not say opposers though even this word is not culpable if rightly and candidly understood of the Church in that act but I neither looked at all of his minde as ungodly nor at all of our mindes as Godly I am far from limiting piety to a party in his sense but desire rather to sit down and mourne that Godly men are so accessary to in the making and abetting of parties both against faith and charity Sect. X. In the tenth Section by instance of the passeover c. M. Humprey labours to make it out that every Church-member ought to receive The answer is easie As all circumcised persons were to eat the passe-over yet divers in some cases might not receive at such or such a time so all Church-members are to receive the Lords Supper but not till they be prepared If all were bound to receive every Sacrament then were it a sin for any at any time to forbear and a sin to perswade any to forbear Which I believe Master Humphrey will not assert as that which is Heterodox and may prove a dangerous snare If any be kept from the Lords Supper generally they may thank themselves as might those Jews who neglected to purifie themselves for the passe-over For an additional proof he produces humane testimony And 1. he quotes Mr. Perkins pag. 109. and 110. Answ 1. That all Church-members ought to receive we deny not if rightly understood as above that is they ought to examine and prepare themselves and so to receive 1 Cor. 11. 28. Secondly that in order hereunto all must make conscience to fit themselves Mr. Humphrey confesseth page 110. Thirdly that any ought to receive hic nunc when unprepared Mr. Humphrey cannot prove Fourthly that Mr. Perkins is not of Mr. Humphrey his minde herein to me seems more than probable because in the third Proposition cited by M. Humphrey he concludes Every one is to receive according to the laudable custom of his own Church But it hath been and still is the laudable custome of the Church of England to try persons at age before they receive We shall not deny the Sacrament to any that will receive it according to the laudable custome of the Church of England Pag. 110. Note 1. If M. H. be Judge his words are oracles my answers are trifles Secondly Poor infants are a mighty rub in his way they make him complain now the ninth time God knows how to perfect praise out of the mouths of Babes and sucklings Thirdly he frights me with two terrible Thorns but tells me not what they are haply to make them more formidable I guesse they are the Thorns he put in the hand of infants and ideots which upon tryal I have found to be but painted Thornes but being turned upon himself they prove real Thornes No wonder the man complains more then seven times Fourthly he tells the Reader I say and say on Haply the Reader might suspect I said nothing unlesse Mr. Humphrey had spoke out for me I thank him he will honour me so far as to be my Cryer Fifthly he findes fault I am too fine yet suspects I am not in good earnest Truely Sir I hope I affect not finery but seriousnesse I part not those actions Christ hath joyned nor will joyn those which Christ hath parted As the Covenant so the Seals are applicable to all conditionally and mediately but the Covenant is not absolutely and immediately applicable to any that are visibly out of Covenant and therefore by proportion neither the Seales of the Covenant The Covenant is conditionally and mediately Mark 16. 15 16. even to Heathen applicable yet I hope M. Humphrey will not admit Heathen to the Sacrament His instance of ipso jure excommunicate will not help him as hath been formerly shewed For 1. if such a person must be suspended before excommunication then suspension is a distinct ordinance from excommunication by Mr. Humphrey his own grant Secondly if Christs universal do this be limited by Pauls exception put away from you such a person then its further evident that Christs commanding all Church members to receive is limited by Paul's exception that a Brother or Church member if a raylor a drunkard unclean covetuous c. must not be admitted to the Lords Supper as being ipso jure excommunicate and withall that any sin in visible Dominion makes a person ipso jure excommunicate as covetousnesse railing fornication c. though not capital and then I pray why may not ignorance in dominion suspend as well as scandal His amplification from Math. 5. 23 25. makes rather against than for him Since its evident by that Text. First that moral pollution as malice till removed suspended a man from Sacrifice Secondly that moral as well as Levitical pollution may suspend a man from instituted but not from natural worship Sacrifices and Sacraments are instituted worship prayer and hearing are natural worship A Zimri is bound to hear pray be he never so bad not to so offer Sacrifice or receive the Sacrament in statu quo The law of Creation bindes to natural worship which no unworthinesse of the Creature can dissolve Hence the Lord dispenseth much in and about instituted worship not so in natural worship 1 Sam. 15. 22. Jer. 7. 22 23. Hosea 6. 6. Math. 12. 4 5. Thirdly what if the Sacrificer will never be reconciled must he notwithstanding be admitted to offer Our Saviour sayes he must first be reconciled then offer Paul sayes he must first be prepared and so eat surely then he must not offer till reconciled nor receive till prepared And if his malice and unpreparednesse be visible he may and must be suspended Fourthly from Mr. Humphrey his own grant If there be many occasions of forbearing a duty and unpreparednesse be a just occasion and a grand occasion then as this unpreparednesse should occasion my forbearing so if visible it should occasion the Churches suspending of me and such is visible ignorance or prophaenness in any church-Church-member If he may forbear upon just occasion why may not the Church or any particular member advise him to that which is lawfull If he must forbear why may not the Church or any particular member advise him to his duty and in case he will act against his duty why may not the Church use her power to suspend him from that unlawfull act I make my self no more Lord over Gods comand by telling my Brother this is not his duty than by telling him this is his duty In both I make my self Lord of Gods command if my advice be contrary to the affirmative and negative precept in neither if my advice be consonant to the rule Mr. Humphrey pag. 112. To hold it is not a mans duty to receive while unregenrat this reaches the semper looses the bands of Gods commands Ans 1. It reaches the semper onely conditionally as legal uncleannesse might haply reach the semper in order to the passe-over and as excommunication
in some lesser things be at a distance Two Positions of mine being the chief grounds of difference between Mr. H. and my self and the arguments for proof of each being scattered in my Bar fixed I thought fit to sum them up together in this place for the ease and satisfaction of the Reader The first is That I hold The Lords Supper is no converting Ordinance My grounds are 1 Because Sacraments presuppose initiall Conversion Should any person desiring the Sacraments declare before sufficient witness that he would not beleeve in Christ and that he were resolved to his dying day to live in a known sinne what Minister could admit such an one either to Baptism or to the Lords Supper Now that which ever supposeth Conversion doth never work Conversion 2 Because I no where finde in Scripture that the Lords Supper is a seed of Regeneration but a meal or feast for nutrition 3 Because there is no promise of Conversion annexed to the Lords Supper 4 Because he that eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks damnation or judgement to himself but hee that is converted by receiving sure doth not eat and drink judgement to himself but grace and mercy All these laid together seem not only probable but cogent arguments The second Position is That no unregenerate person ought to receive the Lords Supper My grounds for this are 1 Because receiving cannot convert but doth prejudice such a one in statu quo 2 Because no natural man can either examine himself or receive worthily in the Apostles sense 3 Because Christ forbids such to receive as have fellowship with devils 1 Cor. 10. 20 21. But all natural men have fellowship with Devils Ephe. 2. 2 3. and 2 Tim. 2. 26. Ergo. Others adde the following reasons 1 Only friends must partake of the Lords Table 2 It s the bread of the faithfull and must not be cast to Dogs 3 It s a Sacrament of union by charity which natural men want 4 It s spiritual nourishment and therefore is receptible only by spiritual persons Withal I intreat the Reader to note that though with us the rule of receiving be real worthiness yet the rule of Admission is visible worthiness which consists in competent knowledge profession of piety and immunity from scandal It may happily bee expected I should now take Mr. Timson to task but I must herein crave to be excused since 1 I want leasure 2 Love not to ampliate controversies 3 My present answer to Mr. Humphrey if solid will also subvert Mr. Timsons principles as to the main When I consider the zeal and strictnesse of the Primitive times in which a clear difference was put between the Catechumeni the Fideles and the Poenitentes of which only the middle sort received the Sacrament though in some cases the Penitents were allowed to see the Lords Supper administred yet might not receive I fear we sin on the one hand in point of defect as their zeal might carry them too far on the other hand in point of excesse In Corporations well ordered all of the same Society have not equal Priviledges but visible worth is the gradual foundation of Honour and Trust And why it should not be so in the best of Corporations I see nothing either in Scripture or Reason to the contrary The judicious Reader by comparing what hath been writ on both sides will easily enough discern where the hinge of the Controversy turns what to choose or refuse in either I shall only adde this in generall That what ever hee findes in this or the former Treatise of errour or weakness hee may bee sure that is mine what ever of truth or strength that 's none of mine but comes from the fountain of all truth and strength My scope in this return to Mr. H. his Rejoynder is no way to vent my spleen against Mr. Humphrey upon whose head I would heap coals of fire to melt him not to vex him Yea in the close of his second Vindication published this very month though hee adhere to his former opinion of free Admission yet page 144. he expresses himself with much Candour in these words I both allow and reverence the Piety zeal and pains of many Ministers that prudentially take occasion hereby to look into the state of their flocks only for their admonition and just instruction without driving them from their duty And I do bewail the frowardnesse and off-wardnesse of most unto so easy a submission utterly disliking at the bottome of my heart the spirits of such Christians who either out of Conscientiousnesse of their own ignorance or Haughtinesse of their minds will be content bee deprived the Sacrament rather than give an account of their faith to those that ask it in the spirit of Meeknesse for their Edification Nay I do profess for my part were I under the Presbytery I should most freely subject my self to their triall as being afraid to grieve the spirit of my Pastour supposing him to require it meerly out of the tendernesse of his Conscience and give example of obstinacy unto others c. and afterwards he proceeds thus To this end I could wish that for the ignorant there were Catechists in the Church and some prudent kind of Law for the bringing of all such to submit to be catechised and for the scandalous that there were some Authoritative way for the exercise of that most yielded and least practised duty of Fraternal correprion c. I wish that ignorant and scandalous persons with all haughty opposers of Sacramental Tryall would now at last imitate Mr. Humphrey in his Christian moderation were this once obtained of our people and would all Ministers and other Church-officers in their places mannage this work of Triall with humility faithfullnesse and Christian prudence and would Governours of families make conscience of initiating and training up their Children and Servants in knowledge and piety and send them to be catechised Wee trust that in a short time through grace instead of disputing for a sacramentall Rail or Bar wee should unite together in blessing God for that light amity and order which would make the Churches in these three Nations glorious How ever I shall rest in having done my duty and where any scapes have slipt mee through weaknesse incogitancy multiplicity of occasious c. Let the Reader consider Humanum est errare but through grace assisting I shall not wittingly persist in any errour The Lord send us all the Spirit of Truth Holiness and Meekness From my Study in Silver-Street June 24. 1656. Thy Servant in Christ Roger Drake THE BAR TO FREE ADMISSION FIXED Or An Answer to Mr. Humphrey his Rejoynder The First PART Sect. I. SO prevalent is old Adam since our primitive apostacy in the hearts of the best that we finde it very hard to contend for the Faith in any particular without the breach of Love and Charity I wish it were not so between Mr. Humphrey and my selfe Standers-by usually see more then
the beginning Iohn 6. 64. yet admitted them as Disciples Yet it followes not thence the Church should admit such before it have good satisfaction at least in the judgment of charity about their sincere conversion otherwise the Disciples did ill to be so shy of Saul till they had good evidence of his sincerity from Barnabas Acts 9. 26 27. Christ as God knew by knowledge of vision who were unclean and defiled the Temple yet he drove none out but such as visibly defiled it Iohn 2. 15. So he knew Iudas was unworthy by his divine Omniscience but acted not by vertue of that knowledge in point of suspension Nor was Achan censured upon divine discovery till clear evidence of his theft was produced Iosh 7. verse 20. to 24. And if Christs rule of suspension or other censure be visible unworthiness we hope our way and practice is not contradictory to Christs rule 2. We keep not any away barely upon fear lest they should betray Christ for this fear and jealousie we may have of divers whom we admit but 1. Because they are visibly unworthy 2. That we may in the use of Gods means endeavour their fitting against the next Sacrament and they who upon this account withdraw suspend themselves as refusing the Ordinance of the Lords Supper rather then they will accept of it upon a most equall and honourable condition Had Mr. Humphrey been as zealous against selfe-suspension as against Ministeriall suspension and shewed the people their sin in standing out against Sacramentall tryall he might have brought God more honour himselfe more peace and have done the Church more service than by aspersing Sacramentall Tryall as if the end of it were rather to exclude men from then to fit them for the Sacrament Whereas therefore Mr. Humphrey is pleased to say Page 13. that I suspend to prevent the sin men have not committed and that the supposal only of future sin is the very ground of my excommunication I am sorry to see him byassed by so much uncharitablenesse when as he knowes that in these censures we proceed by the rule of visible unworthinesse and doth oppose with might and main our acting in these kinds by the rule of visibility We aim indeed at the preventing of sin in this and other Church-censures but I dare appeal to Mr. Humphrey his conscience whether that be our sole End The following passage is sadder and chargeth us deeply as if we gave more power to the Presbytery in point of suspension then to Jesus Christ the great Master of Discipline Ans I am sorry to see what prejudice and uncharitablenesse will draw men upon to wrest such false and odious conclusions from or put such uncouth interpretations upon our principles Far be it from us to offer wittingly to detract the least tittle from our blessed Lords authority and soveraignty we would loath our own principles could any such conclusion be justly deduced from them My words which he wrests to that purpose are these Page 9. f. Christ here acting as a Minister it was not fit he should be both judge and witnesse and it might have been an ill president for Ministers to take upon them by their own power to deny the Sacrament judicially to whom they please Christ had a three fold power 1. Absolute as God 2. Mediatory as God-Man 3. Pastorall as a Minister Now my former assertion which he carps at meddles not with Christs power as God or as Mediator neither are they any presidents or rules for our imitation but only with Christs power as a Minister And if Mr. Humphrey be of the minde that Christ as a Minister waving his Divine and Mediatory capacity might alone be Judge and Witnesse and suspend judicially whom he pleased must he not of necessity also yield that any other particular Minister may do the like See what a dust is raised to make our waies and principles odious whereas Mr. Humphrey himselfe if he will speak religion and reason cannot but be of our minde yea Mr. Timson his cordiall Abettor laies it down as a solid principle Page 67. f. That no single Pastor alone but such as are so in Association as to derive authority from the whole can exercise Church-censures authoritatively Yet I hope Mr. Humphrey will not thence conclude that Mr. Timson by this assertion gave more power to the Presbytery then to Jesus Christ the great Master of Discipline To what further I add page 9 10. That none are suspended by us but such as suspend themselves by sleighting or refusing due tryall Mr. Humphrey replies Suppose a religious man nay suppose twenty upon grounds of conscience or prudence will not submit to his tryall yet offer themselves at the Sacrament dare he refuse to administer it to them Alas Sir will you not let men serve God and save their souls Ans Suppose a godly Minister nay suppose twenty upon grounds of conscience and prudence dare not admit such a person or persons yet beseech them as they tender the honour of God reformation of the Church and their own comfort and edification before they receive to give an account of their faith and hope that is in them will they refuse so easy and honourable a duty yet tempt yea presse him or them against the rules of conscience and prudence to admit them to the Sacrament Alas Sirs do not thus wound the consciences and grieve the Spirits of those whom God hath set over you D. Dr. Secondly Besides the former we suspend none but such who upon tryall are found unworthy Mr. Humphr But I pray have you any thing at first to alledge against them if you have not how will you bring them to tryall Ans 1. From Scripture evidence and experience that many Church-members are unworthy 2. From the Scriptures warranting an universall tryall upon lesse ground of suspition then we have and punishing the neglect thereof witnesse Achans case Iosh 7. 3. From the fruit of this tryall which being rightly managed will prejudice none but edifie all by putting them upon the exercise of or seeking after knowledge and grace Mr. Humphr If they come willingly and you finde them unfit then you go about to punish again them for a future sin Ans 1. If the prevention of future sin be a punishment the Lord send me store of such punishments 2. He mistakes we go not about to punish any for a future sin but to prepare all for a future mercy 3. He may as well say pious Governours of families and Ministers in the times of the Prelates punished children and servants because they kept them from the Sacrament till they were fitted by Catechisticall tryall Gal. 6. 6. the Apostle will tell him that every Church-member is a Catechumenus Nor need Mr. Humphrey here flie especially upon the tryall by Elders since both this paragraph and his whole discourse manifest him to be against all tryall either by Ministers or Elders D. Dr. None of the Apostles
be willingly partiall in Gods Law but be ready to throw the first stone at our selves And as we have cause to thank God where he hath kept any of us from breaking out into grosser abominations so we desire at all times especially at the Sacrament to lie low in the sense of our own great unworthinesse to renounce our own righteousnesse as well as our unrighteousnesse Psal 15. 4. and to pitty not presently to despise the greatest offendors whether they fall under the sentence of suspension or of excommunication And this we hope is not Pharisaisme Luke 18. verse 9. to 14. D. Dr. Pag. 70 71 72. All may be present but not actually partake c. Against this Mr. Humphrey hath foure Exceptions To the first I answer he wrongs me in making the World believe I make nothing of the whole Administration but only of actuall Receiving I have formerly shewed that they who hear and see unworthily at the Sacrament are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ as well but not as much as those who receive Yet because hearing and seeing may be means of Conversion not so receiving therefore all may hear and see but not receive I determine not here whether seeing the Sacramentall Elements do convert but am very inclinable to believe that the observation of the humble devotion of the Communicants may be effectuall for such a purpose as 1 Pet 3. vers 1 2. And as the courage of divers Martyrs have been means to change some Persecutors To his second Exception VVe hold not that Baptisme is to be repeated nor do we believe that Christ hath commanded absolutely all intelligent Church-members to receive But as a Circumcised Jew might be kept from the Passover when Legally or Morally unclean so may a Baptized Christian be kept from the Lords Supper when Morally unclean Doctor Rivet upon Exod. 12 notes 1. That Women were admitted to the Passover as well as men 2 ly That profession of their faith was required of adult Females before they were admitted to the Passover A clear evidence of visible Morall purity requisite as well as Leviticall purity To his third Exception we answere An unregenerate mans undisposednesse doth no more frustrate Gods precept of receiving the Lords Supper than an unclean mans indisposednesse did frustrate the command for all the Congregation to keep the Passover Exod. 12. 47. For his fourth Exception That we go contrary to the expresse command Drink ye all of it we answer 1. If Judas received not which is probable then it is evident the command reaches only those who are really and visibly worthy 2 ly Supposing Judas did receive 1. Let Mr. Humphrey peruse Mr. Timson's Answer page 3. and 4. who though zealous for free Admission yet lookes at this Argument as very weak 2 ly I have answered formerly that in Judas his Admission Christs dispensation was extraordinary and so not imitable by us 3 ly We admit all to the Marriage Feast as well yea more then himselfe but not to cat the Feast in every Dish yea we admit all to the Sacrament but not to every Sacramentall action 4 ly If putting the ignorant upon knowledge the carelesse upon diligence to prepare the hard-hearted upon repentance be to make them more secure carelesse and hard-bearted we must confesse our selves guilty of Mr. Humphrey his charge otherwise not And certainly if our suspension from but part of one Ordinance do harden as he apprehends what will his excommunication from all Ordinances do 5 ly For his charging us To afflict tender Consciences We see not how any such Conclusion can flow from our Principles rightly understood or that our Principles tend to lay wast the Ordinance of the Lords Supper We desire that every Ordinance may be used in every Congregation particularly the Lords Supper where there are any Church-members capable of it Nor do we believe the Administration of this Sacrament doth absolutely depend upon the being or acting of the Elders who are not necessary to the esse but to the bone esse of the Church and to the more regular Administration of the Sacrament We believe the principall care of Soules lies upon Ministers who therefore ought to do their duty whether they have Elders or no in fitting their people for and then admitting them to the Sacrament Nor do we apprehend what there can be in this carriage of ours to afflict tender Consciences whom of all persons we shall most willingly admit If indeed we forced any to approve and own tryall before the Eldership there might be some plea against us in that kinde but that there should be any such thing in giving an account of our faith before any especially to our Minister who without all controversy is charged with our Soules as he that must give an account to God for them is to me a very strange paradox Yet further Suppose one be kept from the Sacrament yea unjustly kept from it what is there here to scruple his conscience It may indeed grieve his spirit and cause him to reflect and that to his great and spirituall advantage but the sin is theirs who do unjustly detain him For our part if we know any thing of our selves our great care is to invite and encourage tender Consciences to partake of not to keep them from the Sacrament and such we are assured will never put us against our Consciences to admit all pel-mel A tender Conscience is tender of other mens Consciences as well as of its own Page 72. to 74. Mr. Humphrey thinks I wrong his Simile and take hold of it by the left handle Ans Let the Reader peruse my Answer page 40 and 41. and compare it with page 14. of Mr. Humphrey his Vindication he will easily perceive Mr. Humphrey wrongs himselfe by it but I wrong neither him nor his Simile God is the Prince wronged Christ is the great Favourit upon whose intercession Grace is proclaimed to all the World conditionally and sealed in the Sacrament Now mark what Mr. Humphrey addes page 15. of his Vindication Can it be imagined there is any the Proclamation belongs to without the seal is not the seal publick as the contents of it Is not here a free Admission for all the World and thereby even for Heathen to the Sacrament That grace is proclaimed conditionally to all the World see Matth. 28. 19. and Mark 16. vers 15 16. Mr. Humphrey addes in the forementioned words The Seal is as extensive as the Proclamation therefore by his own Principles they must be admitted to the Lords Supper since they are part of the World yea the greatest part Nor will his following words be a salvo for this wide gap That as we offer the conditions thereof to any so likewise may we and must we the seal upon their desire c. page 15. of his Vindication Unlesse we have good evidence at least in the judgment of charity that their desire is reall Acts 8. verse
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
a Church-member some part of communion Mr. H. p. 156. God forbid but we should put a distinction between sins that stand not with sincerity and that stand not with publike profession I do not think the detection of a man living in any known sin that contradicts the one ought to excommunicate him but the open conviction of such sins which are notoriously scandalous and obstinate bringing discredit on the Church and contradicting the other Answ 1. By concession a difference must be put between sins that stand not with sincerity and that stand not with profession caeteris parâ—bus This we do by suspension and dismembring But Mr. H. will have no Church-censure applied to them who live in known sins that contradict onely sincerity whence it follows that by his doctrine known hypocrites must enjoy all Church-priviledges as well as persons of known integrity 2. Note here Mr. H. grants the Church may know a mans heart and particularly that he is an hypocrite which yet flowing from my pen was by him declaimed against as a prying into Gods secrets though we profess to know the heart onely as Mr. H. doth namely by the fruits when a man is known to live in fins that contradict sincerity 3. To me it is a paradox how the open conviction of living in any known sin should not be notoriously scandalous bring discredit on the Church and contradict publike profession especially if continued in obstinately which I wish were not the case of too many Church-members The Apostle tells us 1 Cor. 5. 11. That a Church-member who is covetous a railer or extortioner is to be censured as well as he that is a fornicator an idolater or a drunkard Doth it not discredit the Church that any Church-member convinced of gross ignorance and continuing therein obstinately after the use of means should still be imbraced and honored as a Church-member He that will make a profession of he knows not what doth he not by that act contradict his very profession before all to whom his ignorance is known should any profess learning and be known at the same time to be grosly ignorant of the very Alphabet were not such profession ridiculous and a contradiction of it self especially if continued in wilfully after sundry means used to put him upon and promote him in learning Mr. H. ib. As for the Antiquaerist he quotes here of his side so magnificently and so often Mr. Prin tells us it is himself Let another man praise thee and not thine own mouth c. Answ These words as they are impertinent so they discover too palpably a spirit of Cavilling Page 105. of my Bar I have this passage Eating 1 Cor. 5. 11. is extended to Sacramental as well as domestical eating as is cleared by the Antiquaerist in his answer to Suspension suspended to which therefore I refer Now I pray Sir what do these words import of quoting the Antiquaerist magnificently 2 How doth it appear the Antiquaerist is my self I grant Mr. Prins testimony is valuable where he speaks upon his own knowledge but may not Mr. Prin be misinformed And if 1. There be no vaunting expressions And 2. The Antequaerist be not Dr. Drake is not Mr. H. guilty of a double flander Nor do I think it expedient to inform him in this particular who is so apt to make a bad use of his information From the same spirit flows that Aspersion p. 156. There are many precious Christians herein made weak which yet are not to be sleighted with Mr. Drake but tenderly to be satisfied Doth not Mr. H. here reflect upon me as if I sleighted many precious Christians and were not tender about their satisfaction yet forgetting himself in the very same page he quotes those expressions of mine which shew I was far from sleighting them Thus out of the Eater comes meat and the slander carries its own confutation in its mouth yea himself assents to two of my conclusions about that particular To the first absolutely To the second conditionally about which to cut off ambiguity and dispute I pray Sir take notice That in that place under presence I include receiving though I did not express it But how the Assertion is superstitions as expressed in my own terms I may haply understand hereafter if Mr. H. will please to inform me by which information I trust he shall soon bring me to reformation I would not that my heart hand or tongue should wittingly be abettors of Superstition Mr. H. p. 157. The third is much amiss and equivocal They partake of those sins they should have reproved and do not but not of any sin in their receiving any more then in their hearing and praying Such words as these are subject to do hurt as if it were our duty simply to keep one another from Gods service and that this were the onely eminent piece of piety when it s certainly our duty to excite call provoke them to as counsel fit and prepare them for the attending all Ordinances Answ The conclusion Mr. H. lays load upon is this They partake in their sins who do not their duty to reform them or keep them from the Sacrament otherwise Here 1. He doth me wrong in leaving out those expressions which render my sense clear and fair My words are these pag. 109 of my Bar They partake in the sins of unworthy receivers who do not their duty to reform them or to keep them from receiving in case they will not be reformed As Mr. H. quotes my words I grant there is much ambiguity to instance in one and a gross one The Reader may apprehend that I am of opinion that if the Church keep unworthy persons from the Sacrament she is not bound to do her endeavors to reform them A conceit far from my thoughts and expressions if intirely and candidly represented Mr. H. makes my sense worse as if I were of the minde that its our duty simply to keep one another from Gods service yea that this is the onely eminent piece of piety A flander so gross and absurd that the very naming of it is sufficient confutation 2. Those words of Mr. H. They partake not of any sin in their receiving more than in their hearing and praying are erroneous For clearing whereof note we may sin two ways about our duty 1. In the matter 2. In the manner Proportionably two ways I may partake of other mens sins 1. If I do not instruct and warn them about their duty both for matter and manner where I am called so to do 2. If I admit them to do that which instatu quo they are bound to forbear and I am bound in my place to endeavor to keep them from To apply this I sin not in the matter by admitting any to prayer or hearing provided they be not disturbers c. but I sin in the very matter by admitting some to receiving who ought not to be admitted else how can persons jure excommunicate be denyed the
Sacrament we preach to and pray for and with the vilest malefactors that are ready to be sacrificed to Justice but dare not admit them to the Lords-supper till they testifie their repentance It s evident then I partake more of sin in admitting some to the Sacrament than in admitting them to prayer or hearing In the former I may be guilty both in matter and manner not so in the latter but onely in the manner We acknowledge it our duty and profess it our practice to excite call and provoke all intelligent Church-members to receive and to counsel fit and prepare them for the Sacrament but too many care not to come and divers who affect to come are extreamly unwilling to be counselled fitted and prepared by us as they ought Hinc hinc illae Lachrymae We wish all Professors were worthy Receivers we charge all to make conscience to fit themselves we offer our selves to help to fit them and cordially admit those who are visibly fit waiting upon others till God give them real and visible fitness but till visibly fit we dare not admit them Page 157. Mr. H. thinks I wrong him by charging him with self-contradiction Let the Reader compare my Bar page 109. with Mr. H. his vindication page 32. and then judge I but he spake those words onely secundum quid not simpliciter Ans His peremptory delivery of them both negatively and affirmatively insinuates strongly that he spake them simpliciter Mr. H. ib. But how do any of these ends concern them as to their own act of receiving Ans By them he means either the parties censured or the Congregation I think Church-censures and particularly suspension do much concern them both the party censured to bring him to repentance the best of the Congregation in order to their satisfaction who are much offended by the admission of persons visibly unworthy and the whole Congregation who by the suspension of any are warned to take heed of his sins left they be suspended as well as he as also to prevent that guilt which would defile them should they consent to his admission whom they know to be unworthy Such consenters are they who after due admonition in private do not give notice to the Church of a person they know to be unworthy as also those Church Officers who admit him in the like case As Church-members we are bound in the use of all lawful means to prevent one the others sins Receiving is a sin in persons visibly unworthy therefore Church-members as such are bound to prevent it Some acts are essentially sinful which never can be done by any some are accidentally sinful by the manner of doing some are relatively sinful when done by a person uncapable as when a private person takes upon him the office of a Judge Here judging is not essentially evil for then none might judge nor upon the supposition is it accidentally evil as to the manner of judging for the private person may pass a right judgement but it s relatively evil because a private person takes upon him the work of a publike person and such judging we truly say is evil in fieri though it be not essentially evil In like manner a person receiving who ought not to receive sins in the fieri as to the act of receiving though the act of receiving be not a sin essentially but onely relatively I hope all persons must not practice all affirmative precepts to judge and preach are duties must all men therefore judge and preach Are not the very acts of judging and preaching sins in some persons They are not so essentially but relatively when men who are not called undertake these works Mr. H. p. 158. It is indeed the great fallacy here that misleads many when they plead our duty of watching over others c. they winde it all in still in order to the Sacrament as if they were to be done meerly in reference unto it when as they are each of them distinct duties and the neglect of or doing one is no ground or hinderance of the other Ans The particulars Mr. H. mentions are First Watching over others Secondly Not partaking in their sins Thirdly Getting the scandalous to be censured Here first by way of concession we winde them all in in order to the Sacrament but not meerly in reference to it That is Mr. H. his fallacy wherewith he would fain deceive the Reader Whereas we make use of all three in order to private communion and in order to dismembring as well as in order to suspension Secondly True They are each of them distinct duties but its false That the neglect of or doing the one is no ground or hindrance of the other For first Omission of the one whether it be by neglect or otherwise is a ground for the omission of the other I must not reprove my neighbour unless I first watch over him it being a sin to reprove blindly which he must needs be guilty of that observes not First The sin Secondly The person committing that sin He that watches not is it any wonder if he mistake either the fact or person or both Secondly It s false That doing the one is no ground of doing the other for I must watch over others that I may reprove and admonish as well as incourage them lest I partake of their sins And I must take heed I partake not of their sins upon this account among others that I may be the fitter to reprove and admonish them and more effectually instrumental to get the scandalous censured since fellow delinquents will never be forward to call each other to account Is it not more probable the intire part of the Church will call the corrupt part thereof to account rather than the corrupt part will call it self to an account we grant the three forementioned duties are distinct but are they not therefore copulative Distinction I hope is no enemy to union whether in a way of co-ordination or of subordination By all it appears there is a subordination of duties as well as of sins And as some sins cannot be committeed without other previous sins so some duties cannot be performed without other foregoing duties of which nature is the act of receiving in order whereunto self-examination is ever necessary and Church-examination also where it may regularly be had or at least in its room Pastoral-examination Page 158 159. Mr. H. falls ironically upon me as if I took a great deal of pains seemingly to confute him when I only speak his part for him The bitter scoffs wherewith he here closes this first Section instead of returning an answer discover both the weakness of his cause in that particular and the impotency of his passion But to the matter it self Mr. H. in his second part undertakes to answer several objections against free Admission to the Sacrament The first Objection you have p. 30. of his Vindication The Objection is this This Doctrine will take away the use
of the Keyes and excommunicate excommunication c. Page 31. Mr. H. tells us This Objection is grounded upon three false surmises and particularly page 31. he sayes This Objection surmises a most neer and essential relation between excommunication and the communion as if it were a part of it c. In answer hereunto page 110. of my Bar I say and prove That this objection infers or surmises no such mad consequence as Mr. H. is pleased to fasten upon it It lay now upon Mr. H. to prove that the objection doth surmise such a mad inference else his own surmise must needs be false and absurd But of this not one word only being convinced his own surmise was irrational and could not be made good he smothers the truth flouts me and flams the Reader instead of giving an answer or confessing his mistake We both agree the thing surmised is very absurd yea so absurd as Mr. H. is ashamed to own his own Brat of which he alone is the Father but the objection is not the Mother and thus he is doubly guilty of slandering 1. The Objection 2. His Antagonist SECT II. IN vindicating the second Objection Mr. H. begins p. 159 by way of denial and distinction in these words It is not visible real worthiness up on trial but visible relative worthiness or external Covenant-relation gives a man a right to and is the ground of Admission Ans Mr. Collins p. 90. of his vindication answers him Visible relativ worthiness according to Mr. H. is mens being within the external Covenant baptized and in the Church and this gives them a right c. I alwayes thought this had been the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whether all baptized persons may be admitted to the Lords Table though ignorant and scandalous if not cast out of the Church or whether if such they ought to be suspended We say They ought to be suspended and argue from their real unworthiness and incapacity visibly appearing to our duty in denying the Sacrament to them What sayes Mr. H. to this sayes he They are not unworthy relatively though they be visibly unworthy really Strange language say we what spells it sayes he they are baptized and not excommunicated If this be not petere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know not what is for we brought our argument to prove That a visibility of real unworthiness made a relative unworthiness So that Mr. H. sayes this in short They are not unworthy because they are not unworthy Thus far M. Collins Nor is it material whether worthiness and unworthiness be visible upon trial or otherwise upon which account haply Mr. Collins took no notice of that expression It s enough to our purpose that visible worthiness is the rule of Admission contra When Mr. H. can shew us a better way of discovering worthiness or unworthiness than by trial of Church-members he shall have us both thankful and plyable to his direction Page 160. Mr. H. makes light of that place 1 Pet. 3. 15. which proves its the duty of Christians to submit to trial And first He sayes it s nothing to the Saerament Ans If I must alwayes be ready to give a reason of the hope that is in me then surely at or about the Sacrament unless Mr. H. can prove that to be no part of time I had thought that semper had included all parts of time Secondly He sayes That place speaks clearly as to the defence of our hope in case of persecution Ans I grant it speaks more particularly to that case but not exclusively If I must give an account of my hope when demanded maliciously much more when demanded charitably If to open enemies much more to friends and those who are over us in the Lord If when it may cost me my life much more when it contributes directly to my edification and comfort Secondly He tells us Hope is taken here objectivè for Christian doctrine not subjectivè for the truth of grace we would inquire into Ans First He that professes his hope objectively doth therein profess it also subjectively since the object principle and act of hope are infeparable and therefore as they cannot be so they cannot be professed the one without the other The notions indeed are distinct but the things themselves ever go together My meaning is That hope cannot be in actu exercitu but it must flow from a principle and tend to an object Secondly The very application of this distinction is contrary to the Text The Apostle bidding us be ready to give a reason of the hope that is in us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. H. sayes not so but of the hope that is without us whom shall we beleeve St. Peter or Mr. Humphrey Hope objective is without us hope subjective is within us which last must needs be meant here by the Apostle yet not excluding the former they being both inseparable as the act and object And what I pray is hope subjective but the grace of hope which therefore the Apostle calls us to give a reason of against Mr. H. his gloss It s a contradiction to say I hope objectively in the word of the Gospel and I do not hope subjectively in the word of the Gospel and all one as to say I hope in Christ and yet I do not hope in Christ Mr. H. addes But suppose he urge it as an office of common charity doth all this follow upon it streight c. Ans As every Christian is bound to do all offices of common charity in his place so proportionably every Christian is bound to accept of all offices of common charity where he needs them If every Christian be bound in his place to reprove admonish c. then every Christian is bound proportionably to submit to reproof admonition c. Trial of Church-members being as Mr. H. here confesses an office of common charity every Church-member must make conscience to submit to it and bless God that those who must ere long give an account to God of their souls do make conscience to take an account of their souls For the scoff he is pleased here also to favour me withall I look at it as the scum of his little pot soon hot by which he prejudices himself more than me Mr. H. ib. When Christ sayes Do this how dares Mr. D. say Do it not Ans When Mr. H. can prove Christ bids all Church-members be they never so unworthy to receive Mr. D. will not dare to forbid them But Mr. H. forgets that this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. H. Instead of examine and so eat Mr. D. commands Let a man examine and so not eat Ans Instead of examine and so eat Mr. H. commands Let a man eat â—hough he do not examine Secondly Take examination in the Apostles sense and then Mr. D. never sayes Examine and so eat not Mr. H. his instance That by the same argument we may say Let a man so pray
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
Receivers nay is not the contrary Tenet my professed judgement Let my own words speak for me page 196 of my Bar Particular persons sin not in communicating with persons visibly unworthy but onely in connivance at their visible unworthiness 2. This connivance I there shew consists either in neglect of Brotherly admonition or if that will not do of complaining to the Church in order to their Reformation or if that cannot be effected in order to their suspension And lastly their dismembring which is M. H. his excommunication This carriage of ours M. H. calls doing ones best to hinder a person visibly unworthy from receiving whereas indeed by private admonition c. I do my best to prevent his suspension and excommunication and withal deliver my own soul from the guilt of sinful connivance To root up this cavil let me turn a little from M. H. to tender Christians Dear Brethren will you justifie M. H. in this Allegation of his Is it a wound to your consciences to admonish an offending Brother and if upon private admonition he reform not to tell the Church according to your Masters rule Mat 18. ver 15 16 17. Object We scruple not the thing but the doing of it in order to suspension Answ If you scruple Suspension will you therefore neglect your duty because of the Consequence which you allow not When you complain to Church-officers can you not tell them you seek not the Suspension but the reformation or Excommunication of the offending Brother I wish we had more scruplers of suspension provided that in love and humility Church-members would make conscience of the forementioned duties But this is our misery and one great bar to Reformation that private Christians make little conscience either of fraternal correption or of telling the Church when private admonition will not do His very words are p. 262. if they do not their best to hinder him from receiving which yet is not simply a duty but onely secundum quid in reference to the parties amendment as the end and excommunication as the means c. Doth he not here grant that its our duty secundum quid to endeavor to hinder an intelligent Church-member from the Sacrament in reference to excommunication mark it he says not to hinder him from receiving by excommunication but in reference to excommunication and what is this I pray but by suspension to make way for excommunication a doctrine very agreeable to our principles in sundry cases 3. To return to my Antagonist let the Reader judge if here M. H. yield not up his cause by granting That in reference to excommunication and the parties amendment it is my duty to do my best to hinder a person visibly unworthy from receiving Hindering from the Sacrament here cannot be excommunication in M. H. his sense since his own text tells us that this hindring from the Sacrament is in reference to excommunication and so it seems to explain his doctrine about the suspension of persons ipso jure excommunicate And though he say ib. This hindring is in reference to excommunication as the means and in reference to amendment as the end that will not help him since we easily grant that suspension may be yea sometimes ought to be in reference to excommunication as a sharp means but both must always be in reference to reformation as the end 4. We renounce as well as himself that false ground Thas unfitness to the Sacrament is the formal cause of excommunication and judge it a very harsh doctrine Gross ignorance makes a man unfit for the Sacrament which yet is not simpliciter the formal or just cause of excommunication in the rigour whatever affected ignorance may be 5. If it be our duty to exhort and in our places to prepare all our fellow-members to come worthily I know no duty incumbent to exhort any to come absolutely to the Lords-Supper sure Church-Officers act not out of their place by endeavoring to prepare Church-members for the Sacrament by previous tryal counsel and exhortation I pray Sir do not discourage Church-Officers from that which here you cannot but acknowledge is their duty I hope Sir you are not of opinion that the Elders or private Christians must turn publick Preachers to prepare their fellow-members for receiving that 's the Ministers work it must then be done more privately by Christian converse in a way of trial counsel and exhortation Perswade the people to this and you will be a better friend to reformation than by pleading for your free admission I mean not that publick preaching is so the Ministers work as to excuse him from private converse with his flock See Act. 20. 20 Mr. H. p. 262. Suppose a regenerate man deserves to be excommunicate and I do not complain of him he comes and receives in faith Now if I must partake of a mans receiving unworthily when I should endeavour his excommunication and do not then I must partake in this mans receiving worthily and so my not endeavouring their excommunication shall be good in the one and sin in the other It is apparent therefore that this sin is to be singled by it self I am never the more or the less guilty whether he come or not come receives worthily or not worthily that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but this is one only continued guilt in me that I do not my duty in admonishing and telling the Church of him supposing the case so that it is my duty Grant Mr. H. His supposition may be true what then Mr. H. Then by my not endeavouring his excommunication I must partake of his receiving worthily Answ No such matter for his worthy receiving upon the supposition is but accidental unto your neglect of duty and as a sin following accidentally in another upon my duty performed towards him shall not be imputed to me as suppose upon my admonition my Brother grow worse so a moral good following upon the neglect of my duty shall not be imputed to me who omitted that duty but contra the neglect of my duty shall be charged upon me God measures not a sin or duty by its accidental events but first by its nature and circumstances and secondly by its natural and proper consequents He that omits good that good may come thereby by good understand my duty that I am hic nunc obliged to sins as well as he that does evil that good may come Rom. 3. 8. What next Mr. H. And so my not endeavouring their excommunication shall be good in the one and a sin in the other Answ This is as wilde as the former and supposes that an omission of duty is warranted by a moral good following casually thereupon I shall therefore answer this supposition with another Suppose I am dangerously sick of a feaver the Physician forbids me wine a careless Nurse contrary to the Physicians prohibition upon my importunity lets me drink Sack liberally upon which I fall a sleep for divers hours
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