mediately before or immediately after, he hath professed or promised the contrary to his companions in his wickedness, or that he still continueth in the practice of that sin), is not to be excluded as an impenitent sinner from the sacrament. Eighthly, The third query, as also the conclusion of all, runneth upon a great mistake, by reason of the confounding of things which are of a different nature. There is great weight laid upon this, that there is as much sin and danger to a man's soul in his unworthy and unprofitable hearing of the word, as in his unworthy receiving of the sacrament; and, therefore, ministers may as well refuse to preach unto people, whom they deem unprofitable hearers, as refuse to give them the sacrament, because they judge them unmeet to receive it. Whether the sin of unworthy hearing be as great as the sin of unworthy receiving the sacrament, I will not now debate. The Reply which was made to his Queries, by another, hath said enough to that point. But that which I intend in this place, is (for clearing a main principle which we go upon) to distinguish these two things. There are some ordinances appointed for the conversion of sinners; there are other ordinances appointed for the communion of saints. The preaching of the word, and the hearing thereof, though it hath no small influence into the communion of saints, yet it is also appointed for converting and bringing in sinners who have no part in the communion of saints. The sacrament was not appointed for the conversion of sinners, but as peculiar to the communion of saints. The apostles preached to the unbelieving Jews in the temple and synagogues, Acts ii. 46; iii. 11, 12; v. 12, 42; ix. 20, 22, 23. But it is only said of those that gladly received the word, “They continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayer," Acts ii. 42. The apostles preached also to many heathens and idolaters, but they admitted none to the sacraments till they saw such evidences as might persuade them, in the judgment of charity, that they were such as might be admitted. They that are suspended from the sacrament, yea, they that are excommunicated, are admitted to the hearing of the word for their conversion, as the unbelieving 1 A full Answer to a printed paper entitled " Four Serious Questions concerning Excommunication and Suspension," &c. Jews and heathens were. Can any allege the like reason for admitting them to the sacrament? Erastus himself observeth1 that the unclean, under the law, who might not eat of the passover, yet were not forbidden, but commanded, to observe the Sabbath and the feast of expiation. I mention it only as an argument ad hominem. If a sinner be known for an unprofitable hearer of the word, that cannot make it a sin to me to preach any more to him; but if he be known to be a dog or a swine in reference to the sacrament, that will make it a sin to me if I minister the sacrament to him. The reason is, because I am still bound to endeavour his conversion (not knowing that he hath blasphemed against the Holy Ghost), but I am not bound to give him the seal of remission of sins and salvation by Jesus Christ; yea, it were sin to give that seal to him who is visibly and apparently incapable of such sweet and comfortable application of Christ. I conclude, that the suspending of scandalous persons from the sacrament, is neither only nor principally grounded upon the sin and guilt of eating and drinking unworthily, which will cleave to the unworthy communicant, but rather (not excluding the other) upon the nature of the ordinance, which is such as cannot admit of the notoriously scandalous to receive, but that holy ordinance shall thereby be profaned and made common; for what can be more contrary to the nature of that ordinance, and to the institution of Jesus Christ, than to turn the communion of saints into the communion of scandalous sinners, and to make that which was instituted for the comfort of those that repent and believe, to be a comfort and seal of salvation to those who are known by their fruits to have neither repentance nor faith, and so to send them away with a good conceit of their spiritual estate, and thereby to strengthen their hearts and hands in wickedness? Ninthly, The question is not whether all scandalous persons are to be excommunicated and wholly cast out off the church. The Assembly's petition was not concerning excommunicating, but concerning suspending, from the sacrament, all scandalous persons. Yet the current of Mr Prynne's argumen 1 Confirm. Thes., lib. 2, p. 134.-Non tamen pro non Judæo, vel non circumciso, aut pro improbo damnatu habebatur cogebatur nihil ominus secundum ritus patrios vivere, Sabbatum custo dire, aliaque talia facere. Quin etiam a sacramento expiationis generalis, quæ die 10, menisis Septembris per agebatur, Lev. xvii. 23, immundi nulli excludebantur. and that if any man's offence was so great as to deserve excommunication, then he was excommunicate and wholly cast out of the church.1 And as, in the ancient churches, there were, and, in the reformed churches, there now are, different degrees of censures, according to the different degrees of offences, so, in the Jewish church, the like may be ob| served, both concerning ceremonial uncleanness and moral offences. Touching the former, that law, Num. v. 2, " Command the children of Israel that they put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is defiled by the dead," hath been understood by the Jewish doctors respective; that is, that the leper was put out of all the three camps, the camp of Israel, the camp of the Levites, and the camp of divine majesty, which was the tabernacle: he that an issue might be in the camp of Israel, but was put out of the other two. He that was defiled by the dead, was only restrained from the camp of divine majesty, for which also see before, book i. chap. 10. And touching moral offences, there were several steps and degrees in the Jewish excommunication, as Mr Selden hath observed from the Talmudists; for, first, a man was separate from the congregation for thirty days, and if thereafter he was found obstinate, he was separate for other thirty days, and if after sixty days he did not repent, then they passed from the lesser excommunication to the greater; that is, from niddui and shammatta (as he thinketh) to cherem or anathema. The author of the Queries, while he argueth in that first query, against the suspending, from the sacrament, of a person not excommunicated, nor wholly cast out of the church, closeth in this particular, with them of the separation (which I believe he did it not intended to do); for they, in one of their letters in answer to the second letter of Fr. Junius, written to them, where they bring eleven exceptions against the Dutch churches, one of these exceptions was that "they use a new censure of suspension, which Christ hath not appointed.” They do hold excommunication to be an ordinance of Christ, but do reject the distinction of suspension and excommunication, as Mr Prynne doth. tation, both in his Queries and in his Vin- 1 Ibidem etiam exhortationes, castigationes, et censura divina. Nam et judicatur magno cum pondere ut apud certos de Dei conspectu summumque futuri judicii præjudicium est, si quis ita deliquerit, ut a communicatione orationis, et conventus, et omnis sancti commercii relegetur. tions and in the preface before his Vindication, and in divers other passages, that his scope is to expedite a regular settlement of church discipline, without such a power of suspending the scandalous as now is desired to be settled in the new elderships, and manifestly reflecteth upon one of the Assembly's petitions concerning that business, as hath been said; yea, the first words of his Queries tell us, he spoke to the point in present public agitation, the case standing thus: I must put him in mind (under favour) that he hath not been a little out of the way, nor a little wide from the mark. : Tenthly, The true state of the present question is not, Whether the parliament should establish the power of suspending scandalous persons from the sacrament, as jure divino (nay, let divines assert that, and satisfy people's consciences in it; but let the parliament speak in an authoritative and legislative way, in adding their civil sanction). Nor, whether there ought to be any suspension from the sacrament of scandalous persons, not yet excommunicated and cast out of the church; and that the eldership should do it; for the ordinance of parliament hath so far satisfied the desires of the reverend Assembly, and of the generality of And if the question were, Which of these godly people, that there is to be a suspen- tenets (Mr Prynne's or ours) concerning sion of scandalous persons (not excommu- suspension, doth best agree with the mind nicated) from the sacrament, and power is of the parliament? let us hear their own ordigranted to the eldership to suspend from the nance, dated March 14, 1645,—the words are sacrament for such scandals as are enu- these "Yet were the fundamentals and merate in the ordinances of Oct. 20, 1645, substantial parts of that government long and March 14, 1645. Which ordinances do since settled in persons by and over whom it appoint, that all persons, or any person, that was to be exercised, and the nature, extent, shall commit such or such an offence, shall and respective subordination of their power be by the eldership suspended from the sa- was limited and defined; only concerning crament, upon confession of the party, or the administration of the sacrament of the upon the testimony of two credible wit- Lord's supper-how all such persons as were nesses. So that in truth the stream of Mr guilty of notorious and scandalous offences Prynne's exceptions runneth against that might be suspended from it-some difficulty which is agreed and resolved upon in parlia- arising, not so much in the matter itself, as ment; and his arguments (if they prove in the manner,—how it should be done, and anything) must necessarily conclude against who should be the judges of the offence; the that power already granted by parliament | lords and commons having it always in their to elderships. And now if he will speak to purpose and intention, and it being accordthat point which is in present public agi-ingly declared and resolved by them that tation, he must lay aside his Queries and his Vindication thereof, and write another book to prove that the Assembly, and other godly ministers and people, ought to rest satisfied (in point of conscience) with the power granted to elderships to suspend from the sacrament in the enumerate cases, and that there is not the like reason to keep off scandalous persons from the sacrament for other scandals beside these enumerate in the ordinance of parliament. Nay, and he must confine himself within a narrower circle than so; for the parliament hath been pleased to think of some course for new emergent cases, that the door may not be shut for the future upon the remonstrances of elderships concerning cases not expressed. I know the gentleman is free to choose his own theme to treat of, and he may handle what cases of conscience he shall think fit for the church's edification. But since he professeth in the conclusion of his Four Ques all sorts of notorious scandalous offenders should be suspended from the sacrament:" which is the very point so much opposed by Mr Prynne; for the controversy moved by him is not so much concerning the manner, or who should be the judges, as concerning the matter itself; he contending that all sorts of notorious scandalous offenders should not be suspended from the sacrament, but only such as are excommunicated and excluded from the hearing of the word, prayer, and all other public ordinances. Having now removed so many mistakes of the true state of the question, that which is in controversy is plainly this: Whether, according to the word of God, there ought to be in the elderships of churches a spiritual power and authority, by which they that are called brethren, that is, church members, or officers, for the public scandal of a profane life, or of pernicious doctrine, or for a private offence obstinately continued in after ad monitions, and so growing to a public scandal, are, upon proof of such scandal, to be suspended from the Lord's table until signs of repentance appear in them; and if they continue contumacious, are in the name of Jesus Christ to be excommunicate and cut off from all membership and communion with the church, and their sins pronounced to be bound on earth, and by consequence in heaven, until by true and sincere repentance they turn to God, and by the declaration of such repentance be reconciled unto the church. The affirmative is the received doctrine of the reformed churches, whereunto I adhere. The first part of it, concerning suspension, is utterly denied by Mr Prynne, which breaketh the concatenation and order of church discipline held forth in the question now stated. Whether he denieth also excommunication by elderships to be an ordinance and institution of Christ, and only holdeth it to be lawful and warrantable by the word of God, I am not certain. If he do, then he holds the total negative of this present question. However, I am sure he hath gone about to take away some of the principal scriptural foundations and pillars upon which excommunication is built. As touching the gradation and order in the question as now stated, it is meant positively and exclusively, that such a gradation not only may, but ought to be observed ordinarily (which Mr Prynne denieth), although I deny not that for some public, enormous, heinous abominations, there may be (without such degrees of proceeding) a present cutting off by excommunication. But this belongs not to the present controversy. CHAPTER II. against the congregation; and that it is not said, "Let him be to the whole church, but let him be to thee," &c. This I did in my Sermon retort; for if to thee, for a personal private trespass, much more to the whole church, for a public scandalous sin, whereby he trespasseth against the whole congregation. Yea, it followeth upon his interpretation, that he may account the whole church as heathens and publicans, if all the members of the church do him a personal injury; whereupon I left this to be considered by every man of understanding, Whether, if a private man may account the whole church as heathens and publicans for a personal injury done to himself alone, it will not follow, that much more the whole church may account a man as an heathen and publican for a public scandalous sin against the whole church. Mr Prynne, in his Vindication, p. 3, glanceth at this objection; but he takes notice only of the half of it; and he is so far from turning off my retortion, that he confirmeth it; for p. 4, he confesseth that every Christian hath free power, by God's word, to esteem not only a particular brother, but all the members of a congregation, as heathens and publicans, if he or they continue impenitent in the case of private injuries, after admonition. Now my exception against his Query remains unanswered. If I may esteem the whole church as heathens and publicans, when they do me an injury and continue impenitent therein, may not the whole church esteem me as an heathen man and a publican, when I commit a public and scandalous trespass against the whole church, and continue impenitent therein? Shall a private man have power to cast off the whole church as heathens and publicans, and shall not the whole church have power to cast off one man as an heathen and publican? I know he understands those words, "Let him be to thee as an heathen man and a pub WHETHER MATT. XVIII. 15-17, PROVE EX- lican," in another sense than either the re COMMUNICATION. The second point of difference is concerning Matt. xviii. Mr Prynne, in the first of his Four Questions, told us that the words, Matt. xviii. 17, "Let him be to thee as an heathen man and a publican," are meant only of personal private trespasses between man and man, not public scandalous sins 1 Yea, now also, it appeareth by his Diotrephes Catechised, that he denieth and opposeth excommunication itself, at least under a Christian magistrate. formed churches do or the ancient churches did, and takes the meaning to be of avoiding fellowship and familiarity with him, before any sentence of excommunication passed against the offender. But, however, my argument from proportion will hold if civil fellowship must be refused, because of obstinacy in a civil injury, why shall not spiritual or church fellowship be refused to him that hath committed a spiritual injury or trespass against the church? If private fellowship ought to be denied unto him that will not repent of a private injury, why shall not public fellowship, in eating and drinking with the church at the Lord's table, be denied unto him that will not repent of a public scandal given to the congregation? Are the rules of church fellowship looser and wider than the rules of civil fellowship, or are they straiter? Is the way of communion of saints broader than the way of civil communion, or is it narrower? Peradventure he will say, that the whole church, that is, all the members of the church, have power to withdraw from an obstinate scandalous brother; that is, to have no fraternal converse or private Christian fellowship with him. Well then, if thus far he be as an heathen and a publican to the whole church distributively, how shall he be as a Christian brother to the whole church collectively? If all the members of the church severally withdraw fellowship from him, even before he be excommunicated, how shall the whole church together be bound to keep fellowship with him till he be excommunicated? Instead of loosing such knots, Mr Prynne undertakes to prove another thing,—that this text of Matthew is not meant of excommunication or church censures, and that the church in this text was not any ecclesiastical consistory (here he citeth Josephus, as if he had spoken of that text), but only the sanhedrim or court of civil justice. But though all this were true which he saith, yet there may be a good argument drawn by necessary consequence from this text, to prove excommunication; which Grotius did well perceive; for in his annotations upon the place, after he hath told his opinion that excommunication is not meant in this text, he addeth, that he hath elsewhere spoken of the antiquity and necessity of excommunication: Quanquam ad eam ex hoc etiam loco non absurde argumentum duci posse, non negaverim: though I will not deny, saith he, that even from this place, the argument may be drawn to excommunication without any absurdity. My argument afore-mentioned will hold good even from Mr Prynne's own exposition. Thus far I have gone upon a concession; now to the confutation. Before I come to his reasons, I observe in his margin, a double mistake of the testimony of Scapula. First, he sends us to Scapula to learn that exkλnoía signifieth any civil assembly or council, as well as an ecclesiastical presbytery. Yes: Scapula tells us it hath, in heathen writers, a general sig nification, to express any assembly called forth; but he added immediately, that in the writings of Christians, it signifieth the assembly of such as are called to eternal life, and do profess Christian religion. Since, therefore, it hath not the same signification in heathen writings, and in the New Testament, he should have showed us where the word ekkλnoia in the New Testament doth signify a civil court of justice. I hope the Holy Ghost did speak so in this place as he might be understood, and to take the word church here, in that sense which it hath nowhere else in the New Testament, doth not agree with that received maxim,—that Scripture is to be expounded by Scripture. I find, indeed, the word ekkλnoia used for a civil assembly, Acts xix. 39, 41; but as that is an heathen assembly, so it is not the evangelist Luke's expression otherwise than recitative; that is, he mentioneth an heathen assembly under that name by which heathens themselves called it. His other mistake of Scapula is, the citing of him for that assertion, that the church in this text is not an ecclesiastical consistory; whereas Scapula doth expound the church, Matt. xviii., to be meant of the presbytery or college of elders (as Stephani Thesaurus doth also);1 and having told that the word signifieth the whole Christian church, also particular congregations, he addeth two more restricted significations: sometimes it signifieth a Christian family, sometimes the presbytery; for this last he citeth Matt. xviii. Now I proceed to Mr Prynne's reasons: First, saith he, This text "speaks not at all of public scandalous sin against the church or congregation, the proper object of church censures, but only of private civil trespasses between man and man, as is evident by the words, If thy brother trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between him and thee, ""&c. Ans. We have ever understood that place of such trespasses which grow public afterwards by the offender's obstinacy after admonition. Yet the trespass here meant, may be often such as even at first is scandalous to more than one. Such a case falleth under Christ's rule here, and is not excluded. Wherein observe Durand upon the fourth book of the Master of Sen 1 Steph. Restringitur et alio modo ixxλnoía ad synedrium seu presbyterium, id est seniorum collegium, ut Matt. xviii. So Marlorat in Thesauro saith, that the word ecclesia is taken pro senatu ecclesiastico, Matt. xviii. 17. |