nor in former,) viz so much as makes you capable of, and fit for the Sacrament. For my own particular, I question not your duty, but beseech you according to the knowledge you have received, seriously to prepare yourselves; take heed, bethink yourselves, humble yourselves for your miscarriages heretofore in the enjoyment of it, go home and say, O how often have I gone hand over head? and carried an envious heart, a lustful, wrathful heart, full of indignation to thy holy Table? I have gone with prejudice, with resolutions of revenge to the communion of the body and blood of Christ, which should keep the unity of the spirit, and the bond of peace. If I could but prevail with you to set yourselves thus beforehand, and judge yourselves, I dare secure you in your approach to that Table.  
Sect. 3 Let me speak to two sorts of men; some look upon themselves as they suppose to have tasted of the powers of the world to come, and have drank full draughts of that new wine which Christ hath prepared for his children in his Kingdom. Blessed be God All honour, praise, glory be to the name of God in your behalf. I beseech you by the mercies of God look to it, take heed how you approach unpreparedly, uncharitably, and prejudicially; lay aside all malice, envy, and as new borne babes, desire, and come, and drink the new wine in the Kingdom of Jesus Christ.  
Another sort of men perhaps the world count lose and profane yet they profess the faith of Christ, they own his name, they tell the world they are Christians, and they will be angry if you will not believe them so. Take the advice of the Spirit of God, whatsoever you are (for I know none) Let him that hath stolen steal no more, he that hath sworn swear no more, he that hath been a frequent and common drunkard, and hath blasphemed and broken the Sabbath, despised Ordinances, scoffing at holiness, and the profession of Religion, scoff no more— so resolving and so doing, you may safely approach to the blessed Ordinance and on terms of true repentance, enjoy communion with Christ. But saith one, Must every one have the Sacrament? Will you give it to all? I confess I do not intent to give it to a Jew, a Turk, nor a Pagan, to none of all three, but to every Christian.  
Yea but there are some profane Christians; I know here lies the grand objection. I'll seriously give you my thoughts, and I'll engage you into one Society before we depart: Church-communion will engage you all to be Saints. 1. If any of you be profane I know not. But Sir, you cannot but imagine, that in such a Congregation there must be some: it is not possible but there must be some. Secondly therefore, unless by one or more he be brotherly dealt withal, by private and serious admonition, and after that according to Christ's rule by one or two more, and after excommunicated. I really profess, notwithstanding the Learning of all the Ministers on earth, no power on earth hath the least seeming or semblable Authority to keep such a one from the Sacrament, consired before that he be baptised, and not a Jew, but one that makes a Verbal profession of the Faith, and that desires the enjoyment of the Ordinance. I say he must be so dealt withal as Christ hath prescribed legally, according to Law; He must be excommunicated, or else cannot be kept from the Sacrament. I say, It is a dream of the Pharisees invented the business of Suspension distinct from Excommunication. I say, It is a Pharisaical invention that hath found out an absolute distinction etc. Nay more than that, I humbly desire, yea I almost durst (though with great humility) challenge any man to show me the least footsteps in the whole Book of God, to keep any man from the Sacrament if he will press to it upon his own score. I speak not besides my Book for Reasons I have some anon which peradventure will strike some of your consciences into amazement.  
Here's now a mess of stuff must be taken notice of. 1. It is ell-wide charity which he discovers there, where he tells us, he would not for a thousand worlds think that amongst eight or nine hundred Communicants (after his reckoning) for so many that Congregation consists of, there should be none ignorant of the rudiments of Religion; he doth well to smother it up, by telling them he will not question them, for if he did he might be convinced every one were not so knowing.  
But in the third Paragraph he comes to his work: To pass by his large character of visible Saints (which may be also visible Devils) It is worth enquiring what he means by his application of that of the Apostle, Let him that hath stolen steale no more. If he means that no sins shall keep a man from the Sacrament after repentance evidenced, we agree with him: but if he means, that though one hath been scandalous by theft, drunkenness, blasphemy, swearing, Sabbath-breaking, scoffing at holiness, etc. and that very lately, and only says he will do so no more, but hath evidenced the change of his heart by no contrary conversation for any time, yet he should be admitted, we think him a strange Steward of God's Mysteries. We are sure the whole Church of God in all Ages have been of another mind, and rather erred on the other side, by setting scandalous sinners, after a verbal profession; some 2, some 3, some 7, some 10, 11, 15, 20 years, to evidence their repentance for such sins before they admitted them to the Lords Table: Those who read Basils' three Canonical Epistles to Amphilochius, or any of the Primitive Counsels, 
v. Basilii can. ep. ad Amphil.  will see evidence enough of it.  
He tells us he will not give the Sacrament to all (so indeed he told some godly Christians at his first coming, who feared him in that point, that they should well see he was not for promiscuous Communions.) But who will he keep away, Turks, Jews, Pagans, such as he hath none of in his Parish. 2. Such as will never come to him for it. But he openly professeth he will give it To all Christians. So then, if the Papists will they may have it. But he is afraid some will think him too free to give it to all profane persons. To this he answers in the first place;  
That if any be profane he knows it not] I cannot tell how he should, having not resided amongst that great people two months; but with what conscience doth he openly proclaim four Sacraments together, and appoint two hundred to come at a time, when he professeth that he doth not know his people? I have heard of a Gentleman, who being to make a speech, first shut his eyes, and then told his Hearers he was in the dark. I would know whether Master Boatman took a course to know them; whether he called the Eldership of the Congregation (as was his duty) and enquired of them the state of the flock, possibly they might have told him of some that were profane. Or if (as I hear) Elders be an abomination to him, whether he visited them all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from house to house. I am sure he did neither of these, and 'tis no wonder he did not know them then. But he walks by another rule, for he professeth here, That except the profane be first admonished, then excommunicated (which he knows now they cannot be, except by Elderships, which his judgement is not for belike) no power on the earth hath the least seeming or semblable Authority to keep any from the Sacrament, yea, and this is his Say (notwithstanding all the Learning of ab the Ministers on earth: yea and he tells us so again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For Suspension, it is a dream of the Pharisees who invented it, yea a Pharisaical invention. How? a dream? a Pharisaical dream? a thing not to be maintained by the Learning of all the Ministers on earth? No Authority for it, neither seeming nor semblable? Bona verba quaeso. Surely less Learning will be enough to deal with so young a Rabbi, and to maintain so ancient, so divine, so rational an institution, at least against such an adversary. Softer words would have been better for one that had no harder Arguments for his opinion.  
Nay more, he desires, nay he challengeth (with as much humility as we can think he hath, after he hath so boldly charged all the Churches of God, as Dreamers, Pharisaical Dreamers, etc.) any to show him the least footsteps for it from the Word of God. This challenge he shall see anon is accepted. We will try what a combatant our Goliath is, he tells us he speaks not besides his Book. I know not what is in his Book, but I shall prove anon he speaks besides God's Book, and besides his Book too, if it were the Bible he had in the Pulpit (but possibly it was Master Humphria's Rejoinder.)  
But he tells us he hath Reasons anon shall come forth, yea and those terrible ones too, such as shall amaze our consciences. Let us see what they are.  
Sect. 4 Trace the footsteps, and they are very rare in Scripture too that Christ hath laid downs in such a case as this, and till you have searched them, believe that a great deal of pride, and more uncharitableness, and worse than both hath been the cause of suspending so great an Ordinance so long, and making such a breach in the Church of God. I find but once in the Book of God, that it speaks directly in it, and then it speaks of no other remedy for all exorbitances committed in the Church, but, Let a man examine himself, etc. If you find any, show them. It is a mere Dream, and Invention of men, which they pretend, to implode the Scriptures, and lay a burden on our shoulders, and an intolerable yoke. I say a Pharisaical invention, and I speak plainly and home. When the Aprstle had taken a survey of the great enormities of some, he speaks Not a Word more, and that upon a fault which I believe not any man was guilty of in the English Church, viz. They were drunk at the Sacrament, and we do not sinned that he did suspend them, cast them out, or excommunicate them, only the Apostle fatherly, and Apostolically adviseth them to take a better care for the time to come. 2. Secondly (admit what some pretend, that there is just reason to suspend some from the Sacrament, whom it would never trouble the wisest heads in this Age, for it never entered into the heads of former Ages to tell) what distinct crimes they are, for which any are to be suspended. You are mistaken if you think for every whimzy-gimcra●ke, or trifle that comes in a man's head, a man must be kept fram the Sacrament. The Apostle indeed adviseth the Corinthians to excommunicate the incestuous person; but the business was so highly aggravated, that the sin was not so much as named amongst the Heathen. It is not every trifle because a man is not of such a man's opinion in point of State-affairs, though I hope you are all of a mind now; therefore he must be kept from the Sacrament, not because such or such a Pharisee saith a man keeps company with Publicans and sinners, and so one themselves (but not so) though called so, therefore he must be debarred from the Sacrament. What is all this from God? I dare safelier say, from the Devil. What, out of a private and particular prejudice, and he that hath taken it hath a little power that way, and interest in Admission, therefore the Party must be kept from the Sacrament. Quis talia fando? I had almost spoken something that had been a Solecism. Did ever the Lord Jesus Christ think on earth this should have been done in his Church? and I tell you, the Holy Ghosts strain. No, either he must be convicted and adjudged, or I dare pronounce of him that denies it him on any other score, That he is a bold intruder on Christ's Authority.  
Are those the amazing reasons we heard of I wonder! Here's amazing language, and boldness, and confidence; here's nothing looks like a Reason, but only that the Gentleman doth not read that the Apostle in 1 Cor. 11. that the Apostle gave no other order, but, Let a man examine himself: But what if Christ himself gave other order, Mat. 7.6. and by his own example, admitting none but his Disciples, and the Apostles, Acts 2 admitting none but such as were pricked at the heart etc. And what needed the Apostle in the eleventh Chapter give order further, when in the fifth Chapter he had plainly forbidden them to keep the Feast with old Leaven? viz. scandalous sinners, as ver. 6. and to eat with any called brethren, that should be fornicators, covetous, idolaters, railers, drunkards, extortioners; for the Corinthians being drunk at the Sacrament; There is nothing but our Translation serves Master B: and we translate the same word otherwise, John 2.10. (of that more afterwards) But he tells, It will pose the wisest heads to find out for what sins any should be kept away; that is another dispute. We are now disputing whether any should or no, according to Master B's: Doctrine, if a man had sinned the sin against the Holy Ghost he should not, this is all that looks like Reason, and here's a poor pittance of it; but besides this Reader, 1. Here's an impudent falsehood affirmed in a Pulpit, That it never entered into the heads of former Ages to suspend any, thou wilt find I have proved it the constant practice of the Churches of God in all former Ages.  
2. Here is a bold expression of Suspension. He tells us again, that it is a mere Dream, an Invention of men, a Pharisaical invention.  
3. Here is an impudent aspersion cast not only upon the eminent servants of God in former times, and Churches and Counsels, but upon the generality of godly Ministers in this Age, whose judgement & practice hath been to suspend the ignorant and scandalous from the Lords Table. Master Boatman tells the people that They go about to implode the Scriptures, to lay a burden and an intolerable yoke (so all Christ's Ordinances are to men captivated by their lusts) on their shoulders: That they make themselves wiser than any former Ages; That they are bold intruders on Christ's Authority. Dost thou think Reader that he hath not said to himself, My tongue is my own, and I will speak? The best of it is we think it no great slander, Let it run to its excess of riot.  
Fourthly, here is a malicious insinuation, That we keep men from the Sacrament for whimsies, and gimcracks, and trifles and differences in State-matters, and particular prejudices. Those who do any such things are engaged to speak for themselves: I know none but abhors these calumnies. But yet I am at a loss, for the reason should amaze our consciences.  
Sect. 5 Another Reason (which few understand, but I would many did who suspend the Sacrament, it would make them look to it, and about them) is, That the Church of Rome hath got more these two years by suspending the Sacrament in the Church of England, then ever it did in Queen Mary's days. To my own knowledge, of the persons, the Arguments they use, the place, and County, I refer you to: 'Tis Lincolnshire, 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 Baptism, but where is the Lords Supper? no where, unless (as the Papists private Mass) 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 Pope's harvest? Nay in time the suspension of this great Ordinance, will take men off from hearing, unless it be a company of men which come to hear for novelty, and so none will own the Church of Christ. This is the great Reason (besides the Authority of Scriptures, whereby I have proved it) persuading me to the Administration of it. They cannot have the Sacrament, they can have the Eucharist at Rome, they will go thither; nay more, I have known particularly, and could name them that have been first amused, then amazed, and after by subtle and ingenuous cheats drawn to the Church of Rome. Now I have no desire you should be Papists, and therefore have a great desire to entertain 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 do 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 aims only to urge a necessity of administering the Ordinance, it proves nothing against suspension of the unworthy.  
2. The Papists are very busy to ask indeed where is our Church? Chamier, Whitaker, etc. have told them where it is; 'tis well we have some better Doctors, I see to answer for us, than Master Boatman; for he thinks the Question unanswerable, if Sacraments be not constantly administered 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 judgement defending the Ordinance, and thirsting (for a time) to administer it orderly) did unchurch a Church: where was then the Church of the Jews for 40 years together wanting Circumcision?  
Surely one might tell a Papist, the Sacrament is administered constantly in some hundreds of Congregations in England, in the Churches in London, Lancashire, Suffolk, Essex, etc.  
5. What makes Master Boatman cry, it is not where, except as the Papists private Mass, 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 Chapel belonging to this Noble Family. If he did, he may please to know, the Lady in whose Chapel it is, is an Earls eldest Daughter, and now the Widow of a Noble Gentleman, who was Knight and Baronet; in either of whose Rights the Law allows her a place of Public Worship, and a Chaplain, and makes her Chapel a place of Public Worship, her house especially, being distinct from all other Parishes, and an entire Liberty within itself. But we must tell him, his carrying the Sacrament the other day to a private chamber for a Viaticum to a sick person, was a great deal more like private Mass, or if you will, carrying The Host.  
We (saith Beza, 
Bezae tract. de coena Domini contra Joachimum Westphalum in oct. ex edit. Steph. 1559. p. 160.  speaking in the name of Protestants) do not use to administer the Sacrament of the Lords Supper privately, to our sick people, nor do 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 public Congregation cannot seem to contemn the Ordinance; 
So Aretius. Illud autem omni desensione justa caret, quod ad aegros defertur, tanquam viaticum morituris; qui mos inolevit, ut opinor, cum persuasum esset plebi, quosdam piè mori, non posse nisi prius coenā Domini sumpsissent, etc. Arist. Probl. loc. 82. Chrysost. in Mat. Hom. 3.  The administration of the Sacrament (saith he) is a public action, and for private Sacraments they seem 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 graveled with) may be answered without a promiscuous communion.  
But 2. he thinks, Many will turn Papists if they may not have the Sacrament here.  
Would there not be fine Communicants think we, that are so ready to turn Papists upon every teach?  
2. But so long as Sequestrations hold, I think we need not fear 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 fear.  
3. But is this a good Argument think we? Suppose a debauched swearer or drunkard should come to us, and tell us, If we will not give him the Sacrament he will turn Papist, must we therefore profane God's Ordinance? chrysostom tells us he would sooner give his body to death, and his blood to be shed, than he would pollute God's Ordinance by giving it to scandalous sinners. Suppose an impudent Quean should come to one and tell him, if he would not marry her, she would turn whore; were this a good Argument think you to persuade a Gentleman to marry her? or rather, eo nomine to refuse her? Master Boatmans' reason is just such another. Now Reader thou seest what the startling Reason we heard comes to; a mere poker, in reality just nothing.  
Again to the Exhortation, I beseech you make no evil use of what hath been said, because it is the truth, and nothing but the truth of God. And I say again, that it is not in the power of any particular Minister, or Congregation, without clear 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 blood be on your own souls. I have quitted mine hands this day before God, and his people. Look to yourselves, if your consciences tell you that you have not owned the Gospel, that you have been ashamed of Religion, that you have walked in evil; If your conversation bespeak your irregularities, I beseech you reform, refrain. It would be the greatest happiness and joy that ever I met withal in all my life, to have that scoff become a real truth, that you might prove all Saints at St Peter, that I might be able to present you to God (as your Pastor) an holy, and unblameable, and peculiar Congregation. Brethren, I beseech you labour (as much as in you lies) by considering, and laying to heart what hath been said, to refrain from those lusts which have been prevalent in your spirits.  
In the next place to you that have not run into the same excess of riot; and I bless Godwith, and for you; but I have one exhortation to give you, that you would be pleased to fill your souls with charity. Look to yourselves, believe every man his Brother better than himself, this is Evangelicall counsel. Some will say, I see such, and such profane, advise them; hast thou done that? If not, thou hast sinned against the Gospel, and his sin is not so much his as thine; dost thou cry out of him, and hast not prayed for him? particularly admonished him? and soberly? that for the time to come he would take a better course; hast thou done it with moderation, meekness, sobriety, tenderness, and seasonably restored thy brother overtaken? Rail not, revile him not, cry not out against him; make not his private sin public, let not every one take notice of it of which thou takest notice, do not sin against thy Brother's soul.— But some are not yet satisfis d if the profane be admitted, and the Sacrament be administered promiscuously the Ordinance will be defiled. A pretty dream! Is not the Word as soon defiled because a profane man hears it? As soon that may as the Sacrament; what is another man's receiving unto thee if thou receivest worthily? I do not remember the Scripture tells us, that any man got any hurt by the man that came without the wedding garment; nor did any man ever the more shun the room or cast him out, only indeed the Master came, and he turned him out. Let the profane take heed lest they be turned out, Christ may find them out. For this cause many are sick, and weak, etc. and he may cast them into utter darkness. But although Christ hath this authority, I know no Minister hath any such. What have we to do if it be thus? Only these two things: and I desire you, especially of this Congregation, to join with me in an humble and serious confession to God of our former practices. 2. As hearty to renew solemnly your Covenant made in Baptism against the flesh, the world and the devil, you know how guilty you have been all of the breach of it. That once done, I will take upon me on good grounds to call you holy to the Lord, and seriously invite you to this work.  
In this last Paragraph, the greatest part of it is something better than ordinary; men of this Gang could not so securely rail against examination by Eldeships, and inquiries after the flock, if they did not pretend for a great deal of zeal for private examination. There were some of old, that to devour widow's houses the better made long prayers. I wish that all the pretended strictness of some, for selfe-examination, be not only a vizard to mock the world with, while they rob the Church of the divine Ordinances of Presbyteries, and Suspension, etc. But yet in this Paragraph  
First, he owns all that he hath said before, and tells his people, It is the truth, and nothing but the truth of God; apply this to all he had said before: That Suspension was a dream, a mere dream, a pharisaical invention, for which was not the least footstep in God's word; that no power under heaven hath any seeming, or semblable authority to keep any from the Sacrament that will press to it on their own score. That those who do it are proud, uncharitable, intruders upon Christ's Office, that former Ages never thought of it; all this is the truth, he saith, and nothing but the truth of God: yea, and he saith it again, That it is not in the power of any particular Minister or Congregation, without clear conviction and condemnation, to keep any away; what he means by Conviction and Condemnation he told us before three or four times over they must be Excommunicated.  
Whether a single Minister hath power or no is a question some make, but Mr Boatman hath no reason (for he owneth no Eldership) and the Rubric allowed it to a single Minister in some cases: but he had expounded himself before: No power on earth can do it. And in the very next words here, If he will rush, no man hath any thing to do with him. And now he tells his people, If they will rush they may, their blood he upon their souls, he hath quitted his hands, etc. Thus Mat. 26.24. Pilate when he had condemned Christ, took water and washed his hands, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person, see ye to it. It is a good wish he wisheth, that the scoff might become a real truth that all were Saints at Peter. The scoff he referreth to we know not, unless it were one raised by one of his own friends, who having got their Pastor amongst them to a cup of Sack and a pipe of Tobacco, merrily told an honest man, that such a night their Pastor and some of Peter's Christians were at such a place conferring together; whence some called those who frequent such meetings Peter's Christians. But the wish was good.  
His next counsel is good, only he should have told his people, that if the offence be notorious and public, that private admonition shall not need precede; Him that sinneth openly rebuke openly (saith the Apostle.)  
He fears some will think the Ordinance is defiled if the profane be admitted; this he calls a pretty dream, and says the Word is as much defiled, etc. To this I shall speak hereafter, with Mr Boatmans' leave, though the Ordinance be not capable of any intrinsical pollution, yet the Communion is defiled by enduring profane persons in it, 1 Cor. 5.6. (if the Apostle knew what he said) yea, and the people that communicate are defiled if they do not their duty, admonishing them, informing the Church, etc. to be sure the Officers of the Church are defiled, for it was their duty to have kept them away.  
But Mr Boatman doth not remember any man got hurt by the presence of him that wanted the wedding garment, nor shunned the room for him, only the Master came and turned him out.  
1. Before this will prove any thing to the purpose, he must prove that the Supper, there mentioned, was the Lord's Supper, otherwise this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
2. Secondly, he must prove, that that Guest did not only want the wedding garment, but that he wore an open filthy garment; an hypocrite wants the wedding Garment, yet I know none say, the presence of hypocrites defiles a Communion; why? because man cannot judge the heart; but the question is whether the presence of gross sinners defiles the Communion or no?  
3. None says, the bare presence of a scandalous sinner defiles the particular soul of a private member, but it defiles the Officers, and the Communion.  
4. Mr Boatman doth remember the Master turned him out. So it is Christ's will, belike, none should be there but such as have the wedding garment; and the question is, whether he (now he is ascended) hath left us sufficient power to do his will as to such wanters of the wedding garment as our eyes can discover.  
5. Holy Mr. Ambrose thinks that Christ, 
Ambrose his Media. p. 260.  turning out him who wanted the wedding-garment, is a good Argument for to evince our duty to turn away such as appear to us to want it, (we being, in Christ's stead, his Ambassadors, Stewards, etc.) But Mr Boatman tells us again we have no such authority; we will anon join issue with him in that point. In the last place, he exhorts his people to confession and renewing their Covenant, and then he pronounceth his people all Holy to the lord I hope he meant in the largest sense of holiness.  
This Reader is a perfect account of that whole part of his Sermon which gave occasion to this ensuing Tract. I confess, for my own part, I heard it not, no more did scarce any of our Ministers, some of us being resolved first to be satisfied, That he hath authority to preach (which we have very good grounds to suspect he hath not;) but these notes were given me, upon my desire by an ingenious young man, who is a Scholar, who took them in short hand from Mr Boatman's mouth, and gives me leave, Reader, to tell thee that he will justify, that they are a true account of that part of his Sermon, to Mr Boatman, or any other. I saw the several other Notes, taken by others, though more imperfectly, because taken in long-hand, which yet have the same passages concerning Suspension, and those who practice it. If they be denied, thou shalt have them in the next attested by six or seven more.  
In the mean time I appeal to such Christians in this City, as heard that Sermon, whether those passages, concerning Suspension, and those who practice it, be not faithfully recorded.  
Myself was that day employed in a meeting with other Ministers of the City; I was no sooner returned home at night to my Study, but there came to me four or five honest men, exceedingly troubled at the Sermon, one of them almost in a rage, professing he never heard so much audaciousness in a Pulpit; they were (indeed) all very much troubled, and read me their Notes. The next day was my Lecture day, in which I was to preach a preparation Sermon to the Sacrament; perceiving that we had been so boldly challenged, and so rudely reflected upon, I thought it my duty to take notice of it, and in my Sermon in thesi spoke to it.  
1. Proving that Suspension of the ignorant and scandalous from the Lords Table (though they were not Excommunicated was justifiable from Scripture.  
2. Proving that it was so far from being a pharisaical dream, that it had been the judgement and practice of the Servants and Churches of God in all ages, and of our own ever since the first dawnings of Reformation amongst us in the days of King Henry 8.  
This was carried to him, and I hear that on the Lords day (which was his first Sacrament day) he was taken up with admiring the bold face of them who should say any such thing, etc. and that he quoted the Discipline of the French Church as a witness against Suspension, (how truly we will examine anon.) By this time the spirits of his friends were up, and a great cry there was about the Town, that we could talk, but durst not dispute, with this new Champion, he had challenged us all, etc. and in particular this was laid to my charge. I confess I had so much pride as to think him an adversary something below me; but yet to stop his friends mouths, and especially to vindicate the truth, and Ordinances of God, and our own practice from him, by the advice of two or three Reverend Ministers, upon the twentieth of December, I drew up this ensuing Letter in the presence of two Reverend Ministers, and read it to them, and they approving it, upon the 21. I sent it to him by the hands of two honest men, his Parishioners. The Letter follows Verbatim.  
Sir,  
I am credibly informed, by the mouths of more than two or three witnesses, (which yet had been enough to have established the thing) that in a discourse this day seven-night you did first confidently maintain, 

1. That Suspension distinct from Excommunication was a dream of the Pharisees. Secondly, as confidently  
2. Challenge any Minister in the world to show you any ground for it from Scripture.    
And had these things been spoken but once, charity might have judged them Lapsus linguae, but being repeated again, and again, and with a great deal of difference, and averred, and renewed since in private, (as I am assured) all must conclude them errores mentis. Nor have I heard it only as inculcated from yourself again, and again, but from divers others, (who possibly (some of them) had need be of that large persuasion) that you offer to dispute with any in the defence of it.  
Sir, I know not wherefore God hath set me in this City but to stand up for his glory, and for the defence of his truth and Ordinances; and though I have not been a man of war from my youth, yet I must not now stand still and hear you defy the Churches, and Servants, and Ministers of the living God as Pharisaical dreamers, and this day after day. These are therefore to let you know, that I accept your challenge, and (in opposition to what you said) shall be ready when, and where you please (so it be before a competent number of witnesses) to maintain against you,  
1. That the suspension of some persons from the Sacrament, besides Turks, Jews, and Heathens, and those who are cast out of the Church by Excommunication is grounded on the Scripture, and deducible from it.  
2. That it is so far from being a pharisaical dreams, that it hath been the constant judgement of the Servants of God in all times of other reformed Churches, and our own ever since the beginning of reformation.  
Either of these (Sir) I shall maintain against you, either in a more public or private dispute. More privately, (if you think fit) before as many Ministers as will come & twelve private Christians, chosen by each or more, (provided the number chosen be equal on both sides.) Or more publicly, in the Church, and in what Church you please; (such Laws being first agreed on as are fit to regulate such a dispute.) If you accept either of these, let me know the time and place, (provided it be not on my Lecture day) and I shall be ready to appear in this cause of God against you. And to this I expect a sudden answer, otherwise I shall think myself bound to let the world know, that as your Charge savoured of too much Pharisaical pride, to condemn so many as Pharisees, dreaming Pharisees too. So your challenge was but the noise of an impotent Bravado, and to deliver the Truth and Churches of God from your Scandals, in a way commensurate to the offence.  
Only I desire you to remember, it is not my challenge, but an accepting of your challenge, and that I shall contend not for Masteries, but for truth: and in the mean time be  
Your friend in what I shall not dishonour God, and prove the truth's adversary, J. C. Subscribed; For Mr john Boatman present these.  
When my two friends brought him this Letter, and told him the import of it, and from whom it came, he taking the Letter, satis pro imperio, bid them tell that Trifle he would answer him, at at his next turn bid them tell that simple Fellow he would answer him, insomuch that one of the Messengers (a little troubled at the rudeness of his language) bluntly told him: Better words would become his mouth. They come away, not doubting but he who was so big in words & to whom we were such Trifles, would have shown himself something in deeds, and have thought that his rude Language at least would have engaged him to dispute. That night he sent me this Letter, Superscribed  
These for Mr John Collings Bachelor in Divinity.  
Sir,  
YOur unchristian incivilities have been so many to me, a mere stranger, that they might easily have provoked a very patiented man; yet I have forborn, and they shall work no other effect upon me for the future. I will not gratify you, nor your backbiting companions, so much as to be angry. For your Charge (in your terms) it is all false; and for your foul language I shall say no more but the Lord rebuke you. What I delivered I shall justify; than you shall see that there was neither the lapse of the tongue, nor an error of mind; For the dispute you mention I do not intent, magno conatu nugas agere, (which must needs be, considering what a strange Spirit you show yourself to be of) I have seen often enough what issue these public contests have had. If you writ, and appear in public (for such a thing you intimate, which I know you love to do) if any thing there sufficiently reflect upon me or truth, I know what I have to do. In the mean while, till I have satisfaction from you for your gross deportment, which concerns me as a Gentleman, a Christian, and which is more, a Minister of the Gospel, I shall avoid you as a wrangler and one that loves contention, which is very much against the spirit of  
John Boatman Pastor of Saint Peter's in Norwich.  — teneat cornicula risum? 
Reader! I hope thou wilt judge this Letter did not deserve an answer, and if I durst not have trusted thee with my credit against this adversary, thou shouldst not have seen it, but I perceive it misrepresented in the world, and cried up as the meekest, humblest Letter, etc. Now read, and I shall make thee (who ever thou art) my Judge, only take a few notes to help thee better to understand it.  
1. I did a little wonder at the Superscription that he should own me under the Notion of a Bachelor in Divinity. I confess, I have performed the exercises required of him who takes that degree in our Schools, and the University hath pleased to give me their Seal, to let others know that they have been pleased to confer that degree upon me; but for Mr Boatman, sure indignus est qui dicat, of all men he should have taken no notice of it, having so liberally in the morning called me Trifle, simple fellow, etc. especially considering that himself is not yet Bachelor of Arts.  
2. In the beginning of this Letter he tells me of unchristianincivilities I have offered him. I never yet came in his company, how I should use him so uncivilly I know not. My nature doth dispose me to as much civility I hope as another's, and I would be loath to be uncivil to mine enemy, much less to a stranger. I profess, Reader, thou hast heard all I have been ever guilty of, and I refer it to thee to consider, whether it were uncivil for a Minister of the Gospel in a City, hearing of one called to a place of eminency in the City, as he had occasion to inquire of him, especially being one who lived at three or fourscore mile's distance, and was not known in these parts, and to inform the people faithfully what he heard. If I, hearing the man was no graduate, no Minister, nay, far more which I shall conceal, (though as to other things I shall not desire to asperse him) did persuade my friends amongst the people to be deliberate in their choice and first to inquire. I hope this was so far from incivility, that it was my duty. I appeal to all the world to charge me with any other incivillities than these which I apprehend my duty.  
3. Thou seest, Reader, he denies the charge, how justly judge by the Notes of the Sermon before; surely he hath a great measure of confidence to deny what he so often inculcated, but he adds, he denies it [in those terms] what terms he means I cannot tell. Logical terms are proper to a question, and so the terms are two. The Subject, Suspension. The Predicate, that it is a dream of the Pharisees. I think thou wilt find these the terms in his Sermon. But perhaps he means Grammatical terms, Letters, and Syllables, and words, if he did, it is a pitiful shift.  
4. But it had been enough to me for him to have eaten his words, but that he licks them up again, and says, What he said he will justify, and I shall see it was neither lapsus linguae, nor an error of the mind. So the business is to prove he said so only, for he will avouch what he said; that he said so, I have proved already, and if it be openly denied, I will undertake to prove it by more than three or four witnesses; and I appeal to those who heard him that day for witnesses.  
5. Disputing he doth not love; no, he tells us, he will not take a great deal of pains for trifles. Thus, Reader thou seest it is easier to make a challenge than to defend it: Who I wonder would have challenged him? I know no Ministers in this City but would have looked upon him as an improper match for them, had he not openly challenged us, and loudly enough charged both us, and the Churches, and Servants of God, as Dreamers, pharisaical Dreamers, bold intruders upon Christ's authority, such as do things contrary to all former ages, who devise things to implode Scriptures, etc. Thus he talks, we turn again to give him battle, he runs away, and tells us; he will not bestow pains to so little purpose; valiantly done! Is it not think you?  
6. But he tells me, if I appear in public, etc. he shall then know what he hath to do. In obedience to him, and conceiving him at some little loss 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 foul language. So foul that it puts the good man to his prayers. 3. One of a strange spirit. 4. One who loves to appear in public. 5. One who have grossly deported myself to a Gentleman, etc. 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 think his so far excelling. I desire to be a Companion of those who fear the Lord; who are his Companions let others observe and judge, I shall not judge any.  
I think the rule good,— Noscitur ex socio qui non dignoscitur ex se, that a man who is not known of himself is known by his Companion, which lays a little obligation upon me, besides what Gods Word lays.  
For the foul 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 sanctify me yet more in body and mind and spirit.  
For my love to appear in Print, I can say something to vindicate myself. I have Printed nothing but three or sour practical discourses, at whose solicitations, and after how many solicitations, some very near me can tell; and I have some Letters from very Reverend men to testify. And two or three polemical discourses the glory of God required them of me in these sinful times. I know not what should make me so love that work: not honour sure. It is almost a scandal in this Age to be seen under the Press, so shamefully is it prostituted. Not Gain. 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 work. It was not to employ myself. Those who know me, know I have work 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 steal from my sleep.  
8. For my gross 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 terms upon the Patrons of it. Mr Boatman must impudently defy the Truths, Churches, Servants of the living God, but no body must call him to account for it but they must be wranglers, etc. If that be to wrangle, we must wrangle more.  
He aggravates my gross deportments (as he calls them) because they concern him as a GENTLEMAN, a Christian, and a Minister.  
For his being a Christian, I never heard any say he was not baptised, nor ever said any thing tending to that purpose.  
For his Gentlemanship— I was altogether ignorant, (having not seen his Pedigree) so that I have Paul's excuse, who when he was accused for reviling (as they called it) the High Priest, excused himself by saying, I did not know it was the High Priest; he was never reported to me under that notion; (I confess I am not skilled in Heraldry,) I think 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 believe 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 tells us, To love contention is very far from the spirit of John Boatman Pastor of Peter in Norwich.  
For his being Pastor of Peter in Norwich, we cannot own him as such, till we know at what door he came in, having great grounds he climbed up some other way; besides, there are some sheep of that flock that will not hear 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 receipt of which I was resolved to have done no more but to have betaken myself to my Study, to see if the Church of God had been in an error these 1500 years 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 persuasion in them, that we durst dispute, or had made any offer to that purpose. Perceiving no other way so probably effectual to satisfy people, upon a Lord's day soon 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 work of the Gospel 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 public Auditory, that for Suspension it was a dream, yea, a Pharisaical dream, an invention of men to implode Scriptures, and those who practised it were openly charged as such who would implode Scriptures, lay an intolerable yoke on men's shoulders; such who were intruders on Christ's authority, and did that which entered not into the heads of wiser Ages, for which was no authority in the Word of God etc. and an open challenge was made to us to defend the known judgement of our and other reformed Churches, the truth of God (as we hoped it would prove) and our own practice. And I perceived people would not be satisfied that any of us durst encounter him who had so defied us, though enough had been done to satisfy them. Considering therefore that it lay upon us, especially in these times, to vindicate the truth, and our practice, and in some measure our persons from the reproach of men. That their mouths might be stopped, I would read a Letter to them which myself had sent him, and the answer which the (over-confident) Author of the Challenge returned, by which they might judge whether or no we durst appear in the defence of that piece of truth which we believed, and according to which we had walked, desiring them to make no other use of the Letter than this, to which purpose I read it.  
After this, I read the Letters, how his uncivil Letter was resented there are enough to speak who were present.  
After this we heard no more of their Brags, only some were so simple as to tell their friends that Mr Boatman scorned to dispute here, but if I would dispute at the University in the Schools he would then answer me, either not knowing the order there, or forgetting that Mr Boatman is not in a capacity to dispute there, except in a Sophister's Gown, upon some philosophical question.  
This is, Reader, the true Story of this Contest: I shall refer thee to judge in it; what could we do less than accept his Challenge? And what milder Message than that in my Letter could be sent to let him know I was ready to accept it?  
Since this, I must confess, some of his friends have been with me, and told me, that he disclaims that he holds any such opinion: As that none ought to be kept away from the Sacrament but those who are excommunicated; and that if I writ against that opinion it nothing concerns him; I shall but feign myself an Adversary, etc. we have nothing to do with what he says in private, his public declared judgement and practice is contrary; what he said thou hast read, and he says, he will justify what he said. Nay, upon my knowledge he hath maintained it in private too to those he thinks he is able to grapple with. I know he hath in like manner told some Reverend Ministers, and godly people, that he hath conversed and is acquainted with all his people; that he turns away many, and admits none without examination, but such as have before approved, etc.  
But how notoriously false this is (and so very unworthy of one who calls himself a Minister) we who are upon the place know, and could give him instances (if need were) of some notoriously scandalous admitted, but none who were refused, (so far as I ever upon the strictest enquiry could hear of) and of some who told him they were never at the Sacrament before, but were examined no more than what is your name? Where dwell you? Are you single or married? And then they were told, That he hoped they were fit, and so they were dismissed, (which form of questions is merrily called by some Mr Boatman's Catechism.) This is the ground of my present undertaking. Now let me tell thee what thou shalt find in the ensuing Tract.  
I have divided it into a Discourse upon three Questions:  
Quest. 1. Whether Juridical Suspension, distinct from Excommunication, be deducible from Scripture? I have proved that it is by several Arguments, upon some of which I have enlarged. In the last Chapter, on the first Question, I have put four or five Arguments, which some Reverend Authors have brought, I do not insist much on them, we have no great need of them. I have sent them out only as Probationers, with their Letters of Recommendation from some Reverend men, one of them is the issue of my crude thoughts concerning the nature of the Sacrament, which I apprehend strong meat.  
In the handling of that Question thou wilt find one Chapter containing a digression, tending to prove, that Judas was neither at the Supper, nor at the eating of the Paschall Lamb, and that he had not then made his compact with the the High Priests. And to prove that Christ kept the Passeover, and instituted his Supper two nights before the Jews that year, and that he suffered the second day after his apprehension. Possibly in that discourse (which thou mayest judge over critical;) thou mayest find some new Notions; know I am not confident of them, though I see nothing against them, but much seemingly for them: If they hold, I hope we shall be told no more of Christ's giving the Sacrament to Judas, or of his eating the Passeover, or compacting with the High Priests before that time; and so being (supposedly) scandalous, (though a secret compact would not make him so) since I finished that discourse, communicating it to a Reverend friend; he lent me a critical discourse concerning the day of Christ's celebrating the Passeover, wrote by Ludovicus Capellus, 
Ludou. Capel. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad amicam inter se, & Johan, Cloppen. Collationem, etc. p. 120.  in answer to Cloppenbu gius, I have read it over. He determines Scaligers and Causabons opinion most probable, that Christ celebrated the Passeover that time, not the same day the Jews did, the grounds of which he shows, p. 61, 62. ad p. 74.  
Some new Notions he hath about the reason of the Jewish-Translation of the day that year, etc. But I find nothing in him either to establish, or (rationally) to destroy my opinion. I leave it to thee, Reader, to judge if I have not probabilities on my side, and demonstrations will hardly be produced on any side. My Arguments are most of them old, only newly reinforced, and vindicated from Erastus, Mr Prin, Mr humfry's exceptions; Mr Boatman had the discretion to take notice of very few Arguments against him, so that I have had little to do with him as to the point of answering his Arguments, or Exceptions to ours, (though my whole discourse be directed against him (as its proper Antagonist) not against any of the other) whom I desire thee to take notice I only speak to as they come across me, leaving Mr Humphrey to his proper Adversaries, (with whom he will find enough to do) I must confess, when I first entered upon the work, I intended it against none in hypothesi, only in thesi, to vindicate our practice, and the practice of other eminent servants of Christ, yea, and of the Churches of God in all Ages, especially our late reformed Churches, not meddling with Mr Boatman, nor did I want persuasions to it from some learned men, who wondered what I would answer, considering he had only Magisterially maintained his opinion, basely aspersing the servants and Churches of God as dreamers, imploders of Scripture, etc. and had not brought any thing towards the proof of it, but a few lose passages which you could not go about to mould into a Syllogism, but you would s●are them out of common sense.  
This made me at first resolve only to write against the opinion, and to have pleaded the cause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without any preamble, (as they were wont to do at Areopagus.) But others were of another opinion; yet this course had I taken, considering he made it his work so constantly to deny that privately which he had spoken publicly, and to disown his opinion as often as he met with any godly Ministers of another mind; (this he did to Mr Corbet of this Country, and to divers others) who told me of it again. In the mean time in his own Congregation he still cries it up, and sufficiently bespatters us who were of another persuasion; witness his Sermon, preached the fifteenth of February 1653. at Peter's, upon Rev. 3.17. from which Text he had taken a great deal of pains to teach his people how to know others that were hypocrites (an Art, I believe, few Divines but himself are much skilled in.) In that Sermon he gave them several Notes to know Christians that were spiritually proud: his second note was this:  
They cannot endure that any body but themselves should have any Gospell-priviledges allowed them, unless such as are common to Jews, Heathens, and Pagans. Indeed they may hear, and they may come to those common promiscuous Ordinances (as they call them) but they must have no right to the Sacrament. That must be for such, and such, and many times none in the world worse than they; I speak to those that are guilty of these crimes, not to those who are not; doubtless many a man is unsatisfied, and we must bear with the weak.  
If this be not plain enough I know not what is; here are at once all the eminent Servants and Churches of God of former Ages, and our Age, branded as spiritually proud hypocrites, because they durst not admit all to the Sacrament; yea, and all Christians branded who are tender of their Communion in that Ordinance. Some of them are such as there are none in the world worse than they; The rest are weak, and only to be borne with. Reader, I shall refer it to thee to judge whether our silence now were not a cowardly deserting the cause of God, and of all Reformed Churches. I might tell thee more, that it is much suspected by some, who fear God, in this City that it is the whole design of his preaching, to stir up animosities in a profane Party against those who are of stricter Principles, and to brand all strict Christians as Hypocrites and Formalists (the usual Alehouse-termes for those against whom they have nothing else to say;) What mean else these unsavoury passages in his several Sermons? Some have an art to squeak out Jesus Christ; (by that neat term he expounded Luther's crepare Christum,) which I had thought had been to crack and make a vain boast of Christ. And again, The whining Christians are those who have been the ruin of Religion. And again, Pride and Covetousness are the Saints great Sins. And again, For a drunkard, or debauched wretch I could hug him in my bosom, when I would spit in the face of an envious Professor. I confess, I hear none of this stuff, but I shall refer thee to those godly persons, who have sometimes heard him, to inquire whether these things be true, I have heard them again and again, some of them have scared away some of his godly Auditors, and others of them have frighted away others. Besides, that ordinary expression which is his usual compliment with his people before a Sacrament: They shall not be dealt with in the pharisaical way. These things are not spoken in secret, but in a Pulpit, yea, and in the greatest Congregation of the City. The Lord in mercy look upon us, our condition is sad enough. I shall add to all this one thing yet more.  
A Reverend Brother in this City, begging my assistance, to preach his Lecture the twenty third of March last, he having before entreated me, that if I had any thing ready on the Subject, I would preach something about Suspension at some time in his Congregation. I that day preached for him, and for my Sermon took that Text, Mat. 7.6. and preached my first Argument on the first Question, there thou wilt find all the doctrinal part of my Sermon. I left out every Syllable which might make my discourse unpleasant to any, and (as all my hearers will judge) I had not the least reflection upon any; only having proved, That that Text was not to be restrained to this or that Ordinance, but to be understood of all Ordinances, all which are there forbidden to be dispensed to such as the Scripture calls dogs or swine in other places, (excepting only such Ordinances as the Scripture elsewhere expressly allows to be given to dogs,) I concluded by way of Application.  
I inferred, If that were truth, then there was a plain Scripture-prohibition (though not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) to suspend some (who yet might, be in the Church) from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. 1. Because it is a pearl, and an holy thing. 2. Because there is no other Scripture allows the giving it out to dogs. 3. This Scripture forbids, etc.  
The Lord's day aster I heard Mr Boatman intended to confute me the next Tuesday; some occasions drew me out of Town, but upon the Tuesday he aimed at it, taking my very Text; how well he confuted me, my Reader may judge by reading my first Argument on my first question, and then his Sermon which I have annexed at the latter end of my Tract, and my Notes upon it. I believe there was never such a business delivered in order to a confuting; yet for fear that a clamorous party should cry it up confuted, I have annexed it, having the Notes of it given me by a learned and judicious man, who was his Auditor that day, and took the Sermon from him, and will justify the Notes.  
These things, Reader, made me take up a resolution to give thee an account of the whole business, and openly to engage Mr Boatman as my proper Antagonist; and the rather, because Theophilus Brabourne hath sent me word, that if I will write, he will defend Mr Boatman; (for every one he saith, is not fit for disputing, but he will do it,) one would think he were not very fit that should read his last books. I sent him answer, I hoped to find him work enough to defend his own; but if he be so good at it, he shall find we are able to employ him. That 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 confess, never thought him fit for, though the Bishops judged otherwise) I have engaged in this Controversy 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 myself knew so many holy, and learned, and Reverend men, that I believe, since the Nicene Council, there was never so many, and so holy, and learned men met in any Ecclesiastical Council: Some of whom I know would not turn their heads in any point of Divinity from the most learned Heretics that are, or ever were in Christendom; 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 youngest sons of those Reverend Prophets, but yet I have a little duty for them, and shall engage for Norfolk or Norwich, to attempt at least their vindication from any who shall in these parts appear in public against what was (according to God's Word) agreed upon by them, (if he hath not a proper Adversary, and if I be not overpowered by Legions of Pamphlets.) But I return to my former Discourse.  
The second Question I have spoken to is: Whether Ministerial, or privative Suspension be justifiable or no? I have on purpose spoken to this, partly, because I hear some say this was Mr Boatman's meaning, (though he restrained not himself so by any passage) and if it be, how doth he tell others that he doth keep away some himself? But that he might not have this refuge, I have spoke a little to that. I confess, it is a tender point which many godly men are dissatisfied 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 Episcopal persuasion, and own no congregational Presbyteries (which is Mr Boatman's judgement they say) make not this question, but always took the Affirmative for granted; witness the Schoolmen, Canonists, etc. the Rubric 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 persuasion 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 Midwifery in helping into the world that last piece of our great and learned Twisse.) I crave leave to descent in this point from those few of my Brethren who are so persuaded, and conceive, that to avoid promiscuous Communion, the Minister may in some cases suspend his own act, though not formally pass a Censure, yea, and I think he ought. Though I confess, 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 thinks Church Censures should be spared, when the Major part of the Church is corrupted, and the execution of Censures may cause Schisms, and much he says for it.  
But I must confess, I am of Peter Martyr's mind.— Iste Augustini timor nimius videtur, quasi deb eamus 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 business.  
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 Father's mind, the Judgement and practice of our Elder Brethren is not inconsiderable, especially when we are charged with Innovation, and doing that (which never entered 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 Swissers only excepted.  
And now (Reader) I shall cast myself upon thy Charity. I hope thou wilt excuse me for my undertaking. The zeal of the Lords house for the precious body and blood 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 work to do besides engaging Mr Boatman. I have given thee here a faithful and impartial Narrative of the Original and Progress of this Contest. If Mr Brabourne be at the Charge to reply I desire thee not to expect my answer; I believe thou wilt (whoever thou art) be able thyself 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 piece.) 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 Press will let pass, 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 poor City, where are so many thousand souls, and so few fit to take charge of them. The Lord keep thee (Reader) in these evil times from the errors of them, and an ever lover both of Gospell-purity, and Unity. So prays  
Thy mean unworthy Servant in the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ JOHN COLLINGS. Chaply-fieldhouse in Norwich, April 18 1654.   

Errata.  
Reader,  
I Cannot own these sheets till thou hast corrected these following erratas in them.  
In the Title page read ob hoc vel maximè.  
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. account. p 16. l. 25. r. judgements. p. 22. l. 10. deal never. p. 23. l. 1. r. are these. l. 5. deal that the Apostle. r. gave other order. l. 20. r. tell us. p. 27. in marg. r. Aretii Problem. l. 16. r. would not these. p. 31. l. 30. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 39 l. 15. deal at. ib. r. return. p 39 r. us. p 41. l. 25. r. there were. ib. l. 33. r. the people.  
In the book. p. 9 in marg. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. & ib. 36.1. p. 11. l. 3. r. I doubt. p. 12. l. 32. r. not. To. p. 14. l 9 r. Reverend. p. 15. l. 6. r. Thus we see. p 16. l. 13. r. first for. p. 18. l. 4 r. swine are. p. 22. l. 29. r. having appointed. p. 24. l. 12. r. yet these. l 13. r. hear men. p. 26. l. 26. r. some such in. p. 28. l. 4. r. jure. p. 28. l. 29. r. he might. p. 29. l. 1. r. rush p. 32 in marg. r. edit. Lutetiae. p. 35. l 12 r. is chiding p. 37. l. 20 r. (except at that time.) l. ult. r. observes. p. 39 l. 31. r. purged. For. p. 40. l. 25. r. three things. p. 41. l. 25. r. it for. p. 42. l. 13. deal that. p. 43. l 25. ingenuous. p. 48. l. 21. deal so. l. 22. r. things forbidden. p 49. l. 2. deal may be true. l. 2. deal it. l. 15. r. true in. l. 28. r. untied. l. ult. deal first. p. 53. l. 16. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 54. l. 32. r. nay it. p. 55. l. 13. r. he hath. p. 57 l 6. (if but baptised.) p. 71. l. 11. r. was to be eaten in. p. 72. l. 4 r. was eaten. p. 73. l. 10. r. eaten. p 74 l. 32. r. the twelve. p. 76. l 4. r. he did not. p. 77. l. 32. r. fourth d should. l. 33. r. rest: Immediately (saith the Doctor.) p. 78. l. 9 r. Aphicomen. l. 19 r. did eat. l. 28. r. the Doctor. p. 79. l. 9 r. ingenuous. p. 82. l. 31. r. fourth cup. p. 83. l. 21. deal secondly. p. 84. l. 1. r. with it: one. p. 87. l. 9 r. keep pure. p. 95. l. 24. r. If a grossly, etc. l. 35. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 111. l. penult. r. one bread. p. 113. l. 33. r. of the elements. p. 121 l. 1. r. concessions l. 16. r. relieve me. l. 18. r. I shall. l. 27. r. Eldership judge. p. 125. l. 1. r juridical. p. 128 l. 7. r. the Constitutions and some, &c p. 129. l. 2. ●. ●at●chumeni. l. 10. r, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 130. l. 2. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 4 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 7. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 10 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 33. r. de. la. Bar. p. 131. l. 4. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 132. in marg r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ibid. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 133. l. 14. r. of none of. p. 134 l. 12. r. Binius. l. 29. r. in this Century. p. 137. l. 33. deal to. p. 140. l. 3. r. demonstrandam. p. 141. l. 10. r. that he should be. p 143. l. 12. r. that some p. 147. l. 23. r. penitus deploratos. p 148. l. 13. & in marg. deal Anthony. p. 155. l. 24. r. Dr delawne. p. 161. l. 29. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 31. deal And. l. 33. r. constitutions. p. 166. l. 12. r. augeatur. l. 25. r. minding. p. 167. l. 12. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   

CHAPTER I. Containing the State of the question.  
QUESTION 1. Whether the Suspension of some persons from the Lords Supper, be deducible from Scripture or Reason.  
THE terms of this Question are two.  
1. Suspension of some persons from the Supper of the Lord; that is the subject.  
2. Deducible from Scripture or Reason, that is the predicate in question betwixt us.  
1. As to Suspension of some persons from the Supper; we mean no more than a denial of that Ordinance to some. This suspension is usually distinguished into Juridical and Pastoral, or privative and positive.  
1. Positive suspension, which is called Juridical, is an act of the Officers of the Church, whereby (having had due cognisance of the party that desires the Supper of the Lord, and finding him unfit, or unworthy) though he hath formerly been admitted; Yet they by virtue of the trust reposed by Christ in them, warn him to abstain from the Lords Table, and deny the Ordinance to him if he intrudes.  
2. Privative Suspension, which I also call pastoral, is an act of the Minister of the Gospel, whereby he alone (the Church wanting other Officers) finding some persons (though formerly admitted) not able to examine themselves, or unworthy in respect of open scandal to come to that Holy Table, doth not only as their Pastor, admonish them to forbear, but withholds the elements from them, if they presume to come to the Lords Table.  
God willing I shall anon speak to the second of these: whether privative suspension be lawful or no. But that is not my present business. But supposing there be an eldership constituted in a Congregation, whether this eldership may keep away any from the Lords Table, for ignorance or known scandal, if he be a Christian, and not the facto, Excommunicated. This is that which Mr Boatman calls a Pharisaical dream; an usurpation of Christ's authority, a thing not deducible from Scripture. That which he humbly (and boldly) challengeth all the Ministers on Earth to make good. (if he durst have stood to his word)  
2. Nor could his meaning be any thing else; For in his Congregation there is an eldership established according to Ordinance of Parliament, by a due election of the major part of the Congregation present after public notice given three Lords days each after other, which he hath thrown down, and publisheth this Doctrine, that he might prepare his people for a prostitution of that sacred Ordinance.  
As to the second term, Deducible from Scripture, I take it for granted, that my indifferent Reader will grant me that to be sufficiently deduced and proved from Scripture, which is evinced from it by necessary consequence, if it be there either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If Mr Boatman or any other will deny me, that any thing is to be proved from Scripture, but what is there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He makes our Saviour a very insufficient Logician, who thus proves the resurrection. 
Mat. 22.32, 33.  Mat. 22.31, 32. and his Auditors very weak, who (the Evangelist saith) were very well satisfied with the proof. And those who agree with the Anabaptists in that whimsy, will be bound to reconcile that of St James (James 5.4.) to truth, 
james 5.4.  by showing us where the Scripture saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: The spirit that dwelleth in you, lusteth to envy. Yet the Apostle saith, the Soripture saith it. But I will suppose Mr Boatman so rational, as to grant me this, or else he will be bound to deny the Sacrament to all women, Baptism to all children, and the Lords day to be a Sabbath. So that the question is this:  
Whether supposing a Church have a Presbytery, 
The Question stated.  it be in the power of that Presbytery, having found some persons (baptised and not excommunicated) grossly ignorant or scandalous, in the name of the Lord Jesus, to warn them for a time to forbear communicating at the Lords Table, and if they press unto it, to deny it to them, by declaring the Church hath no Communion with them; or the like,— etc.  
In the proving the affirmative part of this Question,  
1. I shall not trouble myself to prove they may do it. I shall sufficiently prove that, in proving They ought to do it; for though a thing may be lawful, and yet not expedient; yet a thing cannot be necessary and yet unlawful. Nulla necessitas peccandi, we are not necessitated to sin.  
2. I shall not enter into a particular enquiry, what degrees of ignorance render a person obnoxious to this censure, nor yet what vicious qualifications in point of scandal do it; it is enough for me if I prove it concerning any, (how notoriously ignorant or erroneous, or scandalous soever, (provided they be not absolutely excommunicated) for if any one sort of sinners, either ignorant, or haereticall, or scandalous (except Turks, Jews, Heathens and excommunicate persons) may have this Ordinance denied to them, though they press to it, Mr Boatman's confident challenge will be answered, and he engaged to make it good, or recant for his rashness and presumption. The question being thus stated; I accept this Bold challenge, and shall prove it by this principal syllogism, which shall be the head of my ensuing Arguments.  
To those to whom it may not lawfully be given, it may lawfully be denied. But there may be some Baptised persons in the Church, to whom it may not lawfully be given.— Ergo,  
The Proposition cannot be denied, except we will say that we are necessitated to sin; for if there may be some, to whom we can neither lawfully give the Ordinance, (though they come) nor lawfully deny it to them; we are obliged to sin, there being no medium between them two. I shall therefore prove the assumption by several Arguments. viz.  
That there may be some Baptised persons, not yet absolutely cast out of the Church, to whom the Sacrament of the Lords Supper may not lawfully be given.   

CHAP. II. Containing the first Argument, from Mat. 7.6. From whence is proved, that this Ordinance is an holy thing, and so not to be given to Dogs, nor cast before Swine.  
Argument 1 My first Argument is this; Holy things may not lawfully be given to Dogs, nor Pearls lawfully cast before Swine.  
But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is an holy thing, and a Pearl, and there may be some in the Church, who in Scripture phrase, are Dogs and Swine.— Ergo.  
THis is no new Argument; Erastus pretends to answer it, so doth Mr Prinn, and Mr Humphrey.  
The sum of all I meet with answered to it, is this;  
1. Say some, The Sacrament is none of the holy things there spoken of.  
2. All sorts of sinners that are scandalous, are not the Dogs and Swine there meant: so that the Argument as they say is a fallacy, à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter: To reinforce it against all their weak Cavils, two or three things must be opened.  

1. What holy things are here spoken of.  
2. Who are the Dogs and Swine here spoken of.  
3. To whom this precept is directed.   
Let us examine all these three a little.  
1 Q. What holy things are here spoken of.  
It is a good rule, Where the Law doth not distinguish, we should not. Our Saviour Jesus Christ speaks not of this or that Holy thing; but says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and it is a bold presumption in us to restrain it without Scripture-warrant.  
I think therefore every sober Christian will grant me these two things.  
1. That all those holy things and Pearls are here forbidden to be given to Dogs, and cast before Swine, which the Scripture doth not elsewhere plainly allow to be given to Dogs or Swine: else they will be obliged to show us another ground of restraint.  
2. I hope it will easily be granted to concorne such holy things as God hath betrusted us to give out: for it is to men Christ speaks.  
Things are called holy in Scripture, upon a fourfold account.  
1. In respect of consecration, when a thing is set apart for God's service.  
2. In respect of inherent purity. Thus God is holy, and his grace as holy.  
3. In respect of a divine signature and impression upon them. Thus every command and every Ordinance of God is holy.  
4. In respect of a designation, and subserviency of it to an holy use or end; in this sense also are all the Ordinances of God holy. And doubtless, these are the holy things here spoken of: and so all grant.  
Upon the two last accounts, (saith Chemnitius) the Ordinances of God are rightly called holy. Now the Ordinances of God are of two sorts.  
1 Private. 2 Public. 
Chemnit. harm. cap. 51.   
Private Ordinances are institutions of Christ to be performed by private persons, either in order to God's glory, or our brethren's good, such are private instructions and exhortations each of other. Private prayer; private admonitions, frequently commanded by God in Scripture. The public Ordinances are, public preaching and expounding Scripture before the Church, performed by persons in Office to it, public Prayer, Church censures, etc. It is without all question, that the Ordinances of God, are the Holy things here forbidden to be given to Dogs, or cast before Swine. But the question is, whether all these Holy things be forbidden here to be so cast, or only some?  
I say there is no reason, but we should understand all those Ordinances, which in other places of Scripture, are not commanded to be given to all. My reason is this; because it is boldness in us to restrain what God hath not limited.  
And hence I perceive, that some, who have been inclined to think, that some one Ordinance is especially meant here; yet dare not exclude others.  
So Mr Jeanes, 
Mr jeanes, p. 125, 126. 2 ed. of his bank entitled, The want of Church Government, etc.  though he thinks admonition and reproof are chief meant; (supposing the words not to be a complete precept in themselves, but to relate to the precedent words) yet he tells us, he will not deny, but it may be extended, and applied to the giving of the Lords Supper.  
And Chemnitius determines it an unjust restriction to restrain it to reproof. Besides that, admonition may be given to Dogs, yea to such Dogs as are shut out of the doors of the Church. 2 Thes. 3.15. He is not to be counted as an enemy, but admonished as a Brother; with whom we ought to have no company that he may be ashamed.  
I know Thomas Erastus tells us it must be meant of Preaching the word. 
Erast. Explic. Graviss. quaest. thes. 94.  But besides that, there is no ground in the Text for this, there is less 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 only.  
It seems to me, that our Saviour had an especial eye to Sacramental Ordinances, not only because in other Scriptures there is an express command, to admit the most sorts of Dogs to hear the word: but also because if any one Ordinance may be called more holy than 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 only to speak contrary to Scripture, but to common sense too. Which made Erastus in the same thesis, think it safer to insist upon a distinction of Dogs, then adhere to his first distinction of holy things.  
This Scripture therefore using a general term, 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 go along with the truth, and bear a proportion to his own reason, (if he be endued with so much as an humane soul, doth entitle all but mad men and fools unto) will not say but that the Lords Supper is here couched at least in the number of the holy things and pearls 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 Modern sober Writers; That they thought not the holy things here spoken of, were Admonition or Preaching only, but other holy administrations also.  
Clemens Alexandrinus expounds it generally for all the flow out of living water. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 2. ex edit. Lutes. 1619 p. 368. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas. in dial. 1 de Trin. sub initio. p. 138. t. 2. impr. 1606 in offic. Commetiana. Tertul. 9 l. 2 de matrimonio cum Gentilibus. c. 5. lib. de praescrip. contra haeretices. cap. 26. lib. de Baptismo cap. 17.  which surely are in all divine Ordinances.  
Athanasius makes use of this Text to justify himself, in not giving an account of his faith to enemies of the Truth. In his first Dialogue concerning the Trinity, inter Orthodoxum, Anomoeum, & Arrianistum. In the beginning of it, Anomoeus ask Orthodoxus whether he was a Christian or no? he tells him, yes, he was. Anomoeus going on, and ask him what Christianity was, he tells him, it was necessary for him to tell him the first, but not safe for him, to tell him the latter. Anomoeus ask him why? he answers him, that if he did not know who he was that asked, he might give Holy things to Dogs, and cast Pearls before Swine.  
Tertullian in his second Book concerning the marriage of Heathens with Christians, applieth 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 plain he doth not restrain it; for in his Book de praescrip: contrae haereticot, he plainly applies it to the Preaching of the Gospel; and in the 17 Chap. of his Book de Baptism, he applies it to Baptism. By which it is plain, he understood it in general of all holy things.  
Moses and Maximus and Ruffinus, in their Epistle to Cyprian, understand it of absolution, and all divine Ordinances. Cyprian himself makes use of this Text, to justify his not writing to Demetrianus, 
v. Cypt. opera ep. 26. lib. contra Demetrianum sub mitio l. 3. Testim. ad Quirinum. Chrysost. in 1. Hom. in cap. 7. Math. in prologo ad expos. johannis. Homil 20. in 10 cap. Heb. lib. de compunctione cordis. Immundis impuritatibus, sacra consortia non impertienda  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. chrysostom in his first Homily, on the seventh Chapter of Matthew, applieth 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 Gospel of St john. And again in his Homily the oruce dominicâ. But in his twentieth Homily upon the tenth Chapter to the Hebrews, 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 says this was the reason why they were trampled upon, and rend by the wicked (according to this Text.) Hierom calls the holy things: the children's bread, and the Gospel's Pearls. I might also weary myself and the Reader, with many quotations out of Ambrose, Gregor. Mag. Origen; which plainly show their expounding this Text in a latitude, not restraining it to this or that holy thing. 
Isid. Pelus. l. 4. n. 181. ep. ad Hicr●cem & l. 1. ep. 143. Aug. in Serm. in momte l. de side, etc. Hieron. in Mat. 7. Chemnit. harm. c. 51. c. 66. n. 3. Alex. Halensis sum. theol. p. 4. q. 11. art. 1. sect. 4.  The judgement of Isidorns Pelusiota, and Angustine, may be read in many places, the latter of which (though once he applies it to fraternal correption) yet hath many different applications of it. Chemnitius in his Harmony upon the place tells us, that the Word and Sacraments are the holy things here meant; And in the 66 Chapter of his Harmony, n. 3. tells 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 Indas, because he should have then have acted contrary to his own precept in this place, where he forbade holy things to be given to Dogs; whether that Argument be good or no, I doubt he answers it; but it is plain, he thought that by holy things, the Sacrament of the Lords Supper was meant in part. 
rutherford's divine right, c. 5 q. 1. Gillespy Aaron's 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 plain, in what sense the eminent servants of Christ have in all ages understood this Text, though some of them, as Piscator, Gualther, Bucer, and others, 
Piscater ad loc. Gualther ad loc. Pareus ad loc. Rutherford ib. ut prius.  think that admonition is chief meant; and Pareus, that the Preaching of the Gospel is chief meant, yet none of them durst exclude the other; nor was there any reason, when (as Learned Rutherford observeth) the word was ordained to be preached unto Dogs and Lions, to make them Lambs and Converts, Is. 11.4.5, 6. Is. 2.3, 4. And Christ himself commanded the Word to be preached to Pharisees and Sadduces persacutors, who had sinned against the Holy Ghost. Mat. 12.31, 32. john 9.39, 40, 41. john 7.28. john 8.21.  
I have done with the first thing, and shown that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is amongst the holy things which are there forbidden to be given to Dogs: But the next question will be  
Quest. Who are Dogs and Swine?  
1. That by Dogs and Swine here are not meant those Beasts we call so. I suppose will easily be granted me by any, that considers how needless such a prohibition would have been.  
2. We must therefore acknowledge a Metaphor, and that the creatures to whom (in this place) holy things are here forbidden to be given, are some persons, men and women, who propter vitia canina (as Musculus saith) for some moral depravations of mind, which have transformed them into the resemblance of Dogs and Swine, in their natural dispositions are so called here by our Saviour. All the question will be, what those vicious qualifications are upon which our Saviour calls some here Dogs and Swine.  
3. Every one knows how dangerous it is to strain Metaephors, therefore it will be most safe to keep to a Scripture interpretation of them; and say, those are here meant by Dogs and Swine, whom the Scripture either here characterizeth by some vicious qualifications, bearing a proportion to some natural dispositions in those beasts; or whom the Scripture elsewhere expresseth under this notion.  
4. If we can find them sufficiently characterized here, 

Respondeo Christum de illis loqui qui Margaritas contemnunt, ac pedibus cale●● & conversi nos laniant, he est, de Evangelij hostibue, de quibus nequaquam agimus.  
— Praetereae loquitur hic Christus non de sacramentis, sed de doctrinâ Evangelis canibus, & porcis, hoc est nolentibus & conculcantibus non proponenda. Explic. Graviss. quaest. thesi. 64.   we need not seek elsewhere, if we cannot, we must either say all such wicked men are here called Dogs and Swine, as the Scripture expresseth by that Metaphor, or only some of them.  
5. If we say some of them only, surely some sufficient reason must be given for it.  
These things therefore premised, let us now come to a strict enquiry for the meaning of this place.  
Erastus thinks, that the Dogs are sufficiently characterized in the Text.  
To this purpose he tells us, that Christ speaks of them who despise Pearls, and trample them under their feet, and turning again tear us; that is of the enemies of the Church. For whom he saith he pleadeth not to the same purpose I perceive. Those reverend men also speaking, who understand this Text chief of the preaching the Gospel, and of Admonition.  
But I shall propound a few considerations.  
1. That persecutors are Dogs and Swine, none will deny; but the question is, whether they be the only Dogs here spoken of.  
2. According to Erastus; if there be in the Church then, one that is an enemy of it, one who contemns the Ordinances, and persecutes the servants of Christ, he ought to be suspended the Sacrament, (though not excommunicate) Then according to Erastus, there is such a thing as suspension.  
3. Though Persecutors be properly called Dogs for their rending and tearing, yet for this they are not properly called Swine, for Swine do not use to tear, but we must not cast Pearls before Swine. Who are the Swine saith Mr Rutherford, and his learned Countryman.  
4. If they be described in the Text, it is by a double character. First, trampling upon the holy things. 
Gillespy. Aaron's rod. c. 15.  Secondly, turning again, and rending the givers. The first is proper to Swine, the second to Dogs. So then we are not to give holy things any more to such, that will trample them under their feet, then to them who will turn again and tear us.  
5. We desire no more should be suspended, then will come under these two notions; such as will but trample the Ordinance under their feet, or such as will turn again and rend us. All unbelievers will do the first, we are sure.  
Lastly, There are those that doubt whether the latter part of the Text be exegetical of the former, and say, the term lest doth infer a commination or threatening to those who give holy things to Dogs and Swine, wherein the Lord threatens, that if they do it, the issue will be, 1. Those persons contempt of the Ordinance. 2. Turning their Ministers enemies, and tearing them, being (through the just judgement of God) the Avengers of his holy Ordinance upon them. Who shall so presume to prostitute it.  
I confess I did not so much value this interpretation of the words, 
Chrysost. in Homil. de compunctione cordit.  (though I know they will bear it) till I found chrysostom expressing so much as if he had some such thoughts of them, and fetching a reason from this Text; why the Ministers of the Gospel in his time, were so lamentably despised and persecuted, because they had given the holy Sacrament to profane persons; and while I had this Notion in my head, A Revered Brother in this Country was with me, and told me he had found it true in his own experience, in a woman of the Parish, of which he was Minister, who lately dying in a sad condition, and under much (supposed) guilt, charged his administration of the Sacrament to her, at the great means of her hardening in sin, which was no little wound to this godly man's spirit. Since, A Merchant of London hath told me of Mr simmond's (sometimes of Iron-mongers Lane in London) going to visit one that was sick, and to whom he had a little before given the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, and questioning with her, about her eternal Salvation; she asked him upon what account he came now to question her upon that, whereas himself a little before had assured her that the body of the Lord Jesus Christ was broken for her; which (saith my Author (as I remember from Mr Simmond's mouth) so wounded him, that he had almost sunk down in the room, (which two stories may answer that one which Mr Humphrey hath borrowed from Mr Fairclough, and printed in his rejoinder to Dr Drake) we need not go so far. What makes the profane and lose party in most of the congregations of England this day, so hate & revile their godly Ministers this day, and endeavour to get them out, (because they dare no more give the Sacrament to them) But this their former sin in giving the holy thing of the Sacrament to these Dogs and Swine formerly. I would feign know saith Mr George Gillespy, what fruit godly Ministers find of their former promiscuous administrations, but a goneral hardening of heart amongst their people, and a blessing of themselves in a supposed good condition, because they are administered to all the privileges of Saints, etc.  
7. This we see, if these Dogs and Swins be to be interpreted by the following words of the Text, they are such, as can or will make no other use of the Ordinance, then to trample upon it, and who will tear the Ministers who give them unto them; If the last sense of the words be admitted, we must seek for the interpretation of the Metaphor in other places of Scripture, where these terms are used to express wicked men or women.  
8. I find men and women in Scripture, calling themselves, or others Dogs; and the Holy Ghost calling some dogs upon six accounts.  
1. Upon an account of worthlessness, and inconsiderableness. In this sense Goliab saith to David, am I a Dog? etc. 1 Sam. 17.43. David calls himself a dead Dog. 1 Sam. 24.14. Abner asks if he were a Dog's head. 2 Sam. 3.8. Mephibosheth calls himself a dead Dog, because unworthy to sit at David's Table. And Abishai calls Shimei a Dog. 2 Sam. 16.9.  
2. Upon an account of cruelty; either cruel actions, in which sense, Hazael saith, Am I a Dog that I should do this? 2 Kin. 8.13. And David prays to be delivered from the Sword and the Dog. Psal. 22.20, 16. and saith ver. 16. Dogs had compassed him about. So Jer 15.3. or cruel words and threaten: So the wicked are said to bark and make a noise like a Dog. Psal. 59.6, 14.  
3. The false Prophets are called dumb and greedy Dogs, because they were greedy of filthy lucre, and could not speak the Lords word. Isa 56.10, 11.  
4. Wicked men are both in the old Testament, Pró. 26.11. and in the New. 2 Pet. 2.22. called dogs, because as the Dog filthily licks up his vomit; so when they have made some seeming confession of sins, or pofession of faith and holiness, they forsake it and return to their old wickedness.  
5. Heathens are called Dogs by our Saviour. Mat. 7.27. because they were none of God's Family, or Children, but aliens to the Commonwealth of Israel, and because they abounded with filthy lusts, as the Apostle tells us. Rom. 1.  
6. Sinners in general are called Dogs. Phil. 3.2. Beware of Dogs, 
Musculus ad loc.  where he means false Teachers, rightly called Dogs, saith Musculus. For first, their greediness of filthy lucre, Isa 56.11. 2. For their barking against the true Apostles. 3. For their returning to their old vomit, because they barked only to get food for their bellies, 
Caelv. ad loc.  saith Mr Calvin. So Rev. 22.15. Without are Dogs, etc. That is, all sinners, (at least all not enumerated afterward)  
For the term Swine; I remember it but once more in Scripture. (taken Metaphorically) 2 Pet. 2.22. where wicked men are compared to Sows, for wallowing in the mire and filth of sin. 
Ravanella in verbo Porcus.  Ravanella tells us that by Swine here are meant Infideles, impij, homines desperata malitiae, & impuritatis, quibus sordet verbum Dei, Epicurei profani.  
We have heard how the Scripture useth the metaphor; now to apply it.  
9 I conceive, except sufficient season can be showed to the contrary, by Dogs and Swine here must be meant, all such wicked persons as the Scripture elsewhere expresseth under that notion.  
10. If it may be expounded according to the first, or second, or sixth acceptation, we desire no more, than that holy things might not be given. 1. To any scandalous sinners. 2. To any unworthy persons. 3. To any who after profession in Baptism, return with the Dog to the vomit, to their old wickedness. For the third usage there is no colour; for it is not said, give not holy things to dumb Dogs or greedy Dogs.  
11. If any say that by Dogs here are only meant persecutors, according to the second usage. 1 They will be bound to show reason why this Text should be expounded rather by David Psal. 22.16, 20. Psal. 59 then Solomon. Pro. 26.11. or Peter. 2 Pet. 2.22. (which will be hard to assign) 2. I have proved before, that the word (which they say is the holy thing) ought to be preached to them. 3. For the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, if that must be denied to persecutors not excommunicated, then there is suspension distinct from excommunication, as to such yielded.  
12. If they say that by Dogs are meant Heathen, as Mar. 7.27. 1. Then either those only, or those amongst others. (2) If they say to those and some others we yield it, but it is nothing to the purpose. (3) If they say that the Heathen are the only Dogs, to whom holy things should be denied, than they ought to be given to persecutors, and excommunicate persons. (4) The Word ought to be preached to Heathens, therefore the Word cannot be the holy thing then. (5) There was no great probability of Christ's Disciples giving the Sacrament to Pagans. (6) The Heathen are called Dogs, not only because they were aliens to the Commonwealth of Israel, but for their (vitia canina) beastly lusts, which others may have, and therefore by a parity of reason meant here in this general term.  
Indeed I find expositors, who would restrain the holy thing, and pearls to some one Ordinance; as admonition or preaching, generally lost in seeking the Dogs or Swine to whom they must not be given. Chemnitius who (though he grants the Word and Sacraments to be the holy things here meant) yet seems to incline to think this Text chief forbids the preaching of the Word to some here characterized by the metaphor of Dogs and Swine; yet is miserably lost, in determining who those Dogs and Swine, to whom the Word ought not to be preached; 
Chemn●t. harm cap. 51. Pareus in 7 of Matthew.  and I doubt whether what he and Pareus at last determine, concerning refusing to preach the Gospel to some, be truth, and believe it may be proved, that Christ and his Apostles preached the Gospel to some such, as they determine against; and I think the same of what Gualther determines, 
Gualther ad loc.  who expounds the place, as chief meant of admonition: The excommunicate Dog, must be admonished as a Brother; who yet if he would have heard the Church admonishing, should not need have been excommunicated. 
Bullinger ad loc.  Nor doth Bullinger, who preceded Gualther, better satisfy, who seems to understand it of private admonition, yet dates not determine whether it may be denied to any, as a Dog. And Bucer concludes that the spirit of God must guide the Minister in such cases, 
Bucer ad loc.  to whom to preach, and to whom to refuse to preach the Word of God. But surely we must find the Dogs determined in Scripture, before our consciences will be warranted to justify our practice in denying the Gospel to them. Theophylact saith, 
Theoph. ad loc.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that Heathens are Dogs, and Christians, that live filthy lives, are Swine, Chemnitius says, We are all by Nature Dogs and Swine. Bucer and Gualther both confess, that sinners of impure lives, and unclean conversations, are Dogs and Swine; so saith Bullinger. But the Word, or admonition must not be denied to all such I am sure, and I know no ground for their restriction. The Lord's supper indeed must, which makes me think, that that Ordinance is chief here meant, though not singly. It is the only Ordinance is to be denied to all known Dogs; and herein I agree with my Learned Rutherford. 
Rutherford divine right. 254.  (sinon major sit quam ut mens dici possit, as he useth to say of our incomparable Twiss.) Brentius in his Commentary on the place, telleth us, 
Brentiu● ad loc cum autem in oculis ecclesiae sit poenitens non est vel ministri, ut eum contumeliosè a coena re●iciat, etc. ib. Conrade. Pellicanus in loc. Musc. in loc.  the Word and Sacraments are the holy things, and that wicked and impure men are Dogs and Swine, though he rightly concludes, that the Word is not to be denied to all Dogs, nor any (though Dogs in God's sight) to be kept from the Sacrament, (if penitent) Conradus Pellicanus expounds it with Mus●ulus, of all Gospel's mysteries,— Nolim Evangelicae sapientiae mysteria sine delectu tradi dignis & indignis, and tells us that those are Dogs who abhor holiness, and those are Swine who wallow in filthy pleasures; he seems to think the Gospel chief to be meant; but pinching himself with the perplexing question, what Dogs those are to whom Christ would not have his Gospel preached, he concludes with Bucer darkly— Nemo sine spiritu patris recte intelliget. Salmeron tells us, 
Salmeron l. 5. trac. 60.  that this Text teacheth us how we should preach the Word, and Administer the Sacraments, and that by Dogs and Swine are meant Infidels, Heretics, and carnal Christians, and (though a Papist) yet determines honestly, That the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is to be given to none but him who hath duly tried himself, and proved himself, and sales, it is thought by many Judas was not at the Sacrament of the Supper, if he were, he was a secret sinner, not scandalous. Which is also Alex: Halensis his answer. But I have said enough to prove both from Scripture, Reason, and the consent of Learned men, that as the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is one of the holy things here meant; so, if we may either from Scripture or Reason, or the judgement of Holy men, conclude any thing; impure sinners are here meant by Dogs.  
After all this, what Mr Humphrey saith, 
Mr Humfry's vind frce admission.  is not worth taking notice of.— He will have those only to be Dogs and Swine, who are so in the public esteem of the Church, viz. Juridically consured. So that with him; Give not holy things to Dogs and Swine, is, Give not holy things to excommunicate persons and this seems to be Mr Boatman's sense too, who excepts only excommunicate Christians from the Lords Supper, and it is likely he ploughed with his Heifer, not only by his commending of that lose Pamphlet to his Disciples, but by his bold censure of Suspension, as a Pharisaical dream, which amounts to Mr humfry's non est invent a in baliuâ nostrâ p. 82 which made me merry when I read it, (that being the usual return that Sherriffs make, who have never looked for the party, no more than I believe Mr Humphrey hath done for this Ordinance or else, when they have looked for him, with a resolution to overlook him.)  
The truth, is both Mr Humphrey, and Mr Boatman, had it from Erastus, or the same spirit at least. 
Erast thesis. 64.  He was the first worker in this sort of Brass; and what they say amounts to the same with his— Quos ecclesia ●ta judicavit. But let us see to how little purpose this is said.  
1. The Text is plain, that holy things are not to be given to Dogs or Swine. Now, I never knew that the shutting of a Dog out of the house, made him a Dog, I had thought he must have been a Dog first, before he had been shut out of the house, but this Mr Humphrey grants, only not used like Dogs before.  
2. Our question is, what are those Dogs here spoken of, whether these who have vitia canina, the beastly qualities of Dogs, or those only who have the ill hap of Dogs, to be turned out of doors. 
Petitio principij  I had thought that this Text had been brought to have proved, that those who have the nature and beastly qualities of Dogs, should be used like Dogs, and not have children's bread given to them.  
3. If excommunicate persons be meant here, surely this Text, or some other must justify the usage of this Metaphor, in that sense. But let Mr Humphrey show us but one Text of Scripture, where this term Dogs is used to express excommunicate persons, or let him show us any thing in the Text to enforce it here, otherwise we must tell him the Scripture calls all profane sinners Dogs, those who return with the Dog to the vomit, and with the Swine to wallow in the mire, are Dogs and Swine in the Scripture sense; but I find excommunicate persons called so no where upon the account of their excommunication.  
4. Nor is there any one Author on his side, that ever I met with, so that his interpretation is contrary to Scripture, Reason, and all Expositors.  
But yet we say, though the Sacrament be denied to Dogs and Swine, because they are so, not because they are shut out of the household of God by excommunication, yet in regard that man can judge but according to the out ward appearance, they must first appear to be so, before the Ordinance can be denied to them. Secret things belong to God. But to say that by Dogs here are only meant persons actually excommunicate, is a mere shift to avoid a strong argument, and but an idle dream, which hath no reality of truth in it, and is justifiable neither from this Text nor any other Scripture.  
But these men who are so zealous for the profanation of an Ordinance, are observed very lazy as to the preserving the purity of Ordinances. They must be excommunicated, before you keep them from the Sacrament, (saith Mr Boatman) so says Mr Humphrey, but why do not these tender men then, take a course to declare such to be Dogs and Swine, as are so, and to cast them out? Mr Boatman hath an Eldership established in his congregation, why did he not first call them together, and inquire the state of his flock, and cast 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 dreadful sentence.) What is Mr Humfries case I cannot tell, but their principles (and the practice 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 tails, and cannot fawn enough on them) But very zealous they are to declare that all Dogs (that are not hanged by excommunication) must be said with the children's 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 showed, who are meant by Dogs. There remains only 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 be trusted 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, etc.  
So then the sense of this place is this;  
You whom I have betrusted with the dispensation of my holy Ordinances, take heed you do not dispense any of them out to impure sinners, who will but trample upon them, and tear you, excepting only such of my Ordinances as I (appointed them as proper means for their conversion) have other where expressly 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 Soldiers fight God's 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 Humphrey or Mr Boatman do show us some 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 Aaron's rod. p. ●51.  that this Argument gained so much upon Erastus, that he restricted himself to the admission of such only to the Sacrament, as acknowledge and confess 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 go 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, & Sacrament is secundum institutionem Christi, cum ecclesiâ uti cupiunt. il ●d. Erast. confirm. the sium, in praefat.  where he tells us, that he only speaks for such sinners who understand, and approve of, and embrace the doctrine of the Gospel, who affirm, that they do truly acknowledge, and abominate their sins, and desire to enjoy the Sacraments with the Church, according to Christ's institution. We desire but one thing more; for let it but appear to us, that any do thus much, and let them be content further, (if their sin have been scandalous) to give us some proof 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 Scholars, are something more lose than their Master; Mr Humphrey 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 Lord's 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. 81.  But it would be enquired whither Mr Humphrey be as careful to inquire 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 thriee. Conscience is uniform, 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 deal of tenderness 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 hear, swear and lie, and jeor at Godliness, 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 calls ruling Elders.  
2. Such as profess their judgement for them.  
1. Some profess their judgement against ruling Elders; as Judges of communicants fitness with the Minister. (though Deane Nowell tells 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 Latin 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 business to go from house to house, and take account of their people's knowledge, and strictly to observe their lives, and admonish them for their miscarriages, and not admit any notorious sinners to the Sacrament, before public satisfaction in causes of public scandal, either taking upon them themselves, (according to the old Rubric) 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 bear with them, till they were further convinced.  
2 Others profess their judgements to stand for Presbyteries, but they know not how to got any; yet they think they are bound to administer the Ordinance. Would these men first do what in them lies, to set up the Government of Christ in the hands of his proper Officers, and in the mean time: 1. Not only in the Pulpit exhort, etc. but endeavour to be acquainted with all in their flock, going from house to house and taking account of their spiritual estate, and observe (and inquire concerning) their conversations; and 3. Pastorally admonish those that they find ignorant of that great sin of Affected ignorance, and unprofitableness under the means 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 administering 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 own part, I durst undertake to justify them in withholding the Sacrament, from known scandalous sinners, who after pastoral admonition, (where no more can be) shall yet presume to intrude.  
But I hear Mr Humphrey 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 do these tender men set up this same Court, in which the scandalous and ignorant should be first judged? or do 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 persuade me or any other, that it is from a tenderness 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 easy 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, than (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 find 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 Jews, nor Heathens, nor excommunicated persons, and he needed not have challenged all the Ministers on the earth, to this task.   

CHAP. III. Wherein a second Argument is brought to prove suspension distinct from excommunication, from 1 Cor. 10.21.  
A second Argument is this.  
It is unlawful to give the Sacrament to those who cannot eat or 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 Physical power, is plain enough, for so they might eat at the Table of the Lord, and the Devil's Table too.  
2. It must therefore be understood in a moral 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 Parens observes against him well, that it is a manifest depraving of the sense; 
v. Pareum ad loc.  the Apostles design being to show a plain inconsistency betwixt a fellowship with Christ in his Ordinances, and with Devils at Idols Feasts, not a mere indecorum in it. This is one of the senses which Musculus gives of the Text.  
3. I find indeed a third sense of the words hinted, 
Musc. ad loc.  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 spiritual Communion with Christ in it. As Augustine (supposing Judas was at the Lord's Supper) saith that he did eat Panem Domint, but not Panem Dominum. But I think Learned Beza saith something against this sense, when he tells 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 unlawfulness of their coming to the Table, being guilty of such sins.  
But the sum 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 coming 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 sinful for any to administer the Ordinance of the Supper to those whom he knows to be such, as are forbidden to meddle with it, or whom he knows 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 sinful 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 master's order before he deals 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 expressly 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 neverent thoughts of the wisdom 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 incline to the other sense, do clearly yet grant, that those who partook of the Table of Devils, are here either forbidden that Table, or the Lord's Table, which (if it be true, as questionless it is) our Adversaries must maintain 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 of the Gospel and his Eldership, way without sin admit any to the supper of the Lord, concerning whom they know, that in their present state, they cannot have Communion with Christ in the Ordinance, etc.  
I will try whether I can prove the Negative.  
None can without sin, knowingly expose the Ordinance of God, to necessary abuse and profanation.  
But who ever administers the Ordinance of the Supper to those concerning whom he or they know, they cannot have communion with Christ in the Ordinance, exposeth the Ordinance to a necessary abuse and profanation,— Ergo.  
The major is plain enough: the minor is as clear, if we consider when or how an Ordinance is profaned or abused. Her Priests have violated my Law, and have profaned my holy things, they have put no difference between the holy and the profane, neither have they shown difference between the unclean and the clean. Ezek. 22.26. A thing is then abused when it is not turned to a right use; but surely he can never turn the Ordinance to a right use, that cannot have Communion with Christ in it. I come to the minor.  
I think enough is said to prove the major; that it is sin for any to give the Lords Supper to those that cannot eat and drink there; (that is) to such either as are forbidden that Table, or such as cannot have Communion with Christ in it.  
But there may be some known in the Church, who are forbidden to come at the Lords Table, or who cannot have Communion with Christ in it,— Ergo.  
That there may be some such in the Church, I suppose none will deny; but the question is, whether there may be some in the Church that may be known to be such? I prove there may.  
If there may be some in the Church, who may be known to have fellowship with Devils, and to drink of the cup of Devils, than there may be some in the Church, who may be known to be such as cannot drink of the cup of the Lord, nor eat at his Table.  
But there may be some in the Church, who may be known to have fellowship with Devils, and to drink of their cup.— Ergo.  
The consequence is plain from the Apostle. 1 Cor. 10.20, 21.  
And the assumption is as plain, for there were such in the Church of Corinth.— Ergo.  
Object. If any object; But the Church is not bidden to keep them away if they do come.  
Sol. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we grant it; but I have already proved, that here is an implicit consequential prohibition of the Church, to admit such; and he had before forbidden them with Idolaters not to eat. 1 Cor. 5.11. (of which place more hereafter (God willing.)  
Object. But will some say, this was for an open horrid sin, Idolatry, etc. having fellowship with Devils, etc.  
Sol. Admit it; yet thus much we have gained; that Idolaters though they be not excommunicated, yet they may be denied the Lords supper, as well as persecutors, by Mat. 7.6.  
But secondly let us observe what fellowship these Corinthians had with Devils; they did not make a compact with Devils, they did not worship the Devil as some Idolaters; the business was only this: They being Members of a Gospel's Church, did eat at Banquets of those Meats, which were before sacrificed to their Idols, they did not sacrifice with them, but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. After the Idolaters had been sacrificing, they came to their Feasts, simply to eat the meat was nothing, nor had the Idol made it worse, and had it been sold in the Shambles the Apostle determined before, that they might have bought it, and eat it; that which altered the case, was only the show that it made to the Idolaters of their complying with them, and the circumstances of time and place; yet the Apostle determines this a fellowship with Devils and Idolatry, such a sin as they who are guilty of it, could have no communion with Christ in this Ordinance. Suppose they had made a compact with the Devil, or gone and worshipped the Idols, surely the Apostle would much more have said it of such.  
3. I cannot see but every scandalous sinner, every Drunkard, Swearer, Adulterer, etc. hath as great a fellowship with Devils, as the Corinthians had.  
One thing I desire you to observe. There might be latent grace in these Corinthians hearts, and doubtless was, yet while they lay under this scandal, the Apostle determines that they were such as could not eat at the Table, nor drink of the cup of the Lord. Whence I conclude, That there may be such in a Church, concerning whom it may be known that they cannot eat at the Lords Table, nor drink the Lords cup. It will not be enough to say, that God may give them repentance for aught we know at the time, or upon their receiving. In the mean time, till their repentance be evident, they may be known, and aught to be judged by us, as such as cannot eat at the Lords Table, nor drink the Lords cup.  
It is clear, 
Clem: Alex. in paedagogo. l. 2. p. 143.144. edit. cut. 1629. Tertullianus spectac. l. c. 12. Cypr. in ep. 10. quoest ad Clerum l. de lapsis non procul ab initio.  that the Ancients thought this having fellowship with Devils, was of vast extent; one applies it to all such as intemperately use the Creatures; Tertullian applies it, to forbid any kind of presence at, or countenancing of any superstitious practices, though but a looking on, in his book de spectaculis. Cyprian, in his Tenth Epistle, chideth the Presbyters by virtue of this very Text, that they would admit to the Lords Supper, such as had sacrificed to Idols, (through fear) before they had sufficient evidence of their repentance, and tells us that the Church in in his time for lesser offences, was wont to require satisfaction before Communion was allowed to the sinners: And in his book de lapsis, he doth sadly lament the hasty admission of such to the Sacrament. 
Gualther ad loc.  Gualther observes from this Text, the vanity of those who maintain that any sinners how notoriously wicked soever, might yet partake at this holy Table.  
I shall add no more to this second Argument. If it be unlawful to give the Sacrament to such as are known to be such as God hath forbidden to take it, and as cannot have Communion with Christ in it, than it is unlawful to give it to some such, as may yet be within the bosom of the Church. But I have proved the former unlawful.— Ergo I proceed.   

CHAP. IU. Wherein a third and forth Argument is brought to prove that suspension distinct from excommunication is deducible from Scripture; and the Argument is vindicated from the exceptions which Thomas Frastus, Mr Prin, Mr Humphrey, etc. have made to it.  
ARGUMENT 3.  
It is unlawful for the Officers of a Church, to give the Sacrament to such, with whom it is unlawful for themselves or their brothers to eat. But there may be some in the Church not cast out, with whom it may be unlawful for the Church to eat— Ergo.  
Argument 1 THE major is clear. The minor I will prove by an Argument or two.  
It is unlawful to keep the Feast with the old leaven of malice and wickedness. But there may be such old leaven in the Church.— Ergo  
Here I have two things to prove.  
1. That there may be some such in the Church as the Apostle calls old Leaven.  
2. That it is unlawful to keep the feast of the Lords Supper with them.  
Let us first inquire what the Apostle calls old Leaven. 1 Cor. 5.7.  
Erastus is very loath to tell us what he means by it; 
Cer●e quicquid per f●rmentum intelligamus, etc. thesi. 17.  only like a good disputant, he denies the conclusion, that excommunication is not spoken of in that Text; but that is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
It is a plain care that the Apostle there, as chiding the Corinthians, that they did not cast out the incestuous person: and amongst other Arguments he useth this. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.: what the english of that is, I cannot tell, if it be not this. A known scandalous person amongst you, polluteth your Church; It follows immediately, Purge out therefore the old leaven; is not the meaning of this think we, purge out the incestuous persons? ver. 8. Let us keep the Feast not with the old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice or wickedness. Surely he that hath not so sacrificed his reason to Erastus, that he is resolved jurare in verba Magistrs, must say by the leaven of malice and wickedness here, is meant scandalous sinners. The leaven that leaveneth the lump; (of which he spoke before) and this is the primary sense, though I easily grant we are also here forbidden coming to it with malice and wickedness in our own hearts. 
Beza de Presoyterio & excom. p. 89.8. a. Nam & nos de illis solis disputamus qui peccatum suum, agnoscunt & meliora promit●unt. Erast. lib. 3. cap. 7.  And of this mind is Learned Beza (I am sure) in his answer to Erastus, and thinks that he who denies it, would deny the Sun to shine at noon day too (if need were.) And this Argument so far prevailed upon Erastus, that in his reply to Beza, he tells us he pleads for none to be admitted to the Sacrament, but such as acknowledge their sins, and promise reformation. And Mr Humphrey is angry with Dr Drake. 
Mr humfry's rejoinder. p. 21.  that he should interpret him otherwise then of such to be kept away, as are excommunicate de jure or de facto: if I understand Latin or School-termes; one de jure excommunicate, is such a one as is scandalous and pertinacious, either refusing conviction or reformation; we ask no more than this is. But the misery is this; these men tell us so, when they are put to a pinch. But as Mr Rutherford notes of Erastus, 
Rutherford's divine right of Presbyt. p. 363.  so the reader may observe in Mr Humphrey, that all their Arguments in other places conclude for the admissions of such as are de jure excommunicate. Else Mr Humphrey was not in his right wits, when he returned a non est inventa upon suspension, only I cannot allow Mr humfry's exposition of de jure, restraining it to such gaol sins as he doth, (surely the man thinks he hath the Law in his own hands, or else he would describe such to be excommunicated de jure, who according to ●he Law of God, aught to be cast out of the Church, and those are all such as will not hear the Church, 
Mat. 18, 18.  ●hough their scandals be less than an incestuous mar●age, or an act of adultery. But to return, we have ●ound ●ut the old leaven to be scandalous sinners. Now, ●hat such may be in a Church besides this proof from ●he Church of Corinth, our own Church is sufficient evidence.  
It remains for me to prove that it is not lawful to communicate with such.  
That I proveby those words; Let us therefore keep the Feast, not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven ●f malice and wickedness. From whence is easily gahered, that Christians ought not to keep the Feast with scandalous sinners.  
All the question here is, whether the Feast of the ●ords Supper be there intended. 
●hesi. 17.  Thomas Erastus ●aith no, for than it would follow that men might be wicked at any other time, only than they must abstain. 
Beza de excom. page 90.91.  Learned Beza tells him of a fallacy in his argument; for the Jewish 7 days signified our constant conversation, and as they were to abstain from their leaven seven days; so we are to abstain at all times from the leaven of sin and wickedness. But besides this, 
Rutherford's divine right of Pres. page 349.  Mr Rutherford hath sufficiently answered this cavil  
But I admire at Erastus his consequence, or the force of his Argument.  
For admit that by leaven here is meant scandalous sinners, I see no hurt of his argument; we will yield him, that a Christian is not only bound to avoid communion with scandalous sinners at the Lords Table, but all the year long.  
2. Suppose that by leaven be meant sin and wickedness, not considered with aggravation of scandal, how it will follow, that because we are bound to purge it out when we come to the Lords Supper, therefore we may let it alone all the year long. Beside, that time poseth my Logic, except Erastus thinks that because the Jews never meddled with leaven but then. Therefore (the similitude running on all four belike) we must do so to; which if he doth Beza hath answered him.  
2. But what feast is this? 
Ruth. ibid.  By this Feast I understand Church communion in the dainties of the Gospel which are set forth to us under the similitude of a Feast Matt. 22. La. 14 16, 17, 18. Pro. 9.2, 3, 4, 5. Cant. 5.1. (saith Mr Rutherford.)  
This place cannot be restrained to the Lords Supper only, saith Reverend Gillespy, 
Gillespy Aaron's rod. l. 3 c. 7  but the Lords Supper must needs be comprehended as one, yea, a great part of the meaning.  
And surely there's all the reason in the world it should, considering what Mr S. Rutherford observee that Christians have no solemn spiritual Feasts but that, 
Rutherford divine right. cap. 11.9, 7.  especially if we add (saith Mr Gillespy) the Analogy of the Passcover, there much insilted upon. 
Gil. loc. praed.   
But I add further, what Feast is here meant I wonder? Surely the Apostle doth not speak of any civil ordinary Feast, nor any of the Mosaical Feasts. It must then be of some spiritual Gospell-Feast. Let us consider how this meraphoricall expression is used elsewhere. I remember but two places in Scripture, where this term Feast is used in a metaphorical sense. Pro. 15.15. A good conscience is a continual feast, that is, a good continual cause of joy and rejoicing. The other is, Is. 25. 
Ravanella in Verbo. Festum.  (of which by and by) Ravanella ranks all the usages of the term in the Old Testament, where it is taken for the whole or any part of the Jewish Worship, under the metaphorical acceptation; and tells us that Zach. 14.16, 18, 19 it is taken for all the gospel-worship: For the Jewish worship all their service almost might properly be called a Feast, because they had literal Feasts at them.— But 'tis certain 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 Gospel Ordinances. Let us enjoy Gospel Ordinances, and worship God together under the Gospel. Not with the leaven of malice and unrighteousness, not in a scandalous communion, etc.  
Thomas Erastus saith that by feast is meant here, 
Confirm. thes. ●. cap. 6. So Mr Humfry's vind. p. 85 v Chrys. in oratione contra ●os qui novilunia observant, & & Homil. 40. c. in 12. cap. Mat.  a Christians whole conversation. I confess I find some Reverend Expositors of his mind (though it may be not wholly. chrysostom is the most Ancient, who in his Oration against those who observed new Moons, and brought dance into the City; expounds it thus against them, telling 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 twelfth Chapter of Matthew. Theophylact follows him, and yet neither of them restrain it to that: No more doth Beza, who yet stretcheth it to that latitude. 
Calv. ad loc.  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; 
Eg● vero soli scripturae hunc honorem d●serendum censeo, etc. Hieron.  'tis enough for me that they do not exclude the Lords Supper, and I must be excused if for the reasons before specified, I think it chief meant; For I have learned (with Hierom) to give this honour only to the sacred Word of God, to believe what it saith, because it saith it. First therefore I say  
1. The Lord's Supper is a part of the Gospell-Feast, and the only proper Feast of it.  
2. The relation this Text hath to the Passcover seems to me to prove it.  
3. It was doubtless chief in reference to this Communion that the Church was to be purged-for some civil 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 harm at all would follow upon it. For surely if we ought not to converse with such in our civil conversation, much less is it lawful for us to have Communion with such at the Lords Table. And surely if it be unlawful for Christians to have Communion with such (though in the Church) it is unlawful 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 maintain that the clear sense of that place is, that we ought not to have a Communion at the Lords Supper with scandalous sinners.  
Argument 2 But I shall come to a second Argument.  
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, than 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 Humphrey. 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 Sacramental 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 restrain that Text to a civil Communion. Erastus gives these reasons.  
1. The Apostles precept concerning denying Communion, must not be so interpreted as to contradict Christ's precept. But Christ commanded all to receive. Beza grants both, 
Beza de Presb. & excom. p. 70.  and answers that Christ might command his Apostles to do 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 Christ's 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 tells us he hath proved it, but where, none knows, all that I find in him looking that way, is but a negative argument. Christ did not forbid any, nor do 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 weak 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 Jews in the same house, which he would have done probably, if he had intended for all. Erastus saith, Christ inviteth all to repentance— Ergo to the Sacrament. 
page. 249.  If the syllogism be put in form saith Mr Rutherford, the major is blasphemy; 
Ruth. divine right. page 362.  for by the same argument might be proved, that God invites Pagans to the Sacrament.— See more in him.  
Erastus hath another Argument. If the Apostle did here forbid these scandalous sinners the Sacrament, he had contradicted himself.— But he doth not contradict himself. The major lies upon the Doctor to prove.  
His lose lines must be thus form.  
He that should here forbid scandalous persons the Sacrament, 
Etenim paulo post licentius viventibus non interdicit ●ec interdieere jubet Sacramentorum usum, sed judicium Dei proponit. Erast. conf●rm thes. p. 249  and a little after, cap. 11. not forbid lose livers the Sacrament, only set before them their danger, contradicts himself.  
I will go no further, here's enough to be denied. Is it a contradiction? I wonder if I should write a letter to my friends, and in the beginning of it say, I will not have you come in such a gamester's company, & a little after in the same Letter, tell my friends, I hear some of them have been in gamester's company, and God will be revenged of them, if they follow such courses, I have not eyes to see it if it be. This is the very case here, must Paul needs forbidden that, cap. 11. that which he forbids cap. 5. or, doth he contradict himself?  
This is all that Erastus hath to say for it, which is to little purpose.  
That learned and worthy Gentleman (whom I am loath to name in this cause) pretends to give three reasons why the Sacramental eating is not here meant.  
First, because there is not a word of receiving the Lords Supper in this Chapter, 
Vind. p. 9 10.  and in the 10 and 11. Chapters he saith no such thing (though he professedly treats of it.)  
His Learned Adversary sufficiently answers him. 1. 
Gillespies Aaron's rod. l. 3. c. 7  Desiring him to prove that the 7.8. verse of this Chapter, is not meant of the Lords Supper. 2. Telling him that in the 24 page of his book, himself confesseth from this Chapter, that the Passeover and the Lords Supper are the same for substance, and that Ar●tius so expounds it. 
Ar●t. prob. loc. 80.  To that I have spoke already.  
Mr Prinn objects that 1 Cor. 10.16, 17. the Apostle says they were all partakers of one bread; yet in he Church of Corinth were some scandalous, some druntards that came so to the Table, etc.  
Mr Gillespy answers him, That the word all can be of no larger extent then visible Saints, such as were those to whom the Epistle was directed, and surely visible workers of iniquity cannot be visible Saints.  
Saith Mr Gillespy, he shall never prove that those that were drunk at the Sacrament, in the Church of Corinth, came thither such, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  or were drunk the night before, or known drunkards; if they were drunk, it was there, which the Apostle could not know before they came; where by the way, I desire my Reader to take notice of the invalidity of this plea of Mr Boatman's, for the admitting such as are known before hand to be scandalous sinners.  
I add further, 
Plus satis bibit. Grotius ad loc Quanquam ego non existimarem de eâ sermonem fieri qua homines alienati a sensu & ment susi jacent, sed potius de larga compotatione ita ut liberalius bibendo plus aequo exhilarati essent. P. Mart. ad loc.  that he shall never be able to prove they were drunk; the word there used is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which doth not always signify to drink drunk, but often to drink liberally and well. So Io. 2.10. The sense is only this, you come to the Table of the Lord in parties disorderly; first one company comes, and they drink liberally, more than they need, than the others come, and they have none to drink. Nor is this a new notion, I find it in Peter Martyr, Grotins, Estius ad loc. Beza in Io. 2.10. translateth this word affatim bibere, and why he might not have done so here, if it had pleased him, I cannot tell. This Dr Drake hinted Mr Humphrey of, and Mr Humphrey in his late vindication, is so ingenious as to allow it. So I hope now it may pass currant, and we shall hear this pleaded no more by Mr Humphrey or Mr Boatman, that drunkards were admitted to the Sacrament in the Church of Corinth.  
4. Especially considering, (what Mr Gillespy hath already said) that although it could be proved that there were drunkards, and other scandalous sinners there, yet it can never be proved that they were admitted to the Sacrament.  
5. I will add one thing more, the Apostle doth not say, 1 Cor. 10.16, 17. you are all partakers of one bread, (which if he had, it would have been something more to have proved that the scandalous sinners in the Church of Corinth were admitted to this Ordinance, but he saith no such thing, he saith we are all partakers of one bread; that is, while we (who are Saints) wait upon God in that Ordinancé, we partake of one bread, and are one body; yea, and that he saith they were one body, he plainly proves that the scandalous sinners did not partake of that one Bread. But of that more anon.  
6. Lastly, suppose this were true, that some of the Corinthians were notoriously scandalous. 2. That these were admitted to the Lords Supper, that St Paul doth not in so many words command their suspension, how doth this yet prove, that scandalous sinners ought to be admitted, till Mr Humphrey or Mr Boatman have proved 1. That the Church of Corinth did nothing amiss. 2. That because the Apostle did not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in so many words say, drunkards keep away, therefore he did allow them to come; any more than it will prove women ought to keep away, because Paul no where saith expressly, you believing women come, as well as men? So that this reason which is purely negative, though urged by Erastus, Mr Prin, Mr Humphrey, and Mr Boatman will never infer that it is lawful to administer the Sacrament to all, much less prove that Sacramental eating is not meant in the Text.  
Mr Prins second Argument is, because if we should so expound it, most of our members must be excluded.  
But Mr Gillespy hath told him, 
Aaron's rod. p. 426.  this is nothing to the purpose; 'tis quickly answered. 1. Let God be true, and his Word true, (though men be found liars. Fiat justitia, pereat Mundus. 2. We hope most of our members are not scandalously under those qualifications. Man judgeth by the outward appearance.  
Mr Prins third and last reason is, because it is clearly meant of civil familiarity. So saith Erastus, 
Vind. 4 scrious quest. p. 10 3 Erast. confirm. thes. l. 4. cap. 3. vind. p. 84. Rejoinder. p. 261  so Mr Humphrey; so many others which we will allow, if they will not understand it exclusively. But let us see how they can prove it, that it must needs only be understood of civil eating.  
1. Saith Mr Prin, he had expounded it twice before, by that very phrase not to keep company, that phrase is indeed twice before; but saith Mr Gillespy, 
Gillespy. p. 427  having twice before forbidden that, it appears here he means 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 appears by v. 10.11, 12, 13. compared together.  
Sol. I answer, 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, etc. and plainly tells them ver. 10. that his meaning was not that they should altogether forbear company with the fornicators of the world.  
Fourthly admit this, That this precept concerns 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 Sacramental eating; indeed it will follow it cannot be meant of that only which we do not contend for.  
I meet with no more pretended reasons. Mr Humphrey 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, showing you that there hath not yet been made appear by any sufficient ground that the not eating here is to be restrained to civil Communion, if it were, it would be to no great purpose, only it would make us make use of this Scripture as a radi● for an undeniable Argument, whereas yet we plead for a direct literal prohibition; but of that in the third place.  
I come now to my second task, in which I shall do two things.  
1. I shall show you some grounds which may make us probably judge, that the Sacramental eating, was the chief thing here intended.  
2. Why civil Communion should not be the only 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 follows: That by the Feast v. 8. the Sacrament is meant I shown 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, doubtless it is not to be expounded by a figure.  
The business 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 civil 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 do belong to a man as a member of the Church. The chief 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 Sacramental eating is here forbidden; or civil eating, or both.  
If the first or the last, 'tis all we ask.  
I shall now prove the second thing.  
2. That it is not probable that civil eating is here forbidden.  
1. Civil Communion was twice forbidden before, under the notion of keep no company.  
2. Civil Communion so far as eating goes, is lawful for Christians sure, with a Drunkard, a covetous person, or the like; or else as the Apostle tells us, we must go out of the world. This Erastus, and the worthy Gentleman (so often named) foresaw, and therefore spent much pains to work themselves out of this hedge of difficulty. But I shall not digress to follow them; the Reader may see Mr Prin (who says most) sufficiently answered by his learned Antagonist. 
Gillespy Aaron's rod. l. 3 c. 7   
I come to my third task.  
Admit that the meaning of this Text were what they would have, only to interdict Christians a civil Communion with scandalous sinners, yet 'tis nothing to the business, for thus we argue.  
If from that text it may be concluded unlawful for Christians to have civil Communion, 
Quod si mullorum tes●ium variâ & conso●an●● monitione dose●ur, ●um d ●l● quentibus sratribus cibo ne quidem 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, than it is much more unlawful for them to eat at the Lords Table.  
But 'tis granted that it is unlawful for them to have civil Communion with them.  
This Argument hath troubled Erastus, and Mr Prin, and Mr Humphrey to answer. Mr Humphrey 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 denied. Erastus himself is so sensible, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where it divideth, argues two things spoken of, so that he is forced to confess that thene are two things. 1. Intimate familiarity with such. 2. Eating with them.  
But surely the man forgot himself, 
Vetat ergo duo primum ut non habeant arctam cum talibus consuetudinem, deinde ut ne quidem edant cum eyes. Erast. confir. thesium lib. 3.  for is it not lawful 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 civil eating, raise our argument by consequence from that Scripture foundation.  
Secondly therefore the most intelligent say, that the Argument is falsely drawn to conclude the prohibition of the greater from the less: and to this purpose Erastus gives us some rules, and Mr Prin, and Mr Humphrey some, to regulate these argumentations. Their rules are these. (I will examine the truth of them as I go along) Propositions therefore wherein the greater is proved to be denied, because the lesser may be true.  
1. Erastus saith it may be true in gifts, but not in punishments. 
In donis non autem in poenis, Confirm. thes. l. 3. p. 250.   
Mr Rutherford tells him, it is true enough for us, if it be true in gifts, for fellowship with the Saints is a gift and privilege, and surely if one may have not the lesser privilege, he may not have the greater. 2. It must also hold in punishments, 
Rutherford's divine right of Presbyt. p. 366.  when the lesser is inflicted for the cause of the higher: is it not a good argument think we, such a man condemned to die, must not come into the Castleyard, till his Execution. Ergo much less may he go where he list about the Country.  
Secondly saith Erastus, 
Erast. ibid. Mr Prin. p. 11.  this Argument is true in things of the same kind, but not in things of divers kinds. So Mr Prin so Mr Humphrey.  
If this be true (saith Mr Gillespy) the Scripture is full of false Logic. Num. 12.14. If Miriams' father had spit in her face, should not she have been ashamed seven days; 
Gillespy Aaron's rod. l. 3 c. 7 Rutherford proves both these of the same kind. lib. praedic. ib.  how much more when God hath smitten her with leprosy? Hag. 1.4. You have built to yourselves ceiled houses how much more ought you to have built the Lords house Jo 3.12. If I have told you earthly things, and you believe not; how shall you believe, if I tell you heavenly things. 1. Cor. 6.3 Know ye not, that we shall judge Angels, how much more things that pertain to this life. Now mark Reader, how Mr Humphrey hath united this knot by accusing God himself, Jesus Christ, his Prophets his Apostles, all of false arguings.  
Thirdly, saith Erastus, it must be in things that are free, 
Erast. ibid. Mr Prin. ibid.  not in such things that are not of our own power, one being commanded of God, and the other not, as these are.  
But first, Erastus should have done well to have told us first, where we are commanded to eat with scandalous sinners at the Lords Table.  
Secondly, 
ibid.  saith Mr Rutherford, he should have proved, that it is a thing free to us to do or not to do, to have civil Communion with scandalous sinners, we always thought we had not been free in that point, but enjoined to a negative.  
Lastly, saith Mr Gillespy, what becomes of that Scripture Argument then, 
Gillespy ibid.  How much better is it to get wisdom then Gold, and understanding then Silver? Wisdom surely is not in our own power to get.  
4. 
Mr Prin ibid.  Mr Prin adds another case, wherein he thinks this Argument not concluding, in case the two things compared, fall not under the same precept, which is the case here. But Mr Gillespy rightly tells him, this is new Logic; for not to reproach God's name, is forbidden in the third precept; not to reproach man under the sixth and ninth. But I hope this is a good Argument, if we may not reproach our neighbour, much less may we reproach our Maker. 
Mr Gil, l. 3, c. 7.  And it is surely as good, if we may not have an intimacy of civil Communion with scandalous sinners, much less may we have the nearest Church fellowship and Communion with him.  
Thus have I done, (what indeed was done before) at least gathered together what have been said by divers more able to strengthen this Argument.   

CHAP. V Wherein a fifth Argument is brought whereby is proved, that hitherto none bathe brought any Scripture precept or precedent, sufficient to warrant promiscuous administration of the Lords Supper.  
I proceed to a fifth ARGUMENT.  
What the Officers of the Church have neither any precept obliging them to do, nor precedent to justify them in doing, that in the worship of God is sinful and unlawful for them to do.  
THE proposition standeth upon this bottom, That nothing is lawful in the worship of God, but what we have precept or precedent for. Which, whoso denies, opens a door to all Idolatry and superstition, and will-worship in the world. Besides the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, being a piece of instituted worship, we are in the Administration of it, to be guided according to the precepts, given upon the institution and for the Administration of it, and according to the example of the Lord jesus Christ and his Apostles. The example of Christ who first instituted it, and gave us an example for the perpetual celebration of it, and of the Apostles, who being the first who celebrated it, questionless did it in the purest Order, and most conformely to the will of Christ, with which they were best acquainted. Now I assume;  
But for the Officers of the Church, to give the Sacrament to such as are visibly scandalous, (though they be not excommunicated, is for them to do that in the worship of God, which neither any precept nor example of Christ, or his Apostles, will justify them in doing— Ergo.  
It is enough for us to affirm the minor, till our opposites produce some precept or example of Christ or his Apostles, justifying them in this practice. In regard some are pretended; I shall turn aside a little to examine the precepts or examples offered in the cause.  
1. Some think, that our Saviour's words, Mark 14.23. Drink you all of it, contains a command given by our Saviour to all, to drink of the Sacramental cup, and so virtually a command to his Ministers to give it out promiscuously. But let us before we grant this, examine who those All were. The twelve saith (Mr Humphrey) (we will examine that more strictly anon.) By all there, out of all question are meant no more than all present, and these were no more than the twelve, (if all of them) which wants proof too. But suppose all the twelve were there, yet not one of them was discovered to be a scandalous sinner, but even judas himself was both in the Disciples eyes, and in Christ's eyes, (acting not as an omniscient God, but as a Minister of the Gospel) a visible Saint. Which was the answer as I remember of Bonaventure, I am sure of Halensis and Salmeron, long since, and is the general answer of our Divines to that cavil. Nor hath Mr Humphrey in his Rejoinder, said any thing to prove judas then scandalous, for though (as Erastus noted before him) he had then treason in his heart, and supposing that to be true, which Erastus and Mr Humphrey so much plead, (but I scarce believe) that he had before covenanted with the High Priests, yet all this was secret, and he was not discovered, till upon Christ giving him the sop, he ask, is it I? Christ said, thou sayest it; and that reply of Christ was before as some think. Grotius well observes, that Christ did but whisper it to him, for it is plain, from john 13. that the Disciples knew it not till then, and he then having received the sop, went out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith john) which by the way, as I shall prove more anon) was both before the eating of the Paschall Lamb, 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 than 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 than the twelve, but the twelve only (if all of them) were present.  
2. Some think that they have a precept for promiscuous administering this Ordinance, from Mat. 28.19, 20. where we have our commission in these words; Go teach all Nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.  
1. To that I answer.  
1. There is nothing expressed 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 do 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 baptise any, but such as believed, 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 discern the Lord Body. So that this will not serve their turn.  
Thirdly, Erastus, and Mr Humphrey, and Mr Boatman, make a great stir with the wedding Supper, Mat. 22. to which all were invited, etc. But,  
1. They should remember that old and true rule, Theologia parabolica non est argumentativa. No argument can be fetched from Parables, but from the general scope of them. 
v Mr humfry's rejoinder. p. 52, 53. 54, 〈◊〉  Now he that runs may read, that our Saviour's main scope in that Parable, was not to show who might, or might not come to the Lords Table, but to show how angry God was with the Jews, for not coming to Christ, by which unbelief 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 Humphrey or Mr Boatman think they may argue, from any of the four feet of that parable, as to this cause, they may prove it to be their duty, not only to stand in a Pulpit, and invite all the Lords Table, but to go into high ways and hedges too, and bring in all they meet with, yea and to compel them to come in. Now it will prove too, that they ought to fetch in Pagans (who are chief 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 Humphrey 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, 
Dr Drokes Bar to free admission. p 30. Mr Humfries rejoinder. p. 54.  viz. the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, as well as they are invited to hear the Gospel. Here now M. Humphrey hath a mind more to show his wit then his honesty, thus he answers him p. 54. This is something ingenuous, but whereas he applies this, that a man may be invited to a Feast, yet not to the dish in the Feast; it is very fine, etc. then he tells us a tale of the two eggs, and concludes, let us have the dishes of the Foast, and what will become of Mr Drakes Feast.  
How falsely 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 remain. But the truth is, it was properest for Mr Humphrey 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 nasty intentions, and they may help a little towards it.  
4. I never heard of any more Scripture precepts protended, only 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, Do that, etc.  
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 concern those who in that Chapter are commanded to examine themselves, etc. and are not able to do 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 own 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 than this; you that are fit to do this, do 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 appear for their purpose.  
The first, that of Christ, who admitted judas as some think.  
The second Mr Humphrey mentions. Acts 2.41.42.  
The third is of the Church of Corinth.  
I will speak of the latter two first.  
The first than is Acts 2.41, 42. in the 41 verse, 3000 souls were added to the Church verse 42. it is said they continued steadfastly 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 Sacramental action. I could tell them of many who are of another mind. A phrase like this Luke 24 30. he took broad and blessed, and broke it, etc. is used to express common eating at our own Tables.  
2. But I confess, I incline to to think it was Sacramental 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 pricked at the heart, and had cried out, 
v. Mr Palmer's answer to Humphrey. p. 51.  Men and Brethren, what shall we do? such as continued steadfastly in the Apostles Doctrine, and fellowship and prayers, such as durst own Christ in those first and furious times. What's this to prove that all ignorant scandalous sinners, of but baptised, and not excommunicated, aught to be admitted to the Lords Table?  
2. In the next place, the example of the Church of Corinth is produced, where we are told, there were some came drunk to the Sacrament, or were drunk at the Sacrament; Fornicators, Covetous, Extortioners, Idolaters, yet all were admitted.  
1. I have before shown, that there is no colour to say that any drunkards were in the Church of Corinth, such at least as came drunk to the Table, and if they were so there, it must be proved that they did not repent, and yet came again the next time, or else nothing is said, but instead of this it cannot be proved (as I have shown) they were drunk there, 
Rejoinder p. 48.  and Mr Humphrey doth not disapprove it.  
2 The Apostle plainly saith, that some of this Church were Fornicators, Idolaters, Adulterers, effeminate, abusers of themselves with mankind, Thiefs, 
1 Cor. 6.9, 10, 11.  Covetous, Drunkards, revilers, extortioners; but now they were washed, justified, sanctified, with what face we can say they were so after, let any judge.  
3. There was an incestuous person, but they are bid to purge him out, not to eat, not to keep company with him: how this proves he was admitted, I cannot tell.  
4. Supposing such were admitted, the Argument comes to nothing, for though the Apostles example binds us, yet every Church's example doth not in all things, especially when the Apostle writes to them, and tells them, they could not partake of the cup of the Lord, and of the cup of Devils. 
ibid. p. 48.  If they did admit Drunkards, Mr Humphrey himself will acknowledge they did amiss, for he tells us, that he holds the Drunkard unintelligent, and fit to be turned away from all Ordinances, at least for the present.  
3. 
Erast. thesis 28.  But the greatest example is that of Christ, who they say, admitted Judas a reprobate, one whom he knew to be the son of perdition, etc. This Erastus tells us of, and Mr Humphrey, iterum atque iterum.  
Here are two things to be proved.  
1. That judas was a scandalous sinner.  
2. That he was admitted to the Lords Supper.  
We shall fail of the first proof, 
Beza the ●resh. & excom. p. 26. Gillespies Aaron's rod, 3. c. 10  which was Beza's answer to Erastus long since; and learned Gillespies answer to Mr Prin, viz. That judas was no scandalous sinner, nor was his compact with the High Priest known to the Disciples, and as for Christ's knowledge, (supposing he had not gone out) he acted as a Minister, 
Martyr in ● Cor. 5. Gerard, loc. come l. 5. p. 181. Alge●us de Sacram. Halensis sum. theol. p. 4. 9 11, art. 1. sect. 4. Dr Drakes Bar, etc. p. 9 Mr H●mfries rejoind. p. 15 16.  and not as an omniscient God, and those who peruse that Chapter in Mr Gillespies book, will find that this was the opinion of Peter Martyr, Gerard, Algerus, Durantus, Alexander Halensis, joannes Baptista de Rubeis, etc. The same answer Dr Drake gives Mr Humphrey, all that his Adversary saith, is but the same over and over again. He had compacted with the High Priest. (but this was secretly) Christ he saith, had revealed it. But that's false as to a particular discovery, for it is plain, that till he gave the sop to him they suspected themselves rather then him. The business is this:  
Jesus Christ there, as Arch Bishop and first Bishop of his Church, at once both institutes the Ordinance, and intends to set us a rule for the celebration, he therefore takes none but his disciples with him, whether judas was there or no, all the time of the action, is uncertain, (supposing he was) this we say, though Christ knew his secret compact with the Pharisees, yet it was not known to the Disciples, but to him as omniscient, and to teach us that we must not judge hearts, but actions, he turns him not away.  
And Mr Gillespy saith well, 
Gal. l. 3. cap. 10.  that if it could be proved that judas was present, yet it would no more prove that we ought to admit all scandalous sinners to the Ordinance, because Christ admitted judas, (as is supposed) than it would prove that we ought to admit any notorious Drunkard, Whoremonger, or other sinner, who is openly known to us to be such to the Office of the Ministry, because Christ admitted judas to the Apostleship, who he knew was a Devil, which may stop Erastus and Mr Humfries mouth, for the time to come, as to this Argument, except these can prove judas was so scandalous, as Jesus Christ, (merely as man) might have discovered it.  
But secondly, it can never be proved that judas was there at the Supper. I question whether at the eating of the Lamb or no, and I will anon show you some ground for it. Beza tells us, 
Beza de Presb. page 27. Erast. theses th'. 28. Mr Prins vind. 4 ser. quest. p. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23.  that he assents to those that think he was not there. Erastus himself discovers no great confidence in this Article of the new Creed. Mr Prin quotes many Authors in the affirmative. Origen, Cyprian, Ambrose, chrysostom, Nazianzen, Cyrill, Augustine, Victor Antiochenus, Theodoret, Remigius, Rathertus, Oecumenius, Algerus, Theophylact, Bernard, besides Canonists, Schoolmen, and Protestant writers.  
Mr Gillespy shows him his mistake in many of the quotations, 
Aaron's rod. p. 456, 457, p. 451 452, 453, 454.  and the ground of some of the Ancients mistake in this (taking the sop for the Supper. And further tells him, that Gerard and Brockman, and Theophylact, all confess it a disputable business, and with all gives him account of divers who were of another mind; and that chrysostom and Theophylact, etc. jointly agree, that scandalous persons were to be excluded. But let us examine Scripture and reason in the case. Mr Gillespy gives these reasons in the negative.  
1. 
Gillespy ibid. Dr Drakes Bar, etc. page 6. Mr Prins vind. p. 24. Gil. p. 441, etc. Rejoinder p. 9 p 446, 445.  Saint john saith, john 13.30. That he having received the sop, went immediately out. This is likewise Doctor Drakes fourth reason. To this Mr Prin excepts, but is sufficiently answered by Mr Gillespy. Mr Humphrey likewise excepts, that the Supper, john 13. was not that, at which the Lord instituted the Sacrament, but two days before, (though the best authority he hath for it, be a marginal quotation which surely was not wrote there, by the infallible finger of God.) It is a material exception, we will scan it anon.  
2. Mr Gillespies second Argument was, because it was not probable Christ would have said to Indas, this is my body which is broken for thee. This Argument he vindicates from Mr Prins exceptions.  
3. 
Dr Drake. p. 6. ibid. ibid.  A third Argument he useth (which is Dr Drakes fifth Arg.) is, because all those comfortable expressions Christ used while judas was there, were with exceptions, john 13.10, 11. You are clean, but not all. So ver. 18. ver. 21. which were left out at the Supper. To these Mr Humphrey replies, what all, did Christ never speak graciously to Judas amongst the rest? 
R●joind p. 9, 10.  Pray see at leisure. We may look long enough, where after this time, he spoke comfortably to him, we desire Mr Humphrey to show us. But as for john 13.10, 11, 18, 21. he says it is not in him (to answer them I suppose he means) God shall give an answer ●f peace.  
But he tells us, Christ saith he is a Devil, but I have chosen him, to what? to be an Apostle; he was not apparently so, when he chose him. He says that Christ says judas was not clean, yet he washes his feet; but the Text says 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 reprobate. To this Mr Humphrey only endeavours (to little purpose) to fasten a contradiction on the Dr, because the Doctor had said before, supposing he had known him to be so, yet Christ as a Minister (probably) would not exclude him. Let the Doctor speak for himself.  
5. Dr Drake adds a fifth. Because Christ's blood was shed for the remission of those who received.  
Mr Humphrey answers, 1 john 2.2. And not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world, that is, the Pagans as well as the Jews, viz. such of them as being fore ordained to life, should believe; but what is this to the purpose? What Mr Humphrey means by holding universal redemption as to the visible Church, so far as reacheth to the tenor and tender of the conditional Covenant, though not of the absolute, is too profound for me to fathom. Universal redemption; Conditional Covenant. Two Covenants, one absolute, another conditional, are notions in Divinity I do 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 than Arminianism minced for the better digestion.  
Dr Drake also hath another Argument, (which Mr Gillespy also hints) because Christ promised to arinke new wine in his Father's Kingdom, with those who received.  
To this Mr Humphrey answereth. But he doth not say with all. Let him remember that, and show 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 compel, but surely in good natured people it will induce some little persuasion of a probability that Judas was not there.  
Let us now hear what is pleaded on the Traitors side.  
1. Mat. 26.20. It is said he sat down with the twelve, Mar. 14.17. He came with the twelve, Luke 22.14. He sat down, and the twelve Apostles with him. Here's three Evangelists asserting it they cry.  
But what do they assert? that at their first sitting down the twelve were all there, who denies it? the question is not whether they sat down together, but whether they risen up together, whether they are the Sacrament together? john telling us that Judas went out assoene as he had eaten the sop, John 13.30.  
But Luke tells 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 Luke's Gospel is true.  
Dr Drake answers, that there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Luke puts a piece of the story behind, which should have been before. Mr Humphrey, out of his pretended zeal for Saint Luke who (he says) could not else speak 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 join it to another as a part of it, to which if it be taken as belonging, it becomes a manifest falsehood, 
Mr Humfries rejoind. p. 12, 13.  and says we will not abate a jot or tittle of the truth of Saint Luke's Gospel.  
That those words of Saint Luke should have been placed before, is plain.  
1. From Saint Luke himself, for their hands were now all off the Table the Supper done, and the last cup drunk; besides he adds ver. 23. that the Disciples all wondered who should do the thing; now surely they knew before this time, or else judas (as Mr Humphrey would have him) could not be scandalous at this time, his fact not known to his Disciples.  
2. St Matthew plainly placeth them before the Administration of the Supper. Mat. 26.20, 21, 22, 23, 24. So doth Mark ch. 14.18, 19, 20, 21. So Saint john, Io. 13.21, 22. which plainly proves it an histerology in Luke.  
3. Nor is it as Mr Humphrey would insinuate, a taking a piece of one story, and joining it to another, which would make it false, but only a misplacing of a piece of the same story, which is no unusual thing amongst the Evangelists.  
4. Nor will it amount to so much, as an invalidating the truth of Luke's Gospel, (which we desire to be as tender of as Mr Humphrey) any more than the order he pleads for, would invalidate the truth of the other three. Luke's being dictated by an infallible spirit, doth not oblige us to believe every punctilio of order, to have been as he describes it, contrary to the testimony of the other three.— Besides, john saith plainly he went out.  
But he tells us, we are mistaken in john 13. for that was a Supper (I know not when nor where) two days before the Passeover, and for this he citys a marginal quotation in our Bibles, pointing him to Mat. 26.2. which he bids us look.  
1. I must confess this well proved would be something to his purpose, it would plainly prove that the sop was eaten by Judas two days before the Passeover was celebrated, or the Lord's Supper instituted, and that Judas two days before was discovered scandalons to all the Disciples, and that two days before, he deserted Christ and the other Disciples; only if Mr Humfly 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 margin of our Bibles, the place we insist upon, is, Io. 13.30. where our ordinary Bibles have nothing in the margin, so that in obedience to him, we must tell him we have enquired, but non est inventum in Bibltis nostris. Indeed to the first verse of that chap. is affixed in marg. Mat. 26.2.  
But thirdly, he dreams that the Supper spoken of, where judas had the sop, was a Feast two days before the Passeover. Indeed we read Mat. 26.1, 2. Mar. 14.1. of some consultation of the Chief Priests, two days before the Passeover, to take Christ. But that there was any supper besides this at the Passeover, will pose Mr Humphrey to prove.   

CHAP. VI Containining a digression, in which there is an attempt to prove that Christ did, eat the Passeover two days before the Jews did eat it that year, and that he was not crucified till the second day after he was apprehended, and that at the Passover there was but one supper, as is plain by the comparing the Jewish order of celebration, with the story of the four Evangelists concerning this, and that judas was not present at the Passeover nor the Supper.  
IT seems to me very conducible towards the clearing of this matter of fact, whether judas received the Supper or no, to find out 1. What day Christ celebrated the  and instituted his supper.  
2. To examine the jewish order of celebrating the Passeover, and to compare it with what the Evangelists have, concerning Christ's actions in it.  
Towards the first, I shall offer these following considerations.  
1. It is clear from Scripture, that the time God set for the celebration of the Passeover, was the 14 day of the first month at even. Ex. 12.18, 19 Leu. 23. v. 6. Num. 28.16, 17.  
2. It is as clear, that it was to be 7 days, in all which time they were to eat no unleavened bread.  
3. 
Dr Lightfoots Temple service, cap. 12.4.  The Lamb (at least for the first Passover) was taken up the tenth day, whether this held or no, is doubted and by many denied, it was at first, Ex. 12.7.  
4. It is clear, that the Jews reckoned the beginning of their day, from the setting of the Sun the night before.  
5. When the days of unleavened bread should have begun, it is clear. Leu. 23 6. on the fifteenth day, they were to eat unleavened bread, that is, from the evening succeeding Sunset the fourteenth day. Therefore Ex. 12.18, 19 it is said on the fourteenth at evening you shall eat unleavened bread, which fourteenth at evening, was the beginning of the fifteenth, and that is clear, for they were to end the 21 at even, and to hold but seven days. 
Grotius in Mar. 6. Dr Willet in Ex. 12.9, 7.  Grotius says there were eight days of unleavened bread. So josephus tells him. But Dr Willet tells us, josephus must not be credited in it, it being expressly against Scripture. Rupertus is in the same error, but we must not yield it.  
6. Yet because on the fourteenth day they killed the Passeover, and at even began the first of unleavened bread, it is plain they called the fourteenth day the first of unleavened bread, and so saith Dr Lightfoot, it is called in Scripture, 
Dr Light. Tem. service. cap. 12.  in the New Testament, and so it is called both by Mark and Luke. The first day of unleavened bread, when the passover was killed. Saint Luke, when the Passover ought to be killed. So that in strict account, the days of unleavened bread began not till the Sunset of the fourteenth day, yet in vulgar reckoning they began before, and the whole fourteenth day was so called.  
7. And I conceive for another reason, which both Buxtorf and Dr Lightfoot hint us, 
ibid. Buxt. synag. jud. cap. 12.  and that was a custom the Jews had, to send an Officer assoon as ever Sun was set on the thirteenth day, to search for leaven in all houses; which he did narrowly with Candles, and this search continued till the next day at noon, at which time they threw what they found this way and that way. Hence I conceive the whole space of time from the thirteenth at Sunset, till the fourteenth at Sunset, was called the first of unleavened bread, not that it was strictly so, but that it was called so from this fashion. And in this, 
Grotius in. Mat. 26.17.  Grotius agrees with me, though not upon this reason. It is plain both by Mark and Luke, that the fourteenth day is called the first of unleavened bread, which fourteenth began at Sunset the thirteenth day.  
8. For the time in which Christ celebrated the Passover, and instituted his Supper, it is plain from the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11.23. it was the same night in which he was betrayed.  
For the day wherein he was crucified; 
Beda de ratione temporum. Dr Wil in 12. Ex. qu. 11.  Beda tells us, that no Christian must doubt but it was the fifteenth day of the month; Dr Willet saith it is the received opinion. But Learned Scaliger with others, conclude the contrary. It is certain, that the day whereon he was Crucified, was the day, or day before the preparation to the Jewish Passover and Sabbath. Mat. 15.42. Luke 23.54. john 19.14, 42.  
9 
Scali. de emend. temp. l. 6. p. 566  That he was Crucified before the noon of the day, is clear, from Mar. 15.25. it was about the third hour. And Mat, 26.45, 46. after he had been some time on the Cross, was the sixth hour when the darkness began. Now the Jews reckoning their hours, from our six to six, the third hour was nine of the clock, at which time saith Mark, he was Crucified, and the sixth hour was twelve of the clock, at which time the darkness began, and lasted till three.  
10. For the better finding out therefore of the night wherein he was betrayed, (in which he instituted the Supper (saith Saint Paul) Let us consider what the Gospel says was done, from the time of the institution of the Supper till his death.  
Some think that excellent Sermon john 14.15, 16. was preached in the chamber where he administered the Supper. Some think it was, as he was going to the Mount of Olives and Gethsemane. Certain it is, it was after the Supper. On the mount of Olives he sings an hymn; after this he goeth to Gethsemane, and is in an agony, prayeth thrice (besides that prayer John 17.) After this, 
Mat. 27.1, 2. Mar. 15.1, 2.  Judas comes and apprehends him he is carried before Caiphas the High Priest, there he is kept in examination till the morning, than the Priests consult what to do with him, they resolve to send him to Pilate, there he is largely examined. Mat. 27. ver. 11. to ver. 27. Pilate resolves to send him to Herod the King, he is examined before him, mocked, crowned with thorns, etc. Then he is sent back again to Pilate; Pilate examines him again, scourgeth him, and delivers him to be Crucified. Two things observe, or three. 1. It was the morning before he was sent to Pilate at all. 2. It is said Pilate sat in Judgement on him at the sixth hour. john 19.14. which was twelve of the clock. 3. he was examined in two several Courts, and twice in one of them.  
11. Which (to speak the least) makes it seem probable to me, that the night wherein Christ was betrayed (which was the night wherein he instituted the Supper) was not the immediate night before he died, for than you can allow him for his two trials before Pilate and Herod, but from the morning till nine of the clock, at nine saith Mark he was Ciucified. 
Mar. 15.25.  It was the morning saith Matthew and Mark, before they carried him to Pilate. Nay more, john says, 
john 19.14.  that at the sixth hour Pilate fate in judgement on him, which could not be if he were Crucified the same day, for saith Mark at the third hour he was Crucified.  
12. 
Gerard. Harm. in pass. cap. 11.  I know learned Gerard endeavours to untie this knot, and to that purpose tells us, that as the Jews divided their night into four watches, each consisting of three hours, so they divided their day into four quarters; The first from six a clock, which was their first hour, to nine, which was their third hour; The second from nine their third hour, to twelve their sixth hour; The third from twelve their sixth hour, to three their ninth hour; The fourth from three their ninth hour, to six their twelfth hour; and he says, that when it is said Pilate sat in judgement at the sixth hour, john 19.14. it must be meant not precisely at twelve of the clock, but at some time between nine and twelve. And when Mark saith he was Crucified at the third hour, it must be meant the third part of the day between twelve and three of the clock. But besides that, this is not warranted from Scripture. I do no where find, that they called their third quarter of the day, the third hour. 
Histo● Eccles. Magdeb. l. 1. c. 10 in censor. l. de natal. cap. 10.  Though indeed the Magdeburgenses, and others, mention their division of the day into four parts, yet I do not find that they called their second division the second hour, much less the sixth; nor their third quadrant the third. Mark saith expressly, it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Besides though some indeed say, that the Hebrews divided the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into four vigils for the night, and four quadrants for the day; yet Scaliger seems to contradict them, he tells us, Totum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hebraei in quatuor partes dividebant quas vigilias vocabant, 
Scali. de emend. temp. lib. 1. ●. de horis, etc.  prima vigiliaerat à vespere, secunda à mediâ nocte, tertia à mane, quarta à meridie. But besides, we read in Scripture twice more of the third hour. Mat 20.3. in the Parable of the householder, sending labourers into his vineyard, he sent some at the third, some at the sixth, ninth, eleventh hours; where the third hour cannot be meant of the third quadrant, no more than Acts 2.15. for it was no wonder men should be filled with new Wine by twelve of the clock, or betwixt 12 and three. Now surely the third hour in Mark is the same with the third hour. Mat. 20 3. Acts 2.15.  
But if we may allow that he suffered the second day after his apprehension, we can put a fair interpretation, both upon john 9.14. saying Christ was tried before Pilate, about noon the day after his apprehension, and the next day was crucified about nine of the clock the third hour, (as Saint Mark calleth it) and about twelve of the clock the same day the praeternatural Eclipse began, and lasted till three, about which time he died.  
13. This I am induced to believe, considering that the Jewish morning began at six of the clock, at which time saith Matthew and Mark, 
Mat 27.1, 2. Mar. 15.1, 2.  the High Priest and Elders met to take counsel to put him to death, and agreed to carry him to Pilate, who was the Romish Governor, and we can hardly imagine him to be upon a Judgement Seat before eight or nine of the clock, and though the Jews were hasty to put him to death, yet no such thing appears in Pilate, he was loath to do it, 
Mat. 27.19.  as appears by the story, and spent some time in examining witnesses, was a little hindered by his wife, 
Lu. 23.9, 10, 11.  then sent him to Herod, who being so great a man, probably did not presently hear him; when he did, we must allow him some time. After this he was sent to Pilate again, who sat in Judgement upon him at twelve of the clock, john 19.14.  
14. If this be true, the night wherein he administered the Supper, must be two nights before his passion. It is plain, he suffered the day before the Jewish Passeover, as I said before, not on that day (as some fond think) for besides that, the Passover was that year on the Sabbath. Scaliger well observes, 
Scali. de emend. temp. l. 6.  that it was too high a Festival for the Jews to do any such work in.  
15. That the Jewish passover was to begin on the evening after the Sunset of the fourteenth day, is plain from Scripture. Exod. 12. Leu. 23. So then Christ should have suffered on the fourteenth day of the month, which was their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the day of their preparation; and in vulgar account, the first day of unleavened bread, as I said before.  
16. But it is plain Christ did not suffer on that day, for all three Evangelists agree, that this day his Disciples came to him saying, 
Mat. 26 17. Mar. 14.12. Luke 22.7.  Where wilt thou that we prepare the Passeover etc. And the night following he did eat it; they plainly say, it was the day wherein the Passeover was to be killed. How then did he die on the preparation day?  
17. Paulus Burgensis in his Annotations on Lyra, 
Paulus Burgensis in Ann●●. in Lyram. Sebast Munster. in edit. Evang. Mat. Heb. c 26 Beza in Mat. 26. Grot. in loc. Bucer in loc.  tells us, that by an Ancient tradition of the Rabbis, which Sebastian Munster saith, was a Law made under the 2 Temple, by the Jewish Sanhedrim, and delivered to Rabbi Eliezer. The Jews in case the Passover day fell out any year on the eve of the Sabbath, put off the Passover and kept them both together. This Beza approves of, though it distastes Grotius; and I find Bucer thus untying this knot. So then according to this rule, the day of the Passeover so falling out this year, they began their Passover the sixteenth at even, and killed their Lamb the fifteenth; so that this year strictly the fifteenth day was the day of their preparation, in which Christ died.  
18. I refer it to the Learned to inquire, whether when these cases happened, that the Passeover was kept the sixteenth day, (being their Sabbath) they began to search for leaven the fourteenth day at Sunset? or whether in this case they did not keep two days of preparation, and began their search for leaven at their usual time, only putting off the Paschall Supper; if they did, which I am apt to believe, than the first of their days of unleavened bread, according to vulgar account, began as usually the beginning of the fourteenth day, viz. immediately after Sunset on the thirteenth, and was two just days before the Passeover, (as that year fell) though in ordinary years but one day: this I confess to me seems very probable.  
19 Or else the Evangelists must be understood thus. The Disciples came to him the first day of unleavened bread, that is, that day on which the Passeover ought to be killed, according to God's Law, in the evening precedent that day, which in ordinary years was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the day preceding the Passeover (though it were otherwise that year.  
20. It is certain that in a strict sense, it cannot be true that his Disciples came to him that day, on which the Passeover was killed that year, for than he must either be Crucified the first day of the Feast of the Passeover, or after; and then that night in which they should have eaten the Passeover, the High Priests were consulting to murder him, or else the Scripture must be denied, which says, he died before the Passeover.  
21. Christ doubtless died on the fifteenth day, (let Scaliger say what he please) which 15 day should have been according to God's Law, the first of the Passeover; but was not that year, because of their tradition. Our Passeover was thus on the true Passeover day offered; this fifteenth day they that year killed their Passeover; 
Mar. 14.12. Luke 22.7.  and I am apt to believe that the Evangelists speak of that day, not wherein the Passeover was killed that year, but wherein it ought to have been killed. Therefore Luke calls it the day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; which day was the fourteenth, and began the night before at Sunset.  
22. Yet here Grotius and Piscator's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must help us; for if he eat the Passeover the fourteenth at even, that is, the evening after Sunset, how could his disciples come to him the fourteenth day, to know where they should provide. Piscator saith, 
Piscator ad. loc.  we must understand it of the day before, in the afternoon of the thirteenth day, when the fourteenth day, which was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was just at hand, than the Disciples came to him, and said, Where wilt thou that we prepare the Passeover, etc. And that night which was the even of the fourteenth day he came and did eat it, which was two full days before the Jewish Passeover that year, and the time when in former years they began to search for Leaven.  
23. So we say, that Christ did that year anticipate the time of the Passeover, both the Jewish time that year, which according to their tradition, was two days after, 
Scali. de emend. temp. l. 6. Grotius in Mat. 6. Pis. in Mat. 26.  and the true time which was the night after. Scaliger and Grotius, and others, grant, he anticipated the Passeover. Piscator grants, that he anticipated the Jewish day that year. I believe he anticipated it two days, that so he might die that very day, which according to God's Law, was to be the first of the Passeover, and so show himself the true Passeover. Grotius gives us a good hint, that Christ gives a reason why he antedated the time of the Passeover, Mat. 26.18. bidding his Disciples tell the Master of the house, my time is at hand, I will keep the Passeover; that is, I know I shall be apprehended this night, and shall not be in a capacity to keep the Passeover at the due time, therefore I will keep it this night; which was after Sunset the thirteenth day, in the beginning of the fourteenth, and then he died the fifteenth, which was as I said, usually their first great day, but this year, the preparation to the first day of the Passeover.  
24. I am far from thinking, that this notion of mine is liable to no exceptions, but I desire those who shall except, to think of a better way to reconcile those Texts, which plainly prove that he died upon one of their preparation days. Mat. 27.62. Mar. 15.42. Luke 23.54. john 19.42. with those Texts, which say, his Disciples came to him, saying, Where shall we prepare the Passeover, on the first day of unleavened Bread. whether in regard of their double Feast, they might not have that year a double preparation day? I refer to be enquired. I am apt to believe, that both the fourteenth and fifteenth days were both days of preparation, that year, because of john 18.28. john 19.14. compared with john 19 31, 42.  
My opinion is, that on the thirteenth day of the month Nisan in the afternoon, two full days before the Jewish Passeover that year began, the Priests met to consult how to take Christ, and put him to death, of which we read Mat. 26.3. Mar. 14 1. Luke 22.2. and that toward Sunset that night the Disciples came to Christ, saying, Where wilt thou that we prepare the Passeover. Christ directs them; and that night which was the even of the fourteenth day he came with twelve, amongst whom was Judas.  
Thus much for the time, now let us consider the order of the whole action, which is fully described by no Evangelists singly, but by comparing them one with another.  
Luke expressly speaks of two cups that were drank by him Luke 22.17, 20, John, as we have translated him, seems to speak of two Suppers. john 13.2, 21, ver. Hence Saint Augustine of old, 
Aug. de consensu Evangelist.  thought he did eat of two Suppers, the one the Paschall Supper, the other a common supper. Of these we are also told by Arias Montanus, Grotius and Scaliger, 
Aria's Monta. in Mat. 26. Scali. de ●mend. temp. p. 571.  Pelargus and Gerard, think there were three Suppers, upon which Mr Humphrey from Godwin, puts an unlikely. (supposing they might eat as much as they would of the Lamb) Grotius hath likewise another fancy, viz. 
Grotius in Mat. 26.  That Christ that year did not eat of the true Passeover, which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but only of a Passeover, 
Gerard Harm. cap. 170. Pelarg. qu in Mat. c. 13 sect. 2. Rejoinder. p. 9  the Jews had devised in the Babylonish Captivity, which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because it only served to keep alive in their memories, their deliverance out of Egypt. But— Credat Judaeus Apella; Grotius shall never make me believe, that Christ kept a mock-Passeover, which had no Basis of divine institution, especially considering how little a friend Christ was to their traditions, and that he was now at Jerusalem, where the true Passeover might be observed, and aught so to be.  
Yet I must confess, I am apt to believe, that Christ and his Disciples, did not keep the Feast of the Passeover, according to all its legal formalities that year, for (besides that, I conceive he kept it the night before the Jews killed it at the soon, admitting they killed it at the usual hours on the fourteenth day) had he kept it in every formality of it, he must about ten or eleven of the clock with his Paschall society, have been at the Temple, and then killed it, and offered the fat, and sprinkled the blood; now he was that day absent from Jerusalem, and came not till the evening, which makes me, though I think he did eat Paschall Lamb, and not keep the Jewish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; only yet I believe he did not keep it according to the Jewish rites, the temple standing, but rather according to the order of the first institution, Exo. 12. differing in that he did eat it standing.  
But if I mistake not, a due consideration of the whole Jewish solemnity, in the celebration of the Passover will let us in sufficient light to expound the story of the Gospel about this Supper, without feigning two or three Suppers. Let me therefore 1. Turn aside to that, and then 2. See how we find what the Gospel tells us of this solemn celebration suited to it.  
I find the celebration of the Jewish Passeover, excellently described by Buxtorfius, 
Dr Light. Tem. service. cap. 13. B●x● synag. jud. cap. 13.  in his Synagoga Iudai●a. cap. 13. And also by our learned Countryman, Dr Lightfoot, in the 13 chap. of that excellent book of his, wherein with abundance of rabbinical learning, he discovers to us the whole Temple service, as it was amongst the Jews in Christ's time, and in his 13 chap. digresseth to give us an account of their manner of celebrating the Paschall Supper in their private houses. The order they say was this.  
1. On the fourteenth day after their evening sacrifice, which they called Mincha, they went into their Schools, 
ibid.  (saith Buxtorf.) and spent the time till it was dark in prayer and praise, not eating any thing (saith Dr Lightfoot) in the mean time saith Buxtorfius, 
ibid.  the women at home were dressing up their houses, laying out all their fine things, preparing their tables and their seats, etc. for the poorest must sit (saith Buxtorfius.)  
2. Late at night they come home, and every one sat in such a posture, that he might lean upon the table, 
Dr Light. ibid. Buxtorf. ibid.,  by that posture, showing they were now no more slaves, but free men. In this Buxtorf. and the Doctor both agree; this is hinted to us, by John's leaning on Christ's bosom. john 13.23. and (as our Doctor observes) doth expound it, he leaned on the Table next to Christ, with his back to his breast: Herein they differed from their posture at their first Passeover in Egypt, which may cure the mistake of those, that think the Supper in the Gospel must be distinct from the Passeover, because they conceit that was to be eaten standing, which is true of the first in Egypt; but no more as Buxtorf. and Doctor Lightfoot, 
Dr Willet in Ex. 12.  and Dr Willet, and many more affirm and prove.  
3. Buxtorf. says the Table was first furnished, before they sat down, Dr Lightfoot saith after; but they both agree that the first thing they did, when they were set, was, they drank off one cup of Wine, over which they praised God.  
4. After this they both agree, that in the next place they washed their hands.  
5. Then saith Dr Lightfoot, the Table was furnished.  

1. There was set on a dish with two or three cakes of unleavened bread.  
2. Then the Paschall Lamb.  
3. Then a Salad with bitter herbs, Lettuce, Endive, Succory, etc.  
4. Then a dish with thick sauce, which they called Charoseth.  
5. Then another dish or two (saith the Dr) of other meat which they added.   
6. The Table being thus furnished, and one cup of Wine drank, Buxtorfius and the Dr agree, that the next thing the officiator did, was, he took some of the bitter herbs in the third dish, and dipped them in the thick sauce in the fourteenth dish, and eats himself, and gives to the rest immediately, saith the Doctor. The dishes are taken off, and they tell one another, and tell their children of the bitter affliction they suffered in Egypt, etc. when this is done.  
7. The dishes are brought on again, and the officiator takes the unleavened bread, and the bitter herbs, and the Paschall Lamb, and consecrates them all severally, using certain forms of words in the consecration, and washeth his hands again, and useth a short prayer; then they drink a second cup of Wine.  
8. Then he takes one of the Cakes, and breaks it, taking part of it, and laying it upon the other, and the other part he puts under his Napkin for himself, saith Buxt; but Dr Lightfoot saith it was for the Aphicosin, the last bit, they were wont so to close their supper as the Dr saith. Buxtorfius tells us this breaking of the Cake was before, but doubtless it is a mistake, for it could not be before the consecration of all. When he hath thus disposed of the one piece, he takes the other and gives it to the company, who eat it.  
9 After this saith Dr Lightfoot, they give thanks, and eat their flesh-meat of the Paschall Lamb, to the quantity of an Olive; yet because this eating should be to satetie, he says they usually eat something before, than they wash their hands again, and say grace over a third cup of Wine, (saith the Doctor) and then drink it off; this saith he they usually call the cup of blessing, in allusion to which. Saint Paul calls the Sacramental cup so. 
Luke 22.17.  1 Cor. 10.16. And this (saith he) is the first cup spoken of by Luke.  
10. Buxtorfius (to whom I must return again, to see what becomes of the Aphicomen, or piece of unleavened bread, which Dr and he too, told us the officiator, even now laid under his Napkin) tells us, that now supper being done, 
Temple service. page 161.  that is taken by the Master of the family, and given to the rest. With this likewise the Doctor agrees, telling us this was the bread which Christ took after the third cup, and blessed & broke it, and give it to them, saying, Take eat, this is my body, &c  
11. Lastly, both the Dr and Buxtorf. agree, that after all this, at this supper they drank a fourth cup of Wine, called the cup of Hillell, at which they sang some Psalms, having begun over their second cup; so they concluded with praise and prayer; of which see more in those two learned books.  
This was the Jewish order at their private Passovers, now let us see how Christ suits this in his celebration.  
I hope any ingenious Reader will grant me, that Christ was not tied precisely to any piece of this, that had no basis, but tradition. This supposed, I say that the Jewish Passeover being that year on the sixteenth day, or the fifteenth at even, (which is all one) because of the Sabbath, two full days before this, viz. The thirteenth in the afternoon, 
Mat. 27.1, 2. Mar. 14.1, 2.  the High Priests took counsel how to kill our Saviour; judas had not then bargained with them, for then that counsel had been needless. That very afternoon near Sunset, (at which time began the first of unleavened bread, in ordinary years according to vulgar account) Christ sends his Disciples to prepare the Passeover, and when it began to be dark, he and the twelve, came and found all prepared for them. There's the first thing.  

1. He came in the evening with the twelve.  
2. They all sat down. So say all the Evangelists.   
Now Saint john goes on, john 13.2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Supper begin ended; so we translate it. So Tremellius and Beza, 
Tremel Bib. B●za verse. Test. Tre. Versio. Pisc. in. loc. Erasm. Versio. Gerard Harm. cap. 170.  but the Tigurine Version and Piscator translate it better; Coenafacta, Quum Coena fieret; while they were at Supper, which indeed the phrase properly signifies: and Gerard quotes the like in the Septuagint. Erasmus agrees with the Tigurine Version, while they were set at this Paschall Supper, the Devil put thoughts into judas to betray his Master. Verse 4. Christ riseth from Supper, (it was not ended then) and layeth aside his garments, and takes a Towel and washeth his Disciples feet. This action of Christ's, troubles Expositors, some would have it before Supper, (expressly contrary to Scripture) some after the Paschall Supper, some after all. But let who will say it, they shall never be able to prove, that it was an ordinary usage amongst the Jews, either in supper time, or after supper, for the Mr. to rise, and wash his guests feet, much less at the Passeover. Though washing of feet were usual amongst them before they sat down, when they came newly into the house, and washing of hands usual at the Passeover, as I said before.  
This action of Christ's therefore, was questionless extraordinary, to teach his Disciples those two great lessons of Humility and Charity. I am apt to believe that whereas the Jews at their Passeover, when they were sat, and had drank their first cup of Wine, washed their hands. So when they came to this action, (to which Christ was not tied, being no piece of the Law) he risen up and washed all their feet, and this was instead of the fourth action in the Passeover, before observed in the Jewish order; for the third, the drinking the first cup of wine, whether they did it or no, is not much material, if they did, no Evangelist speaks of it.  
According to the Jewish order in the next place, the table was furnished, during the time of Christ's washing their feet, and their setting dishes on the Table, we may conceive all that spiritual discourse passed betwixt Christ and his Disciples; which you have, john 13.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 verses. Whether judas his feet were washed or no, is not expressed. Surely he was there.  
Though the Author of that piece, 
Cypr. op. l. de ablutione pedum sub initio.  in Cyprian's works the ablutione pedum denies it, yet I can see no ground for it.  
The Table being thus furnished; the next thing we observed in the Jewish order, was the Officiators taking some of the Salad, and sopping it, and giving to the rest. This you have excellently described by St John, chap. 13.18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. With which agrees, Mat. 26. v. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25. Mar. 14. v. 18, 19, 20, 21. Luke 22. v. 21, 22, 23. Christ first tells them, one of them should betray him, to fulfil that Scripture, Psal. 41.10. at this Christ was troubled. John 13.21. Then the Disciples were troubled looking one upon another; Peter beckons to John, who leaned nearest Christ's breast, to ask him who it was, he asks, Christ would give no other answer, but it is he to whom I shall give the sop when I have dipped it; upon this he dips it, and gives it to Judas; upon this, Judas asks, Is it I Master, Mat. 26. he says, thou sayest it, John 13.27. Satan presently enters into him. Christ bids him, what he did, do quickly, none knew wherefore he said it, saith John, which makes Grotius think, he whispered Judas when he said, Thou sayest it, John 13.30. Judas having received the sop, went out immediately, hitherto, this Paschall society were only, 1, Met at night. 2. Sat down. 3. Possibly the first cup of Wine was drank off. (if they drank it all) 4. In stead of washing their hands the Lord had washed their feet. 5. The Table was furnished. 6. The Herbs sopped in the sour sauce were given.— Now is Judas gone out; suppose about seven or eight of the clock at night, the same night which followed the afternoon, in which the Elders and Priests had been consulting to murder Christ; nor do I believe that till now, judas had compacted with them; for it was at supper the Devil put these thoughts first into judas heart. john 13.2. and Luke 22.3. judas his going to the High Priests, is made a subsequent action to Satan's entering into him, which saith john was upon his receiving the sop. I know in the other three Evangelists, his going to them, is set before. But I believe it an histerology, they not so punctually, as john, describing the former part of the supper: It was but in the afternoon, that these wretches were at loss, and taking counsel how to take Christ, which (as Gerard notes, to another purpose) argued judas had not then compacted with them. But now, judas knew where he was, he leaves them at supper; the Chief Priests were in the same City, he goes to them, and quickly makes a bargain, and comes again to take him.  
In the mean time, this Pas●hall society, Christ and the eleven Disciples went on with the supper. Their next actions, according to the Jewish order, was for the Officiator to break the Cake, and give a part, and reserve a part, then to drink a second cup of Wine, then to eat their Lamb: Of all this, there is nothing in the four Evangelists; john breaking off with the sop, and the other saying only they sat down and did eat; Except we should say those words, Luke 22.15. were spoken by Christ, while they did eat the Lamb.— Their next work was to drink a third cup of Wine; this in all probability is that first cup Luke mentions, Luke 22.17. To which the Apostle alludes, 1 Cor. 10.16. Their next work was the eating of the unleavened bread, reserved for the Aphicomen, the last bit, and their last, the drinking of the fourteenth cup of Wine, the latter was when the supper was done. Now, this bread and cup Christ did eat and drink and with them instituted his supper; these are not mentioned by john, because so sully expressed by Luke, Mark, and Matthew. Thus you see, the supper was but one, and perfectly reported by john, and the other Evangelists; john reporting the first part, the other the second; you see also how many pieces of the Jewish order, are evident in the celebration.  
Whether I have catcht the bird or no, I know not, confident I am, my Reader will judge I have been long enough beating the bush, and if this notion prove true, it will follow.  

1. That judas had not so much as compacted with the Chief 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 Lamb.   
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 own, I know I descent 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 descent. 4. I shall keep an ear open for better proof against me; in the mean time I desire my Readers Charity, they are some of the Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have been enquiring into, some Histerologies must be allowed in the Gospel.  
I see not, but with such allowance, this my sense may pass.  
And now to shut up this discourse of judas.  
I could wish our Masters of the opposite persuasion, 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 tri●k nor the other, they will lay down that weapon, and take another, not the same again, to no purpose, but merely to tyre out their Scholars.  
For this weapon of judas 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 Cudgel. Now Mr Humphrey hath got it up, and Dr Drake defended himself the same way which Gillespy and Beza had done. Mr Humphrey hath made never a new stroke. Let us lay down this weapon: let's hear what they say to prove judas was there.  
Object 1. They all sat down together. This doth not prove they all risen up together.  
Object 2. Christ saith, the hand of him that betrayeth me is on the Table.] That is at the sop, but john 13.30. immediately upon that judas went out, which was before the Sacrament.  
Object 3. Christ speaks nothing, john 13. of the Sacrament] But he speaks of the Passeover, which was before it, and says at the beginning of that, he went out.  
Object 4. O but we have many Authors of our side, that he was there; Origen, Cyprian, Ambrose, chrysostom, Victor, Theodoret, Remigius, Paschasius, Oecumenius, Algerus, etc. 1. This question they did not speak purposely to. 2. God knows 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 Cudgel, and blot no more paper with saying what hath been said over and over, and over again, 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, norpresidents to warrant general admissions of scandalous persons, though not excommunicated.— Ergo.   

CHAP. VII. Containing a sixth Argument, drawn 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 ARGUMENT.  
I still keep my principal syllogism, which was this; If the Officers of a Church may not lawfully admit some to the Sacrament, who are not as yet the facto excommunicated, than they may lawfully suspend some from it. But— Ergo.  
Argument 6 MY sixth Argument to prove, that there may be some in the Church, whom the Officers of a Church cannot without sin 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 Lord's Supper cannot be pure; then there may be some in the Church not yet excommunicated, whom the Officers may not without sin, 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, than the minor.  
First for the major.  
If it be the duty and business of the Officers of the Church, to keep the communion of the Church, than 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 do 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 look this way.  
2. That it is their especial 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 less 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 be offered to dead souls to quicken them. Heathens were ever admitted to hear, those who are the profanest persons, are the objects of Discipline, the excommunicate may, and aught to be admonished as Brethren. I know not wherein the Officers of the Church can have a work 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 ourselves, and being able to discern 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 maintain, 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 hath proved that he may have proved, that a communion made up of a Saint, a Hog, a Dog, a mad man and a fool, is yet a pure communion. Surely the appearing purity of a communion in this Ordinance, lies in the appearing capacity and worthiness 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 discern the Lord's body, or that do 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 Humphrey 's vind. p. 35. 36.  But Mr Humphrey tells us this is false Logic, to argue from men's inability to our duty. 2. Most men are incapable to hear and pray; yet they must do 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, etc. p. 114, 115, 116, 117. Scripture Rail, p. 92, 93, 94. &c  pag. 114, 115, 136, 117, 118. And Mr Palmer, etc. 62, 93, 94.  
Dr Drake tells him, that visible unfitness is the rule of suspension.  
Now, with Mr humfry's leave, we must say, that it is good Logic to argue, from the visible inability, unworthiness, and unfitness, of the Person that would receive the Sacrament, to our duty, who are to give it: Otherwise, for aught 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 trusties with God's Ordinances, and not to deliver them out to any without our Master's Order, such as he gives us command to give them to, and then this will follow, according to Mr humfry's Doctrine: Either,  
1. That God hath given us order, to give them to those whom he forbade, under pain of damnation to receive them; nay, who have the Marks 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 blood 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 less than blasphemy, implying an inconsistency of the Edicts of the Divine Will each with other.  
But Mr Humphrey hath a trick for us; 
Rejoinder, pag. 159.  For in his rejoinder he tells us, it is not a visibility of real worthiness is the ground of admission, but the visibility of Relative worthiness; (it is well he asks pardon for that new term,) though we understand not the Notion, yet the Interpreter he hath sent along with it makes it speak thus: It is men's being within the external Covenant; Baptised, and in the Church that gives them the right, etc. I always thought this had been the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
Whether all baptised 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 real unworthiness, and incapacity visibly appearing to our duty in denying the Sacrament to them; What says Mr Humphrey to this?  
Says he, they are not unworthy relatively, though they be visibly unworthy really. Strange Language, say we, what spells it? Says he, they are Baptised, and not excommunicated; if this be not petere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I know not what is; for we brought our Argument to prove, that a visibility of real unworthiness made a relative unworthiness. So that Mr Humphrey says this in short: They are not unworthy, because they are not unworthy. For what he says else upon this Head I shall not meddle with it, it little concerneth my business. 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 Humphrey 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 easy thing thing to make a man of straw, and then pelt him with stones.  
First, I know none says, that the Ordinance is polluted: I think that predicate cannot in any case be properly and strictly predicated of a divine institution; the Ordinance is holy, and though it may be abused and profaned, yet it is not capable of intrinsical 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 believe 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 humfry's leave, and Mr Boatmen 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 own souls, without the doing of which they cannot without sin communicate with them.  
Mr Humphrey heals the wound of the Daughter of the Lords people flightly, 
rejoinder; pag. 263.  when he says, If thy conscience tells 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 tells us. This comes up to the Ranters Atheism, Nothing is sin but what a man thinks sin. I should have thought that that If should have been left out, for it is plainly our duty, Mat. 18.18. and the neglect our sin.  
2. I doubt whether a man, lying under the conscience of any sin against his Neighbour, can lawfully partake tilth hath done what in him lies to satisfy. Suppose a man hath stolen, I should think 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 general is polluted; the Apostle teacheth us, 1 Cor. 5. that the continuing of one scandalous person in the bosom of the Church leavens the whole Lump; the neglect of a private member redounds indeed but to his own 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 Church's power to remove them; if not in the power of a congregational Church, yet in the power of a Synodical Church. But I shall enlarge no further on this Argument.   

CHAP. VIII. Wherein, by a seventh Argument, the lawfulness 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 lawful 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 grossly 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 Gospel may be bound to administer an Ordinance to such a one as is not bound to receive it; because he may otherwise appear to him, and his unworthiness may be hid from him. We are bound to hold out the Promise as an object of faith to all, who appear to have their hearts smitten with the sense of sin, though some of them be Hippolito ocrites, we know not who are so.  
2. But it seems strange to me (considering that a Ministers giving the Sacrament, and the people's 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 think that there should lie an Obligation upon us to preach to our people, if it could be proved that there lay no Obligation upon them to hear? Now I assume,  
But grossly ignorant, and impenitent scandalous sinners are such as visibly appear not bound to receive the Lords Supper.— Ergo.  
That a grossly ignorant, and scandalous impenitent sinner (while such) is bound to receive, than he is bound; To make himself guilty of the body and blood of Christ. To eat and drink his own damnation; To run upon the hazard of being made sick and weak, and falling asleep; which are all strange things for a man to be bound in conscience unto.  
Let none think to avoid this Argument by saying, they are bound first to repent, and then to receive. So that their sin doth not lie 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 blood of Christ, and they eat and drink 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, than none must be kept away but those who are contumacious. But some may be kept away that are not Contumacious.— Ergo.  
THe Major is plain: 1. From Scripture, Mat. 18. none must be accounted as an Heathen, or a Publican, but he who refuseth to hear the Church: Thus also Divines generally determine. So Bonaventure, Estius, Aquinas, Suarez, Durandus; besides a numberless number of Protestant Divines.  
The Minor only needs proof.  
1. Surely those that are under admonition ought to be kept away, though as yet they declare no Contumacy, and it be uncertain 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 drunk, shall he be admitted? Mr Humphrey says not; 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 Murder, Theft, Incest, Whoredom, the night before, according to M Boatmen Doctrine he must be admitted to the Lords Table, for Suspension of any person, not Excommunicated, is a Pharisaical 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 Gospel, must he be admitted too? He is neither Turk, 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.  
Argument 9 If profane, scandalous persons, though Circumcised, and not cast out of the Jewish Church, nor legally unclean, were yet to be debarred from some Ordinances, and the Passeover, than such, though Baptised, 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 legally unclean, yet were to be debarred from the Passeover, and other public Ordinances.  
The strength of the consequence appears, not only in the Analogy which is betwixt the Passeover and the Lords Supper: But also in our Adversaries continual arguing against us from a supposition of a general admission to the Passeover. This Argument was the best shaft in Erastus his quiver, 
Erasti theses thes. 12, 13. Mr Humfry's vind. p. 4.  and the very best Mr Humphrey hath.  
The Minor therefore only needs proof with those with whom we have to deal. And for the proof of that  
Beza proves it against Erastus from Ezra 6.21. where none did eat the Passeover but such as were separated from the filth of the Heathen of the Land to seek the Lord; And from 2 Chron. 23.19. where Jehojadah, 
Beza de Excom. p. 19, 20.  restoring the Worship of God, set Porters to keep out of the Sanctuary those who were unclean in anything. Mr Gillespy proves it against Mr Prin, 
Mr Gillespie's Aaron's rod, etc. l. 1. c. 9  and Erastus too: 1. From the testimonies of Philo and Josephus; and answers the two objections from Luk. 18.11, 12, 13. and Joh. 8.2, 3. and proves it by seven Arguments in that Chapter; and follows it, Chap. 10.11, 12. in the twelfth Chapter he proves it by fourteen Arguments, which Mr Humphrey should have done well to have answered, before he had told us so confidently that all were admitted to the Passeover. Dr Drake hath likewise sufficiently proved it against Mr Humphrey. Mr Palmer, etc. 
Dr Drake's Bar, etc. p. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. Mr Palmer, etc. answ. to Mr Humphrey vind. Presb Govern. p. 62.  hath done the like from Num. 15.30, 31. Ezra 10.8. Joh. 9.22. Ez. 22.26. Ezek. 44.7, 9, 13. The Province of London prove it from 2 Chron. 23.19. Ez. 44.7, 8. Leu. 10.10. Ez. 22.26.  
I do not think it ingenuous, wittingly to pass by any thing I hear objected against an Argument, therefore though for the main I leave Mr Humphrey to his proper Adversary, yet because he comes across me, here I must give him a meeting.  
First he adds to his Argument (from his supposed general admission to the Passeover, 
Mr humfry's rejoinder, p. 43, 44, 45, 46, 47. ) the example of Judas; but besides that I have before proved he was not scandalous, I have also said enough to make a rational man believe he was not there. Dr Drake had argued à concesso. Mr Humphrey granted, that those who were legally unclean were not to come. Dr Drake asks the reason, why? Surely because they polluted holy things. Mr Humphrey says, he would not answer so sillily; well, what will this wise man answer I witted? He tells us, Because it was Gods positive command they should not come. But this is too short: For let a Christian but inquire further, Why should the Lord command, that one who is aleper, who hath touched a dead body etc. should not come to his Ordinance? Surely his reason must tell him, because he is an holy and pure God, and will be worshipped in a clean and pure manner. And can we think that a pure God should determine him, who had a leprous sore upon him, unfit for his Sanctuary, etc. and yet admit him as worthy, who was a profane swearer, blasphemer, etc. that he who had had Nocturnam pollutionem involuntariam was to be judged unclean, and the same God should judge him clean who had polluted himself with an Harlot in the night?  
A second place which Mr Humphrey would answer is 2 Chron. 23.19. 
Page 45.  and he tells us, that neither the Passeover, nor Suspension, nor Moral uncleanness are there spoken of.  
1. Whether the Passeover only be there spoken of is nothing to the business; There were Porters set to keep some that were not excommunicated from the Gates of the Lords house. So that Suspension of some from some Ordinances who were not excommunicated is there proved.  
2. Mr Humphrey boldly says, they were not to keep out the morally unclean; the Text saith, they were to keep out the unclean Lecal Dabar in any thing; so that if there were such a thing as moral uncleanness, and such persons as morally unclean persons, they were to keep them out. Nor is it any thing to the purpose that Mr Humphrey saith, the Levites in such a concourse could not try and examine them, for by the same rule they should not have kept out the legally unclean; but surely those words signify something, they were therefore doubtless tried and judged before, (for it was the Priests, not the Levites work to judge or try the legally unclean.) But what Mr Humphrey saith in the last place, that the Levites could not hinder the unclean from eating the Passeover, for it was eaten in private houses, Either argues he hath a mind to cheat his credulous Reader, or that he was not so well acquainted with the Jewish Customs as he might have been. It is true, the Passeover was to be eaten in private houses, 
Dr Light feet Temple service, c. 12.  but it was to be first killed in the Temple, where the fat was to be burned, and the blood sprinkled; and if the Levites kept them from coming to kill it, and to sacrifice it, I think they kept them from eating it as a Passeover too; they might eat a Lamb indeed in their own, but no Paschall Lamb.  
As to the main places to prove that there was a Law to seclude the morally unclean from the Passeover, Ezra 6.21. Ez. 44.7, 8. Deut. 23.18. à minori ad majus. Jer. 7.9, 10, 11. Psal. 118.19, 20. Psal. 15.1. as they are urged by Mr. Gillespy, pag. 90, 91. Ez. 22.26. Hag. 2.11, 12, 13, 14. (which proves that moral wickedness was uncleanness then as well as now.) Mr. Humphrey hath the discretion to say nothing to them. But I have said enough to establish this Argument.   

CHAP. X. Wherein some other Arguments are mentioned, but not largely insisted upon.  
THese are but some of those many Arguments brought by the learned and eminent Servants of God, both in this Generation, and also in those before us, to prove the divine right of this Ordinance. I will name two or three more which have been brought by others, not insisting upon them, because I think these are enough, and possibly some of them may be more disputable, and not generally allowed, by those who are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with me in this point.  
Arg. 10 It is sin in a Minister to declare those one visible body who are not one body visibly; But scandalous sinners are not one visible body with visible Saints; and he that gives the Lord's Supper declares those to whom he gives it to be one visible body.— Ergo.  
This Argument holy Mr Burroughs urgeth in his book, called gospel-worship, it is founded on 1 Cor. 10.17. 
Mr Gillespie's Aaron's Rod, l. 3. c. 7 p. 425. V etiam Hieron. Zanch. Epist. l. 1. in epistola quae inscribitur ad illust. Prin. Fredericum de excommunicatione.  and (saith Mr Gillespy) I shall never be persuaded that the Apostle Paul would say of himself 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 entangle myself with these disputes, but shall desire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to this Argument, and leave it to wiser heads to consider.  
Arg 11 The Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not to be given to any who are not Christ's Disciples; for we are to follow Christ's example, who administered it to none others.  
But scandalous sinners are none of Christ's Disciples.— Ergo.  
This is Mr P. goodwin's 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 Christ's example in admission be a rule of ours.  
2. Whether Christ admitted any such Disciples as were actually scandalous? I think I have proved the contrary.  
Argument 12 Those who if they were Heathens might not be baptised, 
V Zach. Urs. doct. Christ. p. 2. de clavibus q 3. sect. 11.  though they be baptised, and in a Church, ought not to be admitted to the Lords Supper.  
The reason is this: 1. Mr Humphrey himself confesseth; In adultis 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 baptised.— 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 Universal judgement and practice of the Primitive Church. 
Erast. Thesis'. 14 Mr humfry's vind. p. 10. Beza de excom. p. 23. Aaron's rod, l. 3. c. 16. Mr. Palmer, &c against Mr Humphrey, p. 49. Dr Drakes bar to free admission p. 32, 33. Rutherford's divine right of Presbyteries, c. 5. q. 2.  I know Erastus and Mr Humphrey tell us, John baptised all who came, yea some whom he calls Vipers; but Beza (long since) and Gillespy more lately mind Erastus, that John baptised none but such as confessed their sins, Mat. 3. Mr Palmer etc. and Dr Drake have told Mr Humphrey 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.  
Arg. 13 Strong meat belongs to those who are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who have made proficiency in the ways of God, and are of full age, who by reason of an habit have their senses exercised to discern good and evil, Heb. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
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 general proposition given by the Apostles. 
Requirit igitur coena domini, quatenus est mystica, convivas, qui sensibus exercitatis interna mysteria ab eo quod oculis patet, distinguere valent. Musc. Loc. Com. de coena.  A Physical maxim applied in a spiritual case, and holds as well to any strong meat as that which he there speaks 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 stomach to turn it into nourishment, and which, not duly digested, proves most pernicious to the body, is strong meat in a physical sense.  
But such is the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.  
The spiritual stomach 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 mystical Union of the soul with Christ. 4. The mysterious exercise of faith in applying the Soul to the Promise, and the Promise to the Soul, while it sits at that Table. Not duly received it proves most pernicious: The Soul seals its damnation, becomes guilty of the body and blood of Christ, eats judgement to itself.  
Arg. 14 It is unlawful to partake of other men's sins, Eph. 5.7. 
Mr Ambrose his media. p. 260 Rutherford in his Divine right, etc. c. 5. q. 2. and in his peaceable plea. cap. 12. Gillespie's Aaron's rod. l. 3. P. goodwin's 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  books) and holy Mr Ambrose, to whom I refer my Reader for fuller proof.  
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 deal 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 humfry's course, to publish books to divulge opinions, confuted long since by solid Arguments, and take no pains to answer any thing, or if any thing, first to make their Adversaries Arguments weak by curtilation, and imperfect proposal of them, and then to scoff instead of answering. Or think it enough, with Mr Boatman, to cry down suspension as a Pharisaical dream, and a Pharisaical way of dealing with people, and the Patrons of it as Usurpers of an undue authority, intruders upon Christ's Office, Pharisees, Bedlams, Hotspurs, Spiritually proud, Hypocrites. This is but barking, and grinning for want of teeth fit to by't; and thus they may vapour a little under the protection of an impudent forehead, & proclaim their want of learning and breeding too to the world, and show their teeth against Gospel's reformation, and deceive some poor silly souls, first led captive with their own lusts; but they will not deserve any sober man's taking further notice of them, than when he goes to God to say on the behalf of their poor souls,  
Father forgive them they know not what they do.  
See many more Arguments shortly propounded in learned Zanchies Epistle ad Fredericum tertium, de Excommunicatione, as also in Ursini compendium doctrinae Christianae, p. 2. de clavibus, q. 3. sect. 11.   

CHAP. XI.  
QUEST. 2. Whether ministerial, or privative Suspension be deducible from Scripture yea or no.  
I Opened the terms of this Question before. In short it is thus:  
Whether in no case it be lawful for the Pastor of the Church (not having a form Presbytery,) if he knows any of his Church to be ignorant or scandalous, to deny to them the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, (though they be not excommunicated, nor juridically censured.)  
Before I speak to this Question (that I may not be misinterpreted) I will crave leave to premise some few things.  
1. I grant, that the most regular and orderly way of administering the Ordinance of the Lords Supper in Congregations, is by the trial and judging of all the members by a Presbytery, consisting of the Minister and Ruling Elders: I look upon Elders as an Ordinance of Jesus Christ, and Officers equally betrusted with the Minister in all acts of jurisdiction, and to a regular and ordinary suspension questionless an act of Jurisdiction is required.  
2. I plead not for the sole power of Jurisdiction to be in the hands of a single Minister, this were to set up an Episcopacy, yea, more than an Episcopacy (almost a papal power) in every Parish; as I think Ruling Elders are equally with him betrusted with the power of Jurisdiction and Government, so I think they must join with him in juridical suspending, etc.  
3. 
I speak this and the fourth as my own private judgement, and shall not go about to impose such a persuasion upon others, not knowing what upon further thoughts, I myself might judge in these cases, but at present only thus limiting my question.  I plead not for Minister's power in such places where are persons fit to be chosen as Officers who shall refuse the Office, or people who shall refuse to choose, I think in such a case a Minister may lawfully forbear the administering the Ordinance, and giving Gospell-Priviledges to those who despise any Gospell-Ordinances, or shall deny any Gospel's duty; yea, I cannot tell whether a Minister could discharge a good conscience in administering at all to such a people till the Lord had changed their hearts, and convinced them of their duty, and their sin in refusing it, being a scandal to all well ordered Churches.  
4. I would not plead strongly for his power in this thing in a Congregation who had none fit to choose, but were situated so nigh to some rightly organised Church that they could conveniently go and partake there; I rather think it the Ministers duty in such cases to persuade those who in his Congregation are fit for the Ordinance to join themselves to such a Church, (as to that Ordinance) and were it my own case, (if I saw that Church walked-orderly, and kept the Ordinances pure) I myself would not only persuade my people so to join, but myself rather so join than set up any extraordinary course.  
5. In case there were a formed Classis of Triers, either established by the Civil power, or by a voluntary agreement of the godly Ministers in a County, which used to meet so near the Congregation that the godly people could go and submit to their trial, I do prefer this before a Ministers single Examination and Judgement.  
But in such a case as this now Where there is in a Congregation a godly Minister, and a competent number of godly people to make up a Communion at the Lords Table, and these people are willing to do what in them lies to put themselves in order, and to choose Elders, and wish from their souls that they had some to choose, but at present they have none, nor are like to have any suddenly, nor are nigh any Organised Church with which they can enjoy the Ordinance, nor any Classis to which they can approve themselves: Whether now, in such a case as this, the Minister may not administer the Ordinance, and not only admonish the ignorant and scandalous to keep away, but take account of his people's knowledge, and take all due courses to be informed of their lives, and if he finds any ignorant and scandalous, that, notwithstanding admonition, will presume to come whither he may not, yea, whether he ought not to deny the Elements to him?  
6. I hearty wish, that either by the Civil power, or a voluntary act of the people, parochial Congregations were so united, that in every Precinct there might be found persons fit for Officers.  
7. I think in such cases a Minister should act with a great deal of prudence; I would in such a case do nothing (as near as I could) without the satisfaction of the Community. I mean, not being acted by their vote, but stating the business to them first at some meeting, and, if it were possible gaining their consent and approbation.  
And these things premised:  
I humbly conceive, that a Minister of the Gospel in such a cause, may, by virtue of his Office, (wanting a Presbytery) deny the administration of the Elements to any such as he shall judge ignorant, and be able to prove so scandalous, as if he had a Presbytery, he might be juridically suspended.  
I shall humbly propose my grounds for my opinion in it (which yet is not mine alone.)  
In such a case as this a Minister may either wholly omit the Ordinance, or else administer it promiscuously to all, be they never so ignorant or scandalous; or else thirdly by his own power thus deny it to such as he finds so. But in such a case he may not wholly omit the administration of the Ordinance, nor secondly administer it promiscuously.— Ergo.  
The disjunction cannot be denied, for there is no fourth expedient can be found but the way of our dissenting brethren, (and but some of them neither) that all the members should have power, which I can never yield to till they can tell me who shall be the Ruled if all be Rulers: But of my Brethren, who are of the Presbyterian persuasion, there are two different opinions.  
1. Some think, that in such a case he is bound wholly to omit the administration till he can have a Presbytery. I must crave leave to descent here.  
And I think Mr Jeanes hath said enough to prove that the total omission of the Ordinance in a non-presbyterated Church cannot be justifiable.  
1. All Christ's Commands are to be observed in a non-presbyterated Church. Do this, do it often, etc. are Christ Commands as well as any other.  
2. Christ himself, and his Apostles, Act. 2.41. administered it in a none-presbyterate Church.  
3. Here are fit Communicants, and here is a Minister, and this is an Ordinance of Christ for the perfecting of the Saints.  
4. Christ's death ought to be remembered in a non-presbyterated Church, and the Saints should grow in grace there as well as elsewhere.  
These, and the rest of Mr Jeanes his Arguments, I must confess, do much prevail with me to make me think that the bare want of Ruling Elders in the Church cannot warrant a Ministers total neglect of the administration of this Ordinance. Besides the ill consequences which would doubtless be of such an Omission. Such as 1. People's running to separate Churches. 2. Christian's decay in grace, and spiritual weaknesses for want of that great Ordinance for strength and quickening. 3. A blotting out of the memory of Christ's death, or at least of that Ordinance out of Christians minds; these things make me conclude it sinful for a godly Minister, who hath people fit for a Communion, wholly to omit the Ordinance. So that a Minister cannot be bound to that.  
2. Nor can a Minister be bound to administer to those whom he knows to be ignorant and scandalous.  
This most of my former Arguments prove.  
1. He cannot be bound to give holy things to dogs, and cast pearls before swine, directly contrary to that Precept, Mat. 7.  
2. He cannot be bound to give it to those, whom he knows cannot drink the Lords Cup, for then there would lie an Obligation upon him to profane the Lords Ordinances.  
3. He cannot be bound to give it to those with whom it is unlawful for him to keep that feast, or to eat, 1 Cor. 5.8, 11.  
4. He cannot be bound to declare those one body, and make those one breast who visibly are not one body.  
5. His Obligation must be from Scripture precepts or precedents: but I have showed there are none to that purpose.  
6. He cannot he bound to any act by which he is guilty of making the Communion of the Church impure.  
7. There cannot lie an Obligation upon him to give the Ordinance to those who visibly appear to be such as are not bound to receive.  
8. He cannot be bound to give the Sacrament of the Supper to such as he might not lawfully baptise, in case they were not yet baptised.  
I made good these Arguments before, and they conclude as well for ministerial privative suspension as for positive suspension.  
These two parts being such as he may not take,  
1. He must either put the power of jurisdiction into the hand of the Community, and so by their major vote, suspend, or admit, or  
2. He must by his own power (during this state of the Church) put by some not juridically censuring and suspending them, but suspending his own act as to such persons.  
The former of these he may not do.  
1. For Christ never committed any such power to them: they are no Officers in the Church.  
2. That were to make God's house an house of confusion: the body all one member, all head to rule, etc.  
It remains therefore that himself in such a case being the alone Officer of the Church, and bound virtute officii to know the state of his Flock, and to take care of their souls, do what in him lies: 1. To warn the ignorant and scandalous to abstain. 2. That he deny the Sacrament to them if they presume to come.  
That now in such a case, the Minister may, and aught to take an account of his flock, and pastorally to admonish the scandalous, and to deter the unworthy what he can, is easily granted me. Mr Humphrey will yield this, yea, and something more, that he may deny it to notorious sinners, such as he calls de jure excommunicati (by which he only means such as are fit to be hanged.) Mr Jeanes likewise will yield this, though he is not clear in allowing to the Minister more than a doctrinal power to keep away any. But all the question is, Whether the single Minister in such a case, if the ignorant and scandalous person will not keep away, may deny the Ordinance to him.  
1. That he cannot formally pronounce a Church censure against him I yield.  
2. That he cannot take him and turn him out by head and shoulders, I grant too.  
The question therefore is narrowed up to this.  
Suppose such a Minister knows one to be notoriously ignorant or scandalous, who hath given no evidence of his repentance, and this wretch, notwithstanding his Pastor's admonition of him to keep away, will yet when the day of administration comes, press in amongst the Communicants, whether the Minister shall sin (if he delivers it from hand to hand) in passing by such a one, and not giving it to him, or if he delivers it at once to all, and seethe such an one there, and declares either more generally, that the Elements are only provided for, and given unto such as have approved themselves unto him: Or, if he thinks fit, to declare particularly, that whereas there are such and such there whom he hath found ignorant, or have been scandalous, and as yet given no satisfaction, he doth not intent them, or any of them, in his general delivery of the Ordinance, I maintain the Negative, that he shall not sin, yea, that he should sin if he should not do it, it being the only course he can take to fulfil Christ's command, and not be guilty of giving holy things to dogs, etc.  
To the  Arguments I shall add one more.  
Argument 2 If in such a case the Minister of the Gospel cannot show himself a faithful Steward of God's mysteries: except he doth deny the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to the ignorant and scandalous (though he wants an Eldership) than he may (in case of such a defect in the Church) deny the Lord's Supper to such.  
But though there be an Eldership wanting in the Church, yet if the Minister gives that Ordinance to the ignorant and Scandalous, he cannot in it show himself a faithful steward of God's mysteries.— Ergo.  
To prove the consequence, I shall need but prove these things: 

1. That a Minister is steward of the mysteries of God.  
2. That the Sacraments are some of those mysteries committed to his Stewardship.  
3. That he must be faithful in his stewardship.    
1. That a minister is a steward of God's mysteries, is clear; they are the words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 4.1.  
2. That the Sacraments are some of those mysteries, is clear; 1. By considering that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the known Greek word to express a Sacrament, if not the only one. 2. From that which is generally granted, that none but the Ministers may dispense them.  
3. That they must be faithful is plain, not only first from reason, but secondly from the express words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 4.2.  
All the Question lies upon the Assumption:  
Whether a Minister of the Gospel cannot discharge the faithfulness of a Steward, if he delivers the Lord's Supper to one that is ignorant or scandalous.  
That he cannot I prove.  
If the faithfulness of a Steward lies wholly as to the distribution of his Master's goods) in this, 
Praeceptum naturale est ut dispensator qui bona domini dispensat sit fidelis ac prudens in dispensando, ergo praeceptum naturale est ut non dispenset homini indigno contra voluntatem, & institutionem suidomini; quia hoc esset contra fidelitatem, & prudentiam quam in dispensando debet servare, etc. 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 Master's goods, and he not commanded by his Master to deliver them to the ignorant and scandalous, than he cannot show himself a faithful steward in giving them to such.  
But the Antecedent is true.— Ergo.  
To prove the Assumption I must prove these things.  
That the faithfulness of a steward, as to the dealing out his Master's goods betrusted to him to distribute, lies chief, 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 show his faithfulness more, or so much. Surely any man's reason will tell him, that if his Master gives him a thousand pounds to distribute amongst such and such people, his faithfulness lies in distributing it to such, and none but such though they ask it.  
2. It is already proved, that the Minister is the Lords Steward and the Sacraments are Christ's 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 pain of damnation to receive. Saint John saith, That for such as we know have sin●ed 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 hear our prayers: And shall we think that we are bound by Christ's Command to administer the Lords Supper to such as we 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 discern the Lords body, and such as we know are Drunkards Fornicators, etc. 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, Drink you all of ●t he means, all you, whom I have elsewhere told, that if you do drink, you shall drink your own damnation, and become guilty of my body and blood; and you, who if you do eat and drink there, I will make you sick, and weak, and fall asleep for it.  
I confess, 
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 faithfulness of a Steward lies in going no further than his Master's Commission, and he conceives, we have no Commission to keep back any, but the Commission is directed to us and others. 2. He tells 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 faithful as Stewards.  
2. He says, the faithfulness of the Steward lies in going no further than our Commission, that is but half 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 means 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, God's Command, at least implicit, if not explicit.  
4. We desire, where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (if he stands upon that) he can show 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 sense, go beyond our Commission, having neither precept nor precedent for it.  
I shall need add no more though I might add the concurrent Judgement of Divines ancient, and modern; 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 Pharisaical dream.   

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 persuaded: some of which rather think that in such cases as these the Ordinance should be wholly omitted. Others that the Minister in such ●a●es hath discharged his duty if he hath delivered the truth doctrinally, and used his spiritual Rhetoric to deter or dissuade the ignorant and unworthy, and these Reverend Brethren are not without some considerable objections: I must add 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 moral power to deny the Ordinance or no?  
I plead he hath: for the same precept that says to him, give not holy things to dogs, 
Minister Sacramentorum per se loquendo habet proprium ac speciale praeceptum quo prohibetur indignis ministrare Sacramentum. Becan. sum. tertia p. tract. 2. cap. 5. q. 8.  that commands him, as a Steward of God's mysteries, to be faithful; that commands him, as well as others, to keep the feast not with the leavened bread of malice and wickedness, and forbids him to eat with brethren who are fornicatours, etc. gives him power, etc. But it is objected:  
Ob. 1. Suspension is an act of Jurisdiction. Acts of Jurisdiction belong to the Church: Now the single Minister is not the Church.—  
Sol. 1. That Juridical Suspension is a Church Censure, and an act of Jurisdiction I yield: but whether this suspension of which I speak be, I question. Mr Jeanes thinks the Schoolmen are out in determining that it is not, but I cannot wholly close with him. Juridically suspension is a positive Act of the Governors of the Church, determining the party at present unworthy of that Ecclesiastical Communion: This is but a Negative or privative Act, wherein the Minister, not passing any formal censure upon him, but referring him for that to the Presbytery to be judged at present forbears his own act of administering the Ordinance to him, judging him in his own conscience such a one as is the Jure to be suspended, and being ready to submit himself to any Superior Presbytery, to whom the Party shall appeal.  
2. It is granted, that in Ecclesiâ constituta, in a form organised Church, no kind of Censures should be passed but by the Presbytery, the Eldership of the Church, but in a disordered Church, I humbly conceive some acts may be justifiably done that may look like Censures by the Minister, Plebe non rationaliter dissentiente, at least by the consent of the Church, or the Church not dissenting upon good grounds.  
3. That the Minister is not (in one sense) the Church, viz. all the Officers that belong to a rightly ordered Church is granted, but whether in some cases of necessity the single Minister may not be the Church, viz. the whole ruling part of it, and in power in such cases to some acts of rule, I think may be questioned; All will grant that he is a ruling, as well as a teaching, Elder. Now if there be such a case that through death, removal, or any defect, that he should be lest alone, and have no Elders, I cannot think that his power of rule must wholly sleep till his fellow-Rulers be recovered. So that in some sense he may be called the Church I conceive, which is no more (by interpretation) than that he is at that present the whole ruling part of the Church.  
4. Tell the Church, Mat. 18. is chief meant in order to the great Excommunication, in which the sinner is made as an heathen and publican.  
5. Again, Admonition is a Church Censure, yet we allow not only a private fraternal correption, but also a pastoral admonition, which is quiddam majus, and I see no reason why (in such cases of necessity as these, where either such a course must be taken, or this great Ordinance wholly omitted or profaned) we may not also allow of pastoral suspension.  
Object. 2. A second objection Mr Jeanes makes, viz. That all our Arguments to justify the unlawfulness of a Ministers giving the Sacrament to such as he knows to be scandalous, will fail us in two cases in Presbyterated Churches: 1. In case the major part of the Eldership will acquit the scandalous sinner, than he says, we grant the Minister may admit them. Or 2. In case the scandal be known to the Minister alone, and no proof can be made, and the party will not confess.  
Sol. I must confess these are two hard cases, and the only hard cases I know which can be put as to this point.  
1. But who are they that have been so free of their confessions to grant, that in case an Eldership, will contrary to the judgement of their Pastor, and directly contrary to the rule justify the wicked, the Minister ought to give the Sacrament to them, I cannot tell. Suppose one be proved to have committed Incest the night before the Sacrament, and stands to justify it, and the Minister calls his Eldership and proves the fact to them, and they in a faction will acquit him, shall this Minister be bound to administer the Ordinance to this wretch? I hope Mr Jeanes shall never persuade me to that faith. No, but it is my duty in such, or such like evident cases to forbear any administration, and appeal from the congregational to the Classical Presbytery, and if that will not relieve him, from thence to the Provincial, and from thence, if need be, to a Nationall Assembly; it is to be hoped that by some of these he will be relieved, if not I should think it my duty to submit to their censure rather than profane God's Ordinances: and wait till God reform such Churches; if the case were doubtful, the matter differs: but where the rule plainly judgeth, mens neglect of their duty will not justify me in sinning against mine.  
2. As to the second case, I know no reason but in such a cause the Minister may stand as a witness and the rest of his Eldership; I am sure it will be more justifiable than for him to give the Sacrament to one manifestly unworthy. Therefore I say, there is no necessity urging a Minister in any case to give the Lords holy things to dogs and swine; we may conceive necessities, but sinnings of this kind will prove our free acts.  
Object. 3. A third Argument against us. I find in Mr Jeanes, 
Suarez in tertiam p. Thomae disp. 67. sect. 4.  he saith he hath it out of Suarez in tertiam partem Thom. disp. 67. sect. 4. he urgeth it thus.  
It is requisite for the common good, 
Mr Jeanes p. 116, 117.  and convenient order both of Church and Commonwealth that all common favours which are publicly to be dispensed and distributed according to the dignity of private persons should be dispensed by public persons designed thereto, not according to the private knowledge of this or that man, neither of that Minister, but according to a public and notorious cognisance, and whosoever doth, by his offence against God, 
This is not a literal translation of Suarez.  lose his right and interest to the holy things of God, he must lose it in the face of the Church before it can be denied him in the face of the Congregation, and he is to be judged as in all other cases, not by any man's, nor by any Ministers private knowledge, but according to proofs and allegations; for the common good necessarily requireth that such public actions of this nature should be regulated by a kind of public, not private, knowledge, which once admitted into judicature would soon fill up the Church and State with a world of scandals, injuries, and inconveniences, for hereby a wicked, or a peevish, and pettish Minister may without control publicly disgrace, and repel from the Supper whom he please, etc.  
Sol. To this I answer: First, This Argument is but merely rational. And if a Minister's duty in this be (as we have endeavoured to prove) expressly concluded in Scripture, it is not to be considered against Scripture Precept. 
Aqu.  Rationes contra fidem sunt derisibiles. But secondly.  
Let us consider the strength of this Reason: As it is brought by a Schooleman, so it is determined by a Schooleman insufficient. 
Gabriel Vasq. t. 2. in tertia p. Thomae disp. 209. q. 80. art. 6. cap. 40.  Gabriel Vasques saith,  
The invalidity of the Reason appears in this. The due execution in Law is a common good in the Commonwealth, and doubtless aught to be (ordinarily) administered to all impartially, according to the letter of the Law, it is every man's common favour. But now put the case, that two witnesses came and swore against the life of such a man: that he did such a murder on such a day in such a place, and the Judge knew that this man was at that time one hundred miles off that place, and were with him, and he should tell the Jury so, yet they would find this man guilty of the murder, will any man say, that it is the Judge's duty to condemn him whom his certain knowledge justifies in his conscience as wholly innocent? 

Exemplum etiam judicis quod in confirmationem allatum est, non putamus in universum verum, quia accidere potest interdum, ut ipse non possit uti scientia publicâ, sed propter scientiam suam privatam alio remedio uti deb●at pro salvandâ vitâ innocentis, etc.  
Gab. Vasq. ib. There is a double right, i. Jus here ●itarium, this they have common, as baptised persons.  
2. Jus aptitudinarium, this they have not in common.   If man's Law should lay any such Obligations upon the public Minister, surely Gods holy Law doth not. So that the Maxim is not always true, that common goods must be dispensed or denied, according to common public cognisance. For if the executing of the Law (which is a public common good) must tend to the breach of the divine Law, or doth evidently appear against the end of the Law, if there should be a proceeding according to the strict rigour of it. The Judge may lawfully, yea, and aught to suspend his own act, and submit himself to the judgement of another Court.  
2. Things that are common goods must be dispensed out to none but those who have a common right. It will easily be granted, that the ignorant and scandalous have not a common right with those who are knowing and holy. Let any but make out that they have a common right, (which, by the way, only faith in Christ can give them) and I know no Minister will deny them the Ordinance. The benefit of the Law is a common good, and to be denied to none that are Natives. Suppose a Stranger comes and demands the benefit of it, none knows but he is a Native, only the Judge knows, or at least hath vehement grounds to suspect he is none, shall not the Judge require him to prove that he is a native Englishman, or naturalised before he gives him the benefit of the Law.  
3. For the disconveniences may come through the Minister's peevishness, etc. I confess, there may be some, but I know not how they should be prevented; they may in some measure be cured by a liberty of appeal for the party, who shall conceive himself injured, to higher Presbyteries; If there be none such, I know no remedy while the Church is in that disorder.  
I have met with no more Objections, and shall need enlarge no farther upon this question: only I think Mr Jeanes his fourth Argument is considerable.  
Argument The power of administration of the Lords Supper is wholly committed to the Minister, the Eldership cannot deal it out. Now it is very improbable that the Lord should have left the administration wholly to them, and not a sufficient power to them in such exigents as these to preserve the purity of it.  
Besides, it is easily evidenced, that in extraordinary cases something preterregular and extraordinary may be done, yea, and aught to be done to preserve the purity of Ordinances; 
2 Chro. 30.2.  at H●zekiahs Passeover, because the Priests were not sanctified, the Passeover was deferred to the second month, ver. 17. The Levites killed the Passeover, yet the Lord accepted the service, ver. 20. God himself for the purity of his Ordinance, and his people's Communion, dispensed with the Order which himself and instituted, Ex. 12. as may be seen Num. 9  
It is true we ought to be tender of God's Order, but some points of order may, for purity sake, be dispensed with for a time.   

CHAP. XIII.  
QUEST. 3.  
Whether Suspension (juridically or ministerial, privative or positive) distinct from absolute Excommunication, be a dream of the Pharisees or no, or whether it hath not been the constant judgement and practice of the Servants and Churches of Christ in all ages?  
MAster Boatman tells us, he saith it, yea, and again he saith it, that Suspension distinct from Excommunication is a dream of the Pharisees; yea, and it was a Pharisaical dream that invented it. It is no matter what he saith, the question is whether it was so or no.  
1. If he means by the Pharisees that particular Sect amongst the Jews so called, he scar●e speaks sense, for they never owned the Ordinance of the Lords Supper, and how they should invent Suspension from it I cannot tell.  
2. He speaks it ancient enough, as old as Christ's time.  
But because I am willing to believe he thought he spoke sense, I conceive his meaning was,  
That it was an invention of some particular men, who were of proud pharisaical dispositions, and would bring in their inventions to mingle them with God's Ordinances.  
If he spoke sense, this was his meaning; and if it were, it was one of the most bold and ignorant slanders of the Churches and Servants of God in all Ages that hath been heard, and as impolitickly spoken for his own credit; when any one, who hath either looked into Fathers, or Schoolmen, or Divines of any sort, Papists, or Protestants, and those of any persuasion, Episcopal, Presbyterian, or Independent, as to Church Government, is able to say, that either he spoke against his knowledge, or else never read any of them, (the latter of which (out of charity to him) I am most apt to believe.) But if they were Pharisees, and dreaming Pharisees too, they were many of them holy and learned dreamers. And the Church of Christ hath from Christ's time been in a dream till Mr John Boatman awakened it; and we hope to prove anon that this confident Gentleman was the Dreamer himself, whose tongue ran (like a wild fancy in a dream) when the eyes of his understanding were sealed up with lamentable ignorance of the general practice of the Churches of God: It was bad enough for joseph's eleven Brethren to call him Dreamer, but surely it had been worse for him, the younger, to have called all them so. If Mr Boatman had been some grave Doctor in Divinity, some Bishop, or Archbishop, or Pope, the Censure had savoured of a great deal of more ignorance, and boldness, than judgement, or discretion; but for one who never so much as took the lowest degree, not staying at any University half so long as is required of him that would commence Bachelor of Arts, and if he had taken his degrees, had not yet been Master of Arts above four or five years standing, to censure so many Reverend Fathers, Learned and Acute Schoolmen, so many holy and Reverend Divines of all sorts, yea, and so many Churches, all as Dreamers, Pharisaical dreamers too, was enough to let the world know the Character of himself. But let us a little examine how many this young Rabbi hath at once called Dreamers, Pharisaical Dreamers, bold usurpers of Christ's authority, etc. I shall only premise this one thing.  
That I shall not undertake to prove their judgement as to this, or that sort of Suspension, whether by the single Pastor, or the Presbytery. For although there be sufficient ground in Scripture to prove the divine right of Ruling Elders, and sufficient Record to prove that they were in the Primitive Church, as our Learned Brethren of the Province of London have proved out of Tertullian, Origen, Basil, Optatus, Albaspineus, 

Vindication of ●us divinum, p. 12.  
Tert. Apol. c. 39  
Orig. l. 3. contra Celsum. Basil in Ps. 33. Optatus. l. 1. adv. Parmen. Albaspin. ibid. Hier. in Is. 3.2. Aug. ep. 137. l. 3. con. Crescon. c. 56. Serm. 19 in Psal. 30. Greg. Mag. l. 11. ep. 19   Hierom, Augustine, Gregorius Magnus, etc. And our learned Countryman Mr Brinsly hath proved out of Deane Nowel's Catechism, which quotation is evidently true from the ancient Copies of that Catechism Greeke Latin printed, as also in the Latin Copies, yet I know there are many that do question the divine right of the Ru●ing Elder.  
But it is enough to me if I can prove, that in all Ages some have been kept from the Lords Supper (by whom matters not, whether by the Presbytery or single Minister) who yet were not excommunicated.  
And this I hope to do; which if I do let the wor d judge whether it be such a dream as we are ignorantly told it is.  
And with what humility my Antagonist hath condemned Fathers, Schoolmen, Divines of all sorts, in all Ages, of all persuasions, yea, all reformed Churches, and our own ever since the first reformation, as dreamers, and usurpers of a new authority.  
As for the first Century, or one hundred years after Christ, we have no writings extant but those of the Apostles, except the constitution of some Canons of the Apostles, and some fragments of Clement, and of Dionysius Areopagita: (who was an ancient writer but judged by most long after) and some sew Epistles of Ignatius, who according to Helvicus and Eusebius was made Bishop of Antioch one hundred years after Christ.  
There is little credit to be given to the Canons, or the testimony of the pretended Areopagite, as to matters of fact in the first Century; for it is upon very good grounds supposed, that the Canons were made long after, and that Dionysius lived long after, but yet their writings being all the record can be pretended, let us examine what they say.  
For Clement's two Epistles I want them, and cannot examine what they say. In the pretended Canons of the Apostles, I find it sufficiently proved Canon 130.  
If any Clergy man, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Canon. Apost. Canon 13.  or Lay man, excommunicated or suspended, go to any other City, and be received into Communion there, let him that receives him, and he who is received be both excommunicated.  
Here is plainly Suspension distinct from Excommunication asserted; there were some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
For the pretended Areopagite, I see reason enough to believe he lived not in this Century, but admit he did, and he speaks plain enough.  
Here he tells us, that the Catecumeni, and the Poenitents, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dion. Areop. cap. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ex edit Morellii octavo. 1562. p. 141.  and Energumeni were excluded from the Lords Supper, which he tells us was administered to none but those who had perfect eyes to discern the Lords body, etc. This is sufficient, but this is not all.  
For presently after he subjoineth, that if Penitents ought not to be admitted, much less ought profane persons, who lived in lusts, and testified no repentance; who he says should be admitted to no other Ordinance but the preaching of the Word. I will transcribe the place.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Ibid p. 144.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
This quotation being so full to show what persons in the Primitive Church were suspended, yet not excommunicated, though it were something too large, yet I have transcribed it all.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  
I have been willing to transcribe this passage fully, because it speaks so fully to our case. Dionysius in this Chapter doth professedly treat concerning the Lord's Supper, and here concerning the order of administering, in the first place he tells us, some were put away, or went away. 2. Then the Administration proceeded.  
Now who were they who were enjoined to go away? he reckons several sorts:  
1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, those who were yet not made complete members of the Church, that had never yet been initiated in those holy mysteries; doubtless, by these he means the Catechumeni, such as God had begun to work upon, and they had evidenced some good affections to the doctrine of the Gospel, but had not yet sufficient knowledge to fit them for either Sacrament; and this is conform to what Renatus Laurentius de la Fare, 
In lib. 4.  in his Annotations on Tertullian, 
Tert. advers. Marc.  tells us: This order of Converts were likewise by Tertullian and Cyprian, etc. called Audientes, & Auditores, and they had a particular Teacher. Eusebius tells us Pantaenus was their first Teacher, 
Euseb. l. 5 l. 6. cap. 3.  than Clemens Alexand. afterward Demetrius made Origen their Teacher; and Cyprian tells us, 
Cypr. ep. 22.  that with the consent of the Presbyters he after made Optatus their Teacher. Now these were the first sort, which were not come to the Table, saith Dionysius; and so Pachymeres expounds him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
2. The second sort excluded he saith are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Those who had apostatised from an holy life. By these doubtless he means scandalous sinners who had been former Professors, otherwise they could not be Apostates. George Pachimeres expounds it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, men given up to vile affections, who had returned to their former lusts.  
3. The third sort were those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. such as through the terrors of persecutors had been tempted to sin and fallen into it, etc. There are two or three other sorts, mentioned by him, who were kept away, such as were Penitents, that is, who had fallen into sin, and the Church had appointed them a time of shame, and repentance after the profession of their resolutions to amend; and lastly, those who were not altogether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without any scandal or spot, these were all removed, saith Dionysius, before the Lords Supper was administered, but surely these were not all excommunicated, here is not a word of that. Those who will see more may look into Maximus and Pachymeres, the two Scholiasts upon Dionysius. I have not translated the passage because it was large. But Dionysius saith plainly that such as are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. men given to their lusts, etc. should much more be kept from the Lords Table than either Catechumeni or Poenitentes.  
I know none else in the first Century, but Ignatius, who hath left us any Writings, and it is questionable whether any of these, or his either be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or no. But doubtless Dionysius was ancient, though I believe not thus ancient; his Scholiast Maximus lived within the fourth Century. Let us see what we have in the second Century, ad annum Christi 200.  
In this Century we have Justin Martyr, who hath something considerable extant to tell us the practice of the Church in his time, and he hath spoken fully enough to our purpose in his second Apology for the Christians, which Helvicus saith he wrote about the year 160. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΚΛΙ ' ΟυΤΩΣ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Just. Mart. Apol. 2. ex edit. Lutet. Paris. 1615. p. 97, 98.  where he tells us, how in those days they administered the Ordinance of the Supper, and hath these words.  
This nourishment (saith he) is with us called the Eucharist, of which none may partake with us but he, 1. That believes our Doctrine to be true. 2. He that is washed with the Laver of Regeneration for the remission of sins. 3. He that lives so as Christ hath Commanded.  
We desire no more than the recovery of this ancient Discipline of the Church, viz. that none may be admitted to the Lords Supper but such as first are baptised. Secondly, Such as believe the Doctrine of the Gospel, which they must know before they can believe. 3. Such as do not live according to the rule of the Gospel; but if none else were admitted in Justine Martyrs time, questionless there were some suspended who were not excommunicated.  
In this Century also lived Tatianus, Melito, Ireneus, Theophilus Antioch. Policarpus, Apollinaris, Athenagoras, Clemens, Alexandrinus, Pantaenus, Tertullian, etc.  
If testimonies could be produced out of these it were to little purpose, Justin Martyr having sufficiently evidenced for that Century. But the truth is, some of them have nothing extant, and others very little, and upon restrained subjects, in the handling of which they were not led to this theme. And in those pieces of Clemens Alexandrinus and Tertullian I find very little spoken concerning the discipline and order of the Church. Something there is in Tertullian, but Justin Martyr hath already spoken enough for this Age considering the occasion of his speaking, it was in an Apology for all Christians in his Age, and Apologizing for them he sets out their pure worshipping of God, and inoffensive practice.  
From the year two hundred to the year three hundred.  
In this Century were several Synods, but none of which we have any Record but only a Provincial Synod, called Consilium Anchyritanum by Gratian. Genebrard in his Chronology puts this Synod anno 298. Helvicus anno 312. Caranza and Mr Gillespy anno 308. certain it is it was either in the latter end of this, or the beginning of the next Century. I shall with learned Genebrard account it into this. Caranza says it was before the Ecumenical Council of Nice, but in what Emperor's time is not determined. But in that Council we find Suspension established with a witness. That for some sins, if any committed them before he was twenty years old, he should spend fifteen years in penitence before he should be admitted to pray with the Church, and five years he should have no more than a communion in Prayers with the Church, and afterwards be admitted to the Lords Table. This Canon may be seen in Caranza, p. 28. can. 16. I find the Greek Copy thus elsewhere.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
I neither justify this Council, nor this Canon of it in all things, but if there were such a Council, and so ancient as we are told, it plainly shows us Suspension distinct from Excommunication was so ancient in the Church of God; the same is also confirmed by the 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Canons of that Council; the Copies of which may be seen either in the book called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greek-Latine, or Latin in Caranza and Benius, etc. The two most Famous Fathers in this Century were Origen about the year 202. and Cyprian 250.  
Origen hath some, not obscure, hints of the judgement of the Church in his time. 
Orig. in Levit. Homil. 23. — Cibus iste Sanctus non est communis omnium, nec cujuscunque indigni sed Sanctorum est.  
Several other hints are in Origen, though he not where speaks directly to the case.  
For Cyprian, he that reads his tenth Epistle ad clerum de Presbyteris etc. or his book de lapsis, will find enough: I had thought to have transcribed some passages: but I am prevented by Mr Gillespy in his Aaron's Rod l. 3. cap. 17. where the Reader shall find them quoted.  
From the year three hundred to four hundred.  
In the Century, besides other Councils, was the famous Ecumenical Council of Nice, and for Ancients, Arnobius, Athanasius, Hilary, Macarius, Optatus, Basil, Greg. Nyssen. Nazianzen, Epiphanius, Ambrose, chrysostom, Hierome, Austin; Some of these will doubtless tell us the practice of the Church in their times.  
For the Council of Nice we have an imperfect Record, but if those Canons, which are printed as theirs, be so, they speak plain enough, Can. 11.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Concil. Nicen. Can. 11.   
Reader, this Synod was questionless the most glorious Orthodox Synod that ever the Church of Christ could glory in. Here were 318 of the most eminent servants of Christ, in the work of the Gospel, which the world then afforded. These all determine, that such sinners as were scandalous, though they had sinned through temptation, for fear of their lives or estates, (worshipping Idols, I suppose they meant) though they did profess repentance, yet they should give three year's proof of it before they should have any communion with the Church; if in this time they were found not to contradict their profession, they were admitted to some Communion, but no otherwise, than penitents for seven years more, after these ten years they must have no nearer communion than in prayer for two years longer; here was a Suspension of ten years for scandalous sins, distinct from Excommunication: were all these dreamers think we? For the length of time I do not justify them, nor can I altogether condemn them, considering the juncture of time, and state of the Church then.  
In this Century, they say, was Concilium Neocaesariense, if it were so, and we have a true account of their acts. In their second Canon they decree, that if a woman marry two brothers she should be rejected to her death; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet it is plain she was not excommunicated so long, for in the same Canon they determine she might have the Sacrament given her in her dying hour.  
In the same Century was Concilium Gangrense, who in the preface to their acts do plainly distinguish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one who is denied Communion with the Church, and one who is quite separated from it.  
What the Council of Arles, determined in the same Century is plain.  
The first Council of Arles Can. 11. Can. 12. Can. 23. plainly establish Suspension distinct from Excommunication.  
The second Council of Arles, 
Caranza p. 55. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  in the same Century, determines the Suspension of such from the Lords Supper for five years, as had, through fear in time of persecution, sacrificed to Idols. See also Canon 20, 25.  
Concilium Elebertinum, in which, Caranza saith, were nineteen Bishops, doth plainly distinguish betwixt some sinners, to whom the Sacrament at death should be denied, and others who should be suspended from it, but yet might have it at their death, desiring it, which if they were excommunicated they could not, V Can. 1, 2, 3, 14, 21, 31, 40, etc.  
For particular men in this Century, the Opinions of Basil, 
Aaron's rod, l. 3. c. 17.  Thaumaturgus, Chrys●stome, Ambrose, Augustine, are evident in their several works.  
Basil is enough for all, in his Canonical Epistles ad Amphilochium, see Canon 34, 38, 44, 56, 57, 58, 59 for murder, he determines twenty year's suspension, Can. 36. for manslaughter eleven years, Can. 57 for Adultery, fifteen, Can. 58. for Fornication, eight years, Can 59 for theft, though the thief first accused himself, one year, Can. 61. for perjury eleven years, Can. 64. But if they before gave good evidence of their repentance and change, they were to be admitted sooner, Can. 74.  
It were an easy but tedious work to show that this was the judgement of the succeeding Councils and Fathers, but if we could not, these were the most pure and incorrupted times of the Church: and surely the Servants of God were not all this time in a dream.  
For the time of Antichrists prevailing, betwixt the time of the purer Church and the beginnings of Reformation by Luther and Calvin, we shall easily know what was the general opinion by the Schoolmen, and by their decretals and Councils: the Schoolmen most of them handle this Question.  
An peccatori hoc Sacramentum petenti Sacerdos denegare debeat?  
Whether if a Sinner desire the Sacrament of the Lords Supper the Priest ought to deny it him? They generally distinguish betwixt a secret sinner and a public and notorious sinner, and betwixt his desiring it in private and in public. 

Vasq. in tert. par. Thom. t. 3. q. 80 disp. 209. cap. 2.  
In quâ re scholastici omnes, ut dixi, constanter affirmant, publico peccatori, nimirum de quo non constat, ad meliorem frugem fuisse conversum publice etiam, Eucharistiam denegandam esse, ibid.    
1. They all generally determine, that if the sinner be a manifest open sinner, the Priest ought to deny it to him, (though not excommunicated) which is enough for to prove Suspension distinct from Excommunication.  
They are not so well agreed in determining who should be accounted public notorious sinners: Nor whether the Priest may not in some cases deny the Lords Supper to Occulto peccatori?  
Gabriel Vasquez assures me that all the Schoolmen do agree, that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is to be denied to an open sinner, of whose repentance there is no evidence.  
I said before, they are not so well agreed who shall be judged a scandalous sinner. Adrianus, in his questions the Eucharistia, says, he is a public scandalous sinner if his sin be known to ten persons. Sylvester and Navarrus think enough if it be known to six. Dominicus Sotus, and Vasquez, think that suspicion is not enough, but the party must appear scandalous, either 1. Per sententiam, he being declared so by the Judge; or 2. Per confessionem ab ipso in judicio, or by his own confession in Court; or 3. Per rei evidentiam, when the thing is evident and cannot be denied. But though they disagree here, yet they plainly enough agree, as to the granting a Suspension distinct from Excommunication.  
Now that this is the concurrent opinion of the Schoolmen, 

Bonavent. in l. 4 sent. dist. 9 art. 2. q. 4.  
Duran. in sent. dist. 9 q 5.  
Etius in l. 4. sent. dist. 9 sect 4.  
Vasq. in 3. p. Tho. l. 3 q. 8. art. 6.  
Alex Halen. in 4. p. sum. q. 11. art. 3.  
Aquin. sum. 3. p. q 80. art. 6.  
Becan. in sum. Scholast. Thcol. p 3 c. 5. q 8.   I shall prove by referring the Reader to those places in Bonaventure, Aquinas, Durandus, Becanus, Halensis, Estius, Vasquez; where they professedly handle the question, and give Arguments for it. Vasquez, as I said before, tells me, it is the unanimous Vote of all his Brethren of the Schools; I am sure it is the determination of all these (which prove it the opinion of the Schoolmen in all Ages) Bonaventure, Aquinas, and Durandus being all betwixt 1250. and 1300. Vasquez (saith Helvicus) died 1604. and Estius died 1613. as may be seen in the account of his life, and Writings prefixed to his Commentaries on the Epistles.  
If Suspension distinct from Excommunication be a Dream, these were some of the learned Dreamers.  
It remains that we examine the judgement of others, and it is no great matter to whom we turn, let them be Papists, Lutherans, or Calvinists, we shall find them all in this point 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
As for Papists, I shall not trouble my Reader with quotations out of them (though it were a very facile thing to do) partly because the ignorance of some may judge it one of their superstitious practices, and partly because their Schoolmen have spoken enough to let us know their minds; to which Salmeron may be added, who hath spoken enough to prove it in a place I have before quoted. 
Salmeron. t 5. tract. 50.   
For the opinion of the Churches of the Swissers it is not considerable in the cause, because most of their Churches have no Excommunication at all, and so could not hold Suspension as distinct from it, yet I observe that none of them plead for admission of any to the Lords Table, but such as make a profession of their faith and repentance, so Brentius, Bullinger, Gualther, etc.  
Philip Melancthon, who was one of the first Reformers in Germany, hath said enough, as it is recorded by Christophorus Pezelius. 
Pezeliis pars oct. argum & resp. theol. contexta ex scriptis Melanct. de Excom. p. 409.   
In veteribus Canonibus duo gradus sunt poenarum, separatio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & excommunicatio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Separatio est poena qua homo per sententiam Ecclesiae cogitur aliquantisper omittere officium publicum, & usum Sacramentorum, ut exploretur ejus obedientia an volens statim emendaturus sit, & veniam petiturus, 
Melancth. in Eth. 287.  an vero contumaciter defensurus errorem, etc.  
Altera poena ultima, & summa in Ecclesia est Excommunicatio, etc.  
This is plain enough for our purpose.  
The next which I shall name of those holy and learned men, whom Mr Boatman hath called Dreamers, etc. amongst the rest is holy Bucer. 
Bucer in Comment. in Ephes. cap. 4.   
Et Cavendum est Ecclesiis ne cui causam praebeant sumendi sibi judicium, in sumendo Sacramento salutis quod faciunt quicunque, absque verâ peccatorum suorum Poenitentiâ Sacramentis Domini communicant. Quamobrem siqui in gravius aliquod peccatum incidissent & in manifestum flagitium, ut Corint hius ille incestus inciderat, eos priscae Ecclesiae quae Christi disciplinam adhuc rectè tenebant, ligabant certo tempore ad agendam, hoc est demonstrandum poenitentiam per opera, & fructus veros poenitentiae, etiamsi illos jam tum peccati sui poenitere appareret, id enim erat consentaneum verae poenitentiae de tetriore lapsu, quae (ut dictum) si vera sit, aliquandiu haeret, tum utile ad cavendum peccatum tam ipse qui ligabatur quam totae reliquae Ecclesiae,— Atque hinc est quod Divus Cyprianus tantopere urgebat, lapsis inpersecutionibus, non ilico dandam esse veniam, sed diu, ac justo tempore eos agere poenitentiam, de quov. Epist. ejus 2. & 3. lib. 1. & lib. 3. ab Ep. 14. ad 20. & in Sermone de lapsis. Item exemplum Ambrosii inlegatione Theodosii apud Theod. l. 3. c. 18. & apud Sozom. l. 7. c. 24. Porro licet abstinendi sint ad tempus qui gravioribus peccatis Ecclesiam funestarunt, tamen severior debet esse Excommunicatio eorum qui Ecclesiam non audiunt, etc.  
In the next place let us hear what our Reverend Calvin saith, 
Calv. institut. l. 4 cap. 12. sect. 5, & 6.  and he speaks plain enough. In his fifth Paragraph, having spoken before of Church-Censures, he treats of the three ends which the Church aims at in such Censures: 1. The glory of God. 2. The preservation of the Church's purity. 3. The amendment of the offender. In his sixth Paragraph he comes to show the method and order of the Churches proceed in Church-Censures, that he doth by making use of a former distinction he had laid down between public and more private sins. By private sins he tells us, he doth not mean such as none know of, such as are the sins of hypocrites, but such whose nature is not so scandalous, etc. For open, gross, public sins, he tells us the Church need not proceed so gradually; 1. By private admonition. 2. Then by admonition more public, etc. For lesser sins the Church takes no cognisance of them till private admonition be refused when it comes to them; if the offence be lighter, sufficit verborum castigatio (saith he) it is enough for the Church at first to admonish, and that, saith he, must be levis & paterna, quae non exasperet peccatorem, nec confundat, sed reducat ad seipsum, ut magis gaudeat se correctum quam tristetur. But if the offences be of an higher nature, they must be corrected by a sharper remedy, for (saith he) it is not enough if one hath committed a scandalous sin, and grievously offended the Church, should be, reproved by words, but for a time he ought to be deprived of the Communion of the Lords Supper, 
Ibid. Sect. 7, 8, 9.10, 11, 12.  till he hath given evidence of his repentance.— And this, saith he, was the way of the ancient and better Church, etc. But for Excommunciation he determines that must be done after a great deal of waiting, and with a great deal of wisdom and caution, etc. thou mayest read him at large, whose discourse is too large indeed to be transcribed: This is enough to show thee that he is one of Mr Boatmen Pharisees and Dreamers too; (we shall have good company I hope anon.)  
In this sixteenth Century were so many eminent men, that it were endless to transcribe all their testimonies to this truth; thou hast, Reader, already heard what Melancthon and Bucer, and Calvin have spoke, (who were all three within this Century,) I shall not trouble thee with many more. 
Zach. Ursinus in doct. Christ. 2. p de Coenâ dom. q. 8.   
What Reverend Vrsine thought may be read at large in his eighth Question de Coenâ Domini, where he speaks to these two Questions: 1. Quiad coenam accedere debent, who ought to come to the Lords Table. 2. Qui debeant admitti, who ought to be admitted to it? In answer to the latter he determines;  
Those are to be admitted by the Church, who by words and deeds profess true repentance, and who by the actions of their life express their profession of faith and repentance, but they are (saith he) not to be admitted who barely say, they believe all things; for he who saith he believeth, and showeth it not by his works, is a liar, and doth in deeds deny what in words he affirmeth. For this he gives reasons, and answers objections largely in that Chapter, which the Reader may see in Latin or English. And that he thought this Suspension ought to precede Excommunication is plain, for in the same Book in his fifth Question de Clavibus, He determines that Excommunication must be used as the last remedy to correct those who are found impenitent. And in the preceding Question he proves by fourteen Arguments that scandalous persons ought to be kept from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper (which I wish those who are so zealous for the profanation of that Ordinance would seriously weigh) possibly they might amaze their consciences (if they have any) more than Mr Boatman's startling reason scares us.  
I confess, in this Century I find several of the German Divines pleading for promiscuous Communion, especially Wolfangus Musculus; but they are not so considerable in this cause, because their Judgements are also against all Church Discipline where there is a Christian Magistrate. The Lord hath made their names upon other accounts exceeding famous, though in point of Church Discipline they have no name in the Church. God shall reveal this also to those Churches (as we hope.)  
What was Peter Martyrs opinion is plain from his common places, 
Pet. Mart. loc. come. Clas. 4. c. 5. sect. 7.  where he tells us in what order the Churches of God formerly proceeded to the solemn sentence of Excommunication: he indeed tells us, that their several degrees of Catechumeni, of which some were Audientes, some Competentes, and of their Poenitentes, of which they had four sorts, (all of which were kept in the Primitive Church from the Lords Table, at least all but their fourth degree of Penitents,) cannot be proved from Scripture. But in his fifteenth Section moving this Question, what should be done in reference to scandalous sinners, if the community refused to consent to their Excommunication, He answers: Saltem id curandum esse, ut damnatis atque convictis, de publicis & manifestis criminibus pastor Sacramenta non distribuat. Care at least must be taken that the Pastor doth not administer the Sacrament to such as are convicted of gross sins; from whence it is plain, that he judged some that might be kept from the Supper of the Lord who were not Excommunicated. And that Reverend man's judgement is not so clearly to be judged from his common places (which were collected out of his works by others, and by them published) as by the Book called Reformatio legum Ecclesiasticarum (of which more anon.)  
In the next place let us hear what Polanus thought, 
Polan. Syntag. Theol l. 7. c. 18. Abstentio publica usurpatur, cum coram Ecclesia jubetur abstinere Sacrae Coenae usu is qui contra privatum interdictum aliis ad mensam domini accedentibus se ingerit, etc.  whose judgement the Reader shall find in the second part of his Syntagma, l. 7. c. 18.  
Where he tells us, that the Public Censures of the Church are three: 1. Admonitio. 2. Abstentio. 3. Excommunicatio; Admonition, Suspension, and Excommunication.  
Public Suspension, saith he, is when in the Jace of the Church he is commanded to abstain from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, who either against a private prohibition intrudes, or whose sin is so scandalous that the Pastor of the Church cannot, without scandal to the faithful, administer the Sacrament to him. So Ambrose suspended the great Emperor Theodosius.  
Come we now to learned and Reverend Zanchy, who hath a large discourse upon this point in his first Book of Epistles, 
Zanch. in epist. l. 1. in ep. ad Ferd tert. At quorum peccata sunt omnibus nota, & quorum etiam pertinacia ●emini est ignota hos ex verbo Dei cum totâ vetustate & doctissimis quibusque nostri saeculi contendimus ad Coenam Domini minimè esse admittendos ib.  in an Epistle to Fredericus tertius, where he determines that Excommunication is to proceed only in case of contumacy. But confirms the keeping away of scandalous and impenitent sinners by thirteen Arguments, and says, they are egregiously charitable who would have none kept away, and determines the admission of the profane to be against piety, and charity, and answers the trite Objections of Judas his receiving, and from that place, Let a man examine himself; Ergo, none else may examine him, and determines the admission of the profane; 1. Against the will of God. 2. A profanation of the Sacrament. 2. A scandal to the Church. In short, saith he, For those whose sins, and whose obstinacy in sinning is known to all, we contend, both in the behalf of God's word, and according to all Antiquity, and all the Learned of our Age, that they are not to be admitted to the Lords Table. He produceth the authority of Justin Martyr, chrysostom in several places, Cyprian, etc.  
In the next place let us hear the judgement of Reverend Danaeus, 
Lambert. Daneus in Isagoge Christ p. 3 c. 59 p 4. l. 5. c. 53.  and that may be read plain enough in the third part of his Isagoge Christiana, cap. 59 where he distinguisheth the public censures of the Church into Admonition, Suspension from the Lords Table and Excommunication; and in his fourth part, and fifth book, cap. 53. he sufficiently proves, that the Ignorant and Scandalous are to be kept away from the Lords Table, for which he gives reasons, and answers objections.  
Of the same mind is Learned and Reverend Zepperus, as may appear at large from his Tract of the Sacraments in genere & specie, l. 4. de sacrâ Domini coenâ, cap. 5. where he handles this question, for whom Christ instituted the Sacrament of his Supper; and determines it was only for his Disciples, who these are he explains from Joh. 8.31. Mat. 16.24. 
Zepperus in tract. de sacram. l. 4. de sacra Coenâ, cap. 5.  Joh. 13.35. And determines that the scandalous and obstinate ought not to be admitted, because they are none of Christ's Disciples, because holy things are not to be given to dogs, because it hath been the constant practice of the Church to keep them away, this he proves not only from the practice of the Jewish Church, in reference to the Passeover, but from the Writings of Tertullian, Cyprian, chrysostom, etc. and answers the objection of Judas his supposed receiving.  
I have a Book wrote in Latin, 
Ecclesiasticae disciplinae & Anglicanae, Ecclesiae ab ill â aberrationis plena dilucidatio. p. 127, 128, 129, 130.  anno 1574. by some pious learned man, who I know not, I am informed it was Mr Dudley Fenners, it is called, Ecclesiasticae Disciplinae & Anglicanae Ecclesiae ab illâ aberrationis plena è verbo Dei & dilucida explicatio; where Suspension, distinct from Excommunication, is maintained and proved from Scripture and Antiquity.  
What was Bucanus his Judgement is evident enough from his Institutions; in his 44. common place he propounds this as his tenth question: Quot sunt partes sive gradus Ecclesiasticae correctionis. How many degrees are there of Ecclesiastical Censure? He answer three.  

1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, seu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, admonition.  
2. Exclusio seu abstentio, etc. Suspension from the Lords Supper for a time. 
Bucan. instit. theol. loc. 44. q. 10, etc.   
3. Excommunication, (of which see more there.)   
So that it is plain, he also thought there was such a thing as Suspension distinct from Excommunication, viz. absolute Excommunication.  
Reverend and Learned Beza's judgement is so known, that I need quote nothing out of him; but yet in regard that I am credibly informed, that M Boatman had the confidence to quote the French Churches, as if they were of his mind, and I have met with a passage in Beza, which not only speaks his Judgement, but the Judgement and Practice of the Churches of God in France, I shall transcribe it; it is in the Preface of the Book which he directs against Erastus, 
Beza de Presbyterio & Excom.  he calls it Tractatus pius & moderatus de verâ Excommunicatione & Presbyterio; In the Preface of that book you shall find this passage.  
Consistorium igitur habemus, etc. We have, saith he, a Consistory, in which not only the Ministers of God's word, but twice as many more, sit as Judge's chosen (out of the lesser and greater Senate) not without public notice first given to the people, Dissenters as to the received doctrine of the Church, are first friendly, and brotherly admonished: if they will be quiet, they are commanded to remain still for the time to come, and there is no further vote of disgrace put upon them; if they be stubborn, and a second more serious admonition will not profit, than they are summoned to the Consistory: if they pertinaciously resist their admonition, than they are forbidden the Lords Supper, (being the seal of that doctrine in which they descent from us) and the whole Senate is informed of them. The same course is taken against them who discover their profane mind by an open contempt of holy meetings. As to the manners of the several persons, when faults are secret, we use gentle admonitions, as the Lord prescribeth; nor is any one called to the Ecclesiastical Judicatory for a private fault, (which is not conjoined with the public scandal of the Church) unless he contemneth private admonitions; but such as do contemn them, are again admonished by the Church, and being convicted by due testimonies, if instead of ask pardon they show themselves obstinate, they are according to the word of God, Mat. 18.17. commanded to keep from the Supper of the Lord till they declare a change of heart. As for more manifest and infamous sins, which the Church cannot wink at, he that hath so offended (for an example to others) is summoned to the Consistory; but if he asks pardon, he is dismissed: but if he be admonished the second time, and doth not acknowledge his sin, and promise amendment, then as one who goes on scandalising the Church, he is kept away from the Holy Supper, which is a seal of our mutual communion with Christ, and each with other, until he hath given evidence of his repentance. In more gross and open sins, which deserve greater than verbal corrections only, the Church having first had lawful cognisance of it, those that so sin are commanded to humble themselves before the Lord, and to keep away from the Lords Table for some time, (in order to public edification) until it appears that their sin is indeed grievous unto them. But for open and public Excommunication, denounced before all the Congregation, we do not use it but against persons altogether desperate and hopeless, [non nisi in poenè deploratos] that is his phrase) yet, saith he, for Apostates, we do not receive them to communion again, though they profess repentance in the Consistory, unless they also beg forgiveness in the open Congregation. Thus far this holy, and learned, and Reverend man, which speaks his judgement, and the French Churches, clearly enough.  
Holy and learned Ames speaks clearly enough: 
Amesii medullae. theol. l 1. cap. 37. n. 19, 20, 21.   
Excommunication saith he, is not to be used unless to the sin be added contumacy, n. 19 Mat. 18.17. The sinner being duly admonished must appear penitent or stubborn, he that is penitent ought not to be excommunicated, therefore the contumacious only.  
N. 21. 
V Amesium de conscientia & ejus jure & casibus, l. 4. c. 29. q. 8.  When the business can admit delay, it is agreeable to Scripture and reason, that Excommunication be begun first by Suspension and keeping away of the sinner from the Sacrament, and other Church-priviledges, this saith he, is the lesser Excommunication.  
N. 22. But the Church must not stay here, but urge the sinner's repentance by this way, and in this time of his Suspension, and when they are out of hopes of that, they must proceed to a complete separation of him from communion with the Church, this is the greater Excommunication.  
Anthony Wollebius, 
Ant. Wollebii compendium Christ. theol. l. 1. cap. 26.  Professor sometimes in Basil, is of the same mind.  
Lagationis gradus sunt, etc. The degrees of Censures, saith he, are, 

1. Severe admonition by the Presbytery, private admonition being rejected.  
2. Suspension from the Lords Table, which he proves from Mat. 7.6.  
3. Excommunication, by which the Party is cast out of the Church.  
4. Anathema, when he is given over as one desperate.    
I will add the testimony of Wendeline, 
Wendelini l. 1. Christianae theo. cap. 23. thes. 18.  who in his first book Christianae Theologiae, in his 23. Chapter in his 18. Thesis', determines, that he who is subjectum Coenae Dominicae, a Subject fit for the Lords Supper, must be 1. adultus, one grown up. 2. Doctrina fidei Christianae imbutus eique addictus, one who is endued with a knowledge of the Doctrine of Christianity, and a friend to it. 3. Vitae Sanctae studiosus, one who is studious of an holy life; therefore, saith he, these must be shut out from the Lords Table.  
1. Infants, because they cannot remember the Lord's death. 2. Because they cannot prepare themselves.  
2. Those that are ignorant of the Doctrine of Christianity, or ab eâ alieni, Because, saith he, this Sacrament is ordained for none but the Citizens of the Christian Church: and those who are partakers of the same faith, and who embrace and profess the doctrine of the Gospel; for as nothing is promised in the Gospel to those who know nothing of Christ, or are enemies to the doctrine of the Gospel, but the wrath of God is denounced to such: so nothing is sealed to them, and therefore they are not to be admitted to the seal of the Promise.  
3. Lastly, such as are manifestly wicked and profane, and that for three causes: 

1. Because by their impiety and profaneness they profane the Lords Supper.  
2. Because they eat and drink unworthily, and so procure Judgement to themselves.  
3. Because the Church admitting such provokes God to wrath against it, casting holy things and pearls before Dogs and Swine.    
This is enough to show the judgement of particular men, who have been the eminent servants of Christ in all Ages. Let us now take in the judgement of whole Churches.  
And it will be fit we should begin at home, out of our duty to our mother, and considering that of all the Churches of God, now in the world, the English is and hath been most famous.  
The Church of England may be considered either in her state of Virginity, or of her pollution by the man of sin; or lastly, since her honest divorce from him.  
For our Church, what her judgement was before, Austin the Monk was sent over to espouse her to the Romish Bishop; we have very little Record the best which I know, 
Concilia Pan. Brittanica, p. 92.  is in the learned book published by Sir Henry Spilman.  
Austin came over anno 597.  
The first council that learned Knight tells us of, is that of Arles, held in Constantine's time, and at his command, the place of their Session was in France; it was held, saith Binius, anno 326. Balaeus saith 350. Baronius saith 314. There were present for England at the Synod Eborius Bishop of York. Restitutus Bishop of London, and Adelfius Bishop of London. Sacordos' a Presbyter, and Arminius a Deacon.  
They made 22. Canons, their third Canon, and fourth, and fifth determine Suspension of Stage-players, etc. So doth their eleventh Canon for young women married to heathens.— Placuit ut aliquanto tempere 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 blood of Christ only, as is plain 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 Augustine's time, in regard of the great troubles of Britain, through the continual inroads 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 year for repentance to any who had killed any, committed fornication, or consulted a wizard, Can. 15. they determine twenty day's penitence 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 murder of Cynetu in a Synod at Land●ff, anno 560. another Synod there enjoined King Morcant penance for murdering his Uncle Frioc; and at a third Synod there, Guidnerth was excommunicated for the murder of his Brother.  
But a more perfect account I cannot find. From the time of Austin the Monks coming 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 Schoolmen.  
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 Ecclesiastical Laws. Afterwards King Edward 6. by his Commission dated November 11. in the fifth year of his Reign revived and perfected the work. Cranmer, Peter Martyr, Dr Cox, Dr May, Dr Taylor of Hadly, and some others, being his Commissioners to perfect the body of 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 show the causes of Suspension, amongst which this they allege as the main.  
Because in lesser offences Excommunication cannot proceed, 
Quoniam magra sequeretur, b norum perturbatio, si cum hujusmodi personis infamibus Sacramenta communicarent.  and ofttimes suspicions of gross sins which may scandalise the Church may appear 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 year suspended shall be Excommunicated, etc.  
Soon after this the Bishops prevailed to have the Common Prayer and Rubric confirmed, and from thence, as to this, we may know the judgement of our Church till the year 1641. It is true, they were as tender of the business of Suspension, as they were free of their Excommunications. But yet we have thus much in the Rubric prefixed to the form for administering 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, 
V The Book of Common Prayer concerning the order for the administration of the Lords Supper.  and advertise him in any wise not to presume to come to the Lords Table, until he hath openly declared himself to have truly repent and amended his former naughty life, that the Congregation may thereby be satisfied, which before were offended, and that he hath recompensed the persons whom he hath done wrong unto, or at least declare himself to be in full purpose so to do as soon as conveniently he may. The same order shall the Curate use with those betwixt whom he perceiveth malice and hatred to reign, not suffering them to be partakers of the Lords Table, until he know them to be reconciled, and if one of the parties so at variance be contented to forgive, from the bottom of his heart, all that the other hath trespassed against him, and to make amends for that he himself hath offended, and the other party will not be persuaded to a godly Unity, but remain still in his frowardness 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 Episcopal Discipline, yet allowed Suspension distinct from Excommunication.  
After that Episcopacy was voted down, and Presbytery established, 
Form of Church Government. p. 27.  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 book 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 think the Rubric clear enough to show the Judgement of our Church in Episcopal times, I shall produce a proof or two more.  
There was a Provincial 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 unfaithful Churchwardens; nor such as refuse to be present at public prayers, nor to any that depraved the Book of Common Prayer, nor who spoke against the King's Authority.  
Let Reverend Deane Nowell speak, 
D. Nowel's Catechism. p. 647.  who in his Catechism Creeke-Latine printed London 1573. tells us, That if it doth appear 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 Dean tells us in well ordered Churches Elders were chosen and joined with the Pastor, 
Ibid p. 652.  &c  
From all this it is plain, That the Judgement and Practice of the Church of England in all times, ever since it was a Church, hath been to suspend some from the Table of the Lord, who yet were not Excommunicated.  
Let us look now into other Churches. The Reformed Churches are either those in Germany, or in Holland or in France, or in Scotland.  
For the Churches of the Swissers, they indeed practise no Discipline; but we shall find all other Churches concurring with us.  
The Judgement of the Church of Scotland may be known, not only by the particular Writings of their eminent Gillespy and Rutherford, but by their form of Church-Government, printed 1641. where they tell us, p. 39  
All baptised persons when they come to age and discretion are not admitted to the Lords Table, 
The Government of the Church of Scotland, p. 39, 40, etc.  but such only as upon examination are found to have a competent measure of knowledge in the Principles of Religion, and do profess that they are believers, and do live unblamably, etc.— But this not-admission to the Communion is one thing, and Excommunication of heinous, or obstinate offenders is another thing very different, etc.—  
The Judgement of the Church of God in Holland is clear from their Corpus Disciplinae, printed here anno 1645. chap. 4. Concerning Ecclesiastical Discipline, art. 8.  
He that shall obstinately reject the admonition of the Consistory shall be suspended from the Supper of the Lord, 1 Thes. 3.14. that is in case of private offences.  
Art. 10. He that hath committed a public, 
Corpus disciplinae Engl. pr. 1645. cap. 4. art. 8, 10, 11, 14.  or otherwise heinous offence, shall also be suspended from the Lords Supper, though he should give signs of Repentance, according as the Consistory shall judge most fitting.  
Art. 11. He that hath been suspended, if after divers admonitions he shall show no sign of repentance, he shall be published to the Congregation.  
Art. 14. And at length if he doth not repent followeth the Excommunication, etc.  
I think here is Suspension before Excommunication, and distinct from it.  
I hear Mr Boatman hath quoted the Churches in France for him, how truly now my Reader shall see, when I had quoted them against him, a friend of mine telling him of it, he bade him ask Dr Delawne and he could satisfy him of the untruth of my quotation. I did not quote them by hearsay, but from Reverend Beza's account, which I quoted before. I conceived they had not altered their minds, yet I sent to my Reverend Friend Dr Lawn, for satisfaction he came to me April 9 and 1. assured me it was the daily practice of their Church to suspend the scandalous. 2. Promised me to send me all the books he had concerning the Discipline of their Churches to confirm me.  
This day he sent me two, having left one with me. the first is called,  
The Ecclesiastical Discipline of the Reformed Churches of France, printed London 1642.  
They say so much for it that I cannot transcribe all, let him who doubts read the 19, 20, 21. p. n. 15.— If it (say they) befalleth, that besides the admonitions usually made by the Consistory to such as have done amiss, 
Ecclesiastical Discipline of the reformed Churches of France, p. 19, 20, 21.  there be some other punishment, or more rigorous Censure to be used, it shall then be done either by Suspension, or privation of the Sacrament for a time, or by Excommunication etc. So they go on directing to the execution of either, etc.  
Another book is called, 
Ibid. p. 42, 43. Art. 15.  The general and particular Acts and Articles of the late Nationall Synod of the Reformed Churches of France, at Charenton 26. Decem. 1644. Printed at London 1646.  
They plainly and largely determine Suspension, and charge their Consistories to distinguish it from Excommunication.— The passages are too large to transcribe; Let the Reader view that book at his leisure p. 42, 43.  
There is yet one book more, containing an Extract of the four Nationall Synods of the Belgic Churches, viz, that of Embda, 1571. Dort 1578. Middleburgh 1581. the Hague 1586. the Book is written in Latin, and called Harmonia Synodorum Belgicarum, in the 36 page having before spoken of private and public admonition, they determine: N. 8. Let him who hath pertinaciously rejected the admonitions of the Consistory be suspended from the Lords Supper. 
Qui pertinaciter Consistorii admonitiones rejecerit, à Sacrae Coenae communione suspendetur. Harm. Syn. Belgic. Si suspensus post iteratas admonitiones nullum poenitentiae signum dederit, ad Excommunicationem procedet Ecclesia. Ibid.   
And again Art. 9  
If he who is suspended, after iterated admonitions, show no sign of Repentance, then let him be Excommunicated.  
I think here is Suspension again distinct from Excommunication.  
As for our dissenting Brethren, I spoke something before to prove it their practice let me add one thing more.  
Our Brethren of New England are the most pure, and sober, and considerable Churches in the world of that persuasion, and those who alone would ever give us a joint account of their saith as to Church-Discipline. Let us hear what they say; in their fourteenth Chupter, having spoken concerning public admonition, they add,  
Which declaring the offender to lie under the public offence of the Church doth thereby withhold, 
A platform of Church Discipline printed London 1653. Cap. 14. p. 21. n. 2.  or suspend him from the holy fellowship of the Lords Supper till his offence be removed by penitent confession: If he still continue obstinate, they are to cast him out by Excommunication.  
I think here is also Suspension granted precedaneous to, and gradually distinct from Excommunication.  
There is only one thing to which I must speak a word or two wherein in our present practice we differ from other settled Reformed Churches: As to the suspension of any whom we, since the late Reformation, admitted to the holy Table, we agree both with other reformed Churches, with our own in times of Episcopacy, and with our Brethren of the dissenting party, we will suspend none but after admonition for some scandalous sin, and indeed this only is properly Suspension.  
We deny the Sacrament indeed to others, viz. such as will not give account of their faith, and submit to the order of the Church. But we would not have this looked upon by our Brethren as if it were a standing principle of ours, or as if we intended to put Christians to give an account of their faith every time they come to the Sacrament, the contrary is evident in our practice; we must therefore be considered as a disordered, and now reforming Church. Had all those Ministers, who went before us in our Churches, done their duty, they had saved us our labour. They should have admitted none at first to the Sacrament but such as had a competent knowledge of the principles of Religion, and such as were blameless in their lives, the principles of the Episcopal Government required this.  
But we find some of them made no conscience of it, but admitted any body for his two pence, and cared not how scandalous they were, (ordinarily they could not be worse than their Parson) we enter now into these men's harvests, and finding what slovenly work they made, we cannot think it safe for us to work after their rate: this made the Reverend Assembly propound this expedient, to put us in order, that there might (pro primâ vice) be a review of all those who had been formerly admitted, and such as were found ignorant kept away, and so for the scandalous.  
Nay, I will add one thing more; Had our Bishops been conscientious in the business of Confirmation, we had been spared this trouble and odium. For Confirmation was in order to the trying of people's proficiency after Baptism. And as none not confirmed should have come to the Lords Table, so he should have confirmed no ignorant scandalous persons though baptised: But we see the clean contrary practice.  
And there was no way but this to begin any Reformation amongst us, who by our way of administration of that holy Ordinance had made our Churches a reproach to Papists, and a grief of heart to all Protestants, and by it opened a way for Brownists, and Anabaptists, and others, to fill their Congregations with those who were our strictest Professors formerly, though they quickly taught them otherwise. And I think this may serve to satisfy any conscientious Christians.  
Nor shall any, how godly soever, or great so ever, have any just cause to stumble at it that they must be enjoined to give account of their faith; For besides, that we stand not upon Examination, but shall be as well contented with a continued Narration of their faith from them, (which we are also ready to give to them) Christians should consider how much the glory of God, and the good of others is furthered by their open profession of their knowledge, and confession of what God hath done for their poor souls; and their Reason may inform them, that we cannot spare them without partiality, which we must not be guilty of.  
And now, Reader, I have showed thee, that the Churches and Servants of Christ in all ages, have owned and practised this so much decreed Ordinance of Suspension: Now judge whether Mr Boatman hath informed his people truly, in telling them it is a dream of the Pharisees, which wiser ages before never thought of.   

CHAP. XIV. Containing a digression, or rather a regression, with an attempt to clear from the Writings of the Ancients the several degrees of persons not excommunicated, yet suspended from the Lords Supper.  
I Shall return a little to try a little further how far the practice of the Church in the Primitive times, as to the keeping some from the Lords Supper, who yet were not the facto cast out of the Church, and kept from all Ordinances, can be cleared from the Writings of the Ancients, or those learned Atiquaries, who have laboured to find it out before me, and spent their pains to very good purpose, though their writings be in Latin, and so not so obvious to all; this I shall do the rather,  
1. Because I have heard of some holy and learned men that doubt it. 2. Because it will expound some passages which I have already quoted out of the Councils, and the (pretended) Areopagite. 3. Because the clearing of this will plainly evidence the practice of the Primitive Church as to this point.  
All Christians of old were distinguished into three sorts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1. Such as were Catechumeni under Catechism. 2. Believers. 3. Penitents. Penitents were such as had fallen into some sins for which they were denied the privileges of the Church. 
Hospites & vicini fidelium. Ribbon. l. 1. de instit. cler.   
The Catechumeni were such as were probationers for Christianity, or Church-Fellowship, and were put under the care of some Teachers to be instructed in the Principles of Religion in order to it, when this practice first began in the Church is not certain; the first Master of these Christian Pupils, which we read of in Ecclesiastical History, was Pantaenus, who lived (saith Eusebius) anno 193. 
Euseb. l. 5.6.9, 10, & in Chron. Bellarm. de scriptor. Eccl. p. 76. Euseb. l. 6. c. 7.  and was Master of a School of them at Alexandria; Clemens Alexandrinus, Pantaenus his Scholar, succeeded him in that employment (saith Eusebius,) he lived anno 204 saith Bellarmine, but Eusebius saith 194. which was ten years before. Origen, his Scholar, was the next we read of, Eusebius reckons him anno 208. Bellarmine reckons his 226. That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were an ancient order of Christians is plain from Gal. 6.6. From which place the Magdeburgenses conclude the Apostles lest forms of Catechism; 
Centur. Magdeb. Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 7.  it is probable to me that even from the Apostles time there were in the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, some that were Catechised, and some appointed to Catechise them, they are both of them Scripture terms. And And if we may admit the eight books of Apostolical institutions to be wrote by Clement (which I durst not allow) they determine the case, 
Constit. Apost. l 7 c. 40.  having a peculiar precept how those Catechumeni should be instituted, but (leaving them as spurious.) it is clear enough from several places of Clemens Alexandrinus, 
Clem. Alex. l. 7. storm.  who lived doubtless in the second Century, that they were an order in his time. Not only from that passage which my learned friend Dr Young hath quoted out of him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is l. 7. storm. but also from divers other passages, as in his 6. storm. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
My forementiond, 
Dr Young in his Dies Dominica. l. 2 c. 14. Albaspin, obs. l. 2 observ. 2.  Learned and Reverend friend saith, there was of these two sorts: Audientes, and Competentes. That learned Antiquary Albaspinaeus tells us of four degrees; I will translate his words, or at least give his sense. As soon as divine light had shined upon any, and put in his heart to be a Christian; 

1. He was taught in some private house concerning the cheats and doting superstitions of Pagans, but was not yet admitted to hear God's word, etc. this was their first degree.  
2. Then they had liberty to go a little further, they might come and hear Sermons; hence they were called Audientes, 
De Catechumenis & Catechizandi ordine vide Rabanum Maurum. l. 1. de institut. cleric. Cap. 26. & 27.  these might only hear, not come into the Church at Prayer.  
3. After this they had liberty to join with the Church in Prayer, these were called Orantes & genuflectentes.  
4. When they had been thus far admitted, they were baptised these were called Competentes.    
I shall not trouble myself to search what privileges each of these sorts had, it is certain none of them were as yet admitted to the Lords Table, post sermonem fit missa Catechumenis (saith Augustine) mane bant fideles. And indeed the very right understanding of that term fideles determines the business, to the clearing of which I shall transcribe a passage out of that incomparable Antiquary.  
Fidelis distinguitur à Catechumeno, & confirmato, non enim inter fideles adsumebantur, 
Albaspin. obs. l. 1. obs. 25.  qui fidem in baptismo aut qui charismata & dona spiritus Sancti ipsumque Spiritum Sanctum in confirmatione adepti essent, verùm two solum censebantur, & appellabantur fideles, qui iis duobus Sacramentis muniti, Eucharistiâ insuper donarentur, cum enim ea sit summum Christianae Religionis mysterium arcanum, & Sacramentum, non cuivis olim temere concedebatur; sed ei duntaxat qui multo antea morum & probitatis suae specimen exhibuisset, quique se it a fidum probasset, ut tutò ei mysteria divulgaripossent. Is igitur vocabatur fidelis, non qui baptizatus, aut confirmatus, sed qui Eucharistiae sacris participâsset. In English to this purpose.  
A Believer is distinguished from a Catechumenist, 
V Etiam Pamelii annot. 256. in c. 41. lib. Tert. de praesc. contra haeret. Catechumenos— cui fidelis opponitur, qui jam plene edoctus, & instruct us erat in fide, jamque receptus, & admissus ad nostra mysteria percipienda. ib.  and from one who is confirmed, for all those who had obtained faith in Baptism, or who had received the gists of the Holy Spirit were not presently reckoned amongst the Fideles; but those alone were thought worthy to be called, and were called Fideles,, who having been prepared by Baptism and Confirmation [which he calls Sacraments] were further admitted to the Lords Supper, for in regard that is the greatest Mystery, and Secret, and Sacrament of the Christian Religion; of old it was not headily granted to every one, but to him only who of a long time before had given proof of his honest Conversation, and had approved himself so saithful that those mysteries might safely be administered to him. He therefore was called Fidelis, not who was baptised, or confirmed, but who was admitted to the Holy Table.  
Clemens Alexandrinus saith, he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fidelis, 
Clem. Alex. storm. l. 2. impr. Lut. 1619. p. 371.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who keeps faithfully what is committed to him; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith he) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. One who keeps God's Commandments is Fidelis, in his sense. But as to the Ecclesiastical acceptation of Fideles, Albaspinaeus hath doubtless told us the truth.  
It is out of all doubt, that the Catechumeni were not admitted to the Lords Table. 
Tert. come not ù— de la Bar. l. 4. contra Marcionem. l. de Poenitentiâ. Quis Catechumenus, quis sidelis, incertum est, omnes pari●er orant, Tert. de praescrip. con. haeret. c. 41. Alcuinus de divin is offic. I siod. l. 6. Etymol. c. 19 Baban. Maurus de instit. cler. cap 32. ●no. Epist. 75. Aug S●rm. Council Carth. 4. An●b. l. 5. ●p. 33. Concil. La●d. cap. 19 Dion. Areop. loc. praed. Athan. apol. 2. contra A●rian.  Renatus Laurentius de la Barr tells us, that— In templo manebant donec Evangelium expossuisset Episcopus. Tum clamabat Levita Catechumeni exeunt, vel siquis Catechumenus reman sit exeat; which suits with that of Austin, before specified. And this is plain from Tertullian, who usually calls them Audientes, and Auditores, who says, they might wish for the Sacrament of Baptism, but ought not to presume to it, then surely not to the Lords Table. Nay, they were not admitted to any Prayers with the Church, subsequent to the Sermon, whence Tertullian cries out of it as a disorder, amongst the Heretics, that none could distinguish their Catechumenists from their Fideles, for they all prayed alike; yet I conceive it a mistake of those who conceive the Catechumeni were present at no Prayers of the Church, for than we must suppose the Primitive Churches had no Prayers before their Sermons, which out of all question they had, and the dismission of the Catechumeni was not till the Sermon was done. Indeed, they might not be present at any prayers of the Church preceding the administration o● the holy Communion.  
And thus much shall serve to have noted concerning the first order, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; or (according to Pamelius) the second, for he makes the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Concerning the dismission of the Catechumeni they who desire further satisfaction may read the Authors quoted in the Margin. 
Cyril. in Job. l. 12. c. 50.  I will sum up all with what I find in Cyrill, in Book 12. Chap. 10. of his Commentary on John.  
Prohibemus enim à sacrâ mensâ Catechumenos, quam vis veritatem jam cognoverint, & fidem mag●â voce consiteantur, quia nondum locupletati sunt. spiritu Sancto, qui non habitat in ijs qui baptismate non sunt consummati etc.  
From all this it appears: 1. That they baptised none but were fully instructed in the Doctrine of faith, and had openly professed repentance. 2. That till they were baptised, they admitted them not to the Lords Table.  
Let us now see whether they admitted all baptised persons.  
3. Their third order were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Let us examine: 1. Who these were. 2. From what privileges of the Church they were restrained, 
Which happily were originally the way of receiving in poenitents, rather than the degrees of casting them out. Rejoinder p. 46. Dies dominica l. 2. c. 14.  and how long. 3. When this Order came up in the Church.  
I am amazed at that piece of news which M. Humphrey suggests in his late rejoinder, that the several degrees of penitence might be in order to admission into the Church, (except he means readmission after falling) for he is the first who ever suggested any such thing I think, (at least the first I ever met with who hinted any such thing.) But it is contrary to all I ever met with.  
My highly honoured and learned Friend tells us right.  
They were such as, having embraced the Christian faith, and being baptised, 
Dr Young.  and their names recorded in the Church, had afterwards fallen into some open wickedness, by which they had forfeited their right to the privileges of the faithful, and were censured by the Church till such time as they should declare sufficient signs of their repentance.  
With him Albaspinaeus agrees, in his l. 2. Observat. Observe 3. and doubtless this is the truth.  
Of these Penitents, saith Dr Young, there were five degrees.  
1. 
V Dr. Young die. dom. l. 2. cap. 14. Albaspin. in obs. l. 2. obs. 22.  Their first degree was called gradus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. These might not come into the Church but were to stand without and beg the people's Prayers; of this first degree mention is made by Zonaras, Thaumaturgus, and Ambrose. I will transcribe Ambrose his words.  
Volo veniam reus speret, petat eam lachrymis, petat gemitibus, 
Ambr. de poens. l. 2. c. 16.  petat populitotius fletibus, ut ignoscatur, & obsecret, & cum secundò, & tertio fuerit dilata ejus communio, credat remissius se supplicasse, fletus augeat miserabilior, etc.  
Albaspinaeus thinks, that in the two first Ages this was taken up by those that had fallen spontaneously, afterward enjoined by the Church as the first degree of penitence. He proves this degree out of Tertullian; 
Tert. l. de. poen. cap. 9  so doth Dr Young; but to leave that Critical dispute, it is certain they were not admitted to the Lords Table.  
2. When they had thus continued a while, they were admitted to hear Sermons, as those of the Catechumeni, who were called Audientes: they had the same Tutors, the same, and no other privileges than they had, 
Albaspin. ibid. Dr Young's dies dom. ibid.  saith Albaspin. the Church by this mending them, that by their sins they had declared themselves such as again had need of that milk, not of strong meat; hence are those frequent passages in the Canons of the Councils; Stint inter Catechumenos. Quicunque annos exigant inter Catechumenos, cum Catechumenis discedant, 
Chrysost. Hom. 3. in Eph. Sic Hom. 79. ad pop. Antioch.  etc. chrysostom determines this case in his third Homily upon the Ephesians, where he tells us, that when they came to the administration of the Sacrament, the Preacher cried out: All you who are appointed to be Penitents depart; and in the same Homily tells us, they might no more be there than the Catechumeni. They might not stay the administration of the Sacrament, nor the prayers attending it, but they were at any other prayers, as might easily be proved, especially by the Liturgies of the Greek Fathers, 
V Liturgiae palm. in missa Basilii.  if any cried it may be allowed to them (for which I have little to say.) But it is an unworthy conceit of us for to think that they had no prayers before they came to administer the Sacrament, till which time they were not enjoined to departed. This degree of penitence was called by the Greeks gradus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
3. The third degree they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, these the Latins call Substrati. when the scandalous sinner had for some time stood at the Church doors only, and begged of them who went in to pray for him, and for another time come into the Porch, 
V Dr Young dies dom. ibid.  but no farther, and there heard the Sermons, but when they were done, went away before any of the latter Service, than they came to be Substrati. That is, they were admitted to come just within the Church doors, and to stand behind some Pillar, at some distance from the Congregation, where they one while stood and mourned for their sin, by and by cast themselves grovelling upon the earth. Then the Minister came mourning to them, and mourned over them, he and the whole Church, falling down with them on the ground; then the Minister or Bishop riseth up and lifts them up, and praying for them dismisseth them. The Apostol. Constit. 
Constit Apost. l. 8. c. 11, 12.  may be credited as to matter of fact in this case, though not for their antiquity; they give you the form of Prayer used after which (say they) the Deacon bid the penitents depart, 
V Albaspin. obs. l. 2. obs. 24.  and then they went to prayer for the Communicants, and to the administration of the Supper; when it was said the former sort of penitents might not be present at prayers, it is to be meant of these prayers, and those that followed for the Fideles. 
Concil. Ar●l. secund. Can. 21.  This degree, saith Albaspinaeus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is called poenitentia by the Fathers, and in the Canons; and this third sort 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 poenitentes, so the second Council of Arles,— Triennio in er poenitentes habeantur à communione susp nsi, that is, inter substratos; and indeed here were most testifications of humiliations required. Those that desire to be satisfied more concerning the circumstances attending the penitents of this form, let them read learned Albaspinaeus, largely Obser. l. 2. Obser. 24. who tells us, they were wont to stay upon this form some good time, and had some kind of absolution and lesser reconciliation to the Church before they were removed from it; when they had done this, and had received imposition of hands for their absolution, they were judged to have jus Communionis, a right to Communion with the Church, saith Albaspinaeus.  
4. 
Gradus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Then they might stay in the Church, (after the C●techument were gone with the three  degrees of Penitents) they might not only stay while the prayers for the Catechumeni were done, (which the Catechumeni themselves might do) and the prayers for the other Poenitentes, 
Albaspin. obs. l. 2. obs. 25. Dr Young dies dom. l. 2. c. 14. Zonar. in Can. 4, 5. Concil. Ancyr.  (at which they also might be present) but they might stay and join in the prayers made for those who were the Fideles, and in complete communion, and see the Sacrament administered; but they might not themselves receive the Sacrament, nor offer, nor might their names be mentioned in those prayers, nor might the Priest offer while they were present, 
Ambr. ep 28.  whereupon Ambrose refused to offer while Theodosius, guilty of an unjust murder, was present.  
Dr Young reckons another degree of Penitents, which he and others call Subsistentes, when they were admitted to full Communion: but he tells us he doth not judge it a distinct degree, agreeing in it with Albaspinaeus, Loco praed. These now were the several degrees of their Penitents, which were all suspended from the Lords Table, as is evident, yet were they all Baptised. For, for that penitence which was before Baptism, Albaspinaeus, I think, proves strongly it was Voluntary, not imposed as a Church-Censure.  
But yet there is one question to be spoken to before we dismiss this particular, viz. whether all these were not first Excommunicated, and so these degrees of penance enjoined them as testifications of their repentance before they were admitted again into the Church? To this I answer.  
I will not deny, but if any persons were Excommunicated, they might have their way in their return to the Church lie through these four doors.  
But it will easily be made appear, that some were adjudged to this penance who yet were not absolutely cut off, and cast out of the Church.  
1. He who was excommunicated was not only denied the liberty of praying with the Church, but none might pray with him in a private house, all despised and avoided him as a putrid member; 
Albaspin. Obs. l. 1 Obs. 1. & l. 2 Obs. 4. Synt. Antioch. 1. Can. 2. Concil. Carth. 4. Can. 73. Concil. Arel. 2. Can. 15, 16, 18. — (only he was to be admonished as a Brother) but they might not kindly salute him, nor bid him God-speed, nor trade, nor eat, nor drink with them. But we read of no such injunction concerning any of those who were Penitents, Can. Apost. 10. a man was to be suspended if he joined in prayer with an excommunicated person. They might by no means eat or drink with them, nor talk with them, as any one may read in a multitude of the Canons of the first Councils.  
2. Besides, there are many instances may be produced both from the Councils, and out of Basils' three Canonical Epistles, 
Concil. Tol. 1. Can. 3.  where the time of the penitence was limited to three, or four, or five, or six, or seven years, according to the Nature of the sin; but it was never known that a Church limited a time in Excommunication, how long the party should so stand.  
3. Those who were Excommunicate were not censured and adjudged ad agendam poenitentiam, 
Albaspin. Obs. l. 2. Obs. 4.  but did pet ere poenitentiam, as a favour of the Church.  
There were some in the Church that were adjudged ad perpetuam poenitentiam, for some scandalous sin, to their death never to be received to Communion in the Lord's Supper with the Church, but never was any adjudged to a perpetual Excommunication.  
5. Many who were adjudged to some kind of penance for some sin, yet were admitted to the Laic Communion, as they call it, as Albaspinaeus proves out of very many Canons in l. 1. Obser. Obser. 4. what that Laic Communion, was I shall not determine. Baronius, 
V Pamelii annot. 3●. in Cypr. ep. 52.  Pamelius, and Durantus contend that it was to receive the Eucharist on the other side of the Rails, etc. others think it was receiving the Sacramental bread only. Albaspinaeus confutes them both, and sufficiently proves, it was the fellowship of those Christians who were of the Laity. But those who were Excommunicated had no such privilege allowed them.  
By all this it evidently appears: 1. That although those who were excommunicated did sometimes petere poenitentiam, crave the favour of the Church in order to their restoring, that they might be admitted to stand as penitents, and approve themselves again to the Church. 2. Or possibly when they desired restauration might by order of the Church be enjoined to come in by those steps; yet those frequent Canons of the Church, wherein for several sins men were adjudged to stand as penitents for shorter or longer time, cannot be understood to concern excommunicated persons, but such sinners as were guilty of those sins, and yet the Church did not think fit wholly to cut them off, but according to the rule— Cuncta prius tentanda, appointed them to be deprived of a partial communion with the Church for some time, that they might see whether they were pertinacious, or whether God would give them an heart to repent, that they might be again restored; and the time of their Suspension was set longer or shorter according to the nature of the sins which they committed. 
V Concil. Binii. V Basil. Canon. ep.  Those who had been guilty of sins against Nature were suspended all their life time, (in Tertullian's times) afterwards in the Council of Ancyra, they had time of repentance prefixed; so in Basils' times for manslaughter Theodosius the Emperor was suspended eight months, the Council of Ancyra gave them only the liberty of the Sacrament sub exitum vitae, when they were near their death. Basil (as I remember) determines them fifteen or twenty year's suspension. Adulterers before Cyprians time were suspended to their dying day, afterwards they had a shorter time set for to testify their repentance.  
3. Now we have seen what the practice of the Church was, let us consider how ancient this practice was; That it was very ancient is out of all doubt, but how ancient cannot easily be resolved; Tertullian was the first who wrote concerning it, who in his book de poenitentia gives us hints of it, and as Albaspinaeus proves, hints the several degrees of it. Helvicus reckons him within the second Century. Thaumaturgus, who lived in the next Century, in his Canonical Epistle reckons up all the degrees, but that Epistle is suspected. 
Magdeb. Cent. 2. cap. 6.  The Magdeburgenses tells us, that in the second Century there was a Custom of setting sinners a time of public repentance. But in the third Century is evident enough, about the year 210. 
O●ig. in Jos. h●m. 7. Hom. 2. in. 37. Psal.  and so forward. Origen in his seventh Homily on Joshua tells us, they excommunicated none but those who were thrice admonished and refused repentance; and in his second Homily on the 37. Psal. gives us some account of their order in public penance. 
Cypr. de lap sis Ser. 3. Te●t. in lib. de poenitentia.  Tertullian and Cyprian do it abundantly. Gregorius, Thaumaturgus (if the Canonical Epistle be his) doth not only tell us the several degrees, but tells us what places were assigned for them in the Church in their several degrees.  
Qui verò excommunicati, 
Centur. l. 3. c. 6.  aut non excommunicati, gravit●r aut idolis sacrificando, aut haereticos deficiendo, lapsi essent, non nisi post publicam poenitentiam, & confessionem debitè peractam recipiebantur, (say the learned Centuriators in this Century.) In this Century the time of their penitence was appointed according to the nature of the offence; we learn out of Cyprian, 
Cypr. l. 4. ep. 2.  that those Christians who had eagerly professed the Christian Faith, and in the time of persecution fell away, had three years set them, all which time they were suspended; when the time set them was expired, if the Church judged they had duly manifested repentance, they took their names, and enroled them, giving them a Ticket to this purpose: Admit this man to the Communion, 
Ib. l. 3. ep. 15, 16. Cypr. ep. 52.  who, having formerly fallen, hath shown sufficient signs of repentance, so Cyprian; after which, as the Magdeburgenses prove out of Cyprian, they were examined and judged by their particular Churches, after which upon their confession of their sins there also, they were admitted. It is more than probable, that Novatus his heresy, which was broached about this time, gave occasion to the Church to mitigate their Censure of Excommunication, and denying the Communion till death to some scandalous sinners. For Cyprian tells us, that his Predecessors had resused to recon●ile Adulterers at all to the Church and, if I mistake not, the same was determined concerning Apostates, I think Albaspinaeus proves it. Novatus, say some, 
Albaspin. Obs. l. 2. Obs. 21.  denied that any falling after baptism could be restored by repentance; Albaspinaeus saith, it is a mistake, for his Error was, That he denied that Christ had given power to the Church to absolve or restore any. In opposition to whom the Church remitted something of her former severity, and instead of Excommunicating, or denying the Sacrament till death, (which before were very frequent censures) 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 Discipline, require no more than the recovery of this ancient Custom of the Churches of Christ. It is as clear 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 gross and scandalous sins, and if they did fall into any, they required not only a verbal 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, years 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 justify our Fathers, yet in these two main 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 settling of our Churches, and the correcting the abuses of corrupt Ministers formerly, who should have looked 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 spoke, when he told his people, that it never entered into the heads of wiser ages to determine for what sins any should be suspended from the Lords Table. It is a sign he never read the Councils, nor any part of them, nor yet Basils' Canonical Epistles ad Amphilochium, he would have seen there that for Manslaughter, Adultery, Fornication, Perjury, Apostasy, 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! etc.—  
O the admirable piety and Religion of former times! O the wonderful holiness of the Church, and strictness of her Discipline then!  
In those days if a Christian in the heat of persecution to save his life had but bowed to an Idol, 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 again till his dying day, or till after seven or ten years standing as a penitent: Now if Christians give up themselves to their lusts, and not to save their lives, but to satisfy their beastly lusts only, be drunk, unclean, swear, lie, etc. 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 usurp Christ's authority that will keep them away (if we may believe all that is told us.) 
Basil. ep. Canon. ad Amphil.  Then the Adulterer might not be admitted till by fifteen years holy conversation he had evidenced his repentance; now we think fifteen months, yea, fifteen days too much. 
Ib. Can. 58. Ib. Can. 59  A fornicator must abstain in those days eight years; two he must only beg prayers; other two he must only hear; other two he must mourn; a seventh he must stand and merely look on; in the eighth he might be admitted. If one had stolen and confessed it himself, 
Ib. Can. 61.  he must have been kept away a year, if he had not confessed it, two years. Now it is no more, but Let him that hath stolen steal no more, and come. 
Ib. Can. 64.  If a man had sworn falsely, and forsworn himself, than he must have been kept away eleven years; now if he swears profanely, it is but a Venial sin, if he says he is sorry, our charity must shut her eyes and believe him a visible Saint. Nay, and we must be made believe that all former ages were as mad, and as lose as we are. No, no, Reader, the fear of God was more upon our forefather's hearts, they durst do no such things, they rather offended by too much severity, yet sinners in those days had ten times more temptations to sin, and those of the highest nature, from the danger of their lives, and spoiling their goods, etc. 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 appear before the Lord Jesus Christ for the exposing his body and blood to profanation; Shall not the Lord say, Behold here my Servants Tertullian, and Cyprian, how strict they were in furious times? Behold my Servant chrysostom, who would rather have suffered his own blood to have been shed than my Sons to be profaned. Behold my Servant Ambrose, he was not afraid of the face of an Emperor, 
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 year, afraid of losing the love of those who hate me; what shall we say? How shall we appear 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 Boatmen in a public Lecture at Peter 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 entreated 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 Lord's day after, a Friend told me that he heard Mr Boatman did intent to confute me the next Tuesday.  
Accordingly he took my Text, what work he made with it, thou shalt read in the following sheets, containing a Copy of his Sermon, taken in shorthand from his mouth by a faithful hand: as to the material passages which I have to do with, I can prove them by many witnesses. If thou hast any faculty in judging, judge betwixt me and him; how well he confuted me, or proved any thing which he said in opposition to me, or the truth I delivered, to help thee I have subjoined a few Animadversions. There is a clamorous party which cries me up as sufficiently confuted, etc. to vindicate myself and the truth, I have subjoined these sheets. I ask no favour from thee, but only a just, and righteous judgement. I intent not to meddle with him in the Pulpit, if he hath any thing to reply with his Pen, I shall wait upon it. Or if he will dispute, I am ready for him: It is an easy thing for a man who hath confidence enough, and conscience little enough, to say, Here was untruth delivered, the Holy Ghost never dreamt it, it is nothing to the purpose. Here thou hast what was said before thy eyes, read, and judge, and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.  
His Sermon follows.   

The TEXT.  Mat. 7.6. 
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, 
Mr Boatman at the Lecture, March 28. 1654.  neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.  
Paragraph 1 HAving the last day finished the first Doctrine propounded from Luk. 7.41. I thought it not amiss, before I passed on to the other, to take occasion to redeem a captive Text, such an one as is led about, and I may say with holy reverence, almost by the nose, to assert that which Christ never intended, as you shall presently see.  
The Text is without any connexion at all, it seems neither to have reference to what goes before, or what follows after, and so it may be called a proverbial admonition, or dehortation, wherein you may consider these particulars.  
1. A dehortation under a double notion, 
The Analysis of the Text.  give not holy things to dogs, neither cast pearls before swine. Therein consider, 1. The Subject, and that is likewise under a double notion that which is holy, and pearls. 2. The Object, laid down Negatively and expressly, likewise under a double notion, dogs, and swine.  
2. The reason of the dehortation: 1. Because, saith our Saviour, the swine will trample them under their feet. 2. The dogs will return again and rend you.  
Paragraph. 2 In the opening of the words (not to wind or wrest them in the least) you shall have the plain scope and intention of the Holy Ghost, and I hope so plain as he that runs may read it; I shall show you: 1. What is meant by that which is holy. 2. What by dogs and swine. Then what it is to trample, and by that time you shall have the full scope and meaning of the Text, and then I shall draw a Conclusion, which I shall briefly prosecute.  
Sect. 1 1. 
Mr Boatman's restrict exposition of holy things and pearls.  What is meant by holy things and pearls. It is the something expressed under a double Notion; sacred truths are meant, but especially, and more particularly holy reproofs and admonitions, and that is the utmost the Text reacheth; severe and wholesome admonitions, and dehortations from evil, these are called holy and pearls for several reasons. 1. Because of the Fountain whence they flow; divine truths are of the breath of God, therefore Christ is called the Word, and said to come from the bosom of the Father, Joh. 1. therefore by our Saviour Christ they are called holy.  
Nothing is, or can be more holy. 2. As from the cause, so from the effect; the Word of God and divine truths set home by the work and spiritual power of God are effectual to beget grace, and produce holiness in the heart; hence we find, Rom. 1.16. the Gospel is called the power of God unto salvation; and 1 Cor. 5. Spirit and life, all signify not only their power but purity. 2. Why are these truths, especially sacred and wholesome reproofs, called pearls? 1. For their own innate and inward preciousness, though none in the world do own them, or take notice of them, but slight them, yet they are precious. 2. They are so to them that receive them, and possess them; we find them therefore called riches, under the notion of wisdom, etc. So that in effect these holy things in the Text, and pearls spoken of are divine truths, wholesome reproofs and admonitions occasionally given.  
Sect. 2 The next thing is to see who are the dogs and the swine, both signify one and the same sort of men in general, yet they speak a distinction between obstinate and wicked men; in the general none but obstinate and very irreprovable men, these are the dogs and swine; they are called dogs in relation to their cruelty, fierceness and rage against the Gospel, when it is offered to them as a check to their lusts, and restraint to their abominations, as dogs enraged will fly at a man, when they be whipped and beaten for the mischief they do they will turn again and fly at his face: So saith our Saviour Christ, there are a sort of men in the world, to whom if you speak never so seriously, savourily, charitably, and holily, yet like dogs they will turn again and rend you, By Swine he denotes another sort of obstinate opposers, one denotes them furious; this luxurious— so as to be grown in love with their filthy ways, their sin and abomination, that they will not veil to wholesome saving truths, etc.  
Sect. 3 Now let us see to our Saviour's reason, first they will trample, and that speaks the ineffectualness of such holy and savoury truths, when they meet with such uncapable Subjects, as if Christ had said, never do it, it is to no purpose, they will make no more of them, than swine do of pearls when they are thrown to them, that speaks the uselessness of them, and of dealing with such kind of men. The second is drawn from that injury that may accrue to the admonishers, when the lusts of obstinate men are reproved, instead of doing that they should, and saying as David, Let the righteous smite me, etc. they will return evil for good, they will ruin you (if it be possible) for going about to save them, they will undo you, because you are so pitiful and merciful to their erring and straying souls, as to bring them to the right and true way.  
Paragr. 3 The whole Text briefly amounts to this: Mr Boatmen sum of the Text, and pretended vindication of it. That it is to no purpose to deal with men of irreprovable and doglike spirits these are not capable of reproof, and divine admonition, and holy counsel; you may (saith our Saviour) do it, but it will be very useless, it will do no good, it is a folly, it is very dangerous, you will be losers, and neither God, the Gospel, the truth, or your souls will have gain; you may have a reward in heaven, not only when you do, but when you suffer for Christ's sake: yet however take heed of the persons you deal with, and labour to do it in such a way as may not make sinners seem dogs and swine unto you.  
Indeed, I read of some that wrist 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 again in our days, and some would feign 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 blood of the Lord Jesus Christ; yet notwithstanding to preach such a thing from this Text, is little better than to speak untruth in the Pulpit: It is not truth, but truth to purpose that men must speak from sacred Texts of the holy Word of God, else they fasten that on the Holy Ghost which henever meant, or dreamt; and it is a dreadful 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 weak for it, or which it doth not at all concern; It is an easy matter to wring a Text so long by the nose as to make it bleed again, 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 speak of it here is to speak to no purpose, not worth the speaking, it is not the sense of the Holy Ghost. I come to the conclusion.  
Doctrine. The Doctrine which I shall gather hence is this,  
Paragragh. It is the duty of every Christian, especially of every Minister, to take heed to whom, and how they deliver divine truths, lest delivering them to obstinate and irreproveable men, they labour in vain, 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 special care of Christ himself, not to deliver sound and saving truths to some sorts of men; sometimes look how cautelous holy David seems to be, Psal. 39.1, 2. he makes it one of the highest points of wisdom to consider before whom he uttered words that concerned God's glory, and did not while the notoriously obstinate, incorrigible, and irreproveable were present: these instead of understanding more would turn their backs, hate instruction, be scoffers, and mockers at the sacred truths of God. To this end and purpose we find; how that (unless in case of special Commission, and God commanded them to speak home with the hazard of their lives) they were always 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 stiffnecked people, bids the Prophet meddle no more with them, pray not for them, as if he had said, it will be vain and useless, 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, etc. when he was among these men, many times he would make no answer, and when he did, it was in dark say, at a distance, in Parables as wrapped 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 concern God's glory, and the honour of men.  
Paragraph. 5 For Reasons, I need give you no more than what our Saviour Christ doth; and the next business is to show you the reason why doglike, and swinelike 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'll dwell only this day on the Text.  
Reason's First, Truths not wisely dispensed, holy reproofs not warily 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 scoff, and will not be reproved. We by experience find it brings truth into disgrace, makes them vilify them, and slight them by a nod with the head, a wink with the eye, a shake of the head, and it will be very well (as our Saviour Christ saith) if there be not a  with the foot. Now, saith he, never let such precious truths as these be hazarded to contempt and scorn, take not such holy pains, that might be otherwise employed, and more to purpose, it makes them look with an evil eye, scorn, and scoff; It renders Religion odious and ridiculous to them; they cannot see, or rather will not see or hear; but stop their ear with the adder; and although there be an amiable lustre, real excellency, and an inexpressible virtue and glory in them, yet to them they appear ridiculous. We have examples enough of this in Scriptures; John Baptist came into the world and spoke for this purpose, to see if he could reclaim an erring Generation; It is true, his words were not altogether ineffectual, Jerusalem, and a great part of Judea go out to him, yet mark what our Saviour Christ saith, he came not eating or drinking, and they said he had a devil; This was all he got for his pains in abundance, the man was mad, he was a prating fellow, he looks like one that had lived indeed all his days in a wilderness, as one out of his wits. Our Saviour Christ comes in such a manner as would win the most refractory and hard heart, and the most obstinate sinner, with meekness, patience, tenderness, pity; he was ready to do every man good, none evil, 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: Mark what he gets from others, a wine-bibber, etc. as much scorn and contempt as a Pharisee knew well how to put upon a man; hear St Paul that chosen vessel and Apostle of the Gentiles preaching, and the next news you hear is, what will this babbler 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 wisdom he cautioneth his Disciples, and those that came after them, etc.  
Reason 2 Secondly, They will turn again and rend you; not only scorn and rage; this is from the ineffectualness, successelesseness, and uselessness of such endeavours, thereby they endanger themselves; as if he had said, why will you do it when God does not necessarily require it, God puts none of his Messengers upon apparent hazard, unless his honour lies at the st●ke; and a man's life and the propagation of sacred truths come in competition, he bids no man venture his life, be wise as serpents— weigh not only the substance but the circumstance of your administrations, if you do thus, you may save the truth and yourselves too, and hinder a great evil; the hardening of others by the example of such obstinate ones; they will take occasion not only to sit and scorn, but to rise up in rebellion against the Kingdom of Christ, and so render the propagation of the Gospel a great deal more difficult than before, these are the reasons.  
Paragraph 6 Sect. 1 Now it may seem very strange that there should be any such men as these in the world. For all you see and have heard of dogs and swine, I cannot say I have any one not one who accounts himself a Christian, being wisely and fairly dealt with by counsel, and seasonable, and whole some reproof, whatsoever noise you hear elsewhere, I hear no noise of such, and I fear they are no where more than among those whose mouths are full●st of those terms of dogs and swine. I know none that will by't a man giving them wholesome reproof, or that will neglect or slight serious admonition. As for those dogs in the Text, I know no such at all; and a man would think it a strange thing that there should be any such that would ruin a man that goes about to save them, and yet no question there are such, our Saviour Christ's Precept is not in vain; he foresaw this, had experience of these, and that is the ground of his advice, therefore he tells his Disciples, never think it strange that there are such beasts as these men are, etc. It may seem strange, but it is not so strange as true. I shall therefore give some reasons how it comes to pass, how men come up to this temper, for it is wrought by degrees; when the Devil hath once set a man onward on sins way, he will then drive him on asfar as he can; sin is little at first, most of all at last; if a man be acquainted with peccadilloes to day, he will not scotch enormous crimes to morrow. How do men sin away their light, fear resolutions, conscience, come to glory in sin, and when once come to that, they sleep in the scorn and contempt of all sacred truths, and rage against them, and the endeavours of the godly to do themselves good, and that to all eternity.  
The reasons briefly.  
Sect. 2 First pride, this is the cause of irreprovablenesse in many conceited men in the world, and of their slighting scoming, and contemning the sacred truths of God; for this pride begets rage and scorn therefore men do it, because they have high thoughts of their excellencies, of the state and condition they are in, of their wisdom and their knowledge, therefore they rage at, and scorn, and contemn whatsoever crosseth them, you may see this apparently in Scriptures. The Apostle Saint Paul: the Doctor of the Gentiles comes with sacred truths to discover to the Church of Corinth etc. There were a party among them which counted themselves Creeks & reputed all in the world besides barbarous, rude, unlearned, he delivered the great mysteries of the Gospel, and what begets him so much opposition as he meets with, but the pride of those vain Philosophers in their pretended knowledge and science which they had obtained; they could not endure to hear this, that there should come a man into the world wiser than themselves, he tells us the Gospel is foolishnesse to these, not so really, but he speaks their language only; They counted it folly, etc. This was the height of their pride; What made Pharaoh ready to execute Moses for declaring the mind of God? This only, who is the Lord? etc. What am I, Lord over Egypt, the mighty Pharaoh, and shall I stoop to another, whom you call a God, when I know not whence he is, nor whether be is bound? What must I submit, and let go a Nation so serviceable to me? men's pride, by reason of their knowledge, peaces, authority, means, parts, etc. this hath made the Sons of men, in all Ages, storm and rage, Psal. 2. This is also given as a reason, the great wise, and mighty men, men of great authority, and no small experience, they walked in the ways of their hearts, and their own imaginations, when the Kingdom of Christ comes to to be set up, which crosseth all their designs by such means, and in such a manner, they will not endure to hear of that therefore say they, Let us break his bonds asunder,— What, shall we bow to such a rule as this? No our tongue, are our own, we will speak what we list, etc. such men as these cannot endure to be accounted ignorant, or low; no they must be at the height, and their knowledge must pass for all the men's about them; What was the reason Jobs friends were so hot and angry, and accounted him a fool in his knowledge? All because he would not acknowledge their wisdom and understanding which they pretended. Doubtless there are a Generation of men in the world that think they are the men that know all, this is the reason that any truth, which is declared, that crosseth them, they contemn and rage's against.  
Take an account of the grand reasons, why our Saviour Christ, in the days of his flesh, met with so much opposition in the world; he came not as a man that went about to overturn any one; How orderly was he in his conversation? How obedient to the Magistrate under Laws and Governments? He paid Tribute, told them he came to ful●ll all righteousness, a man of a meek spirit; we hardly find any external for●e or severity in him, yet what a fa●e of rage was in the world? the reason was: As the Ephesians were afraid to lose their craft, so these Scribes & Pharisees feared Christ would carry all before him, the truth would be received from him without prejudice, his Sacred and Divine Oracles would take place; and mark what they say, have any of the Rulers believed on him? but ye (speaking of the Vulgar) know not the Law, and are accursed. A Scribe could not endure any man should be thought wiser than himself, nor a Pharisee that another should take more place in the thoughts of the men of that Generation he lived in than himself; therefore let Christ bring salvation, tender grace, yet for all this all shall be contemned, slighted, and he hated for it; if they can they will ruin him for it, and do as these dogs in the Text. Though gospel-truths be never so seriously declared in men's ears to the conversion of men yet men of high, carnal, proud, and haughty spirits, how are they ready to rage and roar, apt to design, and contrive the death of such a man. Whence proceeded so many Martyrdoms in the days of the Kings of Judah? Isaiah went under the saw; Jeremiah was in the dungeon; Micaiah was fed with the bread of affliction; even from the pride of all those wi●ked Kings and their officers, they would not be controlled sic volo— their will must be their law, though the will of the God of heaven declared faithfully and seriously, were contrary, etc. It would make a man amazed to see Ahab going up to Ramoth Gilead, Joash smiting Jehoicda's Sons, Zedekiah breaking through the Hosts, when the Prophet told him it should be to his ruin, a man would wonder they are so bold; the reason is this, men of proud and carnal hearts cannot endure to come under the Power or Government of Jesus Christ, men had rather break than bend, and be flexible, to divine will, they will run on their ruin inevitably before they will stoop and that is signified by the expression; which the Holy Ghost useth in relation to the Kingdom of Christ, Psal. 2. They are not flexible inalterable, they well not give way— if you do any thing to alter them, you will break, ruin them, make them wholly useless; they will submit to nothing but destruction, thus carnal pride renders stiff souls, hard hearts, men impenitent, unteachable, they will not, cannot see, there is a great reason such men as these should be termed dogs and swine.  
Reason 2 Sect. 3 Secondly, because they delight in their lusts; that is the reason men rage's when as the light comes, Joh. 3.19. What was the reason the faithful Prophets of God were not honoured? Jer. 5. ult. the people love to have it so; What people? My people. Men love their lusts, and delight in their abominations, and evil ways their darling Delilah sins, their right hands and eyes, their corruptions. Now the word crosses all, and cries up selfe-deniall, and cannot endure their abominations, this is the reason men rage. John Baptist preached severely to the world, had he come with plain simple sentences, had he been a Messenger full of grace peace, and life; had he preached placentia, he should have been entertained; had he lullabied men in the bed of carnal security, he had not been disturbed; had he let the Adulterer alone in his uncleanness, the drunkard in his drunkenness, the Pharisees in their avarice, cruelty, and hypocrisy, and let them alone in their vain pretences of Religion, and not have opened these p●inted Sepulchers, all had been well; but because he reproved them therefore they rage, are so stern, & are troubled roared against the Prophet and his Message: all the while the Devil was lest quiet in those he possessed, he did no great mischief, but here and there one, but always when he was to be dispossessed and come out, he rend and tore; as long as men's lusts are let alone, and they sleep secure in avarice, cruelty, and viciousness with their lusts, and the devil in their bosom, the men are quiet; but if a man unmaskes them, and goes about to discover them, O they will storm, and dislike such men as these; all the while they can carry on their business unmolested, or undisturbed, O how fair, meek, and content will they be: but come to cross that which they love, and set up in their hearts as an Idol, than they will rage's; come and tell such a man of his Delilah, you shall find he will not be convinced, taken off, or he will follow another sairer than the former, and then (if you will) away with it; many men have false hearts, they are taken off one lust, but on to another; they are taken off open drunkenness and such profane and debauched courses that make the world cry shame of them, but then follow lying, falsehood envy, and malice, overreaching their brother underhand cruelty, racking others conzenage, cheating, and the like, cross these and then they will rave. Take heed of such men as these, (saith our Saviour) they will scorn you, and look to yourselves, you shall escape well if they ruin you not. As Ahab said of Micaiah, this fellow never speaks good of me, as wicked as he was he would feign be counted good.— I remember a story of Mahomet the great Ottoman Emperor, he was so delighted in his Sultana, that nothing could move him to part with her, but when he had a fairer offer, he was content to leave that lust he enjoyed; these men will not part with their lusts, though never so abominable, odious, and hateful, unless they can find them more pleasing, profitable, and honourable, else they will rage's, etc.  
Reason. 3 Sect. 4 Thirdly, That which lays the ground and foundation of all the rest, is positive and gross ignorance in the things of God, they are dogs and swine, have not knowledge enough to make distinction between thing and thing, but they call light darkness, and darkness light, therefore they abuse, contemn, and despise all, and rage, Joh. 1.9. there is the reason, 1 Cor. 2.14. though he demonstrated more high mysteries than ever any wisdom pretended to before in the world, yet they refused, mocked, revised, hated, persecuted,— that is another reason why our Saviour calls them dogs and swine; alas swine know not the price of a Pear●e, they see no lustre in it; there are abundance of swine-eyed men in the world; of all Creatures in the world that ye know, or look on, a swine hath externally the worst eye: such men as these see not, discern not at all, in seeing they see not, as the Prophet saith,— in a great many men of the world there is much positive and gross ignorance; such incurable darkness and blindness, that for all the glory of divine truths that you can show them, (as much as in you lies) and the Creature is capable of on this side heaven, they will not believe; what was the reason Christ was scorned, and persecuted of men? Isa. 53.1, 2. they saw no beauty in him— omnipotency stoops to theem (as I may say, with reverence) to little purpose; the reason of all this is, because they are blind— but O the folly of men! this makes them as dogs and swine; Well, I shall expatiate no further, but make application.  
Paragraph. 7 First, By way of admonition; 
The Application.  Take heed you come not within the verge of this reproof, that it doth not reach you, for (as the Apostle says) I hope better things of you; let it never be said, whatsoever men fasten on you, however you are called dogs and swine, (bear it patiently) that you are truly so, and in the sense of the Text. Take heed of despising, refusing of, raging at, and trampling on divine truths. Oh! when a man comes to this there is little hope, and truly, brethren, till he does there is hope,— but if a man be once come to this, to an irreproveable spirit, there is more hope of a fool, (as Solomon says in another case) of a mad man, I had almost said, of a Devil— Whatsoever you do take heed of this; never let it be said you are of such a spirit, as that you will not endure admonition; mistake not brethren, I say not, from all men you should bear it patiently, (though it is true, the more patience the better) for a man to be laden with the impertinent, unseasonable, giddy reproofs of every hare-brained man in the world: if thou canst have patience well, it is thy honour and praise, and a great testimony and evidence of grace; but take heed you never contemn serious, pious, meek, and holy reproofs; labour to come up to that of David, Let the righteous smite me— breaking the head in such a case is as good, or better, than a plaster, as a precious balm and ointment, however it is accounted of with the wicked, and whatsoever some men think in their heat, a serious well-grounded reproof is a precious pearl: it may be the way to bring a man seriously to sit down and reflect upon himself, and bless God for the same. Oh never come to that, if you do, the time will come when you will mourn, and say, O that such serious inward and holy reproofs should be stormed and raged against, such advice and counsel be rejected, and scorned and slighted that made so directly for my soul's welfare— O beware and take heed of this, till than I shall hope you are teachable, and in a capacity for the Word to become to your souls the savour of life, and the Power of God to Salvation; but if once you come to be irreproveable, and this to be the charge of your souls, I have little else to say but to take up the Prophet's complaint: Lord, who hath believed our report?— To whom shall I speak?— And that you may not, take heed of those things which are the cause of this, down with that devil of pride in the heart, be content to be subjects, slaves, and vassals to truth, let it command and conquer, there is a power and Majesty in truth itself, let it be your Arbiter in all things, let its commands, precepts, and injunctions be unquestionable: never think so highly of yourselves as to scorn to be reproved, checked, and admonished; Take heed likewise of doting on things; if heaven itself should speak, men sleeping in their lusts, and on the bed of carnal security, will not awake; if Samson be in Dalilahs' lap, nothing but the Philistines will awaken him; when the Children of Israel came once to be in love with Idolatry, the Prophets could do no good with them; when men come once to be in love with the Idols of their own brains, they will scum all that you speak; all the language you shall hear is, I will, and I will not,— Take heed of being locked up in positive ignorance; nothing is so sad as for a man not to be able to discern at all the sweetness, and discover the preciousness of divine truths.  
Paragraph. 8 Secondly, this is to warn and admonish good men, how (as much as in them lies) they render men dogs and swine, uncapable of reproofs; many a man is made a dog, a wicked man, that was not one in our Saviour's sense, the fault is not so much his as thine, thou that art the reprover, and admonisher, for he may not be so to another man, though he may be so to thee, and how comes this to pass? From nothing but the rashness, inadvertency, and imprudence of men, they undertake to handle weapons which they are not able to wield; many men in too severe handling of a faulty person may render him a dog or a swine, uncapable of their reproof; it is sad it should be so, howsoever men express themselves rashly and unadvisedly, if it be truth they speak, it is sad men will not endure it. Yet when men be too severely and rigidly admonished, they may be much exasperated, therefore Christ is wary in this respect. A soft answer pacifieth wrath, and so doth a soft admonition; some men wisely dealt withal will not be sturdy, who (if too fiercely handled) many admonitions will not serve. There is a necessity indeed of an holy earnestness in reproving of sin, sincerity, downright dealing, and plainness of spirit in men, and yet also of a great deal of prudence; I know not one business wherein the prudence of a Christian, either in his private or public relation, is so concerned as in this of reproof: If you would prevail with the dogs and swine in the Text, you must deal with them with wisdom, and observe how men's tempers, and present humours are, these would be taken notice of, and you should watch your opportunity; a man's fault may be told him of too rashly; with what wisdom came the Prophet Nathan to David about Uriahs' business, one would have thought it had been very justifiable had he rushed into the King's Presence Chamber, and told him, Sir you are a Murderer or an Adulterer: no, he comes with a Parable, and so winds himself into the King's bosom; Sir, I have a case to put to you, There was a poor man which had but one Lamb, and that lay in his bosom, but the rich man had enough, a multitude, yet when he comes to make a feast he gives his guest entertainment with this poor man's Lamb; this was a wise way of conviction, and ye find David convinced now, I have sinned; if he had gone another way to work, instead of saying, I have sinned, he might have said, Thou (Nathan) shalt die for being so saucy, so rash, and uncivil. David might have said so, being a man subject to infirmities, even as Eliah also was; we must in reproof mind the tempers and the callings of men, this is not minded by a great many Christians; hence as sometimes they speak not the truth, so sometimes little to the purpose; and hence many Ministers speak and spend their labour invaine.  
Secondly, Do not make known to all a particular case, for many a man will hear one man that will not hear another; and many a man will hear in private when he will not hear before another; though you are to speak, yet you must not speak unseasonably; a word spoken in season is as apples of gold in pictures of silver; the least reproof, never so precious and excellent in itself, is not so when out of time; it is not fit for a man to tell another of a private offence in the market place, or being in company, whom either he is not willing to have acquainted with his crime, or however it is not fit they should; thus instead of taking a course to help them forward in good, we are perhaps a means to carry them on further in evil; to reprove one wicked man in the presence of abundance more like himself, is the way to make them all join to scoff, and repudiate (it may be) to go about to ruin you; what a deal of madness in this respect is the world acquainted with. It is a sad loss to the Gospel in this relation, which is the next 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 helf, when as if he had been dealt mildly withal, he might have been saved possibly, I mean 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 Prodigal instead of receiving his Son seasonably, and taking a fit 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 reproof is necessary, ay, and the rod too sometimes, as Solomon says, but it must be in season, and proportion, done cautelously and warily. I'll add 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 trivial, 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 hare-brained imaginations; and thus they make a great opposition to more solid and serious administrations; when men rage's in trifles what cares a man what he faith in solid things? That Minister shall never be believed when he speaks in earnest, who cries hell and damnation in jest; be sure that it be tantum that you speak, that the fault be commensurate, and not less than your expressions, yea, above them, at least equal with them. Cure, if possible, by a lenitive first before you use a corrosive, serious admonition in such a way gains the advantage of men's dispositions. Nor let it be a hearsay, that is, a lie, fama mala, we hear a man did so and so, we hear thus and thus of him; you shall hear 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 hear so; this is the ground of all that uncharitableness, and raging among men in the world; this makes them dogs to one another, that they will not hear one another; either men talk 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 drunk and swear, when neither is true; thus instead of making a man hear and being well pleased they give them cause to rage's in fastening on them such aspersions as they are not guilty of: as impertinent, so uncertain reproofs are evil. In a word, I bless 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 bless God, and I will bless God with you, ye are not yet dogs or swine; far be it from me to justify 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 speak; I know not a man among you, of an irreprovable spirit; I have not met with a dog or a swine that will rage's at admonition, or be angry with me for Preaching, unless it be some self-conceited Pharisee, that cannot endure any body should be accounted holy as themselves. These indeed bark, and by't, rage and rave revile, scandalise, and asperse. Bless God you are not dogs and swine, beware you be not so, reproof is precious however, if seriously received. Bless God you live one among another, and in any respect can build up one another in your holy faith, reform, refrain, and restrain one another, but do it wisely and warily. And the peace of God which passeth all understanding, etc.   

Animadversions upon the preceding Sermon, wherein the Reader may discover how weakly Mr. Boatman that day (though with incredible confidence) (maintained that Admonition, and preaching of the Gospel was the utmost meant in Mat. 7.6. and Mr Collings is vindicated from preachingVntruth in pleading there was no just reason to exclude the Sacrament from the number of Pearls 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 quickness 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 general prohibition without any restriction, not saying this or that holy thing, or this or that pearl, it seems to be a great boldness in any to restrain it. It is therefore most consonant to reason, that it should be understood of all those holy things which God hath hetrusted 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 think is an equitable interpretation, and so candid, that it cannot be liable to any exception. Remembering that golden observation of Augustine's, 
Locum unum sacrae Scripturae exponere per alium, ejusdem Scripturae clariorem optima interpretatio. Aug. de Doct. Christ. c. 26.  That it is the best interpretation of Scripture to expound it by itself. And if this be true, it necessarily follows: Either that the Sacrament is not an holy thing; or else secondly, That there is plain 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 general prohibition, is an evident injunction for us unto giving out the Sacrament to any such as the Scripture calls dogs or swine.  
I would feign know whether this proposition may not naturally be drawn from those words, Mat. 7.6.  
Holy things, and Pearls, must not be given to dogs or swine.  
The proposition is indefinite, and reducible to an universal or particular; we plead it is to be reduced to an universal, because the materia is necessaria. It is a divine precept which we have nothing to do to limit without express warrant from other Scriptures. Mr Boatman thinks it is particular, and the sense this, Some holy things, and some pearls are not to be given to some dogs, etc. And these holy things here meant, he saith, are only 1. Admonition. 2. Preaching the Gospel. I hope he hath good grounds for what he saith. Let us now examine; I have divided this Sermon into two several Paragraphs, (marked in the Margin to guide my Readers eye) I will begin with the first Paragraph, where he prefaceth to his work, and (after a fashion) analyzeth his Text.  
Paragraph. 1 He comes out like a man of war, and makes a Trumpet to sound before him, that he is come forth to redeem a captive Text, such a one as is led about, and (he may say with holy reverence) almost by the Nose, to assert that which Christ never intended, as we shall presently see. Thus the Trumpet sounds, (whether a brazen, or silver one, judge anon.) Let not him who puts on his barnesse boast like him who puts it off; I am afraid Mr Boatman's force of Reason and Learning will be found too weak to rescue it, if it be such a Captive; and if it be led by the Nose, (as he irreverently saith) I hope to prove that it is rescued but by the tongue. But we shall presently see what he will do.  
The Text is without any Connexion at all, (he saith) it seems neither to have reference to what goes before, nor what follows after.  
Here he hath cashiered at first the best force he hath, for those who expound the Text of Admonition (though none I have met with restrains it to that) have no colour for their exposition, but a pretended connexion of these words with the former. Mr Boatman confesseth the words are nothing of kin to the former; this makes me think his Sermon was made in so much haste that he could not consult with his friends, for surely they would have advised him, seeing there could be so little said for his opinion, not at first to disclaim what was most considerable.  
He resolves the words into a Proverbial admonition, and considers in them:  
1. 
The Proposition is, You are not to give holy things to dogs. Q What is the subject of this Axiom?  A dehortation under a double notion: Give not, etc. Cast not, etc. Therein he saith is considerable, 1. The Subject, that which is holy and pearls; The Object laid down negatively and expressly under a double notion: Dogs and Swine.  
He that runs may read here a sufficient want of Logic. But I shall not be Critical with him; only it were well, that except he were happier at the use of Logical terms, he would use plainer phrases, which not only the Vulgar, but the Learned too would better understand than they do these so made use of.  
The second part of the Text he saith containeth the reasons of the Dehortation. But I shall pass over that Paragraph, not containing in it any thing towards the delivering of the Nose of the Text (as he pleaseth to phrase it) which he conceits so captivated.  
2. 
Animadv. on Paragraph 2.  In the beginning of his second Paragraph he speaks great words; he tells us, we shall have the plain scope and intention of the Holy Ghost without winding or wresting; and so plain it shall be, that he who runs may read it; in short it is this:  
Sect. 1 1. That by holy things and pearls are meant sacred truths, and holy reproofs, and that is the utmost the Text reacheth; and there he runs a vagary to tell us why these are called holy. But Reader! how shall he that runneth read this? Or how shall this confident magisterial dictate of Mr Boatmen be believed to be the plain meaning of the Holy Ghost? How doth it appear to thee, or to Mr Boatman, that these are the holy things and pearls here meant? These, and these only. To prove this not a word, only an impertinent discourse to prove that these are holy things, because 1. They come from God. 2. Because they tend to make men holy.  
1. Doth not the Sacrament also come from God, did not he institute it?  
2. Doth it not also tend to make us holy?  
So that by Mr Boatman's own Argument the Sacrament is meant here too, and not preaching, and admonition only, or else he must give us better reason than this to restrain it. Doth Mr Boatman think we have such a reverend opinion of him as to believe that what he barely saith is the meaning of the Holy Ghost, that, and none but that? But Mr Boatman sets a face on it, and he saith it; that's enough for his Disciples (possibly) but not for others. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be more considerable, to whose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we will submit. I think, Reader, I gave thee a considerable reason to induce a persuasion in thee that our Saviour's meaning was to forbid the giving out of all holy things (not elsewhere dispensed with) to be given out to dogs; where the Law doth not limit we should not, but Mr Boatman limits and gives thee nothing pretending to a reason for it.  
Sect. 2 In the next place he comes to tell us who are meant by dogs and swine. I told thee, that it being granted a metaphorical expression, and it being so dangerous to put our interpretations upon such expressions, I conceived it would be equitable to determine that such wicked men are here meant as the Scripture elsewhere expresseth under these Notions; I think this was a fair foundation for finding out the meaning of the Metaphor. Mr Boatman tells us, none but obstinate and irreprovable men are meant; yet he grants, that by swine are meant the luxurious, (who are not always obstinate.) But how doth he prove this? Because he promised us to make it so plain that he who ran might read it.) Not a word for that, if you will take Mr Boatman's word you may, but he hath no reason for to convince you if you refuse. Thus he doth not only preach placentia, but Placets too. Surely he doth pretend something to an Enthusiastic spirit, he could never else set off mere says with such a confidence.  
Sect. 3 In the next place he comes to tell what is meant by trampling; This he saith, speaks the ineffectualness of such holy and savoury truths. So then our Saviour's Reason is this, Give not holy things to dogs and swine, because they will prove useless and ineffectual to them. From whence I argue, If then the Sacrament will be useless and ineffectual to profane men, that holy thing must not be given to them. The reason holds as much for that as any Ordinance, if not more.  
In his third Paragraph he comes to sum up his fancies, 
Animadv. on Paragr. 3.  (which he calls) the sum of the Text: That it is to no purpose to deal with men of irreprovable and doglike spirits, they are not capable of reproof, and divine admonition, and holy counsel. You may (saith our Saviour) do it, but it will be very useless, it will do no good, it is a folly, it is very dangerous, you will be losers, and neither God the Gospel, the truth, or your souls will have gain. You may have a reward in heaven, not only when you do, but when you suffer for Christ's sake, yet however take heed of the persons, and labour to do it in such a way as may not make sinners seem dogs and swine to you.  
Here is a mess of stuff now which doubtless was never well boiled by premeditation. He makes our Saviour Christ speak strange things here, or I am mistaken. Our Saviour Christ saith, 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 Gospel, the truth, nor your soul's gain; Where I wonder doth Christ tell his people they may play the fools, and do things to no purpose? Nay, such things as neither shall redound to God's glory, nor their good? Is not this learned Divinity think we? nay, is it not next door to blasphemy? But mark what follows immediately: You may have a reward in heaven, not only, etc. Just before, Christ is brought in, telling them, their souls could have no gain by it; but here (as if the Lord could so soon forget himself) he is brought in again, telling them, They should have a reward in heaven, in doing and suffering, etc. But besides, Christ must also say, Take heed how you do it in such a way as may not make sinners appear dogs and swine, etc. 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 again, that hath so shamefully and simply perverted a Text as he hath done this? For which I appeal to any to judge.  
Now he hath ordered his forces, he comes to give us battle, and to that purpose tells us, He reads of some that wrist this Scripture, and amongst 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 some have got up again in our days, 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 calls dogs and swine) unfit Receivers, may tremble when they dare put their hand to the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, yet notwithstanding to preach such a thing from this Text is little better than to speak untruth in the Pulpit, etc.  
Either here is a great deal of ignorance, or malice, or both discovered.  
1. Here are pretty odd terms me thinks: he reads of some, by and by they are many; divers of the Romish Church, than some of them, again expound it, etc. the truth is, I believe 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 think this Text may be interpreted by consequence of the Sacrament, and that they do it to bring in Anricular Confession. Both which charges are as notoriously false as can be. I wonder who Mr Boatman thinks Protestants? I think 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 think an Argument may be brought from this Text for Auricular Confession, (which he seems so afraid of) either he knows not what it is, or hath a mind to bespatter holy and Reverend men with falsehoods, and scandals.  
I am very apt to believe 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 strain should hold their peace, for they are the men bring it in; we plead for an open trial 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 testify 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 Gospel, who would bring sinners to a sense of their sins before they are admitted to the Lords Table, and it smells rank enough either of ignorance or malice, and signifies nothing. But Mr Boatman tells 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 analogical relation.  
Now he chargeth me to the purpose. To preach such a thing from this Text is little better than to speak untruth in the Pulpit. It is not truth, but truth to the purpose that men must speak 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 dreadful 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 weak for it, or which it doth not at all concern; It is an easy matter to wring a Text so long by the Nose as to make it bleed again, 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 speak of it here is to speak to no purpose, not worth the speaking, it is not the sense of the Holy Ghost.  
Here he speaks loud enough, and falls upon me pellmell, but with no other weapons than his tongue; he charges me with preaching untruth; how doth that appear? Mr Boatman says so, and that is all. He tells us of fastening something upon the Holy Ghost which he never dreamt of. (No Sir, the Holy Ghost doth not use to dream, though frail man may, he carries no sleepy body about with him;) he tells us, It is an easy matter to wring a Text about by the Nose; he is much taken, it seems, with that phrase, but if he will be metaphorical, he should do well to use handsomer than these, the Holy Ghosts not dreaming, and the Texts Noses, are phrases Divines have not been wont to use, and which speaketh in the heart of him that useth them small reverence of an holy God, or his holy Word. Again, we must take notice, that whatever may be urged about the Sacrament from other places it is not meant here, etc. And for all this you have Mr Boatman's word. I think I may safely say, I spend as many hours in my Study, and about my Sermons, as Mr Boatman doth, and consider as much, and consult with as many Commentatours, before I deliver the sense of a Text, as he well can do; nor (blessed be God) am I without some natural advantages to help me. Yet Reader, I desire thee to be of Hierom's mind, Give that honour to the Word of God only, to believe it because it is his word; and for Mr Boatman and me about any Text, lay our Reasons in the balance of the Sanctnary, provided thou forbearest his light gold the allowance of faction, and particular affection, and let the Scale that is heaviest carry it, I ask no other favour; I profess I never read such an imperious, magisterial pack of Sentences without a dram of reason for his own say since I knew what belonged to a book.  
Now he is come to his Doctrine, 
Animadr. on Paragr. 4.  which he delivers thus.  
It is the duty of every Christian, especially of every Minister, to take heed to whom, and how they deliver divine truths, lest, delivering them to obstinate and irreprovable men, they labour in vain, and they trample upon them.  
1. If this be the truth, yet I conceive it is not the whole truth of the Text.  
2. Mr Boatman should have done well to have kept the terms holy things, and Pearls, except he had proved by Scripture or Reason that divine truths are the only holy things and pearls here meant.  
3. I hope Mr Boatman will tell us how we shall know a man to be so irreprovable, that we may be justified in not preaching to him, nor admonishing him.  
But I find it otherwise, he is loath to meddle with that nice Point; but he undertakes, 1. To prove that there are some to whom we must not deliver divine truths.  
2. He undertakes to give us reasons:  
First, he will prove that there are some such; this he thinks he can prove from Psal. 39.2. where David saith, He kept his mouth with a bridle while the wicked was before him.— he held his peace even from good.  
Mr Boatman told us even now, that it must be truth to the purpose a man must deliver, as the sense of the Holy Ghost. That which Mr Boatman hath to prove is, that the Children of God should not deliver to wicked men, who are irreprovable, divine truth; to this purpose he brings that of David, who held his peace from good; what good? What, from admonishing them? There is no such thing in the Text. Mollerus expounds it of his own just and righteous cause the defending of that; Others expound it in general of good that he was altogether silent, not in reference to the wicked; in respect of whom he restrained his passions, ver. 1. but in reference to his trouble of spirit, which was such as stupefied him.  
In the next place he tells us how wary the Prophets were when people were incorrigible, but he that reads them will find they never left reproving them. He tells us God bids them not pray for them, that is true, Jer. 7. but in the same Chapter he is bid to preach to them and reprove them, ver. 2.  
He hath but one instance more, and that is of our Saviour Christ, who, he says, would sometimes make them no answer; but what is this to the purpose? did our Saviour ever forbear reproving them, or preaching to them. Thus, Reader thou seest how well he hath proved his Doctrine, not one instance holds. Let us come to his Reasons.  
He tells us, 
Animadv. on Paragraph. 5.  he will instance in those in the Text: 1. Because they will trample upon them. So he says they did upon John Baptists Doctrine, and our Saviour Christ's, and Paul's.  
There needs no more than this to prove that preaching the Gospel, and admonition is not here meant only; for first, the same reason will hold to the Sacrament, wicked men will trample on that too surely. 2. Though they trampled on John Baptists, and our Saviour's, and the Apostles preaching to them, yet none of them left preaching the Gospel, nor admonishing them.  
The second Reason is: They will turn again and rend you, that is, (as Mr Boatman expounds it) you will endanger yourselves. I answer, this again proves the preaching the Gospel is not the only thing here meant; for who knows not that the Apostles constantly preached the Gospel to the apparent hazard of their lives? Paul fights with beasts at Ephesus, is whipped, stoned, imprisoned, at other places, yet he preaches; and the Apostles durst not leave preaching to any upon any a count.  
In the next large Paragraph Mr Boatman makes a digression to take away the wonder of the world, 
Animadv. on Paragraph. 6.  that there should be any Christians so bad. Some he thinks there are, but he hath none of them; and he fears they are most amongst them who have their mouths fullest of such terms. The terms are our Saviour Christ's own, I know none useth them with reference to any particular persons, but only to show, such ought not to be admitted to holy things. Mr Boatman possibly is angry that our Saviour should so  those whom he, it may be, hath a more reverend opinion of; Whining Christians, Squeaking out Jesus Christ, The Noses of Texts, the dream of the Holy Ghost, I think are more Apocryphal terms than dogs and swine, applied to such as return (after Baptism) with the Dog to the vomit, and the Swine to wallow in the mire.  
I do not well understand how this came into his Sermon, yet it is a third part of it to show how men by degrees come to be so wicked as not to endure reproof; (Any scholar must judge that it came in as the man brought in Hercules.) It is true, had Mr Boatman done his main work, to prove that Admonition was the only thing, or Preaching the only thing here meant, he might have been borne with, recreating himself with such a digression, which yet had been more proper for the Application.  
I am apt to believe, that Pride, and Ignorance, and love of lusts, are the three great causes of men's not enduring wholesome reproof; but what was this to Mr Boatman's purpose, who should have spent his time to prove:  
1. That Admonition, and Divine truths are the only holy things and pearls here meant; And when he had done what he could for that, I would have had some body whispered him in the ear, and told him, surely he was not ware what he said, for if Dogs must not be admonished, nor preached to, surely they must not have the Sacrament given them.  
2. He was to prove, that Divine truths and admonition must not be given to dogs, and there he should have described the dogs to whom the Gospel must not be preached, and who must not be admonished, and have given good warrant from Scripture, or scriptural reason for the Exposition, and when he had done that, I would have had him answered these two Objections.  
Object. 1. If Admonition must not be given to dogs, what is the meaning of that of the Apostle, 2 Thes. 2.14, 15.  
And if any man obey not our word by this Epistle, note that man, and have no company with him that he might be ashamed; yet count him not as an enemy; but admonish him as a Brother. An excommunicate person must needs be a dog in the highest sense; he must be so really, viz. a very profane flagitious person, and judicially adjudged so in Court, and so turned out of the house for his doglike dispositions, he must be pertinacious, and irreprovable, for till he hath refused the admonition of the Church he ought not to be cast out; yet when he is cast out, though private Christians must have no private Communion with him, nor the Church any fellowship with him, yet they ought to admonish him to repent, etc. Excommunication itself being in order to reformation of the person, not to his destruction.  
Secondly, Did not the Apostles preach the Gospel to persecutors, and irreprovable men? Acts 3. Ch. 7. and in many other places.  
Mr Boatman tells us that Pride is the cause of irreprovablenesse in men, and he proves it well enough from the instance of the false Apostles in the Church of Corinth, Pharaoh, the Heathen, Psal. 2. those who opposed our Saviour Christ, the enemies of the Prophets of old; yet it is to be observed, that Moses still admonished Pharaoh till God took him off; Paul Paul ceased not to reprove the false Apostles; nor did Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, our Saviour Christ cease to reprove their Adversaries.  
He tells us, that love of Lusts is a second cause of men's irreprovablenesse; this he proves from our Saviour, John 3.19. Jer. 5. ul. the instance of John Baptist. This is true enough, but it is as true, that for all this, neither our Saviour Christ, nor Jeremiah, nor John Baptist ceased to preach to, or to admonish these wretches who loved their lusts.  
He tells us right, that Ignorance is a third cause, Joh. 1.9. 1 Cor. 2.14. yet surely ignorant persons must be admonished and instructed.  
Thus thou seest, Reader, how little all this is to his purpose.  
Now he is come to the Application: 
Animadv. on Paragraph. 7.  His first use is (as he calls it) of admonition to persuade his people that they would not be dogs and swine though men called them so, but endure admonition.— but he says not that from all men they should bear it patiently;— they may be laden with the impertinent, unseasonable, giddy reproofs of hare-brained men.  
1. Here he doth insinuate, that some called his particular people dogs and swine; he should have done well to have told them who do so; we say, such as turn with the dog to the vomit, such as wallow in beastly lusts are so; this I hope is true in thesi; but we say not in hypothesi, this and that man is so; No, we leave that to the reflection of every man's conscience, and the Judgement of the Church. This was but a mere trick to create animosities in profane men against those who preach the truth of God to them. I wonder who said, those of Peter's Parish are dogs and swine.  
For the main of the Exhortation it was good, but I think he might have spared telling them, he did not say, they should bear patiently admonitions from any, for I think the person is not considerable, but the thing, and cause of it. Now they have enough to say to justify their stopping their ears against reproof. The reproof was impertinent, unseasonable, he was a giddy hare-brained man that reproved me, and our Pastor told us, we need not bear his reproofs patiently.  
The last Paragraph contains his second and last use directed to reprovers: 
Animadv. on Paragraph. 8.  to persuade them so to order their reproofs, that they may not make men dogs nor swine.  
Here he tells us honestly, that though men express themselves rashly, and inadvisedly, yet if it be truth they speak, it is sad men will not endure it; but he had told them before, He did not say they should bear it patiently, here he doth say, It is sad they will not; how do these two agree?  
Though I do not think this Use proper to any Doctrine can be raised from this Text, and so is not truth to the purpose (as Mr Boatman lately taught us we should preach from Texts) yet I easily yield that admonition is a tender thing, and must be managed with prudence, and he must be allowed all he saith upon that point.  
At last he comes to bless himself, and to bless his Congregation, that he had never a dog in it, (an happy house!) or rather he had met with none; that may be: There may be dogs enough in the Town, yet I may meet with none of them, it may be I never regard whether they be so; but he puts in  
Unless it be some self-conceited Pharisees that cannot endure any body should be accounted holy as themselves.  
Who Mr Boatman means is sufficiently known, such as through tenderness of conscience, and conscience of God's Ordinances, cannot swallow promiscuous Sacraments. These are the only dog's Mr Boatman hath in his Congregation.  
The Lord make him ashamed with a godly shame.   

Now Reader, take the sum of my Sermon on that Text, and of his confuting discourse.  

1. THe Text is absolute sense in itself, and stands in no relation to the former Verses: This Mr Boatman grants.  
2. The Precept is without restriction: Holy things, Pearls, not this or that Pearl or holy thing.  
3. All the Ordinances of God, especially the Sacraments, are holy things betrusted to men to give out.  
4. There is therefore no reason to restrain the sense of this Text to this or that holy thing, but to understand it of all.  
5. Yet the whole word of God, being but one piece, if any part of that licenseth us to administer some holy things to some dogs, we may do accordingly, notwithstanding this Text.  
6. The Sacrament of the Supper, being an holy thing, it will follow from this general Precept that it must not be given to such as the Scripture calls dogs or swine, except the Scripture elsewhere expressly commands us the contrary.  
7. To expound it of preaching the Gospel, or admonition restrictively, is to speak without any ground, and to limit where Scripture doth not.  
8. Besides, The Gospel must be preached to dogs, viz. persecutors, heathens &c. and dogs must be admonished, 2 Thes. 3.14, 15.  
9 It is ridiculous to say, that we are here forbidden to preach to some, and admonish them, and yet not forbidden to give them the Sacrament, the latter following upon necessary consequence.  
10. The dog will trample upon this Ordinance as well as the other.  
11. Here is therefore a general prohibition, from which will follow by a necessary deduction, that the Sacrament must not be given to such as the Scripture calls dogs: 1. It being an holy thing. 2. As much included here as any other. 3. No where else allowed to dogs. 4. Such an Ordinance as they will trample on.   
Now what says Mr Boatman?  

1. This Text is wrung by the Nose till blood comes, and I will redeem the Captive.  
2. The utmost of the Holy Ghosts meaning by holy things and pearls is divine truths, and admonitions.  
3. To stretch the Text further is to preach untruth, nothing to purpose, etc.  
4. Admonition and preaching are holy things.  
5. We must take heed how we give them out to dogs.  
6. For the proof of the three first; you must take my word, or choose whether you will believe it or no. And for answering any Objections, he is not at leisure.   
Read and judge now how learnedly I am confuted. He came out like a man of war, but what hath he done?  
The King of France with twenty thousand men Came to the sea, and so went back again.  
FINIS.   

Reader, these Books following are Printed, and are to be sold by Richard Tomlins at the Sun and Bible near Pie Corner.  

THe General Practice of Physic, Folio.  
The Fortune Book in Fol. English.  
Pleasant Notes upon Don Quixot, Fol.  
Mr Collings his Cordials first, second, and third parts, quarto.  
His Vindiciae Ministerii quarto.  
His Answer to Mr. Sheppard, quart.  
His Answer to Fisher and Hammond, quart.  
Dr Holdsworth's twenty one Sermons, quart.  
Euclids Elements in quart. Eng.  
History of seven Champions, quart.  
Packet of Letters, quart.  
Cupid's Messengers, quart.  
The Birth of mankind, or women's Book, quart.  
The Perfect Pharisee under Monkish holiness, quart.  
The false Jew, quart.  
Mr Collings Five Lessons for a Christian to learn, oct.  
His Faith and experience, octav.  
Mr Wincolls Poems, octav.  
Excellency of Christ, octav.  
Erasmus Colloquis, octav.  
Wings and Libourns Urania Practica, octav.  
Velitationes Polemicae, octav.  
Perkins Catechism, octav.  
Janua Linguarum, octav.  
Brinsley's Cordelrus, Octau.  
watson's untaught Bridegroom, Twelve.