The bar, against free admission to the Lords Supper, fixed. Or, An answer to Mr. Humphrey his Rejoynder, or, reply.: By Roger Drake minister of Peters Cheap, London.

SECT. II.

IN vindicating the second Objection Mr. H. be∣gins p. 159 by way of denial and distinction, in these words. It is not visible real worthiness up on trial, but visible relative worthiness, or

external Covenant-relation gives a man a right to, and is the ground of Admission.

Ans. Mr. Collins, p. 90. of his vindication an∣swers

him. Visible relativ worthiness (according to Mr. H.) is mens being within the external Co∣venant, baptized, and in the Church, and this gives them a right, &c.

I alwayes thought this had been the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Whether all baptized persons may be admitted to the Lords Table though ignorant and scandalous, if not cast out of the Church; or whether if such, they ought to be suspended?

We say,

They ought to be suspended; and argue from, their real unworthiness and inca∣pacity visibly appearing, to our duty in deny∣ing the Sacrament to them. What sayes Mr. H. to this? sayes he, They are not unworthy relatively, though they be visibly unworthy really. Strange language say we, what spells it? sayes he, they are baptized, and not ex∣communicated. If this be not petere 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I know not what is; for we brought our argu∣ment to prove, That a visibility of real unwor∣thiness made a relative unworthiness: So that Mr. H. sayes, this in short, They are not unwor∣thy, because they are not unworthy.

Thus far M. Collins. Nor is it material whether worthiness and unworthiness be visible upon trial, or otherwise upon which account, haply Mr. Collins took no notice of that expression. Its enough to our pur∣pose, that visible worthiness is the rule of Admis∣sion, & contra. When Mr. H. can shew us a better way of discovering worthiness or unwor∣thiness, than by trial of Church-members, he shall have us both thankful and plyable to his di∣rection.

Page 160. Mr. H. makes light of that place, 1 Pet. 3. 15. which proves its the duty of Chri∣stians to submit to trial.

And first, He sayes its nothing to the Saera∣ment.

Ans. If I must alwayes be ready to give a reason of the hope that is in me, then surely at, or about the Sacrament, unless Mr. H. can prove that to be no part of time. I had thought that semper had included all parts of time.

Secondly, He sayes, That place speaks clearly as to the defence of our hope in case of persecu∣tion.

Ans. I grant it speaks more particularly to that case, but not exclusively: If I must give an account of my hope when demanded maliciously, much more when demanded charitably; If to open enemies, much more to friends, and those who are over us in the Lord; If when it may cost me my life, much more when it contributes directly to my edification and comfort.

Secondly, He tells us, Hope is taken here ob∣jectivè for Christian doctrine, not subjectivè for the truth of grace we would inquire into.

Ans. First, He that professes his hope ob∣jectively doth therein profess it also subjectively, since the object, principle, and act of hope are infe∣parable, and therefore as they cannot be, so they cannot be professed, the one without the other. The notions indeed are distinct, but the things themselves ever go together.

Secondly, The very application of this distin∣ction is contrary to the Text; The Apostle bid∣ding us be ready to give a reason of the hope

that is in us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Mr. H. sayes not so, but of the hope that is without us; whom shall we beleeve, St. Peter, or Mr. Humphrey? Hope objective is without us, hope subjective is within us; which last must needs be meant here by the Apostle, yet not excluding the former, they being both inseparable, as the act and object. And what I pray is hope subjective, but the grace of hope, which therefore the Apostle calls us to give a reason of, against Mr. H. his gloss. Its a contradiction to say, I hope objectively in the word of the Gospel, and I do not hope subje∣ctively in the word of the Gospel, and all one as to say, I hope in Christ, and yet I do not hope in Christ.

Mr. H. addes, But suppose he urge it as an office of common charity, doth all this follow upon it streight? &c.

Ans. As every Christian is bound to do all offices of common charity in his place, so proportionably every Christian is bound to accept of all offices of common charity where he needs them. If every Christian be bound in his place to reprove, admonish, &c. then every Christian is bound proportionably to submit to reproof, admo∣nition, &c. Trial of Church-members being (as Mr. H. here confesses) an office of common charity, every Church-member must make con∣science to submit to it, and bless God that those who must ere long give an account to God of their souls, do make conscience to take an account of their souls. For the scoff he is pleased here also to favour me withall, I look at it as the scum of his little pot soon hot, by which he prejudices himself more than me.

Mr. H. ib. When Christ sayes, Do this; how dares Mr. D. say, Do it not?

Ans. When Mr. H. can prove Christ bids all Church-members (be they never so unworthy) to receive, Mr. D. will not dare to forbid them. But Mr. H. forgets that this is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Mr. H. Instead of examine, and so eat, Mr. D. commands, Let a man examine, and so not eat.

Ans. Instead of examine, and so eat, Mr. H. commands, Let a man eat, ••hough he do not examine.

Secondly, Take examination in the Apostles sense, and then Mr. D. never sayes, Examine, and so eat not.

Mr. H. his instance, That by the same argu∣ment, we may say, Let a man so pray, therefore he must not pray, holds not water;

And that first, because Prayer is a part of na∣tural worship, to which all are bound, not so to receiving, a part of instituted worship.

Secondly, Because Prayer is a means of con∣version, not so receiving.

His arguments to convince my Assertion of weakness, are these, p 161. First, Because affir∣matives, are not exclusive.

Ans. It hath been proved that some affirma∣tives are exclusive, that is, I must not do the matter unless I observe the manner. Thus a Jew might not eat the Passover, unless he were clean. A Chri∣stian must not reprove, unless by good observa∣tion, or sufficient information, he know the party, to be reproved, guilty.

Mr. H. his second argument is, Mans impo∣tency cannot annihilats Christs authority.

Ans. True, but mans malice or wickedness may render him uncapable of some priviledge and duty; Faith of evidence is a duty, as well as a priviledge, but of this duty and priviledge a natural man is uncapable in statu quo.

Dr. D. If the visibly unfit will thrust in, it is the Churches duty not to let them murther the Lord of glory.

Here Mr. H. calls for Scripture-proof.

Ans. That proof is given him above, there∣fore I forbear to repeat.

He tells us, ib. That the former assertionis an occasion of separation.

Ans. That particular Congregation, which wilfully and totally neglects her duty, admitting all pell-mell, gives just occasion of secession in point of Sacramental communion to other Con∣gregations that make conscience of their duty, about which matter yet there had need be very great caution.

True, as Mr H. notes p. 162. A natural man sins in praying, hearing, &c. yet must pray and hear. But there is not par ratio in receiving, as hath been formerly shewed. Many things, though good materially, are sins relatively in such a person, and not only because they are done in an evil manner, as for a private person to do the work of a Judge. Proportionably, a person may be uncapable of one Ordinance in statu quô, who in the same state is capable of other Ordinances; But of this formerly.

A perjured person will not be admitted to swear, and shall the same person be admitted to the Sacrament upon the bare account Church membership? which (as a relation to

such a Corporation) supposes worthiness in a per∣son, or at least, that it should be in him; but is neither his worthiness, nor the efficient cause thereof, unless you refer it to the impulsive cause, since Church-membership is or should be a special motive and spur to habitual and active worthiness, and is an aggravation of the want of either. In∣deed if Christ did bid all Church-members re∣ceive, then receiving were not morally impossible to any, though never so bad, but this is the que∣stion begged, nor can M. H. prove that indefi∣nite, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to be an universal, if applyed to Church-members, as such. Understand me here rightly, Christ bids all Church-members pre∣pare, and so receive: But where doth he bid them receive, be they never so unprepared? It is not then bare Church-membership makes me capable of the Sacrament.

M. H. p. 163. A man may be Evangelically unworthy, yet receive worthily in his kind, t•…•…gh not worthily in the Apostles sense. This is full of sweetness, &c.

Answ. If by the latter worthy receiving, he mean a partaking of the Sacrament upon due exa∣mination, with a sense of my own unworthiness, hungring after Christ, and mercy, &c. what is this but a receiving worthily in the Apostles sense? All such, and onely such, as come thus affected in truth, are worthy Receivers, and receive worthily in an Evangelical sense, though haply they may judge themselves unworthy, not onely Legally, but also Evangelically. He may as well say, a person may discourse learnedly, and yet not be learned, as say a person may receive worthily, and yet not be a worthy receiver. If M. H. hath any other

sense that is not Apostolick, he must pardon us, if we do not receive it. An unworthy person may do a worthy act, but he cannot act worthily. Re∣ceiving is very comfortable to weak Christians, but what comfort can hypocrites or profane persons ex∣pect from it?

M. H. ib. That man is to be accounted to re∣ceive worthily, that makes an effectual use there∣of according to his own condition, whether re∣generate or not.

Ans. 1. Suppose this were true, would it not exclude most Church-members? what natural man of an hundred makes an effectual use of the Sa∣crament, according to his own condition? Are not all natural men apt to conclude from their ve∣ry receiving, that they are in a good estate? Is this an effectual use of the Sacrament, according to their condition?

2. Suppose in receiving, he be convinced of his •…•…d estate: is receiving, backt with such con∣viction, a receiving worthily? We ask a proof for this new and strange doctrine. That which is common to worthy and unworthy receivers, cannot be a receiving worthily: of this nature is receiving backt with conviction, common to good and bad, elect and reprobate: and which coming alone, is so far from making a person worthy, that it en∣creases and aggravates his unworthiness.

3. Suppose he were converted by receiving, (which we deny) it follows not thence, that he re∣ceived worthily, though it would follow he re∣ceived worthiness. As at the word preached, a natural man hears unworthily, at that very Ser∣mon which converts him, the very moment be∣fore his conversion; so at the Sacrament, the

same person receives unworthily the very moment before his conversion, supposed to be wrought by receiving, since worthiness must be wrought in me before I can act worthily.

Page 164. and 165. Mr. H. only words it, crying out, Oh what a burden and weariness is it? What everlasting troubles and difficulties will it create, that Church-officers should be bound to try the sincerity of every receiver, and that both they, and other Church-members must be accessory to the guilt of unworthy receivers, if they do not their endeavour to reform or disco∣ver them? and here again, he asks for Scripture∣proof, &c.

Ans. 1. By way of concession. I beleeve indeed a threefold trouble discourages many Ministers.

First, The trouble of pains must be taken.

Secondly, The trouble of offending those who are averse to trial, upon which account they may as well forbear the work of preaching faith∣fully, Matth. 15. 12, and 1 Cor. 1. 23.

Thirdly, The trouble and fear of losing their salary in whole, or in part. To such I must commend the practice of the Apostle, Gal. 1. 16. and intreat them to take heed of consulting with flesh and blood.

As for weak and tender Christians, Sacramen∣tal trial can be no matter of offence to them if they be rightly informed.

2. Suppose the burden were never so intolerable. Acts 15. 10. Its a burden of Christs lay∣ing on, and therefore must be born; The difficulty of duty never discourages, where faith eyes the promise; Heb. 11. Be willing to bear the gates of Gaza at Gods command, and he will give thee

Sampsons strength. Admirable is that of the Father, Domine, da quod jubes, & jube quod vis. Nothing is difficult to faith and love, Matth. 11. v. 28 29. and 1 Joh. 5. 3.

3. Experience proves the contrary, that this burden is not intolerable (through grace) in those Congregations where Sacramental trial is held up.

4. By trial we pry not into mens hearts, but onely by the fruits appearing judge of the tree.

5. It hath formerly been proved, That its the duty of Church-Officers, and Church-mem∣bers to watch over one another in order to the re∣formation, or discovery of unworthy persons, who by the Apostle are called roots of bitter∣ness, &c. and therefore must be narrowly pried into, Heb. 12. 15. Here every Church-member is commanded to play the Bishop, lest by neglect of this duty many be defiled. The word in the original is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; yea by neglect of this prying I become accessory to the gall of worm∣wood, which this root of bitterness in Christs Garden bears. Jos. 7. v. 1. 12. It cost the Children of Israel dear, because they went not upon a privy search for Achan, till they were well whipt to it; and much dearer would it have cost them had they refused to play the Bishops in order to the visita∣tion of that accursed person and family; who yet was a Professor, a Church-member, and a cir∣cumcised person.

When we plead for our selves as more favour∣able than Mr. H. because we suspend to prevent the greater excommunication, &c. He tells me with a scoff, That our suspension is as severe as

the greater excommunication. I pray take speci∣al notice of his reason for this assertion, page 165. because M. Drake holds, A man cannot be de∣barred any Ordinance, but actuall receiving, in the greatest censure.

Ans. 1. I believe no person, be he Church∣member or not, is to be debarred presence at any Ordinance, provided he be not a disturber of the Administration.

2. Its false, that suspension is as severe as the greater excommunication, dismembting being far more severe than denyal of the Sacrament. In good things, relatives are priviledges as well as absolutes, otherwise Justification and Adop∣tion were no priviledges. Of this nature is Church-membership, which the greater ex∣communication deprives a man of, not so suspen∣sion.

3. His reason to confirm his assertion is weak, since, 1. Suspension (as generally administred by us) is not an act of severity, but of mercy. 2. Yet where it is an act of severity, the greater excom∣munication is far severer, as denying not onely an absolute, but also a relative priviledge. To cast a person out of family (though he be permitted to be a retainer) is more severe, than to deny him the use of any one particular dish upon his masters table. His flouting similitude, brought to sup∣ply the place of a serious argument, is imperti∣nent: Had the man by falling from an house only lost a Limb, or put it out of joynt, the good wo∣man might with reason and charity have said, What a mercy is it he had no more harm? But then the similitude had not been to M. H. his purpose. Against next time, let me intreat M. H. to pro∣duce

a fitter similitude, lest he lose both his labor and credit by the Application.

Notes

• My mean∣ing is, That hope can∣not be in actu exerci∣tu, but it must flow from a principle, and tend to an ob∣ject.
• Upon this account, e∣ven hea∣then are bound to pray, not so to re∣ceive the Sacrament.