A Second Vindication of a Free Admission to the Lords Supper, Section 7
SECT. 7:
FOr the Excommunicate, there is a received diſtinction of ſuch that are ſo, Either Ipſo jure, or De facto; Thoſe are accounted ipſo jure excommunicate, whoſe ſcandal and impenitency is evident to the Church, that there need no tryal for their conviction. Thoſe are de facto excommunicate who have farther a legal ſentence paſſed on them. It muſt bee acknowledged that many Divines and Churches of God have allowed the Miniſter a liberty to withhold the Sacrament from perſons Excommunicate ipſo jure, before ſentence; unto whoſe reverend authority, I have ever judg'd with due limitation much is to be ſubmitted; ſo that upon their ſcore I have expreſt my ſelf in my Rejoynd. p. 21, 26. ſo farre, that ſuppoſing there are ſcandals, 1. Notorious, that they offend the Congregation. 2. Open, that they need no proof or debate. 3. Actual, or in the preſent fact, that no repentance can be pleaded, it may not matter much, if you deal with ſuch as excommunicate, when you judge it like to doe good. In extraordinary caſes, ſome extraordinary proceedings break no ſquares. Nevertheleſſe (ordinarily) upon my fartheſt conſideration, I do believe it a thing more conſonant to the ſcope of the Scripture, and leſſe lyable to oppoſition, to reſolve that an eccleſiaſtical judgement firſt paſſe upon a perſon, before he be excluded any part of our Churches publick communion: and therefore I doe own here that thing (as fit and good) which is noted by Mr. Collings, Vind. Suſpenſ: & Presb: p. 36. That though I grant to the Miniſter thus much upon a pinch, in caſe of ſome intollerable evil, yet as to what is ordinarily to be done, all my arguments are ſo framed, as to conclude, that a perſon muſt not be only de jure, but alſo de facto excommunicate, before he be debarred his admiſſion.
My reaſons are, 1 Becauſe the Apoſtle commanding the Corinths, 1 Cor. 5. Not to keep company nor eat with thoſe brethren, that were fornicators, drunkards, railers, and the like, layes down expreſsly this proceeding, For doe not ye judge thoſe that are within? v. 12. that is, this not keeping company is intended no otherwiſe, than upon a judgement foregoing. This refuſing to eat with ſuch a one, was by vertue of a judicial ſentence (ſaies Gilleſpie, Aar. rod. bloſſ. p. 430.) paſt againſt the ſcandalous perſon. And Beza, De Presb. p. 57. So in 2 Theſſ. 3.14. If any obey not, note that man, and have no company with him. The diſorderly perſon is firſt to be noted, foreign, that is, according to our chief Anti-Erastian Divines, Beza, Hammond, Rutherford, Gilleſpy. Set a mark upon him, or a cenſure, and then withdraw from him. Indeed it is a queſtion whether this Note or Judging, in theſe texts be authoritative, or private only; I muſt confeſs if they be not authoritative, but of private diſcretion, as Eraſtus holds, then this will not reach the purpoſe, nor this Have no company, I ſuppoſe then, reach to the Sacrament.
2. Becauſe it ſeems not reaſonable, that a penalty ſhould be inflicted on a perſon before a judgement be given. I will expreſſe this in the words of Reverend Bowles, quoted by another out of his Evangelical Paſtor. Qui omnium peſſimi, uſque dum eccleſia ſuâ ſententiâ decretoriâ pro canibus et porcis habendos declaraverit, non mihi cum illis ut canibus & porcis agendum eſt. Latronem, qui mortem commeruit, nullus jure de vitâ tollat uſ que dum judex et reum declaraverit et ſententiam tulerit.
3. Becauſe there are like to follow many flippery and dangerous inconveniences upon the allowing the Miniſter power of doing otherwiſe: inſomuch as I find Beza in his book againſt Eraſtus, very often, and very earneſtly me-thinks, ſpeaking to this purpoſe. Etiamſi ſuis oculis minister quempiam viderit aliquid agentem, quod coenae excluſionem mereatur, jure tamen nec debeat nec poſſit, niſi vocatum, convictum, legitimè deni que ſecundum conſtitutum in eccleſia ordinem, damnatum, à menſa domini, cum authoritate prohibere. See p. 26. 23. 75, &c.
4. Becauſe Excluſion from the Sacrament, according to my judgement, is not to be allowed by any means upon thoſe reaſons which are moſt ſtood upon from the nature of the ordinance it ſelf, as diſtinct herein from others, but upon the account of diſcipline only. To exclude from the Lords Supper (ſaies Scholaſtical Mr. Jeanes as the ſubject of his diſcourſe upon this queſtion, which he hath ſtrongly carried) is a kind of Eccleſiaſtical puniſhment, and therefore preſuppoſeth an Eccleſiaſtical cenſure; though men have deſerved ſuch a puniſhment, yet it is not to be inflicted on them, untill they be legally cenſured, p. 118. Ed. 2.