Aarons Rod Blossoming, Book 3 · Chapter 11
CHAP. XI. Whether it he a full discharge of duty to admonish a scandalous person of the danger of unworthy communicating? And whether a Minister in giving him the Sacrament after such admonition, be no way guilty?
Mr. Prynne pag. 28. stateth the seventh point in difference thus, Whether the Minister hath not fully discharged his duty and conscience if he give warning to unworthy communicants of the danger they incurre by their unworthy approaches to the Lords Table, and seriously dehort them from comming to it, unlesse they repent, reforme, and come preparedly? But here he much mistakes his marke, or hitteth it not, as may appeare thus. First, what if we should affirme it, as he doth? What hath he gained thereby? That the Minister hath not the power of keeping backe scandalous persons: which cannot adde one dram weight to his cause. The power is seated in the Eldership, of which the Minister is a principall member: even as Aristotle polit. lib. 3. cap. 11. tels us that foreign is not the foreign but foreign. It is not the Senator but the Senat that doth rule. But if Mr Prynne meant to conclude against the suspension of scandalous persons not excommunicated (the thing which all along he opposeth,) he ought to have stated the point thus, Whether the Eldership hath not fully discharged their duty, &c. For every branch of this controversie concerning Suspension (which is an act of jurisdiction and censure) must be fixed upon the Eldership, not upon the Minister. There is a huge difference between the Ministers personall duty, and the censure of suspension: in so much that if the affirmative of this present question (as he stateth it) were yeelded to him; it derogateth nothing from the power of the Eldership to suspend from the Sacrament a person not excommunicate. Secondly, in the debating of this point he sometimes argueth against the refusing or withholding of the Sacrament by any Minister or Presbytery as pag. 29, 30, 31. sometimes he argueth that no Ministers private judgement or conscience ought to be the rule of his admitting any to, or suspending them from the Sacrament, as pag. 32. Which is a confounding together of two most different points. Thirdly, and if the question should be stated of the Minister his duty, that which Mr Prynne affirmeth, viz. that the Minister hath fully discharged his duty and conscience, if he give warning to unworthy communicants of the danger they incurre by their unworthy approaches, to the Lords Table, and seriously dehort them from comming to it, unlesse they repent, reforme and come preparedly; is erroneous and false: for there are other necessary duties incumbent to the Minister, in this businesse: as 1. he must be earnest in his prayers to God, for the conversion and reformation of such unworthy persons, else that God would give his Spirit and assistance to the Eldership, and others to whom the case shall be brought, that they may faithfully doe their duty in restraining such persons: or (if not so) that God would by his owne providence keepe backe such persons, or hedge up their way with thornes, and make a wall, that they shall not finde their pathes to come and prophane the Lords Table. 2. The Minister must deale seriously with the Eldership by informations, exhortations, and admonitions, to move them to doe their duty. 3. The Minister must give his owne vote and sentence in the Eldership against the admission of such persons. 4. If (which God forbid) the Eldership be not willing to doe their duty, but sinfully neglect it, the Minister ought to addresse himselfe with his complaints to the superiour Ecclesiasticall assemblies (as they lie in their order) that they may interpose by their authority, to rectifie the mal-administration of the Congregationall Eldership. 5. And if it should fall out that a scandalous unworthy person should finde so much favour in the higher assemblies also, as that they shall judge him fit to be admitted to the Sacrament; yet if the Minister know him certainly to be a scandalous abominable person, and be also cleere in his conscience, that the matter of scandall is sufficiently proved, he must not doe an unlawfull act in obedience to men, but walke by that Apostolicall rule, 1 Tim. 5. 22. Be not partaker of other mens sinnes; Keep thy selfe pure. In doing whereof, he doth not make his conscience the rule of inflicting any censure and particularly of suspending from the Sacrament (which must be done foreign by many) but yet his conscience so sarre as it is informed and illuminate by the word of God, is a rule to him of his owne personall acting or not acting, notwithstanding of which the offender stands rectus in curia, and is not excluded by the sentence of any Ecclesiasticall Court. I confesse a Minister ought to be very cleare in his conscience, and be perswaded (not upon suspicions, surmises, or such like sleight motives, but) upon very certaine grounds, that the sentence of an Eldership, Classis, or Synod is contrary to the Word of God, before he refuse to doe the thing.
But what may be the reason why Mr Prynne is so large upon this point from pag. 28. to 35? I take not upon me to judge de intentione operantis. But the intentio operis is to yeeld somewhat in lieu of suspension from the Sacrament, which yet shall be no Church censure nor act of jurisdiction, and so to make the discipline of Suspension (yea and Excommunication too) to be of no necessary use in the Church. For if it be sufficient and a full discharge of duty, to admonish unworthy scandalous persons, not to come to the Lords Table, unlesse they repent and reforme, this cuts off the necessity of Censure, whether Suspension or Excommunication. As for that admonition or warning to be given, it is no Church censure, nor act of Jurisdiction, especially when given by the Minister alone; for no Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction can be excercised, or Censure inflicted by any one man, how eminent soever in the Church. Yea when it is a Consistoriall or Presbyteriall Admonition, it is not properly a Censure, but a Degree to Censure. 1. Because Admonition doth not exclude a person from any Church priviledge nor from communion in any Ordinance. And how can one be said to be under Church censure, who still enjoyeth all Church priviledges? 2. If Consistoriall admonition be a binding, where is the loosing of that bond? Every censure consistorially inflicted, must be also consistorially taken off, upon repentance appearing in the party. These things I doe but t…uch, that I might make it appeare how Mr Prynnes doctrine tendeth to strip Elderships out of all jurisdiction or power of Censures. Now come we to the particulars, wheren I doe not finde any great matter to insist long upon.
He …irst premiseth six conclusions. Supposed conclusions he may make them, but proved Conclusions they are not. The first of them is indeed ushered in syllogistically, but very weakly, as shall appeare. The strength of his discourse he contracteth into this argument.
Those who have a true right to the Sacrament, as visible members of the visible Church, ought not in justice or conscience to be deprived of it, in case they demand it, by any Minister or Presbytery.
But all unexcommunicate Christians, who are able to examine themselves, as visible members of the visible Church, have a true right to the Sacrament, in case they doe demand it, when publiquely administred.
Ergo, they ought not in justice or conscience be deprived of it, by any Minister or Presbytery, when publiquely administred, if they shall require it.
Answ. First, this is fallacia plurium interrogationum; for these words, as visible members of the visible Church, both in the Major and Minor, clogge and confound the argument, and patch up two distinct propositions into one.
Secondly, his Major cannot be admitted without a distinction. There is Ius ad rem, and Ius in re. There is a remote right, or a right in actu primo, th…t is, such a right, relation, or habitude as entitleth a person to such a priviledge or benefit, to be enjoyed and possessed by him when he shall be capable and fit to enjoy it: Such is the right of a Minor to his inheritance: Such was the right of lepers of old to their T…nts, Houses, and Goods, when themselves were put out of the Camp, and might not (during their leprosie) actually enjoy their own habitations: Such is the right which a man hath in England to his sequestred Estate, Lands, and Houses; he doth not lose but retaine his Right, Title, Charters and Deeds (as valid in Law, and not made voyd or null) and may be againe admitted to the actuall possession upon satisfaction given to the State: and a huge difference there is between Sequestration, and forfeiture or Outlawry. There is againe a proxime right, or a right in actu secundo, which rendereth a person actually and presently capable of that thing which he is entituled unto. If Mr Prynnes major be understood of the first kind of right, I deny it. If of the second kind of right, I admit it, and it doth not help his opinion, nor hurt mine.
Thirdly, yea himselfe must needs admit an exception from his major proposition, for by his owne principles, those that have a true right to the Sacrament, as visible members of the visible Church, may be excommunicated and so deprived, not onelyonly of the Sacrament, but of all other publique Ordinances. When he tels us here that nothing but an actuall excommunication can suspend them from this their right, he doth but begge that which is in question. And if his Argument conclude against a lesser Suspension from their right, why not also against the greater?
Fourthly, he hath not proved his minor, especially being understood of the second kind of right, which renders me… actually and presently capable of the thing. He saith that the Sacraments were bequeathed by Christ, to his visible Church on Earth, and all visible members of it. Which he hath not proved, and I deny it, except it have this limitation, all visible members of the visible Church, which are (visibly or in externall profession and conversation) qualified according to the rule of Christ, and against whose admission to the Sacrament there is no just exception.
Fifthly, when he concludeth, that no unexcommunicated Christians who are able to examine themselves (that is, as himselfe hath explained, who are not naturally disabled as children, and fooles: though he shall finde it a very hard taske to prove, that all other unexcommunicate Christians besides these, are able to examine themselves) ought in justice or conscience to be deprived of the Sacrament by any Minister or Presbytery: he doth upon the matter conclude, that the Ordinances of Parliament Octob. 20. 1645. and March 14. 1645. authorising Presbyteries to suspend from the Sacrament scandalous persons unexcommunicated, are contrary to all justice and conscience. N. B.
Sixthly, as touching that limitation yeelded by himselfe, that they must be such as are able to examine themselves, I aske, 1. Are persons grossely ignorant able to examine themselves? 2. Are drunken persons able to examine themselves? 3. Are men of corrupt minds and erroneous, yea prophane principles, who call evill good, and pervert Scripture to the defending of some grosse sinnes, are these able to examine themselves? 4. Are those who are known that they had never any worke of the law upon their consciences to convince or humble them (for by the Law is the knowledge of sinne) able to examine themselves? If the answers be affirmative, then surely this selfe-examination is not ri…htly apprehended what it is. If the answers be negative; then those who in their address…s to the Lords Table are found ignorant, or drunke, or defenders of sinne, or presumptuous and unconvinced, and doe manifestly appeare such, though they be not excommunicated, and being professed Christians, and desiring the Sacrament, yet ought not to be admitted.
I proceed to his second conclusion, the strength whereof (so farre as I am able to gather from his discourse) may be drawn together into this Argument. Such as in all ages, yea by the very Apostles themselves, have been deemed fit to receive, and could not be denied the Sacrament of Baptisme, ought to be (being baptised and unexcommunicated, and willing to communicate) admitted to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. But in all Churches from Christs time till this present, all externall professors of Christ, even carnall persons, onelyonly upon a bare externall profession of faith and repentance, were deemed fit to receive, and were never denied the Sacrament of Baptisme (yea, saith he, we read in the very Apostles times that a meere externall sleight confession of sinne, and profession of the Christian faith, was sufficient to enable sinners to be baptized Ergo, all externall professors of Christ, &c. ought to be admitted to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.
Answ. 1. I retort the Argument thus. Such as have been deemed by the Apostles and by all well constituted Churches, unworthy to be admitted to Baptisme, ought also to be deemed unworthy though baptised) to be admitted to the Lords Supper. But all known wicked and prophane livers, how able and willing so ever to make confession of the true Christian faith, have been by the Apostles and all w…ll con…ituted Churches deemed unworthy to be admitted to Baptisme. Ergo, all known wicked, &c. More of this afterward Chap 13. and Chap 15.
Secondly, I answer directly, I distinguish the Major, I deny the Minor. I distinguish the Major: Those who have been admitted to Baptisme ought to be admitted to the Lords Supper caeteris paribus, if the proportion hold in the particulars, and if they be as free of scandalous sines now when they desire to receive the Lords Supper, as they were when they desired to receive Baptisme. He needed not make so great a matter of our suspending from the Sacrament a person formerly deemed fit to receive Baptisme. For why? the person is a scandalous person now which he was not th…n. My limitation of caeteris paribus he himselfe▪ must admit; otherwise how will he defend his owne Principle, that the flagicious, abominable and obstinate sinners who cannot be reduced by Admonitions, may and ought to be excommunicated, and so to be cut off from the Lords Supper, and all other publike Ordinances, although formerly deemed sit to receive baptisme? The Minor I utterly deny as most false and as a reproach ca… upon the Apostles themselves. Mr Prynnes Rule is so large, that Turkes or Pagans who practically live in Idolatry, common swearing, adultery, drunkennesse, murthering, stealing, or the like, and are known to live in those abominable scandalous sinnes, ought neverthelesse up…n a meere externall sleight confession of sinne, and profession of the Christian faith, be baptised. When I expected his proofe from the Apostles times, he onelyonly tels us that Philip baptized Simon Magus though he were in the gall of bitternesse and bond of iniquity, Acts 8. Yea, saith he, many other who turned Wolves, Apostates, Hereticks were baptised by the very Apostles, Acts 20. 2. Tim. 3. If he had proved that Simon Magus was known to be in the gall of bitternesse and bond of iniquity when Philip did baptize him, or that the Apostles did baptise any (upon a sleight externall profession) who were then known to be Wolves, Apostates, and Hereticks, he had said more for his cause then all his booke saith beside. But to tell us that some persons baptized (he might as well have said that some persons who received the Lords Supper did appeare afterward to be in the gall of bitternesse, Wolves, Apostates, Heretickes, is as much as to travell, and to bring forth nothing. For how shall ever this reach the admission of known prophane persons to the Lords Supper? That which he had to prove was the admission (not of hypocrites, but) of knowne scandalous profane persons to Baptisme.
His third conclusion that it is the Ministers bounden duty to administer the Sacraments to their people, as well as to preach and pray; no man will deny it, so that the Ministers doe it debito modo, and according to the rule of Christ: they are stewards of the mysteries of God: moreover it is required in stewards that a man be found faithfull, 1 Cor. 4 1, 2. It is the bounden duty of Stewards to give the childrens bread to children and not to dogges and swine. It is not the duty of Ministers to preach peace to the wicked, and much lesse to seale it to them who are knowne to be such.
The fourth conclusion, that the Word and Sacraments are set accidentally for the fall and ruine, as wel as for the salvation of men▪ maketh nothing to the purpose in hand. Whatever the secret intention of God be, and his unsearchable judgement upon the soule of this or that man, it is no rule of duty to the Minister or Eldership. To the Law and to the Testimony. Secret things belong to God.
The fifth, that God onelyonly infallibly knows the hearts, and present state of all men, is no whit neerer the point The Eldership …udggeth of words and works, professions and practises. By their fruits ye shall know them.
The sixth, that no Ministers private judgement or conscience ought to be the rule of his admitting any to, or suspending them from the Sacrament, is also wide from the controversie in hand, which is concerning the Elderships (not the Ministers) power. Of the Ministers personall duty I have spoken before.
These six conclusions premised▪ Mr Prynne proceeds to prove, that a Minister in delivering the Sacrament to a scandalous unexcommunicated person, who after admonition of the danger, doth earnestly desire to receive it, &c. becomes no way guilty of his sinne or punish…ent, in case be eate or drinke judgement by his unworthy receiving of it. His first reason, because this receiver hath a true right to this Sacrament, as a visible member of the visible Church, is the same thing which I have already answered. His second reason, because …e (the Minister) hath no Commission from Christ to keep back such a person, doth not conclude that the Minister becomes no way guilty &c. He had to prove that a Minister hath no commission touching this businesse, but onelyonly to admonish the person of the danger. I hold there are other five duties incumbent to the Minister. Of which before, If any of these duties be neglected, the Minister is guilty. Whether such a person ought to be kept backe is the point in controversie, and therefore he ought not have taken the negative pro confessò.
His third reason pag. 33. is the same which was used by zC…nfirm, Thes. p…g. 120.Erastus as one of his arguments against Excommunication, that the Apostle saith, Let a man examine himselfe, and so let him eate of that bread, and drink of that cup. 1 Cor. 11. 28. Therefore a mans fitnesse or unfitnesse for the Sacrament, is not to be judged by others, but by himselfe onelyonly, and if he judge himselfe fit, the Eldership hath no power to exclude him. The same Scripture is here pressed against us by Mr Prynne to prove, that if a man judge himselfe fitly prepared, joynes with others in the publique confession of his sinnes, and promiseth newnesse of life, the Minister (he should say the Eldership) ought in point of charity to deem him so, and hath no commission from Christ to exclude him, &c. Let a man therefore examine himselfe, not others, or others him.
I answer, 1. The self-examination there spoken of, is not mentioned as exclusive: for it is not said, Let a man examine himselfe onelyonly. 2. Yet I can grant it to be exclusive, it being understood of that judging of a mans selfe, which prevents the judgement of God vers. 31. no mans examining of another can doe this, but his examining of himselfe. That which can give us confidence and boldnesse before God, and assure our hearts before him, 1 Joh. 3. 19. is not the examination or approbation of others, but of our owne conscience; for what man knowes the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? 1 Cor. 2. 11. The Pastors and Elders of Corinth had admitted some to the Lords Table, whom they judged sit and worthy Communicants, but God judged otherwise of them. Therefore saith the Apostle, let a man make a narrow search of his owne conscience, and not rest upon the judgement of others. 3. If it be enough for a man to examine himselfe, by what warrant doth Mr Prynne require more, namely, that a man joyn with others in the publique confession of his sinnes, and promise newnesse of life. 4. It is not enough for a notorious scandalous sinner to judge himselfe, nor yet to joyne with others in publique confession: but he must publiquely and particularly confesse his owne sinne, which he must doe personally, or for his own part, and others can not doe it with him. 5. aTom. 10. hom. 50. Et cum in se protulerit severissimae medicinae sententiam, veniat ad antistites, per quos illi in Ecclesiâ claves ministrantur, & tanquam bonus incipi…s jam esse filius maternorum membrorum ordine custodito, à praep…sitis sacrorum accipiat satisfaction s suae modum, ut in offe…ndo sacrificio cordis contribulati devotus & supplex, id tamen agat, quod non solum illi p…osit ad recipiendam salutem, sed etiam caeteris ad exemplum. Ut si peccata ejus non solum in gravi ejus malo, sed etiam in scandalo est aliorum: atque hoc expedire videtur utilita…i Ecclesiae, antistiti in notitia multorum, vel etiam totius plebis agere paenitentiam non recuset.Augustine tels us when a man hath examined himselfe, he must also edifie the Church (which before he scandalized) by a publique declaration of repentance for his scandalous sinne. 6. Mr Prynne himselfe Vindic. pag. 50. will not have an excommunicated person, to be againe received and admitted to the Lords Supper till publique satisfaction given for the scandall, and open profession of amendment of life, accompanied with externall symptomes of repentance. And why all this examination should not be required for a prevention of excommunication, yea of suspension, I know not.
Mr Prynnes fourth reason is, because the Minister administers the Sacrament to that scandalous unexcommunicated person, as to a person outwardly fitted and prepared, the inward preparation of whose heart for ought he knows may be sincere towards God, and really changed from what it was before. I appeale to every godly Minister, whether this can pacifie or secure his conscience, that a scandalous unexcommunicated person living in known prophannesse and wickednesse, is or may be esteemed a person outwardly fitted and prepared for the Sacrament, yea that the inward preparation of his heart, while he is living in grosse scandalous sinnes, may be sincere towards God and really changed from what it was before: and that therefore he (the Minister) in delivering the Sacrament to a scandalous unexcommunicated person who after admonition of the danger, doth earnestly desire to receive it, as conceiving himselfe in his own… heart and conscience meet to participate of it, becomes no way guilty, &c? The Lord save me from that Divinity which holds that a scandalous person in the Church may be admitted to the Lords Supper as a person outwardly fitt…d and prepared for that Sacrament.
Fifthly, he argueth from the holinesse and lawfulnesse of administring the Sacrament, and the Ministers good intention to benefit all, and hurt none by it.
Answ. The first part of this reason is a fallacy ab ignoratione Elenchi: the point he had to prove was, that the administration of the Sacrament to a scandalous person, is a holy lawfull action. The latter part doth not conclude. A good intention can not justifie a sinfull action.
Sixthly, saith he, because such a persons unworthy r…eiving is onelyonly contingent and casuall▪ no Minister or creature being able infallibly to judge, wh…ther God at this instant, may not by the omnipotent working of his Spirit, &c. change both his …eart▪ and his life.
Answ. 1. By this principle the Minister shall become no way guilty, if he deliver the Sacrament to an Heathen, to an excommunicated person, for the same reason will have place in that case as much as in this, viz. God may at the very instant before or in the act of receiving change the heart and life of such a Heathen or excommunicate person. 2. A scandalous prophane person his unworthy receiving, is casuall and contingent in sensu diviso, but not in sensu composit…, that is, peradventure God will give him repentance and change his heart and his life, which done, he shall come worthily, and receive worthily: but while he is yet scandalous and neither heart nor life yet changed, his receiving in that estate will certainly be an unworthy receiving: for it implies a contradiction and impossibility, to say that a mans life can be changed while it is not changed, in sensu composit…, or that a man can be worthy while he is unworthy. 3. It is a most sinfull tempting of the Almighty to ca…l his word behind us, and then expect the working of Omn…potency for that whereof we have neither promise nor example in the word.
Seventhly, he argueth from our Concessions that Ministers may administer the Sacrament to masked hypocrites, and yet are not guilty of their unworthy receiving. This he saith is a yeelding our objection false in the case of scandalous persons too. But his reason is …ust as if he had said, Ministers are not guilty when they give the Sacrament to those who are not scandalous. Ergo, they are not guilty when they give the Sacrament to those that are scandalous. Or, as if he had argued thus He th…t harboureth a Traytor whom he doth not nor cannot know to be such, is not guilty. Ergo, he that harboureth a knowne Traytor is not guilty.
Eighthly, (for he hath given his seventh already) he tels us, that the Minister onelyonly … the Sacrament, and the unworthy receiving is the receivers own personall act and sinne alone.
Answ 1. He begges againe and againe what is in Que…ion. 2. There is an unworthy giving, as well as an unworthy receiving. The unworthy giving is a sin…ull act of the Minister, which makes him also accessary to the sinne of unworthy receiving, and so partake of other mens …innes.
The ninth concerning Christs giving of the Sacrament to Iudas is answered before.
The tenth I have also answered before in his fourth conclusion. The Minister is a sweet savour of Christ, as well in those that perish by the Sacrament, as in those that are benefited by it, with this proviso, that he hath done his duty, as a faithfull Steward, and that he hath not given that which is holy to dogs, else God shall require it at his hands.
Finally, he argueth from 1 Cor. 11. 29. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh (not condemnation but) foreign judgement, (meaning some temporall judgement) to himselfe) not to the Minister or Communicants.)
Answ. 1. Whatever be meant by judgement in this place, certainly it is a punishment of sinne, and such a thing as proceedeth from Gods displeasure: and it is as certaine that unworthy receiving maketh a person lyable to a greater judgement then that which is temporall. 2. If to himselfe be restrictive and exclusive in the case of close hypocrites, such as are by Churchofficers (judging according to outward appearance) admitted to the Sacrament; yet how will it be made to appeare that the Apostle meant those words as restrictive and exclusive in the case of scandalous and knowne unworthy communicants. 3. Such a scandalous person doth indeed eate and drink judgement to himselfe; but this can neither in whole nor in part excuse but rather greatly aggravate the sinne of the Minister: for when a wicked man dieth in his iniquity, yet his blood God will require at the hands of the unfaithfull Minister, who did strengthen his hands in his sinne.