Aarons Rod Blossoming, Book 3 · Chapter 1
CHAP. I. An opening of the true state of the question, and of Master Prynnes many mistakes and mis-representations of our Principles.
HAving now by the light of Scripture and other helps asserted a Church-government distinct from civill Magistracy, both in the Old and New Testament, the last part of my present undertaking shall be to vindicate the particular Ordinances of Excommunication and Suspension, called by the Schoolmen Excommunicatio major & minor. Of which also I have before spoken divers things occasionally; for I have asserted an Excommunication and Suspension in the Jewish Church, Booke 1. Chap. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. The nature, grounds, reasons, uses, and ends whereof, were not proper to the Old Testament, but such as concerne the Christian Church. I have also brought arguments Booke 2. Chap. 9, 10. which conclude not onelyonly Church-government, but Excommunication. And so much of my worke is done: Neverthelesse there is more to doe. Mr Prynne first in his foure grand Quaeres, and thereafter in his Vindication of the same, hath argued much, both against the Suspension from the Sacrament of a person not Excommunicated and wholly cast out of the Church, and against some of the most pregnant Scripturall proofes for Excommunication it selfe. In his Vindication he hath branched forth the controversie into ten points of difference. Two of these, viz. the fifth concerning suspension from the Sacrament of the Passeover, and the ninth concerning casting out of the Synagogue, I have discussed before in the first Book. Where I have also examined other assertions of his concerning the Jewish Sanhedrin, Temple, confession of sinne. The other points of difference not handled before, I am (as the Lord will help me) now to speak to.
The first point of difference is, whether in those foure Quaeres of his he stated the Controversie aright. He is offended that I (in a Sermon of mine before the honourable House of Commons) charged the Questionist with mistakes, and that I did not take notice of the question concerning suspension from the Sacrament, as he stated it. Vindic. pag. 3. I had reason, because he had mis-stated it; and since it pleased him to interpose in a matter depending between the Honourable houses of Parliament, and the Reverend Assembly of Divines, and to publish a paper plainly reflecting upon a Petition of the Assembly, I hope he can not think either the Assembly, or me, tied to his stating of the question. If he will meddle with the businesse of the Assembly, he must speak to it as it is. And that it may now appeare how just cause I had to charge his Queres with mistakes of the state of the question, (which he still mistaketh) I shall endeavour a more particular and full discovery of these his mistakes. And first, that which was desired by the Assembly was, that such a rule may be established by authority of Parliament, as may keep off all scandalous and notorious sinners from the Sacrament. The question was not what Texts of Scripture doe warrant this thing. It did not concerne me to debate whether the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament quoted by him, prove suspension from the Lords Table. The controversie was of the practicall conclusion, and of establishing such a rule, as may keep off scandalous persons from the Sacrament. If the thing be done, if the conclusion be consented to, there is the greater liberty for men to abound in their own sence concerning the mediums to prove it.
Secondly, and if he would needs debate what Texts of Scripture doe prove the thing, and what precept or president in Scripture doth warrant it: me thinks he had done better to have informed himselfe, on what Scripturall proofs the Reverend Assembly had grounded the suspension of scandalous sinners from the Sacrament, though not yet cast out of the Church; The proofes from Scripture voted in the Assembly, were these. Because the Ordinance it selfe must not be prophaned. And because we are charged to withdraw from those who walk disorderly. And because of the great sinne and danger both to him that comes unworthily, and also to the whole Church. The Scriptures from which the Assembly did prove all this, were, Matth. 7. 6. 2 Thess. 3. 6, 14, 15. 1 Cor. 11. 27, to the end of the Chapter, compared with Iude vers. 23. 1 Tim. 5. 22. Another proofe added by the Assembly was this. There was power and authority under the Old Testament to keep unclean persons from holy things, Levit. 13. 5. Num. 9. 7. 2 Chro. 23. 19. And the like power and authority by way of analogy continues under the new Testament, for the authoritative suspension from the Lords Table, of a person not yet cast out of the Church. Now that which was the strength of the Assemblies proofes of the proposition, Mr Prynne hath almost never touched, but run out upon other particulars.
Thirdly, observe that he disputes all along whether any Minister can suspend one from the Sacrament. But this no body, that I know, asserts. The power is given not uni, but unitati, to the Eldership, not to any one, either Minister or Elder.
Fourthly, that which in the Preface of his Queres he undertakes to prove, is, that Excommunication and suspension from the Sacrament, being a matter of great moment and much difficulty, is to be handled and established with great wisdom, caution and moderation. And his result in the close is concerning a limited jurisdiction in Presbyteries. As these things are not denied by any that I know, so himselfe manifestly acknowledgeth by these expressions, the thing it selfe for the substance, (which yet the current of his debate runneth against…) and onelyonly questioneth concerning the bounds, cautions and limitations. God forbid that Church-officers should ever claim an unlimited power: their power is given them to edification, and not to destruction, and we can doe nothing against the truth, but for the truth, 2 Cor. 13. 8, 10. The power of censures must not be in the power of any one man, nor in the power of any who are themselves scandalous and worthy of censure.aAug. Tom 10. bom. 50. Nos vero à communione prohibere quenquam non postumus, quamvis haec prohibitio nondum sit mortalis, sed medicinalis, nisi aut spōnte confessum, aut in aliquò sive seculari five Ecclesiastico judicio nominatum atque convictum. There must be no sentence of Excommunication or suspension, upon reports, surmises, suspitions, but either upon the confession of the offence or proofe thereof by two witnesses at least. None must be excommunicated nor suspended for money matters, debts, and such like civill causes which are not of Ecclesiasticall cognizance, but are to be Judged by the civill Judge. It must not be for those peccata quotidianae incursionis, such sinfull infirmities as all the godly in this life are guilty of: though on the other side, the scandalous sinnes meant of in this controversie, must not be restricted to such sinnes onelyonly as can not stand with the state of grace. These and such like limitations we doe not onelyonly admit of, but desire to be put.
Fifthly, he goeth about to cleare the state of the question out of Aretius, and citeth him for what himself now undertaketh to prove. Whereas Aretius holds Excommunication to be an ordinance of God both in the Old and New Testament, and that it was wanting through the injury and corruption of the times, the abuse of it in Popery having made the thing it self hatefull; and the most part in those places where he lived, loving carnall liberty so well; and taking upon them the protection and defence of prophane ones, and being so unwilling to be brought under the yoke of Christ. For these and the like reasons, he thought it not expedient to have that discipline of Excommunication erected at that time in those parts; as himselfe gives the reasons: and bTheol. probl. loc. 132. Interea non desperandum esse libenter fateor, dabit posterior aetas tractabiliores fortè animas, mitiora pectora, quàm nostra habent saecula.he professeth withall, that he doth not despaire of better times, when men shall be more willing to submit to that discipline. So that this is the question, if it shall be stated out of Aretius; Whether Excommunication, being an Ordinance of God, ought to be setled where prophanesse and licentiousnesse abounds, and where the better party is like to be oppressed by the greater party: or whether we should wait till God send better times for the setling of it.
Sixthly, the Author of those questions maketh a parallel between that power of censures now desired to be setled in Presbyteries, and the Prelaticall tyranny, as if this were the very power which heretofore was declaimed against in, denied to, and quite taken away from the Prelates. Yea in the close he makes this power now desired to be setled in Presbyteries, to be such as our very Lordly Prelates never durst to claime. Yet Ecclesiae Anglicanae politeia in tabulas digesta authore Richardo Cousin Tab. 5. tels me that the Episcopall Jurisdiction did exercise it selfe in these censures, which were common both to Lay-men and Clergy-men (as they were called.) 1. Interdictio divinorum. 2. Monitio. 3. Suspensio vel ab ingressu Ecclesiae, vel a perceptione Sacramentorum. 4. Excommunicatio. 5. Anathematisinius, &c. Neverthelesse there is a truth too in that which Mr Prynne saith. I confesse the Prelates never durst desire that which this learned and pious Assembly hath desired in this particular. He hath said it. The Prelats never durst indeed take upon them to suspend all scandalous persons from the Sacrament; for if they had, it had been said unto most of them, Physitian cure thy selfe, besides the losing of many of their party. And moreover the very Lordly Prelates never durst make themselves to be but members of Presbyteries, nor to be subject to the admonitions and censures of their brethren, which every Minister now must doe. The Lordly Prelate did (contrary to the institution of Jesus Christ) make himselfe Pastor of many Congregations, even of his whole Diocesse, and did assume sole and whole power of Government and Church censures to himself, and his underling officers which were to execute the same in his name. And as the appropriating of Jurisdiction to the Lordly Prelate, so the manner and kind of his Government, and his proceedings in Ecclesiasticall censures, came neither from Christ nor from the purest antiquity, but from the Popes Canon Law. What then hath Presbytery to doe with Prelacy? as much as light with darknesse, or righteousnesse with unrighteousnesse. He that would see more of the differences between Presbyteriall and prelaticall Government, let him read a Book Printed in the Prelates times, entituled The Pastor and the Prelate. And the cleere Antithesis between Presbytery and Prelacy Printed at London anno. 1644. See also what I have said before Book. 2. Chap. 3.
7. It is evident by his fourth Question, that he states the case, as if Ministers meant to know the secrets of all mens hearts, and to be so censorious and peremptory in their Judging as to quench the smoaking Flax or to break the bruised Reed; Thereupon he askes whether the Sacrament may be denyed to a man, if he desires to receive it, in case he professe his sincere Repentance for his sinnes past, and promise newnesse of life for the time to come. God forbid we be censorious, peremptory, and rigid in our judging of mens spirituall Estate; where there is any thing of Christ, its to be cherished, not quenched. But again, God forbid that we shut our eyes to call darknesse light, or black white. In that very place where our Saviour condemneth uncharitable Judgement, immediately he addeth, Give not that which is holy unto the Doggs, neither cast ye pearles before swine Mat. 7 6. Impenitency under a scandalous sinne is discerneable either by not confessing it, or by not forsaking it. All our present controversie is concerning a visible Church, visible Saints, visible holinesse, visible Repentance, visible fitnesse or qualification for the Sacrament, that is cConcil. Nicaen. can. 11. Ab omnibus verò illud praecipue observetur, ut animus eorum & fructus paenitentiae at…endatur. Quicunque enim cum omni timore & lachrymis perseverantibus, & operibus bon…s conversationem su…m, non ve…bis soli…, sed opere & veritate demonstran…, cum tempus statutum etiam ab his fuerit imple…um, & orationibus jam caeperint communicate, licebit etiam Episcopo humanius circa eos aliquid cogitare. Qui vero indifferenter habnerint lapsum, & sufficere sibi quod Ecclesiam introierint, arbitrantur, ipsi omnimodo tempora statuta complebunt.of such externall signes and evidences as the word of God holds out for judging of the spirituall Estate of other men, not of such internall gracious marks whereby a man must judge of his own spirituall Estate. And so he that professeth his sincere Repentance for his sinnes past, and promiseth newnesse of life for the time to come, if there be nothing which (visibly and to the eye of man) giveth the lye to his profession and promise, (for instance, if it can be proved that immediately before or immediately after he hath professed or promised the contrary to his companions in his wickednesse, or that he still continueth in the practise of that sinne) is not to be excluded as an impenitent sinner from the Sacrament.
8. The third Quaere, as also the conclusion of all, runneth upon a great mistake, by reason of the confounding of things which are of a different nature. There is great weigh-laid upon this, that there is as much sin & danger to a mans soule in his unworthy and unprofitable hearing of the word, as in his unworthy receiving of the Sacrament; and therefore Ministers may as well refuse to Preach unto people, whom they deeme unprofitable hearers, as refuse to give them the Sacrament, because they judge them unmeet to receive it. Whether the sinne of unworthy hearing be as great as the sinne of unworthy receiving the Sacrament, I will not now debate. The dA full answer to a Printed Paper entituled foure serious Questions concerning Excommunication and Suspension &c.Reply which was made to his Quaeries by another, hath said enough to that point. But that which I intend in this place, is (for clearing a maine Principle which we goe upon) to distinguish these two things. There are some Ordinances appointed for the Conversion of Sinners. There are other Ordinances appointed for the Communion of Saints. The Preaching of the word and the hearing thereof, though it hath no small influence into the Communion of Saints, yet it is also appointed for converting and bringing in Sinners who have no part in the Communion of Saints. The Sacrament was not appointed for the Conversion of Sinners, but is peculiar to the Communion of Saints. The Apostles Preached to the unbeleiving Jewes in the Temple and Synagogues Act. 2. 46. Act. 3. 11. 12. Act. 5. 12. 42. Act. 9. 20. 22. 23. But it is onelyonly said of those that gladly received the word, they continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers. Act. 2. 42. The Apostles Preached also to many Heathens and Idolaters, but they admitted none to the Sacramens till they saw such evidences as might perswade them in the judgement of charity that they were such as might be admitted. They that are suspended from the Sacrament, yea they that are excommunicate, are admitted to the hearing of the word for their conversion, as the unbeleeving Jewes and Heathens were. Can any alledge the like reason for admitting them to the Sacrament? Erastus himselfConsirm. Thes. lib. 2 p. 134. non tamen pro non Judaeo, vel non circumciso, aut pro improbo damna…vór habeba …ur Cogebatur inhilominus secundùm ritus patrios vivere, Sabbatum custo dire, aliáque talia sacere. Quinetiam a Sacramento expiationis generalis, quae die 10. …eni îs Septembris per agebatur Lev. 17. & 23. immundi nulli excludebantur. observeth that the unclean under the Law who might not eat of the Passeover, yet were not forbidden but commanded to observe the Sabbath, and the feast of Expiation. I mention it onelyonly as an argument ad hominem. If a sinner be known for a improfitable hearer of the word, that cannot make it a sinne to me to Preach any more to him. But if he be known to be a Dogg or a Swine in reference to the Sacrament, that will make it a sin to me if I minister the Sacrament to him. The reason is because I am still bound to endevour his conversion (not knowing that he hath blasphemed against the holy Ghost) but I am not bound to give him the seale of remission of sinnes and salvation by Jesus Christ: yea it were sinne to give that Seal to him who is visibly and apparently uncapable of such sweet and comfortable application of Christ. I conclude that the suspending of scandalous persons from the Sacrament, is neither onelyonly nor principally grounded upon the sinne and guilt of eating and drinking unworthily, which will cleave to the unworthy Communicant: but rather (not excluding the other) upon the nature of the Ordinance which is such as cannot admit of the notoriously scandalous to receive, but that holy Ordinance shall thereby be prophaned and made Common; for what can be more contrary to the na ure of that Ordinance and to the Institution of Jesus Christ, than to turne the communion of Saints, into the communion of scandalous sinners; and to make that which was instituted for the comfort of those that repent and beleeve, to be a comfort and Seal of Salvation to those who are known by their fruits to have neither Repentance nor Faith, and so to send them away with a good conceit of their spirituall Estate, and thereby to strengthen their hearts and hands in wickednesse?
9. The Question is not whether all scandalous persons are to be excommunicated and wholly cast out off the Church. The Assemblies Petition was not concerning excommunicating, but concerning suspending from the Sacrament all scandalous Persons. Yet the current of Master Prynnes Argumentation both in his Quaeries, and in his Vindication thereof, for the most part, runneth along against Excommunication and Suspension from the Sacrament, as the Tittles likewise doe promise. Which is a fallacy d conjunctis ad divisa. And when he debateth so much concerning excommunication and suspension, his and is either copulative or exegeticall. If copulative, he opposeth no body that I know so much as himself; for I know none that would have all scandalous sinners suspended, to be excommunicated also, except himself. If exegeticall, even so he is contrary to himself, who confesseth that one may be suspended from the Sacrament before he be excommunicated. vindic. p. 50. 51. And whereas in the latter part of his first Quaere, he would drive us to this hard choice, that either a scandalous person must be excommunicated, or not suspended from the Sacrament; He saith it is evident by Tertullians Apology cap. 39. & lib. de poenit. that scandalous persons were ever excommunicate and wholly cast out of the Church, not barely sequestred from the Sacrament. Whence saith he all the Canonists and Schoolemen determine that an excommunicate person is excluded from the Church and all publike Ordinances. Let the prudent reader observe, that in stead of proving that scandalous persons were wholly cast out of the Church, he tells us out of the Canonists and Schoolemen, that excommunicate persons were wholly cast out of the Church, that is, that those who were cast out of the Church, were cast out of the Church. And for his antiquity, he hath given here no small wound to the Reputation of his skill in Antiquities. Which will more fully appear Chap. 17. Meane while, how can any that hath read Tertullian or Cyprian, not know, that some failings and falls in time of persecution, and other smaller offences, were not punished by excommunication, but by suspension from the Sacrament, till after publike Declaration of Repentance and confession of the offence, the offender was admitted to the Sacrament. And for the places he citeth, I find in Tertullians Book de poenitentia much of that Exomologesis and publike Declaration of Repentance, but that all scandalous persons brought under Church-censures were wholly cast out of the Church, I find not; In the 39 Chapter of his Apologetick there is no such thing as is alledged, but the contrary plainly intimated, eIbidem etiam exhortationes, castigationes, & censura divina. Nam & judicatur magno cum pondere ut apud certos de Dei conspectu: summumque futuri judicii praejudicium est, si quis ita deliquerit, ut a communicatione orationis, & conventus, & omnis sancti commercii releget…r.concerning severall degrees of Ecclesiasticall Discipline, and that if any mans offence was so great, as to deserve excommunication, then he was excommunicate and wholly cast out of the Church. And as in the Antient Churches there were, and in the reformed Churches there now are different degrees of censures, according to the different degrees of offences: so in the Jewish Church the like may be observed, both concerning Ceremoniall uncleannesse, and morall offences. Touching the former, that Law Num. 5. 2. command the children of Israel that they put out of the Camp every Leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is desiled by the dead, hath been understood by the Jewish Doctors respectivè, that is, that the, Leper was put out of all the three Camps, the Camp of Israel the Camp of the Levites, and the Camp of divine Majesty which was the Tabernacle: he that had an issue might be in the Camp of Israel, but was put out of the other two. He that was defiled by the dead, was onelyonly restrained from the Camp of divine Majesty, for which also see before Book. 1. Ch…p. 10. And touching morall offences, there were severall Steps and degrees in the Jewish excommunication, as fDe Iure natur. & Gent. lib. 4. cap. 8.Master Selden hath observed from the Talmudists: for first a man was separate from the Congregation for 30 dayes, and if thereafter he was found obstinate, he was separate for other 30 dayes, and if after 60 dayes he did not repent, then they passed from the lesser excommunication to the greater, that is from Niddui and Shammatha (as he thinketh) to Cherem or Anathema. The Author of the Quaeries, while he argueth in that first Quaere against the suspending from the Sacrament of a person not excommunicated nor wholl… cast out of the Church, closeth in this particular with them of the Separation (which I beleeve he did it not intend to doe;) for they in one of their Letters in answer to the second Letter of Fr. Junius written to them, where they bring eleven Exceptions against the Dutch Churches, one of these Exceptions was that they use a new censure of Suspension, which Christ hath not appointed. They doe hold Excommunication to be an Ordinance of Christ, but doe reject the distinction of Suspension and Excommunication, as Master Prynne doth.
Tenthly, the true state of the present Question is not, whether the Parliament should establish the power of suspending scandalous persons from the Sacrament, as Iure divino, (nay, let Divines assert that, and satisfie peoples consciences in it: but let the Parliament speak in an authoritative and legislative way, in adding their civill sanction.) Nor, whether there ought to be any suspension from the Sacrament of scandalous persons, not yet excommunicated and cast out of the Church; and that the Elder-ship should doe it; for the Ordinance of Parliament hath so farre satisfied the desires of the Reverend Assembly and of the generality of godly people, that there is to be a suspension of scandalous persons (not excommunicated) from the Sacrament, and power is granted to the Eldership to suspend from the Sacrament for such scandals as are enumerate in the Ordinances of Octob. 20. 1645. and March. 14. 1645. Which Ordinances doe appoint that All Persons Or any Person that shall commit such or such an offence, shall be by the Eldership suspended from the Sacrament, upon confession of the party, or upon the Testimony of two credible witnesses. So that in truth the stream of Master Prynnes exceptions runneth against that which is agreed and resolved upon in Parliament: and his arguments (if they prove any thing) must necessarily conclude against that power already granted by Parliament to Elder-ships. And now if he will speak to that point which is in present publike agitation, he must lay aside his Querees and his Vindication thereof, and write another Book to prove that the Assembly and other godly ministers and people ought to rest satisfied (in point of conscience) with the power granted to Elderships to suspend from the Sacrament in the enumerate cases, and that there is not the like reason to keep off scandalous persons from the Sacrament for other scandalls beside these enumerate in the Ordinance of Parliament. Nay, and he must confine himself within a nearower circle, then so; for the Parliament hath been pleased to think of some course for new emergent cases, that the door may not be shut for the future upon the Remonstrances of Elderships concerning cases not expressed. I know the Gentleman is free to choose his own Theme to treat of, and he may handle what cases of Conscience he shall think fit for the Churches edification. But since he professeth in the Conclusion of his foure Questions and in the Preface before his Vindication, and in divers other passages, that his scope is to expedite a regular settlement of Church Discipline, without such a power of suspending the scandalous, as is now desired to be setled in the new Elderships, and manifestly reflecteth upon one of the Assemblies Petitions concerning that businesse, as hath been said; yea the first words of his Queres tell us, he spoke to the point in present publike agitation, the case standing thus; I must put him in mind (under favour) that he hath not been a little out of the way, nor a little wide from the mark.
And if the Question were which of these Tenents (Master Prynnes or ours,) concerning Suspension, doth best agree with the mind of the Parliament, let us heare their own Ordinance dated March 14. 1645. the words are these: yet were the fundamentalls and substantiall parts of that Government long since setled in persons by and over whom it was to be exercised, and the nature, extent, and respective subordination of their power was limitted and defined; onelyonly concerning the administration of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, how all such persons as were guilty of notorious and scandalous Offences might be suspended from it, some difficulty arising, not so much in the Matter it self, as in the Manner, how it should be done, and who should be the Judges of the Offence: The Lords and Commons having it alwayes in their purpose and Intention, and it being accordingly declared and Resolved by them That all sorts of notorious scandalous Offenders should be suspended from the Sacrament, Which is the very point so much opposed by Master Prynne; for the controversie moved by him is not so much concerning the manner, or who should be the Judges, as concerning the matter it selfe: he contending that all sorts of notorious scandalous offenders should not be suspended from the Sacrament, but onelyonly such as are excommunicated and excluded from the hearing of the Word, Prayer, and all other publique Ordinances.
Having now removed so many mistakes of the true state of the question: that which is in controversie is plainly this; Whether according to the word of God there ought to be in the Elderships of Churches a spirituall power and authority, by which they that are called brethren, that is, Church members, or Officers, for the publique scandall of a prophane life, or of pernicious doctrine, or for a private offence obstinately continued in after admonitions, and so growing to a publique scandall, are upon proofe of such scandall to be suspended from the Lords Table untill signes of repentance appeare in them; and if they continue contumacious, are in the name of Jesus Christ to be excommunicate and cut off from all membership and communion with the Church, and their sinnes pronounced to be bound on earth, and by consequence in Heaven, untill by true and sincere repentance they turne to God, and by the declaration of such repentance be reconciled unto the Church. The affirmative is the received doctrine of the reformed Churches, whereunto I adhere. The first part of it concerning Suspension, is utterly denyed by Mr Prynne, which breaketh the concatenation and order of Church discipline held forth in the question now stated. Whether he denieth also Excommunication by Elderships to be an Ordinance and Institution of Christ, and onelyonly holdeth it to be lawfull and warrantable by the word of God, I am not certaine. If he do, then he holds the totall negative of this present question. However I am sure he hath gone about to take away some of the principall Scripturall foundations and pillars upon which Excommunication is builded. *Yea now also it appeareth by his Diotrephes catechised that he denieth and opposeth Excommunication it selfe, at least under a Christian Magistrate.As touching the gradation and order in the question as now stated, it is meant positively and exclusively, that such a gradation not onelyonly may but ought to be observed ordinarily (which Mr Prynne denieth) although I deny not tha… for some publique enormous, haynous abominations, there may be (without such degrees of proceeding) a present cutting off by Excommunication. But this belongs not to the present controversie.