A Battell with a VVaſpes Neſt; OR, A REPLY to an Angry and Railing PAMPHLET, WRITTEN By Maſter JOSEPH HEMING, CALLED JVDAS EXCOMMVNICATED, OR, A Vindication of the Communion of Saints, &c.
Wherein his Arguments are Anſwered, his Abuſes whipt and ſtript: The Queſtion whether Iudas received the Sacrament Debated, and the Affirmative proved.
By Peter Lightfoot.
LONDON, Printed in the Yeare, 1649.
IN a Pamphlet lately publiſhed by Mr Ioſeph Heming, [which he hath titled JUDAS EXCOMMUNICATED, or, A vindication of the Communion of Saints &c.] there is ſo much dirt and venome vomited by him, upon my name and repute, that by his caſting, you may eaſily gueſſe the fulneſſe of his ſtomack; and get out of his way Reader; for he cares not where he lets flie, if the diſgorging fit do but once come upon him, which comes not ſeldom: He made this promiſe in an Epiſtle which he intended to prefix unto this clamorous Volumn, but ſpared it, upon curteſie to me, as he pretendeth, I am reſolved now God willing, if he retract not what he hath ſpoken, and that ſpeedily, to give his Reputation ſuch a wound, that all godly men, who love the truth, and ſpeak the truth in ſincerity, abominating lies, and ſuch as ſpeak them in hypocriſie; yea, thoſe very ungodly ones whoſe cauſe he pleads ſhall loath it, as men do a rotton ſtinking Carkaſſe, by the wayes ſide: Neither ſhall all the freinds he hath, or can poſsibly make, be ever able to ſalve it up. A very charitable and Saint like reſolution I can aſſure you; and how he hath endeavoured to make his word good, by bad words, all along his Libell, I need not to goe about to ſhew, the thing it ſelf ſpeaks it ſelfe: You ſee the mans ſpirit and temper by his own Confeſſion: He pretends to Argue and Reaſon, but intends to barke and bite; he takes on him tenderneſſe to the truth, which it ſeemes, if he ſtood not up for it, were utterly undone, whereas the bottome of his heart and reſolution is, to fall upon my perſon and wound my repute, and to ſerve his ſpleen upon me, under ſuch a pretence. A man that begins to aſſume a Papall Prerogative, and in time may prove as excellent a Saint-maker, or Devill-maker, as his Pontificall Holineſſe of Rome himſelfe: For pleaſe him, be his white boyes, and doe as he does, and ſay as he ſayes, you ſhall preſently be a Saint, and not an Egyptian dog muſt dare to open his mouth againſt it. But, do but croſſe him never ſo little in his Opinion, or in his humour, and he will inſtantly make you a prophane perſon, and a caſt-away, and all the friends you have can doe you no good.
The occaſion of all this his heat and breaking out againſt me, was onely this, He oftentimes in the Pulpit [though I muſt tell you that I believe he is no more a lawfull Miniſter then my ſelfe] declaimed againſt the Sacrament calling it a Communion of dogs and Devils, and a rotten two peny Communion, [ſo he calls the Lords prayer a carnall fleſhly Ordinance] bragging to prove againſt all men That Iudas did not receive the Sacrament, and telling the Congregation, That if they did believe that Iudas did receive the Sacrament, they might doe as Judas did, that is, goe and receive, and then goe and hang themſelves &c. You cannot blame me, if ſuch paſſages as theſe ſeemed bitter to me, who as yet cannot be convinced by all that ever he hath ſpoken about it, but that Iudas did receive the Sacrament as well as any other of the Diſciples. Hereupon I drew up ſhort Notes upon this point, for mine own ſettlement, and for ſome others ſatisfaction: Which Notes I did neither ſend to him, nor intend for him; but he getting them into his hands by ſome meanes or other, and diſdaining that his Oracularity, and ipſe dixit ſhould be croſt, he fals to Shimei's manner of Diſpute with railing and flinging dirt and ſtones, as a man tranſported with fury, paſſion, and ſcorn to be contradicted.
I am not ſolitious to ſtand upon the Vindication of mine own repute, which to wound, he hath by his own confeſſion, ſet himſelfe to work, and made it his task: [if this be to be a ſervant to all men in the Goſpel of Ieſus Christ, as hee ſtileth himſelf to be, he that carries**Δ• An Accuſer in his name may do as much.] I referre my cauſe to God, who knoweth my heart and actions, and who will once judge between us: and beſides the witneſſe of mine own conſcience, I dare appeal to all that know me, to give in teſtimony of my converſation: And to thoſe that know me not, I do but refer it, to weigh with what ſcorn, ſpleen, pride, and virulency Mr Heming hath ſpoken againſt me what he hath ſpoken, and then let them judge whether ſo high boyling paſſions be not ready to foam out ſcum and ſcandall.
Whoſoever hath beſtowed the time and paines to read his Diſcourſe through, he doth eaſily perceive it to conſiſt of theſe four parts, Reaſoning, Railing, Boaſting, and Impertinencies: The three laſt are his own proper invention, and let him have the honour of them: but the firſt, that is, Reaſoning, or Arguments, or Anſwers, or call them what you will, about the matter in diſpute between us, there is hardly one of them, but he hath ſhameleſſely ſtollen it; Come hither all yee Proſelytes and Diſciples of Mr Heming, and ſee how he uſeth you: He makes you believe that this his great elaborate volumn is his own ſtudy, and paines, and Learning; and I hope you do not a little admire him for it; he feeds you with theſe Arguments to prove that Iudas received not the Sacament, as if they were out of his own ſtore; whereas, they are almoſt every bit of them ſtollen goods, and you poor ſouls are fed with ſuch plundred proviſion; I ſuppoſe you will not take it well at his hands to be ſo ſerved as he hath ſerved you, when I tell you whence he had it: You would little think that Mr Heming ſhould feed you with the invention of a Iure-Divino-Presbyterian Scot, and make you beleeve it is the dainty food of his own providing: Spit out for ſhame; for theſe Arguments, that you have ſo eagerly ſwallowed, digeſted and been delighted with, came out of a Iure-Divino-Presbyterian Cup-boord, were cookt and diſht up by a Iure-Divino-Presbyterian hand, and Mr Heming got them away by the virtue of Hocas Pocas, and hath ſerved them up for your diet, as his own Cookery: Read but Mr Gilleſpy in his Book called Aarons rod bloſſoming, from pag. 442 to pag. 469 and there you will ſee how this Gentleman ruffles in cloathes that are none of his own, and makes you believe that he feeds you with Veniſon, when it is but kids fleſh purloined, and that from a Scot. Now fie upon that ever Mr Heming ſhould ſerve us thus.
The two ſentences of Greek with which he hath flouriſhed the front of his Volumn, he hath taken out of that Book, pag. 452. and 453. word for word. The ſecond thing in his ninth page, the third thing in his tenth page, the firſt, ſecond, third and fourth things in his eleveth page, the third thing in his thirteenth page beginning thus, The Originall &c. And the firſt in the ſame page, beginning with Perhaps &c. In the fifteenth page, the firſt Anſwer beginning Tis true &c. the ſecond beginning Tis as true &c. and the ſecond below beginning If it had been ſaid &c. The third beginning, Whereas hee affirmeth &c. And from thence all whole till you come to the firſt thing in the ſixteenth page: The fourth thing in the ſixteenth page, and the firſt thing in the laſt page: Theſe are all taken out of that Book of Mr Gilleſpies, as any one may ſee that will read that portion of it between thoſe pages. 442, and 469. Read it ye Saints, in and about Vttoxater, and ſee how your great Oracle ſerves you, and truſt him another time. It is his own motion in his Epiſtle to you, page 4. Let me ſee my Errata's and I ſhall endeavour to correct and amend them: Shew him this his dealing, and tell him it is not fair to ſerve either you or Mr Gilleſpy thus. For all the little affection that he beareth either to a Scot, or the Presbyterian judgement, and for all the great ſincerity that he pretends to bear to you, yet you ſee how he can make uſe of thoſe; and make bold with you to ſerve his own turn.
It is certainly either a great itch that he hath to appear in publick, or a great deſire to ſcratch a Publick revenge out of me that hath put him on to play ſuch poore game as this, rather then to ſit out, namely that he will diſh up other mens arguments ſippeted with his own boaſting and railing, rather then not to be ſeen a man in Print [and ſo he muſt needs Print; and he muſt needs print Queries about Chriſtmas day that he might be ſome body, though the moſt part of them were fiilched out of Mr. Prynns Hiſtriomaſtix and the Scripture Almanack] but if there be ſuch an itch in him, I would he would claw himſelf, and not make other men ſmart for his ſcrubbing: It is not any ſmart in my reputation that troubles me though he thought to have laſhed that to the fleying and ſalting [I have innocency is vipers proof] but it is a ſmart to me that I muſt be troubled to ſpend time and labour in anſwering ſtollen arguments, idle vapours, ſnarlings and barkings, and fond impertinencies of a man that cares not much what he ſayes, ſo it be in Print, that it may be talked of, and whoſe very element is mud and troubled waters. Were I ſuch an one for ſenſeleſneſſe and for impiety as he would make me, I I were fitter to live among brute beaſts then amongſt men, or rather I were not fit to live upon the earth at all. But my witneſſe is in heaven, and within me, what is my heart; and my teſtimony is in the Country where I have lived, where is and hath been my converſation; and let the few lines enſuing be the evidence whether I am mad and raging as he would repreſent me. I ſee if Maſter Heming were the doomer of my finall eſtate that it would go but hardly with me, but I am to ſtand or fall to mine own maſter, into whoſe hands let me fall, for with him is mercy. However, I am traduced by the moſt uncharitable cenſure of this man, to have contra. conſcientiouſly upon a malignant deſigne and for the advancement of my maſters kingdom [you can eaſily read what maſter his charity meaneth] taken up and maintained that opinion that I hold: yet the Lord God of Gods he knoweth and I deſire that Iſrael may know, that never any ſuch thing entred or got the leaſt footing in my thoughts: but what I hold and maintain, I do it according to the beſt light I can receive from Scripture, according to the beſt dictates of my conſcience upon that information, & as in the ſight of God, & as in dread and reverence of his divine word. Therfore it doth fret me as little as it doth pleaſe him much in all the reproaches he doth caſt upon me: and if he can count it the part of a Saint to uſe ſuch language, I can very well account it the part of a Chriſtian to undergo it. And I go not alone neither under that burden; for all that are not directly of his mind and practiſe, have ſhare in the ſame reviling and cenſure with me.
I ſhall for all his ſcornes, calumnies, uncharitableneſſe, and virulency, leave him theſe places for an anſwer, Prov. 30.12.13.14. Mat. 5.22. and 7.1. Luk. 18.9. Epheſ. 4.31. &c. And as for the cauſe that is between us, I ſhall moſt heartily lay the umpirage of it before any impartiall and indifferent readers, when they ſhall have had the patience to hear what I can ſay for the things I hold, as they have ſeen what he hath ſpoken for himſelf.
I Confeſſe, I am engaged in low and fruitleſſe Controverſies, againſt which I finde a reluctancy in my ſpirit, becauſe they tend not to edification ſo much as could be wiſhed.
Anſwer. I would gladly know, what neceſſity hath engaged him in ſuch Controverſies: I am ſure it is as free and more neceſſary for him, to teach the ſound and ſaving doctrines of ſalvation (if he had a calling thereto and were able) and would be more acceptable and profitable to thoſe that heare them, then to trouble mens minds with empty and windy Controverſies, which only ſwell and puffe up, but edifie not. I am paſt doubting, and I dare ſay that all men that do ſeriouſly mind ſalvation will be of the ſame mind with me, that teaching the Doctrines of Faith, repentance, ſelf-deniall, charity, mortification, and the like, is a thouſand t•mes a readier way, either to beget a Saint, or to build him up, then puzzling mens thoughts with low Diſputes and fruitleſſe Controverſies, in which Mr Heming ſpends ſo much time and is ſo deeply engaged. I dare ſay thoſe points never brought men to heaven. I queſtion whether ever they forwarded any men ſo much as one ſtep thitherward: Admit I were come up2 to Mr Hemings opinion in theſe points as far as he would have me, that I would ſpeak as bitterly againſt Iudas his receiving of the Sacrament and mixt Communion as he doth, that I abhorred baptizing of Infants, that I would be re-baptized, that I would cry out againſt ſinging of Pſalms in the publick Congregation, that I would hold or practiſe in theſe or ſuch like things as theſe as punctually and completely a•hee could deſire; I pray you what were I nearer heaven for all this? what one haires breath had this ſtept me forward towards God or towards ſalvation? Might not Publicans, Harlots, Ahabs, Cains, and incarnate Devils do as much as all this, and be Devils ſtill? Why ſhould Mr. Heming engage himſelf and inſiſt ſo much upon ſuch fruitleſſe things as theſe, as he hath done, when it is as free and as open before him to deal onely with ſound and ſaving doctrines? and it would be more comfortable for him ſo to do, upon his finall account, and it would be more gracefull to the hearers, in caſe Mr Heming were able or idoneous thereunto.
I will appeal to all ſtanders by, of unbiaſſed and impartiall judgement; yea, I durſt appeal to Mr Hemings own conſcience if unmuffled or not altogether ignorant, whether the inſiſting upon ſuch doctrines as theſe, upon which he ſpends the moſt of his publike diſcourſes among us, tends not more to gaine a party, then to ſave a ſoul. I would ask of him, what comfortable account doth he think to give, when he comes to give up his reckoning betwixt God and himſelf? firſt, for taking upon him the profeſſion of a Miniſter, and then for neglecting to proſecute the wholſome doctrines that ſhould ſave ſoules ſo much as he doth, and declaming almoſt only upon ſuch windy and needleſſe points as theſe, which only breed ill humors, and diſturbance in the minds of men, and diviſions and heart-burnings in Congregations, and tend not one jot or tittle to edification: And I would deſire the Saints in and about Ʋttoxater, that he meaneth, in the bowels of Chriſt and in the melting tendering of their own ſalvation, to think ſeriouſly with themſelves upon their reckoning with God, upon theſe points: whether they think the zeal againſt, Infants baptiſm, mixt Communion, and ſuch like punctilio's, the beſt upon which muſt needs coole zeal in better things, can redound to their comfort, in the day of their account? Let me by way of parable lay before them two men upon their death-beds, and reckoning with God upon their courſe and carriage in Religion: One of them of the old light as it is reputed, that is in the old and good way in Religion, in which all the holy men in England have walked ſince England knew the Goſpel: He hath this to ſay, from the3 bottom of his heart to God; Lord, then knoweſt, that I have ever deſired to lie low in mine own thoughts, and have reputed my ſelf the chiefeſt of ſinners, that I have loved and longed after the ſincere doctrines of ſalvation, that tended to the ſaving of my ſoule, and to the union in thy Church, that I have prayed, heard, ſung, received the Sacrament with the Congregation with a good heart: And that thy Word hath been moſt welcome to me, though it hath croſſed me in my deareſt humour and opinion. The other of them, of the New Light, and ſtrange doctrines that are now afoot, that were never heard of before, He hath this to ſay upon his reckoning for his comfort; Lord, thou knoweſt that I have accounted my ſelfe a Saint and deſpiſed others, that I have loved and been zealous for matters of queſtion and diſpute, that I have refrained the Sacrament, and ſinging of Pſalms with the Congregation, becauſe of the prophane in it; I have been an enemy to Infants baptiſm, and I have not cared for any Miniſter, that was not directly of mine opinion and judgement: let any one judge whether of theſe two is liker to come off with the greater comfort; and let any that know the way of Mr Hemings teaching, judge, whether the greateſt bent of his endeavour in it, do tend to any higher comfort then the latter. Reader, however he talks of reluctancy in his ſpirit againſt ſuch low Controverſies, it is his own free choyce, and for ought we can ſee, his delight to be verſed and zealous in them, and there is no neceſſity or force upon him to urge him to it, that any of us can poſſibly conceive, unleſſe it be becauſe he is not skilled in more materiall points, or becauſe he would make and maintaine a party. And that he delights in theſe low Controverſies, for all his ſaying, it is enough to be collected out of his own words, who though he call them fruitleſſe, yet within five lines after, he profeſſeth that he findeth daily that low things are moſt beneficiall for believers of lowest attainments; God help thoſe Believers that find no greater benefit by any doctrine then by theſe low points. I can hardly beleeve that ſuch are Believers of S. Peters old edition, that deſire the ſincere milk of the Word and grow by it, but of the new edition under ſome New Light, that think to go to heaven ſomenew-found way. Then he proceedeth thus,
What I have done in this is for their ſouls, who came out of Babylon, out of Aegypt the other day.
Anſwer. Let Mr Heming remember that paſſage, Wo unto him that calleth light darkneſſe; what he meaneth by Babylon and Egypt, is eaſie to pick out, namely, whoſoever is not of his opinion and practiſe:4 And hence come thoſe charitable and innocent expreſſions of his [as he cals them] Mr Lightfoot and his unholy Communicants, pag. 4. Mr Lightfoot and his unholy crew, pag. 20. His prophane fellow-members. p. 5. &c.
The Reader, if he were of Mr Heming's charity and no higher, might be induced to think that poor Ʋttoxater is the verieſt Sodom and Gomorrha upon the earth, and that till he came thither, it had bin led and lived in the deepeſt Superſtition and darkneſſe that ever Babylon and Egypt did: It is not for me to ſpeak, what a Miniſtery this Town hath had, ever ſince before Mr Heming was born [the relation I ſtand in to him that hath been their Miniſter ſo long, does ſtop my mouth:] But let all the Counteys hereabout, Cheſhire, Shropſhire, Staffordſhire, Darbiſhire &c. let any in England that ever heard of old Mr Lightfoot Minister of Ʋttoxater, and what he hath been, and what his Miniſtery and Converſation hath been, nay let Mr Hemings own Saints, be witneſſes what his pains, doctrine, life, and Miniſtery hath been among them for above this thirty years: If they have not diſſembled, the day hath been when ſome of them have acknowledged, and taken on them to think, that this Town in a happy Miniſtery hath gone in equall pace and degree with the moſt Townes of England. And now the caſe is ſo altered, that till Mr Heming came amongſt them, poor Vitoxater is ſaid to have been in darkneſſe, and in Babylon and Egypt; and he proved a Moſes and a Zorebabel to bring it out.
I would argue with Mr Heming about theſe precious hearts that are come out of Babylon and Egypt but the other day: Some of them have pretented to holineſſe and preciſneſſe in Religion above other men, many years before Mr Heming ever came here, or his name was known; and it may be they were then more really taken for Saints then they are now: They were either Saints then, or they were not; If they were not, then they were hypocrites, for they took religiouſneſſe and ſanctity upon them: If they were Saints, then there may be Saints in Babylon and Egypt, and in my Communion: And I hope theſe ancient Profeſſors have not changed their charity though they have changed their light, ſo, but that they think there are ſome that communicate with me, that have alwayes demeaned themſelves in the evidence and demonſtration of holineſſe, zeal, piety, charity, and of all other Chriſtian accompliſhments, in as full and conſtant a meaſure and courſe, as any of thoſe that Mr Heming hath brought out of Egypt and Babylon, and that have ever carryed as viſible works of Saints upon them, as any of theſe: But would you know what it is to come out of Babylon and Egypt in Mr Hemings ſence? It is indeed to come out of your wits and4 your Religion, it is to deny your Baptiſme, your mother Church of England, and the way of Religion in which all the holy men of England have walked till now. It is to caſt off Parliament, Aſſembly, Directory, order and all Government in matters of Religion. It is to withdraw from the Communion, refrain from ſinging of Pſalmes, vilifie the Lords Prayer, and Infants Baptiſme. It is in a word, to walk by a new light, newly lighted, and newly come forth; to ſay and do as Mr Heming would have you, and he that doth theſe things, is as ſurely come out of Aegypt, as ever did Gypſies, and is as certainly a Saint as it is certain the moon is made of green cheeſe.
Mr. Heming. I never intended this anſwer of mine ſhould have come to a publick cenſure, had not Mr Lightfoot and his unholy Communicants, &c. dealt deceitfully.
Anſwer. The Frier deſired a Pigs heart, and a Capons liver, but good man he would have neither Pig nor Capon die for him. Mr Heming loves in his heart to be in Print, for that makes him ſeem ſome body, but he would not come to publick cenſure, for that may hap to ſpeak contrary to his ſelf-conceit and humour, and that is to him as the pangs of death. I will not queſtion whether he intended his anſwer for the Preſſe or no, it may be it had been as good for him to have let it alone; but let me thank him for publiſhing his good word, which I and my fellow Communicants have from him all along. Mr. Lightfoot and his unholy Communicants dealt deceitfully: Nay, if I take you talking of dealing deceitfully, Ile talk with you, for I have my tale to tell to that purpoſe too. You may obſerve throughout his Pamphlet that ſtill he holds it out as if I pleaded for mixt Communion, which I medled not withall, but onely kept me to the queſtion, whether Judas received the Sacrament or no: but enter Matchiavell: His ſubtilty thought that he could not pick enough out of my aſſertion, That Iudas received the Sacrament, to make me ſo ſufficiently odious as he would have me: therefore he juggles this buſineſſe into the diſpute about mixt Communion, and there he thought he ſhould find railing ſtuffe enough againſt me, and how excellently he has husbanded it is abundantly viſible: To do him a courteſie, I will avouch for mixt Communion: and ſince he hath promiſed ſome elaborate piece in page 20, which will be about ſuch a ſubject, I ſuppoſe I ſhall leave him a few quaeries to find him work.
This half dozen of points I would put out to Mr Heming to tagging; but let us have no boaſting nor railing in the bargain: I would have my points tagged without tufts: If he can from clear Scripture or reaſon contradict what I hold, he will diſcover more skill, then he hath ſhewed himſelf guilty of in all this diſpute: but if he cannot [but his Logick can prove any thing] I could deduce ſuch concluſions from theſe premiſes that would make his opinion againſt mixt Communion run ſo on ſnickſnarles, that with fingers and teeth and all he would find enough to do to unknot it again, and make it run glib.
The greateſt part of his Epiſtle he ſpends in railing and reviling me, in as taunting and bitter termes as he can invent upon this ſcore of mixt Communion, which though I medled not withall, yet he will needs perſwade you that I hold it, or elſe he were undone for railing matter. Will you hear ſome of his innocent expreſſions, as he calls them? I ſhould ſuperabundantly wrong him If I ſhould not rank him with the vileſt in the Kingdome, for with them he will have Communion as a member of the ſame externall viſible body, by vertue of which relation they are all his brethren and ſiſters; ſo that he hath his brother Drunkard, brother Thi•f, brother Murderer, brother Liar, &c. Siſter Whore, ſiſter Witch, &c. Yea all that have been hanged at Tyburn and all other gallows in England ever ſince he was born and baptiſed into that fellowſhip he pleads for, have been his brethren and ſisters, pag. 5. and 20. And this I dare ſay I can prove againſt all the Devills in hell. Pag. 5.
Angelus in penna — voce Gehenna. Nay take in Pede latro too, at Mr. Gilleſpies requeſt who hath been ſo baſely plundered.
Now a Kingdome for a mouſe-hole to run into from the fury of this dreadfull Champion, that is ready to challenge even all, even all the Devils in hell into diſputation. And certainly all the Devills in hell if they ſhould diſpute with him, could not give him worſe language then he giveth me.
7What 2 jolly kindred hath he adopted me into? It is well he lived not in the dayes of Samuell, or David or Eſay, or Jeremy, or any of the holy men upon record in Scripture: for it is ods they might have heard as much from him, as I do, ſeeing they were admitted by the ſame Circumciſion into the ſame Church, by which and into which every Iſraelite beſide was admitted, were he good or bad: if it were any diſgrace to them to have drunkards, murderers, liars, thieves, &c. circumciſed as well as they, and of the ſame Church that they were of, I ſhall very willingly bear the ſame diſgrace with them. Take heed Mr. Heming, that by your ſelf united ſelect Communion that you talk of, you make not your ſelf holier then theſe holy men.
After he hath raged and rambled a great while in his puffe and paſſion, he comes at the laſt a little to himſelf, and begins as he thinks to talk reaſon, and he faith thus,
Here is one thing that I would have you and all men to take speciall notice of, namely that Mr Lightfoots Communion diametrically oppoſeth
Anſwer. Mr Heming loves Creed and Covenant, and Directory when they'll ſerve his turn, but all the yeare after, he loves them as he loves me, But let us examine how my Communion is contrary to all theſe, and to the Scripture, and to the other things that he hath named. My Communion is to this purpoſe:
1. The Scriptures, the plaint Letter, 1 Cor. 5.9, 10, 11. 2 Cor. 6.14, 15, 16.17.
Anſw. The plain Letter in the former place is this: I wrote unto you in an Epiſtle not to company with fornicators: yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the Covetous, or Extortioners, or with Idolators; for then ye muſt needs go out of the world: But now I have written unto you, not to keep company if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an Idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with ſuch a one, no not to eat.
Now in this plain Letter, I would deſire Mr Heming to tell me whether the holieſt man in the Church of Corinth, migth not have his brother fornicator, his brother covetous, his brother Idolator &c. Let him conſtrue me thoſe words, If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator &c. 2 Let him ſhew me in all theſe words the leaſt ſyllable that ſpeaketh againſt my Communion: Yes, that he will do preſently with a wet finger, Not to company, not to eat with ſuch a one. But I will deny that not companying meaneth in that ſenſe, and that not cating with, meaneth in that ſence, but in a civill ſence, and I will give him till this day month to prove the contrary: So little is the Letter plain againſt me, unleſſe you will take his gloſſe with it.
The plain Letter in the ſecond place is this, Be ye not unequally yoaked together with unbelievers; for what fellowſhip hath righteouſneſſe with unrighteouſneſſe? and what Communion hath light with darkneſſe? or what concord hath Chriſt with Belial, or what part hath he that believeth with an Infidel? And what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols? &c. wherefore come out from among them and be ye ſeparate, &c. Now let me make his Argument for him out of theſe words.
If you may not marry with Heathen Idolaters, you may not receive the Sacrament with ſome Chriſtians. But &c. Ergo. Never doubt the truth of this Syllogiſm; for it is in the Mood and Figure called A baculo ad Angulum: Who ſeeth not plainly that the Apoſtle ſpeaketh here of open and profeſſed Idolatrous Heathens? and from them to argue to Chriſtians that profeſſe the name of Chriſt, is ſuch a kind of Logick that when Mr Heming hath made it good, I will give him an Anſwer: So little plain is the Letter of either of theſe Texts againſt me, that if you plow not with his heifer, yea find not the riddle.
92. He ſaith my Communion oppoſeth my Creed, or at leaſt this Article of it, The Communion of Saints: he is decieved; It oppoſeth not my Creed, not the Communion of Saints as it meaneth in my Creed, but it oppoſeth his Creed, and the Communion of Saints that his new Creed holdeth out. If this were the queſtion before us, I could eaſily ſhew him how he ſtraitens the word Communion more, and applyes the word Saints otherwiſe then the Scripture doth, when it ſpeaketh to that point, of the Saints Communion. There may be Saints ſound in Scripture ſence, that are neither of Mr Hemings opinion, practice nor Canonizing, & there may be found a Communion of Saints in other things beſides receiving of the Sacrament. He makes a great buſineſſe of it in pag. 16. 17. as if I ſpoke blaſphemy when I utterd theſe words, For the fancy is to make a noiſe of only the Saints receiving; meaning the Saints of his Kalender and Canonizing; But he cals heaven and earth to witneſſe, and is ready to rent his clothes, and his hair, as if I called the Communion of Saints a fancy. No Mr Heming I doe not, it is one of the Articles of my Creed, & I believe it; but you muſt let me ſuppoſe withall that you fancy ſuch a Communion of Saints and ſuch a Saintſhip, as when you have done all you can you will never be able to prove it. And therefore, never make ſuch a do as if I blaſphemed, or knew not what I ſaid, or it dropt from my pen before I was aware and I know not what; I am ready to ſay it again and again, that you fancy a Communion of Saints, you can never make good: And if this were the queſtion between us, I could ſhew you, that I rave not, but underſtand what I ſay, and that I am not utterly ignorant what the Scripture and my Creed meaneth by the Communion of Saints. If you ſhould declaime, and raile, and rage as you do, ſeven years by Vtoxater clock I muſt yet ſtill hold, that there may be a Devill in you Communion and a Saint in mine; and that all are not Saints and Devils that you hold ſo: and therefore you may ſave your labour, and ſpare your breath about this matter. I could tell you of ſome, that have carried as faire a ſhew as any Saint in your Kalender, and yet have been but painted ſepulchers, and I could name ſome that have been called as bad as you call me; [and that by thoſe that took on them as much Saintſhip as you do] which yet have been reall Iſraelites without guile.
3. He ſaith, my Communion diametrically oppoſeth the Covenant and the plat-form of the beſt Reformed Churches; if his doe not more, I will loſe my ſtake. Theſe are againſt ſeparation, gathering of Churches, withdrawing from the Communion of the publick Congregation,10 and ſo am I: they are againſt Preaching without Orders, and ſo am I: They are againſt all pernicious and damnable doctrines and opinions, and ſo am I: And theſe would have the Sacrament kept as pure as poſſible, and ſo would I. If Mr Heming's new lighted way be nearer the Covenant, and the pattern of the beſt Reformed Churches, let him take all.
4. What he ſaith of my Communion, being againſt whatſoever is called good and holy, and againſt the Principles, hopes, expectations and endeavours of all godly Ministers, all is but to lay inke enough upon my opinion, that it may ſeeme black to purpoſe; and when he hath all done, it is but an opinion that he himſelf puts upon me, and will make me to hold it whether I will or no: For I never medled with him about mixt Communion [as I ſaid before] nor pleaded for it, but kept me to the queſtion about Judas his receiving of the Sacrament, and yet will hee needs foiſt in this for the queſtion, for without this, hee thought he could not ſo handſomely abuſe me. He confeſſeth it was his reſolution to wound my reputation that it ſhould never bee healed, and he hath taken up this ruſty weapon which he thinks will doe it: I muſt fence for my ſelfe as well as I can. Have at him then with ſome of the language of the beaſt to begin with:Rumpatur quiſquit rumpitur invidiâ.
And ſo let's to't, upon the proper quarrell and queſſion that is between us.
That the ſop which Iudas received, and Satan with it, he received it not on the Paſſeover night, but two nights before: and that he received it not at the Paſſeover ſupper at Ieruſalem, but at a common ſupper at Bethany.
Mr Heming ſtateth the Queſtion firſt to be diſcuſſed in this Aſſertion, Thus, Now here ariſeth a great queſtion between Mr Lightfoot and my ſelfe, namely, which was the Supper at Bethany, That mentioned, Ioh. 12.1, 2, 3. &c. or that Ioh. 13.1, 2, 3?
He ſaith, That in Ioh. 13. and upon that miſtaken place, hath built his wood, hay and ſtubble. Boyes and Girles if ye can but read Engliſh, come forth and ſhame this great maſter in Iſrael; read both the Chapters and then tell him which ſpeakes of the Supper at Bethany. But I Anſwer.
That in Iohn 12. was the Supper at Bethany, and not that in Ioh. 13.
11Conclamatum eſt, I have loſt the day already and never a ſtroke ſtruck, and Boyes and Girles muſt hoot mee out of the field. But harke ye, my honeſt Boyes and Girles of Vttoxater, before ye fall a ſhounting, let me tell you a ſtory: There was once a poor woman foole [if my memory faile not, Seneca's wife kept her for her paſtime at Rome] and ſhe was ſuddainly ſtruck blind and loſt her ſeeing: Now all the world could not perſwade her that ſhe was blind, but cryed out that the houſe was dark, and thought rather that the day and the Sunne had loſt their light, then ſhee her ſight. My lads, if you muſt ſhame any body for blind beetledneſſe, it muſt bee Mr Heming that calls you out, for hee ſees not what hee ſhould ſee in Ioh. 13. and yet he cryes out, the blindneſſe is mine at Ioh. 12. The fault is in his eyes, but you cannot perſwade him ſo, but that I have loſt my ſight.
How miſerably low and loſt am I in his eſteeme? when for my Moralls he holds mee worſe then any man, and for mine intellectualls leſſe then any reading boy. Though I know hee thinks of me as bad as bad can be, I thank him for it; yet truly, I did not think hee had reputed mee ſo very ſilly and ſenſeleſſe, as either not to ſee at all, that the Supper in Ioh. 12. was at Bethany, or ſo little to obſerve it as to commit ſo groſſe a miſtake as hee would put upon me. Sir, Certainly either you are mightily miſtaken in mee, or you would put a mighty fallacy upon the Reader: Aſſure your ſelfe I can ſpell and read the word Bethany in Ioh. 12.1. as well as any Boy or Girle in all Vtoxater Pariſh, and I ſaw it as plaine when I entred upon this Diſpute, as ever your eyes ſay it in all your life: But you did not ſee Bethany in Ioh. 13.1.2.3. which I did, and that is the reaſon of all this vapouring. And hereupon, you either ſillily or willingly, falſifie our Queſtion, and ſo the poor Boyes and Girles that are called out to ſhame me, will either ſhame themſelves for ſhouting at they know not what, or rather ſhame you for vapouring at you know not what. Our Queſtion is not whether the Supper in Ioh. 12. or the Supper in Ioh. 13. were the Supper at Bethany, but our Queſtion is Whether that Supper in Ioh. 13. were not at Bethany, as well as that Supper in Ioh. 12. I aſſert it was; but Maſter Heming denies it.
12Mr Heming. That in Iohn 12. was the Supper at Bethany, and not that in Iohn 13. For in Iohn 13. Bethany is not ſo much as once named: but in Chap. 12. it is, As alſo in Matth. 26. Mark 14.
I ſee the man cannot ſee one inch further into a milſtone then there is a hole peckt in it before him; boyes and girles might have given ſuch a reaſon as this. Children, was the Supper in Iohn 13. at Bethany? No forſooth maſter, for Bethany is not once named there: But ſuch a maſter in Iſrael as Mr Heming ſhould have looked a little further about him, before he had given his determination: Children, was the Supper in Iohn 13. at Ieruſalem? No forſooth maſter, for Ieruſalem is not once named there: Yet Maſter Heming holds it was: and here he hath given me an argument againſt his own tenet. He ſaies that that Supper in Iohn 13. was at Ieruſalem, and that it was on the Paſſeover night, and proves by that Chapter that Iudas went out before the Sacrament, and yet is there not the leaſt mention of Ieruſalem or the Paſſeover night, nor of the Sacrament in all that Chapter. He alledgeth this Chapter of Iohn as his chief ground to prove that Iudas did not receive the Sacrament, when there is not one word of the Sacrament in all Iohns Goſpel. He produceth this Evangeliſt to judge of a matter [and that to gainſay the other three that averre it] who ſpeaks not one word fo the thing to be judged of. And yet when I ſay the Supper in Iohn 13. was at Bethany, he thinks this a good reaſon, to ſay no, becauſe Bethany is not there named.
Before I come to ſhew that Bethany was the place of that Supper,
I ſhall firſt ſhew that that Supper was before the Paſſeover day, and Secondly, that it was two dayes before the Paſſeover and at Bethany, although indeed the circumſtance of the place be not ſo materiall to our diſpute, as the circumſtance of the time.
I ſay therefore, that the Supper in Iohn 13. was before the Paſſeover day came. And that I prove from the plaine words of Iohn himſelf in the firſt verſe of that Chapter. Now before the feaſt of the Paſſeover, &c. whereupon I argue thus.
Argum. 1. That Supper that was before the feaſt of the Paſſeover was not on the Paſſeover day, but before it.
But that Supper in Iohn 13. was before the feaſt of the Paſſeover. verſe 1. Ergo it was not on the Paſſeover day, but before it.
13To this M. Heming giveth this anſwer Page 10.
In Iohn 13.1. Now before the feaſt, &c. 〈◊〉not meant two dayes before, as he would have it: the words are〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉meaning immediately before, &c, as Luk. 11.38. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Phariſee woudred that he waſhed not before dinner, that is immediately before dinner.
Rarely Criticall! But I doubt, Animus eſt in patinis: by the Feaſt of the Paſſeover Mr Heming underſtandethth the very Paſſeover meale, and ſo he ſheweth his meaning in pag. 11. the ſop was given (ſaith he) at an Ordinary or Common Supper which Chriſt had the ſame night before he ate the Paſſeover.
Mr Heming. At that Supper Ioh. 13. Chriſts hour was come: v. 1. ſo that he was betrayed the very ſame night, as 'tis evident, comparing Ioh. 13.37, 38. with John 18.1, 2, 3. and Mat. 26.34. Mark 14.30. This15 diſcourſe paſſed betwixt Chriſt and Peter, the very night in which he was betrayed.
Is it moſt true that Chriſts houre was then come; for the deſigne of his betraying was ſet a foot that night, but that he was betrayed that night, I deny, as evident as it is in his looking glaſſe that he would ſhew you. There is indeed in Iohn 13.37, 38. a paſſage about the Cocks crowing, that makes Mr Heming think the matter is Cock ſure on his ſide, whereas it may be but the crowing of his own brains, that tunes it into a conſtruction to ſerve his turn, and not the ſenſe and meaning of the place it ſelf. The words of the Evangeliſt are theſe, Peter ſaid unto him Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy ſake. Ieſus anſwered, wilt thou lay down thy life for my ſake? verily, verily, I ſay unto thee, the Cock ſhall not crow till thou haſt denied me thrice.
For the underſtanding of theſe words I would deſire the Reader to obſerve theſe two things.
Now whereas Mr Heming would have you compare John 13.37.38. with Iohn 18.1, 2, 3. his meaning is to this purpoſe, that Chriſt14 having given Peter notice of his deniall, and ſpoken theſe words in Chap. 14. & 15, & 16. & 17. he preſently goes over the brook Kidron, and there is apprehended: but he would make you leap over a ſtile by the way, and take no notice of it, and ſo you may chance break your ſhins. What makes he of that clauſe, John 14.3•. Ariſe, let us go hence, let him tell me whether Chriſt went now. I know he will ſay, he roſe from the Table after the Sacrament, and went out of doores towards Kidron, and ſpoke the paſſages in Chapter 15. and 16. & 17. as hee walkt along: In very good time, and a very likely buſineſſe: but Iohn 18.1 ▪ ſaith when he had ſpoken theſe words, he went forth: conſtrue me that.
Argum. 2. A ſecond Argument that I uſe to prove that the Supper in Iohn 13. was before the Paſſeover day, is from verſe 27, 28, 29 of that Chapter, where when Iudas had received the ſop and Satan: and Ieſus ſaid to him, What thou doeſt doe quickly, Some of the Diſciples thought becauſe Iudas had the bag, that Ieſus had ſaid unto him, buy thoſe things that we have need of againſt the feaſt. Now if they had things to buy againſt the feaſt, the feaſt was not yet come.
The anſwer that Maſter Heming returns to this Argument is firſt thus, Perhaps Chriſt did not eat the Paſchall Lamb upon the ſame day the Jewes did, &c. And then the feaſt the Diſciples dreamed of might very well be the Iewes Paſſeover, kept a day after: I could ſpeak more for proof of this from Iohn. 18.21. and 19.14. then ever Mr. Lightfoot will be able to anſwer.
Perhaps the Evangeliſts are not to be believed, becauſe they ſpeak contrary to Maſter Hemings humour; for they tell you as plain as plaine can bee that Chriſt did eat the Paſchall Lamb upon the ſame day that the Iewes did. See Matth. 26.17. Mark 14.12. Luk. 27.7.8. And yet he puts a perhaps upon it, to ſqueeze out ſomething to his purpoſe. Sure the man did not know that the Paſchall Lambes were ſlaine by the Prieſts at the Altar, and the blood ſprinkled there, and they ſlaine, and the blood ſprinkled in the name of a Paſchall: and ſure he did not know how high a tranſgreſſion it was reputed by the Iewes to eat the Paſſeover on a wrong day: had he known and weighed theſe things, perhaps16 he would find it a harder buſineſſe for Chriſt to eat the Paſſeover a day before the Iewes, then he dreamed of. But why do I talk of ſuch things as theſe to him, when he puts a perhaps upon ſo plaine Texts of the Evangeliſts.
As for that tiring work that he would ſet me upon out of John 18.28. and 19.14. I will tell him this before hand, that if I can make nothing of thoſe places, I will deny mine own skill, judgement, and opinion before I will deny the plaine text of the Evangeliſts as he doth: But I need not to eat mine aſſertion for any thing that thoſe places hold out againſt it.
Hee is it but little acquainted with Scripture, or with the Iewes cuſtomes about the Paſſeover that knowes not that there were Paſſeover Bullocks and other Peace-offerings to be eaten in the week of the Feaſt, as well as the Lamb was upon its day. 2. Chron. 30.21.24. and 35 7, 8. And that theſe are called the Paſſeover as well as the Lambe. Deut. 16.2. compared with Exod. 12.5.
And to take up theſe Texts, which in Maſter Hemings conception will bee everlaſting tiring irons to me. in Iohn 18.28. The Iewes went not into Pilates judgement Hall, leſt they ſhould be defiled, but that they might eat the Paſſ•over: that is, but that they might eat the ſolemne Peace-offerings that were to be eaten at the Paſſeover, and which are called the Paſſeover; and that in Chapter 19.14. it was the preparation of the Paſſeover, and about the ſixth houre: that is, it was the day in which they prepared theſe Paſchall bullocks and Peace offerings for their holy diet being the dayes of the feaſt. What ſo great difficulty is there in theſe Texts, and what incongruity is there in this expoſition of them?
A ſecond Anſwer that Mr Heming giveth to my Argument is this, [but I muſt tell you beforehand it is ſomewhat homely.]
Obſerve ſaith he] how he would daub over his own miſtake with the untempered morter of the Diſciples ignorance; what ſome of them thought proceeded of ignorance. Iohn 13. 28.29. &c. and a little after: For the Diſciples ignorance, and Mr Lightfoots grounded upon theirs, Chriſt had no moe Feaſts.
Now come out good manners: he that uſeth the Diſciples ſo uncivilly, I may put off my Hat and thanke him,17 that he uſeth me no worſe then he doth. I muſt tell the Apoſtles and Evangeliſts, that let them take heed what they ſay, and how they place their words; for if they ſpeak but one ſyllable awry from Mr. Hemings humour, he will tell them what they are before all the Pariſh. And I pray you Sir what were the Apoſtles ignorant of, that one may dawbe walls with their ignorance? Could they not tell whether the feaſt were come or no? That's the queſtion that you and I are upon, out of the words in Iohn 13.28, 29. and if you ſay they were ignorant of that, you ſpeak like Mr. Heming in ſtate and majeſty: and if they were ignorant of that, they were ignorant to the purpoſe. Come on my boyes and girles, when Holidayes were in faſhion, could you tell when a Holiday came? If you could, you were wiſer then Mr. Heming holds the Diſciples were.
But it may be he will ſay, that he doth not mean they were ignorant of this but of ſomething elſe, as he ſaith, They knew not that he was to be betrayed that night; why, what is this to our queſtion? The Evangeliſt ſaith, They thought Ieſus had bidden Judas buy ſomething againſt the feaſt; hereupon I ſay, if it were againſt the feaſt, the feaſt was not yet come. To this he gives this anſwer, what ſome of them thought proceeded of ignorance, for, they knew not that he was to be betrayed. Is not this an anſwer as profound and direct in it ſelfe as it is well mannered towards the Diſciples? I ſay ſtill, the Diſciples thought Judas had been bidden to buy ſomething againſt the feaſt, ergo, the Diſciples knew that the feaſt was not yet come. Let him anſwer me this directly, and like a man that deſireth to find out the truth.
Arg. 3And third Argument that I give to prove that that ſupper, Joh. 13. was before the Paſſeover day, and not on it, proves a pitfall to Mr. Heming, beyond my expectation, for I did not think he had been ſo blind, as to have been ſo caught: My words were theſe, We know that the Lords Supper was given the Paſſoever day at night, viz. the firſt Sabbath of the Feaſt; the meaning of my argument I ſhall give by and by.
Now Mr. Heming thinketh that I ſpeak the ſavoureſt and braveſt nonſenſe that ever did man: I ſhall give his cenſure in his words at length, and not in figures, for it is pity any of it ſhould be loſt.
Pag. 1Whereas he ſaith (ſaith he) That we know the Lords Supper was given on the Paſſeover day at night; viz the firſt Sabbath of the Feaſt, whereon the Iews are the Paſchall Lamb; I am afraid he underſtandeth neither what hee ſaith, nor whereof be affirmeth; But be it ſo, and then
Repl. You have your wiſh into your own boſom & that with a witneſs: It is not I that am found tardy here, but yourſelf, ſo as that you'l be aſhamed of it, when you ſee it. I warrant you Mr. Heming and his Diſciples have had many a pleaſant laughing, and triumphing fit over this poor ſentence of mine, and have hug'd one another in this advantage of nonſenſe, as he has ſet it out, no doubt moſt learnedly to them. Mee thinkes I ſee him ſcratch the elbow, and hear him laugh hither. But I muſt put him in mind of Seneca's wifes fool again; hee cries out I am blind, when the blindneſſe is his owne.
This great Maſter of Iſrael never dreamed in all his life, of any Sabbath, but only the ordinary weekly Sabbath, and from this ignorance comes all this laughter; but it ſeems I muſt be his teacher now, and inform him, that the firſt and laſt day in the Paſſeover week was a Sabbaticall day, or a Sabbath, and ſo was alſo the firſt and laſt day of the Feaſt of Tabernacles, &c. Had he but well weighted Exod. 12.16. Levit. 23.7. and ſeriouſly conſulted how the word Sabbath is to be underſtood in Levit. 23.15. I am ſure he would have gone a mile on my errand, before he would have given this cenſure upon thoſe words of mine, for his own credits ſake. Why do you not laugh now Mr. Heming? I hope I have you here at a full check mate; and I ſuppoſe by this time you ſee, that the more you have triumphed over mee here, the more ſhamefully you have diſcovered your own ignorance. Would you not give a gray groat now with all your heart, that theſe words of yours had never been born? Be wiſer another time, you know not what an art I have of ſetting mouſetraps.
I ſay therefore again, that on the Paſſeover day at night the firſt Sabbath or firſt Sabbaticall day of the feaſt was entred: and hereupon I argue thus. The Diſciples when Iudas had received the ſop, and Jeſus bad him, Quod facis fac cito, thought that he bad him buy ſomething: But if that were the Paſſeover night, the Sabbath was now entred, and buying any thing was neither lawfull nor poſſible. Therefore that was not on the Paſſeover night, but ſome night before: For it is ſenſeleſſe and groundleſſe to think, that the Diſciples ſhould think of Chriſts bidding him buy ſomething, when nothing was poſſibly to be bought.
19Upon that text therefore, Iohn 13.29. Some thought that Ieſus had ſaid unto him, Buy thoſe things that we have need of againſt the feaſt. I conclude,
1. That that was not at the Paſſeover ſupper, becauſe then nothing could be bought, a Sabbaticall day being entred. And 2. That that was before the feaſt of the Paſſeover, becauſe the Diſciples thought of buying ſomething againſt the feaſt: If this my arguing be not direct, let him correct mee, if it bee, let him give mee direct anſwers, if hee can.
Pag. But before I leave this text and argument, will you heare a piece of Logicke that he venteth upon my arguing from it? If from this Scripture (ſaith he) be will conclude that there was another feaſt, why may not I conclude that Judas gave ſomething to the poore?
Reply. Braines and ſtaires are not better Ryme, then this is Reaſon; I know not what Your Logick may conclude, but another to conclude ſo, I muſt tell him, it is to take up more then comes to his ſhare. If I had concluded from this Scripture, that Judas bought ſomething againſt the feaſt, you might have concluded in equity, that Judas gave ſomething to the poore; but when I conclude no more but this, that there was a feaſt, your ſhare of concluding comes to no more but this, that there were ſome poore. And as properly as one may conclude, that there were ſome poore, to whom ſomething was to be given, from this, becauſe they thought he bad give ſomething to the poore: ſo as properly may it be concluded, that the feaſt was to come, againſt which ſomething was to bee bought, from this, becauſe they thought he bade him, buy ſomething againſt the feaſt.
Arg. A fourth Argument I uſe to prove that the Supper in Joh. 13. at which the ſop was given to Judas, was not on the Paſſeover day, but before, is this.
The Devill entred into Judas before the feaſt of the Paſſeover came.
But the Devill entred into Judas at the Supper, in Joh. 13.
Ergo, That Supper, Joh. 13. was before the feaſt of the Paſſeover came. The major is proved, Luk. 22.3. Satan entred into Judas, &c. ver. 7. Then came the day of unleavened bread, &c. By which it is apparent, that Satan was entred into Judas before the day of unleavened bread, or the Paſſeover day came: unleſſe Mr. Heming will except at the Evangeliſts Order, which if he doe, let him give a good reaſon why, leſt hee ſhew himſelf too bold with the text, for his own turn.
To the force of this Argument he anſwers nothing, but only becauſe I ſaid, The Devill entred into Judas at Bethany, hee catches up the word Bethany, and keeps a coyle with that, but to the pith of the Argument he ſaith nothing. Only in what anſwer he giveth to this Argument, which indeed is to no purpoſe, let me challenge him upon one paſſage which is20 utterly ſhameleſſe, and that is, when he ſaith, The conſpiracy is as cleerly placed before the ſop, as before the Paſſeover; but, Dic quibus in terris, & Phyllida ſolus habeto; Let him but ſhew me where, and then I'le ſay he ſpeaks like a Scripture man; but if he cannot, I muſt ſay it is extreame impudence and impiety to aſſert any ſuch thing; for he makes his fancy equall with the ſacred text. There is not one ſyllable, letter, or tittle in all the Goſpel, that Judas conſpiracy was before the ſop, but there is as plaine an evidence that his conſpiracy was before the Paſſeover, as there is of any thing in the Goſpel; and yet becauſe this Gentleman hath fancied that the ſop was given on the Paſſeover night, he dares to equall his fancy with the divine writ, and ſay; The conſpiracy is as cleerly placed before the ſop as before the Paſſeover: That is, in his brains, but no where elſe; well fare a bold face in time of need.
Another Argument, and wherewith I will clench up all, to prove the ſupper, Joh. 13. at which Judas received the ſop, was before the Paſſeover day, is this, That it is not probable, nor can be conceived, that Judas ſhould receive the ſop, and ſo the Devill with it, and go to the High Prieſts, and bargain with them, receive a Band of men, Joh. 18.3. and betray his Maſter and all upon one night: for beſides the unlikelineſſe of it, the text is plain, that from the time of the receiving of the ſop, he ſought opportunity to betray him, Mat. 26.16. or how he might conveniently, &c. Mar. 14.11. Luk. 22.6. And how improper it is to ſay a man ſeeks conveniency or oportunity, when be runs upon a thing and doth it on a ſuddaine; I referre to any one of common capacity.
Now Mr. Heming gives this argument a threefold anſwer.
Firſt he ſaith, 'Tis probable all this might be done in one night: for Judas was not ſo far from the High Prieſt: the band of men not ſo far to ſeeke: the Devill, Judas and the Jews not ſo backward in driving on this damnable deſigne, as hee would inſinuate. I my ſelfe have knowne in this betraying age, five times more then this amounts to, brought about in as ſhort a night.
Reply. I cannot imagine with all the skill I have, what that ſhould be, that was five times more then the betraying of the Sonne of God: And I wonder how Mr. Heming came to know that Judas was ſo neer the High prieſt, and that the Band of men was ſo ready at hand. There was an old wandring Jew talkt and ballated of, twixt twenty and thirty years agoe, if one had had the luck to have met with him, he would have told the whole buſineſſe: It ſeems Mr. Heming hath had the hap to meet with ſome of his intelligence, and that makes him ſo exact in this relation: but poor we that goe by the old light of the foure Evangeliſts can ſee no ſuch matter. Mr. Heming grants that Judas ſate down with Chriſt on the Paſſeover night, and ate the common ſupper with him, and he ſticks not much to grant that hee ate the Paſchall Lambe21 with him; well, Chriſt after that, did but deliver the Sacrament, ſing a hymne, ſpeak a few words to his Diſciples, goe into the mount of Olives, and there Judas was preſently at hand to apprehend him: Now how Judas in ſo ſhort a time as this ſhould do all his buſineſſe; get together the chief Prieſts and Captains, Luk. 22.4. (it may be the wandering Jew ſaid they ſupt all together this night) bargain with them, raiſe a band of men, get Lanthorns and Torches all ready, &c. he muſt be of a quick beleefe, that beleves ſuch quickneſſe.
Hee (following the old trade) moſt ſhamefully abuſeth Mat. 26.16. Mar. 14.11. when he ſaith, 'Tis plain from thoſe Texts, That from the time of the receiving of the ſop, Judas ſought opportunity to betray Chriſt. Read the verſes before and after, and then tell me, if you can ſee but the print or footſteps of any ſuch thing. Is it not plain in thoſe places, that from that time Chriſt reproved Judas for his covetous indignation, at the ſpending of the ointment, he ſought opportunity, and from that reproofe tooke occaſion to betray him? 'Tis evident, he ſought how hee might conveniently betray Chriſt before hee received the ſop.
Reply. 'Tis policy to cry theefe firſt: Be ſure to tell mee of abuſing Scripture, loud enough, that no body may hear me tell tales of you; but before I have done, I hope I ſhall have my tale heard too. Now how much abuſe Mat. 26.16. Mar. 14.11. to the purpoſe mentioned, will appear in the diſcuſſion of our next queſtion, about the Supper at Bethany, upon which I ſhall inſtantly enter, when I have firſt challenged him upon two aſſertions which he will never be able to make good whileſt his name is Mr. Heming unleſſe it be by ſome Goſpel of his own making. The firſt is this, That Judas tooke occaſion to betray Chriſt from his reproving of him for his covetous indignation at the ſpending of the ointment. If M. H. have any other ground for this, but that he judgeth of anothers impatience to be croſt in his humour, by his owne, let him ſhew it; and if hee ſhew any ſolid ground for it, I'le venture the burning of my cap.
The other is this, That 'tis evident that he ſought how be might conveniently betray Chriſt before be received the ſop; where is it ſo evident? why, in his fancy and by his new light, but not by any one letter in all the Goſpels. If it were true that Judas received the ſop on the Paſſeover night as hee fancieth, then he ſaid ſomething, but that I deny, and have alledged my arguments and reaſons why I deny it, the which I refer to any impartiall and indifferent judgment.
Thoſe that hold that Iudas did not receive the Sacrament, do lay this as the corner ſtone of their opinion; That Judas upon the receiving of the ſop went out before the Sacrament was adminiſtred: wil you hear the words of22 Zanchius in ſtead of many? Etſi multi & magni viri hoc docuerint & ſcripſerint, ego tamen nullo modo concedo aut concedere poſſum; although many men of great eſteeme have taught and written (that Iudas received the Sacrament) nevertheleſſe I cannot nor at all do yeeld unto it. And what is his reaſon, Quia apertè pugnat cum Hiſtoria Iohannis Evangeliſtae. Becauſe it plainly thwarteth the Hiſtory of the Evangeliſt John. And how doth it ſo? Iohannes cap. 13. ver. 30. apertè ſcribit Iudam poſtquam accepiſſet offulam a Chriſto (injuſcubo nimirum agni aſſi) intinctam, ſtatim〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉exiviſſe. Becauſe John in chap. 13. verſ. 30. writeth expreſly that Judas after he had received the ſop dipped (namely in the ſauce of the roſted Lamb) went ſtraight way forth, Zanch. in quartum praecep.
Mr. Heming is of the very ſame opinion, and urge him with the authority of the other Evangeliſts that ſay that Judas ſate downe to the Paſſeover with the reſt of the Diſciples: yes that's true, ſaith he, but before the Sacrament, Chriſt gave him the ſop and he was gone. It ſeemeth exceeding ſtrange to me, that this uſe ſhould be made of this Chapter of John 13. who ſpeaketh not one fillable of the Sacrament, and which telleth plainly that that ſupper at which the ſop was given, was ante diem feſtum Paſchae, as the beſt tranſlaters have rendred it, and that moſt truly.
It were enough therefore for the overthrowing of Mr. Hemings opinion, to prove only that that ſupper in John 13. was before the Paſſeover day, and we needed not looke any further how many daies or nights it was before, yet that I may do him juſtice and my ſelfe right in the maintaining of this my aſſertion, I yet goe further, and averre, thatThat Supper in John 13. was in Bethany.
For the proofe of which I thus argue;
The major propoſition, that Judas conſpiracy began from the Devils entring into him is as cleare in Luke 22.3, 4. as the Sunne at noon, Then entered Satan into Judas Iſcariot being one of the number of the twelve: And he went his way and communed with the chiefe Prieſts and Captaines how he might betray him unto them and they were glad, &c. and then in verſ: 7. Then came the day of unleavened bread, &c. Now let all the world, nay his very boyes and girles judge upon this matter: Children, when did Judas begin his treaſon? Why, Satan entered into him, and then he went23 his way and communed with the High-prieſts &c. what: was this before the Paſſeover day or no? yes, it was before, for Satan entered into him and he communed with the chiefe Prieſts &c. and then the day of unleavened bread came afterward. Would not any boy or girle that hath any capacity, and would not any man or woman that reads the Scripture conſci•ntiouſly, and is led by the Scriptu•e, and leads it not to his owne opinion that he hath taken up, underſtand theſe words of Luke in this manner? Let M. H. give a ſatisfactory and convincing reaſon why they are not to be thus underſtood, and he may then crow and triumph, but if he cannot, then doth he wreſt the Scripture, and having ſet downe his owne opinion, he will bring the Scripture to it, to ſpeake for his purpoſe by hooke or by crooke: I urge the Evangeliſts words againe, Then Satan entered into Judas, and he went his way and communed with the chiefe Prieſts &c. and let Mr. Hemings owne Diſciples be judges, whether this prove not, That Judas his conſpiracy began from the Devils entering into him: and that the Devill entered into him upon his receiving of the ſop at the Supper in John 13. they will not deny.
Now I need not to prove the minor, That Judas his conſpiracy beganne from Bethany; for Mr. Heming doth grant it, when he ſaith, Is it not plaine from theſe places Mat: 26.16. Mark: 14.11. that from the time Chriſt reproved Judas for his covetous indignation at the ſpending of the ointment,Pag. 12hee ſought opportunity, and from that reproofe tooke occaſion to betray him, p. 12. and in p. 13. he ſaith againe, Nothing elſe paſſed at the Supper at Bethany concerning Iudas but Chriſts rebuking him for his indignation at the ſpending of the alabaſter box of ointment.
My concluſion therefore is good, till M. H. can give a cleare and ſatisfactory anſwer to the proofe of my major, which I beleeve hee will hardly do this weeke: That the Devils entering into Iudas when he received the ſop at the Supper in Iohn 13. was at Bethany.
Reply. So may I anſwer him againe: Iohn 13. ſpeakes nothing of any ſupper at Ieruſalem; read the chapter through and ſee if you can finde any ſuch word, or any mention〈◊〉the Sacrament there: And I may as well argue, read Mat. 26. Marke••▪•ohn 12. and ſee if you can find any ſuch thing as any ſop given at all: ergo, there was no ſop given:24 The man is at bo-peepe, and where it will ſerve his turne you muſt beleeve ſuch a thing is there, though it be not written there, and where it will not ſerve his turne you muſt not beleeve it becauſe it is not written there, nay, ſometime you muſt not beleeve it though it be written there. I ſhall take the places he refers you to, into handling by and by.
I yet go further in my aſſertion, becauſe I deſire to deal in all plainneſſe, and I ſay
That ſupper at Bethany from which Iudas began his conſpiracy upon Satans entering into him, was two dayes before the Paſſeover. And for the proofe of this I produce Mat. 26.2. Marke 14.1. where there is mention of two dayes before the Paſſeover, and preſently after, of Chriſts being at meate in Bethany, and then of Iudas his going to the High-prieſts &c.
Now here Mr. Heming ſheweth all his learning, and his ſincere dealing with the Scripture on a cluſter: will you here a new lighted Commentary upon theſe Texts, ſuch a one as you do not heare every day unleſſe it be from him, and learne but this kinde of way of expounding Scripture, and you may hold what you will and bring the Scripture to maintaine it. His words are theſe,
Pag. 9The following Scriptures, viz. Mat. 26.2. Mark. 14.1. do not at all prove the Supper at Bethany to have been juſt two dayes before the Paſſeover, but that two dayes before the Paſſeover, the chiefe Prieſts and Scribes ſought how they might take Chriſt by craft and ſubtilty &c. and at laſt concluded it muſt bee on the feaſt day (viz. the feaſt of the Paſſeover) leſt there ſhould be an uprore, &c. Math. 14.1, 2.
The Supper at Bethany is as likely to have been ſix daies before the Paſſeover as two, Then Ieſus ſix dayes before the Paſſeover came to Bethany, &c. There they made him a ſupper, Iohn 12.1, 2.
Reply. You know what kinde of reading of the Bible he made, that found a green bay horſe or mule there, & truly this way of expounding is much like it, he that will go ſuch a way may find any thing he hath a minde to; but God help them that are led by ſuch an Expoſitor. Mr. Heming reads Marke 14.1, 2, 3. thus, Two dayes before the feaſt of the Paſſeover, the chiefe Prieſts ſought to take Chriſt by craft, but they ſaid not on the feaſt day leſt there be any uproare. And ſix dayes before the Paſſeover, Ieſus being in Bethany as he ſate at meat, &c. Now I pray you is this according to the Goſpell of Marke, or according to the Goſpel of Mr. Heming? If this bee not ſhameleſſe wreſting of Scripture, I know not what is.
Here are two things that he would foiſt upon the Evangeliſts that I25 durſt ſweare were never in their meanings: The firſt is, that he would perſwade you that Matthew and Mark do change the proper order and time of their ſtory; telling a ſtory of two dayes before the Paſſeover firſt, and then telling a ſtory of ſixe dayes before the Paſſeover after it. And the ſecond is, that hee would perſwade you that the ſupper at Bethany in John 12.1. and the Supper at Bethany in Mat: 26.6. & Marke 14.3. was one and the ſame; and for this purpoſe he hath linked Mat. 26. Marke 14. & John 12. together four or five times in his diſcourſe, as if the matter were paſt all doubting.
Let me talke with him a little about both theſe, particularly,
And firſt, about his perſwading that Matthewes and Markes order is here inverted, and the ſtory of the ſupper at Bethany diſlocated in them, I ſhall propoſe two or three things to him, which if he had conſidered of, or knowne before, it may be he would have beene more cautelous for his credits ſake, then thus blinde Biard like to venture he knowes not, nor cares not on what.
1. Let him ſhew me but one diſlocation, I ſay but one from the beginning of Markes Goſpell to this very place, and then I will grant that there might be ſome colour of diſlocation here. If this grandee had ſtudied the order of the Evangeliſts, as well and ſeriouſly as ſome others have done, he durſt not for ſhame have ſaid thus much, eſpecially of Marke who is ſo exact and direct for his method, that I ſay it againe, from the beginning of his Goſpell to this very place, Mr. H. cannot ſhew, not one ſtory, I ſay not one, which he can prove by any ſound evidence, or reaſon to be diſlocated; no, nor from this place to the end of his Goſpel: It was luck in a bag then, that he that is ſo direct in all his Goſpel from end to end as never to change one ſtory out of its proper time and place, ſhould do it here to ſerve Mr. Hemings turne ſo pat.
2. Mr. Heming makes no bones of making two Evangeliſts to change the order of one and the ſame ſtory; the like to which let him ſhew me againe through all the Goſpels, and I will lay downe the cudgels: I ſay it againe, let him ſhew through all the Goſpels ſuch another diſlocation in two Evangeliſts of one and the ſame ſtory, as hee would make this to be in Matthew and Marke, and I will confeſſe mine owne ignorance, and applaud his skill. I beleeve there is but one example in all the Evangeliſts, that two or more of them do miſplace the ſame ſtory, and that is not ſuch a diſlocation as this neither, as I ſhall ſhew him the difference if he have ever the luck and skill to finde it out.
263. Sure he never obſerved how direct Matthew and Marke are in reckoning the dayes of Chriſts laſt weeke before the Paſſeover, from his riding in triumph to Ieruſalem till the Paſſeover day came. As Iohn tells, that ſix dayes before the Paſſeover he ſupt at Bethany Iohn 12.1. So they goe on and tell that on the next day or five dayes before the Paſſeover he rideth in Triumph into Ieruſalem, Mat. 21.1, 2, &c. Marke 11.1, 2. and at Even goeth to Bethany, Matth. 21.17. Marke 11.11.
On the morrow, which was four dayes before the Paſſeover hee goes againe from Bethany into Ieruſalem, Mar. 11.11, 15, &c. and at night goeth the ſame way againe, Mar. 11.19.
In the morning, which was three dayes before the Paſſeover, he goes againe into Ieruſalem, Marke 11.20, 27, &c. and at Even departs into the Mount of Olives, Marke 24.1, 3. Marke 13.1, 3. Luke 21.37.
And thus are we come to the night that we are upon, namely two nights before the Paſſeover, where did Chriſt lodge this night? why, the Evangeliſts tell you in the Mount of Olives: where, there? why, Matthew and Marke ſay, After two dayes was the Paſſeover, and the Scribes ſought to take him, &c. And he being at Bethany at meat, &c.
Why ſhould not any rationall man rather take the method of both the Evangeliſts here to be direct, ſince it is ſo direct all along hitherto, then to make a jumpe backe again, no man alive can imagine to what purpoſe but onely to ſerve Mr. Hemings turne? It is apparent that Chriſt lodged two nights before the Paſſeover in the Mount of Olives.
I ſuppoſe Mr. H. will not ſay he lay all night in the open fields, and I preſume he cannot tell where elſe to lodge him in the Mount of Olives, but at Bethany; and the Evangeliſts ſay, after two dayes was the Paſſeover, &c. And Ieſus being at meat in Bethany, &c. And yet Mr. H. will not ſuffer you to think that Chriſt ſupped this night at Bethany, but that the two Evangeliſts ſpeake of ſix nights before the Paſſeover. How ſenſleſſe is it to thinke, that when they have told you directly what Chriſt did the fifth, fourth, third day before the Paſſeover, and when they ſay moreover it was two dayes before the Paſſeover, they then ſhould jump back againe to ſix dayes before, and no man can imagine for what?
4. It is preſumption to diſplace the Evangeliſts method without good and ſound reaſon given for it: Let Mr. H. give but ſuch a one and I ſhall be ſilent.
27As groſſe or more groſſe (put what ſubſtantive to it you thinke good) is his ſecond aſſeveration, if he could perſwade you to it, and that is, that that ſupper at Bethany Iohn 12, and that ſupper at Bethany Mat. 26. Mark. 14. were but one and the ſame, and at the ſame time: which you muſt beleeve upon the word of this great Oracle though there be theſe maine and viſible differences between them.
1 That Supper in Iohn 12. was ſixe dayes before the Paſſeover.
That Supper in Mat. 26. Marke 14. was but two: if you will beleeve the Evangeliſts as they ſpeake, and not make them ſpeake as Mr. H. would have them.
2. The Supper in Iohn 12. was in the houſe of Lazarus.
The Supper in Matth. 26. Marke 14. was in the houſe of Simon the Leper.
3. At the Supper in Iohn 12. Mary a woman named, anointeth Chriſts feet.
At the Supper Mat. 26. Marke 14. a woman not named anoints his head.
4. At the Supper in Iohn 12. Iudas alone hath indignation at the expence of the ointment. verſ. 4.
At the Supper in Mat. 26. Marke 14. the Diſciples had indignation at it, Mat. 26.8.
Now all theſe differences which to ſuch a dull pate as mine, cannot chooſe but make theſe appear different ſuppers; Mr. Heming can reconcile as faſt as a Henne can cracke nuts: For doe but heare him cracke.
Pag. 1And laſtly (ſaith he) though much more ſhall be added if there be occaſion, If any man of common capacity will but compare Iohn 12. from verſ. 1. to 8. with Matth. 26.6. to verſ. 13. and Marke 14.3 — 9. he ſhall finde they all ſpeake of the ſame Supper at Bethany. And for what Iohn differs from the other two Evangeliſts in naming Martha and Lazarus and in ſaying ſhe anointed his feet, whereas the others ſay ſhe poured it on his head: that ſhall be eaſily reconciled whenſoever Mr. Lightfoot pleaſe.
It ſeemes Mr. Heming hath a ſingular faculty of reconciling dead men, and I wiſh he have not a better, in ſetting living men together by the eares. I would he would let the Evangeliſts alone who are at a ſacred peace among themſelves, and that he would reconcile poor Ʋttoxeter which is torne in peeces with diſſentions ſince he came amongſt us. I know not whether Tenterton Steeple was the cauſe of the ſtopping up of the Haven two or three miles off it: this I know, that till28 Ʋttoxeter knew Mr. Heming peace, amity, and charity dwelt amongſt us, in few Towns more, but now nothing but diſſ•ntion, biting, and backbiting, in no town the like. If you be ſo good a reconciler, I pray begin at home; the Evangeliſts need none of your daieſmanſhip.
You would thinke it were ſilke or ſatten that this great reconciler makes all this ruffle in, when it is but poore buckram ignorance of the ſtyle of the Goſpels, that I may name nothing elſe. His skill in the Goſpels is ſo great, that if any two paſſages in them do but looke one like another, they muſt of neceſſity be one and the ſame, and hee can finde one trick or other in his budget to make them ſo. I warrant you he would make a gallant ſtitching together of theſe differences if I were pleaſed to deſire it of him: Hee can tell you as directly how the houſe of Lazarus became the houſe of Simon the Leper, as if hee had drawne the conveyance; and how anointing of Chriſts head came to bee anointing of his feet, as ever men brought head and heeles together. This ſure he learned from the wandering Jew too.
Mr. H. I conclude againſt all he hath ſaid or can ſay, yea againſt whatſoever all the friends hee ſhall make in this controverſie can ſay for him.
Reply. I conclude againſt all he hath ſaid or can ſay, yea againſt all the friends he can make in this controverſie can ſay.
That very word would make one ſtart; What luck had I, that I was not acquainted with Don Quixot? he were the onely fellow i'th world, to take up this challenge, for he was old dog at fighting with Windmils; and I know no friend I have that hath any heart upon29 ſuch incounters. You have heard of little Jefferey the dwarfe that challenged the great Porter to fight with him, but it muſt bee i'th furnace hole, or in an Ovens; you may make the application.
Let you and me alone with this buſineſſe like a couple of wiſe men as we are, I have no friends that have any minde to be miſcalled or to fight with ſhadowes.
1. You conclude that there was no ſop given in the Supper at Bethany, but I conclude there was.
You derive your concluſion, from Mat. 26. Mar. 14. & Ioh. 12. and your argument lieth thus, if I can ſee it.
If Mat. 26. Mar. 14. & Iohn 12. that ſpeak of the ſupper at Bethany, ſpeak not of giving of the ſop, then there was no ſop given at the ſupper at Bethany. But. Ergo.
Make good the conſequence, and the day is yours; but you will not make that good to day.
My concluſion I derive from Mat. 26. Mar. 14. Luk. 22. Ioh. 13. and I frame my argument thus.
The time and place whence Iudas began his treaſon, was the time and place of Satans entring into him with the ſop; this is proved by the authority of Luk. 22.3, 4. Then entred Satan into Judas, and he went and communed with the chief Prieſts, &c. And of Ioh. 13.27.
But the Supper at Bethany, Mat. 26. Mar. 14. was the time and place whence Iudas began his treaſon; This M. H. granteth. Therefore the ſupper at Bethany was the time and place where Satan entred into Judas with the ſop.
2. You conclude, That the diſcourſe between Chriſt and his Diſcipels concerning the traitor paſſed that very night that he ate the Paſſeover: that is moſt true; but whereas you conclude withall that the like diſcourſe paſſed not at Bethany two dayes before, that is moſt falſe. And as for your reaſon, had Judas been diſcovered at Bethany, how could the Diſciples, John as well as the reſt, begin to be ſorrowfull, &c. I will tell you how.
Firſt, if the diſcovery of Iudas at Bethany was privately to Iohn only, then your queſtion or reaſon is anſwered, & I muſt put you to prove the contrary.
Secondly, though John knew it before, yet he loved not his Maſter ſo little, but he would be ſorrowfull too to hear of his Maſters betraying again, as well as they.
Thirdly, though the diſcovery at Bethany were openly to all, yet30 might they two nights after begin to be ſorrowfull to hear of it again••▪ He hath written that word begin in a different letter, as if he would have you to obſerve the emphaſis of that word, as if they had never been ſorrowfull about that buſineſſe before. But though they had heard of it two dayes before, might they not begin to bee ſorrowfull about it againe, when the diſcourſe of it was renewed? The Paſſeover ſupper was a meal of rejoicing, and in the midſt of that meale for Chriſt to ſpeak of his betraying, might it not dampe their rejoicing and make them begin to bee ſorrowfull? And beſides, I could tell of a propriety that To begin hath in the Goſpel language, that if he had obſerved, it may be he would not have pointed out the word for ſo emphaticall. To begin to do a thing, in Goſpel language doth often mean no more but To do a thing. They began to be ſorrowfull in Mark. 14.19. is no more in Mat. 26.22. then They were ſorrowfull.
Fourthly, At the Paſſeover ſupper they aske not who is it? but they every one ſay, Is it I? the former queſtion had been of doubting, as Joh. 13.22. the latter of every one vindicating themſelves, and aſſerting their integrity by that queſtion.
Fiftly, Doth he make no difference between Johns asking Chriſt alone, and all the Diſciples ſpeaking to him? and no difference between Chriſts ſaying, He to whom I ſhall give a ſop when I have dipped it, and He that dippeth with me in the diſh?
If all the three Evangeliſts had ſpoken in Lukes language; The hand of him that betraies me is with me on the table, and not mentioned dipping in the diſh; I wonder where Mr. Hemings Paſſeover night ſop would have been found then? but when Matthew and Mark ſpeak of dipping in the diſh, here is enough for him to make quidlibet è quolibet, as he can doe it moſt excellently.
3. He concludes, that Chriſt waſhed not his Diſciples feet at Bethany, but at the ſupper at Jeruſalem the ſame night he was betrayed, Joh. 13.
This is written in a Goſpel of his own making (for it is not written in Joh. 13) & ſo is his next concluſion, That the ſop was given at an ordinary common Supper; which Chriſt had the ſame night before he ate the Paſſeover; Let him find fair evidence for either of theſe in any of the foure Evangeliſts that we read, and I will ſay I never read them. Sure this man would make an excellent new Goſpel.
And now let me uſe his owne ſtyle, and conclude too.
I conclude againſt all he hath ſaid, or can ſay (but beare witneſſe I challenge none of his friends.)
31Ergo. 7. That Judas received the ſop at Bethany, two dayes before the Paſſeover.
Now becauſe Mr. Heming, according to his common charity, doth charge me for contra-conſcientiouſly and wickedly wreſting the Scripture, for the maintaining of this my concluſion, I ſhall deſire the Reader equally and impartially to judge between us, whether of us wreſt theſe texts, that we have had to deal with about, he or I.
1. I ſay the ſupper, Ioh. 13. was before the Paſſeover day, becauſe the text ſaith, It was before the feaſt of the Paſſeover, ver. 1. Hee ſaith, That ſupper, Iohn 13. was on the Paſſeover night, though the text doth ſay, It was before the feaſt of the Paſſeover; Whether of us doe more wreſt this Scripture?
2 I ſay, that when ſome of the Diſciples thought that Ieſus bade Iudas buy ſomething againſt the feaſt; the Diſciples knew that the feaſt was coming, and it was not yet come: Hee ſaith, what the Diſciples thought proceeded from their ignorance: whether of us do more wreſt and wrong this text, and the Diſciples?
3. I ſay that that ſupper at Bethany, Mat. 26. Mar. 14. was two dayes before the Paſſeover, becauſe the Evangeliſts doe preſently before ſpeak of two dayes before the Paſſeover: He ſaith, that ſupper at Bethany, Mat. 26. Mar. 14. was ſix dayes before the Paſſeover, though the Evangeliſts do preſently before ſpeak of two dayes before the Paſſeover: Whether of us doe more wreſt the Scripture here?
4. I ſay the method and order in that place of Mat. 26. Mar. 14. is direct, and I take the ſtories without miſplacing them; He ſaith, the method and order there is not direct, and hee doth miſplace the ſtories:32 Whether of us do offer the more violence to the Evangeliſts?
5. I ſay the ſupper in Ioh. 12. and the ſupper in Mat. 26. Mar. 14. were two different ſuppers, becauſe one is dated ſix dayes before the Paſſeover, and the other two; the one was in the houſe of Lazarus; the other in the houſe of Simon the leper; at the one Chriſts head is anointed, at the other his feet. Hee ſaith the ſupper in Iohn 12. and the ſupper in Mat. 26. Mar. 14. is one and the ſame ſupper, though one be dated ſix dayes before the Paſſeover, and the other two; though the one were in the houſe of Lazarus, and the other in the houſe of Simon the Leper, and though at the one Chriſts head were anointed, and at the other his feet. Let all the world judg whether he or I doe more wreſt the Scripture.
For the proof of which I produce Mat. 26.20. Mar. 14.17. where it is ſaid, That Jeſus ſate down with the twelve; and hee taxeth Judas for treaſon, Mar. 14.13. Luk. 22.21.
To this Mr. Heming ſaith, but what he had ſaid before.
Repl. I thank you that you wil once grant I ſpeak truth, but you think it is for your own turne: But I pray you, how doth that that I affirm wound my cauſe? I ſay Jeſus taxed Iudas of treaſon at the Paſſeover ſupper; and I ſay he taxed him of treaſon at the ſupper at Bethany, two nights before: what wound do I give to my cauſe by this? If you find any advantage by it, make uſe of it.
Wel: He granteth Iudas was at the common ſupper; but how miſſed he of the Sacrament? why Mr. H. will tell you as directly as if he had been there, that he was taxed for treaſon, and the ſop given him & ſo he diſcovered and packt away before the Sacrament was in hand. And thus he makes a ſtory of his own head of the ſop given at the Paſſeover ſupper, which he will never be able to prove, while his name is Mr. H. but the ſtory of the Evangeliſt that determines the caſe, he ſlippeth over and ſpeaks not one word to it. I cite Luke 22.21. to prove Iudas preſent at the Sacrament, and this M. H. ſaw was like enough to wound his cauſe,33 and therefore (I ſhall commend his wit another time) he anſwers it with grave ſilence, not ſpeaking one word to it.
It is apparent by Luke that Iudas was at Table after the giving of the Sacrament. Conſider his words, Luk. 22. ver. 19. And he took bread and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, ſaying, This is my body, &c. ver. 20. likewiſe the cup after ſupper, ſaying, This cup is the new Testament in my blood which is ſhed for you. ver. 21. But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with mee on the table. What ſay you to this Mr. Heming? where was Iudas now I pray you, when his hand was on the table? Give me a direct & clear anſwer to evidence that he was not at table at the delivering of the Sacramentall cup, and I ſhall ſay you are an oracle indeed. But let me have your anſwer out of the Goſpel of Matthew, Mark Luk or Iohn, & not out of a Goſpel of your own making: Can any thing be plainer for my aſſertion then this? But behold; ſpel me thoſe two words, & let me ſee what you can make of them. I have heard him ſay, but it ſeems he had more wit then to ſpeak it in print, that this is a〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or that here is a diſlocation of ſtory, or a change of the right order: Now gramercy daring at a dead lift. This was it that I ſuſpected, that he would make a Goſpel of his own head, for what doth he other that makes the Evangeliſts ſpeak what, and as his own liſt?
By taking this courſe to change the method and order of Scripture, when mine owne liſt, and when it wil ſerve my turn, I will prove to you any thing: That Cain killed Abel before Adam was created, that Chriſt was crucified after he roſe again from the dead, that hee was baptized before he was born, and any thing in the world whatſoever: I would eat my opinion, and bite my tongue, before I would make the Evangeliſts my ſlaves to ſerve my opinion; Let all the world judge whether this is to be lead by the Scripture, or to lead the Scripture whither you pleaſe.
1. Let M. H. begin at the beginning of Lukes Goſpel, and let him tel me how many diſlocations he can find that Luke maketh of his owne ſtory, from one end of his Goſpell to another. I beleeve he will find but very few that he can ſay upon good ground, theſe paſſages are diſplaced; and•hat this ſhould be one of thoſe very few, where there is ſo great probability of its direct order, as But Behold, he muſt uſe a great many of words to make any reaſonable man beleeve it.
2. Let him conſider the conditions of the word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and take it in all, or any of the ſenſes it can be taken in, and ſee whether it will ſtretch to prove a〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or to bee divided from what went before it. 34Sometimes it makes a concluſion, as〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Veruntamen neque vir ſine muliere, 1 Cor. 11.11. It is ſometimes praeterquam, as〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Praeterquam navis, Acts 27.22. Sometimes Praeter, as〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Praeter Apoſtolos, Acts 8.1. Sometimes ſed or verum, as〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Sed vae vobis, Luke 6.14. Sometimes Tamen, as〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉Tamen hoc ſcitote, Luke 10.11. And ſometimes Quinetiam, as〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Now in all theſe acceptations or in any of them, is it not ever made an inſeparable companion, or in conjunction to ſome time that went immediately before? And I am confident Mr. H. would plead hard it doth ſo here, if it made but halfe ſo much to his purpoſe as it makes againſt him.
I ſay again, Chriſt delivered the Sacrament, Mat. 26.26. Mark. 14.22. Luk. 22.19. and they all drank of it, Mark. 14.23.
The Text doth not ſay he delivered it to the twelve, but to all, namely to all preſent, for Judas had gotten the ſop and was gone forth.
Reply. Readers, The Evangeliſts alledged tell you, that Ieſus ſate down with the twelve, and they did eat, and as they were eating, he ordained the Sacrament; & not a ſyllable of Judas his getting the ſop, or going forth, but M. H. tells you ſo, it's a ſtory of his putting in amongſt thoſe Evangeliſts: now whether it be fitter to beleeve them or him, judge ye.
I would aske Mr. Heming this queſtion: Before the Goſpell of Iohn was written (as he is held to have written the laſt) if Mr. Heming had read any of, or all the three other relating the ſtory of the Paſſeover, how would he have conſtrued them then? where would his ſop, and Iudas going forth have been found then? Does not he think that all that read them then, underſtood them as I doe, and never dreamed of Iudas receiving the ſop and going out? and yet they thought that they had the full ſtory of the Paſſeover ſupper too. I dare allow Mr. Heming 7 yeares ſtudy to prove that Iohn ſpeaks one ſyllable, of ſtory of the Paſſoever ſupper: But becauſe he hath ſpoken of a ſupper and a ſop, and Iudas going forth, &c. therefore he will have that the Paſſeover ſupper, though the Evangeliſts do moſt plainly ſay it was before the Paſſeover-feaſt.
Pag. 15He giveth a ſecond anſwer as magiſtratical and withall as ſolid as this; & that is, if it had been ſaid, he gave it to the twelve, yet that would prove nothing, for in 1 Cor. 15.5. 'tis ſaid He (Chriſt) was ſeen of Cephas, and then of the twelve, though he was ſeen only of the eleven, Mat. 28.16, 17. Mar. 16.14.
Reply. Readers, I muſt tell you again, That whatſoever the Evangeliſts ſay, Mr. Heming muſt ſet their ſenſe: though all the three had ſaid, He gave35 the Sacrament to the twelve, yet you muſt ſay it was but to eleven, and though they ſpeak not a word of Judas abſence, yet Mr. Heming has told you he was gone, and that's enough for you to beleeve againſt 3 Evangeliſts. The allegation out of 1 Cor. 15.5. is profoundly applyed: Paul ſaies Chriſt was ſeen of the twelve, & yet you are to underſtand it but of Eleven: true: for the ſtory had abundantly and abundantly again told before what was become of the twelfth; and how they were become but eleven, and the Corinthians knew the ſtory well enough: But here though the Evangeliſts had ſaid, He gave it to the twelve, Mr. Heming will have you to underſtand it only of eleven, though none of the three ſpeake a word before of the abating of the number, or what was become of the twelfth.
Pag. In the Objection he frameth and anſwereth, If Mr. Lightfoote ſhall be ſo vain as to ſay Matthias was then choſen in the roome of Judas, &c. He doth