PRIMS Full-text transcription (HTML)

Reſponſoria Bipartita, SIVE Vindiciae ſuspenſionis Eccleſiaſticae ut et Presbyterii EVANGELICI.

A double Reply, containing a Vindication of the an­tient practice of the Church (according to the rule of the word) ſuſpending the ignorant and ſcandalous from the Lords Sup­per. As alſo of Eccleſiastical Presbyteries as the ſubject of Church Government.

The firſt in anſwer to one M. Boatmans challenge of all the Miniſters on earth to make ſuspenſion of any but Turks, Jews, Pagans and excommunicate perſons from the Lords Supper, appear from Scripture. In anſwer to whom the ſaid cenſure is juſtified by ſeveral arguments from Scripture, and the univerſal practice of the Church, the Magisterial vanity alſo of his Sermon, Decem. 13. and March 28. in Peters Church in Norwich is diſcovered, by anim­adverſions on each. In which anſwer alſo ſome objections of Eraſtus, Mr. Prin, and Mr. Humfry, are collaterally conſidered, and anſwered.

The ſecond part in anſwer to Theophilus Brabourn, who hath talked ſomething in a little pamphlet againſt the Lord Jeſus Chriſt as Lord of his Church, and Lord of the Sabbath, againſt whom it is proved, he hath ſaid nothing to any purpoſe but to diſcover his own weakneſs.

To which is prefixed an Epiſtle giving account of the whole, and fully anſwering whatſoever, Mr. Thomas Morſhall, in his three Sermons lately prin­ted upon Mat. 22 8. Mr. Barkſdale in a letter of his dated May 26. 1652. and printed with a diſputation at Winchcomb Nov. 9. 1653. and Mr. Timſon in his late book in anſwer to Dr. Drake have ſaid in theſe for promiſcuous commu­nion.

By JOHN COLLINGS, B.D. and Paſtor of the Church of Chriſt in Stephens Pariſh in Norwich.

In ipſa Catholica Eccleſia magnopere curardum eſt, ut id teneamus, quod ubique, quod ſemper, quod ab omnibus creditum eſt; hoc eſt enim vere proprieque Catholicum. Vincent. Lirinenſis. con. haer. cap. 3.

London, Printed by H. Hills for Richard Tomlins, and are to be ſold at his houſe at the ſign of the Sun and Bible neer Py-Corner.


To all thoſe who love the Lord Ieſus in ſincerity, eſpecially ſuch of them whoſe lot is cast in the City of NORWICH.

Beloved Friends and Brethren,

IT is not for my own ſake, nor for the ſake of thoſe who are my Brethren in the work of reformation here or elſewhere, that I am come out into theſe liſts; both my ſelf (and I ſuppoſe all of them) could either have been content to have come up to Mr. Boatmans principles, and practice, and ſo endeared our ſelves to all our people, or at leaſt have born with patience the names of Pha­riſees, Dremers, ſuch as do things wiſer ages never thought of, Recuſants, Presbyterian Reformadoes, Calvins fellows, (which are the Rhetorical terms that M. John Boatman, & M. Thomas Marſhall, have beſtowed upon us) ſecuring our ſelves in the aſſurance of our innocence, and pittying their ig­norance, who if they had been better acquainted with the Scriptures, and the practice of the Church would have ſpake more modeſtly. Nor is it for their ſakes, becauſe I think they have ſaid any thing worth the anſwering. We know 'tis an eaſy thing, for one to ſtand in a pulpit, and cry out againſt the way of God, as a Phariſaical way, a Phariſaical in­vention, a dream, an impleding Scripture, and to ſet upon the Title page of a book, The Kings cenſure of Recuſdants;4 he that hath but got a maſtery over his conſcience, and a bold face, may do ſuch things cheap enough. In the mean time we know: the Gentlemen will eat their words, when they are challenged for them. It is for your ſakes (dearly beloved Brethren) and for our Lord Jeſus Chriſts ſake, and for his Churches ſake, that we cannot be ſilent; for the Lords ſake whoſe ſacred Ordinance we cannot with patience ſee proſti­tuted, and his blood counted as an unholy thing: For his Churches ſake, that what ſhe hath believed and practiſed in all times and ages, might neither be judged hereſy or no­velty: for your ſakes that you may not be ſeduced by the great adverſary of reformation, or any that drive on his de­ſigns (though poſſibly not wittingly) into an alienation of heart from, and an enmity to the great work of the Lord in cleanſing the Sanctuary, and refining of Zion, which we have hoped the Lord is about in England, and hath been for ſome years; yea and for their ſouls ſake who are angry with us, that we will not let them eat and drink judgement to themſelves, towards the good of whoſe ſouls our bowells yern, and we are loth that by our means they ſhould increaſe their guilt, and more and more harden themſelves to eternall ruin: was it not (my beloved Brethren) the burthen that lay upon the ſouls of the old Non-Conformists, that there was no bar to keep any from the Lords Table (but one which ſuperſtition made?) was it our juſt grief then that we had no bar, and is it our work now to remove the bars, yea the Lords and the Churches antient land marks, ſhall not the Popiſh faction riſe up in judgement againſt us at the laſt day and ſay,Aquinas Vaſ­quez. Bonaven­tura. Lord we diſputed whither a ſecret ſinner might be received to the Sacrament, and theſe reformers plead for o­pen ſinners receiving; yea and the Prelatical party which we condemned ſhall ſay, Lord we gave the Miniſter authori­ty to keep any from the Sacrament for any notorious ſins, yea for ſpeaking againſt the prayer book, or the Kings authori­ty in things Eccleſiaſtical: Theſe pretend to reform us, and cryed out againſt us; yet do not only admit but plead for the admiſſion of ſuch as ſpeak againſt Jeſus Chriſt the great King of Zion. Thus we have juſtified our Elder Sister Sodom,5 and our younger Samaria, yea neither of them would plead for the wickedneſs which we do. This hath brought me in­to the liſts; now I am there, I ſhall deſire but fair play If our adverſaries can prove, all primitive Churches and modern Churches in an errour, and themſelves onely in the right (though we muſt needs be concluded to err with good compa­ny) yet I hope I ſhall not ſtop my ears againſt due conviction. But we muſt crave leave to try them with the two weapons of Scriptural Reaſon and Antiquity, to prove that we are not cowards in this Cauſe of God.

Since my book was ſent to the Preſs, three others have came to my hands, all pleading for promiſcuous communions; I crave your patience for a backblow for them; much of them I have anſwered before hand. I ſhall ſubjoin a few animad­verſions more upon what they have in them. An anſwer to Mr. Thomas Marſhall.

The firſt contains two or thee Sermons preached by one Mr. T. Marſhall on Matth 22.8. As I diſcern in him a ſpirit which from any Sober man deſerves rather flight than anſwer from thoſe ill favoured paſſages, p. 21. where he char­geth us with ſequeſtring, firſt, the bodily bread from the Pa­ſtors and then the bread of Chriſt from the peoples ſouls. And page 25. where he hath this paſſage, Mr. Calvin and his fellowes whom the Presbyterian Reformadoes follow, perceiving what a jewel of auricular confeſſion they have loſt, &c. Chriſtians! this ſame diſpiſed Mr. Calvin, was one whoſe name will live and ſmell ſweet when Mr. Thomas Marſhalls will rot (it is a name too well known in the Church of Chriſt for Mr. Marſhall to Ecclipſe) but I ſay as theſe and many other ridiculous paſſages, ſheweth me at firſt view what the author was, and how unworthy of an an­ſwer; So ſome others, (which I ſtumbled upon at firſt) aſſu­red me I ſhould find nothing in him worth the anſwering? wit­neſs his diviſion of thoſe words, The wedding is ready, into the wedding and the Propenſity of it.

But to paſs by that, and much other pittiful ſtuff (ſet out a little (like an old ruſty ſuit) with an end or two of gold and ſilver lace taken our of the Fathers,Page 14. and much of that ſpoil­ed too either in the taking of, or ſetting on.)


In his 14. page he would make us believe, That the Feast meant chiefly Matt. 22. is The Lords Supper; and to prove this, he cites Origen in the Margent, who by his own confeſ­ſion, onely ſaith it may be ſtretched to that (and all that know any thing of Origen, know he had a trick of ſtretching Me­taphors too far.) But doth Origen ſay, the Lords Supper, is chiefly meant? No ſurely he had more judgement by far. But I wonder who authorized Mr. Marſhall to ſay this was the feaſt made for all Nations, Iſaiah 25 9. ſurely then the Apo­ſtles were ill Stewards of the Lords houſe that did not firſt in­vite all the Heathens to this Supper. Page 15.But tis like thoſe good men were old Presbyterian Reformadoes (inconſiderable) Calvins fellows too.

It was an hundred to one, that in the 15. page Mr. Marſhall had not brought in Christmaſs Feaſts into this Text, which would have been a New Argument for Chriſtmaſs day, and worthy of ſuch a Doctor, and then he might have proved from Scripture, that it is his and our duty to invite men to a Chriſt­maſs Py. But he remembers ſomething, (that he hath loſt his New years gifts I ſuppoſe) and muſt ſigh and lament he ſaies with Jeremy, That men do not keep Christmaſs day (for that he makes the Engliſh of not comming to the Solemn Feaſts.)

I am come to his ſecond Sermon.

He hath done with the wedding (he ſaies) (he hath made the Feaſt a very ſhort one) now have at the Propenſity to it (an hard word; he hath therefore here Engliſhed it by preparation) though I think he is unhappy in this expreſſion too, it being prepared,Page 21. not preparing; and preparation argues no more pre­vious acts ſure. The feaſt he will have to be the Lords Sup­per, in ſpight of our teeth, but ſurely that was not ready when Chriſt ſpake this.

He falls heavily upon us, p. 21. for not having the Feaſt ready;Page 22. but he is miſtaken, we have the Supper ready; and the queſtion betwixt us is only whether all Mr. Marſhalls gueſts be ready; Mr. Marſhall thinks our maſter keeps an open houſe for all comers; we think he keeps an orderly houſe, and e­very ſervant muſt have his portion in their ſeaſon.

He ſaies, We pretend peoples unworthineſs; This he tells7 us will not excuſe us: true if he can prove we are bound to give it to all; but if we be onely bound to give it to the viſi­bly worthy, I hope it will. He ſaies true, (but nothing to the purpoſe) that ſome ignorance and ſin repented of, will not make a man unworthy. The queſtion is, whether a groſs ignorance of the mysteries of religion and ſin not repented of, will not? what he ſaies there of Judas his ſin, and the diſci­ples ignorance, is nothing to his purpoſe, till he proves we refuſe ſome leſs ignorant then the Apoſtles; and that Judas was, 1. a communicant, 2. openly ſcandalous before that time. Page 23.

I wonder he will take notice of Ambroſe his excluding the Emperour Theodoſius, conſidering Theodoſius was not ex­communicated, and yet kept back by Ambroſe; and that not, as he would inſinuate, by Rhetorick and ſwaſion, but authoritatively, and ſomething ſeverely, Ambroſe telling him, he would not adminiſter till he was gone. For what he ſaith of the Church of Corinth,Page 26. I have anſwered it in the fol­lowing ſheets.

He is very angry with them who come in to ſequeſtred liv­ings; they are the Feaſt, Mat. 22. too it ſeems, for he applys Quomodo huc intraſti? to them who dare come in to them without the wedding garment of the ſcandalous Miniſters leave: In the ſame place, afraid I ſuppoſe of the ſtool of Re­pentance in Scotland, he falls heavily upon Presbyterian diſ­cipline. Alas good man! more hath been ſaid for that diſci­pline long ago than he is able to anſwer. Page 27.

He ſaies the Sacrament was adminiſtred by Chriſt, and Acts 2. without Elders; but he ſeeth not how lamely the ergo muſt hop after theſe premiſes, conſidring the order of the church was not then eſtabliſhed. Page 28.

O but the Apoſtle ſaies nothing of Elders 1 Cor. 11. no more doth Moſes Gen. 1.1. but what then? the Apoſtle is treating of the Sacrament, and yet ſaies nothing of them, but he ſpoke of them 1 Cor. 12. as Governments; and chap. 5. he had ſpoke of not eating with, and purging out ſcandalous ſinners, which ſurely are acts of Government; and if there be Governments in the Church diſtinct from Apoſtles, Pro­phets, Teachers, as is plain 1 Cor. 12.28. if Mr. Marſhall8 awakes his reaſon,Pag. 29, 30. it will ſee Elders concerned in this act of Government. He is miſtaken in telling us Paul excommuni­cated the incestuous perſon, for he only gave order to the Go­vernours of the Church to do it, 1 Cor. 5.4.

He pretends to anſwer our arguments; he ſaith we ſay, The Sacrament will then be prophaned if all be admitted. He grants this himſelf as to perſonal profanation, and we plead for it further as to a defilement of the communion; but he ſaies we cannot help it. If he means it of men of his perſwaſion, I know not what to ſay: they indeed reſolving to admit all, cannot help it. Page 31.But we think we can, and therefore ſuſpend the ſcan­dalous and ignorant; for what he ſaies expounding Matth. 7.6. of Reproof, he agrees with Mr. Boatman; I have ſuffici­ently in the following ſheets ſhewed the vanity of that reſtrict interpretation.

In his 31. page he pretends to anſwer a ſecond Argument of ours drawn from the Miniſters danger participating with the ſins of others. As to what he ſaies upon this point, paſſing by his gird about the Covenant, he tells us the damnation mentioned 1 Cor. 11.29. Is not to the giver, but to the Re­ceiver.

But what is this to the purpoſe, if in giving we do partake of the ſins of others, there is a damnation alſo will attend our giving it, and ſurely there is a guilt may be contracted by a participation of the ſins of others, otherwiſe the Apo­ſtle forgot himſelf in warning us we ſhould take heed of it, and the Schoolmen have ſpent their time ill to tell us how ma­ny waies it may be incurred. The queſtion is, whether the Miniſter giving the Sacrament to the unworthy, incurs this guilt;Page 31. if Mr. M. thinks he doth not, let him ſpeak out and we will join iſſue with him upon that. He ſaies we are com­manded to give it, but he hath not proved it by Luke 22.19.

He thinks he hath nicked it by a diſtinction of cooperati­ons; he ſaies the Miniſter doth onely cooperate to the ſinners ſin in receiving in actu primo, not in acti ſecundo.

1. If this diſtinction will ſerve the turn, it will excuſe giving it to Turks.


2. But we muſt tell him that the actus primus is ſin; It is ſin for an ignorant ſcandalous perſon to receive.

3. I do not well underſtand what Mr. Marſhall means by the actus ſecundus; if he ſaies his receiving ſinfully is actus ſecundus, I cannot underſtand how his ſinfulneſs can make a diſtinct act: if he means receiving damnation, this indeed may more properly be ſo called, but then he that by giving to him contributes to the cauſe, doth doubtleſs contribute to the effect; for ſurely if he be cauſa cauſae he muſt be alſo cau­ſa cauſati.

He thinks our third Argument from the ſcandal of godly Communicants is invalid.

1. Becauſe he conceives we are commanded to give it to all.

2. Becauſe he conceives it is not ſcandalum datum (a ſcandal given) but only taken; but we deny both theſe we find no ſuch command.

3. It is a ſcandal given, for we are commanded not to keep the Feaſt, not to eat with ſuch, not to give holy things to dogs &c. of which ſee more in the following ſheets.

He ſayes the Miniſter muſt exclude none of himſelf. Page 33.I have examined that chap. 11. he ſaies it belongs to a Court of Ju­dicature. I wonder what Court he means, for Elderſhips he hath declared againſt them. The Common prayer Book gave this power to a ſingle member, ſo do the Canons 1603.

In the latter end of the ſecond Sermon he lets fly againſt Presbytery. But what hath the man to ſay againſt it?Pag. 33, 34. why it hath been thrice endeavoured to be eſtabliſhed to no pur­poſe. He forgets that it is the onely Government now eſta­bliſhed in England by the Form of Church-Government, paſſed ſine die, by both Houſes of Parliament, 1648. And I believe it may ſtand long enough if it ſtands but till M. Mar­ſhall be able to diſpute it down.

I find no more In him to this purpoſe;Page 46. onely one paſſage in his third Sermon ſtumbles me where he tells us, that commu­nicants may be worthy dignitate Congruentiae, or ex merito congrui. What others may, I cannot tell. I do not under­ſtand that Divinity; if he means honeſtly, he is at beſt un­happy in his expreſſions.


Since I had read over this Pamphlet,An anſwer to M. Barksdales letter printed with the diſ­putation at Winchcomb there came to my hands a Book, entituled a diſputation at Winchcomb, in which I find a letter, dated May 26. 1652. from one Mr. Barksdale to one Mr. Helm, wherein he propounds 14. Arguments for promiſcuous communion. I will ſhortly turn them into form and ſhew you where they halt.

If we must fulfil Christs precept do this in Remem­brance of me,Argum. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.then we must administer the Sacrament to all.

But we must fulfill Christs precept.


The Conſequence is falſe; Chriſt onely ſpake to his diſci­ples to do it in communion of his diſciples; no other were there; he that adminiſters it in a ſcandalous communion, doth not do that in remembrance of Chriſt.

If Chriſt waſhed Judas his feet,Argum. 2and admitted him to the Sacrament, then we ought to admit all.

But Chriſt waſhed Judas his feet, and admitted him to the Sacrament.


1. The conſequence is falſe, for Judas was no ſcandalous Sinner.

2. The Minor cannot be proved, Judas indeed ſate down with the twelve, but went out immediately upon the Sop, Joh. 13. which was before the paſchal Lamb was eaten; long be­fore the Supper was adminiſtred, as I prove in the following ſheets.

If the Lords death must be ſhewed to the ear in hearing,Argum. 3then alſo to the eye in the Sacrament to all men.

But it must be ſhewed to all to the ear in hearing. Ergo.

The conſequence is falſe, and 1. will conclude for receiv­ing heathens to the Sacrament.

2. Nothing muſt be done in Gods worſhip, but what he hath appointed; he hath appointed the word to be preached to all; but he hath not appointed the Sacraments for all.

Beſides the word is by Gods appointment a converting or­dinance, ſo is not the Sacrament:

4. The Sacrament is not an Ordinance for meer preſenting11 Chriſts death, but for ſealing our intereſt in it.

If there be the ſame danger upon hearing unworthily,Argum. 4as receiving the Sacrament unworthily, then thoſe who are ad­mitted to hear may be admitted to receive.

But there is the ſame danger upon unworthy hearing, the word being to ſome the ſavour of death.


1. The conſequence is feeble; for admit there were the ſame danger upon the one or the other, yet the praerequiſite duties are not the ſame, through an inability to perform which, thoſe who are ſounable are to be excluded.

2. I doubt whether either the ſin of unworthy hearing, or the danger be ſo great as the ſin, and danger of unworthy receiving. There are degrees of ſin; I know not how we ſhould better judge the greatneſs of ſin than by Scripture ex­preſſions: The Scripture ſaith, He who eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himſelf, and is guilty of the body and blood of Chriſt; it is made equall to the ſin of Judas, which ſurely was greater than the ſin of Peter in denying his Maſter. For the danger, 'tis true in ex­itu, the danger of both is the ſame; but it ſeems God is quicker in judgement with ſuch as by unworthy receiving the Sacrament trample under foot the blood of Chriſt; for this cauſe (ſaith the Apoſtle) ſome of you are ſick and weak, and ſome are fallen aſleep. The Scripture ſaith, Blood-thirsty and deceitful men ſhall not live out half their dayes. This con­cludes Bloodthirſtineſs of more dangerous conſequence than other ſins.

If the Apoſtles baptized whole multitudes upon profeſſi­on of faith,Argum. 6and afterwards admitted them all to the Sacrament, though many of them afterwards appeared not right, then we may administer the Sacrament to all.

But the Apoſtle baptized whole multitudes upon profeſ­ſion of faith, and afterwards admitted them to the Sacra­ment, though many were not right.


Here is fallacia〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Profeſſion of Faith is an ambigu­ous term, it ſignifyeth either a meer verbal profeſſion or ſuch12 a proſeſſion as is real, or at leaſt not viſibly contradicted.

The Apoſtles baptized and admitted to the Sacrament ſuch as made a profeſſion of the faith, not contradicting it by a lewd life; it doth not therefore follow, that we muſt admit to the Sacrament ſuch as make indeed a verbal profeſſion, but at the ſame time in works deny him to whom in words they profeſs; we deny the Sacrament to none who make as much profeſſion of their faith as thoſe did whom the Apoſtles Acts 2. admitted to the Sacrament.

The Sacrament ought to be adminiſtred to all Saints. Argum. 6

But all Christians are Saints. Saint Paul calls the Corin­thians ſo.


1 Here is the ſame fallacy again. The ſacrament is to be adminiſtred to all Saints, That is, to all who viſibly appear ſanctified through the Spirit of grace; but all Chriſtians are not Saints in that ſenſe. So the minor is falſe.

1. In ſome ſenſe all baptized perſons are Saints, as they are ſeparated from Heathens and by their baptiſm dedicated to God; if Saints be taken in this ſenſe, the Major is falſe. Children of believing parents are called holy 1 Cor 7. that is Saints federally; but yet I hope Mr. Barksdale will con­cur with the reformed Churches in acknowledging the admiſ­ſion of children the errour of ſome primitive Churches.

3. St. Paul calls all the Members of the viſible Church Saints, but it will lie upon Mr. Barksdale to prove that he means it of them all viritim; I believe it a term applyed to them conjunctim, and the Denomination taken à parte me­liori.

Thoſe who were admitted in the Church of Corinth,Argum 7may be admitted in our Churches.

But diſorderly perſons were admitted in the Church of Corinth.


The Major preſumes the Church of Corinth perfect, and that they did nothing amiſs, the contrary to which is plain from 1 Cor. 5. elſe the Major is falſe; for wherein the Church13 of Corinth was ſinfully remiſs, they ought not to be our pat­tern.

But Mr. Barksdale tells us, They were not blamed for their comming together, but for their comming together for the worſe. Be it ſo, and that which cauſed this was the ſcan­dalous perſons amongſt them with whom they ought not to have eaten, as he told them in the fifth chapter. But the Apo­stle doth not check the Minister and forbid him to offer the Sacrament, but onely bids them examine themſelves. True, he ſaies no more, 1 Cor. 11. But it was becauſe he had ſaid enough before 1 Cor. 5.8, 10, 11, 12.

Thoſe who may be admitted to join with us in prayers and ſinging Pſalms may alſo be admitted to the Sacrament. Argum. 8

1. Either this Propoſition is falſe, or let me aſſume.

1. But Turks and Indians may be admitted to pray and ſing with us. Yet I hope Mr. Barksdale will not admit them to his Sacrament.

2. Prayer and praiſe are pieces of Natural worſhip, ho­mages due from God as their Creator. O come let us worſhip, and bow down and kneel before the Lord our Maker; re­ceiving the Sacrament is a piece of inſtituted worſhip for thoſe who have intereſt in Chriſt as a Redeemer.

But Mr. Barksdale tells us we ſing the hundred Pſalm with them, We are his flock.

Sol. So we read in their ears, 1 Cor. 6.11. yet it will not follow all of them are waſhed, and justified and ſanctified, &c. Yet they are his flock; in the ſenſe of that Pſalm he hath made them, and he feeds them, they are the ſheep of his Pa­sture, ſo he doth the Young Ravens, Matth. 6. yet it will not follow they muſt have the Sacrament.

They are of the great flock, But Chriſt hath a little flock, to whom he will give the Kingdom; to theſe the Sacrament belongs only, not are we to give it to any but ſuch as are viſi­bly of this flock.

A converting, quickning Ordinance belongs to all. Argum. 9

But the Sacrament is a converting Ordinance.



The Major is granted; He proves the Minor, becauſe the word is joined with it; and if the word alone be, much more when conjoined with the other.

At once to ſhew the Vanity of this opinion (which ſo pre­vails in the world) that the Sacrament is a converting Ordi­nance. Sol. I argue;

1. If it be ſo, then it is proper and conſonant to Scripture to go amongst heathens, and as ſoon as we come, call them to a Sacrament in order to their converſion, as to preach the Gospel to them.

But ſurely none ever thought ſo, nor was it ever practiſed in the world yet; what it may be if theſe principles be well practiſed, I cannot tell.

2. Again, if it be a converting Ordinance, there can be no perſonal unworthineſs ſufficient to debar any from it; then come Turks, Indians, Papiſts, Incestuous perſons, excom­municate perſons, &c.

3. If it be a converting Ordinance, I ſee no reaſon why the Communicant ſhould be bound to examine himſelf, and ſo eat, or whether he hath skill to diſcern the Lords body. But to anſwer diſtinctly.

1. When we ſpeak of converting Ordinances, we mean Appointments of Jeſus Chriſt for the converſion of ſouls to himſelf, diſtinguiſhing betwixt thoſe things which may be uſe­ful ex accidente to convince and convert, and what ex inſti­tuto is deſigned to that end. Hearing of the word is ſuch, Faith comes by hearing, Rom. 10. Hear and your ſouls ſhall live, Iſaiah 55. Let any one ſhew us any Scripture ſpeaking to this purpoſe concerning the Lords Supper.

2. Beſides the preaching of the word is one thing, but the readinthe word of Inſtitution at a Sacrament is another thing; let Mr. Barksdale prove the latter appointed by Chriſt for converſion.

3. Either the word alone (read at the adminiſtration) is a converting Ordinance, or the Word and Elements making up the Sacrament. If it be only the word, wicked men (for ought I know) may ſtay and hear that; if he ſayes more, he muſt prove it.


But to his tenth Argument.

Thoſe whoſe children may be admitted to Baptiſm,Argum. 10them­ſelves may be admitted to the Lords Supper.

But the children of the ignorant and ſcandalous may be admitted to Baptiſm.


Though ſome will deny the Minor, yet it ſhall ſatisfy me to put Mr. Barksdale to prove the Major.

1. Children are baptized in their parents right. I ſee no reaſon why it ſhould neceſſarily be the immediate parent.

2. Beſides there is no ſelf-examination pre-required to baptiſm.

3. The children of the legally unclean were not forbidden circumciſion.

1. But the parent muſt have a perſonal right to the Lords Supper.

2. He muſt examine himſelf, and ſo eat.

3. Of old if he were legally unclean he muſt not eat the Paſſover.

What we cannot help, we must do.

But we cannot help promiſcuous admintstrations. Argum. 11

The Major is queſtionleſs true, ultra poſſe non datur eſſe.

But the Minor is falſe. Cannot muſt be expounded Phyſi­cally or Morally: if he means of the firſt, we can help it; Ambroſe would not adminiſter till Theodoſius was content to withdraw. If he means it in a moral ſenſe upon the account of that confeſſed maxim, Id tantum poſſumus quod jure poſ­ſumus, It is clearly petere〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a begging of the queſti­on, which is whither Gods word hath not given us power?To ſuſpend the ignorant and ſcanda­lous. and I wonder Epiſcopal men ſhould ſo far forget the Rubrick and Canons as to deny it. For our parts, beſides the authority of Gods word, diſcharging our conſciences, we think the Form of Government eſtabliſhed 1648. by Parlament diſ­chargeth our practice.

He goes on.

A ſeparation in the Church is unlawfull. Argum. 12

But this practice of ſuspenſion makes a ſeparation in the Church.



If the Major be true, the legally unclean could not law­fully be kept from the Paſſeover, yet God threatens the Prieſts for not doing it. Beſides, Excommunication is a ſeparation in the Church; for the excommunicate perſon is not out of all relation to the Church, but to be admoniſhed as a brother; yet we are to ſeparate from him (as a diſeaſed member) both in reſpect of Sacramental communion, and intimacy of civil communion.

The unworthineſs of ſome muſt not debar others of their right. Argum. 13

But (admitting ſuspenſion) this is done.


1. As to the Major if he means by debarring others of their right, deveſting them of their right, it is true. 2. if he means hindring them for a time from enjoying their right, It is a queſtion whither ſuch a caſe may not be, ſuppoſe the peace of the Church muſt be broken, or ſuppoſe there be one or two have a right who cannot make a communion.

But to the Minor.

2. I ſee not how the admiſſion of ſuſpenſion enforceth the debarring of any their right. Let the worthy be received, and the unworthy ſuſpended. The good mother will feed her chil­dren, but if the doggs be ſo many that ſhe cannot at preſent, ſhe will watch her time till they be ſhut out of doors.

To whom the tender of the Covenant belongs,Argum. 14to thoſe all the ſeals of it belong.

But to the ignorant and ſcandalous the tender of the Co­venant belong.


The Major is falſe; though the tender of the Covenant belongs to all, yet the ſeal belongs to none but thoſe who have evidenced their acceptance of the covenant; God hath com­manded the offer of the Covenant to all, but not the ſetting of the Seal.

I find no more in that book looking thwart upon me; for I durſt not defend Mr. Helms his Arguments. If Mr. Barks­dales friends have truly repreſented the diſpute. I could either have wiſhed Mr. B. ſtronger Opponents that day, or at leaſt17 his Opponents ſtronger Arguments.

But I muſt not let paſs a paſſage or two I find there in a letter from Mr. Barksdale to Collonel A. dated June 1653.

1. He tells the Collonel, and now the world that Judas was an hypocrite diſcloſed, when Chriſt admitted him; whe­ther Chriſt admitted him or no, I have ſhewed we have juſt reaſon to doubt, if not to conclude the contrary. But ſuppoſe he did, how it appears he was an hypocrite diſcloſed, I can­not tell; that Chriſt (who as God knew hearts) knew his heart is plain indeed, but is an hypocrite known only to an all ſee­ing God diſcloſed think we?

2. He tells the Collonell, Chriſt did not eate the Lamb. This is indeed Grotius his notion; to which more afterwards. But neither Grotius, nor Mr. Barksdale ſure ſhall ever make ſober Chriſtians believe that Chriſt ſupped that night with a humane invention inſtead of a divine inſtitution; the eating of that〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, was no fulfilling the Law, which we think Chriſt did in that laſt act.

In the ſame letter he tells us, That the ſop Christ gave to Judas was the Sacramental bread; upon this very ground was founded the miſtake of diverſe of the Antients, from whence they concluded Judas was at the inſtitution, and a communicant there, becauſe they conceived this〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉was the ſacramental bit. To this opinion, Cyrill, Euthymus, and (as I remember) Auſtin (ſomewhere) doth encline; I confeſs it ſtartled me at firſt, becauſe he hints me that〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉doth ſignify a bit of bread; and ſo doth Dr. D. Hammonds Annotations on John 13.Hammond in his late Annotations on the Goſpel, who alſo puts in He­ſychius for a witneſs ſhould ſay (I know not where) that〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉ſignifies〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; From whence he confidently concludes (as well he might) that Judas was at the Sacrament.

I muſt confeſs at firſt bluſh I had almoſt began to quit our notion of the ſop being the bitter herbs dipt in the Charoſheth, allowing the Dr. and other learned Expoſitors (in the ſame miſtake) a great deal more Critical learning then I dare pre­tend to. But poſt〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (which they ſay are beſt)18 remembring that they did not uſe to dip bread in the Char­ſheth; and that if this were the Sacramental bread, it would enjoin us all to dip it before we give it (for I cannot allow the Doctors notion of〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, though I have not time now to enter my exceptions, I reſolved to look a little before I ſubſcribed. And firſt I find,

Heſychius ſaith no ſuch thing; he ſaies indeed〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉ſo ſignifies, but ſaies nothing of〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and it is a pittyful ſhift that the Doctor hath, faying〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉is a falſe print; for which

1. Suid. in verbo〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Scapulain Lex. Budeus in Lex. You have onely the Doctors word.

2. Suidas then is falſe printed too; for he ſaies the ſame〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

3. If there had been no ſuch word as〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Doctor might have been believed; but there is ſuch a word in the Greek tongue which ſo ſignifies. Scapula expounds it Fru­ſtulum; Budeus, inferior pars pains, mica aut crustulum panis nimium aſſati.

4. If indeed (in Heſychius) 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉had ſtood in the place of〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we might have been ſo charitable as to have be­lieved the Doctor, but Heſychius hath not〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉at all, but onely its Primitive〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and there are nine or ten words which in their Alphabetical order intervene (I may miſtake the number, but I believe not much if at all) now conſide­ring this, why we ſhould believe the Printer rather than the Doctor miſtaken, I cannot tell; eſpecially conſidering what others no leſs Criticks in the Greek tongue ſay.

5. Steph. Theſau­ru. Gr. Lin. Bnd. Comment. Gr. Lin. Bud. Lex. Gr. Suidasin verbo〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Phav. in LexDiog. Laertius in v. Diog. Euſtathius inom Od. l. 2.Stephen ſaies it ſignifies a crust of bread put into a mans mouth, a mouthful of bread, or any other edible thing. Budeus in his Commentataries tells us it ſignifies any mouth­ful, in his Lexicon he tranſlates it by Buccella a mouth­full.

Suidas ſayes it ſignifies Bread, and not only ſo, but Rei­eſculente frustulum, quantum os capere potest, quod ideo Buccea vocatur ſive Buccella, a morſel or mouthfull of any edible thing.

Phavorinus expounds〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉by〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ſaith he,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (parts, little bits of things,19 thence it is joined with〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉(which it needed not if it ſigni­fied as much alone) and indeed for this there is a place plain enough in Diogenes Laertius in the life of Diogenes where we find〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for which (ſaith Stephen) debuit di­cere〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; what Phavorinus ſaith of〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉he hath borrowed verbatim from Euſtathius, who ſaies the ſame thing in his comment on the ninth book of the Odyſſes; where we find Homers authority ſufficient to ſpoil the Doctors and Mr. Barksdales notion, where it is ſaid of the Cyclops being aſleep,

〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
Homer. Odyſſ. l. 9.

From whence it is plain that〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉doth onely ſignify a mouthful, a bit, and doth not deſignare materiam; and conformably to this Heſychius expounds it only by〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (now ſurely〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉is but a pig of his own Sow) and being a diminutive derived from it,Heſyc. in Lex. doth not add to the ſignifica­tion〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. can be no more than a little〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, being daugh­ter to it; conformably to this is〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, another ſprig from the ſame root, uſed Rom. 12.20. If thine enemy hunger,Rom. 12.20.〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which ſurely need not be conſtrued Give him a bit of bread to eat, and 1 Cor. 13.3. 1 Cor. 13.3.〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉where it cannot be conſtrued of bits of Bread, except we will ſay Pauls eſtate was made up of nothing but loaves of bread. By all this the vanity of the Doctors and and Mr. Barksdales Criticiſm appears; as alſo how dange­rous a thing it is to build divinity concluſions upon vain cri­ticiſms. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉ſignifies onely a little mouthful; be it of what it will; for that muſt be underſtood by what is joined with it. Chriſt took〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉a little mouthfull and gave it to Judas; but it ſtill remains to prove that this was bread; we ſay it was the herbs, which he dipt in the Charcſheth and gave it to Judas.

And ſo much may ſerve for Mr. Barksdale.

There is yet a third book come out ſince I ſent my ſheets to the Preſs, wrote by one Mr. Timſon,An Anſwer to Mr. Timſon. a private Christian of Great Bowden in Lieceſterſhire. It is properly directed as an20 anſwer to Dr. Drake. I ſhall not take that learned mans work out of his hand, knowing how able he is to do it himſelf; yet (craving firſt pardon of the Doctor) now my hand is in, I ſhall ſubjoin an animadverſion or two; eſpecially upon ſuch paſſages in his book as contain the principles on which his whole diſcourſe is built, and where he ſpeaks in theſi to the buſineſs.

The Authors ſtudy ſeems to be to beget in his Reader an o­pinion of his moderation, upon which he is ſomething fro­ward with the Doctor for ſome harſh expreſſions (as he calls them p. 1.) words that might have been ſpared (he ſaith) p. 2. he calls it unbrotherly and uncharitable dealing; Qui alterum incuſat probri, ipſum ſe intueri oportet. This had been capable of a very good interpretation, if Mr. Timſon, had taken as much notice of his friend Mr. Humfreys (I had almoſt ſaid) brutiſh reflections upon the Doctor, and abu­ſing of Scripture to do it (witneſs the two laſt pages of his Rejoinder; and that vein of Security which runs through the whole book (to paſs by his falſe and imperfect propoſals of the Doctors anſwer, that he might have advantage to ſcoff him; and all this is prefaced in with ſuch humble profeſſions of ſelf-denyal and piety, as are more then ordinary) I ſay if Mr. Timſon had equally taken notice of this too, he might have been judged more unbiaſſed then we can now conceive him; eſpecially conſidering his own reflections upon the poor Presbyterians p. 8, 9. whom he chargeth with ſetting up Of­ficers in the Church whom Chriſt never impowred with the keyes, &c. and ſuch a way as no word doth warrant; and cauſing a careleſs forbearance of the Sacrament, and ſuſpen­ding perſons upon accounts for which thers not the leaſt war­rant either of Rule or Preſident, and making excommuni­cation both leſs, and more than it is, and doing many things. All which are beſide the rule, p. 10. Tis well he mends it with I think; for we hope we are able to make learned men think otherwiſe, or elſe deny both Scripture and Reaſon too.

Theſe are heavy charges and argue as unbrotherly and uncharitable dealings, with ſome hundreds of men in Eng­land, as learned and judicious as Mr. Timſon complains of in21 the Doctor, eſpecially conſidering there is (beſides many o­ther) a book written in Mr. Timſons mother tongue too, cal­led Jus divinum Regiminis Eccleſiaſtici with a Vindication of it, publiſhed by ſome learned Brethren of the Province of London, proving (paſt Mr. Timſons anſwering) thoſe ſame offenſive officers and that ſame unwarrantable way, and ſuſpenſion. But thus much onely to let the Reader know that as Mr. Timſon is much Mr. Humfries friend, ſo he hath imitated him a little too far in quarrelling with his brother for what himſelf intended to be ten times more guilty of.

In his fourth page he puts the Queſtion, Whether all Church-members not rightly excommunicated may come to the Lords Supper; he is for the Affirmative; ſomething larger he is in his principles then Mr. Humfry (his friend) who excepts thoſe who are excommunicate de jure.

Mr. Humfry and Mr. Timſon too except Infants, perſons diſtracted, and drunken perſons. The Doctor ſaies right, that by the ſame reaſon the Ignorant and ſcandalous are to be ex­cepted: I know Mr. Humfry is angry at this and doth not love to hear of it often (whence it is that in his Rejoinder he ſo ridiculouſly diſturbs his Reader with dallyings) but to ſpeak to the buſineſs, I demand of Mr. Humfry, and his friend Mr. Timſon, what it is which gives one right to the Sacra­ment. I know they will ſay Church-memberſhip. I proceed; Either this alone, or this and ſomething elſe. If they ſay this alone, it muſt neceſſarily follow that according to their principles then all thoſe who are Church-members have a right to it; for Quod convenit alicui quà tali muſt needs con­venire omni tali, and then Infants, and mad men, and dun­kards muſt come, let them ſay what they can.

If they ſay that Church-memberſhip alone doth not give them a plenary right. Timſons Bar removed, p. 5, 6, 7, 8.

1. Many of their arguments will fail, as I ſhall ob­ſerve anon. 2. Some may be ſuſpended. 3. I muſt enquire what it is then which joined with Church-memberſhip doth entitle them. I cannot find Mr. Humfrey nor Mr. Timſon ſpeaking plainly to this; the latter ſpends time to prove the ignorant and ſcandalous are more capable then Infants and mad men; but22 he is not clear in telling us wherein their capacity lies: whe­ther in this that they have more years, which fails in mad men, or in this that they have more wit; if I underſtand them them think they are in a more capacity to exerciſe their reaſon: Well then; is this the thing that conjoined with Church-memberſhip, gives all a right to the Sacrament? then it fol­lows

That all Church-members, who are able to exerciſe their reaſon, ought to be admitted to the Table of the Lord.

Why are Drunkards then excepted by M. Timſon p. 4. (ex­cep he means only during the time of their drunkenneſs) But if Mr. Timpſon remembers, p. 5. he tells us, the Church is to enquire what is agreeable to the will of God revealed. So then it being granted both by Mr. Humfry and Mr. Timſon; that meer Church-memberſhip doth not give a plenary right to the Sacrament; for then infants and diſtracted perſons and drunkards muſt not be excepted; we in enquiring what elſe muſt be conjoined with it, muſt have an eye to the will of God revealed.

And let Mr. Timſon ſhew us the leaſt ſhadow of Scripture to prove that a capacity of exerciſing their reaſon is that other thing, which ſuperadded to Church-memberſhip, gives a ple­nary right, and we will be his bond-men.

In the mean time thus far it is agreed betwixt us, that meer Church-memberſhip doth not give one a right. Then Mr. Timſon hath granted his question againſt himſelf; for ſome Church-members not rightly excommunicated may not come to the Lords Table.

But this then is the queſtion between us, what it is which ſuperadded to Church-memberſhip, which gives only jus ad rem, haereditarium, et remotum, muſt give a man jus in re, aptitudinarium, & proximum, a plenary full right to the Sa­crament.

Mr. Humfry and Mr. Timſon, if I underſtand them, ſay as I ſaid before, a capacity to exerciſe their reaſon; we ſay

Knowledge and Faith which works by holineſs.

Here is the queſtion: by whom ſhall we be tryed? By God and the Country, ſaith the Malefactor; by God and23 the Church ſay we. By God ſpeaking to us in his word, and inabling us by vertue of that candle ſet up in us to fetch true concluſions from ſacred principles, comparing ſpiritual things with ſpiritual.

1. Firſt I plead againſt their opinion thus;

If a meer capacity to exerciſe reaſon entituleth a Church-member to the Sacrament, than every Church member in ſuch a capacity hath an undoubted right.

This conſequcence ſtands upon ſuch foundation of reaſon, that he who doth not want the capacity mentioned in it muſt confeſs it.

I aſſume then;

But every Church-member that hath a capacity to ex­erciſe reaſon, hath not an undoubted right to the Lords Supper.


What Mr. Timſon thinks I cannot tell; but I am ſure Mr. Humfry is almoſt angry with the Dctor, that he ſhould un­derſtand him of ſuch as of right ought to be excommunica­ted.

Now ſurely it is poſſible that one may be in a capacity to exerciſe reaſon, and yet ſo notoriouſly ſcandalous, that of right he ought to be excommunicated. Suppoſe one had com­mitted inceſt or adultery, and that immediately before a Sa­crament; ſuch a wretch may be in a capacity to exerciſe rea­ſon, yet ſurely Mr. Timſon hath large principles if he thinks ſuch wretches have a plenary right to the Ordinance.

Let Mr. Humfry and Mr. Timſon ſay what they can. Some­thing beſides Church-memberſhip muſt be added to give one a plenary right to the Sacrament; or elſe Infants and diſtra­cted perſons muſt have a plenary right. And ſomething be­ſides an ability to exerciſe reaſon; or elſe an inceſtuous per­ſon immediately after his vileneſs hath as full a right as any; and the like might be ſaid for a Drunkard, a Murtherer, any profane perſon, openly defending his profaneſs, for one who doth not know whether Chriſt were a man or a woman, &c.

2. Secondly I urge further according to Mr. Timſons prin­ciples,


He muſt be able to diſcern the Lords body from common Bread.

But many men may be Church-members and rational, and yet not able to do this.

Ergo ſomething elſe muſt be ſuperadded.

3. A child of five or ſix years old is able to exerciſe reaſon and is a Church-member if baptized; if theſe two things give a plenary right, ſuch children ought undoubtedly to be admitted.

This is ſufficient to ſhew the vanity of this Con­ceit, That meer Church-memberſhip, with a capacity to exerciſe Reaſon, gives one a plenary right to the Lords Sup­per.

And if meer Church-memberſhip doth not do it, no nor that with this ſecond thing added:

I Query what it is doth it. Surely it muſt be ſomething above theſe: we ſay a Knowledge of the things of God conjoined with faith in Chriſt, ſuch a faith as is evidenced by holineſs.

It will ſtand Mr. Humfrey and Mr. Timſon in hand either to ſpeak clearly to this, and tell us what gives a plenary right, or to acknowledge with us that theſe things (ſuperadded to Church-memberſhip) do: which if they grant us, Let them ſay what they will. Dr. Drake ſaith true, that by the ſame reaſon that Mr. Humfry and Mr. Timſon except infants and perſons diſtracted, ignorant and ſcandalous perſons are to be excepted; and Mr. Humfrys excepting out of his opinion infants and perſons diſtracted, is but a crafty trick to prevent thoſe arguments which he foreſaw he could not anſwer, like ſome late Arminians, who tell us, Christ died to purchaſe a poſſibility of ſalvation for all but ſuch as ſhall dy impeni­nent.

And the Reader may eaſily perceive the ſores of M. Hum­frys book, by his kickings in his Rejoinder, where the Do­ctor touched him. I ſay Mr. Humfry and Mr. Timſon muſt hold that a meer natural capacity to exerciſe reaſon in one who is a Church-member, gives him a full right to the Sa­crament, or elſe there is a par ratio for keeping away the ig­norant25 and ſcandalous as for infants and perſons diſtracted. And if they hold ſo I have ſhewed them what follows upon it. When Mr. Timſon ſpeaks clearly to this point, we will more ſtrictly examine his judgement.

He ſpends his 8, 9, 10. pages in entering his exceptions a­gainſt the Presbyterian Diſcipline where he chargeth the friends of it ſufficiently, and dals as unbrotherly with ſome hundreds of Learned and Reverend men, as he chargeth Dr. Drake to have done with Mr. Humphry, and ſomething more.

Conſidering that the Reverend Doctor if he be a little ſmart with his adverſary, yet withall he anſwers his adverſary Et miſcuit utile amaro.

But Mr. Timſon hath anſwered nothing ſaid in the defence of thoſe practices which he ſo deeply cenſureth. All that I ſhall ſay is, we hope, Longe aliter in Coelo quam Boudenae de Presbyterio concluſum eſt.

Jeſus Chriſt and Mr. Timſon are not both of a mind. But in the mean time,

Qis tulerGracchos de ſeditione querentes? why doth Mr. imſon inveigh againſt unbrotherly, uncharitable, weak dealing, before he hath apologized for his own dealing in that manner with ſo many men and Churches too? I think the impartial Reader of his book may ſee enough of it in his book.

Thus we ſee not onely what he obſerves, That good men are apt to reprove others in things controverted, but alſo for things they will do themſelves.

In his 12. and 13. pages he puts ſome Quaeries upon the 1 Cor. 11. an ingenuous anſwer to which he thinks would moderate our rigour as he calls it; and therefore he hath fa­voured us with his opinion as to them, p. 14, 15, 16, 17. &c.

Becauſe indeed all his ſuperſtructure ſtands upon the foun­dation he here laies,

I ſhall crave leave to examine a little what he ſaies here.

1. I obſerve that in propounding them he forgot the rule of Frusta fiper plura quod fieri poſſit per pauciora.


For his four firſt quaeries are reducible to this one.

1. Q Whether the unworthy Receiving mentioned 1 Cor. 11.29. (for which the Corinthians were chaſtned v. 30.) was perſonal or habitual; or meerly actual miſcarriages in re­ference to the order, in which they ought to have recei­ved?

His fifth, ſixth and ſeventh are reducible to this ſecond.

2. Q. Whether the duty of ſelf-examination preſcribed by the Apostle as a Remedy to prevent future Judgements, were not ſuch as the unregenerate and moſt ignorant perſon might uſe? &c.

3. Q. His eighth, Whether an incapacity to perform this duty, or neglect of it did give a writ of eaſe from the pre­cept of publique duty and ſervice, Do this in Remembrance of me?

4. Q. His laſt quaery is, Whether there be any thing in the institution, nature, language and actions of the Sacrament in the Context, or elſewhere incongruous to the unregenate mans receiving?

As to the firſt of theſe Queries. Mr. Timſon thinks p. 14. That they are not blamed for their perſonal unworthyneſſe; for chap. 1. ver. 1, 2. they were all ſanctified in Christ Jeſus, called to be Saints; I ſee no great harm is like to come of it, if we ſhould grant that the Apoſtle there doth not prima­rily ſpeak of habitual perſonal unworthineſs, but actual. But Mr. Timſon in his anſwer to the ſecond and third Query, thinks the unworthy eating ſignifies only their diſorderly eat­ing, and for this onely p. 14. he thinks they were puniſhed, v. 30. this is the Summ of what he ſaies, p. 14, 15. 16, 17, 18.

To which I anſwer.

1. Tis not much materiall to diſpute whether the Apo­ſtle there ſpeaks of habitual unworthineſs or only actual; That there is a perſonal unworthyneſs himſelf muſt grant, or elſe Turks and Excommunicated perſons cannot be ex­cluded.

2. Whether every unregenerate man (as unregenerate) be perſonally unworthy, Mr. Timſon ſeems to doubt, we believe,27 but there is no need to diſpute it here. For

3. We grant that every Church member is by us to be lookt upon as habitually worthy, unleſs by ſome actual miſ­carriage he declares himſelf actually unworthy, which we believe may be done as well by his ignorance, diſcovering his actual miſimproving of the means of grace, as by his ſcan­dalous life and converſation. Yet we believe their Church-memberſhip is not that which makes them habitually wor­thy but their intereſt in Chriſt, which charity obligeth us to believe they have till by ſome fruits they diſcover to us the contrary.

4. We dare not deny but the diſorderly eating in the Church of Corinth, was an unworthy eating, and might be a cauſe of their puniſhment ver. 30. we know God is very tender of his own order. God hath made a breach upon us (ſaith David in Ʋzzah's caſe) becauſe we ſought him not in due order.

5. But that a man ſhould not be capable of eating un­worthily, except by ſuch diſorderly receiving? or that all the unworthy eating of the Corinthians, ſhould be their diſ­orderly eating; or that this ſhould be the only ſin for which they were puniſhed with death.

Theſe things we cannot digeſt without ſome good Argu­ments to crowd them down.

1. Becauſe the Apoſtle chap. 5. had told the Corinthians they could not keep the Feaſt with the old leaven of malice and wickedneſs, and bidden them purge out the old leaven, ver. 7, 8. and not eat with one called a Brother who ſhould be a Fornicator, an Idolator, &c. And again chap. 10. ve. 21. had told them, They could not drink of the cup of the Lord, and of the cup of Devils, and that they could not be partakers of the Table of the Lord, and of the Table of Devils.

2. Becauſe it ſeems very abſurd to us that a man who ſhould offend but in a point of order ſhould be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, and eat and drink damnation to himſelf; which are the two things predicated of the unwor­thy Receiver, and he who comes reaking with the guilt of ſcandalous ſins ſhould not at all be guilty or lyable to Gods Judgements.


Thirdly becauſe we cannot conceive, that God ſhould be ſo unlike himſelf as to look upon one legally unclean unwor­thy to eat the Paſſeover under the old Teſtament, and yet look upon one morally unclean as worthy under the New Teſta­ment.

We therefore humbly conceive (till Mr. Timſon makes the contrary appear to us) that the Subject of thoſe propoſiti­ons 1 Cor. 11.27, 29 viz. He who eateth and drinketh un­worthily, muſt be expounded as well by the fith and tenth chapters, as by what precedeth in this; and that thoſe did as well eat and drink unworthily, who kept the Feast with old leaven, who did partake of the Cup of Devils chap. 10. as thoſe who came in diſorderly parties to the Lords Table and mingled that Feaſt with their Love-feaſts. Andhat they were as well puniſhed for the former as the latter ſins. I have done with his four firſt Quaeries. His fifth and ſixth quaeries are,

What Remedy the Apoſtle preſcribes, whether the moſt ignorant perſon, owning the true religion and the un­regenerate might not uſe it ſo far as to prevent the Judge­ments and receive benefi.

Mr. Timſon ſaies the remedy propounded is by Instructi­on and Direction. Inſtruction, to which purpoſe he remem­bers them of the Institution. True, he doth ſo, but whe­ther as a mean to convince them of their ſin, or a Remedy, I think may be a queſtion.

2 Then ſaith he, he directs them to examine themſelves, and to tarry for one another. True but is this all? in caſe there be ſcandalous ſinners in the Church, are the miniſters and officers of the Church to do nothing elſe but bid them exa­mine themſelves? This we are told indeed (Mr. Boatman told us ſo too I remember) but I hope in the fifth chap. the Apoſtle had told them of another Remedy; Not keeping the Feast, not eating with them; doth it follow that becauſe the Apoſtle doth not repeat it again here, therefore that is no remedy?

Self-examination is a perſonal Remedy, but there are o­ther Church remedies which the Apoſtle commandeth the uſe29 of as well as this. Mr. Timſon quaeries whether the remedy be not ſuch (I ſuppoſe ſelf examination is that he means) as the moſt ignorant and the unregenerate may make uſe of, ſo far as to prevent the judgement threatned, and receive benefits thus he openeth himſelf in the ſeventh quaery. So then this que­ry amounts to this,

Whether a man be bound before the Sacrament to exa­mine himſelf any otherwiſe than an unregenerate perſon, and the moſt ignorant perſon profeſſing and owning true Religion may do, about the meer notion of the Sacrament, the insti­tution, &c.

The Queſtion is here concerning the nature of that ſelf-examination, which is the duty of him who would partake worthily at the Lords Table; for when we have determined that, we ſhall eaſily judge whether an unregenerate or ignorant perſon be in a capacity to do it.

Pag. 21, 22. Mr. Timſon is ſtrongly enclined to believe that they are onely bound to examine themſelves concerning the premiſes; and that Divines ſtretch this precept too far to expound it of any other, becauſe he conceives the Apoſtle ſutes the remedy to the malady.

Mr. Humfry ſubmits his Judgement to other Divines in this thing in his Rejoinder p 6. 7. onely ſubjoineth three ho­neſt cautions.

I cannot ſubſcribe to Mr. Timſons inclinations, that the ſelf-examination mentioned 1 Cor. 11.28. muſt be limitted by the premiſſes.

1. Then it will follow that the Apoſtles mind is a commu­nicant ſhould onely ask himſelf,

Firſt, Whether he takes his own Supper before the Lords Supper, v. 21.

Secondly, Whether he knows that what he doth is Chriſts institution, v. 23, 24, 25.

Thirdly, Whether he knows the Lords body from common bread (as Mr. Humfry and Mr. Timſon expound that phraſe of diſcerning the Lords body) v. 29. ſo let a man ex­amine himſelf and he may come, thinks Mr. Timſon; this in­deed is ſhort work. But ſurely,


2. The word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉will not be ſatisfied with ſuch a jejune interpretation; whether it be verbum forenſe, as ſome would have it. Surely Magiſtrates examine malefactors more ſtrictly, or verbum mecchanicum, as others will have it, The Goldſmiths tryal of his Gold is a more ſearching trial; the Apoſtle expounds it 2 Cor. 13.5. Examine your ſelves whether you be in the faith or no, prove your ſelves.

3. That another kind of Examination is here required, hath been the concurrent Judgement of all Divines, eſpecially thoſe of the reformed Churches, which makes Mr. Humfry tender the leading the way to this looſe interpretation, and to ſubmit to their unanimous judgment, I heartily wiſh he had ſhewed himſelf as tender concerning the buſineſs of ſuſpenſion which he might have done upon the ſame principle.

4. But if they be to examine themſelves no more than whither they diſcern the Lords body, we conceive it enough, for it will ly upon Mr. Humfry and Mr. Timſon to prove that the diſcerning there meant is no more than the diſtingu ſhing betwixt that feaſt and their Love-feaſts; diſcerning muſt imply knowledge, I cannot diſcern the Lords body from another thing if I do not know it. I muſt know it as a body ſacramen­tally; 2. as the Lords body: it will neceſſarily imply a know­ledge of the ſign, and of the thing ſignified in the Sacrament, a knowledge of the two natures in the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and of what he hath done and ſuffered for me, and of the nature of the Sacrament, and what is held forth in it to the ſoul. And from hence will eaſily follow an anſwer to Mr. Timſons 6. query; That Ignorant perſons though (pro formâ) they do own the Chriſtian Religion, yet are not in a capacity to exa­mine themſelves, ſo as to prevent the Judgement or receive the benefit.

Mr. Timſons 8. query is, Whether a careleſs neglect, or in­capacity to perform this duty, doth excuſe and give a writ of eaſe from that precept, Do this in remembrance of me.

1. When Mr. Timſon hath proved that that precept is an univerſal precept that concerns every individual perſon that is baptized and in a capacity to exerciſe reaſon, we may poſ­ſibly tell him, that his incapacity or careleſs neglect makes31 him doubly guilty, and ſo doth not give a writ of eaſe but on­ly laies another action upon him. We conceive that precept only to concern the Diſciples of Chriſt, and none but true diſ­ciples. Though I do not ſee what Mr. Timſon can make of it, if we ſay all within the Church are obliged by that precept in ſenſu compoſito, that is firſt to examine and then to eat; but not in ſenſu diviſo. Nor will it much trouble us which Mr. Timſon ſaies p. 23. where he ſaies, The Apoſtles were bound to call upon thoſe to whom they preached to obſerve all that he had commanded. Either that Argument will prove, that they were to call upon Pagans, children, &c. to come to the Sacrament, or elſe it ſaies nothing but this, that we are bound to call upon all to obſerve ſuch things as he hath commanded them reſpectively, and then it ſtill remains to prove that Chriſt hath commanded an ignorant profane perſon while ſuch to come to the Sacrament.

For Mr. Timſon's query p. 24. Whether any instance can be given, of any under the Law admitted to the other Ordi­nances yet debarred the Paſſeover; we conceive there may. It will poſe Mr. Timſon to prove that thoſe who had touched the dead body of a man might come at no ordinances but we can prove that they might not come at the Paſſover, Num. 9.

Nor is that whimzy of his p. 25. at all better, by which he would prove the receiving the Sacrament a duty incumbent upon all becauſe included in the firſt table. For beſides that it will poſe Mr. Timſon to prove that the ſpecifical duty of re­ceiving of the Lords Supper is commanded in the firſt Table: If it were, yet I hope preaching the word is ſo alſo, which yet is not a duty enjoined to all, but thoſe only who are appointed thereto.

Whether it be ſenſe or no I cannot tell, ſure I am it hath no great ſtrength of reaſon that he ſaies ſelf-examination is a private duty, and ſo ſubordinate to the Publique. Who de­nies it? but if he means that we muſt not neglect the publiqu becauſe we cannot perform, or have not performed the Pri­vate; Beſides that we queſtion whether upon ſuch an incapa­city or neglect the publique be a duty, we conceive that where a private duty as commanded in order to prepare us for the32 publique, we cannot without ſin perform the publique before we have performed the private; cleanſing was the unclean per­ſons private duty: yet till it was done, we think he might not come to the Paſſeover.

For his notion p 27. that the Receiving the Sacrament is the End, and Self-examination the means, it is ſo far from making for him, that it will conclude that he who cannot or hath not examined himſelf, can no more receive the Sacrament without ſin, neglecting the due means to make him a worthy receiver, then Mr. Timſon can prove the wicked ought to re­ceive without Scripture or reaſon, or write another book without an hand, pen, ink of paper; I had thought due means muſt be neceſſarily ſuppoſed to the end.

His 9. query is, Whether there be any thing in the nature, language, actions or end of the Sacrament in 1 Cor. 11. or elſewhere, incongruous to the unregenerates receiving.

Whether in 1 Cor. 11. there be any thing there or no, I ſhall not diſpute. I have ſaid ſomething to that already, and it is enough if we find it elſewhere, and we conceive there is ſomething contrary to the receiving of the ignorant and ſcandalous, which is the queſtion, for the Church judgeth not of ſecret things.

1. In the institution for Chriſt gave it to none ſuch:

2. In the nature of it, for it is strong meat, and the ſeal of the righteouſneſs of faith.

3. In the language of it for the ignorant cannot do it in a notional remembrance of Chriſt, nor the ſcandalous in a pra­ctical remembrance of him.

4. In the actions required, for we conceive the communi­cant is ſpiritually as well as corporally to eat and drink, viz. to exerciſe faith.

5 In the end for we conceive it was instituted, not to convey faith but to ſeal it.

But before Mr. Timſon can tell us his mind, he muſt lay down ſix postulata, and if we will grant them he will do ſomething.

1. First he conceives, that this Sacrament is instituted for the good of every particular member of the Church. We33 conceive ſo too; therefore they have jus ad rem, but how doth this prove that therefore every particular member ought in his preſent ſtate to come to it, and coming ought to be ad­mitted. 1. Was not the Paſſover ſo appointed, yet I think the unclean perſons might not come during their uncleanneſs. 2. I know many reverend men think the excommunicate per­ſon is yet a member of the Catholike Church, and I am ſure we ſhall not baptize him again upon his repentance, and he yet poſſibly owns the Chriſtian Religion. So that he is a bap­tized perſon owning the Chriſtian Religion, and ſo a member of the Church Catholike, and doubtleſs (ſuppoſing his Repen­tance) the Sacrament is inſtituted for his good: but I hope it will not therefore follow he ought in his ſtate of Excommuni­cation to be received to that Communion.

2. For his ſecond, we will grant it him that the Church confists of good and bad.

3. And his third, That the unregenerate are the proper objects of the promiſe of first grace. Though that muſt be un­derſtood with a grane of ſalt, and I had rather ſay that the unregenerate are the only objects of firſt grace; then the only objects of the promiſes. For the promiſes profit not any with­out faith, and how the unregenerate ſhould exert an act of faith, to apply a promiſe I cannot tell, and I doubt whether it be truth to ſay any promiſes belong to men as unregenerate for if they belong to them as unregerate, they may apply them as unregenerate.

4. His fourth thing is, That the whole administration of the Covenant belongs to thoſe in the Church who are the im­mediate objects of the abſolute promiſe: they being of years of diſcretion to uſe the ſame in order to the Lords putting the promiſes into execution.

How [thoſe in the Church] and [being of years of diſcreti­on] comes in, I cannot tell, unleſs it be to prevent an anſwer for if Mr. Timſons argument be good it is fetch from the right, which an intereſt in the Covenant promiſes gives one to the Seals of it. And then it muſt hold univerſally and if the un­regenerate out of the Church be is much objects of the pro­miſes of the firſt grace, as thoſe within there is no reaſon for that reſtriction.


But to ſpeak to his Argument.

To thoſe to whom the abſolute promiſes of the Covenant belong, to thoſe the whole administration, and ſo the ſeals of it belong.

But to the unregenerate in the Church and of years the promiſes belong.


If Mr. Timſon will clear this Syllogiſm from the fallacy of 4 terms, the anſwer will be eaſy. Let but belong in each pro­pofition be underſtood in the ſame ſenſe, and the argument is weak.

If by belonging he means no more then this, that the un­regenerate are thoſe onely upon whom God ſhines with firſt grace, or to whom God hath declared he will give firſt grace, we deny the major; for by this argument heathens may come.

If by belonging, or being the objects, he means that thoſe are they only who by faith can apply them and make uſe of them for their ſalvation or conſolation, his major is true; but his minor is falſe; for no promiſe doth ſo belong to any unre­generate man, viz. as his portion which he may claim and make uſe of in his unregeneracy.

To his fifth, That the Sacraments being viſible repre­ſentations of the death of Christ on which thoſe promiſes are founded, and by which they are confirmed; The uſe of the Sacrament doth belong to thoſe whom thoſe promiſes do re­spect. To this I anſwer;

1. That the promiſes are founded upon Chriſts death, and confirmed by it, I grant.

2. I grant alſo the Sacraments are viſible repreſentations of Christs death. But that is not all, they are ſeals as well as ſigns.

3. It is falſe, That the uſe of the Sacraments belongs to ſuch as the promiſes of first grace do respect. For then the uſe of it belongs to heathens; but the uſe of it belongs to thoſe only who by faith apply the promiſes.

6. That thoſe in the Church whom we cannot exclude from Covenant relation [being of year] must not be excluded from the Sacrament, becauſe they are ſeals of covenant love to that35 people that are ipoſſeſſion of Covenant administrations.

I wonder again how that term [being of years] comes in, for the argument is to prove a right for covenant Seals for ſuch as are in covenant relation, now children are in covenant, rela­tion. That exception plainly implies that covenant relation is not enough. I know if Mr. Timſon had thought of it too, he would have excepted mad men; for they are in covenant rela­tion, and this argument pleads their right: the upſhot is, Mr. Timſon grants here by excepting thoſe not of years, that cove­nant relation is not enough to give right to covenant ſcals, ſo he hath anſwered himſelf. For his argument fails if covenant relation be not enough, and we ſtill demand what muſt be ſu­peradded? if he ſays only years, then mad men have a right, if he adds a capacity to exerciſe reaſon too. 1. Let him ſhew us Scripture for theſethings to be added. 2. I ſpoke to it already.

He tels us the elect before converſion are in the writing, and in the Church, therefore the Sacraments ſeal to them. That the elect are enrolled in the everlaſting covenant I dare not de­ny; but that they are fully in covenant is falſe, Chriſt indeed hath covenanted for them before they believe; but they are not ſaid to be completly in covenant till upon the tender of the co­venant to them in the Goſpel they have accepted the condition. And the Sacrament doth not ſeal to the everlaſting covenant, but to the acceptation of the covenant to which faith muſt be ſuppoſed. For what Mr. T. ſaies about baptiſm hath been an­ſwered again and again. He thinks it hard to ſay any in the Church are not in covenant. Concerning the everlaſting cove­nant, I know none will ſay it de individuis; yet ſurely Judas was out though a member of the firſt church, but thoſe who are in a ſtate of unbelief, though they may be objects for Gods firſt free grace, yet ſurely are not in covenant.

In the 2 or 3 next p. he puts us in hope of 2 or 3 new ar­guments, I would fain ſee them, for I have not ſeen one brought in this caſe many a day. Hs firſt is from the nature of a Sacra­ment; That it is a viſible Gospel repreſenting Christ crucifi­ed to all the ſenſes: what then? therefore the unregenerate have need of it. Bravely concluded! he was afraid if he had concluded, Therefore they have right to it, we ſhould have36 denied the conſequence. The unregenerate have need of Chriſt and all his grace and glory, but have they therefore a right to him? This argument is as old as Pauls ſteeple too. But from need to right is wide concluding. His ſecond is from the end of the Sacrament. viz. To remember Chriſt; what then? The Sacrament is to be obſerved in remembrance of Christ by all thoſe who profeſs hope of being ſaved by his death. If he had put in lively hope, or will grant me that he means thoſe who having that hope purify themſelves as God is pure (wch is the evidence of that hope) I yield it, otherwiſe I quaery. But how if they be ignorant of what Chriſt was or did? How ſhall they do it in remembrance of him? or how if they by pro­fane oaths and blaſphemies profane his blood? how ſhall they do it in a practical remembrance of him? Thirdly, he argues learnedly, They have an hand to take and a mouth to eat. This argument will prove a Monkies right to it; I had thought the taking, eating and drinking muſt be ſpiritual by faith: he asks how we will prove it? if he pleaſeth to compare Jo. 6.54, 53, 56. with v. 40, 35.50.51, 53. Eph. 4.17. Jo. 3.36. he may find proof for it. 4. The language of the Sacrament runs in ge­neral, he ſaith, for many, for you, and who were they? Chriſts diſciples.

It ſounds very harſh he ſaies to ſay the Sacrament is not a converting Ordinance. How harſhly it ſounds in Mr. Timſons ears I cannot tell. Mr. Gillespy hath proved it is not by 20 ar­guments, which M.T. hath not anſwered, and it will be more hard for M.T. to prove, That Chriſt appointed it for an or­dinary means to convert ſouls. His argument is worth nothing becauſe it is an eſſential piece of the Miniſters work, and be­cauſe it was appointed to ſhew forth Chriſts death. Let him prove the conſequence of theſe that therefore Chriſt hath ap­pointed it for converſion; if it were appointed to that end, doubtleſs they excōmmunicate ſhould not be debarred.

3. His thred bare argumnt p. 40. hath a great hole in it. For though the word and prayer are means of converſion, and they do conſtantly attend the Sacrament, yet it doth not fol­low that the Sacrament quà a Sacrament is ſo; nor is there a­ny need for converſion that the unregenerate ſhould be at it;37 for they may hear and pray and not receive. But M. T. tels us if bare preſence anſwer the end, much more would receiving. We cannot promiſe them their preſence will do them good, but we are ſure their receiving will not, and therefore M. Ts. conſequence is nought. In his 3 next pages he falls upon the Doctor who is able to ſpeak for himſelf. In the other part of his book. I find nothing in theſi to prove the right of the igno­rant and ſcandalous, he is altogether dealing with the Doctor and the Glocesterſhire miniſters, anſwering what they have ſaid againſt promiſcuous communion. I am afraid my Pre­face will ſwell too much, I ſhall therefore turn him over to my elder Brethren.

I think I have endeavoured to looſen the Foundation upon which his whole building ſtands; and if I miſtake not theſe rotten pillars uphold it.

1. Church memberſhip with a proportion of years, and a ca­pacity to exerciſe reaſon gives one full right to the Sacrament.

2. Any ſuperficial examination, if we know the nature of the inſtitution is all required.

3. Thoſe who are in any covenant relation have right to all covenant ſeals.

4. The Sacrament is a converting Ordinance.

5. Do this in remembrance of me, is an univerſal precept, which concerns all in the Church, yea and they are bound to do this, though they cannot do what is prerequiſite to it.

6. Receiving the Sacrament in remembrance of Chriſt is, nothing but a bodily eating the bread and drinking the wine, and a notional remembrance of the hiſtory of the paſſion of Chriſt.

7. The Sacrament belongs to all believers, and in Scripture ſenſe there are no unbelievers in the Church, p. 48.

Theſe are the rotten principles of divinity, which he makes his heads for his arguments, which how contrary they are to Scripture, to reaſon, to the Judgement of all Divines, enquire and judge.

Being paſt theſe I ſhall leave the remaining Structure, Suis & ipſe viribus liber ruit: If theſe principles be falſe his book hath not much truth in any one page of it.


I ſhall now diſmiſs thee from my porch; onely let me give thee a caution or two. Thou wilt find many ſlips either of my pen or the Printer, for which I beg thy pardon: Some I have noted in my firſt part, yet two ſheets of the preface, and two at the end of that eſcaped me; and in the other ſheets ſome alſo ſlipped me after twice reading over, beſides Com­ma's and Periods, and other ſtops miſplaced, for which I muſt beg thy pardon; poſſibly they might be my faults writing in haſt.

I hear of ſome intentions in M. Brabourn to reply to me. He hath nothing elſe to do. I have. I am aſſured in that he will do nothing to the purpoſe; he is at ten or twelve pound charge to get an anſwer printed; tis pitty, that it ſhould not be worth ſo many farthings when it is done, and that he ſhould not have all the advantage given him can be to help him off with his copies. If with a good conſcience I could, I ſhould be wil­ling to anſwer him out of charity to help his book to ſell, but that were the way to make the ſent of his book ſpread it ſelf further. I ſhall therefore promiſe thee nothing but ſilence. If but a rational School-boy ſhall ſend me word that he judgeth me anſwered in any one point, it is ten to one but I may vin­dicate my ſelf, otherwaies I ſhall think him more an object of pitty than any revenge; for this age tels us there are ſome who both want wit to write, and diſcretion to hold their peace.

And now (my dearly beloved friends) I am almoſt tyed with Polemical writing, and I will not promiſe you much more of that nature. I have endeavoured in two or three trea­tiſes to vindicate ſome truth, viz. Concerning the Divine Or­dinance and Office of the Ministery, in my Vindicae Mini­ſterii Evangelici, and anſwer to Mr. Sheppard.

2. The preheminecy of the Lord; day above Christmas day in my anſwer to Mr. Fiſher, &c.

3. The divine right of Church Government in the hand of the Miniſters and Elders againſt Mr. Brabourn. And now this divine ordinance and antient practice of ſuspending the ignorant and ſcandalous from the Lords Supper. Theſe ſcufflings have hindered me from ſome things (poſſibly more39 profitable) I have part of a diſcourſe neer ready, which I have promiſed the world, concerning Temptations, if my adverſa­ries diſturb me not. I ſhall in the next place apply my ſelf to that work; I have been willing to let it ſleep while I diſpat­ched this, becauſe by this I hope I may be uſeful to the whole Church, and in that but to particular ſouls, which I deſire may be my excuſe to you.

But I fear leſt the City ſhould run out at the gates. Bowing therefore my knees to the God of peace and truth, that you may be guided into all truth, and eſtabliſhed in the right ways of the Lord, I rest,

Your Cordial friend and ſervant in the work of the Gospel, I. COLLINGS.

To the Right Worll John Mann Eſq Mayor of the City of Norwich.

Much Honoured Sir,

AS the Influence which that eminent place in this City, to which God hath called you, and the Engagements which your goodneſſe hath laid upon thoſe few Miniſters in it, who have la­boured againſt great oppoſition, to pro­mote an Eccleſiaſtick Reformation, have juſtly challenged our obſervance to you; ſo your eminent appearing, not only for it, but in it, accepting the Office of a Ru­ler in one of the Congregations of it, and your appearing for the reſtoring of that eminent ſervant of Chriſt to his Paſtorall charge there again, where theſe unhappy flames of our diviſion have kindled (wch by the piety and prudence of that Reve­rend man would have been prevented) hath challenged for you the more ſpe­ciall Dedication of this Tract. What you ſhall find in it, the Preface will tell you; And the Preface is that alone, which needs your Patronage, nor ſhould that ſtand in need of it, if ſome men had not the confidence to deny that the Sunne ſhines at noon-day, whether what is there related be truth or no, your ſelfe can in a great meaſure ſatisfie the En­quirer. For the ſubſtance of the Booke, when you have examined it, I ſhall be content you ſhould diſmiſſe it your pro­tection, and ſhall my ſelfe attend the vindication of it from its adverſaries, who are ordinarily more clamorous then argumentative. If my paines may contribute any thing Sir to encourage your perſeverance in that good worke to which the Lord hath quickned you to put your hand, as it will be a great matter of encouragement and joy to all of us who are working for the Lord in the refining of Sion (while we are almoſt ſtifled with the droſſe which the cor­ruption of former times hath begot) ſo it will be a great addition to your crown in the day of the Lord, and a great crown to him who is,

Your moſt humble and much obliged ſervant in the Lord Ieſus, J. COLLINGS.

The PREFACE. To my Chriſtian Reader.

IT is growne into a faſhion for him who entertaines the world in a Book, to parley firſt a little with his gueft at the threſhold: And although the righteous Judges of Areopagus needed no ſuch complement, yet I cannot but judge it a lit­tle neceſſary in this ſinfull time, and the more in regard of the different complexions of mens per­ſwaſions, diſpoſing them to faction, and to judge unrighteous judgment, from the dictate of ſome particular prejudice. What thou art into whoſe hands my Tract ſhall come, I cannot tell. I ſhall only endeavour to cleare thy eyes from the miſt, that prejudice, and particular affection may have caſt before them, and be ambitious no further to reconcile thee to me, then unto truth. It treats of an unpleaſing ſubject, The divine Right and Primitive practiſe of ſuſpending ſuch from the Sup­per of the Lord, who as yet have not their ſenſes exerciſed to diſcerne between good and evill, and cannot diſcerne the Lords body, ſuch as were the〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉of old, and ſuch who ſince their Baptiſme have returned with the dog to the vo­mit, and are yet with the Swine wallowing in the mire of their luſts. This is the great bone of contention in the Church of God this day, every one would be fellow commoner with the Saints at the Table of childrens bread, and thoſe who have not grace to make them worthy, yet want pati­ence to beare a being judged unworthy of the higheſt Goſpell-priviledges. Reader, I ſuppoſe thou canſt not be ſo unjuſt to thy owne reaſon, but to thinke that if the godly Miniſters of En­gland durſt conſult with fleſh and bloud, that could furniſh them with ſtrong Arguments, drawne from the augmentation of their livelihood (in pla­ces where it is arbitrary) and from the univerſall love of their people to compell them into Maſter Humfryes or Maſter Boatmans faith. Alas! what doe we get by our ſtricter dealings, with the ſoules committed to us, except the frownes and reproaches of ſuch whom we durſt not caſt the holy thing of the Sacrament before. It is Gods will that Religion and humane Policy ſhould now and then divide, and we humbly ſubmit to God, and deſire rather to be faithfull Stewards for him, then providers for our ſelves, and ours. Surely there is ſo much ingenuity at leaſt in ſome of the godly Miniſters of England, as would in­title them to a deſire of the love of all, and ſo much earthineſſe in all their hearts as expoſeth them to ſome temptations, to uſe all endeavours for a comfortable ſubſiſtence in this life. If any of them neglects both that and this, and chuſe ra­ther to venture the begging of their own bread, then to throw the childrens bread to dogs, rather to proſtitute their owne names, and loſe their inte­reſt in the hearts of ſome people, then to proſtitute the Lords ſacred Ordinance, and give his name to a reproach, as in this they come ſhort of Chry­ſoſtome, who profeſſeth, he would rather give his owne bloud to the prophane, then the body and bloud of Chriſt; and of Ambroſe, who ventured the loſſe of his head as well as the love of Theo­doſius: ſo it will not need much of thy charity, to interpret their actions, conſcientious pieces of ſelf-deniall, for the intereſt of their deare and bleſ­ſed Saviour, yea and of their ſoules too who are kept away, it being certaine, if Iudas were at the Sacrament (which can never be proved) the next worke he did was to hang himſelfe, through hor­ror of conſcience, and for that ſinne of unwor­thy receiving in the Church of Corinth, Many, ſaith the Apoſtle, were ſick and weak, and many fallen aſleep. How unjuſtly therefore we are raged againſt, who durſt not give the bloud of Chriſt to thoſe to drinke who are in a burning feaver of open luſts, and ſo dangerous a knife into the hands of thoſe whom we ſee diſtracted with ſinne, and in a ſpirituall Delirium. We hope, any equitable ſtanders by will judge and meaſure our actions, by the duly and orderly practiſe of Phyſitians in bodily tempers, conſi­dering we are ready as to ſuch Patients, to allow them what they will drinke of the Barley water of Repentance (which we conceive more proper for them) and are ready to reſtore their knives to them, when they ſhall (by any moderate ac­count given us) let us know that God hath reſto­red them ſo much of his Image, in ſpirituall wiſdome, that they will not murther their pre­cious ſoules with them. And we doubt not, but if ever the Lord ſhall give them an heart to re­pent, and reſtore their deſperately diſtempered ſoules to health; in that day it ſhall be no more griefe of heart to them, that they have been kept away, then it is to the recovered Patient, that his Phyſitian denyed him fleſh, and wine in his feaver, or a knife in his diſtraction, and at that time we ſhall expect their thanks, in the meane time we ſhall beare their rage and reproach with paience, knowing it is for the Lord we ſuffer it.

For the Lord, who ſuffered more, in the ſhed­ding of his bloud for us, then we can doe in the vin­dication of it, and preſerving it from being pro­phaned by unhallowed mouths.

If it pleaſeth the Lord they dye in their ſpi­rituall diſtempers, and go raging to their graves, we muſt be content to expect our thanks from our Lord and Maſter at the great day, and our vindication there, except Reader thou wilt ſhew thy felfe ſo ingenuous and judicious as in thy thoughts to acquit us.

As to the ſubject of this Tract, the truth is, ſo much hath been ſaid in the defence of what I plead for, of old, by all the Schoolmen, and ſince by Calvin, Vrſin, Zanchy, and by Reverend Beza, and Maſter Rutherford in anſwer to Eraſtus, and by learned and Reverend Gilleſpy in anſwer to Maſter Prynne, beſides what hath been ſpoken by Maſter Philip Goodwin in his excellent Book, called the Evangelicall Communicant, and by ma­ny others; that were it not for the importunate clamours of thoſe who would get that by their importunity, and clamorous tongues and pens, which the juſtice of their Cauſe, and ſtrength of their Arguments, will not allow to them, nor gaine for them, both my ſelfe and others might have had an eternall ſuperſedeas for this Worke. I ſcarce find any thing in Erastus and Beza, but what I meet with in the Schoolmen, nor any thing in Maſter Prynne, or Maſter Humfry con­ſiderable, but what I find in Erastus: That if our Brethren of the contrary perſwaſion, would not have troubled the world with their opinions, without anſwering firſt what had been ſaid a­gainſt them: we had long ere this time had our Quietus eſt; for I durſt undertake to yeeld him the cauſe, who ſufficiently anſwers but one Book wrote upon this ſubject, viz. Maſter Gilleſpies Aarons Rod bloſſoming; ſo that the truth is, the advantage our oppoſites have of us in this point, is moſtly upon ſuch as have not knowledge of what hath been ſaid againſt their opinions, or are not ſupplyed with money to buy the Books, nor able to gaine time to read them, or upon ſuch whoſe particular engagements, and over-much love to the whimzies of their owne braines, or malice, or prejudice at leaſt to the truth, or love to their curſed luſts, which yet they would keep and have the Sacrament too, and be thought un­worthy of no Goſpell-priviledge: hath out­lawed their Reaſon, and ſo ſtopt their eares, that they are made incapable of a boaring with the ſharpeſt and moſt convincing Arguments, that Scripture and Reaſon can afford; and thus they only captivate thoſe, who are firſt led captive by their owne luſts. Poſſibly thou wilt be inquiſi­tive, to know what hath made me write, if I have judged enough already ſaid: I muſt crave a little of thy partience to ſatisfie thee as to this.

I have often thought that it would be a rare expedient in order to the ending of all contro­verſies of theſe times, relating to the order of the Church; if ſome judicious man would out of all the conſiderable Books wrote upon each Controverſie, within theſe twelve or thirteen yeares, candidly ſtate each Controverſie, and tranſcribe the Arguments relating to them, with the Exceptions and Anſwers given to any, digeſting them in a due method, and it might pleaſe the civill power then to Enact, That no one ſhould write more upon any of thoſe Queſtions, but ſhould be engaged either to bring New Argu­ments on the part he would defend, or vindicate thoſe brought on the part he would defend from the vari­ous Anſwers given to them. Were this taske but impoſed upon new Scriblers, the world would be leſſe full of impertinent Diſcourſes, and Diſputes would not run as they doe in infinitum. I doe not pretend a ſpecimen of ſuch a Worke, I have neither purſe nor Library, nor time, fit for it. But the truth is, as I find in Mr Humfry, and heare from Mr Boatman, nothing more then Eraſtus long ſince ſaid, and hath been more then once already anſwered; ſo I have not ſtudied for a new Argument, but out of ſeverall Authors have rallyed up an old force, and have candidly told thee what hath been by any, whom I have met with, ſaid againſt them, as alſo what hath been anſwered in their defence: All being ad­mitted to the Paſſover (as ſome conceive) Iohn Bap­tiſts univerſall Baptiſme; Iudas his being admitted to the Lords Supper; The generall invitation to the Wedding Supper in the Goſpell; ſome being drunke at the Lords Supper in the Church of Corinth. No evident testimony in Scripture for Suſpenſion,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theſe are all old tooles, and ſcarce newly whetted.

Yet what hath Maſter Humfry ſaid, or what doth Maſter Boatman ſay more? But for the more particular occaſion of this Tract,

I muſt deſire of thee (Reader) to underſtand, that in this great City there are, as I take it, about thirty Pariſhes within the Wals, to none of which (excepting only two, one of which hath about thirty pounds per annum) is above ten or twelve pounds a yeare certaine legall mainte­nance; The moſt of the Pariſhes have nothing at all. Scandalous Livings are alwayes the neſts of ſcandalous Miniſters; The Pariſhes being little, and the maintenance Arbitrary, and many of the people ſeaſoned with the old leaven of ignorance and ſuperſtition, many, if not moſt of our Pariſhes have been either without any Miniſter, or filled with ſuch who were caſt out of other places, or at leaſt no friends to Reforma­tion.

For thoſe Pariſhes in which were a more con­ſiderable number of godly and well diſpoſed people, ſome of them were better ſupplyed; but in all the City we were able to doe very little to promote the worke of Reformation: Some of the Congregations either wanting godly Mini­ſters, or perſons fit to be choſen, as Helpers with them in Government, and the people in others wanting an heart to chuſe; yet through much oppoſition, in two or three Pariſhes we procu­red an Election of Elders, amongſt which Peters was one, being the moſt conſiderable place in the City, and furniſhed both with perſons fit to be choſen, and a people willing to chuſe, and a Reverend Paſtor,Mr Carter. fit to goe in and out before them.

But the yoake of Jeſus Chriſt (which is al­wayes eaſie to a gracious heart) doth always gall the necks of thoſe who have made their luſts Lords, ſome of the people who had the taſte of the fleſh pots of Aegypt yet in their mouth, began to kick at this ſuppoſed burthen; ſome withdrew their ſtipends, in ſhort, ſome one way, others another way, tyred out their Reverend and Lear­ned Paſtor, who after ſeverall thoughts of remo­vall from them, about May laſt reſolved upon it.

About that time, one Maſter Boatman (ſome­times of Hull) was commended to them; we who were Miniſters of the Goſpell in the City, con­ceived it our duty, as we had opportunities, to enquire of him (to whom ere long it would be expected that we ſhould give the right hand of fellowſhip.) Amongſt others, my ſelfe, as I had occaſion offered,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, made ſome Enquiry concerning him, ſoone after ſpeaking with a Miniſter, who ſometimes lived in Yorkſhire, I askt him if he knew ſuch a Miniſter in their Countrey, and what he was. He told me he knew him very well, and he was a man who would preach frequently, and was a great enemy to Sectaries, but himſelfe was neither Miniſter nor Graduate. Soon after, a Reverend and Godly Miniſter of Lincolne­ſhire comming to ſee me, I asked him the ſame Queſtions, who confirmed the ſame things. Concerning the thing eſtabliſhed out of the mouths of two witneſſes, I imparted it to two friends, one a Miniſter, the other a judicious Chriſtian inhabiting in the Pariſh: And this I did the rather, becauſe I heard they were about to invite him for a Probationer, and I my ſelfe (having a Moneth to ſpend in the Univerſity) was to be abſent, that ſo if he came, theſe things might be enquired after. While I was in the Univerſity, I (occaſionally at dinner at the Vice-chancellors chamber, & being at ſupper the ſame nightwith one of the Proctors) met with two Mi­niſters, one at each place, both of Lincolne-ſhire, where I knew Maſter Boatman had his reſidence, they both confirmed the ſame things, adding ſomething more (which I ſhall ſpare, except Maſter Boatman provokes me to ſpeake it) being deſirous rather to vindicate my ſelfe then to aſperſe him. While I was abſent, ſome of his friends had ſufficiently branded me for ſaying he was no Graduate, when as he was a Reverend man, a Batchelour of Divinity (forſooth) of Katherine Hall: One of them fell upon me face to face at my returne, I told them I would not be over-confident, becauſe it was but a Report, but I would ſoone ſatisfie them as to that point. Thereupon I wrote a Letter by the next Poſt, to a Learned friend, Fellow of that Houſe, who certified me, That he knew him very well, That by admiſsion he was two yeares my junior, That for de­grees, he was three degrees beneath a Batchelour in Divinity, having never commenced at all, nor ſtaid in the Colledge above a yeare, or a yeare and halfe at utmoſt. Some other things he certified me, which I ſhall conceale, intending only my owne vindi­cation.

This was the only Letter I ever wrote to en­quire of him, (and that in my owne vindication too) though I heare he hath told his friends, he hath Copies of ſeverall Letters I wrote to that purpoſe.

Soone after this, a Reverend Brother in this City had another Letter from a godly and lear­ned Miniſter, who was of his year and Colledge, to omit other paſſages in the Letter, he told him that he never commenced any thing but junior So­phiſter.

By all this we gathered, That an Harry So­phiſter was the height of his Univerſity-Com­mencements. It was now about Iuly, when the Anabaptiſticall party began to rage againſt Vniverſity-Learning, and Degrees. We who were Miniſters in this City, were a little ſenſible, (if we had been ſatisfied concerning him upon other accounts) what an ill ſound it would make in the world, to be heard, that the greateſt Congrega­tion in ſo famous a City as this, and a Congre­gation which ever had either a Doctor in Divi­nity, or ſome very reverend man in it, ſhould now be ſupplyed with one, who had given no proofe in any Univerſitie of his abilities, or profici­encie in his Studies, nor ſo much as taken the loweſt degree in the Schooles.

This made ſome of us, doe what in us lay, to move thoſe who were our ſober, pious friends in that Congregation, to act deliberately in ſo weighty a worke; in which the glory of God; the good of the City, the intereſt of their ſoules, and their credit and reputation would be ſo much concerned; and that before they agreed to his Election, they would enquire concerning his later converſation, and be ſatisfied that he were a Miniſter in Office at leaſt. We thought, con­ſidering that juncture of time, and the eminency of the place, it would alſo be fit, that at leaſt he ſhould be Mr of Arts.

At laſt he came to the Towne, and a party of the people elected him as their Paſtor (one hun­dred and eleven having before ſubſcribed Maſter Carter a new Call, promiſing to wait a yeare for him.) Diverſe godly people diſſented from the Election openly, and the rather, becauſe he re­fuſed to ſatisfie them concerning his Ordina­tion. I ſhall referre to my Reader to enquire other paſſages concerning his Election. About three weeks after Michaelmas he came to reſide, but before this he had declared himſelfe for Epiſcopacy ſomthing plainly; (we ſuppoſe he was of another judgement when he preached at Hull.) He had alſo by this time declared him­ſelfe to a Reverend Miniſter in the City for pro­miſcuous communions, and within a day or two af­ter told a godly man, pinching him upon that point, that he ſhould well ſee he was not for promiſ­cuous communions; ſoon after his comming to re­ſide, we had heard he had declared himſelfe pri­vately againſt Ruling Elders;

Presbyter, haud ame te, nec poſſum dicere quare, Hoc tantùm poſſum dicere, non amo te.

For his judgement in that point, or indeed in any other, it is not much conſiderable; for we doe not thinke he is〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and we can eaſily beleeve that we have more to ſay, yea that more hath already been ſaid to prove the divine Right of that O ficer in the Church, then Mr Boatman can anſwer.

About the beginning of December after, about ſix weeks reſidence amongſt a people, he had ne­ver ſeen before (except as a gueſt for a forth­night) nay, and as I remember of that ſix weeks he was abſent for a fortnight too; He declares he intended to adminiſter a Sacrament on Chriſt­mas day, ſome honeſt people of his Congrega­tion being diſsatisfied at it, went to him, and told him ſo, in regard of the ſuperſtitious conceit of that day, which many in this City have. One of his friends told me, they had prevailed with him ſo far, as that the next day he would unbid it againe, but in ſtead of it, the next Lords day, in ſtead of unbidding it (girding at thoſe who had received this offence) he openly proclaimes foure Sacraments together. The firſt upon the eighteenth day of December; the ſecond upon the five and twentieth, &c. and proclaimed like­wiſe a Faſt Preparatory to them upon the thir­teenth of December: At which Faſt (Reader) thou muſt thinke there was much people to ſee which way he would row, (though they needed not, if they had conſidered the wind and tyde) For my ſelfe, I was not there, having with ſome other of my Brethren refuſed to heare him, who refuſeth to let us know by what Authority he preaches, and conceiving that the Paſtorall Right to that people belongs not to him, (beſides other things which diſcover him to us to be no friend to any kind of Reformation. At his Faſt he preached on Rom. 14.12. His diſcourſe in the forenoone was harmleſſe, in the afternoon he diſgorged himſelfe.

I ſhall give thee a ſhort account of that part of his Sermon which concernes this buſineſſe, as it was taken (and given me by an ingenuous judicious Schollar) from his owne mouth in ſhort hand; and by one who was (before that Sermon) much his friend.

An Account of the latter part of Mr Boatmans Sermon preached at St Pe­ters in Norwich, upon the 13th of December, 1653. upon Rom. 14.12. being a perfect count of his Sermon from his laſt Uſe; With ſhort Animadverſins upon it.

SIxthly,Sect. 1and lastly, (though I ſaid (but rather forgot when I ſaid) that that ſhould be the laſt) Take this Leſſon from the point, all in generall, viz. the Apoſtles advice, 1 Cor. 11. Judge your ſelves, conſider your ſelves a­right, lay things aright to heart. condemne your ſelves elſe God will condemne you. Paſſe a particular account with your ſelves, but that you will ſay is impoſſible. Who can tell his errors, or number his infirmities? Doe it as far as you are able, and in a generall way take the whole burthen on your ſoules, licke the duſt, cry out with Job, I am exceeding vile, humble your ſelves in duſt and aſhes And let me make the laſt Uſe more particular, to alarum you to a preparation to the great Ordinance of the Lords Supper, if you muſt give an ac­count to God (as you have heard) of all your carriages, and enjoyments of all the precious Ordinances of the Goſpell (of which the Word and Sacraments are not the leaſt, but of the higheſt nature) then put your ſelves into a poſture of humiliation, thinke with your ſelves; O God! how often have we eaten unworthily? It is not one of the leaſt ſerious thoughts I have enter­tained a great while together in relation to this Ordi­nance, the generall want of it amongſt the people of God in the Church of God: it filleth me with wonder that it hath been ſo long ſuſpended, and almoſt all the Pa­ſtors of the Church of Chriſt ſo amuſed; either their minds diſturbed, or their hearts hardened, or by one way or other diverted, that it hath been too void of the ſpirituall food of the Goſpell: The world dictates and cryes out, one againſt ſuch a Paſtor, others againſt ſuch and ſuch perſons; but will you have my verdict? The ſinne of Paſtor and people in the enjoyment of that great Ordinance, is the cauſe and ground that God hath found out away, and by away of his owne find­ing out, which a man would have thought at firſt ſhould never have prevailed, which hath hindred the people of the enjoyment of that great Ordinance of the communion of the body and bloud of Christ. Let this humble us.

This Paragraph containes little in it to the preſent purpoſe, hitherto he is making way for his work; but yet in this