A Second Vindication of a Free Admission to the Lords Supper, Section 8 – Section 9
SECT. 8.
THat my mind here may be clearly underſtood, the controverſie between mee and thoſe that oppoſe me be more fully ſtated, and ſome prejudice avoided, I muſt crave pardon to uſe ſome more words, it may be ſome more than enough, upon this particular.
In my Vindication of Free-admiſſion (my firſt little book, p. 33.) for the explaining my conceptions, I have laid down a diſtinction between diſcipline and worſhip. The exerciſe of the keys, as acts of diſcipline, I would have accounted one thing, and the uſe of the ordinances, as acts of worſhip, to be another. Diſcipline to be in one element, Worſhip in another. I know, if ſome liſt to be contentious, they may confound theſe, but docendi gratiâ at leaſt, for the expreſſing my ſelf, no equitable man can deny me thus to diſtinguiſh for my purpoſe. Now there are two extreames, I conceive, concerning Free-admiſſion to the Lords Supper; On the one hand, of ſuch who are too large for it, and the other of ſuch as are too ſtrict againſt it.
There are ſome then, as hath been touched before, that plead for free admiſſion, not only in regard of Worſhip, but alſo in regard of Diſcipline; diſclaiming all excluſion from any of the publick Ordinances of God by the cenſures of the Church, and indeed denying all Eccleſiaſtical government, diſtinct frō the civil, where the Magiſtrate is Chriſtian. There are others that plead againſt free admiſſion, not only in point of Diſcipline, but alſo in point of Worſhip, herein advancing the Sacrament above all other Ordinances, that thoſe who have a granted right to all other parts of Gods worſhip and Church-communion as baptiſed members, are deni-to have any right unto the Sacrament, though they be yet under Church-indulgence, and not cenſured. The Sacrament (ſay they) requires truth of grace in the receivers; unleſſe a man be regenerate on his own part, he is forbidden to come, and conſequently, unleſſe upon trial and examination there be ſome evidence that he is viſibly or probably ſuch, on the Churches part, he muſt not be admitted. In the middle, between theſe extreames, my opinion (and the truth, as I think, without engaging others) does lie; Affirming againſt the former, who are the Eraſtians, that the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, hath ſet up a power of the keys in the Church, (as I have ſaid before) and that the Scripture is manifeſt for an excluſion of ſome perſons (to wit, the ſcandalous and obſtinate) from Chriſtian communion in general, and ſo conſequently from the Lords Supper, as a part thereof. Nevertheleſſe I doe aſſert likewiſe againſt the latter, that there is no Scripture for the excluſion of any from this Sacrament without diſcipline, but that adminiſtring and receiving the Lords Supper, is as free and univerſal (in the nature thereof to our members) as other parts of Church-communion.
The ſame qualifications are required to effectual prayer, and other parts of Gods worſhip, as to the Sacrament; and as the want hereof puts no barre to the one, no more does it to the other. It ſhall never be proved, I believe, that the Scripture hath advanced this difference between the Sacrament and other ordinances, that herein alone it muſt be better to omit the matter and manner both, than to do the matter, if it be not done in ſuch manner as it ought, directly contrary to all other duty. In ſhort then, neither the Eraſtian, nor rigid Suſpenſioner muſt have their wills; In point of Diſcipline, Free-admiſſion is to be denied againſt the one; In point of worſhip, Free-admiſſion is to bee maintained againſt the other.
It is a thing very conſiderable in the holding any point, upon what grounds it is we hold it; Thoſe that oppoſe me in my opinion, are very hot for an excluſion from the Sacrament, and I for my own part doe allow and uphold the ſame. An excluſion it ſelf, neither of us do deny, the very difference between us is, upon what grounds or arguments we hold it. Now all thoſe arguments for this excluſion againſt Free-admiſſion may be reduced to theſe two heads; Either to ſuch as do ariſe from the nature of the Sacrament, as diſtinct herein from all other parts of Church-communion; Or to ſuch as do ariſe from the nature of diſcipline, that reſpects the communion of the Church in general, and ſo this Sacrament in common with the other parts thereof.
Arguments of the latter ſort are thoſe, and thoſe only which are from ſuch texts. Let him be to thee as an heathen. Keep no company with ſuch. Pu…ge out the old leven. Avoid, withdraw from them. Put away from your ſelves ſuch a perſon; with the like. The ſumm whereof comes to this briefly. The Scripture commands Excommunication, that is, an excluſion from the Church, and ſociety in general; therefore from the Sacrament alſo. Theſe arguments now, I conceive, are firm; Free-admiſſion, as Eraſtus holds it, I maintain not.
Arguments of the former ſort, are ſuch as theſe. The Sacrament is appointed only for the regenerate. It is a ſeal of Faith, and ſet to a blank, if given to any others. Every one elſe does but neceſſarily eat and drink damnation in the Apoſtles ſenſe, with the like. Now theſe arguments, I conceive, are to be ſatisfied, & taken off as ſuch as are both invalid, and doe hurt. Free-admiſſion will ſtand for all them. Alas! were all ſuch arguments concluſive and true, what will become of the poor doubtfull Chriſtian? How ſhall he act in faith? How ſhall the Miniſter himſelf act? What will become of the Churches unitie and peace, the command of Chriſt, and the foundation of diſcipline? If it be from the nature of the Sacrament, and theſe grounds, upon which men are to be excluded, then muſt they be excluded if there were no diſcipline; then muſt the keeping away of ſuch not be an act of vindicative but diſtributive Juſtice. As a godly Father ſhuts his ſtubborn ſon from prayers in his family, and from his preſence: So does the Church (as I conceive) exclude her refractory children. It is not becauſe the coming to prayer is not the duty of ſuch a child, and is not a means to do him good; No; but becauſe indeed it is ſo, the Father would make him ſenſible hereby how highly he hath offended him, and how much the more hainous is his evil, to reclaim him. A man hath enjoyed thoſe priviledges and means of grace which ſhould have done him good, ſo long, and he grows but the worſe: Well now, the Church in her excluſion, does as it were ſay thus to him, I will teach you Friend (1 Tim. 1.20.) to make better uſe hereof when I again admit you to them. If the Sacrament were not a mans priviledge before, and for his benefit, then could not (as I ſay) Suſpenſion be a judicial proceeding; It were not a puniſhment, but a deliverance; That cannot be in way of puniſhment, that is onelyonly to preſerve a perſon from that which is noxious, and can be no wayes any good to him. It is not upon ſuch grounds therefore wee muſt ſtand; the Scripture knows no ſuch advancement (whatſoever humane prudence may make) of this Ordinance above her fellowes in point of duty; but for ought I know, leaves every man free in the uſe of this, as well as all other of his outward priviledges, untill he bee legally deprived of the ſame by a juridical cenſure,
To this purpoſe (farther) It is a queſtion, Whether the debarring of perſons from the Sacrament, be an act ſpecialis muneris, of the power of order, belonging to the Miniſter ſingly; or of the power of Juriſdiction, not belonging to him alone, but in common with others, that are rulers in the Church The School-men (as Mr. Jeanes tells us p. 95.) are of the former opinion, who affirm, that this denegation of the Sacrament if not to be conſidered as a judicial action, or inflictive of puniſhment, but only as a prudent and faithfull adminiſtring of the ordinance; (Suarez. in part. 3. Thom. Tom. 3. Diſp. 67. Sect. 3. p. 856.) and ſo belonging to every private Miniſter alone, by vertue of his office. Now let this be well conſidered, and if any of the arguments of the former ſort (laſt mentioned) be binding, that is, if it can be proved that the nature of the Sacrament be ſuch, that thoſe who have a full right, and are in actual poſſeſſion of all other parts of Church-communion, have yet no right hereunto, and upon this account are to keep, and be kept away from it, then muſt theſe School-men in all reaſon be in the right, and the denegation thereof to ſuch, be requiſite to the faithfull adminiſtring the ordinance, which is the office no doubt of the ſingle Miniſter; But the reverend Presbyterians, generally diſliking that ſuch a power ſhould be left to every ſingle Miniſter, wiſely conſidering the dangerous conſequents thereof alſo determine, that this ſame excl… from the Sacrament, does belong to the power of Juriſdiction, and conſequently, if they will be conſonant to themſelves, they ſhould deny that any of thoſe arguments which ariſe from the nature of the ordinances alone, as diſtinct from others, are cogent, and ſtand upon thoſe only that ariſe from diſcipline.
As for the Schoolmen, by the way, it wil be no wonder if they ſtand u… thoſe arguments from the nature of the Sacrament, as herein tranſcending all other ordinances, whoſe ſuperſtitious conceit of Chriſts corporal preſence in the Sacrament, could not chuſe but induce them to it; as may appear upon their ſolutions of ſuch queſtions as theſe, Utrum peccator ſumens corpus Chriſti Sacramentalitèr peccet? Ʋidetur quod non; Quia, Sicut hoc Sacramentum ſemitur guſtu & tactu, ita & viſu; At peccator non peccat videndo. Reſpondeo, Quòd per viſum non accipitur ipſum corpus Chriſti, ſed ſolum Sacramentum ejus. Sed ille qui manducat, non ſolum ſumit ſpecies Sacramentales, ſed etiam ipſum Chriſtum qui eſt ſub eis. Aquinas Part 3. Quaeſt. 80. Art. 4. Upon ſuch anſwers as theſe, I am the …e moved with their thoughts about this matter; as alſo with ſome paſſages often quoted out of ſome of the Fathers. Of whom I doe obſerve, that thoſe out of whoſe writings the Papiſts uſually have moſt for them, are moſt harſh, and high flowen in their expreſſions about keeping of ſinners from the Sacrament, as Chryſoſtome (a man of a hot ſpirit, according to his life, Soc: Hiſt. Eccl. l. 6. c. 14 & 16.) and thoſe, whoſe writings are quoted as moſt clear on our ſide, (as Auguſtine) are more ſolute and open in their ſpeeches about admiſſion.
SECT. 9.
THeſe things laid down, the ſubſtance of the controverſy between me and others, about Free-admiſſion, will amount to theſe two queſtions.
1. Whether there be any argument from the nature of the Sacrament, without diſcipline, that remains binding according to Scripture, for the neceſſary excluſion of ſuch from the ſame, who are yet rightly impriviledg'd, and actually poſſeſſed of all other parts of Church-communion, being baptized intelligent members. I put in the word Neceſſary, becauſe prudentially by way of adviſe, ſomething may be granted and wiſhed.
2. Whether there be any ſuch juridical proceeding or cenſure in diſcipline to be proved, either expreſly, or by conſequence from Scripture, as Suſpenſion, diſtinct from Excommunication.