on the Minister when he baptizeth some privately and not others may disswade us from gratifying any herein unlesse we would comply with all who may desire it and then I thinke in some places we should have few baptized in the publique Congregation What grudges and surmises of partiality this may beget we cannot be ignorant 7. Either baptisme is a private or publique ordinance If private then it needs not at all to be administred publiquely If publique then it ought not to be administred privately where it may be publiquely and that fitly I say fitly for sometimes even solemn preaching may be in private places but not when it may fitly be in publique so is the case here 8. If private baptismes be admitted I see not how private communions in the Lords Supper will be rationally avoyded which yet are now exploded and I think justly according to 1 Cor. 11.22 For which see also Mr Medes discourse of Churches for Christian worship in the primitive times p. 4.9 Private baptism would be too neere a symbolizing with the Papists who lay the stress of salvation upon baptisme Necessitate medij and with the Separatists who leave our publique Assemblyes retire into corners for the performing of publique ordinances 10. Lastly The judgement of the Churches of God especially the Church of England may disswade from private baptisme Zepperus de polit eccl l. 1. c. 12. saith Baptismum in primitivâ ecclesiâ Catechumenis adultis qui e gentilismo vel Judaismo ad christum transibant non nisi ferijs paschalibus pentecostes natalitijs Domini administrari solitum idque magno cum apparatu solenni omnium piorum laetitiâ ex illorum temporum monumentis manifestum est Nunc quia alia ecclesiae ratio est illaque ex christianorum parentum liberis ferè constat colligitur quotiescunque publici ecclesiae Caetus ordinariè habentur christianorum parvuli testimonio sigillo Baptismi christo ejusque ecclesiae inferentur quidem patre ipso ad Infantis sui baptismum praesente atque astante This is evidenced by the ancient custom of sponsors who were to make promise before the Church for the instruction of the baptized in the christian faith Fideijussionem saith he sponsionem susceptores apud baptismum coram Dei ecclesiae ipsius facie sacrosanctè praestant The learned Beza in libello Quaestionum Responsionum christianorum speakes home to this businesse Q. An de loco baptismi nihil statuendum putas R. Imo quum omnia decenter ordine fieri in ecclesiâ oporteat sit autem evangelici Ministerij pars Baptismus eundem locum verbi sacramentorum ministerio attribuendum censeo ut in coetu Ecclesiae communibus precibus adjunctis Baptismus administretur neque istos nescio quos necessitatis casus temerè admiser◠I shall only hereunto adde the determinations of the English Liturgy and the Directory Though in some cases of great necessity as the Common prayer book speaks it permit private baptism yet if the child live it is to be brought to the Congregation where the Sponsors shall make solemn professions as in the order for publique baptism and the Congregation being so satisfied the child is publiquely to be declared solemnly received into the Church Now how shamefully do many of our corner Baptizers who pretend much for the Episcopal Government and Common prayer book offend against this Direction The Directory which I suppose is owned as a considerable Authority humane especially in a doubtfull case in this County most of the Ministers names whereof then resident here when the Presbyterial Government was first commended to us by the Parliament I have by me subscribed with their own hands to a profession of their judgement for that way and resolution to put the same in practice it orders expresly thus Baptism is not to be administred in private places nor privately but in the place of the publique worship and in the face of the Congregation There is but one I know of professing the Congregational way who comes to private houses in the Country and with the parents and a few women baptizeth and this I think is offensive to the Ministers of the same way he professeth as well as to others of us his neighbours Now we all profess to be studious of peace But how shall we make it appear if in such a thing which all I think acknowledge lawfull we comply not with the Directions of the former constitutions of the State and Church of England and the present Rules commended to us by the Parliament with the assistance of so Reverend an Assembly as they had herein which yet respect only our uniform practice and tie us not to an opinion of necessity that Baptism should be ever administred thus publiquely Should not those Scriptures Rom. 14.19 Phil 3.15 16. and such like have some impression upon us as to this matter I leave it to the consideration of the peaceably Judicious Now I come to my second Conclusion I deduced probably from the perusal of the forementioned examples of Baptism viz. That 9 From the ordinary Rule of publique Baptism there is some exception in some special cases That there is such an exception is already proved by the Scriptures produced But to set down a perfect enumeration of such cases wherein that exception hath place I dare not professe ability to undertake but I shall endeavour somewhat herein according to my poor measure 1 Negatively 2. Affirmatively 10 Divers things are pretended as of weight when they occurre to challenge an exception from the common Rule of publique Baptism which I humbly conceive are of no validity for the same 1. The childs weaknesse and danger of death is no sufficient reason for private Baptism this is the only exception allowed by the Common prayer book Indeed this seems rather a reason for the denying of private Baptism then granting it least they who demand it should be strengthened hereby in the conceit of the necessity of Baptism for salvation of the infant ratione medii They should rather by our preaching and practice be informed in the right doctrine of the Sacraments It 's true some of the Ancients in the heat of their opposition to the Pelagians who denied original sin went so far as to lay stress of salvation upon Baptism But others were more sound who teach that not the defect or want simply but the neglect of them is the crime Now there is not a neglect where the first opportunity is taken for solemn publike Baptism no more then there is a neglect of the Lords Supper although it be not received by him who cannot come to the Congregation who yet is ready and desirous to lay hold on the first opportunity he can to joyn himself in the publique Communion of the Church in that Ordinance 2. Nor is the gratification of mens or rather womens humours a sufficient reason for private Baptism For then it
And at the end of the Confirmation it 's ordered And there shall none be admitted to the holy Communion untill such time as he can say the Catechisme and be confirmed Here is the substance of what is required among us Let any who come to communicate shew that ever since they came to years they thus personally owned the Christian Faith and I know no bar in the Presbyterial Government to their admission The Ordinance of Parliament no where requireth that all should be examined now in order to their admission But that the ignorant are to be excluded and that implies not as some have over-hastily concluded that all are to be now examined But onely that all not examined sometime before are to be examined now and they onely unless there be proofes or at least strong presumptions of any their apostasie from or losing the knowledge of the faith they have sometime personally professed §. 4. Secondly for scandall the order of the Church of England was manifest that the scandalous should be suspended though not then fully excommunicated or excommunicated majori excommunicatione as the Canons speak In the Rubrick before the Communion it is thus ordered If any of those who intend to communicate be an open notorious evill liver the Curate shall advertise him in any wise not to presume to the Lords Table untill he have openly declared himself to have truly repented and amended his former naughty life c. The same order shall the Curate use with those betwixt whom he perceiveth malice and hatred to reign not suffering them to partake of the Lords Table untill he knowes them to be reconciled And if one of the parties so at variance be content to forgive the other from the bottome of the heart to make amends for that he himself hath offended and the other party will not be perswaded to a godly unity the Minister in that case ought to admit the penitent person to the holy Communion and not him that is obstinate The first exhortation which is ordered to be read at certain times when the Curate shall see the people negligent to come to the holy Communion is mostwhat verbatim and altogether in sense what Mr W. hath prefixed before his Book under the name of Dr Peter Martyr and why he might not have quoted the Common-Prayer Book for it as well as Peter Martyr I cannot certainly tell but the Reader may easily guesse somewhat shrewdly at it And for answer thereunto as I see nothing therein against the suspension pleaded for so those who framed the Common-Prayer thought it no way thwarted their suspension and lesser excommunication if they had they would not have contradicted themselves so grossly as to insert it in the Communion where they so expressly give order for the debarring the ptophane as you have already heard And in their next exhortation to examine themselves repent and amend they add For otherwise the recieving the holy Communion doth nothing else but increase your damnation And especially in their third Exhortation It 's said thus Therefore if any of you be a blasphemer of God an hinderer or flanderer of his Word an adulterer or be in malice or envy or any other grievous crime bewayl your sins and come not to this holy Table lest after the taking of that holy Sacrament the Divel enter into you as he entred into Judas and fill you full of impiety and bring you to destruction of body and soul Whereby it is evident the first exhortation to come was made to them onely who were supposed obedient believers and here they who were disobedient are warned to keep off whiles so wilfully disobedient and those who were notoriously such were to be kept off by the Minister But yet certainly the Curate did not fully excommunicate all them whom he was not to suffer to partake of the Lords Table though in part he did ecclesiastically withdraw from them as is more evident in the Canons of the Synod held at London in the first year of King James §. 5. The title of the 26th Canon is Notorious offenders not to be admitted to the Communion And in the Canon No Minister shall in any wise admit to the receiving of the holy Communion any of his cure or flock which be openly knowne to live in sin notorious without repentance nor malicious persons not reconciled nor unfaithfull Church-wardens c. Can. 27. The title is Schismatiques not to be admitted to the Communion The title of Can. 57. is The Sacraments not to be refused at the hands of unpreaching Ministers In the Canon it selfe its ordered Those who leave their own Parish Churches in that respect c. they are from the Ordinary to receive punishment by Ecclesiastical Censures that is Let them persisting in their wilfulness be suspended and then after a moneths further obstinacy excommunicated In Can. 59. Enjoyning Ministers to catechize every Sunday It s decreed if the Minister do neglect he is to be admonished and if he wilfully offend againe suspended and if the third time then excommunicated and others concern'd to come themselves or send theirs to be catechized are in the same Canon in case of their neglect herein to be suspended by their Ordinaries if they be not children and if they so persist for the space of a moneth then let them be excommunicated Can. 68. the title whereof is Ministers not to refuse to christen or bury But in the body of the Canon there is this proviso Except the party deceased were denounced excommunicate majori excommunicatione for some grievous and notorious crime and no man able to testifie of his repentance These three last Canons I have quoted shew how cleerly they owned a degree of Censure called by the name of suspension though it was in those cases to be inflicted by the Ordinary But the former quotations shew how farre the Minister also was entrusted with a debarring from the Communion notoriously prophane persons who might tender themselves to receive Now we are to heare what Mr. W. alledgeth to cut us off from our present pleading this order of the Church of England The suspension saith he taken up in the Church of England in case of obstinacy in some notorious crime was the publique act of the Church and State not inherent in a Minister as a Minister but derived to him by deputation and cannot now be pretended to the Common prayer book which gave the power being now abolished So he p. 41. §. 6. First It s to be observed that Mr. W. here speaks of the suspension taken up in the Church of England as if it were only in case of obstinacy in some notorious crime whereas its manifest most of the passages before rehearsed out of the Canons and Common prayer booke cleerly evince that suspension was inflicted for several crimes without respect to obstinacy therein and then obstinacy and continuance in those crimes without visible repentance and reformation was punished with greater excommunication as
the Canon it selfe speakes 2. But as to the substance of his exception I answer briefly thus for the overthrowing of it Either the Common prayer booke was not abolished by a lawfull authority sufficient for the nulling and abrogating of that sanction whereby it was formerly established or els it was If it were not then Ministers by vertue of the Common prayer booke may as opportunity is offered suspend according to the Directions therein given them which remaine still in force if not nulled by a sufficient authority But if the Common prayer booke was abolished by a lawfull authority sufficient for the abrogating that sanction whereby it was formerly established then certainly they who had such power to abrogate that government and order had power also to establish our suspension It belonging to the same power or authority to null as to make a law And then the same suspension in substance is delegated to Church Officers still in the Ordinance of 48 for Presbyterial Government where this is appointed by the Lords and Commons by whom only the Service booke was abrogated I have the rather hinted this for the satisfaction of some godly persons who have not been well satisfied with the State proceedings in reference to Church Government who yet have an high esteem of the former constitutions of the Church of England And me thinkes where the same thing for substance is appointed and practiced they should not reject it And now let the Reader if he please judge whether M. W. or we behave our selves most like Ministers of the Church of England in reference to the degrees of excommunication and specially in reference to suspension the neglect whereof he out of Mr. P. chargeth us with Mr. W. proceeds to carp at may be in my syllogisme when as yet may be was in the position I opposed And the question was whether such cases may occurre not whether they did occurre wherein the persons spoken of might be suspended as appeares in my M S. at numb 6.17 But our Doctor resolutissimus absolutissimus descends not so low as to observe the state of the Question he had rather it seemes be shewing his Logick to his weaker consciences for whose satisfaction his title page designes his booke and telling them p. 43 44. which are the subjects and the predicats in the Propositions and the medius terminus in the syllogisme they will it may be applaud their Doctor with an Egregiam veró laudem But if any of his weaker consciences meet with these lines I am of opinion they will not so farre admire those logical termes as to refuse the plaine and wholesome provision I now offer them to share with me in the PSAIM 119. Part 4. D. 25 Down on the dust my sad soul stayes Let thy truth life afford 26 Declar'd to thee I have my wayes Thou heardst Teach me thy Word 27 Disclose thy Precopts-way to me Thy wondrous workes I 'le tell 28 Deep griefe my soul melts strengthen me After thy Word right well 29 Drive lying wayes from me thy Law Grant to me graciously 30 Duely I chose thy Truth and saw Thy Judgements with mine eye 31 Dearly thy witness'd Truth I hold From shame Lord me discharge 32 Daily in thy wayes run I would If thou my heart enlarge CHAP. V. §. 1. THe confirmation of the Major Proposition in my second syllogisme at numb 25. in my M S. Mr. W. repeats in his p. 44. where he hath such jejune and lanquid exceptions against some explications being inserted in Parentheses and so separated from the syllogisme it selfe that I judge it needless to make any defence against them There being none I thinke who manage a dispute in writing who do not use the like Although its true in disputations face to face there is less need of them any mistake which might occurre about the meaning of the termes being soone rectified by explication thereof The like frivolous complaint he makes of some various equipollent phrases used viz. visibly unbeleevers and such as ought to be judged and taken to be unbeleevers when as I had expresly signified the equipollency of them numb 25. The proposition I was to prove was Those who by word openly renounce the Lord Jesus Christ are visibly such to whom the Lord would not according to the revelation of his will in his Word have the Lords Supper administred Now my conclusion in the syllogisme I brought to prove this was Those who by word openly renounce the Lord Jesus Christ are visibly such to whom according to the word of God the Lords Supper ought not to be administred An ordinary Reader I think would see no difference betwixt them to whom according to the word of God the Lords Supper ought not to be administred and them to whom the Lord would not according to the revelation of his will in his word have the Lords Supper administred But Mr. W. that he may seeme to see further into a milstone than another can doe hath spyed the disagreement He was belike at a great want for exceptions who takes up these and considering his necessity he may be better excused It s better to pick strawes than to doe just nothing But at last he hath unbutton'd his eyes and can perceive some strength in my proofe when it hath been he thinkes beholding to him for a better dresse p. 46. where he thus formes it Those who are visibly unbeleevers are visibly such to whom the Lords Supper ought not to be administred But those who by word openly renounce the Lord Jesus Christ are visibly unbeleevers Ergo Those who by word openly renounce the Lord Jesus Christ are visibly such to whom the Sacrament of the Lords Supper ought not to be administred § 2. Well now he hath the honour as he speakes to be opponent himselfe I hope he will be more civil in his answer and not be captious against his own creature Wherein now saith he p. 47. doth this argument advance your pretensions or disparage ours and then explaining that Question or shewing that he is not at a want of other artificiall words to say the same thing againe as pompously he addes What evidence doth it artificially and intrinsecally give for you or against us My conclusion was those who by word openly renounce the Lord Jesus Christ are visibly such to whom according to the word of God the Lords Supper ought not to be administred The conclusion he hath made for me is those who by word openly renounce the Lord Jesus Christ are visibly such to whom the Sacrament of the Lords Supper ought not to be administred Let the Reader judge what material difference there is betwixt them Yet he grants the latter when he quarreld the former But then as bethinking himselfe that the argument is mine though the dress be his he will now have another thrust at it and denies the Minor yet not absolutely but with distinction now he attempts to play the part of a
SUSPENSION REVIEWED STATED CLEERED AND SETLED UPON PLAIN Scripture-Proof Agreeable to the former and late Constitutions of the Protestant Church of England AND OTHER REFORMED CHURCHES Wherein Defending a private sheet occasionally written by the Authour upon this subject against a publique pretended Refutation of the same by Mr W. in his book entituled Suspension discussed Many important points are handled sundry whereof are shortly mentioned in the following Page Together with a Discourse concerning private Baptisme inserted in the Epistle Dedicatory By SAMUEL LANGLEY R. S. in the County Palatine of Chester LONDON Printed by J. Hayes for Thomas Underhill at the Anchor and Bible in Pauls Church-yard 1658. The following Discourse containeth these things among others HOw far Prudentialls are to be admitted in Church-Government Ch 2. § 2. A strict consideration of the Scripture Texts whence the doctrine of Excommunication is to be gathered and deductions therefrom Ch 3. § 1 2 3 4 5. Excommunication cuts not off Chruch-membership Ch 3. § 6. Degrees of Excommunication greater and lesser manifested by Scripture light Ch 3. § 7 8 9 10 11. How far the Presbyterian suspension is sutable to the Rules appointed under the late Episcopal Government Ch 4. § 3 4 5 6. Ch 14. § 1. Digress 3. The distinction of negative and positive Beleevers considered and how far it s of use in this Controversie Ch 5. § 3 4 5 6. A justified Beleever as easily discovered to and known by others as a dogmatical Beleever Ch 5. § 5. The maïne conclusion viz. that the Lords Supper ought not to be administred to unbeleevers who are such in respect of actual notorious disobedience to the Gospel Ch 5. § 2. Proved from Mr. W. his concession § 7. From the suspension of some from the Passeover not ceremonially uncleane § 8. From parallel Cases § 9. From the forme of administring Eate this in remembrance Christ dyed for thee § 10 11 12. From the consideration of the qualifications required in the adult as necessary conditions of their admission to Baptisme Ch 6. throughout The maine conclusion aforesaid cautioned Ch 7. wherein especially is shewed how an habituall sincere beleever may be unpardoned and so lyable to condemnation for actual wickednesse not yet repented of § 2. The great and strongest objection against the foresaid Conclusion taken from the supposed general admission to the Passeover considered and answered Ch 8. § 4 5. Ch 9. Ch 10. Particular scruples and objections answered and mistakes removed Ch 11. Rom. 4.11 strictly considered Ch 12. § 6. c. Where is proved that the Sacraments are seales of the mutual Covenant i. e. on Gods part and mans part also Exceptions answered in the following Chapters Notorious wickednesse visibly continued in without repentance is and ought to be taken in the judgement of the Governing Church or where there is no Governing Church in the judgement of the Minister officiating as equivalent to word-rejecting of Christ and therefore equally renders a person uncapable of having the Lords Supper administred to him Ch. 18 19 20 21 22. By immediate though notoriously ungodly suspended or excommunicate parents a right may be conveighed for the Baptisme of their Infants Ch 19. § 4 5 6 7. A discourse about Examination or taking an account of persons confession of the faith before their first admission to the Lords Supper Digress 3. An observation concerning the name Antichrist Digress 12. The right meane betwixt unwarrantable separation from and undue admission to the Sacrament Digress 14. Rom. 3.19 opened and vindicated Digress 19 20. An Argument from Act. 15. proving that select Brethren not Ministers may authoritatively act in Ecclesiasticall Government Digress 22. TO THE REVEREND LEARNED GODLY Dispencers of the Mysteries of God and more especially those of the Classicall Association in the Eastern parts of the County Palatine of Chester Together with the Reverend and most endeared Mr Simeon Ash Minister in the City of LONDON As also To the truly judicious and experienced Physitian his highly honoured Friend Mr WILLIAM BENTLEY The Authour wisheth all grace and peace to be multiplied WORTHY SIRS IT 's no intent of mine in prefixing your Names to the ensuing Treatise to engage you in the patronage thereof Let it stand or fall at the bar of right Reason What the Learned Wotton in his Epistle before his accurate book de Reconcil peccat saith to Kings Colledge that do I mean to you in this thing Reum apud vos agere viri ornatissimi non clientem vos mihi non patronos qui pro me dicant comparandos sed qui de me sententiam ferant judices constituendos esse decrevi Nor do I thinke so low of you or so highly of my discourse as to judge it deserving of this joynt dedication But considering I am not likely to appeare againe in print I judged it honest to divide these my goods though never so small among you rather then to appropriate them to any of you singly having cogent Reasons for this Address to you all in this businesse To you the Renowned Aesculapius of our County that I might hereby publiquely testifie the engagements of my selfe and family to you both as a Friend and Physitian more especially that I might signifie a grateful sense and remembrance of your long continued succesfull and carefull though unfeed Advice for the health of him whom I was endebted to for my being and wel-being And your urging mee to this service had no small influence upon mee so that you may rightfully challenge a share in the fruit of my paines therein And you deare Sir a bright Star of the first magnitude in the Metropolitan firmament may not be excluded hence For when I call to minde your former Respects to mee in both Universities the precious precepts and fervent prayers you favoured me with at and in mine Ordination And the most endeared cordial long continued intimacy which you had with my Father of blessed memory who ever bore you upon his heart with the greatest tendernesse and who before he was taken from us in commending the service of this booke to mee forcibly commanded me the same These things I say considered not to mention other I finde my selfe deeply engaged as the heire of your most loving Friend as well as upon my own account otherwayes to testifie here my singular gratitude to you with submission of these my studies to your grave quick and judicious yet most candid Censure And yee my Bosome Friends and Brethren of that Classical Association wherein my lot is fallen at present to make up a number are not only concerned in my cause but injuries also Would it be beleeved if I should tell you the Gentleman I have to deale with intends you the contemptuous language he bestows on me Yet such is his brow that he hath taken up a conceipt ask me not whence I am not of Councill with him who taught him it That my Associated Brethren were accessory
regeneration I feare is not capable of that meaning But this point hath no influence considerable that I can discerne upon our Controversie therefore I shall not launch out into it The other things Mr. W. here hath in these pages will occurre more then once beneath §. 5. In my second note numb 5. I secluded from the present Question the consideration of the subject of the power of suspension and Mr. W. in answer hereto supposeth there is no need to enquire after the subject thereof p. 13. Why might we not then here have agreed But even in this place he will fetch in though by head and shoulders the mentioning of illegal usurpation flat Brownisme Rebaptization c. What is the secluding the consideration of the subject of suspension from our present question is this usurpation flat Brownisme Rebaptization If not how come these in here But such termes as these serve for general Arguments to them who are so silly as to be moved with them and so will thrust in any where as being indifferently calculated to fit every turne §. 6. My third note or limitation of the Question number 6. secluded also from our present question the consideration of the kinde of power whether of order or jurisdiction requisite for suspension To this Mr. W. answers p. 14. They he meanes my Antagonists hold there is no such kinde of suspending power as you stand for prescribed in the word of God for refusing to submit to your examination It is your usurped kind of suspension they except against as you your selfe might have scene had you read their workes through as you snatch at a piece 1. See now how nimble our learned Gentleman is to evade the question if he could Is our question Whether persons may be suspended for resusing to submit to examination not that I refuse to speake to that in its due place but first we enquire whether in any case for any crime the persons before mentioned may be debarred and that was Mr. Timsons position before rehearsed viz. No unregenerate or ignorant and scandalous members in the Church being baptized and of years not excommunicate may be debarred the Lords Supper c. It was not none may be debarred for ignorance or refusing to submit to examination But none though never so scandalous members in the Church may be debarred And this I opposed which Mr. W. should have defended as he took upon him 2. Is not this a pretty stating the question Mr. W. here teacheth and informes me in viz. Whether is an usurped kinde of suspension lawfull This is even like to the question Quot sunt quinque praedicabilia But what are we the better for agreeing in that question when as it presently occurres whether there is any suspension not usurped 3. But indeed I see no Antagonist who is so silly as to state the question on that fashion though Mr. W. say if I had read their works through I might have seene it is our usurped kind of suspension that they except against Alas good man how industrious is he to make the world believe I am a man of no reading I will not goe about to perswade them of the contrary Yet I must needs say I had read through divers Authors against suspension and particularly Mr. Timpsons bookes before I drew up those lines which Mr. W. hath assaulted I would not have told this but that I apprehend it will be no matter of glory and commendation to me and it affords an argument somewhat probable in mine opinion to evince that Mr. W. is not infallible who insinuates elswhere as well as in this place my not reading Timsons works through but snatching at a piece I hope he will not be offended at our catching the piece of the Psalme following for our solace a while PSAL. 119. PART 1. A. 1 ALL such are blest who perfect are whose fect Gods wayes do pace 2 About his Lawes they take most care with whole hearts seeke his face 3 Also they do nothing unjust But Gods good pathes frequent 4 As thou Lord bid'st strictly we must keep thy Commandement 5 Ah! that sound guidance might me teach to keep thy statutes high 6 And then foul shame shall ne're me reach who all thy Lawes do eye 7 A right heart in me shall thee praise taught in thy judgments just 8 And I will keep thy statute-wayes O leave me not poor dust CHAP. II. §. 1. IN my fourth note at number 7 8 9. I said that my Antagonists by excommunicate understand them who are debar'd from all publick Ordinances in the Church as hearing praying c. And therefore if I prove the person spoken of in the question not debar'd from these may yet be debar'd the Sacrament it cannot be denied I shal rightly conclude against their assertion wherein I do not declare any thing of my own judgment concerning Excommunication but speak onely ad hominem And here though Mr. W. hath not a word against the Contents of this Note he carries it as if he would seem to confute it by 1. rendring extra communionem ejectio an ejection out of the common union as if there were not degrees of communion and so not of an ejection out of communion 2. by rambling about the Jus Divinum without any occasion at all ministred by any thing I had spoken here in this note for his mentioning the same 3. By concluding thus But for your full overthrowing of our assertion we shall believe it when we see it We believe you cannot I am sure you do not What needed this vapour here The man is prodigall of them being sufficientiy stockt for the largest expence of them I boasted not of a full overthrow of their assertion but said That if I prove a person baptized adult intelligent and not debarred the publick Ordinances of hearing praying c. in the Church I shall then fully overthrow their assertion which holds none baptized adult intelligent and not excommunicated may be debarred The which Mr. W. doth not deny yea he grants it in several passages of his Book expressy or by consequence But the former particular about Divine right he is often upon and he so often as disturb'd if not intoxicated with passion reels into discourses concerning prudentials and Jus Divinum charging me for excluding all prudentials from Church-government that his importunity wil force me to trouble the Reader with some short account of my apprehensions concerning these things he so pitifully raves upon throughout his Book § 2. 1. The Lawes of Christianity are given to men supposed not altogether destitute of right Reason some beams of the Image of God some remains of that signature imprinted on man at his first creation still continuing upon him And men are not called to lay aside any of their natural right Reason in their becoming Christians but rather by Christian helps to attain to an higher improvement to a more noble elevation and use thereof And therefore whatsoever
not so far as I can discerne proved nor encouraged by the context §. 10. When I had dispatched thus much of this argument and had considered several other texts to be annexed proving the same thing as Rom. 6.3 4. Col. 2.11 12 13. Gal. 3.27 c. upon which I should and intended to have argued At this time I say there came to my hands Mr Richard Baxter his late learned and accurate booke containing five Disputations about right to the Sacraments Upon the perusall whereof I perceived he hath so plenteously by many arguments proved the visibility of saving faith to be the title on which only Baptisme and the Lords Supper too may be administred That I shall spare the labour of adding any more here but refer the Reader to receive thankfully that plentifull harvest there prepared for his further satisfaction in this thing I found indeed he also had the texts I have made use of here viz. Act. 2.38 8.35 36. Yet I let them stand still hoping that my improvement and management of them somewhat differing though not dissenting from that Reverend Author may be no prejudice to the cause nor imputed for presumption and arrogance to my selfe I shall now hasten to the third task I undertook in the method above proposed for the evincing that such Christians as are unbeleevers in respect of their notorious disobedience to the Gospel ought not to have the Lords Supper administred to them And that was to annex some Cautions for the further cleering and preventing mistake in this doctrine but this may have a distinct Chapter and because the matter is difficult let us pawse upon it and crave divine assistance in the ejaculations of PSALM 119. the 6th part F. 41 Freely on me thy grace powre out Lord save me by thy Word 42 For so shall I answer each flout My trust is in the Lord. 43 From me ne're take thy Truth for I Hop'd in thy Judgements store 44 Flying all vice I 'le keep truly Thy Law for evermore 45 Freedome is that blest path I tread While I thy precepts seeke 46 Feare not my soul Gods Lawes to spread And of them to Kings speake 47 Fil'd with the love of thy Commands Therein my Joy I 'le choose 48 Ful gladly to them I my hands Lift up and on them muse CHAP. VII §. 1. CAution 1. When I speake of visible saving faith which I explaine to be a visible conformity or obedience to the Gospel I do not refer primarily to the habit of saving faith but the actual exercise thereof And the visible unbeleefe on the contrary refers not to the habit of it but the prevailing present actings and fruits thereof For we cannot judge every one hath not the habit of saving or justifying faith who is at present visibly in a way inconsistent with the exercise thereof But as in the Sacraments especially remission of sins is sealed so those are supposed at present capable of it who are admitted unto them Now as Remission of sins is promised to us to us I say not now considering what is promised to Christ for us only on the condition of faith and repentance so the continuance of remission or justification may be expected only on the same termes According to our continued Petition Math. 6.12 Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive our debiers Which our Saviour reiterates positively v. 14. If ye forgive men their trespasses your Father will forgive you and negatively v. 15. But if yee yee my Disciples though at present justified ones forgive not men their trespasses neither will your heavenly Father forgive you So that judicious grave Divine Musculus saith loc com de remissione p. mihi 26.2 Ut remissio peccatorum sine verâ resipiscentiâ non obtinetur ita obtenta sine constanti illius custodiâ non retinetur and frustrâ remittitur quod post remissionem iteratur §. 2. I confess upon this doctrine here occurres a great Question Whether David whiles actually impenitent under his gross sins was unpardoned and so unjustifyed since all pardon and the continuance thereof is to be expected only on the condition of faith and repentance It must be acknowledged this is a point of great difficulty to speak to it clearly and consistently The obscurity whereof hath occasioned different thoughts in the godly learned for the explication of the same Some have said those gross sins do extinguish grace and are inconsistent with the very habit of faith and so null pardon which they apply to the case of Peter and David till they did repent and so the work of regeneration was begun anew again in them as it was in their first conversion To which they think that passage Psalm 51.10 affords some illustration Create in me a clean heart O God and renew a right spirit within me but although it may be so to their sense and the same omnipotent power of Gods grace is to be put forth for their recovery as was for their first conversion Which two reasons may be some account of the Psalmists expressions yet I conceive it 's plain that the feed of grace is never totally destroyed in them but is immortall although it may as winter-corn lye we know not how long under the clod Others say all the sins of the godly are sins of infirmity the persons committing them being not dead in sin as an unrogenerate man is but onely diseased and wounded and because they are not committed with full consent The habituall resolution and frame of their souls being against those sins which they are sometimes over-born with But this seems contrary to many plain Scriptures Ezek. 18.24 26. Matth. 18.3 Rom. 8.13 1 John 1.6 c. §. 3. Between these two extreams some have laboured to find a middle way more safe I shall also adjoyn my poor endeavours in the following particulars 1. I take it for certain that there is in the godly a seed or habit of sanctifying grace which when they are at the lowest ebb in regard of the fruits and acts of it is never totally extinguished Iohn 10.28 17.20 21. Luke 22.32 And this is an active principle ready to put them on to actuall faith repentance love and obedience In regard whereof the habitual frame of Davids heart was fot God more then for sin even when his sin hindred the actings of grace therefore he never ceased altogether to be a penitent and believer and therefore was never altogether cast out of the state of pardon and justification by those sins though hainous which he did not finally continue in 2. Notwithstanding this their state of justification and pardon continued yet the godly may fall and be under actuall guilt by gross sins whiles not particularly repented of And that not onely such guilt as may oblige them to temporal judgements which often are for the same inflicted on them 1 Cor. 11.29 30 31. 2 Sam. 12.14 But also the present actuall guilt of eternall wrath and damnation For
c. notoriously such may profess his earnest desire to receive and yet that makes him not no whoremonger and no drunkard 2. Then also the Church may look for no further satisfaction in order to restoring of an excommunicate then his verbal profession of earnest desire to receive the Sacrament For that which should prevent their excommunicating of him must be avaylable to restore him But the Church in many ages hath required particular confession of notorious sins and expresse profession of repentance for them and not only profession of earnest desire to receive as antecedently necessary to the absolution of an excommunicate in analogy to that Levit. 5.4 5 6. where he who was to bring his trespass offering for a false oath though through ignorance was to confesse that he had sinned in that thing and then he is allowed to bâ—ing his trespass-offering to the Lord and the Priest shall make an attonement for him concerning his sin So more generally Numb 5.7 on which saith Ainsworth out of Maimonides The Hebrewes set down this duty thus This confession is with words and it s commanded to be done How do they confesse He saith Oh God! for I have sinned I have done perversly I have trespassed before thee and have done thus and thus and loe I repent and am ashamed of my doings and I will never do this thing againe And this is the foundation of confession And who so maketh a large confession and is long in the thing he is to be commended And so the owners of sin-and trespass-offerings when they bring their oblations for their ignorant or presumptuous sins attonement is not made for them by their oblation untill they have made Repentance and confession by word of mouth Likewise all condemned to death by the Magistrates or condemned to stripes no attonement is made for them by their death or by their stripes until they have epented and confessed And so he that hurteth his neighbour â— doth him damage though he pay him whatsoever he owe him illonement is not made for him til he confess and turn away from doing so againe for ever Now it may be Mr. W. could have taught them a more expeite and easie way of satiffactory confession viz. if the offendeiprofess verbally his earnest desire to partake of the Passeove that shall quit all scores §. 3. Mr. W. further addes As for your fully and not fully excommunicate wee look not on them as considerable in this present controversie they are your own miserable shifts c. What 's the conclusion Ergo my fore mentioned Reason is not sound Wonderfull hap he hath if he can draw this inference from such premises This distinction of excommunication hath been proved before at Chap. 3. and I wonder not if he would so faine shift it out of his way if he could it so fully enervates the Reasons of his Champion Mr. Timson and shewes his miscarriage in the very stating of the Question If that third Chap. aforesaid stand good particularly the sixth § that excommunicates are Church-members and are not by excommunication cut off from all ordinances although accidentally that may sometime coincidere and often did fall in in the primitive times The title of his booke is blasted which over each leafe is this to receive the Lords Supper is the actual right of all Church members but in the first page is thus To receive the Lords Supper the actual Right and duty of all Church members of yeares not excommunicate Which is sorrily propounded For 1. here and in his book he confounds Right and duty as if these were of the same latitude as if because its an heathens duty to be baptized or a Christians duty when drunk on the Lords day to sanctifie the Sabbath in publique Ordinances yea or an Excommunicats duty to receive all which are manifestly their duty which they are obliged to that therefore it were the heathens right to be baptized without any more adoe or the drunken Christians to be admitted into the Assembly while drunke or the excommunicate had actual right to the Lord Supper while excommunicate 2. And that all excommuncation turnes our of Church-membership Mr. Humphreys holeth Rejoynd p. 155. where he saith Suspension is null withot dismembership To what purpose then should Mr. Timson hae added not excommunicate but to instruct us in this lessoâ— That to receive the Lords Supper is the actuall right and duty of all Church members at yeares who are not no Church member This is the Warriour whose Herald Mr. W. is pleased to mâ—â—e himselfe and he once and againe provokes me to graple with him But if I have made good this one argument against Mr. W. there 's none I thinke can reasonably thinke there 's any need of answering Mr. Timson in print Mr. W. hath much of his sense and language too where he could bring it in But his distinction of fully and not fully excommunicate I suspect the more angers him because it makes the weapons of his ious brave man unserviceable in this contest with me in this gument But I have shewed there is an excommunication by the Officers of the Church or Minister alone by the people alone though the Officers refuse to joyne and there is an excommunication wherein the Officers and people of the Congregation and neighbourhood too perhaps though that 's not essential do concurre which is a fuller excommunication then either of the former §. 4. 5. In the 5th place Mr. W. answers and confutes as he pretends my Reason by saying As for your Excommunication you give us a very quaint account thereof and in a taunt he saith Schollers may do well to furnish their note bookes with it And in stead of better Answers furor arma ministrat he fits downe in the chaire of the scorners and thus acts his part It should seeme saith he that your full excommunication is a very shrewd thing when you can be at leisure to meet in a full Classis and so have your severe Rabbies of discipline sit in state with the rest of your grave Benchers then the case of a poore sinner is put upon the debale and after that your Elders have well stroaked their beards and nodded in their votes the decree is that the sinner arraigned is to be excommunicated fully and that with full excommunication compleatly The summe whereof is that such a man found and judged guilty of such misdemeanours is declared to be as an heathen Infidel and do such an one to be lookt upon and dealt with by all our Church members i. e. to he counted as an enemie and not to be admonished as a brother Here are learned arguments apodictical demonstrations but be like all in Bocardo Here are formulae oratoriae for the cupping crew who may probably applaud the Author and quaffe his health round for them I 'le confesse they are not to be answered by me Ego poenitere tanti non emam as Demosthenes said to the
of soules declaring that they gave the false Teachers no suck Commandment to preach any such doctrine v. 24. 3. The Elders and Brethren as well as the Apostles say It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us v. 28. 4. The Elders and Brethren as well as the Apostles did impose upon the Churches no other burthen then these necessary things v. 28. In all which its manifest the proof is as strong for the joynt authoritative acting of the Brethren here as it is for the Apostles and Elders I speak of a joynt act in the same kinde of power how farre the Apostles might excell the Elders or the Elders the Brethren in the degree of power in each respectively is not now enquired for All I can thinke of which may be objected against this proof is 1 That in divers places the Authors of this synodical Decree are mentioned under the name of the Apostles and Elders without joyning the Brethren with them As 1. The Antiochian Delegates are in their Instructions directed to make their address to the Apostles and Elders about their Question v. 2. And 2. the Apostles and Elders came together to consider of this matter v. 6. And 3. the Decrees of this Synod are said to be such as were ordained by the Apostles and Elders which were at Jerusalem Act. 16.4 2 That the Brethren may be named here no otherwise then as in Pauls Epistles Timothy or Sosthenes and sometimes all the Brethren with him are which denotes only their consenting thereunto To the first of these I answer 1. That its ordinary to name the whole from the predominant leading more noble part 2. These Scriptures do not say the Apostles and Elders only excluding others were Authours of this Synodical Determination and therefore they are no prejudice to those other Texts which put in the Brethren with them To the second I say Though Paul joyne others with him in his Epistles sometimes yet 1. the title of those Epistles beare his name only 2. He manifests in the Epistles themselves that they are his only speaking in the first person therein Gal. 1 2 6 9 10 c. 1 Thes 5.27 2 Thes 3.17 The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand which is the token in every Epistle so I write 3. If we had no such cleere Reasons elswhere to prove Paul only the Authour under the Holy Ghost of such Epistles the joyning others with him in the Preface would be a sufficient ground of our taking them who are so mentioned in the Preface to have been joynt Authours with him thereof But now here 's nothing can be shewed to invalidate the title of the Synodicall Decree in its strictest sense Act. 15.23 2. The Decree speakes all along in their names which are prefixed thereunto 3. Decrees and Lawes speake most strictly and properly especially in the Titles and Prefaces thereof which declare the power whereby they are made and promulgated as a Law made by Kings Lords and Commons Although in familiar Epistles there 's ordinarily more liberty of a larger expression 2. The latter part of the Minor proposition in the Argument I am upon is this viz. That these Brethren were not private Christians the Disciples or Members of the Jerusalem Church 1. This I beleeve will not be denied by our Brethren either of the Episcopall or Presbyterian judgement if they be convinced that these Brethren acted authoritatively in the Synod Which I thinke is cleerly proved above For no private Christian is allowed by them as such to have right of authoritative suffrage in Ecclesiastical Councils 2. I have only here against me the Brethren of the Congregational way who though from other Scriptures they own the Officers I dispute for yet here say that these Brethren were the members of the Jerusalem Church as such But that I humbly conceive cannot be The Apostles Elders and Brethren v. 23. are the same with the whole multitude v. 12. And the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church v. 22. Now this whole Church and whole multitude must either referre to the whole Church of Jerusalem or to the whole synodical Assembly only of that and other Churches there met together which the Reverend Mr. Cotton in his book of the Keyes p. 54 59. is pleased to call a Synod of Churches or a Congregation of Churches yea a Church of Churches It cannot referre to the whole Jerusalem Church because neither that whole Church nor the greater part thereof could meet in one house much less a private house as its probable this was to manage the synodical affaires orderly as appeares by the great numbers of that Church recorded upon count 120 Act. 1.15 3000 Act. 2.41 5000 men Act. 4.4 here are above 8000 and multitudes besides Act. 2.42 5.14 6.7 as is more largely shewed by the London Ministers and most excellently by the Reverend Assembly in their Answer to the Reasons of the dissenting Brethren where they undoe the Exceptions made against it so solidly learnedly and perspicuously that they seeme to have left no place for a colourable Reply Whereby among other Arguments they demonstrate that the Jerusalem Church was a classical Church or a Church by association of sundry particular Congregations called one Church Act. 8.1 11.22 15.4 It remaines therefore that the whole Church and multitude Act. 15. must be the synodical Assembly of the Apostles Elders and Brethren which Brethren must needs be the Delegates of the Brethren or those who represented the Brethren members of several Churches The Delegates of Antioch are expressly mentioned v. 2. and probably there were some from Syria and Cilicia v. 23. who were as much concerned in the businesse consulted about as Antioch was Thus farre it s evinâ—ed that some of the Brethren not preaching Elders being delegated and appointed by the Church may according to Apostolical patterne authoritatively joyne with preaching Elders in acts of external government of the Church And then if Presbyters with such delegated brethren may be the subject of Church power in higher Assemblyes and matters it will easily thence follow such brethren may have and exercise a proportion of Ecclesiastical power in lower matters and Assemblyes This Argument I humbly submit with all else I have written to the peaceably judicious I shall conclude with the 34th Psalme that these 22 Digressions may be attended with a refreshment proportionable to the 22 Chapters of the Treatise above The 34th Psalme in the original whereof the initiall Letters of the Verses proceed Alphabetically save only that the 5th Yerse beginning with He ends with Vau the next Letter and so the Psalmist omitting Vau in the beginning of the next Verse goes on with Zain c. whereby it comes to pass that the 22 Hebrew Letters being gone through and ending in the 21st Verse the last verse of the Psalme is super-numerary rendred according to the Acrosticall conceipt of the Original 1 At all times I the Lord will blesse my