An Answer Made to an Open Challenge, Chapter 7 – Chapter 8
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 foreign,
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 foreign, 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 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 foreign. 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.