The Golden Mean, Case 3
Caſe: 3.
But ſhall the ſcandalous be admitted to this holy Communion? what ſhall be done with them?
Sol. 1 I think they ſhould indeed be excommunicated from all publick Communion in holy Ordinances, thoſe I mean, that are proved ſcandalous, and wil not be admoniſhed, nor ſubmit and acknowledge their crimes and hainous offences.
Secondly, ſeeing that in moſt congregations there wants ſufficient power for authoritative excommunication; I think it very difficult, what to determine in this buſineſs; and that becauſe it is hard to judge what is ſcandal, and alſo who are ſcandalous, learned men being much divided in this particular: Therefore I conceive it too great a burden to be put upon the Miniſter alone, unleſſe he were more infallible than moſt can poſſibly be imagined; or unleſſe there were publick Lawes to regulate and determine, what ſhall bee accounted a ſcandall, and who, and when ſcandalous.
Sol. 3 Thirdly I add, where no Government is ſet up, as in moſt places there neither is, nor well can be as yet (rebus ſic ſtantibus) for want of fit Officers. If there be any ſo groſsly ſcandalous, that there need no examination, or other proof; as in caſe of Baſtardy, Common-drunkenneſſe, or the like; if any ſuch ſhould offer to come to the holy Communion, he is to be admoniſhed; & if hee do openly confeſſe his ſin, and profeſſe his hearty ſorrow for the ſame, & promiſe by the grace of God to indeavor amendment, I know no reaſon in all the Word of God, why he ſhould be put by. But if he will not be admoniſhed, but ſeek to juſtifie himſelf, or excuſe the matter, and remain obſtinate, hee deſerves to bee excommunicated, and caſt out of the Congregation. But for want of Diſcipline whereby this might be legally done, I ſuppoſe the Miniſter (if there be any that will join with him, to teſtifie the ſcandal and obſtinacie) may in ſuch a caſe paſſe h…m by, 1 Cor. 5.11 2 Theſ. 3.14. foreign. Vid. Paſtor. Evangel. l. 3. c. 5. p. 188. 189. ad 195. Ezek. 3.4. and 9.charging him not to preſume to partake at his own peril; warning alſo the reſt of the Congregation to withdraw from familiar converſing with ſuch an one, more then natural or neceſſary civil bonds do tie them, to the intent that he may be aſhamed, as if he were juridically excommunicate.
But now if none will join with the Miniſter in this caſe, but leav the buſineſſe wholly upon him; I do not think it can be ſafe for him alone to put him away, onelyonly he may charge him to abſtain, till he have given ſome fatisfaction to the Congregation, and not to offer the conſecrated elements unto him, and if he will take them of himſelf, he hath had ſufficient warning, his blood ſhall be upon his own head, and ſhall not be required at the Miniſter's hands.
And as for others that are onelyonly ſuſpected, the Miniſter may not meddle with them; no, nor a Presbytery; becauſe, De occultis non judicat Eccleſia, onelyonly they may admoniſh ſuch in private, to carry themſelves ſo, as to take off all ſuſpition.
Now though this may ſeem to ſome very ſtrange, as favouring of looſneſſe and remiſſneſſe, yet let me tell you, that it is no more in effect, than what ſome of the chief and choice Independents allow, upon the like occaſion. For Mr Thomas Hooker, a man very eminent while he was in Old, Ʋid. M. Cawdryes Review of M. Hookers Survey cap. 2. pag. 94.and afterwards in New-England, yet in his Survey of Diſcipline yields as much. In declining times (ſaith he) a Church being corrupted, when diſeaſes grow deadly, there is allowed, and a toleration of neceſſity muſt be ſo far granted, M. Blake on the Covenant Ch. 47. page 437. See alſo Mr Gillaſpy's his Aarons Rod book 3. ch. 15. p. 541.until juridicè the evil be examined, the parties convinced, cenſures applied for reformation. See M. Cawdrey's Review, p. 94. M. Blake alſo quotes another paſſage to this purpoſe, out of the ſame M. Hooker. We ſee (ſaith he) how much reverend M. Hooker, ſpeaking the opinion of his party, gives to the Churches conivence or indulgence. If the Church (ſaith he) either through connivence, negligence, or indulgence ſha tolerate ſuch evills, and evill perſons in the ſtate of Church-memberſhip, they cannot then deny them the priviledge of members; thus far he. Now this is one ſpeciall priviledge of Church-members, that are of years, to receive this Sacrament, or to be admitted to this holy Table, therefore he yields full as much, if not more than I have yielded.