The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 3 · Section 15
Sect. 15. 2. As to that part of Church Discipline which respects the rejecting those for Scandal, who have been Church-members. In case of open and publick Scandal, Rubrick before Communion.our Church doth allow if not require the Parochial Minister to call and advertise such a one that is guilty of it in any wise not to come to the Lord's Table, until he hath openly declared himself to have truly repented and amended his former naughty life, that the Congregation may thereby be satisfied, which before was offended. And in case the offender continue obstinate, he may repel him from the Communion; but so, that after such repelling, he give an account to the Ordinary within 14 days; and the Ordinary is then to proceed according to the Canon. Here is plainly a Power granted to put back any Scandalous Offender from the Sacrament, whose faults are so notorious as to give offence to the Congregation; but it is not an absolute and unaccountable Power, but the Minister is obliged to give account thereof within a limited time to the Ordinary. Now wherein is it that our Diocesan Episcopacy destroys the being of Parochial Churches for want of the Power of Discipline? Is it that they have not Power to exclude men, whether their faults be Scandalous to the Congregation or not? Or is it, that they are bound to justify what they doe, and to prosecute the Person for those faults for which they put him back from the Communion? Or is it, that they have not Power to proceed to the greater Excommunication, that being reserved served to the Bishop, upon full hearing of all parties concerned? But as long as by the Constitution of our Church every Minister in his Parish hath power to keep back notorious Offenders, it will be impossible to prove from other circumstances that the being of our Churches is destroyed by our Diocesan Episcopacy. Defence of the Plea. p. 58.Mr. B. saith, that if it could be proved, that the lesser excommunication out of our particular Congregations were allowed to the Parish Ministers, it would half reconcile him to the English sort of Prelacy; but if it be so, he hath been in a sleep these 50 years, that could never hear or read of any such thing. It is strange, in all this time, he should never reade or consider the 26 Canon, which saith, that no Minister shall in any wise admit any one of his Flock, or under his care to the Communion of the Lord's Supper, who is notoriously known to live impenitently in any scandalous Sin. This is not in the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, which he mentions as an abortive thing, published by Iohn Fox, (which last any one that hath seen them, knows to be a mistake) nor in Dr. Mocket's Book which was burnt; yet not so destroyed, but with some diligence he might have seen it (but it was for nothing of this kind, that Book underwent so severe a censure; as Mr. B. insinuates; but for seeming to incroach too much on the King's Prerogative.) But I appeal to what Mr. B. calls the Authorized Church Canons; which I think are plain in this case. But Mr. B. saith, this is not the lesser excommunication, but a temporary suspension of the Ministers own Act in delivering the Sacrament to such persons. Let Mr. B. call it by what name he pleaseth; this is certain, the Minister is impowred, is required to doe this; the question then is, whether this be not such a Censure of the Church, as to suspend notorious Offenders from the Sacrament; and that within the Power of the Parochial Minister? I grant, this is not the lesser excommunication, according to the Vse of this Church, for that supposeth the sentence passed; and is so called by way of distinction from the greater pronounced by the Bishop in Person, upon extraordinary occasions. But yet it is a Church-censure upon Offenders, and was accounted a sort of excommunication by the Ancient Church; for those who were in the state of Penitents were then said to be under a kind of excommunication; Epist. 108.as appears by several passages in S. Augustin, produced by Spalatensis to this purpose,Post collat. c. Donat. c. 20. viz. to prove that there was a penitential excommunication. But Mr. B. quotes Albaspinaeus to shew that the old Excommunication did shut persons out from all other Church-communion as well as the Sacrament. Spalat. l. 5. c. 9.Which is very true of the greater Excommunication; but besides this there were other Censures of the Church upon Offenders, whereby they were suspended from full Communion; but not debarred the hopes of it upon satisfaction given. These were said to be in the state of Penitents. Albaspin. l. 2. c. 4.It was a favour to the excommunicated to be brought into this state; and others were never allowed to hope to be restored to Communion; others onelyonly on their death-beds; others according to the nature and degrees of their Repentance; of which those were left to be Iudges, who were particularly intrusted with the care of the Penitents. Albaspinaeus grants that as long as men remained Penitents they were actually deprived of the Priviledges of Church-communion; but he saith, the Penitents were in a middle state between the excommunicated and the faithfull, being still Candidates, as he calls them; so that all that were Penitents were suspended from Communion; but not wholly cast out of the Church; because the Christians might as freely converse with these, as with any, but they were not allowed to participate in the Sacred Mysteries. But there was no question, wherever there was a Power to suspend any Persons from Communion, there was a Power of Discipline; because the Churches Discipline did not consist merely in the power of Excommunication; no more than a Iudges power lies onelyonly in condemning men to be hanged; but in so governing the Members of the Church, that Scandalous persons may be kept from the greatest Acts of Communion, and by Admonition and Counsel be brought to a due preparation for it. Since then our Church doth give power to Parochial Ministers to suspend notorious Offenders from the Communion, it is thereby evident, that it doth not deprive them of all the necessary and essential parts of Church-discipline. But saith Mr. B. If a Minister doth publickly admonish another by name, Defence of the Plea. p. 65, 72.not censured by the Ordinary, the Lawyers tell him he may have his action against him. I answer, 1. What need this publick Admonition by name? Doth the nature of Church-discipline lie in that? Suppose a man be privately and effectually dealt with to withdraw himself, is not this sufficient? I am sure Saint Augustin took this course with his People at Hippo, De T…mp…re Serm. …52.he perswaded them to examine their own Consciences, and if they found themselves guilty of such Crimes as rendred them unfit for the holy Communion, he advised them to withdraw themselves from it, till by Prayers and Fasting and Alms they had cleansed their Consciences, and then they might come to it. Here is no publick Admonition by name; and in many cases Saint Augustin declares the Church may justly forbear the exercise of Discipline towards Offenders, and yet the Church be a true Church, and Christians obliged to communicate with it; as appears by all his disputes with the Donatists. 2. If a restraint be laid on Ministers by Law: the question then comes to this, whether the obligation to admonish publickly an Offender, or to deny him the Sacrament, if he will come to it, be so great as to bear him out in the violation of a Law; made by publick Authority, with a design to preserve our Religion? But my design is onelyonly to speak to this case, so far as the Church is concerned in it.