An Answer Made to an Open Challenge, Chapter 11
CHAP. XI.
QUEST. 2. Whether miniſteriall, or privative Suſpenſion be deducible from Scripture yea or no.
I Opened the termes of this Queſtion before. In ſhort it is thus:
Whether in no caſe it be lawfull for the Paſtor of the Church (not having a formed Presbytery,) if he knows any of his Church to be ignorant or ſcandalous, to deny to them the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, (though they be not excommunicated, nor juridically cenſured.)
Before I ſpeake to this Queſtion (that I may not be mis-interpreted) I will crave leave to premiſe ſome few things.
1. I grant, that the moſt regular and orderly way of adminiſtring the Ordinance of the Lords Supper in Congregations, is by the triall and judging of all the members by a Presbytery, conſiſting of the Miniſter and Ruling Elders: I looke upon Elders as an Ordinance of Jeſus Chriſt, and Officers equally betruſted with the Miniſter in all acts of juriſdiction, and to a regular and ordinary ſuſpenſion queſtionleſſe an act of Juriſdiction is required.
2. I plead not for the ſole power of Juriſdiction to be in the hands of a ſingle Miniſter, this were to ſet up an Epiſcopacy, yea, more than an Epiſcopacy (almoſt a papall power) in every Pariſh; as I thinke Ruling Elders are equally with him betruſted with the power of Juriſdiction and Government, ſo I thinke they muſt joyne with him in juridicall ſuſpending, &c.
3.I ſpeak this and the fourth as my own private judgement, and ſhall not go about to impoſe ſuch a perſwaſion upon others, not knowing what upon further thoughts, I my ſelfe might judge in theſe caſes, but at preſent only thus limiting my queſtion. I plead not for Miniſters power in ſuch places where are perſons fit to be choſen as Officers who ſhall refuſe the Office, or people who ſhall refuſe to chooſe, I thinke in ſuch a caſe a Miniſter may lawfully forbear the adminiſtring the Ordinance, and giving Goſpell-Priviledges to thoſe who deſpiſe any Goſpell-Ordinances, or ſhall deny any Goſpell duty; yea, I cannot tell whether a Miniſter could diſcharge a good conſcience in adminiſtring at all to ſuch a people till the Lord had changed their hearts, and convinced them of their duty, and their ſin in refuſing it, being a ſcandall to all well ordered Churches.
4. I would not plead ſtrongly for his power in this thing in a Congregation who had none fit to chooſe, but were ſcituated ſo nigh to ſome rightly organized Church that they could conveniently go and partake there; I rather thinke it the Miniſters duty in ſuch caſes to perſwade thoſe who in his Congregation are fit for the Ordinance to joyne themſelves to ſuch a Church, (as to that Ordinance) and were it my own caſe, (if I ſaw that Church walked-orderly, and kept the Ordinances pure) I my ſelfe would not only perſwade my people ſo to joyne, but my ſelfe rather ſo joyne than ſet up any extraordinary courſe.
5. In caſe there were a formed Claſſis of Triers, either eſtabliſhed by the Civill power, or by a voluntary agreement of the godly Miniſters in a County, which uſed to meet ſo neare the Congregation that the godly people could go and ſubmit to their triall, I do prefer this before a Miniſters ſingle Examination and Judgement.
But in ſuch a caſe as this now Where there is in a Congregation a godly Miniſter, and a competent number of godly people to make up a Communion at the Lords Table, and theſe people are willing to do what in them lies to put themſelves in order, and to chooſe Elders, and wiſh from their ſoules that they had ſome to chooſe, but at preſent they have none, nor are like to have any ſuddenly, nor are nigh any Organized Church with which they can enjoy the Ordinance, nor any Claſſis to which they can approve themſelves: Whether now, in ſuch a caſe as this, the Miniſter may not adminiſter the Ordinance, and not only admoniſh the ignorant and ſcandalous to keep away, but take account of his peoples knowledge, and take all due courſes to be informed of their lives, and if he finds any ignorant and ſcandalous, that, notwithſtanding admonition, will preſume to come whither he may not, yea, whether he ought not to deny the Elements to him?
6. I heartily wiſh, that either by the Civill power, or a voluntary act of the people, parochiall Congregations were ſo united, that in every Precinct there might be found perſons fit for Officers.
7. I thinke in ſuch caſes a Miniſter ſhould act with a great deale of prudence; I would in ſuch a caſe do nothing (as neare as I could) without the ſatisfaction of the Community. I meane, not being acted by their vote, but ſtating the buſineſſe to them firſt at ſome meeting, and, if it were poſſible gaining their conſent and approbation.
And theſe things premiſed:
I humbly conceive, that a Miniſter of the Goſpell in ſuch a cauſe, may, by vertue of his Office, (wanting a Presbytery) deny the adminiſtration of the Elements to any ſuch as he ſhall judge ignorant, and be able to prove ſo ſcandalous, as if he had a Presbytery, he might be juridically ſuſpended.
I ſhall humbly propoſe my grounds for my opinion in it (which yet is not mine alone.)
In ſuch a caſe as this a Miniſter may either wholly omit the Ordinance, or elſe adminiſter it promiſcuouſly to all, be they never ſo ignorant or ſcandalous; or elſe thirdly by his own power thus deny it to ſuch as he finds ſo. But in ſuch a caſe he may not wholly omit the adminiſtration of the Ordinance, nor ſecondly adminiſter it promiſcuouſly.—Ergo.
The disjunction cannot be denied, for there is no fourth expedient can be found but the way of our diſſenting brethren, (and but ſome of them neither) that all the members ſhould have power, which I can never yeeld to till they can tell me who ſhall be the Ruled if all be Rulers: But of my Brethren, who are of the Presbyterian perſwaſion, there are two different opinions.
1. Some thinke, that in ſuch a caſe he is bound wholly to omit the adminiſtration till he can have a Presbytery. I muſt crave leave to diſſent here.
And I thinke Mr Jeanes hath ſaid enough to prove that the totall omiſſion of the Ordinance in a non-presbyterated Church cannot be juſtifiable.
1. All Chriſts Commands are to be obſerved in a non-presbyterated Church. Do this, do it often, &c. are Chriſt Commands as well as any other.
2. Chriſt himſelfe, and his Apoſtles, Act. 2.41. adminiſtred it in a none-presbyterate Church.
3. Here are fit Communicants, and here is a Miniſter, and this is an Ordinance of Chriſt for the perfecting of the Saints.
4. Chriſts death ought to be remembred in a non-presbyterated Church, and the Saints ſhould grow in grace there as well as elſewhere.
Theſe, and the reſt of Mr Jeanes his Arguments, I muſt confeſſe, do much prevaile with me to make me thinke that the bare want of Ruling Elders in the Church cannot warrant a Miniſters totall neglect of the adminiſtration of this Ordinance. Beſides the ill conſequences which would doubtleſſe be of ſuch an Omiſſion. Such as 1. Peoples running to ſeparate Churches. 2. Chriſtians decay in grace, and ſpirituall weakneſſes for want of that great Ordinance for ſtrength and quickning. 3. A blotting out of the memory of Chriſts death, or at leaſt of that Ordinance out of Chriſtians minds; theſe things make me conclude it ſinfull for a godly Miniſter, who hath people fit for a Communion, wholly to omit the Ordinance. So that a Miniſter cannot be bound to that.
2. Nor can a Miniſter be bound to adminiſter to thoſe whom he knows to be ignorant and ſcandalous.
This moſt of my former Arguments prove.
1. He cannot be bound to give holy things to dogs, and caſt pearls before ſwine, directly contrary to that Precept, Mat. 7.
2. He cannot be bound to give it to thoſe, whom he knows cannot drinke the Lords Cup, for then there would lye an Obligation upon him to profane the Lords Ordinances.
3. He cannot be bound to give it to thoſe with whom it is unlawfull for him to keep that feaſt, or to eate, 1 Cor. 5.8, 11.
4. He cannot be bound to declare thoſe one body, and make thoſe one breaſt who viſibly are not one body.
5. His Obligation muſt be from Scripture precepts or preſidents: but I have ſhewed there are none to that purpoſe.
6. He cannot he bound to any act by which he is guilty of making the Communion of the Church impure.
7. There cannot lye an Obligation upon him to give the Ordinance to thoſe who viſibly appeare to be ſuch as are not bound to receive.
8. He cannot be bound to give the Sacrament of the Supper to ſuch as he might not lawfully baptize, in caſe they were not yet baptized.
I made good theſe Arguments before, and they conclude as well for miniſteriall privative ſuſpenſion as for poſitive ſuſpenſion.
Theſe two parts being ſuch as he may not take,
1. He muſt either put the power of juriſdiction into the hand of the Community, and ſo by their major vote, ſuſpend, or admit, or
2. He muſt by his own power (during this ſtate of the Church) put by ſome not juridically cenſuring and ſuſpending them, but ſuſpending his own act as to ſuch perſons.
The former of theſe he may not do.
1. For Chriſt never committed any ſuch power to them: they are no Officers in the Church.
2. That were to make Gods houſe an houſe of confuſion: the body all one member, all head to rule, &c.
It remaines therefore that himſelfe in ſuch a caſe being the alone Officer of the Church, and bound virtute officii to know the ſtate of his Flock, and to take care of their ſoules, do what in him lies: 1. To warne the ignorant and ſcandalous to abſtaine. 2. That he deny the Sacrament to them if they preſume to come.
That now in ſuch a caſe, the Miniſter may, and ought to take an account of his flock, and paſtorally to admoniſh the ſcandalous, and to deterr the unworthy what he can, is eaſily granted me. Mr Humfry will yeeld this, yea, and ſomething more, that he may deny it to notorious ſinners, ſuch as he cals de jure excommunicati (by which he only meanes ſuch as are fit to be hanged.) Mr Jeanes likewiſe will yeeld this, though he is not cleare in allowing to the Miniſter more than a doctrinall power to keep away any. But all the queſtion is, Whether the ſingle Miniſter in ſuch a caſe, if the ignorant and ſcandalous perſon will not keepe away, may deny the Ordinance to him.
1. That he cannot formally pronounce a Church cenſure againſt him I yeeld.
2. That he cannot take him and turne him out by head and ſhoulders, I grant too.
The queſtion therefore is narrowed up to this.
Suppoſe ſuch a Miniſter knows one to be notoriouſly ignorant or ſcandalous, who hath given no evidence of his repentance, and this wretch, notwithſtanding his Paſtors admonition of him to keep away, will yet when the day of adminiſtration comes, preſſe in amongſt the Communicants, whether the Miniſter ſhall ſin (if he delivers it from hand to hand) in paſſing by ſuch a one, and not giving it to him, or if he delivers it at once to all, and ſeeth ſuch an one there, and declares either more generally, that the Elements are only provided for, and given unto ſuch as have approved themſelves unto him: Or, if he thinks fit, to declare particularly, that whereas there are ſuch and ſuch there whom he hath found ignorant, or have been ſcandalous, and as yet given no ſatisfaction, he doth not intend them, or any of them, in his generall delivery of the Ordinance, I maintaine the Negative, that he ſhall not ſin, yea, that he ſhould ſin if he ſhould not do it, it being the only courſe he can take to fulfill Chriſts command, and not be guilty of giving holy things to dogs, &c.
To the fore-mentioned Arguments I ſhall adde one more.
Argument 2 If in ſuch a caſe the Miniſter of the Goſpell cannot ſhew himſelfe a faithfull Steward of Gods myſteries: except he doth deny the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to the ignorant and ſcandalous (though he wants an Elderſhip) then he may (in caſe of ſuch a defect in the Church) deny the Lords Supper to ſuch.
But though there be an Elderſhip wanting in the Church, yet if the Miniſter gives that Ordinance to the ignorant and Scandalous, he cannot in it ſhew himſelfe a faithfull ſteward of Gods myſteries.—Ergo.
To prove the conſequence, I ſhall need but prove theſe things:
1. That a Miniſter is ſteward of the myſteries of God.
2. That the Sacraments are ſome of thoſe myſteries committed to his Stewardſhip.
3. That he muſt be faithfull in his ſtewardſhip.
1. That a miniſter is a ſteward of Gods myſteries, is cleare; they are the words of the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 4.1.
2. That the Sacraments are ſome of thoſe myſteries, is cleare; 1. By conſidering that foreign is the known Greeke word to expreſſe a Sacrament, if not the only one. 2. From that which is generally granted, that none but the Miniſters may diſpenſe them.
3. That they muſt be faithfull is plaine, not only firſt from reaſon, but ſecondly from the expreſſe words of the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 4.2.
All the Queſtion lies upon the Aſſumption:
Whether a Miniſter of the Goſpell cannot diſcharge the faithfulneſſe of a Steward, if he delivers the Lords Supper to one that is ignorant or ſcandalous.
That he cannot I prove.
If the faithfulneſſe of a Steward lies wholly as to the diſtribution of his Maſters goods) in this, Praeceptum naturale eſt ut diſpenſator qui bona domini diſpenſat ſit fidelis ac prudens in diſpenſando, ergo praeceptum naturale eſt ut non diſpenſet homini indigno contra voluntatem, & inſtitutionem ſuidomini; quia hoc eſſet contra fidelitatem, & prudentiam quam in diſpenſando debet ſervare, &c. Becanus in tertia p. de ſacram. in Com. cap. 5. q. 8.that he doth diſpenſe them to ſuch as his Maſter hath Commanded him to give them. 2. That he diſpenſeth them to no other, and the Miniſter be a ſteward, and the Sacraments the Lord his Maſters goods, and he not commanded by his Maſter to deliver them to the ignorant and ſcandalous, then he cannot ſhew himſelfe a faithfull ſteward in giving them to ſuch.
But the Antecedent is true.—Ergo.
To prove the Aſſumption I muſt prove theſe things.
That the faithfulneſſe of a ſteward, as to the dealing out his Maſters goods betruſted to him to diſtribute, lies chiefly, if not only, in this that he gives them out to ſuch, and none other but ſuch, as his Maſter commands him to give them to.
This is ſo evident to reaſon, that none can deny it but will be poſed to aſſign any other thing wherein he can ſhew his faithfulneſſe more, or ſo much. Surely any mans reaſon will tell him, that if his Maſter gives him a thouſand pounds to diſtribut amongſt ſuch and ſuch people, his faithfulneſſe lies in diſtributing it to ſuch, and none but ſuch though they aske it.
2. It is already proved, that the Miniſter is the Lords Steward and the Sacraments are Chriſts goods, committed to him to diſtribute to others.
3. It is as evident that he hath no command from Chriſt his Maſter to give them out to ſuch as are apparently ſcandalous or ignorant.
Surely it were very abſurd to ſay that Chriſt ſhould command me his Miniſter to give out his Ordinances to ſuch as he lets me know are forbidden upon paine of damnation to receive. Saint John ſaith, That for ſuch as we know have ſin…ed the ſin againſt the Holy Ghoſt we ſhould not pray. 1 Joh. 5.16. Why? Becauſe Prayer can do him no good, becauſe we know God will not heare our prayers: And ſhall we thinke that we are bound by Chriſts Command to adminiſter the Lords Supper to ſuch as wee know it to be the will of God they ſhould not take it. Indeed, if we do not know it the caſe is otherwiſe; but for ſuch as we know cannot diſcerne the Lords body, and ſuch as we know are Drunkards Fornicators, &c. we know the Ordinance can do them no good, and we know it is the will of God they ſhould not take it. I ſhall refer it therefore to the judicious Reader to conſider, whether it can be reaſonably judged, that when Chriſt ſaid, Dri…ke you all of …t he meanes, all you, whom I have elſewhere told, that if you do drink, you ſhall drinke your own d…mnation, and become guilty of my body and bloud; and you, who if you do eate and drinke there, I will make you ſick, and weake, and fall aſleep for it.
I confeſſe,Mr Jeanes p. 124, 125. edit. octo. I find Reverend and Learned Mr Jeanes ſpeaking ſomething to anſwer this Argument; two things he ſaith, 1. By way of retortion; That the faithfulneſſe of a Steward lies in going no further than his Maſters Commiſſion, and he conceives, we have no Commiſſion to keep back any, but the Commiſſion is directed to us and others. 2. He tels us, that if we underſtand by the will of God voluntas ſigni, It is not the will of God, viz. the Command of God that we ſhould keep away any.
But I humbly conceive this is little better than petere foreign. For this is the queſtion:
1. Whether we have no command to keep away the ignorant and ſcandalous, though at preſent the Church be not presbyterated? We conceive we have, and to that purpoſe we bring that Text, 1 Cor. 4.1. where we are required to be faithfull as Stewards.
2. He ſaies, the faithfulneſſe of the Steward lies in going no further than our Commiſſion, that is but halfe the truth, for it lies in going ſo far as well as no farther. Now we ſay, we ſhould not go ſo far as our Commiſſion, Mat. 7.6. if we ſhould adminiſter it promiſcuouſly we plead to go as far as that extends.
3. If he meanes we have no Commiſſion, foreign, where the word Sacrament is uſed, we grant it; but we have proved, that we have a Commiſſion foreign, according to ſound conſequence from Scripture, and that it is voluntas ſigni, Gods Command, at leaſt implicite, if not explicite.
4. We deſire, where foreign, (if he ſtands upon that) he can ſhew us our Commiſſion from Scripture for ſuſpenſion to be directed to us and others.
5. We ſay, that if we ſhould give the Ordinance to any known ignorant and ſcandalous, we ſhould, in Mr Jeanes his ſence, go beyond our Commiſſion, having neither precept nor preſident for it.
I ſhall need add no more though I might adde the concurrent Judgement of Divines antient, and moderne; But I will refer that to the next queſtion, where I ſhall prove, that Mr Boatman's tongue ran a little too faſt when he ſaid, Suſpenſion was a Phariſaicall dreame.