hath proved that he may have proved that a communion made up of a Saint a Hog a Dog a mad man and a foole is yet a pure communion Surely the appearing purity of a communion in this Ordinance lies in the appearing capacity and worthinesse of all to receive it But I say there may some in the Church who apparently are not fit subjects to receive this holy thing This I easily prove Those that cannot examine themselves that cannot discerne the Lords body or that doe partake of the cup of Devils are apparently not fit subjects to receive the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11.28 29. 1 Cor. 10.21 But there may be such in the Church Ergo. Object Mr Humfry's vind p. 35.36 But Mr Humfry tels us this is false Logick to argue from mens inability to our duty 2. Most men are incapable to heare and pray yet they must doe both 3. Every man must do what he can 4. There is a difference between worthy receiving and receiving worthily To this Doctor Drake hath sufficiently answered Dr Drake's Bar c. p. 114 115 116 117. Scripture Raile p. 92 93 94. c pag. 114 115 136 117 118. And Mr Palmer c. 62 93 94. Dr Drake tels him that visible unfitnesse is the rule of suspension Now with Mr Humfrie's leave we must say that it is good Logick to argue from the visible inability unworthinesse and unfitnesse of the Person that would receive the Sacrament to our duty who are to give it Otherwise for ought I know we might feed Hogs with those Mysteries Will any one not mad say That it is not the duty of us whom God hath betrusted with the dispensing of those Mysteries not to give them to such as are apparently such as God hath declared unable unfit and unworthy to receive them Let any but consider that we are but Trustees with Gods Ordinances and not to deliver them out to any without our Masters Order such as he gives us command to give them to and then this will follow according to Mr Humfrie's Doctrine Either 1. That God hath given us order to give them to those whom he forbad under paine of damnation to receive them nay who have the Markes of such as cannot take them Or secondly 2. That it is Gods will they should take whom his Word declares to be such as cannot take them and if they do they are guilty of the body and bloud of Christ Or thirdly 3. That which we say That if there be any such in the Church they ought by the Officers to be suspended The two former are little lesse than blasphemy implying an inconsistency of the Edicts of the Divine Will each with other But Mr Humfry hath a trick for us Rejoinder pag. 159. For in his rejoynder he tols us it is not a visibility of reall worthinesse is the ground of admission but the visibilâ—ty of Relative worthinesse it is well he askes pardon for that new terme though we understand not the Notion yet the Interpreter he hath sent along with it makes it speake thus It is mens being within the externall Covenant Baptized and in the Church that gives them the right c. I alwaies thought this had been the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whether all baptized persons might be admitted to the Lords Table though ignorant or scandalous if not cast out of the Church Or whether if such they ought to be suspended We say they ought to be suspended not admitted and argue from their unworthiness their reall unworthinesse and incapacity visibly appearing to our duty in denying the Sacrament to them What saies Mr Humfry to this Saies he they are not unworthy relatively though they be visibly unworthy really Strange Language say we what spells it Saies he they are Baptized and not excommunicated if this be not petere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know not what is for we brought our Argument to prove that a visibility of reall unworthinesse made a relative unworthinesse So that Mr Humfry saies this in short They are not unworthy because they are not unworthy For what he saies else upon this Head I shall not meddle with it it little concerneth my businesse I leave him to his proper Adversaries Object But will some say by this Argument you will conclude that the presence of scandalous persons pollutes those who are worthy and pollutes the Ordinance and this is ridiculous This Mr Humfry and Mr Boatman both laugh at So did Erastus their Master Mr Humfry 's vind p. 77. Erasti theses thesi 67. Beza l. de excom Presbyt 68. Sol. To this Beza answered long since It is an easie thing thing to make a man of straw and then pelt him with stones First I know none saies that the Ordinance is polluted I thinke that predicate cannot in any case be properly and strictly predicated of a divine institutions the Ordinance is holy and though it may be abused and profaned yet it is not capable of intrinsecall pollution Secondly It is vanity to say that the presence of a scandalous person can defile a private Member who hath discharged his duty towards him and towards God Christians have incumbent upon them 1. A duty towards God 2. Towards their Brethren if a Communicant hath examined and prepared himself and discharged his duty towards scandalous persons viz. 1. telling them of it 2. Then taking two or three with him and admonishing them 3. Then informing the Officers of the Church I beleeve such a Christian may lawfully communicate with a scandalous person it is nothing can defile him but sin in not doing his duty But with Mr Humfrie's leave and Mr Boatmans too that Christian who knowingly partakes with scandalous sinners not having done this duty to them is defiled not by partaking with them but not having done their duty to them before where by the way we see what snares these Patrons of promiscuous Communion run their godly Communicants into when it may be for one godly person they have ten scandalous communicate with them How impossible is it they should do that duty which is requisite from them to discharge their owne soules without the doing of which they cannot without sin communicate with them Mr Humfry heales the wound of the Daughter of the Lords people slightly Rejoynder pag. 263. when he saies If thy conscience tels thee it is a sin thou art to repent of it by resolving to take the next opportunity to do it and so come 1. So then not doing our duty in order to scandalous persons is sin or not sin according as Conscience tels us This comes up to the Ranters Atheism Nothing is sin but what a man thinkes sin I should have thought that that If should have been lest out for it is plainly our duty Mat. 18.18 and the neglect our sâ—n 2. I doubt whether a man lying under the conscience of any sin against his Neighbour can lawfully partake till he hath done what
on your own soules I have quitted mine hands this day before God and his people Looke to your selves if your consciences tell you that you have not owned the Gospell that you have been ashamed of Religion that you have walked in evill If your conversation bespeake your irregularities I beseech you reforme refraine It would be the greatest happiness and joy that ever I met withall in all my life to have that scoffe become a reall truth that you might prove all Saints at St Peters that I might be able to present you to God as your Pastor an holy and unblameable and peculiar Congregation Brethren I beseech you labour as much as in you lies by considering and laying to heart what hath been said to refraine from those lusts which have been prevalent in your spirits In the next place to you that have not run into the same excesse of riot and I blesse God with and for you but I have one exhortation to give you that you would be pleased to fill your soules with charity Look to your selves beleeve every man his Brother better than himselfe this is Evangelicall counsell Some will say I see such and such profane advise them hast thou done that If not thou hast sinned against the Gospell and his sin is not so much his as thine dost thou cry out of him and hast not prayed for him particularly admonished him and soberly that for the time to come he would take a better course hast thou done it with moderation meeknesse sobriety tendernesse and seasonably restored thy brother overtaken Raile not revile him not cry not out against him make not his private sin publike let not every one take notice of it of which thou takest notice do not sin against thy Brothers soule But some are not yet satisfied if the profane be admitted and the Sacrament be administred promiscuously the Ordinance will be defiled A pretty dreame Is not the Word as soone defiled because a profane man heares it As soone that may as the Sacrament what is another mans receiving unto thee if thou receivest worthily I do not remember the Scripture tells us that any man got any hurt by the man that came without the wedding garment nor did any man ever the more shun the roome or cast him out only indeed the Master came and he turned him out Let the profane take heed left they be turned out Christ may find them out For this cause many are sick and weake c. and he may cast them into utter darknesse But although Christ hath this authority I know no Minister hath any such What have we to do if it be thus Only these two things and I desire you especially of this Congregation to joine with me in an humble and serious confession to God of our former practises 2. As heartily to renew solemnly your Covenant made in Baptisme against the flesh the world and the devill you know how guilty you have been all of the breach of it That once done I will take upon me on good grounds to call you holy to the Lord and seriously invite you to this worke In this last Paragraph the greatest part of it is something better than ordinary men of this Gang could not so securely raile against examination by Eldeships and enquiries after the flock if they did not pretend for a great deale of zeale for private examination There were some of old that to devoure widdows houses the better made long prayers I wish that all the pretended strictnesse of some for selfe-examination be not only a vizard to mock the world with while they rob the Church of the divine Ordinances of Presbyteries and Suspension c. But yet in this Paragraph First he ownes all that he hath said before and tels his people It is the truth and nothing but the truth of God apply this to all he had said before That Suspension was a dreame a meere dreame a pharisaic all invention for which was not the least footstep in Gods word that no power under heaven hath any seeming or semblable authority to keepe any from the Sacrament that will press to it on their own score That those who do it are proud uncharitable intruders upon Christs Office that former Ages never thought of it all this is the truth he saith and nothing but the truth of God yea and he saith it againe That it is not in the power of any particular Minister or Congregation without cleare conviction and condemnation to keep any away what he meanes by Conviction and Condemnation he told us before three or foure times over they must be Excommunicated Whether a single Minister hath power or no is a question some make but Mr Boatman hath no reason for he owneth no Eldership and the Rubrick allowed it to a single Minister in some cases but he had expounded himselfe before No power on earth can do it And in the very next words here If he will rush no man hath any thing to do with him And now he tels his people If they will rush they may their bloud he upon their soules he hath quitted his hands c. Thus Mat. 26.24 Pilate when he had condemned Christ tooke water and washed his hands saying I am innocent of the bloud of this just person see ye to it It is a good wish he wisheth that the scoffe might become a reall truth that all were Saints at Peters The scoffe he referreth to we know not unlesse it were one raised by one of his own friends who having got their Pastor amongst them to a cup of Sack and a pipe of Tobacco merrily told an honest man that such a night their Pastor and some of Peters Christians were at such a place conferring together whence some called those who frequent such meetings Peters Christians But the wish was good His next counsell is good only he should have told his people that if the offence be notorious and publike that private admonition shall not need precede Him that sinneth openly rebuke openly saith the Apostle He feares some will thinke the Ordinance is defiled if the profane be admitted this he calls a pretty dreame and saies the Word is as much dâ—filed c. To this I shall speake hereafter with Mr Boatmans leave though the Ordinance be not capable of any intrinsecall pollution yet the Communion is defiled by enduring profane persons in it 1 Cor. 5.6 if the Apostle knew what he said yea and the people that communicate are defiled if they do not their duty admonishing them informing the Church c. to be sure the Officers of the Church are defiled for it was their duty to have hept them away But Mr Boatman doth not remember any man got hurt by the presence of him that wanted the wedding garment nor shunned the roome for him only the Master came and turned him out 1. Before this will prove any thing to the purpose he must prove that the Supper there mentioned was
have been long enough beating the bush and if this notion prove true it will follow 1. That Iudas had not so much as compacted with the Chiefe Priests when his hand was with Christ on the Table 2 That he was gone before the Lord instituted his supper yea 3. That he was not there at the eating of the Paschall Lambe I have but proposed my thoughts and shall submit to better reason having learned to attribute nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and being prone to think the worse of any notion which I judge my owne I know I dissent in this from very many Holy and Learned men But secondly it is no matter of Faith or Practice but a piece of Order in Holy Story 2. I see they cannot agree amongst themselves 3. I shall peaceably dissent 4. I shall keep an eare open for better proofe against me in the meane time I desire my Readers Charity they are some of the Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have been enquiring into some Histerologies must be allowed in the Gospell I see not but with such allowance this my sense may passe And now to shut up this discourse of Iudas I could wish our Masters of the opposite perswasion would allow us but the favour that ordinary Fencing Masters will allow their scholars First they will take up one weapon and try them with one while here another while there if they see they cannot hit them with this trick nor the other they will lay downe that weapon and take another not the same againe to no purpose but meerely to tire out their Scholars For this weapon of Iudas his being at the Sacrament with which they think to knock suspension Erastus tried it at Beza Beza defended himself Mr Prin tried it at Mr Gillespy Mr Gillespy defended the cause that he never touched it with a Cudgell Now Mr Humfry hath got it up and Dr Drake defended himselfe the same way which Gillespy and Beza had done Mr Humfry hath made never a new stroke Let us lay downe this weapon let 's heare what they say to prove Iudas was there Object 1. They all sate downe together This doth not prove they all rose up together Object 2. Christ saith the hand of him that betrayeth me is on the Table That is at the sop but Iohn 13.30 immediately upon that Iudas went out which was before the Sacrament Object 3. Christ speaks nothing Iohn 13. of the Sacrament But he speakes of the Passeover which was before it and saies at the beginning of that he went out Object 4. O but wee have many Authors of our side that he was there Origen Cyprian Ambrose Chrysostome Victor Theodoret Remigius Paschasius Oecumenius Algerus c. 1. This question they did not speake purposely to 2. God knowes whether the places quoted be spurious or no. 3. We have matches for them too Dionysius Areopagita Maximus Pachimeres Ammonius Talianus Innocentius Hilary Salmeron Kellet Mariana Gerard Turrianus Barradus Danaeus Musculus Piscator Cum multis aliis quos nunc perscribere longum est Let 's have done therefore with this Cudgell and blot no more paper with saying what hath been said over and over and over againe and can never be cleared on our adversaries side I have tried something on our side I shall add no more to this Argument I conclude there are no precepts to command nor presidents to warrant generall admissions of scandalous persons though not excommunicated Ergo. CHAP. VII Containing a sixth Argument drawne from the duty incumbent upon the Officers of the Church to keep the fellowship of the Church pure I am come now to a sixth ARGVMENT I still keep my principall syllogisme which was this If the Officers of a Church may not lawfully admit some to the Sacrament who are not as yet de facto excommunicated then they may law fully suspend some from it But Ergo. MY sixth Argument to prove Argument six that there may be some in the Church whom the Officers of a Church cannot without sinne admit to the Sacrament though at present they be not excommunicated is this If there may be some in the Church not yet cast out with whom the communion of the Church in the Lords Supper cannot be pure then there may be some in the Church not yet excommunicated whom the Officers may not without sinne admit to the Lords Supper But there may be some in the Church not yet excommunicated with whom the communion of the Church in that Ordinance cannot be pure Ergo. I will prove the major first then the minor First for the major If it be the duty and businesse of the Officers of the Church to keep the communion of the Church then it is their duty to keep its fellowship pure in that Ordinance and consequently not to admit such to it with whom the communion of the Church cannot be pure This proposition stands upon these foundations 1. That it is the duty of the Officers of a Church to keep the fellowship of the Church pure This none will deny that is but mentis compos if any be inclined to deny it he should doe well first to think to what purpose the rod of discipline is else put into their hands 2. How to expound 1 Cor. 5.7 13. and those many other Texts in Scripture which looke this way 2. That it is their especiall duty to keep the fellowship of the Church as to this Ordinance pure As this was proved before upon the opening of the 1 Cor. 5.8 So upon the concession of the former it is no lesse clear from reason It is apparent that of all other Ordinances this Ordinance alone is appointed for such as have something of Grace in them The Word is called the bread of life and it is to bee offered to dead soules to quicken them Heathens were ever admitted to heare those who are the profanest persons are the objects of Discipline the excommunicate may and ought to be admonished as Brethren I know not wherein the Officers of the Church can have a worke to keep the communion of a Church pure if not in this Ordinance and as to this which the Scripture plainly saith cannot be partaked of worthily without examining our selves and being able to discerne the Lords Body For the minor proposition That there may be some in the Church not yet cast out with whom the fellowship of the Church in this Ordinance cannot be pure I prove If there may be some in the Church who apparently are not fit subjects to receive this holy thing then there may be some in the Church with whom the fellowship of the Church in this Ordinance cannot be pure But there may be some in the Church who apparently are not fit subjects to receive this holy thing Ergo. He that denies the major must maintaine that a communion of such as are appearingly fit for it and appearingly notoriously unfit for it and unable to it is a pure communion and by that time he
is a good continuall cause of joy and rejoycing The other is Ravanella in Verbo Festum Is 25. of which by and by Ravanella ranks all the usages of the terme in the Old Testament where it is taken for the whole or any part of the Jewish Worship under the metaphoricall acceptation and tels us that Zach. 14.16 18 19. it is taken for all the Gospell-worship For the Jewish worship all their service almost might properly be called a Feast because they had literall Feasts at them But 't is certaine the Apostle here doth not exhort the Corinthians to keep the Jewish Feasts Nor can feast be taken for joy and mirth as Pro. 15.15 for then the sense is this Let us keep a Feast of joy which any reader will see was not the Apostles meaning It remains therefore that we expound it by Is 25.6 where the Lord promises to make a Feast of fat things By which he promiseth all Gospell-Ordinances and a Gospell-Communion with his people God makes the Feast in giving us Christ and his Ordinances we keep the feast in waiting upon God in all the duties of church-Church-Communion Let us keep the Feast is Let us walk in a communion in Gospell Ordinances Let us enjoy Gospell Ordinances and worship God together under the Gospell Not with the leaven of malice and unrighteousness not in a scandalous communion c. Thomas Erastus saith that by feast is meant here Confirm thes 1. cap. 6. So Mr Humfry 's vind p. 85 v Chrys in or atione contra eos qui novilunia observant Homil. 40. c. in 12. cap. Mat. a Christians whole conversation I confesse I find some Reverend Expositors of his mind though it may be not wholly Chrysostome is the most Ancient who in his Oration against those who observed new Moons and brought dancings into the City expounds it thus against them teiling his hearers that a Christians whole life is a Feast and to be so spent And he saith as much as I remember in his fourth Homily on the twelth Chapter of Matthew Theophylact followes him and yet neither of them restraine it to that No more doth Beza Calv. ad loe who yet stretcheth it to that latitude Calvin also hints it but adds Si Christi carne sanguine pasci velimus afferamus ad hoc epulum sinceritatem veritatem whence may easily be gathered that Mr Calvin thought the Sacament of the Body and Blood of Christ was also here intended which is enough for me I acknowledge many reverend Expositors expound it of an holy life Ego vero soli scripturae hunc bonorem deserendum censco c. Hâ—eron 't is enough for me that they doe not exclude the Lords Supper and I must be excused if for the reasons before specified I think it chiefly meant For I have learned with Hierom to give this honour onely to the sacred Word of God to beleeve what it saith because it faith it First therefore I say 1. The Lords Supper is a part of the Gospell-Feast and the onely proper Feast of it 2. The relation this Text hath to the Passeover seemes to me to prove it 3. It was doubtless chiefly in reference to this Communion that the Church was to be purged for some civill Communion and some Communion with an incestuous person in other Ordinances may be allowed But if we should admit this that the meaning were that we should not in our conversation have Communion with scandalous sinners I see no harme at all would follow upon it For surely if we ought not to converse with such in our civill conversation much less is it lawfull for us to have Communion with such at the Lords Table And surely if it be unlawfull for Christians to have Communion with such though in the Church it is unlawfull for the Officers of the Church to admit such to Communion with them But this we shall fall in with anon in the mean time I maintaine that the clear sense of that place is that we ought not to have a Communion at the Lords Supper with scandalous sinners But I shall come to a second Argument Argument 2 If there may be some in the Church not yet cast out by excommunication who are Fornicators or Covetous or Idolaters or Railers or Drunkards or Extortioners then there may be some such in the Church with whom a Christian ought not to eat the Lords Supper But there may be such in the Church Ergo. The minor will be easily granted The major I ground on 1 Cor. 5.11 All that can be said in the case is that the eating there forbidden is not eating the Lords Supper So saith Thomas Erastus Confirm thesi p. 258. l. 3. c. 8. vind p. 83.84 Mr Prins vind of 4 serious questions p. 9. so Mr Prin so Mr Humfry To this two things have been already answered and except I see need I shall add little of my own 1. That it can never be proved that it is not meant of Sacramentall eating but of civil eating 2. That there are grounds for the contrary opinion 3. That admitting it yet the Argument stands strong First I desire to know a reason why our adversaries will needs restraine that Text to a civill Communion Erastus gives these reasons 1. The Apostles precept concerning denying Communion must not be so interpreted as to contradict Christs precept But Christ commanded all to receive Beza grants both Beza de Presh excom p. 70. and answers that Christ might command his Apostles to doe that which considering the time he did not But although I reverence Beza yet I think he hath granted too much and besides that his answer is not to the objection which is founded not on Christs practice but his precept I deny the Assumption therefore and demand of Erastus and all his followers Erast theses thesi 26.27 28. where Christ commands to give the Sacrament to all Erastus tels us he hath proved it but where none knowes all that I find in him looking that way is but a negative argument Christ did not forbid any nor doe we find that he left his disciples any such order nor ever reproved any that they did come to the Sacrament all which comes short of this that Christ did command the administration to all thesi 30. and it is too weake that Erastus hath thesi 30. that Christ said drink ye all of it for those all were all visible saints though Judas was there which shall never be proved yet Judas was not discovered to the communicants It is worth the observing that Christ did not so much as call up the Jewes in the same house which he would have done probably if he had intended for all Erastus saith page 249. Christ inviteth all to repentance Ergo to the Sacrament If the syllogisme be put in forme saith Mr Rutherford the major is blasphemy Ruth divine right page 362. for by the same argument might
in him lies to satisfie Suppose a man hath stollen I should thinke he must not only resolve but if he be able make restitution before he comes to the Lords Table 3. It is a question whether any lying under the guilt of any sin not quotidiana incursionis be bound in duty to come to the Lords Table before he hath evidenced his repentance by the contrary practice To me the negative is out of question But in the last place Though the Ordinance be not polluted by the presence of a scandalous sinner nor the conscience of the worthy Communicant who hath prepared his own heart and done what in him lies towards the reformation and suspension of the scandalous 3. Yet the Officers of the Church are polluted because they have not done their duty for they should have admonished him and being under censure suspended him till he had satisfied the Church Lastly 4. The Fellowship of the Church in generall is polluted the Apostle teacheth us 1 Cor. 5. that the continuing of one scandalous person in the bosome of the Church leavens the whole Lumpe the neglect of a private member redounds indeed but to his owne guilt and defilement but the neglect of the Officers of a Church redounds to the guilt and defilement of the whole Church and justly 1. Partly because they are the representative part of the Church 2. Because it is in the Churches power to remove them if not in the power of a Congregationall Church yet in the power of a Synodicall Church But I shall enlarge no further on this Argument CHAP. VIII Wherein by a seventh Argument the lawfulnesse of suspension is proved because there can lie no Obligation upon the Officers 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 smitten with the sense of sin though some of them be Hipocrites we know not who are so 2. But it seems strange to me considering that a Ministers giving the Sacrament and the peoples receiving 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 sinners are such as visibly appeare not bound to receive the Lords Supper Ergo. That a grossely ignorant and scandalous impenitent 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The question is whether 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 CHAP. IX Wherein an Eighth and Ninth Argument are brought to prove that Suspension distinct from Excommunication is justifiable from Scripture and sound Reason ARGUMENT 8. If none may be suspended from the Sacrament but those who are Excommunicated then none must be kept away but those who are contumacious But some may be kept away that are not Contumacious Ergo. THe Major is plaine 1. From Scripture Mat. 18. none must be accounted as an Heathen or a Publican but he who refuseth to heare the Church Thus also Divines generally determine So Bonaventure Estius Aquinas Suarez Durandus besides a numberlesse number of Protestant Divines The Minor only needs proofe 1. Surely those that are under admonition ought to be kept away though as yet they declare no Contumacy and it be uncertaine whether they will or no. 2. Suppose one should come to the Minister the morning he were to receive and blaspheme Christ and tell him he came for nothing but to abuse the Church ought this man to be admitted think we Suppose one should come drunke shall he be admitted Mr Humfry saies no what Mr Boatman thinks in that case I cannot tell if he shall not then there is Suspension distinct from Excommunication Suppose a Minister should know one of his Communicants had committed Murther Theft Incest Whoredom the night before according to M Boatmans Doctrine he must be admitted to the Lords Table for Suspension of any person not Excommunicated is a Pharisaicall dream Suppose a Minister upon examination found that his Communicant did not know whether Christ were God or Man a Man or a Woman nor any thing of the Story of the Gospell must he be admitted too He is neither Turke nor Jew nor Pagan nor Excommunicated person Ergo He is holy and must come A Doctrine sure that every one who hath any thing of God in him will see the folly and filth of and which no sober pious or learned man ever yet durst undertake to defend and it is a shame it should be named amongst Christians If profane Argument 9 scandalous persons though Circumcised and not cast out of the Jewish Church nor legally uncleane were yet to be debarred from some Ordinances and the Passeover then such though Baptized and not Excommunicated may be suspended from the Lords Supper But profane scandalous persons though Circumcised and not cast out of the Jewish Church nor
intruders upon Christs Office Pharisees Bedlams Hot-spurs Spiritually proud Hypocrites This is but barking and grinning for want of teeth fit to bite and thus they may vapour a little under the protection of an impudent forehead proclaime their want of learning and breeding too to the world and shew their teeth against Gospell reformation and deceive some poore filly soules first led captive with their own lusts but they will not deserve any sober mans taking further notice of them then when he goes to God to say on the behalf of their poore soules Father forgive them they know not what they do See many more Arguments shortly propounded in learned Zanchies Epistle ad Fredericum tertium de Excommunicatione as also in Vrsini compendium doctrinae Christianae p. 2. de clavibus q. 3. sect 11. CHAP. XI QUEST 2. Whether ministeriall or privative Suspension be deducible from Scripture yea or no. I Opened the termes of this Question before In short it is thus Whether in no case it be lawfull for the Pastor of the Church not having a formed Presbytery if he knows any of his Church to be ignorant or scandalous to deny to them the Sacrament of the Lords Supper though they be not excommunicated nor juridically censured Before I speake to this Question that I may not be mis-interpreted I will crave leave to premise some few things 1. I grant that the most regular and orderly way of administring the Ordinance of the Lords Supper in Congregations is by the triall and judging of all the members by a Presbytery consisting of the Minister and Ruling Elders I looke upon Elders as an Ordinance of Jesus Christ and Officers equally betrusted with the Minister in all acts of jurisdiction and to a regular and ordinary suspension questionlesse an act of Jurisdiction is required 2. I plead not for the sole power of Jurisdiction to be in the hands of a single Minister this were to set up an Episcopacy yea more than an Episcopacy almost a papall power in every Parish as I thinke Ruling Elders are equally with him betrusted with the power of Jurisdiction and Government so I thinke they must joyne with him in juridicall suspending c. 3. I speak this and the sourth as my own private judgement and shall not go about to impose such a perswasion upon others not knowing what upon further thoughts I â—y selfe might judge in these cases but at present only thus limiting my question I plead not for Ministers power in such places where are persons fit to be chosen as Officers who shall refuse the Office or people who shall refuse to choose I thinke in such a case a Minister may lawfully forbear the administring the Ordinance and giving Gospell-Priviledges to those who despise any Gospell-Ordinances or shall deny any Gospell duty yea I cannot tell whether a Minister could discharge a good conscience in administring at all to such a people till the Lord had changed their hearts and convinced them of their duty and their sin in refusing it being a scandall to all well ordered Churches 4. I would not plead strongly for his power in this thing in a Congregation who had none fit to choose but were scituated so nigh to some rightly organized Church that they could conveniently go and partake there I rather thinke it the Ministers duty in such cases to perswade those who in his Congregation are fit for the Ordinance to joyne themselves to such a Church as to that Ordinance and were it my own case if I saw that Church walked orderly and kept the Ordinances pure I my selfe would not only perswade my people so to joyne but my selfe rather so joyne than set up any extraordinary course 5. In case there were a formed Classis of Triers either established by the Civill power or by a voluntary agreement of the godly Ministers in a County which used to meet so neare the Congregation that the godly people could go and submit to their triall I do prefer this before a Ministers single Examination and Judgement But in such a case as this now Where there is in a Congregation a godly Minister and a competent number of godly people to make up a Communion at the Lords Table and these people are willing to do what in them lies to put themselves in order and to choose Elders and wish from their soules that they had some to choose but at present they have none nor are like to have any suddenly nor are nigh any Organized Church with which they can enjoy the Ordinance nor any Classis to which they can approve themselves Whether now in such a case as this the Minister may not administer the Ordinance and not only admonish the ignorant and scandalous to keep away but take account of his peoples knowledge and take all due courses to be informed of their lives and if he finds any ignorant and scandalous that notwithstanding admonition will presume to come whither he may not yea whether he ought not to deny the Elements to him 6. I heartily wish that either by the Civill power or a voluntary act of the people parochiall Congregations were so united that in every Precinct there might be found persons fit for Officers 7. I thinke in such cases a Minister should act with a great deale of prudence I would in such a case do nothing as neare as I could without the satisfaction of the Community I meane not being acted by their vote but stating the businesse to them first at some meeting and if it were possible gaining their consent and approbation And these things premised I humbly conceive that a Minister of the Gospell in such a cause may by vertue of his Office wanting a Presbytery deny the administration of the Elements to any such as he shall judge ignorant and be able to prove so scandalous as if he had a Presbytery he might be juridically suspended I shall humbly propose my grounds for my opinion in it which yet is not mine alone In such a case as this a Minister may either wholly omit the Ordinance or else administer it promiscuously to all be they never so ignorant or scandalous or else thirdly by his own power thus deny it to such as he finds so But in such a case he may not wholly omit the administration of the Ordinance nor secondly administer it promiscuously Ergo. The disjunction cannot be denied for there is no fourth expedient can be found but the way of our dissenting brethren and but some of them neither that all the members should have power which I can never yeeld to till they can tell me whoshall be the Ruled if all be Rulers But of my Brethren who are of the Presbyterian perswasion there are two different opinions 1. Some thinke that in such a case he is bound wholly to omit the administration till he can have a Presbytery I must crave leave to dissent here And I thinke Mr Jeanes hath said enough to
to keep the feast not with the leavened bread of malice and wickednesse and forbids him to eat with brethren who are fornicatours c. gives him power c. But it is objected Ob. 1. Suspension is an act of Jurisdiction Acts of Jurisdiction belong to the Church Now the single Minister is not the Church Sol. 1. That Juridicall Suspension is a Church Censure and an act of Jurisdiction I yeeld but whether this suspension of which I speake be I question Mr Jeanes thinkes the Schoolemen are out in determining that it is not but I cannot wholly close with him Juridically suspension is a positive Act of the Governours of the Church determining the party at present unworthy of that Ecclesiasticall Communion This is but a Negative or privative Act wherein the Minister not passing any formall censure upon him but referring him for that to the Presbytery to be judged at present forbeares his own act of administring the Ordinance to him judging him in his own conscience such a one as is de Jure to be suspended and being ready to submit himselfe to any Superiour Presbytery to whom the Party shall appeale 2. It is granted that in Ecclesiâ constituâ—a in a formed organized Church no kind of Censures should be past but by the Presbytery the Eldership of the Church but in a disordered Church I humbly conceive some acts may be justifiably done that may looke like Censures by the Minister Plebe non rationaliter dissentiente at least by the consent of the Church or the Church not dissenting upon good grounds 3. That the Minister is not in one sence the Church viz. all the Officers that belong to a rightly ordered Church is granted but whether in some cases of necessity the single Minister may not be the Church viz. the whole ruling part of it and in power in such cases to some acts of rule I thinke may be questioned All will grant that he is a ruling as well as a teaching Elder Now if there be such a case that through death removall or any defect that he should be lest alone and have no Elders I cannot thinke that his power of rule must wholy sleep till his fellow-Rulers be recovered So that in some sense he may be called the Church I conceive which is no more by interpretation than that he is at that present the whole ruling part of the Church 4. Tell the Church Mat. 18. is chiefly meant in order to the great Excommunication in which the sinner is made as an heathen and publican 5. Againe Admonition is a Church Censure yet we allow not only a private fraternall correption but also a pastorall admonition which is quiddam majus and I see no reason why in such cases of necessity as these where either such a course must be taken or this great Ordinance wholy omitted or profaned we may not also allow of pastorall suspension Object 2. A second objection Mr Jeanes makes viz. That all our Arguments to justifie the unlawfulnesse of a Ministers giving the Sacrament to such as he knows to be scandalous will faile us in two cases in Presbyterated Churches 1. In case the major part of the Eldership will acquit the scandalous sinner then he saies we grant the Minister may admit them Or 2. In case the scandall be known to the Minister alone and no proofe can be made and the party will not confesse Sol. I must confesse these are two hard cases and the only hard cases I know which can be put as to this point 1. But who are they that have been so free of their confessions to grant that in cafe an Eldership will contrary to the judgement of their Pastor and directly contrary to the rule justifie the wicked the Minister ought to give the Sacrament to them I cannot tell Suppose one be proved to have committed Incest the night before the Sacrament and stands to justifie it and the Minister calls his Eldership and proves the fact to them and they in a faction will acquit him shall this Minister be bound to administer the Ordinance to this wretch I hope Mr Jeanes shall never perswade me to that faith No but it is my duty in such or such like evident cases to forbeare any administration and appeale from the Congregationall to the Classicall Presbytery and if that will not relieve him from thence to the Provinciall and from thence if need be to a Nationall Assembly it is to be hoped that by some of these he will be relieved if not I should thinke it my duty to submit to their censure rather than profane Gods Ordinances and wait till God reformed such Churches if the case were doubtfull the matter differs but where the rule plainly judgeth mens neglect of their duty will not justifie me in sinning against mine 2. As to the second case I know no reason but in such a cause the Minister may stand as a witnesse and the rest of his Eldership I am sure it will be more justifiable than for him to give the Sacrament to one manifestly unworthy Therefore I say there is no necessity urging a Minister in any case to give the Lords holy things to dogs and swine we may conceive necessities but sinnings of this kind will prove our free acts Object 3. A third Argument against us Suarez in tertiam p. Thomae disp 67. sect 4. I find in Mr Jeanes he saith he hath it out of Suarez in tertiam partem Thom. disp 67. sect 4. he urgeth it thus It is requisite for the common good Mr Jeanes p. 116 117. and convenient order both of Church and Common-wealth that all common favours which are publikely to be dispensed and distributed according to the dignity of private persons should be dispensed by publike persons designed thereto not according to the private knowledge of this or that man neither of that Minister but according to a publike and notorious cognisance and whosoever doth by his offence against God This is not a literall translation of Suarez lose his right and interest to the holy things of God he must lose it in the face of the Church before it can be denied him in the face of the Congregation and he is to be judged as in all other cases not by any mans nor by any Ministers private knowledge but according to proofes and allegations for the common good necessarily requireth that such publique actions of this nature should be regulated by a kind of publike not private knowledge which once admitted into judicature would soone fill up the Church and State with a world of scandals injuries and inconveniences for hereby a wicked or a peevish and pettish Minister may without controule publikely disgrace and repell from the Supper whom he please c. Sol. To this I answer First This Argument is but meerly rationall And if a Ministers duty in this be as we have endeavoured to prove expresly concluded in Scripture it is not to be considered against
still for the time to come and there is no further vote of disgrace put upon them if they be stubborne and a second more serious admonition will not profit then they are summoned to the Consistory if they pertinaciously resist their admonition then they are forbidden the Lords Supper being the seale of that doctrine in which they dissent from us and the whole Senate is informed of them The same course is taken against them who discover their profane mind by an open contempt of holy meetings As to the manners of the severall persons when faults are secret we use gentle admonitions as the Lord prescribeth nor is any one called to the Ecclesiasticall Judicatory for a private fault which is not conjoyned with the publike scandall of the Church unlesse he contemneth private admonitions but such as do contemne them are againe admonished by the Church and being convicted by due testimonies if instead of asking pardon they shew themselves obstinate they are according to the word of God Mat. 18.17 commanded to keep from the Supper of the Lord till they declare a change of heart As for more manifest and infamous sins which the Church cannot winke at he that hath so offended for an example to others is summoned to the Consistory but if he askes pardon he is dismissed but if he be admonished the second time and doth not acknowledge his sin and promise amendment then as one who goes on scandalizing the Church he is kept away from the Holy Supper which is a seale of our mutuall communion with Christ and each with other untill he hath given evidence of his repentance In more grosse and open sins which deserve greater than verball corrections only the Church having first had lawfull cognisance of it those that so sin are commanded to humble themselves before the Lord and to keep away from the Lords Table for some time in order to publique edification untill it appeares that their sin is indeed grievous unto them But for open and publike Excommunication denounced before all the Congregation we do not use it but against persons altogether desperate and hopelesse non nisi in poenè deploratos that is his phrase yet saith he for Apostates we do not receive them to communion againe though they professe repentance in the Consistory unlesse they also beg forgivenesse in the open Congregation Thus far this holy and learned and Reverend man which speakes his judgement and the French Churches clearely enough Holy and learned Ames speakes clearely enough Amesii medullae theol l 1. cap. 37. â— 19 20 21. Excommunication saith he is not to be used unlesse to the sin be added contumacy n. 19. Mat. 18.17 The sinner being duly admonished must appeare poenitent or stubborne he that is penitent ought not to be excommunicated therefore the contumacio us only N. 21. V. Amesium de conscientia ejus jure casibus l. 4. c. 29. q. 8. When the businesse can admit delay it is agreeable to Scripture and reason that Excommuniâ—ation be begun first by Suspension and keeping away of the sinner from the Sacrament and other Church-priviledges this saith he is the lesser Excommunication N. 22. But the Church must not stay here but urge the sinners repentance by this way and in this time of his Suspension and when they are out of hopes of that they must proceed to a compleat separation of him from communion with the Church this is the greater Excommunication Anthony Wollebius Ant Wollebii compendium Christ theol l. 1. cap. 26. Professor sometimes in Basil is of the same mind Ligationis gradus suns c. The degrees of Cenâ—â—sures saith he are 1. Severe admonition by the Presbytery private admonition being rejected 2. Suspension from the Lords Table which he proves from Mat. 7.6 3. Excommunication by which the Party is cast out of the Church 4. Anathema when he is given over as one desperate I will adde the testimony of Wendeline Wendelini l. 1. Christianae theo cap. 23. thes 18. who in his first book Christianae Theologiae in his 23. Chapter in his 18. Thesis determines that he who is subjectum Coenae Dominicae a Subject fit for the Lords Supper must be 1. adultus one grown up 2. Doctrina fidei Christianae imbutus eique addictus one who is endued with a knowledge of the Doctrine of Christianity and a friend to it 3. Vitae Sanctae studiosus one who is studious of an holy life therefore saith he these must be shut out from the Lords Table 1. Infants because they cannot remember the Lords death 2. Because they cannot prepare themselves 2. Those that are ignorant of the Doctrine of Christianity or ab eâ alieni Because saith he this Sacrament is ordained for none but the Citizens of the Christian Church and those who are partakers of the same saith and who embrace and professe the doctrine of the Gospell for as nothing is promised in the Gospell to those who know nothing of Christ or are enemies to the doctrine of the Gospell but the wrath of God is denounced to such so nothing is sealed to them and therefore they are not to be admitted to the seale of the Promise 3. Lastly such as are manifestly wicked and profane and that for three causes 1. Because by their impiety and profanenesse they profane the Lords Supper 2. Because they eate and drinke unworthily and so procure Judgement to themselves 3. Because the Church admitting such provokes God to wrath against it casting holy things and pearles before Dogs and Swine This is enough to shew the judgement of particular men who have been the eminent servants of Christ in all Ages Let us now take in the judgement of whole Churches And it will be fit we should begin at home out of our duty to our mother and considering that of all the Churches of God now in the world the English is and hath been most famous The Church of England may be considered either in her state of Virginity or of her pollution by the man of sin or lastly since her honest divorce from him For our Church what her judgement was before Austin the Monke was sent over to espouse her to the Romish Bishop we have very little Record the best which I know Concilia Pan. Brittanica p. 92. is in the learned book published by Sir Henry Spilman Austin came over anno 597. The first councill that learned Knight tells us of is that of Arles held in Constantines time and at his command the place of their Session was in France it was held saith Binius anno 326. Balaeus saith 350. Baronius saith 314. There were present for England at the Synod Eborius Bishop of Yorke Restitutus Bishop of London and Adelfius Bishop of London Sacerdos a Presbyter and Arminius a Deacon They made 22. Canons their third Canon and fourth and fifth determine Suspension of Stage-players c. So doth their eleventh Canon for young women married to
Ibid p. 652. c From all this it is plaine That the Judgement and Practice of the Church of England in all times ever since it was a Church hath been to suspend some from the Table of the Lord who yet were not Excommunicated Let us look now into other Churches The Reformed Churches are either those in Germany or in Holland or in France or in Scotland For the Churches of the Switzers they indeed practice no Discipline but we shall find all other Churches concurring with us The Judgement of the Church of Scotland may be known not only by the particular Writings of their eminent Gillespy and Rutherford but by their forme of Church-Government printed 1641. where they tell us p. 39. All baptized persons when they come to age and discretion are not admitted to the Lords Table The Government of the Church of Scotland p. 39 40 c. but such only as upon examination are found to have a competent measure of knowledge in the Principles of Religion and do professe that they are beleevers and do live unblameably c. But this not-admission to the Communion is one thing and Excommunication of hainous or obstinate offenders is another thing very different c. The Judgement of the Church of God in Holland is cleare from their Corpus Disciplinae printed here anno 1645. chap. 4. Concerning Ecclesiasticall Discipline art 8. He that shall obstinately reject the admonition of the Consistory shall be suspended from the Supper of the Lord 1 Thes 3.14 that is in case of private offences Art 10. He that hath committed a publike Corpus disciplinae Engl. pr. 1645. cap. 4. art 8 10 11 14. or otherwise hainous offence shall also be suspended from the Lords Supper though he should give signs of Repentance according as the Consistory shall judge most fitting Art 11. He that hath been suspended if after divers admonitions he shall shew no signe of repentance he shall be published to the Congregation Art 14. And at length if he doth not repent followeth the Excommunication c. I thinke here is Suspension before Excommunication and distinct from it I heare Mr Boatman hath quoted the Churches in France for him how truly now my Reader shall see when I had quoted them against him a friend of mine telling him of it he bad him aske Dr De-Lawne and he could satisfie him of the untruth of my quotation I did not quote them by heare-say but from Reverend Beza's account which I quoted before I conceived they had not altered their minds yet I sent to my Reverend Friend Dr Lawn for satisfaction he came to me April 9. and 1. assured me it was the daily practice of their Church to suspend the scandalous 2. Promised me to send me all the books he had concerning the Discipline of their Churches to confirme me This day he sent me two having left one with me the first is called The Ecclesiasticall Discipline of the Reformed Churches of France printed London 1642. They say so much for it that I cannot transcribe all let him who doubts read the 19 20 21. p. n. 15. If it say they befalleth that besides the admonitions usually made by the Consistory to such as have done amisse Ecclesiasticall Discipline of the reformed Churches of France p. 19 20 21. there be some other punishment or more rigorous Censure to be used it shall then be done either by Suspension or privation of the Sacrament for a time or by Excommunication c. So they go on directing to the execution of either c. Another book is called Ibid. p. 42 43. Art 15. The generall and particular Acts and Articles of the late Nationall Synod of the Reformed Churches of France at Charenton 26. Decem. 1644. Printed at London 1646. They plainely and largely determine Suspension and charge their Consistories to distinguish it from Excommunication The passages are too large to transcribe Let the Reader view that book at his leisure p. 42 43. There is yet one book more containing an Extract of the foure Nationall Synods of the Belgick Churches viz. that of Embda 1571. Dort 1578. Middleburgh 1581. the Hague 1586. the Booke is written in Latin and called Harmonia Synodorum Belgicarum in the 36 page having before spoken of private and publike admonition they determine N. 8. Let him who hath pertinaciously rejected the admonitions of the Consistory be suspended from the Lords Supper Qui pertinaciter Consistorii admonitiones rejecerit à Sacrae Coenae communione suspâ—ndetur Harm Syn. Belgie Si suspensus post iteratas admonitiones nullum poenitentiae signum dederit ad Excommunicationem procedet Ecclesia Ibid. And againe Art 9. If he who is suspended after iterated admonitions shew no signe of Repentance then let him be Excommunicated I thinke here is Suspension againe distinct from Excommunication As for our dissenting Brethren I spake something before to prove it their practice let meadde one thing more Our Brethrn of New England are the most pure and sober and considerable Churches in the world of that perswasion and those who alone would ever give us a joynt account of their faith as to Church-Discipline Let us heare what they say in their fourteenth Chupter having spoken concerning publike admonition they adde Which declaring the offender to lye under the publike offence of the Church doth thereby with-hold A platforme of Church Discipline printed London 1653. Cap. 14. p. 21. n. 2. or suspend him front the holy fellowship of the Lords Supper till his offence be removed by penitent confession If he still continue obstinate they are to cast him out by Excommunication I thinke here is also Suspension granted precedaneous to and gradually distinct from Excommunication There is only one thing to which I must speake a word or two wherein in our present practice we differ from other setled Reformed Churches As to the suspension of any whom we since the late Reformation admitted to the holy Table we agree both with other reformed Churches with our owne in times of Episcopacy and with our Brethren of the dissenting party we will suspend none but after admonition for some scandalous sin and indeed this only is properly Suspension We deny the Sacrament indeed to others viz. such as will not give account of their faith and submit to the order of the Church But we would not have this lookt upon by our Brethren as if it were a standing principle of ours or as if we intended to put Christians to give an account of their faith every time they come to the Sacrament the contrary is evident in our practice we must therefore be considered as a disordered and now reforming Church Had all those Ministers who went before us in our Churches done their duty they had saved us our labour They should have admitted none at first to the Sacrament but such as had a competent knowledge of the principles of Religion and such as were blamelesse in their lives