default must receive even when drunk because he was wilfully unfit but a person forced to be drunk by others may be excused from Receiving because he did not wilfully make himselfe unfit and uncapable Wherefore are Ideots kept away but because they are children in understanding and cannot put forth those acts which are necessary to worthy receiving Are not all grosly ignorant persons children also in understanding as well as the former 1 Cor. 14. 20. If he say they are not wilfully so that is not true of divers who by their lusts break their brains and grow distracted If yet he say ignorance may be cured so may distraction and madnesse also but till both be cured the one by spirituall the other by bodily Physick I believe the one may plead admission as well as the other 4 ly Again by Concession Ignorance and scandall do not universally contradict profession whether I be a Church-member or not It 's enough for us if either of them contradict profession particularly As he that contradicts any one Commandement by wilfull disobedience though he keep the other nine yet really contradicts the whole Law Jam. 2. 10. So he who holds up profession in many things yet walks contrary to it in one visible scandal by that one scandal contradicts his whole profession He that yields up nine Forts to his Soveraigne but keeps him out of one is as truly a Rebell as he that keeps him out of all As one sin lived in contradicts reall holinesse so one sin visibly lived in contradicts visible holinesse which is Profession If visible profanenesse arrayed with visible holinesse must be admitted then a known Wolfe cloathed with a Lambs skin must be used as a Lamb and a Dog having on a Childs coat though known to be a Dog must sit at the Table with the Children The Tridentine Papists do not universally contradict profession yet we admit them not to our Sacraments because they contradict profession in divers fundamentalls though not universally upon which account we look at them as universally contradicting profession and that justly Do not many Members of our Churches rase the foundation by abominable errors and practices as well as Papists And shall such be admitted to the Lords Supper upon this poor account because they are not actually excommunicated If so then let the rankest Papists receive also since they were never excommunicated by us We indeed separate from them and so we may from persons who wilfully go on in grosse ignorance or scandall though neither of them be excommunicated till they professe their repentance Why may not sincere Professors in a Church as to Sacramentall Communion separate from scandalous Professors in the same Church as we do from Papists though we neither excommunicate the one nor the other Want of separation in Churches is the cause or at least the occasion of separation from Churches and will I fear if not timely remedied turn the Church of Christ into the Synagogue of Sathan Mr. Humphrey He grants my Notes but objects the keeping of Children and Servants till they can give some tolerable account Ans I take it for granted that the Word and Sacraments rightly administred are true notes of the visible Church I do not grant the Sacrament is an essentiall note and that upon the account forementioned because the absence of Sacraments doth not unchurch a People but they may still be a Church as Combined for constant hearing of the Word and Prayer in which sense godly Families are true though incompleat Churches Philem. vers 2. though at present they have not the use of Sacraments Now let 's see what Mr. Humphrey saies to my Objection He tells us Pag. 83. There is a difference between what is done juridically by compulsion and what is done only as prudentially by advice between forbearance and exclusion His ground is good Because affirmative precepts oblige us semper but not ad semper And upon this account He commends godly Parents and Masters so long as they follow them with instruction and allowes the same in spirituall Fathers that go no further in the like admonition Ans 1. I am glad we agree thus far that both Oeconomicall and Spirituall Parents have power in a prudentiall way by advice to cause persons under their severall charges to forbear the Sacrament Now let Mr. Humphrey give me any Scripture-ground to perswade persons be they never so wicked not to Hear and Pray The worst are bound to pray every day and to Hear as often as their just and necessary occasions will give them leave Why so Because 1. These are parts of naturall Worship unto which all are obliged by the Law of Nature 2 ly Because these are means of Conversion from which none should be kept least of all the worst who have most need of Conversion Contra Sacraments as such are not naturall but instituted worship 2 ly Not means of Conversion but suppose Conversion whence persons visibly in the state of Nature ought not to be admitted to them But 2 ly Mr. Humphrey speaks obscurely and comes not home to the point though what he granted make against himselfe For the next Question is What if those Children and Servants though grosly ignorant and scandalous in spight of admonition will thrust themselves upon the Sacrament In this Paragraph Mr. Humphrey saies I think a man may conscionably forbear his comming sometimes upon many occasions and much more upon pious ends regarding preparation You see now the mans â—…incing of the businesse 1. He may forbear he doth not say he must forbear 2 ly He may somtimes so bear esâ—ecially upon want of due preparation He doth not say he must forbear if he want due preparation 3 ly He hints not one word here what superiours must do or not do in case a person grosly ignorant or scandalous will against their admonition come to the Sacrament upon which yet the very hinge of the Controversy turnes For our parts we are clear 1. That persons unworthy ought to forbear understand it of Evangelicall unworthinesse especially when sensible I mean one who hath no faith and repentance especially when convinced he hath them not 2 ly So long as he continues in this condition he ought to forbear If upon selfe examination he apprehend himselfe though falsely to be in the state of Grace then his case is the same with his who thinks a sin to be a duty who of necessity must sin whether he act or act not in that against the rule in this against his Conscience Or as he who received the Passover thinking himselfe clean yet was really unclean If he came not he sinned against his conscience if he came he sinned against the rule yet this necessity of sinning is only hypotheticall not absolute 3 ly If Oeconomicall Parents know their Children or Servants to be grosly ignorant or scandalous they ought not only to disswade them but also to improve their Authority to keep such being in statu
quo from the Sacrament 4 ly It lies upon Oeconomicall Parents to make search who are grosly ignorant and scandalous in their families by Catechising and watching over their Children and Servants and in the use of private as well as publick means to bring them to some competent measure of knowledge and at least to profession of repentance before they suffer them to Receive Deut. 6. 7. Prov. 31. 27. And why Spirituall Parents should not do the same there being the same ground of the one as of the other a solid reason cannot be given Both are betrusted with soules both must take care to prepare those under their charge for the Sacrament which is impossible for them to do at least in respect of divers both Children Servants and People if in spight of Parents persons though never so ignorant and scandalous might thrust themselves upon the Sacrament 3 ly Because he laies so much stresse upon keeping persons from the Sacrament uridicall and by compulsion I believe it would puzzle Mr. Humphrey to prove that we have kept any away in that manner Divers of our people will not come to Sacraments though they may others desire to come but will not submit to tryall Such we intreat to excuse us and thereupon they abstain though with discontent But where have we juridically or by compulsion kept any from the Sacrament If there be any such thing amongst us I am confident it is very rare I wish Mr. Humphrey were so good a friend as he pretends to this prudentiall care of Church Governours about the Sacrament then would he perswade people upon prudence to submit to tryall and not blow up the division between Pastour and People by crying out so causlesly Violence and Compulsion Where any benefit or priviledge is offered upon fair and honourable conditions and upon sleighting the condition is denyed will Mr. Humphrey look at such a condition as compulsion Or if any refusing the condition shall catch at the Commodity by violence may not his violence be repelled with violence in such case is not the former chargeable with violence rather then the latter Yet God be thanked we have no such custome but we have reason to fear that Mr. Humphrey his Book may put heady people upon waies of violence in order to the Sacrament though he drive no such designe in the publication thereof Mr. Humphrey being urged with the Book of Common-Prayer answers As for the Rubricks allowing the Minister to suspend some notorious evill livers I take it upon the account of ipso jure excommunicate c. Ans 1. The Minister is not only allowed but commanded to suspend in these words The same course shall the Curate take with those c. not suffering them to be partakers of the Lords Table c. 2 ly The object of the Suspension is not only adulterers c. but malicious envious and ignorant persons yea such as wrong their neighbours in word or deed and will not be perswaded to make them reparation all which indeed are very great sins though too rife in and slighted by many Professours and Church-members And particularly for persons grosly ignorant I appeal to the form of confirmation which gives charge for their suspension in these words There shall none be admitted unto the holy Communion untill such time as he can say the Catechism In order whereunto both Ministers and Governours of Families are commanded to be diligent in point of instruction and then to return the names of persons so instructed to the Bishop that he might examine and approve them From all which compared with Mr. Humphrey his present Explication and Interpretation I conclude That either ignorant and envious persons are ipso jure excommunicate or that persons may be suspended though not ipso jure excommunicate He addes Pag. 84. We may distinguish haply between sins that cannot stand with sincerity or with profession as Church-members It may be the Rubrick teaches the last Ans Passing his hesitancy in this distinction for which it may be his heart checkt him we are beholding to Mr. Humphrey for this answer 1. He grants some sins and particularly wilfull sins cannot stand with sincerity Thence I gather That in Mr. Humphrey his own judgment an hypocrite may evidently and certainly be discerned If so then I hope we may judge some mens hearts to be naught without entring upon Gods Throne or prying into Gods secrets an heavy charge he laid formerly upon us 2 ly It 's Mr. Humphrey his judgment that though it be certainly known a person is a wicked man in the state of nature and in the gall of bitternesse for such are all who have no sincerity yet he must be admitted to the Sacrament so he be a Church-member Are they jure excommunicate who fall into some scandalous sin though as to their state reall or hopefull Saints and shall not they be jure excommunicate who are known to be in the state of nature Shall the Lambe for a Wolvish act be denyed the Childrens bread and shall a known Wolfe stript of his Sheeps cloathing sit at the Childrens Table upon this account only because he is crept into the Fold Jud. ver 4. Mr. Humphrey But for Mr. Drake now me thinks he should blush to produce me this Authority which himselfe despises Ans 1. Suppose this charge were true may not I urge him with that Authority I conceive he ownes because I own not the same Authority Were I a Jew and despised the new Testament yet I hope it would not be irrationall for me to presse him being a Christian with the New Testament 2 ly His Charge is false I despise not the Book of Common-Prayer though I approve not divers things in it and about it and for which I have both solid reason the consent of the most pious in the Nation and both Houses of Parliament to back me As to the point in hand If the Exhortation in the Communion make it utterly unlawfull to be present unlesse we receive I must crave liberty to dissent from it in that particular and must oppose to this precept the practice of the Primitive Church But may there not be a candid interpretation of that Passage The Exhortation is but against those who sleight and neglect the Sacrament and withall stand by as Gazers Compare Acts 1. 11. who may come and will not This certainly is a great sin But will Mr. Humphrey thence conclude that because some may not taste therefore they may not hear and see the goodnesse of the Lord in the Sacrament Shall I not come as near the Lord as I can because I cannot come so near him as I would Pag. 85. Mr. Humphrey page 56. Mr. Drake acknowledges this practice of his were against the well being of a true visible Church if the Lords Supper were a priviledge due to all members I think herein his cause is yielded to all clearly but what we have excepted Why I pray Because our
up of Tares is a Scripture-Ordinance 1 Cor. 5. 5 7. The termes are seemingly but not really contradictory The Tares must not be plucked up and the Tares must be plucked up As others of the like nature God sees no sin in his Children and God sees sin in his Children The Church is without spot and the Church is spotted c. all which are only seemingly contradictory because not understood under the same respect For the difficulty about plucking up or not plucking up the Tares we cannot have a better Reconciler than Christ himselfe Matth. 13. 29. where the ground of the Prohibition is the rule and bound of the Prohibition From thence I gather 1. That the Prohibition is not absolute but with a caution Lest you pluck up the Wheat also how ever Mr. Humphrey page 89. is pleased to judge of it and in the close to favour me with a jest 2 ly That men visibly wicked must be tolerated in the Church rather then persons visibly godly should be prejudiced by rash and preposterous rigour against wicked Church-members as it fell out by the Anabaptists See Calvin and Pareus upon the place Others think the Tares in Palestine were like the Wheat whence there might be danger of eradicating the Wheat with them But its evident the Servants knew the Tares and were offended with them whether by servants you understand Church-Officers or other discerning Church-members whence it seemes to follow that either some may be known to be Tares who cannot juridically be proved to be so and such was the case of Judas Or though they can be proved to be such yet circumstances may so fall out that just severity against them by way of excommunication may be noxious to the godly In which cases such Tares must be patiently tolerated till either God open a dore for the Church to cast them out or deal with them himselfe by particular or generall judgment 3 ly That Church-members may be known to be wicked and in the state of nature without danger of entring upon Gods Throne This Mr. Humphrey grants here and the Parable holds it forth Matth. 13. 26 27. however he dispute against it else-where 4 ly That where wicked men may be cut off without prejudice to the godly there the plucking up of those Tares is not prohibited by the Parable this will be done at the day of Judgment hath been done and may be done by excommunication 5 ly That a Ministers knowledge of a man to be a Tare is not enough to cast him out of the Church since it s of great concernment that the Wheat as well as the Servants should know the Tares that the Congregation as well as Church-Officers should be satisfied a person is a Tare before he be pluckt up which order being observed there can be no such danger of plucking up the Wheat A Minister may suspend a positive Act in not giving the Sacrament to such a person for the present but he cannot put forth a positive Act to cut off such a person from the Church without consent or satisfaction of the Church at least representative And if in the former case the Minister do wrong through mistake or passion c. himselfe is accountable to the Church for that particular injury and the person so wronged ought to be righted by the Church If Mr. Humphrey can reconcile the Parable better with excommunication we shall have cause to thank him If not I shall intreat him not to scoff at what he cannot mend But however he shall please to deal with me let him remember it 's a Ministers duty to satisfie not to encrease the scruples of tender Consciences especially when his profest designe is the satisfaction of tender Consciences When two Scriptures seem to clash is it fit for a Minister to leave them together by the ears and say Matth. 27. 43. Let Christ part them if he will Such carriage is fitter for a Jewish Priest then for a Gospell Minister Is Mr. Humphrey so carefull to reconcile Christs Members and so carelesse to reconcile Christs Truths Mr. Humphrey Pag. 89. Publick confession will hardly down and Auricular we hardly approve of c. Ans 1. No more will good Physick down with too many yet a wise and faithfull Physician will take some course to get it down where he apprehends its usefull for his Patient 2 ly Publick Confession of sin indeed is harsh because by it one takes publick shame to himselfe which the proud heart of man is loath to do yet in some cases it must be submitted to But publick Profession of faith is honourable and which it s a shame for a Christian to be ashamed of Brides are not ashamed to professe their love of and confidence in their Bridegrooms before the Minister and the Church if need be and shall Christs Spouse be ashamed to declare her faith in and love of her most precious Lord and Husband before the friends of the Bridegroom 3 ly This Profession is not so publick as to offer violence to the modesty of any it being made but before two or three who are also ready to prompt the Bride when her modesty seals up her lips with silence 4 ly To avoid the imputation of auricular Confession c. this Profession is not made to the Minister alone but before persons also of known integrity whom we hope without offence we may call Elders and if they be not such it s the error and fault of those who choose them and may be remedied by themselves Mr. Humphrey Christ sometimes conversed with Pharisees I hope to do good upon them c. Ans 1. So I hope Christs Ministers will make conscience to converse with Pharisees and Publicans to do them good and bring them to repentance 2 ly Christ admitted neither of them to the Sacrament till he had done them good and brought them to repentance And if this make not for us and against Mr. Humphrey I pray what doth This is the more remarkable because both Pharisees and Publicans were members of the Church divers Publicans being Jewes as is evident by Matthew Zacheus c. and is made out by Jerome against the mistake of Tertullian See Goodwin's Moses and Aaron Lib. 1. Cap. 2. Christ conversed with both to do them good but admitted neither to the Lords Supper till after profession of repentance as is evident in the case of the Apostle Matthew who was a Publican Matth. 9. 9. and 10. 3. compare Matth. 26. vers 20. 27. Mr. Humphrey Pag. 90. Mr. Drake need not so unjustly and so direfully first accuse me and then condemn me for what he forges as if I deserved to be more then suspended which in his sense makes me tremble it should enter into his heart Why should I be thus devoted to the pit of Hell even irrecoverably These Censures are things too sharp to be put into the hands of such children of thine It may be the Lord will
therefore he must not pray holds not water And that first because Prayer is a part of natural worship to which all are bound not so to receiving a part of instituted worship Secondly Because Prayer is a means of conversion not so receiving Upon this account even heathen are bound to pray not so to receive the Sacrament His arguments to convince my Assertion of weakness are these p 161. First Because affirmatives are not exclusive Ans It hath been proved that some affirmatives are exclusive that is I must not do the matter unless I observe the manner Thus a Jew might not eat the Passover unless he were clean A Christian must not reprove unless by good observation or sufficient information he know the party to be reproved guilty Mr. H. his second argument is Mans impotency cannot annihilats Christs authority Ans True but mans malice or wickedness may render him uncapable of some priviledge and duty Faith of evidence is a duty as well as a priviledge but of this duty and priviledge a natural man is uncapable in statu quo Dr. D. If the visibly unfit will thrust in it is the Churches duty not to let them murther the Lord of glory Here Mr. H. calls for Scripture-proof Ans That proof is given him above therefore I forbear to repeat He tells us ib. That the former assertionis an occasion of separation Ans That particular Congregation which wilfully and totally neglects her duty admitting all pell-mell gives just occasion of secession in point of Sacramental communion to other Congregations that make conscience of their duty about which matter yet there had need be very great caution True as Mr H. notes p. 162. A natural man sins in praying hearing c. yet must pray and hear But there is not par ratio in receiving as hath been formerly shewed Many things though good materially are sins relatively in such a person and not only because they are done in an evil manner as for a private person to do the work of a Judge Proportionably a person may be uncapable of one Ordinance in statu quô who in the same state is capable of other Ordinances But of this formerly A perjured person will not be admitted to swear and shall the same person be admitted to the Sacrament upon the bare account Church membership which as a relation to such a Corporation supposes worthiness in a person or at least that it should be in him but is neither his worthiness nor the efficient cause thereof unless you refer it to the impulsive cause since Church-membership is or should be a special motive and spur to habitual and active worthiness and is an aggravation of the want of either Indeed if Christ did bid all Church-members receive then receiving were not morally impossible to any though never so bad but this is the question begged nor can M. H. prove that indefinite 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be an universal if applyed to Church-members as such Understand me here rightly Christ bids all Church-members prepare and so receive But where doth he bid them receive be they never so unprepared It is not then bare Church-membership makes me capable of the Sacrament M. H. p. 163. A man may be Evangelically unworthy yet receive worthily in his kind tâ—…gh not worthily in the Apostles sense This is full of sweetness c. Answ If by the latter worthy receiving he mean a partaking of the Sacrament upon due examination with a sense of my own unworthiness hungring after Christ and mercy c. what is this but a receiving worthily in the Apostles sense All such and onely such as come thus affected in truth are worthy Receivers and receive worthily in an Evangelical sense though haply they may judge themselves unworthy not onely Legally but also Evangelically He may as well say a person may discourse learnedly and yet not be learned as say a person may receive worthily and yet not be a worthy receiver If M. H. hath any other sense that is not Apostolick he must pardon us if we do not receive it An unworthy person may do a worthy act but he cannot act worthily Receiving is very comfortable to weak Christians but what comfort can hypocrites or profane persons expect from it M. H. ib. That man is to be accounted to receive worthily that makes an effectual use thereof according to his own condition whether regenerate or not Ans 1. Suppose this were true would it not exclude most Church-members what natural man of an hundred makes an effectual use of the Sacrament according to his own condition Are not all natural men apt to conclude from their very receiving that they are in a good estate Is this an effectual use of the Sacrament according to their condition 2. Suppose in receiving he be convinced of his â—…d estate is receiving backt with such conviction a receiving worthily We ask a proof for this new and strange doctrine That which is common to worthy and unworthy receivers cannot be a receiving worthily of this nature is receiving backt with conviction common to good and bad elect and reprobate and which coming alone is so far from making a person worthy that it encreases and aggravates his unworthiness 3. Suppose he were converted by receiving which we deny it follows not thence that he received worthily though it would follow he received worthiness As at the word preached a natural man hears unworthily at that very Sermon which converts him the very moment before his conversion so at the Sacrament the same person receives unworthily the very moment before his conversion supposed to be wrought by receiving since worthiness must be wrought in me before I can act worthily Page 164. and 165. Mr. H. only words it crying out Oh what a burden and weariness is it What everlasting troubles and difficulties will it create that Church-officers should be bound to try the sincerity of every receiver and that both they and other Church-members must be accessory to the guilt of unworthy receivers if they do not their endeavour to reform or discover them and here again he asks for Scripture-proof c. Ans 1. By way of concession I beleeve indeed a threefold trouble discourages many Ministers First The trouble of pains must be taken Secondly The trouble of offending those who are averse to trial upon which account they may as well forbear the work of preaching faithfully Matth. 15. 12 and 1 Cor. 1. 23. Thirdly The trouble and fear of losing their salary in whole or in part To such I must commend the practice of the Apostle Gal. 1. 16. and intreat them to take heed of consulting with flesh and blood As for weak and tender Christians Sacramental trial can be no matter of offence to them if they be rightly informed 2. Suppose the burden were never so intolerable Acts 15. 10. It s a burden of Christs laying on and therefore must be born The difficulty of duty never discourages where
together and recover Will Mr. H. say the Nurses carelesness was morally good because it was eventually good Pilates not rescuing of Christ was eventually good was it therefore morally good In like manner Suppose a godly man deserving excommunication receive worthily his worthy receiving is accidental to my neglect of telling the Church wherefore by omission of that my duty I am guilty as if he had received unworthily that and not his worthy receiving being the natural and proper fruit of my omission Yet further Who ever will seriously weigh and compare the supposition and inference may observe that Mr. H. is no very cordial friend to excommunication how ever he may cry it up to cry down suspension With all lest I should seem to be over rigid I must adde That if this godly man deserved excommunication for some foul crime known onely to me or some few and upon reproof humbled himself c. I dare not say its my duty in that case to tell the Church since the principal end of excommunicating this person is attained by private reproof Matth. 18. 15. But in case this godly man do obstinately persist and deny or defend the crime that is evident there is little hope that in such a condition he will receive worthily yet suppose he should that will not excuse my neglect to tell the Church upon his pertinacy after admonition first by my self and then with two or three more according to the rule Matth. 18. 17. By all hath been said its apparent my sin of omission is not to be singled by it self as Mr. H. would have it and that I am more guilty if that godly man receive unworthily than if he had not received at all since my telling the Church in case he be obstinate might have prevented his great sin of unworthy receiving to which I am accessory by not hindring it when I might and should but his unworthy receiving will not excuse my neglect to tell the Church since his worthy receiving upon the supposition is not the proper but accidental consequent of that my neglect and omission To what Mr. H. addes in the same page I answer We say not its absolutely a duty to keep from the Sacrament persons visibly unworthy this act being limitable by several cautions but that it concerns Church-members by private admonition or telling the Church to seek the reformation of such a person which regularly done frees private Christians from guilt Nor is there the same reason for keeping any from the Word and Prayer as from the Sacrament But of this formerly As in some cases excommunication it self may be forborn of which formerly in the Parable of the Tares so it may fall out in the matter of positive Suspension which is very rare with us Church-governors ordinarily acting rather by way of intreaty to forbear than by any juridical censure As for the Ministers suspending his own act of giving the Sacrament to one he knows to be unworthy if Mr. H. judge it a weakness in such a Minister I hope how ever he will not force a weak brother to act against his conscience For his instance in the close of this Section of the Churches admitting Infants to receive in the dayes of Augustine he is not ignorant of the ground thereof which upon better inspection was found weak Yet withall I must be bold to tell him that if he will keep to his own bottome of Church-membership he cannot turn Infants or the distracted out of his society who have better right to the Lords Supper than many he pleads for But I pass this as formerly handled SECT X. THe last Objection is from the several Texts alleaged for separation from wicked persons Mr. H. No Scripture allows a separation from any of Gods publick Ordinances A great part of my answer to this exception Mr. H. passes Page 265. with telling the Reader He hath already satisfied those things onely he leaves two notes And 1. where I say his excommunication is a cruel censure as cutting men off from all Ordinances Mr. H. answers I am perswaded Mr. D. will be of another minde when he comes to understand me better how I take this that is relatively wherein I think I am near the truth Answ By relative cutting off from Church-communion in generall Mr. H. means to my best understanding That a person thus censured hath no relative right to any Church-Ordinance yet by the Churches indulgence may be admitted to any though not as a Church-member Whence it follows That he who is no Church-member such is his excommunicated person may by the Churches indulgence be admitted to any Ordinance which if true I know no scriptum est for such indulgence then not onely persons dismembred but also heathen may be admitted to receive the Lords Supper though not as Church-members a great latitude indeed But I pray Sir upon the supposition may the Church indulge me a real injoyment of the Sacrament to which if excommunicated I have no relative right and may it not indulge me a relative right to the Sacrament though at present it see good reason to deny me the real injoyment thereof Of this formerly therefore I pass it Mr. H. ib. Not every sleight occasion but notorious crimes must serve for Church-censure If we allow any censure less than casting out of the Church Church-censures are like to become ordinary and soon contemned c. 1. By concession of the first branch yea though the crime be heynous so it be not notorious and publick I do not think it must come presently to a Church-censure till private admonition be sleighted Matth. 18. v. 15 16 17. 2. Yet that may possibly be sleight to some which is very foul in it self whether you respect its substance or circumstances And such is affected ignorance 3. If there be no censure less than casting out of the Church then belike publick reproof is no Church-censure Sure the Apostle was not of Mr. H. his minde 1 Tim. 5. 20. 4. If the causes of Church-censures be ordinary Church-censures caeteris paribus must be as ordinary That frequency makes them contemptible is too true through our innate corruption which inclines us to contemn Christ the choysest Ordinances and mercies because they are ordinary But thence to argue it were better such mercies and Ordinances were less frequent is antiscriptural and irrational For his personal reflections page 267-269 I shall onely say thus much I He takes too much upon him to charge me so highly especially with malice I confess I hare his free Admission but love his person 2. What I speak in thesi and still apprehend to be a truth he first applies in hypothesi and then exaggerates to make it seem more odious 3. Had I applied it personally to Mr. H. I only noted what God might justly do as himself confesseth p. 268. and withall acknowledge as much against my self That God justly might deal with me as a weed for cherishing and
Seal to a lie in admitting that person whom in charity being approved upon due tryall he may and ought to judge worthy 2ly If the Minister suspect a person legally approved he may and ought the more carefully to warn him c. and by this means I conceive he may clear himself but cannot keep back him that is approved by the Major vote of the Eldership Onely afterwards hath power to appeal c. Let the Reader now judge whether by Sealing a saving interest in Christ to a person whom I may and ought to think Evangelically worthy the Minister doth Seal to a lie Or 2ly If he Seale a saving interest in Christ to a person whom himself suspects yet cannot evince to be unworthy and whom others having the same power and piety with himself judge worthy be a Sealing to a lie If indeed the Minister know this person to be unworthy as being in the state of nature or jure Excommunicate here the case is much altered of which I speak not in that Paragraph onely I am much beholding to Mr. Humphrey for endeavouring to pin such an absurdity upon my sleeve If Mr. Humphrey and the Reader desire my judgement in this particular For my part if not only a Presbytery but if a Classis yea Province voted a person worthy whom I knew to be unworthy as having sufficient evidence of his gross ignorant or scandalous conversation backt with impenitency and obstinacy I must desire them all to excuse me for giving the Sacrament to such a one Yet would I not make any stirre in the Church if they appointed an other Minister to give him the Sacrament in my Congregation By which means I apprehend I shall be both cleare of the guilt of his Admission and withall preserve the peace and unity of the Church And should this carriage of mine cost me a Sequestration I hope I should chuse rather to suffer a penall then to commit a Morall evill The case may be illustrated by other Acts of Judicature both Civill and Sacred Suppose the Eldership vote the Excommunication of a person whom I knew to be innocent or vote the non-Excommunication of a person whom I knew to be jure-Excommunicate In such case they must give me leave to enter my protest and not to act according to their vote against my Knowledge and Conscience Again in Civill Tryalls suppose the Jury find a person guilty whom the Judge knowes to be Innocent were I Judge in that case I hope by Gods assistance neither Law nor Jury should prevail with me to pronounce sentence against such a person The like might be said about the Judges clearing a person whom hee knows to be guilty yet is acquitted by the Jury if the Judge should be put to pronounce a Sentence of absolution against his Knowledge and Conscience Which yet I think is not in practice amongst us since the Verdict of the Jury doth acquit the Prisoner only the Judge in such case might haply complain of the Jury c. My drift and scope in all this is to shew the weaknesse of Mr. Humphrey his Cords where-with he thinks to bind me and withall that I might make it appear to the Reader That however pag. 64. Mr. Humphrey triumphs before the Victory yet we are not forced either to lie on the one hand or to come over to Mr. Humphry on the other hand For the last clause in this Paragraph That seeing a Minister is Gods Embassadour and what he doth is by Commission we may as soone say the God of Israel can lic as that the Minister either Seals an untruth or tie in doing his Office Ans Either the sense is That a Minister when he acts clave non errante Seales neither an untruth nor a lie which is as pertinent as if I should say when Mr. Humphrey Preaches Truth hee Preaches not an untruth or lie Or his meaning is that because a Minister is Commissioned by Christ therefore he cannot erre in this or any other part of his Ministeriall function which as it is a palpable errour so it smells strongly of Popish infallibility What he addes by way of amplification Pag. 64 65 66. as there is much truth in it so his great mistake lies in apprehending that we cannot judge a person to be worthy or unworthy but presently we meddle with Gods Ark and enter upon Gods Throne The weaknesse of which inference hath been formerly laid open and therefore I do but only note it here For his answer to my exception against divers Church-members receiving Pag. 66. though all may bee present c. That yet the Minister may be free in his Office in delivering the Sacrament in generall as Christ did and that especially because it is a visible Word Ans 1. This indeed accompanied with due admonition may be a relief to the Minister hee being thereby excused from giving the Sacrament to persons visibly unworthy * My meaning is If the Minister acquiesce in the vote of the Elders and do not his indeavour in a Morall way to have such a person kept from receiving For I do not think the Minister is bound to thrust him away from the Table or to pull the Bread and Cup violently out of his hands who upon the unrighteous vote and incouragement of the Elders laies hold upon those holy mysteries but it cannot clear him of guilt as permitting them to eat and drink judgment to themselves whom he ought to keep back 2ly Though the Elements and divers Sacramentall actions be explicatory and so a visible word common to all be they Church-members or no yet giving and receiving are applicatory and where a Minister or a private Christian cannot apply the writing or promise of Christ I speak as de jure there they cannot apply the seal of that writing Here I cannot but take notice of Mr. Humphrey his ingenuity in confessing That presence at the Sacrament is more free than actuall receiving in these words Pag. 68. Not that I am so moved at free presence but that actuall receiving is not as free to our intelligent Members Not that bare presence makes them guilty but their unworthy carriage at the Sacrament and their unprofitablenesse under it as a visible word And I do as easily yield to him that by presence onely persons may be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ as well as by receiving but not as much since actuall receiving is like Judas his betraying Christ with a kisse whereby hee contracted deeper guilt then others of his damned Crew especially such as came haply to see Christ taken but put not forth a tongue or hand in order to Christs apprehension Yet withall it being agreed on both hands that presence is freer then receiving for which Mr. Humphrey himselfe holds forth the practice of the Primitive Church let him confider how he will salve his own Objections against this Tenet and that it argues weaknesse for a man to yield the
Cause and yet to dispute against it Mr. Humphrey Indeed if persons be Excommunicate as the Primitive Church did punish such with bare presence or men have their gathered Companies if they do not communicate with those who are present and hear their reason is open they own them not as their Members But as for us that are not yet convinced by them either we must maintain or new-mould our mixed Congregations Ans 1. Mr. Humphrey cannot be ignorant that in the Primitive times persons excommunicated in this sense were not to be present at the Sacrament since the fourth degree of excommunication called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shut persons quite out of the Church where they were to stand with tears requesting those who entred in to pray for them and thence they were called Plorantes See Goodwin's Moses and Aaron They who were quite shut out of the Church could not be present at the Sacrament administred in the Chancell 2 ly It appears further by this Answer of Mr. Humphrey that in the Primitive Times suspension was a part or degree of excommunication since some persons excommunicated might be present yet not receive but others might neither be admitted to presence nor to receiving And this makes much for us and against himselfe who grants that persons excommunicated may be kept from the Sacrament But say we persons juridically suspended are excommunicated both in our sense and in the sense of the Primitive Church Ergo By Mr. Humphrey his own Principle they are to be kept from receiving 3 ly The ground of their separation from us who are in gathered Companies yet are not Brownists is it not because we admit pel-mel Church members visibly unworthy And had our Sacraments been kept pure their very pretence of separation had been cut off I mean as to the point of Communicants Besides some of those separated Congregations have admitted to their Sacraments our Church-members whom they apprehended godly when at the same time other Church-members of ours concerning whom they have not had sufficient evidence of their piety did not passe for current A clear evidence that they as well as we look more at visible worthinesse then at Church-membership D. Dr. Page 37. If the Sacrament have the same latititude with the Word then a Heathen may receive it as well as a Christian Mr. Humphrey Pag. 69. He hath left out my main caution within the Church The Word may be considered as a bare word and an Instrument in writing c. or as a Sealed word and instrument delivered to peculiar use The Covenant is a sealed Covenant only unto the Church c. Ans 1. We demand Scripture-proofe for all this Mr. Humphrey indeed quotes Rom. 3. 2. To them were committed the Oracles of God And Rom. 9. 4. To whom pertained the Covenants But 1. There is not one word of the Sacrament 2 ly If he will urge those places then Heathen must be excluded from the Oracles and Covenant whether sealed or unsealed there being not one word about that particular of sealing Suppose the Apostle had said To whom belongs the Oracles and the Covenants and the Sacraments If Mr. Humphrey will thence argue Therefore Heathen ought not to partake of the Sacraments is it not easie to retort out of the same place that then by the same reason they ought not to read the Scripture or to hear the Word Preached and the Covenant declared and published since all these were in some way peculiar to the Jewes Yea to some Sacraments Heathen were admitted namely to Baptisme under the Cloud to the Manna and to the Rock-Water to wit the mixed Multitude as well as divers uncircumcised Israelites in which there was somewhat extraordinary I agree with Mr. Humphrey that Heathen may partake of the Word yet not of the Sacraments but his proof thereof from Rom. 3. and 9. is not valid 2 ly He mistakes in saying the Word is not a sealed Instrument to Heathen and in thinking the Word is not sealed to Heathen by the Sacraments unlesse they partake of the Sacraments Shew me any Covenant in the World where the Seales doth not concern them whom the Articles of the Covenant doe concern If the Articles of the Covenant of Grace concern all the World and are published and tendered to all conditionally what absurdity is there in sealing the same conditionall offer to all in the Sacrament 3 ly The sealing of the Covenant is generall or particular on Gods part or on mans part In generall God seales the Covenant by every Sacrament conditionally to all the World Particularly he seales the Covenant to the worthy Receiver at the Sacrament Further whether I Receive or no God seales the Covenant to me as well as to others in generall but by Receiving I my selfe seal in particular which standers by do not We easily agree with Mr. Humphrey That every Church-member without a just forfeiture hath a publick right to the use of the Sacrament But the Question is Wherein this forfeiture lies We say the forfeiture lies in visible unworthinesse He saies it lies in Excommunication We answer That cannot be since forfeiture of a priviledge is grounded upon an offence but excommunication rightly managed is no offence The Church indeed by excommunication takes the forfeiture but the Church-member by the offence makes the forfeiture This offence known is nothing else but his visible unworthinesse upon which the Church may justly deny him the use of the Sacrament for all his publick right to it as a Church-member Herein indeed an unworthy Church-member is distinguished from an Heathen in that he hath a publick right to the Sacrament as a Jew when unclean had to the Passover and a Priest when unclean had to the holy Things which no Heathen have But the influence of that right is suspended as to his actuall receiving till he visibly repent of his visible unworthinesse D. Dr. There are some righteous persons in their own conceit many false justitiaries c. Mr. Humphrey Of all men I think such as these had most need of conviction but I finde not the Scriptures send forth any spirituall hue and cry to make search for them If it did I will not for any thing say who are the men c. Ans 1. That conviction they may have by presence at all Ordinances 2 ly A Scripture hue and cry for such hath been formerly noted and I shall not here trouble my Reader with repetitions 3 ly For any to professe They will not help to discover those after whom the Scripture makes hue and cry argues at the best very great weaknesse and is in effect to say I will not do what the Word of God commands me 4 ly For his reflection upon divers of our Ministers and Elders let Mr. Humphrey but discover in particular those whom he charges in generall and make good his charge we shall thank him for it and trust through mercy so far as our power reaches we shall not