Rutherford or Mr Gillespy or the London Ministers Vindication or Mr Philip Goodwin or Mr Ambrose M Ambrose his Media p. 260. If any one hath a mind to write on this subject against us they should deale ingenuously to answer all the Arguments produced in those books against them and when they have done that it is like that either the Reverend Authors of those books or some of their Brethren will undertake their vindication But if they take Mr Humfrie's course to publish books to divulge opinions confuted long since by solid Arguments and take no paines to answer any thing or if any thing first to make their Adversaries Arguments weake by curtilation and imperfect proposall of them and then to scoffe instead of answering Or thinke it enough with Mr Boatman to cry down suspension as a Pharisaicall dreame and a Pharisaicall way of dealing with people and the Patrons of it as Vsurpers of an undue authority 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 silly 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 fourth as my own private judgement and shall not go about to impose such a perswasion upon others not knowing what upon further thoughts I my 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
profane be admitted this he calls a pretty dreame and saies the Word is as much defiled 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 kept 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 the Lords Supper otherwise this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Secondly he must prove that that Guest did not only want the wedding garment but that he wore an open filthy garment an hypocrite wants the wedding Garment yet I know none say the presence of hypocrites defiles a Communion why because man cannot judge the heart but the question is whether the presence of gross sinners defiles the Communion or no 3. None saies the bare presence of a scandalous sinner defiles the particular soule of a private member but it defiles the Officers and the Communion 4. Mr Boatman doth remember the Master turn'd him out So it is Christs will belike none should be there but such as have the wedding garment and the question is whether he now he is ascended hath left us sufficient power to do his will as to such wanters of the wedding garment as our eyes can discover 5. Holy Mr. Ambrose thinks that Christ Ambrose his Media p. 260. turning out him who wanted the wedding-garment is a good Argument for to evince our duty to turne away such as appeare to us to want it we being in Christs stead his Embassadours Stewards c. But Mr Boatman tels us againe we have no such authority we will anon joyne issue with him in that point In the last place he exhorts his people to confession and renewing their Covenant and then he pronounceth his people all Holy to the Lord. I hope he meant in the largest sense of holinesse This Reader is a perfect account of that whole part of his Sermon which gave occasion to this ensuing Tract I confesse for my own part I heard it not no more did scarce any of our Ministers some of us being resolved first to be satisfied That he hath authority to preach which we have very good grounds to suspect he hath not but these notes were given me upon my desire by an ingenious young man who is a Schollar who tooke them in short hand from Mr Boatman's mouth and gives me leave Reader to tell thee that he will justifie that they are a true account of that part of his Sermon to Mr Boatman or any other I saw the severall other Notes taken by others though more imperfectly because taken in long-hand which yet have the same passages concerning Suspension and those who practice it If they be denied thou shalt have them in the next attested by six or seven more In the meane time I appeale to such Christians in this City as heard that Sermon whether those passages concerning Suspension and those who practice it be not faithfully recorded My selfe was that day employed in a meeting with other Ministers of the City I was no sooner returned home at night to my Study but there came to me foure or five honest men exceedingly troubled at the Sermon one of them almost in a rage professing he never heard so much audaciousnesse in a Pulpit they were indeed all very much troubled and read me their Notes The next day was my Lecture day in which I was to preach a preparation Sermon to the Sacrament perceiving that we had been so boldly challenged and so rudely reflected upon I thought it my duty to take notice of it and in my Sermon in thesi spake to it 1. Proving that Suspension of the ignorant and scandalous from the Lords Table though they were not Excommunicated was justifiable from Scripture 2. Proving that it was so far from being a pharisaicall dreame that it had been the judgement and practice of the Servants and Churches of God in all ages and of our owne ever since the first dawnings of Reformation amongst us in the daies of King Henry 8. This was carried to him and I heare that on the Lords day which was his first Sacrament day he was taken up with admiring the bold face of them who should say any such thing c. and that he quoted the Discipline of the French Church as a witnesse against Suspension how truly we will examine anon By this time the spirits of his friends were up and a great cry there was about the Towne that we could talke but durst not dispute with this new Champion he had challenged us all c. and in particular this was laid to my charge I confesse I had so much pride as to thinke him an adversary something below me but yet to stop his friends mouths and especially to vindicate the truth and Ordinances of God and our own practice from him by the advice of two or three Reverend Ministers upon the twentieth of December I drew up this ensuing Letter in the presence of two Reverend Ministers and read it to them and they approving it upon the 21. I sent it to him by the hands of two honest men his Parishioners The Letter follows Verbatim Sir I am credibly informed by the mouths of more than two or three witnesses which yet had been enough to have establish'd the thing that in a discourse this day seven-night you did first confidently maintaine 1. That Suspension distinct from Excommunication was a dreame of the Pharisees Secondly as confidently 2. Challenge any Minister in the world to shew you any ground for it from Scripture And had these things been spoken but once charity might have judged them Lapsus linguae but being repeated againe and againe and with a great deale of difference and averred and renewed since in private as I am assured all must conclude them errores mentis Nor have I heard it only as inculcated from your selfe againe and againe but from divers others who possibly some of them had need be of that large perswasion that you offer to dispute with any in the defence of it Sir I know not wherefore God hath set me in this City but to stand up for his glory and for the defence of his truth and Ordinances and though I have not been a man of war from my youth yet I must not now stand still and heare you defie the Churches and Servants and Ministers of the living God as Pharisaicall dreamers and this day after day These are
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 flightly 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 left out for it is plainly our duty Mat. 18.18 and the neglect our sin 2. I doubt whether a man lying under the conscience of any sin against his Neighbour can lawfully partake tilthe hath done what 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 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 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
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 the principles of the Episcopall Government required this But we find some of them made no conscience of it but admitted any body for his two pence and cared not how scandalous they were ordinarily they could not be worse than their Parson we enter now into these mens harvests and finding what slovenly worke they made we cannot thinke it safe for us to worke after their rate this made the Reverend Assembly propound this expedient to put us in order that there might pro primâ vice be a review of all those who had been formerly admitted and such as were found ignorant kept away and so for the scandalous Nay I will adde one thing more Had our Bishops been conscientious in the businesse of Confirmation we had been spared this trouble and odium For Confirmation was in order to the trying of peoples proficiency after Baptisme And as none not confirmed should have come to the Lords Table so he should have confirmed no ignorant scandalous persons though baptized But we see the cleane contrary practice And there was no way but this to begin any Reformation amongst us who by our way of administration of that holy Ordinance had made our Churches a reproach to Papists and a griefe of heart to all Protestants and by it opened a way for Brownists and Anabaptists and others to fill their Congregations with those who were our strictest Professors formerly though they quickly taught them otherwise And I thinke this may serve to satisfie any conscientious Christians Nor shall any how godly soever or great so ever have any just cause to stumble at it that they must be enjoyned to give account of their faith For besides that we stand not upon Examination but shall be as well contented with a continued Narration of their faith from them which we are also ready to give to them Christians should consider how much the glory of God and the good of others is furthered by their open profession of their knowledge and confession of what God hath done for their poore soules and their Reason may informe them that we cannot spare them without partiality which we must not be guilty of And now Reader I have shewed thee that the Churches and Servants of Christ in all ages have owned and practised this so much decreed Ordinance of Suspension Now judge whether Mr Boatman hath informed his people truly in telling them it is a dreame of the Pharisees which wiser ages before never thought of CHAP. XIV Containing a digression or rather a regression with an attempt to cleare from the Writings of the Ancients the severall degrees of persons not excommunicated yet suspended from the Lords Supper I Shall returne a little to try a little further how far the practice of the Church in the Primitive times as to the keeping some from the Lords Supper who yet were not de facto cast out of the Church and kept from all Ordinances can be cleared from the Writings of the Ancients or those learned Atiquaries who have laboured to find it out before me and spent their paines to very good purpose though their writings be in Latine and so not so obvious to all this I shall do the rather 1. Because I have heard of some holy and learned men that doubt it 2. Because it will expound some passages which I have already quoted out of the Councils and the pretended Areopagite 3. Because the clearing of this will plainely evidence the practice of the Primitive Church as to this point All Christians of old were distinguished into three sorts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Such as were Catechumeni under Catechisme 2. Beleevers 3. Penitents Penitents were such as had fallen into some sins for which they were denied the priviledges of the Church Hospites vicini fidelium Riban l. 1. de instit cler The Catechumeni were such as were probationers for Christianity or Church-Fellowship and were put under the care of some Teachers to be instructed in the Principles of Religion in order to it when this practice first began in the Church is not certaine the first Master of these Christian Pupils which we read of in Ecclesiasticall History was Pantaenus who lived saith Eusebius anno 193. Euseb l. 5.6.9 10 in Chron. Bellarm. de scriptor Eccl. p. 76. Euseb l. 6. c. 7. and was Master of a Schoole of them at Alexandria Clemens Alexandrinus Pantaenus his Scholler succeeded him in that employment saith Eusebius he lived anno 204 saith Bellarmine but Eusebius saith 194. which was ten yeares before Origen his Schollar was the next we read of Eusebius reckons him anno 208. Bellarmine reckons his 226. That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were an ancient order of Christians is plaine from Gal. 6.6 From which place the Magdeburgenses conclude the Apostles lest formes of Catechisme Centur. Magdeb. Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 7. it is probable to me that even from the Aposâ—les time there were in the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some that were Catechised and some appointed to Catechize them they are both of them Scripture termes And And if we may admit the eight books of Apostolicall institutions to be wrote by Clement which I durst not allow they determine the case Constit Apost l 7 c. 40. having a peculiar precept how those Catechumeni should be instituted but leaving them as spurious it is cleare enough from severall places of Clemens Alexandrinus Clem. Alex. l. 7. strom who lived doubtlesse in the second Century that they were an order in his time Not only from that passage which my learned friend Dr Young hath quoted out of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is l. 7. strom but also from divers other passages as in his 6. strom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 My fore-mentiond Dr Young in his Dies Dominica l. 2 c. 14. Albaspin obs l. 2 observ 2. Learned and Reverend friend saith there was of these two sorts Audientes and Competentes That learned Antiquary Albaspinaeus tells us of foure degrees I will translate
spoken by Christ while they did eat the Lambe Their next worke was to drink a third cup of Wine this in all probability is that first cup Luke mentions Luke 22.17 To which the Apostle alludes 1 Cor. 10.16 Their next work was the eating of the unleavened bread reserv'd for the Aphicomen the last bit and their last the drinking of the fourteenth cup of Wine the latter was when the supper was done Now this bread and cup Christ did eat and drink and with them instituted his supper these are not mentioned by Iohn because so sully exprest by Luke Marke and Matthew Thus you see the supper was but one and perfectly reported by Iohn and the other Evangelists Iohn reporting the first part the other the second you see also how many pieces of the Jewish order are evident in the celebration Whether I have catcht the bird or no I know not confident I am my Reader will judge I 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 triâ—k 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 norpresidents 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 lawfully suspend some from it But Ergo. Argument 6 MY sixth Argument to prove 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 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 tels us it is not a visibility of reall worthinesse is the ground of admission but the visibility 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 institution 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
perswaded some of which rather thinke that in such cases as these the Ordinance should be wholly omitted Others that the Minister in such â—aâ—es hath discharged his duty if he hath delivered the truth doctrinally and used his spirituall Rhetorick to deterr or disswade the ignorant and unworthy and these Reverend Brethren are not without some considerable objections I must adde a word or two in answer to them so far as I am able The whole question is Whether the Minister in such cases hath a morall power to deny the Ordinance or no I plead he hath for the same precept that saies to him give not holy things to dogs Minister Sacramentorum per se loquendo habet proprium ac speciale praeceptum quo prohibetur indignis ministrare Sacramentum Becan sum tertia p. tract 2. cap. 5. q. 8. that commands him as a Steward of Gods mysteries to be faithfull that commands him as well as others 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 constituta 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 case 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 I find in Mr Jeanes Suarez in tertiam p. Thomae disp 67. sect 4. 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
need quote nothing out of him but yet in regard that I am credibly informed that M Boatman had the confidence to quote the French Churches as if they were of his mind and I have met with a passage in Beza which not only speakes his Judgement but the Judgement and Practice of the Churches of God in France I shall transcribe it it is in the Preface of the Book which he directs against Erastus Beza de Presbyterio Excom he calls it Tractatus pius moderatus de verâ Excommunicatione Presbyterio In the Preface of that book you shall find this passage Consistorium igitur habemus c. We have saith he a Consistory in which not only the Ministers of Gods word but twice as many more sit as Judges chosen out of the lesser and greater Senate not without publike notice first given to the people Dissenters as to the received doctrine of the Church are first friendly and brotherly admonished if they will be quiet they are commanded to remaine 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. n. 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 contumacious 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 Excommunication 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 Lagationis gradus sunt c. The degrees of Censures 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 faith 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