Provocator provocatus. Or, An answer made to an open challenge made by one M. Boatman in Peters Parish in Norwich, the 13th of December, 1654. in a sermon preached there at a fast, in which answer these questions are spoke to. 1. Whether juridicall suspension of some persons from the Lords Supper be deducible from Scripture; the affirmative is proved. : 2. Whether ministeriall or privative suspension be justifiable; the affirmative also is maintained. : 3. Whether the suspension of the ignorant and scandalous be a pharisaicall invention; a thing which wiser ages never thought of, as Mr Boatman falsly affirmed. In opposition to which is proved, that it hath been the judgment and practice of the eminent saints and servants of Christ, in all ages, of all other reformed churches in all times ... / By John Collings ...

CHAP. VIII. Wherein, by a seventh Argument, the law∣fulnesse of suspension is proved, because there can lie no Obligation upon the Of∣ficers of the Church to give the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to such as visibly are not bound to Receive.

ARGUMENT 7.

Either it is lawfull for the Officers of the Church to deny the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to such as they find ignorant, and scandalous, and impenitent. Or they are bound to give it to such. But they are not bound to give it to any such. Ergo,

THe major is unquestionably evident. The Minor is to be proved, which I prove thus:

The Officers of the Church are not bound to administer the Ordinance to those who they know are not bound to receive it.

But grosly ignorant, and impenitent scandalous sinners are visibly such as are not bound to receive it,—Ergo.

I shall first open and prove the Major, and then come to the Minor.

1. I grant that the Minister of the Gospell may be bound to administer an Ordinance to such a one as is not bound to receive it; because he may otherwise appeare to him, and his unworthinesse may be hid from him. We are bound to hold out the Promise as an object of faith to all, who appeare to have their hearts smit∣ten with the sense of sin, though some of them be Hip ocrites, we know not who are so.

2. But it seems strange to me (considering that a Ministers giving the Sacrament, and the peoples re∣ceiving are relate acts) that a Minister should be bound to give to such as he knows are not bound to receive; can any one thinke that there should lye an Obligation upon us to preach to our people, if it could be proved that there lay no Obligation upon them to heare? Now I assume,

But grossely ignorant, and impenitent scandalous sin∣ners are such as visibly appeare not bound to receive the Lords Supper.—Ergo.

That a grossely ignorant, and scandalous impeni∣tent sinner (while such) is bound to receive, then he is bound; To make himselfe guilty of the body and bloud of Christ. To eate and drinke his own damnation; To run upon the hazard of being made sick and weake, and falling asleep; which are all strange things for a man to be bound in conscience unto.

Let none thinke to avoid this Argument by saying, they are bound first to repent, and then to receive. So that their sin doth not lye in receiving, but in not repenting.

This is plainly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The question is, whe∣ther the ignorant, and impenitent, (while such) if not

cast out) are bound to receive, and it is a begging the question to say, they sin in not repenting, but not in receiving; In receiving (saith the Apostle) they make themselves guilty of the body and bloud of Christ, and they eate and drinke their own damnation.

And surely if such sinners be not bound to receive, the Officers of the Church cannot be bound to give the Ordinance to them, the ceasing of their Obligation in reason must also suspend his.