A Double Reply, Chapter 9
CHAP. IX. Wherein an Eighth and Ninth Argument are brought to prove that Suſpenſion diſtinct from Excommunication is juſtifiable from Scripture, and ſound Reaſon.
ARGUMENT 8.
If none may be ſuſpended from the Sacrament but thoſe who are Excommunicated, then none muſt be kept away but thoſe who are contumacious.
But ſome may be kept away that are not Contumacious.—Ergo.
THe Major is plaine: 1. From Scripture, Mat. 18. none muſt be accounted as an Heathen, or a Publican, but he who refuſeth to heare the Church: Thus alſo Divines generally determine. So Bonaventure, Estius, Aquinas, Suarez, Durandus; beſides a numberleſſe number of Proteſtant Divines.
The Minor only needs proofe.
1. Surely thoſe that are under admonition ought to be kept away, though as yet they declare no Contumacy, and it be uncertaine whether they will or no.
2. Suppoſe one ſhould come to the Miniſter, the morning he were to receive, and blaſpheme Chriſt, and tell him he came for nothing but to abuſe the Church, ought this man to be admitted think we? Suppoſe one ſhould come drunke, ſhall he be admitted? Mr Humfry ſaies no; what Mr Boatman thinks in that caſe I cannot tell; if he ſhall not then there is Suſpenſion diſtinct from Excommunication. Suppoſe a Miniſter ſhould know one of his Communicants had committed Murther, Theft, Inceſt, Whoredom the night before, according to M Boatmans Doctrine he muſt be admitted to the Lords Table, for Suſpenſion of any perſon, not Excommunicated, is a Phariſaicall dream; Suppoſe a Miniſter, upon examination, found that his Communicant did not know whether Chriſt were God or Man, a Man or a Woman, nor any thing of the Story of the Goſpell, muſt he be admitted too? He is neither Turke, nor Jew, nor Pagan, nor Excommunicated perſon. —Ergo, He is holy and muſt come. A Doctrine ſure that every one, who hath any thing of God in him, will ſee the folly and filth of; and which no ſober, pious, or learned man ever yet durſt undertake to defend; and it is a ſhame it ſhould be named amongſt Chriſtians.
If profane, Argument, 9 ſcandalous perſons, though Circumciſed, and not caſt out of the Jewiſh Church, nor legally uncleane, were yet to be debarred from ſome Ordinances, and the Paſſeover, then ſuch, though Baptized, and not Excommunicated, may be ſuſpended from the Lords Supper.
But profane ſcandalous perſons, though Circumciſed, and not caſt out of the Jewiſh Church, nor legally uncleanes yet were to be debarred from the Paſſeover, and other publike Ordinances.
The ſtrength of the conſequence appeares, not only in the Analogy which is betwixt the Paſſeover and the Lords Supper: But alſo in our Adverſaries continuall arguing againſt us from a ſuppoſition of a generall admiſſion to the Paſſeover. This Argument was the beſt ſhaſt in Eraſtus his quiver, Eraſti theſes theſ. 12, 13. Mr Humfry's vind. p. 4.and the very beſt Mr Humfry hath.
The Minor therefore only needs proofe with thoſe with whom we have to deale. And for the proofe of that
Beza proves it againſt Eraſtus from Ezra 6.21. Beza de Excom. p. 19, 20.where none did eate the Paſſeover but ſuch as were ſeparated from the filth of the Heathen of the Land to ſeeke the Lord; And from 2 Chron. 23.19. where Jehojadah, reſtoring the Worſhip of God, ſet Porters to keep out of the Sanctuary thoſe who were uncleane in anything. Mr Gilteſpy proves it againſt Mr Prin, Mr Gilleſpie's Aarons rod, &c. l. 1. c. 9.and Eraſtus too: 1. From the teſtimonies of Philo and Joſephus; and anſwers the two objections from Luk. 18.11, 12, 13. and Joh. 8.2, 3. and proves it by ſeven Arguments in that Chapter; and follows it, Chap. 10.11, 12. in the twelfth Chapter he proves it by fourteen Arguments, which Mr Humfry ſhould have done well to have anſwered, before he had told us ſo confidently that all were admitted to the Paſſeover. Dr Drake's Bar, &c. p. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. M Palmer, &c. anſw. to Mr Humfry vind. Presb Govern. p. 62.Dr Drake hath likewiſe ſufficiently proved it againſt Mr Humfry. Mr Palmer, &c. hath done the like from Num. 15.30, 31. Ezra 10.8. Joh. 9.22. Ez. 22.26. Ezek. 44.7, 9, 13. The Province of London prove it from 2 Chron. 23.19. Ez. 44.7, 8. Lev. 10.10. Ez. 22.26.
I do not thinke it ingenuous, wittingly to paſſe by any thing I heare objected againſt an Argument, therefore though for the maine I leave Mr Humfry to his proper Adverſary, yet becauſe he comes acroſſe me, here I muſt give him a meeting.
Firſt he addes to his Argument (from his ſuppoſed generall admiſſion to the Paſſeover, Mr Humfrie's rejoinder, p. 43, 44, 45, 46, 47.) the example of Judas; but beſides that I have before proved he was not ſcandalous, I have alſo ſaid enough to make a rationall man beleeve he was not there. Dr Drake had argued à conceſſo. Mr Humfry granted, that thoſe who were legally uncleane were not to come. Dr Drake askes the reaſon, why? Surely becauſe they polluted holy things. Mr Humfry ſaies, he would not anſwer ſo ſillily; well, what will this wiſe man anſwer I wiſt? He tels us, Becauſe it was Gods poſitive command they ſhould not come. But this is too ſhort: For let a Chriſtian but enquire further, Why ſhould the Lord command, that one who is a leper, who hath touched a dead body &c. ſhould not come to his Ordinance? Surely his reaſon muſt tell him, becauſe he is an holy and pure God, and will be worſhipped in a cleane and pure manner. And can we thinke that a pure God ſhould determine him, who had a leprous ſore upon him, unfit for his Sanctuary, &c. and yet admit him as worthy, who was a profane ſwearer, blaſphemer, &c. that he who had had Nocturnam pollutionem involuntariam was to be judged uncleane, and the ſame God ſhould judge him cleane who had polluted himſelfe with an Harlot in the night?
A ſecond place which Mr Humfry would anſwer is 2 Chron. Page 45.23.19. and he tels us, that neither the Paſſeover, nor Suſpenſion, nor Morall uncleanneſſe are there ſpoken of.
1. Whether the Paſſeover only be there ſpoken of is nothing to the buſineſſe; There were Porters ſet to keep ſome that were not excommunicated from the Gates of the Lords houſe. So that Suſpenſion of ſome from ſome Ordinances who were not excommunicated is there proved.
2. Mr Humfry boldly ſaies, they were not to keep out the morally uncleane; the Text ſaith, they were to keep out the uncleane Lecal Dabar in any thing; ſo that if there were ſuch a thing as morall uncleanneſſe, and ſuch perſons as morally uncleane perſons, they were to keep them out. Nor is it any thing to the purpoſe that Mr Humfry ſaith, the Levites in ſuch a concourſe could not try and examine them, for by the ſame rule they ſhould not have kept out the legally uncleane; but ſurely thoſe words ſignifie ſomething, they were therefore doubtleſſe tried and judged before, (for it was the Prieſts, not the Levites worke to judge or try the legally uncleane.) But what Mr Humfry ſaith in the laſt place, that the Levites could not hinder the uncleane from eating the Paſſeover, for it was eaten in private houſes, Either argues he hath a mind to cheat his credulous Reader, or that he was not ſo well acquainted with the Jewiſh Cuſtomes as he might have been. It is true, Dr Lightfoots Temple ſervice, c. 12.the Paſſeover was to be eaten in private houſes, but it was to be firſt killed in the Temple, where the fat was to be burned, and the bloud ſprinkled; and if the Levites kept them from comming to kill it, and to ſacrifice it, I thinke they kept them from eating it as a Paſſeover too; they might eate a Lambe indeed in their own, but no Paſchall Lambe.
As to the maine places to prove that there was a Law to ſeclude the morally uncleane from the Paſſeover, Ezra 6.21. Ez. 44.7, 8. Deut. 23.18. à minori ad majus. Jer. 7.9, 10, 11. Pſal. 118.19, 20. Pſal. 15.1. as they are urged by Mr. Gilleſpy, pag. 90, 91. Ez. 22.26. Hag. 2.11, 12, 13, 14. (which proves that morall wickedneſſe was uncleanneſſe then as well as now.) Mr Humfry hath the diſcretion to ſay nothing to them. But I have ſaid enough to eſtabliſh this Argument.