its exception so no part of Worship but hath its inclosure Of which afterward And therefore though I cannot justifie any of the Independents in separating from our Congregations yet if in excluding from the Lords Supper persons visibly unworthy they act upon the same principles with us in so doing though they bring in a Quae genus of Anomalacs and Heteroclites at the Lords Supper yet they violate not the Syntax of Divine Worship If they walk by other rules or principles not warranted let them plead for themselves I am not of their Counsell But for his challenge to the Presbyterians or at least some of them How we can admit of children as Members of the visible Church being born of Christian Parents unto Baptisme and yet turn away the Parents of those children from the Sacrament Those that have gone about to answer this had better haply have said nothing for our free course of Baptisme and a deniall of this is such a seam-rent as will never be handsomely drawn up though stitcht together Nevertheless in yeelding the one they have granted the other Answ 1. How can Mr. H. admit the children themselves to Baptisme and yet deny them the Lords Supper If herein he act by faith let him shew a Divine Precept by which he excludes them If he bring a proof by consequence let him consider if that or a like consequence will not exclude others as well as children for whom he keeps the door open 2. How can himself admit children to Baptisme and yet excludes their parents from the Lords Supper If the parents of a child baptized be either distracted or excommunicated Mr. H. being Judge they ought not to be admitted to the Lords Supper whereby its apparent that even in Mr. H. his judgement the childes baptisme is no necessary medium to prove the Parents must be admitted to the Lords Supper which yet he urgeth against us but forgets how he wounds himself with the same weapon 3. To come closer to the Objection two things by way of answer are very considerable 1. That we clear and justifie the promiscuous baptizing of children of Christian Parents be the Parents themselves never so unworthy 2. That the promiscuous admission of children to Baptisme is no ground for the promiscuous admission of their parents to the Lords Supper For the first of these We admit children to Baptisme 1. By vertue of their remote parents who may be good though their immediate parents be bad Acts 2.39 The promise is made to you and to your children and to all that are afar off c. To your children indefinitely not to your next children onely Which is yet more evident by comparing Levit. 26.45 Micah 7.20 where the Covenant of Ancestors and Parents extends to the children for many generations till the children themselves in person renounce the Covenant This also is hinted in the Text under the notion of them that are afar off which is extendable not only to remoteness of place or of state but also to remoteness of time that is as Beza notes to your children in remote ages to come Omnibus longè post futuris Nor is it in the Originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Gentiles were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephes 2.17 and so opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but future generations are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In this particular mercy triumphs over justice in that God who punishes the parents sin to the fourth generation extends Covenant-mercy to a thousand generations Exod. 20. ver 5 6. Nor was Peters design here to foretell the calling of the Gentiles but to incourage his Auditors to faith and repentance since as Beza well notes upon the place the mystery of the Gentiles votation was not yet known to Peter himself nor was expedient to be revealed to these new Converts had he known it never so well As the Covenant of Adam so the Covenant of Abraham as the Covenant of Works so the Covenant of Grace is extendible to many generations and where the root is holy there not only the immediate but also the most remote branches are federally holy Rom. 11.16 and that whether the branches be naturall or ingrafted ver 17. 2. Children may be admitted by stipulation of others to see them educated in the faith into which they are baptized be the parents themselves never so wicked yea excommunicated yea Papists and thus bastards and foundlings may be baptized See Amesius his Cases lib. 4. cap. 27. Nay upon this account divers learned men very probably conceive that even Heathen children may be baptized if once taken into a Christian Family where the Governour or Governours undertake for their Christian education and they are out of the power of their Heathen parents for by being members of a Christian Family they are made members of the visible Church as civill though not naturall children of Christians I am sure this Doctrine is consonant to the Analogy of Circumcision Genes 17.12 where not onely the childe born in the house but also bought with money was to be circumcised yea bought of strangers and not of the seed of Abraham as is express and evident in the Text. Thus an Heathen born in the house or bought with money might eat of the holy things Levit. 21.11 3. These is something considerable in the immediate parents which makes their children capable of Baptisme and 1. Though they transgress yet they do not renounce the Covenant as Turks do 2. They are Members of the visible Church till excommunicated and why may not the children be admitted to the same priviledge the parents yet injoy provided their tender age be capable of that priviledge and children are as capable of Baptisme as they were of Circumcision both being passive Ordinances The second thing to be cleared is That the promiscuous admission of children to Baptisme is no ground for the promiscuous admission of their parents to the Lords Supper This is evident 1. Because more is required to make a person capable of the Lords Supper then an Infant capable of Baptisme 2. Personall unworthiness may easily appear in the parent which cannot appear in the Infant 3. It is not simple membership gives an immediate right to the Lords Supper and therefore though the parents membership do regularly make the childe capable of Church membership and so give it a right to Baptisme yet neither his own nor his childes Church membership can make the parent capable of the Lords Supper a priviledge not for every Church member but for a visibly worthy Church member Suppose the same person Timothy for instance baptized regularly in his riper years yea and admitted to the Lords Supper also as visibly worthy afterwards he walks scandalously he is 1. Admonished 2. Suspended 3. If persisting obstinate dismembred I beseech you what irregular proceeding is here 4. Therefore if the promiscuous admission of children to Baptisme is no ground for their own promiscuous admission
to the Lords Supper much less is the promiscuous dimission of children to Baptisme any ground of their parents promiscuous dimission to the Lords Supper The parent gives to his child what himself hath namely Church membership but cannot thence claim what is the priviledge of a worthy Church member namely Sacramentall Communion The son of a Jew or Proselyte being clean might eat of the Passeover when at the same time the father in whose right the childe was circumcised being unclean might not partake of that Sacrament A Priests son or daughter might in their fathers right being clean eat of the holy things when at the same time the father himself being unclean was forbid to eat of them Compare Levit. 10.14 Numb 18.11 Levit. 22.4 6. There is par ratio of morall pollutions A wicked parent who deserves the highest degree of excommunication yet being a Church member his childe shall be baptized in his right and by Baptisme be solemnly admitted into the priviledge of Church membership which yet the father injoyes when at the same time the father shall be debarred the priviledge of a worthy Church member namely Sacramentall communion at the Lords Table The parents foederall holiness shall benefit his childe at the very same time when his antifoederall wickedness shall prejudice himself There is then no seam rent in our practices or principles unless it be in Mr. H. his brain which if we can neither draw nor stitch well may it be our sorrow but we trust it shall never be our sin In his third Edition pag. 25. he makes an addition to fortifie his fifth reason by impeaching us That by urging our form as necessary we violate a branch of Christian liberty equalizing Ordinances of men Col. 2.18 20. with Divine Ordinances which humane Ordinances though we might submit to as prudentiall onely yet he dares not suffer them to creep into the seat of God namely conscience It s ill putting Gods Worship upon stilts lest by seeking to advance it higher we give it a fall into dangerous scruples and divisions Answ 1. Let the Reader take notice that in Mr. H. his judgement the putting of a barre to free admission is an humane not a Divine Ordinance Could we be of his faith we would be more against this barre then himself is We bless God that an humane Ordinance doth civilly or ecclesiastically back a Divine Ordinance but like not the pressing of humane inventions upon conscience especially in Divine Worship 2. We ask him whether his excluding of Infants and distracted persons be a Divine Ordinance If so let us see his patent out of Scripture either in tearms or by consequence and if the very same or a like Divine Patent do not exclude all persons visibly unworthy we shall be of Mr. H. his Religion to admit all pell mell 3. Supposing the barre to free admission had been only a prudentiall humane Ordinance I say Mr. Humphrey had done God and the Church more service in submitting to it then in disputing against it since 1. As a prudentiall it is not against the rule of Scripture 2. And therefore might by consequence be deduced from Scripture as a thing 1. Lawfull 2 Expedient 3. Commanded by lawfull authority Civill and Ecclesiasticall yea in the very times of the Prelates And if the lawfull commands of Superiours caeteris paribus be not obligatory to conscience let Mr. H. rase out the fifth Commandment 4. We put Gods Worship no more upon stilts then himself doth excluding onely persons that are visibly uncapable of the Lords Supper and if distracted persons are uncapable in his judgement scandalous persons are more uncapable in our judgement Therefore in his Rejoynder der let him either justifie us or condemn himself His sixth and last Argument is drawn from his innocency in free admission and that upon a sixfold account 1. Because therein he doth but his duty Answ This is but petitio principii the main thing to be proved especially if he lay it down as a generall rule for all Ministers 2. Because he hath no power to turn away any Answ I take this for one of the truest passages in all his book upon supposition that he hath no Presbytery settled in his Congregation But little doth Mr. H. consider how this concession makes against himself and subverts a main argument of his drawn from the example of Judas For supposing him to have been visibly unworthy yet say we Christ as a Minister had no juridicall power to turn him or any other away since he could not legally be both Judge and Witness and there being then no Presbytery constituted to try unworthy Receivers by Which also at this day is the case of most Parishes in England And for my own part I much doubt whether a Minister by his own power can exclude any Church member from the Sacrament 3. Because he hopes the best of all Answ 1. So did the Angel of Ephesus who yet tried and uncased the false Apostles Rev. 2.2 4. 2. So did the Apostle Paul who yet commanded Christians to mark and avoid unworthy Church members Rom. 16.17 1 Cor. 5.11 2 Thess 3.14 15. 3. So must Magistrates yet I hope they may and do condemn Malefactors 4. If this be a good argument may not Mr. H. as well conclude I hope the best of all therefore I will excommunicate none Though charity hope the best yet it is not stark blinde and I think it s no mean point of charity to prevent the ruine of many poor soules who rush on headlong to contract the guilt of the Body and Blood of the Lord. 4. Because he knows God can turn even the worst at this Ordinance if he please Answ 1. Suppose a scandalous Professor actually converted by the preceding exercises at the Sacrament this is not ground enough for the Church to permit him at that time to receive since the rule they walk by is visible worthiness 2. The question is not what absolutely God can do but what God doth or hath undertaken to do Let Mr. H. shew one promise or president for so much as one person coming to the Lords Supper in the state of nature and converted by it or at it 3. Whatever any may be by the exhortation c. at the Sacrament yet the main question is Whether any be converted by actuall receiving the outward Elements who immediately before receiving was unconverted A promise or president in this kinde will be much to the purpose but till then we must crave pardon if we hold not free admission in order to participation though we shall not deny free admission in order to univerfall presence at the whole Service Prove actuall receiving a converting Ordinance and we shall be as zealous for free admission as Mr. H. can be 5. Because he endeavours his utmost de jure that all come prepared Answ 1. So high a commendation were fitter to come out of any mans mouth then Mr. H. Prov. 22.7
skill'd in Sophistry then in Logick and can better deceive then convince If on the other hand he will make free admission to the Lords Supper an essentiall mark of a true visible Church let him see how he is confuted by the practice of our Church under the Prelates in which many were kept from the Lords Supper that were neither children fools nor excommunicated and that without any prejudice to the essence of our Churches as was before instanced Yea the very Rubrick before the Communion in the Book of Common-Prayer shews the fondness of this opinion the Curate being there authorized to suspend scandalous and malicious persons without I hope any prejudice to the true being of our Churches Yea the very Exhortation in the Communion commands such to bewail their sins and not to come lest after the taking of the Sacrament the Devil entred into them as he did into Judas Now were it a duty for all to come then were it a sin to forbid any to come Object If yet he will object This practice of ours if it be not against the nature and essence yet it s against the wellbeing of a true visible Church when the members thereof or any of them are denied their just priviledges Answ 1. True if the Lords Supper were a priviledge due to all Members but this is the thing to be proved on Mr. Humphrey his part and in the proof whereof though his great Diana he falls so exceeding short 2. The well being of a Church consists much in its Government and Discipline of which not one word from Mr. H. in his notes of a true visible Church Good Government lies in the Geometricall not Arithmeticall administration of priviledges and Censures the lowest of which last Admonition and highest Excommunication we have clear enough in the Scripture but because Suspension and the like are not in tearms mentioned in Scripture therefore Mr. H. will have it wholly expunged as if because a man will not be gained by words there were no other way but presently to knock him on the head Certainly he that puts the extreames cannot deny the middle from one extream to another And as he who hath power of life and death hath much more power to mulct imprison c. so the Church who hath power to excommunicate hath much more power to suspend as being an inferiour Censure and but the way to that highest Will Mr. H. deny that the well-being of a Church lies much in its purity and this in the knowledge and conversation of the Members and whether our way or his conduce more to this let all the world judge Let Mr. H. tell me ingenuously whether he would have all grosly ignorant persons excommunicated I hope he is more charitable and thinks they rather need instruction And is not this previous triall before the Eldership used of purpose that ignorant persons might be put upon enquiry after knowledge as ever they value the priviledge of Sacramentall communion Nor is the proper end of it exclusion from but preparation of all sorts for the Sacrament for which in few months by Gods grace we dare undertake to fit the meanest if they will be ruled by us Contra if Mr. H. his free Admission obtain universally without check see if in a few years a Chaos of darkness and ignorance do not overspread the face of this glorious Church But I see I must contract For his confirmation of this argument from the parable of the field c. which he stiles an invincible support pag. 17. Alas poor man how feeble must he needs be when his best strength is but weakness If the Tares and Wheat must be separated till the day of judgement then I pray what will become of Excommunication It s apparent by the parable 1. That the Tares were sowen by the carelesness of the Servants or other Church members Matth. 13.25 2. That the prohibition to take them away was not absolute but onely with a caution or proviso verse 29. And in truth so tender is the Lord of the Wheat that he had rather many Tares should stand then one ear of Corn should be pluckt up Where therefore there is danger of wronging the wheat better let the tares stand not so if we can separate them without prejudice to yea with advantage of the wheat And therefore a bare suspition is not enough to keep any from the Sacrament but by gross ignorance or scandall it must appear he is a tare and not wheat before he can be suspended judicially For as for negative suspension before triall that is not properly a Church Censure no more then the non-admitting of Infants or distracted persons but onely a prudentiall forbearing to administer the Lords Supper to a person till he have been approved as visibly worthy which yet may issue out into a formall Suspension if any shall wilfully obtrude without triall or upon triall shall be found visibly unworthy and yet will not be perswaded to forbear till better prepared For his instance of Christs converse with Publicanes and sinners it makes much for us and against himself Such Publicanes and sinners who are not ashamed publickly to profess their repentance and high respects to Christ shall be very welcome to us as the worthiest receivers but the question is Whether blinde and scandalous Pharisees ought to be admitted with these Publicanes and sinners For his grand instance of Judas it hath been already answered Onely I cannot but stand amazed at his high flown confidence and censoriousness pag. 19. The evidence of which fact he means of Christs admitting Judas to receive the Lords Supper has ever appeared so fully to the Church that this alone has been ground sufficient to deduce their right of free admission and what need more indeed be urged but that men when they are willing not to see will let their hand put over their eyes be enough to blinde them Answ 1. Sundry famous Lights in the Church beleeved this long before Mr. H. either preached or wrote and yet thought it not ground enough for free admission But haply Mr. H. is so charitable as to judge not onely the reformed Churches but also the whole Church of England ever since the dawning of Reformation after the Marian persecution to this day to have wilfully put their hands over their eyes and knowingly to have sinned against their consciences We may well bear this sharp censure with the more comfort and patience considering we suffer with so good company 2. See you not how the vizard of humility falls off and both his breath and pen savour rankly of pride in this unchristian censure Were we as bad as Mr. H. would make us we had undoubtedly made a great progress in the high way to the sin against the holy Ghost and deserved our selves not onely to be suspended but also to be excommunicated In the mean time I must be bold to tell Mr. H. that he who takes upon himself to be so free an
Shall persons negatively unworthy be suspended and persons privatively yea positively unworthy be admitted Let him take heed there be not something of the Pharisee and hypocrite in his own heart to apply his own counsell to himself 1. In censuring his brethren 2. In doing the same thing for which he censures them Pag. 79. But are we not faulty and partake of other mens sins if we do not our best to have the leven purged out and therefore we may not say Am I my brothers keeper Look they to it To this M. H. answers 1. By way of concession and that we must tell the Church too supposing it is in a capacity to hear us 2. By way of refutation in the same page But I hope it will not follow that in the mean time we must not receive the Sacrament c. It is a plain fallacy à dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid to think our coming to the Sacrament with a wicked man is sin it self or makes it the sin or us more guilty of the sin because we ought to have admonished them and laboured their excommunication Shall omission of one duty excuse from another Because the leaven is not purged out must there be no lump This was I may humbly say a too overly surprise of godly M. Burroughs Answ 1. Would one think that M. H. at the same instant would be guilty of that fallacy wherewith he charges us and with the cut-purse cry stop thief that himself might the better escape in the croud Do either our principles or profession cry down the Sacrament absolutely because we are against mixed Sacraments Or are we against all mixed Sacraments because we are against the mixed receiving of persons visibly unworthy with persons visibly worthy Or do we teach that its simply a sin in one visibly worthy to receive with one or divers persons visibly unworthy Wherein then do we and M. H. differ Answ 1. In that he thinks its the duty of all Church-members to receive be they in what state they will never so ignorant wicked and abominable yea and that visibly too excepting only Children distracted and excommunicated persons 2. In that he thinks it the Churches duty to admit all the forementioned persons waving only the exception Contra We hold that no person really unworthy ought to receive 2. That no person visibly unworthy ought to be admitted where there is a juridicall power in the Church to suspend them which power is de facto in the Presbyterian Churches but lies not in any one Minister or in the Congregation it self but in the Presbytery of each Congregation and that either solitary or combined The Eldership then sins not in admitting persons really unworthy provided they have evidence of their visible worthinesse Particular persons sin not in communicating with persons visibly unworthy but only in conniving at their visible unworthinesse by neglecting either to admonish and reprove you and if that will not do in order to their reformation by neglecting to complain to the Eldership of them that by the Churches dealing with them they may either be reformed or suspended and in case that will not do and need so require excommunicated Let the Reader then take notice how guilty M. H. is of his own fallacy in making the Reader beleeve we are against all Sacraments or against all mixed Sacraments because we judge that persons really unworthy ought not in statu quo to receive and persons visibly unworthy should not by the Church be admitted to receive Secondly Though omission of one duty do not properly excuse yet it may make one uncapable of another as a person impure neglecting to purifie himself was at present uncapable of the Passeover and by proportion a person either unable or neglecting to prepare himself is uncapable at present of the Lords Supper As for M. Burroughs surprise about this particular I dare not undertake either to charge or vindicate him till M. H. produce him speaking for himself Qui statuit aliquid parte inaudità alterà aequum licèt statuerit haud aequus fuerit Rep. 2 Are not all ignorant and scandalous persons swine and doggs to be rejected and kept from the pearls and holy things of the Sacrament M. H. in his Answer questions the termes of Doggs and swine as too harsh in the generall and thinks unfitnesse is not a just ground of exclusion and that men are not to be dealt withall as Doggs till juridically censure That scandalous persons are first to be admonished duely and then if obstinate excommunicated and that not merely from the Sacrament but from Christian communion in generall yet withall he seems doubtfull about the degrees of excommunication and leaves much to the Churches wifdom c. p. 8o to 82. Answ 1. Wading the harsh expressions of Doggs and Swine though warrantable enough by Scripture it s then enough for us that ignorant and scandalous persons are unfit for the Sacrament and if M. H. exclude Children amp c. because unfit why may not we exclude both ignorant and scandalous persons upon the same account since the one cannot the other will not examine themselves or if after a sort they examine yet cannot approve themselves which is both the sense of the word and the end of examination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but upon due search will finde the quite contrary both being under the power of unbelief or wanting the worthinesse of preparation though the last may possibly have the worthinesse of person Secondly Neither ignorant nor scandalous persons are juridically suspended before admonition and evidence given of their obstinacy Thirdly While he pleads for excommunication he cannot be against suspendsion which is an inferiour degree thereof Fourthly That excommunication excludes from all Ordinances is gratis dictum as hath been before noted Obj. 10 The last Objection is from those severall Texts that are alledged for a separation from wicked persons pag. 82. Here M. M. grants we must separate from wicked men in their sins and in regard of common familiarity but denies that any Scripture commands are separation from them in the Sacrament unlesse in case of excommunication c. Answ 1. Suspension being a part of excommunication in granting separation in case of excommunication he yields the cause Secondly That Scripture which forbids us to eat with wicked persons forbids us to receive with them 1 Cor. 5.11 unlesse the Sacrament can be received without eating nor is it enough to say that place speaks only of civil and private eating since eating of the Sacrament is a signe of familiarity as well as eating at our own Tables and where I can without sin avoid it I may no more eat Sacramentally then civilly with a scandalous person This Church Governours may prevent by discipline and private Christians by information by which if they cannot keep away scandalous sinners these last may comfort themselves in that they have discharged their duty but ought hot to run away from
A BOUNDARY TO THE HOLY MOUNT OR A BARRE against Free Admission to the LORDS SUPPER In Answer To an humble Vindication of free Admission to the LORDS SUPPER Published by Mr. Humphrey Minister of Froome in Somersetshire Which humble Vindication though it profess much of piety and conscience yet upon due triall and examination is found worthy of Suspension if not of a greater Censure By Roger Drake Minister of Peters Cheap London He set the Porters at the gates of the House of the Lord that none which was unclean in any thing should enter in 2 Chron. 23.19 London printed by A. M. for St. Bowtell 1653. ERRATA PAge 15. line 20. adde In an orderly way thus which on the same ground in an orderly way includes c. p. 30. l. 9. as left out and as for me p. 41. l. 7. for ann read and p. 48 l. 25. for converted him read converted his opinion p. 53. l. 25. and left out and a consuming one p. 58. l. 22. for and read an thus an It may be granted p. ib. l. 23. adde and 〈◊〉 no place c. p. 63. l. 17. leave out we p. â—â— l. 13. for where read There p. 68. l. 10. adde it let him receive it p. 71. l. 28. adde the the obliquity p. 73. l. 12. leave out to and read be done p. 77. l. 9. for Ex. read Ezâ—k THE PREFACE To the READER IT 's one of the Devil 's prime Engines to pervert Divine Ordinances quite contrary to their primitive institution so he did in Paradise so he did in the Jewish Church and so he hath done a long time and still doth in the Christian Church No wonder then if he turn the choicest mystery of peace into a Sacrament of war a feast of love into a bone of contention This he did by disorder in the primitive Church 1 Cor. 11. by Transubstantiation in the Apostacy of the Church by Consubstantiation in the Restitution of the Church and now by a spirit of opposition against Sacramentall triall in the Reformation of the Church In the managing of this unhappy Controversie Mr. Humphrey hath appeared three times in the field in his threefold Edition pleading free admission to the Lords Supper for all but three sorts against whom himself is pleased to shut the Chancell door though the worst of those three kindes is better many times then sundry of those for whom he opens the door Should we take the boldness to ask him by what authority he excludes any from the Sacrament it being in his profest judgement a converting Ordinance or by what rule of Scripture and charity he walks in excluding the worst from the means of conversion who need it more then the best it would puzzle him more and that upon good ground then that captious Quaere of the Pharisees did our Saviour Matth. 21.23 But whether the Lords Supper be a converting Ordinance or not Mr. H. must needs be at a great loss for if it convert not then why should they receive it who are visibly unconverted If it do convert as well as the Word preached then why should any at all be excluded from it When this Answer was almost ready for the Press out comes his third Edition somewhat auctior but I dare not say correctior This put me upon a review and confirmed me in my opinion that his Doctrine of free admission is but meer Church-levelling and will in a short time make this glorious Church like the field of the Sluggard Prov. 24.30 31. When I seriously weigh his loose Principles held forth to the world in this Treatise with his being so excessively favourable to the looser and profaner sort it makes both my self and others apt to suspect his practises may possibly be as loose as his principles Loose principles and practises like Esau and Jacob Pharez and Zarah taking each other by the heel and striving who shall come out first Twins they are and its hard to say which is the Elder brother My scope in this Answer is if God shall adde his blessing 1. To convince Mr. H. and others seduced by him how contrary his Doctrine is to Scripture reason and his own profest principles 2. To prevent the further spreading of this leaven which will sowre the whole lump and make Reformation so much longed for hoped for and laboured for by the godly to be utterly desperate Withall I must tell him that this fancy of his quite contrary to the judgement and practice of the reformed Churches of the Church of England even in the daies of the Prelates to the express letter of the Book of Common Prayer to the declared judgement of the reverend Assembly and to the Votes of Parliament unrepealed hath exceedingly grieved the hearts of the godly rejoyced and gladded the hearts of the wicked and hath done more mischief already then ten Mr. Humphreys are ever like to do good The Lord give him a sight of his errour and grace to burn this hay and stubble before the day of the Lord come to try it and himself for it 1 Cor. 3.13 One scruple yet untouched which may haply stumble the Reader I must not passe What if a person by the previous exhortation wherein the death of Christ is both audibly and visibly set forth be really converted may he not then actually partake of the Elements and be admitted to receive by and with the Church Answ 1. A person at first conversion sees himself so loathsome and unworthy that he shall not need a bridle from but rather a spur to the Sacrament 2. It s not enough for a person to be really clean but he must also be judicially clean before he be admitted to communion Levit. 14.1 31. whenever Christ cleansed any he still sent them to the Priest to pronounce them clean Levit. 17.14 3. However a man be really the Church must proceed by the rule of visibility and cannot admit any till he be visibly converted This is a doctrine cannot well down with ignorant and prophane persons it will be a stumbling blocks to the Iew and foolishnesse to the Greek from whom I can expect no better entertainment then farre my betters have been content with before me I shall close with those golden though rowsing expressions of the Provinciall Assembly in that excellent Piece of theirs The Vindication of the Presbyteriall Government published Nov. 2. 1649. pag. 74. which book had Mr. H. seriously perused it might through Gods blessing have darted such a beam of Majesty into his conscience as would have quenched this Ignis fatuus of his before it had misled so many into bogs and quagmires Their words are these We are not ignorant that the Presbyterian Government especially as applied in order to Sacramentall triall hath many Adversaries The obstinately ignorant hates it because it will not suffer him to go blindfold to hell The profane person hates it beâ—â—â—se it will not suffer him to eat and drink his own damnation by unworthy
uncapable of the Sacrament by nature especially upon his own principles for now I shall dispute partly ad hominem and partly adrem and I doubt not but the judicious Reader will easily reach me in both I shall 1. instance in the word Why are Infants and pari ratione distracted persons uncapable of the Word or where hath God said they should be kept from it unless by their crying or unseemly gestures they prove troublesome to the Congregation I can shew him the contrary where God would have them present at the Word and Ordinances Let him consult Deut. 29.11 12. 31.12 Iosh 8.35 Ioel 2.16 2 Chron. 20.13 and that to enter into Covenant c. as is evident in some of the places quoted especially the two first If God bids them come why should Master Humphrey say they are uncapable 2. Suppose them uncapable yet who knows how God may work at the Word though not by the Word May not that Word be an occasion of conversion to Infants which is an instrument of conversion to elder persons Infants indeed may be uncapable in an active but not in a passive sense as to apprehension and understanding not as to Divine Impressions God can work upon persons at or by his Ordinances occasionally or instrumentally when he is honoured by their active or passive presentation before him which may be the case of blinde and deaf persons as well as of Infants and innocents and upon which account as well as out of a desire to honour God some pious persons have thought it their duty to attend upon the publick Ministry though they were deaf Why should not I believe that Christ is willing to speak immediately to him that loves to be where Christ speaks mediately If men can speak by signes as well as words sure Christ can much more speak by his Spirit to such deaf persons If some in hearing do not hear Isa 6.9 10. why may not others hear in not hearing An hearing heart is better then an hearing ear More might be added but I must contract Next for the Lords Supper Supposing that Mr. Humphrey is for Paedobaptisme I ask him in the next place Why are Infants capable of Baptisme and not of the Lords Supper If he say Because they cannot examine themselves nor discern the Lords Body c. Then I answer No more can grosly ignorant persons who therefore pari ratione upon Mr. Humphrey his principles and according to truth must be kept away but that they cannot be unless discerned nor can they be discerned unless tried and who have more authority to try them then such as are over them in the Lord and delegated for that purpose both by God and man Further that persons excommunicated are uncapable of the Word preached How proves he that Upon this account I dare challenge him and all the world for one proof of Scripture either direct or by consequence An excommunicate person is but as an heathen Matth. 18.17 and heathens might be admitted to hear why then not excommunicated persons they needing that effectuall means of conversion as much or more then Heathens Lastly Whereas in the close he adds That none others are uncapable and so by consequence none others ought to be kept away What thinks he 1. of persons infected with the plague c. 2. What thinks he of persons stark staring drunk or that with Zimry and Cosby shall commit actuall uncleanness in the face of the Congregation and the like will Mr. Humphrey prostitute the Sacrament to the lusts of such bruits and swine For shame then let him not plead that all must be admitted but infants mad men and excommunicated persons In the same page I wonder Mr. H. is so diffident where he may be confident His words are these I dare not yet positively say for the peoples part that all are so capable that they may come as they list For my own part I assent to it as an undoubted truth that none are so capable that they may come as they list How doth this man strain at a gnat and swallow a Camel stumble at a straw and leap over a block doubts an evident truth and pleads strongly for a loose and undoubted errour that all may be admitted pell mell How just is it with God that he who is confident where he should be diffident should also be diffident where he ought to be confident He asserts Page 4. Such an universall capacity for all men indefinitely that if any come in as professing themselves ready to enter into covenant with Christ desiring to serve him in the worship of this Ordinance the former onely excepted the Minister and Church ought to admit him c. From this Concession ler me be bold to ask Mr. Humphrey before whom shall they make this profession If before the Minister and the Church as he seems to hint then may not the Minister before the Church desire some evidence of the sincerity of this their profession If not then let Mr. H. shew where he is forbid to make this scrutiny If he may then undoubtedly he may try that professor as to his knowledge and grace and do we desire any more nay not so much Let Mr. H. perswade the people but to make this profession before the Eldership we desire not to put their modesty to it before the Congregation and we shall either admit them at present or undertake to fit them by Gods grace for the Sacrament before we have done with them if at least they will but submit to be ruled by us If he mean that the Minister must rest in that verball profession without any further scrutiny then why may not a childe of three yeers old or a mad man be admitted since they may easily be taught the words of that profession Further doth Mr. Humphrey admit none but such as make this profession Here I appeal to his own conscience and to his Congregation If yet he fly from a verball to a virtuall profession and think their very coming or sending their names to their Minister over night c. be sufficient especially if betake this course with strangers also then how doth he know whether they be Christians or heathen sober or distracted children or elder persons excommunicated or members of the Church So that turn which way he please he will finde himself in a noose of his own making Le ts now proceed to his proof from analogy of the Passover Page 4. 5. to which he saies there was a free admission Answ 1. It s well he corrects himself from Numb 9. whereby it appears there was not a free admission to the Passeover and then where is his argument If he plead that onely legall uncleanness excluded them I ask him why He will answer because it defiled the Congregation or the Ordinances and holy things or both Content But what if it be proved that not onely Leviticall but also morall uncleanness defiled the holy things and that
Sacrament as he is pleased to tearm it His first proof is from 1 Cor. 10.17 We being many are all partakers of one bread Thence he concludes That divers of the Corinthians were ready to go to Idols verse 14. yet all were admitted to the Sacrament Answ 1. The dehortation doth not necessarily prove they were Idolaters though indeed too many of them especially the stronger Christians abused their liberty in eating things sacrificed to Idols to the offence of their weaker brethren and sometimes which was more scandalous in the Idols Temple this they did as apprehending the thing was indifferent and by using their utmost liberty went beyond the bounds judging any place of eating lawfull and that without weighing circumstances as well as any meats lawfull 1 Cor. 8.10 This though bad was not especially before sufficient admonition given a just barre to their receiving 2. Yet taking it for granted many of them were guilty of greater sins as appears pears by 1 Cor. 15. 2 Cor. 12.21 How proves he from the place that all these were notwithstanding admitted As all Jews might eat the Passeover so all Church Members might receive the Lords Supper All circumcised persons had a right to the Passeover yet some of them might not injoy it at all times Numb 9.7 So all baptized persons have a right to the Lords Supper yet may not alwaies actually use this their right nay not all true converts neither till they be worthy actually as well as habitually A person may be capable in actu primo yet not in actu secundo All the Priests had a right to the holy things yet were not permitted at any time to make use of that right Levit. 22.2 7. 3. Supposing all did receive it promiscuously how proves he from this place that the Apostle did allow that free admission doth the drawing an argument from practice allow that practice Then by arguing from baptizing for the dead the Apostle should allow baptizing for the dead 1 Cor. 15.29 From their actuall communicating the Apostle proves they were one body and secondly That they ought not to communicate with Idols Doth this manner of arguing necessarily justifie their admitting all to communicate pell mell at any time Whereas pag. 7. he urges That they were drunken together at the Lords Table Answ 1. Then it seems they were not drunk before but at the Table and how can that be a let to receiving which was caused by receiving unless he will make the Effect an impediment to the Cause the Consequent to the Antecedent 2. But granting this drunkenness were at their love Feasts which preceded the Lords Supper I answer It s more then Mr. H. can prove that they were drunken in the ordinary and strict sense since in Scripture phrase the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Shachar signifie though liberall drinking yet within the bounds of temperance as is evident Iohn 3.10 Gen. 43.34 Cant. 5.1 And the Apostle reproves them rather for disorder and uncharitableness then for excess that they stayed not for their Brethren whereby the rich fed and drunk liberally when the poor were hungry and thirsty Compare ver 22. c 33. 3. What Logick is in this consequence supposing they were drunk indeed Saint Paul reproves them for coming drunk to the Sacrament ergo they ought to come to the Sacrament even though they be drunk Is not the quite contrary more rationall St. Paul reproved them for coming when drunk to the Sacrament ergo they ought not to come when drunk to the Sacrament His next proof is from 1 Cor. 10.4 5. By the way where he saies They were all admitted freely to our Sacrament He speaks gratis Indeed if he speak as to the thing signified undoubtedly their and our Sacraments are all one and thus even Circumcision and the Passeover were the same with our Baptisme and the Lords Supper but as to the outward elements I think there 's a great difference between their Manna and our Bread their Water out of the rock and our Wine But for the thing it self if he will make that a president for free admission then unbaptized persons yea persons distracted Infants and excommunicated persons by this rule may partake of the Lords Supper as there uncircumcised persons c. did partake of those Sacraments Yea many who were born after their passing the Sea and so not baptized neither yet ate of the Manna and drank of the rocks Witness 1. The mixed multitude that went out of Egypt with them Exod. 12.38 2. Many of the Israelites themselves who were uncircumcised in the wilderness Josh 5.5 yet did eat of the Manna and drank of the rock 2. Their partaking universally of that Sacramentall Meat and Drink is no argument for our free admission till Mr. H. can make out as great a necessity for our universall receiving as for theirs namely that all who receive not must both starve and choak that Sacramentall Bread and Water being their daily and necessary repast Nor will Mr. H. evade this answer by his parallels pag. 8. which do not run on four feet as we say And however their Sacraments and ours their condition and ours may agree in divers respects and it be very true that God is not well pleased with many Receivers amongst us no more then amongst them yet herein is a manifest difference that their Sacramentall Elements had a double use and end namely to nourish their bodies as well as their soules nor had they ordinarily in the Wilderness other food to live upon and therefore they must either receive those Sacraments or die I hope there is not such an absolute necessity of our Sacramentall Bread and Wine Had God made our daily food as he did to them a Sacrament I say then it were cruelty and murder to deny any man the Sacrament and then not onely monthly but also weekly yea daily Sacraments had been necessary but that must have been by accident not from the nature of a Sacrament His next Argument is drawn from the generall invitation to the Marriage Feast Page 9. Matth. 22 Luke 14. Answ 1. Let him prove that by the Marriage Feast is there meant in particular the Lords Supper Christ indeed is the Feast to which all are invited the Ordinances and especially the Word and Sacraments are the Dishes in which this Feast is served Now the question is not Whether all ought to come to the Feast but Whether all must eat of the Feast in the Dish of the Sacrament as well as of the Word The former is asserted but not proved by Mr. Humphrey 2. Since the main scope of the parable is to hold forth the rejecting of the Jews and calling of the Gentiles which is the rule Mr. H. himself goes by pag. 9. Mat. 22.43 compared with Mat. 22.1 will it not follow then that not onely Church members but also Heathen should immediately be admitted yea forced to this Sacrament 3. Yet further if all must be
conspire to admit unworthy ones out of by-respects as they likewise may do of the Minister But all this doth not countenance the admission of any who may be regularly suspended no more then of him who is to be excommunicated but is not through corruption of the Eldership For his fourth Consideration Pag. 26. we grant the Gospel is the Gospel of peace c. yet it s as true that whereever it comes it occasions war not of its own nature but by means of humane corruption Mat. 10.34 35. and that by means of separation which it makes whereever it comes And is it any wonder then that the seals of this Gospel by making separation make also division Where the promises are not applicable so much as visibly there sure the seals of those promises are not applicable the deniall whereof yet must needs vex hypocrites who by this means are pried into and uncased as a soul-searching Ministry doth and no wonder then if the devil of contention be conjured up and Gods Jeremies who separate the precious from the vile be men of contention to the whole Earth Cain will be angry if Abel finde better acceptance then himself and hypocrites who care least for reall goodness yet are very ambitious of all the priviledges of piety and proclaim war against such as deny them though never so justly as the Pharisees did against our Saviour but I pray who deserve blame for this contention Gods faithfull Ministers or hypocrites themselves who by visible unworthiness deprive themselves of those priviledges and yet malign Christs Stewards who dare not be so lavish and prodigall of their Masters provisions as these persons would have them What therefore he adds by way of rhetoricall amplification is frivolous as to his purpose since none are Saints but such sinners and none to be approved for Saints by the Church but such as acknowledge themselves great sinners But the question is Whether such as think themselves righteous though easily convinceable of gross ignorance or wickedness as the Pharisees are to be admitted to this Sacrament amongst humbled and repenting sinners His provision inserred in his third Edition pag. 17. will stand him in little stead since his very stating the question overthrows his great Diana of free Admission For 1. He will have free Admission and yet himself rails about the Communion Table from Infants distracted persons c. He that cries out of Suspension yet takes upon himself to suspend a world of persons far more worthy then or not so unworthy as many he presumes to admit Shall the Lords Supper be free for blasphemers murderers c. and not free for Infants distracted persons c. 2. If he can prove it is against Scripture-order and decency to admit to the Lords Supper a person visibly worthy though unbaptized I will easily prove its more against order and decency to admit to the Lords Supper a person visibly unworthy though baptized Had Constantine the great and Julian the Apostate been contemporary I should rather have admitted the former to receive when unbaptized then the latter though baptized 3. Whatever Mr. H. insinuates in the close of his Provision we are as much both for Order and for the Ordinances as himself and could not the Ordinances be had without disorder we had rather dispence with Order then part with the Ordinances The difference then between us is this We plead for and blessed be God injoy the Lords Supper with order and decency Mr. H. pleads for it and injoyes it with disorder and confusion whatever he pretends in his Provision to the contrary His second Argument he draws from the nature of the visible Church which he defines or describes to be a number of such as make profession of Jesus Christ and so are Saints by calling whatever they are in truth The essentiall marks whereof whereby it subsists as visible is the preaching of the Word and administration of the Sacraments Now unless men will be so bold as to divest our mixed Congregations and so consequently all England formerly of the name of the visible Church they cannot take from us one of its essentiall notes in the free use of this Ordinance Answ 1. His description is liable enough to exception since a visible Church strictly is not a bare number of Professors but of such as combine for Church ends The Church is a Corporation and not members as so make a body but as united either by virtuall or actuall consent c. and that either in their distinct Societies which we call Parishes or particular Congregations or in their Representees and Officers delegated for the publick concernment of particular Churches either in a Classis Province Nation divers Nations or the whole world whence arise Classicall Provinciall Nationall or Oecumenicall Assemblies c. But supposing this to be his meaning though not so clearly expressed 2. I ask him in the next place Whether all Professors or Saints by calling are eo nomine to be admitted to the Lords Supper if so then why doth he shut out children and distracted persons who are as truly Saints by calling and professors as others It s apparent then that outward profession is not the ultimate reason of admission unless accompanied with sutable knowledge and conversation at least visibly and that gross ignorance appearing or a scandalous conversation do so far contradict Mr. H. his outside profession as to make that person for present visibly unworthy 3. Taking it for granted that the Word and Sacraments are notes of a true visible Church how doth it follow that ours are not true Churches unless every particular member may partake of the Lords Supper How many children and servants were in the daies of the Prelates kept from the Lords Supper till they could give some tolerable account of their faith and of the nature and use of the Sacrament yet never was such a mad inference as this drawn from it that therefore the Church of England was not a true visible Church And certainly if the deniall of some Church priviledge though unjustly were enough to un-Church a people I scarce know where there is any one true visible Church in all the world 4. Therefore let all the world take notice of the too too gross fallacy of this Argument The Word and Sacraments are notes of a true visible Church Ergo Without free admission we have no true visible Church May not any ordinary capacity easily discern there are four tearms in this Syllogisme The Syllogisme should run thus The Word and Sacraments are essentiall notes of a true visible Church Ergo without the Word and Sacraments there is no true visible Church But that Mr. H. saw well enough would conclude nothing against us who blessed be God have both Word and Sacraments and therefore in stead thereof against the known rules of Logick he shuffles in free Admission into the conclusion which was not at all in the premises A clear evidence he is more
admitter of others deserves I fear more then suspension for this his scandalous and wicked censure of the generality of the most pious persons of all the reformed Churches and particularly his own Nation His third reason he takes from the nature of Christian communion and Church fellowship which ought to be in charity in humility without judging every one esteeming others better then themselves c. especially in the Minister who is to be gentle to all suffering the evil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to win them by this free way to repentance And how impossible is this if we must go to censuring of mens worthiness and unworthiness preferring our selves rejecting others the ready way to nothing but heart burnings and divisions as we have too sad experience already in most Congregations Answ 1. When men are out of the right way once whither will they not ramble Rash judgement and private judgement cannot stand with charity and humility out of his own mouth I condemn the man who may well be stiled Master of Arts at rash and private judging ergo true and publick judging cannot stand with charity and humility Doth he not in this deal with the Church as some Anabaptists deal with the State take away the Sword of Government and so make a fair bridge for universall Toleration 2. If there must be no judging in the Church where then are Church Censures and Excommunication 3. Ephesus is commended for trying and judging Rev. 2.2 and that she could not bear those that were evil c. and not therefore charged by Christ as proud or uncharitable 4. The Apostle 1 Cor. 5.12,13 commands them to judge Church Members that is in Mr. H. his Language to be proud and uncharitable 5. Do we desire anymore of the meanest then we submit to our selves yea to a far stricter triall then they are like to undergo how then do we lift up our selves above them or esteem our selves better then they 6. Doth the gentleness required in a Minister forbid him to try and instruct his people I thought gentleness there required had been rather a qualification then a prohibition of Ministeriall triall 7. Doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there signifie a suffering the people in their sins that Ministers should be dumb dogs and drowsie shepherds suffering the sheep to ramble as they please and the swine to wallow as they please c and admit them to the same priviledges with the best Such a Minister may well be counted a good fellow but sure Christ will never reckon him for a good and faithfull shepherd Doth Mr. Humphrey think the way to bring to repentance is to suffer them in their sins ot that there is no way to reduce them but either admonition or excommunication May not persons be won by deniall of some priviledges due to regular members if they have not lost ail spirituall ingenuity 8. That hereby heart burnings and divisions are occasioned blame not this excellent course which of its own nature is a means of love and unity by the mutuall communication of Pastor and Flock Elders and People in gifts and graces but the pride of most and ignorance or prejudice of some well meaning people who will not submit to this easie yoke Psal 2.1 3. Matth. 11.29 nor do consider that the ruling Elders are either elected or eligible 1. By themselves 2. Out of themselves 3. For their advantage to allay the power of Ministers who if sole Judges of Sacramentall worthiness might at least be under a temptation to wrong weaker Christians and through passion or prejudice to keep them away whom Christ would have to be admitted 9. If by trying and judging others we prefer our selves before others then there must be no trying or judging of any in the Church quite contrary to the Scripture and the power of the Keyes given to Church-Officers Besides let the Reader further take notice of the uncharitableness of this man 1. In charging us to prefer our selves before others True indeed what the Apostle saith of blessing Heb. 7.7 that may we of triall and judgement The Trier and Judge is in that act above him that is tried and judged but did we prefer our selves to this superiority or were we called to it both by Civill and Ecclesiasticall Authority Doth not Mr. Humphrey try and judge others in the exercise of his Ministry doth he therefore prefer himself above his people indeed if he ran before he was sent well may he bear that charge But we challenge Mr. Humphrey and all the world to name any among us who take upon them to try or judge others before they were called to that Office Let him take heed lest in this rash censure he be not like Corah and his company Numb 16.3 3. To load us the more he brands us in the close with the odious charge of rejecting others as if that were all the work of the Presbytery to sit and reject their brethren He takes no notice how many are admitted to the mutuall comfort and edification of themselves and those who are over them in the Lord who bless God for the care our Builders take in purging and repairing Gods House and the new Jerusalem however opposed and discouraged by Sanballat Tobiah and other Samaritans and I wish too many I hope reall Jews did not too much correspond with them Neh. 6.17 18 19. I am sure Mr. Humphrey by this unhappy book of his hath done Sanballat and Tobiah more service then either Nehemiah or Ezra the Lord forgive him For amplification of his third Argument Page 20. he presents the example of the Pharisee and Publicane and insinuates that we at least 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 act the Pharisee Answ 1. How doth it follow that by triall of others we think better of our selves then of others as the Pharisee did here His judgement was purely private 2. Without any triall Ours is publick upon just and indifferent triall whereby often we are brought to think better of others worse of our selves but never to think better of our selves then others whom yet in some cases we dare not admit since its possible one really worthy may be suspended and another onely visibly worthy may be admitted since in this as well as other trials the Eider-ship must proceed only secundum allegata probata and he who is worthy personally may be unworthy dispositively And here again he chargeth us with superstition and uncharitableness because we will not admit all freely as if there were no Meane between profaness and superstition between charity and licentiousness His second instance for amplification is from Luk. 5.31 32. the quotation is mistaken by his Printer and the sense by himself wherein Christ is represented as a Physician onely of the sick and came to call not the righteous but sinners Answ 1. What is this against us who make it our design to admit none but such sick ones and sinners as Christ did 2. It makes much against
directly to his Objections Answers The Doctrine of free admission will take away the use of the keyes excommunicate Excommunication and leave us no Discipline in the Church Obj. 1 This Objection I conceive Mr. H. might have spared there being no great strength in it against free admission in his sense which admits not excommunicated persons Yet withall I must tell him that his satisfaction of the objection is unsatisfactory and not we but himself will be found guilty of false surmises about Excommunication and Suspension And here I value not what the Objection surmises since Mr. H. may frame it as he please and so make it surmise what he will but if thereby he intends to insinuate that we look at Church Discipline as lying solely in Suspension I must tell him he acts not the part of a fair respondent 1. Therefore for negative Suspension which is a bare non-admission we account it no part of Church Discipline no more then himself doth the non admission of Infants or mad folk 2. For positive Suspension whereby 1. Persons upon triall found unworthy by the Eldership 2. Persons who obstinately refuse triall yet will obtrude themselves upon the Sacrament are by vote of the Eldership denied participation this we say is an act of Church Discipline and a lesser degree of Excommunication whereof I conceive there is a threefold degree 1. From private communion 2 Thess 3.14 2. Not onely from private but also from Sacramentall Communion 1. Cor. 5.11 Eating there being extended to Sacramentall eating as well as domesticall eating as is cleared by the Antiquaerist in his Vindication or Answer to Suspension suspended to which therefore I refer 3. From Church membership Mat. 18.17 18. 1 Cor. 5.5 Yet withall I adde this positive susspension is not issued out against any unless by their obstinacy they force the Eldership to it For 1. if a person upon triall be found ignorant the Eldership doth not presently proceed to Suspension but intreat him to forbear a Sacrament or two till he have attained to some competency of knowledge in order whereunto they give him direction and offer him their assistance If for all this he thrust himself upon the Sacrament they desire him to forbear and tell him they dare not admit him till more capable And lastly if all this will not serve they are forced to issue out a Vote of Suspension which yet I believe is very rare since too many suspend themselves by keeping away because they will not be tried 2. If a person be found scandalous they admonish him being before them if he profess repentance and be willing to give satisfaction they dare not refuse him otherwise they proceed with him as with the former after conviction And if the sin and scandall be great and aggravated by obstinacy they proceed not onely to Suspension but also to dismembership Having given this account of out judgement and practice let us weigh Mr. H. his judgement about Church Censures Pag. 31. He saith They are punishments upon scandalous persons after a legall conviction whereby they are debarred from Christian society in generall Answ 1. In this description he surmises amiss by omitting one main end of Church Censures namely the amendment of the party censured 1 Cor. 5.5 2. In restrayning them onely to scandalous persons as to practice which are extendible to any wilfull sinner and if persons wilfully ignorant be not wilfull sinners I know not who are 2 Pet. 3.5 3. In debarring persons censured of all Christian society in generall And here I challenge Master Humphrey and all the world to shew me any one place in Scripture which requires that persons excommunicated should not be present at any publick Ordinance I grant that by Excommunication they are made as Heathen and Publicanes and are in status quo no Church members Matth. 18.17 but I see no place that proves persons out of the Church may not be present at any publick Ordinance I am sure 1 Corinth 14.24 favours the contrary He is therefore much mistaken about us who neither shut the Church doores nor the Chancell doores against any person censured but admit them to be present at all Ordinances nor do we believe their presence will leaven any since spirituall defilement is not contracted by presence but by connivance or imitation c. And therefore if any gratifie profane persons it must be they who exclude from all Ordinances not we who admit them to be present at all Ordinances though we restrain them from actuall receiving and that upon very weighty reasons yet withall let me tell Mr. Humphrey that he is mistaken in saying pag. 32. That profane persons never care to come to the Sacrament Did he never hear of poor ignorant and profane creatures that must needs come and eat their Maker at Easter especially or is he onely a stranger in Israel and knows not these things May not ignorant and profane ones desire the Sacrament partly out of custome and fashion partly because they apprehend its a disgrace for them to be turned away and for many such triviall grounds For his second snrmise pag. 32. That Suspension is instituted onely in reference to the Ordinances to keep them pure and holy if the Sacrament especially would he defied otherwise to the Receivers Answ 1. We think the Ordinances are defiled onely to those who use them sinfully 2. That persons are defiled not by presence with unworthy Receivers but by partaking in their sins 3. That 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 It s therefore false which he asserts pag. 32. That Church Censures concern not those who are admitted to the Ordinances but are used in reference onely to offenders c. For 1. It concerns all Church members in their places to look to it that Church Censures be duly executed 2. Their very execution doth much concern Church members by fear to keep then from those inordinate courses which bring Church Censures upon others And its considerable how he contradicts himself in the close of this paragraph when he makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the ends of Church Censures And I appeal to all the world whether admonition which better renders the sense of the first Greek word satisfying the Congregation and warning or example concern more of the Congregation but the parties offending His third pretended surmise is That we conceive there is a most neer essentiall relation between this Excommunication and the Communion as if it were a part of it at least some necessary antecedent as if the Sacrament could not be administred without it Answ 1. The Objection it self propounded pag. 30. and elevated to the height of Mr. Humphrey his design infers no such mad consequence For granting it were a truth that free admission did takeaway the use of the Keyes c. how
doth it follow from thence that there is an essentiall relation between Excommunication and the Communion or which is more gross that Excommunication is a part of the Communion Do not essentialiter relata put or take away each other but doth the taking away of Excommunication take away the Communion what is this but to conclude that the admitting of all sorts to the Communion takes away the Communion So belike there is a Communion which all partake of and yet there is no Communion because all partake of it Is not this excellent Logick The Sun shines which all men see and yet it doth not shine because all men see it It s therefore both a false inference and an absurd falsity in it self that there is an essentiall relation between Excommunication and the Coram union since the Communion may be without Excommunication and Excommunication without the Communion I speak as to matter of fact not as to jus or fas for I believe all Ordidinances should be maintained in the Church yet withall that the absence of one Ordinance doth not null another There is indeed a neer relation between the Communion and Excommunication in point of duty since we must not separate those things which God hath joyned God having commanded all his Ordinances to be used but not in point of being or existence since they depend not so one upon the other that all must needs be abolished if one be universally neglected The latter surmise framed by Mr. H. is farre more absurd as if either we or the objection by him propounded made Excommunication a part of the Communion What is this but a contradiction in terminis to make keeping from the Sacrament a part of the Sacrament or keeping from receiving a part of receiving From such receiving we shall suspend no unworthy person We wish Mr. Humphrey much good with such contradictions but desire him not to pin them upon our sleeve 2. How follows it from the Objection that Excommunication is a part of Communion The Argument must stand thus If free admission to the Communion excommunicate Excommunication then Excommunication is a part of the Communion but free admission doth so Ergo. Do not the Antecedent and the Consequent here hang together like ropes of sand Is it not rather true that if free admission to the Communion excommunicate Excommunication then Excommunication is no part of the Communion Is it not against nature for one part to excommunicate another His distinction between acts of Discipline and acts of Worship makes little for his purpose We grant them indeed to be distinct things yet withall we adde that acts of Discipline are no bars to acts of Worship excepting onely actuall receiving in the Sacrament If he please to call that an act of Worship I must therefore pass his following discourse pag. 33. 34. as wholly impertinent and tell him that the friends of Suspension are more both for Discipline and Worship then he is 1. Because we are for all the parts and degrees of Discipline he is onely for some of them 2. We exclude no excommunicated person from any part of publick Worship but only from actuall receiving Contra he excludes all excommunicate persons from all publick acts of Worship pag. 31. 2 Object The most of men are wholly unfit and not capable of this Ordinance as wanting both the preparatory and executory part c. therefore no free admission hither Answ I commend Mr. H. who will be sure to choose Adversaries weak enough He may well say there is manifest weakness in this Argument But he doth ill to right against our weakest Arguments and then triumph as if we had no stronger We have shewed formerly That fitness or unfitness absolutely considered is no rule for the Churches admission or suspension but either of these as visible We say not that all who are unfit must be kept from the Sacrament but onely all who are visibly unfit 2. That for the discerning of those who are visibly unfit the Church must proceed by a rule to finde them out 3. That triall by examination of persons and witness if need be is a Scripture and approved rule 4. That all are bound to submit either to publick or private triall as God offers occasion for either when it may be for Gods glory and their own or others edification yea though it should tend to their outward prejudice 1 Pet. 3.15 5. That being discovered to be unfit they ought to repent and study to be fit but not to thrust themselves against light and conviction upon the Sacrament When God saies Let a man so cat 1 Cor. 11.28 how dares any man say Let him eat though not so 6. If notwithstanding persons visibly unfit will thrust themselves upon the Sacrament it s the Churches duty not to let them eat and drink judgement to themselves by murdering the Lord of glory unless Mr. H. be of Cains Religion that Church Officers are not their brethrens keepers Genes 4.9 Neither let him object That then they may as well keep him from hearing c. for in part it hath and God willing shall be more fully shewed that there is a wide difference between hearing and receiving Now let 's hear what Mr. H. hath to say against this Objection of his own framing And first I thank him that pag 35. he laies down That the Church can but look upon an outward capacity He might have added since contrariorum eadem est ratio That the Church may also look upon and judge of outward incapacity but see and judge of it they cannot without evidence and triall therefore 3. They may enquire after persons capable or uncapable 4. Since triall is in vain without execution therefore they ought to admit all persons outwardly capable and suspend all persons outwardly incapable otherwise how shall they suspend negatively at least Infants distracted and excommunicated persons As to his three Answers I answer briefly 1. A naturall man must hear pray c. though he cannot do them rightly because these are converting Ordinances so is not the Lords Supper I mean as to actuall receiving he may therefore hear c. but not receive I wonder a wise man should mistake a mountain for a feather 2. It s true every man must do what he can but many things are naturally possible which are morally impossible and thus I cannot do that which I may not that is impossible which is unlawfull Let him prove that actuall receiving is a debt on the part of a naturall man or that to admit a person visibly unworthy is a debt on the Churches part and we shall be far enough from hindering any in the payment of their debts either to God or man 3. In his last Answer though he have borrowed a good distinction from Master Pemble yet he shuffles wofully in the application of it In a legall sense no man is either worthy or receives worthily in an Evangelicall sense no man receives worthily but
he is a worthy Receiver But I ask Mr. H. whether he dares apply either branch of this distinction to all whom he admits so freely To come to his own words Do all that he admits 1. Labour their best to prepare their hearts 2. Judge and humble themselves really before God 3. Come to Christ heavy laden 4. Look at themselves as dogs and yet importune Christ for the crums of mercy I say then he hath the worthiest Congregation in the world 2. All his Communicants are not onely worthy bun eminently godly But now to retort How easie were it to evince the contrary against most whom he would have admitted For 1. How many ignorant ones are therein our Congregations that scarce know their right hands from their left in matters of Religion 2. How many profane ones swearers drunkards c. 3. How many outwardly pious who upon triall might easily be uncased to live in some known sin Each of these fearing and that not without cause to be uncased before the Eldership no wonder they are so averse to triall lest their sheeps cloathing should be pull'd off and themselves discovered to be ignorant profane or hypocriticall criticall far enough from the forementioned graces of humility repentance and faith If he object that such persons should be excommunicated I answer 1. Whoever deserve Excommunication do much more deserve Suspension and it seems then that the Presbyterians offend rather in being too favourable then too rigid 2. We deny not but in case of obstinacy or foul scandall dismembring may follow Suspension the greater Excommunication the lesser 3. I hope Mr. Humphrey is more charitable then to profess that all ignorant persons should be excommunicated I am sure we are so charitable as by Suspension to put them upon endeavours after knowledge that they may be fitted for and so comfortably admitted to the Sacrament Which his free admission is not like to do but rather to harden and flatter them in their ignorance He notes well pag. 37. That on the unworthy receivers part the Ordinance is taken in vain against the third Commandment But whereas he adds not so on the admitters part Ans The admitters having regularly the power of the Keyes if they admit persons visibly unworthy are accessary to their guilt as any one is an accessary in Gods account who prevents not the sin of his neighbour when he hath power to do it 3 Object Holy things to holy men An. I may say of this as of the former There is little strength in it Yet withall Mr. H. his Answer falls short and is too too feeble likewise For 1. All outward holy things are not to be administred to all outwardly holy persons since Infants and distracted persons if Christians are outwardly yea divers of them inwardly holy yet by Mr. H. his vote are not capable of the Sacrament 2. Some things outwardly holy may be administred to persons not so much as outwardly holy by profession Mat. 28.19 1 Cor. 14.24 3. What is bare profession if contradicted by profaness That which cannot secure a man from Excommunication but rather makes him capable of it much less can secure him against Suspension an inferiour Censure But such is bare profession if accompanied with profaness 4. Many persons excommunicated do still profess and so are outwardly holy yet these Mr. H. will have excluded from all Ordinances From all which I conclude 1. That M. H. his Answer may vye with the Objection for weaknesse 2. That M. H. here as well as other where contradicts himself in saying that the same person at the same time must be admitted to all the Ordinances and yet he must be admitted to none of the Ordinances to all the Ordinances as a professor to none of the Ordinances as excommunicated a cruel assertion and a flat contradiction For the Reply pag. 38 39. Do we not hereby make our selves one with the wicked with whom we joyn and so have communion with Belial His answer is good That joyning with a wicked mans person is not having communion with Belial but accompanying of him in his evil wayes But our difference here with M. H. is not so much about joyning with the wicked as accompanying of him in his evil wayes It being first his sin to receive unworthily Secondly The peoples sin who know him to be unworthy and do not inform the Church Thirdly The Churches fault if they study not the discovery of persons unworthy or admit them to the Sacrament when visibly unworthy Nor is presence with the wicked at Ordinances but fostering of them in their sins communion with Belial which I wish too many do not fall into by this free admission pleaded for with more strength of affection then power of conviction We easily agree with him That wicked persons in the Church are in some sense in Christ and sanctified by him But if this be enough for admission to the Lords Supper then why doth himself shut the Chancel door as he other where calls it against Infants arid mad men who are as much if not more in Christ and as much if not more sanctified then the former and against whom himself dares not shut the Church door Therefore say I if M. H. be really for free admission let him excluded none out of the Chancel that are within die Church For the places of Scripture that he quotes page 40. I am confident the Orthodox interpretation of them will never open the Chancel to grosly ignorant or prophane Church-members the latter of which are so far from having right to be admitted into the Chancel that they deserve to be shut out of the Church To close up this third Objection How grosse is that assertion pag. 41. That there is an historicall visible faith that gives an outward Church-right unto the Elements For then first excommunicated persons have a right to the Elements who though cast out for their prophanenesse have still an historicall faith since excommunication doth not deprive you of their historicall faith yet cuts them off 1. from visible Church-membership 2. from visible Christ-membership 2. Saving faith it self doth not alwayes give a right to the Elements it being possible that a godly man for some foul scandall may be excommunicated much lesse then doth visible historicall faith when contradicted especially by customary prophanesse 3. As historicall faith gives not a right to Christ for that the devils have Iames 2.19 but the faith of adhesion seated in the will not in the understanding so not visible historicall faith but visible faith of adhesion gives a Church-right to Christ sacramentall and should any man professe historicall faith but protest against faith of adhesion I appeal to M. H. his conscience whether he durst admit such a wretch to the Sacrament For my own part should any person professe I beleeve Jesus Christ to be the Son of God the only Saviour and Mediator between God and man but I will not rest upon him for
where it s said They all drank of the Sacramentall Cup. Answ 1. It s the judgement of divers learned that Judas did not receive 2. Grant him present at the Sacrament it follows not thence that he did receive 3. Christ bidding all to receive must be limited onely to those all for whom he shed his blood for remission of sins as is evident in the words that accompany the tender of the Cup. Compare Mat. 26.28 and Luke 22.20 But Christs blood was nor shed for Judas for the remission of sins ergo the Sacrament was not tendered to him 4. It seems probable that Christ excluded Judas in particular in those words Luke 22.21 But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table As if he should have said What hast thou who art a Traytor to do to receive among my faithfull Disciples 5. Supposing be did receive 1. Christ acted in admitting him as a particular Minister who alone cannot exclude any 2. Before and at receiving he told him home his sin and danger which I believe Mr. H. doth not to every Judas that receives at his Sacrament Judas his instance then will not favour Mr. H. his free Admission Object 8. Unworthy Receivers are guilty of Christ blood and eat their own damnation therefore we must not allow free admission To this Mr. H. answers That it cannot concern the admitters and joyners c. Answ It concerns the admitters if any partake who are visibly unworthy and the joyners if they know them to be unworthy and do not complain the rule being that a man must receive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but not absolutely 1 Cor. 11.28 Whereas p. 68. he adds Every one is to examine himself if he do not he receives his own damnation not ours who do our duty c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Corinth 11.29 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Answ 1. Every main is to examine himself and so to eat but where is it said absolutely Let every man eat We must minde him of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver 28. as well as he mindes us of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver 29. 2. The Apostles words are not to be understood restrictively and exclusively as if self examination excluded Church examination or as if self prejudice excluded prejudice to my neighbour as is evident by comparing Rom. 14.12 where giving an account to God excludes not giving an account to man for then children and servants might refuse to give any account to their parents or masters 3. Though it be haply an improper expression to say I eat judgement to another yet undoubtedly another mans unworthy receiving may be charged upon me when I have power to prevent it and do not I think as perfect as Mr. H. is both himself and the best of Gods people had need pray every day Lord forgive me my other mens sins especially State and Church Officers 4. It s as absurd in reason and Divinity by an affirmative to exclude a negative as it is by a negative to exclude an affirmative to say I must examine my self therefore another must not examine me or to say Another must examine me therefore I must not examine my self or to say I eat judgement to my self therefore not to another as to say I eat judgement to another therefore not to my self Most sins and duties are reciprocall and as guilt so duty is usually relative as well as personall Rep. But you will say If a man drink poyson shall not I be guilty of his blood unless I hinder him c. To this Mr. H. answers 1. Not unless I have a quum possum 2. He wonders any should compare the Sacrament to a cup of poyson seeing it is in its own nature a cup of blessing 3. That it is more then we can know or ought to judge that it proves death to any 4. That as the Word may be preached to all though often it prove the savour of death so the Sacrament may be administred unto all leaving the issue to God c. This for the admitters part pag. 68.70 Answ 1. His quum possit must be understood either of a naturall or a morall ability I believe that whoever hath a naturall hath at the same time a morall ability to hinder his brother from murdering himself by poyson In plain English whoever can ought to hinder his brother from drinking of poyson Cains Religion may be indeed Am I my brothers keeper but Christs Religion is He that saves not life destroyes it I must preserve my neighbours life by all lawfull means but undoubtedly its a lawfull means by violence to hinder my neighbour from self murder 2. His wonder deserves to be wondered at If one mans corporall food be another mans poyson though in it self wholsome as Cheese c. why may not one mans spirituall food be another mans poyson Nay the same food is at one time good nourishment at another time poyson to the same man namely flesh c. in a strong feaver The same Word is a favour of life and a savour of death and why not the same Sacrament and what is a deadly savour but poyson Christ is a precious corner stone to some a stone of stumbling to others and if Christ personall be so why not Christ Sacramentall 3. If I may know and judge when the Word is poyson to any why not as well yea better when the Sacrament is poyson I may know the Word is so by its effects or consequents I may know the Sacrament is so both by its causes and effects as if a grosly ignorant or profane person come to receive and if after receiving I see a man as bad or worse then formerly 4. As the Word may be preached before all so the Sacrament may be administred before all but as the Word is not applied by all nor divers parts of it applicable to all so neither ought the Sacrament to be applied to all by actuall receiving If any man will give his neighbour poyson and leave the issue to God the Magistrate may more justly give him an halter and leave the issue to God Next Mr. H. proceeds to the Receivers part and tels us pag. 70. That a double duty is required of him 1. A principall Do this 2. An accessory Let a man examine himself We are bound to come and to come worthily If a man fails in the one and is not sufficiently prepared I dare not say that he must keep I am sure it will not excuse him from the other c. Answ 1. Let the Reader note how absurdly Mr. H. makes receiving to be the principall duty and actuall worthiness but accessory What carnall Divinity is this to make the matter and carkass of a duty the principall and the spirit of a duty accessory the form of godliness the principall and the power of godliness the accessory Is not this principall Divinity and very pleasing to some of Mr. H. his principall Receivers