A Second Vindication of a Free Admission to the Lords Supper, Section 13 – Section 14
SECT. 13.
THere are ſome other Divines of ſomething more candid ſpirits, that look upon Suſpenſion only as a prudential, paſtoral duty, and no juridical cenſure, and ſo labour to maintain it. For ſuch as theſe, I muſt acknowledge that thoſe reaſons of mine laid down before, do not ſtrictly meddle with them. It may ſuffice me as for ſuch, that they have Beza with the Presbyterians directly againſt them, and no Scripture for any Suſpenſion at all (I ſpeak as to the Sacrament) whereon to build ſuch an opinion. And as for that they have to ſay for it, for that is the whole, that the Apoſtle commands a man to examine himſelf, and diſcern the Lords body, upon which, we granting that infants and diſtracted perſons are not to be admitted by the Miniſter; therefore ſay they likewiſe, neither ignorant nor ſcandalous perſons, I conceive it too inſufficient a ground alone, to build a buſineſſe of ſo much practical weight and trouble upon. I will adde therefore two or three reaſons more againſt this opinion.
1. A regenerate perſon that can examine himſelf, and diſcern the Lords body in the ſtricteſt ſenſe, yet may be ſcandalous, and for that ſcandal deſerve excluſion, as Theodoſius by Ambroſe. It is not therefore becauſe the Apoſtle commands a man to examine himſelf, and diſcern the Lords body, that a ſcandalous perſon is excluded; but, becauſe the Apoſtle commands other-where, let ſuch be cenſured, Put away from your ſelves ſuch a perſon. The ſame ground or reaſon that will exclude an unregenerate man, will exclude the regenerate, and no other. From whence likewiſe, I ſhall take away this argument from the hands of my proper oppoſers. If the keeping of perſons from the Lords Supper upon this ground or account; that the Apoſtle commands thoſe that come hither ſhould examine themſelves and diſcern the Lords body, be a paſtoral duty, as theſe think, (and indeed ſo far as it is done barely on this ground in infants and diſtracted perſons (who being not bound hereunto through incapacity of reaſon are refuſed) it is no other) Then muſt not excluſion of ignorant and ſcandalous perſons ſtand upon this ground with the Presbyterians; for that is an act, that cannot be done according to them (as Beza fore-quoted) but by the power of juriſdiction. This is, what hath at large been ſaid before Suſpenſion from the Sacrament, muſt not be held upon any argument from the nature of the ordinance, but from diſcipline.
2. It is manifeſt that the ſame grace is required of a perſon to be accepted of God in one part of Gods worſhip, as in another. The Scripture requires us expreſly to pray in faith, in love, with underſtanding, and the like, when it does not expreſly but by conſequence command us ſo to receive; and as for due preparation, or ſelf-examination, and a right diſcernment of the Lord in his worſhip, who will deny it to be required in every ordinance, by the ſame conſequence as in the Sacrament it is expreſſe? It cannot therefore be ſaid, that the debarring of ſcandalous or ignorant perſons from the Sacrament, is a Scripture-reſult from the nature of that ſervice and the requiſites to it (which is the whole can be pleaded to make this a paſtoral duty) any more than from prayer and other Ordinances. It is true, we may ſuppoſe, according to the ratity & ſolemnity of an Ordinance, our addreſſes to it may and ought to be more ſolemn, but yet is the Ordinance alike otherwiſe, as to the nature and requiſits to it; and not to be preferred before others, to the breeding ſuch a ſuperſtitious conceit on the ſpirits of men, that looks to me, like to bowing at the name of Jeſus, and not at the name of Chriſt, God, and the Holy Ghoſt.
3. It is not the part of Paſtors to content themſelves with keeping men away from the Sacrament without proceeding unto cenſure and debarring them other communion (at leaſt that of common familiarity) to make them aſhamed. I know many happily may be ready to think thus: The Scripture commands ſuch and ſuch ſhould be cenſured, caſt out of the Church and a voided; Now ſeeing we cannot proceed ſo farre, it is good to doe ſomething towards it, we will keep them from the Sacrament, and that will be well. But under favour, I am perſwaded this is a great miſtake and evill, in regard that hereby men doe place a virtue in a meanes of their owne to convert ſinners from their evill wayes. It is true, when men are duly admoniſhed, convicted, and cenſured as they ought, then is there the virtue of an Ordinance which may be expected to reduce them; for God hath appointed his Ordinance of diſcipline for this purpoſe to bring men to repentance.
On the contrary, for men to make a buſineſſe onelyonly of keeping people away from this part of Gods ſervice, without diſcipline, how can any ſuch fruit be expected by it? Can men ordain or ſet up themſelves a reclaiming Ordinance? If they doe, How ſhall they give a power and promiſe to it for this effect? Let thoſe Miniſters conſider that have kept never ſo many away, even whole congregations from the Sacrament for many years together, what are the fruits they have reaped by it. Are their people indeed ever the better for it? Does it not rather ſerve only to breed indignation to themſelves, make their Suſpenſion to be flighted, the Sacrament it ſelf to be neglected; ſo that the moſt of their people care not at all to come thither? If this indeed be the fruit, then will I thus argue. The Ordinances of God, as excluſion from the Church and Sacrament is one, are to be uſed only for Edification, and not deſtruction. But to exclude men the Sacrament without diſcipline, without a due legal conviction and authority, does not tend to their edification, but in all this, to their deſtruction. Or thus, The Lord Jeſus commands us expreſly not to give holy things to doggs and ſwine, (as before.) But to uſe ſuſpenſion without diſcipline, or a due authoritative ſentence, as ſhould put a reverence on it, is but likely to caſt it to ſuch, as will trample upon it, and turn again and rent the doer. And conſequently therfore, unles Miniſters will purpoſely goe about to make men dogs and ſwine, that elſe would not be ſo in the ſenſe of this text, they are bound directly (at leaſt, when they ſee plainly this is like to be the iſſue) by this very precept of Chriſt (which is that happily ſcruples them mainly to the contrary) to forbear Suſpenſion, till they can uſe it to edification.
SECT. 14.
THeſe two queſtions being laid downe, with my judgement thereof, there will remain two things onelyonly for the compleating my mind in this controverſie. The one is, whereas I hold in the firſt queſtion, that no argument from the nature of the Sacrament alone, without diſcipline, will be of validity for Suſpenſion, it may be required that ſomething be condeſcended to the tenderneſſe of moſt mens ſpirits and practice herein before cenſure. The other is, whereas I hold in the ſecond queſtion, that thoſe arguments alone are valid for excluſion from the Sacrament, that reſpect it only as a part of Church-communion, and conſequently that a perſon muſt be excommunicate, or excluded Church-communion in general, or elſe he cannot be legally excluded the Supper, it may be required that there be ſome foreign, ſome ſalve found out here alſo for the abatement of ſo much rigor in cenſure, that a perſon may be permitted ſome of the Ordinances, as the Word, while he is debarred the Sacrament, and no breach be made on excommunication.
If theſe two things can but be done with reaſonable ſatisfaction, I hope it will ſerve to take away the prejudice of many ſober and moderate ſpirits from my opinion; the drift whereof is not at all to doe the pious Miniſtry any harm (let not my brethren think ſo) in obſtructing their care and inſpection over their flocks, but to bind up their broken hearts with a grounded ſupport, that in what they do, and cannot but do, in admiſſion of their people, (the moſt whereof are unregenerate perſons, and ſo in their ſenſe unworthy) they may do with a ſure foot and ſafe conſcience. My great buſineſs, I may ſay truly (with pious Mr. Blake, Cov: Seal. ch. 7. ſect. 15. p. 247. in what I have written about this matter together with him) hath been for their comfort and encouragement that give admittance, that their benefiting is poſſible, that are thus admitted.
And yet by the way I would not be taxed for the opinion of a promiſcuous admittance, which I do not own, without the diſtinction thereof into Erastian and orthodox, as before; An Eraſtian promiſcuous communion I declare againſt, as much, and I think ſomething more than Mr. Blake; but for an Orthodox Free-admiſſion, the end whereof is to advance diſcipline, not depoſe it, I confeſſe it is what I think ſhould be maintained, being bold to ſay this one thing in reference to that worthy man now named; that an Anti-Erastian free-admiſſion will be found I believe at laſt to ſtand a great deal better, both with the Churches peace and conſonancy of Scripture, than a kind of Eraſtian, indiſciplinary Suſpenſion.