A Second Vindication of a Free Admission to the Lords Supper, Section 11
SECT. 11.
FOr the later queſtion; Were the former granted, that Excluſion from the Sacrament, does indeed belong only to the power of juriſdiction, which the Presbyterians grant; and conſequently that no arguments from the nature of this ordinance barely, as diſtinct from all others, without diſcipline are firm and cogent for it; which they ſhould grant likewiſe. Then will the whole diſpute between me and them, come to this iſſue, that they muſt prove, Either, that there is a power in the Miniſters to ſet up a diſcipline, or a part of diſcipline which is not preſcribed in the Scripture, a thing which none of them I think will maintain: Or that there is ſuch a part of diſcipline preſcribed, in Scripture, as excluſion from the Sacrament, diſtinct from excluſion from the Church; that is, Suſpenſion, defined to be, a juridical act of the Officers of the Church; whereby upon their having had due cognizance of ſuch, as are unworthy the Lords Supper, they deny the Ordinance to them, as a cenſure, diſtinct from, and in order to Excommunication.
And here, that the whole difference between me and the moderate Presbyterian (unleſſe where they fall from their own principles) does indeed come to this only, I ſhall produce one teſtimony that may ſuffice. Reverend Beza, De Presb: & Excom. p. 23. layes down, or yields to us theſe three things.
1. That the Supper is inſtituted for diſciples.
2. That all ſuch as profeſs Chriſt, though hypocrites, are diſciples. Quales fateor quidem generaliter omnes cenſeri, qui ſe tales eſſe teſtentur, etiamſi reipſâ nihil minùs ſunt quam Chriſtiani.
3. That they are ſo to be accounted of, in regard of admiſſion, untill they are orderly convicted and ſentenc'd.
Deinde pro non detectis haberi, qui tales eſſe non fuerint, eo, quem Deus in eccleſiâ conſtituit ordine, convicti, & pro rebellibus damnati. So pag. 27. Chriſtus, inquit D. Eraſtus, juſſit omnes edere illum panem, et ex poculo illo bibere; Ergo neminem vult excludi qui ſe ſuum diſcipulum profiteatur. Id verò concedimus, adeò quidem ut ipſos etiam hypocritas, quamdiu vel penitus ſunt tecti, vel neque authoritate publico convicti, et damnati inter diſcipulos numeremus. I know ſome of our Divines of late, but not of the gravity and moderation of Beza (as Mr. Collins p. 41. Gilleſpy, Mr. D. and others) are more bold with the command of Chriſt, and taking up Beza for granting thus much, do reſtrain it to the regenerate only. But this reverend man, who is much rather to be heard, durſt not do ſo, but is plain you ſee and clear in theſe conceſſions,, upon which, the ſubſtance of my whole opinion (at leaſt, as to the Miniſters part) will ſtand. For if the Sacrament be inſtituted for diſciples; and all that profeſſe Chriſt are to be accounted ſuch; and none of them to be excluded, until they be convicted and condemned for rebels in that order God hath appointed, (as he affirms) then muſt that diſciplinary Free-admiſſion which hold before excommunication, be good, unleſs it can be provd that there is ſome other cenſure in the order God hath appointed, whereby the ſaid rebels are to be condemned, beſides excommunication, which I deny. And ſo you ſee to what a little point our difference draws. Beza ſayes, they muſt be convict and ſentenced firſt, before they be excluded, as well as I; only he conceives there is a leſſer cenſure to be firſt inflicted, before the greater; which I muſt confeſſe I find not. And herein likewiſe Beza himſelf acknowledges thus far, that there is ſeldome mention in the Scripture of any ſuch leſſer cenſure, but the greater only. Tantum abest ut major excommunicatio cenſeri poſſit praeter Dei verbum invecta, ut contra rara ſint in ipſo verbo Dei expreſſa minoris excommunicationis exempla; majoris autem multa, p. 11. Now if here inſtead of rara, he had ſaid nulla, I think he had delivered the very truth.
My reaſons againſt the affirmative of this queſtion, are theſe.
1. Becauſe the Lord Jeſus in that primitive inſtitution under the Goſpel, Mat. 18.15, 16, 17. hath preſcribed no other parts or order in diſcipline, than admonition and excommunication. After the offending partie is admoniſhed privately, then publiquely, If he will not hear the Church, (ſayes Chriſt) let him be as an Heathen, that is, let him be excommunicate, according to thoſe that oppoſe Erastus. Now if the Apoſtles have preſcribed any other order of diſcipline, than what is preſcribed in this original pattern, let it be produced; If not, then may this text be ſufficient, that there is no ſuch middle thing in the order Chriſt hath appointed, as Suſpenſion, between admonition, and excommunication.
2. Becauſe the power of the Keyes are given for binding and looſing, which I conceive is done, not in regard of a perſons being debarr'd or admitted any ordinance; The Levitically unclean were kept from the ordinances during their uncleanneſſe, yet were not their ſins bound thereby; for many times they might become unclean without ſin, Lev. 21.3. Numb. 19.8. But in regard of that ſtate and relation men have to the Church outwardly, and Chriſt, as viſible members, from which, while they are excluded, their ſins are accordingly, and no otherwiſe bound or retained (becauſe there is no remiſſion out of the Church, or out of Chriſt, the viſible herein, clave non errante, preſenting the inviſible) as they are looſed by being received, in again through repentance. From whence I argue, where the ſins of men are not bound or retained, there is no Church-cenſure, Mat. 16.19. Io. 20.23. But it is not excluding men from the Sacrament, but the excluding them from the Church, and ſo Relatively from all its benefits, in that ſenſe as we ſay, Extra quam, non eſt ſalus aut remiſſio, that does bind the ſins of men upon earth. Therefore ſuſpenſion can be no Church-cenſure diſtinct from excommunication. See my Rejoynd. p. 145, 150. As the being within the Church puts men into a ſtate, whereby every member, Relatively, though a Reprobate, is ſaid in Scripture to be in Chriſt, redeemed, ſanctified, to have communion of his body and bloud, with the like; ſo does the caſting them out of the Church put them likewiſe into a contrary ſtate or condition, whereby they are Relatively to be ſaid without Chriſt, without God in the world, without redemption, remiſſion, ſalvation.
3. Becauſe the Scriptures whereſoever they ſpeak of excluſion in point of diſcipline, doe ſtill ſpeak in general. Purge out the old leven. Have no company. Put away from among your ſelves ſuch a perſon, &c. From whence my argument will be framed thus. If there bee no place in Scripture to prove any excluſion at all, but ſuch as ſpeaks of excluſion from the Church, the whole lump, ſociety in general, or the like; then is it not poſſible to prove by the Scripture Sacramental excluſion, as diſtinct from Church-excluſion. Or, If there be no other medium in Scripture-diſcipline (I ſpeak of the word Diſcipline all the way reſtrainedly, as to this part of cenſure) but excommunication it ſelf, for the proving a withholding any at all for moral uncleanneſs from any publick ordinance (as may appear by any thing of weight in Gilleſpyes 14 Arguments for excluſion from the Paſſeover. B. 1. c. 12.) then cannot ſuſpenſion be proved, as diſtinct from, but only as conjunct with excommunication. The conſequence here is apparent; But the former is true, therefore the latter. In a word, the Scripture knows no other excluſion that is diſciplinary, but a caſting out of the Church, and ſo from the Sacrament only, as included in it.