Aarons Rod Blossoming, Book 3 · Chapter 15
CHAP. XV. Whether the admission of scandalous and notorious sinners to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, be a pollution and profanation of that holy Ordinance; And in what respects it may be so called?
MAster Hussey in his Plea, pag. 2. doth very much mistake his mark, when in opposition to what I had said concerning the polluting of the Sacrament by the admission of the scandalous, he tells me out of Beza, that the Sacraments remain effectual to the good, though evil men come to them: and thereupon concludeth, that the Sacrament is holy and pure to the believer, notwithstanding the unpreparednesse of the wicked: Which is not the thing in question: much lesse is it the Question, Whether there be any such thing as a pollution of the Sacrament: for this Master Coleman hath yeelded (though before he quarrelled that phrase of polluting the Ordinances) giving instance in the using of Cheese instead of Bread, Male dicis, pag. 12. But the true state of the Controversie may be laid open in these few distinctions.
First, as Scotus in lib. 4. Sent. Dist. 3. Quaest. 2. distinguisheth two sorts of things which may be called necessary to a Sacrament; necessarium simpliciter, and necessarium aliqualiter: the former he calls that without which the Sacrament is no Sacrament: the later, that without which they that give the Sacrament cannot avoid sin, or the want whereof maketh the Ministery guilty; so do I distinguish two sorts of pollution of the Sacrament, one which makes the Sacrament no Sacrament, but a common or unhallowed thing to those that do receive it, as (for instance) if the Sacrament were given by those that are no Ministers, o… to those that are no Church, or without the blessing and breaking of bread: Another which makes the ministration of the Sacrament hic & nunc, and with such circumstances to be sinful, and those that do so administer it to be guilty: and so whatsoever is done in the ministration of the Sacrament contrary to the revealed will of God, is a pollution of that Ordinance. The present Question is of the later, not of the former.
Secondly, some wicked men by their receiving the Sacrament do onelyonly draw judgement upon themselves, and these are close hypocrites: Others by their receiving of the Sacrament do involve not themselves onelyonly, but others also into sin and Gods displeasure; and these are scandalous notorious sinners.
Thirdly, the sin of those who pollute the Sacrament by using it contrary to the nature and institution of it, may be the sin of others, and those others accessary to such pollution of the Sacrament two ways: either it is the sin of the whole Church, none excepted, so that none that communicateth then and there can be free of the sin, as where the bread is elevated and worshipped, all the communicants are eo ipso that they joyn in the Sacrament then and there, partakers of the sin of bread-worship, though perhaps some of them do not joyn in the act of worshipping the bread, but have done what they could to prevent or hinder it. Or it is the sin onelyonly of so many as have not done what they ought and might have done for observing the Institution, rule and example of Jesus Christ. And of this sort is the sin of communicating with scandalous and profane men. If private Christians have interposed, by admonitions given to the offender, and by petitions put up to those that have authority and power for restraining the scandalous from the Lords Table, they have discharged their consciences, and may without sin communicate though some scandalous members be admitted: for such persons sin in taking the Sacrament, but worthy communicants are not partakers of their sin. But if Church-officers who have a charge and authority from Jesus Christ, to receive none whom they know to be unworthy, profane and scandalous, shall not withstanding admit such persons, they are thereby partakers of their sin, so that their receiving, or rather polluting of the Sacrament, is imputed not to themselves onelyonly, but to the Church-officers who had authority to keep them back, and did it not.
Fourthly, the suffering of a mixture of known wicked persons among the godly in the Church, doth sometime defile us with sin, sometime not. It doth not defile us, when we use all lawful and possible remedies against it, and namely, when we exercise the Discipline of Excommunication, and other Churchcensures, saith Augustine, lib. contra Donatistas, post collationem, cap. 4. Tom. 7. But it doth defile us, and we do incur sin and wrath, when the means of redressing such known evils are neglected, indisciplinata patientia (it is Augustines word) so to bear with wicked men, as not to execute discipline against them, that certainly makes us partakers of their sin. I mean in a reformed and well constituted Church, where the thing is feasible. But where it cannot be done, because of persecution, or because of the invincible opposition either of authority, or of a prevalent profane multitude, in that case we have onelyonly this comfort left us, Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousnesse; and, in magnis voluisse sat est.
Fifthly, neither doth this Question concerning the pollution or profanation, or abuse of the Sacrament, concern those peccata quotidianae incursionis, such sins of infirmity as all the godly, or at least the generallay of the godly, are subject unto and guilty of, as long as they are in the world (for then the Sacrament should be polluted to all; for, Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sins?) but onelyonly grosse and scandalous sins, such as make the Name of God and the profession of Religion to be evil spoken of and reproached, those roots of bitternesse which spring up, whereby many are like to be defiled; those that are guilty of such sins, and have given no evidence of true Repentance, if they be received to the Sacrament, it is a profaning of the Ordinance.
Now that the admission of scandalous and notorious sinners to the Sacrament in a reformed and constituted Church, is a profanation or pollution of that Ordinance, may be thus proved.
First, Paraeus upon the 82 Question in the Heidelberg Catechism, where it is affirmed, that by the admission of scandalous sinners to the Sacrament, the Covenant of God is profaned, giveth this reason for it, Because as they who having no Faith nor Repentance, if they take the s…als of the Covenant, do thereby profane the Covenant; so they who consent to known wicked and scandalous persons their taking of the seals, or to their coming to the Sacrament, do by such consenting make themselves guilty of profaning the Covenant of God (for the doer and the consenter fall under the same breach of law) yea, so far do they sin by such consenting, as that they do thereby acknowledge the children of the devil to be the children of God, and the enemies of God to be in Covenant and to have fellowship with God. He distinguisheth these two things, who ought to come to the Sacrament, and who ought to be admitted. None ought to come, except those who truely believe and repent: None ought to be admitted, except such as are supposed to be believers and penitent, there being nothing known to the contrary. If any impenitent sinner take the Sacrament, he profanes the Covenant of God. If the Church admit to the Sacrament any known to live in wickednesse without repentance, the Church profaneth the Covenant of God.
Secondly, that Ordinance which is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance, which is not appointed for the conversion of sinners but for the communion of Saints, is certainly profaned and abused contrary to the nature, institution, and proper end thereof, if those who are manifestly ungodly, profane, impenitent, and unconverted, be admitted to the participation thereof. But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance, &c. which I have proved by infallible demonstrations. Ergo.
Thirdly, That use of the Sacrament which is repugnant and contradictory to the Word truly and faithfully preached in the name of Christ, is a prophaning of the Sacrament. But to give the Sacrament to those who are known to live in grosse sins without repentance, is an use of the Sacrament which is repugnant and contradictory to the Word truly and faithfully preached in the Name of Christ. Ergo.
I suppose no man will denie, that if we truly and faithfully preach the Word, we may and ought to pronounce and declare such as live in sin impenitent and unconverted, to be under Gods wrath and displeasure as long as they continue in that estate. Be not deceived saith the Apostle, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor theeves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the Kingdom of God. 1 Cor. 6. 9. 10. See the like Ephes. 5. 5, 6, 7. Whence it is, that doctrinally we warn the ignorant and scandalous, and all such as live in known sins without repentance, that they presume not to come and prophane that holy Table. Of which Ministers are appointed by the Directory to give warning. How then can we by giving the Sacrament to such as these, give the lye to the Word? hZ…ch. Ursin. Judicium de disciplina Ecclesiastica. Tom. 3. pag. 806. Haec enim Dei voluntas non erit in aeternum, ut Ecclesia Christiana alicui gratiam Christi & remissionem pec catorum, annun ciatione verbi divini deneget, & eidem exhibitione Sacramentorum spondeat.For what other thing shall we do; if those whom the Word pronounceth to have no part in the Kingdom of God nor of Christ, shall be admitted as well as the Godly to eat and drink at the Lords Table, while known to continue in the committing of their damnable sins, or while it is known that they have not repented of the uncleannesse, and fernication, and lasciviousnesse which they have committed? 2 Cor. 12. 21. What is this but to absolve in the Sacrament those who are condemned in the Word, and to open the Kingdom of Heaven in the Sacrament unto those on whom the Word shutteth it?
Fourthly, That use of the Sacrament which strengtheneth the hands of the wicked, so that he turneth not from his wickednesse, is an abuse and profanation of the Sacrament. But the giving of the Sacrament to any known prophane impenitent person is such an use of the Sacrament as strengtheneth the hands of the wicked, so that he turneth not from his wickednesse. Ergo.
I appeal to the experience of all godly and faithful ministers, whether they have not found it a great deal more difficult to convince or convert such prophane men as have been usually admitted to the Sacrament, then to convince or convert such as have been kept back from the Sacrament? No marvel that such prophane ones as have usually received the seals of the Covenant of grace, and joyned in the highest act of Church-communion, live in a good opinion of their souls estate, and trust in lying words, Have we not eaten and drunken at thy Table? The Sacrament, The Sacrament, as of old The Temple, The Temple. Mr. Prynn thinks, 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. Vindic. pag. 28, 29. But he may be pleased to receive an answer from himself, pag. 43. The things we see with our eyes do more affect and beget deeper impressions in our hearts, then the things we hear. The Word preached is Verbum audibile, the Sacrament is Verbum visibile. How shall prophane ones be perswaded by their ears to beleeve that whereof they see the contrary with their eyes? they will give more credit in Mr. Prynns own opinion to the visible Word, then to the audible Word.
Fifthly, If it were a prophanation of the Sacrament of Baptisme to baptize a Catechumene, a Jew, or a Pagan professing a resolution to turn Christian, he being manifestly under the power of abominable reigning sins, and being still a prophane and wicked liver, although he were able to give a sound and Orthodox Confession of Faith: then it is also a prophanation of the Lords Supper to admit unto it abominable and prophane livers. But it were a prophanation of the Sacrament of Baptisme &c. Augustine lib. de fide & operibus cap. 18. tells us, that the Church did not admit whores and such other scandalous persons to Baptisme. Et nisi egerint ab his mortuis operibus poenitentiam, accedere ad Baptismum non sinuntur. And except they repent (saith he) from these dead works, they are not suffered to come unto Baptisme. Divers Arguments he brings in that Book for this thing, as 1. That Peter saith (Act. 2. 38.) Repent and be baptized. 2. That the Apostle Heb. 6. 1, 2. joyneth repentance from dead works with Baptisme. 3. That Iohn preached the Baptisme of Repentance. 4. That fornicators, adulterers, theeves, &c. shall not inherit the Kingdom of God: therefore such as are known to live in these sins without repentance ought not to be baptized. 5. He argueth from 2 Cor. 6. 14, 15, 16. &c. Now I offer this Quaere. Shall an abominable wicked life, murther, adultery, swearing, cursing, lying, or the like keep back a man from so much as entering into the visible Church by the door of Baptism, and shall not the like abominations keep back a man from Fellowship with the Saints at the Lords Table? Is there more evidenc… of Saintship required in those who come to be baptized, then in those who come to the Lords Table? If there be, let our Opposites speak it out, and open up the riddle. If there be not, then how can their Tenent avoid the prophanation of the Lords Table?
Sixthly, That Ordinance which is prophaned by admitting Infants and Idiots who can make no good use of it, is much more prophaned by admitting abominable and known prophane persons who make a very bad use of it. But the Lords Supper is prophaned by admitting Infants and Idiots who can make no good use of it. Ergo.
Mr. Prynn pag. 29. yeeldeth that children, fools, and distracted men, are by a natural disability made uncapable of receiving the Lords Supper, because unable to examine themselves, to which (saith he) not withstanding they have been admitted in some Churches. In what Churches fools and distracted men have been admitted to the Lords Supper, I should have willingly learned from him, for as yet I know not any such thing Children I know were somtime admitted by the Ancients who did afterward discover their own great error in that particular. However, He yeelds as I take it, children and fools to be uncapable of the Lords Supper. And why? because unable to examine themselves, in regard of natural disability. But where there is no disability in the natural faculties, may not a sinful disability which a man hath drawn upon himself (as ignorance, drunkennesse, corrupt and atheistical opinions, presumptuous excusing or defending of sin) make him unable to examine himself? Shall men that are unable to examine themselves be admitted to the Sacrament, because not disabled by any natural disability? Sure this was far from Pauls thoughts when he delivered that rule concerning examining our selves before the Sacrament. Whoever they be who are unable to examine themselves, whether naturally or sinfully, much more they who manif…stly appear unwilling to examine themselves, if they be admitted and allowed to come to the Lords Supper, it is a high and ha…nous prophanation of that Ordinance. Wherefore to prosecute my Argument, Why do we exclude Infants and Idiots? because … Apostle saith, Let a man examine himself, and so let him … Bread, and drink of that Cup: but Infants and Idiots … examine themselves. Now a positive prophanation of the Sacrament, is worse then a negative prophanation of it: abuti is more then non bene uti. We know that prophane impenitent sinners will not onelyonly make no good use of the Sacrament, nor examine themselves aright, but will abuse it to the worst use that can be, even to slatter themselves in their wickednesse, and to harden themselves in sin and impenitency. Mr. Prynn will tell us, we know not but God may convert such at the Sacrament. But there is not the least hint in all the Word of God of any impenitent sinner converted by the Sacrament. And beside, it is as easie for God to give an Idiot or distracted man his right wits, and to illuminate him with a self-examining knowledge and light in the very instant of approaching to or sitting down at the Table; And if a possibility, a per adventure it may be, and who knoweth but it may convert and do them good; be a warrantable ground for Ministers to administer the Sacrament to prophane and scandalous persons as Mr. Prynn holds, pag. 47. why shall not the same ground be as warrantable for admitting Idiots.
Seventhly, If the Temple was polluted and prophaned by the comming of prophane and abominable persons into it, then is the Sacrament of the Lords Supper also profaned by such persons their participation of it. But the Temple was polluted and prophaned &c. The reason of the consequence in the Proposition is, because as the Temple had a Sacramental signification of Christ, and a certain Ceremonial holinesse, as well as the Lords Table, so it will be dur…s sermo (and I presume none of our Opposites will adventure to say it) that such prophanesse as did of old keep back men from the Temple, cannot now exclude them from the Sacrament.
The Assumption is largely proved in the first Book, both from Scripture and from Jewish writers. That one place Ezek. 23. 38. 39. (beside divers others) cleareth it. Moreover this they have done unto me: they have defiled my Sanctuary in the same day, and have prophaned my Sabbaths▪ For when they had slain their children to their Idols, then they came the same day into my Sanctuary to prophane it. You see the Temple was prophaned and polluted, not onelyonly by those that were ceremonially unclean, but by Idolaters and Murtherers when any such presumed to come into the Temple.
Eighthly, I desire the scope of that place Hag. 2. 11, 12, 13, 14. may be considered. The Lord is teaching his people, that a thing legally holy, could not by the touch thereof sanctifie that which by the Law was common and not holy, yet he which was legally unclean, did defile whatsoever he touched, yea though it were legally holy. So is this people, and so is this Nation before me, saith the Lord, and so is every work of their hands, and that which they offer there is unclean. The legal holinesse and uncleannesse were significant ceremonies to teach the people the hecessity of moral holinesse, and the evil or danger of moral uncleannesse: Hence God himself argues from the significant ceremony to the morality, so as the place holds forth by necessary plain consequence these three propositions. 1. The ceremonial uncleannesse did signifie the moral uncleannesse, and the effect of the former did signifie the effect of the latter. 2. Unholy persons are not sanctified by their approaching to, or joyning in holy Ordinances: but he that is filthy will be filthy still, and he that is unjust▪ unjust still. If God do not give them his Spirit to sanctifie them, the Ordinances cannot do it. 3. Yet unholy persons, while such, do defile holy Ordinances, and that by moral as well as by ceremonial uncleannesse: therefore the people themselves, and every work of their hands being evil, the Lord for that cause reckoneth their sacrifices to be unclean. Did prophane persons defile the Sacrifices of old, and do they not defile our Sacraments? Nay, I should think this, much more then that, there being more of the communion of Saints in our Sacraments, then in their Sacrifices.
The ninth Argument which alone may conclude the point, shall be taken from Matth. 7. 6. Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine. If the Sacrament be a holy thing, and if prophane scandalous impenitent sinners be dogs and swyne, then to give the Sacrament to such, is to prophane and pollute the Sacrament, and indeed no better but worse then to give pearls to swine. Mr. Prynns▪ reply vindic. pag. 39. doth not take off this Argument. For without any proof, he restricteth to certain particulars that which the Text saith generally both of the things and of the persons. First for the things, He saith the Text is principally intended of not preaching the Gospel to such, so that we must seclude them from the Word as well as from the Sacrament. But I ask, is it meant onelyonly of the Word? He hath not said so, nor will (I think) say so. Erastus himself pag. 207. confesseth it is meant also of the Sacraments. The Text saith not, the holy thing, and the pearl, but holy things, pearls. It must therefore be understood respective. Some are so vile, and so abominably prodigiously prophane, blasphe…ous, mockers, persecuters, that I ought not to preach to such, but to turn away from them to others, according to Christs direction, and the Apostles example. Others are such as I may preach unto, yet ought not to pray or give thanks with them, nor to admonish them (and much lesse give them the Sacrament) Others I may admonish and pray with them, yet ought not to give them the Sacrament. And all these by reason of that rule, Give not that which is holy to dogs, &c. So that we are not bound up by this Text, either to seclude men from the Word, or otherwise from no holy: thing. Next, The Argument holds à fortiori, from the Word to the Sacrament. For saith iExplic. Catech. q…aest▪ 84. Si enim Christus hoc di xit de verbo audibili▪ quod ta… men institutum est conversis, & n…n convers…s vel convertendis: … magis … dic…uy d… verbo visibili hoc est de Sacrame…tis, quae tantum conversis sunt institut….Pareus. If Christ said this of the Word, which is common to the converted and to the unconverted, how much more must it be said of the Sacraments, which are instituted onelyonly for such as are converted.
As for that sort of persons which the Text speaks of, Master Prynne (following Erastus, lib. 3. cap. 3.) saith that these doggs and swine are onelyonly such Infidels and Heathens, who refused to embrace the Gospel, and harbour the Preachers of it: Or pers…cutors of the Gospel, and of the Ministers of it: Or open Apostates from the Christian faith which they once embraced. And he citeth divers Scriptures, which he saith do expresly determine it. But he observes not that the most which those Scriptures prove, is, that such men as he speaks of are doggs and swine, which is not the Question: That which he had to prove, is, that the doggs and swine which Christ speaks of, are onelyonly Infidels, or persecutors, or apostates from the Christian faith. This ONELYONLY he hath boldly averred, but shall never prove it. It is one thing to prove that Infidels, persecutors and apostates are doggs and swine, another thing to prove that there are no other doggs and swine. That which the Apostle Peter saith, of such as having escaped the pollutions of the world, and known the way of righteousnesse, do afterward turn aside from the holy Commandment, namely, that such do with the dog …eturn to the vomit, and with the sow that was washed to the wallowing in the mire, 2 Pet. 2. 18, 20, 22. doth belong to all scandalous and backsliding Christians, whether they be such in doctrine or in life onelyonly; and is generally so applied by Divines. Erastus himself, pag. 207. understandeth that vomit and puddle, 2. Pet. 2. to be the sinful pleasures of the world, relabuntur (saith he, glossing upon the place) ad voluptates moresque hujus seculi. And Solomon saith the same thing generally of an ungodly wicked person, Prov. 26. 11. As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly. Nor is it to be forgotten that the Apostle using the words of Epimenides, calls the Cretians evil beasts, Tit. 1. 12. because they professed to know God, but in their works▪ denied him, being impure, disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. Wherefore the precept Matth. 7. 6. is rightly applied by Isidorus Pelusiota, lib. 1. Epist. 143. to the denying of the Sacrament to all persons of an unclean conversation,▪ as well as to Jews and Hereticks. So Chrysostome doth apply this Text to the excluding of known unworthy men from the Sacrament; and this he doth, Homil. 1. de compunctione cordis, as I remember. And Hom. 83 in Matth. he hath these words to the same purpose. If thou hadst a clear fountain committed to thy keeping, to be kept clean by thee, wouldst thou let filthy swine come and puddle in it? how much more the fountain of the Blood of Christ? Where by filthy swine he understandeth all unworthy and scandalous persons whatsoever, as is evident by that which follows, and by that also which went before, where he gives instance of the scandals in life and conversation. And upon the Text it self, Matth. 7. he applieth it to a suspension of all such as were not acknowledged for visible Saints, not onelyonly from receiving but from beholding the Sacrament. Hence was that in the ancient Church, Sancta Sanctis; at which word all others were dismissed before the receiving of the Sacrament, who were not accounted visible Saints. Hence came the distinction of duplex missa, that is, duplex dimissio. Missa catechumenorum, & missa fid…lium. When the Catechumens were dismissed, then also together with them were dismissed all scandalous persons who had scandalized the Church, except such Penitents as (having now in a great measure satisfied the Church-discipline, and manifested their repentance publikely, according to certain usual degrees of publike declaration of repentance) were permitted to behold the giving and receiving of the Sacrament, after the Catechumens were gone (which yet themselves were not admitted to partake of, till they had gone thorow all the degrees, and finished the whole course of publikely manifesting Repentance; onelyonly in the danger of death they were permitted to receive the Sacrament, before that course was finished, if they should desire it.) Then last of all, after the Sacrament, was the missa fidelium, the dismission of the faithful.
Augustine, lib. de fide & operibus, cap. 6. so applieth the prohibition of giving holy things to doggs, that he thence argueth against the administration of Baptism to persons living in adultery (although such as have embraced the Orthodox Doctrine) which is also the scope of that whole Book. Now if persons of a profane Conversation, though orthodox in their Judgement and Profession, be such doggs as ought to be refused Baptism when they desire it, surely they are also such doggs as ought to be refused the Lords Supper.
Moreover, the onelyonly seeming advantage which Master Prynne catcheth, is from the word doggs (which yet is no advantage; for that is applied generally to wicked and profane persons in the Scriptures above cited▪ and so Revel. 22. 15.) but he shall do well to observe the word swine too: for (as Grotius upon the place, following Chrysostome, doth make the distinction) the doggs are such as bark and contradict; the swine such as do not bark and contradict, but by an impure life (saith he) declare how little esteem they have of the holy things. Which difference (as he conceives) the Text it self doth hint: for it mentioneth not onelyonly the turning again to rent, which is the dogges part, but the trampling of Pearls under feet, which is the swines part.
Finally, this Argument from Matth. 7. hath gained so much upon (8) Pag. 107. Sermo noster de illis est, qui crimen agnoscunt & con…itentur: qui emendationem promi…tunt: qui Sacramentis rectè cum cae…eris u…i, quantum judicare nos possumus, desiderant.Erastus himself, lib. 3. cap. 3. that he restricteth himself to the admission of such onelyonly to the Sacrament as acknowledge and confesse their fault, promise amendment, and desire to use the Sacraments rightly with the rest, so far as we are able to judge. Which concession will go far.