Vindication of Four Serious Questions, Text (1 of 3)

Vindication of Four Serious Questions · Text (1 of 3)

p. 1A ſhort Vindication of foure ſerious Questions of grand importance concerning EXCOMMUNICATION and Suſpenſion from the Sacrament, from ſome Mispriſions and Exceptions taken againſt them, both in the Preſſe and Pulpit.

THERE is nothing ſo ſincerely intended, ſo well performed, but is lyable to ſome miſ-interpretations or exceptions in this criticall age, by men of contrary opinions. This hath been the hard fate of theſe four Questions.

Firſt, the Author of them hath been publikely taxed in print, as an enemy to Reformation, and oft ſtiled aaIn An Antidote againſt foure dangerous Queſtions. A brotherly, friendly Cenſure, &c.THE ADVERSARY (of it,) when as God who bbActs 1. 24.Acts 1:24knowes his heart, and thoſe men who are acquainted with his perſon and intentions, will acquit him from this calumny, and know him to be as great, as cordiall an Advancer of Reformation, as any of his Accuſers.

Secondly, theſe foure Queſtions have been conceived and reported to be, a grand obstruction to the work of Reformation and ſettlement of Church-Diſcipline, yea purpoſely publiſhed to obstruct it: When as intentionally and really they doe (by moderating irreconcilable extreames) tend onelyonly to facilitate and expedite this much deſired work; which he cordially deſired might be ſpeedily accompliſhed, to prevent the dangerous encreaſe of Errours and Sciſmes, which multiply daily in our Church.

Thirdly, they are apprehended to ſtrike at the very root of Excommunication, and abſolutely to deny it, in caſe of groſſe and ſcandalous ſinnes; when as it onelyonly tends to remove thoſe ſandy foundations whereon ſome would build it, to prevent and regulate all probable abuſes of it in its originall eſtabliſhment, and confine it to its due bounds, to prevent, as farre as poſſible might be, al juſt ſcandall and prophanation of holy things in the people, and Arbitrary Government, Tyranny, Oppreſſion, and Lording it over Gods Ordinances, Heritage and mens conſciences, in the Ministers and Presbitery, as the expreſſe words thereof demonſtrate.

Fourthly, it is conceived, that their principall end was, to deprive Presbyteri…s p. 2of their due juriſdiction, conferred on them by divine right, when as there is not one ſillable in them to that purpoſe, but onelyonly to regulate their power by Gods Word, & to controle the Arbitrary, Tyrannicall uſurpations of ſome Ind…pendent Ministers, who take upon them an exorbitant juriſdiction, not onelyonly to exclude whom themſelves pleaſe from the Sacrament, without any legall admonition or conviction of ignorance or ſcandall, but likewiſe refuſe publikely to adminiſter the Lords Supper to their Congregations or Pariſhoners for ſundry moneths, nay yeers together, (yea, to thoſe, againſt whom they have no juſt exceptions, and who tender themſelves to their Examination, deſiring to be excluded, if found ignorant or unworthy) for feare of delivering it to ſome, whom they (before conviction) deeme ſcandalous or unworthy, as they pretend; or rather, in good truth, only becauſe they will not joine with them in their new Independent ways and Covenants.

Fifthly, it hath been ſuggeſted, that it layes a tax …pon our Miniſters and intended Presbyteries, as if they deſired▪ Papall & Tyrannicall authoriy over mens conſciences; when as it tends onelyonly to prevent ſuch Papall, Epiſcopall abuſes of Excommunications and Su…penſions, which may poſſibly creep into them by degrees, if not carefully provided againſt in the originall ſettlement of their authority, by ſtrict and punctuall Lawes; there being no authority ſo good, ſo neceſſary in Church or State, but by reaſon of their corruptions … See the Hiſtories of the Anabaptiſts Lucas Oſiander. Bnchirid. Cont. cum. Anabaptist is de Eccleſia, cap. 6. The prophane Sciſme of the Browniſts, diſcovered by Chriſtopher Lawne and others. printed 1612.who manage it, may be abuſed to tyranny and oppreſſion: (eſpecially, if not bounded) And we find by Histo…y and experience, that theſe Church cenſures have bin as groſly abuſed, as tyrannically managed by rigid Anabaptiſts and Seperatiſts, as Popes & Prelats, & po…ſibly may be ſo by Presbyteries.

Theſe prejudices and miſ-apprehenſions being removed, I ſhall next proceed to the exceptions againſt the ſubſtance or ſubject matter of them, wherein to avoyd miſtakes, be pleaſed to obſerve:

Firſt, that it is confeſſed, yea agreed by the Oppoſites, that Excommunication or ſuſpenſion from the Sacrament, is a matter of grand concernment, fit now to be eſtabliſhed with as much deliberarion, caution, circumſpection and care as poſſible may be, to prevent prophanation, ſcandall on the one hand, and Arbitrary, Papall, Tyrannicall domineering over mens conſciences, chriſtian liberties, & all abuſes of this power, on the other hand; and that it is a matter of very great difficulty thus to ſettle it; & it is as readily yeelded on the other ſide, that groſſe notorious, ſcandalous, obſtinate ſinners, who preſumptuouſly perſevere in their iniquities after private and publike admonitions, without remorſe of conſcience or amendment, may be juſtly excommunicated from the Church, the ſociety of the faithfull, and all publike Ordinances, after due proofe, and legall conviction of their ſcandalous lives; and that 1 Cor. 5. 13. warrants thus much, notwithſtanding the various readings and interpretations of that Text: So that thus farre there is no diſſent on either part.

Secondly, it is accorded on both ſides, (in words at leaſt, though not in practice) that no Miniſter may … can in point of power or conſcience, refuſe to admini…er the Sacrament to any member of his Church, not actually excommunicated p. 3after ſundry admonitions and publike reprehenſions for ſome groſſe ſcandalous crime, who earneſtly deſires to receive it, in caſe he publikely profeſſeth his ſincere repentance for his ſinnes paſt, and promiſe amendment of life for time to come, though the …iniſter or Presbytery in their owne private opinions, may have a hard prejudicate opinion of his unfitneſſe, or unworthineſſe to receive it.

Theſe Agreements on both ſides premiſed, which will in a manner determine the greateſt controverſie, and rectifie the miſtakes between us; I proceed to the matters in difference; which are theſe:

Firſt, whether there he any precept or preſident in Scripture, for the ſuſpending of any Member of a particular Church or Congregation, from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper only, who is not at the ſame time excommunicated and utterly ſequeſtred from the Church, the ſociety of the faithfull, and all other publike Ordinances there uſed, as Prayer, Preaching, Faſting, Catechizing, ſinging of Pſalmes, and the like? And whether the ddNum. 21. 14 15. Deut. 23. 1 2, 3. 1 Cor. 5. 7 to 13. Joh. 9. 22 32, 3. 3. ch: 12. 42. c. 16. 2. 2 Theſ. 3. 14. 2 John 10. 11. 3 John 10. Rom. 16. 17. Tit. 3. …0, 11: 2 Tim. 3 5.Num 21:14Deut 23:11 Cor 5:7–13John 9:222 Thess 3:143 John 1:10Rom 16:17Titus 32 Tim 3:5Texts of the old or new Teſtament, quoted in the firſt Queſtion, and in the Margin here, warrant any ſuch partiall excommunication or ſuſpenſion from the Lords Table, but not from preaching the Word, and other publike Ordinances? This I poſitively deny, from the pregnancy and words of theſe Texts of Scripture, backed by the judgement and practice of Antiquity in the pureſt times, as I ſhall prove at large anon: Neither hath the Author of the Antidote againſt four dangerous Questions▪ nor the Reverend Preacher in his Sermon at St. Margarets before the Commons Houſe (who undertook to refute them) produced one dram of Scripture or ſolid reaſon to refute it, the latter not ſo much as taking notice of this Queſtion (the onelyonly thing there controverted) but utterly miſtaking it, whiles he charged the Queſtioniſt with miſtakes.

Secondly, whether Matth. 18. 16, 17. If thy brother trespaſſe againſt thee, &c. tell it to the Church, &c. be properly meant of excommunication of ſuſpenſion from the Sacrament? The Oppoſites affirme; I deny it.

The only reaſon they have rendred in Preſſe or Pulpit, why this text ſhould and muſt be intended of a ſentence of excommunication given by the Church, is, becauſe the text ſaith, let him be to thee as an heathen man and a publican▪ that is, as one quite caſt out of the Church, which muſt be only by excomunication, whereby men are caſt out of it; no private chriſtian (as they affirme) having any authority to eſteem his brother, as a heathen and publican, if the Church hath not firſt caſt him out; for then he may eſteem one man of the Congregation thus, and after that another, and ſo all the Membets of it, and at laſt, the whole Church by degrees, by his owne authority; which to doe, ſay they, is a great abſurdity, ſinne and inconvenience: But this reaſon (under correction) is very infirme, inconcludent, if not falſe and abſurd: For firſt, Heathens were no excommunicate perſons, being never Members of the Jewiſh or Chriſtian Church, and therefore uncapable of any excomunication out of it: Excomunication being peculiar only to Church-members, as St. Paul expreſly determines, 1 Cor. 5▪ 10, 11, 12. and Aretius in his definition of Excomunication, cited in the firſt Queſtion: And as for Publicans, if they were not heathens but p. 4Jews (as ee… Ep…ſt at … Godw…ns fewiſh Antiquities l. 1. c. 3.ſome of them were) we never find them excommunicated from any of Gods Ordinan…es, as they were Publicans, but partakers of them; To make then an excommunicate perſon, and an Heathen, a Publican, Synonimaes, is at beſt an incongruity, if not a contradictiō. Secōdly, the genuine ſenſe of this expreſſion (not elſwhere uſed in Scripture, and ffSee Go…w…ns …ewiſh Antiquities▪ … ▪ …. …. ….no forme at all of any excomuni…ation practiſed by the Jewes) Let him be to thee a Heathen and a Publican, in the judgment of the beſt Interpreters, is no more but this; keepe not any familiar company, or have no civill fellowſhip with him, but avoyd his company and fellowſhip, as Paul expreſly interprets it elſwhere, 1 Cor. 5. 10, 11, 12. 2 Theſ. 3. 14. Eph. 5. 11. Rom. 16. 17. or receive him not into thy houſe, neither bid him God ſpeed, as St. John renders it, 2 John 10. Which phraſe was derived from the practice of the Jewes and Phariſes in that age, who ſhunned the very company of heathens and publicans; not in publike Ordinances or Sacraments (in which heathens certainly had no communion or ſociety with them, being no Members of their Church) but only in civill converſation; whereupon they taxed Chriſt, for keeping compauy with publicans and ſinners, Mat. 9. 10, 11. ch. 11. 19. ch. 21. 31. 32. Mark 2. 15, 16. Luke 18. 11, 12, 13. ch. 15. 1, 2. though ſome of them beleevee on, and received him, when the Scribes and Phariſes (who diſdained their company) did reject him, Luke 7. 29. ch. 15. 2, 2, 3. ch. 19. 2. to 12. Mat. 21. 31, 32. And as the Jewes then avoyded all civill familiar ſociety with Publicans ggGodwins Jew…ſh Antiquities, l. 1. c. 2whom they generally hated for their covetouſneſſe and extortion) ſo alſo with Heathens, with whom they might not inter marry nor familiarly converſe, Deut. 7. 2, 4. Joſh. 24. 12, 13, Neh. 13. 27. to 31. Ezr. ch. 9. & 10. Pſ. 116. 34, 35. Act. 21. 28, 29. Whence we read, The Jewes had no dealing or converſation with the Samaritans, John 4▪ 9 nor they with the Jewes, Luke 9. 52, 53. If then, let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican, be no more then, keep not civill company, fellowſhip, or familiar converſation with him, who obſtinately treſpaſſeth againſt thee, after private admonition and publike complaint; or avoid intimate familiarity with him; then every chriſtian hath free power by Gods word to do this, without any danger of ſin or ſcandall, before any private or publike cenſure of excommuncation paſſed againſt him by the Church, as is cleer by 1 Cor. 5. 9. 11. 2 Theſ. 3. 14. Rom. 16. 17. Pro. 22. 24, 25. Pſ. 101. 4, 5, 7. 2 Tim. 3. 2, 3, 4, 5. 2 John 10. 11. Therefore by the ſelf-ſame reaſon may he avoid the company of any other brother, or the Members of an whole particular Congregation ſeverally, without ſin or guilt, if he or they continue impenitent, in the caſe of private injuries or treſpaſſes againſt him after admonition; Wherefore this Anſwer of theirs is both erronious and impertinent.

Now that this Text of Matthew (ſo mvch inſiſted on) is not meant of excommunication or Church-cenſures; and that the hhforeign Signifies any Civill Aſſembly, Councell or Court of Juſtice, as wel as on Eccleſiaſticall Presbytery, ſee Scapulae Lexicon, page 730. h Scapula ibidem, Godwins Jewiſh Antiquities, l. 5. c. 4 Ioſeph. Antiq. Jud…eo…um, l. 14, c▪ 17.Church in this text was not any eccleſiaſtical Conſiſtory, but only the iiP. Galatinus, l. 4 c. 5. Doctor Potters want of Charity iuſtly charged, London, 1634. p. 26. It may be underſt… of any Aſſemb…y, AS WELL CIVILL as Eccelſiaſtical, ſo it was in th… firſt Edition, but it is expunged in … by the Arch biſhops ſpeciall direction.Sa…hedrim, or Court of civil juſtice among the Jews (commonly called the Councel in other Texts) is apparent to me for theſe enſuing reaſons, never yet anſwerd by the Oppoſites. Firſt, becauſe it ſpeaks not at all of any publike ſcandalous ſin againſt the Church or Congregation, the proper Object of Church-cenſurs, but onelyonly of pr… vate p. 5civill treſpaſſes betweene man and man, as is evident by the words, If thy brother trespaſſe againſt THEE, goe and tell him his fault between him and thee, &c. which Saint Luke relating without any Die Eccleſi…, Luke 17. 3, 4. puts out of queſtion, if compared with Gen. 52. 31. 1 Sam. 25. 28. Now the puni…hment of ſuch treſpaſſes belonged properly to their temporall Magiſtrates, not to their Eccleſiaſticall Conſiſtory, as the 1 Sam. 2. 29. Deut. 10. 16, 18, 19, 20. ch. 25. 1, 2. 2 Chron. 19. 9. 6. Exod. 21. 6. 22. chap. 22. 8, 9. prove: Secondly, becauſe the following words, ver. 16. If he refuſe to heare thee, take with the… one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witneſſes every word may be establiſhed; relate onelyonly to the manner of trying civill capitall crimes, (as murthers and the like) before the civill Magiſtrates of the Jewes, which was by two or three witneſſes, Num. 25. 30. Deut. 17. 6, 7. chap. 19. 5, 6. not to any proceedings in Eccleſiaſtical cauſes, in their Eccleſiaſtical Cōſiſtories, of which we find no preſident. Thirdly, becauſe tell it to the Church, the Aſſembly, or Congregation, in the 17. verſe, is not meant of any Presbyteritall or Eccleſiaſticall Claſſis, which had Cognizance of private treſpaſſes, there being no ſuch among the Jewes, but only of the **See Pecrus Cunaeus de Repub. Judeorum l. 1. c. 12. Juni. Brutus Vindiciae contr. Tyoannos, Q. 3. p 94. to 97.civill Court of Juſtice, which the Scripture commonly cals the Councell, which had power (which no meer Eccleſiaſticall Conſiſtory can doe) to ſcourge, impriſon▪ torture and outlaw offenders, if not to condemn…, put to death, but not properly to excommunicate them, Matth. 5. 22. chap. 10. 17. c. 5. 26, 27, 59. 60. chap. 27. 1, 2. Marke 13. 9. Acts 4. 3. to 22. chap. 5. 17. to 40. chap. 6. 12, 13, 14, 15. chap. 25. 15. to 29. chap. 24. 20. Fourthly, becauſe he addes, If he will not heare the Church, What then? not, let the Church excommunicate or ſuſpend him from the Sacrament, or put him out of the Sinagogue, or caſt him out from them, or deliver him to Satan, or denounce an Anathema Maranatha againſt him, or cut him off from his people (the onelyonly phraſes in other Texts alleaged for proof of Excommunication) but, l…t him be as an Heathen man and a P…blican (a phraſe never uſed elſwhere in Scripture;) which cannot properly ſignifie excommunication, becauſe Heathen men being never Members of the Church, could never be excommunicated or caſt out of it, being un- capable of ſuch a cenſure: As for Publicans thoſe of them who were members of the Jewes Church, though they were execrable to the Jewes, by reaſon of the…r Tax-gathering and Oppreſſions, yet we never read in Scripture that they w…re excommunicated or caſt out of their Sinagogues, but contrarily, that they went up into the Temple to pray as well as the Phariſes, and were more acceptable to Chriſt himſelfe (who never excommunicated, but received and converſed with them) then the proud Phariſes were, Luke 18. 11. to 15. ch. 3. 12. chap. 7. 29. chap. 5. 27. 28, 29. chap. 15. 1, 2. chap. 19. 2, &c. Mark 9. 11, 12. Matth. 10. 3. Marke 2. 15, 16. Therefore theſe expreſſions can no wayes warrant or imply any excommnnication or ſuſpenſion from the Sacrament. Fifthly, the words runne onelyonly, let him be TO THEE as a heathe… man and a Publican (not to the whole Church, and all others profeſſing Religion, which might have intimated ſomething in behalfe of the Oppoſites;) and therefore …o ground excommunication from the Church, or p. 6ſuſpenſion from the Sacrament on this Text (which the Papiſts and others have very much abuſed) is to extract water out of a flint, and palpably to wreſt the Scripture from its genuine ſenſe.

Object. And whereas ſome object, that the n…xt enſuing words, verſe 18. (Verily I ſay unto you, what ſoever ye ſhall bind on earth, ſhall be bound in heaven, &c.) doe neceſſarily infer the preceding words to relate to Eccleſiaſticall cenſures, and the power of the Keyes (as they phraſe it.)

Anſw. I anſwer, firſt, that theſe words have no coherence with, or dependence on the former, but are a diſtinct ſentence of themſelves, becauſe ſpoken onelyonly to, and of Chriſts Diſciples, as is evident by the Parall…l Text of John 20. 23. not of the Jewiſh Church, much leſſe of their Councell or Sanhedrim, meant onelyonly by the Church in the former verſe, as is already cleared. Secondly, th… this binding and looſing is not meant of excommunication or ſuſpenſion from the Sacrament (as ſome would fancy it) but onelyonly of binding and looſing mens finnes, by preaching the Goſpell, and denouncing pardon or remiſſion of ſinnes and ſalvation to penitent and beleeving ſinners; but judgement and damnation to obſtinate, impenitent ſinners, as is evident by comparing it with Matth. 16. 19. Marke 16. 16. John 3. 16, 17, 18, 36. chap. 12. 48. Luke 13. 3. 5. Rom. 2. 16. Acts 2. 38. chap. 3. 19. Therefore ſome clearer Text then this muſt be produced, to found excommunication or ſuſpenſion from the Sacrament, and Eccleſiaſticall Diſcipline upon, by thoſe who contend for it Jure divin….

3Thirdly, whether 1 Cor. 5. 5. To deliver ſuch a one to Satan for the destruction of the fleſh, that his ſpirit may be ſaved in the day of the Lord Jeſus▪ and 1 Tim. 1. 20. whom I have delivered unto Satan▪ that they may learn not to blaspheame, be properly meant of excommunication or ſuſpenſion from the Sacrament?

Some of our Oppoſites peremptorily affirme it, but produce no ſhadow of proofe for it; others ſpeak dubiouſly of theſe Texts, as needing a large debate, and therefore prudently wave them with a rhetoricall preterition, as the late Reverend Preacher did: I for my part humbly conceive, that to deliver to Satan, is a thing ſomewhat different from excommunication and ſuſpenſion from the Lords Table: My reaſons are theſe:

Firſt, if to deliver a man to Satan, be the ſelf-ſame thing with excommunication, or ſuſpenſion from the Sacrament, as ſome affirme, then every excommunicated or ſuſpended perſon, ſhould▪ during his excommunication or ſuſpenſion, either in a literall, or ſprituall ſenſe at leaſt, be in their judgement, in the actual power of Satan, though a true child of God, whom eeActs 26. 18 Eph. 2. 1. to 6. 1 John 3. 8. 2 Tim. 2. 26.Acts 26:18Eph 2:1–61 John 3:82 Tim 2:26Chriſt himſelf hath reſcued out of the jawes and pawes of Satan; ſince ſuch a one may be actually excommunicated, ſuſpended from the Lords Table for a ſeaſon, not onelyonly injuriouſly, but upon juſt grounds, and yet not inthe Devils actuall power or poſſeſſion, but in Chriſts, John 10. 28, 29.

Secondly, if to deliver unto ſatan, were the ſame with excommunication, then it would have ſome proportion and coincidency with other Scripture phraſes produced for proofe of excommunication▪ (as put away from among you that wicked perſon, and the like forecited) with which it hath no ….

p. 7Thirdly, our Oppoſites generally grant ffSee Cartwrights Notes on the Rhem. Teſtam. on 1 Cor. 5.1 Cor 5that Excommunication belongs onelyonly to the Presbytery or whole Congregation, not to any one particular perſon, be he Biſhop, Miniſter, or other; whereas Paul himſelfe deliv…ed Hymeneus and Phyletus unto Satan, as the words (whom I have delivered, &c.) import, without the concurrence of any other.

Fourthly, many members of the viſible Church are ſpiritually under the ggJohn 8. 44: 1 Johu 3. 8. 2 Tim. 2. 26. Acts 5. 3. John 13. 2. 27:John 8:44John 8:12 Tim 2:26Acts 5…ower of ſatan, and taken captives of him at his will, though ſtill within the Church, and not actually excommunicated; therefore to deliver men over thus to ſatan, and no more, cannot be properly tearmed excommunication.

Fifthly, nor can it be meant meerly of ſuſpending people from the Sacrament; for then children and others debarred from the Sacrament, by reaſon of their nonage, or any other naturall diſ-abilities, ſhould be as much delivered over to Satan as any ſcandalous perſons.

What this delivering of men over to ſatan is, hath beeen much controverted among Divines: Many who take it to be meant of excommunication, and an act of diſcipline eſtabliſhed then in the Church for all future ages, interpret it to be, not onelyonly a caſting of a man out of the Church hhSee Cartwrights Anſw. to the Rhem: Teſtam. on 1 Cor. 5.1 Cor 5wherein Chriſt reigns, into the world of ungodly men, among whom ſatan rules; but likewiſe to give a man over to be guided in his ſpirit by the word & ſpirit of ſatan, as the Church and thoſe within it are led, guided by the word and ſpirit of God▪ explaining it by Epheſ. 2. 2, 3. 2 Tim. 2. 26. John 14. 30. John. 8. 44▪ 1 John 3. 8. But this expoſition ſeems to me both falſe and improper: Firſt, becauſe theſe ſcandalous ſinners, even whiles they were in the Church, were iiA…ts 5. 3. Joh 8. 44. 1 John 3 …. Eph. 2. 2, 3, 4. 2 Tim. 2, 26.1 John 3Eph 2:2Eph 2:3Eph 2:42 Tim 2:26led and acted by the ſpiret of ſatan, in committing thoſe ſcandalous ſinnes, for which they were excommunicated; and therefore their excommunication cannot thus deliver them over unto ſatan, who tooke them captive at his will, but leaves them in his hands in the ſame condition as before. Secondly, ſuch a delivery unto ſatan, as this, to be guided, acted in their ſpirits by him and no more, tends nothing at all to the deſtruction of the fleſh, but rather to the pampering of it, much leſſe to the reforming of the life, or the ſaving of the ſpirit in the day of the Lord Jeſus, but rather to aggravate and encreaſe mens ſinnes. Thirdly, it's confeſſed, that a godly man may for ſome notorious ſinnes or ſcandals, be actually excommunicated, as well as other wicked perſons; now ſuch a one God never kkRom …. 4, … 11. 13. 14. Gal 5. 18. 25.Gal 5:18Gal 5:25gives over to be led and ruled by the unclean ſpirit of ſatan, but he always leads them by his own holy ſpirit, which ever dwels and rules within their ſoules, and is never diſ-poſſeſſed by the Devill. Fourthly, all accord, that the end and uſe of excommunication, is onelyonly to reforme or amend mens lives, and turn them from the power of ſatan unto God: And is not this diametrally contrary to that end, to deliver them over to the very conduct and guidance of ſatan, who llEph. 2. 2, 3, 4. 1 John 3. 8. 2 Tim. 2. 26.Eph 2:2Eph 2:3Eph 2:41 John 3:82 Tim 2:26rules only in the children of diſobedience, precipitates them into all ſinful courſes with a ful c…re, and is ſo farre from learning men not to blaſpheme, that he fils their hearts and mouthes with naught but lyes and blaſphemies? This interpretation therefore I cannot approve; Neither doe I read or beleeve that any Preſbytery or Church hath or doth claime any authority in theſe dayes to deliver p. 8any man to Satan; Wherefore, to deliver a man unto ſatan, I rather cōceive to be meant in two other ſenſes more agreeable both to the letter and ſcope of theſe Texts, and the interpretation of the Fathers on them.

The firſt is, either to deliver up a man corporally, by way of puniſhment, into the actuall poſſeſſion of the Devill, onelyonly in reſpect of his body, not ſoule, ſo as the Devill thereby might actually poſſeſſe, macerate, torment and afflict his fleſh (as he mmMat. 15 22. Luk. 6. …8. Mar 9. 17. to 30. c. 5. 2. to 10.Matt 15:22Luke 6:8Mark 9:17–30uſed to vex thoſe whom he did corporally poſſeſſe, which the Scripture plentifully manifeſts) till he were ſufficiently puniſhed, and then be diſpoſſeſſed of the Devill againe by thoſe who delivered him into his power, and reſtored to the boſome of the Church; the Apoſtles and others nnMat. 16. 1… ▪ Acts 16. 16, 17 18 Mat. 10. 8.Matt 16:1Acts 16:16Acts 16:17Matt 10:8in their age, having a power, not onelyonly to caſt out and diſpoſſeſſe men of Devils, but likewiſe to deliver men up by way of puniſhment to ooSee Mark 5. 9. to 15. John 13. 27. Eph. 2. 2, 3. 2 Tim. 2. 26. See Beda in 1 Tim. 1.Mark 5:9–15John 13:27Eph 2:2Eph 2:32 Tim 2:261 Tim 1be corporally poſſeſſed by the Devill: which (as I conceive) was the ground of that common imprecation, (too frequent in lewd mens mouthes, when they are injured or provoked by any man;) the devill take you, or, Tradatur Satan….

This kind of delivering men over to ſatan was peculiar onelyonly to the Apoſtles, and ſome others in that age, but ceaſed ſince, and ſo cannot be drawne into practice among us; A godly Chriſtian by way of puniſhment may be for a ſeaſon thus delivered unto ſatan, for the mortifying or deſtruction of his fleſh and carnall corruptions, and yet ſtill continue a true child of God in reſpect of his ſoule and ſpirit, ppJohn 14. 16. 1 Cor. 6. 19. Se Aecumenius Chryſoſt. Primaſius, Haymo, Beda, Theodor. Theophilact. in … Cor. 5. Mat. 4. 1. to 12.John 14:161 Cor 6:19Matt 4:1–12which the holy Ghoſt doth alwayes poſſeſſe, though the Devill poſſeſſe his body (as he had poſſeſſion of Chriſts body, though not of his ſoule and ſpirit, when * he led him into the Wilderneſſe to be tempted, and carried him from place to place.) And this I take to be one genuine ſenſe and ſcope of theſe two Texts.

Secondly, there is another ſort of delivering men up to ſatan, ſomewhat different from the former, which ſuits very well with the words and ſenſe of theſe Scriptures; and that is, when a man by Gods immediate permiſſion is delivered unto ſatan to be tortured, afflicted and vexed by him; either in his body, by ſickneſſes, botches, diſeaſes; or in his mind, by cares, feares, perplexplexities and diſcontents; or in his eſtate and family, by loſſes and croſſes of all ſorts, as qqJob c. & 2. See Aecumenii Enar. on 1 Cor 5. Primaſ. Theophilact. Chryſostom. Hierom in locum.1 Cor 5Job was, of purpoſe to mortifie his fleſh and carnall members, to humble his ſoule and bodie before God, that his ſpirit may be ſaved in the day of the Lord, his ſinfull life reformed, and he hereby leſſoned, no more to blaſpheme or diſhonour God: In this ſenſe God many times delivers over his children (as he did Job) into their Adverſary, ſatans hands, to ſcowre away all their droſſe, and crucifie their old man, the fleſh, with the affections and luſts thereof, without giving their hearts and ſpirits into his power, which he ſtill reſerves intirely to himſelfe, as he did lob's; and theirs whom the Devill caſt into priſon, and into tribulation for ten dayes, that they might be purifid, and have their robes of corruption waſhed quite away, and made white in the blood of the Lamb, Revel. 2. 10. chap. 7. 14. And in this ſenſe (no doubt) the Apoſtles by Gods permiſſion, had power to deliver men over to ſatan, (one of whoſe rr2 Cor. 12. 72 Cor 12:7Meſſengers Paul had ſent to buffet and humble him, leaſt he ſhould be exalted above his due meaſure▪) for the deſtruction of the fleſh. But how farre the Church or Miniſters of p. 9God have any authority at this day actually to deliver any ſcandalous perſons thus to ſatan (unleſſe it be by way of prayer or option) I ſubmit to others, who now claime this power, to determine: However, in theſe two laſt ſenſes (which I conceive moſt genuine) theſe Texts are no ſolid proofes at all, either of excommunication from the Church, or ſuſpenſion from the Sacrament; ſince a Chriſtian may be delivered over to ſatan in both theſe ſenſes, and yet not actually excommnicated or ſuſpended from the Sacrament.

The fourth difference is this, Whether 1 Cor. 5. 11. If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or cov…tous, or an Idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with ſuch a one no not to eat; be properly meant of excommunication or ſuſpenſion from the Sacrament, or not to eat with ſuch at the Lords Table upon any tearmes? Some Oppoſites confidently averre; others, with my ſelfe deny it; and that upon theſe grounds:

Firſt, becauſe there is not one ſillable of receiving the Lords Supper, or eating at the Lords Table ſpoken of in this chapter; and in the 10. and 11. chapters, where the Apoſtle profeſſedly treats of the Lords Supper, and receiving that Sacrament, he ſpeakes not one word of ſecluding any members of the Church, or Chriſtians from it, but onelyonly exhorts men carefully to examine themſelves before they come to receive it, leaſt they eat and drink their owne damnation, become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and draw downe ſickneſſes and diſeaſes upon themſelves; affirming expreſly, ch. 10. ver. 16, 17. The bread which we breake, is it not the communion of the body of Chriſt? for we being many, are one bread and one body; for▪ WE ARE ALL PARTAKERS OF THAT ONE BREAD: If ALL▪ were then partakers of this bread, certainly none were excluded from it in the Church of Corinth; but as the Iſraelites under the Law, did ALL eat the ſame ſpirituall meat, and ALL drink the ſame ſpirti…all drinke, though▪God were displeaſed with many of them, who were idolaters, tempters of God, fornicators, murmurers, and were destroyed in the Wilderneſſe, 1 Cor. 10. 1. to 12. ſo all under the Goſpell who were viſible Members of the Church of Corinth, did eat and drink the Lords Supper, to which ſome drunkards whiles drunken did then reſort, as is cleere by the 1 Cor. 11. 20, 21. which Paul indeed reprehends, verſe 22. Therefore this, with ſuch a one no not to eat, cannot be meant of excommunication or ſuſpenſion from the Sacrameut.

Secondly, if we look upon the catalogue of thoſe with whom the Corinthians were forbidden ſo much as to eat, we ſhall find railers, covetous perſons, and extortioners therein mentioned, as well as idolaters, fornicators, drunkards; and if all ſuch muſt be excommunicated or ſuſpended the Sacrament, what will become of moſt of our Anabaptiſticall and Independent Congregations, who are generally knowne to abound more with covetous perſons, extortioners, railers, then our Parochiall or Presbyteriall Congregations do with idolaters, fornicators, drunkards? I▪ feare their Independent Conventicles and chamber Congregations will be diſſolved for want of members, of Miniſters, and their Lords▪ Tables be left empty without Gueſts, if all railers, covetous perſons and extortioners were excommunicated out of them, and this their pretended diſcipline p. 2put into exact execution; yea, I fear, too many Presbyterian Miniſters, Elders, who would be very active in excommunicating, ſuſpending others from the Sacrament for fornication, idolatry, drunkenneſſe, muſt themſelves be firſt excommunicated from the Lords Table for their owne covetouſneſſe; Wherefore ssMat. 7. 3, 4, 5Matt 7:3Matt 7:4Matt 7:5let ſuch pull that beame out of their owne eye, before they paſſe the ſentence of excommunication and ſuſpenſion for the m…tes they ſpye in their brother's eye; and this would much moderate their ſeverity towards others, if not make them diſclaime this Text to be ment of thoſe Eccleſiaſticall cenſures, which would light firſt and heavieſt on themſelves.

Thirdly, it is as cleere as the noon-day Sunne, that, no not▪ to eat, in this Text, is no more, then not to keep company, or hold civill familiarity with ſuch: Firſt, by verſe 10, 11. I wrote to you in an Epiſtle, NOT TO KEEPE COMPANY with fornicators, &c. yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, &c. for then ye muſt goe out of the world; (as thoſe muſt doe who would have unmixt churches and communions without any putred members:) But now have I written unto you, NOT TO KEEP COMPANY: If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, &c. with ſuch a one NO NOT TO EAT: By which it is moſt cleer, that, no not to eat with ſuch, is nothing elſe, but **See Primaſi…s, Theodoret, Theophylact, Chryſoſtom, Haynor. O Ecumen…u▪ Anſ…lm and M…ſculus in locum.not to keep company, or converſe familiarly with them, it being here twice together thus interpreted in the preceding words: And that it cannot be meant of eating with them at the Lords Table, is moſt cleere; becauſe this inhibition extends it ſelfe, (though not in the ſame ſtrictneſſe,) to fornicators, idolaters, covetous perſons, &c. that are Infidels and without the Church, as well as to him that is called a brother, and within the Church, as is evident by verſe 10, 11, 12, 13▪ compared together: Therefore it muſt of neceſſity be meant of civill converſation with them, of which eating together with others, and ſitting with them at our, or their Tables, is one principall branch▪ being one of the higheſt expreſſions of outward friendſhip and familiarity, as is evident by Gen. 43. 16, 17. 32, 33, 34. 2 Sam. 12. 28. 33. 2 Kings 2. 7. Pſal. 41. 9. John 13. 18. and diſdaining to eat with one, the greateſt token of eſtrangedneſſe, or want of familiarity one with another, Gen. 43. 32. compared with John 4. 7, 8, 9. Secondly, this is further confirmed by theſe parallel Texts of Rom. 16. 17. Eph. 5. 7. 12. 2▪ Theſ. 3. 14. Tit. 3. 10. 2 John 10. 2 Tim. 3. 10. which interpret, no not to eat here, by theſe phraſes, of avoyding them, turning away from and rejecting them, not to keep company or have fellowſhip with them, nor to welcome the… into our houſes; neither of which amounts to an excommunication or ſuſpenſion, which are judiciall acts of the whole Church or Presbytery, after legall proofe and conviction: whereas theſe acts of not eating, avoiding, or not keeping company, &c. are all onelyonly morall or prudentiall acts of particular Chriſtians, or Voluntary negative actions, not poſitive, judiciall, publike Church cenſures.

Object. But our Oppoſites object, that though this Text be not directly meant of excommunication or ſuſpenſion from the Sacrament, yet it warrants ſuch mens ſuſpenſion from tht Lords Supper by neceſſary conſequence: For if we p. 3may not ſo much as eat and drinke with raylers, drunkards, covetous perſons, &c. at our owne, their, or other mens Tables, much leſſe may we doe it at the Lords Table.

Anſw. I anſwer, that the Argument is meerly ſophiſticall, fallacious, and not properly any formal Argument from the leſſe to the greater, becauſe itvaries in the kind of eating; the one being civill, the other ſpirituall; the one private in ones own houſe, or anothers, where he hath abſolute freedome or liberty to eat, or not to eat with another; the other pulik in the Church, where he hath a divine command, neceſſitating him to communicate with others of that Congregation, in the Sacrament, as well as in other Ordinances. Every Argument from the leſſe to the greater that is concluſive, muſt have ſundry qualifications to make it ſolid: I will inſtance but in three. Firſt, it muſt be in the ſame kind of action; Secondly, it muſt fall under the ſame precept; Thirdly, it muſt be within the compaſſe of the ſame power: If either of theſe faile, the Argument is a meere Inconſequent. For inſtance, This is a ſolid Argument; Men ought to abſtaine from the ſmalleſt ſinnes; Ergo, much more from the greateſt ſins; becauſe this holds ſtill to the ſame kind [ſinne] and abſtaining from the greateſt ſins, fals under the ſame precept which forbids the leaſt; So this is a firme Argument; He that can make a little Watch or ball can likewiſe make one ſomewhat greater, becauſe it in the ſame kind of manufacture, and both of them within the virge of the Artificers skil: But on the contrary, theſe Ro. 12. 18, 19.Rom 12:18Rom 12:19inferences are unſound and inconcludent: A man muſt not keep company with an angry man, Prov. 22. 24. Ergo, he muſt not joyne with him in any publike Ordinances or acts of Gods worſhip; or, A man muſt not ſweare vainly by the Mat. 5. 34.Matt 5:34Name of God, which is the leſſe; Ergo, he muſt not ſwear ſolemnly before a Magiſtrate, which is the the greater; becauſe there is in theſe, a variation in the kind, occaſion and manner of ſwearing; So, it is unlawfull for any Chriſtian to recompence evill for evill in the leaſt kind, nor to avenge himſelfe for the leaſt wrong, Rom. 12. 17. 19. Therefore it is unlawfull for any Chriſtian Magiſtrate to recompence evill for evill, or inflict the higheſt degree of Vengeance on Malefactors, even death and capitall puniſhments; is a meet Nonſequitur; becauſe this publike revenge by way of juſtice, fals not under the ſame precept with privat reveng: So, ſuch a workman is able to make a boat or ditch, which is the leſſe; ergo, he is able to build a Ship or Fort, which is the greater, is an Inconſequent, becauſe they fal not under the ſelf-ſame degree of art & ability: To apply this to the objected text; Not eating with ſcandalous perſons at meales in private, differs in manner, kind from eating with them at the Lords Table in publike; they fal not both under the ſelf-ſame precept; and we have free power not to eat bread with thoſe at our own Tables, with whom we have no power or liberty left us by Chriſt, to refuſe to eat with them at the Lords Table: Therefore this Argument, in point of Logicke and Divinity, is as infirme and abſurd, as any of the former: Yet how many thouſands, as well Schollers as Ignorants, have been over-reached with it, ſo far as to make them ſeparate, not onelyonly from our Sacraments but Congregations too?

p. 12Now becauſe thi… groſſe, fallacious Inconſequence in my apprehenſion, is one principle cauſe and prop of Independency, yea of Separation from our Churches, Sacraments, and hath miſled ſo many, eſpecally of later yeers, I ſhall a little further examine it, with relation to the Text on which it is grounded, and further lay open both the falſeneſſe and abſurdity thereof, to all mens jndgements and conſciences.

Firſt, it is cleere, that this Text is ment onelyonly of civill converſation, eating and drinking, not of ſpiritual, as I have already proved: I would then demand theſe two Queſtions of the Objectors: Firſt, whether this Text prohibits all kind of civill communion, and eating at Table with any Chriſtians who are raylers, fornicators, idolaters, covetous perſons, extortioners or drunkards, under paine of mortall ſinne? If yea; then it is a damnable ſinne in the Objectors to eat, drink, or converſe in any kind with any ſuch as theſe, which they daily doe without any ſcruple, and cannot avoyd; yea, then it would be a ſin againſt this Text, for a wife, child, kinſman, Maſter, Magiſtrate, Prince, conſtantly to convers or eat with ſuch a ſcandalous husband, parent, kinſman, ſervant, neighbour, Paſtor, fellowſervant, Subject, or they reciprocally with them, if ſcandalous; then if any Member of the Parliament, or of any Corporation, Colledge, Innes of Court, or the like, ſhould but eat together at meales with his fellow-members who are thus ſcandalous, in any Common-Hall, or at any Ordinary or Corporation-feaſt, they ſhould ſin againſt this Text, which I never yet heard any Anabaptiſt, Separatiſt, Independent, Presbyter, or Divine affirm; neither of which make any conſcience of not repairing to the Lord Majors, or any other publike City-feaſt, where they are ſure of good fare, becauſe they were certaine there to meet and eat with ſome covetous, or other ſeandalous perſons; with whom Saint Paul prohibits them, no not to eat: Which precept Chriſt himſelfe and his Apoſtles ſhould have tranſgreſſed, in Mat▪ 9. 10, 11. c: 11. 19▪ Mar. 2. 15, 16.Matt 9:10Matt 9:11Mark 2:15Mark 2:16eating and drinking with Publicans and ſinners, for which they were [s] taxed by the over-preciſe Phariſes. If then this Text extends not to oureating at meales with ſuch ſcandalous chriſtians in caſes of neceſſity & expediency, where either our natural, civill relations, or cōmon civility engage us to it, ſo as we delight not intheir company, or do it notvoluntarily out of free choice, when we may avoid it without offence, as the very Objectors, I ſuppoſe, wil grant, and S. Paul reſolves, ver. 11. then by the ſelf-ſame reaſon, it can be no offence at all againſt this Scripture, to eat or drink with ſuch at the Lords Table, at this his publike Feaſt and great Supper, to which all Christians are invted (if we beleeve Chriſts owne Parable, Mat. 22. 1. to 15. & Iſa. 55. 1. Rev. 22. 17.) in ſuch caſes wherein we may lawfully eat & drink with them at our own, theirs, or other mens Tables. Secondly, our Objectors themſelves affirme, that it is lawful to hear, pray, read the Scriptures, …ing Pſalmes, repeat Sermons, faſt and performe all other chriſtian duties in the company of ſuch ſcandalous Chriſtians as are here particularized, without any violation of this Text: If then we may keep company or hold communion with them, and they with us in all other Ordinances, till they be actually and judicially excommunicated from the Church and p. 13them; then why not likewiſe in the Lords Supper too? ſince this Text and all others cited for proofe of excommunication or ſuſpenſion by our Oppoſites, prohibit communion in them al alike, or elſ in none. Thirdly, admit Miniſters themſelves be polluted with any of thoſe Vices, ſuppoſe with covetouſneſſe, (as too many are,) yet none of the Objectors dare averre, that it is a ſinne againſt this precept, for any of their Congregations to receive the Sacrament from, or eat the Lords Supper with them, no more then to joyne with them in prayer, faſting, or to heare them read, preach, catechize, expound, or ſing Pſalmes together with them; ſince the goodneſſe or viciouſneſſe of the Miniſter (as ttSee Gratian▪ Cauſ. 1. Queſt, 1. Ivo Decret. ſeci…da pars.all accord) doth neither adde ought to, nor detract any thing from the efficacy of the Sacraments, or any publike Ordinances, which proceeds from God alone: If then we may receive the Sacrament from, and eat it with a covetous Miniſter without any ſin or contradiction to this Text, then why not likewiſe with a covetous Neighbour or fellow-pariſhioner? Fourthly, the Objectors grant, that a Chriſtian may lawfully receive the Sacrament with perſons ſecretly guilty of theſe and other groſſe ſinnes, with cloſe Hypocrits, who guild over their vices; and unregenerate Chriſtians not really ſanctified, who are neither ignorant nor notoriouſly ſcandalous in their lives, without ſcruple or offence againſt this Text. Therefore they may lawfully doe it in point of conſcience with ſuch who are notoriouſly ſcandalous, before their actuall conviction & excommunication, eſpecially if they profeſſe ſincere repentance for their ſins paſt, and reformation of their lives for time to come; as all do, at leaſt in their general confeſſions before the Sacrament, if not in their own private meditations, prayers & preparatory devotions twixt God and their owne ſoules. Fifthly, it is not the meere guilt, but onelyonly the ſcandall, ill example, and contagion of notorious ſinnes that ſubjects men to the cenſure of excommunication, in regard of others, leaſt they ſhould infect and draw them on to imitation of them, as Paul reſolves, 1 Cor. 5. 6. elſe thoſe very ſins which are not notorious, and thoſe infirmities, of which the beſt Saints themſelves are frequently guilty, ſhould ſubject them unto excommunication, or ſuſpend them from the Sacrament; and then what mortall man almoſt ſhould be admitted to it? It is not then ſuch ſinners bare receiving with us, or ours with them, that can any way hurt, much leſſe deter or keep us from the Sacram…nt, 1 Cor. 11… 29.1 Cor 11:29(for they eat and drink damnation onelyonly to themſelves, not others) in caſe we imitate them not in their ſinnes, or receive no contagion from their company. Sixtly, the Objectors will grant, that there is a neceſſity lyes upon Miniſters to adminiſter, and on people to receive the Sacrament at all convenient ſeaſons: That God onelyonly infallibly knowes the hearts and reall preparations of all Communicants, in the very beſt of whom there are many failing and corruptions, which make them in themſelves unworthy to communicate: That all who come to receive, doe alwayes make a generall and joynt confeſſion of their ſins before God and the Congregation, acknowledging and bewayling their manifold ſinnes and iniquities, which they from time to time have committed in thought, word and deed, againſt the Divine Majeſty; proſeſſing, that they doe earneſtly repent, and are heartily ſorry for all their miſdoings, p. 6that the remembrance of them is grievous unto them, the burthen of them intolerable; deſiring God to have mercy upon them for his Sonne Chriſt Jeſus ſake, and to for…er all that is paſt, and grant, that they may ever after ſerve and pleaſe him in newneſſe of life: offering up themſelves, ſoules and bodyes to be a holy and li…ing Sacrifice acceptable unto God through Jeſus Chriſt: Yea, I dare preſume, there is no Receiver ſo deſperate, that dares profeſſe when he comes to receive, he is not heartily ſorow for his ſinnes paſt, but reſolvs to perſevere impenitently in them for the future, though afterward he relapſe into them (as the be… Saints do to their old infirmities) becauſe his heart nature are not truly regenerated by Gods Spirit: All this being granted, no Miniſter ought to refuſe the Sacrament to ſuch an external penitent ſinner (the ſincerity of whoſe heart and repentance, God onelyonly knows) nor may or ought any Chriſtian to abſtaine from communicating with him at it, in caſe he be not actually excommunicated, or not re-admitted to the Church for his prophane, ſcandalous life, ſince they have no warrant from this or any other Scripture elſe to doe it. All which, if ſeriouſly pondered, by Separatiſts and Independents, miſled by the objected inference, would ſpeedily reduce them to the boſome of our Church, and quite allay the heat of the preſent controverſies about ſuſpenſion from the Sacrament, in which many now place The very Kingdome of Chriſt, who never claimed nor exerciſed ſuch a ſoveraignty as they, under his name and title, would uſurp unto themſelves.

5The fifth thing in difference is, Whether the Prieſts under the Law had divine authority to keepe backe any circumciſed perſon from the Paſſeover, who deſired to eat it, for any reall or pretended ignorance, hereſie, or ſcandalous ſinne? My oppoſites affirme they had; for proofe whereof they produce Num. 9. 1. to 12. Where the Iſraelites being commanded to eat the Paſover on the fourteenth day of the firſt monethmonth at evening, there were certaine men defiled by the dead body of man, that they could not keep the Paſſeover on that day; and they came before Moſes and Aaron on that day, and ſaid unto Moſes, we are de…iled by the dead body of man; wherefore are we kept backe, that we may not offer an Offering to the Lord in his appointed ſeaſon among the children of Iſrael? And Moſes ſaid unto them, ſtand ſtill, and I will heare what the Lord will command concerning you: And the Lord ſpake unto Moſes ſaying, ſpeak unto the children of Iſrael, ſaying; If any man of you or your posterity ſhall be uncleane by reaſon of a dead body, or in a journey a farre off, he ſhall keep the Paſſeover unto the Lord, the fourteeenth day of the ſecond MonethMonth they ſhall keep it, and eat it. By which it is cleere, that legall uncleanneſſe did diſ-able them to eat the Paſſover at the appointed time; therefore much more ſcandalous ſinnes and ſpirituall uncleanneſſe did diſ-able ard keep them from it, and by conſequence they doe likewiſe debar men from the Lords Supper now, of which the Paſſeover was a type; yea, our reverend Scottiſh brother in his controverſall Faſt-Sermon, added, that no man might bring a Trespaſſe offering to the Lord, to expiate any particular ſin he was guilty of, unleſſe he did firſt confeſſe he had ſined in that thing, Levit. 5. 5, 6. Therefore ſaid he, a fortiori, he could not be admitted unto the Paſover (nor any now unto the Lords Table) unleſſe he firſt particularly and p. 7publikely confeſſed the ſinnes he ſtood guilty of.

To this I anſwer, firſt, that all circumciſed perſons whatſoever, had a right to eat the Paſſeover, and participate of all the Ordinances under the law, from which the Prieſts had no power to exclude them for ignorance, or any ſcandalous offence, for ought appeares by any Scripture-precept or preſident: ALL of them under pain of being cut off from their people, being bound to eat the Paſſeover in its ſeaſon, except in caſes of neceſſity, diſability, by reaſon of a journey, or of legall uncleanneſſe onelyonly, (not ſpirituall) as is cleere by Exod. 12. 3. 43. to 50. Num. 9. 1. to 15. Deut. 16. 16, 17. Ezra 6. 19, 20, 21. 2 Kings 23. 21, 22. 2 Chron. 35. 6, 7, 13, 17, 18. where we read, that ALL THE PEOPLE and ALL the Males THAT WERE PRESENT received the Paſover, not one of them being excluded from eating it. This is moſt evident by that noted place of 2 Chro. 30. 3. to 21. where King Hezekiah proclaiming a ſolemn… Paſover, ſummoned ALL Iſrael, and ALL THE PEOPLE, from Dan to Beerſheba, to repaire to it; whereupon there aſſembled MUCH PEOPLE to Jeruſalem to keep it: Now there were many in the Congregation that were not clean nor ſanctified▪ for a multitude of the people had not cleanſed themſelves (from their legall pollutions) YET DID THEY EAT THE PASSOVER, (neither Hezekiah nor the Prieſts prohibiting them to eat it) otherwiſe then it was written; But Hezekiah prayed for them ſaying, The good God pardon every one that prepareth his heart to ſeeke God, the Lord God of his Fathers, though he be not cleanſed according to the purification of the Sanctuary: And the Lord hearkned t… Hezekiah and healed the people. Here legall uncleanneſſe did not actually ſuſpend them from the Paſſover, when their hearts were upright, and they deſirous to eat it, the Lord at Hezekiah's prayer paſſing by their unpreparations and accepting their devotions in this act; Nor yet did ſpirituall pollution, by reaſon of groſſe and ſcandalous ſinnes, debar them that were circumcized, from the Paſſeover, as Paul expreſly determines, 1 Cor. 10. 1. to 10. (an unanſwerable Text to this purpoſe) Moreover brethren, I would not that ye ſhould be ignorant, that ALL our Fathers were under the cloud, and ALL paſſed through the ſea, and were ALL baptiz…d unto Moſes in the cloud and in the ſea; and DID ALL EAT THE SAME SPIRITUALL MEAT (to wit, the Paſſeover and Manna) and did ALL DRINK OF THE SAME SPIRITUALL DRINK for they drank of the Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Chriſt: But perchance ALL theſe Communicants were viſible Saints, free from any legall pollution, at leaſt not tainted with any ſcandalous ſinne: The Apoſtle to take off this evaſion, ſubjoynes in the very next words, But with MANY OF THEM God was not well pleaſed, for they were overthrowne in the Wilderneſſe: No… theſe things were our examples, to the intent we ſhould not luſt after evill things, … they alſo luſted; neither be ye Idolaters as were ſome of them, &c. neither let us commit fornication as ſome of them committed, &c. neither let us tempt Chriſt … ſome of them alſo tempted, neither murmure ye as alſo ſome of them murmurd, and were destroyed of the deſtroyer: So that the Iſraelites being once circumcized, were all admitted to eat the Paſſeover, though ſome of them were Idolaters; others, luſters after evill things; others Fornicators, others tempters p. 16of Chriſt, others murmurers againſt God and Moſes; therefore there was no ſuſpenſion of any circumcized Iſraelite from the Paſſover, for ſpirituall uncleanneſſe, and ſcandalous ſins, but only for legall uncleanneſſes. Secondly, it is cleere by the objected Text, that thoſe who were legally uncleane at the day appointed for the Paſſover, ſo as they could not then receive it, were yet peremptorily enjoyned to eat it the 14. day of the ſecond Month; and not ſuſpended, til they made publike confeſſion of their ſins, reformed the evill of their doings, and gave publike ſatisfaction to the Congregation, or Prieſts, as God himſelfe reſolves in terminis, Num. 9. 11, 12. If any man of you, or of your poſterity ſhal be unclean by reaſon of a dead body, YET HE SHALL EAT THE PASSOVER the fourteenth day of the ſecond monethmonth at even, he muſt not be ſuſpended from it above one monethmonth: By what Law then, doe many Miniſters now preſume, to ſuſpend▪ their whole Congregations, not onelyonly above whole moneths but yeers from the Lords Table (contrary to this text) whereof the Paſoever was a Type? let them amend this practice, or renounce this Scripture, and their unwarrantable inferences from it. Thirdly, he that was legally unclean, was kept back from the Paſſeover for the preſent, not by the Prieſt, or Eccleſiaſticall Claſſis, or temporall Magiſtrate, but by thoſe of the ſame uuExod. 12. 3. … 7, 47. … Chron. 30. … to 2….Exod 12:3Exod 12:7Exod 12:47Family wherein he was to eat the Paſſover, as ver. 6, 7. imports. And the true reaſon in this Text, why his uncleanneſſe did ſeclude him from eating the Paſſover, was, becauſe it quite excluded him out of the Camp for a time, (not Tabernacle or Temple) and ſo by neceſſary conſequence, from the Houſe wherein he was to eat the Paſſeover, as is evident by Levit. 14. 3. 8. chap. 16. 26, 27, 28. Num. 5. 2▪ 3, 4. chap. 12. 14, 15. chap. 19. 7. 11. chap. 31. 19. 20. 24. Deut. 23. 10, 11. And by like reaſon it debarred him from all other Ordinances, as well as it; So that all you can probably inferre from this Text, is but this, which none will contradict: that prophane, ſcandalous perſons juſtly excommunicated, and ſhut out of the Church, ought not to receive the Sacrament, nor participate in any other Ordinance, during their excommunication, till their re-admittance into the Church; as the uncleane Iſraelite could not eat the Paſſover, nor be preſent at any other publike Ordinance or ſacrifice, till his re-admittance into the Camp. Fourthly, here is a direct reſolution of God himſelfe in poſitive tearmes, preſcribing a ſuſpenſion from the Paſſover in caſe of preſent legall pollution onelyonly, not ſpirituall; yet expreſly enjoyning the ſelfſame perſon under the ſevereſt penalty, to eat it the very next monethmonth after; but there is no ſuch punctuall reſolution in the old or new Teſtament, to warrant a like ſuſpenſion of any from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, in caſe of ſcandall or ſpirituall uncleanneſſe, unleſſe he be firſt legally excommunicated, nor can any Miniſter or Claſſis debar him juſtly from it by any colour or inference from this text, if he be deſirous to receive it; any longer then for one monethmonth. Fifthly, this argument for ſuſpending men from the Lords Table for ſpirituall uncleanneſſe, becauſe ſome were ſuſpended from the Paſover for legall▪ uncleanneſſe, but not for ſpirituall, is no way concluſive; Firſt, becauſe the Paſſeover and Lords Supper, ceremoniall and ſpirituall pollution differ in kind: Secondly, becauſe ſuſpenſion from the Sacrament p. 17for ſpirituall uncleanneſſe, fals not at all under this temporary precept, of ſuſpenſion from the Paſſeover, onelyonly for legall uncleanneſſe; the rather, becauſe no man was kept from the Paſſeover by colour thereof, for any ſpirituall pollution, but onelyonly for ceremoniall uncleannes; therefore much leſſe can any be ſuſpended by color of it from the Sacrament, to which it hath no relation; Thirdly, there is a direct divine warrant for the one, but not for the other; wherefore we may juſtly reject the objected argument as erronious and fallacious.

Secondly, to the latter part of the Objection; that none might offer ſo much a… a Treſpaſſe-offering for ſinne, without a particular private confeſſion of hi… ſinne (to God, not to the Prieſt;) Ergo, he might not eat the Paſſover (nor any now the Sacrament) if he were a ſcandalous ſinner, without a particular publike confeſſion and repentance of his ſcandalous ſinnes.

I anſwer, that it is a meer Non-ſequitur, becauſe, Firſt, directly contradicted by 1 Cor. 10. 1. to 12. as the premiſes manifeſt: Secondly, becauſe a particular examination of the conſcience and repentance for ſin, is no where required in Scripure of ſuch who did eat the Paſover, though all circumſtances & neceſſaries for the worthy eating of it be moſt punctually enumerated, Exod. 12. Num. 9. Deut. 16. Neither was there any ſuch reaſon why God ſhould require ſuch a confeſſion of ſinne in thoſe who were to eat the Paſſeover, as he expreſly exacts from thoſe who came to offer a Sin-offering to him, only of ſet purpoſe to pr…cure an attonement for thoſe very particular ſins which they did then confeſſe, at which oblation it was both neceſſary and requiſite they ſhould particularly confeſſe thoſe very ſinnes (yet not to the Prieſt, Claſſis or Congregation, Prov. 28. 13. 1 John 1. 9▪ Pſal. 32. 5.Prov 28:131 John 1:9Ps 32:5but to God alone) ſince the Scripture is poſitive, that without confeſſion of ſinne, there is no remiſſion of it; and therefore when they came purpoſely to ſue for pardon, and make attonement for any particular ſinnes, it was abſolutely needfull and expedient they ſhould then confeſſe them: But in the Paſſeover there was no atttonement nor confeſſion made to God for any particular Exod. 12. 22. to 28.Exod 12:22–28ſinne, but onelyonly a commemoration of his infinite mercy in paſſing over the Iſraelites firſt borne, when he ſlew the Aegyptians: Therefore the paralelling of theſe two together, and the inference from the one, applyed to the other, is very incoherent: Finally, I anſwer; that every particular Communicant befoce he comes to receive the Sacrament, makes a publike confeſſion of his ſinnes to God with the reſt of the Congregation, and in words at leaſt, voweth newneſſe of life for the future; there being no Communicant that ever I heard of ſo deſparately wicked and Atheiſticall, as not to profeſſe hearty ſorrow for all his forepaſt ſinnes, or to avow impenitent continuance in them when he came to the Lords Table; therefore he cannot be juſtly debarred from the Sacrament by vertue of this Text, after ſuch a confeſſion, ſince none were kept off from making their attonement by a treſpaſſe offering if they did firſt confeſſe their ſinnes to God, though perchance his confeſſion was not cordiall, or ſuch as the Prieſts approved, but externall, onelyonly in ſhew.

The ſixth thing in controverſie between us, is, Whether Judas received the 6Sacra…ent of the Lords Supper, as well as the other Apostles? Our Antagoniſts p. 18moſt confidently deny he received it, againſt direct Scripture, and all antiquity, the currant confeſſions, reſolutions of moſt Churches, and their eminenteſt Writers of all ſorts: I ſhall prove the affirmative that he did receive it, by Scripture, Antiquitie, Fathers, modern Authors of all ſorts, and then anſwer all pretences to the contrary, with all poſſible brevity.

Mat. 26. 17. to …1. 47. Mark 14. 15. to 27. Luke 22. 24.Matt 26:17Mark 14:15–27Luke 22:24Firſt, the three Evangeliſts Matthew, Marke and Luke, who onelyonly relate the inſtitution of this Sacrament, are all expreſſe in terminis, That Chriſt ſat… downe to eat the Paſſeover, and the TWELVE APOSTLES with him▪ that Jud…s was one of theſe twelve, and preſent at the Table; that as they ſate at meat together, Jeſus tooke bread and brake it, and gave it to them, (the TWELVE) ſaying, Take, eat, this is my body: That he likewiſe took the cup, & gave thanks, and gave it TO THEM, ſaying, drink YE ALL of it, &c. And Mark expreſly records, he gave it to them, and THEY ALL drank of it. If all twelve then ſate downe with Chriſt, and Chriſt gave the bread and cup to them, and bad them ALL eat and drink thereof, and they ALL did eat and drink thereof accordingly: With what ſhadow of truth dare any confidently aver, that Judas did not receive this Sacrament of the Lords Supper, and that he was not preſent at its inſtitution?

Adde to this, that Matthew and Mark record, that immediately before the inſtitution of this Sacrament, as they ſate at meat, Ieſus ſaid u…to the TWELVE, Verily one of you ſhall betray me; whereupon they began to be ſorrowfull, and to ſay unto him, EVERY ONE of them ONE BY ONE, Lord is it I? and he anſwered and ſayd unto them, it is ONE OF THE TWELVE that dippeth with me in the diſh: Then JUDAS who betrayed him, ſaid, Master is it I? and he ſaid unto him, thou haſt ſaid it: which was no ſooner uttered, but Ieſus took bread and bleſſed it, &c. and both inſtituted and distributed the Sacrament to them ALL, as yo… heard before; Therefore certainly to Iudas, the l…ſt man that ſaid, Is it I? immediatly before the inſtitution, as Saint Matthew records; And to manifeſt yet further, that Iudas was preſent at the Sacrament, Saint Luke placeth theſe words of Chriſt concerning Iudas his betraying him▪ after the inſtitution and diſtribution of the Sacrament, not before it, which he thus expreſſeth; But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me IS WITH ME AT THE TABLE, &c, and they began to enquire among themſelves which OF THEM ſhould betray him. Saint Iohn writes thus; And SUPPER BEING ENDED, the Devil having NOW put it into the heart of Judas Iſcariot to betray him; Chriſt riſeth from ſupper, and laid aſide his Garment, and tooke a towell and began to waſh his Diſciples feet; and it ſeemes he waſhed Iudas his feet, who was then preſent, as theſe words import, Iohn 13. 10, 11. And ye are cleane, but not all; for he knew who ſhould betray him: Therefore he ſaid, Ye are cleane, but not all: After which he ſate downe againe▪ and among ſundry other diſcourſes with his Diſciples, he ſaid; Verily I ſay unto you, that ONE OF YOU ſhall betray mee; then the Diſciples looked one upon another, doubting of who… he ſpake: Now there was leaning on Ieſus boſome, one of the Diſciples whom Ieſus loved; Simon Peter therefore beckned to him, that he ſhould ask who it ſhould be of whom he ſpake: he then leaning on Ieſus breaſt, ſaith unto him, Lord who is it? Ieſus anſwered him it is to whom I ſhall give a ſop when I have dipped it: And when he had dipped the ſop, he gave it to Iudas Iſcariot; and after the ſop, ſatan entred p. 19into him: Then ſaid Ieſus unto him, that thou doeſt, doe quickely; he then having received the ſop, went immediatly out, and it was night.

Now Saint Iohn expreſly averring, verſe 2. That all this diſcourſe, and the giving of the ſop to Iudas, was AFTER SUPPER ENDED: And the other three Evangelists unanimouſly according, that Chriſt inſtituted and diſtributed the Sacrament (at leaſt the bread) as he ſate at Meat, as they were eating, before Supper quite ended (whence it was ſtiled the Lords Supper;) it muſt of neceſſity follow from all the Evangeliſts ſeverall relations, joyned together, and eſpecially from Saint Iohns (who was preſent at the inſtitution) from whence our Antagoniſts would inferre the contrary, that Iudas did receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, together with the other Diſciples▪ and they may as probably queſtion, whether Peter or Iohn did receive it, as Iudas, there being not one ſillable in any of the Evangeliſts, intimating he did not receive it with the reſt, which doubtleſſe they would have particularly and poſitively recorded, had he not been preſent at it, being a thing of ſo great moment.

This truth is ſo tranſparent, that all Ages have poſitively averred, received it as an indubitable verity; forwhich I could produce whole Centuries of Writers: but for brevity, I ſhall recite the teſtimonies onelyonly of ſome few of principall Note.

Origen Tract. 35. in Matth. Si autem potes ſpiritualem menſam & cibum ſpiritualem & dominicam intelligere Caenam, quibus omnibus dignificatus fuerat (Judas) a Chriſto abundantius videbis multitudinem maliciarum ejus, quibus magiſtrum, cum cibo divinae menſae & calicis, & hoc in die Paſchae tradidit.

Saint Cyprian in his Sermon de Ablutione Pedum writes thus, Ad Menſae tuae participationem, Judas proditor eſt admiſſus: And de Caena Domini, he thus ſeconds it: Quamdiu, cibi illi, qui ad diem feſtum erant parati conveſcentibus Apoſtolis ſumebantur, veteris paſchae agebatur memoria nec dum Iudas ad veterem vitam pertinens, diabolo invadente & occupante anim…m ejus egredi cogebatur; ſed ubi ſac…um cibum mens perfida tetigit, & ſceleratum os panis ſanctificatus intravit, paricidialis animus vim tant… ſacramenti non ſuſtinens, quaſi palea de area exſufflatus eſt, & praeceps cucurrit ad deſperatio…em et laqu…um.

Saint Ambroſe Enar. de Tobia. lib. c. 14. reſolves thus: Judas ibi miſer periit in illo convivio quo alij ſaluantur: Idem Apologi a Davidis poſterior, cap. 11. Judas panem accepit a Chriſto, & tunc magis eſt repletus Diabolo, quia non accepit ex fide, qui tam hoſpitali Domino pro litionem parabat And Com. lib. 12. in Luc. 13. Judas proditionem ſanguinis Dominici inter ſacrificia poſitus cogitabat.

Saint Chryſoſtome Serm. 1. de Myſteriis Caenae Dominicae. Qui ſacratae huius Caenae indigne participatur accubitu, non cum Petro perveniat ad ſ…l…tis Portium, ſed ſuſtinebit cum Iuda ſine reparatione naufragium. Iudas non ſyncerus ſed ſimulator accubuit, et poſt bu…llam Chriſti, in eum Diabolus introivit. And de Reſurrectione. Homil. 3. Quid Caenam illam liberalem commemorem, ubi tingebat Diſcipulus mendax digitum? Edebat cum pane Caed…m▪ …t ſorbebat cum ſanguine potionem. O crudele Proditoris convivium! rogo, quibus oculis …ſpectebat, quem ſub dente premeb…?

p. 20To paſſe by Nazianzen, who in his Chriſtus Patiens, agrees, that Iudas did receive the Lords Supper▪ together with the other Apoſtles.

Cyrill. Biſhop of Ieruſalem aſſerts the ſame, Catecheſis 13. Prodiderat Judas improbus Patrem-familias, nuperque exiens a menſa, & poculum benedictionis bibens, & pro potu ſalutari ſanguinem Juſti effudere volens.

Saint Auguſtine thus ſeconds him, in Pſal. 3. Enar. Cum Traditor Domini Judas fuerit, ipſa Domini noſtri, tanta et tam miranda patientia, quod cum tamdiu pertulit tanquam bonum, cum ejus cogitationes non ignoraret, cum adhibuit ad convivium in qu… corporis et ſanguinis ſui figuram diſcipulis commendavit et tradidit. In his 162. Epiſt. Iudas accepit pretium noſtrum: And Tract. 6. 26. & 62. in Joan. he oft reiterates it: Non mala erat buccella quae …radita eſt Iudae à Domino. Abſit, Medicus non d…ret venenum; ſalutem medicus dedit, ſed ind…gnè accipiendo ad perniciem accepit, qui non paratus accepit: Talis erat Judas, …et tamen cum ſanctis Diſcipulis vndecim intrabat et exibat. Ad ipſam C…nam Domini…am pariter acceſſit; converſari cum iis potuit, …os inquinare non potuit: De uno pane et Petrus accipit et Judas; et tamen quae pars fideli et infidel…? Petrus enim accepit ad vitam, manducat Judas ad mortem: Qui enim comederunt indignè judicium ſibi manducat et bibit SIBI, NON TIBI: S… judicium Sibi non Tibi, toleramalum bonus, ut venias ad praemia bonorum, ne mitteris in poenam malorum: which our Venerable Beda, in his Comentary on 1 Cor. 11. both recites and approves. Sundry more paſſages to this purpoſe are there in this Father, which I pretermit for brevity.

Victor Antiochenus in chap. 14. Evang. Marci. comments thus: Dominus autem licet omnium conſiliorum Judae gnarus eſſet, attamen a Sacramenti ſui acceſſu illum non prohibuit: Cur ita? nempe ut hin… diſcas, nihil corum praeterijſſe, quae eum ad ſanam mentem reducere quoquo modo poterant: ſunt tamen qui Judam ante porrectum Euchariſtiae Sacramentum exiuiſſe exiſtiment, &c. The firſt mention I find of any opinion to the contrary.

Theodoret in his Interpretation on the 1 Epiſtle to the Corinthians, cap. 14. writes thus of Chriſt, Salutaris Sacramenti portas aperuit, et non ſolum undecim Apoſtolis, ſed etiam Judae pr…ditori pretioſum corpus et ſanguinem impertit.

Remigius Biſhop of Rhemes, in his Explanation on the 1 Cor. 11. aſſerts it in theſe tearmes. Probet ſe, &c. utrum▪ dignus ſit neque; Nè fort… unde alij ſumunt r…medium, accipiet ille damnationem et judicium, indigne-illud percipiens, ſicut Iud… proditor: nam cum alij Apoſtoli ſumpſiſſent illud terribile Sacramentum ad remedium et ad ſalutem ſuam ille qui non dignus erat tanto myſterio, accepit illud ad dam…ationem ſuam; quia quem Diabolus antea tenebat per ſuggeſtion…m et tentationem, poſtea ad damnationem, tenuit plenius, ut nihil aliud poſſet cogitare aut facere niſi quod voluntas ejus erat: with whom Haym… Biſhop of Halberſtat, concurres in the ſelf-ſame tearmes, in his Interpretation on the 1 Cor. 11.

Paſcatius Ratbertus, de Corpore & ſanguine Domini, cap. 28. hath this memorable paſſage to this purpoſe: Aliud verò Chriſtus nouerat, quod et boni dignè, p. 21et mali indignè, hoc myſterium, licet praeſumptione accepturi eſſent, voluit formam dare cunctis Communicantibus, quid boni, quid…è mal… percipiant: et ideo Judas in figura omnium malorum ad percipiendum admittitur.

Aecumenius Enar. in 1 Cor. 11. hath this ſpeech, Dominus …oſter communi menſa non ſanctos modo diſcipulo…, ſed et ipſum Proditorem ea dignatus eſt, inimicum ſ…eleratiſſimum: et vos dedignamini vna cum pauperibus caenare.

Algerus de Sacramentis, lib. 1. cap. 21. reſolves thus. Cum ergo malos corpus Chriſti verè ſumere, ipſumque Iudam a ſumm… ſacerdote Chriſt…, cum caeteris Apoſtolis acc…piſſe ſancti teſtentur, aſtructum etiam videtur, non eſſe nobis noxium, ſi à nobis, vel nobiſcum mali malè ſuma… Sacramenta, cum Iudas ab ipſo Chriſto cum caeteris Apoſtolis acceperit, nec etiam a pravis minus verè confici ipſa Sacram…nta, cum ipſe Proditor tan… offici… Miniſterium à ſummo Pontifice accipiens, cum caeteris, hoc faci…e in meam comm…morationem, a…dierit: ſi enim ſicut e… à Domino injunctum fuerat, corpus Domin… confeciſſet, numquid vera minus ab ipſo pravo, quam à qu…vis bo…o factum fuiſſet? Q…ia enim Judas accuſ…tus et damnatus non fuerat, ideo Chriſtus conſcientiam ejus perverſam quan…vis ſibi notam dam…ar… noluit, ut nos inſtru…ret, quod aliquorum pravitas nec converſation…, nec Sacramentorum conſecratione vel comparticipatione bonis aliquatenus nocere poſſit. Auguſtinus contra Donatiſtas: Communio malorum non maculat aliquem participatione Sacramentorum, ſed conſenſione factorum. Item, …dem in Homilijs ſuis▪ Ut ſufferas etiam cum quem noſti malum, attende Apoſtolum dicentem, unuſquiſque onus ſuum portabit. Non enim cum illo communicas avaritiam, ſed Chriſti menſam: Et quid obeſt ſi Communices cum illo menſam Christi? qui manducat & bibit indignè, judicium ſibi manducat & bibit. SIBI inquit, non TIBI. Quia igitur, ut a…t Leo, Judae Dominus nec negavit Apoſtolic… ordims honorem, in conficiendis Sacramentis, nec Communionem in ipſis percipiendis, multum providit Eccleſiae ſuae, oſtendens per hunc ſolum innoxiam e… fore malorum praelationem vel converſationem, in quo niſi eſſet praeſciſa tanti cauſa ſciſmatis, multi magis ſuperbè quam Religioſe calcibus etiam à ſe repellerent eos qui apud ſe minoris eſſe viderentur aeſtimationis: Unde Aug. in Serm. 49. ſuper Joannem: Quid voluit Dominus admonere Eccleſiam ſuam quando unum perditum inter duodecim habere voluit, niſi ut malos toleremus, ne corpus Chriſti dividamus; Ecce inter ſanctos eſt Judas, ecce fur eſt & ſacrilegus; talis cum Diſcipulis ad Coenam Dominicam acceſſit; converſari cum eis petuit, inquinare eos non potuit.

Theophilact who flouriſhed about 1070. veers after Chriſt, in his Enar. in Marcum. cap. 14. page 109. writes thus; Quidam dicunt (but who they were, appeares not in any extant works of theirs) Iudam non fuiſſe participem Sacramentorum ſed egreſſum eſſe pri…ſquam dominus Sacramenta traderet: Alij autem dicunt▪ quod etiam ingrato illi ſacro-ſancta dederit: But himſelf ſubſcribes to the latter opinion without ſcruple, not onelyonly in his Enar. in Ioan cap. 13. where he affirmes it over and over ſeverall times; but alſo in his Enar. in Matth. 26. page 67. Appoſuit autem veſcentibus ut oſtenderet crudelitatem Judae, quia in menſa & Communione ciborum illius, quando ſi & fera fuiſſet, manſuetiorem ſe exhibuiſſet; tunc neque cum argueretur intellexit, ſed et corpus illius guſtans non poe…tuit: Quidam autem dicunt; quod egreſſo Juda tradidit Sacramentum alijs diſcipulis p. 22proi…de et nos ſic f…cere debemus, et malos a Sacramentis abarcere, &c. Bibite ex …o omnes; Sunt qui dicunt propter Judam hoc dictum: Judas enim panem accepit, et non comedi…, ſed oc▪ ul…avit, ut monſtraret Judaeis, quod panem corpus ſuù… voc…rit Ieſus; pocul…m autem invitus bibit, cum non poſſet occultare, propterea ho… loco dic…b…t, bi…ite omnes.

Saint B…rnard ſuffragates to all the former, that Iudas did receive the Sacrament as well as the other Apoſtles.

I ſhall trouble you with no more Ancients, ſince they all unanimouſly acco…d herein without one diſſenting voice, excepti…g Hilary, in Matth. Can…n. …0.

The old and moderne Canoniſts of all ſorts, with one conſent ſuffragate to this verity; I ſhall inſtance but in two, to wit, Gratian. Cauſ. 1. Queſt. 1. & Ivo C…not enſis▪ D…cretalium▪ ſecunda pars: in both which we have many ſenten…s of Fathers collected to this purpoſe, and among others, this of Auguſtine, in Expoſi…. Pſalmi. 10▪ Chriſtus quid fecit vobis qui Traditorem ſuum tant a pati…ti… pertulit, ut ei primum Euchariſtiam confectam manibus, et ore ſuo commend…t…m, ſicut caeteris Apoſtolis traderet? Quid vobis fecit Chriſtus, qui eundem Traditorem ſuum que… diabolum nominavit, qui ante traditionem Domini nec lo…lis d…minicis …idem potuit exhibere, cum caeteris diſcipulis ad praedicandum Regnum Caelorum miſit, niſi ut monſtraret, dona dei perve…ire ad eos, qui cum fide accipi…nt, etiamſi talis ſit per quem accipiunt qualis Judas fuit: See Gratian to the ſame effect, Cauſ. 7. Que. 1. & de Conſerat. diſt. 1. & 2. All ſucceding Canoniſts and Gloſſers upon Grat…n concurre with theſe two ancients without diſſent, and ſo doe the Caſuiſts too; I ſpare their names for brevity ſake.

The Schoolmen generally ſ…bſcribe to this concluſion; I ſhall mention onelyonly three or four of them. The firſt is, Alexander Alenſis, our owne Country-man, ſtiled the irrefragable Doctor, in whoſe Summa Theol…giae, pars 4. Queſt. 11. Art. 1. Sect. 3. I firſt of all meet with this Queſtion propounded and diſc…ſſed: An Christus etiam Iudae corpus ſuum in coena dedor…t? This Doctor holds affirmatively that he did, which he proves by Ma…th. 26. 24. &c. Iohn 13. Dionyſius Areopagita, Chryſostome, Hom. 81. ſuper Matth. the Ordinary Gloſſe on Mat. 18. Iohn 13. & 1 Cor. 11. and other Texts: Adding that if Chriſt had actually excluded Iudas▪ from this Sacrament, certainly ſ… of the Evangeliſts or others would have expreſly noted ſuch a memorabls and notable all, which not one of them hath done: And he reſolves thus, Tha… Chriſt in this Supper gave his body to Iudas, and that for divers reaſ…ns: The firſt t…ken from Gods wiſdome, and that for a twofold reaſon; Firſt, to teac… us to love our e…emies, finee Chriſt fed this Traitor with his owne ſleſh; Secondly, to inſtruct the Miniſters of this Sacrament▪ for in that he denied …ot his body to Iudas▪ who was entangled in a grievous …inne, he hath taught the dispenſers of this Sacrament, that they ought to give it to ſinners in the like caſe, when they ſhall deſire it. Secondly, in regard of Gods mercy, and that in two respects; F…rſt, revocati…n from evill; ſecondly, promotion in good: For …his well ought, out of the conſideration of Gods mercy (which moſt appeares in this that he delivered his body to him) to recla…me him from his evill p…rpoſe, and conſe…uently to meliorate him by the vertue of ſo great a Sacrament; but he p. 23increaſed in his ſin, from whence he ought to have augmented his Merit. Thirdly, in resp…ct of divine juſtice, and that in two respects: the augmentation of his fault, the retribution or damnation of his puniſhment; for ſince he would not ceaſe from his conceived malice by ſo great a benefit, by the juſt judgement of God, he is puniſhed by a fall into a more grievous crime, to wit, desperation. Fifthly, in respect of divine converſation, the Lord for this cauſe giving him his body with others, that he might ſhew him, that he ought to be of like good converſation with others. Sixtly, for his perfect reformation as much as might be, on the Lords part, ſince he left no meanes unattempted to reclaime him. This and much more Alenſis, who is ſeconded by Thomas Aquinas, 3. Qu. 81. 1. 0. l. 4. Diſt. ii. Qu. 3. ar. 2. Qu. 1. 2. 0. By John Gerſon Serm. in Coena Dom. ad Eccle. Ca…telam; Hugo de Sacram. l. 2. c. 8. and by our Countrymen▪ Rich. de Media Villa, l. 4. diſt. 11. ar. 4. qu. 2. 3. Tho▪ Waldenſis, Oper. tom. 3. c. 43. ſect. 6. and all the Popiſh Schoolmen; many of them holding ttSee Willets Synopſis Pap…ſmi, p. 650.that Iudas did receive the very body of Chriſt himſelf, as well as the Sacrament of his body: This Doctrin of Judas his eating the Sacrament with Chriſt at his laſt Supper, is ſo currant in the Church of Rome, that they have inſerted it into moſt of their Ladies Pſalters, Howers, Miſſals, and expreſſed it in this Rime.