A Double Reply, Chapter 4
CHAP. IV. VVhere'n a third and fourth Argument is brought to prove that ſuſpenſion diſtinct from excommunication is deducible from Scripture; and the Argument is vindicated from the exceptions which Thomas Eraſtus, Mr Prin, Mr Humfry, &c. have made to it.
ARGVMENT 3.
It is unlawfull for the Officers of a Church, to give the Sacrament to ſuch, with whom it is unlawfull for themſelves or their breehren to eat.
But there may be ſome in the Church not caſt out, with whom it may be unlawfull for the Church to eat—Ergo.
THE major is cleer. The minor I will prove by an Argument or two.
It is unlawfull to keep the Feaſt with the old leaven of malice and wickedneſſe. Argument 1 But there may be ſuch old leaven in the Church.—Ergo
Here I have two things to prove.
1. That there may be ſome ſuch in the Church as the Apoſtle cals old Leaven.
2. That it is unlawfull to keep the feaſt of the Lords Supper with them.
Let us firſt enquire what the Apoſtle cals old Leaven. 1 Cor. 5.7.
Eraſtus is very loth to tell us what he meanes by it; Certe quicquid per f…rmentum intelligamus, &c. theſi. 17.onelyonly like a good d…ſputant, he denies the concluſion, that excommunication is not ſpoken of in that Text; but that is the foreign.
It is a plaine caſe that the Apoſtle there, as chiding the Corinthians, that they did not caſt out the incestuous perſon: and amongſt other Arguments he uſeth this. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.: what the engliſh of that is, I cannot tell, if it be not this. A knowne ſcandalous perſon amongſt you, polluteth your Church; It followes immediately, Purge out therefore the old leaven; is not the meaning of this think we, purge out the inceſtuous perſons? ver. 8. Lot us keep the Feaſt not with the old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice or wickedneſſe. Surely he that hath not ſo ſacrificed his reaſon to Eraſtus, that he is reſolved jurare in verba Magiſtri, muſt ſay by the leaven of malice and wickedneſſe here, is meant ſcandalous ſinners. The leaven that leaveneth the lump; (of which he ſpake before) and this is the primary ſence, though I eaſily grant we are alſo here forbidden comming to it with malice and wickedneſſe in our owne hearts. Beza de Preſbyterio & excom. p. 89.8. a. Nam & nos de illis ſolis diſputamus qui peccatum ſuum, agnoſcunt & meliora promittunt. Eraſt. lib. 3. cap. 7.And of this mind is Learned Beza (I am ſure) in his anſwer to Eraſtus, and thinkes that he who denies it, would deny the Sun to ſhine at noon day too (if need were.) And this Argument ſo far prevailed upon Eraſtus, that in his reply to Beza, he tels us he pleades for none to be admitted to the Sacrament, but ſuch as acknowledge their ſins, and promiſe reformation. And Mr Humfry is angry with Dr Drake, Mr. Humfrie's rejoinder. p. 21.that he ſhould interpret him otherwiſe then of ſuch to be kept away, as are excommunicate de jure or de facto: if I underſtand Latine or School-termes; one de jure excommunicate, is ſuch a one as is ſcandalous and pertinacious, either-refuſing conviction or reformation; we ask no more then this is. But the miſery is this; theſe men tel us ſo, when they are put to a p…ch. But as Mr Rutherſord notes of Eraſtus ſo the reader may obſerve in Mr Humfry, Rutherford's divine right of Presbyt. p. 363.that all their Arguments in other places conclude for the admiſſions of ſuch as are de jure excommunicate. Elſe Mr Humfry was not in his right wits, when he returned … no…eſt inventa upon ſuſpenſion, onelyonly I cannot allow Mr Humfrie's expoſition of de jure, reſtraining it to ſuch gaole ſins as he doth, (ſurely the man thinkes he hath the Law in his owne hands, or elſe he would deſcribe ſuch to be excommunicated de jure, who according to …he Law of God, ought to be caſt out of the Church, …nd thoſe are all ſuch as will not heare the Church, Mat. 18.18.…hough their ſcandals be leſſe then an inceſtuous mar…age, or an act of adultery. But to returne, we have …ound …ut the old leaven to be ſcandalous ſi…ners. Now, …hat ſuch may be in a Church beſides this prooſe from …he Church of Corinth, our owne Church is ſuffici…nt evidence.
It remaines for me to prove that it is not lawfull to communicate with ſuch.
That I prove by thoſe words; Let us therefore keep the Feaſt, not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven …f malice and wickedneſſe. From whence is eaſily gahered, that Chriſtians ought not to keep the Feaſt with candalous ſinners.
All the queſtion here is, whether the Feaſt of the …ords Supper be there intended. theſi. 17.Thomas Eraſtus …aith no, for then it would follow that men might be wicked at any other time, Beza de excom. page 90.91.onelyonly then they muſt abſtaine. Learned Beza tels him of a fallacy in his argument; for the Jewiſh 7 dayes ſignified our conſtant converſation, and as they were to abſtaine from their leaven ſeven dayes; ſo we are to abſtaine at all times from the leaven of ſin and wickedneſſe. But beſides this, Rutherford's divine right of Preſ. page 349.Mr Rutherford hath ſufficiently anſwered this cavill
But I admire at Eraſtus his conſequence, or the force of his Argument.
For admit that by leaven here is meant ſcandalous ſinners, I ſee no hurt of his argument; we will y…e…d him, that a Chriſtian is not onelyonly bound to avoid communion with ſcandalous ſinners at the Lords Table, but all the yeare long.
2. Suppoſe that by leaven be meant ſin and wickedneſſe, not conſidered with aggravation of ſcandall, how it will follow, that becauſe we are bound to purge it out when we come to the Lords Supper, therefore we may let it alone all the yeare long. Beſide, that time poſeth my Logick, except Eraſtus thinkes that becauſe the Jewes never medled with leaven but then. Therefore (the ſimilitude running on all four belike) we muſt doe ſo ſo; which if he doth Beza hath anſwered him.
2. But what feaſt is this? Ruth. ibid.By this Feaſt I underſtand Church communion in the dainties of the Goſpell which are ſet forth to us under the ſimilitude of … eaſt Matt. 22. Lu. 14 16 17, 18. Pro. 9.2, 3, 4, 5. Cant. 5.1. (ſaith Mr Rutherford.)
This place cannot be reſtrained to the Lords Supper onelyonly, ſaith Reverend Gill ſ…y, Gilleſpy …arons rod. l. 3 c. 7but the Lords Supper muſt needs be comprehended as one, yea, a great part of the meaning.
And ſurely there's all the reaſon in the world it ſhould, conſidering what Mr S. Rutherford obſervee that Chriſtians have no ſolemne ſpirituall Feaſts but that, Rutherford divine right. cap. 11.9, 7. Gil. loc. praed.eſpecially if we add (ſaith Mr Gilleſpy) the Analogy of the Paſſeover, there much inſiſted upon.
But I add further, what Feaſt is here meant I wonder? Surely the Apoſtle doth not ſpeak of any civill ordinary Feaſt, nor any of the Moſaicall Feaſts. It muſt then be of ſome ſpirituall Goſpell-Feaſt. Let us conſider how this metaphoricall expreſſion is uſed elſewhere. I remember but two places in Scripture, where this terme Feaſt is uſed in a metaphoricall ſenſe. Pro. 15.15. A good conſcience is a continuall feaſt, that is, a good continuall cauſe of joy and rejoycing. The other is, Ravanella in Verbo. Feſtum.Iſ. 25. (of which by and by) Ravanella ranks all the uſages of the terme in the Old Teſtament, where it is taken for the whole or any part of the Jewiſh Worſhip, under the metaphoricall acceptation; and tels us that Zach. 14.16, 18, 19. it is taken for all the Goſpell-worſhip: For the Jewiſh worſhip all their ſervice almoſt might properly be called a Feaſt, becauſe they had literall Feaſts at them.—But 'tis certaine the Apoſtle here doth not exhort the Corinthians to keep the Jewiſh Feaſts: Nor can feaſt be taken for joy and mirth, as Pro. 15.15. for then the ſenſe is this; Let us keep a Feaſt of joy; which any reader will ſee, was not the Apoſtles meaning.
It remains therefore that we expound it by. Iſ. 25.6. where the Lord promiſes to make a Feaſt of fat things. By which he promiſeth all Goſpell-Ordinances, and a Goſpell-Communion with his people. God makes the Feaſt in giving us Chriſt and his Ordinances: we keep the feaſt in waiting upon God, in all the duties of Church-Communion. Let us keep the Feaſt is, Let us walk in a communion in Goſpell Ordinances. Let us enjoy Goſpell Ordinances, and worſhip God together under the Goſpell. Not with the leaven of malice and unrighteouſneſs, not in a ſcandalous communion, &c.
Thomas Eraſtus ſaith that by feaſt is meant here, Confirm. theſ. 1. cap. 6. So Mr Humfry's vind. p. 85 v Chryſ. in or atione contra eos qui novilunia obſervant, & & Homil. 40. c. in 12. cap. Mat.a Chriſtians whole converſation. I confeſſe I find ſome Reverend Expoſitors of his mind (though it may be not wholly. Chryſoſtome is the moſt Ancient, who in his Oration againſt thoſe who obſerved new Moons, and brought dancings into the City; expounds it thus againſt them, teiling his hearers, that a Chriſtians whole life is a Feaſt, and to be ſo ſpent. And he ſaith as much (as I remember) in his fourth Homily, on the twelth Chapter of Matthew. Theophylact followes him, and yet neither of them reſtraine it to that: No more doth Beza, Calv. ad loe.who yet ſtretcheth it to that latitude. Calvin alſo hints it, but adds. Si Chriſti carne & ſanguine paſci velimus, afferamus ad hoc epulum ſinceritatem & veritatem; whence may eaſily be gathered, that Mr Calvin. thought the Sacament of the Body and Blood of Chriſt was alſo here intended; which is enough for me.
I acknowledge many reverend Expoſitors expound it of an holy life; Ego vero ſoli ſcripturae hunc bonorem deſerendum cenſco, &c. H…eron.'tis enough for me that they doe not exclude the Lords Supper, and I muſt be excuſed if for the reaſons before ſpecified, I think it chiefly meant; For I have learned (with Hierom) to give this honour onelyonly to the ſacred Word of God, to beleeve what it ſaith, becauſe it faith it. Firſt therefore I ſay
1. The Lords Supper is a part of the Goſpell-Feaſt, and the onelyonly proper Feaſt of it.
2. The relation this Text hath to the Paſseover ſeemes to me to prove it.
3. It was doubtleſs chiefly in reference to this Communion that the Church was to be purged for ſome civill Communion, and ſome Communion with an inceſtuous perſon in other Ordinances may be allowed.
But if we ſhould admit this, that the meaning were, that we ſhould not in our converſation have Communion with ſcandalous ſinners. I ſee no harme at all would follow upon it. For ſurely if we ought not to converſe with ſuch in our civill converſation, much leſs is it lawfull for us to have Communion with ſuch at the Lords Table. And ſurely if it be unlawfull for Chriſtians to have Communion with ſuch (though in the Church) it is unlawfull for the Officers of the Church to admit ſuch to Communion with them. But this we ſhall fall in with anon, in the mean time I maintaine that the clear ſenſe of that place is, that we ought not to have a Communion at the Lords Supper with ſcandalous ſinners.
But I ſhall come to a ſecond Argument. Argument 2
If there may be ſome in the Church not yet caſt out by excommunication, who are Fornicators, or Covetous, or Idolaters, or Railers, or Drunkards, or Extortioners, then there may be ſome ſuch in the Church, with whom a Chriſtian ought not to eat the Lords Supper. But there may be ſuch in the Church,—Ergo.
The minor will be eaſily granted. The major I ground on 1 Cor. 5.11.
All that can be ſaid in the caſe, is, that the eating there forbidden, is not eating the Lords Supper. So ſaith Thomas Eraſtus, Confirm. theſi. p. 258. l. 3. c. 8. vind. p. 83.84. Mr Prins vind. of 4 ſerious queſtions. p. 9.ſo Mr Prin, ſo Mr Humfry. To this two things have been already anſwered, and except I ſee need, I ſhall add little of my own.
1. That it can never be proved, that it is not meant of Sacramentall eating, but of civil eating.
2. That there are grounds for the contrary opinion.
3. That admitting it, yet the Argument ſtands ſtrong.
Firſt, I deſire to know a reaſon why our adverſaries will needs reſtraine that Text to a civill Communion. Eraſtus gives theſe reaſons.
1. The Apoſtles precept concerning denying Communion, muſt not be ſo interpreted as to contradict Chriſts precept. But Chriſt commanded all to receive. Beza grants both, Beza de Preſh. & excom. p. 70.and anſwers that Chriſt might command his Apoſtles to doe that which conſidering the time he did not.
But although I reverence Beza, yet I think he hath granted too much, and beſides that, his anſwer is not to the objection, which is founded, not on Chriſts practice, but his precept. I deny the Aſſumption therefore, and demand of Eraſtus, and all his followers, Eraſt. theſes. theſi. 26.27 28.where Chriſt commands to give the Sacrament to all. Eraſtus tels us he hath proved it, but where, none knowes, all that I find in him looking that way, is but a negative argument. Chriſt did not forbid any, nor doe we find that he left his diſciples any ſuch order, nor ever reproved any that they did come to the Sacrament; all which comes ſhort of this, that Chriſt did command the adminiſtration to all, theſi. 30.and it is too weake that Eraſtus hath theſi. 30. that Chriſt ſaid drink ye all of it, for thoſe all were all viſible ſaints; though Judas was there (which ſhall never be proved) yet Judas was not diſcovered to the communicants: It is worth the obſerving, that Chriſt did not ſo much as call up the Jewes in the ſame houſe, which he would have done probably, if he had intended for all. Eraſtus ſaith, page. 249.Chriſt inviteth all to repentance—Ergo to the Sacrament. If the ſyllogiſme be put in forme ſaith Mr Rutherford, the major is blaſphemy; Ruth. divine right. page 362.for by the ſame argument might be proved, that God invites Pagans to the Sacrament.—See more in him.
Eraſtus hath another Argument. If the Apoſtle did here forbid theſe ſcandalous ſinners the Sacrament, he had contradicted himſelfe.—But he doth not contradict himſelfe. The major lies upon the Doctor to prove.
His looſe lines muſt be thus formed.
Hee that ſhould here forbid ſcandalous perſons the Sacrament, Etenim paulo poſt licentius viventibus non interdicit nec interdicere jubet Sacramentorum uſum…ſed judicium Dei proponit. Eraſt. confirm theſ. p. 249and a little after, cap. 11. not forbid looſe livers the Sacrament, onelyonly ſet before them their danger, contradicts himſelfe.
I will go no further, here's enough to be denyed. Is it a contradiction? I wonder if I ſhould write a letter to my friends, and in the beginning of it ſay, I will not have you come in ſuch a gameſters company & a little after in the ſame Letter, tell my friends, I heare ſome of them have been in gameſters company, and God will be revenged of them, if they follow ſuch courſes, I have not eyes to ſee it if it be. This is the very caſe here, muſt Paul needs forbid that, cap. 11. that which he forbids cap. 5. or, doth he contradict himſelfe?
This is all that Eraſtus hath to ſay for it, which is to little purpoſe.
That learned and worthy Gentleman (whom I am loth to name in this cauſe) pretends to give three reaſons why the Sacramentall eating is not here mean….
Firſt, becauſe there is not a word of receiving the Lords Supper in this Chapter, Vind. p. 9.10.and in the 10 and 11. Chapters he ſaith no ſuch thing (though he profeſſedly treats of it.)
His Learned Adverſary ſufficiently anſwers him. 1. Gilleſpies Aarons rod. l. 3. c. 7Deſiring him to prove that the 7. 8. verſe of this Chapter, is not meant of the Lords Supper 2. Telling him that in the 24 page of his book, himſelfe confeſſeth from this Chapter, that the Paſſeover and the Lords Supper are the ſame for ſubſtance, and that Aretius ſo expounds it. Aret. prob. loc. 80.To that I have ſpoke already.
Mr Prinn objects that 1 Cor. 10.16, 17. the Apoſtle ſaies they were all partakers of one bread; yet in he Church of Corinth were ſome ſcandalous, ſome druntards that came ſo to the Table, &c.
Mr Gilleſpy anſwers him, That the word all can be of no larger extent then viſible Saints, ſuch as were thoſe to whom the Epistle was directed, and ſurely viſible workers of iniquity, cannot be viſible Saints.
Saith Mr Gilleſpy, he ſhall never prove that thoſe that were drunk at the Sacrament, in the Church of Corinth, came thither ſuch, foreign.or were drunk the night before, or knowne drunkards; if they were drunk, it was there, which the Apoſtle could not know before they came; where by the way, I deſire my Reader to take notice of the invalidity of this plea of Mr Boatman's, for the admitting ſuch as are knowne before hand to be ſcandalous ſinners.Plus ſatis bibit. G…otius ad loc Quanquam ego non exiſtimarem de eâ ſermonem fieri qua homines alienati a ſenſu & mente fuſi jacent, ſed potius de larga compotatione ita ut liberalius bibendo plus aequo exbilarati eſſent. P. Mart. ad loc.
I add further, that he ſhall never be able to prove they were drunk; the word there uſed is foreign, which doth not alwaies ſignifie to drink drunke, but often to drink liberally and well. So Io. 2.10. The ſence is onelyonly this, you come to the Table of the Lord in parties diſorderly; firſt one company comes, and they drink liberally, more then they need, then the others come, and they have none to drink. Nor is this a new notion, I find it in Peter Martyr, Grotius, Eſtius ad loc. Beza in Io. 2.10. tranſlateth this word affatim bibere, and why he might not have done ſo here, if it had pleaſed him, I cannot tell. This Dr Drake hinted Mr Humfry of, and Mr Humfry in his late vindication, is ſo ingenious as to allow it. So I hope now it may paſſe currant, and wee ſhall heare this pleaded no more by Mr Humfry or Mr Boatman, that drunkards were admitted to the Sacrament in the Church of Corinth.
4. Eſpecially conſidering, (what Mr Gilleſpy hath already ſaid) that although it could be proved that there were drunkards, and other ſcandalous ſinners there, yet it can never be proved that they were admitted to the Sacrament.
5. I will add one thing more, the Apoſtle doth not ſay, 1 Cor. 10.16, 17. you are all partakers of one bread, (which if he had, it would have been ſomething more to have proved that the ſcandalous ſinners in the Church of Corinth were admitted to this Ordinance, but he ſaith no ſuch thing, he ſaith we are all partakers of one bread; that is, while we (who are Saints) wair upon God in that Ordinance, we partake of one bread, and are one body; yea, and that he ſaith they were one body, he plainly proves that the ſcandalous ſinners did not partake of that one Bread. But of that more anon.
6. Laſtly, ſuppoſe this were true, that ſome of the Corinthians were notoriouſly ſcandalous. 2. That theſe were admitted to the Lords Supper, that St Paul doth not in ſo many words command their ſuſpenſion, how doth this yet prove, that ſcandalous ſinners ought to be admitted, till Mr Humfry or Mr Boatman have proved 1. That the Church of Corinth did nothing amiſſe. 2. That becauſe the Apoſtle did not foreign in ſo many words ſay, drunkards keep away, therefore he did allow them to come; any more then it will prove women ought to keep away, becauſe Paul no where ſaith expreſly, you beleeving women come, as well as men? So that this reaſon which is purely negative, though urged by Eraſtus, Mr Prin, Mr Humphry, and Mr Boatman will never inferre that it is lawfull to adminiſter the Sacrament to all, much leſſe prove that Sacramentall eating is not meant in the Text.
Mr Prins ſecond Argument is, becauſe if we ſhould ſo expound it, moſt of our members muſt be excluded.
But Mr Gilleſpy hath told him, Aarons rod. p. 426.this is nothing to the purpoſe; 'tis quickly anſwered. 1. Let God be true, and his Word true, (though men be found lyars. Fiat juſtitia, pereat Mundus. 2. We hope moſt of our members are not ſcandalouſly under thoſe qualifications. Man judgeth by the outward appearance.
Mr Prins third and laſt reaſon is, becauſe it is clearly meant of civill familiarity. So ſaith Eraſtus, Vind. 4. ſerious queſt. p. 10.3. Eraſt. confirm. theſ. l. 4. cap. 3. vind. p. 84. Rejoinder. p. 261ſo Mr Humfry; ſo many others which wee will allow, if they will not underſtand it excluſively. But let us ſee how they can prove it, that it muſt needs onelyonly be underſtood of civill eating.
1. Saith Mr Prin, he had expounded it twice before, by that very phraſe not to keep company, Gilleſpy p. 427that phraſe is indeed twice before; but ſaith Mr Gilleſpy, having twice before forbidden that, it appeares here he meanes ſomething more.
I meet with one reaſon more in Mr Prin (ſaith he) it cannot be meant of eating at the Lords Table, ibid 4.becauſe this precept extends to thoſe out of the Church alſo who were ſuch as appeares by v. 10.11, 12, 13. compared together.
I anſwer, Sol.that thoſe who are Chriſtians ſhould not have any Communion with Heathens that are profane I grant.
2. That they are forbidden here I cannot ſee.
Thirdly the Apoſtle ſaith, ver. 5. If any man be called a brother, and be ſuch or ſuch, &c. and plainly tels them ver. 10. that his meaning was not that they ſhould altogether forbeare company with the fornicators of the world.
Fourthly admit this, That this precept concernes our carriage to Heathens as well as Brethren, though not equally as Mr Prin confeſſeth, yet how doth it follow that the not eating here cannot be underſtood of Sacramentall eating; indeed it will follow it cannot be meant of that onelyonly which we doe not contend for.
I meet with no more pretended reaſons. Mr Humfry hath magiſterially told us he is of this mind, but hath given us no reaſon; neither in his vindication, nor his rejoinder.
I have done the firſt thing, ſhewing you that there hath not yet been made appear by any ſufficient ground that the not eating here is to be reſtraind to civill Communion, if it were, it would be to no great purpoſe, onelyonly it would make us make uſe of this Scripture as a radix for an undeniable Argument, whereas yet we plead for a direct literall prohibition; but of that in the third place.
I come now to my ſecond taske, in which I ſhall do two things.
1. I ſhall ſhew you ſome grounds which may make us probably judge, that the Sacramentall eating, was the chiefe thing here intended.
2. Why civill Communion ſhould not bee the onelyonly thing here forbidden.
As to the firſt, take theſe grounds for my opinion.
Firſt, by the Feaſt before mentioned, ver. 8. he meant the Sacrament, this immediately followes: That by the Feaſt v. 8. the Sacrament is meant I ſhewed before.
Secondly, there is no other Ordinance wherein people are to eat one with another but this, and when the Text contradicts not other Scriptures, doubtleſſe it is not to be expounded by a figure.
The buſineſſe of the Apoſtle was, to command the caſting out of the inceſtuous perſon out of Church Communion; in excommunication there are two parts.
The firſt is poſitive, A ſolemn delivering up the obſtinate perſon to Satan. This he commanded before ver. 3.4. The other is privative, and conſiſts in denying of the excommunicate perſon intimacy of civill Communion. 2. Church Communion in ſome Ordinances; as for the firſt he had forbidden it, in theſe words keep no company with ſuch a one. As to the ſecond; he forbids here.—No nor eat with ſuch a one.
I no where read, that the excommunicate perſon muſt not be preached to, for though he be as an Heathen, yet not in a worſe condition as to that ſure. I read he muſt be admoniſhed as a Brother. I read not that we may not pray with him. But we muſt have no Communion with him in ſuch Ordinances which doe belong to a man as a member of the Church. The chiefe of theſe is the Sacrament of the Supper, therefore the Apoſtle forbids to eat with him, that is, at the Lords Table, and ſo he hath given a perfect command for executing a ſentence of excommunication on him, in all its branches, which he ſums up, ver. 13. Therefore put away from amongſt you that wicked perſon.
Fourthly, either Sacramentall eating is here forbidden, or civill eating, or both.
If the firſt or the laſt, 'tis all we ask.
I ſhall now prove the ſecond thing.
2. That it it not probable that civill eating is here forbidden.
1. Civill Communion was twice forbidden before, under the notion of keep no company.
2. Civill Communion ſo far as eating goes, is lawfull for Chriſtians ſure, with a Drunkard, a covetous perſon, or the like; or elſe as the Apoſtle tels us, wee muſt goe out of the world. This Eraſtus, and the worthy Gentleman (ſo often named) foreſaw, and therefore ſpent much paines to work themſelves out of this hedge of difficulty. But I ſhall not digreſſe to follow them; the Reader may ſee Mr Prin (who ſaies moſt) ſufficiently anſwered by his learned Antagoniſt.Gilleſpy Aarons rod. l. 3. c. 7
I come to my third taske.
Admit that the meaning of this Text were what they would have, onelyonly to interdi… Chriſtians a civill Communion with ſcandalous ſinners, yet 'tis nothing to the buſineſſe, for thus we argue.
If from that text it may be concluded unlawfull for Chriſtians to have civill Communion, Quod ſi multorum teſtium va… riâ & conſonanti monitione docemur, cum del… q…entibus fratrious cibo ne quide… veſci, quanto magis debeat & à ſacrificio Chriſti arceri. Cyp. in l. de aleatoribus. Eraſt. theſes theſi 66. vind. 4 ſerious queſt. p. 11. vin. free admiſſion. p. 85. Beza in lib. de excom. & Presb. page 95.and to eat at their own Tables with ſcandalous ſinners, then it is much more unlawfull for them to eat at the Lords Table.
But 'tis granted that it is unlawfull for them to have civill Communion with them.
This Argument hath troubled Eraſtus, and Mr Prin, and Mr Humfry to anſwer. Mr Humfry is ſorry to ſee any gravelled with ſuch a fallacy. Well if it be a fallacy, I hope we ſhall have it diſcovered.
1. Some tell us that there is no ſuch Argument, not to have company, and not to eat, are both the ſame, ſo here is no comparation.
1. To this I anſwer.
1. That Beza hath well obſerved, that the particle here uſed doth import ſuch an argumentation, where the leſſer being denied, the greater is much more denyed. Braſtus himſelfe is ſo ſenſible, that foreign where it divideth, argues two things ſpoken of ſo that he is forced to confeſſe that there are two things. 1. Intimate familiarity with ſuch. 2. Eating with them.
But ſurely the man forgot himſelfe, Vetat ergo duo primum ut non habeant arctam cum talibus conſuetudinem, deinde ut ne quidem edant cum eis. Eraſt. confir. theſium lib. 3.for is it not lawfull for us to eat with a covetous man at our own Table think we?
But ſecondly, I anſwer, this is nothing to the purpoſe, for we, ſuppoſing the Apoſtle ſpeaks of civill eating, raiſe our argument by conſequence from that Scripture foundation.
Secondly therefore the moſt intelligent ſay, that the Argument is falſly drawn to conclude the prohibition of the greater from the leſſe: and to this purpoſe Eraſtus gives us ſome rules, and Mr Prin, and Mr Humfry ſome, to regulate theſe argumentations. Their rules are theſe. (I will examine the truth of them as I goe along) Propoſitions therefore wherein the greater is proved to be denyed, becauſe the leſſer may be true.
1. Eraſtus ſaith it may be true in gifts, In donis non autem in poenis. Confirm. theſ… l. 3. p. 250.but not in puniſhments.
Mr Rutherford tels him, it is true enough for us, if it be true in gifts, for fellowſhip with the Saints is a guift and priviledge, and ſurely if one may have not the leſſer priviledge, he may not have the greater. Rutherford's divine right of Presbyt. p. 366.2. It muſt alſo hold in puniſhments, when the leſſer is inflicted for the cauſe of the higher: is it not a good argument think we, ſuch a man condemned to dy, muſt not come into the Caſtleyard, till his Execution. Ergo much leſſe may he go where he liſt about the Country.
Secondly ſaith Eraſtus, Eraſt. ibid. Mr Prin. p. 11.this Argument is true i… things of the ſame kind, but not in things of diverſe kinds. So Mr Prin, ſo Mr Humfry.
If this be true (ſaith Mr Gilleſpy) the Scripture is ful of falſe Logick. Num. 12.14. If Miriams father had ſpet in her face, Gilleſpy Aarons rod. l. 3 c. 7 Rutherford proves both theſe of the ſame kind. lib. praedi…. ib.ſhould not ſhee have been aſhamed ſeven dayes; how much more when God hath ſmitten her with leproſy? Hag. 1.4. You have built to your ſelves ceiled houſes how much more ought you to have built the Lords houſe Jo 3.12. If I have told you earthly things, and you beleeve not; how ſhal you beleeve, if I tell you heavenly things. 1. Cor. 6.3. Know yee not, that we ſhall judge Angels, how much more things that pertaine to this life. Now mark Reader, how Mr Humfry hath united this knot by accuſing God himſelfe, Jeſus Chriſt, his Prophets his Apoſtles, all of falſe arguings.
Thirdly, ſaith Eraſtus, Eraſt. ibid. Mr Prin. ibid.it muſt be in things that are free, not in ſuch things that are not of our owne power, one being commanded of God, and the other not, as theſe are.
But firſt, Eraſtus ſhould have done well to have told us firſt, where we are commanded to eat with ſcandalous ſinners at the Lords Table.
Secondly, ibid.ſaith Mr Rutherford, he ſhould have proved, that it is a thing free to us to doe or not to doe, to have civill Communion with ſcandalous ſinners, wee alwayes thought we had not been free in that point, but enjoined to a negative.
Laſtly, ſaith Mr Gilleſpy, what becomes of that Scripture Argument then, Gilleſpy ibid.How much better is it to get wiſdome then Gold, and underſtanding then Silver? Wiſdome ſurely is not in our owne power to get.
4. Mr Prin ibid.Mr Prin adds another caſe, wherein he thinks this Argument not concluding, in caſe the two things compared, fall not under the ſame precept, which is the caſe here. But Mr Gilleſpy rightly tels him, this is new Logick; for not to reproach Gods name, is forbidden in the third precept; not to reproach man under the ſixth and ninth. But I hope this is a good Argument, if we may not reproach our neighbour, much leſſe may we reproach our Maker. My Gil. l. 3. c. 7.And it is ſurely as good, if we may not have an intimacy of civill Communion with ſcandalous ſinners, much leſs may we have the neareſt Church fellowſhip and Communion with him.
Thus have I done, (what indeed was done before) at leaſt gathered together what have been ſaid by divers more able to ſtrengthen this Argument.