An Answer Made to an Open Challenge, Chapter 12
CHAP. XII. Wherein are anſwered the Objections brought againſt privative Suſpenſion by the ſingle Miniſter.
I Acknowledge, that as I have a great many with me in the Affirmative of this Queſtion, ſo have I ſome very Reverend men who are otherwiſe perſwaded: ſome of which rather thinke that in ſuch caſes as theſe the Ordinance ſhould be wholly omitted. Others that the Miniſter in ſuch …a…es hath diſcharged his duty if he hath delivered the truth doctrinally, and uſed his ſpirituall Rhetorick to deterr or diſſwade the ignorant and unworthy, and theſe Reverend Brethren are not without ſome conſiderable objections: I muſt adde a word or two in anſwer to them, ſo far as I am able. The whole queſtion is,
Whether the Miniſter, in ſuch caſes, hath a morall power to deny the Ordinance or no?
I plead he hath: for the ſame precept that ſaies to him, give not holy things to dogs, Miniſter Sacramentorum per ſe loquendo habet proprium ac ſpeciale praeceptum quo prohibetur indignis miniſtrare Sacramentum. Becan. ſum. tertia p. tract. 2. cap. 5. q. 8.that commands him, as a Steward of Gods myſteries, to be faithfull; that commands him, as well as others, to keep the feaſt not with the leavened bread of malice and wickedneſſe, and forbids him to eat with brethren who are fornicatours, &c. gives him power, &c. But it is objected:
Ob. 1. Suſpenſion is an act of Juriſdiction. Acts of Juriſdiction belong to the Church: Now the ſingle Miniſter is not the Church.—
Sol. 1. That Juridicall Suſpenſion is a Church Cenſure, and an act of Juriſdiction I yeeld: but whether this ſuſpenſion of which I ſpeake be, I queſtion. Mr Jeanes thinkes the Schoolemen are out in determining that it is not, but I cannot wholly cloſe with him. Juridically ſuſpenſion is a poſitive Act of the Governours of the Church, determining the party at preſent unworthy of that Eccleſiaſticall Communion: This is but a Negative or privative Act, wherein the Miniſter, not paſſing any formall cenſure upon him, but referring him for that to the Presbytery to be judged at preſent forbeares his own act of adminiſtring the Ordinance to him, judging him in his own conſcience ſuch a one as is de Jure to be ſuſpended, and being ready to ſubmit himſelfe to any Superiour Presbytery, to whom the Party ſhall appeale.
2. It is granted, that in Eccleſiâ conſtituta, in a formed organized Church, no kind of Cenſures ſhould be paſt but by the Presbytery, the Elderſhip of the Church, but in a diſordered Church, I humbly conceive ſome acts may be juſtifiably done that may looke like Cenſures by the Miniſter, Plebe non rationaliter diſſentiente, at leaſt by the conſent of the Church, or the Church not diſſenting upon good grounds.
3. That the Miniſter is not (in one ſence) the Church, viz. all the Officers that belong to a rightly ordered Church is granted, but whether in ſome caſes of neceſſity the ſingle Miniſter may not be the Church, viz. the whole ruling part of it, and in power in ſuch caſes to ſome acts of rule, I thinke may be queſtioned; All will grant that he is a ruling, as well as a teaching, Elder. Now if there be ſuch a caſe that through death, removall, or any defect, that he ſhould be leſt alone, and have no Elders, I cannot thinke that his power of rule muſt wholy ſleep till his fellow-Rulers be recovered. So that in ſome ſenſe he may be called the Church I conceive, which is no more (by interpretation) than that he is at that preſent the whole ruling part of the Church.
4. Tell the Church, Mat. 18. is chiefly meant in order to the great Excommunication, in which the ſinner is made as an heathen and publican.
5. Againe, Admonition is a Church Cenſure, yet we allow not only a private fraternall correption, but alſo a paſtorall admonition, which is quiddam majus, and I ſee no reaſon why (in ſuch caſes of neceſſity as theſe, where either ſuch a courſe muſt be taken, or this great Ordinance wholy omitted or profaned) we may not alſo allow of paſtorall ſuſpenſion.
Object. 2. A ſecond objection Mr Jeanes makes, viz. That all our Arguments to juſtifie the unlawfulneſſe of a Miniſters giving the Sacrament to ſuch as he knows to be ſcandalous, will faile us in two caſes in Preſbyterated Churches: 1. In caſe the major part of the Elderſhip will acquit the ſcandalous ſinner, then he ſaies, we grant the Miniſter may admit them. Or 2. In caſe the ſcandall be known to the Miniſter alone, and no proofe can be made, and the party will not confeſſe.
Sol. I muſt confeſſe theſe are two hard caſes, and the only hard caſes I know which can be put as to this point.
1. But who are they that have been ſo free of their confeſſions to grant, that in caſe an Elderſhip, will contrary to the judgement of their Paſtor, and directly contrary to the rule juſtifie the wicked, the Miniſter ought to give the Sacrament to them, I cannot tell. Suppoſe one be proved to have committed Inceſt the night before the Sacrament, and ſtands to juſtifie it, and the Miniſter calls his Elderſhip and proves the fact to them, and they in a faction will acquit him, ſhall this Miniſter be bound to adminiſter the Ordinance to this wretch? I hope Mr Jeanes ſhall never perſwade me to that faith. No, but it is my duty in ſuch, or ſuch like evident caſes to forbeare any adminiſtration, and appeale from the Congregationall to the Claſſicall Presbytery, and if that will not relieve him, from thence to the Provinciall, and from thence, if need be, to a Nationall Aſſembly; it is to be hoped that by ſome of theſe he will be relieved, if not I ſhould thinke it my duty to ſubmit to their cenſure rather than profane Gods Ordinances: and wait till God reformed ſuch Churches; if the caſe were doubtfull, the matter differs: but where the rule plainly judgeth, mens neglect of their duty will not juſtifie me in ſinning againſt mine.
2. As to the ſecond caſe, I know no reaſon but in ſuch a cauſe the Miniſter may ſtand as a witneſſe and the reſt of his Elderſhip; I am ſure it will be more juſtifiable than for him to give the Sacrament to one manifeſtly unworthy. Therefore I ſay, there is no neceſſity urging a Miniſter in any caſe to give the Lords holy things to dogs and ſwine; we may conceive neceſſities, but ſinnings of this kind will prove our free acts.
Object. 3. A third Argument againſt us. I find in Mr Jeanes, Suarez in tertiam p. Thomae diſp. 67. ſect. 4.he ſaith he hath it out of Suarez in tertiam partem Thom. diſp. 67. ſect. 4. he urgeth it thus.
It is requiſite for the common good,Mr Jeanes p. 116, 117. and convenient order both of Church and Commonwealth that all common favours which are publikely to be diſpenſed and diſtributed according to the dignity of private perſons ſhould be diſpenſed by publike perſons deſigned thereto, not according to the private knowledge of this or that man, neither of that Miniſter, but according to a publike and notorious cogniſance, and whoſoever doth, by his offence againſt God,This is not a literall tranſlation of Suarez. loſe his right and intereſt to the holy things of God, he muſt loſe it in the face of the Church before it can be denied him in the face of the Congregation, and he is to be judged as in all other caſes, not by any mans, nor by any Miniſters private knowledge, but according to proofes and allegations; for the common good neceſſarily requireth that ſuch publique actions of this nature ſhould be regulated by a kind of publike, not private, knowledge, which once admitted into judicature would ſoone fill up the Church and State with a world of ſcandals, injuries, and inconveniences, for hereby a wicked, or a peeviſh, and pettiſh Miniſter may without controule publikely diſgrace, and repell from the Supper whom he pleaſe, &c.
Sol. To this I anſwer: Firſt, This Argument is but meerly rationall. And if a Miniſters duty in this be (as we have endeavoured to prove) expreſly concluded in Scripture, it is not to be conſidered againſt Scripture Precept.Aqu. Rationes contra fidem ſunt deriſibiles. But ſecondly.
Let us conſider the ſtrength of this Reaſon: As it is brought by a Schooleman, ſo it is determined by a Schooleman inſufficient.Gabriel Vaſq. t. 2. in tertia p. Thomae diſp. 209. q. 80. art. 6. cap. 40. Gabriel Vaſques ſaith,
The invalidity of the Reaſon appeares in this. The due execution in Law is a common good in the Commonwealth, and doubtleſſe ought to be (ordinarily) adminiſtred to all impartially, according to the letter of the Law, it is every mans common favour. But now put the caſe, that two witneſſes came and ſware againſt the life of ſuch a man: that he did ſuch a murther on ſuch a day in ſuch a place, and the Judge knew that this man was at that time one hundred miles off that place, and were with him, and he ſhould tell the Jury ſo, yet they would find this man guilty of the murther, will any man ſay, that it is the Judges duty to condemne him whom his certaine knowledge juſtifies in his conſcience as wholly innocent?Exemplum etiam judicis quod in confirmationem allatum eſt, non putamus in univerſum verum, quia accidere poteſt interdum, ut ipſe non poſſit uti ſcientia publicâ, ſed propter ſcientiam ſuam privatam alio remedio uti deb…at pro ſalvandâ vitâ innocentis, &c. Gab. Vaſq. ib. There is a double right, i. Jus here …itarium, this they have common, as baptized perſons. 2. Jus aptitudinarium, this they have not in common. If mans Law ſhould lay any ſuch Obligations upon the publike Miniſter, ſurely Gods holy Law doth not. So that the Maxime is not alwaies true, that common goods muſt be diſpenſed or denied, according to common publike cogniſance. For if the executing of the Law (which is a publike common good) muſt tend to the breach of the divine Law, or doth evidently appeare againſt the end of the Law, if there ſhould be a proceeding according to the ſtrict rigour of it. The Judge may lawfully, yea, and ought to ſuſpend his own act, and ſubmit himſelfe to the judgement of another Court.
2. Things that are common goods muſt be diſpenſed out to none but thoſe who have a common right. It will eaſily be granted, that the ignorant and ſcandalous have not a common right with thoſe who are knowing and holy. Let any but make out that they have a common right, (which, by the way, only faith in Chriſt can give them) and I know no Miniſter will deny them the Ordinance. The benefit of the Law is a common good, and to be denied to none that are Natives. Suppoſe a Stranger comes and demands the benefit of it, none knows but he is a Native, only the Judge knows, or at leaſt hath vehement grounds to ſuſpect he is none, ſhall not the Judge require him to prove that he is a native Engliſhman, or naturalized before he gives him the benefit of the Law.
3. For the diſconveniences may come through the Miniſters peeviſhneſſe, &c. I confeſſe, there may be ſome, but I know not how they ſhould be prevented; they may in ſome meaſure be cured by a liberty of appeale for the party, who ſhall conceive himſelfe injured, to higher Presbyteries; If there be none ſuch, I know no remedy while the Church is in that diſorder.
I have met with no more Objections, and ſhall need enlarge no farther upon this queſtion: only I thinke Mr Jeanes his fourth Argument is conſiderable.
Argument The power of administration of the Lords Supper is wholly committed to the Miniſter, the Elderſhip cannot deale it out. Now it is very improbable that the Lord ſhould have left the adminiſtration wholly to them, and not a ſufficient power to them in ſuch exigents as theſe to preſerve the purity of it.
Beſides, it is eaſily evidenced, that in extraordinary caſes ſomething preter-regular and extraordinary may be done, yea, and ought to be done to preſerve the purity of Ordinances;2 Chro. 30.2. at H…zekiahs Paſſeover, becauſe the Prieſts were not ſanctified, the Paſſeover was deferred to the ſecond month, ver. 17. The Levites killed the Paſſeover, yet the Lord accepted the ſervice, ver. 20. God himſelfe for the purity of his Ordinance, and his peoples Communion, diſpenſed with the Order which himſelf and inſtituted, Ex. 12. as may be ſeen Num. 9.
It is true we ought to be tender of Gods Order, but ſome points of order may, for purity ſake, be diſpenſed with for a time.