A Battle with a Wasp's Nest; OR, A REPLY to an Angry and Railing PAMPHLET, WRITTEN By Master JOSEPH HEMING, CALLED JUDAS EXCOMMUNICATED, OR, A Vindication of the Communion of Saints, etc.  
Wherein his Arguments are Answered, his Abuses whipped and stripped: The Question whether judas received the Sacrament Debated, and the Affirmative proved.  
By Peter Lightfoot.  
LONDON, Printed in the Year, 1649.   

To the READER.  
IN a Pamphlet lately published by Mr joseph Heming, [which he hath titled JUDAS EXCOMMUNICATED, or, A vindication of the Communion of Saints etc.] there is so much dirt and venom vomited by him, upon my name and repute, that by his casting, you may easily guess the fullness of his stomach; and get out of his way Reader; for he cares not where he lets fly, if the disgorging fit do but once come upon him, which comes not seldom: He made this promise in an Epistle which he intended to prefix unto this clamorous Volumn, but spared it, upon courtesy to me, as he pretendeth, I am resolved now God willing, if he retract not what he hath spoken, and that speedily, to give his Reputation such a wound, that all godly men, who love the truth, and speak the truth in sincerity, abominating lies, and such as speak them in hypocrisy; yea, those very ungodly ones whose cause he pleads shall loathe it, as men do a rotten stinking Carcase, by the ways side: Neither shall all the friends he hath, or can possibly make, be ever able to salve it up. A very charitable and Saint like resolution I can assure you; and how he hath endeavoured to make his word good, by bad words, all along his Libel, I need not to go about to show, the thing itself speaks itself: You see the man's spirit and temper by his own Confession: He pretends to Argue and Reason, but intends to bark and by't; he takes on him tenderness to the truth, which it seems, if he stood not up for it, were utterly undone, whereas the bottom of his heart and resolution is, to fall upon my person and wound my repute, and to serve his spleen upon me, under such a pretence. A man that gins to assume a Papal Prerogative, and in time may prove as excellent a Saint-maker, or Devill-maker, as his Pontifical Holiness of Rome himself: For please him, be his white boys, and do as he does, and say as he says, you shall presently be a Saint, and not an Egyptian dog must dare to open his mouth against it. But, do but cross him never so little in his Opinion, or in his humour, and he will instantly make you a profane person, and a castaway, and all the friends you have can do you no good.  
The occasion of all this his heat and breaking out against me, was only this, He oftentimes in the Pulpit [though I must tell you that I believe he is no more a lawful Minister then myself] declaimed against the Sacrament calling it a Communion of dogs and Devils, and a rotten two penny Communion, [so he calls the Lords prayer a carnal fleshly Ordinance] bragging to prove against all men That judas did not receive the Sacrament, and telling the Congregation, That if they did believe that judas did receive the Sacrament, they might do as Judas did, that is, go and receive, and then go and hang themselves etc. You cannot blame me, if such passages as these seemed bitter to me, who as yet cannot be convinced by all that ever he hath spoken about it, but that judas did receive the Sacrament as well as any other of the Disciples. Hereupon I drew up short Notes upon this point, for mine own settlement, and for some others satisfaction: Which Notes I did neither send to him, nor intent for him; but he getting them into his hands by some means or other, and disdaining that his Oracularity, and ipse dixit should be crossed, he falls to Shimei's manner of Dispute with railing and flinging dirt and stones, as a man transported with fury, passion, and scorn to be contradicted.  
I am not solitious to stand upon the Vindication of mine own repute, which to wound, he hath by his own confession, set himself to work, and made it his task: [if this be to be a servant to all men in the Gospel of jesus Christ, as he styleth himself to be, he that carries 
* Δ●  An Accuser in his name may do as much.] I refer my cause to God, who knoweth my heart and actions, and who will once judge between us: and besides the witness of mine own conscience, I dare appeal to all that know me, to give in testimony of my conversation: And to those that know me not, I do but refer it, to weigh with what scorn, spleen, pride, and virulency Mr Heming hath spoken against me what he hath spoken, and then let them judge whether so high boiling passions be not ready to foam out scum and scandal.  
Whosoever hath bestowed the time and pains to read his Discourse through, he doth easily perceive it to consist of these four parts, Reasoning, Railing, Boasting, and Impertinencies: The three last are his own proper invention, and let him have the honour of them: but the first, that is, Reasoning, or Arguments, or Answers, or call them what you will, about the matter in dispute between us, there is hardly one of them, but he hath shamelessly stolen it; Come hither all ye Proselytes and Disciples of Mr Heming, and see how he useth you: He makes you believe that this his great elaborate volumn is his own study, and pains, and Learning; and I hope you do not a little admire him for it; he feeds you with these Arguments to prove that judas received not the Sacament, as if they were out of his own store; whereas, they are almost every bit of them stolen goods, and you poor souls are fed with such plundered provision; I suppose you will not take it well at his hands to be so served as he hath served you, when I tell you whence he had it: You would little think that Mr Heming should feed you with the invention of a jure-divino-presbyterian Scot, and make you believe it is the dainty food of his own providing: Spit out for shame; for these Arguments, that you have so eagerly swallowed, digested and been delighted with, came out of a jure-divino-presbyterian Cupboard, were cooked and disht up by a jure-divino-presbyterian hand, and Mr Heming got them away by the virtue of Hocas Pocas, and hath served them up for your diet, as his own Cookery: Read but Mr Gillespy in his Book called Aaron's rod blossoming, from pag. 442 to pag. 469 and there you will see how this Gentleman ruffles in  that are none of his own, and makes you believe that he feeds you with Venison, when it is but kids flesh purloined, and that from a Scot Now fie upon that ever Mr Heming should serve us thus.  
The two sentences of Greek with which he hath flourished the front of his Volumn, he hath taken out of that Book, pag. 452. and 453. word for word. The second thing in his ninth page, the third thing in his tenth page, the first, second, third and fourth things in his eleveth page, the third thing in his thirteenth page beginning thus, The Original etc. And the first in the same page, beginning with Perhaps etc. In the fifteenth page, the first Answer beginning 'tis true etc. the second beginning 'tis as true etc. and the second below beginning If it had been said etc. The third beginning, Whereas he affirmeth etc. And from thence all whole till you come to the first thing in the sixteenth page: The fourth thing in the sixteenth page, and the first thing in the last page: These are all taken out of that Book of Mr Gillespies, as any one may see that will read that portion of it between those pages. 442, and 469. Read it ye Saints, in and about uttoxater, and see how your great Oracle serves you, and trust him another time. It is his own motion in his Epistle to you, page 4. Let me see my Erratas and I shall endeavour to correct and amend them: Show him this his dealing, and tell him it is not fair to serve either you or Mr Gillespy thus. For all the little affection that he beareth either to a Scot, or the Presbyterian judgement, and for all the great sincerity that he pretends to bear to you, yet you see how he can make use of those; and make bold with you to serve his own turn.  
It is certainly either a great itch that he hath to appear in public, or a great desire to scratch a Public revenge out of me that hath put him on to play such poor game as this, rather than to sit out, namely that he will dish up other men's arguments sippeted with his own boasting and railing, rather than not to be seen a man in Print [and so he must needs Print; and he must needs print Queries about Christmas day that he might be some body, though the most part of them were fiilched out of Mr. prynn's Histriomastix and the Scripture Almanac] but if there be such an itch in him, I would he would claw himself, and not make other men smart for his scrubbing: It is not any smart in my reputation that troubles me though he thought to have lashed that to the flaying and salting [I have innocency is viper's proof] but it is a smart to me that I must be troubled to spend time and labour in answering stolen arguments, idle vapours, snarlings and barkings, and fond impertinencies of a man that cares not much what he says, so it be in Print, that it may be talked of, and whose very element is mud and troubled waters. Were I such an one for senselessness and for impiety as he would make me, I I were fit to live among brute beasts then amongst men, or rather I were not fit to live upon the earth at all. But my witness is in heaven, and within me, what is my heart; and my testimony is in the Country where I have lived, where is and hath been my conversation; and let the few lines ensuing be the evidence whether I am mad and raging as he would represent me. I see if Master Heming were the doomer of my final estate that it would go but hardly with me, but I am to stand or fall to mine own master, into whose hands let me fall, for with him is mercy. However, I am traduced by the most uncharitable censure of this man, to have contra. conscientiously upon a malignant design and for the advancement of my master's kingdom [you can easily read what master his charity meaneth] taken up and maintained that opinion that I hold: yet the Lord God of Gods he knoweth and I desire that Israel may know, that never any such thing entered or got the least footing in my thoughts: but what I hold and maintain, I do it according to the best light I can receive from Scripture, according to the best dictates of my conscience upon that information, & as in the sight of God, & as in dread and reverence of his divine word. Therefore it doth fret me as little as it doth please him much in all the reproaches he doth cast upon me: and if he can count it the part of a Saint to use such language, I can very well account it the part of a Christian to undergo it. And I go not alone neither under that burden; for all that are not directly of his mind and practise, have share in the same reviling and censure with me.  
I shall for all his scorns, calumnies, uncharitableness, and virulency, leave him these places for an answer, Prov. 30.12.13.14. Mat. 5.22. and 7.1. Luk. 18.9. Ephes. 4.31. etc. And as for the cause that is between us, I shall most hearty lay the umpirage of it before any impartial and indifferent readers, when they shall have had the patience to hear what I can say for the things I hold, as they have seen what he hath spoken for himself.  
Vttoxeter. August 14. 1649. Peter Lightfoot.   

A Battle with a Wasp's Nest; OR, A REPLY to an Angry and Railing Pamphlet Written by Mr joseph Heming, called JUDAS EXCOMMUNICATED or, A Vindication of the Communion of Saints, etc.  
His Epistle dedicated to the Saints of the most High God in and about uttoxater, he beginneth thus,  
Precious Hearts,  
I Confess, I am engaged in low and fruitless Controversies, against which I find a reluctancy in my spirit, because they tend not to edification so much as could be wished.  
Answer. I would gladly know, what necessity hath engaged him in such Controversies: I am sure it is as free and more necessary for him, to teach the sound and saving doctrines of salvation (if he had a calling thereto and were able) and would be more acceptable and profitable to those that hear them, then to trouble men's minds with empty and windy Controversies, which only swell and puff up, but edify not. I am past doubting, and I dare say that all men that do seriously mind salvation will be of the same mind with me, that teaching the Doctrines of Faith, repentance, self-denial, charity, mortification, and the like, is a thousand t●mes a readier way, either to beget a Saint, or to build him up, then puzzling men's thoughts with low Disputes and fruitless Controversies, in which Mr Heming spends so much time and is so deeply engaged. I dare say those points never brought men to heaven. I question whether ever they forwarded any men so much as one step thitherward: Admit I were come up to Mr Hemings opinion in these points as far as he would have me, that I would speak as bitterly against judas his receiving of the Sacrament and mixed Communion as he doth, that I abhorred baptising of Infants, that I would be rebaptized, that I would cry out against singing of Psalms in the public Congregation, that I would hold or practise in these or such like things as these as punctually and completely a● he could desire; I pray you what were I nearer heaven for all this? what one hairs breath had this stepped me forward towards God or towards salvation? Might not Publicans, Harlots, Ahabs, cain's, and incarnate Devils do as much as all this, and be Devils still? Why should Mr. Heming engage himself and insist so much upon such fruitless things as these, as he hath done, when it is as free and as open before him to deal only with sound and saving doctrines? and it would be more comfortable for him so to do, upon his final account, and it would be more graceful to the hearers, in case Mr Heming were able or idoneous thereunto.  
I will appeal to all standers by, of  and impartial judgement; yea, I durst appeal to Mr Hemings own conscience if unmuffled or not altogether ignorant, whether the insisting upon such doctrines as these, upon which he spends the most of his public discourses among us, tends not more to gain a party, then to save a soul. I would ask of him, what comfortable account doth he think to give, when he comes to give up his reckoning betwixt God and himself? first, for taking upon him the profession of a Minister, and then for neglecting to prosecute the wholesome doctrines that should save souls so much as he doth, and declaiming almost only upon such windy and needless points as these, which only breed ill humours, and disturbance in the minds of men, and divisions and heart-burnings in Congregations, and tend not one jot or tittle to edification: And I would desire the Saints in and about uttoxater, that he meaneth, in the bowels of Christ and in the melting tendering of their own salvation, to think seriously with themselves upon their reckoning with God, upon these points: whether they think the zeal against, Infant's baptism, mixed Communion, and such like punctilios, the best upon which must needs cool zeal in better things, can redound to their comfort, in the day of their account? Let me by way of parable lay before them two men upon their deathbeds, and reckoning with God upon their course and carriage in Religion: One of them of the old light as it is reputed, that is in the old and good way in Religion, in which all the holy men in England have walked since England knew the Gospel: He hath this to say, from the bottom of his heart to God; Lord, than knowest, that I have ever desired to lie low in mine own thoughts, and have reputed myself the chiefest of sinners, that I have loved and longed after the sincere doctrines of salvation, that tended to the saving of my soul, and to the union in thy Church, that I have prayed, heard, sung, received the Sacrament with the Congregation with a good heart: And that thy Word hath been most welcome to me, though it hath crossed me in my dearest humour and opinion. The other of them, of the New Light, and strange doctrines that are now afoot, that were never heard of before, He hath this to say upon his reckoning for his comfort; Lord, thou knowest that I have accounted myself a Saint and despised others, that I have loved and been zealous for matters of question and dispute, that I have refrained the Sacrament, and singing of Psalms with the Congregation, because of the profane in it; I have been an enemy to Infant's baptism, and I have not cared for any Minister, that was not directly of mine opinion and judgement: let any one judge whether of these two is liker to come off with the greater comfort; and let any that know the way of Mr Hemings teaching, judge, whether the greatest bent of his endeavour in it, do tend to any higher comfort than the latter. Reader, however he talks of reluctancy in his spirit against such low Controversies, it is his own free choice, and for aught we can see, his delight to be versed and zealous in them, and there is no necessity or force upon him to urge him to it, that any of us can possibly conceive, unless it be because he is not skilled in more material points, or because he would make and maintain a party. And that he delights in these low Controversies, for all his saying, it is enough to be collected out of his own words, who though he call them fruitless, yet within five lines after, he professeth that he findeth daily that low things are most beneficial for believers of lowest attainments; God help those Believers that find no greater benefit by any doctrine then by these low points. I can hardly believe that such are Believers of S. Peter's old edition, that desire the sincere milk of the Word and grow by it, but of the new edition under some New Light, that think to go to heaven somenew-found way. Then he proceedeth thus,  
What I have done in this is for their souls, who came out of Babylon, out of Egypt the other day.  
Answer. Let Mr Heming remember that passage, Woe unto him that calleth light darkness; what he meaneth by Babylon and Egypt, is easy to pick out, namely, whosoever is not of his opinion and practice: And hence come those charitable and innocent expressions of his [as he calls them] Mr Lightfoot and his unholy Communicants, pag. 4. Mr Lightfoot and his unholy crew, pag. 20. His profane fellow-members. p. 5. etc.  
The Reader, if he were of Mr Heming's charity and no higher, might be induced to think that poor uttoxater is the veriest Sodom and Gomorrha upon the earth, and that till he came thither, it had been led and lived in the deepest Superstition and darkness that ever Babylon and Egypt did: It is not for me to speak, what a Ministry this Town hath had, ever since before Mr Heming was born [the relation I stand in to him that hath been their Minister so long, does stop my mouth:] But let all the Counteys hereabout, Cheshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Darbishire etc. let any in England that ever heard of old Mr Lightfoot Minister of uttoxater, and what he hath been, and what his Ministry and Conversation hath been, nay let Mr Hemings own Saints, be witnesses what his pains, doctrine, life, and Ministry hath been among them for above this thirty years: If they have not dissembled, the day hath been when some of them have acknowledged, and taken on them to think, that this Town in a happy Ministry hath gone in equal pace and degree with the most Towns of England. And now the case is so altered, that till Mr Heming came amongst them, poor Vitoxater is said to have been in darkness, and in Babylon and Egypt; and he proved a Moses and a Zorebabel to bring it out.  
I would argue with Mr Heming about these precious hearts that are come out of Babylon and Egypt but the other day: Some of them have pretended to holiness and precisnesse in Religion above other men, many years before Mr Heming ever came here, or his name was known; and it may be they were then more really taken for Saints than they are now: They were either Saints then, or they were not; If they were not, than they were hypocrites, for they took religiousness and sanctity upon them: If they were Saints, than there may be Saints in Babylon and Egypt, and in my Communion: And I hope these ancient Professors have not changed their charity though they have changed their light, so, but that they think there are some that communicate with me, that have always demeaned themselves in the evidence and demonstration of holiness, zeal, piety, charity, and of all other Christian accomplishments, in as full and constant a measure and course, as any of those that Mr Heming hath brought out of Egypt and Babylon, and that have ever carried as visible works of Saints upon them, as any of these: But would you know what it is to come out of Babylon and Egypt in Mr Hemings sense? It is indeed to come out of your wits and your Religion, it is to deny your Baptism, your mother Church of England, and the way of Religion in which all the holy men of England have walked till now. It is to cast off Parliament, Assembly, Directory, order and all Government in matters of Religion. It is to withdraw from the Communion, refrain from singing of Psalms, vilify the Lord's Prayer, and Infant's Baptism. It is in a word, to walk by a new light, newly lighted, and newly come forth; to say and do as Mr Heming would have you, and he that doth these things, is as surely come out of Egypt, as ever did Gypsies, and is as certainly a Saint as it is certain the moon is made of green cheese.  
Mr. Heming. I never intended this answer of mine should have come to a public censure, had not Mr Lightfoot and his unholy Communicants, etc. dealt deceitfully.  
Answer. The Friar desired a Pig's heart, and a Capon's liver, but good man he would have neither Pig nor Capon die for him. Mr Heming loves in his heart to be in Print, for that makes him seem some body, but he would not come to public censure, for that may hap to speak contrary to his self-conceit and humour, and that is to him as the pangs of death. I will not question whether he intended his answer for the Press or no, it may be it had been as good for him to have let it alone; but let me thank him for publishing his good word, which I and my fellow Communicants have from him all along. Mr. Lightfoot and his unholy Communicants dealt deceitfully: Nay, if I take you talking of dealing deceitfully, I'll talk with you, for I have my tale to tell to that purpose too. You may observe throughout his Pamphlet that still he holds it out as if I pleaded for mixed Communion, which I meddled not withal, but only kept me to the question, whether Judas received the Sacrament or no: but enter Matchiavell: His subtlety thought that he could not pick enough out of my assertion, That judas received the Sacrament, to make me so sufficiently odious as he would have me: therefore he juggles this business into the dispute about mixed Communion, and there he thought he should find railing stuff enough against me, and how excellently he has husbanded it is abundantly visible: To do him a courtesy, I will avouch for mixed Communion: and since he hath promised some elaborate piece in page 20, which will be about such a subject, I suppose I shall leave him a few queries to find him work.  

1. Whether may not a man with as much safety to his soul receive the Sacrament with a scandalous person as with a hypocrite? Affirm  
2. Whether is not a man rather to communicate with scandalous, persons, if such company at the Sacrament cannot be avoided, then to refrain or withdraw from the Sacrament altogether? Affirm.  
3. Whether is there any such end, or any such thing in the nature of the Sacrament as to distinguish one Christian from another. Negat  
4. Whether the Communion of Saints in Scripture sense be not in the profession of the Christian faith, as well as in the receiving of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper? Affirm.  
5. Whether the main ends of the Sacraments of both Testaments be not the same? Affirm.  
6. Whether the Sacraments, howsoever they be received, be not Seales? Affirm.   
This half dozen of points I would put out to Mr Heming to tagging; but let us have no boasting nor railing in the bargain: I would have my points tagged without tufts: If he can from clear Scripture or reason contradict what I hold, he will discover more skill, than he hath showed himself guilty of in all this dispute: but if he cannot [but his Logic can prove any thing] I could deduce such conclusions from these premises that would make his opinion against mixed Communion run so on snicksnarles, that with fingers and teeth and all he would find enough to do to unknot it again, and make it run glib.  
The greatest part of his Epistle he spends in railing and reviling me, in as taunting and bitter terms as he can invent upon this score of mixed Communion, which though I meddled not withal, yet he will needs persuade you that I hold it, or else he were undone for railing matter. Will you hear some of his innocent expressions, as he calls them? I should superabundantly wrong him If I should not rank him with the vilest in the Kingdom, for with them he will have Communion as a member of the same external visible body, by virtue of which relation they are all his brethren and sisters; so that he hath his brother Drunkard, brother Thief, brother Murderer, brother Liar, etc. Sister Whore, sister Witch, etc. Yea all that have been hanged at Tyburn and all other gallows in England ever since he was born and baptised into that fellowship he pleads for, have been his brethren and sisters, pag. 5. and 20. And this I dare say I can prove against all the Devils in hell. Pag. 5.  
Angelus in penna— voce Gehenna. Nay take in Pede latro too, at Mr. Gillespies request who hath been so basely plundered.  
Now a Kingdom for a mousehole to run into from the fury of this dreadful Champion, that is ready to challenge even all, even all the Devils in hell into disputation. And certainly all the Devils in hell if they should dispute with him, could not give him worse language than he giveth me.  
What 2 jolly kindred hath he adopted me into? It is well he lived not in the days of Samuel, or David or Esay, or Jeremy, or any of the holy men upon record in Scripture: for it is odds they might have heard as much from him, as I do, seeing they were admitted by the same Circumcision into the same Church, by which and into which every Israelite beside was admitted, were he good or bad: if it were any disgrace to them to have drunkards, murderers, liars, thiefs, etc. circumcised as well as they, and of the same Church that they were of, I shall very willingly bear the same disgrace with them. Take heed Mr. Heming, that by yourself united select Communion that you talk of, you make not yourself holier than these holy men.  
After he hath raged and rambled a great while in his puff and passion, he comes at the last a little to himself, and gins as he thinks to talk reason, and he faith thus,  
Here is one thing that I would have you and all men to take special notice of, namely that Mr Lightfoots Communion diametrically opposeth  

1. The Soriptures, the plain letter. 1 Cor. 5.9, 10, 11. 2 Cor. 6.14, 15, 16, 17, 18.  
2. His Creed, or at least this Article of it, the Communion of Saints.  
3. The Covenant, by which we are bound to endeavour a Reformation according to the word of God, and the best Reformed Churches, who abhor such Communions.  
4. The Directory which saith, the ignorant and scandalous are not fit to receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper: yea the Common Prayer book itself which shuts the door against, and keeps out open and notorious evil livers.  
5. And lastly, the Principles, hopes, expectations, and joint endea-of all godly ministers.   
Answer. Mr Heming loves Creed and Covenant, and Directory when they'll serve his turn, but all the year after, he loves them as he loves me, But let us examine how my Communion is contrary to all these, and to the Scripture, and to the other things that he hath named. My Communion is to this purpose: 

1. I desire the purity and due administration, and receiving of the Sacrament, as well as Mr Heming or any of his Disciples.  
2. But I find no Text in Scripture that either warrants me to refrain the Sacrament, because scandalous persons do receive it, or that doth condemn me for receiving with such, all the while I endeavour to fit and approve mine own heart as becometh that ordinance.  
3. Nor do I use when I come about that work, to be so scrupulous in looking what others are, as I do desire to examine myself, and so I take the Apostles meaning to be 1 Cor. 11.29. Now how this Communion of mine should be so opposite to all that is called good or holy, as he censures it, it is far sooner said then proved; He saith it Diametrically opposeth.    
1. The Scriptures, the plaint Letter, 1 Cor. 5.9, 10, 11. 2 Cor. 6.14, 15, 16.17.  
Answ. The plain Letter in the former place is this: I wrote unto you in an Epistle not to company with fornicators: yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the Covetous, or Extortioners, or with Idolators; for than ye must needs go out of the world: But now I have written unto you, not to keep company if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an Idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such a one, no not to eat.  
Now in this plain Letter, I would desire Mr Heming to tell me whether the holiest man in the Church of Corinth, migth not have his brother fornicator, his brother covetous, his brother Idolater etc. Let him construe me those words, If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator etc. 2 Let him show me in all these words the least syllable that speaketh against my Communion: Yes, that he will do presently with a wet finger, Not to company, not to eat with such a one. But I will deny that not companying meaneth in that sense, and that not eating with, meaneth in that sense, but in a civil sense, and I will give him till this day month to prove the contrary: So little is the Letter plain against me, unless you will take his gloss with it.  
The plain Letter in the second place is this, Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what Communion hath light with darkness? or what concord hath Christ with Belial, or what part hath he that believeth with an Infidel? And what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols? etc. wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate, etc. Now let me make his Argument for him out of these words.  
If you may not marry with Heathen Idolaters, you may not receive the Sacrament with some Christians. But etc. Ergo. Never doubt the truth of this Syllogism; for it is in the Mood and Figure called A baculo ad Angulum: Who seethe not plainly that the Apostle speaketh here of open and professed Idolatrous Heathens? and from them to argue to Christians that profess the name of Christ, is such a kind of Logic that when Mr Heming hath made it good, I will give him an Answer: So little plain is the Letter of either of these Texts against me, that if you plough not with his heifer, yea find not the riddle.  
2. He saith my Communion opposeth my Creed, or at least this Article of it, The Communion of Saints: he is decieved; It opposeth not my Creed, not the Communion of Saints as it meaneth in my Creed, but it opposeth his Creed, and the Communion of Saints that his new Creed holdeth out. If this were the question before us, I could easily show him how he straitens the word Communion more, and applies the word Saints otherwise then the Scripture doth, when it speaketh to that point, of the Saints Communion. There may be Saints sound in Scripture sense, that are neither of Mr Hemings opinion, practice nor Canonising, & there may be found a Communion of Saints in other things besides receiving of the Sacrament. He makes a great business of it in pag. 16. 17. as if I spoke blasphemy when I uttered these words, For the fancy is to make a noise of only the Saints receiving; meaning the Saints of his Calendar and Canonising; But he calls heaven and earth to witness, and is ready to rend his clothes, and his hair, as if I called the Communion of Saints a fancy. No Mr Heming I do not, it is one of the Articles of my Creed, & I believe it; but you must let me suppose withal that you fancy such a Communion of Saints and such a Saintship, as when you have done all you can you will never be able to prove it. And therefore, never make such a do as if I blasphemed, or knew not what I said, or it dropped from my pen before I was ware and I know not what; I am ready to say it again and again, that you fancy a Communion of Saints, you can never make good: And if this were the question between us, I could show you, that I rave not, but understand what I say, and that I am not utterly ignorant what the Scripture and my Creed meaneth by the Communion of Saints. If you should declaim, and rail, and rage as you do, seven years by Vtoxater clock I must yet still hold, that there may be a Devil in you Communion and a Saint in mine; and that all are not Saints and Devils that you hold so: and therefore you may save your labour, and spare your breath about this matter. I could tell you of some, that have carried as fair a show as any Saint in your Calendar, and yet have been but painted sepulchres, and I could name some that have been called as bad as you call me; [and that by those that took on them as much Saintship as you do] which yet have been real Israelites without guile.  
3. He saith, my Communion diametrically opposeth the Covenant and the platform of the best Reformed Churches; if his do not more, I will lose my stake. These are against separation, gathering of Churches, withdrawing from the Communion of the public Congregation, and so am I: they are against Preaching without Orders, and so am I: They are against all pernicious and damnable doctrines and opinions, and so am I: And these would have the Sacrament kept as pure as possible, and so would I. If Mr Heming's new lighted way be nearer the Covenant, and the pattern of the best Reformed Churches, let him take all.  
4. What he saith of my Communion, being against whatsoever is called good and holy, and against the Principles, hopes, expectations and endeavours of all godly Ministers, all is but to lay ink enough upon my opinion, that it may seem black to purpose; and when he hath all done, it is but an opinion that he himself puts upon me, and will make me to hold it whether I will or no: For I never meddled with him about mixed Communion [as I said before] nor pleaded for it, but kept me to the question about Judas his receiving of the Sacrament, and yet will he needs foist in this for the question, for without this, he thought he could not so handsomely abuse me. He confesseth it was his resolution to wound my reputation that it should never be healed, and he hath taken up this rusty weapon which he thinks will do it: I must fence for myself as well as I can. Have at him then with some of the language of the beast to begin with: Rumpatur quisquit rumpitur invidiâ.  
And so let's to't, upon the proper quarrel and quession that is between us.  

My First Assertion is this:  
That the sop which judas received, and Satan with it, he received it not on the Passeover night, but two nights before: and that he received it not at the Passeover supper at jerusalem, but at a common supper at Bethany.  
Mr Heming stateth the Question first to be discussed in this Assertion, Thus, Now here ariseth a great question between Mr Lightfoot and myself, namely, which was the Supper at Bethany, That mentioned, joh. 12.1, 2, 3. etc. or that joh. 13.1, 2, 3?  
He saith, That in joh. 13. and upon that mistaken place, hath built his wood, hay and stubble. Boys and Girls if ye can but read English, come forth and shame this great master in Israel; read both the Chapters and then tell him which speaks of the Supper at Bethany. But I Answer.  
That in john 12. was the Supper at Bethany, and not that in joh. 13.   

Reply.  
Conclamatum est, I have lost the day already and never a stroke struck, and Boys and Girls must hoot me out of the field. But hark ye, my honest Boys and Girls of uttoxater, before ye fall a shounting, let me tell you a story: There was once a poor woman fool [if my memory fail not, Seneca's wife kept her for her pastime at Rome] and she was suddenly struck blind and lost her seeing: Now all the world could not persuade her that she was blind, but cried out that the house was dark, and thought rather that the day and the Sun had lost their light, than she her sight. My lads, if you must shame any body for blind beetlednesse, it must be Mr Heming that calls you out, for he sees not what he should see in joh. 13. and yet he cries out, the blindness is mine at joh. 12. The fault is in his eyes, but you cannot persuade him so, but that I have lost my sight.  
How miserably low and lost am I in his esteem? when for my Morals he holds me worse than any man, and for mine intellectuals less than any reading boy. Though I know he thinks of me as bad as bad can be, I thank him for it; yet truly, I did not think he had reputed me so very silly and senseless, as either not to see at all, that the Supper in joh. 12. was at Bethany, or so little to observe it as to commit so gross a mistake as he would put upon me. Sir, Certainly either you are mightily mistaken in me, or you would put a mighty fallacy upon the Reader: Assure yourself I can spell and read the word Bethany in joh. 12.1. as well as any Boy or Girl in all Vtoxater Parish, and I saw it as plaine when I entered upon this Dispute, as ever your eyes say it in all your life: But you did not see Bethany in joh. 13.1.2.3. which I did, and that is the reason of all this vapouring. And hereupon, you either sillily or willingly, falsify our Question, and so the poor Boys and Girls that are called out to shame me, will either shame themselves for shouting at they know not what, or rather shame you for vapouring at you know not what. Our Question is not whether the Supper in joh. 12. or the Supper in joh. 13. were the Supper at Bethany, but our Question is Whether that Supper in joh. 13. were not at Bethany, as well as that Supper in joh. 12. I assert it was; but Master Heming denies it.  
Mr Heming. That in john 12. was the Supper at Bethany, and not that in john 13. For in john 13. Bethany is not so much as once named: but in Chap. 12. it is, As also in Matth. 26. Mark 14.   

Reply.  
I see the man cannot see one inch further into a millstone then there is a hole pecked in it before him; boys and girls might have given such a reason as this. Children, was the Supper in john 13. at Bethany? No forsooth master, for Bethany is not once named there: But such a master in Israel as Mr Heming should have looked a little further about him, before he had given his determination: Children, was the Supper in john 13. at jerusalem? No forsooth master, for jerusalem is not once named there: Yet Master Heming holds it was: and here he hath given me an argument against his own tenet. He says that that Supper in john 13. was at jerusalem, and that it was on the Passeover night, and proves by that Chapter that judas went out before the Sacrament, and yet is there not the least mention of jerusalem or the Passeover night, nor of the Sacrament in all that Chapter. He allegeth this Chapter of john as his chief ground to prove that judas did not receive the Sacrament, when there is not one word of the Sacrament in all john's Gospel. He produceth this Evangelist to judge of a matter [and that to gainsay the other three that aver it] who speaks not one word foe the thing to be judged of. And yet when I say the Supper in john 13. was at Bethany, he thinks this a good reason, to say no, because Bethany is not there named.  
Before I come to show that Bethany was the place of that Supper,  
I shall first show that that Supper was before the Passeover day, and Secondly, that it was two days before the Passeover and at Bethany, although indeed the circumstance of the place be not so material to our dispute, as the circumstance of the time.  
I say therefore, that the Supper in john 13. was before the Passeover day came. And that I prove from the plain words of john himself in the first verse of that Chapter. Now before the feast of the Passeover, etc. whereupon I argue thus.  
Argum. 1. That Supper that was before the feast of the Passeover was not on the Passeover day, but before it.  
But that Supper in john 13. was before the feast of the Passeover. verse 1. Ergo it was not on the Passeover day, but before it.  
To this M. Heming giveth this answer Page 10.  
In john 13.1. Now before the feast, etc. 〈◊〉 not meant two days before, as he would have it: the words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meaning immediately before, &c, as Luk. 11.38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Pharisee woudred that he washed not before dinner, that is immediately before dinner.   

Reply.  
Rarely Critical! But I doubt, Animus est in patinis: by the Feast of the Passeover Mr Heming understandethth the very Passeover meal, and so he showeth his meaning in pag. 11. the sop was given (saith he) at an Ordinary or Common Supper which Christ had the same night before he eaten the Passeover.  

1. Let him but show me from one end of the Bible to another, where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies barely a meal, and I will lose my supper to morrow night: when there is mention of the feast of Tabernacles, the feast of Dedication, the feast of Pentecost, the feast of Passeover, &c, Mr Heming it seems, thinks of victuals stirring, and looks after his Commons; but any man that is not a child in Scripture, knows that the expression means the whole space and solemnity of these times. He would make but a hungry exposition of the feast of expiation, which was a most strict fasting day.  
2. If he had consulted Latin translators upon john 23.1. he would have found that they render it. Ante diem festum Paschae, applying it to the day, and not to the meal.  
3. Was not the feast of the Passeover begun, before any supper that day was stirring? I believe wiser men then either you or I will tell you; that the feast of the Passeover began as soon as ever the Paschal lamb began to be slain.  
And 4. Whereas he talks of a common supper which they had the same night before they are the Passeover, I deny it; for it was a holy suppe● of their Peace offerings, as I have learned by some better acquainted with jewish customs, than I doubt either you or I shall be these two days. And if it were so, judas communicated in this Supper by your own confession, and that's something towards a cheese.   
Mr Heming. At that Supper joh. 13. Christ's hour was come: v. 1. so that he was betrayed the very same night, as 'tis evident, comparing joh. 13.37, 38. with John 18.1, 2, 3. and Mat. 26.34. Mark 14.30. This discourse passed betwixt Christ and Peter, the very night in which he was betrayed.   

Reply.  
Is it most true that Christ's hour was then come; for the design of his betraying was set a foot that night, but that he was betrayed that night, I deny, as evident as it is in his looking glass that he would show you. There is indeed in john 13.37, 38. a passage about the Cocks crowing, that makes Mr Heming think the matter is Cock sure on his side, whereas it may be but the crowing of his own brains, that tunes it into a construction to serve his turn, and not the sense and meaning of the place itself. The words of the Evangelist are these, Peter said unto him Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake. jesus answered, wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? verily, verily, I say unto thee, the Cock shall not crow till thou hast denied me thrice.  
For the understanding of these words I would desire the Reader to observe these two things.  

1. That Christ in Mat. 26.34. saith verily I say unto thee, that this night before the Cock crow, etc. and Mar. 14.30. That this day even in this night before the Cock crow twice, etc. for that was indeed the very night in which Peter did deny him: but here in john 13.38. he doth not so determine the time, but saith only the Cock shall not crow, etc.  
2. That by these words, The Cock shall not crow till thou hast denied me thrice, he meaneth not, thou shalt deny me thrice before any Cock crow, for he denied him but once before a Cock crew, as is. plain Mar. 14.68, 69, 70, but he meaneth thou shalt deny me thrice in the space of Cocks crowing, which space was the third part of the night, Mat. 13.35. And so Mark helpeth to understand it, when in him it is explained, before the Cock crow twice, etc. Mar. 14.30. This therefore helpeth Mr Hemings cause never a jot, nor proveth it that that night joh. 13. was the night that Peter denied Christ: for Christ might have said as much as he saith there a twelve month before Peter denied him, and yet the sense very sound and currant, Peter, art thou so confident and resolute? I tell thee that the time will come when in the time of cocks crowing thou shalt deny me three times over.   
Now whereas Mr Heming would have you compare John 13.37.38. with john 18.1, 2, 3. his meaning is to this purpose, that Christ having given Peter notice of his denial, and spoken these words in Chap. 14. & 15, & 16. & 17. he presently goes over the brook Kidron, and there is apprehended: but he would make you leap over a stile by the way, and take no notice of it, and so you may chance break your shins. What makes he of that clause, John 14. 3●. Arise, let us go hence, let him tell me whether Christ went now. I know he will say, he risen from the Table after the Sacrament, and went out of doors towards Kidron, and spoke the passages in Chapter 15. and 16. & 17. as he walked along: In very good time, and a very likely business: but john 18.1▪ saith when he had spoken these words, he went forth: construe me that.  
Argum. 2. A second Argument that I use to prove that the Supper in john 13. was before the Passeover day, is from verse 27, 28, 29 of that Chapter, where when judas had received the sop and Satan: and jesus said to him, What thou dost do quickly, Some of the Disciples thought because judas had the bag, that jesus had said unto him, buy those things that we have need of against the feast. Now if they had things to buy against the feast, the feast was not yet come.  
The answer that Master Heming returns to this Argument is first thus, Perhaps Christ did not eat the Paschall Lamb upon the same day the Jews did, etc. And then the feast the Disciples dreamt of might very well be the jews Passeover, kept a day after: I could speak more for proof of this from john. 18.21. and 19.14. then ever Mr. Lightfoot will be able to answer.   

Reply.  
Perhaps the Evangelists are not to be believed, because they speak contrary to Master Hemings humour; for they tell you as plain as plain can be that Christ did eat the Paschall Lamb upon the same day that the jews did. See Matth. 26.17. Mark 14.12. Luk. 27.7.8. And yet he puts a perhaps upon it, to squeeze out something to his purpose. Sure the man did not know that the Paschall Lambs were slain by the Priests at the Altar, and the blood sprinkled there, and they slain, and the blood sprinkled in the name of a Paschall: and sure he did not know how high a transgression it was reputed by the jews to eat the Passeover on a wrong day: had he known and weighed these things, perhaps he would find it a harder business for Christ to eat the Passeover a day before the jews, than he dreamt of. But why do I talk of such things as these to him, when he puts a perhaps upon so plain Texts of the Evangelists.  
As for that tiring work that he would set me upon out of John 18.28. and 19.14. I will tell him this before hand, that if I can make nothing of those places, I will deny mine own skill, judgement, and opinion before I will deny the plain text of the Evangelists as he doth: But I need not to eat mine assertion for any thing that those places hold out against it.  
He is it but little acquainted with Scripture, or with the jews customs about the Passeover that knows not that there were Passeover Bullocks and other Peace-offerings to be eaten in the week of the Feast, as well as the Lamb was upon its day. 2. Chron. 30.21.24. and 35 7, 8. And that these are called the Passeover as well as the Lamb. Deut. 16.2. compared with Exod. 12.5.  
And to take up these Texts, which in Master Hemings conception will be everlasting tiring irons to me. in john 18.28. The jews went not into pilate's judgement Hall, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Pass●over: that is, but that they might eat the solemn Peace-offerings that were to be eaten at the Passeover, and which are called the Passeover; and that in Chapter 19.14. it was the preparation of the Passeover, and about the sixth hour: that is, it was the day in which they prepared these Paschall bullocks and Peace offerings for their holy diet being the days of the feast. What so great difficulty is there in these Texts, and what incongruity is there in this exposition of them?  
A second Answer that Mr Heming giveth to my Argument is this, [but I must tell you beforehand it is somewhat homely.]  
Observe saith he] how he would daub over his own mistake with the untempered mortar of the Disciples ignorance; what some of them thought proceeded of ignorance. john 13. 28.29. etc. and a little after: For the Disciples ignorance, and Mr Lightfoots grounded upon theirs, Christ had no more Feasts.   

Reply.  
Now come out good manners: he that useth the Disciples so uncivilly, I may put off my Hat and thank him, that he useth me no worse than he doth. I must tell the Apostles and Evangelists, that let them take heed what they say, and how they place their words; for if they speak but one syllable awry from Mr. Hemings humour, he will tell them what they are before all the Parish. And I pray you Sir what were the Apostles ignorant of, that one may daub walls with their ignorance? Can they not tell whether the feast were come or no? That's the question that you and I are upon, out of the words in john 13.28, 29. and if you say they were ignorant of that, you speak like Mr. Heming in state and majesty: and if they were ignorant of that, they were ignorant to the purpose. Come on my boys and girls, when Holidays were in fashion, could you tell when a Holiday came? If you could, you were wiser than Mr. Heming holds the Disciples were.  
But it may be he will say, that he doth not mean they were ignorant of this but of something else, as he saith, They knew not that he was to be betrayed that night; why, what is this to our question? The Evangelist saith, They thought jesus had bidden Judas buy something against the feast; hereupon I say, if it were against the feast, the feast was not yet come. To this he gives this answer, what some of them thought proceeded of ignorance, for, they knew not that he was to be betrayed. Is not this an answer as profound and direct in itself as it is well mannered towards the Disciples? I say still, the Disciples thought Judas had been bidden to buy something against the feast, ergo, the Disciples knew that the feast was not yet come. Let him answer me this directly, and like a man that desireth to find out the truth.  
Arg. 3 And third Argument that I give to prove that that supper, Joh. 13. was before the Passeover day, and not on it, proves a pitfall to Mr. Heming, beyond my expectation, for I did not think he had been so blind, as to have been so caught: My words were these, We know that the Lords Supper was given the Passoever day at night, viz. the first Sabbath of the Feast; the meaning of my argument I shall give by and by.  
Now Mr. Heming thinketh that I speak the savourest and bravest nonsense that ever did man: I shall give his censure in his words at length, and not in figures, for it is pity any of it should be lost.  
Pag. 1 Whereas he saith (saith he) That we know the Lords Supper was given on the Passeover day at night; viz the first Sabbath of the Feast, whereon the jews are the Paschall Lamb; I am afraid he understandeth neither what he saith, nor whereof be affirmeth; But be it so, and then  

1. How was Christ upon the Cross on the preparation day, the day before the Sabbath, according to those Scriptures, Mat. 27.62. Mark 15.42. Luke 23.54. joh. 18.28. & 19.14, 31, & 42 verses.  
2. How could he rise the day after the Sabbath, namely the first day of the week, Mar. 16.2. Mat. 28.1. since he lay-three days in the grave? Doth the man believe (think ye) that Christ eaten the Passeover a day or two after he was dead? or that be did rise the next day after he had eaten it? Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici? What day thinks be Christ was betrayed and taken? or how long-was it between his taking and crucifying? I wish the man be not found tardy here.   
Repl. You have your wish into your own bosom & that with a witness: It is not I that am found tardy here, but yourself, so as that you'll be ashamed of it, when you see it. I warrant you Mr. Heming and his Disciples have had many a pleasant laughing, and triumphing fit over this poor sentence of mine, and have hug'd one another in this advantage of nonsense, as he has set it out, no doubt most learnedly to them. Me thinks I see him scratch the elbow, and hear him laugh hither. But I must put him in mind of Seneca's wife's fool again; he cries out I am blind, when the blindness is his own.  
This great Master of Israel never dreamt in all his life, of any Sabbath, but only the ordinary weekly Sabbath, and from this ignorance comes all this laughter; but it seems I must be his teacher now, and inform him, that the first and last day in the Passeover week was a sabbatical day, or a Sabbath, and so was also the first and last day of the Feast of Tabernacles, etc. Had he but well weighted Exod. 12.16. Levit. 23.7. and seriously consulted how the word Sabbath is to be understood in Levit. 23.15. I am sure he would have gone a mile on my errand, before he would have given this censure upon those words of mine, for his own credit's sake. Why do you not laugh now Mr. Heming? I hope I have you here at a full check mate; and I suppose by this time you see, that the more you have triumphed over me here, the more shamefully you have discovered your own ignorance. Would you not give a grey groat now with all your heart, that these words of yours had never been born? Be wiser another time, you know not what an art I have of setting mousetraps.  
I say therefore again, that on the Passeover day at night the first Sabbath or first sabbatical day of the feast was entered: and hereupon I argue thus. The Disciples when judas had received the sop, and Jesus bade him, Quod facis fac cito, thought that he bade him buy something: But if that were the Passeover night, the Sabbath was now entered, and buying any thing was neither lawful nor possible. Therefore that was not on the Passeover night, but some night before: For it is senseless and groundless to think, that the Disciples should think of Christ's bidding him buy something, when nothing was possibly to be bought.  
Upon that text therefore, john 13.29. Some thought that jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast. I conclude,  
1. That that was not at the Passeover supper, because than nothing could be bought, a sabbatical day being entered. And 2. That that was before the feast of the Passeover, because the Disciples thought of buying something against the feast: If this my arguing be not direct, let him correct me, if it be, let him give me direct answers, if he can.  
Pag. But before I leave this text and argument, will you hear a piece of Logic that he venteth upon my arguing from it? If from this Scripture (saith he) be will conclude that there was another feast, why may not I conclude that Judas gave something to the poor?  
Reply. Brains and stairs are not better Rhyme, than this is Reason; I know not what Your Logic may conclude, but another to conclude so, I must tell him, it is to take up more than comes to his share. If I had concluded from this Scripture, that Judas bought something against the feast, you might have concluded in equity, that Judas gave something to the poor; but when I conclude no more but this, that there was a feast, your share of concluding comes to no more but this, that there were some poor. And as properly as one may conclude, that there were some poor, to whom something was to be given, from this, because they thought he bade give something to the poor: so as properly may it be concluded, that the feast was to come, against which something was to be bought, from this, because they thought he bade him, buy something against the feast.  
Arg. A fourth Argument I use to prove that the Supper in Joh. 13. at which the sop was given to Judas, was not on the Passeover day, but before, is this.  
The Devil entered into Judas before the feast of the Passeover came.  
But the Devil entered into Judas at the Supper, in Joh. 13.  
Ergo, That Supper, Joh. 13. was before the feast of the Passeover came. The major is proved, Luk. 22.3. Satan entered into Judas, etc. ver. 7. Then came the day of unleavened bread, etc. By which it is apparent, that Satan was entered into Judas before the day of unleavened bread, or the Passeover day came: unless Mr. Heming will except at the Evangelists Order, which if he do, let him give a good reason why, lest he show himself too bold with the text, for his own turn.  
To the force of this Argument he answers nothing, but only because I said, The Devil entered into Judas at Bethany, he catches up the word Bethany, and keeps a coil with that, but to the pith of the Argument he saith nothing. Only in what answer he giveth to this Argument, which indeed is to no purpose, let me challenge him upon one passage which is utterly shameless, and that is, when he saith, The conspiracy is as clearly placed before the sop, as before the Passeover; but, Dic quibus in terris, & Phyllida solus habeto; Let him but show me where, and then I'll say he speaks like a Scripture man; but if he cannot, I must say it is extreme impudence and impiety to assert any such thing; for he makes his fancy equal with the sacred text. There is not one syllable, letter, or tittle in all the Gospel, that Judas conspiracy was before the sop, but there is as plain an evidence that his conspiracy was before the Passeover, as there is of any thing in the Gospel; and yet because this Gentleman hath fancied that the sop was given on the Passeover night, he dares to equal his fancy with the divine writ, and say; The conspiracy is as clearly placed before the sop as before the Passeover: That is, in his brains, but no where else; well far a bold face in time of need.  
Another Argument, and wherewith I will clench up all, to prove the supper, Joh. 13. at which Judas received the sop, was before the Passeover day, is this, That it is not probable, nor can be conceived, that Judas should receive the sop, and so the Devil with it, and go to the High Priests, and bargain with them, receive a Band of men, Joh. 18.3. and betray his Master and all upon one night: for besides the unlikeliness of it, the text is plain, that from the time of the receiving of the sop, he sought opportunity to betray him, Mat. 26.16. or how he might conveniently, etc. Mar. 14.11. Luk. 22.6. And how improper it is to say a man seeks conveniency or opportunity, when be runs upon a thing and doth it on a sudden; I refer to any one of common capacity.  
Now Mr. Heming gives this argument a threefold answer.  
First he saith, 'Tis probable all this might be done in one night: for Judas was not so far from the High Priest: the band of men not so far to seek: the Devil, Judas and the Jews not so backward in driving on this damnable design, as he would insinuate. I myself have known in this betraying age, five times more than this amounts to, brought about in as short a night.  
Reply. I cannot imagine with all the skill I have, what that should be, that was five times more than the betraying of the Son of God: And I wonder how Mr. Heming came to know that Judas was so near the High priest, and that the Band of men was so ready at hand. There was an old wand'ring Jew talked and ballasted of, twixt twenty and thirty years ago, if one had had the luck to have met with him, he would have told the whole business: It seems Mr. Heming hath had the hap to meet with some of his intelligence, and that makes him so exact in this relation: but poor we that go by the old light of the four Evangelists can see no such matter. Mr. Heming grants that Judas sat down with Christ on the Passeover night, and eaten the common supper with him, and he sticks not much to grant that he eaten the Paschall Lamb with him; well, Christ after that, did but deliver the Sacrament, sing a hymn, speak a few words to his Disciples, go into the mount of Olives, and there Judas was presently at hand to apprehend him: Now how Judas in so short a time as this should do all his business; get together the chief Priests and Captains, Luk. 22.4. (it may be the wandering Jew said they supped all together this night) bargain with them, raise a band of men, get Lanterns and Torches all ready, etc. he must be of a quick belief, that beleves such quickness.   

A second Answer that he gives is this.  
He (following the old trade) most shamefully abuseth Mat. 26.16. Mar. 14.11. when he saith, 'Tis plain from those Texts, That from the time of the receiving of the sop, Judas sought opportunity to betray Christ. Read the verses before and after, and then tell me, if you can see but the print or footsteps of any such thing. Is it not plain in those places, that from that time Christ reproved Judas for his covetous indignation, at the spending of the ointment, he sought opportunity, and from that reproof took occasion to betray him? 'Tis evident, he sought how he might conveniently betray Christ before he received the sop.  
Reply. 'Tis policy to cry thief first: Be sure to tell me of abusing Scripture, loud enough, that no body may hear me tell tales of you; but before I have done, I hope I shall have my tale heard too. Now how much abuse Mat. 26.16. Mar. 14.11. to the purpose mentioned, will appear in the discussion of our next question, about the Supper at Bethany, upon which I shall instantly enter, when I have first challenged him upon two assertions which he will never be able to make good whilst his name is Mr. Heming unless it be by some Gospel of his own making. The first is this, That Judas took occasion to betray Christ from his reproving of him for his covetous indignation at the spending of the ointment. If M. H. have any other ground for this, but that he judgeth of another's impatience to be crossed in his humour, by his own, let him show it; and if he show any solid ground for it, I'll venture the burning of my cap.  
The other is this, That 'tis evident that he sought how be might conveniently betray Christ before be received the sop; where is it so evident? why, in his fancy and by his new light, but not by any one letter in all the Gospels. If it were true that Judas received the sop on the Passeover night as he fancieth, than he said something, but that I deny, and have alleged my arguments and reasons why I deny it, the which I refer to any impartial and indifferent judgement.  
Those that hold that judas did not receive the Sacrament, do lay this as the corner stone of their opinion; That Judas upon the receiving of the sop went out before the Sacrament was administered: will you hear the words of Zanchius in stead of many? Etsi multi & magni viri hoc docuerint & scripserint, ego tamen nullo modo concedo aut concedere possum; although many men of great esteem have taught and written (that judas received the Sacrament) nevertheless I cannot nor at all do yield unto it. And what is his reason, Quia apertè pugnat cum Historia Iohannis Evangelistae. Because it plainly thwarteth the History of the Evangelist John. And how doth it so? johannes cap. 13. ver. 30. apertè scribit judam postquam accepisset offulam a Christo (injuscubo nimirum agni assi) intinctam, statim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exivisse. Because John in chap. 13. vers. 30. writeth expressly that Judas after he had received the sop dipped (namely in the sauce of the roasted Lamb) went strait way forth, Zanch. in quartum praecep.  
Mr. Heming is of the very same opinion, and urge him with the authority of the other Evangelists that say that Judas sat down to the Passeover with the rest of the Disciples: yes that's true, saith he, but before the Sacrament, Christ gave him the sop and he was gone. It seemeth exceeding strange to me, that this use should be made of this Chapter of John 13. who speaketh not one fillable of the Sacrament, and which telleth plainly that that supper at which the sop was given, was ante diem festum Paschae, as the best translators have rendered it, and that most truly.  
It were enough therefore for the overthrowing of Mr. Hemings opinion, to prove only that that supper in John 13. was before the Passeover day, and we needed not look any further how many days or nights it was before, yet that I may do him justice and myself right in the maintaining of this my assertion, I yet go further, and aver, that That Supper in John 13. was in Bethany.  
For the proof of which I thus argue; 

Judas his conspiracy began from the Devils entering into him, which was when he received the sop at the Supper in John 13.  
But Judas his conspiracy began from Bethany;  
Therefore the Devils entering into him, when he received the sop at the supper in John 13. was at Bethany.    
The major proposition, that Judas conspiracy began from the Devils entering into him is as clear in Luke 22.3, 4. as the Sun at noon, Then entered Satan into Judas Iscariot being one of the number of the twelve: And he went his way and communed with the chief Priests and Captains how he might betray him unto them and they were glad, etc. and then in vers: 7. Then came the day of unleavened bread, etc. Now let all the world, nay his very boys and girls judge upon this matter: Children, when did Judas begin his treason? Why, Satan entered into him, and then he went his way and communed with the High-priests etc. what: was this before the Passeover day or no? yes, it was before, for Satan entered into him and he communed with the chief Priests etc. and then the day of unleavened bread came afterward. Would not any boy or girl that hath any capacity, and would not any man or woman that reads the Scripture conscientiously, and is led by the Scriptu●e, and leads it not to his own opinion that he hath taken up, understand these words of Luke in this manner? Let M. H. give a satisfactory and convincing reason why they are not to be thus understood, and he may then crow and triumph, but if he cannot, then doth he wrest the Scripture, and having set down his own opinion, he will bring the Scripture to it, to speak for his purpose by hook or by crook: I urge the Evangelists words again, Then Satan entered into Judas, and he went his way and communed with the chief Priests etc. and let Mr. Hemings own Disciples be judges, whether this prove not, That Judas his conspiracy began from the Devils entering into him: and that the Devil entered into him upon his receiving of the sop at the Supper in John 13. they will not deny.  
Now I need not to prove the minor, That Judas his conspiracy began from Bethany; for Mr. Heming doth grant it, when he saith, Is it not plain from these places Mat: 26.16. Mark: 14.11. that from the time Christ reproved Judas for his covetous indignation at the spending of the ointment, Pag. 12 he sought opportunity, and from that reproof took occasion to betray him, p. 12. and in p. 13. he saith again, Nothing else passed at the Supper at Bethany concerning judas but Christ's rebuking him for his indignation at the spending of the alabaster box of ointment.  
My conclusion therefore is good, till M. H. can give a clear and satisfactory answer to the proof of my major, which I believe he will hardly do this week: That the Devils entering into judas when he received the sop at the Supper in john 13. was at Bethany.   

All that M. H. says about this business, is this;  

Pag. 13 1. Luke 22.3. Speaks nothing at all of the Supper at Bethany, nor of any thing done there.  
2. Though all the Evangelists place the conspiracy before the Passeover, yet they place not the giving of the sop at Bethany. Read Mat. 26. Mark. 14. john 12. and see if you can find any such thing there.   
Reply. So may I answer him again: john 13. speaks nothing of any supper at jerusalem; read the chapter through and see if you can find any such word, or any mention 〈◊〉 the Sacrament there: And I may as well argue, read Mat. 26. Mark ●●▪ ●ohn 12. and see if you can find any such thing as any sop given at all: ergo, there was no sop given: The man is at bopeep, and where it will serve his turn you must believe such a thing is there, though it be not written there, and where it will not serve his turn you must not believe it because it is not written there, nay, sometime you must not believe it though it be written there. I shall take the places he refers you to, into handling by and by.  
I yet go further in my assertion, because I desire to deal in all plainness, and I say  
That supper at Bethany from which judas began his conspiracy upon Satan's entering into him, was two days before the Passeover. And for the proof of this I produce Mat. 26.2. Mark 14.1. where there is mention of two days before the Passeover, and presently after, of Christ's being at meat in Bethany, and then of judas his going to the High-priests etc.  
Now here Mr. Heming showeth all his learning, and his sincere dealing with the Scripture on a cluster: will you here a new lighted Commentary upon these Texts, such a one as you do not hear every day unless it be from him, and learn but this kind of way of expounding Scripture, and you may hold what you will and bring the Scripture to maintain it. His words are these,  
Pag. 9 The following Scriptures, viz. Mat. 26.2. Mark. 14.1. do not at all prove the Supper at Bethany to have been just two days before the Passeover, but that two days before the Passeover, the chief Priests and Scribes sought how they might take Christ by craft and subtlety etc. and at last concluded it must be on the feast day (viz. the feast of the Passeover) lest there should be an uproar, etc. Math. 14.1, 2.  
The Supper at Bethany is as likely to have been six days before the Passeover as two, Then jesus six days before the Passeover came to Bethany, etc. There they made him a supper, john 12.1, 2.  
Reply. You know what kind of reading of the Bible he made, that found a green bay horse or mule there, & truly this way of expounding is much like it, he that will go such a way may find any thing he hath a mind to; but God help them that are led by such an Expositor. Mr. Heming reads Mark 14.1, 2, 3. thus, Two days before the feast of the Passeover, the chief Priests sought to take Christ by craft, but they said not on the feast day lest there be any uproar. And six days before the Passeover, jesus being in Bethany as he sat at meat, etc. Now I pray you is this according to the Gospel of Mark, or according to the Gospel of Mr. Heming? If this be not shameless wresting of Scripture, I know not what is.  
Here are two things that he would foist upon the Evangelists that I durst swear were never in their meanings: The first is, that he would persuade you that Matthew and Mark do change the proper order and time of their story; telling a story of two days before the Passeover first, and then telling a story of six days before the Passeover after it. And the second is, that he would persuade you that the supper at Bethany in John 12.1. and the Supper at Bethany in Mat: 26.6. & Mark 14.3. was one and the same; and for this purpose he hath linked Mat. 26. Mark 14. & John 12. together four or five times in his discourse, as if the matter were passed all doubting.  
Let me talk with him a little about both these, particularly,  
And first, about his persuading that Matthewes and Marks order is here inverted, and the story of the supper at Bethany dislocated in them, I shall propose two or three things to him, which if he had considered of, or known before, it may be he would have been more cautelous for his credit's sake, than thus blind Biard like to venture he knows not, nor cares not on what.  
1. Let him show me but one dislocation, I say but one from the beginning of Marks Gospel to this very place, and then I will grant that there might be some colour of dislocation here. If this grandee had studied the order of the Evangelists, as well and seriously as some others have done, he durst not for shame have said thus much, especially of Mark who is so exact and direct for his method, that I say it again, from the beginning of his Gospel to this very place, Mr. H. cannot show, not one story, I say not one, which he can prove by any sound evidence, or reason to be dislocated; no, nor from this place to the end of his Gospel: It was luck in a bag then, that he that is so direct in all his Gospel from end to end as never to change one story out of its proper time and place, should do it here to serve Mr. Hemings turn so pat.  
2. Mr. Heming makes no bones of making two Evangelists to change the order of one and the same story; the like to which let him show me again through all the Gospels, and I will lay down the cudgels: I say it again, let him show through all the Gospels such another dislocation in two Evangelists of one and the same story, as he would make this to be in Matthew and Mark, and I will confess mine own ignorance, and applaud his skill. I believe there is but one example in all the Evangelists, that two or more of them do misplace the same story, and that is not such a dislocation as this neither, as I shall show him the difference if he have ever the luck and skill to find it out.  
3. Sure he never observed how direct Matthew and Mark are in reckoning the days of Christ's last week before the Passeover, from his riding in triumph to jerusalem till the Passeover day came. As john tells, that six days before the Passeover he supped at Bethany john 12.1. So they go on and tell that on the next day or five days before the Passeover he rideth in Triumph into jerusalem, Mat. 21.1, 2, etc. Mark 11.1, 2. and at Even goeth to Bethany, Matth. 21.17. Mark 11.11.  
On the morrow, which was four days before the Passeover he goes again from Bethany into jerusalem, Mar. 11.11, 15, etc. and at night goeth the same way again, Mar. 11.19.  
In the morning, which was three days before the Passeover, he goes again into jerusalem, Mark 11.20, 27, etc. and at Even departs into the Mount of Olives, Mark 24.1, 3. Mark 13.1, 3. Luke 21.37.  
And thus are we come to the night that we are upon, namely two nights before the Passeover, where did Christ lodge this night? why, the Evangelists tell you in the Mount of Olives: where, there? why, Matthew and Mark say, After two days was the Passeover, and the Scribes sought to take him, etc. And he being at Bethany at meat, etc.  
Why should not any rational man rather take the method of both the Evangelists here to be direct, since it is so direct all along hitherto, then to make a jump bacl again, no man alive can imagine to what purpose but only to serve Mr. Hemings turn? It is apparent that Christ lodged two nights before the Passeover in the Mount of Olives.  
I suppose Mr. H. will not say he lay all night in the open fields, and I presume he cannot tell where else to lodge him in the Mount of Olives, but at Bethany; and the Evangelists say, after two days was the Passeover, etc. And jesus being at meat in Bethany, etc. And yet Mr. H. will not suffer you to think that Christ supped this night at Bethany, but that the two Evangelists speak of six nights before the Passeover. How senseless is it to think, that when they have told you directly what Christ did the fifth, fourth, third day before the Passeover, and when they say moreover it was two days before the Passeover, they then should jump back again to six days before, and no man can imagine for what?  
4. It is presumption to displace the Evangelists method without good and sound reason given for it: Let Mr. H. give but such a one and I shall be silent.  
As gross or more gross (put what substantive to it you think good) is his second asseveration, if he could persuade you to it, and that is, that that supper at Bethany john 12, and that supper at Bethany Mat. 26. Mark. 14. were but one and the same, and at the same time: which you must believe upon the word of this great Oracle though there be these main and visible differences between them.  
1 That Supper in john 12. was six days before the Passeover.  
That Supper in Mat. 26. Mark 14. was but two: if you will believe the Evangelists as they speak, and not make them speak as Mr. H. would have them.  
2. The Supper in john 12. was in the house of Lazarus.  
The Supper in Matth. 26. Mark 14. was in the house of Simon the Leper.  
3. At the Supper in john 12. Marry a woman named, anointeth Christ's feet.  
At the Supper Mat. 26. Mark 14. a woman not named anoints his head.  
4. At the Supper in john 12. judas alone hath indignation at the expense of the ointment. vers. 4.  
At the Supper in Mat. 26. Mark 14. the Disciples had indignation at it, Mat. 26.8.  
Now all these differences which to such a dull pate as mine, cannot choose but make these appear different suppers; Mr. Heming can reconcile as fast as a Hen can crack nuts: For do but hear him crack.  
Pag. 1 And lastly (saith he) though much more shall be added if there be occasion, If any man of common capacity will but compare john 12. from vers. 1. to 8. with Matth. 26.6. to vers. 13. and Mark 14.3— 9 he shall find they all speak of the same Supper at Bethany. And for what john differs from the other two Evangelists in naming Martha and Lazarus and in saying she anointed his feet, whereas the others say she poured it on his head: that shall be easily reconciled whensoever Mr. Lightfoot please.  
It seems Mr. Heming hath a singular faculty of reconciling dead men, and I wish he have not a better, in setting living men together by the ears. I would he would let the Evangelists alone who are at a sacred peace among themselves, and that he would reconcile poor Vttoxeter which is torn in pieces with dissensions since he came amongst us. I know not whether Tenterton Steeple was the cause of the stopping up of the Haven two or three miles off it: this I know, that till Vttoxeter knew Mr. Heming peace, amity, and charity dwelled amongst us, in few Towns more, but now nothing but dissension, biting, and backbiting, in no town the like. If you be so good a reconciler, I pray begin at home; the Evangelists need none of your daiesmanship.  
You would think it were silk or satin that this great reconciler makes all this ruffle in, when it is but poor buckram ignorance of the style of the Gospels, that I may name nothing else. His skill in the Gospels is so great, that if any two passages in them do but look one like another, they must of necessity be one and the same, and he can find one trick or other in his budget to make them so. I warrant you he would make a gallant stitching together of these differences if I were pleased to desire it of him: He can tell you as directly how the house of Lazarus became the house of Simon the Leper, as if he had drawn the conveyance; and how anointing of Christ's head came to be anointing of his feet, as ever men brought head and heels together. This sure he learned from the wandering Jew too.   

His Squib is not out yet, but it cracks thus further,  
Mr. H. I conclude against all he hath said or can say, yea against whatsoever all the friends he shall make in this controversy can say for him.  

1. That there was no sop given in the Supper at Bethany, let him find it me in Mat. 26. Mark 14. john 12.  
2. That the discourse between Christ and his Disciples about the Traitor passed that very night he are the Passeover at jerusalem, Mat. 26.19, 20, 21, 22,— 26. Mark 14.16.— 22. and not at Bethany two days before. For had judas been discovered at Bethany, how could the Disciples (John as well as the rest) begin to be sorrowful (wondering to hear Christ say one of you shall betray me, john 13.21, 22.) and inquire who it was, saying, Is it I, Is it I, two days after? Mat. 26.22. Mark 14.19. Luke 22.23.  
3. That Christ washed not his Disciples feet at Bethany, but at the Supper at jerusalem, the same night he was betrayed, john 13.  
4. That the sop was given at an ordinary or common supper, which Christ had the same night before he eaten the Passeover, etc.   
Reply. I conclude against all he hath said or can say, yea against all the friends he can make in this controversy can say.  
That very word would make one start; What luck had I, that I was not acquainted with Don Quixot? he were the only fellow i'th' world, to take up this challenge, for he was old dog at fight with Windmills; and I know no friend I have that hath any heart upon such encounters. You have heard of little Jefferey the dwarf that challenged the great Porter to fight with him, but it must be i'th' furnace hole, or in an Ovens; you may make the application.  
Let you and me alone with this business like a couple of wise men as we are, I have no friends that have any mind to be miscalled or to fight with shadows.  
1. You conclude that there was no sop given in the Supper at Bethany, but I conclude there was.  
You derive your conclusion, from Mat. 26. Mar. 14. & joh. 12. and your argument lieth thus, if I can see it.  
If Mat. 26. Mar. 14. & john 12. that speak of the supper at Bethany, speak not of giving of the sop, than there was no sop given at the supper at Bethany. But. Ergo.  
Make good the consequence, and the day is yours; but you will not make that good to day.  
My conclusion I derive from Mat. 26. Mar. 14. Luk. 22. joh. 13. and I frame my argument thus.  
The time and place whence judas began his treason, was the time and place of Satan's entering into him with the sop; this is proved by the authority of Luk. 22.3, 4. Then entered Satan into Judas, and he went and communed with the chief Priests, etc. And of joh. 13.27.  
But the Supper at Bethany, Mat. 26. Mar. 14. was the time and place whence judas began his treason; This M. H. granteth. Therefore the supper at Bethany was the time and place where Satan entered into Judas with the sop.  
2. You conclude, That the discourse between Christ and his Discipels concerning the traitor passed that very night that he eaten the Passeover: that is most true; but whereas you conclude withal that the like discourse passed not at Bethany two days before, that is most false. And as for your reason, had Judas been discovered at Bethany, how could the Disciples, John as well as the rest, begin to be sorrowful, etc. I will tell you how.  
First, if the discovery of judas at Bethany was privately to john only, than your question or reason is answered, & I must put you to prove the contrary.  
Secondly, though John knew it before, yet he loved not his Master so little, but he would be sorrowful too to hear of his Masters betraying again, as well as they.  
Thirdly, though the discovery at Bethany were openly to all, yet might they two nights after begin to be sorrowful to hear of it against▪ He hath written that word begin in a different letter, as if he would have you to observe the emphasis of that word, as if they had never been sorrowful about that business before. But though they had heard of it two days before, might they not begin to be sorrowful about it again, when the discourse of it was renewed? The Passeover supper was a meal of rejoicing, and in the midst of that meal for Christ to speak of his betraying, might it not damp their rejoicing and make them begin to be sorrowful? And besides, I could tell of a propriety that To begin hath in the Gospel language, that if he had observed, it may be he would not have pointed out the word for so emphatical. To begin to do a thing, in Gospel language doth often mean no more but To do a thing. They began to be sorrowful in Mark. 14.19. is no more in Mat. 26.22. than They were sorrowful.  
Fourthly, At the Passeover supper they ask not who is it? but they every one say, Is it I? the former question had been of doubting, as Joh. 13.22. the latter of every one vindicating themselves, and asserting their integrity by that question.  
Fiftly, Doth he make no difference between John's ask Christ alone, and all the Disciples speaking to him? and no difference between Christ's saying, He to whom I shall give a sop when I have dipped it, and He that dippeth with me in the dish?  
If all the three Evangelists had spoken in Luke's language; The hand of him that betrays me is with me on the table, and not mentioned dipping in the dish; I wonder where Mr. Hemings Passeover night sop would have been found then? but when Matthew and Mark speak of dipping in the dish, here is enough for him to make quidlibet è quolibet, as he can do it most excellently.  
3. He concludes, that Christ washed not his Disciples feet at Bethany, but at the supper at Jerusalem the same night he was betrayed, Joh. 13.  
This is written in a Gospel of his own making (for it is not written in Joh. 13) & so is his next conclusion, That the sop was given at an ordinary common Supper; which Christ had the same night before he eaten the Passeover; Let him find fair evidence for either of these in any of the four Evangelists that we read, and I will say I never read them. Sure this man would make an excellent new Gospel.  
And now let me use his own style, and conclude too.  
I conclude against all he hath said, or can say (but bear witness I challenge none of his friends.)  

1. That the supper in Joh. 13. at which Judas received the sop, was before the Passeover festival. ver. 1. & 29.  
2. That every night for five or six nights together before the Passeover, Christ lodged in the mount of Olives (and if Mr. Heming can tell where, but at Bethany, let him show it.) Mat. 21.17. Mat. 11.19. and 13.1, 2. Luk. 21.37.  
3. That two nights before the Passeover he supped at Bethany, Mat. 26.2, 6.  
4. That from that supper judas began his treason, Mat. 26.14.  
5. That he began his treason upon Satan's entering into him, Luk. 22.3, 4.  
6. That Satan entered into him upon his receiving of the sop, john 13.27.   
Ergo. 7. That Judas received the sop at Bethany, two days before the Passeover.  
Now because Mr. Heming, according to his common charity, doth charge me for contraconscientiously and wickedly wresting the Scripture, for the maintaining of this my conclusion, I shall desire the Reader equally and impartially to judge between us, whether of us wrest these texts, that we have had to deal with about, he or I  
1. I say the supper, joh. 13. was before the Passeover day, because the text saith, It was before the feast of the Passeover, ver. 1. He saith, That supper, john 13. was on the Passeover night, though the text doth say, It was before the feast of the Passeover; Whether of us do more wrest this Scripture?  
2 I say, that when some of the Disciples thought that jesus bade judas buy something against the feast; the Disciples knew that the feast was coming, and it was not yet come: He saith, what the Disciples thought proceeded from their ignorance: whether of us do more wrest and wrong this text, and the Disciples?  
3. I say that that supper at Bethany, Mat. 26. Mar. 14. was two days before the Passeover, because the Evangelists do presently before speak of two days before the Passeover: He saith, that supper at Bethany, Mat. 26. Mar. 14. was six days before the Passeover, though the Evangelists do presently before speak of two days before the Passeover: Whether of us do more wrest the Scripture here?  
4. I say the method and order in that place of Mat. 26. Mar. 14. is direct, and I take the stories without misplacing them; He saith, the method and order there is not direct, and he doth misplace the stories: Whether of us do offer the more violence to the Evangelists?  
5. I say the supper in joh. 12. and the supper in Mat. 26. Mar. 14. were two different suppers, because one is dated six days before the Passeover, and the other two; the one was in the house of Lazarus; the other in the house of Simon the leper; at the one Christ's head is anointed, at the other his feet. He saith the supper in john 12. and the supper in Mat. 26. Mar. 14. is one and the same supper, though one be dated six days before the Passeover, and the other two; though the one were in the house of Lazarus, and the other in the house of Simon the Leper, and though at the one Christ's head were anointed, and at the other his feet. Let all the world judge whether he or I do more wrest the Scripture.   

My second Assertion is this.  
That Judas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.  
For the proof of which I produce Mat. 26.20. Mar. 14.17. where it is said, That Jesus sat down with the twelve; and he taxeth Judas for treason, Mar. 14.13. Luk. 22.21.  
To this Mr. Heming saith, but what he had said before. 

1. 'Tis true (saith he) he sat down at Jerusalem with the twelve, of whom Judas was one, in the common or ordinary supper.  
2. 'Tis as true that there (as Mr. Lightfoot doth most righteously affirm for the truth, to the deeper wounding of his cause) he taxed Judas for treason, gave him the sop and discovered him, and not at Bethany two days before.    
Repl. I thank you that you will once grant I speak truth, but you think it is for your own turn: But I pray you, how doth that that I affirm wound my cause? I say Jesus taxed judas of treason at the Passeover supper; and I say he taxed him of treason at the supper at Bethany, two nights before: what wound do I give to my cause by this? If you find any advantage by it, make use of it.  
Well: He granteth judas was at the common supper; but how miss he of the Sacrament? why Mr. H. will tell you as directly as if he had been there, that he was taxed for treason, and the sop given him & so he discovered and packed away before the Sacrament was in hand. And thus he makes a story of his own head of the sop given at the Passeover supper, which he will never be able to prove, while his name is Mr. H. but the story of the Evangelist that determines the case, he slippeth over and speaks not one word to it. I cite Luke 22.21. to prove judas present at the Sacrament, and this M. H. saw was like enough to wound his cause, and therefore (I shall commend his wit another time) he answers it with grave silence, not speaking one word to it.  
It is apparent by Luke that judas was at Table after the giving of the Sacrament. Consider his words, Luk. 22. ver. 19 And he took bread and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body, etc. ver. 20. likewise the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new Testament in my blood which is shed for you. ver. 21. But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. What say you to this Mr. Heming? where was judas now I pray you, when his hand was on the table? Give me a direct & clear answer to evidence that he was not at table at the delivering of the Sacramental cup, and I shall say you are an oracle indeed. But let me have your answer out of the Gospel of Matthew, Mark Luk or john, & not out of a Gospel of your own making: Can any thing be plainer for my assertion then this? But behold; spell me those two words, & let me see what you can make of them. I have heard him say, but it seems he had more wit then to speak it in print, that this is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or that here is a dislocation of story, or a change of the right order: Now gramercy daring at a dead lift. This was it that I suspected, that he would make a Gospel of his own head, for what doth he other that makes the Evangelists speak what, and as his own list?  
By taking this course to change the method and order of Scripture, when mine own list, and when it will serve my turn, I will prove to you any thing: That Cain killed Abel before Adam was created, that Christ was crucified after he risen again from the dead, that he was baptised before he was born, and any thing in the world whatsoever: I would eat my opinion, and by't my tongue, before I would make the Evangelists my slaves to serve my opinion; Let all the world judge whether this is to be lead by the Scripture, or to lead the Scripture whither you please.  
1. Let M. H. begin at the beginning of Luke's Gospel, and let him tell me how many dislocations he can find that Luke maketh of his own story, from one end of his Gospel to another. I believe he will find but very few that he can say upon good ground, these passages are displaced; and ●hat this should be one of those very few, where there is so great probability of its direct order, as But Behold, he must use a great many of words to make any reasonable man believe it.  
2. Let him consider the conditions of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and take it in all, or any of the senses it can be taken in, and see whether it will stretch to prove a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or to be divided from what went before it. Sometimes it makes a conclusion, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Veruntamen neque vir sine muliere, 1 Cor. 11.11. It is sometimes praeterquam, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Praeterquam navis, Acts 27.22. Sometimes Praeter, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Praeter Apostolos, Acts 8.1. Sometimes said or verum, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sed vae vobis, Luke 6.14. Sometimes Tamen, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tamen hoc scitote, Luke 10.11. And sometimes Quinetiam, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now in all these acceptations or in any of them, is it not ever made an inseparable companion, or in conjunction to some time that went immediately before? And I am confident Mr. H. would plead hard it doth so here, if it made but half so much to his purpose as it makes against him.  
I say again, Christ delivered the Sacrament, Mat. 26.26. Mark. 14.22. Luk. 22.19. and they all drank of it, Mark. 14.23.   

To this Mr. Hemings answer is this.  
The Text doth not say he delivered it to the twelve, but to all, namely to all present, for Judas had gotten the sop and was gone forth.  
Reply. Readers, The Evangelists alleged tell you, that jesus sat down with the twelve, and they did eat, and as they were eating, he ordained the Sacrament; & not a syllable of Judas his getting the sop, or going forth, but M. H. tells you so, it's a story of his putting in amongst those Evangelists: now whether it be fit to believe them or him, judge ye.  
I would ask Mr. Heming this question: Before the Gospel of john was written (as he is held to have written the last) if Mr. Heming had read any of, or all the three other relating the story of the Passeover, how would he have construed them then? where would his sop, and judas going forth have been found then? Does not he think that all that read them then, understood them as I do, and never dreamt of judas receiving the sop and going out? and yet they thought that they had the full story of the Passeover supper too. I dare allow Mr. Heming 7 year's study to prove that john speaks one syllable, of story of the Passoever supper: But because he hath spoken of a supper and a sop, and judas going forth, etc. therefore he will have that the Passeover supper, though the Evangelists do most plainly say it was before the Passeover-feast.  
Pag. 15 He giveth a second answer as magistratical and withal as solid as this; & that is, if it had been said, he gave it to the twelve, yet that would prove nothing, for in 1 Cor. 15.5. 'tis said He (Christ) was seen of Cephas, and then of the twelve, though he was seen only of the eleven, Mat. 28.16, 17. Mar. 16.14.  
Reply. Readers, I must tell you again, That whatsoever the Evangelists say, Mr. Heming must set their sense: though all the three had said, He gave the Sacrament to the twelve, yet you must say it was but to eleven, and though they speak not a word of Judas absence, yet Mr. Heming has told you he was gone, and that's enough for you to believe against 3 Evangelists. The allegation out of 1 Cor. 15.5. is profoundly applied: Paul says Christ was seen of the twelve, & yet you are to understand it but of Eleven: true: for the story had abundantly and abundantly again told before what was become of the twelfth; and how they were become but eleven, and the Corinthians knew the story well enough: But here though the Evangelists had said, He gave it to the twelve, Mr. Heming will have you to understand it only of eleven, though none of the three speak a word before of the abating of the number, or what was become of the twelfth.  
Pag. In the Objection he frameth and answereth, If Mr. Lightfoot shall be so vain as to say Mathias was then chosen in the room of Judas, etc. He doth but fight with his own shadow, and I will let them alone to deal it out, fight man, fight shadow, and part yourselves when you think good.  
Ib Mr. Heming Whereas he affirmeth that Christ gave the Sacrament to Judas, I sear he doth him more injury than ever he will be able to count for, at his tribunal.  
Reply. Let Mr. Heming fear to make that so heinous a sin, which he hath no warrant to prove but his own fancy, that it is any fin at all.   

I shall propose to him these two or three Questions.  
1. Is it any injury to Christ to say that he gave Judas the Word, as well as to the other Apostles, that is, made him a Minister of it as well as they? or to say that Christ gave him the Spirit, that is, the power of miracles and gifts of healing as well as to them? I believe M. H. will hardly deny that he gave him the Word and Spirit in this sense, I pray you then, Why is it so great an injury to Christ, to say, He gave the Sacrament to Judas, more than to say, He gave the Word and Spirit to Judas? I would gladly see wherein the difference lies; that to say, the one should be no sin, and to say the other should be so heinous: show me some reason why it should be a higher business for Christ to give the Sacrament to Judas, then to make him a Minister of the word and Sacrament?  
2. Did not judas eat the Passeover with Christ? if not at this last supper, yet at some other time? I presume M. H. will not deny it; why then tell me, Why it should not be injury to Christ to say this as well as the other? Was not the Passeover a Sacrament, as well as the Lords Supper? Was not the Paschall Lamb the body of Christ in the same sense, that the bread in the Sacrament was? Show me wherein lies the vast difference; that to say, That judas received the one Sacrament with Christ, is an innocent truth, and to say, That judas received the other Sacrament from Christ, is damnable impiety? M. H. in p. 20. can and doth grant, that Judas received both Passeover and Sacrament; doth he injury to Christ in this concession, or no?  
Mr. Heming. Did he not usually except Judas? Have not I chosen twelve, and one of you is a Devil? John 6.70. Ye are chain, but not all, Joh. 13.10, 11. And again, ver. 18. I speak not of you all, I know whom I have chosen, etc.  
Reply. No, he did not usually except judas; in a few places indeed he doth it, but usually he doth it not. Let that be proved; you shall see more places than these by and by where he doth not.  
id. Mr. Heming. But to those be gave the Sacrament, be saith without exception.  
1. This is my body which is given for you. This is the cup of the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you, Luke 22.19, 20. Surely Christ could not safely say so to Judas, whom bee knew to be a Devil eternally ●●st.  
Reply. I, but Christ might safely say so to the whole society, though Indas was there. As what say you to these speeches?  
Mat. 10.20. It is the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you: Judas was in the company of them to whom this was spoken, ver. 4. yet was not God his father.  
Mat. 10.46. He stretched forth his hand toward his Disciples and said, Behold my Mother and my Brethren: Where was Indas' think you now?  
Mat. 13.16. Blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear: Was Judas under this blessing, or was he absent at this time too?  
Mat. 23. ●. All ye are brethren. ver. 9 One is your father which is in heaven: Had Judas the luck to be absent now also?  
Luke 12.4. I say unto you my friends, ver. 32. Little flock, it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom: Ho Indas where art thou now?  
Mat. 5.13. Ye are the salt of the earth. Ye are the light of the world.  
Mat. 5.48. Your Father which is in heaven. ch. 6.1.14. your heavenly Father. ver. 15. Your Father. ver. 32. Your heavenly Father, etc.  
In these & very many such speeches which were generally spoken to the whole Company of the Disciples, Mr. Hemings logic will make this construction, that either Judas was not there (sure it was his luck always to be with his bag at the market) or Christ did not safely speak those words: No doubt he would make an exceeding brave comment upon such places as these, if he were put to it.  
Pag. 15 Mr. Heming. I will not drink henceforth of the fruit, until that day I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom, Mat. 26.29. Had Christ meant Judas as well as the rest (as he must, had he been there, since he excepts him not) he had been foully mistaken, for he was never like to come there, understand the Father's Kingdom how ye will.  
Reply. Here Mr. Heming very gravely will teach Christ how to speak, and if he speaks not as his mind is, he will tell him he is foully mistaken. It was our Saviour's common way of oratory, to frame his words in his instructions, admonitions, exhortations, etc. as speaking to all present: when the proper application of what was spoken did did not suit with every one that heard it, but only with such as stood in capacity of such a thing, as Mat. 23.1, 8, 9▪ He saith to all the multitude present, All ye are brethren: and one is your Father in Heaven: and yet every singular person in that multitude cannot be thought capable of the proper sense of these words.  
But M. H. saith, in this speech in hand Christ must mean judas if he were present; though he used not such strictness in other speeches, yet here he must do it, or Mr. Heming will tell him his own.  
Pag. 16 Mr: Heming. Luke 22.28, 29, 30. Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations, and I appoint to you a Kingdom, as my Father hath appointed to me: That ye may eat and drink at my Table in my Kingdom, and sit on twelve Thrones judging the twelve Tribes of Israel. But 

1. judas had not continued with him in his temptations; Neither  
2. Can Christ appoint to him any other kingdom but that of wrath and darkness; Nor  
3. Was he ever like to sit at Christ's Table in his Kingdom: much less sit on a Throne in judgement of the twelve Tribes, who is himself to be judged as a Devil.    
Reply. 1 These very words are spoken by Christ in Mat. 19.28. before ever sop or Satan came into judas: Mr. Heming must prove that judas was absent then also, or else this his argument is not worth a straw.  
2. Observe what a proper exposition he makes: You eleven shall on twelve Thrones: an acute Gloss I promise you. Eleven men lain twelve beds.  
Pag. 16 Mr. Heming. Mat. 26.31. All ye shall be offended because of me this night: This is the same All to whom the Sacrament was delivered: Let Mr. Lightfoot take heed how he traduce Christ himself by affirming that Judas was one of the All, he administered the Seal and spoke these words to. And let him not think to evade any of these Scriptures by saying Judas had received the Sacrament and was gone forth, unless he be able to prove it.  
Reply. Truly that is no hard task to do, to prove that judas having received the Sacrament was gone forth, for all that had received the Sacrament were gone forth: what can be plainer than the Text is for this, Mat. 26.30, 31. And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the Mount of Olives. Then saith jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended etc. And so Mark 14.26, 27. Mr. Heming winked at this Text and would not see what he might have done, and would not have others to see what is to be seen in it: but would persuade you these words were spoken by Christ while he was still in the house, and at the Table, the better to delude you with his argument: But the Evangelists tell you plainly that they were all gone forth, Christ, Disciples and all: and then was judas gone about his villainy, to get together his men to surprise his Master.  
It is apparent in Luk. 22 that judas was as Table after the delivering of the cup; let Mr. Heming clear it that he did not receive the bread and the cup; and let him show that judas did not stay the singing of the Psalm, as nice as he and his precious hearts make it to sing Psalms in the Congregation, because they will not sing with the profane; with all the skill all of them have, they will not evade it, but that Christ and the Disciples sung the hymn while judas was with them. I say therefore according to the plain Text of the Evangelists, that judas received the sop and Satan with it before the Feast day of the Passeover came: that before that day came he had contrived with the chief Priests for his Masters betraying; that on the Passeover night he was one of the twelve that sat down to supper; that he was there at the common supper, as Mr. H. calls it, that he was there at the Paschall Lamb eating, at the Sacrament delivering, at the singing of the hymn, and till all the Table risen and went out; and then he slipped aside, and gathered his cutthroats for the apprehending of his Master.  
If I have not showed this clearer from the Text, and more free without wresting of the Text, then Mr. H. shows the contrary, let me in the eyes of all judicious and impartial men, bear the brand of so silly a fool as he would stamp upon me.  
Pag. 1 And whereas he would affright me, with, Let Mr. Lightfoot take heed how he traduce Christ himself, by affirming judas was one of that All he administered the seal and spoke these words to.  
1. He might have done well to have given the Evangelists this caution, for I speak but what they tell me. One of them tells me that when Christ gave the cup, judas was at Table; and another tells that he bade them drink all of it, and what can I say less than I do? If I have forged one tittle of mine own head, let me hear of it.  
And 2. I pray you what injury is it to Christ to say he administered the seal to Judas? show me a reason why the seal might not be administered to him: I say it might; I say it may to a person that is not a Saint: Cry not out here, Hear Oh heavens etc. but show me a solid reason why it might not. I say again, It is no more traducing of Christ to say he administered the seal to judas, than it is traducing of Christ to say he administered the Word to judas. And if Mr. Heming can prove the Sacrament to be greater than the Word, he may then say something against this my assertion; but till he can do that, he must give me leave to hold what I do.  
And here hath Mr. Heming spent all his shot he had to spend about the controversy between us, namely concerning the time of judas receiving the sop, and concerning his receiving of the Sacrament. All the rest of his book, he shoots powder and he cares not how: one while he talks of the communion of Saints, another while of gathering of Churches, then of liberty of conscience, etc. which as they are besides our question, so shall not I trouble myself with them.  
But before we part, let me again thank him for that favourable and Christian like conclusion that he makes with me, as he made it his beginning, when he faith thus, I should abundantly wrong him if I should not rank him among the vilest in the Kingdom: for with them he will have communion, as a member of the same external visible body, by virtue whereof they are all his brethren and sisters, so that he hath his brother drunkard, brother thief, brother murderer, brother liar etc. sister whore, sister witch, etc. yea all that have been hanged at Tyburn and all other gallows in England ever since he was borne and baptised into that fellowship he pleads for, have been his brethren and sisters, let him or any one else upon good ground deny it if he can.  
Reply. Here is excellent language I promise you and full of Christian meekness and charity, I could not but repeat it again. This Gentleman calls God to record upon his soul, that he hath spoken nothing in bitterness and passion, pag. 7. and if this be his calm language, what do you think he speaks when he speaks in thunder? sure his women Saints dictated this language to him, for this is plain scolding and not arguing. Whatsoever he disclaimeth of bitteresse and passion, look his whole discourse through and see what it breatheth of thorough out?  
He gins it with the Title, Precious Hearts: A precious tongue would have done well in the bargain too. But you see how impatient the man is to be crossed: whosoever cannot hold, and speak, and practice pointblank according to his humour, must be ranked with all the whores, thiefs, witches, murderers, and Tyburnians in England.  
If you be so free from bitterness and passion, take heed I pray you M. H. of pride, blinde-zeale, and selfe-prizing. You must needs think (if these blind you not) that others have studied the Scriptures as well as yourself, and understand reason, and know the concernment of their souls, and would gladly be saved as well as you: and that hold their Tenants in Religion from a good conscience, and would be as loath to deceive themselves in things of such weight as well as yourself: what reason or warrant have you to think that no man thinks right but he that thinks as you do; and none practiseth right but according as you practise? and that none can walk to heaven but just in your steps? and when a man from the bottom of his soul thinks that judas received the Sacrament, and holds, that it is better to receive the Sacrament with the Congregation, though profane persons be there, then either to refrain from the Sacrament, or separate from the Congregation, what reason or warrant have you in the world thus to vilify him, and to rank him with so vile persons? I cannot hold The communion of Saints to mean in your sense, I cannot think the Sacrament was ordained only for visible and real Saints, I cannot hold that it is to distinguish betwixt Christian and Christian, I cannot either relinquish the Sacrament or the Congregation, must I therefore be matched with all the thiefs, whores, witches, and villains of the gallows? If this be meekness, charity, and christianity, it is so by some newfound or newmade bible, for in that that I have always studied, this is held to be pride, rashness, passion, and uncharitableness. ●●e man hath fancied a communion of Saints, and a reservedness of the Sacrament, which he will never be able to prove, and because I and others cannot be of the same groundless judgement, this is the charitable man's doom upon me.  
Doubtless he would make a brave Judge, but let not me nor any friend of mine come under his fingers: No more ado with him but sirrah, do you think judas received the Sacrament? and do you think mixed communion is lawful? yes an't please you. Then take him Jailor, for this is a companion, nay a brother of all the rogues and thiefs that ever were hanged at Tyburn etc. A smart Judge I promise you; bless you out of his clutches.  
I may not forget neither before we part to thank him for his good word in pag. 11. where he saith Mr. Lightfoot hath gone against manifest light of truth, the whole current or stream of Orthodox, godly and learned Expositors, common sense etc. And to serve a Malignant design, he wickedly and 'tis to be feared contraconscientiously wrists and wrings in John 13. etc.  
Reply. Here is charity by lumps: I wonder in what school he learned it.  
1. I pray you what malignity is it to believe and to maintain that Judas received the Sacrament? Yes, there is this malignity in it, Ye cross the imperial mind and opinion of Mr. Heming; for else there is nothing in it contrary either to Scripture, Piety, Charity, Peace, Honesty or good manners.  
2 I would feign know how this opinion is contrary to common sense: I would go a mile to hear him show this: He saith in pag. 1. Many weake-ones have stumbled at what Mr. Lightfoot hath spoken and written, though there be neither Divinity nor Reason in it. Excellent well grounded Disciples I assure you that stumble when there is neither stone nor straw in the way: He doth them but little credit in telling they are so easily shaken by that is neither Divinity nor sense: He should show how it wanteth or cotrarieth common sense. Come let's hear it.  
3 It were worth hearing, whom he owns for Orthodox Expositors: Beza, Calvin, Pareuc, Fulke, & c? why, these were of the old light, I hope you scorn to call these men Orthodox: No says he but I do not, I will call any man Orthodox as far as I think they will serve my turn: but if I find them different in the least tittle from mine opinion, I shall tell them what they are.  
4. Doth Mr. Lightfoots opinion go against the whole current unorthodox, godly, and learned Expositors? Zanchy saith, Multi & magni viri, have taught and written agreeable to mine opinion. And if Mr. Gillespy were alive (whom you have so unworthily used as to steal his arguments by whole-steale and never to own him) he could name you a man of my opinion, whom he would confess a man Orthodox, godly, and learned, and even a walking Library of Orthodox, godly, and learned Expositors, and that is Mr. Prynne, A gentleman of that learning that you would have but little pleasure to combat with in this controversy. If you were as well versed in what he hath written about this subject, as you are in Mr. Gillespy, you would find, that you either wilfully speak you care not what, or sillily speak you know not what, when you say mine opinion is contrary to the whole current of Orthodox, godly, and learned Expositors.  
5 Whether I have gone against the manifest light of truth, and whether I have wrested the Scriptures, I appeal from your censure (for I am sure you will be partial in your own case) to the impartial Judge of your heart and mine; and to the impartial Reader who hath seen what hath passed between us.  
6 And as for that unchristian and injurious censure, That I had a Malignant design, and that I have wickedly and contraconscientiously wrested the Scriptures: I will say no more to it, but I pray God give you a better tongue and heart: And I will leave you that Text in Rom. 2.1. to study on, as far as passion and self-conceit will give you leave.  
And now let us shake hands and part: I thank you for your kindness and good words, as much as it comes to. I wish you more charity, humility, wisdom, and moderation: I would advise you to study more and Print less; your stock is not so great as to be trusting too much abroad: You see what pains I have been at with you, I hope I shall have thanks from you for it.  
A wisp or a Cuckstoole the reward of Scolds had been a fit return for your railing, than patience and reason, but you see how I have waited on you with Salt and Spoons: I hope you will excuse me, if I find myself something to do another time: for this I will promise you and here is my hand on't; That rail, rage, rave, call, miscall, print sense or nonsense, vent our own Arguments, or Arguments that you have stolen, vapour in what subject or after what manner you will, I am resolved to answer you with deep silence, and with Hezekiahs' lesson, answer him not. You love not to appear in public so much, but I love it as little: You have forced me to this trouble, and to be thus troublesome to the Reader; say what you will, you shall bring me upon the stage in this manner no more.   
FJNJS.   

ERRATA.  
IN the Epist: p: 1: l. 6: for fullness of his stomach, r; foulness of, etc. p: 3: l: 6: for known me not, r: know me not, p: 4: l: 4: for 44: r: 442▪ l: 8: r: fie upon it, p: 5: l: 14: r: viper-proofe for viper's proof, p: 6: l: 7: r: Therefore it doth fret me as little, l: 6: r: Mat: 5: 22 PAg: 2: l: 34: for the best upon which, r: the bent upon which, p: 3. l: 8: for clearest humour, r: dearest humour, p: 4. last line but two, for visible works, r: visible marks, p: 6: for Affirm, r: Affirmo, & l: 4: for Nega r: Nego, p: 7: l: 10: for selfe-united r: self-minted: p: 11: l: 7: for but cried out, r: but she cried out, p: 15: l: 3: for Is it r: It is: p: 16: l: 11: for He is it, r: He is, l: 26: for diet being the days of the feast, r: diet along the days, &c. p: 21: l: 21: for how much abuse, r: how much I abuse, p: 31: l: 20: for to deal with about, r: to deal with about it, p: 34: l: 8: for some time r: something.