A Double Reply, Chapter 3
CHAP. III. VVherein a ſecond Argument is brought to prove ſuſpenſion diſtinct from excommunication, from 1 Cor. 10.21.
A ſecond Argument is this.
It is unlawfull to give the Sacrament to thoſe who cannot eat…r drink it. But there may be ſome in the Church (not excommunicated) who cannot drink of the Lords cup.—Ergo
I will prove both propoſitions. 1. For the major.
BEfore I prove it, it will be neceſſary that we conſider in what ſenſe the Apoſtle uſeth this phraſe, in the place I allude to. 1 Cor. 10.21. foreign. the queſtion is, what Impotency is there meant.
1. That it is not to be underſtood of the want of a Phyſicall power, is plaine enough, for ſo they might eat at the Table of the Lord, and the Devils Table 100.
2. It muſt therefore be underſtood in a morall ſenſe, Id tantum poſſumus quodjur poſſumus. You cannot, that is, lawfully, and warrantably, you cannot drink of the cup of the Lord, and the cup of Devils. Grotius minceth this foreign too ſmall, v. Grotium ad loc.when he expounds it by foreign. And Pareus obſerves againſt him well, that it is a manifeſt depraving of the ſenſe; v. Pareum ad loc.the Apoſtles deſigne being to ſhew a plain inconſiſtency betwixt a fellowſhip with Chriſt in his Ordinances, and with Devils at Idols Feaſts, not a meere indecorum in it. This is one of the ſenſes which Muſculus gives of the Text.
3. Muſc. ad loc.I find indeed a third ſenſe of the words hinted, by ſome reverend Expoſitors. You cannot drink of the cup of the Lord, and of the cup of Devils. You cannot eat of the Table of the Lord, and of the Table of Devils. That is, (ſay they) though you may enjoy an outward Communion in the Ordinance, yet you cannot enjoy an inward ſpirituall Communion with Chriſt in it. As Auguſtine (ſuppoſing Judas was at the Lords Supper) ſaith that he did eat Panem Domins, but not Panem Dominum. But I think Learned Beza ſaith ſomething againſt this ſenſe, when he tels us, that by the Table is meant the Elements upon the Table, and by the cup, the wine in the cup. If the Apoſtle had ſaid, you cannot eat the fleſh, and drink the blood of Chriſt, if you have fellowſhip with Devils, the Apoſtle might poſſibly have been ſo interpreted, but his Argument is plainly to prove the unlawfulneſſe of their comming to the Table, being guilty of ſuch ſinns.
But the ſumme of all amounts to this; that thoſe who cannot drink the cup, and eat at the Table of the Lord, (in the ſenſe of this Text) are either,
1. Such as God hath forbidden comming to that Ordinance.
Or ſecondly ſuch, as if they ſuſh upon the Ordinance, yet can have no Communion with Chriſt, no benefit by it. I will take it in either ſenſe, and I ſay
It is ſinfull for any to adminiſter the Ordinance of the Supper to thoſe whom he knowes to be ſuch, as are forbidden to meddle with it, or whom he knowes to be ſuch as conſidering their preſent ſtate, cannot have Communion with Chriſt in it. This I hope will eaſily be proved.
For ſurely it will be granted, that it is ſinfull for any to give it to thoſe to whom he is not commanded to give it, for he is the ſteward of the myſteries of God, and muſt expect his maſters order before he deales them out, nor will it be enough to ſay he is not forbidden, for his very Office forbids him, and in that he is not commanded he is expreſly forbidden.
Now, a Miniſter is not commanded, any where ſurely, to give it to thoſe who are forbidden to receive it. To ſay no more in this caſe: I hope we have all too reverent thoughts of the wiſdome of God, to think that he ſhould lay his Miniſter under an obligation to adminiſter his Ordinance to thoſe whom he hath warned upon pain of damnation not to take it.
Though this were enough, (for thoſe who encline to the other ſenſe, doe cleerly yet grant, that thoſe who partook of the Table of Devils, are here either forbidden that Table, or the Lords Table, which (if it be true, as queſtionleſſe it is) our Adverſaries muſt maintaine that they are commanded to give the Sacrament to thoſe whom the ſame God forbids to take it) yet poſſibly the other part may be more diſputable, viz.
Whether a Miniſter of the Goſpell and his Elderſhip, way without ſin admit any to the ſupper of the Lord, concerning whom they know, that in their preſent ſtate, they cannot have Communion with Chriſt in the Ordinance, &c.
I will try whether I can prove the Negative.
None can without ſin, knowingly expoſe the Ordinance of God, to neceſſary abuſe and profanation.
But who ever adminiſters the Ordinance of the Supper to thoſe concerning whom he or they know, they cannot have communion with Chriſt in the Ordinance, expoſeth the Ordinance to a neceſſary abuſe and profanation,—Ergo.
The major is plaine enough: the minor is as cleere, if we conſider when or how an Ordinance is profaned or abuſed. Her Prieſts have violated my Law, and have profaned my holy things, they have put no difference between the holy and the profane, neither have they ſhewed difference between the unclean and the clean. Ezek. 22.26. A thing is then abuſed when it is not turned to a right uſe; but ſurely he can never turn the Ordinance to a right uſe, that cannot have Communion with Chriſt in it. I come to the minor.
I thinke enough is ſaid to prove the major; that it is ſin for any to give the Lords Supper to thoſe that cannot eat and drink there; (that is) to ſuch either …s are forbidden that Table, or ſuch as cannot have Communion with Chriſt in it.
But there may be ſome known in the Church, who are forbidden to come at the Lords Table, or who cannot have Communion with Christ in it,—Ergo.
That there may be ſome ſuch in the Church, I ſuppoſe none will deny; but the queſtion is, whether there may be ſome in the Church that may be known to be ſuch? I prove there may.
If there may be ſome in the Church, who may be known to have fellowſhip with Devils, and to drink of the cup of Devils, then there may bee ſome in the Church, who may be known to be ſuch as cannot drink of the cup of the Lord, nor eat at his Table.
But there may be ſome in the Church, who may bee known to have fellowſhip with Devils, and to drink of their cup.—Ergo.
The conſequence is plaine from the Apoſtle. 1 Cor. 10.20, 21.
And the aſſumption is as plaine, for there were ſuch in the Church of Corinth.—Ergo.
If any object; Object. But the Church is not bidden to keep them away if they doe come.
foreign we grant it; but I have already proved, Sol. that here is an implicit conſequentiall prohibition of the Church, to admit ſuch; and he had before forbidden them with Idolaters not to …at. 1 Cor. 5.11. (of which place more hereafter (God willing.)
But will ſome ſay, this was for an open horrid ſin, Object. Idolatry, &c. having fellowſhip with Devils, &c.
Admit it; yet thus much we have gained; Sol. that Idolaters though they be not excommunicated, yet they may be denied the Lords ſupper, as well as perſecutors, by Mat. 7.6.
But ſecondly let us obſerve what fellowſhip theſe Corinthians had with Devils; they did not make a compact with Devils, they did not worſhip the Devill as ſome Idolaters; the buſineſſe was only this: They being Members of a Goſpell Church, did eat at Banquets of thoſe Meates, which were before ſacrificed to their Idols, they did not ſacrifice with them, but only foreign, they did foreign. After the Idolaters had been ſacrificing, they came to their Feaſts, ſimply to eat the meat was nothing, nor had the Idol made it worſe, and had it been ſold in the Shambles the Apoſtle determined before, that they might have bought it, and eat it; that which altered the caſe, was onelyonly the ſhew that it made to the Idolaters of their complying with them, and the circumſtances of time and place; yet the Apoſtle determines this a fellowſhip with Devils and Idolatry, ſuch a ſin as they who are guilty of it, could have no communion with Chriſt in this Ordinance. Suppoſe they had made a compact with the Devill, or gone and worſhipped the Idols, ſurely the Apoſtle would much more have ſaid it of ſuch.
3. I cannot ſee but every ſcandalous ſinner, every Drunkard, Swearer, Adulterer, &c. hath as great a fellowſhip with Devils, as the Corinthians had.
One thing I deſire you to obſerve. There might be latent grace in theſe Corinthians hearts, and doubtleſs was, yet while they lay under this ſcandall, the Apoſtle determines that they were ſuch as could not eat at the Table, nor drink of the cup of the Lord. Whence I conclude, That there may be ſuch in a Church, concerning whom it may be knowne that they cannot eat at the Lords Table, nor drink the Lords cup. It will not be enough to ſay, that God may give them repentance for ought we know at the time, or upon their receiving. In the mean time, till their repentance bee evident, they may be knowne, and ought to be judged by us, as ſuch as cannot eat at the Lords Table, nor drink the Lords cup.
It is cleare, Clem: Alex. in paedagogo. l. 2. p. 143.144. edit. cut. 1629. Tertullianus ſpectac. l. c. 12. Cypr. in ep. 10. queeſt ad Clerum l. de lapſis non procul ab initio.that the Ancients thought this having fellowſhip with Devils, was of vaſt extent; one applies it to all ſuch as intemperately uſe the Creatures; Tertullian applies it, to forbid any kind of preſence at, or countenancing of any ſuperſtitious practices, though but a looking on, in his book de ſpectaculis. Cyprian, in his Tenth Epiſtle, chideth the Presbyters by vertue of this very Text, that they would admit to the Lords Supper, ſuch as had ſacrificed to Idols, (through feare) before they had ſufficient evidence of their repentance, and tels us that the Church in in his time for leſſer offences, was wont to require ſatisfaction before Communion was allowed to the ſinners: And in his book de lapſis, he doth ſadly lament the haſty admiſſion of ſuch to the Sacrament. Gualther ad loc.Gu…lther obſerves from this Text, the vanity of thoſe who maintaine that any ſinners how notoriouſly wicked ſoever, might yet partake at this holy Table.
I ſhall adde no more to this ſecond Argument. If it be unlawfull to give the Sacrament to ſuch as are known to be ſuch as God hath forbidden to take it, and as cannot have Communion with Chriſt in it, then it is unlawfull to give it to ſome ſuch, as may yet be within the boſome of the Church. But I have proved the former unlawfull.—Ergo I proceed.