Answer to Four Serious Questions Concerning Excommunication, Postscript
A Poſtſcript concerning a ſecond Edition of theſe foure Queſtions.
VVHen I had well nigh finiſhed this Anſwer to your foure Queſtions, with the Preface and Concluſion, I was ſhewed a ſecond Edition, with ſome alterations. I wondred in many reſpects at the former, but in ſome, much more at this ſecond: Of which I ſhall now give you a briefe account, that neither you nor our Readers may complaine of mee, as careleſſe or injurious.
Firſt, you have now Engliſhed your Quotations of Aretius in your Preface, and firſt queſtion, which while it ſtood in Latine, I over-lookt in my Anſwer. But now I muſt needs take a little notice of it. As for his firſt ſentence, may it not be true of all exerciſe, even of civill authoritie? Yet he ſhould (juſtly) incur your blame, that would uſe ſuch language to blaſt any lawfull authoritie (and if this Ecclefiaſticall pleaded for be not lawfull, no danger of a buſe muſt limit it, but the intrinſecall evill of it, muſt reject it altogether,) 2. Next, your Author himſelfe ſeemes to wiſh it, while he would not have men despaire of reſtoring it. If it be ſo dangerous or evill, as ſome would make it, it is the object of Feare and Hatred, not of Deſire or Deſpaire. 3. Hee layes the blame on mens manners, that will not ſubmit to ſuch a diſcipline. This commends the Diſcipline, though it blame the oppoſers of it. When David ſhould have puniſht Joabs murther of Abner, he ſaith the ſons of Zerviah were too hard for him. This commends juſtice, though it could not then be executed. 4. As for his laſt clauſe, you were (it ſeemes) willing to make your Readers merrie in theſe ſad times; and yet (I doubt) his double metaphor of Mus and Spongia joyned together, will mar the mirth of moſt that look on it, unleſſe they be ſo wiſe as to laugh at they know not what. 5. But were Aretius never ſo fully yours in all the Queſtions (which he is not) though I deſpiſe him not, yet hee cannot overweigh, nor counter-ballance Calvin, Beza, and others that have written clearly and ſtrongly for us. Muchleſſe is he to be oppoſed to all the Reformed Churches, who are ſo abundantly knowne to have for many ſcores of yeares practiſed, what we are now labouring for.
Secondly, next I find you have inſerted ſome words in divers paſſages, which ſo far as I underſtand them, do exceedingly alter the ſenſe, and the ſtate of your Queſtions. As firſt in your ſecond Queſtion, after theſe words, Not actually excommunicated for ſome notorious ſcandall upon a legall conviction; you add, Or judicially accuſed, Pendente lite. Secondly, afterward Queſt. 4. after the words, Not actually excommunicated, you add again, Or judicially accuſed of ſome groſſe ſcandall, Pendente lite. And thirdly in your concluſion, whereas before you ſaid, Not actually excommunicated; now you ſay Not actually, or preparatorily, excommunicated. What do you, or can you meane by this, which deſtroyes what the reſt of your paper builds, or builds what that deſtroyes. Do you not, to any Readers underſtanding, ſeeme, not to argue againſt keeping ſuch from the Sacrament, who are judicially accuſed, Pendente lite. And is not this to grant ſuſpenſion from the Sacrament, before excommunication? Let but us obtaine this power, with relation to all ſcandals, to keep away ſuch as are judicially accuſed, Pendente lite, and we will promiſe you to ask no more. Have you not then with this daſh of your pen yeelded us our whole cauſe? and been a Spongia, to cenſure your paper, unâ litur…? Againe, What is to be preparatorily excommunicated, but ſuſpended? You pretend not to argue againſt that: We deſired no more. Shall wee be friends then? And will you be entertained of our Counſell, to plead our Cauſe, ſo far as theſe new inſerted phraſes will beare? If ſo, I ſhall love a ſecond Edition, (foreign) the better as long as I live. Fourthly, you interpoſe theſe words neere the end of pag. 3. [Everie Christian hath a right to the Sacrament, 1 Cor. 10.4, 5, 16, 17, 18. Mat. 26.27.] I anſwer: An Originall Right, no man denies; as everie free-borne ſubject hath a right to go abroad to the market or elſewhere, without reſtraint; and ſue for debts, and challenge the protection of the Laws: But you will not ſay, but he may forfeit this right for a time, he may deſerve to be baniſht, outlawed, impriſoned; and impriſoned for ſome accuſations, even upon ſuſpition. In like ſort may a man forſeit his right to the Sacrament for a time, ſo as to be baniſht (excommunicated) or reſtrained of this ſpirituall libertie, by ſuſpenſion, which if in ſome caſes it may not be, even for ſuſpition, yet at leaſt upon unqueſtionable proofes of ſcandalous practices. Neither do the Text you cite gain-ſay this. For though all the Iſraelites, 1 Cor. 10. are ſaid to eat of the ſame ſpirituall meat, and to drink of the ſame ſpirituall drink; yet this was not quâ ſpirituall meat or drink, not as Sacramentall food; but a they had no other at all to eat or drink. The other verſes ſpeak only of the joynt participation of Chriſtians, which is not denyed ordinatily. And Mat. 26.27. though it ſayes, Drink yee all of this, yet it ſaith ſo to none, but thoſe that were not convicted of any ſcandall, even Iudas was not proved (nor ſo much as openly named) Trayrour or Devill; but the Diſciples at the Supper ſay, touching themſelves, Lord, is it I? no man points at him, and ſaith, Lord, is it he? Therefore neither that ſpeech Drinke yee all of it, (not Iudas his admiſſion, as was roucht before) declares all Chriſtions to have ſuch a right to the Sacrament, as that they cannot fall from it, no not for a time. But notwithſtanding, they have often been admitted, they may appeare ſo unworthy, by ſcandall and impenitence, as that they cannot for the preſent claim that right; and it is for his own good alſo, that he cannot claime it, as a man in a diſtraction, or violent ſeaver, cannot claime the uſe of thoſe things that would undoubtedly do him miſchief but may be kept from them, even from meat & drink, by thoſe that are about him, ſpecially by thoſe that have any power over him. Finally, you have ſome marginals, the firſt is Q 1. p. 2. unto the words of 1 Cor. 5.11. With ſuch an one no not to eat. Your Margent ſaith, not meant of eating the Sacrament, &c. I anſwer. Not properly thoſe words at firſt, for the Apoſtle makes his ſentence an argument à minori ad majus: you muſt put away wicked perſons out of the Church, becauſe with ſuch you muſt not ſo much as eat, willingly, at an ordinary table, if you can avoyd it. It is granted then that it is meant in familiar civill converſation (ſo that you might have ſpared all your conſequent Texts, which yet would hardly prove interpretations of 1 Cor. 5. eſpecially ſome of them, if it were needfull to ſpeak to them particularly.) But I pray, offer but to analize the Apoſtles Diſcourſe there, and make him ſpeak ſenſe in bringing in theſe words, while he was urging them to put away the inceſtuous Corinthian (and ſo making a rule for other ſcandalous ſinners.) To what purpoſe ſaith he, No, not to eat? but that more is meant; you muſt not ſo much as eat with him at home, therefore much leſſe allow him to eat with you in the Congregation.
Your ſecond Note is to prove Iudas was at the Sacrament: I have granted it; and ſo am contented to ſay no more of it: except in thanks for your proofes, to requite you with the Anſwer of your Objection hence (and prevention of ſome other) a little more fully then before, in the words of the French Catechiſm, which follow.
The 55. Sunday.
Q. Ovght the Paſtors, to whom the Dispenſation (of the Sacraments) is committed, to admit every one without any difference?
A. As for Baptiſm, becauſe now adayes it is only adminiſtred to Infants, there is no room for any making a difference. But in the Lords Supper the Miniſter ought to take heed that he give it to none who appeares openly to be unworthy.
Q. Why ſo?
A. Becauſe it cannot bee done without reproaching and profaning the Sacrament.
Q. But did not Chriſt vonchſafe to Iudas, though he was a wicked man, the participation of it?
A. I acknowledge it, while as yet his impiety was concealed. For though it was not hidden from Chriſt, yet it had not broken out as yet into the light and knowledge of men.
Q. What muſt be done then to Hypocrites?
A. The Paſtor cannot put them away as unworthy, but muſt let them alone, untill ſuch time as God reveale their wickedneſſe, that it may be known to men.
Q. What if the Miniſter himſelfe know any man to be unworthy, or any hath admoniſhed him of it?
A. Even this will not ſuffice to put him from the Communion, unleſſe hereunto be added a legall cognizance and judgement of the Church upon it.
Q. It is requiſite then to have a certaine ſetled order of Government in the Church?
A. It is ſo. For otherwiſe they are not well managed or rightly regulated. Therefore this is the order, that Elders be appointed, who are to cenſure mens manners, and watch over the ſcandals that may ariſe, and to debarrt ſuch from the Sacrament as they know to be unworthy, and who cannot be admitted without diſhonour to God, and ſcandall to the Faithfull.
Your third note is Q. 3. pag. 3. upon not partaking of other mens ſins. You ſay, 1 Tim. 5.22. not meant of adminiſtving the Sacrament. I anſwer. No man ſayes it is only meant of that; but you have not diſproved this to be included, which we contend for; That to ſuffer ſcandalous perſons by thoſe that have authority to judge them (as you have not yet denied the Elderſhip to have) is to partake of their ſins: And I think I have proved it.
But your laſt Note, running along almoſt all your laſt page, is an admirable one, about the Miniſters private opinion. There, if ever, you ſet up a man of ſtraw and ſight againſt him, or fight againſt your own ſhadow. For what Relator (or Delator) told you this was the Aſſemblies advice? Or what book of Diſcipline or particular Writer, plead, for ſuch a Power in a fingle Miniſter, as you oppugn; Why then do you inſinuate them guilty of going about to introduce the greareſt ſpirituall Tyranny that ever was heard or practiſed in the Chriſtian world, and to make every Miniſter an abſolute Pope? I adde, and … then a Pope; for a Pope in Church cenſures hath uſually I take …, his Cardinals with him. But, if we diſclaime this, will you grant us the reſt? Will you yeeld that the Elderſhip, upon juſt proofe, may ſuſpend for any ſcandall? If ſo, all is well: If not, why do you trouble your ſelf and them, & the world, and make men beleeve ſo vile and odious a ſlander of them (as thouſands will beleeve it upon the ſight of your Paper) as if they were as badde as the Pope, or worſe, the greateſt Tyrants in the world to Conſcience.
It was not an Enemy that reproached me, ſaith complaining David. I will ask no other Reparation then what your own Ingenuity will prompt you unto, when you ſee your Errour.
Your concluding Text for Moderation, I ſhall only turne into this Prayer; God give us all ſpirits of meekneſſe, and lead us into all Truth by Ieſus Chriſt. Amen.
FINIS.
End of the text · Herbert Palmer, Answer to Four Serious Questions Concerning Excommunication (1645)