A Rejoinder to Mr Drake, Part 2 · Section 1
Sect. 1 HAving vindicated my firſt Sermon, foreign in my ground, ſtate of my queſtion, proofes, and reaſons, I come to the ſecond, foreign, for anſwering objections.
The firſt Objection was about Excommunication, which being a point to be combated by antiquity, I ſhall willingly ſubmit to be inſtructed by others. There are three falſe ſurmiſes here, I only endeavoured to remove (according to my maine end herein) as apt to trouble tender Conſciences; the firſt was, That Excommunication is meerly in reference to the Sacrament, whereas it is a cenſure, or puniſhment of binding the ſins of men on earth, by caſting them out from the Church, and Chriſt externally, untill they repent. It is true indeed, when men are caſt out from Church-fellowſhip in generall, that they are debarred from the Sacrament, which is a token or pledge thereof, (when other Ordinances are more diſputable) yet is it the ſtate and relation men have to the Church outwardly, and Chriſt, as viſible Members, that Excommunication reſpects, from which while they are excluded, their ſins are accordingly (and no otherwiſe) bound and retained, (becauſe there is no remiſſion out of the Church, or without Chriſt: the viſible herein (Clave non errante) preſenting the inviſible) as they are looſed by being received in againe through repentance. And hence, I take it, was the Apoſtles ſhaking off the duſt of their feet againſt thoſe that received not their Doctrin of that dreadfull importance, as ſignifying their nonadmiſſion into this relation.
Concerning this, Mr. Drake firſt gives us an account of his practiſe, and then layes downe three particulars for the bill of his account, p. 105, 106. I ſhall ſay nothing, but it may be faire, yet will not be taken, unleſſe we could finde the Scripture had ſet her hand unto it; we cannot receive Maſter Drakes Geneſis, as we doe Moſes, without probation. For his particulars:
1. He tels us; Maſter H. omits the maine end of Church cenſure, which is the amendment of the party, &c. Anſ. I wonder at this, ſeeing but juſt over the leafe, as ſoon as it is to my purpoſe, I doe expreſly tell him, the end is to bring the offenders to repentance. It is reported of St. Albans Executioner, that as ſoone as he had ſtrucke the blow, his eyes dropt out (as teares) at the fact he had done; the ſame fate is befallen Mr. Drake, while he is ſo cruel, many times, in his cenſure to me, he cannot ſee a leafe before him.
2 He would perſwade us, That Church Cenſures are extendible to ignorant perſons, and every wilfull ſinner. Anſ. The Scripture extends them I think to none but the more notorious obſtinate offendors; for my part, I dare not binde ſuch a heavie burden on the Conſciences of others, which I durſt not touch with my little finger. It is a thing indeed to be wiſht, that the ignorant bee brought to Catechiſme and Inſtruction, the ſcandalous to reproofe and admonition, but not ſo ſlightly to be cenſured, or kept from the Sacrament. Were this Doctrine ſtrictly followed, it would ſoone leave us without Church-Members, and while it would thus ſcatter our Flocks, either Maſter Drakes wits are going a wool gathering, or elſe ours muſt all be ſet a gathering Congregations.
3 He challenges all the World to ſhew him proofe, that perſons excommunicate may not be preſent at any publick Ordinance, &c. Anſ. If Mr. D. thinke ſo learnedly of himſelfe, let him ſend his Challenge to Doctor Hammond, who confutes this opinion as the foundation of Eraſtianiſme; and tels us, Excommunication is alſo from hearing and prayer, as well as the Sacrament (viz. in publick) when that is thought expedient to reforme any; brings Tertullian, and anſwers Maſter Drakes text, 1 Cor. 14.24. and reaſon (quoting it from Eraſtus) at large (Power of Keyes, chap. 4. Sect. 43, 44, &c.) Si vis curſu gloriari, tigrim vince, vel leonem, nulla eſt gloria praeterire aſellos; for my part, I ſhall propoſe him only that one text, Matth. 7.6. Give not that which is holy unto doggs; Excommunicate perſons are generally interpreted to bee Doggs, and Swine; the Word and Prayer are holy things as well as the Sacrament (which yet was not inſtituted when this precept was firſt given, and ſo cannot be primarily intended here) ergo.
Maſter Perkins upon this text tels us over and over, that Blaſphemers, Hereticks, obſtinate enemies, &c. Are to be barred from the Word till they repent. The meaning of Chriſt is, ſayes he, If any be openly convicted, &c. to ſuch publiſh not my word; and eſpecially concerning the point, how farre the cenſure of the Church does extend, It extends (he tels us) to the debarring ſuch in the uſe of the Ministry in the Word, Prayer, and Sacraments; indeed if the party be Excommunicate for ſome particular Crime, &c. then, although he be excluded from communion with him, in the Sacraments, and Prayer (marke that) yet may he be admitted to hearing the Word, to help him to repent, which is the end of all Church Cenſures. So that it is ſtrange Mr. D. ſhould faſten here a new Light on me, when himſelfe is ſo ſingularly oppoſite to the practiſe of the Church.
Upon this account I muſt confeſſe, it hath been my opinion, that the Excommunicate being excluded Church ſociety in generall, it is by way of mitigation (as I expreſſed in thoſe few words I let fall about it, p. 13.) that they are permitted at one Ordinance, when kept from others; but I deſire not here to be aſſertive, for though I doubt not but Excommunication does referre to Church-Communion in generall, or Church-memberſhip, yet doe I conceive Mr. Drakes (or Eraſt us) reaſon is not ſo eaſily to be waved, that Heathens may be preſent at the Word, if not other Ordinances, 1 Cor. 14. I could be willing therefore to compound this matter with one diſtinction. Excluſion is either real, or relative; I ſhall leave it to him that will to diſpute with Mr. D. how the Church can exclude the excommunicate really from being preſentat the Word, and Prayer; and it ſhall ſuffice me that they are excluded relatively however, from all priviledges, ſo that though they may be preſent as Heathen, yet are they cut off from all their intereſt in them, ſtill as members.
That which we admit Heathen to in receiving them into the Church, I thinke we caſt them out from, in excommunicating them; now we admit men directly into Church-Society in generall, or Memberſhip, whereby they are put in a ſtate or relation unto Chriſt, and conſequently to all his Ordinances, with a difference of priviledge from the world, (and as they were at them before) that they belong now to them, as externally in Covenant with him, redeemed, ſanctified; in a word, as in communion with the Head and Body, whereof the Sacrament is a pledge, unto which they cannot therefore be admitted; until they are in, nor Juridically debarred, until they are put out of that relation. The difference then between Mr. D. and me lyes not about the other Ordinances, for I wil ſuppoſe (not grant) that Excommunication does debarre a man really (by neceſſary conſequence) only actual receiving, yet is his errour ſtil the ſame; that whereas I hold a man is to be debarred this actual receiving by Excommunication, he wil have him to be debarred without it. I hold, it is Church-memberſhip gives a man admiſſion, and ſutably Excommunication excludes him. Hee holds, it is viſible worthineſſe upon trial can only admit him, and conſequently ſets up a cenſure ſutable to his rule (neither of which are in Scripture) to exclude him without Excommunication; ſo that a man is ſtil a Church-member, and in communion in general, yet muſt not be allowed the token of that Communion; he is ſtil externally in Covenant, and yet muſt be debarred the external Seal thereof in the body, and muſt not partake of the body; this is a Riddle.
Where the Sins of men are not bound, or retained, there is no Church-cenſure, Matth. 16.19. Jo. 20.23. but it is not excluding men from the Sacrament that does bind or retaine their ſins, but the excluding them from the Church, and ſo relatively from all its benefits; and therefore ſuſpenſion without Excommunication, or Diſmemberſhip, is no Church-cenſure, and ought not to wrong that ſolemne inſtitution.
We ſhal cleare this by the manifeſt phraſes of Excommunication, I will give thee the keyes of the kingdome of heaven, Matth. 16.19. That is, of the Church, to admit in, and ſhut out of it; there is no cenſure of the Keyes, without excluſion from the Church, whatſoever degrees you make after; Let him be to thee as a heathen, Matth. 18.17. that is apparently, as no Church-member, this Mr. D. grants; from whence that interpretation is pertinent, when thou haſt uſed all theſe Chriſtian meanes, thou mayeſt implead him at the Law, which elſe was not fit for a fellow member, 1 Cor. 6.1. foreign Joh. 9.22. putting out of the Synagogue does manifeſtly import the ſame; that is, from being a member of the Synagogue. One may thinke this cenſure excluded from all Ordinances, but the Learned reduce it to Nidui, which kept them off only foure paces, though they might be preſent, yet this diſtance ſtil noted their ſeparation, as Church-members, To deliver ſuch a one to Satan, 1 Cor. 5.5. 1 Tim. 1.20. This is paralleld with Cherem, Qui nec docet nec docetur, ſayes Dr. Hammond (which in the way may put Mr. D. to ſhame, that ſo blindly aſſerts the Parallel, p. 21. and yet every where denies the matter) ſome thinke the phraſe was peculiar to the Apoſtles, that could give men up to be bodily afflicted by Satan; I judge it apt for the whole Church, and take the meaning is, to caſt men out from the Church, where Chriſt is head, into the World, where Satan is Prince, not to be acted and ruled by him; for what can be more contrary then this, to repentance, the end hereof? But in regard of this ſtate of Memberſhip, or relative condition, Purge out the leaven, that is, from being a part or member of the lump, ver. 7. and put away from among your ſelves ſuch a perſon, ver. 13. foreign. And foreign verſ. 2. This ſeemes to plead hard for a real ſublation from all Ordinances, and it muſt neceſſarily be a caſting out from Church-Society in generall, and ſo at leaſt relatively from all priviledge in them, as a Church-member, though as taskes, and duties, and burthens, yet it may ſeeme juſt to Mr. D. they ſhould not be exempted. I wil not ſpare, 2 Cor. 13.2. is explained, ver, 10. to uſe ſharpneſſe; the word is foreign, Aſciſſion, foreign, ſublation, taking away, or turning out of the Church, and ſo you ſee the point is cleare. Neither may any object here, that then thoſe that are once cenſured muſt be againe admitted by a new Baptiſme, for all Excommunication we know is but conditional, only until repentance.
It is therefore a very fond conceit of Mr. D. to make two degrees of Excommunication beneath Diſ-memberſhip; that is, two degrees of purting men out of the Church, before they are put out of the Church; two degrees of hanging, before execution. As for the three texts quoted by him for his three degrees, p. 105. I know other that are more Learned, applying them to the Excommunicate, make them all the ſame, the foreign, the ſame with foreign, and the foreign to explaine the extent thereof, whether in ſacris only, or in common converſe too, they queſtion. I muſt confeſſe, though I am moved herewith, yet have I rather interpreted theſe two texts, 1 Cor. 5.11. & 2 Theſſ. 3.14. (the ſame expreſſion, foreign being in both) of our ordinary duty of avoyding evil company, as Mr. Prinne does; my reaſons are theſe: 1. Becauſe this no not to eate is explained by the Apoſtle himſelfe, keep not company, no not to cate.2. That eating is permitted in this place to a Heathen fornicator, which is not to ſuch a one, called a brother. But Sacramentall eating was not permitted to an Heathen; therefore it is not Sacramental eating of which the place ſpeakes.3. I judge theſe words, foreign doe referre to foreign, hunc notum facite per epiſtolam, ſignifie that man by an epiſtle, to wit, that he may be cenſured if the caſe requires, ſo that he cannot be underſtood already under cenſure.4 There is a manifeſt difference between a foreign, and an foreign; as it is one thing eſſe cum Chriſto, 1 Phil. 23. and another, Chriſtum eſſe cum nobis, Matth. 28.20. ſo is it one thing to with-draw our ſelves from ſuch a man, and another to remove ſuch a man from us; the one phraſe only (I thinke) reſpects Excommunication, not the other, which is in theſe two texts. If Mr. D. object, If we may not eat with them at our ordinary table, then much leſſe at this ſacred Table; 1 I return; If we may not keep company with them at our owne table, then wee may not keep company with them at this Table; but this he will ſay wil not hold, for they may all be preſent; no more, I ſay, will the other.2 Communion is either neceſſary, or arbitrary, we are to avoid ſuch in arbitrary familiarity, but not in the neceſſary ſervice of God. The reaſon is plaine, becauſe one is our duty, and not the other.
I pray ſee Page 107. I grant that by Excommunication they are made as Heathen and Publicans, and are in ſtatu quo no members. Now how ſtrange is this, That while hee cannot deny the excommunicate are diſ-membred, hee ſhould keep ſuch a doe, to ſet up a cenſure which is no diſ-memberſhip, and make it a degree too of Excommunication, which he confeſſes it is not. Thus while men will ſet up a rule of their owne for admiſſion, they are forced to make a cenſure of their owne for excluſion. And as the Partridge gathereth the young ſhe hath not brought forth, that is, by her calling gathereth others which forſake her, when they ſee ſhe is not their damme; ſo muſt this ſuſpenſion not gotten by right, leave them in the end, when it can finde no covert under the wings of Excommunication.
The onelyonly Argument that they here have, is from the greater to the leſſe; which while they urge thus, If the Church may exclude from all Ordinances, ſhe may from the Sacrament, hath ſeemed ſomething, but is a miſtake in the very foundation; for Excommunication refers directly to Church-memberſhip, and conſequentially onelyonly to the Ordinances; ſo that a man muſt be put out of the Church, or elſe he is not legally put from the communion. Even as the Leper was not kept from the Camp, that he might be kept from publicke worſhip; but he was kept from communion in worſhip, becauſe hee was kept from the Campe, this being a neceſſary conſequent thereof. So is a man kept from the Sacrament, becauſe hee is excluded Church-memberſhip, being out of the body, he is not to have the communion of it. It were a wrong to have forbid the Leper at divine Service, when his right was good to abide in the Congregation; So is it a wrong to turne away a man from the Sacrament, while his right is good, as a member.
Look on our gathered Churches, they are herein uniforme (If I miſtake them not) and deny not fellowſhip with a member, till they put him out of their Church; or to maintaine a conſonancy, me thinkes ſhould doe ſo; and ſhall wee that have the Scriptures to uphold our viſible Church againſt ſeparation, as it were yeeld our cauſe, when we dare not owne our members in communion? This is a breach that wil not be made up, by his reaſon a majori, becauſe the Magiſtrate may inflict a puniſhment, which is the greater, according to Law; therefore he may inflict a puniſhment, which is the leſſe, not according to Law, or ſet up a new one to inflict by it; becauſe the Elders may execute a cenſure which is allowed in the Scripture, therefore they may make a leſſe, which is not in Scripture. The Judge himſelfe, that inſtead of death, inflicts burning, muſt yet do it according to Law, or his act is not good. I will not diſpute here of the kindes or degrees of Excommunication; thoſe three among the Jews, and foure among the Greeks are common; Nor what are the marks of diſtinction of ſuch degrees, whether excluſion really from the Sacrament, and prayer, may make a minor, and ſuſpenſion from them, and the word alſo, a major Excommunication; (for I doe thinke, when a man is Relatively deprived fellowſhip in general, the Church may uſe mitigation, or ſeverity to a reall permiſſion of him at ſome Ordinances (and ſo perhaps for civill converſe) according to prudence for his edification, not deſtruction) or whether, as Mr. D. holds, Acts of Diſcipline, are no bars at all to acts of worſhip, unleſſe actual receiving; and why that onelyonly? but becauſe the Sacrament is the pledge of our Church-fellowſhip, which one being caſt out from, the other muſt follow: It ſhall ſuffice mee that Church-cenſure is putting out of the Church, and that ſuſpenſion is null, without diſ-memberſhip; Inſomuch, that if a Jew were under Nidui, which was their loweſt degree, if unabſolved, Godwin obſerves, his children might not bee circumciſed: and why not? but that they reckoned him no Church-member; Church-memberſhip being an undoubted ground of their circumciſion. I will conclude: ſeeing then Excommunication by the Scripture is referred ſtil unto Church-memberſhip, and not to the Sacrament, it is not viſible unworthineſſe, or unfitneſſe thereunto, is the formall ground of cenſure, and conſequently, not ignorance, and every ſinne lived in. This is the point I deſire may be marked as the ſcope of this diſcourſe, that I ſay upon this, it is not to be viſibly unfit for receiving (as ſome hold) but to be viſibly unworthy all Church-ſociety that infers an excommunication. God forbid, but we ſhould put adiſtinction between ſinnes, that ſtand not with ſincerity, and that ſtand not with publicke profeſſion; I doe not thinke the detection of a man living in any knowne ſinne that contradicts the one, ought to excommunicate him; but the open conviction of ſuch ſinnes, which are notoriouſly ſcandalous, and obſtinate, bringing diſcredit on the Church, and contradicting the other. And as for the Antiqueriſt he quotes here of his ſide, ſo magnificently, and ſo often, Mr. Prin tels us, it is himſelfe. Let another man praiſe thee, and not thine owne mouth, a ſtranger, and not thine own lips.
The ſecond ſurmiſe I would remove was this, That Church-cenſures are only to keep the Ordinances pure, eſpecially the Sacrament, lest it ſhould be defiled otherwiſe to the receivers. There are many precious Chriſtians herein made weake, which yet are not to be ſleighted with Mr. D. but tenderly to be ſatisfied; It is true, The Ordinances may be ſaid to be prophaned or defiled to a mans ſelfe, and therefore when a man is cenſured for a Swine or Dog, Mr. Perkins ſayes, he muſt be kept from them. But let not any pious ſoul think, the unworthineſſe of another can pollute him in doing his duty. This it ſeems was the old errour of the Novatians.
For M. D. his exception here (Page 109.) where he yet agrees with me, they might have been ſpared; 1 We thinke (ſayes he) the Ordinances are defiled onelyonly to thoſe who uſe them ſinfully.2 That perſons are defiled not by preſence with unworthy receivers, but by partaking in their ſinnes.3 They partake in their ſinnes that doe not their duty to reforme them, or keep them from receiving otherwiſe.
Anſw. The firſt of theſe, is good and inſtructive. The ſecond likewiſe, if for preſence, he had put in receiving, elſe it is but ſuperſtitious. The third is much amiſſe, and equivocal; They partake of thoſe ſinnes they ſhould have reproved, and doe not, but not of any ſinne in their receiving, any more then in their hearing and praying. Such words as theſe are ſubject to do hurt, as if it were a duty ſimply to keep one another from Gods ſervice; and that this were the onelyonly eminent peece of piety, when it is certainly our duty to excite, call, provoke them to, as counſel, fit, and prepare them for the attending all Ordinances.
His next exceptions are at me for ſaying, that cenſures concerne not the admitted, but to reforme the offenders cenſured, &c. For firſt, ſayes he, It concernes all Church members in their places to looke to it. Secondly, To keep them in awe, &c. And, who doubts it? But then he ſayes, I contradict my ſelfe (which I muſt be ſure to doe, when he pleaſes) in that my owne ends foreign, concerne the whole Congregation. Anſw. One may here ſee how eaſie it is to carp, and be fallacious; It is but taking a mans words ſimpliciter, when they are ſpoke ſecundum quid, and it may be done; who cannot ſay as Mr. Drake, Admonition concernes the Admoniſher; Satisfaction the Satisfied; Example the warned; But how doe any of theſe ends concerne them as to the Sacrament, as to their owne act of receiving thereof? There is none of them, I hope, intimate any farther guilt or pollution would accrew to them, if the party (I ſay in this act of receiving) were not excluded. Indeed this foreign he picks out, may infer a man guilty of thoſe ſinnes (in a ſenſe) he does not reprove and hinder; if he can, but as for the Ordinance, that is a mans duty, if that prove a ſinne, it is not propter fieri, but accidentally; ſo that Church-members are not herein bound to be hinderers, but by their beſt counſels to be furtherers one of another in their comming; and if in prudence they ſometimes may adviſe them to forbear, it can be lawfull onelyonly but upon that account which may proportionably reach unto all affirmative precepts. It is indeed the great fallacy here that miſ-leads many, when they plead our duty of watching over others, not partaking their ſins, to get the ſcandalous cenſured, and the like, they wind it all in ſtil, in order to the Sacrament, as if they were to bee done meerly in reference to it, when as they are each of them diſtinct duties, and the neglect or doing one, is no ground, or hindrance of the other. They concerne us as Church-members, not quatenus Receivers.
The third ſurmiſe was, That there is ſome neer eſſential relation, between Excommunication, and the communion, as if it were a part of it: ſo groſſe are ſome conceirs, at leaſt ſuch a neceſſary antecedent, that they think they may not come to our Sacraments without it; which is all one, as if becauſe we have here no Juſtices, or Aſſize, they ſhould think it unlawful to follow their Vocations.
To remove this, Mr. Drake joynes with mee (Page 110, 111.112, 113.) and ſhews the vanity, contradiction, abſurdity hereof, in termes ſuting the thing and himſelfe. Truly me thinks a man may bee very merry, to ſee how featly he would amaze people here, as if he did confute me, when he onelyonly ſpeaks my part for me, and ſhews the groſſeneſſe of the ſame thing I doe. Such is the mans dexterity, excellency of Art, acuteneſſe of Logick, depth in Divinity; ſo that the whole learning of the great Eſdras in his ſeventy Bookes of Abſtruſe Myſteries hidden to the world, is all enucleated and rifled in two leaves of him. Here is the Candle of Diſcipline lighted, for the Scribes and Elders to take copy of. Here are ſome things to bee declared to the perfect, and ſome things to be ſhewen ſecretly to the wiſe. For in him is a vain of underſtanding, and a River of knowledge.