TWO LETTERS: The one to a subtle PAPIST: The other to a Zealous PRESBYTERIAN. In both which the Author Conceives he hath said enough to keep any man from the Roman Church, in the General of Religion, and from the Presbyterian Congregation in the particular of the Eucharist, or the Lord's Supper: Because St Paul says,  1 Cor. 11.16. 
We know no such Custom, neither the Church of God.  
By T. SWADDLING, D.D.  
LONDON, Printed for Charles adam's, and are to be sold at his Shop at the Talbot, near St Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet. 1653.   

To my Honoured friend Master Robert Peyton.  
Sir,  
YOu are a young Gentleman, and fit for the Impression of such Religion, as the Jesuit by his subtlety, or the Presbyter by his Zeal can fasten upon you. You will be set upon by both, and both will endeavour to make you a Proselyte; (such Portion you are endued with, being the prey they hunt after) The following papers are therefore Dedicated to you, that you may be preserved a Catholic; and that they may spread under your favour, as a testimony of some thankfulness from, Sir,  
1. Julij. Your friend and servant, THO: SWADLIN.   

A Letter from a Catholic Divine to a Laic Papist  
To my loving friend. Sir,  
AT our last meeting, April 28. 1653. you desired me to give you some reasons, why I did not unite myself to the Church of Rome; you promised me, my reasons should be answered: The conclusion of our discourse, was; If your Answer, by yourself, or Friend, convinced my Reasons, I was to be converted by you, and seek an admission into the Church of Rome; If otherwise, you were to be converted by me, and become a Member of the Catholic Church, and serve God the same way. I do: what I promised, is performed in this paper; what you promised, I expect to be performed; and that is, My Conviction, or your Conviction.  
April 29. 1653.  
I Dare not convert to, you ought not to continue in the Church of Rome.  
1. Because I have not yet received any Demonstration, or winning and irrefragable Argument, That the Church of Rome is the only one, Ancient, Visible, Catholic Church of Christ, out of which there is no Salvation.  
1. Out of the only one Catholic Church, I believe there is no Salvation: But I do not believe the Church of Rome to be that only one Catholic Church, because the West is not all the World; and yet the only one Catholic Church is the Universal Congregation of Christian men and women all over the World. There are Christians in the East, as well as in the West; Nor yet doth the Church of Rome take up all the West; For there are other Christians (and I hope better) than those which are Members of the Church of Rome, or Papists. As a Papist, I cannot be saved; as a Catholic, I may.  
2. Out of the Ancient Catholic Church I believe there is no Salvation: But I do not believe the Church of Rome to be that Ancient Catholic Church; because the Ancient Catholic Church, both in Christ the true Head, and in the Apostles the true Conclave, and in Primitive Fathers, as well Disjunctim, as Conjunctim, the true General Councils taught me  
To pray, Our Father which art in Heaven; Not as the Church of Rome doth, and therefore not the Ancient Catholic Church, O blessed Virgin, St. Peter, St. Paul, etc. which art in Heaven.  
To believe the Scriptures; which if I do, I shall be saved; and not Traditions equally with the Scriptures, as the Church of Rome doth, and therefore not the Ancient Catholic Church, which if I do not, I shall be damned.  
To serve and worship God in Spirit and in truth; not as the Church of Rome doth, and therefore not the Ancient Church, In, or by Images, Relatively or otherwise; which cannot father itself upon any farther Antiquity, than the 2. Council of Nice, 800 years since. Anno 787.  
To receive the Sacrament in both kinds, the Cup as well as the Pixe, the Wine as well as the Bread, the Blood as well as the Body; not as the Church of Rome doth, In one only; If I do receive as the Ancient Catholic Church doth teach me, I shall be saved; If I do not receive as the present Church of Rome commands me, I shall not be damned.  
3. Out of the Ancient visible Catholic Church, I believe there is no Salvation; but I do not believe the Church of Rome to be that Ancient visible Catholic Church; because the Ancient visible Catholic Church appeared fair, and without Corruption; but the present Roman Church appeareth (to me at least) foul, and cull of Corruption; because the present Roman Church departed from the visible purity of the Ancient Catholic Church, to Innovations; and the present visible Catholic Church hath reform from those Innovations to the purity of the Ancient Catholic Church.  
4. Out of the Ancient, Visible, one Church, I believe there is no Salvation; but I do not believe, the Church of Rome to be that Ancient Catholic, visible, one Church; neither in the Oneness or unity of affection, nor of opinion.  
Not one in the unity of opinion, because the Dominicans are against the Franciscans, and the Franciscans against the Dominicans, concerning the Immaculate conception of the blessed Virgin: both Roman orders.  
Because Bannes is as zealous as Calvin, and Lessius as calm as Luther, concerning absolute Reprobation: both famous Scholars in the Roman Church.  
Because Sixtus the fifth dams all men that use any other Bible but of the vulgar translation; and Clement the 8. curses all that uses any other but his own: both Popes of Rome.  
Not one in the unity of affection; because the most malicious and foul mouthed Sectaries do not rail more at the Catholic Churchmen, and their order, then do the Secular Priests at the Jesuits, and the Jesuits at them; Because the cruelest Presbyterians show not more inhuman rage against Catholic Bishops, than did Sergius, (or Boniface) against his Predecessor Formosus, damning all that he had done before, and damning him after he had taken him out of his Grave; and yet both these were Bishops of Rome.  
Because I have not yet received any Demonstration, or convincing and irrfragableargument,  
That the Pope is the head of the Church; The contrary of this appears to me, even from that speech of Christ, which the Romans pretend is a Demonstration for it; viz. Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.  
For if my blessed Master had spoken this either Personally to Saint Peter, or Successively of Saint Peter; it is more than probable, That Saint Peter writing two Catbolique Epistles, and in them mentioning his departure; would at least have acquainted the Catholic Christians, whom he writes to, with this unum necessarium, who should be his Successor, and by whom all controversies should be determined: But of this not a word; something in these Epistles more probable against this, if the Romans own exposition of one passage be allowed, concerning Babylon, in their signification, Rome, the seat of Antichrist. Yet more than probable it is; If the Pope were Head of the Church, by virtue of such succession; That the writers of the New Testament, are frequently forewarning men of Heretics, of false Prophets, of false Christ's, should never so much as once arm them against such Heretics, against such false Prophets, against such false Christ's, by letting them know this only means of avoiding them, and turning them over to the Pope, the Head of the Church.  
That so great a part of the new Testament should be employed against Antichrist, and so little, indeed nothing at all, about the Vidar of Christ, and Guide of the Faithful, the Pope, or Bishop of Rome. Strange it seems to me, that my blessed Saviour Jesus Christ should leave this the only means for the ending of controversies, and speak so obscurely and ambiguously of it, that now our Judge is the greatest controversy, and the greatest hindrance of ending them.  
Strange it is to me, That there should be better evidence in the Scripture, to entitle the King to this Office, who disclaims it, than the Pope, who pretends it.  
Strange it seems to me, That if Saint Peter had been Head of the Church, he should never exercise over the Apostles in general, or any one of them in particular, any one Act of jurisdiction, nor they, nor any one of them, should ever give him any one title of Authority over them.  
Strange it seems to me, That if the Apostles did know that Saint Peter was made Head over them, when Christ said, Thou art Peter, etc. they should still contend, who should be the first, and that Christ should not tell them, St. Peter was the man.  
Strange it appears to me, if this were true; That Saint Paul should say, He was in nothing inferior to the very chief Apostles.  
Strange still it seems to me, That the Catechumeni in the Primitive Church should never be taught this Foundation of their Faith. That the Fathers, Tertullian, Saint Hierome, and Optatus, when they flew highest in the commendation of the Roman Church, should attribute no more to her, then to other Apostolical Churches.  
That in the Controversy about Easter, the Bishops of Asia should be so ill catechised, as not to know this principle of Christian Religion, The necessity of Conformity with the Church of Rome.  
That they should never be pressed with any such Conformity in all things, but only with the particular Tradition of the Western Church in that point.  
That Frycanus, and many other Bishops (notwithstanding, Ad hanc ecclesiam necesse est omnem Ecclesiam convenire) should not yet think that to be a necessary and sufficient ground of excommunication, which the Church of Rome taught to be so.  
That St. Cyprian, and the Bishops of Africa should be so ill instructed in their Faith, as not to know this Foundation of it.  
That they were never urged with any such Conformity with the Church of Rome, nor were charged with Heresy or Error for denying it.  
That when Liberius joined in Communion with the Arians, and subscribed their Heresy, the Arians than should not be the Church and guide of Faith.  
That never any Heretics for five ages after Christ, were pressed with this Argument; The Pope is the Head of the Church; nor charged with the denial of it, as a detestable Heresy; so that Aeneas Silvius should have cause to say, Ante tempora Concilii Niceni quisque sibi vivebat, & parvus respectus habebatur ad Ecclesiam Romanam.  
That the Ecclesiastical story of those times mention no Acts of Authority of the Church of Rome over other Churches; as if there should be a Monarchy and Kings, for some ages together, should exercise no Acts of Jurisdiction in it.  
That to supply this defect, The Decretal Epistles should be so impudently forged, which in a manner speak nothing but Reges & Monarchas, The Pope's making Laws for exercising Authority over all other Churches.  
That the African Churches in Saint Augustine's time should be ignorant that the Pope was Head of the Church, and Judge of Appeals, jure divino, and that there was a necessity of conformity with the Church of Rome in this and all other points of Doctrine.  
That the Popes themselves should be ignorant of the true ground of their Authority, as to pretend to it not upon Scripture, and Universal Tradition, but upon an Imaginary Canon of the Council of Nice.  
That Vincentius Lyrinensis, seeking for a Guide of his faith, and a preservative from Heresy, should be ignorant of this so ready a one; The Pope is the Head of the Church.  
Sir, These are some, and enough of my many Reasons, why I dare not be, why you should not be a Papist. If yet you cannot jump with me in my opinion, or will not perform your promise upon my Non-conviction; Yet I pray give me leave to subscribe myself, Sir,  
Your friend and Servant, THO. SWADLIN.   

Sir, the Question is,  
Opponent Whether it be lawful for a Minister to give the Sacrament of the Lords Supper in that general and promiscuous way that was usual in former times, and many now desire and contend for?  
I hold the Negative, and that upon these ensuing grounds.  
Respond. Sir, The Question was not this, For it was never questioned until now; nor now by any but by yourself, and other of your itself opinion. The question should be this, whether it be lawful for a general and promiscuous sinner to receive that Sacrament? And so it had been determined without breach of Unity, the Unity of Verity, the Unity of Charity, the Unity of Authority. For he that receives it so, receives it unworthily; whereas the question that you have started, is the breach of all these Unities, and some more, viz. the Unity of Persuasion, and the Unity of Necessity. But Unity is the least desire of some men; also the flames of Controversy had e'er this been aslaked and extinguished, and some godly or tolerable peace reestablished in the Church, even in this Church which is bleeding to death by the Spirits of Contention. Spirits that strain at Gnats, and swallow Camels. Spirits that raise such questions, and so many, as may puzzle a wise man to answer, and force a pious man to bedew with tears, and rather require silence then words for satisfaction. But you have proposed this question, and in it you hold the Negative; and that upon these three ensuing grounds.  
Opponent. 1. To administer it so, seems to me to be a manifest perverting of our Saviour's intention and end in giving that Ordinance.  
Respond. In this question I hold the Affirmative; and that upon these three ensuing grounds; and they are your own, to see if you will be the Master of your word, and confess a Conquest; though I protest unto you, it is not Conquest, but Truth that I contend for; Verity, not Victory is my desire; and will therefore confine myself to your Teddar; and therefore I say,  
1. So to administer it, seems to me: To me? yes, so it may. Bernardus non videt omnia; and the man whose eye is offuscated, may, and sometimes does take Auripigmentum, for Aurum, and so mistakes; and so do you. For not to administer it so, seems to other men a manifest perverting of our Saviour's intention and end in giving that Ordinance. For he gave it in a general and promiscuous way; Just that way which hath been usual in all times since, until this very time: In that way which was usual in all former times for the Passeover to be administered in, until the Jews made a defection of their obedience, and turned Rebels. Then indeed, but not until then it was put to the question, whether Christ might sup with, and consequently give his supper to, Publicans and Sinners? and who resolved best upon this question, Christ, or the Pharisee, judge yourself; If I durst be so bold with you, as you are with other men, I should imagine, you are for the Pharisee, not for Christ; For you say,  
Opponent. Christ gave it to distinguish and confirm:  
Respond. But do you believe it? Certainly Sir you do not; If you do, you believe not Christ: For his End of instituting this Sacrament, and which himself sets down in terminis is twofold. 1. Commemorative; Do this in remembrance of me. 2. Consolative, or as you please to phrase it, Confirmative, to Confirm. This Cup is the new Testament in my blood, which is shed for you, Luke 22.19.20. or as Saint Matthew hath it, Mat. 26.28. This is my blood of the new Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. These are the Ends of this Sacrament, to remember, and to confirm (for I will not descent, where I may with safety consent) but not, to distinguish; and therefore certainly, Sir, you do not believe, what you say is the end of this Sacrament; To distinguish, your Heart and Tongue are not friends; or (for I dare not judge any man an Hypocrite, it is not in my Commission) your tongue is not the truest, because your heart is not the wisest, unless you will be pleased to come truly and wisely off, by distinguishing the end by a distinction without end, and say, The end of this Sacrament is double. 1. Chief. 2. Subordinate. 1. Maine. 2. Mean. and you mean the mean end of this Sacrament is to distinguish, the main end is to remember and Confirm; To remember Christ's death for us, To confirm our Faith in Christ, and Christ's graces in us: The Church thought it fit to follow Christ in her admirable and incomparable Catechism; where to the 21. question, Why was the Sacrament of the Lords Supper ordained? It is thus answered, For the continual remembrance of the Sacrifice of the death of Christ, and the benefits we receive thereby. Thus it was in the old Church; but thus it is not in the new Church; but if the new Church be not the true Church, give me leave to be of the old Church still, the rather, because she followeth the Truth which is Christ, and Christ which is the Truth; saying, Do this in remembrance of me. This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins: To distinguish, is not the end of this Sacrament, unless you mean the mean end. But you have said it, and thus you prove it.  
Opponent. As Baptism doth distinguish all within the Pale of the Visible Church, from Turks and Heathens; so (because amongst those that do acknowledge God in Christ, many, nay most do it but only in word, professing they know God, But in their works and ways deny him, being indeed abominable: Tit. 1.16.) the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is to distinguish those that acknowledge and hold forth Christ in their lives from the rest of Christened sinners within the Pale of the Church.  
Respond. This is a Symbolical argument, and Symbolical arguments cannot prove a thing; they may illustrate; and this illustrates you to be a Sophister, but no Logician; and of you it might be said, Cucu las non facit hominem; but I am not for sport; and therefore in the words of Soberness do say, you are very near of kin to Nicodemus, when he understood not the Principles of Religion; and I must ask you again; Do you believe that the end of Baptism is to distinguish? Certainly you do not, unless you again help yourself at a dead lift with another mean distinction. I deny not but Baptism doth distinguish, and as a Livery tells the World whose servants we are; but I deny it to be the end: the main end of Baptism. For the chief and Principal end of Baptism, is, To seal the Covenant of Grace, to testify our cleansing by Christ; and this I have learned from Saint Paul; Know ye not that they which are Baptised into Jesus Christ, are Baptised into his death? Rom. 6.3. q. d. If you know not this, you know nothing. A less Principal, and mean end I confess it may be called; and you must confess, you have very meanly proved your Negative opinion of this question by your first argument. Nay, you have not proved it at all; For if to distinguish be not the end of the Baptism, the main end; than you have not proved, To distinguish, to be the main end of the other Sacrament. But to distinguish is not the main end of Baptism; therefore you have not by this, by this you cannot prove, To distinguish, to be the main end of the other Sacrament. Baptism, and the Lords supper may be called Notes of distinction; but the end of Baptism is Regeneration, the end of the Lords Supper is Commemoration; but you confound Ends and Notes, and take the one for the other: I wish you had not walled a piece of Scripture too, and condemned most Christians too. Quis te constituit judicem? who told you that most Christians do only in word profess God? that most men in their lives and ways are abominable? If you have received such a new illumination, I pray yet let not the next word be carried in a dark lantern; and then, though I dare not say, most Christians are abominable, I shall dare to say, some are disobedient; and if you will give this word leave to be the Exegesis of the Precedent and Subsequent, as some Expositors of that verse do, you will believe those men to be abominable, and to every good work reprobate, that are disobedient; but this text you brought in by a Parenthesis; and for any good I can see it does you, you might as well have let it alone; It may be your next proof is of more weight; which you deliver thus.  
Opponent. And further, Christ gave it to be a seal to confirm and strengthen, which doth suppose something in the Receivers to be confirmed and strengthened, viz. The Sanctifying and Justifying graces of God; whereof we all know, not many are partakers. Therefore unless there be some special care taken that Justified and Sanctified Persons (we guiding ourselves by Scripture-light as well as we can) may be called out of the rabble of open sinners, to me nothing is clearer than that Christ's end in the Institution of that Ordinance, is either carelessly neglected, or wilfully perverted by us.  
Respond. Sir, I shall observe the Apostles Canon, and as much as lies in me, live peaceable with all men. Rom. 12. and therefore I join with you in the acknowledgement of so much truth, as in the beginning of this Paragraph you have delivered; I confess with you, Christ did give this Sacrament to be a Seal to confirm and strengthen; and I pray you to observe the same Apostles Canon, and speak the truth. Ephes. 4.25. confessing with me, Christ gave not this Sacrament, as the Principal end thereof, to distinguish; and let us both observe that other Canon of the same Apostle, Avoid foolish questions. Titus 3.9. whereof this is one, and cannot be made good without breach of peace, to preserve which with you, I do again confess, something is presupposed in the Receivers to be confirmed and strengthened. viz. the Justifying and Sanctifying graces of God; but now I must part with you for a while. For I profess myself none of those all that know, not many are partakers of those Justifying and Sanctifying graces. No, I am not; nor is any modest man living within the number of that All; no, nor dare they, for fear of coming under that lash, With what Judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged. Mat. It is forbidden Knowledge, this, and I meddle not with it. I will not gaze at this star over my head, lest I fall into that ditch which is under my feet. If you have commenced so high a degree of knowledge, I shall not envy you; but I shall pity you, that from such abundance of knowledge you know not how to make your Conclusion depend upon your Premises; For though it be confessed, that Christ did give this Sacrament to be a Seal to confirm and strengthen God's graces in us; how doth it follow therereupon, Therefore Justified and Sanctified Persons must be culled from the rabble of open finners? what Scripture-light I pray have you to guide you in this opinion? one light of Scripture gives a clean contrary conclusion, and bids us let them both grow, and grow together, and grow together until the harvest; and though you are entered upon other men's labours, the Harvest is not yet come; If it were, the Angels would yet save you that labour; and I think you have little to do with their Office; open sinners may be debarred; a whole Parish may not be denied this Sacrament upon a specious impossibility of culling the Sanctified from the unsanctified, of separating the sheep from the Goats. Many Wolves there are in sheep's clothing, many Devils in samuel's Mantle, only discernible to the eye of God. And your starving the sheep for fear of feeding the Wolf, your choking the Saint for fear of relieving the Hypocrite, is a careless neglecting, may be a wilful perverting of Christ's end in the institution of this Ordinance; because to remember Christ's death, and to confirm and strengthen the worthy receiver, is the end of that institution; Not to distinguish the worthy from the unworthy, though to you nothing seems clearer. Your first ground is groundless; your second may have better footing; I shall examine it as it lies.  
Opponent. My second ground is, If I so administer it, I do certainly make myself partaker of other men's sins; concerning which Paul warns Timothy, and in him all Ministers especially, 1 Tim. 5. That it is a great sin for ungodly persons to come and partake of that Ordinance, I suppose will be granted me; but such cannot bring that guilt upon themselves without my hand and help; which if I knowingly hold forth unto them, I cannot acquit myself of their sin; therefore it is not safe for me to do it.  
Respond. Nay, certainly you contract a sin upon yourself in denying the Sacrament to all for some men's sake, to the good, because some are bad; That it is a sin for ungodly persons to receive, you have it granted; but his, not mine. The ungodly man sins by receiving unworthily; the Godly Ministers sins not in administering it lawfully; and administer it lawfully he doth in giving it to all, who may be presumed fit, or after conference known able, without exception of any, but that ungodly man that is scandalous. It hath been the opinion of Divines, that it is a sin for a man to refrain, because he thinks himself not fitly prepared. To come not well prepared is an offence, and to stay away is no less; Staying in sin, and staying from the means of Grace, are both sinful; and therefore to keep away, to force away a man from the means, when for aught I know he is prepared, and do what I can, I cannot know the contrary, is a sin; For I cannot know whether any man be a resolute sinner, or a delighter in sin; and when I know not that, I make not myself partaker of his sins, though by the help of my hand he adds sin to sin; because it was the desire of my heart, by that action of my hand, to take away all his sins. Nor is that text of Saint Paul (so I style him) by you aptly and to your purpose in hand alleged; For it concerns not the Presbyter in administration of the Sacrament, but it concerns the Bishop in ordination by the imposition of hands; read the 22. verse of that Chapter; the verse by you intended; and you cannot by the Context give it any other exposition; Or, if any one will wrest this Scripture to this purpose, the sum of it will be, I must not prefer one before another; I must do nothing by Partiality; I must not administer the Sacrament suddenly to any man. These things if I observe, I partake not of other men's sins. And therefore for all your second ground, you may safely administer it.  
Oppon. M third and last ground is this, I so administering it, do give testimonials to men against the sufficient light of mine own Conscience; which is not good for any man to do.  
Respond. Indeed it is not, and therefore it is not good for you to deny this Pearl to any but a swine, to deny this bread, to any but a dog; and many in your Parish may be children, and questionless are; and will you deny the children bread, for fear the dogs should eat the Crumms under the table? No, not for this; but for fear you should give a testimonial to man against the sufficient light of your own Conscience. Not so neither; I rather think you give a testimonial to yourself against the sufficient light of your own conscience, that you discharge not your duty; your duty it is to give the Sacrament to all; to all that are fit to receive, so they are not scandalous and notorious; so they are not to day, though they were yesterday; if to day they are unfeignedly sorry for what they yesterday did notoriously, and have a proportion of Faith, you sin against your duty, if you deny such a man the Sacrament. The stream that was foul yesterday may be clear to day; and so your third ground is muddy: It may be in your dispatch we shall find a more sufficient light; For in your grounds we find a very light sufficiency; your dispatch is to answer some Objections, one (you say) may be this.  
Oppon. Do you not deliver your own Soul from sin, if you warn them of the danger of unworthy receiving? And then you answer it thus. Indeed in hearing the word preached, if they make it the Savour of death to themselves, it is enough to secure me if I warn them of it, be-because God hath given the vilest sinners leave to hear the word; and therefore when we have told them the danger of unprepared and unprofitable hearing, we have delivered ourselves, and are a sweet Savour unto God in them that perish.  
Rospond. Pray Sir, where have you a greater charge upon you in the Gospel for delivering this Sacrament, than the Prophet had in the Law for delivering the word? God assured the Prophet that if he gave the wicked man warning, he should thereby deliver his own Soul, Ezeck. 2.19. and Saint Paul thought the same was enough for delivering this Sacrament; read else that notorious Chapter, 1 Cor. 11. and see if you can find the Apostle denying it to any, but only telling all the danger of an unworthy receiving, and their admitting all in a general and promiscuous way. There were as bad I presume in Corinth, as there are in— setting aside the sins of Faction and Rebellion; such indeed Saint Paul would have marked and cut off. Rom. 16.17. but the Gluttons and Drunkards, he only tells them of the danger, and so admits them; & the Geneva note upon that danger, says but thus, Let them look to themselves which come to this Sacrament without reverence, Let them look to themselves; not, Let the Minister put them by. Nor doth the humble advice of your Assembly at Westminster give you power to deny the Sacrament to any, only they give you leave not to admit some. i e. Ignorant and ungodly Persons; and them no longer than they remain such. It is in pag. 62. Sect. 8. under the title of the Lords Supper. Nor doth their Catechism enjoin the Minister to examine the Communicants, but the Communicants to examine themselves, that they may worthily partake of the Lords Supper. pag. 36.  
Opponent. But God hath not allowed them to feed at his table, till they show themselves so and so qualified and adorned, that their Knowledge, Faith, Repentance, Love, etc. do appear upon them as a wedding Garment. And if he have forbidden them to receive it, surely he hath forbidden us to give it them; and therefore to tell them the danger, is not enough to excuse us, we give his holy things to dogs. It sufficeth not to tell them they are unclean. There are some holy things of God we must deny them, as we would pass without rebuke another day.  
Respond. No surely, The consequence is a very inconsequent, though the Premises were true. For where hath God forbidden them to receive it? He hath only told them the danger if they receive unworthily: He hath not forbidden them to receive it. But though God had forbidden them to receive it, doth it therefore follow, that he hath forbidden us to give it to them? No surely, God forbids the King to be a Tyrant; doth he therefore forbidden the people to be Subjects? No surely, God forbids my Parishioner to pray, if he be not in charity; doth he therefore forbidden me to admit him into the Church? No surely, my duty is to open the Church-door, to invite him to pray, to invite him to receive; to tell him how he may pray effectually, how he may receive worthily. If he will pray maliciously, If he will receive unworthily, the fault is his; I am discharged. He should do his duty, I must do mine. Else my not doing my duty, because he does not his, does but make me second his sin, or second in the sin Surely Sir, your Rational argument is somewhat unreasonable; but you will make it clear by a Symbolical argument. So you go on.  
Opponent. But to make it clearer, If one standing by me with a drawn sword set to kill himself; if my hands be bound behind me, (as in the case of the word they are) than I have done my full duty, if I tell him it is sin, and beseech him as he would not destroy God's Image, and send himself to Hell, to forbear that act: but if my hands be not bound, and I stronger than he, is it enough to warn and beseech him? I trow not; sure it is my duty to wrest the sword out of his hand, or hold him that he cannot do that wickedness. But suppose the man come, and tell me before, what design is in his heart, and I after telling him the danger, and beseeching him, put a sword into his hand to do it withal, (and this only comes up to the case in hand) am not I more guilty of the sin than he himself is? Sure I am. Therefore it is not enough to warn open sinners of the danger of unworthy receiving.  
Respond. Sure you are! yes sure you are, sure you are guilty of infinite folly. For will any wise man supponere non supponenda? Did ever any man, that intended to be Felo de se, come and tell his Neighbour, his Friend, his Pastor, that he would hang himself with his Garter, or kill himself with his sword? and that which was never done, will any wise man suppose to be done? Sapientia nihil supponit quod non ponitur. But you suppose it; and withal you suppose you put a sword into his hand to do it withal (and this only comes up to the case in hand) am not I more guilty of the Murder than he himself is? Sure I am; Yes, sure you are indeed; and I will suppose a clearer supposition for you. A Laic or Layman that hath a mind to shake off the yoke of obedience, and turn the Son of Belial, comes to you, and tells you, he would feign fight against the high Power, and kill him if he were not afraid to receive damnation for his pains. In this case indeed, you should have wrested the sword of Disobedience out of his hand; or if you tell him; It is no Rebellion, it is no sin to fight against the higher Power, and the higher Power, or any of his party be killed, you are more guilty of the Murder then himself; Yes, sure you are; and if this sanctified Rebel comes to you, to receive this Sacrament, and you give it him without any sign of Repentance for his unsanctified Rebellion, you add guilt to guilt, the guilt of Countenance to the guilt of Counsel. But if a man that was drunk last week, comes the next week, and protests his Repentance for that sin, and desires to receive the Sacrament as a Seal of forgiveness for that very sin, and you deny it him, you add more guilt to yourself, the guilt of Partiality to your guilt of Scrupulosity; For it is enough to warn any sinner, any, saving a notorious and obstinate sinner, of the danger of unworthy receiving.  
Opponent. But did not our Saviour give the Sacrament to Judas, whom he calls a devil? and therefore why may not Ministers give the Sacrament to those they know to be wilful sinners? Indeed Luke 22.21. brings in our Saviour first, celebrating that Ordinance, and then speaking these words, Behold, the hand of him that betrays me is with me on the table; and therefore I am inclined to believe that Christ did give it him; but thence can nothing be concluded against my Judgement.  
Respond. It may be nothing against your Judgement, but something against your practice you may; For Christ knew Judas to be a wilful sinner; and yet rejected him not, but admitted him; you only suspect some men to be wilful sinners, (for you cannot know any man to be a wilful sinner without his own acknowledgement) and yet you admit them not, but reject them; and therefore something may be hence concluded against your practice; and it may be something against your Judgement too, if your Judgement be as you say.  
Oppon. For 1. Our Saviour was God; and as he had Power to forgive sinners upon Earth, it might well be an Act of Divine Justice upon Judas for his Hypocrisy, to seal him up in his sin, and make him fully ripe for Hell; when it can be cleared that it is the duty and work of a Gospel-Minister to punish sin, than I think we may give the Sacrament to wilful sinners; but it may safely be thought that Christ did it by a Power that is above any, our Commission is invested withal.  
Respond. Yes, our Saviour was God, is God, and will be God, blessed for ever; and as the Son of Man, (not God only) he had Power to forgive sinners upon Earth; so fare we agree; and I wish you, if you are one of his Ministers, to use that key of Power, he hath trusted you with, as well to open as to shut. But in your next passage we are not so well agreed; you say, it might be, and I say it might not be an act of Divine Justice to seal up Judas in his sin; Melius est dubitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis; Take heed of coming too near this fire, it may else burn your beard. It becomes not a Gospel-Minister to say, Christ did make any man fully ripe for Hell; It is safer, and better becomes a Gospel-Minister to say with the Gospel-Apostle, jesus Christ came into the World to save sinners, the chiefe of sinners, 1 Tim. 1.15. and yet it is the duty of a Gospel-Minister to punish sin; Else the Apostle would never have given so many charges to the Gospel Bishops to rebuke, to correct, and in some cases sharply too; and yet neither that Apostle, nor any other Apostle, nor Jesus Christ himself hath given Power to any, Bishop, or Presbyter to give the Sacrament to a wilful sinner, on purpose to make him ripe for Hell. That is a Power indeed above any, our Commission is invested withal.  
Opponent. But secondly, I can answer thus, Christ in that his transaction set a precedent to the Ministers of the Gospel, how they might carry themselves in that Administration free from guilt. Such as join themselves to the society of his people, that do outwardly profess Christ and his truth, do those duties of Religion materially that true Protestants do, and nothing scandalous can be laid to their charge, though they be rotten Hypocrites; Yet it not being any man's work to search hearts, we must think nothing but good of them, admit them, and though they be as unworthy Receivers as ever Judas was, we are clear, their blood lies upon their own heads; So that instance of Judas his admission to the Sacrament, in my apprehension, makes not at all against me, but for me. If you can give an instance, that our Saviour, or his Desciples gave it to any that had their soars running upon them, and easily to be observed by every Eye, let us hear it, and I shall confess it is for your turn.  
Respond. Confess, then; For this your own instance makes altogether against you, though in your apprehension it makes only for you. Christ at this time supplied the Minister's place. He admitted the Communicants, and amongst the rest he admitted Judas: Judas, a covetous wretch, an arrant Traitor, though in show a zealous Saint, and a provident Almoner; His soar running upon him; his very Hypocrisy as apparent to Christ, as that man's impiety is that fights against Power to defend it; judas, that joined himself to the society of Christ's people; judas, that outwardly professed Christ and his truth: Judas, that did these duties of Religion that true Presbyterians do, and yet intrinsically was a Devil; and all this well known to Christ. Yes, and to two of his Apostles at least, if not to all the rest, Saint Peter and Saint John. Saint Peter, that prompted Saint John to ask, and Saint John that upon Saint Peter's motion asked Christ, who it was that should betray him; even him, by your own concession, did Christ admit to his Table, without any more ado, then telling him the danger of his unworthy coming thither: whence may certainly be inferred; we shall not incur any guilt for admitting the like Communicants, though we but do tell them the danger of unworthy receiving. And your next instance is as much for your purpose.  
Opponent. Why it may be, you will tell me of the Church of Corinth; their drunkenness, and sin, sat down at Table with them; but let it be supposed, that Paul had come in when they were going to't, many of them in that condition. I desire to know if you can believe he would have thought a reproose or telling them the danger sufficient? for my part I verily think, he would have had his arm pulled out of his shoulderblade, rather than have given it to any such a one, though truly in Jesus Christ; and therefore much less would he have administered it to them, whose sins daily testified them to be void of Faith, and the work of grace in them.  
Respond. At your suppositions again, and at impossible suppositions, at least, very unlikely: very like a man overcome with drink (I understand not those words otherwise, going to many of them in that condition) should go to receive the Sacrament. I dare say, you never saw any man offer it. And then, you think; what do you think? that such a one is truly in jesus Christ? pretty still, Animally, and in semine he may. Actually, and in sensu he is not; and thence you conclude; Therefore much less would he have administered it to them, whose sins daily testified them to be void of Faith and the work of grace in them. Mark Sir, if this conclusion follow upon your premises, or if you do not draw it against reason, your Mayor a supposition, an unlikely, if not an impossible supposition; your Minor, I think St. Paul would not; your Conclusion therefore much less would he. Well sir, I shall not further commend your skill in Logic; I shall only help you to a better argument from your own instance.  
Upon what terms, and in what way Saint Paul administered the Sacrament at Corinth; upon the same terms and in the same way may Mr.— administer the Sacrament at—  
But upon exhortation and Information, in a general and promiscuous way did Saint Paul administer the Sacrament at Corinth. Therefore upon Exhortation and Information in a general and promiscuous way may Mr.— administer the Sacrament at— and this your next Instance will not gainsay.  
Opponent. O, but charity thinketh well, 1. Cor. 13.5. and therefore you ought to make the best of your brother, and not the worst. The word will very well bear, plotteth no ill in his mind against his brother.  
Respond. By the way, you know the word will not bear it, neither in the Latin, nor Greek; neither in the Latin Cogito, or Meditor, nor in the Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; either of these words may signify, to consider, to purpose, to cast in mind; but to Plot ill, they signify not; and you are willing to wave; and therefore you say.  
Opponent. But let it be taken for Suspecting his brother guilty of evil. This, 'tis true, Charity will not do, where there is not just ground and cause for it. If that grace of Charity work jealousies, and evil surmisings concerning my brother, it will not dwell in me; but upon manifest ground and warrant, I may suffer them to arise, and consistent enough are they with that true grace of Charity in my heart. If I know that such or such a man follows the pot, gives himself ordinarily to wound and slander the good name of his neighbour, that sets no watch before the door of his lips, whose Religion is vain, says james, that doth not read Scripture in his Family, nor catechise and instruct his Family in the saving Principles of jesus Christ, nor pray constantly with his Family; To swear by his Faith and Troth, is ordinary in his discourse, his tongue is so used to't, that he cannot forbear it in the company of his Minister. If I certainly know a man living in any one of these, or any other sin, name what you will, the Charity which is of God will never forbid me to think evil of him. I may think, and if I be called to't, say, that as yet Christ is not in him, and that he is unworthy to be a guest at the Lords table, till such time a Divine change and amendment appear in his conversation, as his sin hath done.  
Respond. Confident enough, but not concluding enough; For though he live in any one of these sins, yet it may be none of these sins live in him; and the Apostles rule is observed, where he says, Nè regnet, not Nè sit, Let not sin reign in your mortal body, Rom, 6.12. he doth not say, let not sin be in your mortal body. Be there it will, so long as we be here, in the very best of us all; But be it admitted for your sake, that the man lives in the sin, and the sin lives in the man, because you say, If I know such a man follows the pot, etc. yet it is but for this time; it may be until the day, or night before he come to receive the Lords supper; you know not what a change, what a Repentance, what a godly sorrow God hath in that day or night wrought in him; will you, because this change doth not appear in him, account him unworthy, and therefore forbidden him the Lords Table, and therefore force him from the Lords? As the text you have quoted says, Charity thinks no ill. i e. It works no jealousies and evil surmisings concerning my brother, according to your Exposition; which Exposition I wish you had forborn, for your Master's sakes. So, if you read two verses further, which is within the Context, you shall find too, Charity hopes the best: your knowing him to follow those sins, may work you to suspect him, I will not say for want of Charity; but I will say, your ignorance, or not knowing of this change in him, may not move you to reject him, if you have the hope of Charity? But be it once more admitted for your sake, That such a Change is not, That no change is wrought in the man; what then! why then, he is unworthy to come to the Lords Table; but it is not then your duty to put him, or keep him from that Table: and therefore you are to blame by this, and much more to blame by the Verdict of your next Instance.  
Opponent. But if men come to you, and acknowledge such sins they have lived in, and say, they are sorry for them; why should not you believe they are real, & 'tis true repentance, and so admit them? Doubtless in that case, we are not to deny the truth of their repentance; nor yet take it for granted upon their bare words, but aught to desire them to hold forth that change in life, and the graces contrary to his former vices, and withal tell him, that if this should be nothing but mere words and pretences, that then he did eat and drink damnation to himself; whereof the Minister too would be guilty. But if his repentance be sound; If a saving change and Faith be wrought in him, it canno● be unsafe or prejudicial to him to forbear that Ordinance a little while, because he may feed upon Christ, and derive his comforts and virtues from his death by the lively working of Faith without the Elements. 'Tis not the want, but contempt of the signs that hinders our partaking of Christ and his benefits; and his forbearing for the Ministers, or church's sake, being great humility and self-denial, would doubtless be considered of God, who would make up the loss of the Elements immediately by himself or spirit, and double comforts to him, when his conversation shall commend him to that table for a worthy receiver.  
Respond. Sir, you have spoken much truth in this Paragraph; but you have expressed little charity; shown much Schism, and hinted a grain of Heresy, if other men had not Charity enough to believe the best of you. Heresy it is, to deny the Spirit of God to be God; you do not deny it, but you intimate it; else why do you say, God would by himself or Spirit? as if himself and Spirit were two, & several things; but I believe the best of you; you are not an Heretic; I wish you were not a Schismatic; but I must tell you, you go against the general Custom of the Universal Church which hath always willingly and cheerfully admitted that man to receive, who is penitent; vos autem non sic, and you observe not the Apostles Canon, who would have every man so to eat and drink, i. e. upon his Repentance to receive; but you deny him; and whether this be Schism, or not, I hope you can tell. Your want of Charity appears, in that you will suspect his Repentance to be but Verbal, when himself affirms it to be Real; But for your sake be it admitted to be but Verbal, though I do not, I dare not suppose it so, or so suspect it; yet it is not otherwise known to you then to be Real, because you know not his heart; his sin is only thereby doubled for coming so unworthily; your sin is not lessened for denying to admit him, because for aught you know he came worthily; and if his Repentance were Real, as he protested, and you by the rule of Charity ought to have believed, your sin is doubled in not admitting him; and all this, though he had acknowledged or made known so much to you; and this you evidence against yourself in your next Instance; which is.  
Opponent. But (Saint Paul says,) Let a man examine himself, 1 Cor. 11.28. he doth not bid the Minister or Church examine him; Indeed I think none aught to be forced to the Sacramen, but such as desire to partake of it; but because the Minister must have a hand with them in that act, there is all Christian reason why they should be willing and ready to give him an account of their Knowledge, Faith, and of that change that God hath wrought upon their Souls. If a Christian be bound to give a reason of his Faith and do to everyone that shall (not in an ensnaring way) ask him a reason or account, as Saint Peter hints he must, 1 Pet. 3.15. how much more is he bound to do it to his Pastor, to whose care God hath committed him, and who must give an account at the last day for him? Therefore that Precept, Let a man examine himself, and so eat, doth not hinder that the Minister with some godly judicious men deputed thereunto may examine all those that offer themselves to the Lords Table, not presuming on an infallible, but making a charitable discrimination, that the Table of the Lord be not prephaned.  
Respond. And whence comes this Charitable discrimination? whence comes the deputation of Godly judicious men to be joined with the Minister to examine all those that offer themselves to the Lords Table, è Praetorio, or è Sanctuario? Speak it, if you know it; From the Church of England it came not; and therefore not from the Primitive Church. For whatsoever the Primitive Church thought necessary either in Doctrine, or Discipline, the Church of England hath retained and enjoined; From the Apostles it came not; For Saint Paul, who alone of all the Apostles, hath been precise in delivering the substance and Circumstance, the Doctrine and Discipline of this Sacrament, though he knew the Church of Corinth did abound with sundry Errors and Corruption, both in Faith and Manners, did yet give order for the Excommunication of one only sinner, & that one a Contumacious, a Notorious, a Scandalous sinner, and then sufficed himself with a general proposal of the great danger of unworthy receiving, and remitted every other particular Person to a self-Examination. He gave order to none to exclude any from that holy Table upon their Examination; nor indeed gave he order to any, either Minister or Elder (much less Lay-Elders, as not being then planted) to examine; Nor doth Saint Peter thwart Saint Paul. For Saint Peter there speaks of a godly man's giving an account of his hope to a wicked Persecutor, as appears by the Context; Saint Paul here advises a man to a self-examination, that he may be a worthy receiver; and therefore your inference is not good of all Christian reason. For Reason and Christianity both tell us, we may very well content ourselves with that course the Apostle took in administering and receiving the holy Sacrament in a general and promiscuous way; unless you will be guilty of the next objection you frame, which is;  
Opponent. But in denying us the Sacrament, the children lose their Bread, and Right!  
Respond. Yes indeed do they, For if they be children, they have right to that Bread; and you that deny them, rob them of it. Answer it as you will, and how well you do it, I shall now examine.  
Opponent. I answer, First they may enjoy it elsewhere, or in a more private way among themselves; which in some cases cannot be denied to be warrantable enough.  
Respond. Yes, but it can, and is, in all cases to be any way warrantable amongst themselves; Laics have nothing to do in the administration of this Sacrament; and if they receive it elsewhere, what thanks is that to you? or is you duty thereby discharged? you said erewhile, God had committed them to your charge, and you must give an account for them at the last day; and so you must for a Quis haec requisivit too; and for a Quare haec den●gasti too. Nor will your next Answer discharge you.  
Opponent. But secondly, will the children clamour, because it is suspended (they knowing a way to get strength and comfort from Christ, to get the thing signified, notwithstanding the suspension of the Elements) when they cannot enjoy it, but their Father's Table is sure to be polluted, and his holy things perverted in their use and end? For my part I think the children cannot but very much desire it; but things standing as they do, dane not clamour for it; the not feeding of their senses therewith, not at all threatening damnation to them.  
Respond. What a concatenation of Absurdities are here? If they know a way to get Christ, without the Elements, they are worthy to receive the Elements; and why then are the Elements suspended? by whose fault? why, or by whom is their Father's Table polluted, if they are worthy to receive it, and do not receive it? not by themselves, because they are worthy. Certainly by some other, who do receive it with them, or without them, unworthily: How is the use & end of the Sacrament perverted by their receiving, if they be worthy, or by whom? Dic bone Damaetas. For your part, you think they may desire; and for my part, I think not, I am sure, you may not deny it. It is against your duty; and why then may they not clamour (I take this word in the best construction) for it? because the not feeding of their senses, (how, Popery in a Presbyterian? we feed not our jences, nor do our senses feed; we feed our Faith, and our Faith feeds at the Sacrament) therewith not at all threatening damnation to them; but take heed, your not feeding them. i.e. your robbing them of their right, threatens not yourself, I dare not say, with damnation; your last shift, and not modest comparison is no Postern for you.  
Oppon. But as godly and learned men as yourself constantly do it; And as godly and learned as they (I am sorry I am forced to make the comparison) dare not do it; and so the scales hang even.  
Respond. No the scales do not hang even: Saint Paul, as godly and learned a man as yourself, did do it, at least did command it to be done; and where is your man as godly and learned as he, that now does it not, dares not do it? or why dares he not do it? If he have been wrapped up into an higher heaven then St. Paul was, and there received a new Illumination, let him produce it; till than you may be sorry for the Comparison, and ashamed of it too. I know no body forced you to it.  
Oppon. Secondly, upon what grounds those godly and learned men do it, I know not. I would to God they might be put forth into the light, that so this pestering trouble between many Ministers and their people might be at an end  
Resp. This trouble never pestered any before this wardship of Religion came amongst us, by whom, it may be, you know, I speak not; which light is put forth (your own language) for you and other Ministers to view well; which if you do, the people will soon see an end of this pestering trouble; though yet,  
Oppon. Thirdly to me no examples are binding, but those of Christ and his Apostles. I am confident at the last day, neither you nor I dare plead the Example of the holiest and ablest men that are now alive. There is so much weakness in this objection (though it hath still come in for one againct me) that had it not been to satisfy the weak, I would not have spent a penfull of ink upon it.  
Respond. And indeed your Answer is so full of weakness to this objection full of strength, that had it not been to satisfy yourself, you and I had said the same thing, and sent one another clean sheets. I dare not, as you dare not, plead the Examples of the holiest and ablest men that are now alive, at the last day; but if the holiest and ablest men that are now alive, do in this point follow the Examples of Christ and his Apostles, I dare follow their Examples, not because they are theirs, but because they are Christ's and his Apostles. Christ instituted this Sacrament in a general and promiscuous way, by admitting Judas with the rest; Saint Paul did the same; both only proposing the danger of unworthy receiving; and I know Christ had, and Saint Paul, I believe as he thought, had the Spirit of God; and if for any respects I refuse to follow their Examples, and cannot plead them at the last day, I fear at that day they will plead against me.  
Opponent. I hope you see by this time, that my non-administration of the Sacrament in that general and promiscuous way it is desired, doth not lie in a wilfulness to hinder my people of their Privileges and comforts, (If I know mine own heart, I can be content to deny what of these temporals is most near and dear to me, to spend and be spent in building them up Heaven-ward) much less am I induced to it by some in the Family where I live, as it is groundlessly and upon their own mere fancy (I am assured) reported; I being of this judgement full two years since, but these Scriptures and argumentations here have done it.  
Resp. In what Family you live, I know not, nor inquire. If I did, I should not think so thinly of you, as to satisfy them, you would decline your duty. He that is ruled by the Laity in his Ministry, is not fit for the Ministry. If you can be content to deny Temporals to save your people, I pray then deny them not this Spiritual, lest you starve your people. You have been of this Judgement but two years; yet I hope you knew these Scriptures, if not these Argumentations too, many years before; and what was your judgement then? If it were then, that you might administer it in a general and promiscuous way, I hope by this time you see, these Scriptures and Argumentations have no spell in them to alter your Judgement; I will not yet say, It is wilfulness; I would not have you say, it is doubt fullness, lest Saint Paul say to you, Whatsoever is not of Faith, is sin. Rom. 14.23. All that I say more is this.  
Sir, you have an answer, according to your Expectation, To your plain scriptural argumentative way: I have not studied to show myself in producing humane Authorities, which but for your sake had been produced; but to satisfy Conscience, (I change not your words) giving your own Scriptures their clear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and rational deductions; and waving your Zealous Menace, I give you this one or two more genuine deductions in the best way of reasoning, by Syllogism.  

1. What Saint Paul did in the administration of the Sacrament, Ministers may do. But Saint Paul did in a general and promiscuous way administer the Sacrament. Therefore Ministers may so do.  
2. Ministers must perform their duty in the administration of the Sacrament, as Saint Paul performed his.  
But Saint Paul performed his in a general and promiscuous way of administration of the Sacrament. Therefore Ministers must so do.   
Sir, you have a Licet, you may, and an Oportet, you must, administer the Sacrament in a general and promiscuous way. If still you think you may not, or must not, you may give me leave to believe then in an Oportet, a necessity upon, Sir,  
Your Friend THOMAS SWADLIN   
FINIS.