<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2011-02-15</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Simon Charles</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Proofed and reviewed.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="OX" ID="A74671">
<STC T="W">D2128</STC>
<STC T="T">E1593_1</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99867779</BIBNO>
<VID>120105</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P>THE BAR, again&s;t Free Admi&s;&s;ion to the Lords Supper, FIXED. OR, An An&s;wer to Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his Re|joynder, or, Reply.</P>
<P>By <HI>Roger Drake</HI> Mini&s;ter of <HI>Peters Cheap, London.</HI></P>
<Q><P><GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 span">.</P></Q>
<Q><P><HI>This nouri&s;hment is with us called the Eucha|ri&s;t; of which none may partake, but hee that</HI> 1 <HI>Beleeves our Doctrine to be true:</HI> 2 <HI>Is wa&s;h|ed with the laver of Regeneration for the re|mi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins:</HI> 3 <HI>Lives &s;o as Chri&s;t hath commanded.</HI></P>
<BIBL>Ju&s;tin: Martyr Apol. &s;ecund&acirc; pro Chri&s;tianis; &s;ub finem.</BIBL></Q>
<Q><BIBL>1 Cor. 10. 21.</BIBL>
<P><HI>Yee cannot drink the Cup of the Lord and the cup of devils; yee cannot bee partakers of the Lords Table and the table of devils.</HI></P></Q>
<P><HI>London,</HI> Printed for <HI>Philip Chetwind.</HI> 1656.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="preface">
<PB REF="2">
<PB REF="2">
<HEAD>THE PREFACE To the READER.</HEAD>
<P>_IN di&s;pute about <HI>verity</HI> to con|te&s;t for <HI>victory,</HI> and in heat of debate to turn to ex|treams, is a fault too frequent even among the be&s;t: I wi&s;h it were excommunicated, or at lea&s;t &s;u&s;pend|ed.</P>
<P>My de&s;ign in this an&s;wer to Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> his Rejoynder, is (according to my poor talent) to finde out and to clear up truth though clouded and &s;ullied (I fear) by the du&s;t rai&s;ed between us (in the&s;e Polemi|cal di&s;cour&s;es) through mi&s;take, pa&s;&s;ion, or prejudice on either hand, which as I will not ju&s;tify in my &s;elf (being con&s;cious, the pen is a &s;lippery peece, as well as the Tongue)
<PB REF="3">
&s;o I cannot approve the &s;ame in Mr. <HI>H.</HI> who by putting my words upon the wrack, makes them too often &s;peak what he plea&s;es, and then condemns mee as malicious? A charge &s;o improbable, hee being a per&s;on unknown to mee; and who before his Re|joynder came forth, never did mee any per|&s;onal wrong, that any indifferent Reader will ea&s;ily clear mee of &s;o foul an a&s;per&s;ion. I confe&s;&s;e, I hate his principle of free Ad|mi&s;&s;ion, nor can his Rejoynder extirpate that Antipathy in mee again&s;t &s;uch loo&s;e Doctrine, though I love and honour his per|&s;on. I will not &s;ay his Rejoynder is a peece of &s;corn and malice (let mee bee rather Pa&s;|&s;ive than Active in &s;uch kind of Dialect) but &s;ure I am, hee deals very unbrotherly with mee therein: And therefore (as hee confe&s;&s;es in the clo&s;e) con&s;idering our com|mon corruption, he might well expect I &s;hould pay him in his own coin.</P>
<P>But my ble&s;&s;ed Lord and Ma&s;ter hath taught mee, not to return <HI>Evil</HI> for <HI>Evil, Rom. 12. 17, 21.</HI> nor <HI>reviling</HI> for <HI>reviling, 1 Pet. 2. 23.</HI></P>
<P>Its again&s;t my mind and de&s;ign, that any Gall or Vineger would drop from my pen; and if any &s;uch pa&s;&s;age have &s;lipt mee, I con|demn it before hand. What bitterne&s;s he imputes to mee in my book, &s;ee an&s;wered in
<PB REF="3">
their proper places. One pa&s;&s;age hee takes notice of in my preface. My words are the&s;e. <HI>When I &s;eriou&s;ly con&s;ider his loo&s;e principles held forth to the World in this Treati&s;e, with his being &s;o exce&s;|&s;ively favourable to the loo&s;er and pro|phaner &s;ort, it makes both my &s;elf and o|thers apt to &s;u&s;pect his practices may po&s;&s;ibly be as loo&s;e as his principles.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> I am very unwilling to &s;peak what I can by way of ju&s;t Apology for the fore-mentioned expre&s;&s;ions, till I be nece&s;|&s;itated thereunto. At pre&s;ent, let this &s;uf|fice.</P>
<P N="1"><HI>1</HI> Loo&s;e principles give ju&s;t &s;u&s;pition of loo&s;e practices.</P>
<P N="2">Yet <HI>2</HI> I did not charge Mr. <HI>H.</HI> with loo&s;e practices.</P>
<P N="3">Nor <HI>3</HI> Did I &s;ay, I &s;u&s;pected he was guil|ty of loo&s;e Practices; But only, that his loo&s;e principles make me and others <HI>apt</HI> to &s;u&s;pect his practices might po&s;sibly bee as loo&s;e as his principles. Let the Reader judge whe|ther herein I was uncharitable. But to pa&s;s this unplea&s;ing &s;ubject, The Reader may plea&s;e to take notice, that by divers conce&s;si|ons in his Rejoynder, Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> yields his cau&s;e. And <HI>1 By allowing the &s;u&s;|pen&s;ion of per&s;ons, ip&s;o jure excommu|nicate, pa. 21, 22.</HI> For they being <HI>intelligent</HI>
<PB REF="4">
Church-members, and not actually excom|municated, yet lawfully &s;u&s;pended as Mr. H. grants, he mu&s;t needs yield, <HI>that</HI> &s;ome may be &s;u&s;pended though they be not excom|municated.</P>
<P N="2"><HI>2 By allowing &s;elf-&s;u&s;pen&s;ion when a man findes him&s;elf wicked and living in &s;inne; provided hee re&s;olve to prepare again&s;t next Sacrament, page 37.</HI></P>
<P>And by granting, <HI>That unpreparedne&s;s may excu&s;e a man from receiving at pre|&s;ent; provided his ab&s;tinence &s;erve to humble him, &amp;c. page 246.</HI></P>
<P>We &s;ay &s;uch a one <HI>mu&s;t</HI> ab&s;tain; Mr. <HI>H.</HI> &s;ays he <HI>may</HI> ab&s;tain. Shall wee contend a|bout that which <HI>we</HI> think is a duty, and <HI>he</HI> thinks is lawfull?</P>
<P N="3"><HI>3 By a&s;&s;erting, that Sacraments can|not convey unto the &s;oul any thing that is real, but only that which is relative, pag. 41. And that God ingages not to give man faith by the Sacrament, pag. 171.</HI> If the Sacrament convey nothing <HI>re|al,</HI> then it conveys no inherent Grace, and &s;o cannot convert: And if God ingage not to give man faith by the Sacrament, then no man can expect Faith from the Sacrament, and &s;o by con&s;equence, no other grace. Upon which it nece&s;&s;arily follows, the Sacrament is no converting Ordinance: and &s;o one
<PB REF="4">
great foundation of his free Admi&s;&s;ion fails him.</P>
<P N="4"><HI>4 By allowing a negative &s;u&s;pen&s;ion upon prudential grounds, pag. 82, 83.</HI> Whence it follows, that in &s;ome ca&s;es hee grants &s;u&s;pen&s;ion of intelligent Church|members warrantable. And therefore if he cannot receive it upon our grounds, let us intreat him to accept it upon his own ac|count.</P>
<P N="5"><HI>5</HI> By granting, <HI>wee may compel trial of Church-members by way of Cate|chi&s;m; wherein no man is too old to learn, pag. 60.</HI></P>
<P><HI>And by allowing private Trial upon charitable &s;u&s;pition, pag. 92.</HI> If Church-Officers may try my fitne&s;s as to point of knowledge, &s;urely they may judge of &s;uch fitne&s;s: And if upon trial I bee found &s;o ig|norant, as that I can neither examine my &s;elf, nor di&s;cern the Lords body, may they not &s;u&s;pend mee till I have gained more knowledge?</P>
<P N="6"><HI>6</HI> By granting, <HI>that a general faith, and acknowledgment of the Go&s;pel, or Covenant of Je&s;us Chri&s;t as the only means to be &s;aved by, is prerequifite to adult Church-member&s;hip, and &s;o to the Sacraments,</HI> pag. <HI>198.</HI> And, <HI>that the Conver&s;ion of a&s;&s;ent, to beleeve in God,
<PB REF="5">
and Je&s;us Chri&s;t, in oppo&s;ition to all o|ther Religions is nece&s;&s;arily prerequi&s;ite to adult Church-member&s;hip, and both the Sacraments. Pag. 209.</HI> Doth it not hence follow</P>
<P N="1"><HI>1</HI> That gro&s;ly ignorant per&s;ons (who know neither Chri&s;t, the Go&s;pel, nor Cove|nant) mu&s;t not be admitted.</P>
<P N="2"><HI>2</HI> That &s;uch Per&s;ons are &s;carce &s;o much as Church-members.</P>
<P N="3">And <HI>3</HI> Doth it not follow from all the forementioned Conce&s;sions, that Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> is a better friend to Su&s;pen&s;ion than the world takes him to be?</P>
<P>Withall, I ob&s;erve, that even tho&s;e who for the &s;ub&s;tance agree about Su&s;pen&s;ion as di&s;tinct from the greater Excommunication, yet differ about divers circum&s;tances there|of: nor are the be&s;t here, in every particu|lar, of one mind. Its Vain to expect it, Tyrannicall to exact it, in le&s;&s;er matters. As Palates, &s;o Judgements are various; that may relli&s;h mee which hath an ill tang with an other. Oh, that we could bear with, pitty and pray more one for an other, Labouring as much as may be to <HI>Center</HI> in love and prac|tice, though the <HI>Lines</HI> of our judgement may in &s;ome le&s;&s;er things be at a di&s;tance.</P>
<P>Two Po&s;itions of mine being the chief grounds of difference between Mr. <HI>H.</HI> and
<PB REF="5">
my &s;elf, and the arguments for proof of each being &s;cattered in my Bar fixed, I thought fit to &s;um them up together in this place, for the ea&s;e and &s;atisfaction of the Reader.</P>
<P>The fir&s;t is, That I hold, <HI>The Lords Supper is no converting Ordinance.</HI> My grounds are</P>
<P N="1"><HI>1</HI> Becau&s;e Sacraments pre&s;uppo&s;e initiall Conver&s;ion. Should any per&s;on de&s;iring the Sacraments declare before &s;ufficient witne&s;s that he would not beleeve in Chri&s;t, and that he were re&s;olved to his dying day to live in a known &s;inne, what Mini&s;ter could admit &s;uch an one either to Bapti&s;m, or to the Lords Supper? Now that which ever &s;uppo&s;eth Conver&s;ion, doth never work Conver&s;i|on.</P>
<P N="2"><HI>2</HI> Becau&s;e, I no where finde in Scrip|ture, that the Lords Supper is a &s;eed of Regeneration, but a meal or fea&s;t for nutri|tion.</P>
<P N="3"><HI>3</HI> Becau&s;e, there is no promi&s;e of Con|ver&s;ion annexed to the Lords Supper.</P>
<P N="4"><HI>4</HI> Becau&s;e, he that eats and drinks unwor|thily, eats and drinks damnation or judge|ment to him&s;elf; but hee that is converted by receiving, &s;ure doth not eat and drink judgement to him&s;elf, but grace and mer|cy. All the&s;e laid together &s;eem not only
<PB REF="6">
probable, but cogent arguments.</P>
<P>The &s;econd Po&s;ition is, <HI>That no unrege|nerate per&s;on ought to receive the Lords Supper.</HI></P>
<P N="1">My grounds for this are, <HI>1</HI> Becau&s;e, receiving cannot convert, but doth preju|dice &s;uch a one <HI>in &s;tatu quo.</HI></P>
<P N="2"><HI>2</HI> Becau&s;e, no natural man can either examine him&s;elf, or receive worthily, in the Apo&s;tles &s;en&s;e.</P>
<P N="3"><HI>3</HI> Becau&s;e, Chri&s;t forbids &s;uch to receive as have fellow&s;hip with devils, <HI>1 Cor. 10. 20, 21.</HI> But all natural men have fellow|&s;hip with Devils, <HI>Ephe. 2. 2, 3.</HI> and <HI>2 Tim. 2. 26. Ergo.</HI></P>
<P>Others adde the following rea&s;ons.</P>
<P N="1"><HI>1</HI> Only friends mu&s;t partake of the Lords Table.</P>
<P N="2"><HI>2</HI> Its the bread of the faithfull, and mu&s;t not be ca&s;t to Dogs.</P>
<P N="3"><HI>3</HI> Its a Sacrament of union by charity, which natural men want.</P>
<P N="4"><HI>4</HI> Its &s;piritual nouri&s;hment, and there|fore is receptible only by &s;piritual per&s;ons.</P>
<P>Withal, I intreat the Reader to note, that though with us, the rule of receiving be <HI>real worthine&s;s;</HI> yet, the rule of Admi&s;&s;ion is <HI>vi|&s;ible worthine&s;s,</HI> which con&s;i&s;ts in compe|tent knowledge, profe&s;&s;ion of piety, and im|munity from &s;candal.</P>
<P><PB REF="6">It may happily bee expected, I &s;hould now take Mr. <HI>Tim&s;on</HI> to task: but I mu&s;t herein crave to be excu&s;ed, &s;ince <HI>1</HI> I want lea&s;ure. <HI>2</HI> Love not to ampliate contro|ver&s;ies. <HI>3</HI> My pre&s;ent an&s;wer to Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey,</HI> if &s;olid, will al&s;o &s;ubvert Mr. <HI>Tim|&s;ons</HI> principles, as to the main.</P>
<P>When I con&s;ider the zeal and &s;trictne&s;&s;e of the Primitive times, (in which a clear difference was put between the <HI>Catechu|meni,</HI> the <HI>Fideles,</HI> and the <HI>Poenitentes;</HI> of which only the middle &s;ort received the Sa|crament, though in &s;ome ca&s;es the Penitents were allowed to &s;ee the Lords Supper admi|ni&s;tred, yet might not receive) I fear we &s;in on the one hand in point of defect, as their zeal might carry them too far on the other hand in point of exce&s;&s;e. In Corporations well ordered, all of the &s;ame Society have not equal Priviledges; but vi&s;ible worth is the gradu|al foundation of Honour and Tru&s;t: And why it &s;hould not be &s;o in the be&s;t of Corpo|rations, I &s;ee nothing either in Scripture or Rea&s;on to the contrary. The judicious Rea|der by comparing what hath been writ on both &s;ides, will ea&s;ily enough di&s;cern where the hinge of the Controver&s;y turns, what to choo&s;e or refu&s;e in either. I &s;hall only adde this in generall, That what ever hee findes in this, or the former Treati&s;e, of errour
<PB REF="7">
or weakne&s;s, hee may bee &s;ure that is mine, what ever of truth or &s;trength, that's none of mine, but comes from the fountain of all truth and &s;trength. My &s;cope in this return to Mr. H. his Rejoynder, is no way to vent my &s;pleen again&s;t Mr. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> upon who&s;e head I would heap coals of fire to melt him, not to vex him.</P>
<P>Yea, in the clo&s;e of his &s;econd Vindication publi&s;hed this very month, though hee adhere to his former opinion of free Admi&s;sion, yet page <HI>144.</HI> he expre&s;&s;es him&s;elf with much Candour, in the&s;e words.</P>
<P><HI>I both allow and reverence the Pie|ty, zeal and pains of many Mini&s;ters, that prudentially take occa&s;ion hereby to look into the &s;tate of their flocks, on|ly for their admonition and ju&s;t in&s;tructi|on, without driving them from their du|ty: And I do bewail the frowardne&s;&s;e and off-wardne&s;&s;e of mo&s;t unto &s;o ea&s;y a &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion; utterly di&s;liking at the bot|tome of my heart the &s;pirits of &s;uch Chri&s;tians, who either out of Con&s;cien|tiou&s;ne&s;&s;e of their own ignorance, or Haughtine&s;&s;e of their minds, will be con|tent bee deprived the Sacrament, rather than give an account of their faith, to tho&s;e that ask it in the &s;pirit of
<PB REF="7">
Meekne&s;&s;e for their Edification. Nay, I do profe&s;s for my part, were I under the Presbytery, I &s;hould mo&s;t freely &s;ubject my &s;elf to their triall, as being afraid to grieve the &s;pirit of my Pa&s;tour (&s;uppo|&s;ing him to require it meerly out of the tenderne&s;&s;e of his Con&s;cience) and give example of ob&s;tinacy unto others, &amp;c.</HI> and afterwards he proceeds thus.</P>
<P><HI>To this end I could wi&s;h, that for the ignorant, there were Catechi&s;ts in the Church, and &s;ome prudent kind of Law for the bringing of all &s;uch to &s;ubmit to be catechi&s;ed: and for the &s;candalous, that there were &s;ome Authoritative way for the exerci&s;e of that mo&s;t yielded and lea&s;t practi&s;ed duty of Fraternal correp|rion, &amp;c.</HI> I wi&s;h that <HI>ignorant</HI> and <HI>&s;canda|lous per&s;ons,</HI> with all <HI>haughty</HI> oppo&s;ers of Sacramental Tryall, would now at la&s;t imitate Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> in his Chri&s;tian moderation; were this once obtained of our people, and would all Mini&s;ters and other Church-officers in their places, man|nage this work of Triall, with humility, faithfullne&s;se, and Chri&s;tian prudence; and would Governours of families, make con&s;ci|ence of initiating and training up their Children and Servants in knowledge and piety, and &s;end them to be catechi&s;ed,
<PB REF="8">
<HI>Wee tru&s;t that in a &s;hort time</HI> through grace (in&s;tead of di&s;puting for a &s;acramentall Rail or Bar) wee &s;hould unite together in ble&s;sing God for that light, amity, and or|der, which would make the Churches in the&s;e three Nations glorious.</P>
<P>How ever, I &s;hall re&s;t in having done my duty; and where any &s;capes have &s;lipt mee through weakne&s;&s;e, incogitancy, multiplici|ty of occa&s;ious, &amp;c. Let the Reader con&s;i|der, <HI>Humanum e&s;t errare;</HI> but, through grace a&s;si&s;ting, I &s;hall not wittingly per&s;i&s;t in any errour. The Lord &s;end us all the Spirit of Truth, Holine&s;s, and Meekne&s;s.</P>
<CLOSER><DATELINE>From my Study in <HI>Silver-Street</HI> <DATE><HI>June</HI> 24. 1656.</DATE></DATELINE>
<SIGNED>Thy Servant in Chri&s;t, <HI>Roger Drake.</HI></SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 N="1" TYPE="part">
<PB N="1" REF="8">
<HEAD>THE BAR TO FREE AD|MISSION, FIXED. Or An An&s;wer to Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his Rejoynder.</HEAD>
<HEAD><HI>The Fir&s;t</HI> PART.</HEAD>
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD><HI>Sect.</HI> I.</HEAD>
<P>_SO prevalent is old <HI>Adam</HI> (&s;ince our primitive apo|&s;tacy) in the hearts of the be&s;t, that we finde it very hard to contend for the Faith in any particular, without the breach of Love and Charity: I wi&s;h it were not &s;o between Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> and my &s;elfe. Standers-by u&s;ually &s;ee more then Game|&s;ters; and &s;orry I am to &s;ee and hear, that any pa&s;&s;ionate expre&s;&s;ions on my part, or bitter &s;coffs falling from Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his pen, on the other part, &s;hould contribute more to pierce the hearts of any of Gods precious ones
<PB N="2" REF="9">
with griefe, than the managing of this contro|ver&s;y on either hand, hath contributed to &s;atisfie their judgments and con&s;ciences by &s;olid convi|ction. If in heat of di&s;pute I have any way tran&s;|gre&s;&s;ed (I am a&s;&s;ured I was far from malice) I &s;hall be ready to throw the fir&s;t &s;tone at my &s;elfe, and ble&s;&s;e God who hath given me the opportunity to mend fir&s;t, which once was in Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his hands, before he put forth his Rejoynder. Some &s;ores are better cured by lenitives then by corro&s;ives.</P>
<P>Pa&s;&s;ing therefore his reflections upon my &s;elfe, in a great part of his Preamble, as extrin&s;ecall to the matter in debate, I ob&s;erve <HI>page</HI> 5. and be|lieve he &s;peaks in good earne&s;t, <HI>That unle&s;&s;e his Latitude of Admi&s;&s;ion be allowed, tender con|&s;ciences can never have &s;olid peace at the Sacra|ment: Sacraments will &s;till be neglected by Mi|ni&s;ters and People, &s;eparations fomented, human Forms &s;et up as nece&s;&s;ary, &amp;c. An&s;.</HI> If this <HI>hy|pothe&s;is</HI> were true, and &s;uch inferences did natu|rally and nece&s;&s;arily flow from our principles, well might we be at a &s;tand, and look with a more favourable eye upon Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his principles and practice. Scruples may po&s;&s;ibly be rai&s;ed in tender con&s;ciences, and fal&s;e conclu&s;ions infer|red by mi&s;take, &amp;c but far is it from us to hold forth any &s;uch principle, or principles as of their own nature have any aptitude to &s;tumble the weak, or offend Chri&s;ts little ones: And this I hope by Gods a&s;&s;i&s;tance to make out in the following di&s;cour&s;e, as the forementioned parti|culars &s;hall come to be &s;canned in their proper places. Page 6. <HI>He thinks me very for: ward to be known among the Elders in the Gate</HI>-
<PB N="3" REF="9">
and, <HI>Charges me for pa&s;&s;ing &s;entence before conviction. An&s;.</HI> Had Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> known how oft I was &s;olicited to write, how unwilling I was to have my name appear either in the fron|ti&s;pice or otherwhere in the book after it was fini&s;hed, he would not have pa&s;&s;ed &s;o ra&s;h a cen|&s;ure: had I not been acted more by con&s;cience of my duty, then by de&s;ire of vain-glory, it might have been long enough ere &s;o poor an incon&s;ide|rable per&s;on as my &s;elfe had took him to task. For his &s;econd charge, I hope Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> doth not imagine I made the Title Page fir&s;t, and my An&s;wer afterwards; and for a due <HI>Examen,</HI> let the An&s;wer it &s;elfe &s;peak, whether I took not &s;ome pains (according to my poor modell) in order to his conviction, before I pa&s;&s;ed a pub|lick &s;entence: The cau&s;e indeed may &s;uffer much by my weakne&s;s, but I hope it neither then did, nor now &s;hall, &s;uffer by my wilfull negligence. Page 7th. he &s;pends, in indeavouring to excu&s;e tho&s;e har&s;h expre&s;&s;ions I noted and repre&s;ented as &s;a|vouring more of pride then of humility, contra|ry to his profe&s;&s;ion in the fronti&s;pice; and that <HI>fir&s;t, by begging pardon, if any pious men are offended at tho&s;e expre&s;&s;ions.</HI> 2ly. <HI>By profe&s;sing, that to his utmo&s;t memory, none of tho&s;e pa&s;&s;ages came from him, with the lea&s;t reflection upon any. An&s;.</HI> Taking it for granted, Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> &s;peaks the truth, I believe it's the be&s;t Apo|logie he could make: Yet &s;econdly, Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> cannot blame me for charging tho&s;e ex|pre&s;&s;ions with pride and cen&s;oriou&s;ne&s;&s;e, &s;ince <HI>verba</HI> are <HI>indices mentis;</HI> and if proud and cen&s;o|rious words do not argue pride, acting (though not alwaies raigning) in the heart, I know not
<PB N="4" REF="10">
what doth. Let the Reader peru&s;e tho&s;e expre&s;&s;i|ons of Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> in the third and fourth pages of my Bar to free Admi&s;&s;ion and if I have pa&s;t a wrong &s;entence, let him judge mee for Pride and Cen&s;oriou&s;ne&s;&s;e.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD><HI>Sect.</HI> II.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 8 Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> charges me with a contradiction, as if I had &s;aid in one place, <HI>Chri&s;t cannot give</HI> Judas <HI>the Sacrament,</HI> and in ano|ther, <HI>he cannot deny it him.</HI> An&s;. <HI>pag.</HI> 8. I onely bring Arguments to prove <HI>Judas</HI> did not receive the Sacrament. <HI>Page</HI> 9. I &s;ay, it was not &s;it Chri&s;t &s;hould be both judge and witne&s;&s;e. And <HI>page</HI> 11. Chri&s;t acting as a Mini&s;ter, could not be both witne&s;&s;e, Judge, and Executioner. Where, I pray, is the contradiction? Let Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> produce but one place where I &s;ay, <HI>Chir&s;t cannot give</HI> Judas <HI>the Sacraments.</HI> I bring arguments in|deed to prove <HI>Iudas</HI> did not receive, but whither Chri&s;t denyed him the Sacrament, or ordered it in providence <HI>Iudas</HI> &s;hould go out be forehand, and &s;o mi&s;&s;e of the Sacrament; that is left <HI>in me|dio,</HI> and the latter &s;eems more probable. And whether <HI>Iudas</HI> received or not, it is not much ma|teriall for Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his cau&s;e, no not in Mr. <HI>Tim&s;ons</HI> judgement, in his bar to free ad|mi&s;&s;ion removed. <HI>pag.</HI> 3. &amp; 4. though otherwi&s;e a great friend to Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his Latitude for Sacramentall receiving.</P>
<P>In an&s;wering my 2d. Argument again&s;t <HI>Iu|das</HI> his receiving, he &s;aies <HI>Chri&s;t died for the &s;ins of the whole world, and &s;o for</HI> Judas, 1 <HI>Iohn</HI> 2. 3.</P>
<P><HI>A&s;.</HI> When Mr. <HI>H.</HI> can prove that by whole world, There, are meant the Reprobate as well as the
<PB N="5" REF="10">
Elect, he &s;aies &s;omthing indeed to invalidate the argument; otherwi&s;e he doth but &s;huflle. And the Sacrament had been a poor Cordial to the Apo|&s;tles, had it &s;eal'd no more to them than it doth to Reprobates. But I &s;hall not trouble my &s;elf or my Reader with the further vindication of tho&s;e five Arguments here, as &s;tudying all po&s;&s;ible bre|vity and judging it not material in this bu&s;ine&s;&s;e, whether <HI>Judas</HI> received or no, what ever weight Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> may lay upon it. But whereas <HI>pag.</HI> 10. He &s;aies, <HI>I an&s;wer tho&s;e five rea&s;ons my &s;elf.</HI> In that he mi&s;takes. I brought indeed five rea&s;ons to prove <HI>Judas</HI> did not receive; but I brought no rea&s;on to prove Chri&s;t denied him the Sacrament, nor do I believe Chri&s;t did deny him the Sacrament Only by laying open his wickedne&s;&s;c, its probable Chri&s;t did either &s;hame him away, or fright him away, or occa&s;ion his going away in a pet; and <HI>Judas</HI> being gone, Chri&s;t &s;pake very comfortably, and applicatori|ly to the Eleven, which very probably he would not have done without a di&s;tinction, had the Traytor been pre&s;ent.</P>
<P><HI>Pag.</HI> 10. 11. He &s;aies, <HI>Many more Authors are of opinion,</HI> Judas <HI>did receive it, than tho&s;e I produ|ced out of</HI> Gela&s;pi <HI>to the contrary. An&s;w.</HI> 1. This is &s;aid; but not one word of proof brought by Mr. <HI>Humphrey.</HI> 2. Grant it true, he an&s;wers him&s;elf, or I may an&s;wer him with his own words, <HI>I do not value them at the rate of Scrip|ture.</HI> Its well, we both agree here: I wi&s;h heartily all Di&s;puters were of this mind. Here therefore Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> pre&s;&s;eth <HI>Mark</HI> 14. 23. <HI>They all drank of it.</HI> I an&s;wered, All is put for all pre|&s;ent, and twelve for eleven, from 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 15. 5.
<PB N="6" REF="11">
To this Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> returns, <HI>pag.</HI> 11. <HI>If All be put for All pre&s;ent, then is it put for the whole twelve, for the twelve &s;ate down with him, An&s;.</HI> 1. The weakne&s;&s;e of this an&s;wer of Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> will ea&s;ily appeare to a mean capacity. The twelve &s;ate down with Chri&s;t, <HI>ergo</HI> the twelve (that is, every of the twelve) received the Lords &s;upper. To make out his a&s;&s;ertion, he mu&s;t prove not only that all the twelve &s;ate down together, but that they al&s;o &s;tayed all the whiletogether til the Comon-&s;upper, the Pa&s;sover, and the Lords Supper were ended. Doth it follow becau&s;e twelve &s;it down together at a Fea&s;t, therefore they mu&s;t needs all &s;it at Table together, or be pre&s;ent in the &s;ame room til all the Cour&s;es be &s;erved? we grant <HI>Judas</HI> was pre&s;ent at the Common-&s;upper; haply al&s;o he received the Pa&s;sover, which yet &s;ome doubt; but doth it hence follow, that he was pre&s;ent at the Lords &s;upper al&s;o? Is it not &s;aid that upon the receiving of the Sop, immediatly <HI>Judas</HI> went out? <HI>John</HI> 13. 30. and that Sop he received at or before the Pa&s;sover; after which, the Lords Supper was in&s;tituted and admini&s;tred.</P>
<P>To my &s;econd, That twelve is here put for eleven, He an&s;wers, <HI>None that can tell twenty will believe me. An&s;.</HI> 1. Let Mr. <HI>H.</HI> remember his own rule, &amp; a good rule, and &s;tand to the judgement of the Scripture, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 15. 5. Chri&s;t after his re|&s;urrection appeared to the twelve, but <HI>Judas</HI> was at this time dead, and <HI>Matthias</HI> was not yet cho&s;en in his room; <HI>Ergo,</HI> here twelve is put for eleven. Secondly, this is ordinary, for round|ne&s;&s;e of number: yea in this very ca&s;e, <HI>Mar.</HI> 14. 17. twelve are put for ten, &s;ince two of the Apo&s;tles he &s;ent before to prepare the Pa&s;sover
<PB N="7" REF="11">
<HI>ver.</HI> 16. and, at the evening, him&s;elfcomes with ten of them, who yet <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 17. are &s;aid to be twelve.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> proceeds. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 11.</NOTE> <HI>His argument is this. Becau&s;e twelve is put for eleven when there were but eleven, therfore twelve mu&s;t be put for eleven, where there was twelve.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> What is this but a meer begging of the Que&s;tion? Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> a&s;&s;erts that all the twelve received the Lords Supper. I an&s;wer, its not affirm'd in Scripture, that the twelve received. 2. Had it been affirmed yet twelve might be put for eleven by roundne&s;&s;e of number, as in the former in&s;tance; to which his finall an&s;wer is, <HI>I, but there were twelve there,</HI> which is the very que&s;tion in di&s;pute between us. By the Law of di&s;pute (he being opponent, and I re&s;pondent) he ought to &s;olve my di&s;tinction; and not barely to &s;ay, but to clear it, that twelve in the bu&s;ine&s;&s;e of the Lords Supper cannot be under&s;tood or taken for eleven by roundne&s;&s;e of number.</P>
<P>I &s;hall ever acknowledge the force of St. <HI>Luke,</HI> as of every other Scripture: but I deny that <HI>Luke</HI> &s;aies, either in terms or by con&s;equence that <HI>Iudas</HI> was pre&s;ent at, or received the Lords Supper, and therefore as yet neither my five Arguments nor 26. Authors are confuted by St. <HI>Luke.</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>See Mr.</HI> Collins <HI>more to this purpo&s;e in his vindic. &s;u&s;|pen&s;ionis</HI> &amp;c. <HI>pag.</HI> 62. 63.</NOTE> True, <HI>Luke</HI> mentions <HI>per</HI> <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 span"> tho&s;e words of our Sa|viour: <HI>But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me, is with me on the Table,</HI> after the Celebration of the Supper; doth it therefore follow they were uttered in that order? I have proved the contrary by comparing the two other Evangeli&s;ts. I &s;hall in&s;tance in another <HI>Hy&s;terology,</HI> wherein the order
<PB N="8" REF="12">
is inverted by Saint <HI>Luke,</HI> yet without any pre|judice to the truth, <HI>Matth.</HI> 4. 8. The tempta|tion to wor&s;hip the Devill, is the third and la&s;t, which yet <HI>Luke</HI> makes to be the &s;econd and middlemo&s;t, <HI>Luke</HI> 4. 5. In like manner <HI>Matthew</HI> mentions the prediction of <HI>Peters</HI> denying Chri&s;t, after their going to the mount of Olives, <HI>Matth.</HI> 26. <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 30 34. &s;o doth <HI>Mark, Chap.</HI> 14. <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 26-30. which yet <HI>Luke</HI> mentions be|fore it, <HI>Chap.</HI> 22. <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 34-39. as al&s;o doth Saint <HI>John, Chap.</HI> 13. <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 38. compared with <HI>Chap.</HI> 18. <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 1. Here then, in two of the Evangeli&s;ts, there mu&s;t needs be an Hy&s;terology, without any prejudice to the truth of the narra|tive; and why not in our bu&s;ine&s;&s;e al&s;o? We deny not but tho&s;e words, <HI>Behold the hand,</HI> &amp;c. were &s;poken at the Table; but it lies upon Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> to prove, that it was the <HI>Lords</HI> Table at that time, when our Saviour uttered tho&s;e words: We believe it was fir&s;t a Common Table; &s;econdly, the Pa&s;chall Table; thirdly, the Lords Table; and that tho&s;e words were &s;poken by our Saviour when it was a Common Table, or a Pa&s;chall Table, but not when it was the Lords Table; and withall, that <HI>Luke</HI> attended not &s;o much upon the order, as the truth of the narra|tive.</P>
<P>But, &s;uppo&s;e <HI>Judas</HI> was pre&s;ent and received, what doth this advantage Mr. <HI>Humphrey He thinks much, becau&s;e neither Chri&s;t nor his Apo|&s;tles did examine Judas, &amp;c. An&s;.</HI> The Apo&s;tles (upon &s;uppo&s;ition of <HI>Judas</HI> his receiving) were but his fellow communicants; nor do we think it nece&s;&s;ary that fellow communicants &s;hould exa|mine
<PB N="9" REF="12">
one another before receiving. And for our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour; it followes not, becau&s;e he thought it not nece&s;&s;ary then to examine the Apo&s;tles, therefore it is not nece&s;&s;ary for Church-Officers to examine the people before receiving: Yea, as Mr. <HI>Collins</HI> well notes, in his <HI>Vindiciae &s;u&s;|pen&s;ionis,</HI> &amp;c. page 41. <HI>&amp;</HI> 53. <HI>It is worth the ob&s;erving, that Chri&s;t did not &s;o much as call upon the Jewes in the &s;ame hou&s;e, to receive the Lords Supper; which he would have done probably, if he had intended it for All; or, for a converting Ordinance.</HI> Chri&s;t thought it not nece&s;&s;ary then to admit ei|ther ordinary Chri&s;tians or Women to the Lords Supper, or to put the Apo&s;tles upon &s;elfe-examination before the Lords Supper at this time; is it therefore now not nece&s;&s;ary that the peo|ple, and particularly women, &s;hould be admitted to the Lords Supper? or, is it not nece&s;&s;ary a man &s;hould examine him&s;elfe before he eat, &amp;c? Mu&s;t Church Officers give an account of their people to God, and mu&s;t they not take an account of their people?</P>
<P>I added further, That as <HI>Judas</HI> was not &s;u&s;|pected by the re&s;t of the Apo&s;tles, &s;o he had not yet actually betrayed Chri&s;t, and it is ab&s;urd to puni&s;h any for a future &s;in.</P>
<P>To this Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> oppo&s;eth an other pa&s;&s;age of mine, <HI>page</HI> 102. and then infers, <HI>Chri&s;t may not keep away</HI> Judas, <HI>becau&s;e he had not actually betrayed him; but Mr.</HI> Drake <HI>mu&s;t needs keep men away, for fear they &s;hould be|tray him. An&s;.</HI> 1. Let the Reader take notice, that Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> wrongs my Text, <HI>page</HI> 102. by leaving out a very materiall part of it; the
<PB N="10" REF="13">
words are the&s;e, We keep men away, to prevent certain &s;candall, <HI>by the admi&s;sion of Per&s;ons vi|&s;ibly unworthy:</HI> Which la&s;t words of my Text he utterly omits, that thereby my &s;en&s;e may ap|pear more ugly: But tho&s;e words being added, there is no contradiction betwixt Chri&s;ts pra|ctice and ours (upon the &s;uppo&s;ition that <HI>Judas</HI> did receive) &s;ince <HI>Judas</HI> was not vi&s;ibly unworthy to Chri&s;t as a Man or Mini&s;ter, but as God; who knew both <HI>Judas</HI> and other hypocrites from the beginning, <HI>Iohn</HI> 6. 64. yet admitted them as Di&s;ciples: Yet, it followes not thence, the Church &s;hould admit &s;uch before it have good &s;atisfa|ction (at lea&s;t, in the judgment of charity) about their &s;incere conver&s;ion; otherwi&s;e the Di&s;ciples did ill to be &s;o &s;hy of <HI>Saul,</HI> till they had good evidence of his &s;incerity from <HI>Barnabas, Acts</HI> 9. 26 27. Chri&s;t as God, knew by knowledge of vi&s;ion, who were unclean and defiled the Tem|ple: yet, he drove none out, but &s;uch as vi&s;ibly defiled it, <HI>Iohn</HI> 2. 15. So he knew <HI>Iudas</HI> was un|worthy by his divine Omni&s;cience, but acted not by vertue of that knowledge in point of &s;u&s;pen|&s;ion: Nor was <HI>Achan</HI> cen&s;ured upon divine di&s;|covery, till clear evidence of his theft was produ|ced, <HI>Io&s;h.</HI> 7. <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 20. to 24. And if Chri&s;ts rule of &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, or other cen&s;ure, be vi&s;ible unwor|thine&s;s, we hope our way and practice is not contradictory to Chri&s;ts rule. 2. We keep not any away barely upon fear, le&s;t they &s;hould be|tray Chri&s;t (for this fear and jealou&s;ie we may have of divers whom we admit) but, 1. Becau&s;e they are vi&s;ibly unworthy. 2. That we may in the u&s;e of Gods means, endeavour their fitting again&s;t the next Sacrament, and they who upon
<PB N="11" REF="13">
this account withdraw, &s;u&s;pend them&s;elves, as refu&s;ing the Ordinance of the Lords Supper, rather then they will accept of it upon a mo&s;t equall and honourable condition. Had Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> been as zealous again&s;t &s;elfe-&s;u&s;pen|&s;ion, as again&s;t Mini&s;teriall &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, and &s;hewed the people their &s;in in &s;tanding out a|gain&s;t Sacramentall tryall, he might have brought God more honour, him&s;elfe more peace, and have done the Church more &s;ervice, than by a&s;per&s;ing Sacramentall Tryall, as if the end of it were rather to exclude men from, then to fit them for, the Sacrament. Whereas therefore Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> is plea&s;ed to &s;ay, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Page</HI> 13.</NOTE> that <HI>I &s;u&s;pend, to prevent the &s;in men have not committed, and that the &s;uppo&s;al only of future &s;in is the very ground of my excommunication.</HI> I am &s;orry to &s;ee him bya&s;&s;ed by &s;o much uncharitablene&s;&s;e, when as he knowes, that in the&s;e cen&s;ures we proceed by the rule of vi&s;ible unworthine&s;&s;e; and doth op|po&s;e with might and main our acting in the&s;e kinds by the rule of vi&s;ibility. We aim indeed at the preventing of &s;in, in this and other Church-cen&s;ures; but, I dare appeal to Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his con&s;cience, whether that be our &s;ole End.</P>
<P>The following pa&s;&s;age is &s;adder, and char|geth us deeply, <HI>as if we gave more power to the Pre&s;bytery in point of &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, then to Je&s;us Chri&s;t the great Ma&s;ter of Di&s;cipline.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> I am &s;orry to &s;ee what prejudice and uncharitablene&s;&s;e will draw men upon, to wre&s;t &s;uch fal&s;e and odious conclu&s;ions from, or put &s;uch uncouth interpretations upon, our principles. Far be it from us to offer wittingly to detract the lea&s;t tittle from our ble&s;&s;ed Lords authority
<PB N="12" REF="14">
and &s;overaignty; we would loath our own prin|ciples, could any &s;uch conclu&s;ion be ju&s;tly de|duced from them. My words which he wre&s;ts to that purpo&s;e, are the&s;e, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Page</HI> 9. <HI>f.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Chri&s;t here acting as a Mini&s;ter, it was not fit he &s;hould be both judge and witne&s;&s;e; and it might have been an ill pre&s;i|dent for Mini&s;ters, to take upon them by their own power to deny the Sacrament judicially to whom they plea&s;e.</HI> Chri&s;t had a three fold power: 1. Ab&s;olute, as God. 2. Mediatory, as God-Man. 3. Pa&s;torall, as a Mini&s;ter. Now my former a&s;&s;ertion (which he carps at) meddles not with Chri&s;ts power as God, or as Mediator (neither are they any pre&s;idents or rules for our imitation) but only with Chri&s;ts power as a Mini&s;ter. And if Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> be of the minde, that Chri&s;t as a Mini&s;ter (waving his Divine and Mediatory capacity) might alone be Judge and Witne&s;&s;e, and &s;u&s;pend judicially whom he plea&s;ed, mu&s;t he not of nece&s;&s;ity al&s;o yield, that any other parti|cular Mini&s;ter may do the like? See what a du&s;t is rai&s;ed to make our waies and principles odi|ous; whereas Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> him&s;elfe (if he will &s;peak religion and rea&s;on) cannot but be of our minde: yea, Mr. <HI>Tim&s;on,</HI> his cordiall Abettor, laies it down as a &s;olid principle, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Page</HI> 67. <HI>f.</HI></NOTE> <HI>That no &s;ingle Pa&s;tor alone, but &s;uch as are &s;o in A&s;&s;ociation, as to derive authority from the whole, can exerci&s;e Church-cen&s;ures authoritatively.</HI> Yet I hope Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> will not thence conclude, that Mr. <HI>Tim&s;on</HI> by this a&s;&s;ertion gave more power to the Presbytery then to Je&s;us Chri&s;t, the great Ma&s;ter of Di&s;cipline.</P>
<P>To what further I add, <HI>page</HI> 9, 10. <Q REND="inline">That none are &s;u&s;pended by us, but &s;uch as &s;u&s;|pend
<PB N="13" REF="14">
them&s;elves, by &s;leighting or refu&s;ing due tryall;</Q> Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> replies, <HI>Suppo&s;e a reli|gious man, nay, &s;uppo&s;e twenty, upon grounds of con&s;cience or prudence, will not &s;ubmit to his try|all, yet offer them&s;elves at the Sacrament; dare he refu&s;e to admini&s;ter it to them? Alas Sir! will you not let men &s;erve God, and &s;ave their &s;ouls?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Suppo&s;e a godly Mini&s;ter; nay, &s;uppo&s;e twenty, upon grounds of con&s;cience and pru|dence dare not admit &s;uch a per&s;on or per&s;ons; yet be&s;eech them, as they tender the honour of God, reformation of the Church, and their own comfort and edification before they receive, to give an account of their faith and hope that is in them, will they refu&s;e &s;o ea&s;y and honourable a duty? &amp; yet tempt, yea, pre&s;&s;e him or them again&s;t the rules of con&s;cience and prudence, to admit them to the Sacrament? Alas Sirs, do not thus wound the con&s;ciences, and grieve the Spirits of tho&s;e whom God hath &s;et over you.</P>
<P><Q REND="inline"><HI>D. Dr.</HI> Secondly, Be&s;ides the former, we &s;u&s;pend none but &s;uch, who upon tryall, are found unworthy.</Q></P>
<P>Mr. <HI>Humphr. But I pray, have you any thing at fir&s;t to alledge again&s;t them: if you have not, how will you bring them to tryall?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. From Scripture evidence and experi|ence, that many Church-members are unworthy. 2. From the Scriptures warranting an univer&s;all tryall, upon le&s;&s;e ground of &s;u&s;pition then we have, and puni&s;hing the neglect thereof; witne&s;&s;e <HI>Achans</HI> ca&s;e, <HI>Io&s;h.</HI> 7. 3. From the fruit of this tryall, which being rightly managed, will pre|judice none, but edifie all, by putting them upon
<PB N="14" REF="15">
the exerci&s;e of, or &s;eeking after, knowledge and grace.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>Humphr. If they come willingly, and you finde them unfit, then you go about to puni&s;h again them for a future &s;in.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. If the prevention of future &s;in be a puni&s;hment, the Lord &s;end me &s;tore of &s;uch pu|ni&s;hments. 2. He mi&s;takes: we go not about to puni&s;h any for a future &s;in, but to prepare all for a future mercy. 3. He may as well &s;ay, pious Governours of families, and Mini&s;ters in the times of the Prelates, puni&s;hed children and &s;er|vants, becau&s;e they kept them from the Sacra|ment till they were fitted by Catechi&s;ticall tryall. <HI>Gal.</HI> 6. 6. the Apo&s;tle will tell him, that every Church-member is a <HI>Catechumenus.</HI> Nor need Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> here flie e&s;pecially upon the tryall by Elders, &s;ince both this paragraph and his whole di&s;cour&s;e, manife&s;t him to be again&s;t all tryall, either by Mini&s;ters or Elders.</P>
<P><Q REND="inline"><HI>D. Dr.</HI> None of the Apo&s;tles were ignorant or &s;candalous, no, not <HI>Judas</HI> him&s;elfe, there|fore his or their receiving is no warrant for any ignorant or &s;candalous per&s;on to receive.</Q></P>
<P>Mr. <HI>Humph. This is not true for indeed we &s;hall finde both ignorance in the Apo&s;tles, and &s;candall in</HI> Judas: <HI>The Apo&s;tles were ignorant of Chri&s;ts Death and Re&s;urrection, and of the Sacrament; and</HI> Judas <HI>had made his bargain to betray Chri&s;t.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. They knew Chri&s;t to be the Bread and Water of Life, and the Saviour of the World, <HI>Iohn</HI> 6. 68, 69. Secondly, had as much know|ledge as might &s;tand with grace. Thirdly, were willing upon all occa&s;ions to be further in|&s;tructed and Catechi&s;ed by Chri&s;t. And we tru&s;t
<PB N="15" REF="15">
Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> &s;hall never be able to charge us with keeping any away who are of this temper. As for <HI>Iudas,</HI> though he had made his bargain of betraying Chri&s;t, yet it was not then &s;canda|lous: Nor did Chri&s;t (though he knew it well enough) di&s;cover, that <HI>Iudas</HI> had made any &s;uch bargain, but did only foretell that <HI>Iudas</HI> would betray him. However therefore <HI>pag.</HI> 15, &amp; 16. he is plea&s;ed to charge me <HI>as &s;peaking a very untruth;</HI> a grain of charity might have informed him, that <HI>Iudas</HI> (however he purpo&s;ed, plotted and contracted, all which he knows, or may know, I believe as well as him&s;elf) yet betrayed not Chri&s;t, as to the Execution, till he ki&s;&s;ed him in the Garden. True, in Gods account a purpo&s;e, plot and contract of evil is an Execution thereof: but civill and Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall Courts proceed u&s;u|ally by evidence of the fact, not of the purpo&s;e, plot or contract. I might adde that <HI>Iohn</HI> 13. <HI>ver.</HI> 18, 19, 21. 27. our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour (even after the di&s;covery) looks at <HI>Iudas</HI> his betraying him as a future act. In &s;ome &s;en&s;e therefore, it is a truth that <HI>Iudas</HI> had not betrayed Chri&s;t. And if &s;o, then <HI>I did not &s;peak a very untruth,</HI> in &s;aying <HI>Iudas</HI> had not yet betrayed Chri&s;t, <HI>no more then Peter</HI> had denied him, under&s;tanding it of the ul|timate and compleating act of his Treachery, which Chri&s;t endeavourd to prevent by the Commination, as well as <HI>Peters</HI> denyall by the Premonition. Be&s;ides, our Saviours di&s;pen&s;ation here was extraordinary, admitting onely men, Mini&s;ters, Apo&s;tles, and that without &s;elf-exami|nation foregoing, which is no rule for our imita|tion in point of Sacramentall admittance; no more is his admittance of <HI>Iudas,</HI> &s;uppo&s;ing he
<PB N="16" REF="16">
did receive; And if this &s;uppo&s;ition fail, where is Ma&s;ter <HI>Humphrey</HI> his &s;uper&s;tructure upon it?</P>
<P>His upbraiding me again, by comparing Chri&s;t with the Presbytery, hath been formerly an&s;we|red: Which therefore, with other pa&s;&s;ages of le&s;&s;e moment, for brevities &s;ake I pa&s;&s;e. I &s;hall onely adde this, <HI>Iudas</HI> his treachery (if it were, be|fore the compleating of it, matter for a Judiciall cognizance, and if Chri&s;ts extraordinary know|ledge and di&s;covery of it were legall evidence, as Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> would <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">ave it) was a ju&s;t ground of excommunication; yet our Saviour did not excommunicate him for it, no more then he did &s;u&s;pend him; nor did he &s;end to the High Prie&s;ts or their officers for evidence again&s;t <HI>Iudas:</HI> May not the Church therefore excommunicate or &s;eek for evidence again&s;t &s;candalous or &s;u&s;pected per|&s;ons? Even before this, all judgment was committed to Chri&s;t, <HI>Iohn</HI> 5. 22. yet we read not that Chri&s;t judged any, either Civilly or Eccle&s;ia&s;tically, but rather the quite contrary, <HI>Iohn</HI> 8. 11, &amp; 12. 47. Doth it therefore follow that either the Magi|&s;trate, or the Presbytery do lift up them&s;elves a|bove Chri&s;t the great Ma&s;ter of Di&s;cipline, be|cau&s;e they undertake that, both in Civill and Ec|cle&s;ia&s;ticall Judgement, which our ble&s;&s;ed Lord would not meddle withall in his State of humi|liation?</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>Humphrey.</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 18.</NOTE> <HI>As for the Que&s;tion, whether he acted as a Mini&s;ter or Mediator? It is vaine, for he acted as both: He could not in&s;titute an Ordinance for his Church, but as he was Head and Mediator, nor could he admini&s;ter it but as a Mini&s;ter.</HI></P>
<P><PB N="17" REF="16"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. If this Que&s;tion be vain, the more to blame Mr. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> who troubles his Reader with it, e&s;pecially &s;ince we both agree Chri&s;t acted here both as a Mediator and as a Mini|&s;ter.</P>
<P>Secondly, I onely di&s;tingui&s;hed between Chri&s;ts acting as a Mediator and as a Mini&s;ter; And added that Chri&s;t is imitable, not in his acting as a Mediator but as a Mini&s;ter: We doubt not but Chri&s;t as Mediator, might be both Judge and Witne&s;&s;e; But in that he is no pattern for our imitation. If, as a Mini&s;ter, he might be both Judge and Witne&s;&s;e, then every Mini&s;ter may be both Judge and Witne&s;&s;e.</P>
<P>Thirdly, Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> him&s;elf here grants Chri&s;t could not admini&s;ter the Sacrament but as a Mini&s;ter; Yet, at the &s;ame time Chri&s;t was Media|tor. We &s;ay, Chri&s;t as Mediator might be both Judge and Witne&s;&s;e, but not as a Mini&s;ter: Will he forbid us the &s;ame liberty of di&s;tinction hee takes him&s;elf?</P>
<P>The other in&s;tances he excepts again&s;t, <HI>pag.</HI> 18. of Chri&s;ts admini&s;tring it only to Mini&s;ters, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> prove &s;trongly that all Chri&s;t did at the Supper, is no nece&s;&s;ary rule for our imitation: among&s;t which <HI>Judas</HI> his Admi&s;&s;ion (upon Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> his &s;uppo&s;all) being one, falls under the &s;ame notion; unle&s;&s;e Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> can prove that Chri&s;t did not only admit <HI>Iudas</HI> (a per&s;on then, as he &s;aies, &s;candalous) but al&s;o with this very intention, that his practice herein might bee a Rule for all Mini&s;ters to the end of the World to admit to the Sacrament &s;candalous per&s;ons. As for his appeal in the clo&s;e of <HI>pag.</HI> 18, I have &s;hewed formerly that Mr. <HI>Tim&s;on,</HI> though his
<PB N="18" REF="17">
Second in this cau&s;e, <HI>looks not at</HI> Judas <HI>his recei|ving, or not receiving, as clearly argumentative in this cau&s;e,</HI> pag. 3, &amp; 4. And &s;hould the &s;tre&s;&s;e of this controver&s;ie lie upon <HI>Iudas</HI> his re|ceiving or his not receiving, at what uncertainties &s;hould we be about our practice herein, when it is &s;o hard to determine out of Scripture whether <HI>Iudas</HI> received or not.</P>
<P>His Quotation out of Doctor <HI>Hammond,</HI> makes not for his purpo&s;e: We ea&s;ily grant with that learned Clerke, <HI>That Chri&s;tian profe&s;&s;ors may lawfully be admitted, though their hearts be full of villany:</HI> and when we have done all we can, &s;uch will be admitted. Where we find com|petency of knowledge, profe&s;&s;ed &s;ubjection to all the waies of Chri&s;t, not contradicted by a &s;can|dalous life, we ble&s;&s;e God for the good we &s;ee in them, cheerfully give them the right hand of fel|low&s;hip, leaving their hearts and inward condition to Gods Judgement. For that other worthy Gentleman he quotes in the end of this Section; I have &s;ome rea&s;on to believe (what ever may bee his judgement about <HI>Iudas</HI> his receiving) he is not of Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his Latitude for admit|tance to the Sacrament.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD><HI>Sect.</HI> III.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> comes to the &s;tating of his Que&s;tion; In which for explication, <HI>pag.</HI> 20. He premi&s;eth, <HI>That between the&s;e two, a covenant-relation vi&s;ible, and truth of grace which is invi|&s;ible, there is no middle thing injoyned in the Scripture for the rule of our Admi&s;&s;ion.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> If this Rule be true, then Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> doth very ill to coyn divers middle things for the rule of Admi&s;&s;ion, as that per&s;ons to re|ceive,
<PB N="19" REF="17">
fir&s;t mu&s;t have &s;ome maturity of under|&s;tanding: Secondly, mu&s;t be in their right wits: Thirdly, mu&s;t not be <HI>jure</HI> excommunicate. If it be objected, that the&s;e he excepts afterwards by way of Explication. <HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. His Explication mu&s;t never contradict his Rule. Secondly, By the &s;ame rea&s;on he can find three middle things, we &s;hall find more, as I hope to make evident when we come to particulars.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>Humphrey.</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 19, 20, <HI>&amp;</HI> 21.</NOTE> <HI>Some are uncapable of the Or|dinances by Nature; namely, &s;uch as can di&s;cern no meaning thereof: As infants, the di&s;tracted, natural fooles, in oppo&s;ition to the ignorant that are of age: And that fir&s;t, Becau&s;e di&s;cerning the Lords Body cannot be a duty in the former,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Secondly, Becau&s;e &s;ignes cannot work upon the unintelligent, as to any reall effect.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Here you &s;ee one middle thing be|tween Church-member&s;hip and truth of grace. Infants, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> are Church-members, and divers of them have truth of grace; Yet are uncapable of ad|mittance to the Lords Supper in M. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his judgement for lack of under&s;tanding, which therefore mu&s;t be added to Church-member&s;hip as a Qualification for admittance. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>I here di&s;|pute</HI> ad hominem.</NOTE> Secondly, Why may not unintelligent per&s;ons be admitted as well to the Lords Supper as to Bapti&s;m, &s;ince they under&s;tand and di&s;cern the Body of Chri&s;t as much in that, as the Water of the Spirit in this; and if Bread and Wine cannot work upon the unintelligent, no more can Water, both be|ing Sacramentall &s;ignes. If therefore Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> will keep to his rule, he mu&s;t deny Infants Bapti&s;m as well as the Lords Supper. If he urge<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">, <HI>That di&s;cerning the Lords Body is required in
<PB N="20" REF="18">
all receivers of the Lords Supper,</HI> 1 Cor. 11. 29.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1 If di&s;cerning the Lords Supper be ne|ce&s;&s;ary, as to admittance; This &s;trongly ju&s;tifies our way of trying per&s;ons before we admit. If it be not nece&s;&s;ary, as to admittance, then how dares he exclude any Church-member from the Sacrament, and puni&s;h Infants, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> by &s;u&s;pending them who are only naturally uncapable, when at the &s;ame time he wittingly admits tho&s;e who are morally uncapable. We grant Elder per&s;ons ought to get under&s;tanding, which we endeavour to work in them, by offering to in&s;truct them whom we find ignorant again&s;t the next Sacrament; and divers we doubt not will ble&s;&s;e God to Eternity, that by a temporary &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, they were brought out of the Darkne&s;&s;e of Ignorance and &s;in into the Light of Knowledge and Grace. But doth it follow that becau&s;e they ought to get under&s;tanding, therfore they mu&s;t be admitted before they have it. Is not their privative Ignorance a greater Bar then Childrens negative Ignorance? We further grant they may be wrought upon by many parts of the Sacrament, and therefore &s;u&s;pend them not from pre&s;ence, but onely from actuall receiving, it, till Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> can prove the ultimate act of receiving to be a converting Ordinance. But till then, the&s;e two great rea&s;ons of his, may well prove gravell-&s;tones in his own bowels, but not in our teeth, what ever he may plea&s;e to fancy of them.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>Humphrey allowes,</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 23.</NOTE> <HI>that per&s;ons excom|municate,</HI> ip&s;o jure, <HI>&s;hould be &s;u&s;pended, namely, per&s;ons guilty of notorious and evident crimes, &amp;c.</HI> Yet, this he minces again, &s;aying, <HI>I do not
<PB N="21" REF="18">
hold the Mini&s;ter or Church is alwaies bound to take cognizance hereof, for what hath been &s;hown already &s;o plainly in the pattern of Chri&s;t.</HI> See more of this kinde, <HI>page</HI> 26. where he makes the keeping away, or &s;u&s;pending of per&s;ons, <HI>jure</HI> excommunicate, but a prudentiall.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Is not here another middle thing to be a rule of admi&s;&s;ion, be&s;ides Church-member|&s;hip? Per&s;ons <HI>jure</HI> excommunicate, are Church|members, till actually excommunicated, and therefore either mu&s;t be admitted, or Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> his former rule is fal&s;e. 2. Note further, and tremble, <HI>Mr.</HI> Humphrey <HI>holds, the Mini&s;ter and Church are not alwaies bound to take cogni|&s;ance of a</HI> Zimri <HI>and</HI> Cosbi, <HI>a per&s;on &s;tark &s;ta|ring drunk, ince&s;tuous marriages, tho&s;e who come newly reaking out of open enormities, &s;uch as publickly renounce Chri&s;t, or &s;ay, they won't be|lieve on him; &s;uch as being in notorious malice, will not forgive, but profe&s;&s;e their ob&s;tinacy:</HI> but may admit the&s;e comming to the Sacra|ment, though convicted by evidence of the fact; &s;o they be not juridically &s;entenced, and <HI>de facto</HI> excommunicated. Let the Reader compare <HI>page</HI> 21. and 22. and &s;ee if I wrong him. If this lati|tude of Admi&s;&s;ion turne not Gods Hou&s;e into a den of Theeves, I know not what will. Well may per&s;ons excommunicable (as he calls them) be admitted, if the former rabble of hell may pa&s;&s;e. 3. Note further the good u&s;e he makes of <HI>Judas</HI> his admittance, (&s;uppo&s;ing he was ad|mitted by our Saviour) by making it a pre&s;i|dent for the admittance of the vile&s;t convicted mi&s;creants, that ever the earth groaned under, &s;o they be not actually excommunicated. Let me
<PB N="22" REF="19">
(to evidence the ab&s;urdity of this in&s;tance of his) inlarge it a little: As Chri&s;t did not &s;u&s;pend, &s;o he did not excommunicate <HI>Juaas,</HI> nor &s;end to the High Prie&s;ts or Officers for evidence again&s;t him, though he were <HI>jure</HI> excommunicate for the foule&s;t trea&s;on that ever the Sun beheld, <HI>Ergo,</HI> the Church mu&s;t not excommunicate actually the vile&s;t mon|&s;ters of men, though never &s;o clearly convicted by evidence of the fact; or at lea&s;t, they do not &s;in in not excommunicating them, becau&s;e Chri&s;t did not think fit to excommunicate <HI>Judas</HI> actu|ally, who was <HI>jure</HI> excommunicate. See whither an ingagement in loo&s;e principles will not drive men! But I hope Mr. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> upon a review, will be of another minde, how ever prejudice and preingagement may cloud his judgment for the pre&s;ent.</P>
<P>Mr. Hum. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 23.</NOTE> <HI>And here I mu&s;t complain of my Oppo|&s;er. Were not the&s;e words (Unle&s;&s;e excommunicate,</HI> ip&s;o jure, <HI>or,</HI> de facto) <HI>page</HI> 24. <HI>in all three Edi|tions; and why then doth he &s;o overly and contemp|tibly bring an</HI> odium <HI>on me, by being willing not to &s;ee or under&s;tand them,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>An&s;.</HI> Herein I am &s;ure I have cau&s;e to complain of my Oppo&s;er Let the Reader peru&s;e his Vindication, <HI>page</HI> 24. and finde (if he can) one word of excommunicate, <HI>jure</HI> or <HI>facto</HI> there. Indeed in that page he chal|lengeth both Independents and Pre&s;byterians, but in the Edition of his Vindication, printed 1642. I finde not one word about excommunication, much le&s;&s;e that di&s;tinction of excommunicate, <HI>jure</HI> and <HI>facto;</HI> nor do I remember it is in any part of his Vindication; &s;o far was I from &s;hut|ting mine eies again&s;t it, that had I found it there, I &s;hould probably have improved it then,
<PB N="23" REF="19">
as I do now, in order to his conviction.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Page</HI> 23.</NOTE> <HI>As to the Church or Mini&s;ter, I held, &amp; do hold, that all Church-members, that are nei|ther unintelligent, nor excommunicate, ought freely to be admitted to this Ordinance: &s;ome ca|&s;es in Spirituall and Temporall prudence being con&s;idered.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Doth it not hence cleerly follow, that the &s;u&s;pen&s;ion of per&s;ons, <HI>jure</HI> excommuni|cate, is but a ca&s;e of prudence: and if &s;o, then we &s;hould plead for the &s;u&s;pen&s;ion of others (who are vi&s;ibly unworthy) only as a ca&s;e of prudence too. Nay, 2ly. will it not follow hence, that the excommunication of per&s;ons, <HI>jure</HI> excommuni|cate, is but a ca&s;e of prudence too, the admit|ting of women to the Sacrament, &amp;c. is but a ca&s;e of prudence too. I believe Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> will finde at la&s;t, that &s;uch ca&s;es of prudence, are good ca&s;es of con&s;cience, it being the mo&s;t prudentiall (as well as con&s;cientious) way, to &s;ubmit to all the commands of Chri&s;t, whether they be in expre&s;&s;e termes, or by good con&s;equence laid upon us in the Scripture. In the &s;ame page he comes to my Exceptions: the fir&s;t, that Infants and the di|&s;tracted (as deaf per&s;ons) are to come to the Word, therefore they are not uncapable of the Ordinances.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <HI>For the deaf, he &s;peaks mi|raculou&s;ly well; for Infants, they were better keep at home, but only for the &s;ake of them that tend them: His Text,</HI> Deut. 29. <HI>&amp;c. is good to prove their Covenanting by their Parents in Bapti&s;me, where there is only a pa&s;sive reception, and the benefits relative; but as to the Ordinance of Hea|ring, it mu&s;t be actuall, and they are uncapable of
<PB N="24" REF="20">
any reall work by it. An&s;.</HI> 1. Saving the je&s;t, which Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> can break miraculou&s;ly well, my di&s;cour&s;e, <HI>page</HI> 13. and 14. &s;peaks no|thing of any miraculous working, farther then every work of conver&s;ion is miraculous, &amp; indeed a far greater miracle then all miraculous cures upon the body, <HI>John</HI> 14. 12. The working upon Infants and deaf per&s;ons at the Word (I do not &s;ay by the Word) upon blind and paralytick per|&s;ons at the Lords Supper, may be extraordinary; but no more miraculous, then is the working upon per&s;ons at age, and who have their &s;en&s;es perfect. No Ordinance is a naturall, but only a mo|rall in&s;trument of conver&s;ion, which God u&s;eth arbitrarily, and can, when he plea&s;eth, work without them. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>I do not &s;ay this is all God re|quires, but this is the lea&s;t he re|quires.</HI></NOTE> That, God requires of his crea|ture, is either active or pa&s;&s;ive pre&s;ence; that I &s;hould either pre&s;ent my &s;elfe, or be pre&s;ented before the Lord, according to my capacity. The Ordinances have an aptitude to re|pre&s;ent, offer, or &s;eal, and (when &s;pecially elevated by divine benediction) to apply Chri&s;t, &amp; grace either initiall or progre&s;&s;ive (all of them, the latter; &s;ome of them, the former al&s;o) to any Church-member, whether he have an active, or only a pa&s;&s;ive capacity. Thus Infants &s;anctified from their mothers womb, may, at the Ordi|nance of Bapti&s;me, at lea&s;t have further degrees of grace infu&s;ed; and that God, who infu&s;es grace into &s;ome of them before any Ordinance u&s;ed, can infu&s;e more grace upon the u&s;e of any Ordinance, though the Infant be no more &s;en|&s;ible of progre&s;&s;ive, then of initiall grace, or of the Ordinance, by, or at which, it is wrought. Gods operation upon Infants &amp; others, naturally
<PB N="25" REF="20">
uncapable, are &s;ecret; the creatures worke is to get in the way and road of grace, that the very &s;hadow of mercy pa&s;&s;ing by, may over&s;hadow &s;ome of them. <HI>Acts</HI> 5. 15. If I be in the way of mercy, who knowes but it may &s;pread a skirt over me, and make it a time of love, <HI>Ezek.</HI> 16. 8. A beggar bringing his babe to a rich mans gate, may obtain, not only &s;trong meat for him&s;elfe, but milk for his babe, though it be not &s;en&s;ible of the benefit, or how it comes by it.</P>
<P>The places I quoted are not &s;o &s;light, to prove Infants mu&s;t be pre&s;ent at the Word, Read, or Preached &amp;c. as he would make them. True, <HI>Deut.</HI> 29. 11, 12. they were before God to enter into Covenant: But <HI>Deut.</HI> 31. <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 11, 12. they were to be pre&s;ented before God in ordinary, at the great anniver&s;ary fea&s;ts; <HI>that they might hear,</HI> &amp;c. and while Infants are but pre&s;ent, God can teach them, though man cannot, <HI>Je&s;h</HI> 8. 35. eve|ry word was read before the little ones, as well as others, 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 20. 13. In a day of humiliation, their little ones were pre&s;ented before the Lord as well as others: And, <HI>Ioel</HI> 2. 16. the very &s;ame thing is commanded; and to take away all cavill about their age, they are expre&s;ly noted to be &s;uch little ones, as &s;uck the brea&s;ts. What though they under&s;tand nothing? cannot that God, who bids us pre&s;ent them before him, lay his hands upon their hearts, and ble&s;&s;e them at his Ordi|nance. As God teacheth many elder per&s;ons con|vincingly, whom he doth not teach &s;avingly; &s;o he can teach infants &s;avingly, whom he doth not teach convincingly, namely, by infu&s;ing &s;aving knowledge and grace, <HI>E&s;ay</HI> 54. 13. May not they be comprehended by Chri&s;t at the Ordinan|ces,
<PB N="26" REF="21">
who cannot at all comprehend him, <HI>Ioh.</HI> 1. 5. <HI>Phil.</HI> 3. 12. Before I pa&s;&s;e, I &s;hall only note that, about Infant-Bapti&s;me. Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> &s;peaks ambiguou&s;ly, yet &s;eemes to hint, as if the bene|fits of Bapti&s;me to infants were only relative and not ab&s;olute; which if I were certain of, I had more to &s;ay to him, but till then, I forbear. I &s;hall only add this, that however Infants may be uncapable of any reall work <HI>[by]</HI> hearing, yet, they are not uncapable of a reall work <HI>[at]</HI> hea|ring. Had Chri&s;t bid an Infant &s;tretch out his withered hand, his Almighty power at the &s;ame time might both have cured him, and al&s;o acted him to &s;tretch forth the &s;ame hand, being cured, although the Babe under&s;tood not one word Chri&s;t &s;pake. And cannot Chri&s;t cure an Infants withered &s;oul, as well as his withered body, though the Babe under&s;tand nothing of the word of command in either.</P>
<P>He tells the Reader, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Page</HI> 24.</NOTE> my &s;econd Exception is, <Q REND="inline">That Infants and the Di&s;tracted, are as capa|ble of the Sacrament, as the Ignorant are, though of age.</Q></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Herein Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> wre&s;ts both my words and meaning. Are the&s;e two Propo&s;itions equipollent, Infants are capable as well as Elder per&s;ons that are gro&s;ly ignorant; and, Infants are <HI>as</HI> capable <HI>as</HI> Elder Per&s;ons that are gro&s;ly igno|rant? Or more clearly, The Creature is good as well as God; and, The Creature is as good as God: The former Propo&s;ition is a truth, the lat|ter, an horrid lie and bla&s;phemy: The former notes the truth of Predication in both: the latter, afferts a parity of the Predicate in both.</P>
<P>I grant, afterwards he laies downe my own
<PB N="27" REF="21">
tearmes; but by Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his leave, the Reader might ea&s;ily have been abu&s;ed to be|lieve the &s;econd exception above mentioned to be either my own termes, or at lea&s;t my &s;en&s;e: My words are the&s;e, <Q REND="inline">I ask Mr. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> why are Infants capable of Bapti&s;me, and not of the Lords Supper? If he &s;ay, becau&s;e they cannot ex|amine them&s;elves nor di&s;cern the Lords Body, &amp;c.</Q> then I an&s;wer, no more can gro&s;ly igno|rant per&s;ons, &amp;c. To this, Mr. <HI>Humphrey, Sir, you mu&s;t excu&s;e me, I &s;hall not an&s;wer you alto|gether &s;o; but, becau&s;e Infants are really unca|pable, in Bapti&s;me, there is required only a pa&s;|&s;ive, but in the Lords Supper, an actuall recep|tion.</HI> 2ly. <HI>Becau&s;e it is not their duty to examine them&s;elves, and di&s;cern the Lords Body.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> To omit the ab&s;urd oppo&s;ition of <HI>actu|all</HI> to <HI>pa&s;sive</HI> (which haply was an errour only of the Pre&s;&s;e) are not Infants naturally uncapable of Bapti&s;me as well as of the Lords Supper? Do they, or can they apprehend any more, either of the Signe, or thing fignified, in Bapti&s;me, then the Lords Supper? Or, in Bapti&s;me, is there only a pa&s;&s;ive reception required? True, in Infants, God requires only a pa&s;&s;ive reception, becau&s;e they have no active capacity at pre&s;ent: But in Elder per&s;ons Baptized, God expects an active, and not only a pa&s;&s;ive reception; namely, the acting of faith, to receive the blood of &s;prinkling, and an active indeavour (e&s;pecially at the time of Bapti&s;me) to mortifie &s;in, and ri&s;e up to newne&s;&s;e of life, be&s;ides the profe&s;&s;ion of their faith in their own per&s;ons; none of which, either God or man, expects of Infants, whom yet the efficacy of Bapti&s;me may reach, as well as Elder
<PB N="28" REF="22">
per&s;ons, though it be not limited to this or that time; nor doth the Bapti&s;me of the Holy Gho&s;t, alwaies accompany the Bapti&s;me of Water, either in Infants or in Elder per&s;ons. In Elder per&s;ons then Baptized, there is not only a pa&s;&s;ive, but an active reception, as at the Lords Supper there is not only an active, but a pa&s;&s;ive reception. For his &s;econd Rea&s;on, <HI>Becau&s;e it is not the duty of Infants to examine them&s;elves, and di&s;cern the Lords Body. An&s;.</HI> No more is it the duty of In|fants to examine them&s;elves, at, or before Bap|ti&s;me, or to di&s;cern the blood of Chri&s;t, and the water of the Spirit repre&s;ented thereby. &amp;c. which Elder per&s;ons baptized are bound to, and &s;in if they do not; yet, I hope this naturall uncapa|blene&s;s of Infants, in order to examination &amp; di&s;|cretion is no bar to their baptizing; therefore up|on the &s;ame account (I argue now <HI>ad hominem</HI>) they are no ju&s;t bar to Infants receiving the Lords Supper. If therefore I &s;hould &s;ay, God requires &s;elfe-examination, and di&s;cerning the Lords Bo|die of Elder per&s;ons, but not of Infants, would it not follow, that Infants might better be ad|mitted to the Lords Supper, then Elder per&s;ons that are gro&s;ly ignorant, &s;ince there is not that danger of unworthy receiving, in Infants, as in Elder per&s;ons, and that becau&s;e the ab&s;ence of examination and di&s;cretion in them, makes them, <HI>co nomine,</HI> unworthy; not &s;o in Infants, becau&s;e God requires not tho&s;e acts of them as condi|tions, to make them evangelically worthy. Might I not here retort Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his own argu|ment upon him&s;elfe, <HI>The Apo&s;tle &s;aies, Let a man examine him&s;elfe, and &s;o eat. He doth not &s;ay, Let him not eat, unle&s;&s;e he can and do examine
<PB N="29" REF="22">
him&s;elfe:</HI> &s;hould I add, that the Jewi&s;h Children ate the Pa&s;&s;over, yet were naturally uncapable of it, as ours are of the Lords Supper. And further, that Children are Di&s;ciples as well as Elder per|&s;ons, and that the Di&s;ciples a&s;&s;embled together to break bread, <HI>Acts</HI> 20 7. (by which argument principally, we prove, women may, and ought, to receive) I might thereby not only di&s;cover the weakne&s;s of his two forementioned Rea&s;ons, but haply al&s;o might make him a Pro&s;elyte to Infant-receiving. And its a Que&s;tion, whether a Mini&s;ter might not with more comfort admini|&s;ter either Sacrament to an Infant, than to a gro&s;|ly ignorant or &s;candalous per&s;on, who either pro|fe&s;&s;edly or really rejects the Covenant &s;ealed and exhibited by tho&s;e &s;ignes. Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> might very well therefore have &s;pared tho&s;e words, <HI>page</HI> 25. <HI>If the man had not been too &s;lighting of me, he would never have run him&s;elfe into the contempt of &s;o many repetitions of this Infant pa&s;|&s;age: I will reckon them as I go, here is one.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> I hope the Lord hath learned me to &s;light no man, much le&s;&s;e a Mini&s;ter: But its an hard matter, that I cannot pre&s;&s;e an argument, which to me &s;eemes &s;olid (I have now demon|&s;trated there is more weight in it, then Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> was aware of) but I mu&s;t pre&s;ently be judged as &s;lighting the per&s;on of my Opponent. I wi&s;h Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> would lay his hand upon his heart, and &s;adly con&s;ider, whether his bitter &s;coffs do not &s;mell rather of &s;lighting, then my frequent pre&s;&s;ing of this, or any other argument. If the argument be valid, it cannot be too often pre&s;&s;ed, and I am confident, I pre&s;&s;e it no where, but where Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> puts me
<PB N="30" REF="23">
upon it. Let me be good at Weight, and I &s;hall not envy his being good at Number. I hope his reckonings will bring me in a good &s;hot in the i&s;&s;ue. His reckonings with me &s;hall learn me I tru&s;t to make the more frequent and &s;trict recko|nings with my &s;elf.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> having granted that per&s;ons <HI>jure</HI> excommunicate, may be &s;u&s;pended, addes the&s;e words. <HI>If you &s;hall demand of me a &s;ubflan|tiall proof for yielding thus much, I mu&s;t an&s;wer you, the Church is of age, ask it. What &s;he in prudence hath allowed, I am ready to think there may be good rea&s;on for, though I know it not.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> If Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> be reall in this his pro|fe&s;&s;ion, hee cannot be an Enemy to Su&s;pen&s;ion, which (be&s;ides the warrant of Scripture) hath the Church for its Patron, whether by Church he under&s;tand the Greek and Latine Church be|fore their Apo&s;tacy: Or generall and particular Councills, e&s;pecially the Council of <HI>Ancyra. An.</HI> 308. or thereabouts, and the generall Coun|cel of <HI>Nice</HI> gathered by <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> the great, by who&s;e Canons, Su&s;pen&s;ion from the Sacrament is ratified. Or if by Church he under&s;tand our own Church of <HI>England;</HI> Let him con&s;ult the Book of Common-Prayer, and particularly the Confirmation, where <HI>Mini&s;ters are ordered to Catechi&s;e in publick; and Governours of Fa|milies are to &s;end their Children and Servants to be Catechi&s;ed. And the generall rule in the Clo&s;e is, that none &s;hall be admitted to the Holy Commu|nion untill &s;uch time as he can &s;ay the Catechi&s;m.</HI> Here you have an evidence of Su&s;pen&s;ion for gro&s;&s;e ignorance. And for &s;candalous per&s;ons,
<PB N="31" REF="23">
turn to the Communion in the Book of Com|mon-Prayer: 1. They are dehorted from recei|ving, in the&s;e words. <HI>Therefore if any of you be a Bla&s;phemer,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>or be in malice, envy, or in a|ny other grievous crime; Bewaile your &s;ins, and come not to this Holy Table, le&s;t after the recei|ving of that Sacrament, the Devill enter into you as he entred into</HI> Judas, <HI>and fill you ful of all in|iquity, and bring you to de&s;truction of Body and Soul.</HI> And in the Rubrick before the Communi|on, per&s;ons, before receiving, were to give the Mi|ni&s;ter notice of their purpo&s;e therein; and if any of them were a notorious evill liver, or wronged his Neighbour by word or deed, or were in ma|lice and hatred, hee was fir&s;t to di&s;&s;wade them from the Sacrament, and if that would not prevail, he was to deny them the Sacrament, <HI>not &s;uffering them to be partakers of the Lords Table untill he know them to be reconciled,</HI> &amp;c. I might here adde the twenty &s;ixth Canon, which expre&s;sly &s;aith, <HI>No Mini&s;ter &s;hall in any wi&s;e admit to the receiving of the Holy Communion, any of his Cure or Flock, which be openly known to live in &s;in ne|torious, without repentance; Nor any who have maliciou&s;ly and openly contended with their neighbours, untill they &s;hall be reconciled.</HI> If by Church he mean, the Church of <HI>England</HI> as it now &s;tands, and hath &s;tood &s;ince the downfall of the Prelates; Hath not Su&s;pen&s;ion been revi|ved and ratified by the A&s;&s;embly of Divines &s;it|ing at <HI>We&s;tmin&s;ter,</HI> an A&s;&s;embly (I may &s;ay, I hope without flattery) as Learned and plous as ever the Chri&s;tian World &s;aw; And afterward confirmed by Civill Sanction of both Hou&s;es of Parliament in the Form of Church-Govern|ment <GAP DESC="missing" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="2 pages">
<PB N="22" REF="24">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="23" REF="24">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="34" REF="25">
that bare Church-member&s;hip (though never &s;o much contradicted by practice) is &s;ufficient for admittance to the Sacrament. Upon which ac|count I might refer him to my former an&s;wers yet I &s;hall adde a little.</P>
<P>Church-member&s;hip being a relation mu&s;t needs have &s;ome foundation which foundation failing, the relation cannot hold: what is this foundation but con&s;ent (either implicite or explicite) to walk with the Church of God in all the waies of God for His glory, and their mutuall edification. This con&s;ent failing, the Foundation of Church|relation cea&s;es, and &s;uch a per&s;on unchurches him&s;elf, and that vi&s;ibly too, where this con&s;ent failes vi&s;ibly, as it doth in per&s;ons who wilfully refu&s;e knowledge, and live again&s;t conviction in &s;candalous &s;ins: And can the Church then bee blamed for denying the Sacrament (a &s;peciall Church-priviledge) to tho&s;e who renounce their Bapti&s;m, and unchurch them&s;elves, who really deny the faith, and are wor&s;e then Infidels? 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 5. 8. who are among us, but are not of us. 1 <HI>John</HI> 2. 19. And if &s;uch be in the vi&s;ible Church, and ever will be, &s;o long as it is Militant; can you blame Church-Officers for endeavouring to find out &s;uch by their fruits, <HI>Math.</HI> 7. 16. to unca&s;e fal&s;e Brethren, and deny them the Sign, who renounce the thing &s;ignified?</P>
<P>As for the &s;eeming Contradiction, he would fa&s;ten on me, <HI>pag.</HI> 27, &amp; 28. He that reads it ob|&s;ervantly, may ea&s;ily perceive the Cavill; &s;ince our undertaking to fit the people, is but condi|tionall, provided they will be ruled by us; and therefore if ignorant per&s;ons will be ruled by us, we &s;hall endeavour to fit them by in&s;truction;
<PB N="35" REF="25">
if &s;candalous per&s;ons would be ruled by us, wee &s;hall teach them to live unblameably, whereby they may be vi&s;ibly worthy: And to make all &s;orts really worthy (if they will be ruled by us) wee &s;hall endeavour their conver&s;ion and actuall preparation though when we have done all we can, we dare not &s;ay, we endeavour our utmo&s;t <HI>de jure;</HI> we leave that to Mr. <HI>Humphrey.</HI></P>
<P>The que&s;tion about an unregenerate mans duty, to ab&s;tain from the Sacrament, which Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> touches upon, <HI>page</HI> 28, I &s;hal pa&s;s here, as referring it to its proper place: And being right|ly under&s;tood, I hope it will not appear &s;o hetero|dox.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD><HI>Sect.</HI> IV.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. Humphrey, <HI>If we mu&s;t hold the Sacrament to be a means of grace only to the Regenerate, and that none may come without the&s;e Sacramen|tall graces, &amp;c. we cannot approach this holy Table, but the terrours of the Lord mu&s;t fall up|on us, as trembling to be guilty of the blood of Chri&s;t, and eat our own damnation. The be&s;t of Gods people (who are mo&s;t apt to que&s;tion their &s;pi|rituall e&s;tates) will be di&s;couraged; and others, upon &s;leight tryall, will conclude their e&s;tate to be good, pre&s;ume upon the Sacrament, and there|by bring upon them&s;elves &s;ecurity, and the blood of their own &s;ouls, &amp;c.</HI> This I take to be the &s;ub&s;tance of <HI>page</HI> 29. and 30. The ca&s;e is very &s;erious, and pathetically propounded.</P>
<P N="1,2,3"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. We all agree (from expre&s;&s;e te&s;timony of Scripture) that they who receive unworthily, eat and drink judgment to them&s;elves, and are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 2ly. Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> is not ignorant of a two|fold unworthine&s;&s;e (as well as worthine&s;&s;e) ac|knowledged
<PB N="36" REF="26">
generally by our Divines; <HI>viz.</HI> the unworthine&s;&s;e of Per&s;on, and of Preparation, and that either of the&s;e unworthine&s;&s;es make a man obnoxious to the forementioned guilt and danger. 3ly. Its confe&s;t that hypocrites may be very confident, and true <HI>Nathaniels</HI> may doubt very much they have neither the worthi|ne&s;&s;e of per&s;on nor preparation; or through in|firmity, &s;loth, and negligence, may faile very much in point of preparation, yet have the wor|thine&s;&s;e of Per&s;on.</P>
<P N="4">4ly. We mu&s;t di&s;tingui&s;h between the rigour of the rule, as laid down doctrinally, and the equity of the rule as reduced to practice. To ex|plain this by the Law of the Pa&s;&s;eover: the rigid rule was, no unclean per&s;on &s;hould eat thereof; yet, it might fall out, that many unclean per&s;ons did eat thereof, and that without blame or dan|ger, provided they were not &s;upinely negligent either in avoiding or &s;earching out their unclea|ne&s;&s;e. Otherwi&s;e no man dur&s;t have eaten the Pa&s;sover, &s;ince its po&s;&s;ible he might have been de|filed though unwittingly.</P>
<P N="5">5ly. Ab&s;tinence from the Sacrament is two|fold 1. Out of profane&s;&s;e and &s;lighting of Chri&s;t, and his grace. 2ly. Out of clear conviction or grounded jealou&s;ie about our &s;pirituall e&s;tate. In like manner, Receiving of the Sacrament is two|fold. 1. Out of Cu&s;tom or other &s;ini&s;ter re&s;pects. 2ly. Out of Con&s;cience rightly informed (about truth of grace inherent) or deceived and mi&s;taken, or doubting and &s;crupulous; namely, when it cannot clearly either a&s;&s;ent or di&s;&s;ent: Or when it inclines in a&s;&s;ent to the better part; yet with fear and jealou&s;ie of the contrary.</P>
<P N="1"><PB N="37" REF="26">
The&s;e things premi&s;ed we &s;ay. 1. That for Per|&s;ons totally de&s;titute of the worthine&s;&s;e of per&s;on, (&s;uch are all in their natural condition) it were happy if the terrours of the Lord were more upon them that by fear of murthering Chri&s;t, they might be kept from murthering Chri&s;t, at the Sacrament.</P>
<P N="2">2ly. If upon tryall, an erring con&s;cience tell them they have truth of grace, they are expo&s;ed to a &s;nare whether they receive or not: &s;ince if they come not, they &s;in again&s;t their con&s;ciences; and if they come, they receive unworthily, and thereby contract guilt and incur danger; as it is in other ca&s;es, when an erring con&s;cience puts a man upon &s;in as duty, or pulls a man from duty as &s;in.</P>
<P N="3">3dly. If any doubt of truth of grace (be the ground of his mi&s;take right or wrong) and there|upon fear to receive 1. this ab&s;tinence of his, is far from a &s;lighting of Chri&s;t. 2ly. cannot bee prejudiciall, but advantagious to his &s;oul, provi|ded hee &s;it not down in a doubting and de&s;pon|dent condition.</P>
<P N="4">4ly. A true <HI>Nathaniel</HI> wanting evidence, and &s;o fearing to aproach is by the Sacrament put up|on it to be more diligent in making his calling and Election &s;ure: And by &s;elf-examination, backt with prayer and advice of experienced Mini&s;ters and Chri&s;tians, may through the ble&s;&s;ing of God attain &s;uch a mea&s;ure of evidence, as that he may with comfort approach the Lords Table, and go away with a double Portion of the &s;pirit of evi|dence; and for &s;uch in &s;peciall, the Sacrament was in&s;tituted as a Cordiall to refre&s;h their faint|ing hearts, and as a &s;eale to ratifie the Covenant of grace, and to put it out of que&s;tion to their con&s;ciences. So that if we be rightly under&s;tood,
<PB N="38" REF="27">
here is no &s;adning of tho&s;e whom God would not have made &s;ad nor any &s;trengthing the hands of the wicked on the other &s;ide: And for tho&s;e who&s;e portion is &s;orrow, they had better be in the hou&s;e of mourning then in the hou&s;e of fea&s;ting. As for the Objection Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> moves from <HI>Rom</HI> 14. la&s;t: <HI>He that doubteth is Damned, if he eat</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. In things indifferent, to act doubtingly is a &s;in, but Sacramentall eating is not a thing indifferent to him that hath truth of grace.</P>
<P N="2">2ly. What if he doubt, hee &s;hall &s;in by ab&s;tain|ing as well as by eating: May not &s;uch a ca&s;e po&s;&s;ibly fall out, when the faith of evidence is ballanced by an oppo&s;ite doubting?</P>
<P N="3">3ly. The word put for doubting, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 span">.</NOTE> &s;ignifies in the Originall a di&s;cerning, or putting a diffe|rence, as 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11. 29. <HI>Jude ver.</HI> 22. which notes a po&s;itive act, and not a bare he&s;itancy or neutrality between a&s;&s;ent and di&s;&s;ent.</P>
<P>Let us now peru&s;e Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his Commenta|ry upon 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11. from <HI>pag.</HI> 32. to 38, for &s;ome ea&s;e (as he termes it) of the forementioned per|plexities. <HI>Pag.</HI> 32. he hath the&s;e words, <HI>I would not have men think Saint</HI> Paul <HI>advances this Or|dinance</HI> (<HI>which he &s;peaks but lowly of,</HI> 1 Cor. 10. 4.) <HI>above others, as prayer, the one being only In&s;tituted the other Natural wor&s;hip.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. I think Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> is mi&s;taken in &s;aying Saint <HI>Paul</HI> &s;peaks but lowly of the Sa|crament, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10. 4. I conceive its no low ex|pre&s;&s;ion to call the <HI>Manna</HI> &s;pirituall meat, the miraculous Water, &s;pirituall Drink; and the Rock (out of which it flowed) Chri&s;t. And though both <HI>Manna</HI> and Water were common,
<PB N="39" REF="27">
(they all ate and drank thereof) this is no un|dervaluing of either, &s;ince the choi&s;e&s;t mercies are mo&s;t common, at lea&s;t as to the tender of them: (witne&s;&s;e God him&s;elf) e&s;pecially in the Church.</P>
<P N="2">2ly. Whether the Apo&s;tle intended here to ad|vance the Sacrament above other Ordinances (which to me &s;eems probable,) or not: I believe it excells other Ordinances; And that becau&s;e it is made up of them all, to wit, the Signe, the thing &s;ignified, the word &amp; prayer; be&s;ides the commen|dation it hath by our ble&s;&s;ed Saviours in&s;titution at &s;uch a time, and for &s;uch high ends. And if all the&s;e Ordinances combined, are better then any one of them &s;ingle; &s;urely the Sacrament mu&s;t have the preheminency.</P>
<P N="3">3ly. Upon the &s;ame account, in&s;tituted wor|&s;hip excells naturall wor&s;hip, becau&s;e it includes it, and &s;uperadds in&s;titution. Particularly faith in the Mediator is in&s;tituted wor&s;hip; yet I hope it is not inferiour to naturall wor&s;hip, which it in|cludes, and &s;uperaddes In&s;titution. There is no Or|dinance but hath its peculiar u&s;e and excellency, for which wee have cau&s;e to ble&s;&s;e God and be thankfull; nor need we trouble our &s;elves with compari&s;ons of this kind, which are for the mo&s;t part curious, and too often odious. Yet, were actu|all receiving a converting Ordinance, I think wee might wel honour it as the Crowning Ordinance, &s;ince it excells in point of Confirmation, and re|pre&s;ents Chri&s;t effectually to &s;o many &s;en&s;es: but I forbear.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>Humphrey.</HI> Pag. 32, &amp; 33. <HI>Here is a Church-&s;inne; that &s;in is making that common
<PB N="40" REF="28">
which was &s;acred, the u&s;ing of this Sacrament but as their Love-fea&s;ts,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Yea &s;uppo|&s;ing, they were joyn|ned toge|ther, as were the common Supper, the Pa&s;so|ver and the Lords Supper.</HI></NOTE> Its <HI>gratis dictum,</HI> that they made the Lords Supper a common &s;upper as their Love|fea&s;ts: Nor doth he produce any argument or Cla&s;&s;icall Author to avouch it. The Apo&s;tle in|deed blames their &s;chi&s;mes, intemperancy, di&s;or|der, and &s;lighting their poor Brethren, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11. <HI>ver.</HI> 18. 21. but where is one word of ma|king the Lords Supper a common &s;upper?</P>
<P><HI>Pag.</HI> 33. &amp; 34. He &s;eems to que&s;tion whether the Lords Supper be fir&s;t a &s;eal. 2ly. Whether it be a &s;igne of future things, and particularly &s;aies, <HI>that Remcanbrance is of &s;ome thing only that is pa&s;t.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Why &s;hould Circumci&s;ion be a &s;eal, and not every other Sacrament, and &s;o by con&s;e|quence the Lords Supper?</P>
<P N="2">2ly. Hath it not the Office of a Seal in ratifying the Covenant of grace as well as other Sacra|ments?</P>
<P N="3">3ly. How doth the unworthy Receiver eat and drinkjudgement, unle&s;&s;e this Sacrament by &s;en|&s;ible &s;ignes applied (as in &s;ealing there is Fir&s;t a &s;igne; Secondly, Application thereof; Thirdly, Ra|tification thereby) ratifie judgement to him with|out repentance?</P>
<P N="4">4ly. Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> forgets him&s;elf in &s;aying Remembrance is only of things pa&s;t; otherwi&s;e how can I remember the Sabbath to &s;anctifie it, or remember my latter end? <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="5">5ly. Why &s;hould not this Sacrament be a &s;igne of future things as well as other Sacraments? Circumci&s;ion and the Pa&s;sover were &s;ignes of fu|ture
<PB N="41" REF="28">
things. Bapti&s;m is a &s;igne of future things; Namely, of Regeneration, Mortification and Vi|vification, which (in mo&s;t bapti&s;ed per&s;ons that attain them) are future: and why &s;hould not the Lords Supper be a &s;igne of future, as well as of pa&s;t things (e&s;pecially upon Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his prin|ciples, who makes it a converting Ordinance)? Is not the comming of Chri&s;t future, and how can this Sacrament declare Chri&s;ts death till hee come, and not remember the receivers of Chri&s;ts comming that is future, as well as of Chri&s;ts death that is pa&s;t? 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11. 26. Pag. 34. <HI>In opening, what is this eating and drinking unwor|thily; he di&s;tingui&s;hes between a worthy Receiver and receiving worthily. This la&s;t he places main|ly in comming with Reverence.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. I deny not but Reverence is a part of worthy receiving, and that he who receives ir|reverently, receives unworthily with a wit|ne&s;&s;e.</P>
<P N="2">2ly. Yet as it is competible to a naturall man, he makes it lie very much, in fearing his own Damnation, which (grant it be a duty <HI>in &s;tatu quo</HI>) being but &s;lavi&s;h fear, is no part of Evangeli|call worthine&s;&s;e; and therefore cannot be a main part of receiving worthily. Its &s;uch a worthine&s;&s;e, as he that hath commited the &s;in again&s;t the ho|ly Gho&s;t may receive with.</P>
<P N="3">3ly. If further by reverence he mean, &s;ome in|ward awe, and outward demure behaviour, its a very ea&s;ie matter to receive worthily, yea though a man neither have truth of grace, nor make con|&s;cience either of examining or preparing him&s;elf. Certainly when the Apo&s;tle &s;aid, <HI>Let a man exa|mine him&s;elf, and &s;o let him eat,</HI> &amp;c. he appre|hended
<PB N="42" REF="29">
that who ever of age received without &s;elf-examination received unworthily; but Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> tells us, the main of receiving worthi|ly, lies in reverence; and this reverence a naturall man may have, and receive with; yet never &s;o much as examine him&s;elf. From &s;uch worthy re|ceiving, good Lord deliver me. Not but that I think this reverence is nece&s;&s;ary, but it falls infi|nitely &s;hort of receiving worthily, and he that receives no more worthily, will eat and drink damnation to him&s;elf.</P>
<P N="4">4ly. If receiving worthily lie mainly in this re|verence, then it doth not lie mainly in the acting of Faith, Love, Hungring and thir&s;ting after Chri&s;t, Evangelicall repentance, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Which how ab&s;urd and contrary, not only to the con&s;ent of Orthodox Divines, but chiefly of the Scripture it &s;elf, which placeth Evangelicall worthine&s;&s;e in clo&s;ing with Chri&s;t, and unworthine&s;&s;e in the re|jecting of him, and withdrawing from him, <HI>Matth.</HI> 5. 3, 4,5. &amp; 22. <HI>ver.</HI> 5. 8. <HI>Acts</HI> 13. <HI>ver.</HI> 45, 46. Such cold, loo&s;e, and jejune interpretati|ons, may well make cold and loo&s;e Chri&s;tians, but will contribute poorly in order to receiving worthily.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 35.</NOTE> <HI>What is the meaning of that phra&s;e, not di&s;cerning the Lords Body? Is it the not putting a difference between this Sacred, and a common Table: When men have no more re&s;pect to this Bread and Wine then to their ordinary meates.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. By way of conce&s;&s;ion; this is a gro&s;&s;e breach of the rule indeed, and which gro&s;ly ig|norant per&s;ons are very &s;ubject to. This gro&s;&s;e &s;in we &s;hould endeavour to prevent by Sacramentall tryall, and in&s;truction of the Ignorant, how e|ver
<PB N="43" REF="29">
our care herein find little favour in Mr <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> his eies.</P>
<P N="2">2ly. The very laying open of the &s;in, in the Text, imports a contrary duty of di&s;cerning the Lord Body, if we would receive worthily: and this lies not barely in hi&s;toricall faith, di&s;cerning the Elements to be holy in u&s;e, though common in nature; and that the Lords Body is di&s;tinct from them though united Sacramentally with them; but principally in the di&s;cretion of &s;aving faith and love (words of knowledge in Scripture being put for acts of the will and affections) whereby the Heavenly Eagles, di&s;cerning the bo|dy, fly to it, and feed upon it; the di&s;cretion of ta&s;t being held forth in the Sacrament as well as the di&s;cretion of &s;ight; and otherwi&s;e what is our di&s;cerning of the Lords Body more then a Devill may do? Intellectuall di&s;cretion without cordial di&s;cretion, is &s;o far from being a main part of re|ceiving worthily, that without this latter, it doth but aggravate our &s;in, and increa&s;e our doom. Let my &s;oule never re&s;t, nor plea&s;e it &s;elfe in &s;uch di&s;cerning.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <HI>The Apo&s;tle enquires not into the &s;tate of the per&s;on, whether regenerate or not, but lookes to their manner of receiving,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. But doth he not put them upon en|quiry into their own e&s;tates? What el&s;e is meant by that precept; Let a man examine him&s;elf, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Let the Apo&s;tle interpret him&s;elf. 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 13. 5. <HI>Gal.</HI> 6. 4. And when is there a fitter time to exa|mine my e&s;tate, actions, growth; then be|fore and after a Sabbath or Sacrament? Sabbath daies being with them Sacrament daies?</P>
<P N="2">2ly. If they mu&s;t look to the manner of recei|ving,
<PB N="44" REF="30">
mu&s;t they not then &s;ee to it, they receive graciou&s;ly; and what was either their receiving, or remembring Chri&s;ts death (as to their parti|cular good and comfort) if they did not both in a right manner? 3ly. Can we be &s;o uncharitable as to imagine, they came not to the Lords Sup|per as a memoriall of Chri&s;t? Could they either name or receive the Lords Supper, and at the &s;ame time utterly forget the Lord, who&s;e Supper it was, and look at it only as a common Supper?</P>
<P>Mr. Humph. <HI>If the meaning of either of the phra&s;es were, to come without faith or regenerati|on (as &s;ome too har&s;hly pre&s;&s;e it) then the Corin|thians that were puni&s;h'd for this &s;in, mu&s;t have been not only cha&s;tened, but condemned with the world, which they were not, ver&s;e</HI> 32.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Its probable, divers of them did come without faith and regeneration (many of every Congregation being in their naturall condition, and under impenitency, which the Apo&s;tle hints of the Corinthians in particular, 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12. la&s;t, and 13. 5. compared) yet it followes not, they were condemned with the world, &s;ince they might repent in their &s;ickne&s;&s;e, which the Apo|&s;tle pre&s;cribes, <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 31. as the remedy. 2ly. Even the godly among&s;t them might haply come pro|fanely, though they made it not a common Sup|per; and undoubtedly to the&s;e. God gave repen|tance before their death. His argument then is ve|ry weak, to conclude their damnation from their unworthy receiving. They indeed who repented not, were damned; but there is no connexion be|tween any mans &s;in and his damnation, unle&s;&s;e that &s;in be accompanyed with finall impeniten|cy. 3ly. If it be har&s;h to &s;ay, that they who
<PB N="45" REF="30">
come without faith and regeneration, receive un|worthily when it's delivered only <HI>in the&s;i,</HI> how har&s;h is it to charge a Church <HI>in hypothe&s;i,</HI> with &s;uch high profanne&s;&s;e, that they received the Lords Supper but as a common Supper, and ne|ver &s;o much as remembred Chri&s;t in it, who is both the Author, Matter, and End of the Sacra|ment, and who&s;e Name in an &s;peciall manner is called upon it?</P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 36. Mr. Humphrey <HI>opens that expre&s;sion, of being guilty of the Body and Blood of Chri&s;t, and grants, that unworthy receivers contract this guilt, by offering an indignity to the thing &s;ignified: but he approves not that har&s;her lan|guage of murthering Chri&s;t. An&s;.</HI> 1. Whether he that is guilty of blood be not a murtherer. 2ly. Whether degrees of murther vary the kinde. 3ly. Whether in murther all be not principals. 4ly. Why &s;hould &s;leighting of Chri&s;t in Apo&s;tates be murther, <HI>Heb.</HI> 6. and 10. and not in unwor|thy receivers? If &s;leighting my Brother be mur|ther, &s;hall &s;lighting my Saviour be no murther? The lea&s;t murther is murther as well as the grea|te&s;t. This language therefore, by Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his leave, is not har&s;h, unle&s;&s;e it be har&s;h to call a Spade a Spade.</P>
<P>His next head of explication, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Page</HI> 37.</NOTE> is, about &s;elfe-examination, wherein Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> and we agree very much. To his &s;econd caution I &s;hal only add thus much, That who&s;oever upon tryall, is truly &s;en&s;ible of, and grieved for, the want of grace; humbled under, and re&s;olved again&s;t, &s;in: this man hath truth of grace at pre&s;ent, and is the worthye&s;t communicant in Gods account. In his third caution, <HI>he grants, that in order to better
<PB N="46" REF="31">
preparation again&s;t the next Sacrament, a wicked man may ab&s;tain at pre&s;ent; but if he re&s;olve to go on in &s;in, then he is bound to come and to ap|ply damnation to him&s;elfe, unle&s;&s;e he repent.</HI></P>
<P N="1,2,3"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. By way of conce&s;&s;ion, every ob&s;tinate &s;inner is bound to apply damnation to him&s;elfe, <HI>in &s;tatu quo.</HI> 2ly. This he may do in an e&s;peciall manner, when pre&s;ent at the Sacrament, though he receive not. 3ly. By receiving &s;o maliciou&s;ly, he contracts more guilt, then by ab&s;taining, it be|ing a <HI>Judas</HI> &s;in to betray and murther Chri&s;t any where, but mo&s;t of all at his own Table, to eat of his bread with a re&s;olution of lifting up our heel again&s;t him. <HI>John</HI> 13. 18. <HI>The &s;acrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord, how much more when he brings it with a wicked heart.</HI> Prov. 21. 27.</P>
<P N="4">4ly. Suppo&s;ing it were his duty to come and apply Damnation by receiving, what if he will not apply Damnation, and comes with an inten|tion not to apply Damnation but Salvation, as <HI>Deut.</HI> 29. 19. is it his duty to come, though hee will apply Salvation and not Damnation by the Sacramen. Is it his duty to come though he come pre&s;umptuou&s;ly? Much I confe&s;&s;e might be &s;aid for his comming ab&s;olutely, Let his intentions be what they will, were actuall receiving a con|verting Ordinance. But of this, in its proper place.</P>
<P>Pag. 38. He &s;aies, <HI>that unle&s;&s;e a man u&s;e the Lords Supper as a common thing, there is no pecu|liar eating damnation there, more then at any other Ordinance.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. This cannot be, &s;ince the Sacrament is a complex Ordinance: He that eats his Damna|tion
<PB N="47" REF="31">
at four Ordinances, eats it more then he that eats it but at one Ordinance. At the Sacrament Chri&s;t crucified is held forth by reading, hearing, prayerr, and the Sacramentall Elements and Actions; in all which Chri&s;t is murthered by the unworthy receiver. Hee who murthers Chri&s;t four times, &s;ure is more guilty then hee who murthers him but once.</P>
<P N="2">2ly. He that by eating Damnation, &s;eals Dam|nation, eats Damnation more then he that eates it without &s;ealing: As a godly man at the Sacra|ment eats Chri&s;t more then at the word, &s;o doth a wicked man eate Damnation.</P>
<P><HI>Object.</HI> If this be true, then a wicked man by pre&s;ence at the Sacrament, may murther Chri&s;t as well as by receiving.</P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. True, but not &s;o much.</P>
<P N="2">2ly. The three Ordinances of reading preach|ing and prayer are converting; not &s;o, actuall re|ceiving: upon which account we dare not deny any the three former, nor dare admit every one to the latter.</P>
<P>Pag. 39. <HI>He di&s;tingui&s;heth between eating and &s;ealing Damnation: That is the effect of irreve|rent unworthine&s;&s;e: this is a confirming of the truth of the Covenant, to every man according to his condition, which is a duty,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>and of high concernment, as they look to be converted and &s;a|ved.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> He is too narrow in limiting the eating of Damnation onely to irreverent unworthine&s;&s;e, as if there were no other Sacramentall unworthi|ne&s;&s;e but that.</P>
<P N="2">2ly. We mu&s;t di&s;tingui&s;h between Gods &s;ealing and mans &s;ealing; God by the Sacrament &s;eales
<PB N="48" REF="32">
Damnation (as to &s;tate) unto wicked men whe|ther they receive or not. Man at the Sacrament &s;eales Damnation to him&s;elfe, wittingly or un|wittingly. Wittingly, in Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his &s;en&s;e, when he receives the &s;eale with an intent to apply the threat of Damnation to him&s;elf, in order to his deeper humiliation; unwittingly, when being per&s;on<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">lly or relatively unworthy he laies hold of, and applies the &s;eales either ra&s;hly or pre&s;umptu|ou&s;ly, which ever &s;eal &s;alvation or damnation ac|cording to the &s;tate &amp; carriage of the receiver and if not the former, then nece&s;&s;arily the latter: as a man by incon&s;iderately &s;ealing to a Bond, may ea&s;ily ratifie his own undoing, though hap|ly at the &s;ame time he dream of no &s;uch mat|ter; That we may call an intentionall, this areall and actuall &s;ealing. The di&s;tinction being thus cleared and &s;tated, I believe that every unwor|thy receiver doth &s;eal his own damnation really, whether he mind what he doth, or no.</P>
<P N="2">2ly. That if &s;uch a per&s;on <HI>in &s;tatu quo,</HI> will venture to receive, he ought to &s;eal and apply to him&s;elf onely his own portion which is Damna|tion otherwi&s;e he were bound to &s;eal a fal&s;ity.</P>
<P N="3">But thirdly, that any man is bound to receive for this very end, that he may &s;eal his own Dam|nation; I de&s;ire a <HI>&s;criptum e&s;t</HI> from Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey.</HI> Certainly, were this a duty, the Sacra|ment were more nece&s;&s;ary for per&s;ons either <HI>de jure,</HI> or <HI>facto</HI> excommunicate then for any other: The proude&s;t &s;inners have mo&s;t need of &s;ealing their own Damnation, that thereby they might be driven to humiliation and repentance.</P>
<P>The comfort of poor &s;ouls, (who being &s;en&s;ible of their unworthine&s;&s;e, fear their Damnation,) is
<PB N="49" REF="32">
&s;ealed and cannot be rever&s;ed, lies in this. 1. That the &s;ealing in the Sacrament is not according to their Apprehen&s;ion, but according unto Truth. Let men think them&s;elves never &s;o unworthy, if they be Evangelically worthy, not their Dam|nation but their Salvation is &s;ealed. 2ly. Suppo|&s;ing their Damnation be &s;ealed, its &s;ealed but con|ditionally, as to the Event, however it may bee &s;ealed ab&s;olutely, as to their pre&s;ent State. If there|fore they keep not the condition of Damnation, the &s;ealing thereof &s;hall no more prejudice them then the &s;ealing of Salvation &s;hall advantage Hypocrites, who keep not the condition of Sal|vation. His di&s;tinction of <HI>Actuall</HI> and <HI>Potentiall</HI> &s;ealing is not &s;o accurate, &s;ince every receiver doth actually &s;eal both parts of the Covenant, name|ly, both Salvation and Damnation only the one he &s;eales ab&s;olutely, the other conditionally, according to his particular &s;tate and continuance therein. Only the worthy Receiver hath this &s;in|gular advantage, That his Salvation is &s;ealed ab|&s;olutely, both as to State and Event; not &s;o the Damnation of the unworthy Receiver, I mean as to the latter.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <HI>If the Sacrament be a Seal, it doth exhibite and convey &s;omthing to the Re|ceiver; and that, to the Unregenerate, mu&s;t bee dangerous. Here then let us know and arm our &s;elves, that Sacraments being only moral In&s;tru|ments, cannot convey any thing that is Real unto the Soul by way of Ob&s;ignation; but onely that which is Relative, making no change, but as to our E&s;tates, and Relations to God,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. If the Sacrament being only a Morall In&s;trument, cannot convey any thing that is reall,
<PB N="50" REF="33">
then the Word being al&s;o but a Morall In&s;tru|ment, cannot convey any thing that is Reall. The Word Preached, may work Knowledge phy|&s;ically, but it cannot work grace phy&s;ically. Hee that looks at any Ordinance under Chri&s;t, as more then a Morall In&s;trument of Grace, doth at once deba&s;e God, and Idolize the Ordinance.</P>
<P N="2">2ly. If Sacraments can convey nothing Reall and ab&s;olute but onely Relative, then Sacraments cannot convert and regenerate; the&s;e being Real &amp; ab&s;olute priviledges, as Ju&s;tification and Adopti|on are Relative priviledges; (not to &s;tand upon his oppo&s;ition of Reall to Relative, as if a Rela|tive &s;tate were not a Real &s;tate.)</P>
<P N="3">3ly. Suppo&s;e they could convey no Real thing to the Soul by way of Ob&s;ignation yet they may by way of Signification. The Sacrament is a Signe as well as a Seal, and preaches Chri&s;t crucified to the eie, as the Word doth to the ear.</P>
<P N="4">4ly. As a Seal conveies an E&s;tate to him that keeps the Conditions of a Covenant for E&s;tate; &s;o the Sacrament conveies degrees of Grace to him that keeps the condition of the Covenant. True, the Seal is nothing without the Writing, for it mu&s;t have &s;ome what to &s;eal to; and that is the Covenant: but, as annexed to the Covenant, it makes a compleat In&s;trument, and doth not only &s;ignifie, but al&s;o <HI>convey Chri&s;t</HI> with all his benefits to the worthy Receiver: <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>That is, gives a Title to Chri&s;t, as by exhibiting, it gives po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion in part.</HI></NOTE> and if &s;o, then not onely Relative, but al&s;o reall and ab&s;olute Priviledges: namely, more degrees of Sanctificati|on as well as further evidence of Ju&s;tification and Adoption. The Iron therefore hee complaines of, <HI>pag.</HI> 41. will &s;till &s;tick in his Soul, &s;ince neither word nor Sacrament convey either wrath or
<PB N="51" REF="33">
mercy Phy&s;ically, but only Morally: Both repre|&s;ent by way of Signification, which if the &s;pirit plea&s;e to &s;et on effectually, may contribute much in their &s;everall kinds; but the Sacraments excell in way of Ob&s;ignation and Ratification.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD><HI>Sect.</HI> V.</HEAD>
<P>Having vindicated the Apo&s;tles Text again&s;t Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his glo&s;&s;e: <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 44.</NOTE> Let us &s;ee, what hee hath to &s;ay to my Confutation of his proofs.</P>
<P><Q REND="inline"><HI>D. Dr.</HI> If Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> plead that onely Legall uncleane&s;&s;e, excludes from the Pa&s;so|ver, I ask him, why? He will an&s;wer, becau&s;e it defiled the holy things, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> but &s;o did Morall uncleane&s;&s;e, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></Q></P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <HI>Here Mr.</HI> Drake <HI>is mi&s;era|bly mi&s;taken. Mr.</HI> Humphrey <HI>intends not to an|&s;wer him &s;o &s;illily: but becau&s;e it was Gods po&s;i|tive Command, that Levitically-inclean per&s;ons &s;hould be &s;eparated from the Camp; but there was no &s;uch Law for Morall uncleane&s;&s;e at all, but the contrary, that all the Congregation were to eat thereof.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. There is no po&s;itive Command that all unclean per&s;ons &s;hould be put out of the Camp; the more famous uncleane&s;&s;es indeed were &s;o to be &s;eparated, <HI>Numb.</HI> 5. 2. but not every un|cleane&s;&s;e.</P>
<P N="2">2ly. God him&s;elf a&s;&s;ignes this rea&s;on, why they &s;hould be &s;eparated, namely, lea&s;t they &s;hould defile others. <HI>Levit.</HI> 5. 3. therefore Dr. <HI>Drakes</HI> rea&s;on was not &s;o &s;illy, it being Gods owne rea&s;on.</P>
<P N="3">3ly. Morall uncleane&s;&s;e defiled as well as Le|gall uncleane&s;&s;e, as Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> confe&s;&s;eth from my proofes, <HI>Levit.</HI> 18. and <HI>Ezek.</HI> 23.</P>
<P N="4"><PB N="52" REF="34">
4ly. Church-Officers were &s;et on purpo&s;e to keep all unclean per&s;ons from the holy things, 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 23. 19. <HI>Tho&s;e that were unclean in any thing.</HI> If no unclean per&s;on were to enter, and per&s;ons were unclean by Morall, as well as by Legall pollutions; then my proofs were not bu|&s;ily vain as Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> would make the world believe. Whether therefore the charge of petulancy and reviling, be ju&s;tly laid upon me, I leave to the judgment of the impartiall Reader; not that I &s;hall, or dare, excu&s;e every word writ|ten in heat of di&s;pute, as well knowing my own weakne&s;&s;e, and that the tongue and pen are &s;lip|pery pieces.</P>
<P><HI>D. Dr.</HI> That all unclean per&s;ons were to be &s;u&s;pended the <HI>Pa&s;&s;over,</HI> is evident by 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 23. 19.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Page</HI> 45.</NOTE> <HI>For &s;hame do not &s;ay &s;o.</HI> 1. <HI>Doth that place &s;peak of the Pa&s;&s;over: Or,</HI> 2ly. <HI>of Su&s;pen&s;ion: Or,</HI> 3ly. <HI>of Morall unclean|ne&s;&s;e?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. The terme <HI>Pa&s;&s;over,</HI> is not mentio|ned in my Text, quoted by Mr. <HI>Humphrey, page</HI> 19. 2<HI>ly.</HI> Had I &s;aid, that all unclean per|&s;ons, were not only to be &s;u&s;pended in generall, but in particular to be &s;u&s;pended the Pa&s;&s;over, had it been any more then the truth? I would not here be mi&s;taken, as if I thought that either Mo|rall or Leviticall uncleanne&s;&s;e did exclude from all Ordinances, but only from &s;ome Ordinances; and that both under the Legall and Evangelicall di&s;pen&s;ation. Among&s;t which, I apprehend that the Pa&s;&s;over then, and the Lords Supper now, are in a &s;peciall manner di&s;tingui&s;hing and &s;epa|rating Ordinances. This I have in part made out
<PB N="53" REF="34">
here, and &s;hall, by Gods a&s;&s;i&s;tance, clear it more hereafter, in its proper place. 3<HI>ly.</HI> I brought not that place, 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 23. 19. to prove it in termes, but by con&s;equence. The Re&s;urrection is not in termes in the&s;e words, <HI>I am the God of Abra|ham, I&s;aac, and Jacob;</HI> yet, tho&s;e words prove the Re&s;urrection &s;trongly. From the fore-quo|ted place its evident, that unclean per&s;ons were to be kept from tho&s;e holy things, which were in&s;tituted for meat's of Edification, not of Con|ver&s;ion. I a&s;&s;ume: But the Pa&s;&s;over was &s;uch an holy thing; therefore they were to be kept from the Pa&s;&s;over. 4<HI>ly.</HI> As the terme <HI>Su&s;pen&s;ion,</HI> is not named here, &s;o the terme <HI>Excommunication</HI> is not mentioned, either in the Old or New-Te&s;tament: Doth it follow therefore, that &s;u&s;|pen&s;ion cannot be proved by this Text, nor ex|communication by Scripture? Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> can conclude, we &s;u&s;pend tho&s;e per&s;ons whom we do not admit, and can he not as well con|clude, that <HI>Jchofada</HI> &s;u&s;pended tho&s;e per&s;ons whom he did not admit? 5<HI>ly.</HI> Let me retort a pa&s;&s;age of his An&s;wer in this page, changing only the terme of <HI>Leviticall</HI> for <HI>Morall: Is it pro|bable, that the Levites at &s;uch a time, did, or could, in &s;uch a concour&s;e, try, and examine them concerning</HI> Leviticall <HI>cleanne&s;&s;e and un|cleanne&s;&s;e?</HI> Let Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> tell me, how they could try all for Leviticall uncleanne&s;&s;e; and I will tell him, how they could try all for Morall uncleanne&s;&s;e. I avouch not, <HI>page</HI> 202. that an excommunicated per&s;on might come into the Temple; but into the Church, where pre&s;ence doth not defile. And as for the Publican, his Of|fice did not make him unclean, nor did <HI>John the
<PB N="54" REF="35">
Bapti&s;t</HI> bid them renounce the Office, but be ju&s;t and righteous in their places, <HI>Luke</HI> 3. <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 12, 13. Indeed generally, Fublicans were very oppre&s;&s;ive and hatefull, but their Office was war|rantable and therefore upon that account &s;olely, they could not be kept out of the Temple, I mean the Court for the people. But it followes not, that becau&s;e Publicans, as &s;o, might not be ex|cluded the Temple, therefore when morally un|clean, by horrid oppre&s;&s;ions, &amp;c. they might not be kept out.</P>
<P>For my &s;econd Exception, about Children ea|ting the Pa&s;&s;over, it &s;eems probable enough, that Children who were capable of eating fle&s;h, and could conveniently be brought up to <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> did eat of it; from that generall Precept, <HI>Exod.</HI> 12. 48. nor doth Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> deny it, though he &s;eem more inclinable to the contrary opini|on. This granted, makes much again&s;t Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey,</HI> his excepting Children from the Lords Sup|per. Since therefore he will needs be &s;coring, let him toke notice of it, as a probable evidence a|gain&s;t him&s;elfe.</P>
<P>He doth well in pa&s;&s;ing over my in&s;tance of <HI>Hezekiah's</HI> Pa&s;&s;over, 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 30. <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 18, 19, 20. which proves, that Morall uncleanne&s;&s;e made them more uncapable of it, then Leviticall pol|lution, God accepting tho&s;e who &s;et their hearts aright, though they were not clean&s;ed after the purification of the Sanctuary.</P>
<P><HI>D. Dr.</HI> Excommunication was a bar to the Pa&s;&s;over, and this was for &s;candalous &s;ins, not Levitical pollutions.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Page</HI> 46.</NOTE> <HI>Who will not be willing to grant this in the main? But what followes then?
<PB N="55" REF="35">
only, as I hold, that men mu&s;t be fir&s;t excommu|nicate, before they be kept from the Sacrament.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Take notice, that Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> grants excommunication is a bar to the Pa&s;&s;over. Now I would intreat him to give me but one ex|pre&s;s Text of Scripture, that in termes a&s;&s;erts this conclu&s;ion: If he can prove it only by con&s;equence, let him not deny the &s;ame ju&s;t and equitable fa|vour to us, of proving &s;u&s;pen&s;ion from the Sacra|ment al&s;o by con&s;equence. 2<HI>ly.</HI> Take away the homonymie and equivocation of the terme <HI>Ex|communication,</HI> under which Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> beguiles his Reader; and it will ea&s;ily appear, that I have not plaied with my own &s;hadow, what ever he, through prejudice, may imagine. Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> takes excommunication for a juridi|call exclu&s;ion of a Per&s;on from all publick Ordi|nances at lea&s;t. I know no &s;uch excommunicati|on in Scripture, unle&s;&s;e it be evident, a per&s;on hath committed the &s;in again&s;t the Holy Gho&s;t: and this al&s;o is demon&s;trable only by our con&s;e|quence, becau&s;e we are &s;ure no Ordinance can do &s;uch a one good, no more then the Devill him|&s;elfe. I take excommunication in the Latitude, as it notes a turning out of Communion, whether in order to any Church priviledge, or in order to di&s;-Membering, which is properly a ca&s;ting out of the Church, in the rigour of the phra&s;e. Ac|cordingly, I prove there were &s;everall degrees of excommunication in practice, both in the Jewi&s;h and Chri&s;tian Church, <HI>page</HI> 21, 22. built upon Scripture grounds: as, when we are forbid to eat with a &s;candalous Brother, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5. 11. <HI>Rom.</HI> 16. 17. and 2 <HI>The&s;&s;.</HI> 3. 14. commanded to avoid them, not to keep company with them;
<PB N="56" REF="36">
the very end whereof (that they may be a&s;hamed) &s;eemes in a &s;peciall manner to re&s;pect &s;eparation from &s;uch at the Sacrament, &s;ince by &s;u&s;pen&s;ion they are put to publick &s;hame, a far more effe|ctuall remedy to reduce them, then private &s;epa|ration alone; which yet mu&s;t concur and back this publick &s;hame, for the better obtaining of the forementioned end and purpo&s;e. Hence I concluded, that &s;u&s;pen&s;ion is excommunication, and the fir&s;t degree thereof. And as degrees of heat do not alter the nature and kinde of heat, but that the lea&s;t degree of heat is as truly heat as the highe&s;t degree thereof; &s;o the lea&s;t degree of excommunication is excommunication (that is, a turning out of communion, though but in part) as well as the highe&s;t degree. And therefore Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> granting, that excommunicated per|&s;ons may, and ought, to be kept from the Sacra|ment, doth therein grant, that &s;u&s;pended per&s;ons may be kept from the Sacrament &s;ince &s;u&s;pen&s;ion is excommunication, though in a low degree.</P>
<P>For my exception about the word (Type) he deales very ingenuou&s;ly, and acknowledges, <HI>That if &s;trictly taken, it is not ami&s;&s;e. Only thence he infers again&s;t me, that exclu&s;ion of the Legal|ly unclean from the Congregation, is not proof for me to plead, that the Morally-unclean ought to be kept from the Sacrament; but a Type indeed, that &s;uch, in whom the Lepro&s;y, &amp;c. of &s;inn raignes, &s;hall be excluded Heaven.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. I do not bring it as proofe yea, I be|lieve, that if &s;eque&s;tring any out of the Camp, did typifie an Evangelicall Cen&s;ure, it &s;hould rather typifie turning out of Church member&s;hip (e&s;|pecially if their uncleane&s;&s;e were incurable) than
<PB N="57" REF="36">
Su&s;pen&s;ion: but for my part, I believe its a type of neither.</P>
<P N="2">2ly. I go upon the generall rule, that all unclean per&s;ons were to bee kept from tho&s;e holy things which cannot convert, but prejudice them <HI>in &s;ta|tu quo.</HI> The Scripture is clear, that Morall un|cleane&s;&s;e is wor&s;e then Leviticall pollution, and that therefore it doth de&s;ile as much, yea, more then any Legall pollution, <HI>Levit.</HI> 18. <HI>Ezek.</HI> 23. To which I might adde, <HI>Ezek.</HI> 44. <HI>ver.</HI> 9-14. (a Text the more con&s;iderable, becau&s;e a prophe|&s;ie of Go&s;pel-times) Where per&s;ons uncircumci|&s;ed in heart as well as in fle&s;h, were forbid En|trance into Gods Sanctuary: And the Prie&s;ts for|merly guilty of Idolatry, were cut &s;hort of choice Priviledges in the Church an evidence that neither Church-members nor Church-officers were, <HI>eo no|mine,</HI> to enjoy equall priviledges, but a difference was to be made in point of priviledge according to their vi&s;ible worthine&s;&s;e or unworthine&s;&s;e. So <HI>Mat.</HI> 5. 23, 24. Chri&s;t forbids a malicious per|&s;on in <HI>&s;tatu quo,</HI> to draw near in order to Sacri|fice; and will he allow a malicious per&s;on to draw near in order to the receiving of the Sacrament? But of this more hereafter. Yea the Sacrifices did typically expiate Morall as well as Leviticall un|cleane&s;&s;e, <HI>Levit.</HI> 5. &amp; 6. though neither the one nor the other were to enjoy the benefit of Sacri|fice, till evidence given to the Prie&s;t either of their Morall Legall, or Spirituall clean&s;ing, either by the mercy of God curing their unclean di&s;ea|&s;es or by their application of more private Le|viticall meanes of clean&s;ing, or by the publick te&s;tification of their repentance, and faith, for their Morall uncleane&s;&s;es. <HI>Levit.</HI> 5. <HI>ver.</HI> 5, 6. &amp;
<PB N="58" REF="37">
6. <HI>ver.</HI> 4. 5. &amp; 15. <HI>ver.</HI> 13. 14. &amp; 13. <HI>ver.</HI> 4. <HI>to</HI> 11. Yea further, for the &s;earching into, and di&s;|covery of Morall uncleane&s;&s;e (though but upon jealou&s;ie and &s;u&s;pition, and that where there was no witne&s;&s;e at all) the Lord was plea&s;ed to work a miracle. <HI>Numb.</HI> 5. <HI>ver.</HI> 13. to 31. <HI>Acts</HI> 5. <HI>ver.</HI> 5. to 11. thereby warranting and incoura|ging, both Church-Officers and private Chri|&s;tians upon any grounded jealou&s;ie of Morall Pollution, not to &s;tay till Evidence come to them, but to improve all lawfull meanes of di&s;|covery, as they tender their own peace and &s;afe|ty, or the peace and &s;afety of the whole. Com|pare <HI>Jo&s;.</HI> 7. Adde to this the example of <HI>Jehoja|dah,</HI> 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 23. 19. Its evident, Church-Offi|cers were of purpo&s;e &s;et in the Gates of the Lords Hou&s;e, to keep away tho&s;e who were unclean in any thing: and if per&s;ons unclean in any thing, were to be kept off, then per&s;ons unclean by gro&s;s, or raigning &s;ins (which is morall uncleane&s;&s;e) were to be kept away; &s;ince in that place there is no more mention of Levitical then of Morall un|cleane&s;&s;e; but the Scripture commends <HI>Jehoja|da's</HI> care for keeping back tho&s;e who were unclean in any thing: I argue therefore from a Morall precept, not from a Leviticall type; nor doth the Su&s;pen&s;ion of per&s;ons Levitically unclean any more exclude the Su&s;pen&s;ion of per&s;ons Morally unclean, then the Su&s;pen&s;ion of per&s;ons Morally unclean doth exclude the Su&s;pen&s;ion of per&s;ons Levitically unclean, &s;eeing neither of them are named in the forementioned Text, but both in|cluded in the generall.</P>
<P>D. <HI>Dr:</HI> It is evident that <HI>Niddui</HI> was a Bar in particular to the Pa&s;sover.</P>
<P><PB N="59" REF="37">Mr. Humphrey. <HI>I pray mark it.</HI> Niddui <HI>was an excommunication for thirty daies. Now if it were a Bar to the Pa&s;sover, a man could never be ex|communicated but at</HI> Ea&s;ter. <HI>The truth is,</HI> Niddui <HI>was no more in reference to the Pa&s;sover then any Society; and it is twelve to one throughout the year, whether it ever hapned to concern the Pa&s;so|ver,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. I pray mark it, Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> grants <HI>Niddui</HI> was an Excomunication.</P>
<P N="2">2ly. <HI>Pag.</HI> 46. he grants that Excommunication was a Bar to the Pa&s;sover. Why then doth hee find fault with me for &s;aying no more, then what him&s;elf &s;aies and grants, namely, that <HI>Nid|dui</HI> in particular was a Bar to the Pa&s;sover?</P>
<P>Object. <HI>I but</HI> Niddui <HI>was an Excommunication</HI> only <HI>for thirty daies; and if it were a Bar to the Pa&s;sover, a man could never be Excommunicated but at</HI> Ea&s;ter.</P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> cannot be ignorant, that the time of this Excommunication, might bee doubled or trebled, yea, extended to the end of a mans life, if he continued impenitent; See <HI>Good|wins</HI> Jewi&s;h Antiquities, <HI>pag.</HI> 200.</P>
<P N="2">2ly. Its very ab&s;urd he &s;aies, <HI>that then a man could not be Excommunicated but at</HI> Ea&s;ter. True, his Excommunication could not keep him from the Pa&s;sover, if he were ab&s;olved from it before the Pa&s;sover came; no more can Su&s;pen&s;ion be a Bar to the Sacrament, if a man be ab&s;olved from it, before the Sacrament come: but the &s;entence of <HI>Niddui</HI> might be i&s;&s;ued out again&s;t a per&s;on at a|ny time of the year.</P>
<P N="3">3ly. Its likewi&s;e a gro&s;&s;e mi&s;take (&s;uppo&s;ing this Excommunication la&s;ted but thirty daies)
<PB N="60" REF="38">
to hold that it is twelve to one throughout the year, whether ever it happened to concern the Pa&s;sover. Hath Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> forgot there were two Pa&s;sovers every year, and that the &s;e|cond Pa&s;sover was in the Second Month, for tho&s;e who could not receive in the Fir&s;t Month? <HI>Numb.</HI> 9. <HI>ver.</HI> 10, 11. &amp; 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 30. <HI>ver.</HI> 2, 3, 15. therefore upon his own &s;uppo&s;ition it was but &s;ix to one in the year, that this Excommuni|cation might concern the Pa&s;sover. But what wil Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> &s;ay, if <HI>Niddui</HI> extended to an whole year, yea, to a mans whole life; did it not then clearly Barre &s;uch a per&s;on from the Pa&s;&s;e|over?</P>
<P N="4">4ly. <HI>Niddui</HI> was a Separation from eating and drinking with any, and how then could &s;uch a one receive the Pa&s;sover which was never to bee eaten alone? Its apparent then that Su&s;pen&s;ion is no Novell invention: That their <HI>Niddui</HI> &amp; our <HI>Su&s;pen&s;ion</HI> were very like one to the other, &s;ince under both, men were kept from the Sacra|ment, but not from other Ordinances, but might be pre&s;ent at Divine Service, either to hear, or to teach, <HI>&amp;c:</HI> Only our Su&s;pen&s;ion is far milder: &s;ince the males of per&s;ons under the &s;entence of <HI>Niddui,</HI> might not be circumci&s;ed, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Be&s;ides, with us many per&s;ons &s;u&s;pend them&s;elves, and choo&s;e not to receive at all, rather then they will give an account of their faith to tho&s;e mu&s;t give an account to God for their &s;ouls. Had Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> improved his Art and skill in per&s;wading the people to return to their duty, in&s;tead of di&s;|couraging Church-Officers from painfulne&s;&s;e, watchfulne&s;&s;e, and faithfulne&s;&s;e in their duty, hee had contributed far more (than now he doth)
<PB N="61" REF="38">
to the glory of God, the Reformation and edifi|cation of the Church, and the peace of his owne Con&s;cience. But I forbear. How ever therefore Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> &s;oares high in confidence, as if we had nothing to &s;ay again&s;t the daylight of his Free-Admi&s;&s;ion (as he is plea&s;ed to term it) <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 47.</NOTE> yet it hath formerly appeared, and wil further ap|pear by this en&s;uing parallel, that we have more to &s;ay for Su&s;pen&s;ion, and again&s;t his Free-Ad|mi&s;&s;ion, then he was aware of.</P>
<P>The Parallel lies thus.
<TABLE>
<ROW>
<CELL>Every Church-Member was bound to receive the Pa&s;&s;over.</CELL>
<CELL>Every Church-Member is bound to receive the Lords Supper.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>This Generall is limited by an exception of Legall and Morall uncleanne&s;&s;e.</CELL>
<CELL>This General is limited by an exception of Morall un|cleanne&s;&s;e.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>It lay as a duty upon Church-Officers, to keep a|way &s;uch as were unclean.</CELL>
<CELL>It lies as a duty upon Church-Officers, to keep a|way &s;uch as are unclean.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>Tho&s;e pollutions which excluded a man from the Pa&s;&s;over, did not exclude him from the means of Conver&s;ion.</CELL>
<CELL>Tho&s;e pollutions which exclude a man from the Lords Supper, do not ex|clude him from Prayer, Hea|ring, &amp;c. which are means of Conver&s;ion.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>If a man were unfit to eat the Pa&s;&s;over in the fir&s;t Month, he was to forbear till the next Pa&s;&s;over in the &s;econd Month.</CELL>
<CELL>If a man be unfit for the Sacrament at this time, he is to forbear till the next Sa|crament.</CELL>
</ROW>
</TABLE></P>
<P>The que&s;tion is, What if a man were unclean at the &s;econd Pa&s;&s;over? <HI>An&s;.</HI> He was either to
<PB N="62" REF="39">
forbear, till the Pa&s;&s;over recurring the next year; or el&s;e, to endeavour to make amends for his Legall pollution, by &s;triving more after, and giving &s;tronger evidence of his morall purity, 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 30. <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 18. to 20. Whereby it ap|pears, that Morall pollution was a greater Bar to the Pa&s;&s;over, then Leviticall pollution.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Page</HI> 48.</NOTE> <HI>My &s;econd proofe was from</HI> 2 Cor. 10. 17. <HI>The&s;e Corinthians were &s;canda|lous many of them; and yet, &s;aies the Apo&s;tle, We being many, are all partakers of one bread. A|gain&s;t this, Mr.</HI> Drake <HI>hath his three exceptions,</HI> page 25, 26, 27.</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>He extenuates their crime, and counts it no bar to their receiving.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. I may more &s;afely extenuate their crime, then he may aggravate it. 2<HI>ly.</HI> Him&s;elfe doth not charge them with Idolatry, but &s;aies only, that they were ready to go to Idols. 3<HI>ly.</HI> Yet that they were ready to commit Idolatry, is not evident by Scripture; only they gave great occa|&s;ion of &s;candal and &s;u&s;pition in that kinde, by eating things &s;acrificed to Idolls, and that in the Idols Temple; which the &s;trong judged a part of their Chri&s;tian liberty, and thereby offended the weak: Whereupon 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10. <HI>latter end,</HI> the Apo&s;tle di&s;putes again&s;t this carnall liberty of theirs, and by commanding them to flee from Idolatry. <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 14. he wills them to avoid the &s;ignes, appearances, and occa&s;ions thereof. This carriage of theirs, I grant, was bad, but not e|nough (e&s;pecially before &s;ufficient admonition given) to bar them from the Lords Supper. Let the Reader now judge, whether in this extenu|ation (if Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> plea&s;e to call it &s;o) I
<PB N="63" REF="39">
have &s;inned, either again&s;t the light of Truth, or the law of Love.</P>
<P N="2">Mr. Humphrey. <HI>Secondly, He confutes this him&s;elfe, and proves, they were guilty of gro&s;&s;e &s;ins, by</HI> 2 Cor. 12. 21. <HI>and &s;o will not allow them to be admitted. An&s;.</HI> 1. Having denyed they were guilty of Idolatry (which Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> him|&s;elfe dares not charge them withall) did I after|wards confute my &s;elfe, by granting they were guilty of other gro&s;&s;e &s;ins? Let us &s;et the two Propo&s;itions together. 1. <HI>Prop.</HI> The Corinthi|ans were not guilty of Idolatry. 2. <HI>Prop.</HI> The Corinthians were guilty of other gro&s;&s;e &s;ins. Is here any contradiction? or, doth the latter Propo&s;ition confute the former? 2<HI>ly.</HI> All that I &s;ay, <HI>page</HI> 25. and 26. is in &s;ub&s;tance this, <HI>Yet, taking it for granted, many of them were guilty of greater &s;ins, as appears by</HI> 1 Cor. 15. <HI>and</HI> 2 Cor. 12. 21. <HI>how proves he from the place, that all the&s;e were notwith&s;tanding admitted, &amp;c?</HI> Let us here again &s;et both Propo&s;itions together. 1. <HI>Prop.</HI> Per&s;ons abu&s;ing their Chri&s;tian liberty, are not pre&s;ently to be &s;u&s;pended the Sacrament, e&s;pecially before &s;ufficient admonition given, 2. <HI>Prop.</HI> Per&s;ons guilty of gro&s;&s;e &s;ins, are to be &s;u&s;|pended the Sacrament. Are the&s;e two Propo&s;iti|ons contradictory? or, doth the latter confute the former?</P>
<P N="3">Mr. Humphrey. <HI>Thirdly, He &s;uppo&s;es this too, and que&s;tions only</HI> Paul's <HI>allowance of it. Thus you &s;ee how playfull the man is; and that at one breath he can blow his bubble out, and in, and out again. An&s;.</HI> Sure Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> was merrily di&s;po&s;ed when he wrote the&s;e things, and hoped, the Reader would never put him&s;elfe to the trou|ble
<PB N="64" REF="40">
of comparing what I wrote with his An&s;wer, but take all he &s;aies upon tru&s;t. Its well, &s;ince he was re&s;olved to bee &s;o merry here, and in other parts of his <HI>Rejoynder,</HI> that he hath pitcht upon &s;o incon&s;iderable a per&s;on as my &s;elf for the object of his mirth. The Lord hath been plea&s;ed of late years to give me the cup of contempt and &s;ligh|ting, by the hands of pretious friends and ac|quaintance, whom I honour in the Lord; I may well therefore take this cup out of the hands of a &s;tranger. Let him alone, the Lord hath comman|ded him, who &s;hall &s;ay unto him, wherefore ha&s;t thou done &s;o? 2 <HI>Sam.</HI> 16. 10.</P>
<P>But to come to the matter: my &s;cope in the fore|mentioned words (which hee wre&s;ts &s;o plea&s;ant|ly) was to give Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> all the fair play he could de&s;ire in order to his more effectual con|viction. Therefore I grant him, 1. That the Co|rinthians went too far towards Idolatry. 2ly. That be&s;ides this they were guilty of other grie|vous &s;ins. I deny, 1 That his Quotation proves tho&s;e gro&s;&s;e &s;inners were admitted to the Sacra|ment. 2ly Suppo&s;ing they were admitted <HI>de facto,</HI> I deny that his Quotation proves the A|po&s;tle allowed, much le&s;&s;e commanded &s;uch a Free-Admi&s;&s;ion. I hope Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> will give me leave to tell him the&s;e are &s;erious matters, and will not be put off with a Je&s;t.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <HI>For the fir&s;t it is manife&s;t, that the&s;e Corinths were Fornicators,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>For the Se|cond, the Text is full to the point. St.</HI> Paul <HI>&s;aies, they were all partakers of this Bread. Mr.</HI> Dr. <HI>&s;aies, but how will he prove, notwith&s;tanding they were admitted? and that they had only a right to it</HI> in actu primo. <HI>Whom &s;hall we believe Mr.</HI> Paul <HI>or St.</HI> Drake.</P>
<P><PB N="65" REF="40"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. That many of the Corinths were very &s;candalons, is agreed on both &s;ides.</P>
<P>But 2ly. I &s;ay, That, the&s;e &s;candalous per&s;ons were admited to the Lords Supper, is not proved convincingly, by that Quotation: And my rea|&s;on is, becau&s;e both in Scripture and particular|ly in the Epi&s;tles to the <HI>Corinths,</HI> univer&s;all pro|po&s;itions are not under&s;tood <HI>de &s;ingulis unius ge|neris,</HI> or the word <HI>All</HI> doth not alwaies include every particular per&s;on, or thing which in form of &s;peech &s;eems to be comprehended under it. For in&s;tance, 2 <HI>Sam.</HI> 11. 1. David <HI>&s;ent</HI> Joab <HI>and All</HI> I&s;rael, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> will any thence conclude that not one man was left in the Land of <HI>Canaan,</HI> but that every male pa&s;&s;ed over <HI>Jordan</HI> to de&s;troy the <HI>Am|monites? Matth.</HI> 23. 3, <HI>All therefore what&s;oever they bid you ob&s;erve, that ob&s;erve and doe:</HI> mu&s;t <HI>All</HI> there be under&s;tood without any re&s;triction? then Chri&s;ts Di&s;ciples mu&s;t ob&s;erve the Traditi|ons and corruptions taught by the Phari&s;ees, con|trary to our Saviours expre&s;&s;e commands other|where. But to come nearer, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 8. 1. <HI>We know that wee all have Knowledge:</HI> Yet 1 Cor. 15. 34. <HI>Some of you have not the Knowledge of God, I &s;peak this to your &s;hame:</HI> and <HI>ver.</HI> 36. hee calls them <HI>Fools,</HI> for their gro&s;&s;e ignorance about that Fundamentall point of the Re&s;urrection. Yea, in that very particular about the Latitude of their Chri&s;tian Liberty. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 8: He that &s;aies, <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 1. <HI>We all have Knowledge,</HI> yet &s;aies <HI>v.</HI> 7. <HI>How be it there is not in every man this Knowledge;</HI> a clear evidence that <HI>All</HI> in the fir&s;t ver&s;e mu&s;t not bee under&s;tod univer&s;ally? I &s;hall trouble my Reader but with one place more. 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 3. 18. <HI>But wee
<PB N="66" REF="41">
All with open face, beholding as in a Gla&s;&s;e the glory of the Lord</HI> &amp;c. Will Mr <HI>Humphrey</HI> hence conclude, that every Member of the Church of <HI>Corinth</HI> had &s;aving Knowledge and grace? Cer|tainly every one, who, with open face beholding the glory of the Lord, is changed from glory to glory by the Spirit, is a godly man and this the Apo&s;tle affirmes <HI>of all the Corinths,</HI> as well as of him&s;elf: yet no man will urge that place to prove that every Member of the Church of <HI>Corinth</HI> was truely godly. And why then &s;hould Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> conclude, that all the <HI>Corinths</HI> did actually receive the Sacrament, becau&s;e the Apo&s;tle here u&s;eth a like phra&s;e, &s;aying, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10. 17. <HI>Wee All are partakers of that one Bread.</HI> It is not my worke now to digre&s;&s;e, by giving my Reader an account why the Scripture u&s;ing generall ex|pre&s;&s;ions, doth not include all particulars under that general Its &s;ufficient that it is u&s;uall in Scrip|ture under a generall to comprehend but &s;ome particulars for which, hundreds of in&s;tances might be produced: Yea, &s;eldom in Scripture doth any generall include all particulars under it; and this kind of expre&s;&s;ion is u&s;uall in com|mon di&s;cour&s;e, <HI>All the World knowes &s;uch a thing,</HI> and <HI>who knowsaot this nor that?</HI> However therefore Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> is &s;o merrily di&s;po&s;ed, that hee will break a je&s;t upon Saint <HI>Paul</HI> rather then he will not be merry with Dr. <HI>Drake;</HI> Yet I hope it is now evident to the Reader, that Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> might well have been more &s;erious in &s;o &s;erious a matter, and that though St. <HI>Pauls</HI> Doctrine be true, yet it is mi&s;interpreted and mi&s;|applyed by M. <HI>Humphrey.</HI></P>
<P><PB N="67" REF="41">Mr. Humphrey. <HI>For the third, that he allowed of this practice, that is manife&s;t too, In that hee did not forbid it, which if it had been &s;in, he mu&s;t haue done</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Mu&s;t a Mini&s;ter, when treating of the Sacrament, or of any other Ordinance, needs particularly forbid every &s;in committed, or com|mittable again&s;t that Ordinance: then he may make Pouls work of it indeed.</P>
<P N="2">2ly. Doth Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> thinke there were no other &s;inns commited again&s;t the Sacrament, but tho&s;e mentioned in 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10. and 11. by the Apo&s;tle?</P>
<P N="3">3ly. May hee not have forbid the admitting of &s;candalous per&s;ons other-where, as 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5. 11. <HI>&amp;c?</HI></P>
<P N="4">Nay, 4ly. Doth he not forbid it, in this very Chapter. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10. 21? <HI>You cannot drink of the Cup of the Lord, and of the Cup of Devills,</HI> &amp;c. What can the meaning of the&s;e words bee, but that they who did partake of the Devills Table, might not partake of the Lords Table It was na|turally po&s;&s;ible enough (and probably divers of them who ate the Devills Sacrifices in the Idols Temple, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">id al&s;o receive the Lords Supper) but it was morally impo&s;&s;ible, becau&s;e &s;infull and pro|hibited: and by comming to the Lords Table from the Devills Table they provoked the Lord, <HI>ver.</HI> 22. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Page</HI> 49.</NOTE> But more of this, haply hereafter. Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> indeed endeavours to avoid the evi|dence of this place, &s;aying, <HI>The Apo&s;tle &s;peaks not of divers per&s;ons (in the whole Church) going to one Table, but of the &s;ame per&s;ons going to di|vers Tables: and he plainly rea&s;ons from their p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">rtaking of the one, again&s;t the other.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><PB N="68" REF="42">
<HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Its evident the Apo&s;tle &s;peaks of divers per&s;ons (&s;uppo&s;ing, as Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> would have it, they who are the Idoll-Sacrifices, did al|&s;o partake of the Lords Table, which is probable enough; though Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his ground to evidence it bee not convincing) in the whole Church going to one Table, &s;ome &s;trong Chri&s;ti|ans who took liberty to eat things offered to I|dolls, &s;ome weak Chri&s;tians who were offended with this their liberty, both Church-members, and both probably partaking of the Lords Table, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10. <HI>ver.</HI> 28, 29 32. compare 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 8. <HI>ver.</HI> 7. 10. unle&s;&s;e Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> be of the mind that only the &s;trong did receive the Lords Supper, and not the weak Brethren.</P>
<P N="2">2ly. Wee grant and agree with Mr. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> that the Apo&s;tle doth plainly rea&s;on from their partaking of one of the&s;e Tables, again&s;t their par|taking of the other, which makes much for us, and again&s;t him&s;elf. From their partaking of the Devills Table, hee argues again&s;t their partaking of the Lords Table as well as from their parta|king of the Lords Table, he argues again&s;t their partaking of the Devills Table. What follows then (by Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his own grant) but that, as tho&s;e who partake of the Lords Table, ought not to partake of the Devills Table; &s;o tho&s;e who partake of the Devills Table, ought not to partake of the Lords Table; A clear evidence for S. &s;pen&s;ion of Church-members that were Mo|rally unclean: the Apo&s;tle doth not &s;ay, they ought to be Excommunicated (in Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his &s;en&s;e, by &s;eque&s;tration from all Ordinances) but they ought not to receive the Lords Supper; and what is this but that they are to be <HI>Su&s;pended?</HI> But
<PB N="69" REF="42">
whereas he addes, <HI>Tho&s;e who were engaged from going to Idols, partook of the L<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">rds Supper: but, it was not the regenerate only, but all their intelli|gent members, were hereby engaged from Idols.</HI> Ergo, <HI>All their intelligent members partook of the Sacrament, and were to partake of it, if the Apo&s;tles argument were &s;ufficient.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> He may as well argue, Tho&s;e who were in|gaged again&s;t open renouncing of Chri&s;t, buggery, witchcraft, bla&s;phemy, murther, the &s;in again&s;t the Holy Gho&s;t, &amp;c. partook of the Lords Sup|per; but it was not the regenerate only, but all their intelligent Members, were, by the Apo&s;tles Doctrine, ingaged again&s;t the former crimes (e|ven tho&s;e who were mo&s;t guilty of them, and that upon open conviction, having no &s;hew of repentance, and &s;o being <HI>ip&s;o jure,</HI> excommuni|cate) <HI>Erg&ograve;,</HI> all their intelligent members, yea, even tho&s;e who were <HI>jure</HI> excommunicate, did partake of the Sacrament, and were to partake of it, if the Apo&s;tles argument were &s;ufficient. You &s;ee how the man ri&s;es in his latitude for admi&s;|&s;ion to the Sacrament: <HI>page</HI> 21. and 22. he yields, that per&s;ons <HI>ip&s;o jure</HI> excommunicate, may be kept from the Sacrament, though they be not actually excommunicated: <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Mr.</HI> Humph. <HI>&s;aies not &s;o in expre&s;&s;e terms, but it followes nece&s;&s;arily by con&s;e|quence fro~ his way of arguing.</HI></NOTE> Here he tells us, that even per&s;ons <HI>ip&s;o jure</HI> excommunicate ought to receive, and therefore mu&s;t not be kept back, or el&s;e the Apo&s;tles argument is not &s;ufficient. Yea further, if Mr. <HI>Humphrey's</HI> argument be good, &s;hould not children, di&s;tracted, and excommuni|cated per&s;ons, be admitted al&s;o to the Lords Table, &s;ince all the&s;e are engaged again&s;t &s;in, as well as the regenerate? But this I will not pre&s;&s;e.</P>
<P>His next proof is drawn from 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10. <HI>ver&s;e</HI>
<PB N="70" REF="43">
3, 4, 5. Here he brings in <HI>Calvin,</HI> as agreeing with him in his explication, that all the I&s;raelites were Baptized, did eat of the Manna, and drink of the Rock, and had free Admi&s;&s;ion to tho&s;e Sacra|ments. All which we ea&s;ily grant, as being clear in the Text. Again&s;t this, he &s;aies, I bring two ex|ceptions. 1. I &s;ay he &s;peaks <HI>gratis,</HI> in &s;aying they were admitted to our Sacraments.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <HI>I pray &s;ee the words: does Saint</HI> Paul <HI>&s;peak</HI> gratis: <HI>They did all eat the &s;ame &s;pi|rituall meat? &amp;c. Nay, he &s;aies not only the &s;ame &s;pirituall meat, but the &s;ame &s;pirituall Symbols, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. The words <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 span">, <HI>the &s;ame,</HI> referre clearly (as the &s;cope of the context evidenceth) not to the unity of their and our Sacraments, in order to the Symbols or Elements of each, which are as manife&s;tly di&s;tinct, as wheaten-Bread and Manna, Wine and Water: But, to their unity in receiving, or their mixed communion in tho&s;e Elements pel-mel, without di&s;tinction of good and bad, di&s;tracted or &s;ober, infant or elder per|&s;on, circumci&s;ed or uncircumci&s;ed, I&s;raelite or Heathen, in the mixed multitude, <HI>Exod.</HI> 12. 38. <HI>Numb.</HI> 11. 4.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 2<HI>ly.</HI> Their Bapti&s;me indeed had the &s;ame Symbol of <HI>Water</HI> with ours, but were their Sa|cramentall meat and drink the &s;ame Symbols with ours? then their Manna was our Manchet|bread, and their Water was our Wine. Well may Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> per&s;wade men, that all Church-members, before Excommunication, may, and ought, to be admitted to the Lords Supper, if upon his dictate, they can pre&s;ently believe, that the Manna was bread made of Wheat, and the
<PB N="71" REF="43">
Rock-Water was Wine. Chri&s;t can turn Water into Wine, but then it mu&s;t cea&s;e to be water; but Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> can make the Element of Water to be both Wine and Water at the &s;ame in&s;tant. Nor will that &s;hift help him, becau&s;e we &s;ometimes have Sack, &s;ometimes Claret: &s;ince Sack and Claret are evidently under one kinde, namely, under the kinde of Wine; but &s;o is not Water. And to &s;trip him of this cavill, let Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> give Water in &s;tead of Wine at the Sacrament, will any &s;ay, he gives the &s;ame Ele|ment, or Symboll, with Wine. I deny not, but <HI>Calvin</HI> &s;aies, they enjoyed the &s;ame &s;ymbols. But doth not Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> know, there is <HI>Identitas generica &amp; &s;pecifica,</HI> generically a man and a tree are the &s;ame; yet, it's ab&s;urd to &s;ay, A man is a tree, or, a tree is a man&punc; So, gene|rically Wine and Water are the &s;ame Symbolls, both being under the genus of <HI>corpus inanima|tum;</HI> but he who therefore &s;hould &s;ay, that Wine and Water are the &s;ame Symbols, would &s;peak incongruou&s;ly, and may as well ay, that Bread and Water are the &s;ame Symbols, &s;ince they are the &s;ame generically, as being both of them in|animate bodies. Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> therefore might well have &s;pared this <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word">, as under&s;tanding my meaning well enough; and that I grant Their Sacraments and Ours are the &s;ame as to the thing &s;ignified.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 50.</NOTE> <HI>Whereas he urges here, The Uncircumci&s;ed and Infants (which is now thrice) were admitted: his argument will but ever come to this, That becau&s;e our Scriptures &s;ometimes &s;eem to prove more, therefore they can|not prove the le&s;&s;e.</HI></P>
<P><PB N="72" REF="44"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> &s;aw he was pinched here, and might with farre more honour have confe&s;&s;ed his errour, than, by making a vainflou|ri&s;h, have bafled his Reader; e&s;pecially con&s;ide|ring, whether this place be for him or no, it is not much materiall to his cau&s;e, the Sacraments being extraordinary, both in their in&s;titution, and their u&s;e; miraculous in their in&s;titution, common in their u&s;e: And as to their Sacramen|tall Elements, their very Bea&s;ts did partake at lea&s;t of &s;ome of them, or el&s;e they mu&s;t have choaked for want of Water, <HI>Exod.</HI> 17. <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 32. 6. <HI>Numb.</HI> 20. 8. which puts a wide difference be|tween them and Sacraments in Ordinary. 2<HI>ly.</HI> Here further his vanity appears, in upbrai|ding me now the third time, with that pa&s;&s;age of Infant-Admi&s;&s;ion, which makes &s;o much for me, and again&s;t him&s;elfe. 3<HI>ly.</HI> We denie not the &s;trength of that argument (either in Scripture or el&s;e-where) drawne <HI>a majore and minus,</HI> but wil|lingly grant, where the Scripture proves the grea|ter, it proves the le&s;&s;e; where it proves <HI>more,</HI> it proves <HI>fewer,</HI> in a right &s;en&s;e: and thence we de|duce that, Where it proves excommunication, There it nece&s;&s;arily proves &s;u&s;pen&s;ion. 4<HI>ly.</HI> We &s;ay, that Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his Bulwark from this place, is a Battery again&s;t him&s;elfe, and makes him <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word">. That, he would prove out of this place, is, That all intelligent Church-Mem|bers, not actually excommunicated, ought to receive the Lords Supper, becau&s;e all intelligent Church-members did receive tho&s;e Sacraments, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10. We an&s;wer, If his argument be good from this place, then, <HI>pariratione,</HI> all unintelli|gent Church-members, yea, per&s;ons excommu|nicated,
<PB N="73" REF="44">
yea, very Heathen, (not to in&s;tance in bruit Bea&s;ts) ought to receive the Sacrament. Therefore, &s;ay we, this argument cannot &s;erve his turn, there being an apparent <HI>hiatus</HI> in it. Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> therefore <HI>pag.</HI> 50. perverts and cor|rupts the &s;cope of the Apo&s;tle, who never intended to encourage the Corinths to receive pel-mel, be|cau&s;e the I&s;raelites did &s;o: For then, by the &s;ame rea&s;on, hee &s;hould al&s;o have given incouragement ro admit pel-mel, all per&s;ons of age (living in the &s;ame Pari&s;h or Neighbourhood) to Bapti&s;m without any Examination or Confe&s;&s;ion of their Faith, they being &s;o Bapti&s;ed unto <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10. 2. whereas the apparent &s;cope of the Apo&s;tle was, to warn the Corinthians, and in them all Chri&s;tians, not to pre&s;ume upon Out|ward Priviledges, but to &s;tudy reall Piety, el&s;e they &s;hould peri&s;h for all their Priviledges; Yea, their peri&s;hing would be &s;adder, becau&s;e of their Priviledges; as is evident by comparing 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10. <HI>ver.</HI> 6. to 12.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 51.</NOTE> <HI>For the difference he makes between our Elements and theirs, which he &s;aies is manife&s;t, namely, theirs was to nouri&s;h their Bodies as well as their Souls,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>It is gro&s;&s;e, and fit for none to &s;ay but the Papi&s;ts, that hold, there is left only the qualities of the Bread (that cannot nouri&s;h) in Tran&s;ub&s;tantion.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> My words are <HI>Pag.</HI> 29, &amp; 30. <HI>Herein is a manife&s;t difference; Their Sacramentall Ele|ments had a double u&s;e and end, namely, to nou|ri&s;h their Bodies as wel as their Souls; nor had they ordinarily in the Wilderne&s;&s;e other food to live upon, and therefore mu&s;t either receive the&s;e Sa|craments or die: I hope there is not &s;uch an ab&s;o|lute
<PB N="74" REF="45">
nece&s;&s;ity of our Sacramentall Bread and Wine</HI> &amp;c. I appeal now to the Reader, whether this be gro&s;&s;e and Popi&s;h; nay, whether this bee not a very truth, which Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> cannot contradict, and therefore di&s;covers too great a &s;pirit of Cavilling and wre&s;ting my &s;en&s;e and meaning. Can any rationall man apprehend that I in&s;inuated. 1. That our Sacramentall Elements have lo&s;t their &s;ub&s;tance, and retain onely the Accidents of Bread &amp; Wine Or, 2ly. That I took away all bodily nouri&s;hment from the Sacramen|tall Elements? My &s;cope is clear that their Sacra|ments were their ordinary food, and when the people needed them no more for food, they fail|ed, <HI>Jo&s;.</HI> 5. 12. &s;o not ours; and that if they had eaten and drunk no more of their S<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">craments then we do of ours, they mu&s;t have &s;tarved and choaked, unle&s;&s;e Mr. <HI>H.</HI> could have taught them an Art, to live an whole month or &s;ix weeks upon one bit of <HI>Manna,</HI> and one draught of Water.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <HI>Whereas he &s;aies, they mu&s;t have choaked and &s;tarved al&s;o. I &s;ay, if it be ne|ce&s;&s;arily &s;in, to eat of Chri&s;t Sacramentally, unl<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;s men be regenerate, there is no doubt but they &s;hould have rather dyed than be guilty of Chri&s;ts Blood,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>If it be not a &s;in, but accidentally, here is good rea&s;on indeed for their eating and drink|ing all of them: But what rea&s;on is there, Saint</HI> Paul <HI>&s;hould parallel our eating and drinking with theirs, unle&s;&s;e it be true likewi&s;e that we are to eat?</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. For the fir&s;t Branch, he an&s;wers him&s;elf; &s;aving that his di&s;tinction whereby he oppo&s;es a &s;in nece&s;&s;arily to a &s;in accidentally, is lame as be|ing
<PB N="75" REF="45">
a di&s;tinction without a difference, in the pre|&s;ent &s;ubject; Since the &s;ame &s;in may be a &s;in acci|dentally, and yet nece&s;&s;arily a &s;in al&s;o. For ex|ample, a wicked man in hearing, praying, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> fins accidentally; yet he &s;ins nece&s;&s;arily, and can|not but &s;in &s;o long as hee continues in that e&s;tate. It is &s;o in receiving the Sacrament, and the great rea&s;on we bring for his <HI>non</HI> admi&s;&s;ion to the Sa|crament is, becau&s;e <HI>in &s;tatu quo,</HI> (under&s;tand it of actuall receiving) it cannot benefit, but will certainly hurt and prejudice him. Wicked men &s;in nece&s;&s;arily in their Ordinary repa&s;t, yet mu&s;t eat to prevent &s;tarving.</P>
<P N="2">2ly. Yet further as &s;ome other in&s;tituted precepts) this is di&s;pen&s;able with, in ca&s;e of nece&s;&s;ity: as was <HI>Davids</HI> eating the Shew-bread that was Sa|cramentall, and for the Prie&s;ts only.</P>
<P N="3">3ly. Parellels (as Similitudes) do not run on 4. feet, nor doth the pre&s;ent Parellel lie in counte|nancing a mixed communion like theirs, but in warning us, to take heed of abu&s;ing our Privi|ledges like them; we have Priviledges like them, Sacraments like them, are apt to abu&s;e our Pri|viledges like them, and upon this abu&s;e are in danger of Gods wrath as well as they. But for ad|mitting all pel-mel to the Sacrament as they did to their Sacraments of Bapti&s;m, <HI>Manna</HI> and Water, I am confident it never &s;o much as entred into the Apo&s;tles heart.</P>
<P N="4">4ly. He breaks the neck of his own Parallel, and therefore cannot blame us in making bold with it. If his Parallel run even, then, as all &s;orts without any difference did eat of the <HI>Manna,</HI> &amp; drink of the Rock, &s;o all &s;orts without any difference ought to receive the Lords Supper, and then ad|mit
<PB N="76" REF="46">
Infants, di&s;tracted and excommunicated per|&s;ons; yea, Heathen al&s;o: Which, how ab&s;urd! Had Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> &s;aid thus, <HI>What rea&s;on is there, Saint</HI> Paul <HI>&s;hould parallel our eating and drinking with theirs, unle&s;&s;e it be true likewi&s;e that we are All to to eat, to wit</HI> Infants, excommu|nicated per&s;ons, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> as they were all to eat of the <HI>Manna;</HI> the nakedne&s;&s;e of his inference would have been &s;hamefully uncovered. He therefore ve|ry prudently omits the word <HI>All,</HI> which would would have cryed out again&s;t him, <HI>Fie for &s;hame.</HI></P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <HI>I have two things here for ten|der Chri&s;tians.</HI> 1. <HI>That to eat Chri&s;t &s;ymbolically, is no &s;uch dreadful thing as is made of it, (I mean above other Ordinances): for Saint</HI> Paul <HI>makes no account to &s;ay, they all drank Sacramentally of of him, provided alwaies you come with reve|rence,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Extenuation of &s;in, and Alleviation of duty, is at be&s;t, a wrong cour&s;e to relieve tender Con&s;ciences. The Go&s;pell holds forth duty in its &s;trickne&s;&s;e, &s;in in all its aggravations more then the Law; and that Mini&s;ter who lightens ei|ther, &s;ins again&s;t <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> or again&s;t Chri&s;t, &amp; that to his own great perill. <HI>Matth.</HI> 5. 19. But herein the Go&s;pell makes amends, that it gives &s;trength, in, and through Chri&s;t, to perform in &s;incerity the &s;tricte&s;t duties, and aboundant con&s;olation in Chri&s;t again&s;t the guilt, filth, and power of the greate&s;t &s;ins repented of, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2<HI>ly.</HI> The Apo&s;tle tells us, that to eat Sacra|mentally, is of very great con&s;equence, if the dan|ger of being guilty of Chri&s;ts Body and Blood, or of eating and drinking Damnation to our &s;elves,
<PB N="77" REF="46">
be of con&s;equence. <HI>Mr. Hnmphrey</HI> tells us, to eat Chri&s;t Sacramentally is no &s;uch dreadfull thing. Whom &s;hall we believe, St. <HI>Paul,</HI> or Mr. <HI>Humphrey?</HI></P>
<P N="3">3<HI>ly.</HI> Eating Sacramentally mu&s;t needs be more dangerous, if to abu&s;e Chri&s;t at four Ordinances be more dangerous, then to abu&s;e him at one or two Ordinances.</P>
<P N="4">4<HI>ly.</HI> Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> &s;aies, there is no great danger, &s;o you come with reverence (which yet a wicked man may do in his &s;en&s;e.) St. <HI>Paul</HI> &s;aies, there is great danger in receiving unworthily; and the Scripture &s;aies in effect, they come un|worthily, who come without the Wedding-Garment; as that evill gue&s;t did, el&s;e he had not ben &s;o reproved and puni&s;hed, <HI>Matth.</HI> 22. <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 11. to 13. yet, he is not cen&s;ured for want of re|verence. Let tender con&s;ciences take heed, le&s;t by making light of &s;in and duty, they bring them|&s;elves, fir&s;t, to &s;earedne&s;&s;e, and at la&s;t, to de&s;pera|tion. There is no danger in aggravating &s;in and heightning duty, provided thereby you be driven and led to Chri&s;t: but very much dan|ger in lightning of either.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Page</HI> 52.</NOTE> 2<HI>ly. That the want of grace is no ju&s;t hinderance, or excu&s;e, from our profe&s;|&s;ion, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. By way of conce&s;&s;ion: The want of grace, is no <HI>ju&s;t</HI> hindrance to duty; yet too often it is an hindrance. And 1. naturally, to &s;ome du|ties that are more &s;pirituall and ab&s;tracted, &s;ince I cannot do the chiefe&s;t part of my duty without it. Thus he who wants a principle of Gods fear, cannot do his duty in fearing God actually.
<PB N="78" REF="47">
Here the want of grace is an impediment, though no <HI>ju&s;t</HI> impediment as to the excu&s;ing of him who omits the duty of fearing God.</P>
<P N="2">2ly. The want of grace is an impediment Mo|rally, when at pre&s;ent a per&s;on is uncapable of that, for which the Ordinance was in&s;tituted, namely, &s;pirituall Edification, which is the ca&s;e of naturall men coming to the Sacrament. And therefore, whether the want of grace may bee an excu&s;e or no its enough for our purpo&s;e, that its a <HI>Bar</HI> to &s;ome duty or Ordinance. And if a naturall man will receive, hee comes at his own perill of murthering Chri&s;t, and of eating and drinking Damnation to him&s;elf: For which indeed &s;elf-judging, rightly taken, is the remedy, but every naturall man falls infinitely &s;hort of it, as being a &s;elf ju&s;tifier, not a &s;elf-judger, till God by a Spirit of conviction force him to Legall &s;elfe-judging; and by a &s;pirit of grace lead and enable him to Evangellical &s;elf-judging.</P>
<P N="3">3ly. The want of grace is no ju&s;t excu&s;e from profe&s;&s;ion in Generall; yet may well be a Bar to &s;ome particular Act, wherein profe&s;&s;ion is held out el&s;e it were unlawfull to &s;u&s;pend per&s;ons <HI>ip&s;o jure</HI> excommunicate, which yet Mr. <HI>Humph</HI> allows.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <HI>My fourth proof was from the Parable of the Fea&s;t,</HI> Matth. 22, Luke 14. <HI>Mr.</HI> Drake <HI>here is in a &s;treight: If he allow it applica|ble to the Supper, it is clear again&s;t him. The Servants bring in all, both good and bad. If he wil not allow it, he goes again&s;t the &s;tream of Divines, and wre&s;ts out of their hands, their main Argu|ment from the exclu&s;ion of him that had not the Wedding Garment. The truth is, the Fea&s;t doth
<PB N="79" REF="47">
not &s;ignifie particularly the Supper, but it is as true it does it in general, as other Ordinances. The Fea&s;t is Je&s;us Chri&s;t,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Let Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> remember, that he who here charges me <HI>conditionally,</HI> with going again&s;t the &s;tream of Interpreters, goes him&s;elf <HI>ab|&s;olutely</HI> again&s;t the &s;tream of Divines in his Inter|pretation of 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11, about the Doctrine of the Sacrament. See his Rejoynder, <HI>pag.</HI> 32. to 38.</P>
<P N="2">2ly. Dr. <HI>Drake</HI> his &s;treight, is only in Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> his pen or phancy; he ea&s;ily grants the Fea&s;t is &s;erved at the Sacrament as well as at o|ther Ordinances, which is evident by his com|paring Chri&s;t to the Fea&s;t, the Ordinances to the Di&s;hes, in which the Fea&s;t is &s;erved. But the great Que&s;tion is, whether the Fea&s;t mu&s;t needs bee &s;er|ved to every Gue&s;t in every di&s;h.</P>
<P N="3">3ly. Taking the Parable as particularly appli|cable to the Sacrament; its &s;aid indeed, the Ser|vants brought in good and bad; but did the King or Ma&s;ter of the Fea&s;t allow cho&s;e bad Gue&s;ts? did he not in (the Parable of the Gue&s;t comming without the Garment) command tho&s;e very Servants to bind and ca&s;t out evill Gue&s;ts? I wi&s;h there were not too many Ser|vants, who bring in Gue&s;ts of all &s;orts: but let &s;uch remember, its their Lord's will &s;uch &s;hould be turned away: they who, have not the Wed|ding Garment, and care not for the Fea&s;t it &s;elf, are unworthy of the Di&s;h.</P>
<P N="4">4ly. That it cannot bee meant particularly or &s;trictly of the Sacrament or any other Ordinance, e&s;pecially in reference to <HI>hic &amp; nunc,</HI> is evident, becau&s;e tho&s;e who ab&s;ented them&s;elves upon their nece&s;&s;ary worldly occa&s;ions, are judged as
<PB N="80" REF="48">
unworthy: but certainly, he that ab&s;ents him&s;elfe from a Sermon or Sacrament upon a nece&s;&s;ary worldly occa&s;ion, is not pre&s;ently unworthy of the Marriage Fea&s;t, but he that withdraws from Chri&s;t, who is the Fea&s;t.</P>
<P N="5">5ly. Its remarkable, Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> grants, that the &s;tream of Divines improve the in&s;tance of the Gue&s;t, who wanted a Wedding Garment, again&s;t his free admi&s;&s;ion. All hee hath to &s;ay again&s;t them herein, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 53.</NOTE> is, <HI>That this exclu&s;ion, being the Act of the Lord, their Inference from it, is not well applyed.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Let Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> plead the pra|ctice of the Servants for admittance, while we have he command of the Lord for Exclu&s;ion.</P>
<P N="2">2ly. Are not tho&s;e very Servants who brought him in, commanded to &s;hut him out?</P>
<P N="3">3ly. Is not this done at the very &s;ame Sacra|ment, to which he was invited, if Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> wil needs have it to be the Sacrament?</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>Humphrey. It is true, if men be &s;candalous, they are lyable to cen&s;ure; but who does not &s;ee this upon another account, I mean of Di&s;cipline, to &s;atis&s;ie the Church, amend them, and warn o|thers. But if you do it upon this ground of &s;etting up a ai&s;criminating Ordinance, I think it not according to the mind of the Lord of the Fea&s;t.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Let Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> practi&s;e Su&s;pen&s;ion upon the account of Di&s;cipline, which is a very good and warrantable account: We &s;hall not &s;train his or any mans Con&s;cience el&s;e, to ri&s;e up to our account of a di&s;criminating Ordinance. Men may agree in the &s;ame practice, upon &s;everall principles. We have &s;everall Judgements as well
<PB N="81" REF="48">
as &s;everal palates: One may eat Sugar becau&s;e its &s;weet, an other becau&s;e its ab&s;ter&s;ive, a third be|cau&s;e its healing and con&s;olidating. Let us agree upon Unity of practice, and I hope we &s;hall not fall out upon diver&s;ity of principle. Excellent is the coun&s;ell of the Apo&s;tle 1 <HI>Phil.</HI> 4. <HI>ver.</HI> 15, 16. Let Chri&s;tians endeavour agreement in practice as far as they can, and wait upon Heaven, for fur|ther light, to reconcile them in Unity of Princi|ples.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> mi&s;takes me. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Page</HI> 54.</NOTE> I hope he takes me not for a Ranter, or One above, or again&s;t all Ordinances. Though I di&s;tingui&s;h between the Fea&s;t and the Di&s;hes, in which it is &s;erved; yet I do not &s;eparate the Fea&s;t from all the Di&s;hes. Doth it follow, a man mu&s;t eat the Fea&s;t without a Di&s;h, becau&s;e he mu&s;t not eat it in every Di&s;h? we grant all may eat the Fea&s;t in the Di&s;h of the Word. <HI>Contra,</HI> Him&s;elf would have &s;ome eat the Fea&s;t without any Di&s;h, to wit, per&s;ons ex|communicated. His fine &s;tory therefore is more applicable to him&s;elf then to us, who grudge the egge of the Go&s;pell to none, though we do not think, it is to be eaten in every &s;hell.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <HI>He urges, then &s;hould Heathen be admitted.</HI> An&s;. <HI>And &s;o they may, if they come in an orderly way.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Content, And &s;o may every Church-member if he come in an orderly way: but the ad|mittting of gro&s;ly ignorant, and &s;candalous Church-members is no orderly way.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <HI>Thirdly, Hee addes, How were the unthank full Gue&s;ts al&s;o excluded? And an&s;wers him&s;elfe, Becau&s;e they would not come.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><PB N="82" REF="49">
<HI>An&s;.</HI> Its apparent, they were &s;hut out by the de|cree of the King, <HI>Luke</HI> 14. 24. and that others were compelled in to fill the hou&s;e, that there might bee no room for the unthankful Gue&s;ts. Whence its probable, the Parable more di|rectly and immediately concerned the rejection of the Jewes, that the Gentiles might be received in <HI>Rom.</HI> 11. <HI>ver.</HI> 19, 20. 25. 28. 30.</P>
<P N="2">2ly. If it be particularly applicable to the Sacra|ment, what follows, but that they who &s;leight the Sacrament, de&s;erve to be &s;u&s;pended from it. But doth Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> think there is no &s;leighting of the Sacrament but by keeping from it? Did not he that came without the Wedding Garment &s;leight the Sacrament, as well as they who pro|fanely kept from it?</P>
<P N="3">3ly. As &s;leighters of Chri&s;t crucified, repenting, may yet partake of him; &s;o &s;leighters of the Sa|crament, the Picture of Chri&s;t crucified, may yet partake of it, upon their repentance. Only remem|ber. That, as &s;leighting is vi&s;ible or invi&s;ible, &s;o repentance mu&s;t be vi&s;ible or invi&s;ible: And if vi|&s;ible &s;leighters repent vi&s;ibly, we hope, Mr. <HI>H.</HI> nor any el&s;e &s;hall have cau&s;e to cen&s;ure us for keeping them away.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <HI>Fourthly, he tells us, Worldly bu&s;ine&s;&s;e may detain a man from the Sacrament.</HI> An&s;. <HI>Who doubts it? but there is no &s;trength in this rea&s;on.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Worldly bu&s;ine&s;&s;e detaines a man either from the time and place of receiving; or takes a man &s;o up, as hee wants time to prepare him&s;elf for the Sacrament. Upon either of the&s;e accounts ab&s;tinence is ju&s;tifiable, if the bu&s;ine&s;&s;e be indi&s;pen&s;ible. In the latter branch, worldly
<PB N="83" REF="49">
bu&s;ine&s;&s;e keeps a man from the Sacrament, becau&s;e it hinders him in order to actuall preparation. And if per&s;ons who want actuall preparation, mu&s;t for pre&s;ent ab&s;tain, doth it not follow <HI>&agrave; for|tiori,</HI> That per&s;ons who want both actuall and habituall preparation ought much more to ab|&s;tain? But &s;uch are all gro&s;sly Ignorant per&s;ons, and mo&s;t of &s;candalous per&s;ons. Let the Reader judge then whether there be not much &s;trength in my rea&s;on, what ever Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> may phan|cy to the contrary: for hee brings not one argu|ment again&s;t my rea&s;on, only with a ridiculous &s;tory indeavours to catch his Reader.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 55.</NOTE> <HI>In the way. For my quoting that text,</HI> Luke 12. 42. <HI>&amp;c. Mr.</HI> Drake <HI>need not have given me &s;uch ill words,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> I meddle not with his per&s;on; Only, <HI>I &s;ay that his Interpretation</HI> (or rather applicati|on) of that Text, to encourage Mini&s;ters to ad|mit all Intelligent Church-members pel-mel, <HI>is gro&s;&s;e, &s;encele&s;&s;e and prophane;</HI> and if my rea&s;on urged, <HI>pag.</HI> 32. be not convincing to prove it &s;o, then let me &s;uffer as a ra&s;h Cen&s;urer. If judging an errour, be it where it will, to be as bad as indeed it is, be a giving of ill words to that per&s;on who holds it, then who can unca&s;e an errour without breach of charity? I &s;hall thank Mr <HI>Humphrey</HI> for laying open my errours in their native dre&s;&s;e. Errour (as well as Vice) deforms, though it doth not un&s;tate a godly man; it doth not, I am &s;ure it &s;hould not, gain Lu&s;tre by his piety. An errour that is gro&s;&s;e, &s;en&s;ele&s;&s;e, and prophane, may bee taken notice of, and branded though it flye to a godly man for Sanctuary. I think its no breach of
<PB N="84" REF="50">
Charity &s;everely to cen&s;ure an erour in a godly per&s;on, &s;o it be without bitter reflection upon his per&s;on yet a pa&s;&s;ionate reflection is not &s;o cutting as an Ironicall reflexion.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <HI>My Fifth proof was from</HI> Johns <HI>Free-Bapti&s;m even of tho&s;e, he calls Vipers: And yet Mr.</HI> Drake <HI>as he is wont, an&s;wers me thus o|verly.</HI> He &s;aies but proves not that <HI>John</HI> Bapti&s;ed all Commers. <HI>He &s;hould &s;ay, he does not prove it, only brings Scripture for it.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. That <HI>All</HI> is not in many places to be under&s;tood Univer&s;ally, I have formerly clea|red.</P>
<P N="2">2ly. That it is not here to be taken Univer&s;al|ly, is as evident; for then <HI>John</HI> mu&s;t have Bapti|&s;ed every man and woman in <HI>Judea,</HI> and round about <HI>Jordan;</HI> which how unlikely, let Ma&s;ter <HI>Humphrey</HI> him&s;elf judge.</P>
<P N="3">3ly. That it cannot be meant of all Commers, neither is demon&s;trable from the Text, unle&s;s Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> can make it out, that all Commers did profe&s;&s;e their repentance, and confe&s;&s;e their &s;ins, <HI>Matth.</HI> 3. 6 and particularly the Phari&s;ees whom he calls a Generation of Vipers, and falls very foul upon them comming to his Bapti&s;me, <HI>ver.</HI> 7. In &s;aying therefore, Mr. <HI>Humphrey proves not.</HI> I mean, he brings not Scripture; for Scripture mi&s;interpreted and wre&s;ted is not Scripture. Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> I &s;ee is upon a merry pin, but &s;eriou&s;|ne&s;&s;e would more become him. Let the Reader peru&s;e my an&s;wer, <HI>page</HI> 32, &amp; 33. and he will ea&s;ily perceive, there is no &s;uch ground of in&s;ul|ting on Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his part.</P>
<P>For his Rule, <HI>Adultis eadem e&s;t ratio utriu&s;que
<PB N="85" REF="50">
Sacramenti.</HI> I mu&s;t tel I him again, It makes much for us, and again&s;t him&s;elf. Since by this Rule at every Sacrament, men ought to give an account of their faith, as they do at Bapti&s;me. The force of this an&s;wer to avoid, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 56.</NOTE> Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> &s;huffles <HI>pag.</HI> 56, and tell us, there is <HI>eadem ratio,</HI> but not <HI>in omnibus, and that the very comming of Church-members is their pro|fe&s;&s;ion.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Is it fair Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> &s;hould bring a Rule to bind us, and yet will not be bound by it him&s;elf?</P>
<P N="2">2ly. Whether it hold <HI>in omnibus</HI> or no, it mu&s;t hold in the matter controverted. Now the bu&s;i|ne&s;&s;e in controver&s;ie between me and Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> is, whether every Receiver before receiving ought to make profe&s;&s;ion of his faith and repen|tance. This Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> denies, and for an argument makes u&s;e of this Rule, <HI>Adulits eadem e&s;t ratio,</HI> &amp;c. We &s;ay, Content, but <HI>Adulti</HI> are bound to profe&s;&s;e their faith and repentance before Bapti&s;me, therefore they are bound to profe&s;&s;e the &s;ame before Receiving, for (according to Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his Rule) there is the &s;ame rea&s;on of both Sacraments. And as the offering of ownes &s;elf to Bapti&s;m, is not &s;ufficient profe&s;&s;ion in or|der to Bapti&s;m; &s;o the offering of ones &s;elf to the Lords Supper, is not profe&s;&s;ion &s;ufficient in order to the receiving of the Lords Sup|per.</P>
<P>M. Humphrey. <HI>My proof is</HI> Acts 2. 41, 42, 46. <HI>which Text he leaves out; you may conceive, it hath &s;ilenced him: For while we find thou&s;ands admitted thus freely and equally (not omitting his phra&s;e of pel-mel) in their breaking bread (I
<PB N="86" REF="51">
&s;ay even wholly alike) as in doctrine and prayer, we dare not fall down to that Sacramentall Rule upon tryall he would &s;et up.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. What ever Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> may think of me, I hope one convincing Scripture for his feee Admi&s;&s;ion, &s;hould have &s;ilenced me every where and not onely here. I de&s;ire to bee in their Num|ber, who can do nothing again&s;t the Truth, but for the Truth.</P>
<P N="2">2ly. Not conviction of the &s;trength, but appre|hen&s;ion of the weakne&s;&s;e of his proof as to the point intended, together with &s;tudy of brevity, made me pa&s;&s;e it over in &s;ilence. But &s;ince he will needs have me lay open his nakedne&s;&s;e, as well here as el&s;e where, I &s;hall not think much of my paines for his further conviction, and the Rea|ders &s;atisfaction.</P>
<P N="3">3ly. Their Admi&s;&s;ion, therefore, pel-mel makes nothing for Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his Admi&s;&s;ion pel|mel &s;ince tho&s;e three thou&s;and had but ju&s;t be|fore made profe&s;&s;ion of their faith and repentance; 2ly. Held forth that profe&s;&s;ion exemplarily both in works of Piety and Charity. 3ly. But two of them <HI>(Ananias &amp; Saphira)</HI> contradicting their profe&s;&s;ion by Hypocri&s;y, were put to an other|gates Te&s;t then our Church-members are. <HI>Con|tra,</HI> Divers of our Church-members are gro&s;&s;ely ignorant, or openly pro&s;ane, covetous, griping, oppre&s;&s;ive, or erroneous and hereticall in funda|mentalls. Will Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> put no difference between the fir&s;t and pure&s;t Primitive Church and our leavened Congregations?</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>Humphrey.</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 67.</NOTE> <HI>My &s;eventh Text was</HI> Acts 10. 28. <HI>which I apply onely as to the Expre&s;&s;ion: Yet does he pur &s;ue it in four pittifull exceptions,</HI>
<PB N="87" REF="51">
pag. 34, 35. <HI>The fir&s;t whereof is untrue: Saint</HI> Paul <HI>&s;aies not,</HI> Tit. 1. 15. <HI>The unbeliever is un|cleane to us, but all things are uncleane to him.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Are tho&s;e words Dr. <HI>Drakes</HI> which fir&s;t he pins upon my &s;lieve, and then charges with un|truth? My words are the&s;e, <HI>That God, who taught</HI> Peter <HI>to count no man unclean, taught</HI> Paul <HI>to count &s;ome men unclean; yea, per&s;ons within the Church, and not excommuni|cated,</HI> Tit. 1. 15, 16. where, in all the&s;e words, do I &s;ay, <HI>The Unbeliever is unclean to us?</HI> Doth not the Text brand &s;ome with defilement as well as unbelief?</P>
<P N="2">2ly. Doth not the Apo&s;tle explain what defile|ment he means, when he tells us, their very mind and Con&s;cience is defiled?</P>
<P N="3">3ly. Is not this contradictory to Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> his profe&s;&s;ion: That he counts no man un|clean, unle&s;&s;e excommunicaeed? I had thought Excommunication did not make a man unclean, but declare him to be unclean, and ca&s;t him out as unclean, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5. 7. The ince&s;tuous <HI>Corinth</HI> was a Leaven of uncleane&s;&s;e before hee was ca&s;t out. His &s;in made him unclean really, Excommu|nication declaratively.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 57.</NOTE> <HI>This Text</HI> Act, 10. 38. <HI>may be full and &s;olid, for tho&s;e weak Chri&s;tians who think they &s;hall be defiled if they communicate in our mixt Churches, though it reach not others. Mr.</HI> Drake <HI>&s;hould be more tender then to debili|tate their &s;upports.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. It follows not, that becau&s;e <HI>Peter</HI> was to count no man Levitically unclean, therefore we mu&s;t count no man Morally unclean.</P>
<P N="2">2ly. Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> knows, its my declared
<PB N="88" REF="52">
judgement, that he who is ab&s;olutely unclean, is not &s;traightwaies relatively unclean: and that wicked mens pre&s;ence and receiving doth not defile the godly who receive with them; but the godly contract guilt and pollution by virtuall con&s;ent to their wickedne&s;&s;e, as if they do not reprove them, or inform again&s;t them being ob&s;ti|nate. I hope tender Con&s;ciences will not look at me, as one that debilitates their &s;upports, becau&s;e I cannot encourage them to build upon a &s;andy-Foundation. Sin cannot defile me but by a touch, 1 <HI>John</HI> 5. 18. It cannot touch me but by con&s;ent either formall or virtuall. Its not &s;in in the wic|ked, but &s;infull connivance in the godly, that doth defile the godly. <HI>Levit.</HI> 5. 1. &amp; 19. 17.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 58.</NOTE> <HI>While per&s;ons are Federally cleane, wee need not doubt that they may bee communicated withall, without any pollution; and a man is not Faederally unclean, till excommunica|ted.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> Bee per&s;ons federally clean or unclean, they may bee communicated withall without pollution, provided I do my endeavour in my place to reform them or keep them away. Suppo&s;e through the connivance of Church-Officers, an Heathen or per&s;on excommunicated come and partake of the Sacrament: This great di&s;order I di&s;&s;ent from, complain of, and de&s;ire it may bee reformed, but my de&s;ire will not be granted &s;hall his pre&s;ence and receiving either defile or turn me from the Sacrament? Its their &s;in indeed who ad|mit him, and who give con&s;ent to his admi&s;&s;ion; but the pre&s;ence and partaking of &s;uch a one, is no Bar to my receiving, nor can defile me having done my duty. A man might bee Levitically defi|led
<PB N="89" REF="52">
without, yea again&s;t his con&s;ent, but &s;o hee cannot be morally defiled. But what is all this to their receiving, and the Churches admitting of them? A per&s;on unclean may &s;in by receiving, and the Church by admitting him wittingly, while at the &s;ame time his pre&s;ence and receiving defiles none who are innocent.</P>
<P N="2">2ly. Children of Chri&s;tian Parents are faede|rally clean by Birth, before they are admitted &s;olemnly into the Church by Bapti&s;m, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 7. 14. nor doth faederall holine&s;s cea&s;e til them&s;elves do formally renounce Chri&s;t and the Covenant, and thereby cut off them&s;elves and their Po&s;terity. <HI>Rom.</HI> 11 19, 20. Hence one that turnes witch, Jew or Pagan is faederally unclean, though he or &s;he be not excommunicated: And a per&s;on ex|communicated, may after Excommunication be both faederally and really holy, &s;ince Excommu|nication, till it ri&s;e up to <HI>Maran-atha,</HI> is medi|cinall and not de&s;tructive, as a branch cut off, that it may fa&s;ter and better be grafted in. He erres then, in making. Faederall holine&s;&s;e to lie in Church-member&s;hip, &s;eeing a man may be a Church-member, and yet faederally unholy; and faederally holy, yet no Church-member in his &s;ence.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>Humphrey. He objects,</HI> wicked Chri&s;ti|ans reject Chri&s;t, <HI>pag.</HI> 35. <HI>and an&s;wers him&s;elf with me,</HI> pag. 84. Though they tran&s;gre&s;&s;e, they do not renounce the Covenant as Turks do, and are Church-members, till Excommunica|cated.</P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Set both Propofitions together, 1. <HI>Prop.</HI> Wicked Chri&s;tians reject Chri&s;t. 2. <HI>Prop.</HI> Wicked Chri&s;tians do not renounce the Cove|nant
<PB N="90" REF="53">
as Turkes do, and are Church-members till excommunicated. If the&s;e three, a rejecter of Chri&s;t, a Church-member, and a <HI>non</HI>-renouncer of the Covenant, may &s;tand together in a right &s;ence, then here is no contradiction: but the&s;e three may &s;tand together in a right &s;ence; In&s;tance in <HI>Simon-Magus, Acts</HI> 8. By his wickedne&s;&s;e he rejected Chri&s;t virtually, compare 1 <HI>Sam.</HI> 10. 19. <HI>John</HI> 12. 48. Yet at the &s;ame time he was a Church-member, and did not renounce Chri&s;t for|mally.</P>
<P N="2">2ly. Therefore there is a twofold renouncing of Chri&s;t, 1. Virtuall by wittingly acting or li|ving in any known &s;in, e&s;pecially gro&s;&s;e and &s;candalous. 2ly. Formall and expre&s;&s;e by word and deed, as Witches, Jews, and Turks do. Both the&s;e a man may do &amp; yet be a Church-member, (in Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his &s;ence) till Excommu|nicated. The latter makes him faederally unclean, not &s;o the former at lea&s;t pre&s;ently. Therefore the Children of the former are more capable of Bap|ti&s;m then the Children of the latter; yea, &s;uppo|&s;ing the former were Excommunicated, the lat|ter not: much more, if the former be not Ex|communicated. A formall and expre&s;&s;e rejection of Chri&s;t and the Covenant, contributes far more to Separation from Chri&s;t, then a virtuall and in|terpretative rejecting of either. By all hath been &s;aid, it appears that by the two forementioned places compared (which Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> would faine &s;et together by the Ears) I an&s;wer, not my &s;elf but Mr. <HI>Humphrey.</HI> My other three excepti|ons, becau&s;e he only Quibbles upon them, but an&s;wers them not, I pa&s;&s;e; as al&s;o his vapour in the clo&s;e, &s;ince my work is not to an&s;wer words but Arguments.</P>
<P><PB N="91" REF="53">Mr. Humphrey. <HI>For the clo&s;e hereof, I gathe|red up &s;ome Texts, as,</HI> Rev. 22. 17. <HI>&amp;c. that doth &s;et forth the mo&s;t free offers of Je&s;us Chri&s;t, which, though Mr.</HI> Drake <HI>make but light of, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. I make not light of the offers of free grace, but &s;ay, tho&s;e free offers are no ground for his Free Admi&s;&s;ion to the Sacrament, &s;ince tho&s;e offers are free to Heathen and excommuni|cate per&s;ons (as well as to Church-Members) who undoubtedly are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper. 2<HI>ly.</HI> Add Church-member&s;hip to the&s;e free offers, &s;ince per&s;ons, <HI>jure</HI> excommuni|cate, are Church-members, and are al&s;o under the&s;e free offers; yet, may be kept away, as Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> grants, <HI>page</HI> 21. Is it not evident, that free grace may be conditionally offered and applyed to Church members, though they do not receive the Sacrament, but are ju&s;tly barr'd from it for the pre&s;ent. 3<HI>ly.</HI> Whereas he addes, <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t is proportionably gratious in his ex|rernall, as he is in his internall priviledges, &amp;c.</HI> What followes from thence, but that as they who reject internall priviledges, &s;hall mi&s;&s;e of, and be kept from, them; &s;o they who reject externall priviledges (further then tho&s;e priviledges are ne|ce&s;&s;ary, in order to their conver&s;ion) ought to be kept from them.</P>
<P><HI>Object.</HI> True if they reject them: But we keep many away who de&s;ire the Sacrament. <HI>An&s;.</HI> So Chri&s;t keeps internall priviledges from many, who, in &s;ome &s;en&s;e, de&s;ire them, <HI>Luke</HI> 13. 24. May not an Hypocrite de&s;ire truth of grace, as a nece&s;&s;ary means to free him from Hell &amp;c. who yet at the &s;ame time, rejects and hates holine&s;&s;e?
<PB N="92" REF="54">
Now the &s;igne and thing &s;ignified are Correlates, and he that rejects either, rejects both interpre|tatively. He then that rejects Grace, rejects the Sa|crament the &s;igne of Grace; and therefore upon Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his own Principle, ought to be kept from it, unle&s;&s;e actuall receiving be a con|verting Ordinance, &amp;c. of which afterwards. What therefore Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> &s;aies, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 59.</NOTE> <HI>What &s;en&s;e is there in this? Je&s;us Chri&s;t is to be freely &s;hew|ed forth, to bring men home effectually to him; and yet mu&s;t the Receiver make out that right unto the Mini&s;ter, before we dare offer, or condi|tionally apply him to them,</HI> reaches not our ca&s;e home: We granting that Chri&s;t ought to be free|ly offered, and conditionally applyed to all, be they Church-members or not: But, is there no way of offering, or conditionally applying, Chri&s;t, to all, or to any, but by his actuall re|ceiving the Sacrament?</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <HI>We mu&s;t not make the notion of &s;ealing &s;o dreadfull, and bring &s;o much blood upon our &s;oules; we need not fear to judge the Heathen, vi&s;ible Rebels, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. If the notion of <HI>Sealing</HI> a mans own Damnation mu&s;t not be made dreadfull, I know not what mu&s;t. 2<HI>ly.</HI> What ever cavill may be made about the notion of <HI>Sealing,</HI> he will not deny, but to eat and drink a mans own Dam|nation, is very dreadfull; and that, every one who receives unworthily, doth, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11. 29. 3<HI>ly.</HI> We &s;hould not indeed bring &s;o much blood upon our &s;oules; but they who receive unworthi|ly, do bring &s;o much blood upon their own &s;oules, if the Apo&s;tle &s;peak true, <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 27. and they who admit &s;uch, when they may be regu|larly
<PB N="93" REF="54">
kept away, are acce&s;&s;ary to this their blood|guiltine&s;&s;e. 4<HI>ly.</HI> Are Heathen vi&s;ible Rebells, who never profe&s;t &s;ubjection to Chri&s;t; and is not he a vi&s;ible Rebell, who after, yea under, profe&s;t &s;ubjection, acts open Rebellion, doing the &s;ame, and wor&s;e, acts of ho&s;tility again&s;t Chri&s;t, than Heathen do? 2 <HI>Kings</HI> 21. 11. and, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5. 1. Was not <HI>Judas,</HI> at the time of Chri&s;ts apprehen|&s;ion, for all his profe&s;&s;ion, as vi&s;ible an enemy of Chri&s;t, as the Ruffians who came to take him? 5<HI>ly.</HI> Should not all care and diligence be u&s;ed to di&s;cover and make vi&s;ible tho&s;e <HI>Juda&s;&s;es,</HI> who after, and under, profe&s;&s;ion, are wor&s;e enemies of Chri&s;t, than heathen are, <HI>Matth.</HI> 19. <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 14, 27. <HI>Rev.</HI> 3. <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 15, 16.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Page</HI> 60.</NOTE> <HI>The word is no &s;ealed word, (even outwardly) but to the Church.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> This is <HI>gratis dictum.</HI> In the Word Preached, the Covenant is held forth conditio|nally to all the World, in&s;tance, <HI>Mark</HI> 16. 16. and <HI>John</HI> 3. 16. And if all the World be in the Covenant conditionally, then when ever the Covenant is &s;ealed (as it is ever in the Sacrament) it's &s;ealed to all the World conditionally, and that whether they receive or no; yea, though they be not &s;o much as pre&s;ent, as a Pardon may be &s;ealed conditionally to Traytors, though they be ab&s;ent; yea, in the height of their Rebellion: Is Chri&s;ts death &s;hewed forth to all at the Sacra|ment, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11. 26. and is it not offered to all at the Sacrament, and &s;ealed there to all condi|tionally? Why may not open Rebells be pre&s;ent at the &s;ealing, as well as at the publication of a Pardon? Here &s;eemes to lie Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his great mi&s;take, in that he thinks the Covenant is
<PB N="94" REF="55">
not &s;ealed to me, unle&s;&s;e I actually receive. Indeed by receiving, I, in a &s;peciall manner, put to my Seal, and God doth more particularly &s;eal to me; but, whether I receive or no, God, in the Sacrament, &s;eales to the Covenant, in which, I being comprehended as a party, its no more ab|&s;urd, the Covenant &s;hould be &s;ealed to me, being ab&s;ent, then it is ab&s;urd, a Covenant of Inden|tures &s;hould be &s;ealed to a per&s;on ab&s;ent; yea, to a child unborn, who likewi&s;e doth &s;eal vir|tually, though not formally. As at every Bap|ti&s;me grace redounds, and the Covenant is by it &s;ealed, not only to the party Baptized, but al&s;o to all pre&s;ent, yea, to all the world conditional|ly, who are not hindred from pre&s;ence at any Bapti&s;ing: And why &s;hould it not be &s;o at the Lords Supper.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <HI>We cannot compell any tryall of Church-members more (unle&s;&s;e by way of Catechi&s;me and In&s;truction, wherein yet, there is no man too old to learn,</HI> Luke 14.) <HI>but it mu&s;t be as to the truth of their profe&s;&s;ion, or effectuall &s;incerity: which for to do (where no &s;candall calls them in que&s;tion) is to go about to judge mens hearts, and to enter into the &s;eat of God, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Note it, Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> grants we may compell tryall of Church-members, by way of Catechi&s;me and In&s;truction, from <HI>Luke</HI> 14. 23. and that mone are too old to learn. Doth not Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> know, that one great make-bate is, becau&s;e many Elder per&s;ons will not be per|&s;waded, much le&s;&s;e compelled, to tryall, by way of Catechi&s;ing, no, not by their own Mini&s;ter, though none of the Elders be pre&s;ent?</P>
<P N="2">2<HI>ly.</HI> By Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his own confe&s;&s;ion,
<PB N="95" REF="55">
in &s;ome ca&s;es per&s;ons may be tryed, as to the truth of their profe&s;&s;ion, or effectuall &s;incerity, to wit, when &s;ome &s;candall calls them in que&s;tion. Let Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> give any Scripture-rule for &s;uch tryall, in ca&s;e of &s;candall, which will not extend to the like tryall upon other occa&s;ions.</P>
<P N="3">3<HI>ly.</HI> If tryall, as to the truth of profe&s;&s;ion, be a going about to judge mens hearts, and to enter into the &s;eat of God, how can Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> allow it at any time, in any ca&s;e? If it be not an entring into the &s;eat of God, then Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> his main Argument again&s;t it, failes him.</P>
<P N="4">4<HI>ly.</HI> If putting a man to the te&s;t about his &s;in|cerity, be an entring into the &s;eat of God, then <HI>Philip</HI> in asking the Eunuch, <HI>Whether he be|lieved with all his heart, Acts</HI> 8. 37. entred into the &s;eat of God; and Mini&s;ters, when they ask the party Bapti&s;ed (&s;uppo&s;ing he be of age) <HI>Do&s;t thou for &s;ake the Devi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">l and all his works, &amp;c.</HI> enter into the &s;eat of God: Yea, then <HI>Jehu</HI> as|king <HI>Jehonadab,</HI> 2 <HI>Kings,</HI> 10. 15. <HI>Is thy heart right, as my heart is with thy heart?</HI> entred into the &s;eat of God. He indeed that will undertake to know the heart immediately, intuitively, and infallibly, enters into the &s;eat of God: Not &s;o, I hope, he, who by di&s;cour&s;e, ob&s;ervation, and con&s;equent effects, labours to draw out what is in the heart, <HI>Prov.</HI> 20. 5. The Tree may be known by its Fruit, yea, by its Leaves; and the heart may be known by &s;ome expre&s;&s;ions and actions, or at lea&s;t &s;hreudly gue&s;t at: Otherwi&s;e how <HI>did Peter perceive Simon Magus to be in the gall of bitterne&s;&s;e, Acts</HI> 8. 23. yet, I hope at that time, he entred not into the &s;eat of God. A dying man &s;ends for his Mini&s;ter to comfort him: May not
<PB N="96" REF="56">
the Mini&s;ter puts him to the Te&s;t, whether, at lea&s;t in the judgment of charity, he be a &s;ubject ca|pable of comfort: May he not 1. try him in point of Knowledge? 2<HI>ly.</HI> May he not enquire about his truth of grace, and from Scripture-evi|dence, labour to finde out whether he hath true faith and repentance, that accordingly, he may either comfort or warn him? 3<HI>ly.</HI> In &s;o do|ing, is he ju&s;tly chargeable with entring into the &s;eat of God? Do we any more to people, in order to their Sacramentall preparation, then they will be glad to have us do at the houre of their death, if they have any &s;en&s;e of their &s;pirituall condition, and minde their poor &s;oules in any mea&s;ure? The truth is, if many of our people minded Heaven but halfe &s;o much as they minde Earth, they would upon their very knees intreat us, to do that again&s;t every Sacrament, which we beg of them we may do but once, in order to their edification, comfort, and &s;alvation: Yet, they will not hearken unto us, upon which ac|count, in &s;ome poor mea&s;ure (though we dare not &s;ay, we have endeavoured our uttermo&s;t, <HI>de jure,</HI> in any thing) we may wa&s;h our hands from the guilt of the blood of their poor &s;oules. Oh Sir, I be&s;eech you do not bol&s;ter up People in that, of which one day, both you and them|&s;elves will &s;ee, there is great cau&s;e to repent.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <HI>I mu&s;t confe&s;&s;e, I believe, it was only the zeal and piety of good men, that made them thus to ri&s;e up again&s;t ignorance and &s;in, without intending to enter upon Gods Throne; but, if we have erred, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Sir, you &s;peak in part, truly and cha|ritably, as to the fir&s;t branch: Therefore I be|&s;eech
<PB N="97" REF="56">
you, be not a Quench-cole to that zeal and piety.</P>
<P N="2">2ly. It was not a blind zeal acted them herein, but a zeal according to knowledge; I be&s;eech you, do not &s;eek to hide that Light under a Bu&s;hell.</P>
<P N="3">3ly. In &s;o doing, they neither did, nor inten|ded to enter upon Gods Throne. I be&s;eech you, do not charge them fal&s;ely and uncharitably: <HI>But where you have erred</HI> (I wi&s;h the &s;ame to my &s;elf) by fal&s;e Doctrine, mi&s;application and wrong-imputations, <HI>be content to lie down in the du&s;t, to acknowledge the truth whereby you may be &s;weetly led to acknowledge Gods hand in return|ing your Captivity from the Rivers of</HI> Babel, <HI>when you have &s;ate down and wept,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="6" TYPE="section">
<HEAD><HI>Sect</HI> VI.</HEAD>
<P>Having &s;urveyed Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his &s;tating of the Que&s;tion, and his proofs from Scripture, and laid open what &s;trength or weakne&s;&s;e I apprehend therein; I &s;hall now proceed to his Rea&s;ons and Arguments, with candor and &s;implicity of heart by the grace of God, as in the pre&s;ence of God, to whom both of us mu&s;t one day give an account of this, and all other our Tran&s;actions. Glad &s;hall I be to clo&s;e with him in any truth, and to keep company with him one mile, if I cannot goe with him twain: And where I am forced to &s;hake hands with him, I &s;hall endeavour to give him and others &s;uch grounds of my di&s;&s;atisfaction in the Spirit of meekne&s;&s;e, as thereby it may ap|pear, I do not act either irrationally or unchari|tably. The Lord &s;end the Spirit of truth, grace and love into all our hearts, to lead us into all truth, holine&s;&s;e and unity.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 61.</NOTE> <HI>My fir&s;t rea&s;on was from the
<PB N="98" REF="57">
nature of the Sacrament, It is the &s;hewing of Chri&s;ts death, a vi&s;ible Go&s;pell, and &s;o a firm ground of free Admi&s;&s;ion. Unto this the &s;um of what he &s;aies over and over from</HI> pag. 37. <HI>to</HI> pag. 52. <HI>comes but to this.</HI> All may be pre&s;ent, but not actually receive, granting the foundation.</P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. If the Reader wil plea&s;e to peru&s;e my Text, I am confident he will be more candid to me then Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> hath been, and not judge I have &s;pent tho&s;e &s;even or eight leaves in meer tautologies. Such weak imputations argue more &s;trength of pa&s;&s;ion then of rea&s;on, and &s;erve rather to catch, than to convince the Reader.</P>
<P N="2">2ly. Can there be fairer play then to yield my Antagoni&s;t (by way of po&s;ition or &s;uppo&s;ition) as much as he de&s;ires for his &s;tronger convicti|on?</P>
<P N="3">3ly. If Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his Free-Admi&s;&s;ion flow not from this Principle, I hope he will remem|ber him&s;elf better, and not here-after charge his Brethren as going about to aboli&s;h the remem|brance of Chri&s;ts death, becau&s;e they cannot ad|mit all as Receivers, whom yet they are willing to admit as Auditors and Spectators at the Lords Supper, be they Church-members or no: And I think in &s;o doing, we make better provi&s;ion for the Publi&s;hing and declaring of Chri&s;ts death, then Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> doth by admitting onely Church-members, and &s;hutting the Chancell|door again&s;t all others, as if men might not &s;ee Chri&s;t crucyfied, and hear a crucified Saviour &s;peak, becau&s;e they may not feed Sacramentally upon a crucified Saviour.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <HI>I &s;hall begin with the la&s;t. His
<PB N="99" REF="57">
words are the&s;e.</HI> The word and the Sacrament, tis true, mu&s;t go hand in hand together: but the Covenant of grace, or the Word is not (vi&s;ibly) applicable to all, therefore not the Sacrament. Mr. <HI>H. For my an&s;wer to this, which is all his weight with but a very few grains more: We mu&s;t know, The Mini&s;ters of Chri&s;t are the Mini&s;ters of the New-Covenant to be revealed, &amp; that not of the ab&s;olute,</HI> Heb. 8. <HI>which is &s;ecret, and belonging to Election;</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 62.</NOTE> <HI>but of the conditionall Covenant, (or the Covenant in its conditionall capacity) which is tenderable to all the World and that more e&s;|pecially applicable with a di&s;tinction of outward priviledges, and intere&s;t to the Church. Now look what is the Tenor of the Covenant, the Sa|crament &s;eales; and nothing el&s;e. May not I &s;ay to all, and every Intelligent Church-member, If thou believe thou &s;halt be &s;aved? and may not I &s;eal to &s;uch what the Word &s;aies?</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Granting we are Mini&s;ters of the con|ditionall Covenant, how doth that exclude us from being Mini&s;ters of the ab&s;olute Covenant? Is not the ab&s;olute Covenant revealed in the Word, as well as the Conditionall Covenant; and ought not Mini&s;ters to declare unto people the whole Coun&s;ell of God. <HI>Acts</HI> 20. 29. Is not the writing of the Law in the heart, part of the ab&s;olute Covenant, <HI>Heb.</HI> 8. 10? and is not the whole Covenant of Grace &s;ealed at the Sacra|ment? Are not Mini&s;ters In&s;truments of Conver&s;i|on, and Edification, and thereby of applying the ab&s;olute Covenant. 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 3. 6? Is the Sacra|ment (in Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his profe&s;t judgement) a means of Conver&s;ion, and yet hath it nothing to do with the ab&s;olute Covenant?</P>
<P N="2"><PB N="100" REF="58">
2ly. If the Conditionall Covenant be tende|rable to all the World (as Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> right|ly a&s;&s;erts) will it not follow (he building his Free-admi&s;&s;ion upon this Principle) that all the World ought to be admitted to the Sacrament. To u&s;e his own words, <HI>May not I &s;ay to all</HI> (not onely to every intelligent Church-member) <HI>If thou be|lieve&s;t, thou &s;halt be &s;aved? and may not I &s;eal to &s;uch what the Word &s;aies?</HI> Chri&s;t is tenderable to all, conditionally, be they Church-members or no, and that in every Ordinance, therefore e|ven Heathen may be pre&s;ent at prayer, hearing, Bapti&s;m, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> and why not proportionably at the Lords Supper, <HI>&amp;c?</HI> in all which the conditi|onall tender of Chri&s;t is univer&s;ally held forth. But doth it thence follow that Chri&s;t is, or mu&s;t be applyed to all by way of promi&s;e or Seal in either of the&s;e? The Latitude then of the Cove|nant-tender, is no ground for the Latitude of Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his Free-Admi&s;&s;ion.</P>
<P N="3">3ly. Nor will the Latitude of the Covenant Tender, prove it &s;hould be apply'd by the Sacra|ment to all Intelligent Church-members: for then it ought to be applyed to per&s;ons <HI>jure</HI> Excommu|nicate, who yet (according to truth, and Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his own grant) may be &s;u&s;pended. Might not <HI>Theodo&s;ius</HI> have pleaded the Latitude of the Co|venant, when <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> denyed him the Sacrament divers months together for his cruelty in Ma&s;&s;a|cring thou&s;ands of The&s;&s;alonians upon the The|ater? Yea, might he not have pleaded, that con&s;i|dering his great guilt he had more need to receive the Sacrament, that thereby he might &s;eal Dam|nation to him&s;elf for his deeper conviction and humiliation? yea, if Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his Doctrine
<PB N="101" REF="58">
in this particular be true, ought not per&s;ons <HI>jure</HI> excommunicate, of all others, to be admitted to receive, that thereby they may &s;eal damnati|on to them&s;elves?</P>
<P><Q REND="inline"><HI>D. Dr. page</HI> 42. Dares Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> &s;ay to a per&s;on in the &s;tate of Nature, Sir, All the benefits of the Covenant are actually yours! The Language of every actuall giving is, Chri&s;t is thine in particular.</Q></P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <HI>I an&s;wer, this is a manife&s;t errour: The Language of the Sacrament, is the Language of the Covenant; and that is not, Chri&s;t is thine, but Chri&s;t is thine if thou wilt believe. And who doubts, but I dare &s;ay &s;o to one in the &s;tate of Nature, conceiving we know it not, and cannot judge thereof.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. That the Language of the Sacrament is, Chri&s;t is thine, and that in a &s;aving way: Let our Saviour be judge, <HI>Luke</HI> 22. <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 19, 20. <HI>This is my Body which is given for you,</HI> not again&s;t you: And, <HI>This Cup is the New Te&s;ta|ment in my Blood, which is &s;hed for you;</HI> and for what end? &s;ee <HI>Matth.</HI> 26. 28. <HI>for the remi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins:</HI> Which words we u&s;e as an Argument, to prove <HI>Judas</HI> did not receive, &s;ince our Savi|our could not &s;ay to <HI>Judas</HI> (who was to Chri&s;t vi&s;ibly in the &s;tate of Nature) This is my blood which is &s;hed for thee, for the remi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins. And that it is otherwi&s;e with any receiver, is ac|cidentall by rea&s;on of his unworthine&s;&s;e: which unworthine&s;&s;e, if it may be di&s;cerned, why ought not Church-Officers, by Su&s;pen&s;ion, to prevent the &s;in and mi&s;ery of &s;uch a per&s;on, at lea&s;t in part?</P>
<P N="2">2<HI>ly.</HI> Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> wrongs my An&s;wer, by
<PB N="102" REF="59">
leaving out a very materiall word in it: My words are the&s;e, <Q REND="inline">Dare Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> &s;ay to a per&s;on, <HI>vi&s;ibly</HI> in the &s;tate of Nature, Be a&s;&s;u|red, &amp;c?</Q> But, in quoting my An&s;wer, he leaves out the word <HI>vi&s;ibly,</HI> to my no &s;mall prejudice. We dare &s;ay, to per&s;ons in the &s;tate of Nature, (where we have not clear evidence again&s;t them, or good ground to &s;u&s;pect their &s;incerity) from the fair account they give us, of the truth of grace in them, <HI>All the benefits of the Covenant of grace, are thine;</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>By which a&s;&s;ertion we do not exclude Mr.</HI> Humphrey <HI>his &s;uppo&s;ition</HI> (Chri&s;t is thine if thou believe) <HI>but declare our per&s;wa&s;ion about &s;uch a per&s;on; namely, that we believe he hath the condition, which entitles him to Chri&s;t, as,</HI> 2 Tim. 1. 5. <HI>which per&s;wa&s;ion we cannot have of any, who is vi&s;ibly in the &s;tate of Nature, and therefore dare not &s;ay to him,</HI> Chri&s;t is thine.</NOTE> yea, we dare in the Name of the Lord command them to believe &s;o, where we have no ground to &s;u&s;pect the ab&s;ence of the Condition in them, but have very good evidence of the condition of the Covenant performed in them, and by them through grace. If upon tryall we have ground to &s;u&s;|pect them, then we can &s;peak tho&s;e words to them only conditionally: But, when we have evidence they are in the &s;tate of Nature, and know they have not the Condition, it's in vain to &s;ay to them in that e&s;tate, Chri&s;t is thine, if thou do believe; And it's all one, as if I &s;hould &s;ay to a proud and in&s;olent Traytor, acting in the height of Rebellion, Sir, Pardon is yours, if you do come in and &s;ubmit; taking the words in their Grammaticall con&s;truction, I may a&s;&s;ure him he &s;hall be pardoned, if he will pre|&s;ently come in, and &s;ubmit: But, it's incongru|ous to &s;ay, Sir, Pardon is yours, if you do &s;ub|mit, &s;ince at pre&s;ent he is vi&s;ibly neither an object
<PB N="103" REF="59">
of pardon, nor a &s;ubject of &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion. Upon which account I apprehend tho&s;e expre&s;&s;ions of Mr. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> not &s;o congruous, <HI>Chri&s;t is thine, if thou wilt believe:</HI> I may &s;ay, Chri&s;t is thine, if thou do believe, where I have not clear evidence of the dominion of unbeliefe: Or, Chri&s;t &s;hall be thine, if thou wilt believe, where I have never &s;o clear evidence of unbeliefe in dominion: But, to apply the Promi&s;e, <HI>de prae&s;enti,</HI> upon a conditi|on, <HI>de futuro,</HI> I think is neither Grammaticall, Logicall, nor Theologicall: Some truth there may be in it, if under&s;tood Rhetorically; but Rhetorick is fitter for an Oratour, then a Di&s;|putant.</P>
<P N="3">3<HI>ly.</HI> Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> him&s;elfe &s;cruples to u&s;e the&s;e words, to a per&s;on <HI>vi&s;ibly</HI> in the &s;tate of Nature, witne&s;&s;e, tho&s;e expre&s;&s;ions of his, <HI>VVho doubts, but I dare &s;ay this to one in the &s;tate of Nature, conceiving we know it not, and cannot judge thereof?</HI> Where therefore we know, and can can judge a per&s;on to be in the &s;tate of Na|ture, Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> will not encourage us to &s;ay, <HI>Be a&s;&s;ured, all the benefits of the Covenant of Grace, are actually thine.</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 63.</NOTE> To an&s;wer there|fore Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his retortion, I dare &s;ay to the vi&s;ibly Godly, what Chri&s;t &s;aid before me in the Sacrament, <HI>The Body of Chri&s;t is broken for thee, the Blood of Chri&s;t is &s;hed for thee, for remi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins.</HI> But the&s;e words I dare not &s;ay to one, again&s;t whom I have evidence (by his gro&s;&s;e ignorance, or profane conver&s;ation) that he is in the &s;tate of Nature.</P>
<P>However therefore, <HI>page</HI> 63. Mr. <HI>Humphrey utterly renounces the very undertaking to make any Church-Member vi&s;ibly in the &s;tate of Na|ture;</HI>
<PB N="104" REF="60">
Yet, that herein he is heterodox, is evident by clear te&s;timony of Scripture, <HI>Matth.</HI> 7. <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 15. to 20. our Saviour there teaching us, that, as a Tree, &s;o a Per&s;on, may be known by his fruits. And, <HI>Acts</HI> 8. 23. <HI>Peter,</HI> by that wicked offer of <HI>Simon Magus,</HI> knew he was in the &s;tate of Na|ture. See al&s;o <HI>Tit.</HI> 3. <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 10, 11. the Epi&s;tle of <HI>Jude,</HI> 2 <HI>Pet. Chap.</HI> 2 and 3. and 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 6. <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 9, 10. and <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 5. <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 5, 6. But I will not trouble the Reader in &s;o clear a ca&s;e. And indeed, if gro&s;&s;e ignorance, fundamentall errours ob&s;ti|nately maintained, open profanene&s;&s;e, &s;coffing at holine&s;&s;e; if the&s;e, I &s;ay, lived in (e&s;pecially after due means of conviction) be not palpable evi|dences of a per&s;on at pre&s;ent in the &s;tate of na|ture, then the forementioned texts mu&s;t be ra&s;ed out of Scripture, and Mini&s;ters (as to this par|ticular) mu&s;t learn a new Go&s;pell of Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey.</HI></P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <HI>The &s;olidity of this an&s;wer may appear the more, by this mans weak|ne&s;&s;e, to &s;olve the objection,</HI> page 48. <HI>which o|therwi&s;e cannot be done. It is this,</HI> Doth not the a Mini&s;ter &s;eale to a lie, if he &s;eal to the unwor|thy? <HI>He an&s;wers mo&s;t mi&s;erably, He does but &s;eal to an untruth, not to a lie, &s;o long as he comes in to the Elders, and is thought vi&s;ibly worthy by them. Well, but what if the Elders &s;hould admit one vi&s;ibly unworthy, and the Mini&s;ter judge him &s;o to be; yet the Major part carrying it, what &s;hall become of him then?</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1+ letters">g.</HI> 64.</NOTE> <HI>Here his untruth mu&s;t be a lie again. It is not his pleading an ad|monition, or that he cannot help it, will &s;erve him, if it be po&s;itively a lie, or a &s;in to admit any that is vi&s;ibly unworthy, he may not offend
<PB N="105" REF="60">
his Con&s;cience, and pre&s;ume upon God though he lo&s;t his place and life too. So that he mu&s;t of ne|ce&s;&s;ity come over to us, and then he may know how neither to commit an untruth nor a lie neither, by &s;aying, He offers or applies Chri&s;t but conditio|nally,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>The truth is, &s;eeing the Mini&s;ter is Gods Emba&s;&s;ador, and what he does is by his Com|mi&s;&s;ion, we may as &s;oon &s;ay, the God of</HI> I&s;rael <HI>can lie, as that the Mini&s;ter ever Seales an untruth, or lie either, in doing his Office,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> This charge being heavy, and managed with a very high hand by <HI>H,</HI> I thought it needfull to recite his words more carefully, le&s;t by altering of them (as he hath done mine) I &s;hould &s;eem to wrong him.</P>
<P N="1">1. Therefore, in propounding the Objection, he takes not my words; but frames it for his own advantage and my prejudice. My words are the&s;e, <HI>But doth not the Mini&s;ter Seal to a lie by giving the Sacrament to tho&s;e who are vi&s;ibly worthy, yet really unworthy? pag.</HI> 48. Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> propounds my Objection thus. <HI>Doth not the Mini&s;ter Seal to a lie if he Seal to the unwor|thy?</HI> The Objection thus propounded may bear a very foul &s;en&s;e, as &s;eeming to include per&s;ons both really and vi&s;ibly unworthy, whereas my Objection clearly hints a di&s;tinction between per|&s;ons vi&s;ibly worthy, yet really unworthy, and between per&s;ons both really and vi&s;ibly unworthy. Be&s;ides that in the latter branch al&s;o, I u&s;e not the terme of Sealing, but of giving the Sacrament. And however he may po&s;&s;ibly agree with me in &s;en&s;e, yet the termes altered may occa&s;ion a foule mi&s;take in the Reader. But to pa&s;&s;e that: Let us &s;can his exceptions again&s;t my an&s;wer to that Objection.</P>
<P N="1"><PB N="106" REF="61">
And 1. He corrupts my Text in the an&s;wer, as he did in the objection. Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> frames my an&s;wer thus, <HI>He does but Seal to an untruth, not to a lie, &s;o long as he comes in to the Elders, and is thought vi&s;ibly worthy by them.</HI> page 63. This An&s;wer thus framed is ob&s;cure, ab&s;urd, and little better than non&s;ence. Ob&s;cure, the &s;econd Per&s;on <HI>thee,</HI> being there applicable, either to the Mini&s;ter admitting, or to the per&s;on admit|ted. Ab&s;urd, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> as making the Reader believe we hold, That the Mini&s;ter, without danger of a lie, may a&s;&s;ure that Communicant of a &s;aving in|tere&s;t in Chri&s;t, who he is a&s;&s;ured hath no part in Chri&s;t, and all becau&s;e the Elders have approved that Communicant again&s;t the vote and certaine Knowledge of the Mini&s;ter. Be&s;ides, That ex|pre&s;&s;ion, <HI>He is thought vi&s;ibly worthy,</HI> is little better then non&s;ence. For I pray, what is a per|&s;on vi&s;ibly worthy, but one that is thought and judged worthy, at lea&s;t upon evidence of compe|tent knowledge and vacancy of &s;candall. So then to think a per&s;on is vi&s;ibly worthy, is to think I think &s;uch a man worthy, which for my part, I think is little better then non-&s;ence, either in Grammer, Logick, or Rhetorick. Thus you &s;ee how Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> propounds my An&s;wer, I will not &s;ay, faithfully, but I dare &s;ay very pru|dently.</P>
<P>My an&s;wer to the Objection is this, <HI>pag.</HI> 48. <HI>He may po&s;&s;ibly Seal to an untruth, but doth not Seal to a lie, in admitting that per&s;on, whom in charity (being approved, upon due tryall) he may and ought to judge worthy.</HI> 2ly. <HI>If the Mini&s;ter &s;u&s;pect a per&s;on legally approved, he may and ought the more carefully to warn him,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>and by
<PB N="107" REF="61">
this means I conceive he may clear him&s;elf, but cannot keep back him that is approved by the Major vote of the Elder&s;hip. Onely afterwards hath power to appeal,</HI> &amp;c. Let the Reader now judge, whether by Sealing a &s;aving intere&s;t in Chri&s;t to a per&s;on whom I may and ought to think Evangelically worthy, the Mini&s;ter doth Seal to a lie. Or 2ly. If he Seale a &s;aving intere&s;t in Chri&s;t to a per&s;on whom him&s;elf &s;u&s;|pects (yet cannot evince to be unworthy, and whom others having the &s;ame power and piety with him&s;elf judge worthy) be a Sealing to a lie? If indeed the Mini&s;ter know this per&s;on to be unworthy, as being in the &s;tate of nature or <HI>jure</HI> Excommunicate, here the ca&s;e is much altered: of which I &s;peak not in that Paragraph, onely I am much beholding to Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> for en|deavouring to pin &s;uch an ab&s;urdity upon my &s;leeve. If Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> and the Reader de&s;ire my judgement in this particular; For my part, if not only a Presbytery, but if a Cla&s;&s;is, yea, Province voted a per&s;on worthy whom I knew to be un|worthy (as having &s;ufficient evidence of his gro&s;s, ignorant, or &s;candalous conver&s;ation backt with impenitency and ob&s;tinacy) I mu&s;t de&s;ire them all to excu&s;e me for giving the Sacrament to &s;uch a one. Yet would I not make any &s;tirre in the Church, if they appointed an other Mini&s;ter to give him the Sacrament in my Congregation: By which means, I apprehend, I &s;hall be both cleare of the guilt of his Admi&s;&s;ion, and withall pre|&s;erve the peace and unity of the Church. And, &s;hould this carriage of mine co&s;t me a Seque&s;tra|tion, I hope I &s;hould chu&s;e rather to &s;uffer a pe|nall
<PB N="108" REF="62">
then to commit a Morall evill. The ca&s;e may be illu&s;trated by other Acts of Judicature, both Civill and Sacred. Suppo&s;e the Elder&s;hip vote the Excommunication of a per&s;on whom I knew to be innocent, or vote the <HI>non</HI>-Excommunication of a per&s;on whom I knew to be <HI>jure</HI>-Excommu|nicate: In &s;uch ca&s;e they mu&s;t give me leave to en|ter my prote&s;t, and not to act according to their vote again&s;t my Knowledge and Con&s;cience. A|gain, in Civill Tryalls, &s;uppo&s;e the Jury find a per&s;on guilty, whom the Judge knowes to be Innocent, were I Judge in that ca&s;e, I hope, by Gods a&s;&s;i&s;tance, neither Law nor Jury &s;hould prevail with me to pronounce &s;entence again&s;t &s;uch a per&s;on. The like might be &s;aid about the Judges clearing a per&s;on whom hee knows to be guilty, yet is acquitted by the Jury, if the Judge &s;hould be put to pronounce a Sentence of ab&s;olu|tion again&s;t his Knowledge and Con&s;cience: Which yet I think is not in practice among&s;t us, &s;ince the Verdict of the Jury doth acquit the Pri&s;oner; only the Judge in &s;uch ca&s;e might hap|ly complain of the Jury, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> My drift and &s;cope in all this, is to &s;hew the weakne&s;&s;e of Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> his Cords, where-with he thinks to bind me, and withall that I might make it appear to the Reader, That however <HI>pag.</HI> 64. Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> triumphs before the Victory, yet <HI>we are not forced either to lie on the one hand, or to come over to Mr.</HI> Humphry <HI>on the other hand.</HI></P>
<P>For the la&s;t clau&s;e in this Paragraph, <HI>That, &s;eeing a Mini&s;ter is Gods Emba&s;&s;adour, and what he doth is by Commi&s;&s;ion, we may as &s;oone &s;ay, the
<PB N="109" REF="62">
God of</HI> I&s;rael <HI>can lic, as that the Mini&s;ter either Seals an untruth or tie, in doing his Office.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Either the &s;en&s;e is, That a Mini&s;ter when he acts <HI>clave non errante,</HI> Seales neither an un|truth nor a lie, which is as pertinent, as if I &s;hould &s;ay, when Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> Preaches Truth, hee Preaches not an untruth or lie. Or his meaning is, that, becau&s;e a Mini&s;ter is Commi&s;&s;ioned by Chri&s;t, therefore he cannot erre in this or any o|ther part of his Mini&s;teriall function; which as it is a palpable errour, &s;o it &s;mells &s;trongly of Popi&s;h infallibility.</P>
<P>What he addes by way of amplification; <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 64, 65, 66.</NOTE> as there is much truth in it, &s;o his great mi&s;take lies in apprehending, that we cannot judge a per&s;on to be worthy or unworthy, but pre&s;ently we med|dle with Gods Ark, and enter upon Gods Throne. The weakne&s;&s;e of which inference hath been formerly laid open, and therefore I do but only note it here.</P>
<P>For his an&s;wer to my exception again&s;t divers Church-members receiving, <NOTE PLACE="marg">Pag. 66.</NOTE> though all may bee pre&s;ent, <HI>&amp;c. That yet the Mini&s;ter may be free in his Office, in delivering the Sacrament in ge|nerall as Chri&s;t did, and that e&s;pecially becau&s;e it is a vi&s;ible Word.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. This indeed accompanied with due admonition, may be a relief to the Mini&s;ter, hee being thereby excu&s;ed from giving the Sacra|ment to per&s;ons vi&s;ibly unworthy; <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>My mean|ing is, If the Mini|&s;ter acqui|e&s;ce in the vote of the Elders, and do not his indeavour in a Morall way to have &s;uch a per&s;on kept from receiving. For I do not think the Mini&s;ter is bound to thru&s;t him away from the Table, or to pull the Bread and Cup violently out of his hands, who upon the unrighteous vote and incourage|ment of the Elders laies hold upon tho&s;e holy my&s;teries.</HI></NOTE> but it can|not
<PB N="110" REF="63">
clear him of guilt, as permitting them to eat and drink judgment to them&s;elves, whom he ought to keep back.</P>
<P N="2">2ly. Though the Elements and divers Sacra|mentall actions be explicatory, and &s;o a vi&s;ible word common to all, be they Church-members or no, yet giving and receiving are applicatory, and where a Mini&s;ter or a private Chri&s;tian can|not apply the writing or promi&s;e of Chri&s;t (I &s;peak as <HI>de jure</HI>) there they cannot apply the &s;eal of that writing.</P>
<P>Here I cannot but take notice of Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> his ingenuity, in confe&s;&s;ing, That pre&s;ence at the Sacrament is more free than actuall re|ceiving, in the&s;e words: <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 68.</NOTE> <HI>Not that I am &s;o moved at free pre&s;ence, but that actuall receiving is not as free to our intelligent Members.</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Not that bare pre&s;ence makes them guilty, but their unworthy carriage at the Sacrament, and their unprofitablene&s;&s;e under it as a vi&s;ible word.</HI></NOTE> And I do as ea&s;ily yield to him, that by pre&s;ence onely, per&s;ons may be guilty of the Body and Blood of Chri&s;t as well as by receiving, but not as much, &s;ince actuall receiving is like <HI>Judas</HI> his betraying Chri&s;t with a ki&s;&s;e, whereby hee contracted deeper guilt then others of his damned Crew, e&s;pecially &s;uch as came haply to &s;ee Chri&s;t taken, but put not forth a tongue or hand in order to Chri&s;ts apprehen&s;ion. Yet withall, it being agreed on both hands, that pre&s;ence is freer then receiving (for which Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> him&s;elfe holds forth the practice of the Primitive Church) let him confider how he will &s;alve his own Objections again&s;t this Tenet; and that it argues weakne&s;&s;e for a man to yield the Cau&s;e, and yet to di&s;pute again&s;t it.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <HI>Indeed if per&s;ons be Excommu|nicate
<PB N="111" REF="63">
(as the Primitive Church did puni&s;h &s;uch with bare pre&s;ence) or men have their gathered Companies; if they do not communicate with tho&s;e who are pre&s;ent, and hear, their rea&s;on is open, they own them not as their Members: But as for us, that are not yet convinced by them, either we mu&s;t main|tain, or new-mould, our mixed Congregations.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> cannot be ignorant, that in the Primitive times, per&s;ons excommu|nicated in this &s;en&s;e, were not to be pre&s;ent at the Sacrament, &s;ince the fourth degree of excommu|nication, called <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word">, &s;hut per&s;ons quite out of the Church, where they were to &s;tand with tears, reque&s;ting tho&s;e who entred in, to pray for them; and thence they were called <HI>Plorantes.</HI> See <HI>Goodwin's Mo&s;es</HI> and <HI>Aaron.</HI> They who were quite &s;hut out of the Church, could not be pre|&s;ent at the Sacrament, admini&s;tred in the Chan|cell. 2<HI>ly.</HI> It appears further by this An&s;wer of Mr. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> that in the Primitive Times, &s;u&s;pen&s;ion was a part or degree of excommunica|tion, &s;ince &s;ome per&s;ons excommunicated might be pre&s;ent, yet, not receive; but others might neither be admitted to pre&s;ence, nor to receiving. And this makes much for us, and again&s;t him|&s;elfe, who grants, that per&s;ons excommunicated, may be kept from the Sacrament: But, &s;ay we, per&s;ons juridically &s;u&s;pended, are excommunica|ted (both in our &s;en&s;e, and in the &s;en&s;e of the Pri|mitive Church) <HI>Ergo,</HI> By Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his own Principle, they are to be kept from recei|ving. 3<HI>ly.</HI> The ground of their &s;eparation from us, who are in gathered Companies (yet are not Browni&s;ts) is it not, becau&s;e we admit pel-mel, Church members vi&s;ibly unworthy? And, had
<PB N="112" REF="64">
our Sacraments been kept pure, their very pre|tence of &s;eparation had been cut off (I mean, as to the point of Communicants). Be&s;ides, &s;ome of tho&s;e &s;eparated Congregations, have admitted to their Sacraments our Church-members, whom they apprehended godly, when at the &s;ame time, other Church-members of ours, concerning whom, they have not had &s;ufficient evidence of their piety, did not pa&s;&s;e for current. A clear evi|dence, that they (as well as we) look more at vi&s;ible worthine&s;&s;e, then at Church-member|&s;hip.</P>
<P><HI>D. Dr. Page</HI> 37. If the Sacrament have the &s;ame latititude with the Word, then a Heathen may receive it as well as a Chri&s;tian.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 69.</NOTE> <HI>He hath left out my main caution (within the Church). The Word may be con&s;idered as a bare word, and an In&s;trument in writing, &amp;c. or, as a Sealed word and in&s;tru|ment, delivered to peculiar u&s;e. The Covenant is a &s;ealed Covenant, only unto the Church, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. We demand Scripture-proofe for all this: Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> indeed quotes <HI>Rom.</HI> 3. 2. <HI>To them were committed the Oracles of God.</HI> And, <HI>Rom.</HI> 9. 4. <HI>To whom pertained the Cove|nants.</HI> But, 1. There is not one word of the Sa|crament. 2<HI>ly.</HI> If he will urge tho&s;e places, then Heathen mu&s;t be excluded from the Oracles and Covenant, whether &s;ealed or un&s;ealed, there be|ing not one word about that particular of &s;ea|ling. Suppo&s;e the Apo&s;tle had &s;aid, <HI>To whom be|longs the Oracles, and the Covenants, and the Sacraments.</HI> If Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> will thence ar|gue, Therefore Heathen ought not to partake
<PB N="113" REF="64">
of the Sacraments, is it not ea&s;ie to retort out of the &s;ame place, that then, by the &s;ame rea&s;on, they ought not to read the Scripture, or to hear the Word Preached, and the Covenant declared and publi&s;hed, &s;ince all the&s;e were in &s;ome way, peculiar to the Jewes. Yea, to &s;ome Sacraments, Heathen were admitted; namely, to Bapti&s;me under the Cloud, to the Manna, and to the Rock-Water, to wit, the mixed Multitude, as well as divers uncircumci&s;ed I&s;raelites, in which there was &s;omewhat extraordinary. I agree with Mr. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> that Heathen may partake of the Word, yet not of the Sacraments; but his proof thereof from <HI>Rom.</HI> 3. and 9. is not valid.</P>
<P N="2">2<HI>ly.</HI> He mi&s;takes, in &s;aying the Word is not a &s;ealed In&s;trument to Heathen; and in thinking, the Word is not &s;ealed to Heathen by the Sacra|ments, unle&s;&s;e they partake of the Sacraments, Shew me any Covenant in the World, where the Seales doth not concern them, whom the Articles of the Covenant doe concern. If the Articles of the Covenant of Grace concern all the World, and are publi&s;hed and tendered to all conditionally, what ab&s;urdity is there, in &s;ealing the &s;ame conditionall offer to all, in the Sacra|ment?</P>
<P N="3">3<HI>ly.</HI> The &s;ealing of the Covenant is generall or particular; on Gods part, or on mans part. In generall, God &s;eales the Covenant by every Sa|crament conditionally to all the World: Parti|cularly, he &s;eales the Covenant to the worthy Receiver at the Sacrament. Further, whether I Receive or no, God &s;eales the Covenant to me as well as to others, in generall; but, by Re|ceiving, I my &s;elfe &s;eal in particular, which
<PB N="114" REF="65">
&s;tanders by do not. We ea&s;ily agree with Mr. <HI>Humphrey, That every Church-member (with|out a ju&s;t forfeiture) hath a publick right to the u&s;e of the Sacrament.</HI> But, the Que&s;tion is, Wherein this forfeiture lies? We &s;ay, the forfei|ture lies in vi&s;ible unworthine&s;&s;e: He &s;aies, it lies in Excommunication. We an&s;wer, That cannot be, &s;ince forfeiture of a priviledge is grounded up|on an offence; but, excommunication rightly managed is no offence. The Church indeed by excommunication takes the forfeiture, but the Church-member by the offence makes the for|feiture. This offence known, is nothing el&s;e, but his vi&s;ible unworthine&s;&s;e, upon which, the Church may ju&s;tly deny him the u&s;e of the Sa|crament for all his publick right to it as a Church-member. Herein indeed, an unworthy Church-member is di&s;tingui&s;hed from an Hea|then, in that he hath a publick right to the Sacrament (as a Jew, when unclean, had to the Pa&s;&s;over; and a Prie&s;t, when unclean, had to the holy Things) which no Heathen have. But the influence of that right is &s;u&s;pended, as to his actuall receiving, till he vi&s;ibly repent, of his vi|&s;ible unworthine&s;&s;e.</P>
<P><HI>D. Dr.</HI> There are &s;ome righteous per&s;ons in their own conceit, many fal&s;e ju&s;titiaries, &amp;c.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <HI>Of all men, I think, &s;uch as the&s;e, had mo&s;t need of conviction; but I finde not the Scriptures &s;end forth any &s;pirituall hue and cry, to make &s;earch for them; If it did, I will not for any thing, &s;ay, who are the men, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="1,2,3"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. That conviction they may have, by pre&s;ence at all Ordinances. 2<HI>ly.</HI> A Scripture hue
<PB N="115" REF="65">
and cry for &s;uch hath been formerly noted, and I &s;hall not here trouble my Reader with repeti|tions. 3<HI>ly.</HI> For any to profe&s;&s;e, They will not help to di&s;cover tho&s;e, after whom the Scripture makes hue and cry, argues at the be&s;t, very great weakne&s;&s;e, and is in effect to &s;ay, I will not do what the Word of God commands me.</P>
<P N="4">4<HI>ly.</HI> For his reflection upon divers of our Mini&s;ters and Elders; let Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> but di&s;cover in particular, tho&s;e whom he charges in generall, and make good his charge, we &s;hall thank him for it, and tru&s;t, through mercy (&s;o far as our power reaches) we &s;hall not be willing|ly partiall in Gods Law, but be ready to throw the fir&s;t &s;tone at our &s;elves. And as we have cau&s;e to thank God, where he hath kept any of us from breaking out into gro&s;&s;er abominations; &s;o we de&s;ire at all times, e&s;pecially at the Sacrament, to lie low in the &s;en&s;e of our own great unwor|thine&s;&s;e, to renounce our own righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e, as well as our unrighteou&s;ne&s;&s;e; <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P&s;al.</HI> 15. 4.</NOTE> and to pitty, not pre&s;ently to de&s;pi&s;e, the greate&s;t offendors, whether they fall under the &s;entence of &s;u&s;pen|&s;ion, or of excommunication: And this we hope is not Phari&s;ai&s;me, <HI>Luke</HI> 18. <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 9. to 14.</P>
<P><HI>D. Dr.</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 70, 71, 72.</NOTE> All may be pre&s;ent, but not actually partake, &amp;c. Again&s;t this, Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> hath foure Exceptions. To the fir&s;t, I an&s;wer, he wrongs me, in making the World believe, I make nothing of the whole Admini&s;tration, but only of actuall Receiving. I have formerly &s;hewed, that they who hear and &s;ee unworthily at the Sacra|ment, are guilty of the Body and Blood of Chri&s;t; as well, but not as much, as tho&s;e who receive: Yet, becau&s;e hearing and &s;eeing may be
<PB N="116" REF="66">
means of Conver&s;ion; not &s;o, receiving; therefore all may hear and &s;ee, but not receive.<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>I determine not here, whether &s;eeing the Sacramentall Elements do convert; but, am very inclinable to believe, that the ob&s;ervation of the humble devotion of the Communicants, may be effectuall for &s;uch a purpo&s;e; as,</HI> 1 Pet, 3. ver&s;. 1, 2. <HI>And as the cou|rage of divers Martyrs have been means to change &s;ome Per&s;ecutors.</HI></NOTE></P>
<P>To his &s;econd Exception. VVe hold not, that Bapti&s;me is to be repeated; nor do we believe, that Chri&s;t hath commanded ab&s;olutely all in|telligent Church-members to receive. But, as a Circumci&s;ed Jew might be kept from the Pa&s;&s;o|ver, when Legally or Morally unclean; &s;o may a Baptized Chri&s;tian be kept from the Lords Sup|per, when Morally unclean.</P>
<P>Doctor <HI>Rivet,</HI> upon <HI>Exod.</HI> 12, notes, 1. That Women were admitted to the Pa&s;&s;over as well as men. 2<HI>ly.</HI> That profe&s;&s;ion of their faith was required (of adult Females) before they were admitted to the Pa&s;&s;over. A clear evidence of vi|&s;ible Morall purity requi&s;ite as well as Leviticall purity.</P>
<P>To his third Exception we an&s;were. An un|regenerate mans undi&s;po&s;edne&s;&s;e, doth no more fru&s;trate Gods precept, of receiving the Lords Supper, than an unclean mans indi&s;po&s;edne&s;&s;e did fru&s;trate the command, for all the Congre|gation to keep the Pa&s;&s;over, <HI>Exod.</HI> 12. 47.</P>
<P>For his fourth Exception, <HI>That we go con|trary to the expre&s;&s;e command, Drink ye all of it,</HI> we an&s;wer, 1. If <HI>Judas</HI> received not, (which is probable) then it is evident, the command reaches only tho&s;e, who are really and vi&s;ibly worthy. 2<HI>ly.</HI> Suppo&s;ing <HI>Judas</HI> did receive. 1. Let
<PB N="117" REF="66">
Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> peru&s;e Mr. <HI>Tim&s;on's</HI> An&s;wer, <HI>page</HI> 3. and 4. who, though zealous for free Ad|mi&s;&s;ion, yet lookes at this Argument as very weak. 2<HI>ly.</HI> I have an&s;wered formerly, that in <HI>Ju|das</HI> his Admi&s;&s;ion, Chri&s;ts di&s;pen&s;ation was ex|traordinary, and &s;o not imitable by us. 3<HI>ly.</HI> We admit all to the Marriage Fea&s;t, as well, yea, more then him&s;elfe, but not to cat the Fea&s;t in every Di&s;h; yea, we admit all to the Sacrament, but not to every Sacramentall action. 4<HI>ly.</HI> If putting the ignorant upon knowledge, the care|le&s;&s;e upon diligence to prepare, the hard-hearted upon repentance, be to make them more &s;ecure, carele&s;&s;e, and hard-bearted, we mu&s;t confe&s;&s;e our &s;elves guilty of Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his charge; other|wi&s;e, not. And certainly, if our &s;u&s;pen&s;ion from but part of one Ordinance, do harden (as he ap|prehends) what will his excommunication from all Ordinances do? 5<HI>ly.</HI> For his charging us, <HI>To afflict tender Con&s;ciences;</HI> We &s;ee not how any &s;uch Conclu&s;ion can flow from our Princi|ples, rightly under&s;tood; or, that our Principles tend, <HI>to lay wa&s;t the Ordinance of the Lords Sup|per.</HI> We de&s;ire, that every Ordinance may be u&s;ed in every Congregation, particularly, the Lords Supper, where there are any Church|members capable of it. Nor do we believe, the Admini&s;tration of this Sacrament doth ab&s;olute|ly depend upon the being or acting of the Elders, who are not nece&s;&s;ary to the <HI>e&s;&s;e,</HI> but to the <HI>bone e&s;&s;e</HI> of the Church, and to the more regular Ad|mini&s;tration of the Sacrament. We believe, the principall care of Soules lies upon Mini&s;ters, who therefore ought to do their duty (whether they have Elders or no) in fitting their people for,
<PB N="118" REF="67">
and then admitting them to the Sacrament. Nor do we apprehend what there can be in this car|riage of ours, to afflict tender Con&s;ciences, whom of all per&s;ons we &s;hall mo&s;t willingly ad|mit: If indeed we forced any to approve, and own tryall before the Elder&s;hip, there might be &s;ome plea again&s;t us in that kinde; but, that there &s;hould be any &s;uch thing in giving an ac|count of our faith before any, e&s;pecially to our Mini&s;ter, who, without all controver&s;y, is char|ged with our Soules, as he that mu&s;t give an account to God for them, is to me a very &s;trange paradox. Yet further; Suppo&s;e one be kept from the Sacrament, yea, unju&s;tly kept from it, what is there here to &s;cruple his con&s;cience? It may indeed grieve his &s;pirit, and cau&s;e him to reflect, and that to his great and &s;pirituall advantage; but the &s;in is theirs who do unju&s;tly detain him. For our part, if we know any thing of our &s;elves, our great care is to invite, and encourage tender Con&s;ciences, to partake of, not to keep them from, the Sacrament; and &s;uch we are a&s;&s;ured, will never put us again&s;t our Con&s;ciences, to ad|mit all pel-mel. A tender Con&s;cience is tender of other mens Con&s;ciences, as well as of its own.</P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 72. to 74. Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> thinks, I wrong <HI>his Simile, and take hold of it by the left handle.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Let the Reader peru&s;e my An&s;wer, <HI>page</HI> 40, and 41. and compare it with <HI>page</HI> 14. of Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his Vindication, he will ea&s;ily perceive Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> wrongs him&s;elfe by it; but I wrong neither him nor his <HI>Simile.</HI> God is the Prince wronged, Chri&s;t is the great Favou|rit, upon who&s;e interce&s;&s;ion Grace is proclai|med
<PB N="119" REF="67">
to all the World conditionally, and &s;ealed in the Sacrament. Now mark what Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> addes, <HI>page</HI> 15. of his Vindication, <HI>Can it be imagined, there is any the Proclamation be|longs to without the &s;eal? is not the &s;eal publick, as the contents of it?</HI> Is not here a free Admi&s;&s;i|on for all the World, and thereby even for Hea|then, to the Sacrament? That grace is proclai|med conditionally to all the World, &s;ee <HI>Matth.</HI> 28. 19. and <HI>Mark</HI> 16. <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 15, 16. Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> addes in the forementioned words, <HI>The Seal is as exten&s;ive as the Proclamation;</HI> there|fore by his own Principles, they mu&s;t be admit|ted to the Lords Supper, &s;ince they are part of the World, yea, the greate&s;t part. Nor will his following words be a <HI>&s;alvo</HI> for this wide gap, <HI>That as we offer the conditions thereof to any, &s;o likewi&s;e may we, and mu&s;t we, the &s;eal (upon their de&s;ire) &amp;c. page</HI> 15. of his Vindication: Unle&s;&s;e we have good evidence (at lea&s;t in the judgment of charity) that their de&s;ire is reall, <HI>Acts</HI> 8. <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 36, 37. And hence, when Heathen came on to the Church, they were fir&s;t <HI>Catechu|meni,</HI> and gave evidence of their faith and repen|tance, before they were admitted Church-mem|bers, and Baptized: Nor was <HI>Paul</HI> him&s;elfe ad|mitted by the Church of <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> till upon good evidence, <HI>Acts</HI> 9. <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 26, 27. And why the like care &s;hould not be u&s;ed in the Sacrament of growth, as was in the Sacrament of initiation, there being with us &s;o great a di&s;tance of time, between the one and the other, and we having &s;o good ground to fear the declen&s;ion of Church-members, as well as they had to fear the hypocri|ticall approach of Church-candidates; Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey,</HI>
<PB N="120" REF="68">
I believe, can give no &s;olid rea&s;on. All Heathen may, and mu&s;t, be admitted to Bap|ti&s;ine, upon their de&s;ire, and all Church-mem|bers may, and mu&s;t, be admitted to the Lords Supper, upon their de&s;ire provided, the de&s;ire in both be regular. And certainly, if moderate in|qui&s;ition after the &s;incerity of Heathens de&s;ire, be no entring upon Gods Throne; then the &s;ame inqui&s;ition after the &s;incerity of Church-mem|bers d<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;ires, cannot be charged as an intruding upon Gods &s;ecrets. For our parts, we believe the Covenant is &s;ealed conditionally in the Sacra|ment to all the World, as well at to all Church-members: But, from thence to argue, that all the world, or every Church-member, &s;hould receive the Sacrament, is a conclu&s;ion, Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> him&s;elfe cannot &s;wallow, much le&s;&s;e others, who are not of his large Principles. Whereas therefore he addes, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 74.</NOTE> <HI>We may not judge, men are outwardly Rebells, unle&s;&s;e we have &s;omewhat to alledge again&s;t them, and then they mu&s;t be ex|communicated. An&s;.</HI> 1. We judge not any to be outwardly Rebells, unle&s;&s;e we have &s;omething to alledge again&s;t them (as <HI>David</HI> had again&s;t <HI>Ab&s;olums</HI> party, who, I think, were outwardly Rebells, as well as Edomites or Phili&s;tines) to wit, ignorance, ob&s;tinacy, &s;candal; and if tryall of Church-members be commanded, he that <HI>wilfully</HI> refu&s;eth it, &s;hewes him&s;elfe a Rebell, as well as he that wilfully refu&s;eth to obey his Prince. 2<HI>ly.</HI> Such we judge are to be excommu|nicated but not pre&s;ently, with the highe&s;t de|gree of excommunication, unle&s;&s;e the greatne&s;&s;e and palpablene&s;&s;e of the offence, with other cir|cum&s;tances, do require the &s;ame. 3<HI>ly.</HI> Whereas
<PB N="121" REF="68">
he pretends, <HI>There is not Scripture-warrant for tryall of Church-members. An&s;.</HI> Be&s;ides what hath been formerly &s;aid to this, I adde, If Scrip|ture warrant tryall in generall, and apply this rule particularly to &s;ome Church-members, this is enough for us; and it lies upon Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> to prove, that this tryall mu&s;t not be again&s;t the Sacrament, which when he can do, we &s;hall ea&s;ily yield him the cau&s;e. Now that Tryall is commanded in generall, &s;ee 1 <HI>The&s;&s;.</HI> 5. 21. we are commanded to <HI>Try all things;</HI> and if a per&s;on be not a thing, let Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> put him out of that generall. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Private Chri&s;tians may put each other upon tryall,</HI> Jam. 2. ver&s;. 18, 20. <HI>We ought not to refu&s;e tryall from any, where there is ju&s;t occa&s;ion.</HI> 1 Pet. 3. 15.</NOTE> In particular, the Deacons were to be tryed, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3. 10. Mini&s;ters, or &s;uch as pre|tended to be Mini&s;ters, were to be tryed by the people, 1 <HI>Joh.</HI> 4. 1. The Church of <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> is com|mended for trying the fal&s;e Apo&s;tles, <HI>Revel.</HI> 2. 2. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>See Jer.</HI> 6. 27.</NOTE> If people have power to try their Officers, &s;hall Church Officers have no power to try their people? Hath every Church-member a tryall and judgment of di&s;cretion, and &s;hall not Church-Officers have a tryall and judgment of deci&s;ion? Whereas therefore in the foot of this page, <HI>he upbraides me again, as giving more power to the &s;ervant, then to the Lord him&s;elfe;</HI> As I pardon him this wrong, &s;o I mu&s;t minde my Reader, that that cavill hath been already an&s;wered. We doubt not but Chri&s;t, as Lord and King of the Church, might have tryed, &s;u&s;pen|ded, or excommunicated <HI>Judas</HI> by his owne power, had he plea&s;ed &s;o to do; yet, Chri&s;t for|bearing to do either of the&s;e, is no rule for our imitation. What Chri&s;t might do as a Mini&s;ter,
<PB N="122" REF="69">
is an other que&s;tion; and of that I &s;pake, and &s;aid, That if Chri&s;t, as a Mini&s;ter, might &s;u&s;|pend or excommunicate, then every Mini&s;ter might by him&s;elfe alone &s;u&s;pend and excommu|nicate; which power, if given to every particu|lar Mini&s;ter, might provefatall to the Church: Nor do I finde in Scripture, that one particular Mini&s;ter is the Church governing, <HI>Matth.</HI> 18. 17. Yet withall, for further explication of my &s;elfe in that particular, I think we may &s;afely di&s;tingui&s;h between a regular and irregular &s;tate of the Church. Where Church-government can|not be &s;etled regularly, in that ca&s;e, I believe, much lies upon the Mini&s;ter: or, where the El|ders will not act, I do not apprehend, that there|fore Sacraments are to be omitted; but the Mini|&s;ter, who on all hands is acknowledged as an undoubted Officer, mu&s;t endeavour to &s;upply that defect. Haply, in &s;ome ca&s;es, and for &s;ome per&s;ons, the Elders for a time may devolve the &s;ole power of tryall upon the Mini&s;ter, where they have good a&s;&s;urance of his integrity. 2<HI>ly.</HI> I di&s;tingui&s;h between the Mini&s;ters Pa&s;torall and Judiciall power: Suppo&s;e he cannot &s;u&s;pend an ignorant and &s;candalous per&s;on Judicially, may he not therefore &s;u&s;pend him Pa&s;torally? Sup|po&s;e he cannot &s;u&s;pend &s;uch by a formall &s;en|tence, may he not &s;u&s;pend his own act, as being not bound again&s;t his con&s;cience to give the Sa|crament to one vi&s;ibly unworthy? May there not be a negative, where there is no formall Su&s;pen|&s;ion?</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 75.</NOTE><HI>He thinks I &s;lander the Sacrament, in com|paring it to the bitter Water, and &s;aying, It can do good to none, but &s;uch as are good already.
<PB N="123" REF="69">
An&s;.</HI> 1. Though I be not bound to an&s;wer Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his thoughts, but his arguments; yet, herein I dare refer my &s;elfe to an indifferent per&s;on, what &s;lander it is to compare any of the Ordinances to the bitter Water, which ever did good or hurt, as every Ordinance doth, not ac|cording to its own nature, but according to the di&s;po&s;ition of the &s;ubject, or the di&s;pen&s;ati|on of free grace. 2<HI>ly.</HI> I believe the Sacrament may do good, even to tho&s;e who are bad; upon which account all &s;orts may be pre&s;ent: Only, I di&s;&s;ent about actuall receiving, which if Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> can prove a converting Ordinance, he &s;hall not only make me his Pro&s;elyte, but a greater Zelot for free Admi&s;&s;ion, yea, freer Admi&s;&s;ion, then him&s;elfe is. What he repeats here and <HI>page</HI> 76. I pa&s;&s;e, as having been formerly an&s;wered. <HI>Page</HI> 75. Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> feeling him&s;elfe pinched with the in&s;tance of godly Parents and Ma&s;ters, keeping their Children and Servants from the Sacrament, till they were vi&s;ibly qualified, hath nothing to except again&s;t, <HI>but my ill language,</HI> as he is plea&s;ed to terme it. <HI>An&s;.</HI> The wor&s;t of my ill language is to ask him, whether it be not a &s;hame for one, &s;carce out of the &s;hell for Lear|ning and Divinity, to reflect upon &s;uch eminent and pious per&s;ons, who were Coun&s;ellours and Authors of Church-government among&s;t us, <HI>As if they were children of</HI> Simon Magus, <HI>and went about with</HI> Judas <HI>to make a bargain of Chri&s;t at the Supper.</HI> To be a young Scholler or Divine is no reproach; but, for &s;uch a one to cen|&s;ure an A&s;&s;embly of &s;uch Senators and Divines as he doth, I thinke is &s;hamefull; if it be not, I &s;hall willingly ask Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> pardon for &s;aying &s;o.</P>
<P><PB N="124" REF="70">As I deny not, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 77.</NOTE> but the Word and &s;eal mu&s;t go together, &s;o I am a&s;&s;ured, they do both go to|gether in every Sacrament, and that the Cove|nant is &s;ealed conditionally in every Sacrament to all the World, though the greate&s;t part of the VVorld do not receive. But it followes not from thence, that all may receive: Nor can Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> bring any Scripture-evidence, <HI>That men mu&s;t come to the Sacrament to &s;eal their own damnation:</HI> Yea, probably &s;uch Doctrine Preached, would be a greater bar to his free Ad|mi&s;&s;ion, then the Tryall before the Elder&s;hip, which yet he &s;o much decries. I perceive the in|&s;tance of Infants and &s;candalous per&s;ons troubles him, which though he &s;narle at, will not budge or move their place. But that I pa&s;&s;e, as having been formerly cleared. He is al&s;o di&s;plea&s;ed, that we go by a rule of vi&s;ibility, in admitting Church-members to the Lords Supper: But, let Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> an&s;wer him&s;elfe, and either ad|mit all Church-members, or give us a better rule then the rule of vi&s;ibility, to wit, That &s;uch members as are vi&s;ibly capable of the Sacrament, &s;hould be admitted, others not. His rule of vi&s;i|bility is naturall intelligence, when Church-members have the u&s;e of Rea&s;on: Our rule is &s;pirituall intelligence, and vacancy of &s;candall, when per&s;ons have &s;ome competent knowledge of Divine and Sacramentall my&s;teries, and live unblamably. Will Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> in one breath cry up and cry down the rule of vi&s;ibility? If yet he ask, Where is there any ground to try Church-members, whether they be ignorant, or no, &amp;c. Let him an&s;wer him&s;elfe, Where is there any ground to try Church-members, whether they
<PB N="125" REF="70">
have the u&s;e of rea&s;on or no? Or, where doth Chri&s;t forbid the admitting of di&s;tracted per&s;ons? If the ground be, becau&s;e they cannot examine them&s;elves, the &s;ame ground will reach ignorant per&s;ons in the Church, who&s;e inability for &s;elfe-examination is &s;o much the wor&s;e, as it is will|full.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <HI>For his an&s;wer to my four Con&s;iderations, I reply as briefly.</HI> 1. <HI>An Hi&s;to|ricall Faith &s;uffices to Bapti&s;me</HI> Acts 8. 13.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> What is this Reply to my An&s;wer, <HI>page</HI> 42? my words are the&s;e, Tho&s;e whom we would not Bapti&s;e, had they bin to have been Bapti&s;ed at years of di&s;cretion, tho&s;e we cannot admit to the Lords Supper, though Baptized, &amp;c. To this, all he an&s;wers, is, that, <HI>Hi&s;toricall Faith is enough to Bapti&s;me.</HI> As, 1. its utterly impertinent: So, 2<HI>ly.</HI> its fal&s;e, &s;ince not only an Hi&s;toricall Faith, but al&s;o profe&s;&s;ion of Repentance, is nece&s;&s;ary to Bapti&s;me, which is therefore called, The Bap|ti&s;me of Repentance. <HI>Mark</HI> 1. 4, 5. 3<HI>ly.</HI> Pro|fe&s;&s;ion of Faith and Repentance, cannot &s;tand with conviction of gro&s;&s;e ignorance, and with &s;candall. We refu&s;e none, who make a charita|tive profe&s;&s;ion of Faith and Repentance. And here once more, let Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> remember his own rule, <HI>Adultis cadem e&s;t ratio utriu&s;que Sacramenti.</HI></P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 78.</NOTE> <HI>A Church-members outward Acceptance is his Receiving; as for any other, the Scriptures he pleads as abundant enough, are none at all.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> In my an&s;wer to his &s;econd con&s;idera|tion, I do not quote Scripture, therefore Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> &s;hould either have mentioned tho&s;e
<PB N="126" REF="71">
Scriptures, or referred the Reader to them. But, to come to the point; Will Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> &s;tand to that a&s;&s;ertion of his, <HI>That a Church-mem|bers outward Acceptance, is no other but his Receiving?</HI> What thinks he of publick Prayer, Hearing, the Parents confe&s;&s;ion of Faith at the Bapti&s;ing of his Children, &amp;c. are not each of the&s;e an outward acceptance? Then &s;ure Recei|ving the Lords Supper, is not the &s;ole outward or vi&s;ible acceptance. How many Church-members will &s;carce come to Church from years end to years end, who yet would think them&s;elves much wronged, if the Sacrament be denyed them? Is their offering to Receive once a year, acceptance enough, who all the year after will &s;carce come to the publick Ordinances? Do not they as vi&s;ibly reject Chri&s;t, by neglecting to Hear, &amp;c. all the year long, as they do accept Chri&s;t, by comming once a year to the Sacra|ment? 2<HI>ly.</HI> True, Receiving is an outward ac|ceptance of the Sacrament; but is it a &s;ufficient outward acceptance of Chri&s;t and Grace, offe|red in the Sacrament? Then per&s;ons <HI>jure</HI> excom|municate, cannot be &s;u&s;pended. Suppo&s;e a Church-member publickly renounce Chri&s;t, and yet de&s;ire to Receive; this Wretch, by Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his rule, mu&s;t have the Sacrament, if outward acceptance be enough. For his charging me here again with foul language, why did not Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> tran&s;cribe it, as a further evi|dence again&s;t me? Let the Reader peru&s;e <HI>page</HI> 43. 44, and 45. of my Bar, he will ea&s;ily un|vail the my&s;terie. The truth is, in tho&s;e pages I lay open his foul &s;landers, and this, for&s;ooth, is my foul language.</P>
<P><PB N="127" REF="71">Mr. Humphrey. <HI>To the Third, where are many things, I &s;ay</HI> 1. <HI>Though conviction is not enough to convert without grace, what then? Is it not a means therefore with it?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Sure Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> forgot his own words, <HI>page</HI> 16. of his Vindication, <HI>Let a man be fully convinced of the free grace of Chri&s;t, his heart can &s;tand it out no longer again&s;t his conver&s;ion.</HI> Is it not here evident, he makes full conviction alone, a meanes of conver&s;ion, yea, a &s;ufficient means? If a man cannot &s;tand it out again&s;t full conviction, then full conviction is a &s;ufficient means of conver&s;ion. This was it, I ex|cepted again&s;t: To which, in his Reply, he An|&s;wers, <HI>Conviction, with grace, is a means of con|ver&s;ion.</HI> For my part, I believe it's a means of conver&s;ion, either with, or without grace; but, not a &s;ufficient means. An Hor&s;e is a means to draw a million of weight, but I hope not a &s;uffi|cient means: but, if a hor&s;e alone could draw it, he were a &s;ufficient means. If Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his fir&s;t a&s;&s;ertion (to which I an&s;wered) be true, then full conviction, even without grace, mu&s;t be a &s;ufficient means of conver&s;ion.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. 2<HI>ly. Conviction of the truth of the Covenant comes directly by &s;ealing it; and conviction of the generall offer, by applying it to every &s;ingle per&s;on.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> There is a double &s;ealing in the Sacra|ment: 1. By application of the Seal to the Co|venant it &s;elfe. 2<HI>ly.</HI> By application of the Seal to particular per&s;ons in their receiving. In the for|mer &s;en&s;e we agree, conviction comes by &s;ealing the generall offer, even to tho&s;e who do not re|ceive, but may be pre&s;ent: But it followes not
<PB N="128" REF="72">
immediately, nor directly, that becau&s;e the Co|venant is particularly applyed to &s;ome per&s;ons, therefore it is offered to all. It's bad Logick, to argue from a particular to a generall, unle&s;&s;e up|on a generall rea&s;on: And hence, the con&s;equence from a particular to a generall, is not immediate, but remote. It followes not, that becau&s;e pardon is by the &s;eal applyed to &s;ome Traitors, there|fore it is offered to all Traitors: No more is it true <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 span">, that, becau&s;e grace is &s;ealed by par|ticular application to &s;ome per&s;ons in the Sacra|ment, therefore it is offered unto all. The con|&s;equent indeed is true, not &s;o the con&s;equence. In the la&s;t clau&s;e, Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> is ambiguous: If by <HI>every &s;ingle per&s;on</HI> he means every man, woman, and child in the world; then undoubt|edly, conviction of the generall offer, flowes pro|perly and immediately from &s;uch application: But there never was, nor will be, &s;uch an appli|cation. If by every &s;ingle per&s;on, he means &s;ome &s;ingle per&s;ons of all &s;orts, neither is there &s;uch an application at the Sacrament, even in Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> his own judgment who excludes, not on|ly Ideots, but al&s;o Heathen and excommunicated per&s;ons. If by every &s;ingle per&s;on he mean only, every per&s;on admitted to receive, here <HI>his every per&s;on</HI> notes but &s;ome per&s;ons in the World; nor will it follow, that becau&s;e the Covenant is applyed to &s;ome per&s;ons, by actuall Receiving, therefore it is offered unto all? My a&s;&s;ertion then holds thus far true, That conviction of the ge|nerall offer of the Covenant, comes by &s;ignifica|tion, and generall ob&s;ignation, not by per&s;onall and particular ob&s;ignation and application: which was the thing I drove at, and which Mr.
<PB N="129" REF="72">
<HI>Humphrey</HI> mu&s;t evince, if he will &s;peak to pur|po&s;e; nor is the di&s;tinction between offering and applying &s;o nice as he would make it.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. 3<HI>ly. Conviction that Chri&s;t is mine in particular, as to faith of particular evi|dence, comes not at all by the Sacrament:</HI> 1. <HI>Be|cau&s;e the Sacrament &s;eales nothing, but the Word; which &s;peaks not particularly, I believe.</HI> 2<HI>ly. What is common to the hypocrite with the true believer, cannot bring any evidence to me, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Let the Reader mark it: Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> denies, that faith of evidence, comes ei|ther by the Word or Sacrament. 2<HI>ly.</HI> He denies it upon a Popi&s;h ground, becau&s;e the Word &s;peaks not particularly. 3<HI>ly.</HI> We grant, the Word &s;aies not particularly, Thou <HI>John Hum|phrey,</HI> &s;halt be &s;aved; no more doth it &s;ay, Thou <HI>John Humphrey,</HI> &s;halt ri&s;e from the dead; or, Thou <HI>John Humphrey,</HI> &s;halt have no other Gods but <HI>Jehovah.</HI> Cannot Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> therefore attain to a faith of evidence, that he in particular &s;hall ri&s;e, and that its his duty in particular, to have <HI>Jehovah</HI> only for his God? 4<HI>ly.</HI> We grant, the Sacrament &s;eales nothing, but the Word; but, doth not the Sacrament by &s;ealing ratifie the Word? And then, if the Word conduce to faith of evidence, doth not the Sa|crament al&s;o? Take for in&s;tance the &s;yllogi&s;me of A&s;&s;urance: He that believes, &s;hall be &s;aved; I believe, therefore I &s;hall be &s;aved. The Con|clu&s;ion, <HI>I &s;hall be &s;aved,</HI> is faith of evidence. This Conclu&s;ion depends nece&s;&s;arily upon both Propo&s;itions: The <HI>Major</HI> is Scripture in terms, <HI>Mark</HI> 16. 26. The <HI>Minor,</HI> we &s;ay, depends part|ly
<PB N="130" REF="73">
upon Scripture, in re&s;pect of the &s;ignes of true faith laid down therein: According to Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> here (with whom we al&s;o agree) the <HI>Minor depends upon the te&s;timony of my own Con&s;cience, and the Spirit.</HI> The Conclu&s;ion flowes nece&s;&s;arily from both: If &s;o, then A&s;&s;u|rance depends in part upon Scripture, and parti|cularly the Promi&s;e; this Promi&s;e is ratified by the Sacrament as by a Seal: and how then can Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his A&s;&s;ertion hold Water, <HI>That faith of evidence comes not at all by the Sacra|ment.</HI> If my evidence for a Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion depend upon a Deed, and that Deed be ratified by a Seal, is it not clear, my Evidence depends much upon the Seal? Is not a Deed cancelled, by pulling off the Seales, and doth it not then depend much upon the Seales? True, Gods Word (con&s;idering his infallibility) is as good as his Bond; yet, to &s;trengthen our weak faith, he is plea&s;ed to annex Seales, &amp;c. that by &s;trong a&s;&s;urance, we might have &s;trong con&s;olation, <HI>Heb.</HI> 6. 17, 18. His &s;e|cond Argument, as it makes further di&s;covery of Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his judgment, &s;o it &s;hamefully laies open his weakne&s;&s;e: It di&s;covers his judg|ment, that he believes, no outward Ordinance can bring any evidence: it di&s;covers his weak|ne&s;&s;e, in a&s;&s;erting, <HI>That nothing common to hypo|crites with believers, can bring evidence to any,</HI> which, though true in &s;ome &s;en&s;e, is fal&s;e in his &s;en&s;e; and he may as well &s;ay, Nothing common to hypocrites with believers can convert, and thereby deny the power of Conver&s;ion to the Word preached. Can the Word convert, and can it not evidence conver&s;ion? Can it convince me to be in the &s;tate of Nature, and can it not as
<PB N="131" REF="73">
well convince me to be in the &s;tate of Grace? Can it do the greater, and can it not do the le&s;|&s;er? True, nothing common to hypocrites with believers, can be a formall cau&s;e of evidence; but, divers things common to both, may be ef|ficient cau&s;es of evidence, I mean, as in&s;tru|ments; to wit, Prayer, by impetration; the Word, by conviction; the Sacraments, by ob&s;ig|nation; and con&s;cience, by reflection; all back't by the Spirit as the Principle, who by the Word, &amp;c. convinces of righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e and judgment, as well, as of &s;in, <HI>John</HI> 16. 8.</P>
<P>For his Reply to my An&s;wer of his fourth Con&s;ideration, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 79.</NOTE> illu&s;trated by the Magitian and his Friend, it may indeed take the Reader with its plea&s;antne&s;&s;e; but is altogether impertinent, unle&s;&s;e Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> can prove, that Su&s;pen|&s;ion is not only the occa&s;ion, but al&s;o the proper cau&s;e of Church-divi&s;ion. I wonder Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> doth not cry out of all Church-cen&s;ures, and excommunication it &s;elfe, upon the &s;ame account. See my An&s;wer to his fourth Con&s;ide|ration, <HI>page</HI> 49, and 50. of my Bar, which Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> only plaies with, in his Reply, as well knowing it will bear jea&s;t better than ear|ne&s;t.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="7" TYPE="section">
<HEAD><HI>Sect.</HI> VII.</HEAD>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 80.</NOTE><HI>In defence of his &s;econd Rea&s;on, he makes the Sacraments e&s;&s;entiall notes of the vi&s;ible Church.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> I grant, the Sacraments rightly admi|ni&s;tred, are infallible notes of the Church vi&s;ible; but, I que&s;tion whether they be e&s;&s;entiall notes, becau&s;e &s;uch notes hold both negatively and af|firmatively. An e&s;&s;entiall note of a man, proves
<PB N="132" REF="74">
the &s;ubject where it is, to be a man, and the &s;ub|ject where it is not, to be no man: Upon which account, I dare not &s;ay, the Sacraments are e&s;|&s;entiall notes of the Church vi&s;ible, &s;ince a Church may be truly vi&s;ible, though it have them not for a long time: Such was the Church of tho&s;e I&s;raelites, who were not Circumci&s;ed in the Wilderne&s;&s;e, <HI>Jo&s;h.</HI> 5. <HI>ve &s;.</HI> 5, 7. which an|&s;wers our Bapti&s;me: Nor do I doubt, but <HI>Con|&s;tantine</HI> the Great was a true member of the vi|&s;ible Church, even before he was Baptized: The like may be &s;aid of <HI>Abraham's</HI> family, before Circumci&s;ion was in&s;tituted; and likewi&s;e of the <HI>Catechumeni,</HI> who were members (though in|compleat) of the Church-vi&s;ible, yet were ad|mitted to neither of the Sacraments, which how|ever nece&s;&s;ary, <HI>nece&s;&s;itate praecepti,</HI> yet are not nece&s;&s;ary ab&s;olutely <HI>nece&s;&s;itate medit,</HI> &s;o their ab&s;ence proceed not from contempt. The Church cannot be vi&s;ible without combination, in order to the Preaching of the Word, and Pray|er<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter"> but was vi&s;ible from <HI>Adams</HI> fall to the daies of <HI>Abraham,</HI> without Sacraments in ordinary. 2<HI>ly.</HI> If the Lords Supper be an e&s;&s;entiall note of the vi&s;ible Church, then many Congregations of <HI>England,</HI> who have been without it for divers years of late, are thereby unchurched, which I believe, Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> is more charitable than to a&s;&s;ert. How many Congregations have for ten or twelve years together, a&s;&s;embled con|&s;tantly at the Word and Prayer, without the Lords Supper, yea &s;ome of them, haply, with|out Bapti&s;me? A great fault I grant; but, I hope, not &s;o great, as to unchurch them.</P>
<P>I perceive, Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> is too willing to
<PB N="133" REF="74">
lie at catch, who cannot forbear &s;napping at me, even when I plead for him, and excu&s;e him. His definition of a Church-vi&s;ible I &s;hewed, was liable enough to exception; yet, took it in the be&s;t &s;en&s;e, &s;uppo&s;ing he meant more then he &s;aid. He defines a <HI>Church vi&s;ible, to be a number of &s;uch, as make profe&s;&s;ion of Je&s;us Chri&s;t.</HI> This definition, I &s;aid, was deficient, as wanting the <HI>copula,</HI> that united them in one body; namely, <HI>Combination for Church-ends:</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 81.</NOTE> Yet, &s;uppo&s;ing this might be his meaning, though not mentio|ned in his definition, I pa&s;&s;e it: For which he flouts me, as curious, and with a pretty &s;tory, thinks to catch his Reader. But, Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> &s;hould remember, that in a Di&s;pute, the Reader mu&s;t be convinced with Arguments, not caught with expre&s;&s;ions. Would he play the Logician more, and the Rhetorician le&s;&s;e, naked Truth would &s;ooner take place. Let me ask Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey,</HI> whether the Members of the invi&s;ible Church be not a number of Profe&s;&s;ours? If &s;o, VVhat di&s;tingui&s;heth the vi&s;ible from the invi&s;i|ble Church, but this Combination for Church-Ends? When all the parts of a body can make a <HI>totum</HI> without <HI>union,</HI> then all the members of the Church vi&s;ible, can make a Church vi&s;ible without the former combination. Pro|fe&s;&s;ours make the Church invi&s;ible, by invi&s;ible combination in Chri&s;t; and the Church vi&s;ible, by vi&s;ible combination at the Ordinances of Chri&s;t, the mo&s;t nece&s;&s;ary of which, the vi&s;ible Church cannot want.</P>
<P>In the &s;ame Page, <HI>He a&s;&s;erts directly, That all Profe&s;&s;ours and Saints by Calling, mu&s;t,</HI> eo nomine, <HI>be admitted to the Lords Table.</HI></P>
<P><PB N="134" REF="75"><HI>An&s;.</HI> If &s;o, then many who are not Members of the Church vi&s;ible, mu&s;t be admitted to the Lords Table. Suppo&s;e an Heathen converted, and making profe&s;&s;ion, yet, &s;eeks not Bapti&s;me; nay, &s;uppo&s;e he be Baptized, yet, joynes not to any particular Congregation, but Hears here and there, where he plea&s;eth, as an unconverted Hea|then may, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. 24. <HI>Jam.</HI> 2. <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 2, 6. Will Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> admit this Profe&s;&s;our to the Lords Supper? If not, then a Profe&s;&s;or and Saint by Calling, may not, <HI>eo nomine,</HI> be admit|ted. If he will admit him, then one, who is no member of the vi&s;ible Church, may be admit|ted to the Lords Supper. Now mark, I pray: If one who is no Church-member, may be ad|mitted, and divers who are Church-members, may not be admitted to the Saceament; is it not evident, that the ground of Admi&s;&s;ion to the Lords Supper, lies not properly in Church|member&s;hip, but in vi&s;ibility, &s;ince a vi&s;ible Saint may be admitted, though no Church|member; but divers Church-members may not be admitted, though invi&s;ible Saints.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 82.</NOTE>By this al&s;o may appear the weakne&s;&s;e of that a&s;&s;ertion of Mr. <HI>Humphrey, page</HI> 82. <HI>That he thinks, a vi&s;ible Profe&s;&s;or, and Church-member, are termes convertible.</HI> True, every Church|member, <HI>eo nomine,</HI> is a Profe&s;&s;or, but every Pro|fe&s;&s;or is not pre&s;ently a Church-member: <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Yet as a Church|member, he may be on|ly a Profe&s;sor at large, not in the &s;tricter acception of the terme, and as it is commonly taken, when we &s;ay,</HI> Such a man is a Profe&s;&s;or, <HI>in op|po&s;ition (not to Heathen, but) to loo&s;e and prophane Church-members.</HI></NOTE> Fit matter he may be for a Church, if his know|ledge
<PB N="135" REF="75">
and conver&s;ation do &s;uit in &s;ome good mea|&s;ure with his profe&s;&s;ion; but, he is no more a Church-member, till in union, than a beam or &s;tone is part of the Hou&s;e, till compacted with the building. This is further evident in the ca&s;e of excommunication, whereby even a pious Church-member, may be cut off, for a &s;canda|lous &s;in, yet remains &s;till, both a profe&s;&s;or, and a reall Saint: As, Suppo&s;e <HI>David</HI> had been ex|communicated for his Murther and Adultery. It's evident there, that a Profe&s;&s;or, and Church-member, are not termes convertible, &s;ince they are not predicated each of the other univer&s;al|ly.</P>
<P>The Argument drawn from Infants and Ide|ots, which here again he flies upon with &s;uch contempt and &s;corn, hath been formerly vindi|cated, to which I refer the Reader. For what he addes, <HI>That Saint</HI> Paul <HI>enjoynes us to examine our &s;elves, and to di&s;cern the Lords Body: Nor doth it excu&s;e any of age, but they are both to do &s;o, and come; both to prepare, and eat. We mu&s;t do what we can &s;till, when we cannot do as we ought: But, as for Infants, &amp;c. it's no &s;in of theirs, if they are not fit to come. For ignorance then, and &s;candall; if it be not &s;uch as makes us forfeit our Church-member&s;hip (that is, become excommunicate) it cannot contradict our out|ward Profe&s;&s;ion.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. By conce&s;&s;ion, <HI>in &s;en&s;u compo&s;ito,</HI> all of age, mu&s;t do both: But the Que&s;tion is, <HI>de &s;en&s;u divi&s;o,</HI> whether all of age mu&s;t receive, though they cannot, will not, receive worthily? It was a duty to ki&s;&s;e Chri&s;t &s;incerely, <HI>Luke</HI> 7. 45. but the very ki&s;&s;e was a &s;in, and wor&s;e then
<PB N="136" REF="76">
not ki&s;&s;ing, when given treacherou&s;ly, <HI>Luke</HI> 22. 48. So likewi&s;e to wor&s;hip Chri&s;t is a duty, <HI>John</HI> 9. 38. but better not wor&s;hip him at all, then wor&s;hip him ironically, <HI>Matth,</HI> 27. 29. Are not all unworthy Receivers, of this Frater|nity?</P>
<P N="2">2<HI>ly.</HI> Again by Conce&s;&s;ion. We mu&s;t do what we can morally, but not alwaies what we can naturally, when we can not do what we would. El&s;e, &s;uppo&s;e a per&s;on were &s;tript of all apparell, mu&s;t he of nece&s;&s;ity come to the Sacrament, though naked, becau&s;e he can get no apparell? The nakedne&s;&s;e of unworthy Receivers, e&s;peci|ally, if vi&s;ibly &s;o, is a great deal wor&s;e.</P>
<P N="3">3<HI>ly.</HI> Suppo&s;e a man be drunk before the Sa|crament, mu&s;t he therefore Receive the Lords Supper, even when he is actually drunk, becau&s;e by this &s;in of his, he wilfully made him&s;elfe un|fit for the Sacrament? Upon Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his Principles he mu&s;t; for, he tells us, that chil|dren and Ideots are excu&s;ed, becau&s;e they are not wilfully unfit for the Sacrament; but, per&s;ons of age being intelligent, mu&s;t receive, though they be unfit, becau&s;e the&s;e are wilfully, and by their own default, unfit. Will it not hence nece&s;&s;arily follow, that the vile&s;t mi&s;creants, who are <HI>jure</HI> excommunicate, are bound to come and receive, becau&s;e by their foul &s;candalls, they willfully unfit them&s;elves for the Sacrament? And by proportion, the more vile and wilfull &s;inners are, the more they are bound, to receive the Lords Supper. And therefore a per&s;on actually drunk, by his own default, mu&s;t receive, even when drunk becau&s;e he was wilfully unfit; but, a per|&s;on forced to be drunk by others, may be excu|&s;ed
<PB N="137" REF="76">
from Receiving, becau&s;e he did not wilfully make him&s;elfe unfit and uncapable. Wherefore are Ideots kept away, but becau&s;e they are chil|dren in under&s;tanding, and cannot put forth tho&s;e acts, which are nece&s;&s;ary to worthy re|ceiving? Are not all gro&s;ly ignorant per&s;ons, children al&s;o in under&s;tanding, as well as the for|mer, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. 20. If he &s;ay, they are not wil|fully &s;o, that is not true of divers, who by their lu&s;ts, break their brains, and grow di&s;tracted. If yet he &s;ay, ignorance may be cured, &s;o may di&s;traction and madne&s;&s;e al&s;o; but, till both be cured, the one by &s;pirituall, the other by bodily Phy&s;ick, I believe the one may plead admi&s;&s;ion as well as the other.</P>
<P N="4">4<HI>ly.</HI> Again, by Conce&s;&s;ion. Ignorance and &s;candall do not univer&s;ally contradict profe&s;&s;ion, whether I be a Church-member or not: It's e|nough for us, if either of them contradict pro|fe&s;&s;ion particularly: As, he that contradicts any one Commandement by wilfull di&s;obedience, though he keep the other nine; yet, really con|tradicts the whole Law, <HI>Jam.</HI> 2. 10. So he who holds up profe&s;&s;ion in many things, yet, walks contrary to it in one vi&s;ible &s;candal, by that one &s;candal contradicts his whole profe&s;&s;ion. He that yields up nine Forts to his Soveraigne, but keeps him out of one, is as truly a Rebell, as he that keeps him out of all. As one &s;in lived in, contradicts reall holine&s;&s;e; &s;o one &s;in vi&s;ibly li|ved in, contradicts vi&s;ible holine&s;&s;e, which is Profe&s;&s;ion. If vi&s;ible profanene&s;&s;e, arrayed with vi&s;ible holine&s;&s;e, mu&s;t be admitted, then a known Wolfe, cloathed with a Lambs skin, mu&s;t be u&s;ed as a Lamb; and a Dog, having on a Childs
<PB N="138" REF="77">
coat (though known to be a Dog) mu&s;t &s;it at the Table with the Children. The Tridentine Pa|pi&s;ts do not univer&s;ally contradict profe&s;&s;ion, yet we admit them not to our Sacraments, becau&s;e they contradict profe&s;&s;ion in divers fundamen|talls, though not univer&s;ally: upon which ac|count we look at them, as univer&s;ally contra|dicting profe&s;&s;ion, and that ju&s;tly. Do not ma|ny Members of our Churches ra&s;e the foundati|on by abominable errors and practices, as well as Papi&s;ts? And &s;hall &s;uch be admitted to the Lords Supper upon this poor account, becau&s;e they are not actually excommunicated? If &s;o, then let the ranke&s;t Papi&s;ts receive al&s;o, &s;ince they were never excommunicated by us. We indeed &s;eparate from them, and &s;o we may from per|&s;ons, who wilfully go on in gro&s;&s;e ignorance or &s;candall (though neither of them be excommu|nicated) till they profe&s;&s;e their repentance. Why may not &s;incere Profe&s;&s;ors in a Church, as to Sa|cramentall Communion, &s;eparate from &s;canda|lous Profe&s;&s;ors in the &s;ame Church, as we do from Papi&s;ts, though we neither excommuni|cate the one nor the other. Want of &s;eparation in Churches, is the cau&s;e, or at lea&s;t the occa&s;ion, of &s;eparation from Churches; and will, I fear, if not timely remedied, turn the Church of Chri&s;t into the Synagogue of Sathan.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <HI>He grants my Notes, but ob|jects the keeping of Children and Servants, till they can give &s;ome tolerable account.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> I take it for granted, that the Word and Sacraments rightly admini&s;tred, are true notes of the vi&s;ible Church; I do not grant the Sacrament is an e&s;&s;entiall note, and that upon the
<PB N="139" REF="77">
account forementioned, becau&s;e the ab&s;ence of Sacraments doth not unchurch a People, but they may &s;till be a Church, as Combined, for con&s;tant hearing of the Word and Prayer, (in which &s;en&s;e godly Families are true, though incompleat Churches, <HI>Philem. ver&s;.</HI> 2.) though at pre&s;ent they have not the u&s;e of Sacraments. Now let's &s;ee what Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> &s;aies to my Objection: He tells us, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 83.</NOTE> <HI>There is a difference be|tween what is done juridically, by compul&s;ion, and what is done only as prudentially by advice; between forbearance and exclu&s;ion.</HI> His ground is good, <HI>Becau&s;e affirmative precepts oblige us,</HI> &s;emper, <HI>but not</HI> ad &s;emper. And upon this ac|count, <HI>He commends godly Parents and Ma|&s;ters, &s;o long as they follow them with in&s;tructi|on, and allowes the &s;ame in &s;pirituall Fathers, that go no further in the like admonition.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. I am glad we agree thus far, that both Oeconomicall and Spirituall Parents have power in a prudentiall way, by advice, to cau&s;e per&s;ons under their &s;everall charges, to forbear the Sa|crament. Now let Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> give me any Scripture-ground to per&s;wade per&s;ons, be they never &s;o wicked, not to Hear and Pray. The wor&s;t are bound to pray every day, and to Hear as often as their ju&s;t and nece&s;&s;ary occa&s;ions will give them leave. Why &s;o? Becau&s;e 1. The&s;e are parts of naturall Wor&s;hip, unto which all are obliged by the Law of Nature. 2<HI>ly.</HI> Becau&s;e the&s;e are means of Conver&s;ion, from which none &s;hould be kept, lea&s;t of all the wor&s;t, who have mo&s;t need of Conver&s;ion. <HI>Contra,</HI> Sacraments (as &s;uch) are not naturall, but in&s;tituted wor&s;hip. 2<HI>ly.</HI> Not means of Conver&s;ion, but &s;uppo&s;e
<PB N="140" REF="78">
Conver&s;ion: whence per&s;ons vi&s;ibly in the &s;tate of Nature, ought not to be admitted to them.</P>
<P N="2">But 2<HI>ly.</HI> Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> &s;peaks ob&s;curely and comes not home to the point, though what he granted make again&s;t him&s;elfe. For, the next Que&s;tion is, What if tho&s;e Children and Ser|vants (though gro&s;ly ignorant and &s;candalous) in &s;pight of admonition, will thru&s;t them&s;elves upon the Sacrament? In this Paragraph Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> &s;aies <HI>I think a man may con&s;ciona|bly forbear his comming &s;ometimes upon many occa&s;ions, and much more upon pious ends, re|garding preparation.</HI> You &s;ee now the mans <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1+ letters">incing of the bu&s;ine&s;&s;e. 1. <HI>He may forbear;</HI> he doth not &s;ay, he mu&s;t forbear. 2<HI>ly. He may &s;om|times &s;o. bear e&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">ecially, upon want of due pre|paration</HI> He doth not &s;ay, he mu&s;t forbear, if he want due preparation. 3<HI>ly.</HI> He hints not one word here, what &s;uperiours mu&s;t do or not do, in ca&s;e a per&s;on gro&s;ly ignorant or &s;candalous, will, again&s;t their admonition come to the Sa|crament, upon which, yet, the very hinge of the Controver&s;y turnes. For our parts, we are clear, 1. That per&s;ons unworthy ought to forbear; un|der&s;tand it of Evangelicall unworthine&s;&s;e, e&s;pe|cially, when &s;en&s;ible; I mean, one who hath no faith and repentance, e&s;pecially when convinced he hath them not. 2<HI>ly.</HI> So long as he continues in this condition, he ought to forbear. If upon &s;elfe examination he apprehend him&s;elfe (though fal&s;ely to be in the &s;tate of Grace, then his ca&s;e is the &s;ame with his who thinks a &s;in to be a du|ty who of nece&s;&s;ity mu&s;t &s;in, whether he act or act not; in that, again&s;t the rule; in this, again&s;t
<PB N="141" REF="78">
his Con&s;cience: Or, as he who received the Pa&s;|&s;over, thinking him&s;elfe clean, yet, was really unclean. If he came not, he &s;inned again&s;t his con&s;cience; if he came he &s;inned again&s;t the rule: yet, this nece&s;&s;ity of &s;inning is only hypotheticall, not ab&s;olute. 3<HI>ly.</HI> If Oeconomicall Parents know their Children or Servants to be gro&s;ly igno|rant or &s;candalous, they ought not only to di&s;|&s;wade them, but al&s;o to improve their Authori|ty to keep &s;uch (being <HI>in &s;tatu quo</HI>) from the Sacrament. 4<HI>ly.</HI> It lies upon Oeconomicall Pa|rents to make &s;earch, who are gro&s;ly ignorant and &s;candalous in their families, by Catechi&s;ing and watching over their Children and Servants, and in the u&s;e of private, as well as publick means, to bring them to &s;ome competent mea&s;ure of knowledge, and at lea&s;t, to profe&s;&s;ion of re|pentance, before they &s;uffer them to Receive, <HI>Deut.</HI> 6. 7. <HI>Prov.</HI> 31. 27. And why Spirituall Parents &s;hould not do the &s;ame (there being the &s;ame ground of the one as of the other) a &s;olid rea&s;on cannot be given: Both are betru&s;ted with &s;oules, both mu&s;t take care to prepare tho&s;e un|der their charge for the Sacrament; which is impo&s;&s;ible for them to do (at lea&s;t, in re&s;pect of divers, both Children Servants, and People) if in &s;pight of Parents, per&s;ons, though never &s;o ignorant and &s;candalous, might thru&s;t them|&s;elves upon the Sacrament.</P>
<P N="3">3<HI>ly.</HI> Becau&s;e he laies &s;o much &s;tre&s;&s;e upon kee|ping per&s;ons from the Sacrament, <HI>uridicall, and by compul&s;ion:</HI> I believe it would puzzle Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> to prove, that we have kept any a|way in that manner. Divers of our people will not come to Sacraments, though they may:
<PB N="142" REF="79">
others de&s;ire to come, but will not &s;ubmit to try|all: Such we intreat to excu&s;e us, and thereupon they ab&s;tain, though with di&s;content. But where have we <HI>juridically, or by compul&s;ion,</HI> kept any from the Sacrament? If there be any &s;uch thing among&s;t us, I am confident it is very rare. I wi&s;h Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> were &s;o good a friend as he pre|tends, to this prudentiall care of Church Go|vernours about the Sacrament; then would he per&s;wade people upon prudence, to &s;ubmit to tryall, and not blow up the divi&s;ion between Pa&s;tour and People, by crying out &s;o cau&s;le&s;ly, <HI>Violence and Compul&s;ion.</HI> Where any benefit or priviledge is offered, upon fair and honourable conditions, and, upon &s;leighting the condition, is denyed, will Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> look at &s;uch a condition as compul&s;ion? Or, if any refu&s;ing the condition, &s;hall catch at the Commodity by violence, may not his violence be repelled with violence; &amp; in &s;uch ca&s;e, is not the former charge|able with violence, rather then the latter? Yet, God be thanked, we have no &s;uch cu&s;tome; but, we have rea&s;on to fear, that Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his Book may put heady people upon waies of vio|lence, in order to the Sacrament, though he drive no &s;uch de&s;igne in the publication there|of.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> being urged with the Book of Common-Prayer, an&s;wers, <HI>As for the Rubricks allowing the Mini&s;ter to &s;u&s;pend &s;ome notorious evill livers, I take it upon the account of</HI> ip&s;o jure <HI>excommunicate, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. The Mini&s;ter is not only allowed, but commanded to &s;u&s;pend, in the&s;e words, <HI>The &s;ame cour&s;e &s;hall the Curate take with tho&s;e, &amp;c.
<PB N="143" REF="79">
not &s;uffering them to be partakers of the Lords Table, &amp;c.</HI> 2<HI>ly.</HI> The object of the Su&s;pen&s;ion is not only adulterers, &amp;c. but, <HI>malicious, envi|ous, and ignorant per&s;ons; yea, &s;uch as wrong their neighbours, in word or deed, and will not be per&s;waded to make them reparation;</HI> all which indeed are very great &s;ins, though too rife in, and &s;lighted by, many Profe&s;&s;ours and Church-members. And particularly for per&s;ons gro&s;ly ignorant, I appeal to the form of confirmation, which gives charge for their &s;u&s;pen&s;ion in the&s;e words, <HI>There &s;hall none be admitted unto the holy Communion, untill &s;uch time as he can &s;ay the Catechi&s;m:</HI> In order whereunto, both Mi|ni&s;ters and Governours of Families are com|manded, to be diligent in point of in&s;truction, and then to return the names of per&s;ons &s;o in|&s;tructed, to the Bi&s;hop, that he might examine and approve them. From all which, compared with Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his pre&s;ent Explication and Interpretation, I conclude, That either ignorant and envious per&s;ons are <HI>ip&s;o jure</HI> excommunicate; or, that per&s;ons may be &s;u&s;pended, though not <HI>ip&s;o jure</HI> excommunicate.</P>
<P>He addes, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 84.</NOTE> <HI>We may di&s;tingui&s;h haply between &s;ins that cannot &s;tand with &s;incerity, or with profe&s;&s;ion, as Church-members. It may be the Rubrick teaches the la&s;t.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Pa&s;&s;ing his he&s;itancy in this di&s;tinction, for which, it may be, his heart checkt him; we are beholding to Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> for this an|&s;wer. 1. He grants &s;ome &s;ins, and particularly wilfull &s;ins, cannot &s;tand with &s;incerity. Thence I gather, That in Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his own judg|ment, an hypocrite may evidently and certainly
<PB N="144" REF="80">
be di&s;cerned. If &s;o, then I hope we may judge &s;ome mens hearts to be naught, without entring upon Gods Throne, or prying into Gods &s;ecrets; an heavy charge he laid formerly upon us.</P>
<P N="2">2<HI>ly.</HI> It's Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his judgment, that though it be certainly known a per&s;on is a wicked man, in the &s;tate of nature, and in the gall of bitterne&s;&s;e (for &s;uch are all who have no &s;inceri|ty) yet, he mu&s;t be admitted to the Sacrament, &s;o he be a Church-member. Are they <HI>jure</HI> ex|communicate, who fall into &s;ome &s;candalous &s;in, (though, as to their &s;tate, reall or hopefull Saints) and &s;hall not they be <HI>jure</HI> excommunicate, who are known to be in the &s;tate of nature? Shall the Lambe for a Wolvi&s;h act, be denyed the Chil|drens bread; and &s;hall a known Wolfe, &s;tript of his Sheeps cloathing, &s;it at the Childrens Ta|ble, upon this account only, becau&s;e he is <HI>crept</HI> into the Fold?<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Jud. ver.</HI> 4.</NOTE></P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <HI>But for Mr.</HI> Drake <HI>now, me thinks he &s;hould blu&s;h, to produce me this Autho|rity which him&s;elfe de&s;pi&s;es.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Suppo&s;e this charge were true, may not I urge him with that Authority, I conceive he ownes, becau&s;e I own not the &s;ame Authority. Were I a Jew, and de&s;pi&s;ed the new Te&s;tament; yet, I hope, it would not be irrationall for me to pre&s;&s;e him, being a Chri&s;tian, with the New Te|&s;tament. 2<HI>ly.</HI> His Charge is fal&s;e; I de&s;pi&s;e not the Book of Common-Prayer, though I ap|prove not divers things in it and about it; and for which, I have both &s;olid rea&s;on, the con&s;ent of the mo&s;t pious in the Nation, and both Hou|&s;es of Parliament to back me. As to the point in hand: If the Exhortation in the Communion
<PB N="145" REF="80">
make it utterly unlawfull to be pre&s;ent, unle&s;&s;e we receive; I mu&s;t crave liberty to di&s;&s;ent from it in that particular, and mu&s;t oppo&s;e to this pre|cept the practice of the Primitive Church. But, may there not be a candid interpretation of that Pa&s;&s;age? The Exhortation is but again&s;t tho&s;e, who &s;leight and neglect the Sacrament, and withall &s;tand by as <HI>Gazers.</HI> Compare <HI>Acts</HI> 1. 11. who may come and will not. This certainly is a great &s;in. But will Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> thence conclude, that becau&s;e &s;ome may not ta&s;te, there|fore they may not hear and &s;ee the goodne&s;&s;e of the Lord in the Sacrament? Shall I not come as near the Lord as I can, becau&s;e I cannot come &s;o near him as I would?</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 85.</NOTE>Mr. <HI>Humphrey, page</HI> 56. Mr. <HI>Drake</HI> ac|knowledges this practice of his were again&s;t the well being of a true vi&s;ible Church, if the Lords Supper were a priviledge due to all members.</P>
<P><HI>I think herein his cau&s;e is yielded (to all clear|ly, but what we have excepted.)</HI> Why, I pray? <HI>Becau&s;e our outward or vi&s;ible right is Church-member&s;hip. As for the &s;ubdi&s;tinction of this, to be more remote or immediate, found out by &s;ome, we cannot receive, without warrant from Scrip|ture.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. To proceed by his own Rule: What warrant of Scripture hath he for his own excep|tions, the vanity whereof I have formerly unca|&s;ed. 2<HI>ly.</HI> If warrant from Scripture will &s;atisfie him, I &s;hall give him one from the Old, another from the New-Te&s;tament: For the fir&s;t, All Church-members had a remote right to the Pa&s;&s;|over, as is evident by that univer&s;all command, <HI>Exod.</HI> 12. 47. <HI>All the Congregation of I&s;rael
<PB N="146" REF="81">
&s;hall keep it.</HI> 2<HI>ly.</HI> That all Church-members had not an immediate right, is as evident, becau&s;e no I&s;raelite was to eat thereof, when unclean; but to &s;tay till the next Pa&s;&s;over, <HI>Numb.</HI> 9. For the New-Te&s;tament, That all Church-members have a mediate right to the Lords Supper, we grant, and Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> di&s;putes eagerly for it, making Church-member&s;hip the formall ground thereof. That all Church-members have not an immediate right, is evident; 1. In Infants and Ideots. 2<HI>ly.</HI> From that famous place, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10. 21. <HI>You cannot drink of the Cup of the Lord, and the Cup of Devills, &amp;c.</HI> He &s;peaks to Church-members; and that <HI>Cannot</HI> holds forth, not a naturall, but morall impo&s;&s;ibility: for, what&s;o|ever is unlawfull, is morally impo&s;&s;ible. Tho&s;e Church-members then, who drank of the Devills Cup at the Idols Temple, might not drink of the Lords Cup at the Sacrament. They had then a mediate right as Church-members; but, not an immediate right, becau&s;e defiled by the Idol-Fea&s;t. His cavills again&s;t this place have been formerly an&s;wered. I might here add for confirmation, the practice of the Primitive Church, and our own Church, in not admit|ting Church-members, till they had competent knowledge, and were free from &s;candall: But, I forbear repetitions.</P>
<P>Tho&s;e three thou&s;and he &s;peaks of, <HI>Acts</HI> 2, had competent knowledge, and by profe&s;&s;ed re|pentance cleared them&s;elves of &s;candall. Com|pare 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 7. 11. To &s;uch Church-members we &s;hall not deny the Sacrament: The Lord in|crea&s;e the number of them in our Churches.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <HI>So long as he is in Communi|on,
<PB N="147" REF="81">
how can he be debarred the Communion?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> He is actually in Communion, though <HI>jure</HI> excommunicate; yet, here Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> will allow Su&s;pen&s;ion. Is it not clear then, by his own grant, that a per&s;on in Communion, may be debarred the Communion?</P>
<P><HI>D. Dr.</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 86.</NOTE> Good Government lies in the Geome|tricall (not Arithmeticall) Admini&s;tration of Cen&s;ures.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <HI>Mr.</HI> Drake<HI>'s Su&s;pen&s;ion hangs by Geometry, between admonition and ex|communication.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Be it &s;o: that which hangs by Geometry hangs fa&s;t enough, however per&s;ons unskild in Geometry, may fear it will fall. He doth well to make up in Wit, what is defective in Rea&s;on. Su&s;pen&s;ion wants not a Bottom in Scripture, though it hang in the Air of Mr. <HI>Humphrer</HI>'s Brain. But, of this, formerly, and more, haply, hereafter.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 87.</NOTE><HI>He triumphs, becau&s;e we grant &s;u&s;pen&s;ion is not in termes in Scripture.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> No more is Excommunication, which yet, I hope, is an unque&s;tionable: Ordinance. 2<HI>ly.</HI> He deceives the Reader, in telling him, I place the whole bu&s;ine&s;&s;e of excommunication in &s;u&s;pen&s;ion from actuall Receiving, when its evident by my whole di&s;cour&s;e, I place but part of the bu&s;ine&s;&s;e of excommunication in it; it be|ing a lower degree; and but a negative excom|munication, as we manage it, like his excom|munication of Infants and Ideots.</P>
<P>After &s;undry pittifull &s;hufflings (with &s;ome &s;coffs intermixed) to make the Parable of the Tares &s;erve his turne, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 88, <HI>&amp;</HI> 89.</NOTE> Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> at la&s;t
<PB N="148" REF="82">
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Matth.</HI> 13. 25.</NOTE> comming to i&s;&s;ue, and being pinched with the Doctrine of Excommunication, which cuts the throat of his Interpretation of that Parable; is plea&s;ed to take notice of my Objection, in the&s;e words, If the Lord will have the Tares let alone untill the day of judgment, what will become of Excommunication? To this, all he an&s;wers, is, <HI>There is no doubt of Chri&s;ts reconciling his own Ordinances,</HI> page 89. f.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Hath Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> no more pitty up|on tender Con&s;ciences, then to leave them thus in the &s;uds? In opening the Parable, he tells us, the Tares cannot be taken up, without prejudice to the Wheat; that is, the Wicked cannot be &s;eparated from the Church, without prejudice to the Godly: Yea, &s;o confident is he herein, as to a&s;&s;ert, That vi&s;ible unworthyne&s;&s;e is not &s;o much, as the rule of Excommunication, in the&s;e words, <HI>I think Mr.</HI> Drake <HI>mu&s;t &s;hut his eyes up|on this Text, if he will yet per&s;i&s;ts, in making vi&s;ible unworthine&s;&s;e, the rule of Excommuni|cation, page</HI> 88. If vi&s;ible unworthine&s;&s;e be not the rule of excommunication, what is? Is vi&s;ible or invi&s;ible worthine&s;&s;e the rule? Or, is invi&s;ible unworthine&s;&s;e the rule of excommunicating Church-members? What was the Ince&s;tuous Co|rinth excommunicated for, but for vi&s;ible un|worthine&s;&s;e? unle&s;&s;e Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> will &s;ay, that the charge of Ince&s;t made good again&s;t him, was not his vi&s;ible unworthine&s;&s;e. Church-mem|bers are not excommunicated as Saints, but as Sinners; nor as &s;inners ab&s;olutely, but as vi&s;i|ble &s;inners; el&s;e, where is Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his <HI>jure</HI> excommunicate? What is vi&s;ible &s;in, but vi&s;ible unworthine&s;&s;e? And though all vi&s;ible unwor|thine&s;&s;e
<PB N="149" REF="82">
do not make me Evangelically unwor|thy; yet, vi&s;ible unworthine&s;&s;e in dominion, doth. This Dominion is either Tyrannicall, by &s;ome enormous act wa&s;ting the Con&s;cience: or, Regall, when a per&s;on is in the &s;tate of &s;in; both which make him Tarei&s;h, and if vi&s;ible, a vi&s;ible Tare, to be pluckt up (though in order to cure, if po&s;&s;ible) by the hands of Excommunication. By Tares then, are meant, per&s;ons vi&s;ibly wicked in the Church, (be it habitually or actually) <HI>Matth.</HI> 13. <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 27, 38. compare <HI>John</HI> 8 34. The&s;e Tares Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> will by no means have pluckt up. We An&s;wer, Then farewell Ex|communication, which is a plucking up of the Tares. This Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> doth not an&s;wer, (leaving Chri&s;t to an&s;wer for him&s;elfe, if he plea&s;e) yet is re&s;olved to hold the Conclu&s;ion. What here&s;ie may not pa&s;&s;e for current if Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his Di&s;inity be good? For in&s;tance, The Anthropomorphites teach, that God is a Body, and that, becau&s;e eyes, ears, hands, &amp;c. are attributed to him in Scripture. We reply, God is a Spirit, <HI>John</HI> 4. 24. and therefore cannot be a Body. How ea&s;ily now, may they with Mr. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> hold the Conclu&s;ion &s;till, and &s;ay, There is no doubt of Gods reconciling his own Truth. God will indeed reconcile his owne Truth and Ordinances, be we never &s;o negligent to reconcile them; but we can expect but little thanks from God and Chri&s;t, if either through carele&s;&s;ene&s;&s;e or prejudice, we do not our endea|vour to reconcile them. For the Satisfaction therefore of tender Con&s;ciences, whom Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> leaves in a confu&s;ed maze of doubt: Know 1. Its true in &s;ome &s;en&s;e, that the Tares
<PB N="150" REF="83">
mu&s;t not be plucked up, for the Scripture &s;aies it, and the Scripture cannot be broken, <HI>John</HI> 10. 35. 2<HI>ly.</HI> In &s;ome &s;en&s;e it is true, the Tares mu&s;t be plucked up, becau&s;e Excommunication (which is a plucking up of Tares) is a Scripture-Ordinance, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5. 5, 7. The termes are &s;ee|mingly, but not really, contradictory: <HI>The Tares mu&s;t not be plucked up;</HI> and, <HI>the Tares mu&s;t be plucked up.</HI> As others of the like nature, <HI>God &s;ees no &s;in in his Children;</HI> and, <HI>God &s;ees &s;in in his Children. The Church is without &s;pot;</HI> and, <HI>the Church is &s;potted, &amp;c.</HI> all which are only &s;ee|mingly contradictory, becau&s;e not under&s;tood under the &s;ame re&s;pect. For the difficulty about plucking up, or not plucking up, the Tares, we cannot have a better Reconciler than Chri&s;t him&s;elfe, <HI>Matth.</HI> 13. 29. where the ground of the Prohibition, is the rule and bound of the Prohibition. From thence I gather, 1. That the Prohibition is not ab&s;olute, but with a caution, <HI>Le&s;t you pluck up the Wheat al&s;o,</HI> how ever Mr. <HI>Humphrey, page</HI> 89. is plea&s;ed to judge of it, and in the clo&s;e, to favour me with a je&s;t. 2<HI>ly.</HI> That men vi&s;ibly wicked mu&s;t be tolerated in the Church, rather then per&s;ons vi&s;ibly godly &s;hould be prejudiced, by ra&s;h and prepo&s;terous rigour, again&s;t wicked Church-members; as it fell out by the Anabapti&s;ts: See <HI>Calvin</HI> and <HI>Pa|reus</HI> upon the place.</P>
<P>Others think, the Tares in <HI>Pale&s;tine</HI> were like the Wheat, whence there might be danger of eradicating the Wheat with them. But, its evi|dent, the Servants knew the Tares, and were of|fended with them (whether by &s;ervants you un|der&s;tand Church-Officers, or other di&s;cerning
<PB N="151" REF="83">
Church-members) whence it &s;eemes to follow, that either &s;ome may be known to be Tares, who cannot juridically be proved to be &s;o; and &s;uch was the ca&s;e of <HI>Judas:</HI> Or, though they can be proved to be &s;uch, yet, circum&s;tances may &s;o fall out, that ju&s;t &s;everity again&s;t them, by way of excommunication, may be noxious to the godly: In which ca&s;es, &s;uch Tares mu&s;t be patiently tolerated, till either God open a dore for the Church to ca&s;t them out, or deal with them him&s;elfe by particular or generall judg|ment. 3<HI>ly.</HI> That Church-members may be known to be wicked, and in the &s;tate of nature, without danger of entring upon Gods Throne; This Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> grants here, and the Parable holds it forth, <HI>Matth.</HI> 13. 26, 27. however he di&s;pute again&s;t it el&s;e-where. 4<HI>ly.</HI> That where wicked men may be cut off without prejudice to the godly, there the plucking up of tho&s;e Tares is not prohibited by the Parable; this will be done at the day of Judgment, hath been done, and may be done by excommunication. 5<HI>ly.</HI> That a Mini&s;ters knowledge of a man to be a Tare, is not enough to ca&s;t him out of the Church, &s;ince its of great concernment, that the Wheat (as well as the Servants) &s;hould know the Tares: that the Congregation (as well as Church-Officers) &s;hould be &s;atisfied, a per&s;on is a Tare, before he be pluckt up, which order be|ing ob&s;erved, there can be no &s;uch danger of plucking up the Wheat. A Mini&s;ter may &s;u&s;pend a po&s;itive Act, in not giving the Sacrament to &s;uch a per&s;on for the pre&s;ent; but, he cannot put forth a po&s;itive Act, to cut off &s;uch a per&s;on from the Church, without con&s;ent or &s;atisfaction
<PB N="152" REF="84">
of the Church, at lea&s;t, repre&s;entative. And, if in the former ca&s;e, the Mini&s;ter do wrong through mi&s;take or pa&s;&s;ion, &amp;c. him&s;elfe is accountable to the Church for that particular injury; and the per&s;on &s;o wronged, ought to be righted by the Church. If Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> can reconcile the Pa|rable better with excommunication, we &s;hall have cau&s;e to thank him: If not, I &s;hall intreat him not to &s;coff at what he cannot mend: But, however he &s;hall plea&s;e to deal with me, let him remember, it's a Mini&s;ters duty to &s;atisfie, not to encrea&s;e, the &s;cruples of tender Con&s;ciences; e&s;pecially when his profe&s;t de&s;igne is, the &s;atis|faction of tender Con&s;ciences. When two Scrip|tures &s;eem to cla&s;h, is it fit for a Mini&s;ter to leave them together by the ears, and &s;ay, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Matth.</HI> 27. 43.</NOTE> Let Chri&s;t part them if he will? Such carriage is fitter for a Jewi&s;h Prie&s;t, then for a Go&s;pell Mini&s;ter. Is Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> &s;o carefull to reconcile Chri&s;ts Members, and &s;o carele&s;&s;e to reconcile Chri&s;ts Truths?</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 89.</NOTE> <HI>Publick confe&s;&s;ion will hard|ly down, and Auricular we hardly approve of, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="1,2"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. No more will good Phy&s;ick down with too many; yet, a wi&s;e and faithfull Phy&s;i|cian will take &s;ome cour&s;e to get it down, where he apprehends its u&s;efull for his Patient. 2<HI>ly.</HI> Pub|lick Confe&s;&s;ion of &s;in indeed is har&s;h, becau&s;e by it, one takes publick &s;hame to him&s;elfe, which the proud heart of man is loath to do; yet, in &s;ome ca&s;es it mu&s;t be &s;ubmitted to: But publick Profe&s;&s;ion of faith is honourable, and which its a &s;hame for a Chri&s;tian to be a&s;hamed of. Brides are not a&s;hamed to profe&s;&s;e their love of, and
<PB N="153" REF="84">
confidence in, their Bridegrooms before the Mi|ni&s;ter, and the Church, if need be; and &s;hall Chri&s;ts Spou&s;e be a&s;hamed to declare her faith in, and love of, her mo&s;t precious Lord and Hus|band, before the friends of the Bridegroom?</P>
<P N="3">3<HI>ly.</HI> This Profe&s;&s;ion is not &s;o publick, as to offer violence to the mode&s;ty of any, it being made but before two or three, who are al&s;o rea|dy to prompt the Bride, when her mode&s;ty &s;eals up her lips with &s;ilence.</P>
<P N="4">4<HI>ly.</HI> To avoid the imputation of auricular Confe&s;&s;ion, &amp;c. this Profe&s;&s;ion is not made to the Mini&s;ter alone, but before per&s;ons al&s;o of known integrity, whom we hope, without of|fence, we may call <HI>Elders;</HI> and if they be not &s;uch, its the error and fault of tho&s;e who choo&s;e them, and may be remedied by them&s;elves.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <HI>Chri&s;t &s;ometimes conver&s;ed with Phari&s;ees, I hope to do good upon them, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. So I hope Chri&s;ts Mini&s;ters will make con&s;cience to conver&s;e with Phari&s;ees and Pub|licans to do them good, and bring them to re|pentance. 2<HI>ly.</HI> Chri&s;t admitted neither of them to the Sacrament, till he had done them good, and brought them to repentance. And if this make not for us, and again&s;t Mr. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> I pray what doth?</P>
<P>This is the more remarkable, becau&s;e both Phari&s;ees and Publicans were members of the Church (divers Publicans being Jewes, as is evident by <HI>Matthew, Zacheus,</HI> &amp;c. and is made out by <HI>Jerome</HI> again&s;t the mi&s;take of <HI>Tertullian:</HI> See <HI>Goodwin's Mo&s;es</HI> and <HI>Aaron, Lib.</HI> 1. <HI>Cap.</HI> 2.) Chri&s;t conver&s;ed with both to do them good,
<PB N="154" REF="85">
but admitted neither to the Lords Supper, till af|ter profe&s;&s;ion of repentance, as is evident in the ca&s;e of the Apo&s;tle <HI>Matthew,</HI> who was a Publi|can, <HI>Matth.</HI> 9. 9. and 10. 3. compare <HI>Matth.</HI> 26. <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 20. 27.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 90.</NOTE> <HI>Mr.</HI> Drake <HI>need not &s;o un|ju&s;tly and &s;o direfully, fir&s;t accu&s;e me, and then condemn me, for what he forges, as if I de&s;erved to be more then &s;u&s;pended, which in his &s;en&s;e makes me tremble it &s;hould enter into his heart. Why &s;hould I be thus devoted to the pit of Hell, even irrecoverably? The&s;e Cen&s;ures are things too &s;harp to be put into the hands of &s;uch children of thine. It may be the Lord will look upon mine affliction, and requite me good for his cur&s;ing this day, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Such pa&s;&s;ionate digre&s;&s;ions (at which Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> is excellent) contribute far more to take upon the affections, then his arguments do to convince the judgment. Had he &s;truck at &s;o incon&s;iderable a per&s;on as my &s;elfe alone with|out &s;uch &s;ad reflections upon the whole Presby|terian party <HI>(whom he looks at as Children, not fit to have the knife of Church-Cen&s;ures com|mitted to them)</HI> well might it have been born, and buried in &s;ilence, though I believe, that Mi|ni&s;ters are bound more then others, in the u&s;e of all honourable means, to wipe off from them&s;elves the blot of fal&s;e a&s;per&s;ions. Nor can I blame Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> for vindicating him&s;elfe, if I have been &s;o injurious in my charge, as he pretends. But to the point. Such &s;tre&s;&s;e doth Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> lay upon <HI>Judas</HI> his receiving (a thing, 1 &s;o controverted, and improbable enough. 2<HI>ly.</HI> So in&s;ufficient a ground for univer&s;all ad|mi&s;&s;ion,
<PB N="155" REF="85">
though granted, his own party being judges) as he concludes in expre&s;&s;e termes, <HI>What need more be urged, but that men, when they are willing not to &s;ee, will let any hand (put over their eies) be enough to blind them.</HI> By this ra&s;h cen&s;ure of his, I noted, that 1. He condem|ned the Churches at home and abroad, as &s;in|ning wilfully again&s;t light, in owning and pra|cti&s;ing Su&s;pen&s;ion, contrary to the cleer and un|doubted example (as he apprehends) of <HI>Judas</HI> his admi&s;&s;ion. 2<HI>ly.</HI> That his Pen &s;avoured rankly of pride, in this unchri&s;tian cen&s;ure. 3<HI>ly.</HI> That him&s;elfe, I fear, de&s;erved more then &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, for this his &s;candalous and wicked cen&s;ure. In all this, 1. Where is there any forgery, unle&s;&s;e the quotation of his own words be a forgery? 2<HI>ly.</HI> Where is the lea&s;t word of cur&s;ing him, or of devoting him irrecoverably to the pit of Hell? <HI>I, but in my &s;en&s;e it is &s;o. An&s;.</HI> Let the Reader judge, if herein Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> deal charitably with me: I charge him only with his own ex|pre&s;&s;e termes; he charges me with that, of which I wrote not one tittle, meerly upon jealou&s;ie of my &s;en&s;e and meaning. 2<HI>ly.</HI> He charges me for|merly as entring into Gods &s;ecrets; yet, here takes upon him to enter into Gods &s;ecrets, and to judge of my heart and meaning, where my words bear no &s;uch thing. 3<HI>ly.</HI> He charges me with cur&s;ing him, and devoting him to the pit of Hell irrecoverably, who had not one tittle in my book, nor owne thought in my heart to that purpo&s;e. <HI>I, but all this is implyed, when I &s;ay, he de&s;erves more then &s;u&s;pen&s;ion. An&s;.</HI> 1. I &s;ay more again&s;t my &s;elfe, and the Presbyterians in generall, upon &s;uppo&s;ition, that we were guilty
<PB N="156" REF="86">
of Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his charge; namely, that then we were in the high way to the &s;in again&s;t the Holy Gho&s;t, and de&s;erved not only to be &s;u&s;pen|ded, but al&s;o to be excommunicated. 2<HI>ly.</HI> I &s;aid not peremptorily, that he de&s;erved more then &s;u&s;pen&s;ion but, that <HI>I feared</HI> he de&s;erved more then &s;u&s;pen&s;ion. 3<HI>ly.</HI> Had I &s;aid, he de&s;erved for this his uncharitablene&s;&s;e everla&s;ting damnation, (&s;uppo&s;ing he were &s;o uncharitable, of which, let the Reader judge by his own words) I &s;aid no more then the truth, unle&s;&s;e it be fal&s;e Do|ctrine that an uncharitable act de&s;erves damna|tion 4<HI>ly.</HI> If the &s;aying, that &s;uch or &s;uch a &s;in de&s;erves damnation, be the cur&s;ing of a per&s;on guilty thereof, or the devoting of him to dam|nation, then I cannot tell a man, his &s;in de&s;erves hell and cur&s;e, but in that very act I cur&s;e him, and devote him to the pit of hell; and &s;o the greate&s;t act of charity, &s;hall be made the foule&s;t act of uncharitablene&s;&s;e. 5<HI>ly.</HI> As my words bear no &s;uch cur&s;ed &s;en&s;e, as Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> pins up|on them, &s;o I here profe&s;&s;e, that in tho&s;e words, I was far from cur&s;ing, or devoting him to the pit of hell; but, did apprehend indeed that &s;uch an uncharitable cen&s;ure of the Churches of Chri&s;t at home and abroad, de&s;erved a higher degree of excommunication then &s;u&s;pen&s;ion is. And if Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> or any el&s;e, can make it out, that therein I have been uncharitable, I &s;hall willingly cry both God and him mercy, and be ready to make as publick reparation, as I have given thereby publick offence. I never, to my remembrance, heard before now, that to &s;ay, a man de&s;erves excommunication, is a cur&s;ing of him, and a devoting of him, irrecoverably, to
<PB N="157" REF="86">
the pit of Hell, nor do I believe, that the Apo&s;tle, by excommunicating the ince&s;tuous Corinth, did either cur&s;e him, or devote him to the pit of Hell, but de&s;igned rather to bring him to Hea|ven, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5. 5. Whereas therefore, <HI>page</HI> 90. he makes his appeal to Heaven in the&s;e words, <HI>Judge me, O Lord, try me, if herein there be any iniquityin me:</HI> I &s;hall not wi&s;h him &s;o ill as he wi&s;nes him&s;elfe, but do hartily beg of God, that he would plea&s;e to open his eyes, and pardon this, and all other his iniquities; and if this be uncharitable, I &s;hall thank Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey,</HI> or any el&s;e, for &s;uch uncharitablene&s;&s;e to|wards me.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="8" TYPE="section">
<HEAD><HI>Sect.</HI> VIII.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 91.</NOTE> <HI>My third Rea&s;on was drawn from Church-fellow&s;hip, which ought to be in charity, humility, without judging, every one e&s;teeming others better then them&s;elves. Now, if men will go to &s;et up a di&s;criminating. Ordi|nance, they cannot keep them&s;elves from en|trenching on the&s;e duties, and occa&s;ioning divi|&s;ions. Our &s;ad experience hath made this Argu|ment too weighty for Mr.</HI> Drake<HI>'s particulars, which are not worth the naming, unle&s;&s;e he could fir&s;t prove its the Mini&s;ters duty, to di&s;cern be|tween the worthy and unworthy, as the rule of Admi&s;&s;ion.</HI> In the &s;ame page al&s;o, Mr. <HI>Humphrey denyeth, that the rule of vi&s;ibility hath any foun|dation in Scripture, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. That Church-fellow&s;hip ought to be in charity and humility, we willingly grant, and earne&s;tly de&s;ire it.</P>
<P N="2">2<HI>ly.</HI> We &s;ay, that this may &s;tand with Su|&s;pen&s;ion, as well as with reproof, admonition,
<PB N="158" REF="87">
or excommunication; all which may be corrup|ted with pride, or graced with humility and cha|rity, according to the temper and affection of tho&s;e, who do either admini&s;ter or receive them: and that each of them do ordinarily occa&s;ion di|vi&s;ions and heart-burnings, where they meet with per&s;ons di&s;affected through ignorance, prejudice, or malice; for which, not the Ordi|nances, but our naughty hearts, de&s;erve blame.</P>
<P N="3">3<HI>ly.</HI> In charging us to &s;et up a di&s;criminating Ordinance, he &s;eemes to deny, that Church-Ordinances are di&s;criminating: If that be his meaning, I apprehend it is erroneous, &s;ince eve|ry Ordinance is di&s;crin&s;inating in &s;ome &s;en&s;e, as in an other &s;en&s;e every Ordinance is common. Every Ordinance, &s;o far as it is publick, is com|mon, as to pre&s;ence; yet, all parts of every Ordi|nance, are not common immediately and ab&s;o|lutely to all. The Word is common to all, yet, not every part of the Word; the Sacraments are common to all, yet, not every part of the Sacra|ment, namely, not the participating part.</P>
<P N="4">4<HI>ly.</HI> Becau&s;e here Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> chargeth us, with &s;etting up an Ordinance of our own inven|tion, by pleading for the divine right of Su&s;pen|&s;ion, I &s;hall therefore briefly by one or two Argu|ments, endeavour to wipe off this a&s;per&s;ion; and prove, that Su&s;pen&s;ion is not an human inventi|on, but a divine in&s;titution: I &s;hall only premi&s;e, that Su&s;pen&s;ion is either Juridicall or Pa&s;torall, Affirmative or Negative; the latter branch of the di&s;tinction being granted, the former will ne|ce&s;&s;arily follow, &s;ince what a Mini&s;ter may, or ought, either to do, or omit, as he is a Mini&s;ter;
<PB N="159" REF="87">
much more may he, or ought he, to do, or o|mit that particular, upon the vote and &s;entence of the Elder&s;hip. And here, upon &s;econd thoughts, I mu&s;t a little correct what I delivered in my Bar to Free Admi&s;&s;ion, <HI>page</HI> 47. namely, <HI>That the Mini&s;ter hath not power of him&s;elfe to admit or keep back, without judiciall Proce&s;&s;e, wherein him&s;elfe cannot be both Judge and Wit|ne&s;&s;e.</HI> I delivered it then with &s;ome he&s;itancy, and do now apprehend it to be a mi&s;take, is un|que&s;tionably both a Ruling and Teaching El|der, hath at lea&s;t a Pa&s;torall power of trying and judging; and if the Evidence be clear of it &s;elfe, or by &s;ufficient witne&s;&s;e, he may &s;u&s;pend his own Act, of giving &s;uch a per&s;on the Sacrament, till either the party be better qualified, or the matter do come to a juridicall proce&s;&s;e. The&s;e things premi&s;ed, the Argument &s;tands thus. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>The fir&s;t Argument.</HI></NOTE> Non-ad|mi&s;&s;ion of &s;ome intelligent Church-members is commanded by Chri&s;t, <HI>Ergo,</HI> Su&s;pen&s;ion is commanded by Chri&s;t. The Con&s;equence is clear, becau&s;ethe formality of Su&s;pen&s;ion lies in non-admi&s;&s;ion to the Sacrament; and, let us have but this, we &s;hall not much contend about the manner of managing it, whether by a juridicall act or otherwi&s;e. This is further proved by the very terme: What is Su&s;pen&s;ion in the very no|tion of it, but a demur or forbearance at pre&s;ent, to give unto a per&s;on the thing he de&s;ires? The <HI>Minor</HI> is proved thus, Non-admi&s;&s;ion of a Bro|ther that is a Fornicator, &amp;c, is commanded, <HI>Ergo,</HI> Non-admi&s;&s;ion of &s;ome intelligent Church-member is commanded. The Con&s;e|&s;equence is clear, 1. Becau&s;e <HI>Brother</HI> is oppo&s;ed
<PB N="160" REF="88">
to them without, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5. <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 10, 11. and therefore this Brother is a Church-member. 2<HI>ly.</HI> That he is an intelligent Church-member may be clearly evinced (&s;hould Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> deny it) &s;ince divers lu&s;ts there mentioned are not practicable by any, but grown per&s;ons. The A&s;&s;umption I prove thus: Not to eat the Sacra|ment with a Brother that is a Fornicator, &amp;c. is commanded. <HI>Ergo,</HI> Non-admi&s;&s;ion of a Bro|ther that is a Fornicator, &amp;c. is commanded. The Con&s;equence is valid, becau&s;e of the nece&s;|&s;ary connexion between the Non admi&s;&s;ion of &s;uch a per&s;on to eat with me, and my not eating with him. If I mu&s;t not eat with a per&s;on, then (as far as in me lies) I mu&s;t not admit that per|&s;on to eat with me; for his eating with me, and my eating with him being Correlates, if you grant one, you mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity grant both, &s;ince he cannot eat with me, but I mu&s;t eat with him; nor can I eat with him, but he mu&s;t eat with me. The Antecedent I prove from 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5. 11. <HI>If any man that is called a Brother be Fornicator, &amp;c. with &s;uch a one, no, not to eat.</HI> All that can rationally be objected again&s;t this proof, is, <HI>That by eating here, is not meant Sacramentall eating, the indefinite Propo&s;ition being not to be under|&s;tood univer&s;ally.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. To this I oppo&s;e the received Rule of interpreting Scripture in its utmo&s;t latitude, unle&s;&s;e a &s;olid ground of re&s;triction and limitati|on can be given: But, no &s;olid ground can be given, why <HI>Eating</HI> here, &s;hould be re&s;trained to civill eating.</P>
<P>And 1. Not, that Precept of our Saviour, <HI>Matth.</HI> 26. 27. <HI>Drink ye all of it:</HI> Since 1. If
<PB N="161" REF="88">
<HI>Judas</HI> were not then pre&s;ent (which is probable enough) none but reall as well as vi&s;ible Saints, were commanded to receive.</P>
<P N="2">2<HI>ly.</HI> Suppo&s;ing <HI>Judas</HI> were pre&s;ent and re|ceived, yet, he was a vi&s;ible Saint; and &s;o farre were the Di&s;ciples then from being &s;candalized at him, that they &s;carce under&s;tood Chri&s;ts unca|&s;ing <HI>Judas,</HI> but &s;u&s;pected them&s;elves rather than him: Yea, if <HI>Luke</HI> ob&s;erve the exact order of time, <HI>Judas</HI> (it &s;eemes) was not unca&s;ed, till af|ter the Sacrament, <HI>Luke</HI> 22. <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 19, 20, 21. &s;ince the&s;e words, <HI>Behold the hand of him that betrayeth me,</HI> &amp;c. do not precede, but follow the Sacrament; &s;o that at lea&s;t <HI>Judas</HI> had received the Bread, before he was di&s;covered nor can it be evinced from <HI>Luke</HI>'s narrative but that he had partaken of the Cup al&s;o, it being left <HI>in medio,</HI> whether Chri&s;t did di&s;cover him immediately after the command to drink; or, whether he deferred the di&s;covery till <HI>Judas</HI> and all the re&s;t had drunk of the Sacrament all Cup This I note, not as my own judgment, but upon the &s;uppo|&s;all of <HI>Luke's</HI> exact timing of that Circum&s;tance: But, whether it were before or after, the ob|jection lies fair, that Chri&s;t knew <HI>Judas</HI> to be naught, yet commanded him to receive; &s;o far was Chri&s;t from improving his Pa&s;torall power to &s;u&s;pend <HI>Judas: Ergo</HI> Mini&s;ters &s;hould not only admit tho&s;e whom they know to be &s;tark naught but al&s;o command them to receive. The Reader mu&s;t remember, that here I give Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his own advantage, as yielding him (by way of &s;uppo&s;all) the Que&s;tion he begs, namely, that <HI>Judas</HI> did receive the Sacra|ment.</P>
<PB N="160" REF="89">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="161" REF="89">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 page">
<P><PB N="162" REF="90">This premi&s;ed, I an&s;wer, The Argument will not hold from Chri&s;ts practice to ours, &s;ince 1. The di&s;covery of <HI>Judas</HI> was extraordinary, by immediate revelation: And, &s;hould God immediately di&s;cover an unworthy Receiver to a Mini&s;ter, I que&s;tion, whether without an im|mediate command, this Mini&s;ter might &s;u&s;pend &s;uch a per&s;on. <HI>Achan</HI> was not cen&s;ured immedi|ately upon divine revelation, but upon evidence of the fact, and his own confe&s;&s;ion. We &s;ee that for all our Saviours di&s;covery, <HI>Judas</HI> &s;eemed to deny the charge, in that que&s;tion, <HI>Ma&s;ter, is it I?</HI> and the Apo&s;tles were very inclinable to a good opinion of him. Suppo&s;e God &s;hould im|mediately di&s;cover an Hypocrite to a Mini&s;ter, and upon that di&s;covery, this Mini&s;ter &s;hould &s;u&s;pend that Hypocrite; might not the Elders or Congregation de&s;ire evidence again&s;t the party &s;o &s;u&s;pended; and would the Mini&s;ters plea of divine revelation, &s;atisfie the Congregation, in ca&s;e the party &s;o &s;u&s;pended, denyed the charge? Yea, if this Doctrine were good, might not a Mini&s;ter upon pretence of divine revelation, take liberty to charge any with Hypocri&s;ie, and to &s;u&s;pend them at plea&s;ure? I wi&s;h, upon this oc|ca&s;ion, that tho&s;e who will be tryed by the Mi|ni&s;ter alone, and not before the Elder&s;hip, would &s;eriou&s;ly con&s;ider, what a &s;nare they put both them&s;elves and their Mini&s;ter upon.</P>
<P N="2">2<HI>ly.</HI> As the di&s;covery was extraordinary, &s;o our Saviour acted extraordinarily in admi&s;&s;ion and other circum&s;tances, that concerned this fir&s;t Sacrament: As 1. He admitted only men, no wo|men. 2<HI>ly.</HI> Only Mini&s;ters, not the People, no, not the Jewes that were in, or of, the &s;ame Fa|mily,
<PB N="163" REF="90">
where the Lords Supper was fir&s;t celebra|ted, as Mr. <HI>Collins</HI> well ob&s;erves. 3<HI>ly.</HI> In admit|ting only extraordinary Mini&s;ters, namely, A|po&s;tles. 4<HI>ly.</HI> In admitting them &s;uddainly, with|out previous examination and preparation. 5<HI>ly.</HI> In celebrating the Sacrament at night, after Supper, and in private &amp;c. And why may not Chri&s;t as well act extraordinarily, in admitting a known Hypocrite? If Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> will tie us to imitate Chri&s;t in one of the&s;e, why not in all of them? I might add, that if Chri&s;ts practice in admitting <HI>Judas</HI> be our rule, then it were a &s;in to excommunicate any, &s;ince Chri&s;t did not ex|communicate <HI>Judas,</HI> though he knew <HI>Judas</HI> de&s;erved excommunication as well as &s;u&s;pen|&s;ion.</P>
<P N="2">Nor 2<HI>ly.</HI> Is that a ground to exclude Sacra|mentall eating, out of the fore-mentioned Text, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5. 11, <HI>Becau&s;e all are invited to repen|tance,</HI> for then even Pagans &s;hould not be debar|red the Sacrament; yea, if none &s;hould be de|nyed Sacramentall eating, becau&s;e all are invi|ted to repentance, why &s;hould any be denyed civill eating with Church-members, &s;ince all are invited to repentance? May not there be in the one as well as in the other, 1. Te&s;tification of love. 2<HI>ly.</HI> Familiarity. 3<HI>ly.</HI> A de&s;ire to win the offending-Brother. And 4<HI>ly.</HI> Is not the one offen|&s;ive as well as the other?</P>
<P N="3">Nor 3<HI>ly.</HI> Is there any contradiction between 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5. 11. and 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11. but rather a &s;weet harmony; &s;ince in the fir&s;t place be forbids unworthy ones to eat; in the &s;econd place he &s;hewes their great &s;in and danger, if they pre&s;ume to eat: Here is no oppo&s;ition, but a regular &s;ub|ordination.</P>
<P><PB N="164" REF="91">Nor 4<HI>ly.</HI> is Sacramentall eating excluded out of 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5. 11. becau&s;e it is not particularly mentioned in the Text; for then, by the &s;ame rea&s;on, both civill eating, and eating at their Love-Fea&s;ts, &s;hould be excluded al&s;o, &s;ince neither of them are mentioned particularly in the Text, but only eating in generall, which is common to Sacramentall, as well as to civill, eating. It's &s;ufficient, that Sacramentall eating is intended by the Apo&s;tle, under the notion of a Fea&s;t, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5. 8. there being no Go&s;pell Ordi|nance &s;o properly and Literally a Fea&s;t, as is the Lords Supper, which &s;upplies the Fea&s;t of the Pa&s;&s;|over, and comes in its room; and in it, Chri&s;t, our Pa&s;&s;over, is repre&s;entatively and declarativly offered for us, and actually offered to us, more then in other Ordinances, <HI>Gal.</HI> 3. 1. <HI>Before who&s;e eyes</HI> (not only, to their ears) <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t hath been evidently &s;et forth, crucified among you.</HI></P>
<P>If yet it be objected, There's good rea&s;on civill eating &s;hould be included in the Text, &s;ince the Apo&s;tle &s;peaks evidently of &s;uch an eating, where|in I may conver&s;e with an Infidell, but not with a &s;candalous Brother. <HI>An&s;.</HI> Therefore we grant the place may be under&s;tood of civill eating, but deny it mu&s;t be under&s;tood <HI>&s;olely</HI> of civill ea|ting, there being good rea&s;on al&s;o, why it &s;hould be under&s;tood of Sacramentall eating, &s;ince the Sacrament is Literally (as well as Spi|ritually) a Meal, a Fea&s;t, in which I te&s;tifie love to every Communicant, as well as I do to any, by admitting him to my own Table; and the &s;candall of admitting a &s;candalous Brother to the Sacrament (where it lies in my power to keep him away) will be great, as well as it will be, if
<PB N="165" REF="91">
I admit him to my private Table. A &s;candalous Brother then, was debarred &s;ome priviledges of an Heathen, &s;ome priviledges of a Church-m<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">m|ber, and might not be admitted with Chri&s;tians, either to a Civill Fea&s;t, or to the Love Fe<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;ts, or to the Sacramentall Fea&s;t: Yea, the Apo&s;tle tells us particularly, <HI>Such were &s;pots in their Fea&s;ts of Charity, Jude, ver&s;e</HI> 12. And tho&s;e Love-Fea&s;ts were Appendixes of the Lords Sup|per, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11. <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 21, 22.</P>
<P><HI>Object. They were all partakers of one bread;</HI> yet, in the Church of <HI>Corinth,</HI> there were many &s;candalous &s;inners.<NOTE PLACE="marg">1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10. 17.</NOTE></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> The word <HI>All,</HI> can be of no larger ex|tent then vi&s;ible Saints (&s;uch as were tho&s;e to whom the Apo&s;tle wrote) and &s;urely, vi&s;ible workers of iniquity cannot be vi&s;ible Saints. This not mine, but Mr. <HI>Gille&s;py's</HI> an&s;wer, who a&s;&s;erts al&s;o, that it cannot be proved, that any came actually drunk to the Sacrament in which, both the terme <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word">, and the phra&s;e <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 span">, favour him, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11. 21. This Interpretation is more evident, by the manner of expre&s;&s;ion, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10. 17. (compare a like place, <HI>Rom</HI> 8. 35, 39.) <HI>We all</HI> are partakers &amp;c. the Apo&s;tle putting him&s;elfe in the nu~ber, though he were not a Member of the Church of <HI>Corinth,</HI> or of any other particular Church; but, as a reall and vi&s;ible Saint, did par|take where ever he came: Yea, where Mini&s;ters, or other Chri&s;tians, travelled from one Country to another, they were not ea&s;ily admitted to Church-communion, without &s;ome Te&s;timoniall of their reall or vi&s;ible Saint-&s;hip, by either word of mouth, or by writing, <HI>Acts</HI> 9. 26, 27. and 15. <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 25, 26, 27. and 18. 27. and 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 3. 1.
<PB N="166" REF="92">
and 3 <HI>John, ver&s;e</HI> 5-8. &amp;c. What a poor re|commendation had it been; I pray receive the ince&s;tuous Corinth, or &s;uch a one as denies the Re&s;urrection, to full Church-communion, for he is a Church-member. The Congregationall Churches, yea, and other reformed Churches, will not admit Church-members of our Con|gregations, barely upon the account of Church-member&s;hip (though they acknowledge divers of our Congregations to be true Churches) but put us upon the Te&s;t (unle&s;&s;e they have other|wi&s;e &s;ufficient te&s;timony) of our vi&s;ible Saint|&s;hip. More to this purpo&s;e, together with &s;un|dry oppo&s;ite an&s;wers to &s;everall other objections, made again&s;t this Scripture, &s;ee in Mr. <HI>Gille&s;py</HI> and Mr. <HI>Collins</HI> his late <HI>Vindic. Su&s;pen&s;ionis,</HI> &amp;c. unto whom (for brevities &s;ake) I refer the Reader.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">2 <HI>Argum.</HI></NOTE>My &s;econd Argument for Su&s;pen&s;ion (which is al&s;o Mr. <HI>Collins</HI> his Argument) is this: It's un|lawfull to admit &s;ome intelligent Church-mem|bers to the Lords Supper: <HI>Ergo,</HI> They ought to be &s;u&s;pended. The Con&s;equence is clear, &s;ince <HI>to admit,</HI> and <HI>not to admit,</HI> are termes contradi|ctory; and therefore, if the one be unlawfull, the other mu&s;t needs be a duty: Now Su&s;pen&s;ion in its formall Nature, is a <HI>non</HI>-admi&s;&s;ion; and therefore if it be unlawfull to admit, it is a duty to &s;u&s;pend. The <HI>Minor</HI> I prove thus: It's unlaw|full to admit tho&s;e who cannot eat of the Lords Supper: &s;ome intelligent Church-members can|not eat of the Lords Supper: <HI>Ergo.</HI> By per&s;ons that cannot receive, I under&s;tand tho&s;e who are morally uncapable, and who (if they be of age) fin by their very receiving, as being forbidden
<PB N="167" REF="92">
to partake of the Lords Supper, becau&s;e at pre|&s;ent they are vi&s;ibly unworthy by gro&s;&s;e igno|rance or &s;candall; as well as Heathen are forbid|den to receive, upon the account of being no Church-members. Both have a naturall, but neither of them have a morall power to re|ceive: Nor is an Heathen in expre&s;&s;e termes for|bid to receive the Lords Supper, but only by con&s;equence, as are unworthy Church-members. This premi&s;ed, the <HI>Major</HI> is evident, upon the very explication of the termes: for, if it be un|lawfull to admit tho&s;e, who &s;in by their very re|ceiving, then it is unlawfull to admit tho&s;e, who cannot eat of the Lords Supper in a morall &s;en&s;e, &s;ince that, and that only, is morally impo&s;&s;ible which is &s;infull. Compare <HI>Gen.</HI> 39. 9. <HI>Deut.</HI> 21. 16. <HI>Jo&s;h.</HI> 9. 19. and 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 13. 8. they had all naturall, but no morall power, to do the things there mentioned; yet they &s;ay ab&s;olutely, <HI>They cannot do</HI> &s;uch and &s;uch things. Tho&s;e places, <HI>Deut.</HI> 16. 16. and <HI>Jo&s;h.</HI> 9. 21. are ren|dred, <HI>He may not,</HI> and, <HI>We may not,</HI> &amp;c. but in the Originall it is <GAP LANG="heb" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 span">, he cannot, and <GAP LANG="heb" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 span">, we cannot &amp;c. or, &s;hall not be able. This is the more remarkable, becau&s;e the &s;ame phra&s;e is u&s;ed about the Pa&s;&s;over, <HI>Numb.</HI> 9. 6. <HI>Certain men were defiled by the dead body of a man, that they could not keep the Pa&s;&s;over on that day. Mo&s;es,</HI> in the Old Te&s;tament &s;aies, <HI>You can|not eat the Pa&s;&s;over, and touch the dead body of a man. Paul,</HI> in the New Te&s;tament, &s;aies, <HI>You cannot partake of the Table of the Lord, and of the Table of Devills.</HI> In both, the <HI>Cannot</HI> is morall, not naturall. An unclean man might not eat of the Pa&s;&s;over; one in communion with
<PB N="168" REF="93">
Devills, might not receive the Lords Supper. Now that all intelligent Church members have not a morall power to receive, is evident by the words of the Apo&s;tle, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10. 21. <HI>Ye cannot drink the Cup of the Lord, and the Cup of De|vills; ye cannot be partaker, of the Table of the Lord, and the Table of Devills.</HI> Undoubtedly they had a naturall power to eat the Sacramen|tall bread, &amp;c. but they had not a morall power becau&s;e, being under the guilt of commu|nion with Idolls, it was unlawfull for them at that time to eat. The Steward &s;ins again&s;t his Lord, in giving bread to tho&s;e of the Family, or otherwi&s;e, who ought not to eat it. Doth Chri&s;t, the Ma&s;ter of the Family, &s;ay I will not have &s;uch a one to eat of my Supper; and dare any Mini&s;ter &s;ay to that per&s;on, Take and eat? If the Lord &s;ay, its morally impo&s;&s;ible for &s;uch a one to eat, he &s;aies, its unlawfull for him to eat. And what a man mu&s;t not do, that no man mu&s;t tempt him to do, nor permit him to do, when he can lawfully hinder it: But, Church-Officers may very lawfully and ea&s;ily hinder tho&s;e from partaking, who may not partake; and &s;uch are all who have fellow&s;hip with De|vills. Now fellow&s;hip with Devills is either ex|plicite, as in Witches, &amp;c. or implicite, when men drive the Devills trade, and do the works of Sathan willingly, <HI>John</HI> 8. 44. and 1 <HI>John</HI> 3. 8. From which number, I know not how per&s;ons gro&s;ly and wilfully ignorant and &s;candalous, (e&s;pecially after due admonition) can be exemp|ted: Sure I am, they communicate more with Devills, then did the Corinthians, who are of the Idolls Fea&s;ts, in the Idoll Temples, with|out
<PB N="169" REF="93">
any intention to honour the Idoll; as judg|ing, that under the Go&s;pell there was no un|cleanne&s;&s;e, either of meats or of places: Yet, even the&s;e are forbid by the Apo&s;tle to receive the Lords Supper, when they fea&s;ted at the Idolls Temples. The Argument &s;tands thus: He that hath communion with Devills, cannot (that is, ought not to) partake of the Lords Table. All gro&s;ly ignorant and &s;candalous per&s;ons have communion with Devills: <HI>Ergo,</HI> No &s;uch ought to receive: And, if they ought not to partake, &s;urely the Mini&s;ter ought not to admit them, and therefore he mu&s;t needs &s;u&s;pend them.</P>
<P>This I might further illu&s;trate and confirm, by comparing 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5. 12. <HI>With &s;uch an one, no, not to eat,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10. 21. <HI>You cannot partake of the Lords Table.</HI> And 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11. 20. <HI>This is not to eat the Lords Supper;</HI> or (as its rendred in the Margent) <HI>Ye cannot eat, &amp;c.</HI> The Verb &s;ub&s;tantive <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word"> being put for <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word">. If I may not partake with other of Gods People, nor they with me, &s;urely I mu&s;t be &s;u&s;pended; for what is Su&s;pen&s;ion really, but non-Admi&s;&s;ion?</P>
<P>By what hath been delivered, I hope it will appear, that the Sacrament is a di&s;criminating Ordinance, as to the point of receiving; and that Su&s;pen&s;ion is not an human invention, but a di|vine in&s;titution, which (as other Ordinances) may be di&s;penced with love and humility, if the di&s;pencers thereof be wi&s;e, holy, and humble per&s;ons, that make con&s;cience to judge them|&s;elves more then others; and when ever, by vir|tue of their Office, they are called, to try and judge others.</P>
<P>Sundry other arguments for the divine right
<PB N="170" REF="94">
of Su&s;pen&s;ion or Ab&s;tention, See in Mr. <HI>Collins</HI> his <HI>Vindic. &amp;c.</HI> The ground, why I pitched upon the two forementioned Arguments, was, becau&s;e I apprehend they come neerer the point, not on|ly in their &s;cope, but al&s;o in the very letter. Now, le&s;t the Reader &s;hould think we go alone, or have only &s;ome few incon&s;iderable per&s;ons to abet us in this cau&s;e, I &s;hall take a little pains to evidence the contrary. And fir&s;t (be&s;ides the de|clared Judgment of the Church, in ancient Councills, and modern Synods, of which be|fore) let us con&s;ider the te&s;timonies of the Fa|thers, divers of which are cited by <HI>Gerhard,</HI> in this matter of <HI>Su&s;pen&s;ion</HI> from the Sacrament.</P>
<P>To begin with <HI>Ju&s;tin Martyr,</HI> in his Apolo|gy for the Chri&s;tians, <HI>Hoc alimentum apud nos appellatur Euchari&s;tia, quod nulli alii participa|relicitum e&s;t quam veram e&s;&s;e doctrinam no&s;tram credenti, &amp; lavacro propter remi&s;&s;ionem peccato|rum &amp; regenerationem abluto, &amp;, ita ut Chri&s;tus tradidit, viventi.</HI></P>
<P>Ba&s;il. Lib. 2. de Bapt. Cap. 3. <HI>Probat, qu&agrave;m periculo&s;um &s;it, &s;i quis non repurgatus ab omni inquinamento Corporis &amp; Spirit&ucirc;s, edat Corpus Domini, eju&s;que &s;anguinem bibat.</HI></P>
<P>Chry&s;o&s;t. Homil. 3. ad Ephe&s;. <HI>Cum tali puri|tate accede &s;emper; &s;ine hac ne prae&s;umas unquam: Regem utique non audeas o&s;culari, &s;iquidem os tuum olet graviter; et regem Caelorum impuden|ter o&s;cularis, anima tua vitiis olente, &amp;c?</HI></P>
<P>Augu&s;tin. de Eccle. dogmat. Cap. 53. <HI>Haben|tem adhuc voluntatem peccandi, gravari magis dico Euchari&s;tiae perceptione quam purificari.</HI> Yea, he &s;aies further, <HI>Per&s;ons unreformed, re|ceive unto judgment; that they are rather corrup|ted
<PB N="171" REF="94">
then healed, rather kil'd then quickned, by receiving the Sacrament.</HI> Serm. Dom. 1. Ad|vent. Tom. 10. Sure then, he thought not, re|ceiving did convert.</P>
<P>He&s;ychius. Lib. 6. in Cap. 22. Levit. <HI>Polluti non &s;unt admittendi, nec mundati prohibendi.</HI> This he explains afterwards to be morall pol|lution, which is a bar to the Sacrament till re|pented of.</P>
<P>Chry&s;o&s;tom. Homil. 83. in Matth. profe&s;&s;eth, <HI>He had rather lo&s;e his life, then admit an un|worthy per&s;on to the Sacrament.</HI></P>
<P>Cyprian, Serm. 5. de Lap&s;is. from 1 Cor. 10. 21. and 1 Cor. 11. 27. <HI>declaims vehemently again&s;t tho&s;e, who come from Idol-Fea&s;ts, or, un|der the power of morall pollution, to the Lords Table.</HI></P>
<P>Author <HI>Sermonis de Coen&acirc;,</HI> thought to be <HI>Cy|prian,</HI> hath the&s;e words: <HI>Inter Dominicae Coenae convivas, animalis homo non admittitur; Quic|quid caro et &s;anguis dictat, ab hoc coetu excludi|tur, &amp;c.</HI> I pray, what is the animal-man, but the naturall man? 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 2. 14. I hope then its not my &s;ingular opinion, That per&s;ons uncon|verted ought not to receive. What was the opi|nion of <HI>Calvin, Beza,</HI> and their Followers, is well known; therefore I &s;hall not trouble my Reader about it.</P>
<P>Let us de&s;cend to the <HI>Lutheran</HI> Churches, of who&s;e con&s;ent with us, in this particular, <HI>Ger|hard</HI> (a per&s;on of great learning and indu&s;try) gives a &s;atisfactory account, in his 5th. Tome. treating of the Lords Supper, <HI>cap.</HI> 21. his words are the&s;e, <HI>Neque ver&ograve; omnes Chri&s;tiani promi&s;c&ugrave;e admittendi ad Sacram coenam, &s;ed
<PB N="172" REF="95">
juxta regulam Paulinam,</HI> 1 Cor. 11. Next he &s;hewes who ought not to be admitted, and 1. Such as either cannot, or will not, examine them&s;elves; particularly, <HI>Hereticks, notorious &s;in|ners:</HI> And here he argues from the analogie of the Pa&s;&s;over, and from 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5. 11. <HI>Per&s;ons excommunicated, po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed, that are deprived the u&s;e of rea&s;on, that exeroi&s;e infamous Arts or Trades;</HI> &s;hewes in what ca&s;es deafe and dumbe per&s;ons may be admitted; upon what account Infants were admitted to the Sacrament, for 600 years together in the Primitive times, and pro|duceth <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom,</HI> profe&s;&s;ing, <HI>That he had ra|ther lo&s;e his life, then admit unworthy per&s;ons to the Lords Supper.</HI> He notes further again&s;t <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> that the <HI>Hu&s;&s;ites</HI> admit to the Sa|crament Infants of &s;ix weeks old: And for my part, I believe, that upon the account of unwor|thine&s;&s;e, there is le&s;&s;e exception again&s;t an Infant, then again&s;t a gro&s;ly ignorant and &s;candalous per&s;on.</P>
<P><HI>Cap.</HI> 22. <HI>Gerhard</HI> hath the&s;e words, <HI>Sedulo providere debet Eccle&s;iae Mini&s;ter, ne quis indig|n&egrave;, hoc e&s;t, &s;ine ver&acirc; poenit entia &amp; fide hoc Sacra|mento utatur.</HI> Whence its evident, he judges them unworthy who want true faith and repentance: <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>See</HI> Sect. 232 <HI>of the &s;ame Chap|ter.</HI></NOTE> Who do not try them&s;elves, that is, who do not acknowledge their &s;ins, do not &s;eriou&s;ly grieve for them, do not judge them&s;elves, have not a &s;erious purpo&s;e of amendment and walking re|gularly; that are not reconciled to their neigh|bours. In the &s;ame Chapter he grants, that 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10. 20. is valid, to prove, that they who have fellow&s;hip with Devills, ought not to par|take of the Lords Supper; and &s;hewes out of
<PB N="173" REF="95">
<HI>Lyranus,</HI> and by comparing other Texts of Scrip|ture, that the <HI>Cannot</HI> there, mu&s;t be under&s;tood of a morall impo&s;&s;ibility.</P>
<P>Yea, la&s;tly, the very Papi&s;ts them&s;elves are &s;trongly again&s;t Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his free Admi&s;&s;i|on: I &s;hall produce only <HI>Ae&s;tius</HI> and <HI>Biell.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Ae&s;tius</HI> upon 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11. 27. &s;hewes fir&s;t who re|ceives unworthily, to wit, not only he who comes irreverently, as Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> would have it; but al&s;o he, <HI>Qui affectum gerit aut reatum pec|cati mortalis.</HI> And though their di&s;tinction of &s;ins into Mortall and Veniall be corrupt; yet, &s;eeing they conclude, he is in mortall &s;in, who 1. Affects &s;in. 2<HI>ly.</HI> Is not duly humbled and con|trite. 3<HI>ly.</HI>Is unpardoned. See <HI>Biel, Lib.</HI> 4. <HI>Di|&s;tinct.</HI> 9. <HI>Quae&s;t.</HI> 2. Its evident, they mu&s;t needs conclude, that none in the &s;tate of nature can receive worthily: Yea, <HI>Ae&s;tius,</HI> in the fore|quoted place, notes, that he who comes to re|ceive with a &s;pirit of enmity again&s;t God, yet unreconciled, is guilty of high Trea&s;on again&s;t our Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t, and de&s;erves to be puni|ni&s;hed as <HI>Judas,</HI> who betrayed Chri&s;t, and tho&s;e who &s;pit upon him, bound, and crucified him. Further, upon 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11. 28. he &s;hewes, 1. That every one is bound fir&s;t to examine him&s;elfe, whether he be a fit gue&s;t; and if he finde he be not, he mu&s;t labour to be &s;uch a one, by purging his Con&s;cience from &s;in which makes him un|worthy of the Lords Table. The Councill of <HI>Trent, Se&s;&s;.</HI> 3. <HI>Cap.</HI> 7. be&s;ides Contrition, re|quires Sacramentall Confe&s;&s;ion (where it can be had) of all &s;orts, before they partake of the Lords Supper, which they ground partly up|on that precept of the Apo&s;tle, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11. 28.
<PB N="174" REF="96">
and partly upon an Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall Cu&s;tome. It &s;eems they were not for Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his free Admi&s;&s;ion, but judged, that before Receiving, &s;atisfaction &s;hould be given to the Church; though in determining what that &s;atisfaction mu&s;t be, they declined to Super&s;tition and Ty|ranny.</P>
<P>In the antient Lyturgy, the Mini&s;ter, before the Sacrament, cryed out, <HI>Sancta Sanctis.</HI> See other te&s;timonies of the Fathers, cited there by <HI>Ae&s;tius,</HI> and &s;everall arguments he u&s;es, to prove, that no naturall man ought to receive the Sa|crament. Upon 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5. 11. the &s;ame <HI>Ae&s;tius</HI> hath the&s;e words, <HI>His verbis excommunicationis poena &s;ignificatur; minor tamen ea qu&acirc; &s;uperi|us plecti voluit ince&s;tum illum:</HI> Where he al&s;o cites <HI>Augu&s;tine,</HI> as referring the place to a le&s;&s;er degree of excommunication, which may fall up|on him who is a Brother, and &s;o a Church|member.</P>
<P>And upon 2 <HI>The&s;&s;.</HI> 3. 6. he expre&s;ly &s;aith, <HI>Haec excommunicatio, non &agrave; con&s;ortio fi|delium, &s;ed tant&ugrave;m &agrave; Sacramentis Eccle&s;iae re|movet hominem.</HI> And, upon ver&s;e 15. of this Chapter, <HI>Excommunicatio hujus loci non &s;epa|rabat hominem ab Eccle&s;i&acirc;, ut, membrum ejus, et proinde fidelium frater, e&s;&s;e de &s;ineret, &amp;c.</HI> By which its evident, they held, that po&s;itive Su&s;|pen&s;ion was 1. A degree of Excommunication. 2<HI>ly.</HI> That it did not unchurch a man. 3<HI>ly.</HI> That it was a bar to the Sacrament. Our Su&s;pen&s;ion (which yet Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> cries out of) is but negative, and &s;o not a Church Cen&s;ure, but an intreaty to forbear, till fitted by competent knowledge, &amp;c. to receive.</P>
<P><PB N="175" REF="96"><HI>Biell</HI> upon the Sentences, <HI>Lib.</HI> 4. <HI>Di&s;linct.</HI> 9. <HI>Quae&s;t.</HI> 1. <HI>Effectus Euchari&s;tiae non e&s;t prima gratia qu&acirc; ju&s;tificatur impius, &s;ed illam prae&s;up|ponit. Effectus enim manducationis Euchari&s;tiae e&s;t gratiae augmentum, qu&acirc; anima Deo gratae nutritur et cre&s;cit in gratia, ut ad perfectionem perveniat.</HI> The Papi&s;ts then acknowledge, the Lords Supper is no converting Ordinance.</P>
<P>In the &s;econd Que&s;tion he &s;hewes, that di|ver&s;e, by comming to receive, &s;in mortally; and withall, that in &s;ome ca&s;es, if a man be &s;crupu|lous, and fear he is under the guilt of mortall &s;in, he mu&s;t lay a&s;ide &s;uch a &s;crupulous Con&s;ci|ence before he receive, but mu&s;t not receive a|gain&s;t Con&s;cience. He &s;hewes al&s;o, out of other Schoolmen, in what ca&s;es a Mini&s;ter &s;ins, if he admit &s;uch to receive; and in&s;tances (as the Lu|therans) in divers &s;orts of Church-members that are not to be admitted; and concludes, that, <HI>Nulli danda e&s;t Euchari&s;tia qui non pote&s;t ha|bere devotionem, nec fidem actualem.</HI> And for the in&s;tance of <HI>Judas</HI> (Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his great foundation for free Admi&s;&s;ion) both Lutherans and Papi&s;ts, though of his minde, that <HI>Judas</HI> did receive; yet, look at it, as no ground at all, for the free admi&s;&s;ion of all intelligent Church|members. I hope Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> will be more charitable, then to &s;ay, that Councills, Fa|thers, the Reformed Churches, Lutherans; yea, divers Papi&s;ts, put their hands over their eyes, and &s;inned again&s;t Light, becau&s;e they were not of his minde, that <HI>Judas</HI> his admi&s;&s;ion (&s;uppo&s;e he were admitted to receive) is a &s;olid ground for his free Admi&s;&s;ion.</P>
<P>For fuller &s;atisfaction in this particular, let
<PB N="176" REF="97">
the Reader con&s;ult Mr. <HI>Collins</HI> his <HI>Re&s;pon&s;oria Bipartita, Cap.</HI> 13. where he makes it out by authentick Te&s;timonies, that Su&s;pen&s;ion, as di|&s;tinct from ab&s;olute Excommunication, hath been the con&s;tant judgment and practice, of the Servants and Churches of Chri&s;t, in all Ages.</P>
<P><HI>Cap.</HI> 14. Mr. <HI>Collins</HI> takes pains, to good pur|po&s;e, to clear from the writings of the Antients, the &s;everall degrees of per&s;ons not excommuni|cated, yet, &s;u&s;pended from the Lords Sup|per.</P>
<P>And for tho&s;e of the Congregationall way, that they are no enemies to Su&s;pen&s;ion, as di|&s;tinct from the greater Excommunication; Read what Mr. <HI>Collins</HI> notes in his 13 Chapter, <HI>pag.</HI> 153. of his <HI>Re&s;pon&s;oria</HI> or <HI>Vindiciae, &amp;c.</HI> in the&s;e words, <HI>For our di&s;&s;enting Brethren, it is their practice, when once they have admoni&s;hed an of|fendor; to &s;u&s;pend him from the Sacrament till he repent, or, be wholly ca&s;t out of the Church. At this time, in this City, is one who hath been &s;u&s;pended the&s;e twelve Months, if he be not lately re&s;tored nor excommunicated.</HI></P>
<P>Page 91. and 92. Mr. <HI>Humphrey allowes publick Church-tryall, upon conviction; and private tryall, upon charitable &s;u&s;pition, as,</HI> Job 1. 5. This ingenious acknowledgment, I &s;hall (with Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his leave) improve for his conviction.</P>
<P N="1">And 1. If the in&s;tance of <HI>Job</HI> be &s;ufficient to warrant private judgment, why may not the in&s;tance of the &s;u&s;pected woman, <HI>Numb.</HI> 5. warrant publick Church-tryall upon &s;u&s;pi|tion?</P>
<P N="2"><PB N="177" REF="97">
2<HI>ly.</HI> If Governours of Families may privately try Children and Servants under their charge, and improve their Authority, to keep from the Sacrament &s;uch Children or Servants, in ca&s;e they be ignorant or &s;candalous; why may not Church-Officers (who are Stewards of Gods Hou&s;e) do the like to tho&s;e who are under their charge, as Parents, &amp;c. may, to tho&s;e under their charge?</P>
<P N="3">3<HI>ly.</HI> How was <HI>Jeremith</HI> &s;et as a Watch-Tower among&s;t Gods people, to try their waies? <HI>Jer.</HI> 6. 27. How was <HI>Timothy</HI> &s;ent upon &s;u&s;pition, to know the faith of the <HI>The&s;&s;alonians,</HI> 1 <HI>The&s;&s;.</HI> 3. 5? Why was <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> commended, for trying the fal&s;e Apo&s;tles, <HI>Rev.</HI> 2. 2? Why mu&s;t Deacons be tryed, and that upon charitable &s;u&s;pition, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3. 10? If it be objected, The neglect of their tryall is more dangerous: <HI>An&s;w.</HI> True, therefore more care mu&s;t be had in their tryall; but, <HI>Magis et minus non variant &s;peciem:</HI> Nor doth their tryall exclude the tryall of private Chri&s;tians; which, if neglected, may prove as dangerous to the Church, as the neglect of try|ing Publick Church-members, if the multitude of private Chri&s;tians be compared with the paucity of Church Officers. Nor can the tryall of all, of its own nature, prejudice any, but is very conducible to the Edification of Rulers &amp; People.</P>
<P>Page 92. Mr. Humphrey <HI>A judgment of proba|bility, as to fitne&s;&s;e and unfitne&s;&s;e, may be &s;olid, as to advice and coun&s;ell; but, not as to be a rule of admi&s;&s;ion and &s;u&s;pen&s;ion.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Then by Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his own grant, Church-Tryall of every Church-member is war|rantable, in order to advice and coun&s;ell. If &s;o,
<PB N="178" REF="98">
why doth not Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> per&s;wade the peo|ple to &s;ubmit to &s;uch tryall, which, we are ve|rily per&s;waded, would &s;oon put an end to the controver&s;y. Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> cannot be ignorant, that too many will not admit tryall upon any termes. 2<HI>ly.</HI> What if upon tryall in order to ad|vice and coun&s;ell, the party tryed, be found gro&s;ly ignorant or &s;candalous? Is he not, <HI>ip&s;o facto,</HI> upon &s;uch di&s;covery, made by tryall, vi&s;i|bly unworthy above &s;u&s;pition? And mu&s;t the Church, notwith&s;tanding this apparent unwor|thyne&s;&s;e, admit &s;uch an one? Yet, even here, our ordinary cour&s;e is, rather to advi&s;e and coun&s;ell, then to &s;u&s;pend. And if upon &s;candall proved, they te&s;tify their repentance, we dare not refu&s;e them, or, if upon conviction of gro&s;&s;e ignorance, they de&s;ire to be further in&s;tructed, we doubt not, through Gods mercy, in a month or two, to in&s;till &s;o much knowledge, as may &s;tand with truth of grace, and &s;o make them vi|&s;ibly worthy; leaving the &s;ecrets of the heart to Gods judgment alone, unle&s;&s;e hypocri&s;ie break out vi&s;ibly afterwards. What he addes, <HI>page</HI> 92. and 93. either it hath been already an&s;wered, or makes not again&s;t us; &s;ince Su&s;pen&s;ion is no prejudice to the firmne&s;&s;e of Excommunication, but either a degree of it, (if juridically pa&s;&s;ed) a preparative to it, or a charitable prevention of it, by bringing a per&s;on to him&s;elfe and his duty; and, happy that Church, who by &s;uch an <HI>inci&s;ion,</HI> can for ever fore&s;tall <HI>exci&s;ion.</HI> We think, as well as Mr. <HI>Humphrey, It were a wretched Interpretation to &s;ay, the Church could not bear evill per&s;ons only at the Sacrament;</HI> but, it's a good Interpretation to &s;ay, She cannot bear them
<PB N="179" REF="98">
at the Sacrament, though not only there: For, after Su&s;pen&s;ion, the Church hath patience, to &s;ee if that will amend the Offender; if not, She may proceed to Excommunication. So that his cen&s;ure of me, <HI>page</HI> 63. he builds, partly upon his own mi&s;report of my words, both, as to the matter and manner of expre&s;&s;ion; partly upon his own mi&s;take, who makes Sacramentall tryall (as we hold it forth) the cau&s;e of diver&s;e mi&s;era|ble effects, of which, it's only the <HI>occa&s;ion;</HI> but the proper cau&s;es are, the ignorance or pride of too many, not only Refu&s;ers, but even Tryers and Judges.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <HI>There cannot be expre&s;&s;ed more bitterne&s;&s;e to a fellow-Mini&s;ter; &amp;c. (if he would know it) than to number me in the company of</HI> Korah, Sanballat, <HI>and</HI> Tobiah.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> How unju&s;tly Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> loads me with bitter cen&s;oriou&s;ne&s;&s;e, the Reader will ea|&s;ily judge, if he plea&s;e but to peru&s;e my Text, <HI>page</HI> 66. My words are the&s;e, <HI>He takes no notice how many are admitted, &amp;c. who ble&s;&s;e God for the care our Builders take, in purging and re|pa<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">ring Gods Hou&s;e, and the new Jeru&s;alem, how ever oppo&s;ed and di&s;couraged by</HI> Sanballat, Tobiah, <HI>and other Samaritans. And I wi&s;h too many, I hope, reall Jewes, did not too much cor|re&s;pond with them. I am &s;ure Mr.</HI> Humphrey, <HI>by this unhappy Book of his, hath done</HI> Sanballat <HI>and</HI> Tobiah <HI>more &s;ervice, then either</HI> Nehemiah <HI>or</HI> Ezra; <HI>the Lord forgive him.</HI></P>
<P>Here 1. is not one word of <HI>Korah.</HI> 2<HI>ly.</HI> Halfe an eye of charity will ea&s;ily &s;ee, that in tho&s;e expre&s;&s;ions, I looked at Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> as a true Jew, rather then a Samaritan. 3<HI>ly.</HI> Yet
<PB N="180" REF="99">
with griefe I declared my apprehen&s;ion, that by his Treati&s;e of free Admi&s;&s;ion, he hath done &s;er|vice to Samaritans rather than to true Jewes. This is my judgment &s;till, not only of Mr. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> but of the godlie&s;t under Heaven, who &s;ome way or other, fir&s;t or la&s;t, by error or practice, are too &s;ub&s;ervient to <HI>Sanballat,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 3. <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 12, to 15. And herein I am far from excepting my &s;elfe, being the weake&s;t of ten thou|&s;and. If Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his Tenet be erroneous, &s;ure he hath done <HI>Sanballat</HI> &s;ervice: If his Tenet be true. I confe&s;&s;e I have done <HI>Sanballat</HI> &s;ervice, in oppo&s;ing it. Let Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> or any make this good, I &s;hall thank them for their pains and be the fir&s;t &s;hall put fire to my ney and &s;tub|ble. I hope the pious and judicious Reader will not count this bitter cen&s;oriou&s;ne&s;&s;e; no nor Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> neither, upon a &s;econd review. I can|not judge Sacramentall tryall a truth, but I mu&s;t needs judge the oppo&s;ite Doctrine an errour, and by con&s;equence, that they who promote it, do work for <HI>Sanballat,</HI> as to that act; however, as to their per&s;ons, they may be true Jewes. Let Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> &s;ay as much of me, I &s;hall not think him cen&s;orious at all, much le&s;&s;e bitterly cen&s;o|rious.</P>
<P>Indeed <HI>page</HI> 65. I &s;peak the&s;e words to Mr. <HI>Humphrey, Let him take heed, le&s;t in this ra&s;h cen&s;ure he be not like</HI> Korah <HI>and his Company.</HI> Yet 1. I hope, not every one that doth &s;omthing like <HI>Korah,</HI> is pre&s;ently of <HI>Korah's</HI> company. Nor, 2<HI>ly.</HI> did I &s;ay he was of <HI>Korah's</HI> number or company, only, I ventured to Item him, that in ra&s;h cen&s;uring, he be not like <HI>Korah,</HI> &amp;c. 3<HI>ly.</HI> In my be&s;t apprehen&s;ion, his ra&s;h cen&s;ure is
<PB N="181" REF="99">
too like the clamour of <HI>Korah,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Numb.</HI> 163. And 1 <HI>Korah</HI> affirmes, that <HI>all the Congrega|tion was holy</HI> (ju&s;t as all our Congregations are cryed up to be holy, yea, every member of our Congregations.) 2<HI>ly. That Mo&s;es and Aaron took too much upon them, and lifted up them|&s;elves, &amp;c.</HI> (as too many judge the Presbyte|rians, though I mu&s;t not &s;ay Mr. <HI>Hamphrey</HI> doth &s;o, for fear I &s;hould be thought cen&s;orious) Let the Reader con&s;ult Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his Vin|dication, <HI>page</HI> 20. and his Rejoynder, <HI>page</HI> 91. and I hope he will judge more charitably of my former <HI>Item,</HI> then Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> doth.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 94.</NOTE> <HI>And &s;hould I now return him his own language, page</HI> 61. <Q REND="inline">See you not here, how the vizard of piety falls off, and his breath and pen &s;avour rankly of pride?</Q> <HI>Should I &s;ay,</HI> <Q REND="inline">If this do not &s;mell of &s;ublime Phari&s;a|i&s;me, I be&s;eech you what doth?</Q> <HI>For my part, when he can even wi&s;h the earth might open and &s;wallow me, I &s;ire the Lord to open his eies, to &s;ee the rents he helps to make, to &s;wallow up the Church, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Doth not a godly man's <HI>Unchri&s;tian cen&s;ure,</HI> make the vizzard of piety fall off, and his breath and pen &s;mell rankly of pride in that act? Tho&s;e words Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> left out of his charge, again&s;t the Letter of my Text; by omi&s;|&s;ion of which, the Reader might conceite I cen|&s;ured his per&s;on as a proud hypocrite, which uncharitablene&s;&s;e I de&s;ire to adhor. The rea&s;on why I concluded, tho&s;e words of his &s;avoured of pride and hypocri&s;ie, &s;ee in my Bar, <HI>page</HI> 60. and if it be not &s;olid, let the Reader cen&s;ure me, for &s;o condemning that pa&s;&s;age of Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI>'s.
<PB N="182" REF="100">
Proportionably, may not &s;ome acts of a godly man &s;avour of &s;ublime Phari&s;ai&s;me? 2<HI>ly.</HI>Far be it from me to wi&s;h, The earth might open and &s;wallow him: Let Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> &s;hew but &s;uch a wi&s;h in all my Book, I &s;hall hartily ask God and him pardon; I know of no &s;uch expre&s;&s;ion, I abhor it, and &s;hall abhor my &s;elfe for it, if any &s;uch bitter pa&s;&s;age &s;lipt from me, I de&s;ire Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> to convince me, or to clear me. 3<HI>ly.</HI> I de&s;ire as heartily as Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey,</HI> that God would open mine eies, to &s;ee where I make any rents in the Church: Surely, either Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> or my &s;elfe mu&s;t be guilty of this &s;in; he thinks, I am; I think, he is; haply, both of us may be too guilty, by our inordinate heats: We cannot tell how to debate and con|vince each other, but we mu&s;t be angry. And truly, when the Shepheards are &s;o hot in divifi|on, the Flocks cannot be very firm in union. Yet waving pa&s;&s;ion on both &s;ides, as extrin&s;icall, yea, prejudiciall to our cau&s;e; that party who promotes and &s;tickles for error, helps by rents to &s;wallow up the Church. Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> charges me, I him, with Error, about Sacramentall try|all; let the Reader weigh Arguments and An|&s;wers on both &s;ides, and then judge, who is the Rent-maker, and Church-&s;wallower.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 96.</NOTE> <HI>I pitty Mr.</HI> Drake's <HI>poor ex|cu&s;e,</HI> telling us, that the Phari&s;ees judgment, <HI>Luk.</HI> 18. was private and without tryall; <HI>as if a thing, for being the more publick, were the le&s;&s;e evill; and when he judges him&s;elfe worthy, and many unworthy, he askes this Que&s;tion.</HI> Yet, how do we think our &s;elves better then others?</P>
<P N="1"><PB N="183" REF="100">
<HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. The Phari&s;ee's judgment was pri|vate, as to his Call or Authority. 2<HI>ly.</HI> It was ra&s;h, without tryall had; &s;o is not the judgment of Church-Officers, who are called by Chri&s;t to judge, and proceed according to evidence, from the party him&s;elfe, or from &s;ufficient witne&s;&s;e. Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> leaves out this latter, and plaies with the ambiguity of the word <HI>Private,</HI> to make my &s;en&s;e ridiculous.</P>
<P N="2">2<HI>ly.</HI> How do I judge my &s;elfe worthy, who was not admitted to the Lords Supper, but upon the &s;ame account, upon which (if regularly) Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> him&s;elfe was admitted to be a Mini&s;ter; namely, upon tryall and examination by Church Officers. Doth Mr. <HI>Humphry</HI> judge him&s;elfe worthy to be a Mini&s;ter, becau&s;e with the Presbytery of Mini&s;ters, he tries candi|dates for the Mini&s;try; and, upon evidence of in|&s;ufficiency, he with other a&s;&s;i&s;ting Mini&s;ters, judges &s;ome of tho&s;e candidates not yet fit for the Mini&s;try? Surely (if any) they who make them&s;elves the &s;ole judges of their own Sacra|mentall or Mini&s;teriall worthine&s;&s;e, are the per&s;ons that judge them&s;elves worthy.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <HI>Mr.</HI> Drake <HI>will a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1+ letters">mit none to Chri&s;ts Table, unle&s;&s;e converted a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">ready.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Dr. <HI>Drake</HI> hath no &s;uch word, nor any &s;uch intention, his whole di&s;cour&s;e being for the admi&s;&s;ion of all Church-members, who are in the judgment of charity converted, whether they be really converted or no. In the &s;ame place he finds fault with my Interpretation, of Chri&s;ts calling not the righteous, but &s;inners, <HI>Luke</HI> 5. 31, 32. and &s;aies, <HI>it mu&s;t be taken in regard of the effect, not tender of his grace.</HI></P>
<P><PB N="184" REF="101"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. If &s;o, then Chri&s;t doth not call proud Phari&s;ees effectually: What then doth Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> think of St. <HI>Paul?</HI> was not he a proud Phari&s;ee, yet called effectually? If he &s;ay, <HI>Paul</HI> was not called effectually while he was proud; True, no more was he called immediately to &s;aving repentance, till he was legally humbled. As therefore Chri&s;t called not <HI>Paul</HI> to Evange|licall repentance effectually, till he was legally humbled; &s;o he tendred not &s;aving grace im|mediately to him, as proud, but as legally hum|bled, which is a middle thing, between a proud <HI>Paul</HI> and a converted <HI>Paul.</HI> Chri&s;t tenders grace mediately to the proud &s;inner, immediately to the humbled &s;inner, <HI>Matth.</HI> 11. 28. nor doth he call the proud &s;inner effectually, till humbled, and by humiliation. Chri&s;ts Call then, doth as truly re&s;pect the tender as the effect; he ten|dring grace orderly, as well as calling to grace orderly.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey, <HI>page</HI> 97. <HI>The third was a &s;weet place,</HI> John 8. <HI>where, who doth not &s;ee, how importinent Mr.</HI> Drake <HI>is, about opening that Text, as if he could not di&s;tingui&s;h be|tween a proof and illu&s;tration, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Who &s;ees not how impertinent Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> is, in charging, but not proving, me to be impertinent: Let my Text &s;peak for it &s;elfe again&s;t this charge. See my Bar, <HI>page</HI> 68.</P>
<P N="2">2<HI>ly.</HI> I had thought that illu&s;tration, <HI>&agrave; pari|bus &amp; &s;imilibns</HI> (if <HI>pat</HI> and pertinent) had been argumentative.</P>
<P N="3">3<HI>ly.</HI> In this very particular, Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> intended not only an Illu&s;tration, but an Argu|ment;
<PB N="185" REF="101">
el&s;e, what mean tho&s;e words, <HI>page</HI> 20. of his Vindication, <HI>To give weight to this</HI> (di&s;cour|&s;ing on his third Rea&s;on,) <HI>remember three pa&s;|&s;ages of our Saviours.</HI> Now the la&s;t of tho&s;e three, is the in&s;tance of the Adulterous woman, <HI>John</HI> 8. Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> cannot be ignorant, that Illu&s;tration, as &s;uch, affords only light; but as Argumentative, gives weight. Him&s;elfe af|firmes, that his illu&s;trations give weight: who &s;ees not then, they mu&s;t needs be Argumenta|tive, and have &s;omewhat of the nature of proofs? If therefore Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> be pertinent in his illu&s;tration, Dr. <HI>Drake</HI> cannot be impertinent in his charge, wherein al&s;o he looked at Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> his three illu&s;trations, only, as &s;o many amplifications. See my Bar, <HI>page</HI> 66, 67.</P>
<P N="4">4<HI>ly.</HI> Take that in&s;tance in Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his declared &s;en&s;e, it makes again&s;t <HI>tho&s;e, who are forward to cen&s;ure others</HI> (See Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his <HI>Rejoynder, page</HI> 97.) which we all agree to be very &s;infull, but impertinently applied by him again&s;t Sacramentall tryall. I wi&s;h his own illu|&s;tration may open his eyes, to di&s;cern his own forwardne&s;&s;e to cen&s;ure others.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <HI>Page</HI> 98. <HI>If Sacramentall tryall were once proved a precept of Chri&s;t, I would yield to Mr.</HI> Drake <HI>in every particular.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> The profe&s;&s;ion is very ingenious, and gives &s;ome hope, that ere long, Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> will be more favourable to Su&s;pen&s;ion, then at pre&s;ent he &s;eemes to be.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="9" TYPE="section">
<HEAD><HI>Sect.</HI> IX.</HEAD>
<P>Proceed we next to the matter in Contro|ver&s;y betwixt us, about Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his fourth Argument, drawn, as he &s;aies, <HI>from the vanity,
<PB N="186" REF="102">
formality, and impo&s;&s;ibility, of &s;electing people to this Ordinance.</HI></P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <HI>Page</HI> 101. <HI>What Dr.</HI> Drake <HI>hath to &s;ay again&s;t this Argument, is barren.</HI> (You mu&s;t &s;uppo&s;e my ground is barren, be|cau&s;e it will not bear Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his corn) <HI>In generall he &s;aies.</HI> 1. In the rule of Admi&s;&s;ion, they go not by the truth of grace. <HI>It is well he is brought to confe&s;s this, which &s;o often otherwhere, he thinks him&s;elfe bound to pry into.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. We think our &s;elves bound to look after tho&s;e trialls, which are 1. Negative. 2<HI>ly.</HI> Sen&s;ible; as gro&s;&s;e ignorance, heatheni&s;h profanne&s;&s;e, vi&s;ible impenitency, which is walk|ing in a tract or cour&s;e of any &s;candalous &s;in, or falling into &s;ome foul abomination, which argues at lea&s;t the tyranny of fin. By &s;uch effects as the&s;e, we may &s;afely judge a per&s;on Evange|lically unworthy, without prying into his heart, or into Gods &s;ecrets, which is impo&s;&s;ible for the Creature to do, and &s;infull to attempt it: Did <HI>Peter</HI> pry into <HI>Simon Magus</HI>'s his heart, when he &s;aid, I perceive thee to be in the gall of bitterne&s;&s;e, &amp;c. <HI>Acts</HI> 8. 32? Or did <HI>Philip</HI> pry into the Eunuchs heart, when he put him to it about the reality of his faith, <HI>Acts</HI> 8. 37? If Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> will condemn us for the like practice, our comfort is, we have good warrant to bear us out, and good company to &s;uffer with us, under this imputation of his. In vain there|fore, <HI>page</HI> 101. of his <HI>Rejoynder,</HI> doth Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> labour to &s;et me again&s;t my &s;elfe, by comparing <HI>page</HI> 117. of my <HI>Bar,</HI> <Q REND="inline">(How many outwardly pious are there, who, upon tryall, might ea&s;ily be unca&s;ed to live
<PB N="187" REF="102">
in &s;ome known &s;in)</Q> with <HI>page</HI> 73. of my &s;aid <HI>Bar</HI> <Q REND="inline">(That truth of grace in the heart, is not our rule of admitting to the Lords Supper)</Q> there being a &s;weet harmony, but no di&s;&s;o|nancy between tho&s;e two a&s;&s;ertions; The former holding forth, that we judge of men by what is vi&s;ible, of the Root by the Fruit, according to our Saviour's rule, <HI>Matth.</HI> 7. 16. The latter &s;hewing, that we judge not of per&s;ons by what is invi&s;ible; but, as &s;in, or grace appear vi&s;ibly in any, &s;o we judge. Were I &s;ure <HI>Judas</HI> had no grace, yet, if he were knowing, and walked or|derly, I could not &s;u&s;pend him. Again were I &s;ure <HI>Peter</HI> had grace, yet, if he walk di&s;orderly, he ought to be &s;u&s;pended, till his repentance be evident as well as his fall, 2 <HI>The&s;&s;</HI> 3. <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 6. 14, 15. Further, let the Reader take notice, that, however Mr. <HI>Humphrey, page</HI> 102. is plea&s;ed to favour me with a je&s;t, for denying, that Profe&s;&s;ion in his &s;en&s;e, is the rule of Admi&s;|&s;ion; yet, he only &s;aies, but proves not, <HI>That &s;uch profe&s;&s;ion is the ordinary road of Chri&s;tians;</HI> a Tenet contrary to Scripture, to Antiquity, and the late, as well as pre&s;ent practice of our Church. (Here let the Reader know, that Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> takes a piece of Profe&s;&s;ion, namely, Bapti&s;me, and comming to Church, for a &s;uffi|cient ground of Admi&s;&s;ion to the Lords Supper.) We deny not, that compleat Profe&s;&s;ion is enough for Admi&s;&s;ion; but, &s;uch Profe&s;&s;ors mu&s;t have 1. Competent knowledge. 2<HI>ly.</HI> Suitable conver|&s;ation, be&s;ides initiation by Bapti&s;me, and at|tendance upon the publick Ordinances; other|wi&s;e, like <HI>Agrippa,</HI> they will be but halfe Pro|fe&s;&s;ors. As knowledge and pious carriage will
<PB N="188" REF="103">
not make one a compleat Profe&s;&s;or, unle&s;&s;e he be Baptized and attend ordinarily upon the publick Ordinances. So Bapti&s;me and attendance upon the publick Ordinances will not make a com|pleat Profe&s;&s;or, unle&s;&s;e competent knowledge, and pious conver&s;ation, be &s;uperadded. When a halfe houre is an whole hour, then an halfe Profe&s;&s;or may go for an whole Profe&s;&s;or.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <HI>Page</HI> 102. <HI>Chri&s;t tells us of no medium, while he divides all his gue&s;ts into the Called and Cho&s;en,</HI> Matth. 22. 14.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Doth not the Parable expre&s;ly mention two &s;orts of Gue&s;ts called, be&s;ides tho&s;e that were cho&s;en? 1. They, who made light of the very Call, <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 5. 2<HI>ly.</HI> Such as came, and were not di&s;cerned by the very Servants, yet wanted the Wedding Garment, <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 11. and what are the&s;e la&s;t but <HI>medium participationis,</HI> &s;o much decryed by Mr. <HI>Humphrey.</HI> 1. Were not they Profe&s;&s;ors who &s;lighted the Call? (unle&s;&s;e he will &s;ay, that the Jewes and Phari&s;ees, again&s;t whom the Parable was directed, were not Pro|fe&s;&s;ors) 2<HI>ly.</HI> Was not this their &s;lighting vi&s;ible to the Servants? Compare <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 7. and <HI>Luke</HI> 14. 21. And doth it not thence nece&s;&s;arily follow, that there are &s;ome Profe&s;&s;ors, that vi|fibly reject the grace of the Go&s;pell; &s;ome, that cordially accept thereof? And between both the&s;e (as a middle of participation) are they, who friendly accept of grace offered, and vi&s;ibly walk up to it, as did he that came without the Wed|ding Garment, whom neither the Servants, nor the other Gue&s;ts, di&s;cerned, but only the Ma&s;ter of the Fea&s;t. Withall the Reader may note, that the Fea&s;t in this Parable is not the Lords Sup|per
<PB N="189" REF="103">
(this Parable being delivered by Chri&s;t, be|fore the Lords Supper was in&s;tituted) but the offer of Chri&s;t, and the grace of the Go&s;pell in generall, which is openly &s;leighted by &s;ome, ac|cepted by others, and by &s;ome of the&s;e feignedly, by others cordially. Some Profe&s;&s;ors reject Chri&s;t offered both outwardly and inwardly; &s;ome accept him both outwardly and inwardly: Be|tween both the&s;e (as a middle of participation) are they, who accept Chri&s;t outwardly, but re|ject him inwardly, as do all ca&s;ed Hypocrites. It's evident then, that Chri&s;t, in this Parable, ownes a middle of participation between both extreams.</P>
<P>By the way take notice, how again, <HI>page</HI> 103. Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> is plea&s;ed to put off my in&s;tance of Children with a je&s;t, which at good earne&s;t will be too hard for him: His wit and mirth may tickle the Reader, and make his Books the more vendible. But I &s;hall not tire the Reader, with repeating what I have &s;aid for|merly, in order to the vindication of that in|&s;tance.</P>
<P>For that other Argument of mine, to prove Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his Principle loo&s;e, becau&s;e it will open a dore for the wickede&s;t varlets: Hear what Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> &s;aies to it, <HI>page</HI> 103. <HI>He &s;hould &s;ay in plain termes, it is a loo&s;e Principle, becau&s;e it is not his Principle, and then he had hit it.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> What is this to the eviction of my Ar|gument? May not I as well return, Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> &s;hould &s;ay in plain termes, his admitting pel-mel is a good and warrantable practice, be|cau&s;e it is his practice, and then he had hit it:
<PB N="190" REF="104">
What weight can &s;uch froath bear, in the bal|lance of right Rea&s;on and Religion?</P>
<P><HI>D. Dr.</HI> If profe&s;&s;ion be Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his ground, how dare he excommunicate any Bap|tized per&s;on, though mo&s;t wicked?</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey. <HI>I an&s;wer, As the Prie&s;t dur&s;t &s;hut up the Leper from the whole Congregation, becau&s;e of Gods &s;peciall command.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> And with us, per&s;ons are &s;u&s;pended from the Lords Supper, as they were &s;u&s;pended from the Pa&s;&s;over, by Gods e&s;peciall command, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10. 21. May I forfeit a right to all Ordi|nances, and may not I forfeit a right to one Or|dinance? Was not the Ince&s;tuous Corinth a Profe&s;&s;or, even when excommunicated? That he was Baptized, Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> will grant; that he was kept from Hearing, or any other Ordi|nance, but actuall receiving, Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> cannot prove. He was then a Profe&s;&s;or, even after excommunication, though not a Church|member till received again, upon te&s;tification of his repentance. If therefore profe&s;&s;ion be enough for admi&s;&s;ion, then, even per&s;ons excommuni|cated ought to be admitted to the Lords Supper. In per&s;ons at age, profe&s;&s;ion mu&s;t precede Church|member&s;hip, and may continue, after a per&s;on is cut off from Church-member&s;hip, unle&s;&s;e he openly renounce Chri&s;tianity, which, I believe, few excommunicated per&s;ons do.</P>
<P><HI>D. Dr.</HI> Did he never hear of reall and vi&s;ible worthine&s;&s;e? Mr. <HI>Humphrey. Page</HI> 104, and 105. <HI>I confe&s;&s;e I have heard of the vi&s;ible Church, Saints by calling, Profe&s;&s;ors, &amp;c. But this vi&s;ible worthine&s;&s;e, as di&s;tingui&s;hed there|from, I have not leightly read of, but in him;
<PB N="191" REF="104">
and look at his expre&s;&s;ion and his meaning there|in, as exotick to the Scripture.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Let Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> &s;hew me the terme <HI>vi&s;ible</HI> (as applyed to the Church) in Scripture if he can; I am a&s;&s;ured he cannot. 2<HI>ly.</HI> The thing of <HI>vi&s;ible worthine&s;&s;e,</HI> the Scrip|ture warrants, as di&s;tinct from Church-member|&s;hip; for which, take the&s;e Texts, 1 <HI>King.</HI> 1. 52. <HI>If he will &s;hew him&s;elfe a worthy man,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>But, if wickedne&s;&s;e &s;hall be found in him,</HI> &amp;c. Is not worthine&s;&s;e &s;hewn, vi&s;ible worthine&s;&s;e? and <HI>contra,</HI> Is not wickedne&s;&s;e found in a man, vi&s;ible unworthine&s;&s;e? Again. <HI>Matth.</HI> 10. 11. <HI>Enquire who is worthy in a City.</HI> Surely, Chri&s;t &s;ets them not to enquire who had truth of grace, that were (as Mr. <HI>Humphre</HI> phra&s;es it) to pry into Gods &s;ecrets. Nor doth he bid them enquire barely, who were profe&s;&s;ors, by Church-mem|ber&s;hip, fince the whole City, or the greate&s;t part thereof, were &s;uch, as being Jewes, to whom only the Apo&s;tles were &s;ent, <HI>Matth.</HI> 10. <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 5, 6. It mu&s;t needs then be a worthine&s;&s;e of ac|cepting the Go&s;pell, and of &s;uitable pious walk|ing, that the Apo&s;tles were to look after, and not to lodge in profane, but in religious families; which worthine&s;&s;e might be found out by in|quity. And if this be not vi&s;ible worthine&s;&s;e, I pray what is? Once more, <HI>Luke</HI> 7. <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 4, 5. The Elders of the Jewes te&s;tifie, the Centurion is <HI>worthy:</HI> Surely they were no merit-mongers, nor would Chri&s;t have acted upon &s;uch an ac|count: He had then a worthine&s;&s;e of meetne&s;&s;e, and this worthine&s;&s;e was vi&s;ible, by his love to Gods people, in building them a Synagogue. That this Centurion was Circumcized, Bap|tized,
<PB N="192" REF="105">
or a Church-member, I think Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> will not a&s;&s;ert; I am con&s;ident, he cannot prove it. Yet, here is worthine&s;&s;e, and vi&s;ible worthine&s;&s;e, in one, that was neither Baptized, nor a Church-member. The like may be &s;aid of <HI>Cornelius, Acts</HI> 10. 22. From all which, I con|clude, by Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his leave, that vi&s;ible worthine&s;&s;e, as di&s;tinct from Church-member|&s;hip, is not exotick to the Scripture.</P>
<P>In the clo&s;e of this Section, after &s;ome flou|ri&s;hes, at which he is excellent, I perceive, that my anatomizing of his Onyon (which I hoped might open his eyes, and make him weep) hath put him into an angry (I will not &s;ay, &s;pitefull) di&s;temper; I had rather &s;uch words &s;hould drop from Mr. Humphrey his pen, then from mine. And becau&s;e he cannot ju&s;tly quarrell with my words, therefore he is plea&s;ed to put a &s;en&s;e up|on them, <HI>As if I cen&s;ured him, and all of his minde, to be oppo&s;ers of the Church; and the wicked; and my party, only to be the godly,</HI> pag. 106.</P>
<P>A &s;ad charge, and very uncharitable, in re|ference both to my words and meaning. My words are the&s;e, <HI>page</HI> 75. of my <HI>Bar:</HI> <Q REND="inline">The be&s;t u&s;e therefore that can be made of his pield Onyon, is, to draw tears from his own, and others eyes; for tho&s;e extravagant di&s;cour|&s;es of his, whereby he hath as much as in him lies, troubled the Church, hindred reforma|tion, &s;trengthened the hands of the wicked, and &s;adned the hearts of the righteous, &amp;c.</Q> The&s;e are my words, and 1. Have I in them &s;poke any more, then the very truth? 2<HI>ly.</HI> Is here one word, charging him, and all that are of his
<PB N="193" REF="105">
minde to be wicked. Thirdly, doth not this di&s;cour&s;e of M. <HI>Humphrey</HI> &s;adden the Godly, and make the wicked rejoyce? I uttered not the&s;e expre&s;&s;ions by roat (as he is plea&s;ed to upbraid me) but deliberately, and with grief and Sym|pathy. Fourthly, what is there of &s;pight, or of the Spider &s;ucking poy&s;on, in tho&s;e expre&s;&s;ions of mine? As for Antiquity, I wonder how in the &s;ame page Ma&s;ter <HI>Humphrey</HI> can pretend to it, which (if he know any thing of Anti|quity) he cannot be ignorant is again&s;t him. I &s;ee the man is galled, and cannot bear the gent|le&s;t Item of reproof, but pre&s;ently throws <HI>malice</HI> and <HI>&s;pleen</HI> in the face of the reprover. Truely Sir, what I &s;pake was not by roat, nor in pa&s;&s;ion. I am of the &s;ame mind &s;till, what ever bitter mi&s;|con&s;tructions you are plea&s;ed to make of tho&s;e words of mine. Indeed I looked at him, and all that vent them&s;elves for his loo&s;e principles, as troublers (I did not &s;ay <HI>oppo&s;ers,</HI> though even this word is not culpable, if rightly, and candidly under&s;tood) of the Church in that act; but I neither looked at all of his minde as ungodly, nor at all of our mindes as Godly. I am far from li|miting piety to a party in his &s;en&s;e, but de&s;ire ra|ther to &s;it down and mourne, that Godly men are &s;o acce&s;&s;ary to, in the making, and abetting of parties, both again&s;t faith and cha|rity.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="10" TYPE="section">
<HEAD><HI>Sect.</HI> X.</HEAD>
<P>In the tenth Section <HI>by in&s;tance of the pa&s;&s;e|over,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>M.</HI> Humprey <HI>labours to make it out that every Church-member ought to receive.</HI> The an&s;wer is ea&s;ie. As all circumci&s;ed per&s;ons were
<PB N="194" REF="106">
to eat the pa&s;&s;e-over, yet divers in &s;ome ca&s;es might not receive at &s;uch, or &s;uch a time, &s;o all Church-members are to receive the Lords Sup|per, but not till they be prepared. If all were bound to receive every Sacrament, then were it a &s;in for any at any time to forbear, and a &s;in to per&s;wade any to forbear. Which I believe Ma|&s;ter <HI>Humphrey</HI> will not a&s;&s;ert, as that which is Heterodox, and may prove a dangerous &s;nare. If any be kept from the Lords Supper, generally they may thank them&s;elves, as might tho&s;e Jews, who neglected to purifie them&s;elves for the pa&s;&s;e-over. <HI>For an additional proof he produces humane te&s;timony. And</HI> 1. <HI>he quotes Mr.</HI> Perkins, pag. 109. and 110.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. That all Church-members ought to receive we deny not, if rightly under&s;tood, as above, that is, they ought to examine and pre|pare them&s;elves, and &s;o to receive, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11. 28. Secondly, that in order hereunto all mu&s;t make con&s;cience to fit them&s;elves, M^r. <HI>Humphrey</HI> con|fe&s;&s;eth, <HI>page</HI> 110. Thirdly, that any ought to receive <HI>hic &amp; nunc,</HI> when unprepared Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> cannot prove. Fourthly, that Mr. <HI>Perkins</HI> is not of Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his minde herein, to me &s;eems more than probable, becau&s;e in the third Propo&s;ition cited by M. <HI>Humphrey</HI> he concludes, <HI>Every one is to receive according to the laudable cu&s;tom of his own Church;</HI> But it hath been, and &s;till is the laudable cu&s;tome of the Church of <HI>England</HI> to try per&s;ons at age before they re|ceive. We &s;hall not deny the Sacrament to any that will receive it, according to the laudable cu&s;tome of the Church of <HI>England.</HI></P>
<P><PB N="195" REF="106"><HI>Pag.</HI> 110. Note. 1. If M.<HI>H.</HI> be Judge, his words are oracles, my an&s;wers are trifles. Secondly, Poor infants are a mighty rub in his way; they make him complain now the ninth time. God knows how to perfect prai&s;e out of the mouths of Babes and &s;ucklings. Thirdly, he frights me with two terrible Thorns, but tells me not what they are, haply to make them more formidable. I gue&s;&s;e they are the Thorns he put in the hand of infants and ideots; which upon tryal I have found to be but painted Thornes; but being turned upon him&s;elf, they prove real Thornes; No wonder the man complains more then &s;even times. Fourthly, he tells the Reader, <HI>I &s;ay, and &s;ay on.</HI> Haply the Reader might &s;u&s;pect I &s;aid nothing, unle&s;&s;e Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> had &s;poke out for me. I thank him he will honour me &s;o far as to be my Cryer. Fifthly, he findes fault I am too fine, yet &s;u&s;pects I am not in good earne&s;t. Truely Sir, I hope I affect not finery but &s;eriou&s;|ne&s;&s;e. I part not tho&s;e actions Chri&s;t hath joyned, nor will joyn tho&s;e which Chri&s;t hath parted. As the Covenant, &s;o the Seals are appli|cable to all conditionally and mediately; but the Covenant is not ab&s;olutely, and immediately ap|plicable to any that are vi&s;ibly out of Covenant; and therefore by proportion, neither the Seales of the Covenant. The Covenant is conditio|nally, and mediately, <HI>Mark.</HI> 16. 15, 16. even to Heathen applicable, yet I hope M. <HI>Humphrey</HI> will not admit Heathen to the Sacrament: His in|&s;tance of <HI>ip&s;o jure</HI> excommunicate will not help him as hath been formerly &s;hewed. For 1. if &s;uch a per&s;on mu&s;t be &s;u&s;pended before excommuni|cation,
<PB N="196" REF="107">
then &s;u&s;pen&s;ion is a di&s;tinct ordinance from excommunication by Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his own grant.</P>
<P>Secondly, if Chri&s;ts univer&s;al (do this) be limited by <HI>Pauls</HI> exception (put away from you &s;uch a per&s;on) then its further evident that Chri&s;ts commanding all Church members to receive is limited by <HI>Paul's</HI> exception, that a Brother, or Church member, if a raylor, a drunkard, unclean, covetuous, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> mu&s;t not be admitted to the Lords Supper, as being <HI>ip&s;o jure</HI> excommunicate: and withall that any &s;in in vi&s;ible Dominion makes a per&s;on <HI>ip&s;o jure</HI> excommunicate, as covetou&s;ne&s;&s;e, railing, forni|cation, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> though not capital; and then I pray why may not ignorance in dominion &s;u&s;pend as well as &s;candal.</P>
<P>His amplification from <HI>Math.</HI> 5. 23, 25. makes rather again&s;t than for him. Since its evident by that Text. Fir&s;t, that moral pollution, as malice (till removed) &s;u&s;pended a man from Sacrifice. Secondly, that moral (as well as Levitical) pol|lution may &s;u&s;pend a man from in&s;tituted, but not from natural wor&s;hip. Sacrifices and Sa|craments are in&s;tituted wor&s;hip, prayer, and hearing are natural wor&s;hip. A <HI>Zimri</HI> is bound to hear &amp; pray, be he never &s;o bad, not to &s;o offer Sacrifice, or receive the Sacrament <HI>in &s;tatu quo.</HI> The law of Creation bindes to natural wor&s;hip, which no unworthine&s;&s;e of the Creature can di&s;|&s;olve. Hence the Lord di&s;pen&s;eth much in, and about in&s;tituted wor&s;hip, not &s;o in natural wor&s;hip, 1 <HI>Sam.</HI> 15. 22. <HI>Jer.</HI> 7. 22, 23. <HI>Ho&s;ea</HI> 6. 6. <HI>Math.</HI> 12. 4, 5.</P>
<P><PB N="197" REF="107">Thirdly, what if the Sacrificer will never be reconciled, mu&s;t he notwith&s;tanding be admit|ted to offer? Our Saviour &s;ayes he mu&s;t fir&s;t be reconciled &amp; then offer; <HI>Paul</HI> &s;ayes, he mu&s;t fir&s;t be prepared and &s;o eat; &s;urely then he mu&s;t not offer till reconciled, nor receive till prepared; And, if his malice and unpreparedne&s;&s;e be vi|&s;ible, he may and mu&s;t be &s;u&s;pended. Fourthly, from Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his own grant, If <HI>there be many occa&s;ions of forbearing a duty,</HI> and unpre|paredne&s;&s;e be a ju&s;t occa&s;ion and a grand occa|&s;ion; then, as this unpreparedne&s;&s;e &s;hould oc|ca&s;ion my forbearing; &s;o, if vi&s;ible, it &s;hould occa&s;ion the Churches &s;u&s;pending of me; and &s;uch is vi&s;ible ignorance or prophaenne&s;s in any Church-member. If he may forbear upon ju&s;t occa&s;ion, why may not the Church or any particular member advi&s;e him to that which is lawfull; If he mu&s;t forbear, why may not the Church, or any particular member advi&s;e him to his duty; and in ca&s;e he will act again&s;t his duty, why may not the Church u&s;e her power to &s;u|&s;pend him from that unlawfull act? I make my &s;elf no more Lord over Gods comand by telling my Brother this is not his duty, than by telling him, this is his duty. In both I make my &s;elf Lord of Gods command if my advice be contrary to the affirmative and negative precept; in nei|ther, if my advice be con&s;onant to the rule.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> pag. 112. <HI>To hold it is not a mans duty to receive while unregenrat; this reaches the</HI> &s;emper <HI>&amp; loo&s;es the bands of Gods commands.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. It reaches the <HI>&s;emper</HI> onely conditio|nally, as legal uncleanne&s;&s;e might haply reach the
<PB N="198" REF="108">
<HI>&s;emper</HI> in order to the pa&s;&s;e-over, and as excom|munication may reach the <HI>&s;emper</HI> in ca&s;e the per&s;on excommunicated continue ob&s;tinate. Secondly, How doth it loo&s;e the bands of Gods command, when Gods command is none &s;hall receive till rightly prepared. If the truth of the promi&s;e offering Chri&s;t to all conditionally be not loo&s;ed though no unregenerate per&s;on par|take of Chri&s;t, then the bands of the precept commanding all conditionally to receive are not loo&s;ed, though no unqualified per&s;on receive till Doomes day. The rea&s;on is clear, becau&s;e neither command nor promi&s;e are ab&s;olute, but conditionall till the condition be performed. Thirdly, As to particular per&s;ons, the command of &s;u&s;pen&s;ion is a &s;pur to conver&s;ion and practi|cal holine&s;&s;e; And &s;ince none continue in im|penitency but by their own de&s;ault, they may thanke them&s;elves who thereby make the com|mand of ab&s;tention or detention perpetual. Fourthly, Yet by pre&s;ence at the Sacrament the Chri&s;t-murtherer may behold the Corps bleed|ing, &s;ee his own condemnation &s;ealed and both hear &amp; &s;ee Chri&s;t offered conditionally, though he neither receive nor touch the Sacramentall Elements. But to pre&s;&s;e an impenitent and &s;candalous per&s;on to receive in order to the &s;ealing of his own condemnation as Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> a&s;&s;erts, <HI>pag.</HI> 113. to me &s;eems a very un|couth opinion and contradictory to Mr. <HI>Hums phrey</HI> his doctrine for &s;u&s;pending of per&s;ons <HI>ip&s;o jure</HI> excommunicate, who (upon &s;uch an ac|count) ought of all per&s;ons to receive, in order to the &s;ealing of their own comdemnation, and
<PB N="199" REF="108">
the more effectual promotion of their own conver&s;ion.</P>
<P><Q REND="inline">Dr. <HI>Drake,</HI> an unregenerate man &s;ins in all his duties, yet he mu&s;t do them; but there is not <HI>par ratio</HI> in order to a receiving. 1 Becau&s;e it is not his duty.</Q></P>
<P>Mr. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> pag. 113. <HI>If receiving be not the duty of an unregenerate man, then mu&s;t rege|neration be an e&s;&s;ential antecedent to the Sacra|ment; But &s;o it is not: For</HI> 1. <HI>Then bapti&s;me was not admini&s;tred validly to many by the Apo&s;tles,</HI> Acts 8. 13. <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. I might note the impropriety of that expre&s;&s;ion <HI>e&s;&s;entially antecedent.</HI> Nothing is <HI>e&s;&s;entially antecedent</HI> to any thing, but it's con|&s;titutive principles; and we do not make rege|neration a con&s;titutive principle of receiving the Sacrament. Secondly, if by <HI>e&s;&s;ential</HI> here he mean <HI>nece&s;&s;ary,</HI> we grant regeneration a nece&s;|&s;ary antecedent in order to the per&s;on recei|ving, and that by virtue of the precept; as purity was a nece&s;&s;ary antecedent of receiving the Pa&s;&s;e over. Thirdly, where as he infers, That then the bapti&s;me of many was not valid, I deny his con&s;equence, &s;ince in many things, <HI>Quod fieri non debuit factum valet.</HI> Secondly, becau&s;e how|ever, the per&s;on to be bapti&s;ed, being unregene|rate ought not to offer him&s;elf to bapti&s;me, yet this reaches not the Mini&s;ter that is to baptize him, unle&s;&s;e his unregeneration be vi&s;ible. I may not offer my &s;elf to partake if unregenerate; but the Mini&s;ter may admit me coming, if he have charitative grounds to judge me regene|rate. The &s;ame an&s;wer will &s;atisfie his &s;econd
<PB N="200" REF="109">
objection, for bapti&s;me is valid where there is no e&s;&s;ential faylure; if the per&s;on baptized be a vi&s;ible Saint, the per&s;on bapti&s;ing be authorized by Chri&s;t, and the Element be rightly applied according to Chri&s;ts in&s;titution; in a word, if Chri&s;ts form of bapti&s;me be ob&s;erved <HI>Math.</HI> 28. 19. but this may be done to a per&s;on unregene|rare, and is valid being done, though the <HI>Cate|chumenus</HI> &s;in in offering him&s;elf, if unregene|rate; but need not be bapti&s;ed again when once regenerate.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Acts 8. 37.</NOTE></P>
<P>It will al&s;o &s;atisfie his third objection: A Mi|ni&s;ter may in faith admini&s;ter, either of the Sa|craments to others be&s;ides him&s;elf, &s;ince the rule he is to proceed by is not holine&s;&s;e as real, but as vi&s;ible; &amp; where he hath a charitative ground to judge any to be regenerate, he both may and ought to bapti&s;e &s;uch a per&s;on, in ca&s;e he offer him&s;elf to be bapti&s;ed regularly.</P>
<P><HI>For his fifth objection, that then no doubting Chri&s;tian can him&s;elf receive, for he cannot act in faith &s;o long as he is not fully per&s;waded of his own regeneration.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. It's a fallacy to argue from the nece&s;&s;i|ty of regeneration to the nece&s;&s;ity of the clear &amp; full evidence of regeneration. He that hath truth of grace, &s;ins neither materially nor formally in receiving; provided he be not wanting to him&s;elf in due examination and preparation. Secondly, if a doubting Chri&s;tian cannot act in faith, then no man in the world can act in faith, &s;ince the be&s;t of Saints are more, or le&s;&s;e pe&s;tred with doubting, and that both in the faith of a&s;&s;ent, of adherence and of evidence. Thirdly, he may as well doubt whither he &s;in in ab&s;taining as in
<PB N="201" REF="109">
receiving, &s;ince &s;ome comfortable hopes of grace incourage him to receive, as &s;ome dark fears on the other hand di&s;courage him. Fourthly, if evidences for grace be praedominant, the con|trary fears &s;hould not di&s;courage him. Fifthly, if hopes be ballanced with equal fears, or over|ballanced with Symptomes of unregeneracy, his &s;ure&s;t way is to apply him&s;elf to &s;ome faithfull and experienced friend, or Mini&s;ter, upon who&s;e advice he may comfortably approach, or forbear the Sacrament for that time. Yea, this advice is very &s;afe and u&s;efull, where any one doubt about my &s;piritual E&s;tate ari&s;eth, which by a diligent &s;elf-&s;crutiny cannot be re&s;olved; It being dangerous in point of doubts (as well as in other ca&s;es) to keep the Devils coun&s;el. For a brief, yet full re&s;olution of the ca&s;e about per&s;ons to be &s;u&s;pended, I referre the Reader to the larger Cathechi&s;me of the A&s;&s;embly of Divines, where they handle the Doctrine of the Lords Supper: where al&s;o they do po&s;itively affirm, <HI>That &s;uch as are found to be ignorant and &s;candalous, notwith&s;tanding their profe&s;&s;ions of the faith, and de&s;ire to come to the Lords Supper, may, and ought to be kept from that Sacrament by the power which Chri&s;t hath left in his Church, untill they receive in&s;truction and manife&s;t their reformation.</HI> I hope its no pre&s;umption to &s;ay, That &s;uch a Te&s;timony for &s;u&s;pen&s;ion from &s;o many Reve|rend, Learned, and pious Divines will ballance, if not preponderate the oppo&s;ite Te&s;timonies produced by Mr. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> were they as full to his purpo&s;e as his heart could de&s;ire. But I tru&s;t to make it appear (which in part is done already)
<PB N="202" REF="110">
that tho&s;e eminent per&s;ons by him quoted are rather friends to our &s;u&s;pen&s;ion than to his free Admi&s;&s;ion.</P>
<P>If yet it be objected; I, but will not this Do|ctrine of doubting Chri&s;tians admi&s;&s;ion to the Sacrament, be a precipice to unregenerate per|&s;ons, who upon &s;leight and trivial evidences will conclude them&s;elves in the &s;tate of grace, and &s;o ru&s;h upon the Sacrament unworthily?</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Its no more a precipice to them than all other parts of the Go&s;pel are: Offer pro|mi&s;es, Hypocrites are forwarde&s;t to catch pre|&s;umptuou&s;ly at them; thunder out threatnings, Hypocrites will put them off with a wet finger; binde them with precepts, Hypocrites have an helli&s;h art to cut, or break this Gordian knot which they cannot untye fairly, <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 2. 3.</P>
<P>Secondly, This is a precipice not of Gods, but of their own, and the Devils making, who are willingly thereby deceived, and &s;o catch both at promi&s;es and Sacraments, writing and feal, to their own de&s;truction. To prevent which mi&s;|chief (as much as lies in man) cautions are an u&s;efull boundary in order to the promi&s;es, and &s;u&s;pen&s;ion in order to the Sacrament; which though it cannot keep away all Hypocrites, yet it &s;erves to unca&s;e divers, and to make all Church-members &s;tudious of competent know|ledge and outward reformation, a ble&s;&s;ing highly to be prized in every reformed and re|forming Church.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> in his vindication, <HI>page</HI> 24. <Q REND="inline">Let our Independents an&s;wer, why do you allow a <HI>Syntax</HI> in the whole &s;ervice of God
<PB N="203" REF="110">
be&s;ides; and being in a <HI>quae genus</HI> of <HI>Anoma|laes</HI> and Heteroclites, onely at this Ordi|nance.</Q></P>
<P>Dr. <HI>D.</HI> My an&s;wer hereunto, &s;ee <HI>pag.</HI> 79. <HI>and</HI> 80. of my Barre. Indeed I looked at tho&s;e words of his as a challenge to both parties. To which the fir&s;t part of his an&s;wer in his rejoyn|der, <HI>pag.</HI> 116. is &s;o mode&s;t, that I think my &s;elf bound to note it with approbation.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>Humphrey.</HI> For the Later branch, <HI>that the Independents &s;cruple not a free admi&s;&s;ion of their own Members,</HI> &amp;c. lb.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Note his own words, <HI>whither they turn away any before excommunication, I cannot &s;ay, but gue&s;&s;e &s;o.</HI> The expre&s;&s;ions are ingenuous, but do a little thwart his former a&s;&s;ertion. He that &s;peaks onely by gue&s;&s;e cannot a&s;&s;ert that which he &s;peaks to be a truth. Secondly, though &s;ome &s;eparated a&s;&s;emblies own divers of our Congregations as true Churches, yet will they not admit divers (not onely of our Church-members, but al&s;o) of our Communicants, upon this very account, becau&s;e they apprehend them not &s;o vi&s;ibly worthy; An apparent Te&s;timony to me, that they with us mea&s;ure the &s;ubject of Sacramental Admi&s;&s;ion, rather by vi&s;ibility than by Church-member&s;hip. E&s;pecially, con&s;idering withall, that one main ground of their fir&s;t &s;e|paration from us was offence taken at the pro|mi&s;cuous Admi&s;&s;ion of Church-members to the Lords Supper: Upon which account tho&s;e who feared God among the Presbyterians were the more zealous for Sacramental tryal, that by re|formation in this particular they might prevent
<PB N="204" REF="111">
further &s;eparation; and if it might be, reduce our brethren of the Congregational way by remo|ving that unhappy &s;tumbling-block.</P>
<P><Q REND="inline">Mr. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> ibid: Mr. <HI>Drake</HI> tells them, They are beholding to me for my too favour|able opinion of you.</Q></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Mr. <HI>D.</HI> &s;ays, The Independents are much beholding to him for his favourable opinion of them. He doth not &s;ay, they are beholding to him for his <HI>too</HI> favourable opinion of them. I will not utter what I gue&s;&s;e to be Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his de&s;igne in crowding in the adverbe <HI>too,</HI> but I apprehend by that addition he was not <HI>too</HI> favourable unto me.</P>
<P>The next que&s;tion in debate is, how we can bapti&s;e the Children of Church members, &amp; at the &s;ame time turn away their parents from the Sacrament of the Lords &s;upper?</P>
<P><Q REND="inline">Mr. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> pag. 117. I will not in|fringe what Mr. <HI>Drake</HI> hath &s;aid pag. 82, 83, 84. I wi&s;h it may be maintained. But as for tho&s;e who never tooke notice, or not approved of any other ground of their bapti&s;me, but as they are immediately born Chri&s;tians of &s;uch as vi&s;ibly profe&s;&s;e Chri&s;t according to my terms the right which the Parents derive upon their Children unto bapti&s;me mu&s;t be acknow|ledged to be in them&s;elves unto the Sacrament, unle&s;&s;e there be a manife&s;t impediment to re|trench that right, or the pre&s;ent injoyment of it by excommunication, di&s;traction or infe|ction.</Q></P>
<P>Dr. <HI>Drake. An&s;.</HI> 1. He granting my conclu|&s;ion, that the Children of all Church-members
<PB N="205" REF="111">
(be they &s;u&s;pended or not) may be bapti&s;ed, his exeption is impertinent as to us, who hold and approve other grounds of admitting Children to bapti&s;me than the right they have to it by their immediate Parents either as Profe&s;&s;ours or as Church-members: Nay, were both the imme|diate Parents excommunicated we &s;hall not refu&s;e to bapti&s;e their Children, provided any per&s;on of tru&s;t will undertake for their educati|on in the Chri&s;tian faith into which they are ba|pti&s;ed. The right a Childe hath to bapti&s;me by his immediate Parents is a good right, but not the &s;ole right. See more in my barrel, <HI>pag.</HI> 81. 87.</P>
<P>Secondly, &s;hould I retort the que&s;tion upon Mr. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> how can he allow bapti&s;ing the Children of divers Church members, and yet di&s;courage tho&s;e very Church-members from the Sacrament? He that di&s;courages from the means di&s;courages from the end, Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> di&s;courages from Sacramental trial, the means, <HI>Ergo.</HI> Here indeed we come to the very hinge of the controver&s;y which Mr. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> pag. 117. and 118. &s;tates bewtixt us thus.</P>
<P><Q REND="inline">Mr. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> the &s;ub&s;tance of the whole comes unto thus, that the Parents mu&s;t have a further right to &s;hew than what they have common with their Childe to this ordinance. And here indeed lies the very point of our difference: I hold it is Church-member&s;hip (where there is none of our former yielded impediments) that gives an immediate out|ward right to the Sacrament. He holds a man mu&s;t be fir&s;t tried if he be vi&s;ibly wor|thy,
<PB N="206" REF="112">
and it is that alone can give him admi&s;|&s;ion.</Q></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> In my Barre, <HI>pag.</HI> 81. I proved, that Church-member&s;hip is not the adequate foun|dation of receiving, becau&s;e the all Church-mem|bers &s;hould be admitted to the Lords &s;upper: But all Church-members ought not to be admitted, Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> him&s;elf being Judge, to wit In|fants &amp; Idiots; to which I may now add out of Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> per&s;ons <HI>ip&s;o jure</HI> excommuni|cate, all which he grants to be Church-members, yet is plea&s;ed to &s;u&s;pend them from the Lords &s;upper. If the Lord hath excluded them let Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> &s;hew the Decree of Heaven by &s;ome expre&s;&s;e place of Scripture. Where hath God &s;aid in termes, Infants, Idiots and per&s;ons <HI>jure</HI> excommunicate &s;hall not receive. If it be, becau&s;e they cannot prepare them&s;elves right|ly, nor di&s;cern the Lords body, no more can ignorant, and &s;candalous per&s;ons <HI>in &s;tatu quo:</HI> therefore &s;ay we, either exclude all or none. If he &s;ay, the inability of Infants and Idiots is natural, but that of intelligent Church-members is moral.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Natural inability doth not exclude from all ordinances, in&s;tance in Circumci&s;ion then, bapti&s;me now, the word preached, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Secondly, that natural inability excludes from the Lords Supper is more than Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> can prove, unle&s;&s;e he make it out by con&s;e|quence. Thirdly, the inabiliby of per&s;ons <HI>jure</HI> excommunicate is moral, yet their &s;u&s;pen&s;ion Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> allowes; and why not the &s;u&s;pen|&s;ion of other intelligent Church-members al&s;o,
<PB N="207" REF="112">
who are morally unable as well as they. If yet he &s;ay, Per&s;ons <HI>jure</HI> excommunicate are &s;u&s;pend|ed to avoid &s;candal, upon the very &s;ame account &s;ay we, mu&s;t ignorant and &s;candalous per&s;ons be &s;u&s;pended. <HI>Object.</HI> Per&s;ons <HI>jure</HI> excommunicate are &s;u&s;pended in order to excommunication. <HI>An&s;.</HI> So may ignorant and &s;candalous per&s;ons be al&s;o, if they &s;hall wilfully per&s;i&s;t in gro&s;&s;e ignorance, or &s;candal, though of an inferiour allay; yet we had rather u&s;e &s;u&s;pen&s;ion to prevent, than to prepare for excommunication. The i&s;&s;ue of all is this: That either Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> mu&s;t &s;hew expre&s;&s;e Scripture for his Limitati|ons, or el&s;e admit our Limitations al&s;o, which have as good vvarrant from Scripture as his: were I of Ma&s;ter <HI>Humphrey</HI> his minde, that Church-member-&s;hip gives an immediate right to the Lords Supper (&s;ee <HI>pag.</HI> 118. of his Re|joynder) I &s;hould rather undertake to maintain the Admi&s;&s;ion of Infants, Idiots; yea, per&s;ons <HI>jure</HI> excommunicate, and with more probability of argument, than he doth his free Admi&s;&s;ion, which yet excludes a great part, if not the greater part of Church-members. If he be for free Admi&s;&s;ion, why doth he limit it; if he will needs limit it, how is it free; yea, why doth he con|demne us for that of which him&s;elf is guilty, if it be an errour? We grant, all Church members ought to receive, if there be no impediment, na|tural, or moral; this Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> grants al&s;o, yet in one and the &s;ame breath as it were blames us, for doing that which him&s;elf allows; you &s;ee how the &s;tating of the que&s;tion for him&s;elf over|throws his conclu&s;ion for free Admi&s;&s;ion. Now
<PB N="208" REF="113">
let us &s;ee how he &s;tates it for us, in the latter branch.</P>
<P><Q REND="inline"><HI>Pag.</HI> 118. of his Rejoynder Mr. <HI>Drake</HI> holds a man mu&s;t fir&s;t be tried, if he be vi&s;ibly wor|thy; and it is that alone can give him Admi&s;|&s;ion.</Q></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> We hold: 1. That it's the duty of every Chri&s;tian, or Church-member, to be willing, and ready to be tried by any, upon ju&s;t occa&s;ion; yea, though it may prove prejudicial to their outward man, 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 3. 15. <HI>Be ready alwayes to give an an&s;wer to every man that asketh you a rea&s;on of the hope that is in you.</HI> Secondly, That they are more bound to &s;ubmit to tryal by tho&s;e, who are over them in the Lord, who mu&s;t give, and therefore take an account of their Souls, <HI>Heb.</HI> 13. 17. Such are Superiours in Family, Church, and State. 3<HI>ly.</HI> The Time, Frequency and Man|ner of tryal, as to Per&s;ons, Method, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> (as in &s;undry other parts of vvor&s;hip) is not expre&s;ly determinded in Scripture, no more than how often the Sacrament &s;hall be received; but is le&s;t to Chri&s;tian prudence. Fourthly, That as this tryal doth, e&s;pecially re&s;pect the Sacrament an Univer&s;al, Spiritual, and effectual Ordinance, containing the Letter and Spirit of all other Or|dinances, &s;o the fitte&s;t time for this trial in Chri&s;tian prudence is judged (by wi&s;er and bet|ter per&s;ons than Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> and my &s;elf) to be before the Sacrament, or between the pa&s;t and &s;ucceeding Sacrament; which as an help to &s;elf-examination may very much through grace promote our Sacramentall prepara|tion.</P>
<P><PB N="209" REF="113">The&s;e things premi&s;ed, we &s;ay: 1. That every Church-member is bound to &s;ubmit to Church-tryal, by virtue of the fifth Commandment; by virtue of the general precept aforementioned, 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 3. 15. and by virtue of that principle of &s;piritual &s;elf-love, which either is, or &s;hould be in him. Secondly, That real worthine&s;&s;e gives a per&s;on a right before God to either of the Sacraments, and that ab&s;tractedly from Church-member-&s;hip, or Church-tryal; upon which account he may de&s;ire and demand them, or either of them as his due orderly; fir&s;t bapti&s;me, and afterwards the Lords Supper: there being in a right &s;en&s;e (as Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> notes) <HI>par ratio utriu&s;que Sacramenti.</HI> That intelligent per&s;on whom I will admit to bapti&s;me, I will al&s;o ad|mit to the Lords Supper, <HI>Acts</HI> 8. 36, 37. <HI>If thou believe&s;t with all thy heart, thou maye&s;t.</HI> Believing with all the heart (which is real worthine&s;&s;e) gave the Eunuch a right to bapti&s;me; who yet thereby was not admitted a Member of any par|ticular Congregation, (as Children, or grown per&s;ons are with us) and whither be joyned him&s;elf to any, or no, is que&s;tionable. Thirdly, That vi&s;ible worthine&s;&s;e is nece&s;&s;ary as the fruit and &s;igne of real worthine&s;&s;e; ju&s;t as profe&s;&s;ion and confe&s;&s;ion is a nece&s;&s;ary companion, or con&s;equent of faith and grace within, <HI>Rom.</HI> 10. 9. both being in effect one and the &s;ame thing. Such was the Eunuch's deportment and profe&s;|&s;ion of his faith before <HI>Philip</HI> bapti&s;ed him. It's agreed on all hands, that no per&s;on really (that is habitually and actually) worthy mu&s;t be de|nied the Sacrament; as all Jews, if clean, were to
<PB N="210" REF="114">
eat the Pa&s;&s;eover. The que&s;tion is how the Prie&s;ts then, and how Church-Officers now &s;hould put a difference between clean and un|clean, between worthy and unworthy: That both were to do it doctrinally is agreed: That both were to do it practically is evident by the rule, <HI>Numb.</HI> 9. Secondly, by practice approved in Scripture, 2 <HI>Chro.</HI> 23. 29. <HI>Acts</HI> 9. 26, 27. and by theirs, and our Church-Di&s;cipline, together with their le&s;&s;er degrees of excommunication, an&s;wering ours of &s;u&s;pen&s;ion; Demon&s;trative proofs of cleanne&s;&s;e and worthine&s;&s;e, were, and are very difficult (if not impo&s;&s;ible) to them and us. As therefore they did, 1 <HI>Sam.</HI> 21. 4, 5. &s;o mu&s;t we re&s;t in topical and probable evidences; &s;uch are with us competent knowledge, verbal and real profe&s;&s;ion confirmed by our own ob|&s;ervation, or by &s;ufficient Te&s;timony. Propor|tionably, gro&s;&s;e ignorance, or &s;candal appear|ing by due tryal, ob&s;ervation, or Te&s;timony, as above, are topical arguments of real unworthi|ne&s;&s;e, and in our Saviours judgement amount to knowledge, <HI>Math.</HI> 7. 26. Church-Officers then mu&s;t put a difference, not onely Doctrinally, but al&s;o practically between clean and unclean, wor|thy and unworthy, denying tho&s;e priviledges at pre&s;ent, to per&s;ons vi&s;ibly unclean and unwor|thy, which otherwi&s;e were their due to injoy. An Executor, or Admini&s;trator is not bound im|mediately upon demand to give Legacies be|queathed to any Legatee, till he have at lea&s;t probable evidence that the party demanding is a Legatee, and qualified according to the condi|tions annexed to the Legacy by the will of the
<PB N="211" REF="114">
Te&s;tator. In like manner Church-Officers, who are Chri&s;ts Admini&s;trators, and Over-&s;eers mu&s;t not look at every one as a Legatee, who &s;ayes he is &s;o, yea, though he be a Member of the hou&s;|hold; nor can look at tho&s;e, who are gro&s;ly ignorant, or &s;candalous as Legatees <HI>in &s;tatu quo,</HI> &s;ince they can neither examine them&s;elves, nor di&s;cern the Lords body in the Apo&s;tles &s;en&s;e. Let the Reader here take notice. 1. That we hold not that tryal is <HI>ab&s;olutely</HI> nece&s;&s;ary for every Church-member: where per&s;ons are well known to be men of knowledge and piety, there tryal is requi&s;ite onely in a prudential way, lea&s;t &s;u|&s;pected per&s;ons &s;hould pre&s;ume, upon their Ad|mi&s;&s;ion in this manner, to challenge the like favour. The end of Trial being di&s;covery, what need we try that which is well known? Onely &s;uch do well to &s;ubmit to tryal (among other grounds) for good examples &s;ake, &amp; to prevent exceptions that otherwi&s;e will be taken. Se|condly, That we hold not that tryal gives admi&s;&s;ion (it being indifferent to Admi&s;&s;ion, or Su&s;pen&s;ion) but di&s;covery of Sacramental wor|thine&s;&s;e in order to Receiving, to which he had a right by real worthine&s;&s;e: As di&s;covery by tryal, or otherwi&s;e gives a Legatee, the injoyment of that Legacy to which he had a right by the will of the Te&s;tator. Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> therefore is not &s;o accurate in the &s;tating of our opinion as he would make the vvorld believe: Since. 1. Our rule of trying, who are worthy is not (in our judgement) univer&s;ally obligatory, but may ad|mit a di&s;pen&s;ation. Secondly, Becau&s;e we hold not that tryal alone can give a Church-member
<PB N="212" REF="115">
Admi&s;&s;ion to the Lords Supper, but approbati|on upon tryal, or otherwi&s;e. All which laid together, di&s;covers the vanity of his in&s;ulting in the following words, <HI>pag.</HI> 118. <HI>For the one now, look over Mr.</HI> Drake, <HI>and you &s;hall finde &s;till when&s;oever he falls upon this thing, he has nothing again&s;t it, but that &s;illy rea&s;on (from the unintel|ligent) &s;o often repeated. Had he any thing el&s;e would it not be alleadged? and has he nothing el&s;e and will now be captivated? For the other, look over the Scripture, and &s;ee if he can produce you any precept of God for it. If he has none, will his own word go? while he has &s;o little again&s;t us, and no Text for him&s;elf, his skirts are di&s;covered and heels made bare.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> is no Oracle; nor is a rea&s;on &s;illy, becau&s;e he &s;ayes &s;o; nor is that rea&s;on (from the unintelligent) &s;illy (however he looking through the Spectacles of prejudice apprehend it &s;o) as hath been el&s;e where proved. Secondly, Is nothing alleadged to confute his free Admi&s;&s;ion, but the rea&s;on drawn from the unintelligent? Let the Reader peru&s;e my Barre from <HI>pag.</HI> 81. to 87. (be&s;ides other places) &amp; then judge how much Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his pa&s;&s;ionate a&s;&s;ertions are to be credited? Thirdly, Will he have us produce Scripture to prove his fancies? We hold not its tryal alone will give Admi&s;|&s;ion, will he blame us for not proving that which we hold not? Fourthly, It hath been proved. Fir&s;t, That unworthy Church-members (though intelligent) ought hot to receive. Se|condly, That all mu&s;t &s;ubmit to tryal upon ju&s;t occa&s;ion. Thirdly, That they who upon tryal
<PB N="213" REF="115">
are found unworthy are to be &s;u&s;pended. Fourthly, We believe that they who refu&s;e tryal without any &s;ufficient ground given for that their refu&s;al, ought al&s;o to be &s;u&s;pended. Our rea&s;on is, becau&s;e by &s;uch an Act they appear to Church-Officers as &s;inners again&s;t light, which makes a per&s;on as to them actually unworthy, how ever he, or &s;he may be habitually worthy. Fifthly, We can produce as good Scripture for our Limitation, as M^r. <HI>Humphrey</HI> can for his Limitation. Here may I not &s;peak to the Reader in M^r. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his own words by way of re|tor&s;ion? Look over all the Scripture, and &s;ee if M^r. <HI>Humphrey</HI> can produce you any precept of God for &s;u&s;pending the unintelligent, and per|&s;ons <HI>jure</HI> excommunicate (under&s;tand me of expre&s;&s;e Texts, for if he fly to con&s;equences, let him not blame us for u&s;ing the &s;ame <HI>mediums,</HI> which we judge valid as well as an expre&s;&s;e Text) if he has none, will his own word go, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>M^r. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> page 119. <HI>I do willingly yield to all our known bars (under the unintelligent and excommunicate) the Church has allowed; but am fully per&s;waded that this Bar, Mr.</HI> Drake <HI>would not &s;et up otherwi&s;e, has no foundation in the Scri|pture,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his pre&s;wa&s;ion is no Demon&s;tration; or if it were, certainly in all equity, the &s;ame priviledge &s;hould be granted to our per&s;wa&s;ion: what follows thence but an ab&s;urdity and impo&s;&s;ibility, that there are, or may be two contrary Demon&s;trations in order to that which is every way one and the &s;ame, as if there could be one Demon&s;tration to prove
<PB N="214" REF="116">
Sun hath light, and another Demon&s;tration to prove the Sun hath not light.</P>
<P>Secondly, <HI>He yields to all our known bars,</HI> &amp;c. Why &s;o? 1. <HI>Becau&s;e the Church allowes them:</HI> And hath not the Church, both in former ages, and doth it not in this age allow al&s;o the Bar of of vi&s;ible unworthine&s;&s;e. Secondly, Becau&s;e his allowed Bars have a foundation in the Scri|pture, <HI>not to my Bar</HI> as he is plea&s;ed to phra&s;e it.<NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Cor. 11. 28.</NOTE> <HI>An&s;.</HI> The &s;ame, or like foundation, that his Bars have, our Bars have; his Bars are founded, ei|ther upon inability to examine ownes &s;elf, as in the unintellent, or in vi&s;ible unworthine&s;&s;e, as in per&s;ons <HI>jure</HI> excommunicate; our Bar hath the &s;ame foundation, to wit, 1. Inability to examine ownes &s;elf, 2<HI>ly.</HI>&s;candallous living.</P>
<P>Here, to Evade, Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> is fine, and &s;ubtil, <HI>pag.</HI> 120. making a di&s;tinction where God makes none. He di&s;tingui&s;heth between unintelligent per&s;ons that are bound to get knowledge, and unintelligent per&s;ons that are not bound to get knowledge; and then tells us the former may be &s;u&s;pended, the latter not. A &s;tout affirmation, but where is his proof, or Demon&s;tration? Where hath God &s;aid, that per&s;ons naturally unintelligent &s;hall be &s;u|&s;pended, but per&s;ons morally unintelligent &s;hall not be &s;u&s;pended? Let him produce a Text of Scripture for it, if he can; if he cannot, will you believe Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> upon his bare word? We ea&s;ily grant its the duty of all vi&s;ibly unworthy to get knowledge, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> not &s;o of Children and fools: but doth it follow thence, that the former, though gro&s;ly ignorant, mu&s;t be admitted, be|cau&s;e
<PB N="215" REF="116">
its their duty to get knowledge, the latter mu&s;t be &s;u&s;pended, becau&s;e its not their duty to get knowledge. M^r. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his foun|dation is the precept of actual examination, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11. 28. in order to receiving. Infants do not, cannot examine them&s;elves, and therefore mu&s;t be kept away &s;ayes M^r. <HI>Humphrey.</HI> On the other hand: 1. Ignorant per&s;ons do not, cannot examine them&s;elves, and therefore mu&s;t be kept away, &s;ay we. Here to evade, M^r. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> tells, us, the former are not bound to examine them|&s;elves, and therefore mu&s;t be &s;u&s;pended, the lat|ter are bound to examine them&s;elves, and there|fore mu&s;t not be &s;u&s;pended. Here we call for a proof, and for lack of a better mu&s;t accept of M<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his a&s;&s;ertion, a &s;ufficient proof in|deed to fancy &amp; affection; but if weighed in the ballance of Scripture and &s;olid rea&s;on, it will be found lighter than vanity. If actual examinati|on be required, as is evident by the words of the Apo&s;tle, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11. 28. <HI>Let a man examine him|&s;elf, and &s;o let him eat,</HI> &amp;c. then defect of actual examination is an Apo&s;tolick Bar. This is Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his foundation to exclude Children. Examination is required, Children cannot per|form this duty, therefore they mu&s;t be &s;u&s;pend|ed. We infer, ignorant per&s;ons cannot examine them&s;elves, therefore they al&s;o mu&s;t be &s;u&s;pend|ed. There's not one tittle in this Text, or el&s;e|where, to exclude tho&s;e who are naturally un|able, and to admit tho&s;e who are morally una|ble: Nay, if any, the latter are rather to be ex|cluded than the former: we believe that both are to be excluded, the former as negatively, the
<PB N="216" REF="117">
as privatively unworthy: And for further con|firmation dare appeal to M^r. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> if he will be true to him&s;elf. <HI>He grants that intelligent Church-members, if</HI> jure <HI>excommunicate may be &s;u&s;pended.</HI> This we grant al&s;o: Onely the ground of his grant, if &s;olid, is the &s;ame with ours, name|ly, <HI>by &s;hame to bring the per&s;on &s;u&s;pended to repen|tance, to &s;atisfie the godly, and to be a good example unto others.</HI> See <HI>pag.</HI> 22. of his rejoynder. The&s;e are &s;ome, though not all of our grounds for &s;u|&s;pending the ignorant and &s;candalous. Will M^r. <HI>Humphrey</HI> allow the&s;e grounds of &s;u&s;pen|&s;ion for &s;ome intelligent Church-members, and not for all. If this be not &s;trange partiallity, I pray what is?</P>
<P>As for what he adds, <HI>pag.</HI> 120. <HI>As for in|fants and the di&s;tracted, we know &s;ignes cannot have any real work on them.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. What if they cannot, is this a &s;uf|ficient ground to deny them the &s;ignes, then let Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> turn Antipaedobapti&s;t.</P>
<P>Secondly, Though the &s;igne cannot work, cannot God work by the &s;igne as an in&s;tituted antecedent, or concomitant of Divine operati|on? Otherwi&s;e Children are baptized in vain. There is <HI>better</HI> ground for applying &s;ignes to per&s;ons naturally unintelligent, than to per&s;ons morally unintelligent. I can bapti&s;e a Childe that is naturally unintelligent, not &s;o a per&s;on at years of di&s;cretion, who is morally unintelli|gent: And if there be <HI>par ratio utriu&s;que Sacra|menti;</HI> then he, who is not to be bapti&s;ed (be|cau&s;e of his gro&s;&s;e ignorance) at years of di&s;cre|tion were here then unbapti&s;ed, ought upon the
<PB N="217" REF="117">
&s;ame account to be denied the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, though formerly bapti&s;ed.</P>
<P>Mr. Humphrey, <HI>If I &s;hould do the Church &s;er|vice In &s;ubmitting to this way onely as humane, then I &s;hall do God &s;ervice, to oppo&s;e it as divine, and not let it &s;it in his Seat, as a nece&s;&s;ary antece|dent to this ordinance.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Where an humane order is pre&s;t as a divine ordinance, I may and ought &s;o far forth to oppo&s;e it, and &s;hall do God good &s;ervice therein, &s;o my oppo&s;ition be regular. Yet &s;e|condly, at the &s;ame time in &s;ome ca&s;es I may &s;ub|mit practically to the &s;ame, provided it be in it's own nature indifferent, e&s;pecially upon de|claration of my di&s;&s;ent from it as a divine or|dinance; thus <HI>Paul</HI> oppo&s;ed, yet practited, Cir|cumci&s;ion upon occa&s;ion, which then was no divine ordinance, yet was by the Jewes pre&s;t as a divine ordinance; compare, <HI>Gal.</HI> 2. 3. and 5. 2, 3. With <HI>Acts</HI> 16. 3. Had Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> per&s;waded people to &s;ubmit to trial, though not as a divine ordinance, he might have done both God and the Church more &s;ervice than now he doth. Se|veral judgements may unite in the &s;ame pra|ctice upon &s;everal principles without prejudice to Gods wor&s;hip or the breach of faith and love. I both wi&s;h and hope. Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> may be of this minde, we de&s;ire unity of practice and &s;hall pray for unity of principles, <HI>Philip.</HI> 3. 16.</P>
<P>Thirdly, To &s;ubmit to trial, or <HI>to be ready al|wayes to give an an&s;wer to every man that asks us a rea&s;on of the hope that is in us is</HI> (in a large &s;en&s;e as a thing commanded) a divine ordi|nance; the timing of this trial is humane and
<PB N="218" REF="118">
prudential, in which I hope we may adhere to the judgement of a Parliament and A&s;&s;embly of Learned and pious Divines, rather than to the judgement of any private Chri&s;tian or Mini&s;ter. Hearing and receiving are divine ordinances; hearing at ten in the morning, &amp; receiving every fir&s;t Lords day in the month, are humane orders and prudential; yet they who will not hear and receive at times particularly appointed by man, may haply go without word and Sacrament all their dayes, and are guilty of excommunicating and &s;u&s;pending them&s;elves. Will any be &s;o fond hence to conclude that either the State, Church or Mini&s;ter hold the timing of the Sa|crament to be a divine ordinance, or a nece&s;&s;a|ry concomitant to the Lords Supper by way of &s;pecial in&s;titution? In like manner, that all &s;hould &s;ubmit to trial is a divine ordinance or precept; but that they &s;hould be tried before or after a Sacrament, and often or &s;eldom, or but once in all their life, is humane and prudential; and no more a nece&s;&s;ary <HI>Antecedent</HI> of receiving than the timing of the Lords Supper is a nece&s;|&s;ary concomitant of receiving; yet as he who will not come to receive at the time ordered &s;u|&s;pends him&s;elf from the Sacramant; &s;o he that will not &s;ubmit to the time appointed for trial is a &s;elf &s;u&s;pender. Submi&s;&s;ion to trial is a duty, the &s;ea&s;on of this trial is indifferent; and being agreed upon by a common order or con&s;ent ought not to be &s;leighted or oppo&s;ed by any private Chri&s;tian or Mini&s;ter. Let the trial be when it will, it mu&s;t be either before or after the Sacrament. And if the terme <HI>Antecedent</HI> be
<PB N="219" REF="118">
offen&s;ive, we &s;hall onely de&s;ire the people to &s;ubmit to a <HI>con&s;equent</HI> trial. <HI>Pag.</HI> 121. Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> is plea&s;ed to clo&s;e this &s;ection merrily with a Jury of 12. I envy not his mirth, but wi&s;h it may do him&s;elf and his reader much good. If it hurt not him&s;elf more than me, he will have no great cau&s;e to repent of it.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="11" TYPE="section">
<HEAD><HI>Sect.</HI> XI.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his &s;ixth Argument is drawn <HI>from his innocency in admitting all. And</HI> 1. <HI>Be|cau&s;e he doth but his duty therein.</HI> Dr. <HI>Drake,</HI> <Q REND="inline">This is the main thing to be proved. Mr. <HI>Humphrey, The precept of di&s;pen&s;ing and receiving is ge|neral.</HI></Q></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. The 12. were not all the Mini&s;ters of that time. Secondly, That all the 12. did receive is not evident. Thirdly, The adjective <HI>all</HI> is &s;eldom u&s;ed in Scripture to note ab&s;olute univer&s;allity; and if in the matter of the Sacra|ment it be &s;o <HI>univer&s;all,</HI> then Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his limitation of that univer&s;all is erroneous. But of this formerly.</P>
<P><Q REND="inline">Secondly, Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> I have no power to turn away any. <HI>This</HI> Mr. D. <HI>accounts mo&s;t true, but makes lamentable u&s;e of it.</HI></Q></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. I &s;ay not this is mo&s;t true, but that I take this a&s;&s;ertion of Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> for one of the true&s;t pa&s;&s;ages in all his book. Secondly, He wrongs me in reporting that I do boldly and openly tell the people, that Chri&s;t had not &s;o much power to turn away one of his di&s;ciples as I and my Elders have over my people. My words are, <Q REND="inline">that Chri&s;t as a Mini&s;ter had no juridi|cal power to turn away <HI>Judas</HI> or any other.</Q>
<PB N="220" REF="119">
What power he had as God or as Mediatour is not imitable. Thirdly, Though haply a Mini|&s;ter have no power of him&s;elf to &s;u&s;pend any or turn him away, yet he may have power over his own act; and forbear giving the Sacrament to a vi&s;ibly unworthy per&s;on, and withall may round him in the ear (if occa&s;ion &s;erve) and bid him beware lea&s;t taking the Sacrament unworthily, he do eat and drinke judgement to him&s;elf.</P>
<P><Q REND="inline">Thirdly, He hopes the be&s;t of all, and there admits all without trial.</Q></P>
<P><Q REND="inline">Mr. <HI>Drake,</HI> So did the Angel of the Church of <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> yet could not bear them that were evill,</Q> and tried the fal&s;e Apo&s;tles, <HI>Rev.</HI> 2. 2.</P>
<P><Q REND="inline">Mr. <HI>H.</HI> while the Church hoped well of them, it might bear with them to do them good.</Q></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. How ever the Church might hope well of them <HI>&amp;c.</HI> till convinced, yet &s;he did not forbear to try them. I may at the &s;ame time hope well, and yet out off an holy jealou&s;y fear evill, yea of an whole Church, much more of any particular per&s;on, 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11. 2, 3. May pri|vate per&s;ons pa&s;&s;e a judgement of di&s;cretion upon things or per&s;ons, and may not publicke per&s;ons pa&s;&s;e a judgement of deci&s;ion? May I upon ju&s;t occa&s;ion try all things, and may I not try all per&s;ons? 1 <HI>The&s;&s;.</HI> 5. 21. and 1 <HI>John.</HI> 4. v. 1, 3. Or can either of the&s;e judgements pa&s;&s;e without trial?</P>
<P><HI>Object.</HI> I, but then admit them till they be tried.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. That is, pa&s;&s;e them for currant be|fore tried. I may pa&s;&s;e &s;ome pieces for currant
<PB N="221" REF="119">
(before tried) upon an hone&s;t mans word; but if I have the lea&s;t &s;u&s;pition of them, he mu&s;t not be angry if I try his gold; or &s;hould he be an|gry, might not this anger of his be looked upon as a further ground of &s;u&s;pition? Secondly, What if they will not &s;ubmit to trial at all? Mu&s;t I pa&s;&s;e them for currant upon their own word? Doth not their oppo&s;ing of trial make them the more &s;u&s;pitious? <HI>My other an&s;wers he pa&s;&s;eth as an&s;wered el&s;where. An&s;.</HI> Then I hope tho&s;e an&s;wers of mine are vindicated el&s;where. My in&s;tance of the Magi&s;trates trying all, though he al&s;o hope the be&s;t of all, Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> pa&s;&s;eth over with a &s;leight in the&s;e words, <HI>pag.</HI> 124. <HI>And for the Magi&s;trate what followes? An&s;.</HI> It fol|lowes &s;trongly; that hoping the be&s;t of all is no bar to the triall of any. This Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> did well to &s;lubber over, becau&s;e too &s;trong an evidence for us and again&s;t him&s;elf.</P>
<P>Fourthly Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> pag. 124. <HI>I know God can turn even the wor&s;t at this ordinance if he plea&s;e: This</HI> Mr. Drake <HI>counts true, but que|&s;tions his will, and requires of me &s;ome promi&s;e or pre&s;ident for it. For promi&s;es we have &s;ufficient,</HI> Amos 5. 4. and 2 Chron. 15. 2. Math. 7. 7. <HI>Let any &s;hew me an exception in particular again&s;t this Sacrament, or el&s;e the&s;e particulars &s;tand good.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. For that promi&s;e <HI>Amos</HI> 5. 4. The thing promi&s;ed here is life; this life is initiall or graduall: That life initall, or the fir&s;t infu&s;ion of &s;aving is grace premi&s;ed to every ordinance, as it is to the word preached, doth not appear by this place; and were it true, Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> doth
<PB N="222" REF="120">
ill to allow the &s;u&s;pen&s;ion or excommunication of any from any ordinance: The Lord forbid we &s;hould deny the means of initiall conver|&s;ion to any without expre&s;&s;e warrant from Heaven: therefore we pray for all, that ordi|nance being a means of conver&s;ion by way of impetration, be the per&s;ons prayed for pre&s;ent or no. Therefore we preach to all, the word being an in&s;trument of conver&s;ion, an immortal &s;eed, <HI>&amp;c. Acts</HI> 17. 30. <HI>Rom.</HI> 10. v. 14, 17. and 1 <HI>Petr.</HI> 1. v. 23, 24. But where is the Sacrament &s;o &s;tiled? The Sacraments &s;uppo&s;e, but do not worke conver&s;ion. For the other branch of the text, namely the condition or precept of &s;ee|king God. That every one is bound to u&s;e every ordinance in order to the &s;eeking of God thereby for imitiall conver&s;ion is not proved by that place, which onely requires the &s;eeking of God in generall, but layes no command upon every per&s;on to partake of every ordinance, but onely to &s;eek God in tho&s;e ordinances he is capable of: we mu&s;t here again di&s;tingui&s;h be|tween natural and in&s;tituted wor&s;hip; Tho&s;e ordinances which are parts of natural wor&s;hip lie upon all, and are beneficial to many in order to conver&s;ion, not &s;o tho&s;e ordinances which are parts of in&s;tituted wor&s;hip. This is evident in hearing, prayer, Sacrifices and Sacraments, the two former being incumbent upon all at years of di&s;cretion, not &s;o the two latter. All are bound to &s;eek God in all e&s;tates, as well as in all ordinances, but all I hope are not therefore to get into all e&s;tates or to partake of all ordinan|ces. In&s;tance, I am bound to &s;eek God in the
<PB N="223" REF="120">
Mini&s;try, or in a married condition, if I be in either of the&s;e e&s;tates, but I hope every man is not therefore bound to be a Mini&s;ter or to mar|ry. In like manner, I am bound to &s;eek God in all ordinances, if or when I do partake of all, but it followes not thence that I am bound to partake of all ordinances, no more than I am bound to marry or to be a Mini&s;ter; but if I be in either of the&s;e e&s;tates I am bound to &s;eek God in them. Here that precept or permi&s;&s;ion of our Saviour is pertinent though with a little variation of his &s;cope. Math. 19. 12. <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 span">.</P>
<P>The like may be &s;aid of the other <HI>two</HI> pro|mi&s;es Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> quotes; yea, of all general promi&s;es about Ordinances. 1. I mu&s;t &s;eek God by partaking of all Ordinances that I am capable of. Secondly, My great de&s;igne mu&s;t be to &s;eek God in all tho&s;e Ordinances I do actually par|take of: But it follows not thence that I mu&s;t partake of every Ordinance whither I be capa|ble of it, or no. Yea, Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his <HI>jure</HI> excommunicate proves that all Church-members are not capable of all Church-Ordinances. This is (among others) the exception we make to his alleadging the general promi&s;es; and which Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> mu&s;t own, or contradict both the truth and him&s;elf. His whole &s;ide of Rhetorick following (at which I mu&s;t confe&s;&s;e he is good) will not help him where Logick and Divinity fail him. Therefore I let tho&s;e flouri&s;hes pa&s;&s;e.</P>
<P><Q REND="inline">Fifthly, I endeavour my utmo&s;t <HI>de jure</HI> that all come prepared. Mr. <HI>Drake.</HI> This &s;elf <HI>encomium</HI> is un&s;eemly, fal&s;e, proud,
<PB N="224" REF="121">
dangerous. M^r. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> Upon this he re|viles me two or three pages.</Q></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. How can there here be reviling when I &s;peak. 1. no more than the truth, 2. ground what I &s;ay upon his own expre&s;&s;e terms, he profe&s;&s;ing he endeavours his utmo&s;t <HI>de jure</HI> (and that in a &s;eries of actions, if he have admini&s;tred the Sacrament often) 3<HI>ly.</HI> &s;ince I &s;ay no more of him than I may warrantably &s;ay of the God|lie&s;t man under Heaven, if he dare make &s;uch a boa&s;t of him&s;elf. Let the pious Reader peru&s;e what I &s;ay of this matter, <HI>page</HI> 92. 94. of my Bar, and judge whither it's a piece of reviling, or a nece&s;&s;ary, though &s;harp reproof. I hope, with|out offence, I may propound one que&s;tion to M^r. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> &amp; leave it upon his con&s;cience. Dare he profe&s;&s;e, and &s;tand upon it before Chri&s;t at the day of Judgement; <HI>That he hath endeavoured his utmo&s;t</HI> de jure <HI>that all come pre|pared:</HI> If not, let him acknowledge D^r. <HI>Drake,</HI> is his friend, not his reviler, in &s;o &s;ea&s;onable and nece&s;&s;ary a reproof; Yet further to clear him|&s;elf, <HI>pag.</HI> 125. Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> hath the&s;e words, <HI>To exhort men to examine them&s;elves, and to warn them of the danger of neglecting their duty, is all the Mini&s;ter can do</HI> de jure; <HI>which Mr.</HI> Drake <HI>him&s;elf grants, where there is no Presby|tery.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> If by that exhortation and warning he mean onely publick exhortation and warning (which to me &s;eems more than probable) this is not all a Mini&s;ters duty <HI>de jure;</HI> what ever a pri|vate Chri&s;tian, as &s;uch is bound to, that much more a Mini&s;ter is bound to: but private Chri|&s;tians
<PB N="225" REF="121">
are bound to exhort, and warn each other, <HI>Heb.</HI> 3. 13. &amp; 1 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 5. 14. be&s;ides the example of the Apo&s;tle, who like a good Mini&s;ter, did not onely teach the people publickly, but al&s;o from hou&s;e to hou&s;e, <HI>Acts</HI> 20. 20. made con&s;cience to vi&s;it his people to &s;ee how they did, <HI>Acts</HI> 15. 36. or in his own nece&s;&s;ary ab&s;ence could not for|bear to vi&s;it them by a Deputy (be&s;ides his fre|quent writing to them) 1 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 3. v. 1. &amp; 5. &s;ure|ly in all the&s;e endeavours the Apo&s;tle did no work of &s;upererogation. And if he did thus, upon whom lay the care of all the Churches, 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11. 28. what &s;hould not we endeavour, who are burdened onely with the e&s;pecial care of one Congregation? Let me be bold to ask, Mr. <HI>Humphrey.</HI> Hath he endeavoured to put all his intelligent Church-members upon the Te&s;t. (e&s;pecially in the&s;e apo&s;tatizing times) that he might know their faith? as 1 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 3. 5. hath he vi&s;ited them, or exhorted &amp; warned each of them per&s;onally, hath he offered to a&s;&s;i&s;t them in order to &s;elf and Chri&s;t di&s;covery? Doth he Catechi&s;e the ignorant, either in publick, or in private, that thereby they might both get, and grow in knowledge, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> or doth he offer him|&s;elf to each of them to do for their Souls the&s;e, or the like Offices of Pa&s;toural love? If he &s;ay, he doth not think him&s;elf bound to this, let him take heed he be not mi&s;taken, &s;ince &s;uch a mi|&s;take (e&s;pecially if avowed) may prove very dangerous, both to him&s;elf and to his people. Be&s;ides, then his profe&s;&s;ion might have run in the&s;e terms with far le&s;&s;e offence. I endeavour what I apprehend to be my uttermo&s;t, <HI>de jure.</HI>
<PB N="226" REF="122">
that all may come prepared. But to &s;ay, I en|deavour my utmo&s;t <HI>de jure,</HI> is (in my poor ap|prehen&s;ion) to &s;ay I indeavour as much as Gods command in its rigour requires of me; which expre&s;&s;ion &s;eems to me very haughty and arro|gant, though it fell from the mouth of a <HI>Paul,</HI> or <HI>Timothy.</HI> Doth M^r. <HI>Humphrey</HI> know (or the learned&s;t Clerk in the vvorld) the utmo&s;t bounds of any command <HI>de jure,</HI> I mean as to the matter required in it, be&s;ides the degree and circum&s;tances injoyned? See <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 119. 96. And can he indeavour what he doth not know? If he could, that were but blinde obedience. I do not charge him to &s;ay, <HI>He doth his utmo&s;t;</HI> but for him to &s;ay, He indeavours his utmo&s;t, and yet in the &s;ame particular to confe&s;&s;e his Omi&s;|&s;ions, is as much as to &s;ay, He endeavours his utmo&s;t, and yet endeavours not his utmo&s;t. Is Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> guilty of omitting no endeavour? Or are not endeavours actions as well, though not as much, as compleat Acts? He wrongs me in reporting, <HI>pag.</HI> 125. That I &s;ay, <Q REND="inline">that all the Mi|ni&s;ter can do (where there is no Presbytery) is exhortation and warning.</Q> I believe, a Mini|&s;ter unpresbyterated, ought to try his people him&s;elf, and where he findes any ignorant, &s;can|dalous, or wilfull refu&s;ers, he may &s;u&s;pend his own act of giving &s;uch the Sacrament, though he cannot &s;u&s;pend them juridically. I believe fur|ther, That every Mini&s;ter ought to endeavour much more then he knows, and therefore by con&s;equence much more then he doth actually endeavour. Indeed, <HI>pag.</HI> 47. of my Bar I &s;ay, <Q REND="inline">That I humbly conceive, that where no Pre&s;|bytery
<PB N="227" REF="122">
is &s;etled, that Mini&s;ter may clear his own Soul, if he do particularly per&s;wade and warne an unworthy Church-member. Se|condly, That he cannot juridically, either ad|mit, or &s;u&s;pend &s;uch a per&s;on;</Q> and I hope I am not mi&s;taken in holding, That no Mini&s;ter unpresbyterated can admit, or &s;u&s;pend any per|&s;on juridically. But I never &s;aid, That &s;uch a Mini&s;ter might not &s;u&s;pend his own Act of gi|ving the Sacrament to &s;uch a per&s;on; which el&s;e|where I call Pa&s;toral &s;u&s;pen&s;ion. This I am for|ced to add, becau&s;e I perceive Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> is &s;o prone to mi&s;take, both me and him&s;elf: and that through Gods a&s;&s;i&s;tance I might be a poor in&s;trument to di&s;cover to him more pride in the&s;e expre&s;&s;ions then haply he was aware of. If this be malicious reviling, the Lord &s;end me &s;tore of &s;uch malicious Revilers.</P>
<P>Sixthly, Mr. <HI>Humphrey, pag.</HI> 126. I humbly <Q REND="inline">confe&s;&s;e all our &s;ins, de&s;iring true repentance, and a pardon for all our Omi&s;&s;ions. This M^r. <HI>Drake</HI> cannot but approve in me, but would have you note here a contradiction. If <HI>Mr. Humphrey</HI> have done his utmo&s;t <HI>de jure,</HI> what need he de&s;ire pardon for his Omi&s;&s;i|ons?</Q> <HI>Mr.</HI> Humphrey, <HI>I an&s;wer for my failings,</HI> de facto <HI>in particular, though I &s;hould have done in general what</HI> de jure <HI>I ought to do; which yet I dare not a&s;&s;ume to my &s;elf without flying to Gods mercie.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Note here, <HI>Mr. Humphrey</HI> confe&s;|&s;es he fails <HI>de facto,</HI> both in general and particu|lar. Secondly, This granted, evidenceth that <HI>Mr. Humphrey</HI> doth not endeavour his utmo&s;t
<PB N="228" REF="123">
<HI>de jure,</HI> &s;ince he fails particularly in that en|deavour <HI>de facto,</HI> to which by vertue of the pre|cept he was bound <HI>de jure,</HI> the precept binding not onely to all compleat acts, but al&s;o to all po&s;&s;ible endeavours. Is it not a contradiction to &s;ay, I endeavour my utmo&s;t <HI>de jure,</HI> yet fail in my endeavour <HI>de facto?</HI> Dares <HI>Mr.</HI> H. &s;ay and &s;tand by it, That he hath endeavoured his ut|mo&s;t <HI>de jure,</HI> in that very particular wherein (by his own confe&s;&s;ion) he fail'd of doing his duty <HI>de facto?</HI> If he can &s;ay &s;o truely, I dare &s;ay he is the be&s;t man that ever trod upon Gods ground, excepting our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour, and our fir&s;t Pa|rents in innocency. I be&s;eech you, Sir, as you love your own Soul, take heed of pleading innocency where con&s;cience cannot but cry guilty: We acknowledge your charge, That when we have done all we can, we are but un|profitable &s;ervants; yea, though we had done (which is impo&s;&s;ible in <HI>&s;tatu quo</HI>) the uttermo&s;t <HI>de jure,</HI> both as to endeavour &amp; compleat Act. But is not he unprofitable al&s;o (if not much more) who &s;ayes he hath endeavoured <HI>all,</HI> or his utter|mo&s;t <HI>de jure,</HI> and yet at the &s;ame time falls &s;hort of endeavouring that which they perform <HI>de facto,</HI> who confe&s;&s;e they fall &s;hort even of en|deavouring in any one particular of all their lives, their utmo&s;t <HI>de jure?</HI> Are not righteous endeavours part of righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e, and doth not the Prophet expre&s;ly &s;ay, <HI>I&s;ai</HI> 64. 6. That our righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e; yea, our righteou&s;ne&s;&s;es; yea, <HI>all our righteou&s;ne&s;&s;es are as filthy rags;</HI> and can Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> &s;ay he hath endeavoured his ut|mo&s;t <HI>de jure</HI> in any one particular? If &s;o, then
<PB N="229" REF="123">
that endeavour is perfect, and &s;o not an unclean rag: and Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> can bring &s;omewhat that is perfectly clean (namely an endeavour that is perfect <HI>de jure</HI>) out of that which is un|clean, an extraction, I believe, too high for any mortal. Sure I am, <HI>Job</HI> was of another minde, <HI>Job</HI> 14. 4. and the Apo&s;tle, <HI>Rom.</HI> 7. 21. Doth not &s;in dwelling in me, oppo&s;e and refract my pious endeavours as well as my compleat actions? then &s;in hinders in every thing, (not as to the doing of my endeavour in &s;incerity, but) evermore as to the doing of my utmo&s;t endeavour <HI>de jure.</HI> I &s;hall clo&s;e with this friendly Item, That Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> will gain neither comfort nor honour, either with God, or man, in per&s;i&s;ting to avow, that he endeavours his utmo&s;t <HI>de jure</HI> in any one particular. He may fancie what he plea&s;e of me; but, if I know my own heart, it is not malice, but love to his Soul makes me herin &s;o plain with him. To what he adds, <HI>pag.</HI> 127. by way of vindication, I an&s;wer briefly. 1. There is no nece&s;&s;ity to admit all. Secondly, There are other wayes to do them good by be|&s;ides receiving. Thirdly, Hope depends upon faith, and faith upon a promi&s;e of doing good. St. <HI>Paul</HI> &s;ayes, He that eats and drinks unwor|thily, eats and drinks judgement to him&s;elf, Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> hopes the contrary. Whom &s;hall we believe, St. <HI>Paul,</HI> or Mr. <HI>Humphrey?</HI></P>
<P>In the clo&s;e, <HI>pag.</HI> 128. He reflects upon me as boa&s;ting, becau&s;e I &s;ay of the Godly Presbyte|rians (of which number I hope I am, though mo&s;t unworthy) <Q REND="inline">That they go beyond him in their care and endeavour to fit all &s;orts for
<PB N="230" REF="124">
the Sacrament.</Q> And to make this expre&s;&s;ion the more odious. 1. He brings me in (again&s;t the very Letter of my Text) &s;peaking &s;o of my &s;elf in the fir&s;t per&s;on &s;ingular. Secondly, As &s;aying, that I far exceed him in fitting all &s;orts for the Sacrament. Whereas 1. I expre&s;&s;e it in the fir&s;t per&s;on plural. 2. Say that we go be|yond him in our actual care and indeavour to fit all &s;orts. Is there no difference between fit|ting all &s;orts and endeavour to fit them? Yet withall I add. 1. That we fall exceeding &s;hort in the very point of endeavour <HI>de jure.</HI> I hope my Preesbyterian brethren will not think I lay vile expre&s;&s;ions upon them in &s;o &s;aying, how|ever <HI>Mr. Humphrey</HI> charge me &s;o for averring, and proving that he hath not endeavoured his utmo&s;t <HI>de jure</HI> to prepare his people, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>M^r. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> Ibid. <HI>Let our con&s;ciences bo free, our &s;cruples,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>healed, and I have done. An&s;.</HI> I be&s;eech you Sir, what &s;cruple is there in making a profe&s;&s;ion of your faith before any? What &s;nare of con&s;cience when we pre&s;&s;e you to nothing that is again&s;t con&s;cience? Did we indeed urge you to acknowledge, that Presby|terian Governement is of divine right, or 2. That trial before the Presbyterie is built upon <HI>jus divinum,</HI> or el&s;e would not admit you; then might you well complain we lay &s;nares for your con&s;ciences, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> We indeed profe&s;&s;e our judge|ment for both in the affirmative; but we binde not any per&s;on under trial to be of our judge|ment herein. Yea, before trial (if he plea&s;e) let him profe&s;&s;e his judgement in the negative; that &s;hall be no bar to our admitting him, provided
<PB N="231" REF="124">
be not ignorant or &s;candalous. Nor &s;hall pro|fe&s;&s;ion of a&s;&s;ent with us about the <HI>jus divinum</HI> of Presbyterian Governement and Sacramental tryal open the door for any, that upon tryal or otherwi&s;e are found ignorant or &s;candalous. We enquire not whither men &s;ubmit to tryal in point of prudence or of con&s;cience: Our great enquiry is, whither they be Evangelically wor|thy; or have that competency of knowledge and vacancy from &s;candal which makes them vi|&s;ibly &s;o: and we think it our duty to bid &s;uch, and onely &s;uch, wellcome in the name of Chri&s;t.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="12" TYPE="section">
<HEAD><HI>Sect.</HI> XII.</HEAD>
<P>M^r. <HI>Humphrey</HI> in his free admi&s;&s;ion propounds the command as an argument to prove that all mu&s;t receive. In my Bar I an&s;wer, Chri&s;t did not command all to receive, and in&s;tance in <HI>Marke, Luke, Nathaniel,</HI> &amp;c. What &s;ayes Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> to this <HI>pag.</HI> 124. of his rejonder.</P>
<P><Q REND="inline">M^r. <HI>Humphrey.</HI> Chri&s;t did not command all to receive, becau&s;e <HI>Marke, Luke</HI> and <HI>Na|thaniel</HI> were not there; <HI>Is not this pretty?</HI></Q> <HI>An&s;.</HI> I leave prettines to Mr. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> which appears (as el&s;e where) &s;o in this pretty an&s;wer. But I pray, Sir, Had Chri&s;t intended (as you pretend) to make this fir&s;t admini&s;tration a pre&s;ident for univer&s;all receiving, had it not bin ea&s;y for him to have commanded all his Di&s;ciples (whithet &s;incere or hypocriticall) either to re|ceive with him&s;elf or in their particular meetings and families, as him&s;elf, did immediatly after the Pa&s;&s;e-over? This Chri&s;t did not: nay he did not &s;o much as invite tho&s;e Jewes who were in the hou&s;e to receive with him, who yet were
<PB N="232" REF="125">
Church-members as well as the Apo&s;tles. Hence we conclude; that Chri&s;ts commanding his A|po&s;tles to receive is no warrant for all Di&s;ciples to receive pel-mell. He that commanded them before hand to meet him at Galilee, <HI>Math.</HI> 26. 32. compare <HI>Math.</HI> 28. 7.10. and 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 15. 6. could have commanded them before hand to celebrate this Sacrament immediately after the Pa&s;&s;e|over, had he plea&s;ed.</P>
<P><HI>Pag.</HI> 25. Of his vindication M^r. <HI>Humphrey</HI> u&s;es an argument for free Admi&s;&s;ion drawn <Q REND="inline">from the good of comming namely conver|&s;ion of the unregenerate.</Q> In my Bar <HI>pag.</HI> 98. I deny the Sacrament to be a means of initiall conver&s;ion. M^r. <HI>Humphrey</HI> in his Rejoinde<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter"> <HI>pag.</HI> 125. returns. <HI>This arguing is palbably weak, (be&s;ides the matter untrue) Is it not the unre|generate mans duty becau&s;e it will not convert him? As though it were mans benefit were the ground of duty, and not Gods precept.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Here M. <HI>Humphrey</HI> failes a little in his Logicke, mi&s;taking an an&s;wer for an argu|ment. Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> him&s;elf argued affirma|tively from mans benefit to his duty, thus, the Sacrament is a means of conver&s;ion, ergo, The unregenerate mu&s;t receive. I deny the minor, which being not proved by M^r. <HI>Humphrey</HI> the conclu&s;ion falls as to that bottom. Who &s;ees not that here I am not the opponent but the re|&s;pondent, and that it lies upon M^r. <HI>Humphrey</HI> to prove the Sacrament (as to it's receiving, for otherwi&s;e we hinde<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter"> none from comming) to be a converting ordinance. But becau&s;e he re|ferres that to an other place, I &s;hall al&s;o referre my an&s;wer.</P>
<P><PB N="233" REF="125">Secondly, Had I argued on the negative, Theres no Spirituall benefit in &s;uch an act, Ergo it's no duty, the argument had bin firme enough being founded upon divine grace which hath in&s;eparably united divine glory and mans Spi|rituall good in every duty; whence it followes &s;trongly, that if no Spirituall good can accrew by &s;uch an act to &s;uch a per&s;on, then that act is not the duty of that per&s;on. Under&s;tand me here of per&s;ons under Spirituall cure; and withall that this Argument reaches not the <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word"> but onely the <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word">.</P>
<P>For the in&s;tance of <HI>Judas;</HI> It &s;eems I cannot &s;atisfy, M^r. <HI>Humpbrey,</HI> nor he me; nor is it much material whither <HI>Judas</HI> did eat or not. There|fore I pa&s;&s;e it. But where he adds in the &s;ame page, <HI>For</HI> 1 Corint. 11. <HI>It's manife&s;t, after St.</HI> Paul <HI>had convinced the</HI> Corinths <HI>of their un|worthines, yet their comming together he approves, and that not to look on, but to eat.</HI> v. 33.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. That the Apo&s;tle reproved their un|worthy receiving is evident: that he allowed none to look on but receivets, or any to receive but per&s;ons Evangelically worthy is not evi|dent; the ver&s;e <HI>quoted proves</HI> no &s;uch matter, but &s;hewes that when per&s;ons come to eat they mu&s;t ob&s;erve order. Is it probable the Apo&s;tle &s;hould condemne receiving unworthily and yet allow receiving though unworthily? If receiving, though unworthily, be allowable, then let per|&s;ons <HI>jure</HI> excommunicate receive, for they can but receive unworthily.</P>
<P><HI>Pag.</HI> 130. M^r. <HI>Humphrey</HI> charges me with two Schi&s;ms. and 1. For &s;aying <HI>that an unre|generate
<PB N="234" REF="126">
man mu&s;t examine him&s;elf and &s;o ab|&s;tein. An&s;.</HI> I &s;ay no &s;uch thing, if examination be taken in the Apo&s;tles &s;ence for the whole worke of preparation and as opp&s;ed to unwor|thynes in the next vers. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12. 28, 29 The end of examination being &s;elf di&s;covery and refor|mation, the&s;e two la&s;t mu&s;t needs be included in it. Let an unregenerate man thus examine him&s;elf and I am confident he is bound to re|ceive; &s;o far am I from &s;eperating between &s;uch examination and receiving. Mr. <HI>Humphrey. Nay Mr.</HI> D. <HI>&s;ayes, he mo&s;t be pre&s;ent too, but not eat; which is an other Schi&s;me in the Actions. An&s;.</HI> I believe all may be pre&s;ent without &s;in, 1. Be|cau&s;e I finde no prohibition to the contrary, Secondly, becau&s;e they may receive good by pre&s;ence, which inclimes me to believe pre&s;ence is a duty here, as at Bapti&s;me. Yet herein I dare not be &s;o peremptory as in the other branch, that all mu&s;t not eat. When <HI>Mr. Humphrey</HI> can make out an in&s;eparable union between pre&s;ence and receiving then I &s;hall be ready both to con|fe&s;&s;e and reforme the Schi&s;me he charges me withall: till then he mu&s;t excu&s;e me. But whereas <HI>Mr. Humphrey</HI> charges me with &s;lander as af|firming I &s;ay, <HI>Let a man eat though he do not examine him&s;elf. An&s;.</HI> I do not remember nor can finde this pa&s;&s;age in this paragraph, yet haply el&s;where I may have expre&s;&s;ed as much and believe it's far from &s;lander, yea &s;hould be very glad were I mi&s;taken therein. I &s;hall there|fore put it to this i&s;&s;ue. Either <HI>Mr. Humphrey</HI> is of the minde the a man mu&s;t eat though be do not examine him&s;elf: or he is of the contrary
<PB N="235" REF="126">
minde, for between two contradictions there is no middle. If he be of the former minde then I have not &s;landered him. If he be of the contra|ry mind then he is of our judgement, That &s;elf-examination ab&s;tractedly taken is not enough to vvarrant receiving. To evidence this, let us compare the two propo&s;itions. 1. Prop. <HI>Let a man eat, though he do not examine him|&s;elf.</HI> 2. Prop. <HI>Let not a man eat unle&s;&s;e he do examine him&s;elf.</HI> If the former be not his judgement, then the latter mu&s;t needs be his judgement, it being contradictory to the for|mer, and &s;o Ma&s;ter <HI>Humphrey</HI> is of judge|ment that a man mu&s;t not eat unle&s;&s;e he do examine him&s;elf; namely when he either doth not examine him&s;elf at all, or upon examina|tion he findes him&s;elf Evangelically unwor|thy; the end of examination being not one|ly, or principally, di&s;covery, but reformati|on which therefore mu&s;t needs be included in Apo&s;tolick examination. He that tryes <HI>one|ly</HI> in order to di&s;covery had as good not try at all; yea, &s;uch tryal will aggravate his judge|ment, and make him more inexcu&s;able as &s;in|ning again&s;t conviction, <HI>James</HI> 4. 17. If now I have &s;landered Mr. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> as I am &s;or|ry for the material &s;lander, though unwitting|ly done; &s;o I am not a little glad he is more of our judgement in this particular then I for|merly took him to be. But be it what it will, he mu&s;t either clear me of &s;lander, or accu&s;e him|&s;elf of errour. Yet withall, let me be bold to tell Mr. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> That he, who &s;ayes, let all re|ceive, mu&s;t by nece&s;&s;ary con&s;equence &s;ay, let
<PB N="236" REF="127">
tho&s;e Church-members receive, who do not ex|amine them&s;elves, unle&s;&s;e he can make it out that all Church-members do make con&s;cience of examining them&s;elves.</P>
<P><Q REND="inline">Dr. <HI>Drake,</HI> The Sacrament mu&s;t not be attended on as the word (under&s;tand it as to actual receiving) in order to conver&s;ion but to edification.</Q></P>
<P>Mr. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> pag. 131. <HI>we mu&s;t not receive this doctrine without Scripture, which will wholly di&s;people this Ordinance.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. I hope, in due place Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> wants not for Scripture proof.</P>
<P>Secondly, In the mean time, is not Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> too uncharitable (as to many other &s;o par|ticularly) to his own Congregation in his &s;ad Prophecy? If the Sacrament mu&s;t be quite di&s;|peopled, unle&s;&s;e it be a means of conver&s;ion, them belike Mr. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> hath no communi|cants, but &s;uch as receive in order to initial con|ver&s;ion. If &s;o then there is not one Godly per&s;on in all Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his Pari&s;h, or a|mong&s;t all his receivers: A cen&s;ure &s;o unchari|table that I dare not pa&s;&s;e it for a world: but hope that among his Communicants there are &s;ome who partake in order to edification, I mean that are truely Godly, and receive for growth in grace and comfort.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Pag. 131.</NOTE> <HI>The Sacrament is not in&s;ti|tuted to convert Heathen, for the word is not a &s;ealed word unto them.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. By way of Conce&s;&s;ion. Truely if it be not in&s;tituted to convert any. 1. Neither is it in&s;tituted to convert Heathen; Yet &s;econd|ly,
<PB N="237" REF="127">
Prayer and preaching two nece&s;&s;ary atten|dants upon the Sacrament are in&s;tituted to con|vert Heathen as well as any. Thirdly, That a means of conver&s;ion &s;hould univer&s;ally be denyed to any, who need conver&s;ion, is a Do|ctrine we cannot receive without Scripture. Fourthly, That the word is not a &s;ealed word unto Heathen is &s;oon &s;aid, but not &s;o ea&s;ily proved; cannot a priviledge be &s;ealed to me <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Is not this pro|po&s;ition</HI> (who&s;o|ever be|lieves &s;hall be &s;aved) <HI>a branch of the revealed Covenant? Secondly, It is not &s;ealed at the Sacra|ment? Suppo&s;e now an Heathen &s;tand by at the the Lords Supper, Is the forementioned propo&s;itioned &s;ealed to him conditionally, or not? If it be, we have enough. If not, then the Sacrament doth not &s;eal, that the afore&s;aid propo&s;ition is true <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word">; and &s;o the &s;eal is not as exten&s;ive as the writing: for the Covenant &s;ayes, all that believe &s;hall be &s;aved, but the &s;eal, belike, a&s;&s;ures onely, that all Church members that believe &s;hall be &s;aved.</HI></NOTE> unle&s;&s;e I eat the &s;eals? Indeed onely &s;ome few are fit to eat and drink the &s;eals; but who may not hear the Covenant proclaimed, and &s;ee it &s;ealed at the Sacrament, yea, to him&s;elf in particular conditionally, whither he be a Chri|&s;tian, or an Heathen, whither he receive, or not?</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Pag. 132.</NOTE> <HI>Forbearance of the Pa&s;&s;e over was allowed to none but for a moneth.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. This is <HI>grat is dictum;</HI> what if a per&s;on were unclean not onely at the fir&s;t, but al&s;o at the &s;econd Pa&s;&s;e-over, was he bound to receive the &s;econd Pa&s;&s;e-over, though never &s;o unclean? Indeed, if a man were clean, and brought not the Lords offering he ran a great hazzard; but where is he threatned that forbore, becau&s;e he was unclean at the &s;econd Pa&s;&s;e-over?
<PB N="238" REF="128">
Then belike even Lepers ought to eat the Pa&s;&s;e|over in the &s;econd month. Yet &s;econdly, our ca&s;e is far better, we having eight or twelve Sa|craments every year; and he who is unclean at this Sacrament may receive the next month, or &s;ix weeks, if the fault be not his own.</P>
<P><Q REND="inline">Mr. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> ib. His exceptions again&s;t the parable, <HI>Math.</HI> 22. are vain things. Tho&s;e that murdered the &s;ervants were part of them that were invited, and not to be oppo&s;ed; for the contempt of the fea&s;t is the main bu&s;ine&s;&s;e intended, as appears by <HI>Luke</HI> 14. where no|thing el&s;e is mentioned.</Q></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. I make no exception again&s;t the Parable, but again&s;t Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his wre&s;ting of it.</P>
<P>Secondly, True, all tho&s;e who murdered the Servants were invited to the wedding fea&s;t, but were they invited to the Sacrament? Then Heathen were invited as well as any. Herod murdered one of the &s;ervants, <HI>Acts</HI> 12. 1.2. Was he invited to the Sacrament?</P>
<P>Thirdly, If the contempt of the fea&s;t be the main bu&s;ine&s;s intended, then the higher the contempt the greater the unworthynes; but &s;uch was the contempt of tho&s;e Murderers who therefore were excluded by the command of the Ma&s;ter, <HI>Luke</HI> 14. 24. My exceptions then were not &s;o vain as Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> makes them.</P>
<P>To his two que&s;tions I an&s;wer; to the fir&s;t, All refu&s;ers are unworthy of Gods Ordinances, but I hope he will not count all ab&s;teyners re|fu&s;ers.</P>
<P><PB N="239" REF="128">To the &s;econd, 1. No ungenerate per&s;on comes to the Sacrament as preparedly as he can, yea too many make little con&s;cience even of naturall preparation.</P>
<P>Secondly, There is no totall omi&s;&s;ion on the Chri&s;tians part if he prepare for and attend upon the Sacrament, but is denied actuall re|ceiving (whither ju&s;tly or unju&s;tly) by Church-Officers: <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>See Mr.</HI> H. <HI>his Rejoyn|der</HI> 131.</NOTE> or if he forbear at pre&s;ent out of an holy jealou&s;y of &s;elf unworthines, &s;o he re&s;olve through grace on better preparation again&s;t the next Sacrament.</P>
<P>Thirdly, in divers ca&s;es better leave the mat|ter undone than to fail in the manner.</P>
<P><Q REND="inline">Dr. <HI>Drake, pag.</HI> 102. In oppo&s;ition to <HI>Mr. Humphrey,</HI> It is neither a certain duty on the Mini&s;ters part to admit all, nor on the peoples part for all to receive, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></Q></P>
<P><HI>Mr. Humphrey,</HI> pag. 132. <HI>Let Mr.</HI> Drake <HI>take heed how he is carried through oppo&s;ition, lea&s;t in oppo&s;ing</HI> M^r. Humphrey <HI>he directly op|po&s;e the command of Chri&s;t. He grants</HI> pag. 47. <HI>That, where there is no Governement &s;ettled, the Mini&s;ter by a due forewarning may clear his &s;oul, but how &s;adly doth he revers this here, and weap him&s;elf again in a fatall cloud? for if it be not his duty it mu&s;t be his &s;in, there is no medium for his excu&s;e.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. I pray Sir, next time be more care|full in tran&s;cribing my words right, and do not wrong fir&s;t my text and then my &s;elf. I bear no Spirit of oppo&s;ition to your per&s;on, but de&s;ire to hate errour and love truth in you, in my &s;elf and in every one el&s;e.</P>
<P><PB N="240" REF="129">Secondly, It &s;mells &s;trongly of perver&s;ne&s;&s;e that he charges me as directly oppo&s;ing the command of Chri&s;t, when at the &s;ame time (if it be an oppo&s;ition) him &s;elf takes the &s;ame li|berty. Chri&s;t &s;ayes drink ye <HI>all</HI> of it. <HI>Mr. Hum|phrey</HI> &s;ayes <HI>all</HI> here mu&s;t be limited to intelli|gent Church-members and to per&s;ons not <HI>jure</HI> excommunicate; we &s;ay it mu&s;t be limited to Church-members that are Evangelically wor|thy. <HI>Mr. Humphrey</HI> in the &s;ame breath (as it were) cryes up his own limitation and cryes down ours. Hath <HI>Mr. Humphrey</HI> an e&s;pecial priviledge from heaven to limit Chri&s;ts uni|ver&s;alls? If he have, let us &s;ee his Commi&s;|&s;ion.</P>
<P>Thirdly, &s;hould I revers what he charges me to &s;ay <HI>pag.</HI> 47. Suppo&s;ing it erroneous, <HI>Mr. Humphrey</HI> &s;hould rather be glad than &s;ad at &s;uch a rever&s;ment.</P>
<P>Fourthly, I &s;ee more need of a candid inter|pretation on <HI>Mr. Humphrey</HI> his part, than of a rever&s;ment on my part. <Q REND="inline">True, I &s;ay there, that I humbly conceive that the Mini&s;ter may clear his own &s;oul (where there is no Church-governement &s;ettled) if he per&s;wade or fore|warn one that is vi&s;ibly unworthy not to receive, but hath no juridicall power either to admit or keep him back.</Q> But did I there &s;ay, the Mini&s;ter had no Pa&s;tourall power, or that he had no power to &s;u&s;pend his own Act? If a drunkard, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> after admonition will ru&s;h upon the Sacrament, let him take it at his own perill; I do not think the Mini&s;ter is bound either on the one hand to drive him from the Table or on the
<PB N="241" REF="129">
other hand to deliver him the Sacrament. The Mini&s;ter then doth neither admit nor &s;u&s;pend him juridically; but &s;u&s;pends onely his own Act. If a Mini&s;ter by his Pa&s;tourall power (where no Governement is &s;ettled) may admit all that are vi&s;ibly worthy, then he may be the &s;ame power &s;u&s;pend tho&s;e who are vi&s;ibly unworthy; that is, he may deny to give them the Elements. The Logicians tell us that <HI>Contrariorum e&s;t ea|dem</HI> <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word">. He that hath power to admit hath &s;o far power to &s;u&s;pend. Here then, by M^r. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> his leave is a <HI>medium.</HI> It's neither my du|ty to admit a drunkard, that is to give him the Elements, nor is it my &s;in to permit him to re|ceive; that is to let him take the Elements him|&s;elf. Is not permi&s;&s;ion a medium between ad|mi&s;&s;ion and &s;u&s;pen&s;ion. A Mini&s;ter unpresby|terated can neither admit nor &s;u&s;pend, but may permit. He can neither admit nor &s;u&s;pend ju|ridically, but may do both Pa&s;tourally. Worthy Church-members he mu&s;t both admit and in|courage, unworthy ones he may permit to re|ceive, but mu&s;t di&s;courage from receiving in <HI>&s;tatu quo.</HI> He hath no juridicall and coactive power, but hath a Pa&s;tourall and di&s;&s;wa&s;ive power.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> pag. 133. <HI>For his di&s;tin|ction of mediately and immediatly; he &s;hould have forborn the wound and &s;aved his Salve; for there is none that denies but that every man is to exa|mine him&s;elf and prepare as well as come.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> I perceive M. <HI>Humphrey</HI> is re&s;olved to cut me out work enough; otherwi&s;e he would not have in&s;erted &s;uch trivial exceptions.
<PB N="242" REF="130">
Yet, he is &s;o charitable towards me as to think I make con&s;cience of being at the co&s;t of a <HI>Salve</HI> where I have wounded any.</P>
<P>But, I pray, where is the wound? My words <HI>pag.</HI> 102. Of my bar are the&s;e, <Q REND="inline">It's neither a certain duty on the Mini&s;ters part to admit all, nor on the peoples part for all to receive; unles you under&s;tand it mediately; as the get|ting of a&s;&s;urance is a duty lies upon all; yet not immediately, but fir&s;t they mu&s;t get true grace the ground of a&s;&s;urance. So <HI>all</HI> mu&s;t come to the Sacrament, but fir&s;t they mu&s;t be pre|pared, <HI>All</HI> mu&s;t be admitted to receive, but fir&s;t they mu&s;t he vi&s;ibly worthy.</Q></P>
<P>Will Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> &s;ay, it's the Mini&s;ters du|ty to admit <HI>all</HI> Church-members without limi|tation, or that it's the duty of all to receive immediately? Do not his own limitations per|claim the contrary? If therefore any wound be given, <HI>Mr. Humphrey</HI> is as truely guilty thereof as my &s;elf; But it &s;eems, by his own coufe&s;&s;ion, I am more carefull to being a Salve to cure it than he is.</P>
<P><HI>Mr. Humphrey,</HI> Ibid. <HI>But whereas he holds a man &s;hould examine and prepare him&s;elf (&s;up|po&s;e as well as he can) yet if they judge him not vi&s;ibly worthy he mu&s;t not be admitted: And if he judges not him&s;elf really worthy, for his own part, he mu&s;t not eat; he has &s;tretched a line of di|vi&s;ion over the Church, a plummet of lead on weak con&s;ciences, and wiped the Sacrament as a man wipeth a di&s;h, wiping it and turning it up &s;ide down in wiping.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Some are notable at Cyclopick Divi|nity,
<PB N="243" REF="130">
let the Reader judge whither <HI>M. Humphrey</HI> be not excellent at Cyclopick Rhetorick, which in &s;tead of illu&s;trating doth ob&s;cure his &s;en&s;e and make it ambiguous could we not gue&s;&s;e at his meaning by his mewing. Grammer and Lo|gicke had bin here more u&s;efull than Rbeto|ricke. Doth not the word &s;tretch a lin&s;e of di|vi&s;ion over the Church? See <HI>Jerem.</HI> 15. 19. Doth it not &s;tretch a plummet on weak con&s;ciences? but to regulate them, not to cru&s;h them. The Sacrameut indeed is the Di&s;h, Chri&s;t the meat in that di&s;h; &s;hould not the handmaids of wi&s;|dom wipe her di&s;hes clean on all &s;ides &s;o far as lies in their power, that is, purge and keep pure this and other Ordinances? If his meaning be, that by Sacramentall triall we cau&s;e &s;infull divi&s;ion, wound the con&s;ciences of the weak or grieve them, and make the Sacrament a nullity; this, fir&s;t is fal&s;e: Secondly a new dre&s;&s;ing of what is el&s;ewhere an&s;wered. I pray Sir, be not offended, that we dare not make the Table of the Lord contemptible, that we dare bring no bread to the Lords Table but &s;uch, as, upon grounds of charity, we apprehend to be Shew-Bread, <HI>Malach</HI> 1. v. 7. and 12.</P>
<P>I wonder therefore Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> &s;o forgets him&s;elf, <HI>pag.</HI> 133. as to charge me bitterly with cen&s;oriou&s;ne&s;&s;e, but for noting his cen&s;oriou&s;|ne&s;&s;e. To which I briefly an&s;wer:</P>
<P N="1">1. What need I quote Chapter and ver&s;e in a place &s;o well known, and quoted by him|&s;elf?</P>
<P N="2">Secondly, That I charge him with cen&s;uring us in a Rhetorical way, did I not therein &s;ay the
<PB N="244" REF="131">
very truth, unle&s;&s;e <HI>Interrogation</HI> be no part of Rhetorick? Doth not M. <HI>Humphrey</HI> turn the Apo&s;tles a&s;&s;ertion into an Interrogation, and is that no part of Rhetorick?</P>
<P N="3">Thirdly, Did I frame any interpretation, but what his words mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity carry, unle&s;s he will have them &s;peak non &s;en&s;e? He findes fault with us for doing evil that good may come; what is that evil, but want of free Admi&s;&s;ion, the very &s;ame with Su&s;pen&s;ion in a negative &s;en&s;e? That this is the evil Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> charges us withall is evident, both by the context, and by the whole &s;cope of his book. Let the Reader now judge whither I frame an interpretation, or &s;peak Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his genuine &s;en&s;e. That Su&s;pen&s;ion is not a &s;in, but a duty hath been el&s;ewhere proved; nor are we a&s;hamed, Sir, that you charge us with Su&s;pen&s;ion as our Act and practice, but think you do us wrong by charging us with this practice as a &s;in. The Act we confe&s;&s;e concerns us, but the guilt mu&s;t re&s;t upon him, who charges guilt wrongfully. Is not he cen&s;orious, who charges me with a &s;in I am not guilty of? Yet that nothing may be want|ing in point of cen&s;oriou&s;ne&s;&s;e, Mr. <HI>Humphrey, pag.</HI> 134. charges me with &s;pight for forgiving him and praying for him. Lord, how doth pa&s;|&s;ion, and prejudice blinde a man to interpret the preate&s;t acts of charity a plece of &s;pight and malice?</P>
<P>Sir, I finde not fault with the terms of <HI>giving,</HI> or <HI>humbly committing</HI> your rea&s;ons; but that you mi&s;take <HI>weight</HI> for <HI>number,</HI> and think you give them by <HI>weight,</HI> when you give or humbly
<PB N="245" REF="131">
commit them onely by <HI>number.</HI> For a farewell, Mr. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> 1. Tells me, I rail at his Argu|ments, Secondly, Takes his leave with a &s;coff. Thirdly, To &s;harpen his <HI>Sarca&s;me</HI> abu&s;es Scri|pture, and &s;o concludes the fir&s;t part of his Re|joynder, whither with that piety and charity be|comes a Brother and a Mini&s;ter, I leave it to in|different judgements.</P>
<PB N="244" REF="132">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="245" REF="132">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 page">
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="2" TYPE="part">
<PB REF="133">
<PB N="273" REF="133">
<HEAD>THE BAR TO FREE AD|MISSION, FIXED. OR An An&s;wer to Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his Rejoynder.</HEAD>
<HEAD><HI>The Second</HI> PART.</HEAD>
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD><HI>Sect.</HI> I.</HEAD>
<P>_IN the beginning of his &s;econd Part, though Mr. <HI>H.</HI> he&s;itate about the ac|count of our practice in the matter of Excommu|nication, yet &s;ince he is &s;o charitable as to acknow|ledge it may be fair, I can|not but look at it as a good beginning in order to a right under&s;tanding, and hopes of an happy clo&s;e. I &s;hall therefore proceed to that wherein we more palpably differ.</P>
<P><Q REND="inline">D^r. <HI>D. p.</HI> 107. of his <HI>Bar.</HI> In his de&s;cription
<PB N="274" REF="134">
of Church-cen&s;ures Mr. <HI>H.</HI> omits their main end, which is, the amendment of the party cen|&s;ured.</Q></P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H. p.</HI> 146. of his <HI>Rejoynder. I expre&s;s it ju&s;t over the leaf as &s;oon as it is to purpo&s;e. An&s;.</HI> In di&s;pute, and only by the way, I note your de&s;cription of Church-cen&s;ures as defective. Lo|gicians tell us that <HI>Finis</HI> is a nece&s;&s;ary ingredient in our de&s;cription of an action, the end being e&s;&s;ential to the moral goodne&s;s of actions. This end, Sir, you omit in your de&s;cription of Church-cen&s;ures, which your mentioning in the next leaf will not &s;alve. Therefore, by your leave, I was neither blind nor cruel in cen&s;uring, unle&s;s the Re&s;pondents di&s;covery of the faylures of his Opponent again&s;t the rules of Logick be malice and blindne&s;s; and if &s;o, then a Di&s;putant, becau&s;e he acts rationally in order to the conviction of his Adver&s;ary, is blind and malicious. <NOTE PLACE="marg">In this I allude on|ly to his own &s;tory.</NOTE> Such Logick is fitter for St. <HI>Albans</HI> executioner, than for a Scholar or a Divine.</P>
<P>Next, he blames me <HI>for extending Church|cen&s;ures to ignorant per&s;ons, or to any other wilful &s;inners;</HI> Yet in the &s;ame place grants &s;ome Church-cen&s;ures belong to &s;uch, but not &s;u&s;pen&s;ion or excommunication. <HI>An&s;.</HI> Sir, I extend not Church-cen&s;ures to ignorant per&s;ons &s;imply, but to per&s;ons wilfully ignorant: And till Mr. <HI>H.</HI> can prove &s;uch ignorance and wilfulne&s;s is not a great and &s;candalous &s;in, he doth ill to cen&s;ure me for &s;aying they de&s;erve a Church|cen&s;ure, yea &s;ome degrees of excommunication if per&s;i&s;ted in. If <HI>this doctrine would &s;oon leave him de&s;titute of Church-members,</HI> as him&s;elf confe&s;&s;es, <HI>p.</HI> 147. Surely his Church is in a very
<PB N="275" REF="134">
lamentable condition, who&s;e members are (it &s;eems) not only gro&s;ly ignorant, but al&s;o wilfully ignorant. I do not charge them to be &s;o, but only &s;hew them what a &s;lur their own Mini&s;ters argument ca&s;ts upon them.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H. ib.</HI> Dr. <HI>D. challenges all the world to &s;hew him proof that per&s;ons excommunicated may not be pre&s;ent at any publick Ordi|nance, &amp;c. If he think &s;o learnedly of him&s;elf, let him &s;end his challenge to Dr.</HI> Hammond, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> I know far better than Mr. <HI>H.</HI> or any other, that I have great rea&s;on to think very meanly of my &s;elf, nor will I &s;tand to ju&s;tifie the manner of expre&s;&s;ion, which yet had its mitiga|tion or allay, would Mr. <HI>H.</HI> have plea&s;ed to take notice thereof, my challenge being only in order to <HI>Scripture-proof.</HI> by which I &s;till beleeve it cannot be made out, that an excommunicated per|&s;on ought to be kept from all publick Ordinan|ces; yea, the Scripture &s;eems to favour the con|trary. I dare not compare with that learned <HI>Clerk</HI> he mentions, or with any other that bears the name of a Scholar or Divine, nor de&s;ire to expa|tiate in controver&s;ies, which I look at as the &s;hell, not the kernel of Divinity: Nor was I, or am I acted with malice in coping with Mr. <HI>H.</HI> in this unhappy controver&s;ie which him&s;elf (among others whom I honour in the Lord) &s;tarted again&s;t the votes and judgement of a Parliament, a&s;&s;i&s;ted by an A&s;&s;embly of very pious, orthodox, and learned Divines, to the general &s;adning of eminently godly per&s;ons in the Nations, who looked at the Presbyterian Government, and the exerci&s;e of it in this particular, for the &s;ub&s;tance thereof, as
<PB N="276" REF="135">
mo&s;t con&s;onant to the rule, as the fruit of many prayers that have long hung upon the file in hea|ven; and as the great In&s;trument under Chri&s;t to extirpate Ignorance, Errour, Prophanene&s;s, Schi&s;m, &amp;c. and therefore oppo&s;ed by &s;ome ma|liciou&s;ly, by others through weakne&s;s and pre|judice, in which la&s;t rank I place Mr. <HI>H.</HI> however he look at me as malicious. If the Lord &s;hall ble&s;s my poor endeavours to convince him, I &s;hall think it abundantly worth my pains, though it bee to me a trouble&s;ome work in the mid&s;t of other weighty avocations. However, I &s;hall &s;ubmit the i&s;&s;ue to God, and &s;it down in peace, that I have &s;in|cerely, though weakly endeavoured to do my duty; and hope &s;ome body will be the better by this poor peece, though it mu&s;t expect to meet with much contempt and oppo&s;ition.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.p.</HI> 147. <HI>I &s;hall propo&s;e him only that one Text,</HI> Matth. 7. 6. <HI>Give not that which is holy unto dogs: Excommunicated per&s;ons are generally interpreted to be dogs and &s;wine; the word and prayer are holy things as well as the Sacrament (which yet was not in&s;tituted when this precept was fir&s;t given, and &s;o cannot hee primarily intended here) Ergo.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. All excommunicated per&s;ons are not dogs. Even godly men upon ju&s;t ground may be excommunicated; and I hope children are not dogs.</P>
<P N="2">2 All dogs are not to be denied holy things. Heathen are dogs, <HI>Matth.</HI> 15. v. 22. 26, 27. yet may be admitted to the word preached, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. 24.</P>
<P N="3">3 Some per&s;ons within the Church are dogs, yet mu&s;t not be denied the Sacrament, if upon trial
<PB N="277" REF="135">
it appear they have competent knowledge, and no &s;candal be objected or proved again&s;t them; the Church in cen&s;ures being bound to proceed, <HI>Secundum allegata &amp; probata.</HI></P>
<P N="4">4 Therefore we mu&s;t di&s;tingui&s;h of dogs: Some are dogs really, but not vi&s;ibly; &s;uch are na|tural per&s;ons undi&s;covered, (the&s;e with due pro|vi&s;ions) can be denied no Ordinance. Others are dogs both really and vi&s;ibly; Such are Heathen, who mu&s;t not be denied the Crums, though they may not &s;it with Children at the Table. Others are &s;cornful, and malicious dogs, and therefore are in an e&s;pecial manner unworthy of any Ordi|nance, and &s;o far as they are vi&s;ible mu&s;t be de|nied</P>
<P N="1">1 The pearl of private reproof more parti|cularly there intended by our Saviour, who for|bids private judging of any, and private reproof of &s;ome, unle&s;s it be for others &s;ake.</P>
<P N="2">2 They mu&s;t be denied that holy thing the Sacrament, which (as the Cabinet of that pearl of price) they &s;leight vi&s;ibly. But as for publick prayers and preaching (unle&s;s they be publick Affronters and di&s;turbers of the very exerci&s;es of the&s;e Ordinances, which are means of their con|ver&s;ion, and which do not &s;o much irritate their &s;pleen, as being not particularly and per&s;onally applied again&s;t them) I &s;ee no warrant of Scrip|ture to thru&s;t any dog from them, unle&s;s it bee known he have committed the &s;in again&s;t the Holy Gho&s;t. In this &s;en&s;e Mr. <HI>Perkins</HI> his Com|ment upon <HI>Matth.</HI> 7. 6. I cordially &s;ub&s;cribe to, That &s;uch dogs as do publickly bla&s;pheme and vent their here&s;ies again&s;t the truth, at the very time when it is delivered, are to be forced away
<PB N="278" REF="136">
from the publick Ordinances, or &s;eparated from, if the Church want co-active power (<HI>Act.</HI> 13. v. 45, 46, 50, 51. where you have both the bark|ing, and the tearing dog) as well as they mu&s;t bee denied private reproof (at lea&s;t for their own &s;akes) where they &s;coff at, and oppo&s;e it private|ly. This rule our Saviour &s;eems to explain <HI>Matth.</HI> 18. v. 15-17. where the remedy ri&s;es up gradually with the malady, and neglecting to hear is a degree of Swini&s;h-trampling. But little doth Mr. <HI>H.</HI> think how he hath prejudiced his own cau&s;e by this quotation of Reverend Mr. <HI>Perkins, pag.</HI> 148. e&s;pecially where in a Paren|the&s;is, he bids the Reader (Mark that) Mr. <HI>Perkins</HI> his words quoted there by Mr. <HI>H.</HI> are the&s;e:</P>
<P><Q REND="inline">Indeed, if the party be excommunicated for &s;ome particular crime, &amp;c. then although he be excluded from communion in the Sacrament and Prayer (Mark that) yet may he be ad|mitted to hear the word to help him to repent, which is the end of all Church-cen&s;ures.</Q></P>
<P>Is not Mr. <HI>Perkins</HI> here clear that &s;ome per|&s;ons excommunicated, yet may be admitted to the word preached, and that in order to their con|ver&s;ion? And what is our &s;u&s;pen&s;ion in the rigor of it, but an excommunication from the Sacra|ment, with an admi&s;&s;ion at the &s;ame time to the word preached? Mr. <HI>Perkins</HI> then is a profe&s;t friend to &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, which is al&s;o beholding to Mr. <HI>H.</HI> for affording it &s;o honourable a te&s;timony. You will &s;ay, I but Mr. <HI>Perkins</HI> excludes &s;uch from prayer al&s;o. <HI>An&s;.</HI> True, and probably be|cau&s;e he looked not at prayer as a converting Or|dinance, which had he done, its not likely he
<PB N="279" REF="136">
would have been again&s;t pre&s;ence either at Word, Prayer, or Sacrament, by which all that are cure|able, may receive good, although they do not actually receive the elements.</P>
<P N="5">5 If the Sacrament be not primarily in|tended here, becau&s;e this precept was given be|fore the Lords Supper was in&s;tituted; no more was it primarily intended in the wedding fea&s;t, <HI>Matth.</HI> 22. upon the &s;ame account; which yet Mr. <HI>H.</HI> builds upon as a bottome for free ad|mi&s;&s;ion. Its enough for our purpo&s;e, Fir&s;t, That the Sacrament is an holy thing.</P>
<P>Secondly, That by Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his own grant, its to be denied to &s;ome dogs, to whom other holy things are not to be denied, namely, hea|then, and per&s;ons <HI>jure</HI> excommunicated, to which la&s;t at lea&s;t he yeelds it may be denied.</P>
<P>Thirdly, That upon Scripture-ground it is to be denied to &s;ome dogs within the Church, yea to real children. But neither mu&s;t <HI>holy things,</HI> nor <HI>dogs</HI> be under&s;tood univer&s;ally, which both the manner of expre&s;&s;ion, and our Saviours rea&s;on hint &s;ufficiently, where a pearl is, Fir&s;t, ca&s;t away; Secondly, expo&s;ed to contempt; Thirdly, expo&s;es the giver to danger, there its not to be tendered <HI>caeteris paribus.</HI> An indefinite Propo&s;ition is not equivalent to an univer&s;al, unle&s;s <HI>in materi&acirc; ne|ce&s;&s;ari&acirc;.</HI> He that &s;ayes ab&s;olutely, No holy thing mu&s;t be given to any dog, doth not only &s;in again&s;t faith, as corrupting the Text, but al&s;o again&s;t charity, as cutting off innumerable per&s;ons from all means of conver&s;ion.</P>
<P>His di&s;tinction <HI>p.</HI> 148. of <HI>real</HI> &amp; <HI>relative</HI> exclu&s;ion is pithy, pertinent, and well expre&s;s'd, and may do very much to compound our controver&s;ie, if pa&s;&s;ion
<PB N="280" REF="137">
and prejudice were on both hands laid a&s;ide. We grant;</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, That an heathen, or excommunicated per&s;on, hath no relative intere&s;t in any publick Or|dinance, the former being no Church-member, the latter being cut off from Church-member|&s;hip.</P>
<P>Secondly, That all Church-members have both a real and relative intere&s;t in all Ordinances in <HI>actu primo,</HI> or <HI>&s;ignato,</HI> but not <HI>in actu &s;ecun|do</HI> or <HI>exercito,</HI> as a Jew, or a Prie&s;t, had right to holy things, but might not at all times act that right, namely, if he were unclean, &amp;c. And if their uncleanne&s;s were perpetual, they might for ever be &s;ecluded from holy things, as in the ca&s;e of lepro&s;ie, &amp;c. 2 <HI>Chr.</HI> 26. 21. Proportionably &s;u&s;|pen&s;ion is no bar either to real or relative intere&s;t, but only with-holds the actual injoyment of that intere&s;t till the party intere&s;ted be actually fit for that injoyment (at lea&s;t vi&s;ibly) which otherwi&s;e would prejudice, but not benefit him. The point of difference between us, and Mr. <HI>H.</HI> is not <HI>real</HI> or <HI>relative intere&s;t,</HI> but <HI>actual injoyment</HI> of that intere&s;t, and that only too as to actual re|ceiving in the Sacrament.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H. pag.</HI> 149. <HI>I hold a man is to be de|barred actual receiving by excommunication. Mr.</HI> Drake <HI>will have him to be debarred with|out it.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> I pray Sir, forget not your &s;elf, Do not you hold per&s;ons <HI>jure</HI> excommunicated, may be debarred actual receiving? Con&s;ult <HI>page</HI> 21. of your <HI>Rejoynder.</HI> I hope per&s;ons <HI>jure</HI> excom|municated are not actually excommunicated; therefore Mr. <HI>H.</HI> will have &s;ome intelligent
<PB N="281" REF="137">
Church-members debarred actual receiving, be|fore actual excommunication, and what is this but &s;u&s;pen&s;ion? May Mr. <HI>H.</HI> di&s;tingui&s;h between excommunication <HI>ip&s;o jure &amp; de facto,</HI> and may not I di&s;tingui&s;h between receiving <HI>ip&s;o jure, &amp; de facto.</HI> Grant all Church-members <HI>as &s;uch,</HI> may be receivers <HI>ip&s;o jure</HI> &s;o they be not receivers <HI>de facto,</HI> we &s;hall &s;oon put an i&s;&s;ue to this controver&s;ie with Mr. <HI>H.</HI> Is there not an admi&s;&s;ion <HI>de jure &amp; de facto,</HI> as well as an excommunication <HI>de jure &amp; de facto?</HI> A per&s;on excommunicated <HI>de jure,</HI> but not <HI>de facto,</HI> is as truly a Church-member as a per&s;on admitted <HI>de jure,</HI> but not <HI>de facto;</HI> and if the former may be &s;u&s;pended, notwith&s;tanding his Church-member&s;hip, I pray why not the latter?</P>
<P>By this collation it further appears, That Church-member&s;hip even in intelligent per&s;ons, is not the adequate rea&s;on of actual receiving. A per&s;on <HI>ip&s;o jure</HI> excommunicate, is &s;till externally in Covenant (in Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his &s;en&s;e) as being a Church-member, and yet may be debarred the external &s;eal thereof; witne&s;s Mr. <HI>H. pag.</HI> 21, 22. of his <HI>Rejoynder;</HI> when Mr. <HI>H.</HI> can untie this Riddle of his own making, he will teach us to untie the Riddle he puts upon us <HI>page</HI> 150. where likewi&s;e he &s;ayes, but proves not, <HI>That excluding men from the Sacrament doth not bind or retain their &s;ins.</HI> This is fal&s;e, if ap|plied to Juridical &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, or Pa&s;toral &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, in &s;ome ca&s;es.</P>
<P>Somewhat he would bring there like an ar|gument from a mi&s;-under&s;tanding of <HI>Matth.</HI> 1619 <HI>as if there were no cen&s;ure of the Keyes without exclu&s;ion from the Church;</HI> for|getting in the mean time, his own di&s;tinction be|tween
<PB N="282" REF="138">
the <HI>Church</HI> and the <HI>Chancel.</HI> Hath the hou&s;e of God but one room, one door? or can|not a man be &s;hut out of the <HI>Chancel,</HI> but he mu&s;t needs be thereby &s;hut out of the <HI>Church?</HI> Cannot a Father &s;hut his childe out of the Parlor, but he mu&s;t needs &s;hut him quite out of doors? True, &s;ome per&s;ons cen&s;ured mu&s;t be to thee as heathen, <HI>Matth.</HI> 18. 17. but mu&s;t all per&s;ons cen|&s;ured be &s;o? Surely the Apo&s;tle is more charitable, 2 <HI>The&s;&s;</HI> 3. v. 14 15.</P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 151. Mr. <HI>H.</HI> &s;ayes, <HI>That the &s;econd de|gree of excommunication among the Jews called Cherem, may put Mr.</HI> Drake <HI>to &s;hame, that &s;o blindly a&s;&s;erts the parallel,</HI> p. 21. <HI>and yet every where denies the matter.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Good words, I pray Sir; <HI>page</HI> 21. and 22. of my Bar, I prove the Antiquity of &s;u&s;|pen&s;ion from the practice of the Jews, and of the ancient Greek Church; as al&s;o that with them it was a degree of excommunication, as juridical &s;u&s;|pen&s;ion is with us. I neither a&s;&s;ert, nor ju&s;tifie their practice univer&s;ally, much le&s;s their exclu|ding of per&s;ons excommunicated from all pub|lick Ordinances. Cannot I quote their practice in favour of &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, but I mu&s;t needs ju&s;tifie what ever was in u&s;e among them in point of excommunication? Such blind imputations, I am &s;ure &s;hould &s;hame Mr. <HI>H.</HI> who it &s;eems can|not di&s;tingui&s;h between the improving of an in|&s;tance or practice, and the owning of all the aberrations that attend upon that practice.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H. ib. Its a very fond conceit of Mr.</HI> D. <HI>to make two degrees of excommunication beneath di&s;member&s;hip, that is, two degrees of putting men out of the Church before
<PB N="283" REF="138">
they be put out of the Church.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Mr. <HI>H.</HI> &s;hould do well to tell the Ancient Church of the <HI>Jews,</HI> and of the <HI>Greeks, &amp;c.</HI> that their conceit is fond in making two or three degrees of excommunication before di&s;member|&s;hip. It was their conceit before it was mine, nor am I of their conceit in every particular about excommunication, or its degrees, though I will not &s;ay their conceit was <HI>fond:</HI> I leave that work to Mr. <HI>H.</HI></P>
<P>Secondly, What is excommunication (in the very notion of it) but a turning or keeping out of communion: And becau&s;e turning out of com|munion is gradual, therefore excommunication mu&s;t needs be gradual. He that is turned out of any part of communion, is as truly, though not as much, turned out of communion, as he that is turned out of all communion: Sacramental communion is part of communion, from which he that is turned away, is truly turned out of com|munion as to that particular, and therefore is truly excommunicated, though not di&s;membred. What ever therefore him&s;elf, or others may think of tho&s;e Texts, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5. 11. and 2 <HI>The&s;&s;.</HI> 3. 14. is not the Que&s;tion, but what tho&s;e Texts do really hold forth, which becau&s;e they have been former|ly handled, I here forbear.</P>
<P><Q REND="inline">Dr. <HI>D. p.</HI> 107. I grant that by excommunication, they are made as Heathen and Publicans, and are <HI>in &s;tatu quo,</HI> no members.</Q> Mr. <HI>H. page</HI> 153. <HI>Now how &s;trange is this, That while he cannot deny the excommunicate are di&s;mem|bred, he &s;hould keep &s;uch ado to &s;et up a cen&s;ure which is no di&s;member&s;hip, and make it a de|gree too of excommunication, which he confe&s;&s;es it is not?</HI></P>
<P><PB N="284" REF="139"><HI>An&s;.</HI> Here Mr. <HI>H.</HI> di&s;covers either gro&s;s igno|rance, or want of ingenuity. I cannot think him &s;o gro&s;ly ignorant of my meaning, as here he &s;eems to be. He cannot but know, that in the former place (which he only carps at) by <HI>excom|munication,</HI> I mean the la&s;t degree of excommu|nication which reaches unto di&s;membring, not &s;o the two former degrees, which yet are truly called <HI>Excommunication,</HI> though not in the more fa|mous and rigorous &s;en&s;e. Sir, I deny the excom|municated are di&s;membred, if excommunication be taken for the lower degrees of that cen&s;ure; I grant they are di&s;membred, if excommunication be took for the highe&s;t degree thereof. I hope here is no incon&s;i&s;tency or contradiction.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H. ib.</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>And p.</HI> 154.</NOTE> <HI>Excommunication refers directly to Church member&s;hip, and con&s;equentially only to the Ordinances; &s;o that a man mu&s;t be put out of the Church, or el&s;e he cannot legally be put from the Communion. Even as the Le|per was not kept from the Camp, that he might be kept from publick wor&s;hip, but was kept from communion in wor&s;hip, becau&s;e he was kept from the Camp.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> This is <HI>gratis dictum,</HI> two degrees of excommunication, at lea&s;t referring directly to &s;ome Ordinance, namely the Lords Supper; from which the party &s;u&s;pended is &s;eparated really; the party di&s;membred is &s;eparated both really and relatively. His illu&s;tration is as weak as his con|clu&s;ion, the Leper being kept from the Camp (though not &s;olely, yet) principally that he might be kept from &s;ome parts of wor&s;hip. Take <HI>&V;zziah</HI> for in&s;tance, 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 26. 21. his le|pro&s;ie cu: him off not only from Civil, but al&s;o
<PB N="285" REF="139">
from Sacred imployments. This is further evi|dent by the practice of <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> who pitched a Tabernacle without the Camp, and called it the Tabernacle of the Congregation, <HI>Exod</HI> 33. 7. Doth Mr. <HI>H.</HI> think a Leper without the Camp might come to that Tabernacle to &s;eek the Lord, as other I&s;raelites that were clean did and might? If his pre&s;ence would defile the Camp, <HI>Num.</HI> 5. 3. would it not much more defile the Tabernacle; or was not Gods pre&s;ence more eminently in the Tabernacle than in the Camp? He was there|fore kept from the Camp, that he might be kept from communion in &s;ome part of wor&s;hip; not &s;imply from communion in wor&s;hip, becau&s;e he was kept from the Camp; for then he might have been admitted to wor&s;hip in the Tabernacle when it was without the Camp, which is evidently fal&s;e.</P>
<P>What Mr. <HI>H.</HI> notes <HI>page</HI> 154. of the practice of gathered Churches, it hath been &s;poke too formerly. For his exception again&s;t my rea&s;on, <HI>&agrave; majori,</HI> illu&s;trated by the &s;imilitude of a Judge: He an&s;wers him&s;elf, <HI>page</HI> 155. in the&s;e words, <HI>I think when a man is relatively deprived fel|low&s;hip in general, the Church may u&s;e mitiga|tion or &s;everity to a real permi&s;&s;ion of him to &s;ome Ordinances (and &s;o perhaps for civil con|ver&s;e) according to prudence, for his edification or de&s;truction.</HI> What &s;peak the&s;e words, but that the Church may admit an excommunicated per&s;on to &s;ome Ordinances, who yet by Gods command is debarred all Ordinances, if Mr. <HI>H.</HI> define excom|munication rightly? Is not this to &s;et the Church above Scripture, and to allow her power of mitiga|tion where God commands &s;everity? Be&s;ides if the Church may u&s;e mitigation after di&s;membring, why
<PB N="286" REF="140">
not al&s;o before it? If &s;he may admit a di&s;mem|bred per&s;on to &s;ome Ordinances, why may &s;he not &s;u&s;pend an undi&s;membred per&s;on from &s;ome Ordi|nances; yea what in effect is her greater excommu|nication mitigated, but &s;u&s;pen&s;ion? To keep to his own terms, That Magi&s;trate who may according to Law inflict a greater puni&s;hment, may accord|ing to Law inflict the le&s;&s;er puni&s;hment. Pro|portionably, if the Church may di&s;member a per&s;on, &s;he may &s;u&s;pend him, but both according to Chri&s;ts Law, which is the Go&s;pel. That the Church doth it according to Law hath been for|merly proved, which therefore I &s;hall not repeat.</P>
<P>But, I pray Sir, may a Judge mitigate a &s;evere &s;entence when pa&s;&s;ed, and might he not before have pronounced a milder &s;entence? May a Judge after &s;entence of Confi&s;cation and Death pronounced, mitigate the execution only to con|fi&s;cation, and might not the &s;ame Judge before|hand have pa&s;&s;ed a milder &s;entence of confi&s;cation only? In like manner, may the Church after &s;en|tence of di&s;membring admit the per&s;on di&s;mem|bred to &s;ome Ordinances, and may not &s;he &s;u&s;|&s;pend the &s;ame per&s;on from &s;ome Ordinance without di&s;membring him? Will Mr. <HI>H.</HI> miti|gate after the &s;entence of di&s;membring, and may not we mitigate before the &s;entence of di&s;mem|bring? May he break a poor mans head, and then give him a plai&s;ter, and may not we prevent both the fraction and plai&s;ter by a little &s;cratch? (&s;uch is &s;u&s;pen&s;ion to di&s;membring, e&s;pecially as managed by us) If therefore &s;u&s;pen&s;ion be an of|fence or injury, its an error on the right hand by too much mildne&s;s. I pray Sir, forgive us this wrong. I am glad the Presbyterians, who were
<PB N="287" REF="140">
looked at as a company of rigid fellows, are now at la&s;t found guilty (as it &s;eems) of too much lenity and moderation.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> p. 155. <HI>Su&s;pen&s;ion is null without di&s;|member&s;hip; in&s;omuch that if a Jew were un|der Niddui (which was their lowe&s;t degree) if unab&s;olved, his children might not be circum|ci&s;ed: And why not, but that they reckoned him no Church member?</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. The a&s;&s;ertion is <HI>gratis dictum:</HI> and, 1. If we look at negative Su&s;pen&s;ion, that is not null without di&s;membring, in&s;tance in unintelligent Church-members. 2. Nor is po&s;itive Su&s;pen&s;ion null without di&s;membring; in&s;tance in per&s;ons <HI>jure</HI> excommunicate, who (he grants) may be &s;u&s;pended, yet its evident they are not di&s;mem|bred.</P>
<P N="2">2. His confirmation drawn from the practice of the Jews is weak, it being not probable that he who might teach ordinarily in the Church, was di&s;membred from the Church. 3. In denying Circumci&s;ion to the Males of a per&s;on under Nid|dui, the Jews were wife above that which was written, &s;uppo&s;ing the father had been di&s;mem|bred by that degree of Excommunication, and that becau&s;e the childe might have been circum|ci&s;ed in the right of his mother or grand-father, &amp;c. To me, it &s;eems probable, the Jews might deny Circumci&s;ion in the afore&s;aid ca&s;e, out of prudence, the more effectually by that means to humble and bring in the Patent: But I &s;ee no Scripture warrant for it, and therefore may here u&s;e the words of our Saviour, <HI>From the beginning it was not &s;o,</HI> Mat. 19. 8. This may be a &s;uffici|ent <HI>Therefore</HI> for Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his <HI>Wherefore.</HI></P>
<P><PB N="288" REF="141">Fain would Mr. <HI>H.</HI> run away with a mi&s;take, <HI>That Excommunication by the Scripture is re|ferred &s;till to Church-member&s;hip, and not to the Sacrament.</HI> But I mu&s;t crave pardon for my not running along with him in that opinion. Ex|communication is directly oppo&s;ite (not &s;imply to Church-member&s;hip, but) to Communication or <HI>Communion,</HI> a term given e&s;pecially to the Sacra|ment. Which Communion, becau&s;e it is gradual, therfore its oppo&s;ite Excommunication mu&s;t needs be gradual al&s;o. Cannot a member be deprived communion, unle&s;s it be cut off? I had thought a Ligature as well as Exci&s;ion, might have deprived my finger of communion with my body, and might prove far better phy&s;ick than Exci&s;ion or Mutilation. If the Ligature of &s;u&s;pen&s;ion will cure, its cruelty (in my poor judgement) to cut off a Member. A <HI>Brother</HI> in Scripture phra&s;e is a Church-member, though under a Church|cen&s;ure; compare 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5. 11. with 2 <HI>The&s;&s;.</HI> 3. 14, 15. If &s;o, then all Church-cen&s;ures ri&s;e not up to di&s;membring. This I note the rather, be|cau&s;e <HI>page</HI> 152. Mr. <HI>H.</HI> confe&s;&s;es, that divers of the learned apply the forequoted Texts to Excom|munication. What is our &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, but denying a Church-member &s;ome part of communion?</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> p. 156. <HI>God forbid but we &s;hould put a di&s;tinction between &s;ins that &s;tand not with &s;in|cerity, and that &s;tand not with publike profe&s;&s;ion. I do not think the detection of a man living in any known &s;in that contradicts the one, ought to excommunicate him: but the open conviction of &s;uch &s;ins which are notoriou&s;ly &s;candalous, and ob&s;tinate, bringing di&s;credit on the Church, and contradicting the other.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><PB N="289" REF="141">
<HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. By conce&s;sion; a difference mu&s;t be put between &s;ins that &s;tand not with &s;incerity, and that &s;tand not with profe&s;sion <HI>caeteris par<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">bus.</HI> This we do by &s;u&s;pen&s;ion and di&s;membring: But Mr. <HI>H.</HI> will have no Church-cen&s;ure applied to them who live in known &s;ins that contradict onely &s;incerity; whence it follows, that by his doctrine, known hypocrites mu&s;t enjoy all Church-privi|ledges, as well as per&s;ons of known integrity.</P>
<P N="2">2. Note here, Mr. <HI>H.</HI> grants the Church may know a mans heart, and particularly that he is an hypocrite, which yet flowing from my pen, was by him declaimed again&s;t, as a prying into Gods &s;ecrets; though we profe&s;s to know the heart onely as Mr. <HI>H.</HI> doth, namely, by the fruits, when a man is known to live in fins that contradict &s;incerity.</P>
<P N="3">3. To me it is a paradox, how the open con|viction of living in any known &s;in, &s;hould not be notoriou&s;ly &s;candalous, bring di&s;credit on the Church, and contradict publike profe&s;&s;ion e&s;pe|cially if continued in ob&s;tinately; which I wi&s;h were not the ca&s;e of too many Church-members. The Apo&s;tle tells us, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5. 11. That a Church|member who is covetous, a railer, or extortioner, is to be cen&s;ured as well as he that is a fornicator, an idolater, or a drunkard. Doth it not di&s;cre|dit the Church, that any Church-member, con|vinced of gro&s;s ignorance, and continuing therein ob&s;tinately after the u&s;e of means, &s;hould &s;till be imbraced and honored as a Church-member? He that will make a profe&s;&s;ion of he knows not what, doth he not by that act contradict his very profe&s;|&s;ion, before all to whom his ignorance is known? &s;hould any profe&s;s learning, and be known at the
<PB N="290" REF="142">
&s;ame time to be gro&s;ly ignorant of the very Al|phabet, were not &s;uch profe&s;sion ridiculous, and a contradiction of it &s;elf, e&s;pecially if continued in wilfully after &s;undry means u&s;ed to put him upon and promote him in learning?</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>As for the Antiquaeri&s;t he quotes here of his &s;ide &s;o magnificently, and &s;o often, Mr.</HI> Prin <HI>tells us, it is him&s;elf. Let another man prai&s;e thee, and not thine own mouth, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> The&s;e words, as they are impertinent, &s;o they di&s;cover too palpably a &s;pirit of Cavilling, Page 105. of my <HI>Bar,</HI> I have this pa&s;&s;age, <Q REND="inline"><HI>Eat|ing,</HI> 1 Cor. 5. 11. is extended to Sacramental, as well as dome&s;tical eating, as is cleared by the <HI>Antiquaeri&s;t</HI> in his an&s;wer to <HI>Su&s;pen&s;ion &s;u|&s;pended;</HI> to which therefore I refer.</Q> Now, I pray, Sir, what do the&s;e words import of quoting the Antiquaeri&s;t magnificently?</P>
<P N="2">2 How doth it appear the Antiquaeri&s;t is my &s;elf? I grant Mr. <HI>Prins</HI> te&s;timony is valuable, where he &s;peaks upon his own knowledge; but may not Mr. <HI>Prin</HI> be mi&s;informed? And if 1. There be no vaunting expre&s;sions. And 2. The <HI>Ante|quaeri&s;t</HI> be not Dr. <HI>Drake,</HI> is not Mr. <HI>H.</HI> guilty of a double flander? Nor do I think it expedient to inform him in this particular, who is &s;o apt to make a bad u&s;e of his information.</P>
<P>From the &s;ame &s;pirit flows that A&s;per&s;ion, p. 156. <HI>There are many precious Chri&s;tians here|in made weak, which yet are not to be &s;leighted with Mr.</HI> Drake, <HI>but tenderly to be &s;atis|fied.</HI></P>
<P>Doth not Mr. <HI>H.</HI> here reflect upon me; as if I &s;leighted many precious Chri&s;tians, and were not tender about their &s;atisfaction? yet forgetting
<PB N="291" REF="142">
him&s;elf, in the very &s;ame page he quotes tho&s;e expre&s;sions of mine, which &s;hew I was far from &s;leighting them. Thus <HI>out of the Eater comes meat,</HI> and the &s;lander carries its own confutation in its mouth; yea, him&s;elf a&s;&s;ents to two of my conclu&s;ions about that particular: To the fir&s;t ab|&s;olutely. To the &s;econd conditionally: about which, to cut off ambiguity and di&s;pute, I pray Sir, take notice, That in that place, under <HI>pre&s;ence</HI> I include <HI>receiving,</HI> though I did not expre&s;s it. But how the A&s;&s;ertion is &s;uper&s;titions, as expre&s;&s;ed in my own terms, I may haply under&s;tand hereaf|ter, if Mr. <HI>H.</HI> will plea&s;e to inform me; by which information, I tru&s;t he &s;hall &s;oon bring me to re|formation. I would not that my heart, hand or tongue &s;hould wittingly be abettors of Super&s;ti|tion.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> p. 157. <HI>The third is much ami&s;s, and equivocal. They partake of tho&s;e &s;ins they &s;hould have reproved, and do not, but not of any &s;in in their receiving, any more then in their hear|ing and praying. Such words as the&s;e are &s;ub|ject to do hurt, as if it were our duty &s;imply to keep one another from Gods &s;ervice, and that this were the onely eminent piece of piety; when its certainly our duty to excite, call, provoke them to, as coun&s;el, fit and prepare them for the at|tending all Ordinances.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> The conclu&s;ion Mr. <HI>H.</HI> lays load upon is this, <HI>They partake in their &s;ins, who do not their duty to reform them, or keep them from the Sacrament otherwi&s;e.</HI> Here 1. He doth me wrong in leaving out tho&s;e expre&s;sions which render my &s;en&s;e clear and fair. My words are the&s;e, pag. 109, of my <HI>Bar,</HI> <Q REND="inline"><HI>They partake in the &s;ins of un|worthy
<PB N="292" REF="143">
receivers, who do not their duty to reform them, or to keep them from receiving, in ca&s;e they will not be reformed.</HI></Q> As Mr. <HI>H.</HI> quotes my words, I grant there is much ambi|guity; to in&s;tance in one, and a gro&s;s one. The Reader may apprehend, that I am of opinion, that if the Church keep unworthy per&s;ons from the Sacrament, &s;he is not bound to do her endea|vors to reform them. A conceit far from my thoughts and expre&s;sions, if intirely and candidly repre&s;ented. Mr. <HI>H.</HI> makes my &s;en&s;e wor&s;e, as <Q REND="inline"><HI>if I were of the minde, that its our duty &s;imply to keep one another from Gods &s;ervice: yea, that this is the onely eminent piece of piety.</HI></Q> A flander &s;o gro&s;s and ab&s;urd, that the very naming of it is &s;ufficient confutation.</P>
<P N="2">2. Tho&s;e words of Mr. <HI>H.</HI> <Q REND="inline">(<HI>They partake not of any &s;in in their receiving, more than in their hearing and praying</HI>)</Q> are erroneous. For clearing whereof note, we may &s;in two ways about our duty: 1. In the matter. 2. In the manner: Proportionably two ways I may partake of other mens &s;ins: 1. If I do not in&s;truct and warn them about their duty, both for matter and manner, where I am called &s;o to do. 2. If I admit them to do that which <HI>in&s;tatu quo</HI> they are bound to forbear, and I am bound in my place to endeavor to keep them from. To apply this, I &s;in not in the matter by admitting any to prayer or hearing, pro|vided they be not di&s;turbers, &amp;c. but I &s;in in the very matter, by admitting &s;ome to receiving, who ought not to be admitted; el&s;e how can per&s;ons <HI>jure</HI> excommunicate, be denyed the Sacrament? we preach to, and pray for, and with, the vile&s;t ma|lefactors that are ready to be &s;acrificed to Ju&s;tice,
<PB N="293" REF="143">
but dare not admit them to the Lords-&s;upper, till they te&s;tifie their repentance. Its evident then, I partake more of &s;in in admitting &s;ome to the Sa|crament, than in admitting them to prayer or hear|ing. In the former I may be guilty, both in matter and manner, not &s;o in the latter, but onely in the manner. We acknowledge it our duty, and profe&s;s it our practice, to excite, call and provoke all intelligent Church-members to receive; and to coun&s;el, fit, and prepare them for the Sacrament: but too many care not to come, and divers who affect to come, are extreamly unwilling to be coun|&s;elled, fitted and prepared by us as they ought. <HI>Hinc, hinc, illae Lachrymae.</HI> We wi&s;h all Profe&s;|&s;ors were worthy Receivers, we charge all to make con&s;cience to fit them&s;elves, we offer our &s;elves to help to fit them, and cordially admit tho&s;e who are vi&s;ibly fit, waiting upon others, till God give them real and vi&s;ible fitne&s;s, but till vi&s;ibly fit, we dare not admit them.</P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 157. Mr. <HI>H.</HI> thinks I wrong him, by charging him with &s;elf-contradiction. Let the Reader compare my <HI>Bar,</HI> page 109. with Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his vindication, <HI>page</HI> 32. and then judge. I but he &s;pake tho&s;e words onely <HI>&s;ecundum quid,</HI> not <HI>&s;im|pliciter.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> His peremptory delivery of them both negatively and affirmatively, in&s;inuates &s;trongly that he &s;pake them <HI>&s;impliciter.</HI></P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>But how do any of the&s;e ends con|cern them, as to their own act of receiving?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> By <HI>them</HI> he means either the parties cen|&s;ured, or the Congregation. I think Church-cen|&s;ures, and particularly &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, do much con|cern them both: the party cen&s;ured, to bring him
<PB N="294" REF="144">
to repentance; the be&s;t of the Congregation in or|der to their &s;atisfaction, who are much offended by the admi&s;&s;ion of per&s;ons vi&s;ibly unworthy; and the whole Congregation, who by the &s;u&s;pen&s;ion of any are warned to take heed of his &s;ins, left they be &s;u&s;pended as well as he: as al&s;o to prevent that guilt which would defile them, &s;hould they con|&s;ent to his admi&s;sion, whom they know to be un|worthy. Such con&s;enters are they, who after due admonition in private, do not give notice to the Church of a per&s;on they know to be unworthy; as al&s;o tho&s;e Church Officers, who admit him in the like ca&s;e. As Church-members, we are bound in the u&s;e of all lawful means to prevent one the others &s;ins; Receiving is a &s;in in per&s;ons vi&s;ibly unworthy; therefore Church-members, as &s;uch, are bound to prevent it. Some acts are e&s;&s;entially &s;inful, which never can be done by any; &s;ome are accidentally &s;inful, by the manner of do|ing; &s;ome are relatively &s;inful, when done by a per&s;on uncapable, as when a private per&s;on takes upon him the office of a Judge: Here judging is not e&s;&s;entially evil, for then none might judge; nor upon the &s;uppo&s;ition is it accidentally evil, as to the manner of judging, for the private per&s;on may pa&s;s a right judgement: but its relatively evil, becau&s;e a private per&s;on takes upon him the work of a publike per&s;on; and &s;uch judging we truly &s;ay is evil <HI>in fieri,</HI> though it be not e&s;&s;ential|ly evil. In like manner, a per&s;on receiving, who ought not to receive; &s;ins in the <HI>fieri,</HI> as to the act of receiving, though the act of receiving be not a &s;in e&s;&s;entially, but onely relatively. I hope all per&s;ons mu&s;t not practice all affirmative precepts: to judge and preach are duties, mu&s;t all men
<PB N="295" REF="144">
therefore judge and preach? Are not the very acts of judging and preaching &s;ins in &s;ome per&s;ons? They are not &s;o e&s;&s;entially, but relatively when men who are not called undertake the&s;e works.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> p. 158. <HI>It is indeed the great fallacy here that mi&s;leads many, when they plead our duty of watching over others, &amp;c. they winde it all in &s;till in order to the Sacrament, as if they were to be done meerly in reference unto it, when as they are each of them di&s;tinct duties, and the neglect of, or doing one, is no ground or hin|derance of the other.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> The particulars Mr. <HI>H.</HI> mentions are,</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, Watching over others.</P>
<P>Secondly, Not partaking in their &s;ins.</P>
<P>Thirdly, Getting the &s;candalous to be cen&s;ured.</P>
<P>Here fir&s;t, by way of conce&s;&s;ion we winde them all in, in order to the Sacrament, but not meer|ly in reference to it; That is Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his fallacy wherewith he would fain deceive the Reader. Whereas we make u&s;e of all three in order to private communion, and in order to di&s;membring, as well as in order to &s;u&s;pen&s;ion.</P>
<P>Secondly, True, They are each of them di|&s;tinct duties; but its fal&s;e, That the neglect of, or doing the one, is no ground or hindrance of the other. For fir&s;t, Omi&s;&s;ion of the one (whether it be by neglect, or otherwi&s;e) is a ground for the omi&s;&s;ion of the other.</P>
<P>I mu&s;t not reprove my neighbour, unle&s;s I fir&s;t watch over him, it being a &s;in to reprove blindly, which he mu&s;t needs be guilty of, that ob&s;erves not;</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, The &s;in.</P>
<P>Secondly, The per&s;on committing that &s;in. He
<PB N="296" REF="145">
that watches not, is it any wonder if he mi&s;take either the fact, or per&s;on, or both?</P>
<P>Secondly, Its fal&s;e, That doing the one is no ground of doing the other; for I mu&s;t watch over others, that I may reprove and admoni&s;h (as well as incourage) them, le&s;t I partake of their &s;ins: And I mu&s;t take heed I partake not of their &s;ins upon this account among others, that I may be the fitter to reprove and admoni&s;h them, and more effectually in&s;trumental to get the &s;canda|lous cen&s;ured; &s;ince fellow delinquents will never be forward to call each other to account. Is it not more probable the intire part of the Church will call the corrupt part thereof to account, rather than the corrupt part will call it &s;elf to an account? we grant the three forementioned duties are di&s;tinct, but are they not therefore copulative? Di&s;tinction I hope is no enemy to union, whether in a way of co-ordination or of &s;ubordination. By all it appears, there is a &s;ubordination of duties, as well as of &s;ins: And as &s;ome &s;ins cannot be commit|teed without other previous &s;ins; &s;o &s;ome duties cannot be performed without other foregoing du|ties, of which nature is the act of receiving, in order whereunto &s;elf-examination is ever nece&s;&s;ary; and Church-examination al&s;o where it may regularly be had; or at lea&s;t in its room Pa&s;toral-examination.</P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 158, 159. Mr. <HI>H.</HI> falls ironically upon me, <HI>as if I took a great deal of pains &s;eemingly to confute him, when I only &s;peak his part for him.</HI> The bitter &s;coffs wherewith he here clo&s;es this fir&s;t Section, in&s;tead of returning an an&s;wer, di&s;cover both the weakne&s;s of his cau&s;e in that particular, and the impotency of his pa&s;&s;ion. But to the matter it &s;elf. Mr. <HI>H.</HI> in his &s;econd part
<PB N="297" REF="145">
undertakes to an&s;wer &s;everal objections again&s;t free Admi&s;&s;ion to the Sacrament. The fir&s;t Ob|jection you have <HI>p.</HI> 30. of his Vindication. The Objection is this,</P>
<P><Q REND="inline"><HI>This Doctrine will take away the u&s;e of the Keyes, and excommunicate excommunica|tion, &amp;c.</HI></Q></P>
<P><Q REND="inline">Page 31. Mr. <HI>H.</HI> tells us, <HI>This Objection is grounded upon three fal&s;e &s;urmi&s;es, and parti|cularly</HI> page 31. he &s;ayes, <HI>This Objection &s;ur|mi&s;es a mo&s;t neer and e&s;&s;ential relation be|tween excommunication, and the communion, as if it were a part of it, &amp;c.</HI></Q></P>
<P>In an&s;wer hereunto, <HI>page</HI> 110. of my <HI>Bar,</HI> I &s;ay and prove, That this objection infers or &s;ur|mi&s;es no &s;uch mad con&s;equence, as Mr. <HI>H.</HI> is plea&s;ed to fa&s;ten upon it. It lay now upon Mr. <HI>H.</HI> to prove that the objection doth &s;urmi&s;e &s;uch a mad inference, el&s;e his own &s;urmi&s;e mu&s;t needs be fal&s;e, and ab&s;urd. But of this not one word, only being convinced his own &s;urmi&s;e was irratio|nal and could not be made good, he &s;mothers the truth, flouts me, and flams the Reader, in&s;tead of giving an an&s;wer, or confe&s;&s;ing his mi&s;take. We both agree the thing &s;urmi&s;ed is very ab&s;urd; yea &s;o ab&s;urd as Mr. <HI>H.</HI> is a&s;hamed to own his own Brat, of which he alone is the Father, but the ob|jection is not the Mother; and thus he is doubly guilty of &s;landering, 1. The Objection. 2. His Antagoni&s;t.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. II.</HEAD>
<P>IN vindicating the &s;econd Objection Mr. <HI>H.</HI> be|gins <HI>p.</HI> 159 by way of denial and di&s;tinction, in the&s;e words. <HI>It is not vi&s;ible real worthine&s;s up on trial, but vi&s;ible relative worthine&s;s, or
<PB N="298" REF="146">
external Covenant-relation gives a man a right to, and is the ground of Admi&s;&s;ion.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Mr. <HI>Collins, p.</HI> 90. of his vindication an|&s;wers <Q REND="inline">him. <HI>Vi&s;ible relativ worthine&s;s</HI> (according to Mr. <HI>H.) is mens being within the external Co|venant, baptized, and in the Church, and this gives them a right, &amp;c.</HI></Q> <HI>I alwayes thought this had been the <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 span">, Whether all baptized per&s;ons may be admitted to the Lords Table though ignorant and &s;candalous, if not ca&s;t out of the Church; or whether if &s;uch, they ought to be &s;u&s;pended?</HI></P>
<P>We &s;ay, <Q REND="inline"><HI>They ought to be &s;u&s;pended; and argue from, their real unworthine&s;s and inca|pacity vi&s;ibly appearing, to our duty in deny|ing the Sacrament to them.</HI> What &s;ayes Mr. <HI>H.</HI> to this? &s;ayes he, <HI>They are not unworthy relatively, though they be vi&s;ibly unworthy really. Strange language &s;ay we, what &s;pells it? &s;ayes he, they are baptized, and not ex|communicated. If this be not</HI> petere <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 span">, <HI>I know not what is; for we brought our argu|ment to prove, That a vi&s;ibility of real unwor|thine&s;s made a relative unworthine&s;s: So that Mr.</HI> H. <HI>&s;ayes, this in &s;hort, They are not unwor|thy, becau&s;e they are not unworthy.</HI></Q> Thus far M. <HI>Collins.</HI> Nor is it material whether worthine&s;s and unworthine&s;s be vi&s;ible upon trial, or otherwi&s;e upon which account, haply Mr. <HI>Collins</HI> took no notice of that expre&s;&s;ion. Its enough to our pur|po&s;e, that vi&s;ible worthine&s;s is the rule of Admi&s;|&s;ion, <HI>&amp; contra.</HI> When Mr. <HI>H.</HI> can &s;hew us a better way of di&s;covering worthine&s;s or unwor|thine&s;s, than by trial of Church-members, he &s;hall have us both thankful and plyable to his di|rection.</P>
<P><PB N="299" REF="146"><HI>Page</HI> 160. Mr. <HI>H.</HI> makes light of that place, 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 3. 15. which proves its the duty of Chri|&s;tians to &s;ubmit to trial.</P>
<P>And fir&s;t, <HI>He &s;ayes its nothing to the Saera|ment.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> If I mu&s;t <HI>alwayes</HI> be ready to give a rea&s;on of the hope that is in me, then &s;urely at, or about the Sacrament, unle&s;s Mr. <HI>H.</HI> can prove that to be no part of time. I had thought that <HI>&s;emper</HI> had included all parts of time.</P>
<P>Secondly, He &s;ayes, <HI>That place &s;peaks clearly as to the defence of our hope in ca&s;e of per&s;ecu|tion.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> I grant it &s;peaks more particularly to that ca&s;e, but not exclu&s;ively: If I mu&s;t give an account of my hope when demanded maliciou&s;ly, much more when demanded charitably; If to open enemies, much more to friends, and tho&s;e who are over us in the Lord; If when it may co&s;t me my life, much more when it contributes directly to my edification and comfort.</P>
<P>Secondly, He tells us, <HI>Hope is taken here ob|jectiv&egrave; for Chri&s;tian doctrine, not &s;ubjectiv&egrave; for the truth of grace we would inquire into.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Fir&s;t, He that profe&s;&s;es his hope ob|jectively doth therein profe&s;s it al&s;o &s;ubjectively, &s;ince the object, principle, and act of hope are infe|parable, and therefore as they cannot be, &s;o they cannot be profe&s;&s;ed, the one without the other. The notions indeed are di&s;tinct, but the things them&s;elves ever go together. <NOTE PLACE="marg">My mean|ing is, That hope can|not be <HI>in actu exerci|tu,</HI> but it mu&s;t flow from a principle, and tend to an ob|ject.</NOTE></P>
<P>Secondly, The very application of this di&s;tin|ction is contrary to the Text; The Apo&s;tle bid|ding us be ready to give a rea&s;on of the hope
<PB N="300" REF="147">
that is <HI>in us,</HI> <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 span">, Mr. <HI>H.</HI> &s;ayes not &s;o, but of the hope that is without us; whom &s;hall we beleeve, St. <HI>Peter,</HI> or Mr. <HI>Humphrey?</HI> Hope objective is <HI>without us,</HI> hope &s;ubjective is within us; which la&s;t mu&s;t needs be meant here by the Apo&s;tle, yet not excluding the former, they being both in&s;eparable, as the act and object. And what I pray is hope &s;ubjective, but the grace of hope, which therefore the Apo&s;tle calls us to give a rea&s;on of, again&s;t Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his glo&s;s. Its a contradiction to &s;ay, I hope objectively in the word of the Go&s;pel, and I do not hope &s;ubje|ctively in the word of the Go&s;pel, and all one as to &s;ay, I hope in Chri&s;t, and yet I do not hope in Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> addes, <HI>But &s;uppo&s;e he urge it as an office of common charity, doth all this follow upon it &s;treight? &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> As every Chri&s;tian is bound to do all offices of common charity in his place, &s;o proportionably every Chri&s;tian is bound to accept of all offices of common charity where he needs them. If every Chri&s;tian be bound in his place to reprove, admoni&s;h, &amp;c. then every Chri&s;tian is bound proportionably to &s;ubmit to reproof, admo|nition, &amp;c. Trial of Church-members being (as Mr. <HI>H.</HI> here confe&s;&s;es) an office of common charity, every Church-member mu&s;t make con|&s;cience to &s;ubmit to it, and ble&s;s God that tho&s;e who mu&s;t ere long give an account to God of their &s;ouls, do make con&s;cience to take an account of their &s;ouls. For the &s;coff he is plea&s;ed here al&s;o to favour me withall, I look at it as the &s;cum of his little pot &s;oon hot, by which he prejudices him&s;elf more than me.</P>
<P><PB N="301" REF="147">Mr. <HI>H. ib. When Chri&s;t &s;ayes, Do this; how dares Mr. D. &s;ay, Do it not?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> When Mr. <HI>H.</HI> can prove Chri&s;t bids all Church-members (be they never &s;o unworthy) to receive, Mr. <HI>D.</HI> will not dare to forbid them. But Mr. <HI>H.</HI> forgets that this is the <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 span">.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H. In&s;tead of examine, and &s;o eat,</HI> Mr. <HI>D.</HI> commands, <HI>Let a man examine, and &s;o not eat.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> In&s;tead of <HI>examine, and &s;o eat,</HI> Mr. <HI>H.</HI> commands, <HI>Let a man eat, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">hough he do not examine.</HI></P>
<P>Secondly, Take examination in the Apo&s;tles &s;en&s;e, and then Mr. <HI>D.</HI> never &s;ayes, <HI>Examine, and &s;o eat not.</HI></P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his in&s;tance, <HI>That by the &s;ame argu|ment, we may &s;ay, Let a man &s;o pray, therefore he mu&s;t not pray,</HI> holds not water;</P>
<P>And that fir&s;t, becau&s;e <HI>Prayer</HI> is a part of na|tural wor&s;hip, to which all are bound, not &s;o to <HI>receiving,</HI> a part of in&s;tituted wor&s;hip.</P>
<P>Secondly, Becau&s;e <HI>Prayer</HI> is a means of con|ver&s;ion, not &s;o <HI>receiving.</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Upon this account, e|ven hea|then are bound to pray, not &s;o to re|ceive the Sacrament.</NOTE></P>
<P>His arguments to convince my A&s;&s;ertion of weakne&s;s, are the&s;e, <HI>p</HI> 161. Fir&s;t, <HI>Becau&s;e affir|matives, are not exclu&s;ive.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> It hath been proved that &s;ome affirma|tives are exclu&s;ive, that is, I mu&s;t not do the matter unle&s;s I ob&s;erve the manner. Thus a <HI>Jew</HI> might not eat the Pa&s;sover, unle&s;s he were clean. A Chri|&s;tian mu&s;t not reprove, unle&s;s by good ob&s;erva|tion, or &s;ufficient information, he know the party, to be reproved, guilty.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his &s;econd argument is, <HI>Mans impo|tency cannot annihilats Chri&s;ts authority.</HI></P>
<P><PB N="302" REF="148"><HI>An&s;.</HI> True, but mans malice or wickedne&s;s may render him uncapable of &s;ome 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 <HI>in &s;tatu quo.</HI></P>
<P><Q REND="inline">Dr. <HI>D. If the vi&s;ibly unfit will thru&s;t in, it is the Churches duty not to let them murther the Lord of glory.</HI></Q></P>
<P>Here Mr. <HI>H. calls for Scripture-proof.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> That proof is given him above, there|fore I forbear to repeat.</P>
<P>He tells us, <HI>ib. That the former a&s;&s;ertionis an occa&s;ion of &s;eparation.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> That particular Congregation, which wilfully and totally neglects her duty, admitting all pell-mell, gives ju&s;t occa&s;ion of &s;ece&s;&s;ion in point of Sacramental communion to other Con|gregations that make con&s;cience of their duty, about which matter yet there had need be very great caution.</P>
<P>True, as Mr <HI>H.</HI> notes <HI>p.</HI> 162. <HI>A natural man &s;ins in praying, hearing, &amp;c. yet mu&s;t pray and hear.</HI> But there is not <HI>par ratio</HI> in receiving, as hath been formerly &s;hewed. Many things, though good <HI>materially,</HI> are &s;ins <HI>relatively</HI> in &s;uch a per&s;on, and not only becau&s;e they are done in an evil manner, as for a private per&s;on to do the work of a Judge. Proportionably, a per&s;on may be uncapable of one Ordinance <HI>in &s;tatu qu&ocirc;,</HI> who in the &s;ame &s;tate is capable of other Ordinances; But of this formerly.</P>
<P>A perjured per&s;on will not be admitted to &s;wear, and &s;hall the &s;ame per&s;on be admitted to the Sacrament upon the bare account Church member&s;hip? which (as a relation to
<PB N="303" REF="148">
&s;uch a Corporation) &s;uppo&s;es worthine&s;s in a per|&s;on, or at lea&s;t, that it &s;hould be in him; but is neither his <HI>worthine&s;s,</HI> nor the efficient cau&s;e thereof, unle&s;s you refer it to the impul&s;ive cau&s;e, &s;ince Church-member&s;hip is or &s;hould be a &s;pecial motive and &s;pur to habitual and active worthine&s;s, and is an aggravation of the want of either. In|deed if Chri&s;t did bid all Church-members re|ceive, then receiving were not morally impo&s;&s;ible to any, though never &s;o bad, but this is the que|&s;tion begged, nor can M. <HI>H.</HI> prove that indefi|nite, <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 span">, to be an univer&s;al, if applyed to Church-members, as &s;uch. Under&s;tand me here rightly, Chri&s;t bids all Church-members pre|pare, and &s;o receive: But where doth he bid them receive, be they never &s;o unprepared? It is not then bare Church-member&s;hip makes me capable of the Sacrament.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> p. 163. <HI>A man may be Evangelically unworthy, yet receive worthily in his kind, t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1+ letters">gh not worthily in the Apo&s;tles &s;en&s;e. This is full of &s;weetne&s;s, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> If by the latter <HI>worthy receiving,</HI> he mean a partaking of the Sacrament upon due exa|mination, with a &s;en&s;e of my own unworthine&s;s, hungring after Chri&s;t, and mercy, &amp;c. what is this but a receiving worthily in the Apo&s;tles &s;en&s;e? All &s;uch, and onely &s;uch, as come thus affected in truth, are worthy Receivers, and receive worthily in an Evangelical &s;en&s;e, though haply they may judge them&s;elves unworthy, not onely Legally, but al&s;o Evangelically. He may as well &s;ay, a per&s;on may di&s;cour&s;e learnedly, and yet not be learned, as &s;ay a per&s;on may receive worthily, and yet not be a worthy receiver. If M. <HI>H.</HI> hath any other
<PB N="304" REF="149">
&s;en&s;e that is not Apo&s;tolick, he mu&s;t pardon us, if we do not receive it. An unworthy per&s;on may do a worthy act, but he cannot act worthily. Re|ceiving is very comfortable to weak Chri&s;tians, but what comfort can hypocrites or profane per&s;ons ex|pect from it?</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>That man is to be accounted to re|ceive worthily, that makes an effectual u&s;e there|of according to his own condition, whether re|generate or not.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Suppo&s;e this were true, would it not exclude mo&s;t Church-members? what natural man of an hundred makes an effectual u&s;e 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 e&s;tate? Is this an effectual u&s;e of the Sacrament, according to their condition?</P>
<P N="2">2. Suppo&s;e in receiving, he be convinced of his <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1+ letters">d e&s;tate: is receiving, backt with &s;uch con|viction, a receiving worthily? We ask a proof for this new and &s;trange 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 &s;o far from making a per&s;on worthy, that it en|crea&s;es and aggravates his unworthine&s;s.</P>
<P N="3">3. Suppo&s;e he were converted by receiving, (which we deny) it follows not thence, that he re|ceived worthily, though it would follow he re|ceived worthine&s;s. As at the word preached, a natural man hears unworthily, at that very Ser|mon which converts him, the very moment be|fore his conver&s;ion; &s;o at the Sacrament, the
<PB N="305" REF="149">
&s;ame per&s;on receives unworthily the very moment before his conver&s;ion, &s;uppo&s;ed to be wrought by receiving, &s;ince worthine&s;s mu&s;t be wrought in me before I can act worthily.</P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 164. and 165. Mr. <HI>H.</HI> only words it, crying out, Oh what a burden and wearine&s;s is it? <HI>What everla&s;ting troubles and difficulties will it create, that Church-officers &s;hould be bound to try the &s;incerity of every receiver, and that both they, and other Church-members mu&s;t be acce&s;&s;ory to the guilt of unworthy receivers, if they do not their endeavour to reform or di&s;co|ver them? and here again, he asks for Scripture|proof, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. By way of conce&s;&s;ion. I beleeve indeed a threefold trouble di&s;courages many Mini&s;ters.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, The trouble of pains mu&s;t be taken.</P>
<P>Secondly, The trouble of offending tho&s;e who are aver&s;e to trial, upon which account they may as well forbear the work of preaching faith|fully, <HI>Matth.</HI> 15. 12, and 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 1. 23.</P>
<P>Thirdly, The trouble and fear of lo&s;ing their &s;alary in whole, or in part. To &s;uch I mu&s;t commend the practice of the Apo&s;tle, <HI>Gal.</HI> 1. 16. and intreat them to take heed <HI>of con&s;ulting with fle&s;h and blood.</HI></P>
<P>As for weak and tender Chri&s;tians, Sacramen|tal trial can be no matter of offence to them if they be rightly informed.</P>
<P N="2">2. Suppo&s;e the burden were never &s;o intolerable. <HI>Acts</HI> 15. 10. Its a burden of Chri&s;ts lay|ing on, and therefore mu&s;t be born; The difficulty of duty never di&s;courages, where faith eyes the promi&s;e; <HI>Heb.</HI> 11. Be willing to bear the gates of <HI>Gaza</HI> at Gods command, and he will give thee
<PB N="306" REF="150">
<HI>Samp&s;ons</HI> &s;trength. Admirable is that of the Father, <HI>Domine, da quod jubes, &amp; jube quod vis.</HI> Nothing is difficult to faith and love, <HI>Matth.</HI> 11. v. 28 29. and 1 <HI>Joh.</HI> 5. 3.</P>
<P N="3">3. Experience proves the contrary, that this burden is not intolerable (through grace) in tho&s;e Congregations where Sacramental trial is held up.</P>
<P N="4">4. By trial we pry not into mens hearts, but onely by the fruits appearing judge of the tree.</P>
<P N="5">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 di&s;covery of unworthy per&s;ons, who by the Apo&s;tle are called <HI>roots of bitter|ne&s;s, &amp;c.</HI> and therefore mu&s;t be narrowly pried into, <HI>Heb.</HI> 12. 15. Here every Church-member is commanded to play the Bi&s;hop, le&s;t by neglect of this duty <HI>many be defiled.</HI> The word in the original is <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word">; yea by neglect of this prying I become acce&s;&s;ory to the gall of worm|wood, which this root of bitterne&s;s in Chri&s;ts Garden bears. <HI>Jo&s;.</HI> 7. v. 1. 12. It co&s;t the Children of I&s;rael dear, becau&s;e they went not upon a privy &s;earch for <HI>Achan,</HI> till they were well whipt to it; and much dearer would it have co&s;t them had they refu&s;ed to play the Bi&s;hops in order to the vi&s;ita|tion of that accur&s;ed per&s;on and family; who yet was a Profe&s;&s;or, a Church-member, and a cir|cumci&s;ed per&s;on.</P>
<P>When we plead for our &s;elves as more favour|able than Mr. <HI>H.</HI> becau&s;e we &s;u&s;pend to prevent the greater excommunication, &amp;c. He tells me with a &s;coff, That our &s;u&s;pen&s;ion is as &s;evere as
<PB N="307" REF="150">
the greater excommunication. I pray take &s;peci|al notice of his rea&s;on for this a&s;&s;ertion, <HI>page</HI> 165. becau&s;e M. <HI>Drake</HI> holds, <HI>A man cannot be de|barred any Ordinance, but actuall receiving, in the greate&s;t cen&s;ure.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. I believe no per&s;on, be he Church|member or not, is to be debarred pre&s;ence at any Ordinance, provided he be not a di&s;turber of the Admini&s;tration.</P>
<P N="2">2. Its fal&s;e, that &s;u&s;pen&s;ion is as &s;evere as the greater excommunication, di&s;membting being far more &s;evere than denyal of the Sacrament. In good things, relatives are priviledges as well as ab&s;olutes, otherwi&s;e Ju&s;tification and Adop|tion were no priviledges. Of this nature is Church-member&s;hip, which the greater ex|communication deprives a man of, not &s;o &s;u&s;pen|&s;ion.</P>
<P N="3">3. His rea&s;on to confirm his a&s;&s;ertion is weak, &s;ince, 1. Su&s;pen&s;ion (as generally admini&s;tred by us) is not an act of &s;everity, but of mercy. 2. Yet where it is an act of &s;everity, the greater excom|munication is far &s;everer, as denying not onely an ab&s;olute, but al&s;o a relative priviledge. To ca&s;t a per&s;on out of family (though he be permitted to be a retainer) is more &s;evere, than to deny him the u&s;e of any one particular di&s;h upon his ma&s;ters table. His flouting &s;imilitude, brought to &s;up|ply the place of a &s;erious argument, is imperti|nent: Had the man by falling from an hou&s;e only lo&s;t a Limb, or put it out of joynt, the good wo|man might with rea&s;on and charity have &s;aid, <HI>What a mercy is it he had no more harm?</HI> But then the &s;imilitude had not been to M. <HI>H.</HI> his purpo&s;e. Again&s;t next time, let me intreat M. <HI>H.</HI> to pro|duce
<PB N="308" REF="151">
a fitter &s;imilitude, le&s;t he lo&s;e both his labor and credit by the Application.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. 3.</HEAD>
<P>MR. <HI>H.</HI> comes to the third Objection, <HI>Holy things, to holy men.</HI></P>
<P><Q REND="inline">Dr. <HI>D. Some outwardly holy thing may be admini&s;tred to tho&s;e who are not outwardly holy.</HI></Q></P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> p. 166. <HI>What then? therefore may it not be administred to tho&s;e who are outwardly holy?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> In &s;ome ca&s;es an Ordinance may be deny|ed him who is outwardly holy, and yet at the &s;ame time be admini&s;tred to him who is outwardly unholy. That may be denyed a dog within the Church (till he te&s;tifies his repentance) which is not to be denyed a dog without the Church, to wit, reproof, in&s;truction, &amp;c. <HI>Acts</HI> 13. 46. An Heretick bla&s;pheming, may be denyed pre&s;ence at the Ordinances, unto which at the &s;ame time an Heathen may be admitted, yea, and invited.</P>
<P>To what he addes in the &s;ame page, I &s;ay, when M. <HI>H.</HI> can give me an in&s;tance of ob&s;tinate pro|fanene&s;s in any profe&s;&s;or, that is not &s;ufficient to excommunicate him, I &s;hall return an an&s;wer to his ambiguous and loo&s;e que&s;tion. To his other exception, I an&s;wer, its <HI>gratis dictum,</HI> that ex|communication makes a man no profe&s;&s;or, becau&s;e it makes him no Church-member. He may as well &s;ay, that expul&s;ion out of the Univer&s;ity makes a man no Scholar, or uncapable to profe&s;s learning. Nothing can make a man no profe&s;&s;or, but his own voluntary act, renouncing the practice and profe&s;|&s;ion
<PB N="309" REF="151">
of piety. Here note by the way, that Church-member&s;hip and profe&s;&s;ion are all one with M. <HI>H.</HI> True, any cour&s;e of profanene&s;s doth virtually contradict profe&s;&s;ion, but onely univer&s;al renunti|ation contradicts it formally.</P>
<P>In the &s;ame page, to &s;lur me, he baffles the Reader with the ambiguity of the term, <HI>Vi&s;ible Saint.</HI> For unfolding of which my&s;terie ob&s;erve, M. <HI>H.</HI> his <HI>Vi&s;ible Saint,</HI> is a Church-member, though vi&s;ibly a Devil incarnate; my <HI>Vi&s;ible Saint;</HI> is one that doth not contradict his relation and profe&s;&s;ion by gro&s;s ignorance or &s;candal: to this <HI>Vi&s;ible Saint,</HI> vi&s;ible intere&s;t in the Covenant is &s;ealed, not &s;o in our judgement to M. <HI>H.</HI> his <HI>Vi|&s;ible Saint.</HI> This at once &s;alves the contradicti|on he would fa&s;ten on me, and &s;hews withal, that the &s;ame thing is not &s;trength in me, and weakne&s;s in Mr. <HI>H.</HI> The other &s;uppo&s;ed contradiction, that a man may be a profe&s;&s;or, and yet contradict his profe&s;&s;ion, hath been cleared a little above. M. <HI>H.</HI> forgot the di&s;tinction, <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 span"> and <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word">, when he charged me here with a contradiction.</P>
<P>Page 167. <HI>He &s;ays right, all in a Church|&s;tate, &amp;c. are to be admitted, unle&s;s &s;uch as the Scripture gives ground to except.</HI> But he rambles wofully in the <HI>minor,</HI> a&s;&s;erting that the Scripture allows no bar to any, unle&s;s the unin|telligent and excommunicate. In the &s;ame <HI>page</HI> he flouts me, as if bare confidence were my funda|mental argument, and all: becau&s;e I &s;ay, <HI>page</HI> 121. of my <HI>Bar,</HI> <Q REND="inline"><HI>That I am confident the Oxthodox Interpretation of tho&s;e places which Mr.</HI> H. <HI>quotes,</HI> p. 40. <HI>of his Vindication, will never open the Chancel-door to gro&s;ly ignorant, or profane Church-members.</HI></Q></P>
<P><PB N="310" REF="152"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Let the Reader but turn to tho&s;e places where Church-members or profe&s;&s;ors are &s;aid <HI>to be in Chri&s;t, to be bought by him, to be &s;anctified with the blood of the Covenant, &amp;c.</HI> and ob&s;erve whether tho&s;e places do not make rather again&s;t, than for their admitting to the Sacrament; &s;ince of the &s;ame per&s;ons it is &s;aid, in the &s;ame places, that 1. <HI>They are taken away, ca&s;t forth, and wither|ed.</HI> 2. <HI>That they deny the Lora that bought them.</HI> 3. <HI>That they trample upon the blood of the Covenant, &amp;c.</HI> And think you its Chri&s;ts minde, that &s;uch &s;hould be admitted to the &s;eals of the Covenant?</P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 168. M. <HI>H.</HI> quarrels with me for deny|ing that a vi&s;ible hi&s;torical faith gives a right to the Sacrament (if &s;olicary) yet in his an&s;wer clo&s;es with me, and acknowledges, that the faith which admits a man to the Sacrament, mu&s;t be a <HI>faith accepting the true God, &amp;c.</HI> And what is this but faith of adherence, without which hi&s;to|rical faith is but the faith of Devils, and renders a man mo&s;t unworthy of the Sacrament in an Evan|gelical &s;en&s;e.</P>
<P><Q REND="inline">Dr. <HI>D. Then the excommunicated have a right, for they have hi&s;torical faith.</HI></Q></P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H. How vain is this? who knows not that the &s;tate of the que&s;tion &s;uppo&s;es us within the Church?</HI></P>
<P><HI>A.</HI> Either Church-member&s;hip alone, or hi&s;to|rical faith alone, or both together, give a right to the Sacrament. If the fir&s;t, then Church-members, though de&s;titute of hi&s;torical faith, have a right to the Sacrament. If the &s;econd, then one who is not a Church-member may have a right to it, which Mr. <HI>H.</HI> confe&s;&s;es to be ab&s;urd. If both, then the
<PB N="311" REF="152">
Church upon ju&s;t ground may enquire after the one as well as after the other; &s;ince I may be a Church-member, and not have hi&s;torical faith, or may have hi&s;torical faith, and not be a Church-member: And if the Church may enquire after faith of a&s;&s;ent, which is &s;ecret, why not al&s;o after faith of adherence? I think this is to the purpo&s;e, though not to M. <HI>H.</HI> his purpo&s;e, and will &s;oon overthrow his free admi&s;sion. Be&s;ides, its not ex|communication &s;imply takes away my right to the Sacrament, but a ju&s;t excommunication, otherwi&s;e mans wickedne&s;s may rob me of my right to Chri&s;ts Ordinance, which is impo&s;sible. My right to the Sacrament depends more upon my faith, than upon my Church-member&s;hip; nor do I &s;imply forfeit my right, becau&s;e the Church excommunicates me, but the Church ought to excommunicate me, becau&s;e I forfeit my right, which forfeiture the Church takes by excommuni|cation: When therefore vi&s;ible faith is contradicted by vi&s;ible profanene&s;s, that man hath vi&s;ibly for|feited his right to the Sacrament, and the Church by &s;u&s;pen&s;ion or excommunication, doth but take the forfeiture. True, he may in &s;ome &s;en&s;e have <HI>jus ad rem,</HI> but he hath not <HI>jus in re,</HI> till he make up the breach by vi&s;ible faith and repentance; yea, though a man have true ju&s;tifying faith, yet by gro&s;s &s;candai he may vi&s;ibly contradict his faith, and &s;o forfeit his <HI>jus in re.</HI> Withal, it will be very hard for M. <HI>H.</HI> to prove, that <HI>Simon Magus</HI> had onely hi&s;torical faith: The will follows the la&s;t dictate of the under&s;tanding, and &s;o far forth as I a&s;&s;ent to Chri&s;ts &s;ufficiency and willingne&s;s to &s;ave me, there is &s;ome propen&s;ion in the will to re&s;t on him for &s;alvation, though in hypocrites
<PB N="312" REF="153">
u&s;ually the a&s;&s;ent is but opinionative, and the ad|he&s;ion is but pre&s;umptuous, <HI>Mich.</HI> 3. 11. As the a&s;&s;ent is common or &s;aving, &s;o is the adhe&s;ion. Onely a Devil, or he that is under the power of De&s;pair, or that hath committed the &s;in again&s;t the Holy Gho&s;t, a&s;&s;ents to the Go&s;pel without adhe&s;ion: in which ca&s;e al&s;o, though there be an a&s;&s;ent about Chri&s;ts &s;ufficiency, yet there is a di&s;&s;ent about his willingne&s;s, which if partial, cau&s;es doubting; if perfect, de&s;pair. Withal, as profe&s;sion of faith, not contradicted by ig|norance or &s;candali, gives a right to Bapti&s;m, &s;o doth it to the Lords Supper: And were Bapti&s;m to be iterated (as the Lords Supper is) tho&s;e per&s;ons whom we baptized in their infancy, we would not baptize, when at age, if they were then gro&s;ly ignorant or &s;canda|lous.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. 4.</HEAD>
<P>THe fourth Section is &s;pent about that Ob|jection, <HI>The Seal is &s;et to a blank, if all be admitted.</HI> In the very entrance Mr. <HI>H.</HI> is plea&s;ed to charge me with confu&s;ion, and un|grounded confidence, and it mu&s;t be &s;o becau&s;e <HI>ip&s;e dix it.</HI> Were the &s;uffu&s;ion, in his eye cured, he would &s;ee clearer; confu&s;ion is oftner in the eye, than in the object.</P>
<P>Next, <HI>page</HI> 170. Mr. <HI>H.</HI> tells us, he holds, <HI>No per&s;ons within the Church are vi&s;ible blanks.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Are there none in the Church vi&s;ibly
<PB N="313" REF="153">
de&s;titute of &s;aving grace which is the writing of the Spirit, 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 3. 3? There were &s;uch in the Primitive times, witne&s;s the &s;econd Epi&s;tle of <HI>Peter,</HI> and the Epi&s;tle of <HI>Jude, &amp;c.</HI> I beleeve our Churches will &s;carce vie with theirs for vi&s;ible holine&s;s and purity. Nay to come clo&s;er to Mr. <HI>H.</HI> are not many of his <HI>jure excommunicati</HI> vi|&s;ible blanks?</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H. ib. When I &s;ay the Sacrament is not a &s;eal of faith, I mean it &s;till as the thing &s;ealed, (to wit, on Gods part.)</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> If the grace of faith be not part of the thing &s;ealed, then God doth not promi&s;e in the Covenant degrees of faith to his people; then we cannot pray for degrees of faith, the promi&s;e being the foundation of prayer; then the Sacra|ments do not confirm and &s;trengthen faith, for they confirm nothing but what is promi&s;ed. But all the&s;e how ab&s;urd?</P>
<P>The weakne&s;s of this his a&s;&s;ertion will appear further by his rea&s;on annexed; <HI>The Sacrament is not an appendix to faith, but to the Go&s;pel.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> As if faith promi&s;ed were not a part of the Go&s;pel as well as other graces promi&s;ed.</P>
<P>Faith is con&s;iderable fir&s;t, as promi&s;ed, and &s;o its a branch of the Covenant unto which the Sa|crament is an appendix.</P>
<P>Secondly, As wrought, active and growing in us, and &s;o its the execution, or making good of the Covenant. Faith promi&s;ed and &s;ealed, or the promi&s;e of faith &s;ealed in the Sacrament confirms faith inherent.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, By way of &s;ecurity as a &s;eal doth the be|leef of any Covenant.</P>
<P>Secondly, By way of exhibition or conveyance,
<PB N="314" REF="154">
as an Indenture &s;ealed and delivered, doth convey and make over an e&s;tate.</P>
<P>In the Sacrament the promi&s;e of degrees of faith is &s;igned and &s;ealed to faith of a&s;&s;ent, but ex|hibited and conveyed to faith of adherence, the whole Covenant, and every branch thereof being &s;igned, &s;ealed, and delivered in the Sacrament to the worthy receiver. Faith of A&s;&s;ent acknow|ledges the Covenant as true, faith of Adherence receives the Covenant as good.</P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 171. After &s;ome di&s;tinctions premi&s;ed, about the conditions, benefit and tender of the Covenant, Mr. <HI>H.</HI> hath the&s;e words, <HI>God in|gages not by the Sacrament to give man faith; if he did, every Receiver &s;hould have it.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> fir&s;t, We thank Mr. <HI>H.</HI> for this principle, which &s;trongly evinces the Sacrament is no con|verting Ordinance. No Ordinance converts, un|le&s;s God ingage to convert by it, and if God in|gage not to give faith by the Sacrament, then God ingages not to convert by the Sacrament. The principle is &s;ound, and our inference is evident, and make much for us, and again&s;t Mr. <HI>H.</HI></P>
<P>Secondly, Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his Argument to confirm this principle is very weak; and by proportion, we might as well argue, God ingages not to con|vert man by the word preached; If he did, then every hearer &s;hould beconverted, doth he not know that though an Ordinance be converting, yet &s;till God re&s;erves to him&s;elf his own liberty of conver|ting, when and whom he plea&s;es, the Ordinances being not natural, but arbitrary means of conver|&s;ion in the hands of God.</P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 172. while Mr. <HI>H.</HI> would &s;eem to be more accurate by way of di&s;tinction, he faulters
<PB N="315" REF="154">
wofully; and tells us, <HI>That the Sacrament con|firms not faith</HI> formaliter, <HI>but onely</HI> con&s;ecutive <HI>and improperly, as putting us upon the exerci&s;e of faith, and thereby &s;trengthening the ha|bit.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. By conce&s;&s;ion, the Sacrament con|firms faith <HI>con&s;equentially.</HI> Yet,</P>
<P N="2">2. Its true al&s;o, that it confirms faith <HI>formally,</HI> by ratifying tho&s;e promi&s;es which a&s;&s;ure the in|crea&s;e of faith, as well as of other graces; which promi&s;es are a &s;pecial part of the Covenant. <HI>Mat.</HI> 13. 12. Our Saviour tells us, <HI>He that hath, to him &s;hall be given, and he &s;hall have more aboun|dance.</HI> Is this promi&s;e a part of the Covenant, or no? I pre&s;ume Mr. <HI>H.</HI> will not deny it: If it be, then increa&s;e of faith is formally &s;ealed in the Sa|crament, or el&s;e the promi&s;e it &s;elf is not formally &s;ealed. If by <HI>formaliter</HI> he mean <HI>immediate,</HI> as may &s;eem by the oppo&s;ite branch <HI>con&s;equen|ter,</HI> we grant the promi&s;e in that &s;en&s;e is confirmed formally, that is, immediately by the Sacrament, and faith mediately: the promi&s;e of &s;aith is con|firmed immediately, faith inherent is confirmed mediately by the promi&s;e ratified by the Sacra|ment; and that not onely by putting us upon the exerci&s;e of faith, which may be done by the bare promi&s;e, without a &s;eal, but 1. by giving faith greater&s;ecurity by the &s;eal annexed to the pro|mi&s;e. 2. by conveying farther degrees of faith to the worthy receiver, upon his acting of faith in the Sacrament, &s;piritual habits being confirmed not onely naturally, by their acts, but al&s;o &s;uper|naturally by divine infu&s;ion, their growth being &s;uitable to their birth. Initial faith is infu&s;ed, not acquired, gradual faith is got both by infu&s;ion and acqui&s;ition.</P>
<P><PB N="316" REF="155">M. <HI>H.</HI> ibid. <HI>What&s;oever God doth properly ra|tifie by way of &s;eal, he atte&s;ts the truth thereof; but he doth not attest the truth of our faith by the Sacrament;</HI> ergo, <HI>The Sacrament is not the Seal of our faith.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Its enough to us that God atte&s;ts the truth of the promi&s;e by the Sacrament, and the promi&s;e undertakes for degrees of faith, as well as for per&s;everance in it; therefore to every worthy Receiver, the Sacrament doth formally and pro|perly &s;eal increa&s;e of faith.</P>
<P N="2">2. God in the Sacrament doth atte&s;t by con&s;e|quence to the truth of the worthy Receivers &s;aith.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>The Sacrament is common to Hypo|crites with Believers, therefore it cannot a&s;cer|tain any that he hath grace.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Its common indeed in u&s;e and practice, but whether &s;o by divine in&s;titution is the Que&s;ti|on.</P>
<P N="2">2. The thing it &s;elf that is common cannot a&s;|certain, but the right u&s;e of it may. Neither Providences nor Ordinances evidence grace of them&s;elves, but onely the right u&s;e of either, or both of them. The Worthy Receiver gets evi|dence of grace, not &s;imply by receiving, but by worthy receiving.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>The Sacraments are not &s;eals, be|cau&s;e they confirm our faith (which is the error) but they confirm our faith becau&s;e they are &s;eals. And</HI> page 173. <HI>Its derogatory, I think, to &s;ay the Sacrament is onely a metaphorical or tropi|cal &s;eal; whereas indeed it is a very proper for|mal &s;eal to the Covenant,</HI> Rom. 4. 11.</P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Here are dictates indeed, but what
<PB N="317" REF="155">
proof? Dictates charging error upon others; but where is conviction? M. <HI>H.</HI> &s;hould blu&s;h to be &s;o exce&s;sive in dictares, &s;o defective in proof, who him&s;elf is &s;o apt to cen&s;ure others for the &s;ame fault, and too often without a cau&s;e.</P>
<P N="2">2. What is a &s;eal, but an in&s;trument of confir|mation annexed to a Covenant? and is not the Sacrament &s;uch a thing? And if faith be a branch of the Covenant, is not the Sacrament a &s;eal of faith, becau&s;e it confirms faith?</P>
<P N="3">3. Let us &s;pell out M. <HI>H.</HI> his meaning in tho&s;e words of his, <HI>The Sacraments confirm our faith becau&s;e they are &s;eals.</HI></P>
<P>If they confirm faith becau&s;e they are &s;eals; I pray, what or whence is their &s;ealing? Is not their <HI>&s;ealing-vertue</HI> in its very formality a <HI>con|firming vertue?</HI> And have they not this confirm|ing or ratifying vertue from <HI>divine in&s;titution?</HI> If he mean the latter, we ea&s;ily agree the Sacra|ments are &s;eals, becau&s;e God in&s;tituted them to be &s;uch, which makes nothing again&s;t us; if he mean the former, he &s;peaks a meer tautologie, telling us the Sacraments are &s;eals, becau&s;e they are &s;eals, and confirm our faith, becau&s;e they con|firm our faith; and &s;o by making onely a flouri&s;h, abu&s;es both me and the Reader; unle&s;s his mean|ing be the &s;ame with ours, That the Sacrament confirms faith promi&s;ed, <HI>formally</HI> and immediate|ly, but faith inherent <HI>con&s;equentially</HI> and mediate|ly: but then its &s;till a truth in the <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word">, at lea&s;t, <HI>That the Sacraments are &s;eals, becau&s;e they confirm our faith,</HI> as well as its a truth in the <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word">, <HI>That they confirm our faith becau&s;e they are &s;eals by divine in&s;titution.</HI></P>
<P N="4">4. He tri&s;les in oppo&s;ing tropical to proper, as
<PB N="318" REF="156">
if that were not proper which is tropical. Its not proper indeed, as to the fir&s;t notion or intention (the fir&s;t and &s;econd intention being not formally the &s;ame) but its proper enough as to the thing in|tended or &s;ignified. Do not we hold again&s;t the Papi&s;ts, that the Sacramental words, <HI>Hoc e&s;t corpus meum,</HI> are proper enough as to the &s;en&s;e, though they be tropical as to the terms. The Scripture indeed calls Circumci&s;ion a &s;eal: but where doth it deny it to be a tropical &s;eal? or where doth it &s;ay, that a tropical &s;eal is not pro|perly a &s;eal? A &s;eal in its native &s;ignification, is a bodily &s;ub&s;tance graven, and &s;o apt to make a &s;en|&s;ible impre&s;sion of it &s;elf in a fit &s;ubject. Will M. <HI>H.</HI> &s;ay, the Sacrament is a &s;eal in this native &s;ignification? he will not be &s;o ab&s;urd. Then it mu&s;t be a &s;eal tropically; yet properly al&s;o, be|cau&s;e it hath the e&s;&s;ential u&s;e of a &s;eal, namely, to confirm and ratifie, which is all we contend for, and M. <HI>H.</HI> oppo&s;es, but in vain.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> p. 173. <HI>If confirming or &s;trengthening a mans faith, were enough to denominate it a &s;eal: Then</HI> 1. <HI>Acts of grace &s;hould be the be&s;t &s;eals.</HI> 2. <HI>Then all other Ordinances &s;hould be &s;eals too.</HI> 3. <HI>Then Bapti&s;m &s;hould be no &s;eal to infants.</HI> 4. <HI>Then &s;hall both the Sacraments cea&s;e to be &s;eals, when they are admitted who have not true faith.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w,</HI> 1. By conce&s;&s;ion, acts of grace are the be&s;t &s;eals. He that is &s;ealed with the Holy Spirit of promi&s;e, is better &s;ealed than he that is &s;ealed onely with the Sacrament, <HI>Eph.</HI> 1. 13. &amp; 5. 30. where you &s;ee a &s;eal is applicable to per&s;ons, as well as to a Covenant.</P>
<P N="2">2. It follows not that therefore all other Ordi|nances
<PB N="319" REF="156">
are &s;eals, though they confirm faith, becau&s;e its not every kinde of confirmation makes a &s;eal, but a confirmation by way of authentick ratifica|tion, which makes a deed good in Law, or more good in Law than otherwi&s;e it would be.</P>
<P N="3">3. That Infants, who before Bapti&s;m have initial grace, are not confirmed by Bapti&s;m (by degrees of grace &s;uperadded) is a truth M. <HI>H.</HI> will not be ea&s;ily able to confute: yet withal, Bapti&s;m is truly called a &s;eal as to them, becau&s;e of its apti|tude to ratifie the Covenant to them, as well as to elder Chri&s;tians, though they for lack of maturity cannot apprehend its ratifying vertue. Hence</P>
<P N="4">4. It follows, that neither of the Sacraments cea&s;e to be &s;eals, though per&s;ons without faith be admitted to them, they being denominated &s;eals from their aptitude to confirm, though the effect of confirmation do not follow. A deed &s;ealed is authentick in law, though &s;ome concerned in it, give not credit to it.</P>
<P>We grant, that faith of A&s;&s;ent is confirmed by the Sacrament as a &s;eal, but are not of M. <HI>H.</HI> his judgement, <HI>p.</HI> 174. <HI>That a true hi&s;torical a&s;&s;ent, and particular faith of evidence, are not divided in the regenerate</HI> (if he mean as to their exerci&s;e) &s;ince, 1. In divers regenerate per&s;ons there is faith of a&s;&s;ent, and of adherence too, yet without par|ticular faith of evidence; otherwi&s;e we mu&s;t hold, there is no true faith without a&s;&s;urance, and there|by weaken the hearts and hands of many true <HI>Na|thanaels.</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Under|&s;tand me here of &s;en&s;ible a&s;|&s;urance.</NOTE> 2. Hi&s;torical faith is a direct act, faith of evidence is a reflex act, and the direct act may be divided from the reflex act, yea, often is divided from it. Withal, though degrees of grace are not properly conveyed by the Sacrament as a
<PB N="320" REF="157">
<HI>&s;eal,</HI> yet they may be conveyed by it as an in&s;tru|ment, the Sacrament being (as M. <HI>Perkins</HI> well de&s;cribes it) <Q REND="inline"><HI>a &s;ign to repre&s;ent, a &s;eal to con|firm, and an in&s;trument to convey Chri&s;t and all his benefits to believers.</HI></Q></P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> ibid. <HI>No faith of particular evidence can be confirmed by the Sacrament as a Seal, but what is confirmed to me already by my expe|rience.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> There is a twofold experience, one <HI>real,</HI> the other <HI>&s;en&s;ible:</HI> The Sacrament con|firms nothing, but what is confirmed to me by <HI>real experience;</HI> but it may confirm to me, that which is not confirmed to me by <HI>&s;en&s;ible experi|ence,</HI> at lea&s;t prevalently. How many come doubting to the Sacrament, but return with evi|dence? No true faith, but gives real evidence by its acts, yet may be &s;o overborn by unbelief, as the true believer may be rather oppre&s;t with doubts and fears, than comforted with evidence, as conceiving tho&s;e acts of faith to be but a fancy. His inference therefore is but weak, the Sacrament being tropically, yet properly, a &s;eal both to the Covenant, and to faith.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H. page</HI> 175. <HI>My part of the Covenant is the condition which God doth not &s;eal; if he did, my bu&s;ine&s;s were at an end; for then all were to come hither for it.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. God &s;eals all he promi&s;es, and nothing but what he promi&s;es: To the Reprobate he pro|mi&s;es not the condition, and therefore &s;eals it not: To the Elect he promi&s;es the condition; namely, initial faith; and to the regenerate he promi&s;es all the acts and degrees of faith, as well as of other graces, <HI>Ezek.</HI> 36. v. 26, 27. <HI>John</HI> 6. 44, 45.
<PB N="321" REF="157">
which M. <HI>H.</HI> mu&s;t grant, unle&s;s he will profe&s;s him&s;elf an <HI>Arminian</HI> or <HI>Pelagian.</HI> God un|dertakes in the Covenant of Grace for the Be|lievers part, as well as for his own part. Now, what is promi&s;ed in the Covenant, is &s;eal|ed in the Sacrament; therefore its &s;ealed in the Sacrament, that he who hath true faith, &s;hall act it, and encrea&s;e it.</P>
<P N="2">2. Yet it follows not hence, that therefore all mu&s;t receive, the Sacrament being not an In&s;tru|ment of working initial, but gradual faith; and though it do &s;eal in general, that all the Elect &s;hall believe, yet that &s;eals nothing to my e&s;pecial com|fort, till election break out in my effectual vocati|on. M. <HI>D.</HI> then is not at a lo&s;s, &s;ince</P>
<P N="1">1. Faith may be promi&s;ed in the Covenant, though men cannot be in Covenant effectually without faith.</P>
<P N="2">2. Initial faith is never promi&s;ed upon condi|tion we do believe, but gradual faith: otherwi&s;e there would be <HI>progre&s;&s;us in infinitum.</HI></P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> p. 175. <HI>The Sacrament &s;eals not the ab&s;olute Covenant, or the everla&s;ting engage|ment between God and Chri&s;t.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> This is <HI>gratis dictum:</HI> I had thought the Sacrament had &s;ealed the whole Covenant of grace, and &s;o the ab&s;olute Covenant: It &s;eals that <HI>Chri&s;ts blood is &s;hed for many,</HI> as well as for tho&s;e believers, that at pre&s;ent partake of it, com|pare <HI>Matth.</HI> 26. 28. and <HI>Luke</HI> 22. 20. Chri&s;t from eternity contracted with the Father for many: In time he &s;hed his blood for tho&s;e many: This him&s;elf tells us is &s;ignified and &s;ealed in the Sacrament; And what is this but the ab&s;o|lute Covenant?</P>
<P><PB N="322" REF="158">That the conditional Covenant is &s;ealed (though not &s;olely) we deny not. But that we are to take <HI>&s;ealing</HI> for <HI>conveying</HI> or <HI>exhibiting,</HI> is a new light of Mr. <HI>H.</HI> p. 176. this is to con|found di&s;tinct offices and u&s;es of the Sacrament, and to fight again&s;t &s;en&s;e and experience.</P>
<P>True, the Sacrament &s;ignifies, &s;eals and con|veyes, but its &s;ignification is not its &s;ealing, nor is its &s;ealing its conveying. Let a Bond or Indenture be &s;igned and &s;ealed, there is no conveyance till it be delivered. Therefore &s;ome of the Sacramental actions do both &s;ignifie, &s;eal, and convey the Co|venant; they &s;ignifie and &s;eal the letter of the Co|venant, they convey as in&s;truments the good things promi&s;ed to beleevers; yea, that very act of faith, whereby a worthy receiver apprehends Chri&s;t at the Sacrament is wrought in him in&s;trumentally by the Sacrament. This one thing rightly con&s;idered, will &s;hake univer&s;al admi&s;&s;ion, for though all may be admitted to &s;ee the Covenant &s;igned and &s;ealed even to them&s;elves conditionally; yet how can Chri&s;ts officers convey the Covenant in&s;trumen|tally to any, unle&s;s they have a <HI>charitative</HI> evi|dence that Chri&s;t hath conveyed it to that per&s;on particularly?</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>A moral in&s;trument acts not Phy&s;ically. To &s;peak freely in this &s;en&s;e of ob&s;ignation, the Sacrament doth no more &s;anctifie us than glorifie us, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Its enough for us it acts really as an In&s;trument; I hope a moral in&s;trument, is a real In&s;trument, though it be not a phy&s;ical In&s;tru|ment, otherwi&s;e the Devil was not an in&s;trument of our fir&s;t patents fall.</P>
<P N="2">2. We &s;ay, The Sacrament is an in&s;trument,
<PB N="323" REF="158">
becau&s;e its an arbitrary means in the hand of God to convey the benefits of the Covenant gradually to the worthy receiver, the Lord at the Sacrament in a e&s;pecial manner giving him delivery and &s;ei&s;in; as by delivery of a bond, there is not only a conveying of parchment, writing and &s;eal, but al&s;o and principally of the good things &s;pecified in that Deed, which are not conveyed by writing, &s;igning, or &s;ealing, but only by <HI>delivery.</HI></P>
<P>Withall, Mr. <HI>H.</HI> may as well &s;ay, The word preached doth not &s;anctifie gradually, becau&s;e its not a phy&s;ical, but a moral in&s;trument. Both Word and Sacrament are real In&s;truments of &s;an|ctification; the word both to the regenerate and unregenerate, the Sacrament only to the worthy receiver, I mean <HI>quantum ad prae&s;ens.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 177. Mr. <HI>H. charges me to be cen&s;orious,</HI> but why, or in what <HI>n&egrave; gru quidem.</HI> Is not this really to prove him&s;elf cen&s;orious? Further, we grant the tenor of the Covenant is &s;eald to all pre&s;ent (that is, the good things of the Covenant are conditionally &s;ealed to them) whether they receive or no, which therefore is no argument to prove free admi&s;&s;ion, but only free pre&s;ence or at|tendance at the Sacrament.</P>
<P>But whereas he adds <HI>ib. There can be no &s;eal to a blank &s;o long as there is truth and writing in the Go&s;pel.</HI></P>
<P>This in &s;ome re&s;pect is a truth, but not to the purpo&s;e: Did I ever affirm the &s;eal was put to a blank as to the Go&s;pel &s;ealed? We grant there is no real blank at the Sacrament, but there are many per&s;onal blanks. The &s;eal of the Sacrament, and of the Spirit &s;hould ever go together, and how can I &s;eal him with the Sacrament, whom I have
<PB N="324" REF="159">
ground to beleeve the Spirit hath not &s;ealed. Hence principally flows evidence in the Sacrament, be|cau&s;e the Spirit together with the Sacrament &s;eals the worthy receiver, and doth not only &s;eal to him. In Circumci&s;ion, not only the Covenant, but al&s;o the per&s;on was &s;ealed, <HI>Gen.</HI> 17. 13. <HI>Rev.</HI> 7. many per&s;ons were &s;ealed: The promi&s;e &s;ecures not only good things for beleevers, but al&s;o beleevers for tho&s;e good things, 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 1. <HI>v.</HI> 4, 5. and what the Covenant holds forth, that the Sacrament &s;eale.</P>
<P N="1">True, as Mr. <HI>H.</HI> notes <HI>p.</HI> 178. <HI>God hath com|manded us to baptize all Infants within the Church, and to admit all vi&s;ible Saints, all which yet have not the benefits of the Covenant exhi|bited in a right &s;en&s;e?</HI></P>
<P>But what is this again&s;t us who are bound in charity to judge or hope they are real Saints, till they contradict this judgement of charity by vi|&s;ible prophanene&s;s, &amp;c.</P>
<P N="2">2. True, <HI>Chri&s;t &s;ubmitted to the Sacra|ments,</HI> and there that was &s;ealed to him of which he was capable, as to <HI>Adam</HI> in innocency; but neither <HI>Adam</HI> in innocency, nor Chri&s;t, ever need|ed pardon, and as by <HI>Adams</HI> fall the Covenant of works was broken, &s;o had Chri&s;t finned in the lea&s;t, the Covenant of grace had been broken.</P>
<P N="3">3. True, <HI>Chri&s;t was baptized to fulfil all righteou&s;ne&s;s,</HI> but is it a fulfilling of righteou&s;ne&s;s to receive unworthily?</P>
<P N="4">4. True, <HI>As relative grace is &s;ealed to the worthy receiver, &s;o relative judgement is &s;ealed to the unworthy receiver.</HI> But 1. Relative judgement is &s;ealed to &s;ome unworthy per&s;ons whether they receive or not. 2. For my part, I
<PB N="325" REF="159">
&s;hall neither coun&s;el, nor ea&s;ily admit any to mur|ther Chri&s;t, and thereby to &s;eal relative judge|ment to them&s;elves.</P>
<P N="5">5. True, <HI>To &s;ome unworthy ab&s;tainers the Sacrament is a &s;avor of death.</HI> But I hope Mr. <HI>H.</HI> will be more charitable than to a&s;&s;ert that all who ab&s;tain at pre&s;ent are unworthy ab&s;tayners.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H. ib. By way of inquiry I que&s;tion, how Gods e&s;tabli&s;hing his Covenant by way of &s;eal does import this exhibition of the effectual bene|fits to tho&s;e he &s;eals?</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. It mu&s;t convey them nece&s;&s;arily, if &s;ealing and exhibition be all one, as Mr. <HI>H.</HI> makes them to be, <HI>p.</HI> 176.</P>
<P N="2">2 With us, Gods &s;ealing of the Covenant, doth not alwayes import exhibition of the benefits of the Covenant, we holding that <HI>&s;ealing</HI> and <HI>ex|hibition</HI> are two di&s;tinct Sacramental actions. The Covenant may be &s;ealed to all pre&s;ent, though divers of them receive not, but the benefits of the Covenant are exhibited to no receivers, but tho&s;e who are Evangelically worthy.</P>
<P>His inference <HI>p.</HI> 179. hangs upon the premi&s;es like a rope of &s;and: <HI>Therefore Mr.</HI> Drake <HI>mu&s;t affirm here, that God &s;eals to a blank (which he mo&s;t de&s;perately doth) or that this Objection comes to nothing.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> Here indeed are ra&s;h and de&s;perate ex|pre&s;&s;ions. Mr. <HI>D.</HI> never &s;aid, God &s;eals to a blank as to the Covenant, but he &s;ayes, Mr. <HI>H.</HI> pleads for &s;ealing to a blank as to many recei|vers.</P>
<P N="2">2. The Objection &s;tands good, becau&s;e divers Mini&s;ters who admit all pell-mell (and among&s;t them Mr. <HI>H.</HI> profe&s;&s;edly) &s;eal to per&s;onal vi&s;ible
<PB N="326" REF="160">
blanks where Chri&s;t hath given them no &s;uch Commi&s;&s;ion.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H. ib. A &s;crupulous Chri&s;tian may re|ceive the Sacrament as a &s;ign, though haply he cannot receive it as a &s;eal.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> This &s;crupulous Chri&s;tian is Evangeli|cally worthy, or not. If the former, he both may and mu&s;t receive it as a &s;ign, and as a &s;eal; yet withall he mu&s;t endeavour to get his doubts re|&s;olved. If the latter, then being pre&s;ent, he may learn by the Sacrament as a &s;ign, though he do not receive it as a &s;eal.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H. p.</HI> 180. <HI>Here is Mr.</HI> Drakes <HI>great er|ror, to confound the outward and inward Cove|nant, the external and internal &s;ealing.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Here is Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his great error, to mi|&s;take <HI>union</HI> for <HI>confu&s;ion.</HI> Mr. <HI>Drake</HI> thinks, that on the receivers part, the inward and outward Co|venant and &s;ealing &s;hould go together, and that he who wants the inward &s;eal &s;hould not dare to meddle with the outward &s;eal. He doth not con|found the inward and outward &s;eal, as Mr. <HI>H.</HI> doth <HI>&s;ealing</HI> and <HI>exhibiting,</HI> by making them all one, but unites the inward and outward &s;eal together in point of duty on the receivers part.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H. ib. If the &s;eal be &s;et to a blank until Gods Law is written in the heart, then no mor|tal can apply the &s;eal to any, &s;eeing that cannot be di&s;cerned by any.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> This is a meer <HI>non &s;equitur.</HI> A Mini&s;ter may without &s;in &s;et the &s;eal to a blank, where in charity he is bound to judge or hope that per&s;on is no blank; and this he is bound to hope of all that have competent knowledge, and live without &s;candal. The receiver mu&s;t act by the rule of
<PB N="327" REF="160">
<HI>reality,</HI> the Church by the rule of <HI>vi&s;ibility.</HI> I do not then contradict my &s;elf when I &s;ay, <HI>p.</HI> 72. of my <HI>Bar, That truth of grace in the heart is not the rule of our admi&s;sion.</HI> Grace real is the rule of an intelligent Church-members receiving, but grace vi&s;ible is the rule of the Churches ad|mi&s;&s;ion, whether it be real, or no.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H. ib. Now I pray note it, If Mr.</HI> D. <HI>apply the&s;e texts,</HI> 2 Cor. 3. 3. Heb. 8. 10. <HI>(which &s;peak only of the inward writing) to confirm the Objection, that the Seal is &s;et to a Blank if all be admitted, then the world mu&s;t know that the truth of grace is his rule, or el&s;e the new Cove|nant written in the heart is not truth of grace with Mr.</HI> Drake.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Its apparent by my text, I brought the fore-quoted places for illu&s;tration, not for proof of the Objection, Mr. <HI>H.</HI> therefore might well come with an <HI>if;</HI> But what <HI>if</HI> Mr. <HI>Drake</HI> did not bring tho&s;e places to prove the Objection, let the Reader con&s;ult my text, <HI>p.</HI> 123. of my <HI>Bar,</HI> where he will ea&s;ily perceive Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his foul play with me in this particular, who to fa&s;ten an ab|&s;urdity upon me would fain confound the rule of Admi&s;&s;ion with the rule of Receiving. Mr. <HI>H.</HI> cannot be ignorant that our principles are the&s;e:</P>
<P><Q REND="inline"><HI>Real Blanks must not receive, vi&s;ible Blanks mu&s;t not be admitted by the Church;</HI></Q> <HI>and that the &s;cope of th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter"> Objection was to di&s;pute again&s;t the admi&s;sion of</HI> vi&s;ible, <HI>not of</HI> real <HI>per|&s;onal Blanks.</HI></P>
<P><Q REND="inline"><HI>Mr.</HI> D. <HI>This Blank is either vi&s;ible, or in|vi&s;ible; to God all Blanks are vi&s;ible, and he may u&s;e his liberty to &s;et his Seal where he plea&s;es.</HI></Q></P>
<P><PB N="328" REF="161">M. <HI>H.</HI> p. 180. <HI>In what a &s;ad ca&s;e hath be brought him&s;elf through his former error, when he mu&s;t lay this for his foundation, That God who cannot lie, may &s;et his &s;eal to a vi&s;ible Blank? If the Mini&s;ter who is Gods Amba&s;&s;a|dor &s;eals to a vi&s;ible Blank, it is &s;uch an heinous &s;in, he &s;ays, as murdering Chri&s;t; and yet does he affirm that God &s;ets his &s;eal to a vi&s;ible Blank without &s;cruple. It is no wonder the man deals &s;o cour&s;ly with me, that u&s;es &s;uch rude and un|civil language towards God.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Such ab&s;urd and unrea&s;onable imputa|tions as the&s;e, make it too &s;u&s;pitious, that M. <HI>H.</HI> di&s;putes rather for victory, than for truth. I hope he will not dare to &s;ay in cold blood, that tho&s;e expre&s;&s;ions of mine vent any thing of rude lan|guage to God; but that in the very letter, as well as in their &s;en&s;e, they give unto God the glory of his Soveraignty, who is not bound (but where him&s;elf plea&s;eth) to the rules by which he bindes his creatures.</P>
<P>Object. <HI>If it be irregular in the Mini&s;ter to &s;eal to a vi&s;ible Blank, why not in God al&s;o? If the Mini&s;ter murther Chri&s;t by &s;ealing to a vi&s;ible Blank, how is God free, who doth the &s;ame thing?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> The Mini&s;ter is guilty, becau&s;e it plea&s;ed God to make it murder, by con&s;ent in him to &s;eal to a vi&s;ible Blank: but who can give law to God, and make it murder, by con&s;ent in God, to &s;eal to a vi&s;ible Blank? Its murder in me to take away my neighbors life at plea&s;ure: I hope M. <HI>H.</HI> will not infer, that therefore its murder in God to take away any mans life at plea&s;ure.</P>
<P>Object. <HI>But doth not God by &s;ealing to a vi&s;i|ble
<PB N="329" REF="161">
Blank, te&s;tifie that &s;uch a per&s;on hath truth of grace?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Ab&s;urd. When God knowingly and profe&s;&s;edly &s;eals to Blanks, how can it be ima|gined that his de&s;ign in &s;ealing is to te&s;tifie they are no Blanks. God indeed by &s;ealing to a Blank, bindes that Blank to labor for the writing; but its <HI>contradictio in adjecto</HI> to &s;ay, that &s;ealing to a Blank, makes that Blank no Blank. Its not the &s;eal, but the writing, makes a paper or parchment no Blank: nor is it the &s;eal of the Sa|crament, but the writing of the Spirit, makes a Church-member a real Saint, or an Epi&s;tle of Chri&s;t, 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 3. 3.</P>
<P>Object. <HI>But then why may not the Mini&s;ter by &s;ealing to a vi&s;ible Blank, binde that Blank to labor for the writing, as God doth? (&V;nder|&s;tand a &s;ealing here by way of admi&s;&s;ion; for otherwi&s;e the Covenant is &s;ealed in the Sacra|ment conditionally, not onely to the receivers, but al&s;o to all pre&s;ent, yea, though they be very Heathen, who yet are not &s;ealed by receiving the Sacrament.)</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Becau&s;e he hath no warrant to &s;eal to that Blank in that manner; the rule being, that per&s;ons mu&s;t 1. Be Church-members. And 2. Vi&s;ibly worthy, before the Mini&s;ter &s;eal to them by admi&s;&s;ion. But who can binde God to this rule?</P>
<P>Object. <HI>But is not this the very language of the Sacrament,</HI> Chri&s;t is thine, &amp;c. <HI>And how can God &s;eal this to a per&s;on that hath no part in Chri&s;t?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> The natural language of the Sacrament, as well as of the Covenant, to whom&s;oever it is
<PB N="330" REF="162">
proclaimed, is, <HI>Chri&s;t is thine, &amp;c.</HI> This gift is mine, 1. By way of tender. 2. By way of ac|ceptance. That Chri&s;t is theirs by way of ten|der, God &s;eals by the Sacrament to all pre&s;ent, whether they receive or not. That Chri&s;t is theirs by way of acceptance and po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, God &s;eals to no receiver, but the worthy receiver. The Sacra|ment &s;ays to all pre&s;ent, Chri&s;t is thine condition|ally, and by way of offer; but to the worthy Communicant, it &s;ays, by way of evidence, Chri&s;t is thine, as &s;ure as the outward elements are thine, being received by thee; and that becau&s;e he per|forms the condition of believing; which condi|tion yet is promi&s;ed in the Covenant, and wrought in&s;trumentally in the Sacrament, which acts faith objectively as a &s;ign and &s;eal; but effectively, as an in&s;trument, faith apprehending Chri&s;t through the Sacrament, as the eye doth an object through a Per&s;pective-gla&s;s; yea, the Sacrament doth not onely clear the object, but al&s;o &s;trengthens the vi&s;ive faculty of the &s;oul, by drawing a fre&s;h &s;up|ply of vi&s;ual Spirits from Chri&s;t the head.</P>
<P>My meaning (in all hath been &s;aid) is, that God, by the Sacrament applied to any, doth not te&s;tifie to &s;uch a receiver, that he hath truth of grace; though by receiving, every Communicant be obliged to act grace: But the Mini&s;ter, by giving the Sacrament to any, te&s;tifies his per&s;wa|&s;ion, or hope, that &s;uch a one hath truth of grace; which per&s;wa&s;ion, or hope, is grounded upon that competent knowledge and good affections (ac|companied with immunity from &s;candal) that he findes, upon tryal, or other good evidence, to be in &s;uch a Communicant.</P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 181. M. <HI>H.</HI> doth onely make a
<PB N="331" REF="162">
flouri&s;h by abu&s;ing the <HI>homonymie</HI> of a <HI>vi&s;ible Saint.</HI></P>
<P>To which I briefly an&s;wer, A per&s;on may be &s;aid to be a vi&s;ible Saint two ways: 1. Relative|ly, as he is a Church-member, born and bred in the Church. 2. Ab&s;olutely, as he walks up vi|&s;ibly to his profe&s;&s;ion. Now, that God would have all relatively vi&s;ible Saints (which are M. <HI>H.</HI> his vi&s;ible Saints, though they be ab&s;olutely vi&s;i|ble Devils) admitted, is 1. Again&s;t the truth. 2. Again&s;t the practice of the ancient and modern Church. 3. Again&s;t M. <HI>H.</HI> his own profe&s;sion, &s;ince per&s;ons <HI>ip &s;o jure</HI> excommunicate, are &s;uch vi|&s;ible Saints, yet he allows their &s;u&s;pen&s;ion. That root of bitterne&s;s, <HI>Heb.</HI> 12. 15. was relatively a vi&s;ible Saint, as being a Church-member; but ab&s;olutely he was a vi&s;ible Devil. The Lord keep me from giving my vote for the admi&s;&s;ion of &s;uch vi&s;ible Saints.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>Its M.</HI> Drakes <HI>error to &s;ay, there are any vi&s;ible Blanks in the Church, for how then can we baptize all children? A vi&s;ible Blank is one vi&s;ibly out of Covenant: But to be in a Church-&s;tate, is to be externally or vi&s;ibly in Covenant, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Then its M. <HI>Drakes</HI> great error to &s;ay, there are any vi&s;ibly profane in the Church.</P>
<P N="2">2. We baptize all children in the Church (a|mong others) upon this account, becau&s;e none of them are vi&s;ible Blanks; knowledge we ex|pect not from them, nor are they guilty of any &s;candal. Be&s;ides, we look at their foederal holi|ne&s;s in either of their Parents, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 7. 14. or in their grand Parents right, who may undertake for their Chri&s;tian education, &amp;c. 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 1. 5. But of this formerly.</P>
<P N="3"><PB N="332" REF="163">
3. The &s;ame per&s;on, at the &s;ame time (though not in the &s;ame re&s;pect) may be vi&s;ibly in Cove|nant, and vi&s;ibly out of Covenant. In&s;tance in a known Witch, &s;he is vi&s;ibly in Covenant in M. <HI>H.</HI> his &s;en&s;e, as a Church-member, till excommuni|cated; yet vi&s;ibly out of Covenant in our &s;en&s;e, as vi&s;ibly renouncing Chri&s;t and Religion. They who vi&s;ibly break the Covenant, by lying in vi&s;ible impenitency and unbelief, are vi&s;ibly out of Co|venant in an ab&s;olute &s;en&s;e, though at the &s;ame time they are vi&s;ibly in Covenant in a relative &s;en&s;e, as not being excommunicated. Such were many of the I&s;raelites, who are called the <HI>holy people,</HI> Dan. 12. 7. and <HI>Gods people,</HI> Ho&s;. 4. <HI>v.</HI>6. 8.12. and 11. 7. yet <HI>Ho&s;.</HI> 1, 9. <HI>Ye are not my peo|ple;</HI> and <HI>Ho&s;.</HI> 2. 2. <HI>Your mother is not my wife.</HI> The&s;e &s;eeming contradictions are ea&s;ily reconciled, by di&s;tingui&s;hing between Gods people relatively and ab&s;olutely con&s;idered: They were Gods peo|ple by external Covenant-relation, as are all Church-members: they were not Gods people by an external holy carriage, &s;uitable to their external holy relation. Such <HI>Lo-Ammies,</HI> though in &s;ome &s;en&s;e <HI>Ammies,</HI> we dare not admit to the Sacrament, till by vi&s;ible repentance their name is made <HI>Ruchamah,</HI> and <HI>Ammi,</HI> Ho&s;. 2. 1.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H. p.</HI> 182, <HI>In ca&s;e any make a forfeiture,</HI> which M. <HI>D.</HI> &s;ays the Church ought to take; <HI>its manife&s;t then he mu&s;t be excommunicate, that is, put out of a Church-&s;tate, or external Covenant; for while he &s;tands</HI> de jure <HI>intitu|led as a member, it is a manife&s;t wrong to &s;u&s;pend him the Symbole thereof.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. The Church takes the forfeiture in part, by &s;u&s;pen&s;ion: but that &s;he mu&s;t take the
<PB N="333" REF="163">
highe&s;t forfeiture at the fir&s;t bout by excommu|nication, is both fal&s;e doctrine, and uncharitable doctrine.</P>
<P N="2">2. Note here from M. <HI>H.</HI> that among Intelli|gent per&s;ons, &s;ome are Church-members <HI>de jure,</HI> others onely <HI>de facto.</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">This is hinted from tho&s;e expre&s;si|ons of M. <HI>H, He &s;tands de jure, in|tituled as a member;</HI> and again, <HI>here our di|&s;tinction of ip&s;o jure di&s;membred</HI> and <HI>de prae|&s;enti di&s;-ti|tuled, mu&s;t do its &s;er|vice.</HI> ibid.</NOTE> Next, that he is not for the Admi&s;&s;ion of all intelligent Church-members <HI>de facto,</HI> unle&s;s they be al&s;o Church-members <HI>de jure;</HI> whence I infer from his own principles, that Church-member&s;hip and intelligence, are not the adequate foundation of Admi&s;&s;ion to the Sacra|ment; but there mu&s;t be &s;omewhat el&s;e which makes him a Church-member <HI>de jure:</HI> And this is the very thing we contend for. The point of difference is now brought to a narrower compa&s;s; and could we but agree about the character of a Church-member <HI>de jure,</HI> our controver&s;ie would &s;oon come to i&s;&s;ue. Now Church-member&s;hip being a relation, it mu&s;t needs have a foundation. The foundation of Church-member&s;hip <HI>de facto</HI> in intelligent per&s;ons, is Admi&s;&s;ion to that Society; the foundation of Church-member&s;hip <HI>de jure,</HI> is that which encourages the Church to admit &s;uch a per&s;on: And what is this but competent knowledge and piety vi&s;ible? This is evident in the <HI>Catechumeni,</HI> who &s;tood upon their tryal be|fore they were made compleat Church-members; nor did the Jews ea&s;ily admit any for Pro&s;elytes, till upon good evidence of their faith and piety. This foundation then failing, Church-member&s;hip <HI>de jure</HI> mu&s;t needs cea&s;e; and this is the very ca&s;e of gro&s;ly ignorant and &s;candalous per&s;ons, who therefore being not Church-members <HI>de jure</HI> (at lea&s;t, if they ob&s;tinately per&s;i&s;t in tho&s;e &s;ins) ought not to be admitted to the Sacrament.</P>
<P><PB N="334" REF="164">M.<HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>The bare elements do not confirm the Covenant, but the elements, as in&s;tituted to that u&s;e: But they were in&s;tituted to be eaten and drunken; therefore tho&s;e that are pre&s;ent, mu&s;t receive too, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. By conce&s;&s;ion of the fir&s;t branch, the confirming virtue of the Sacramental elements depends upon divine in&s;titution: but have they a confirming vertue onely as received? Do not the elements &s;et apart by the Mini&s;ter, in the name of Chri&s;t, &s;ignifie and &s;eal that branch of the Covenant, that Chri&s;t from eternity was &s;et apart by God the Father for mans redemption? Do not the elements broken and poured out, &s;ig|nifie and &s;eal Chri&s;ts Body broken, and his Blood &s;hed to ratifie the Covenant? And is not the Co|venant hereby confirmed to all pre&s;ent, even be|fore they receive, yea, though divers of them do not receive at all?</P>
<P N="2">2. To the &s;econd Branch I an&s;wer al&s;o by way of conce&s;&s;ion, in part. The elements were in&s;ti|tuted to be eaten and drunk: But that therefore <HI>all</HI> pre&s;ent mu&s;t eat and drink, is a meer <HI>non &s;e|quitur.</HI> The In&s;titution is kept intire, if a com|petent number do eat and drink, though <HI>all</HI> pre&s;ent do not receive. Divers waiters might be in the room at the celebration of the fir&s;t Sacrament, but Chri&s;t bid the Apo&s;tles onely to receive.</P>
<P><Q REND="inline"><HI>M.</HI> D. <HI>They confirm the faith of the wor|thy Receiver; therefore none but Evangeli|cally worthy may partake.</HI></Q></P>
<P>M. <HI>H. He may as well argue thus, Bap|ti&s;m confirms the faith onely of tho&s;e that un|der&s;tand it: Therefore Infants may not partake of it. The word and prayer confirm faith,
<PB N="335" REF="164">
therefore none but the regenerate may hear and pray. This is no con&s;equence; for what&s;oever ordinance can confirm faith, may beget it.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> To the fir&s;t Branch I an&s;wer, by denying that Bapti&s;m confirms the faith onely of them that under&s;tand it. For,</P>
<P N="1">1. Bapti&s;m may confirm the habit of faith in Infants regenerated before Bapti&s;m, though it cannot confirm the act of faith, which they are not capable of.</P>
<P N="2">2. It may confirm as an in&s;trument, though it cannot confirm faith in them as a &s;ign or &s;eal.</P>
<P N="3">3. Bapti&s;m applyed to Infants may confirm faith in the &s;ame per&s;ons when they come to years of di&s;cretion, though in their Infancy it &s;hould not confirm: and therefore it is not to be denyed to Infants. If per&s;ons Baptized in Infancy, could never be capable of the confirming power of Bapti&s;m, then the argument were &s;trong, that they &s;hould not be Baptized.</P>
<P>To the &s;econd I an&s;wer, If the word and prayer did <HI>onely</HI> confirm faith, then the infe|rence had been &s;olid: but &s;uch is the condition of the Sacrament.</P>
<P>To the third I an&s;wer, <HI>A po&s;&s;e ad e&s;&s;e non valet con&s;equentia,</HI> That which camconfirm faith, may beget it, if God plea&s;e to appoint that Ordinance to beget, as well as to confirm: But this is the que&s;tion in di&s;pute, Whether God hath appointed the Lords Supper to beget faith.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Page</HI> 182, 183.</NOTE><Q REND="inline"><HI>M.</HI> D. <HI>They confirm judgement to the un|worthy receiver.</HI></Q></P>
<P>M. <HI>H. And I pray now what is become of the Blank?</HI> p. 183.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> The <HI>Blank</HI> is &s;till where it was, namely,
<PB N="336" REF="165">
at the Lords Table, and may thank Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his free admi&s;&s;ion for it. Let the Reader here note Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his perver&s;e dealing with me, who &s;till turns the Argument to a real Blank, when I applied it only to a per&s;onal Blank. His di&s;tinction about confirming faith <HI>formaliter &amp; con&s;equutiv&egrave;</HI> hath been formerly an&s;wered, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 184.</NOTE> which therefore I pa&s;s.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H. ib. To &s;eal to faith is nothing el&s;e but that it &s;eals conditionally, which an&s;wers the whole Objection.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. If this be good Logick, then the Sa|crament &s;eals as much to unbelief as to faith, &s;ince it &s;eals judgement conditionally to unbeleef, as well as mercy conditionally to faith.</P>
<P N="2">2. Its ab&s;urd to &s;ay it &s;eals conditionally to faith: It &s;eals indeed mercy conditionally to a per&s;on that hath not faith, and judgement condi|tionally to a per&s;on that hath faith; but it &s;eals ab|&s;olutely mercy to faith, and judgement to unbeleef. I pray upon what condition doth the Sacrament &s;eal mercy to faith? Is not faith here the very act of beleeving? And doth the Sacrament &s;eal grace to beleeving upon condition of beleeving? True, it &s;eals mercy to a per&s;on upon condition of belee|ving; but to &s;ay it &s;eals mercy to faith upon con|dition of faith, how ab&s;urd? and all one as to &s;ay, it &s;eals to the condition upon condition of the condi|tion; would not here be <HI>progre&s;&s;us in infinitum?</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. After all, This an&s;wer doth not &s;atisfie the Objection: For whether the Sacrament &s;eal con|ditionally or ab&s;olutely to faith, &s;till it is a &s;eal of faith, and to faith; and &s;till it &s;eals to a Blank, &s;uppo&s;ing the per&s;on receiving be unregenerate, which is the Blank the Objection looks at.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H. ib. Here is his con&s;tant error; for the
<PB N="337" REF="165">
writing the Sacrament &s;eals to, is not the in|ward Covenant in the heart, but the outward in the Go&s;pel.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. By way of conce&s;&s;ion of the la&s;t branch, <HI>That the Sacrament &s;eals to the outward Co|venant,</HI> and in that re&s;pect never &s;eals to a Blank.</P>
<P N="2">2. By denial of the fir&s;t branch, <HI>That the Sa|crament &s;eals not to the inward Covenant or wri|ting:</HI> For 1. It &s;eals to it by way of obligation, binding all Receivers to the inward Covenant as the condition. 2. It &s;eals the outward Covenant and writing to the inward; the good things pro|mi&s;ed to faith and grace. 3. It &s;eals the inward Covenant or writing by confirming faith of evi|dence, and this, by ratifying the &s;igns of grace upon record in the Covenant, which &s;igns are the touch|&s;tone of faith; the Sacrament a&s;&s;ures the Scripture trials of Faith are good, experience a&s;&s;ures tho&s;e &s;igns are in <HI>Peter,</HI> the conclu&s;ion is <HI>Peters</HI> faith of evidence which depends upon the <HI>major,</HI> &s;ealed by the Sacrament, as well as upon the <HI>minor,</HI> confirmed by <HI>Peters</HI> experience. 4. To the be|leever it &s;eals the inward Covenant; namely, the condition not only by way of obligation as a duty, but al&s;o by way of &s;ecurity, as a priviledge, a&s;&s;uring him of future actings of faith, of growth, and of per&s;everance. Hereby it appears the great error is on Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his part, who a&s;&s;erts, <HI>That the Sacrament &s;eals not to the inward writing or Covenant.</HI></P>
<P><Q REND="inline"><HI>Mr.</HI> D. <HI>How can the Mini&s;ter &s;ay, This it the blood of Chri&s;t for the remi&s;sion of &s;ins to the unmorthy?</HI></Q></P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H. As Chri&s;t &s;aid the &s;ame to Judas.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. What is this but a begging of the Que&s;tion. Let Mr. <HI>H.</HI> fir&s;t prove that, Chri&s;t &s;aid
<PB N="338" REF="166">
tho&s;e words to <HI>Judas,</HI> and then make as much of that in&s;tance as he can.</P>
<P N="2">2 Suppo&s;e <HI>Judas</HI> did receive, doth not Chri&s;t immediately and particularly note him as a per&s;on of whom he meant not tho&s;e words, and who &s;hould have no part and intere&s;t in his blood or pardon, <HI>Luke</HI> 22. v.20, 21, 22. If Mr. <HI>H.</HI> will pre&s;s our Saviours example for <HI>Judas</HI> his recei|ving, why doth he not likewi&s;e pre&s;s the &s;ame for the publick and per&s;onal nomination and unca&s;ing (at the Lords Table) of every <HI>Judas</HI> that is guilty of the body and blood of Chri&s;t, and who had better never have been born if he repent not unfeinedly of his betraying of Chri&s;t, &s;uch rugged work undertaken by him would &s;oon open his eyes to &s;ee the ju&s;tne&s;s, equity, and expediency of &s;u&s;pen&s;ion.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> p. 185. Mr. <HI>D. confe&s;&s;es God doth not atte&s;t our faith.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Mr. <HI>H.</HI> abu&s;es me by mangling my words. I &s;ay, page 128. of my Bar, <Q REND="inline"><HI>God doth not</HI> in terminis, <HI>atte&s;t my faith at the Sacra|ment.</HI></Q> The Sacrament ratifies only what the Covenant holds forth, but the Covenant doth not hold forth, <HI>Thou</HI> Peter <HI>or</HI> John <HI>by name ha&s;t true faith, and art in the &s;tate of grace,</HI> no more than it holds forth, <HI>Thou</HI> Peter <HI>and</HI> John <HI>by name &s;hall ri&s;e at the day of judge|ment.</HI> But it were ab&s;urd to &s;ay, the Go&s;pel doth not atte&s;t <HI>Johns</HI> re&s;urrection, becau&s;e it doth not &s;ay particularly, Thou <HI>John</HI> &s;halt ri&s;e; and it is as ab&s;urd to &s;ay, The Scripture doth not atte&s;t <HI>Johns</HI> faith, becau&s;e it doth not &s;ay particularly and nominally, Thou <HI>John</HI> beleeve&s;t.</P>
<P>"Dr. <HI>D. The Seals may be applied before all, not to all.</HI></P>
<P><PB N="339" REF="166">Mr. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>He that looks on &s;hall be &s;ure to be damned if he eat not Chri&s;t &s;piritually, and to be &s;aved if he receive Chri&s;t &s;piritually, whether he partake of the elements, or not; And what then becomes of all this dreadfulnes that is laid upon our con&s;ciences, with a bare touch not, ta&s;te not, handle not? This actual receiving then &s;erves but to affect us the more &s;olemnly with our condition, and be a more &s;erious obligation by the outward, to that inward eating, whereby alone we look to be &s;aved.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. By conce&s;&s;ion; We are &s;aved only by eating Chri&s;t &s;piritually; yet withall, we may be damned by eating Chri&s;t Sacramentally, if we eat him not worthily; therefore his condition who eats Chri&s;t Sacramentally, but not &s;piritually, is wor&s;e <HI>caeter is paribus,</HI> than his who wanting faith to eat him &s;piritually, forbears to eat him Sacramentally. He that ki&s;&s;es Chri&s;t, and be|trayes him, hath more to an&s;wer for, than he who betrayes him without a ki&s;s. The higher profe&s;&s;ion we make of love to Chri&s;t, the wor&s;e is our &s;in in murdering him; but he who receives, makes an higher profe&s;&s;ion of love to Chri&s;t, than he who at pre&s;ent forbears, as fearing he doth not love Chri&s;t, and beleeve &s;avingly in him; there|fore an unbeleeving receives, &s;ins more than an unbeleeving ab&s;tainer; and here lyes the dread|fulne&s;s laid upon our con&s;ciences, though Mr. <HI>H.</HI> is plea&s;ed to put it off lightly.</P>
<P N="2">2. Again, by conce&s;&s;ion: Actual receiving &s;erves to affect and oblige us more &s;olemnly to the inward eating; whence it follows, that he who eats outwardly, but not inwardly, &s;ins more <HI>caeter is paribus,</HI> than he who eats neither in|wardly
<PB N="340" REF="167">
nor outwardly, becau&s;e the former &s;ins again&s;t a greater obligation, as M. <HI>H.</HI> well notes; which therefore makes for us, and again&s;t him|&s;elf.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> ib. &amp; p. 186. M. <HI>D.</HI> is notable, <HI>The Sacrament he counts not a &s;eal properly, but fi|guratively to the Covenant it &s;elf. I pray mark it. So in the former leaf, he concludes it tropi|cally a &s;eal: now read but a few lines further in the very &s;ame page; and he tells us, As it con|firms the Covenant, it confirms faith: and if this be not to &s;eal in a proper formal &s;en&s;e, Theo|logically, I know not what is. Is not this pretty? The Sacrament is not a proper formal &s;eal, but figurative and metaphorical; and yet&punc; if it does not &s;eal in a proper formal &s;en&s;e, he knows not what does,</HI> M. <HI>Drake does often tell you of my contradictions, when he onely goes about to make them, but I need not tell you he hath any.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Let the Reader but con&s;ult my Text, <HI>p.</HI> 129. of my <HI>Bar,</HI> and he will ea&s;ily perceive how M. <HI>H.</HI> abu&s;es fir&s;t my &s;elf, and then his Reader in this particular.</P>
<P N="1">1. Therefore note, That by <HI>proper</HI> in the for|mer branch, I mean a <HI>litteral</HI> &s;eal in the Gram|matical &s;en&s;e, as is evident by my explication of my &s;elf in the forequoted place, of purpo&s;e to pre|vent this captious mi&s;take, in the&s;e words, <Q REND="inline"><HI>In a</HI> proper <HI>&s;en&s;e a &s;eal is an artificial thing fit to make a vi&s;ible repre&s;entation or impre&s;&s;ion.</HI></Q> In this &s;en&s;e, I &s;ay, the Sacrament is not <HI>properly</HI> a &s;eal: For 1. It is not an artificial thing. 2. It makes not a vi&s;ible impre&s;&s;ion either upon the Co|venant, or upon the receiver. Let me ask M. <HI>H.</HI> is the Sacrament a litteral &s;eal? I have heard (in
<PB N="341" REF="167">
this &s;en&s;e) of a golden or &s;ilver &s;eal, &amp;c. but ne|ver of a Breaden &s;eal.</P>
<P>By <HI>Proper,</HI> in the latter &s;en&s;e, I mean a <HI>real</HI> &s;eal, in oppo&s;ition to a feigned and counterfeit &s;eal, or the picture of a &s;eal. This is known by the effects: hence we prove the Sun to be fire, becau&s;e it hath the effects of fire, though it differ much from our culinary fire. Now the main effect and u&s;e of a &s;eal being to confirm and ratifie, and this being the proper effect of the Sacrament, we conclude, that the Sacrament is <HI>properly</HI> a &s;eal, though it be not <HI>litterally</HI> a &s;eal.</P>
<P N="2">2. M. <HI>H.</HI> mi&s;takes gro&s;ly, in oppo&s;ing <HI>tropical</HI> to <HI>proper;</HI> whereas <HI>tropical</HI> and <HI>figurative</HI> is not oppo&s;ed to <HI>proper,</HI> but to <HI>litteral.</HI> Chri&s;t is <HI>properly</HI> a vine, yet <HI>tropically</HI> a vine; but not <HI>litterally</HI> a vine. He is <HI>the true bread,</HI> Joh. 6. 32: <HI>His fle&s;h is meat indeed, and his blood is drink indeed,</HI> ver. 55. Surely that which is <HI>true bread,</HI> that which is <HI>meat and drink indeed,</HI> is <HI>properly &s;o,</HI> yet it need not be &s;o <HI>litterally,</HI> it being enough, that it is &s;o <HI>tropically</HI> and <HI>metaphorical|ly.</HI> The mi&s;take of this di&s;tinction, was the ground of that Capernaticial error, <HI>John</HI> 6. 63. of Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation and Con&s;ub&s;tantiation, and is the ground of M. <HI>H.</HI> his <HI>topical</HI> mi&s;take, and perverting of my pre&s;ent Text.</P>
<P><Q REND="inline"><HI>M.</HI> D. <HI>Nor will his in&s;tance of Circumci|&s;ion help him, which was applyed to none but vi&s;ible Saints, &amp;c.</HI></Q></P>
<P>M. <HI>H. That is the whole Jewi&s;h Nation,</HI> Jo&s;h. 5. <HI>v.</HI> 3. 6.8. <HI>when of age, without exami|tion and profe&s;&s;ion, which declares both that all Church-members are vi&s;ible Saints, and that that alone gives a right to be admitted.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><PB N="342" REF="168">
<HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Its evidently fal&s;e, and again&s;t the very letter of Scripture, that all the Jewi&s;h Nati|on were circumci&s;ed at <HI>Gilgal,</HI> &s;ee <HI>Jo&s;h.</HI> 5. v.5, 7. the text tells us, that <HI>onely they who were born in the wilderne&s;s by the way, were circumci&s;ed;</HI> the re&s;t having been circumci&s;ed in <HI>Egypt.</HI></P>
<P>Object. <HI>Were not all who were born in</HI> Egypt, <HI>de&s;troyed in the wilderne&s;s?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> No &s;uch matter, but onely tho&s;e who were twenty years old and upwards at their coming out of <HI>Egypt, Caleb</HI> and <HI>Jo&s;huah</HI> onely excepted, compare <HI>Numb.</HI> 26. <HI>v.</HI>64, 65. and 14. <HI>v.</HI>29, 30. and 1. <HI>v.</HI>2, 3.</P>
<P N="2">2. That all the&s;e were not onely vi&s;ible Saints, but eminently vi&s;ible Saints; &s;hould M. <HI>H.</HI> deny it, the Scripture would convince him, <HI>Deut.</HI> 4 <HI>v.</HI>3, 4. <HI>Jo&s;h.</HI> 24. 21. <HI>Judg.</HI> 2. 7.</P>
<P N="3">3. That the I&s;raelites circumci&s;ed at <HI>Gilgal</HI> were not at all examined, nor made any profe&s;&s;ion of their faith and piety, is more then M. <HI>H.</HI> can prove; his argument for it at be&s;t is but negative, becau&s;e it is not recorded <HI>Jo&s;h.</HI> 5.</P>
<P N="4">4. That they did make profe&s;&s;ion of their faith before this circumci&s;ion, is evident enough by another place, <HI>Deut</HI> 26. 17. and that probably within a week before they were circumci&s;ed; and divers times the whole Nation were put upon it to make profe&s;&s;ion of, and ingage for God and Religion, <HI>Jo&s;h.</HI> 24. and 2 <HI>Chro.</HI> 15. and 34. <HI>v.</HI> 32. 33. which la&s;t is the more remarkable, becau&s;e it was done ju&s;t before the Pa&s;&s;over, that an&s;wers out Lords Supper. So <HI>Ezr.</HI> 10. and <HI>Neh.</HI> 10. and 11. and particularly its noted, <HI>Ezra</HI> 6. 21. that not &s;imply all Church-members, but <HI>&s;uch as had &s;eparated them&s;elves from the filthine&s;s of
<PB N="343" REF="168">
the Heathen, to &s;eek the Lord, did eat the Pa&s;&s;|over;</HI> which is al&s;o remarkable in <HI>Hozekiahs</HI> Pa&s;&s;over, where moral pollution was looked at as a greater bar than Levitical pollution, 2 <HI>Chron. v.</HI> 18.&mdash;20.</P>
<P N="5">5. Whither will not men fall when once they are &s;liding, if God leave them to them&s;elves? We had though before, M. <HI>H.</HI> had been onely for free admi&s;&s;ion of per&s;ons baptized unto the Lords Supper, now he is for the free admi&s;&s;ion of all per&s;ons at years born in the Church (of Chri&s;tian parents) unto the Ordinance of Bapti&s;m, without either examination or profe&s;&s;ion. Here he falls an Ace below the Anabapti&s;ts, who will not ad|mit the Children of Chri&s;tian Parents to Bapti&s;m, without profe&s;sion of their faith, &amp;c. mu&s;t we indeed baptize the children of Anabapti&s;ts, Qua|kers, Ranters, &amp;c. being at age, without any tryal of their faith and piety, without any en|gaging of them to profe&s;&s;ion of Chri&s;t, or obedi|ence to him? All this laid together, will abun|dantly di&s;cover the vanity of M. <HI>H.</HI> his conclu&s;i|on, and prove, that bare Church-member&s;hip is not enough for admi&s;sion to the Lords Sup|per.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>To the &s;imile that follows, I have &s;poken, and I refer you to M.</HI> Calvin, <HI>who plea&s;es him&s;elf with it, in &s;hewing the &s;ame point; to wit,</HI> Sacramenta non de&s;inere e&s;&s;e te&s;ti|monia gratiae Dei, Licet impiis quo&abque; porrigan|tur. <HI>Ju&s;t. l.</HI> 4. <HI>cap.</HI> 14. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 7.</P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. His &s;imilitude I convince of weak|ne&s;s, <HI>page</HI> 130. of my <HI>Bar;</HI> to which it will be hard for M. <HI>H.</HI> to &s;peak to purpo&s;e argumentative|ly, though I know he can &s;peak fluently. The &s;imi|litude
<PB N="344" REF="169">
I grant is good, if rightly applyed; at which application (I hope I may &s;peak it with|out offence) M. <HI>Calvin</HI> is better than M. <HI>Hum|phrey,</HI> and he is far enough from applying it to M. <HI>H.</HI> his purpo&s;e.</P>
<P N="2">2. We deny not what M. <HI>Calvin</HI> a&s;&s;erts, <HI>That the Sacraments are te&s;timonies of Gods grace, even when they are offered to the wicked.</HI> The e&s;|&s;ence of an Ordinance is not changed by mans wickedne&s;s: But what is this to the ju&s;tifying of their practice, who offer the Sacrament promi&s;|cuou&s;ly; again&s;t which <HI>Calvin</HI> is &s;o zealous, that he calls it, 1. <Q REND="inline"><HI>An ataxie, or di&s;order.</HI> 2. <HI>Sacri|lege.</HI> 3. <HI>A prophanation of the Sacrament.</HI> 4. <HI>A pro&s;titution of the holy trea&s;ures.</HI> 5. <HI>A gro&s;s injury done to God.</HI> 6. <HI>So great an evil, that after all means u&s;ed in vain to redre&s;s it, a Mini&s;ter may warrantably for&s;ake &s;uch a peo|ple as incorrigible, yea, ought not to &s;tay with them.</HI></Q> All this you have in one Epi&s;tle, <HI>page</HI> 438. and 439. of <HI>Calvins</HI> Epi&s;tles, printed at <HI>Geneva, An.</HI> 1617.</P>
<P><HI>M.</HI> D. <Q REND="inline"><HI>How dare a Mini&s;ter by word and &s;eal apply the Covenant of grace to tho&s;e that vi&s;ibly reject it?</HI></Q></P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Page</HI> 187.</NOTE> <HI>Unto this M.</HI> D. <HI>&s;hall fir&s;t an&s;wer,</HI> p. 84, of his <HI>Bar,</HI> <Q REND="inline"><HI>Though they tran&s;gre&s;s, they do not renounce the Covenant.</HI> 2. <HI>They are members of the vi&s;ible Church till excommu|nicated.</HI></Q> <HI>Well, now let him come to &s;peak about the Sacrament,</HI> p. 131. <Q REND="inline"><HI>All who are vi&s;ibly in the &s;tate of nature</HI> (&s;ays he) <HI>are vi&s;ibly out of Covenant.</HI></Q> <HI>I pray mark it; if natural men be members of the vi&s;ible Church, how are they vi&s;ibly out of Covenant: If they are vi&s;i|bly
<PB N="345" REF="169">
in Chri&s;t, how do they vi&s;ibly reject Chri&s;t?</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. I have an&s;wered this cavil formerly by comparing the Prophet <HI>Ho&s;ea</HI> with him&s;elf, and with other Scriptures.</P>
<P N="2">2. Experience proves that &s;ome Church-mem|bers do in the very letter reject the Covenant, in|&s;tance in Witches; therefore my fir&s;t a&s;&s;ertion mu&s;t be under&s;tood indefinitely, not univer|&s;ally.</P>
<P N="3">3. Were not the Jews vi&s;ibly in Chri&s;t as Gods profe&s;&s;ed people? yet they rejected Chri&s;t vi&s;i|bly in the letter before <HI>Pontius Pilate,</HI> Acts 3. 13. Do not Arrians al&s;o vi&s;ibly reject the Deity of Chri&s;t?</P>
<P N="4">4. The &s;ame per&s;on may own Chri&s;t one way, yet vi&s;ibly reject him another way: Thus too many who own Chri&s;t by profe&s;sion, reject him by prophanene&s;s; attend upon him at the Ordi|nances, but renounce him in their conver&s;ation. Here is no contradiction, as M. <HI>H.</HI> would make the Reader believe. Does he think that Chri&s;t is not at all renounced, unle&s;s he be univer&s;ally re|nounced?</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>So long as the Lord owns a people in Covenant, the Mini&s;ter may apply the out|ward &s;eals of it: But while men are Church-members, the Lord does own them outwardly as his people.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> The Mini&s;ter may own them as God owns them; but God &s;o owns a people profe&s;sing his Covenant, as at the &s;ame time he di&s;owns them breaking his Covenant, as hath formerly been &s;hewed; therefore &s;o may a Mini&s;ter own them as Church-members, but not as worthy Church-members, and fit Gommunicants.</P>
<P><PB N="346" REF="170">M. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>So long as men are not excommunicate, I &s;ee no rea&s;on why Chri&s;t may not be offered Sa|cramentally, as free as verbally, to work them to repentance.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Why then doth not Mr. <HI>H.</HI> allow the &s;u&s;pen&s;ion of per&s;ons <HI>jure</HI> excommunicate, who are not yet actually under excommunica|tion?</P>
<P N="2">2. When he can prove that Chri&s;t received &s;acramentally, works repentance and conver&s;ion, then he &s;peaks &s;omething to the purpo&s;e for free admi&s;sion. For his &s;imilitude of a &s;ealed pardon here repeated again: we grant, as the pardon is offered to all conditionally (which general in|cludes every particular) &s;o its &s;ealed in the Sa|crament to all conditionally, whether they receive or no. But what is this to their receiving the &s;ign, who vi&s;ibly reject the thing &s;ignified? As the Pro|mi&s;e, &s;o the Sacrament, is offered to all, if they will believe and repent; but unbelievers and im|penitent per&s;ons, mu&s;t neither partake of the pro|mi&s;es, nor of the &s;eals.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> p. 188. <HI>Ab&s;olutely the Sacrament &s;eals no mans intere&s;t, as M.</HI> D. <HI>vainly imagines.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. If it &s;eal not the believers intere&s;t ab&s;olutely, then the be&s;t Saint can take no &s;olid comfort by the Sacrament. This vain conceit of M. <HI>H.</HI> like the Phili&s;tims earth, would &s;top up the well of comfort to Gods <HI>I&s;aacs.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. Therefore, a thing is ab&s;olute two ways, 1. When without condition. 2. When the condi|tion is performed: but the condition of faith is performed by the worthy receiver; therefore the Sacrament &s;eals his intere&s;t in Chri&s;t ab&s;o|lutely.</P>
<P><PB N="347" REF="170">M. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>When other means will not work upon them, there remains excommunication, and let that content him.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Were M. <HI>H.</HI> &s;erious in this particu|lar, he would not be &s;o favourable to gro&s;s and affected ignorance, which by his rule mu&s;t neither be &s;u&s;pended nor excommunicated; and how then &s;hall that damnable &s;in be cured?</P>
<P N="2">2. If there can be content in &s;o &s;harp a reme|dy, we are content with excommunication as the la&s;t refuge, provided all other means be fir&s;t u&s;ed, among which we look at &s;u&s;pen&s;ion as a very con|&s;iderable one, how ever M. <HI>H.</HI> is plea&s;ed to over|look it.</P>
<P>M. <HI>D.</HI> <Q REND="inline"><HI>The Sacraments are Gods &s;eals, as relating to Gods Covenant, &amp;c.</HI></Q></P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> p. 188. <HI>A good confe&s;&s;ion. Then they are not Gods &s;eals, as relating unto faith, and in&s;tituted formally to ratifie faith. They are not &s;eals of faith for righteou&s;ne&s;s, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Is not this &s;trange Logick? The Sacra|ments are Gods &s;eals, as relating to the Covenant, therefore they are not Gods &s;eals as relating unto faith. He may as well argue, <HI>I&s;aac</HI> was <HI>Abrahams</HI> &s;on as relating to the promi&s;e, therefore he was not <HI>Abrahams</HI> &s;on as relating to his faith: or, <HI>I&s;aac</HI> was a childe of the promi&s;e, therefore he was not a childe of faith. I hope God, Faith, and the Covenant, are not at &s;uch a di&s;tance, but that each of them may have a propriety in one and the &s;ame &s;eal. Be&s;ides, if faith be a part of Gods Covenant (which hath formerly been proved) then the Sacrament mu&s;t needs be faiths &s;eal, as well as the Covenants &s;eal. Is the Covenant, Gods Covenant; the Sacrament, Gods Sacrament, as
<PB N="348" REF="171">
the Author thereof; and is not my faith al&s;o Gods faith, as the Author thereof? and why then may not Gods &s;eal be my faiths &s;eal, as well as the Covenants &s;eal? We di&s;pute not about <HI>formali|ties,</HI> but <HI>realities;</HI> its enough for us that the Sacrament is truly faiths &s;eal, as well as Gods and the Covenants &s;eal, though in &s;ome re&s;pect it may be faiths &s;eal, in which re&s;pect it is not Gods &s;eal.</P>
<P><HI>M.</HI> D. <Q REND="inline"><HI>Is not faith and every &s;aving grace promi&s;ed in the New-Covenant, unle&s;s M.</HI> H. <HI>will turn Pelagian?</HI></Q></P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>We neither make faith the birth of mans free-will, nor yet to be given by virtue of the Covenant made with man, which the Sacra|ment &s;eals; but to be Gods mo&s;t free gift that proceeds from election and di&s;covers the mysteric thereof.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. I am glad M. <HI>H.</HI> is &s;o Orthodox, as to acknowledge faith to be the birth, not of mans free-will, but of Gods free electing grace. This agreement in fundamentals is comfortable, though we differ in &s;uper&s;tructures.</P>
<P N="2">2. That in general, faith and other graces are promi&s;ed in the New-Covenant, is to me un|que&s;tionable; for proof whereof I &s;hall intreat M. <HI>H.</HI> to turn to <HI>Jerem.</HI> 31. <HI>v.</HI>31, 32, 33. <NOTE PLACE="marg">See like|wi&s;e <HI>Ezek,</HI> 36. <HI>v.</HI>25, 26, 27.</NOTE> And 1. There you have a Covenant. 2. A <HI>future</HI> Co|venant, <HI>I will make a Covenant,</HI> as di&s;tinct up|on that account from the eternal Covenant made with Chri&s;t, which even then was a Covenant <HI>pa&s;t.</HI> 3. A <HI>New</HI> Covenant, and that either in oppo&s;ition to the Covenant of works made with <HI>Adam,</HI> or (which is the proper &s;cope of the place) in contradi&s;tinction to the Legal Covenant made
<PB N="349" REF="171">
with the I&s;raelites at Mount <HI>Sinai,</HI> compare <HI>ver.</HI> 32. 4. A Covenant expre&s;ly made with man, even with the hou&s;e of <HI>I&s;rael</HI> and <HI>Judah, ver.</HI> 31, and 33. 5. Mark, I pray, what is given by vertue of this Covenant thus made with man, <HI>ver.</HI> 33. <HI>I will put my law in their hearts, and write it in their mindes, &amp;c.</HI> And what I pray, is the Law written in the heart, but faith and other graces? This is the more con&s;iderable, as pre&s;t by the Apo&s;tle twice, <HI>Heb.</HI> 9. <HI>v.</HI>8, 9,10. and 10. <HI>v.</HI>15, 16.</P>
<P N="3">3. He mi&s;takes in oppo&s;ing a free gift to a Co|venant, &s;ince the &s;ame thing may be a free gift and yet a covenanted mercy; and that two ways, 1. When covenanted ab&s;olutely, in&s;tance in Gods Covenant again&s;t a future univer&s;al deluge, <HI>Gen.</HI> 9. <HI>v.</HI> 9. to 17. 2. When covenanted conditionally, yet &s;o as the condition is promi&s;ed in the Cove|nant, God therein undertaking for our part, as well as for his own: And &s;uch is the Covenant of Grace to all that are elected and effectually called, but to none el&s;e.</P>
<P>To illu&s;trate this by <HI>Samp&s;ons</HI> covenant with his thirty Companions, <HI>Judg.</HI> 14. <HI>v.</HI>11, 12. Had the agreement been, that as many of them as could declare his riddle, &s;hould have each of them a &s;heet, &amp;c. and at the &s;ame time <HI>Samp&s;on</HI> had re&s;olved to declare the riddle to three of the thirty, before the &s;eventh day, undoubtedly that Cove|nant with the three, though conditional in form, yet had been ab&s;olute in reality. And if a condi|tional propo&s;ition be not ab&s;olute, the condition being &s;uppo&s;ed or performed, then there is no ab&s;olute propo&s;ition in the world. In&s;tance, <HI>If M.</HI> H. <HI>be a rational creature, then he is a man:</HI>
<PB N="350" REF="172">
this is a conditional propo&s;ition, yet I hope the con&s;equent, <HI>That M.</HI> H. <HI>is a man,</HI> is an ab&s;o|lute propo&s;ition. Why? Becau&s;e the condition is really in M. <HI>H. In lake manner, if</HI> Peter <HI>believe, he is ju&s;tified, &amp;c.</HI> this is a conditional propo|&s;ition, yet upon the &s;ame account the con&s;equent, <HI>Peter is ju&s;tified,</HI> is an ab&s;olute propo&s;ition. Why? Becau&s;e the condition is really performed by <HI>Peter.</HI> And thus its ea&s;ie to make the mo&s;t ab&s;olute propo&s;itions conditional by an hypo|thetical demon&s;tration of any &s;ubject by its pro|perties, 1 <HI>Kings</HI> 10. 21. <HI>If the Lord be God, follow him:</HI> this is conditional, yet I hope <HI>to fol|low the Lord</HI> is an ab&s;olute duty. Why? Be|cau&s;e the condition of <HI>Deity</HI> is in him, and in him alone.</P>
<P>For further explication note, A propo&s;ition (taking it here in a large &s;en&s;e) may be</P>
<P N="1">1. Ab&s;olutely true, and conditionally fal&s;e; as, Judas <HI>&s;hall be damned,</HI> and, <HI>Though</HI> Judas <HI>repent he &s;hall be damned.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. Ab&s;olutely true, and conditionally true; as, Peter <HI>&s;hall be &s;aved,</HI> and, <HI>If</HI> Peter <HI>believe he &s;hall be &s;aved.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. Ab&s;olutely fal&s;e, and conditionally true; as, Judas <HI>&s;hall be &s;aved,</HI> and, <HI>If</HI> Judas <HI>repent he &s;hall be &s;aved.</HI></P>
<P N="4">4. Ab&s;olutely fal&s;e, and conditionally fal&s;e; as, Peter <HI>&s;hall be damned,</HI> and, <HI>Though</HI> Peter <HI>believe he &s;hall be damned.</HI></P>
<P>Its evident then, that <HI>Conditionality</HI> is no bar to <HI>Ab&s;olutene&s;s:</HI> That which is <HI>conditionally</HI> true, may be <HI>ab&s;olutely</HI> true; and that which is <HI>ab&s;olutely</HI> true, may be <HI>conditionally</HI> true: And thus the Covenant is both <HI>conditional</HI> and <HI>ab&s;olute</HI>
<PB N="351" REF="172">
to the Elect, but only conditional to the Repro|bate. Its conditional to both becau&s;e a condition is required of both; its ab&s;olute to the one be|cau&s;e the condition is purpo&s;ed and promi&s;ed to them, and wrought in them, namely, &s;aving faith and repentance. And, as the Covenant is, &s;o its &s;ealed in the Sacrament.</P>
<P>Its evident then, that faith is the fruit, not only of Gods free gift, but al&s;o of Gods Covenant.</P>
<P><Q REND="inline">Mr. <HI>D. If the Covenant be Gods, if the Seal be Gods, and faith promi&s;ed in it be Gods al&s;o, is it not apparent that Gods Seal mu&s;t needs be faiths Seal al&s;o?</HI></Q></P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H. ib.</HI> and p. 189. <HI>If he count this ap|parent which is a very Chaos, you may gue&s;s what light to expect from him. The truth is, as faith is our condition it is not a branch of the Covenant that God &s;eals; which puzled this man; for if it were, every man &s;hould unque|&s;tionably come, and ingage the Lord by his own Seal to undertake for his condition; and con|&s;equently, if God perform what he ingages, every one &s;hould be &s;aved.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. If Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his <HI>ip&s;e dixit</HI> be enough, how &s;uddenly can he turn an apparent light into a Chaos? Now to di&s;pel this Chaos of his make|ing, not with words, but arguments. Note the ground of the fore-mentioned <HI>hypothe&s;is</HI> oppo&s;ed by Mr. <HI>H.</HI> is the neer relation between God, the Covenant, and Faith, which are &s;o in&s;eparably united in the matter of grace, as that which is the Seal <HI>of</HI> the one, mu&s;t needs be the Sea<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word"> the other; and that which is a Seal <HI>to</HI> the one, mu&s;t needs be a Seal <HI>to</HI> the other. Thus if the Sacra|ment be a Seal <HI>of,</HI> and <HI>to</HI> God, it mu&s;t needs be
<PB N="350" REF="173">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="351" REF="173">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="352" REF="174">
a Seal <HI>of,</HI> and <HI>to</HI> the Covenant, and <HI>of,</HI> and <HI>to</HI> Faith. They mu&s;t needs be &s;ealed as they are promi&s;ed, but they are all promi&s;ed together, and they mu&s;t needs &s;eal as they promi&s;e; but God, the Covenant, and Faith promi&s;e together, there|fore they mu&s;t needs both &s;eal, and be &s;ealed to|gether; particularly, that the Covenant is pro|mi&s;ed. See <HI>Jer.</HI> 32. v. 31. &amp;c.</P>
<P N="2">2. Its an untruth, <HI>That faith as our condition is not a branch of the Covenant that God &s;eals.</HI> He may as well &s;ay, That the Law written in the heart, is not a branch of that Covenant; and that per&s;everance (which al&s;o is a condition) is not a branch of that Covenant. Sure the Prophet was of another mind, <HI>Jer.</HI> 32. v. 39. 40. where you &s;ee God undertakes for the condition it &s;elf, as well as for the good things promi&s;ed upon that con|dition.</P>
<P N="3">3. His argument to prove the former a&s;&s;ertion is ab&s;urd, if his <HI>&s;hould</HI> relates to execution, not to obligation. We grant, every one under the Go|&s;pel <HI>&s;hould</HI> come, in point of duty, and humbly and &s;eriou&s;ly ingage God to perform the condi|tion in him, and by him, upon which God would perform what he ingages, and every &s;uch per&s;on would be &s;aved undoubtedly; but we deny that in point of execution every one can, or will come, and thus ingage God, excepting only tho&s;e who are elected, and effectually called, taught and drawn by the Father, <HI>Joh.</HI> 6. v.44, 45. <NOTE PLACE="marg">Compare <HI>Jer.</HI> 29. 12 13. &amp; 21. 9. <HI>Ezek.</HI> 36 v.25, 26, 27, 37. <HI>Zach</HI> 12. 10. <HI>Joh.</HI> 6.<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1+ letters">.</NOTE> True, &s;al|vation is promi&s;ed to all conditionally if they be|leeve, and faith is required of all that live under the Go&s;pel; but faith is not either promi&s;ed, or given to all that are planted under the means of grace, but only to the Elect, <HI>Matth.</HI> 13. v.13, 14, 15.
<PB N="353" REF="174">
<HI>Joh.</HI> 6. 64. and 2 <HI>The&s;&s;.</HI> 3. 2. <HI>Rom.</HI> 11. v.7, 8. <HI>Joh.</HI> 6. v.44, 45.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> p. 189. <HI>This Mr.</HI> D. &s;ees p. 134. 135 <HI>and is quite lo&s;t in his very fir&s;t particular, for while he &s;uppo&s;es the Covenant promi&s;es initial grace to the Elect, and the Sacrament &s;eals that Covenant, and the Seal &s;ecures what is in the writing (which are all his own terms) he mu&s;t nece&s;&s;arily take upon him to judge who are Reprobates, which is &s;inful to do; or all mu&s;t be admitted; For though men are vi&s;ibly yet in the &s;tate of nature, they may be elect.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his nece&s;&s;ary con&s;equence is, a meer <HI>non &s;equitur</HI> in both branches. True, the Covenant promi&s;es, the Sacrament &s;eals, the &s;eal &s;ecures grace ab&s;olutely only to the <HI>Elect,</HI> and effectually called; <NOTE PLACE="marg">When I &s;ay initial grace is &s;ealed in the Sacra|ment to the <HI>Elects</HI> I would not here be mi&s;ta|ken: I do not mean, that initial grace is &s;ealed to an elect per&s;on (now in the &s;tate of nature) as progre&s;&s;ive grace is &s;ealed to a per|&s;on effectually called. For illu&s;tration, Suppo&s;e <HI>Paul</HI> before con|ver&s;ion receive the Sacrament, or be pre&s;ent at it, &amp;c. I do not think the Sacrament can a&s;&s;ure <HI>Paul</HI> (though elected) that he &s;hall be converted; but that it a&s;&s;ures only in the general, that all the Elect &s;hall be converted, who indeed are the <HI>Seed,</HI> and the true <HI>I&s;rael. Rom</HI> 9. v.6, 7,8. compare <HI>Jer.</HI> 31. 33. And this at pre&s;ent I cannot but a&s;&s;ent to, till I be convineed, that the whole Covenant of grace is not &s;ealed or confirmed in the Lords Supper, which in its very in&s;titution, was a &s;ign and &s;eal of Chri&s;ts blood &s;hed not only for the <HI>Apo&s;tles,</HI> but al&s;o for <HI>many</HI> for the remi&s;&s;ion of fins; com|pare <HI>Matth.</HI> 26. 28. and <HI>Luke</HI> 22. 20. And why that <HI>(many)</HI> &s;hould not include all the Elect (as well as &s;ome of them) I know not, yet I will not be peremptory, but &s;hall very willingly learn of Mr. H. or any other that will inform me better.</NOTE> But how doth it thence fol|low that I mu&s;t nece&s;&s;arily take upon me to judge who are Reprobates, or el&s;e all mu&s;t be admitted? Mr. <HI>H.</HI> gives the rea&s;on, <HI>becau&s;e men may be
<PB N="354" REF="175">
vi&s;ibly in the &s;tate of nature, and yet elected.</HI> A pitiful rea&s;on, which I &s;hall endeavour to evince by the&s;e Arguments.</P>
<P N="1">1 Did I infallibly know a per&s;on to be elected, yea effectually called; It follows not that there|fore I mu&s;t pre&s;ently admit him to the Sacra|ment, for he may be notwith&s;tanding actually unworthy, as lying under the guilt of &s;ome &s;can|dalous &s;in, &amp;c. much le&s;s then mu&s;t all be admit|ted upon a &s;uppo&s;ition that po&s;&s;ibly they are elected. Nor on the other hand doth it follow, That I undertake to judge who are Reprobates; For though it be true, that initial grace is promi|&s;ed, &s;ealed, and &s;ecured in the Sacrament only to the elect; and though it be al&s;o true, that I dare not admit all Church-members to the Sacrament, yet it cannot flow from the&s;e two propo&s;itions, that I undertake to judge who are <HI>Reprobates,</HI> &s;ince we neither look at admi&s;&s;ion of any, as an infallible evidence of their Election, nor at &s;u&s;|pen&s;ion of any as an infallible evidence of their Reprobation; Nay we beleeve <HI>in the&s;i,</HI> that many per&s;ons admitted are Reprobates, and that divers per&s;ons &s;u&s;pended are elect ve&s;&s;els of mercy; the rule of Church-admi&s;&s;ion being not electing grace, but vi&s;ible worthine&s;s, and the rule of Church-&s;u&s;pen&s;ion, being not Reprobation, but vi&s;ible unworthine&s;s.</P>
<P N="2">2. Yet further to convince him from the con|ditional Covenant which he grants is &s;ealed in the Sacrament. It follows not, though the Covenant be &s;ealed conditionally to all Church-members, that therefore all Church-members mu&s;t be ad|mitted, or el&s;e I mu&s;t take upon me to judge who are in the &s;tate of nature, &s;ince the ground of
<PB N="355" REF="175">
&s;u&s;pen&s;ion, is not &s;imply mens being in the &s;tate of nature, but their actual unworthine&s;s <HI>as vi&s;ible,</HI> whether they be in the &s;tate of nature or not: Now if it follow not from the conditional &s;ealing of the Covenant in the Sacrament, that I mu&s;t either ad|mit all, or undertake to judge who are in the &s;tate of nature; why &s;hould it follow from the ab&s;olute &s;ealing of the Covenant, that all mu&s;t be admit|ted, or I undertake to judge who are Reprobates? And this is the more con&s;iderable, becau&s;e the conditional Covenant is &s;ealed to all, not &s;o the ab&s;olute Covenant. And if the conditional Co|venant &s;ealed to all be no ground for univer&s;al admi&s;&s;ion, much le&s;s is the ab&s;olute Cove|nant, &s;ealed only to &s;ome Church members, a ground why all Church-members &s;hould be ad|mitted.</P>
<P>Again, if denying the Sacrament to divers to whom the Covenant is &s;ealed conditionally be no argument to prove that I judge them to be in the &s;tate of nature, much le&s;s is the denying of the Sacrament to any an argument that I judge them to be Reprobates. My &s;u&s;pen&s;ion of any argues indeed that at pre&s;ent I judge &s;uch a per&s;on to be vi&s;ibly unworthy, at lea&s;t actually; but it argues not ne|ce&s;&s;arily that I judge him to be in the &s;tate of na|ture, much le&s;s, that I judge him to be a Re|probate.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H. ib. Had not the man &s;o much con|temned me, he might have found how to di&s;tin|gui&s;h between what comes from Gods under|taking with man, or the conditional bo&s;ome of the Covenant; and what comes from his under|taking with Chri&s;t, or the free, ab&s;olute bo&s;ome of Election.</HI></P>
<P><PB N="356" REF="176">I perceive here the man is troubled as appre|hending that I contemn him, which is a fond and groundle&s;s jealou&s;ie. I hate his errors, but I ho|nour his per&s;on.</P>
<P>Withall he twits me <HI>as not di&s;tingui&s;hing be|tween what comes from Gods undertaking with man, and what comes from Gods undertaking with Chri&s;t.</HI></P>
<P>I confe&s;s I am too dim-&s;ighted, and therefore &s;hall willingly be in&s;tructed by Mr. <HI>H.</HI> or any other, provided they will &s;uffer me to &s;ee with my own eyes, and not take things upon bare re|port and tru&s;t.</P>
<P>I &s;hall therefore crave leave to di&s;tingui&s;h be|tween Gods undertaking <HI>for</HI> man, and Gods un|dertaking <HI>with</HI> man. <HI>For</HI> man God undertook with Chri&s;t from eternity to call &s;ome effectu|ality. With man God undertakes two wayes: 1. <HI>With all,</HI> at lea&s;t to whom the Covenant is proclaimed, to give them &s;alvation by Chri&s;t, up|on condition of their faith and repentance. 2. <HI>With &s;ome</HI> (that is, the effectually called.) 1. To give them per&s;everance in the condition which him&s;elf hath already wrought in them (partly of free grace, and partly by virtue of the Covenant made with Chri&s;t on their behalf.) And 2. In the i&s;&s;ue to give them eternal &s;alvation upon the forementi|oned account of Chri&s;t and free grace. And why Gods undertaking for man may not be &s;ealed in the Sacrament, as well as Gods undertaking with man; as yet I mu&s;t confe&s;s, I &s;ee no convincing rea&s;on.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>I pray compare M.</HI> D. <HI>his third particular with this fir&s;t.</HI> The Sacrament, he &s;ays there, is for nouri&s;hment <HI>(and that I hope to the Elect)</HI> So <HI>p.</HI> 147. it &s;eals not initial, but
<PB N="357" REF="176">
progre&s;&s;ive grace: <HI>and yet here,</HI> the Covenant <HI>(he counts)</HI> promi&s;es initial grace to the elect, and the &s;eal &s;ecures what is in the Covenant. <HI>So that what need I to di&s;pute with Mr.</HI> Drake, <HI>when his own particulars have an opponent and defendant among them&s;elves? &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. The Sacrament &s;eals not <HI>nouri&s;hment</HI> at pre&s;ent to the elect unregenerate <HI>in &s;en&s;u con|juncto,</HI> as the Covenant promi&s;es not growth to them before they have life. As the Covenant promi&s;es, &s;o the Sacrament &s;eals orderly: 1. Life and initial grace. 2. Nouri&s;hment and growth; M. <HI>H.</HI> therefore might have &s;pared his <HI>parenthe&s;is,</HI> but that by it he hoped to &s;lur me.</P>
<P N="2">2. To &s;lur me yet more, M. <HI>H.</HI> corrupts my text, <HI>page</HI> 147. of my <HI>Bar:</HI> my words are the&s;e, <Q REND="inline"><HI>The Sacrament (as received) is not a means of initial, but of progre&s;&s;ive</HI> grace, <HI>doth not beget grace at fir&s;t by regeneration, but in|crea&s;e and &s;trengthen grace by nouri&s;hment and confirmation, &amp;c.</HI></Q> There is no &s;uch words in that page, as M. <HI>H.</HI> fathers upon me; namely, that the Sacrament <HI>&s;eals</HI> not initial, but progre&s;|&s;ive grace.</P>
<P>Object. <HI>What the Sacrament</HI> &s;eals, <HI>that it</HI> begets: <HI>But the Sacrament</HI> (<HI>Dr.</HI>) Drake <HI>con|fe&s;&s;es</HI>) &s;eals <HI>initial</HI> grace; <HI>ergo.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Ab&s;urd, if under&s;tood univer&s;ally. The Sacrament <HI>&s;eals</HI> Chri&s;ts death and &s;atisfaction, I hope it doth not beget them. It <HI>begets</HI> &s;ome things it <HI>&s;eals;</HI> namely, progre&s;&s;ive grace and evidence; but it doth not <HI>beget</HI> all things it <HI>&s;eals,</HI> among&s;t which initial grace is one. True, <HI>p.</HI> 135. of my <HI>Bar,</HI> I have the&s;e words (for omitting of which I do not thank M. <HI>H.</HI> his kindene&s;s) <Q REND="inline"><HI>The
<PB N="358" REF="177">
Lords Supper being a Sacrament of nouri&s;h|ment,</HI> &s;eals <HI>not</HI> properly <HI>initial, but progre&s;&s;ive grace, nor can the Church apply it to conver|&s;ion, but edification, &amp;c.</HI></Q></P>
<P>Thence &s;ome may argue, that I a&s;&s;ert, the Sa|crament <HI>&s;eals</HI> not initial grace, yet el&s;ewhere af|firm, that the Sacrament doth <HI>&s;eal</HI> initial grace: which two propo&s;itions &s;eem contradictory.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> True, had I not in&s;erted that term <HI>pro|perly;</HI> and that upon this account, becau&s;e though the Sacrament <HI>&s;eal</HI> or a&s;&s;ure, that all the elect &s;hall have initial grace: yet this cannot effectu|ally comfort <HI>Timothy</HI> (&s;uppo&s;ing him then in his natural e&s;tate) becau&s;e at the &s;ame time his election is uncertain to him, though certain in it &s;elf. As that branch of the Covenant, <HI>That all the elect &s;hall have initial grace,</HI> cannot comfort me, till I know I am elected: &s;o the &s;ealing or a&s;&s;uring of that branch, cannot comfort me, till I know I am elected, Therefore I &s;aid, the Sa|crament &s;eals not initial grace <HI>properly,</HI> becau&s;e, though it &s;eal <HI>really,</HI> that all the elect yet un|converted, &s;hall in due time be effectually called, and &s;o &s;hall have an intere&s;t in the blood of Chri&s;t declaratively &s;hed in the Sacrament, for the re|mi&s;&s;ion of the &s;ins of <HI>many:</HI> yet by that &s;ealing, an elect per&s;on in the e&s;tate of nature, can have no &s;pecial comfort; becau&s;e he cannot in an ordinary way know he is elected, till he be effectually cal|led, at which time initial grace is wrought, and is the ordinary and &s;ure evidence of election; and to &s;uch a one the Sacrament doth not &s;eal initial grace, as future, and to be wrought, but as pa&s;t and already wrought, but it <HI>properly</HI> &s;eals pro|gre&s;&s;ive grace, in the &s;en&s;e above-mentioned. My
<PB N="359" REF="177">
own particulars then do not fall together by the ears, though M. <HI>H.</HI> do his be&s;t to make them mutual Opponents and Defendants, that by their &s;eeming variance, his error of <HI>Free-Admi&s;&s;ion</HI> might get the day.</P>
<P>Having laid this foundation, I &s;hall now come to his <HI>po&s;ing Que&s;tions,</HI> page 190. unto which I &s;hall endeavor to give a clear and a candid an&s;wer.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> Q. 1. <HI>Whether it be one and the &s;ame Covenant I &s;peak of there?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> As to eternal Salvation, and the nece&s;&s;a|ry conditions thereof (to wit, per&s;everance and &s;uitable growth in grace) I believe the Covenant made with Chri&s;t from eternity, and with tho&s;e of the elect, who are effectually called in time, is one and the &s;ame &s;ub&s;tantially, though in other particulars there be a va&s;t difference.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> Q. 2. <HI>How the Covenant being conditi|onal, doth promi&s;e ab&s;olutely?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Becau&s;e as it requires the condition of the regenerate, &s;o it promi&s;es the condition to the regenerate.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> Q. 3. <HI>How it promi&s;es initial grace? For faith and repentance are the conditions of the Covenant; and how can faith be promi&s;ed upon condition we have grace?</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. That it doth promi&s;e initial grace, is evident by Scripture, <HI>Ezek.</HI> 36. 26, 27. unle&s;s <HI>the new heart, the heart of fle&s;h, the &s;pirit put within us,</HI> be not initial grace.</P>
<P N="2">2. Initial faith and repentance are not pro|mi&s;ed, upon condition we have faith and repen|tance, or grace (I own not that <HI>Brat,</HI> though M. <HI>H.</HI> would fain father it upon me) But becau&s;e its
<PB N="360" REF="178">
promi&s;ed or foretold <HI>ab&s;olutely</HI> in the Covenant, that initial grace &s;hall in due time be wrought in all the <HI>Elect</HI> yet uncalled (not &s;o in the reprobate) And becau&s;e I apprehend the whole Covenant is &s;ealed or a&s;&s;ured (as to its truth) in the Sacra|ment, I mu&s;t confe&s;s (with &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion to better judgements) I know not how to &s;hut this branch of the Covenant here out of doors.</P>
<P>Object. <NOTE PLACE="marg">This Ob|jection &s;uppo&s;es the pro|mi&s;e of &s;alvation made con|ditionally to natural men.</NOTE> <HI>Is it not a mockage to make a condi|tional promi&s;e to him, who I know cannot per|form the condition?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Not at all. Suppo&s;ing 1. He be bound to the condition. 2. That the condition was once in his power. 3. That he lo&s;t that power by his own default, which is the ca&s;e of all <HI>Adams</HI> po|&s;terity by natural generation. Doth God mock natural men who are under the Law, by promi&s;ing them life upon condition of perfect obedience? <HI>Matth.</HI> 19. 17. Hath God lo&s;t his authority to command, becau&s;e we have lo&s;t our power to obey? And may not God annex a promi&s;e to any command, but he mu&s;t be thought to mock his creature? And if God may promi&s;e life to perfect obedience, without mockage; may he not pro|mi&s;e life to faith, without mockage, though the creature left to it &s;elf be able to perform neither of the conditions? May the creditor promi&s;e liberty to an in&s;olvent debtor, upon condition he &s;atisfie the debt, and that without mockage; and may not God promi&s;e life to an impotent creature, up|on condition the creature believe, &amp;c. without mockage? God by requiring impo&s;&s;ible condi|tions, and annexing promi&s;es to tho&s;e conditions, de&s;igns not to mock his poor creature, but to de|mon&s;trate the creatures impotency, and thereby to out it of &s;elf, &amp;c.</P>
<P><PB N="361" REF="178">Mr. <HI>H.</HI> Q. 4. <HI>What difference is there be|tween the Covenants offer of grace, and promi&s;e of grace conditionally?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> As much difference as there is between the tender of 100 <ABBR>l.</ABBR> down upon the nail, and the promi&s;e of the &s;aid money without tender. The tender of the money upon the day will excu&s;e the debtor in Law, not &s;o the promi&s;e of that money. I think there is &s;ome difference between &s;aying, <HI>Come when you will, and you &s;hall have your money;</HI> and &s;aying, <HI>Here is your money, I pray tell it and take it.</HI></P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> Q. 5. <HI>How can the offer of grace. be &s;aid to be &s;ealed, as offer is di&s;tingui&s;hed from promi&s;e?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> As he that tenders money promi&s;ed un|der hand and &s;eal, may by witne&s;s, hand and &s;eal, atte&s;t that the tender was made to all, and ac|cepted by &s;ome creditors, but refu&s;ed by others. I hope here the tender &s;ealed, is di&s;tingui&s;hed clear enough from the promi&s;e &s;ealed.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> Q. 6. <HI>Whether the Mini&s;ter can &s;eal which he plea&s;e, either the offer or promi&s;e; and why he &s;honld not content him&s;elf to &s;eal the offer which is &s;ure to all pre&s;ent, rather than to &s;eal the promi&s;e where he may erre, &s;eeing his vi&s;ible Legatees, really may not be &s;uch?</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. The Mini&s;ter mu&s;t &s;eal what Chri&s;t would have him, and that is both offer and pro|mi&s;e, they ever going together in the Sacrament; nor is he at his own choice, to &s;eal whether he plea&s;e. What God promi&s;es in the Covenant, that he offers by his Amba&s;&s;adors, both in the word preached, and at the Sacrament; onely at the Sa|crament;
<PB N="362" REF="179">
there is not onely a promi&s;e and offer, but al&s;o a &s;ealing of them both.</P>
<P N="2">2. The promi&s;e and offer are con&s;iderable, 1. As to their real exi&s;tence; and thus the Sacra|ment &s;eals, that the <HI>promi&s;e</HI> and <HI>offer</HI> of Chri&s;t to all pre&s;ent (yea, wherever the Go&s;pel is preach|ed) conditionally, is no fiction, but a funda|mental truth. 2. As to its attingency and effica|cy; and thus its not <HI>promi&s;ed</HI> or <HI>offered</HI> to all pre|&s;ent, or to all receivers. My meaning is, that at the Sacrament, Chri&s;t with all his benefits is ne|ver &s;o either <HI>promi&s;ed</HI> or <HI>offered,</HI> as that all pre|&s;ent are a&s;&s;ured thereby, they &s;hall either obtain infallibly the good things promi&s;ed, or accept the good things tendered. Whence it follows, that though the Mini&s;ter may mi&s;take (as a man) about the per&s;on of any receiver, thinking chari|tably he hath grace, when he hath it not: yet he cannot mi&s;take as to his office, &s;ince he under|takes not to promi&s;e or tender Chri&s;t effectually to any (that being onely Gods work) though he groundedly hope God by him doth effectually promi&s;e and tender Chri&s;t to divers receivers; namely, where the Spirit is plea&s;ed to &s;trike in effectually with the promi&s;e and tender &s;ealed, in the Sacrament, by the Mini&s;ter as Chri&s;ts Am|ba&s;&s;ador.</P>
<P>Object. <HI>How can the Mini&s;ter &s;eal ab&s;olute|ly to the regenerate, when he cannot &s;eal to them but upon condition of regeneration? And &s;ince he knows none that are regenerated (I mean, as &s;uch) must he not needs &s;eal conditionally to all, and &s;o to the regenerate among the re&s;t?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> As a promi&s;e may be both ab&s;olute and conditional, &s;o it may be &s;ealed both ab&s;olutely
<PB N="363" REF="179">
and conditionally: Now the promi&s;e is made to the regenerate both ab&s;olutely and conditionally; therefore it may and mu&s;t be &s;ealed to them both ab&s;olutely and conditionally. The promi&s;e of &s;alvation is made and &s;ealed to <HI>Timothy,</HI> 1. Con|ditionally, that is, upon condition of his acting and per&s;evering in faith, &amp;c. 2. Ab&s;olutely, becau&s;e really the condition is and &s;hall be performed by him. The &s;ame promi&s;e is made and &s;ealed to <HI>Judas onely</HI> conditionally, becau&s;e tho&s;e conditi|ons are neither performed nor performable by him: whence the promi&s;e can no way be made or &s;ealed <HI>ab&s;olutely</HI> to <HI>Judas,</HI> as it is to <HI>Timothy.</HI> Though therefore the Mini&s;ter at the Sacrament &s;eal <HI>con|ditionally</HI> to <HI>Timothy,</HI> yet at the &s;ame time he &s;eals <HI>ab&s;olutely</HI> al&s;o (though haply unwittingly) becau&s;e the condition of eternal &s;alvation is per|formed by <HI>Timothy,</HI> not &s;o by <HI>Judas.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> D. <Q REND="inline"><HI>Chri&s;t may be given to all at the Sacrament (if you take</HI> giving <HI>for holding forth) though they do not receive.</HI></Q></P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 190. M. <HI>H. What an unworthy &s;hift is this to be made u&s;e of &s;o often! As Chri&s;t is held forth to all Sacramentally, he is held forth to this end to be Sacramentally eaten and drunken.</HI> Take eat, this is my body; <HI>that is, thus taken and eaten it is his body, and not o|therwi&s;e. The Sacrament then gives not out Chri&s;t, or holds him forth Sacramentally, but to tho&s;e that receive it.</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">The falla|cy lies in the term <HI>Sacramen|tal.</HI> At the Lords Supper you have Chri&s;t <HI>Spiritual</HI> and <HI>Sacra|mental.</HI> At every Lords Supper Chri&s;t <HI>Spiritual</HI> is offered to all pre&s;ent, and its their duty to receive Chri&s;t <HI>Spiritual:</HI> But it follows not thence, that Chri&s;t <HI>Sacra|mental</HI> (that is, the Elements) mu&s;t be offered to, and received <HI>by</HI> all pre&s;ent. They are ju&s;tly denyed the &s;ign, who vi&s;ibly re|fu&s;e the thing &s;ignified.</NOTE></P>
<P><PB N="364" REF="180"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> I perceive M. <HI>H.</HI> hath a &s;trong breath, to bla&s;t a mans &s;en&s;e, where he cannot convince it. I dare not boa&s;t of any worthine&s;s either in my per&s;on, words, or actions; I hope the Lord hath made me truly &s;en&s;ible of my exceeding great un|worthine&s;s in them all. However (as I have) I &s;hall endeavor, through grace, to a&s;&s;ert and vin|dicate truth, though, I mu&s;t confe&s;s, too unwor|thily. As to the point in hand:</P>
<P N="1">1. Its fal&s;e, that Chri&s;t is or mu&s;t be held forth to all pre&s;ent <HI>Sacramentally,</HI> if by holding forth you mean an offer or tender. Suppo&s;e one <HI>jure</HI> excommunicate be pre&s;ent; mu&s;t the Mini|&s;ter offer Chri&s;t <HI>Sacramental</HI> to him? M. <HI>H.</HI> him&s;elf hath granted the contrary. True, he is held forth to all pre&s;ent Sacramentally by way of <HI>Declaration,</HI> but not by way of <HI>Oblation</HI> or of|fer to all pre&s;ent. All pre&s;ent may &s;ee Chri&s;t &s;et apart and broken Sacramentally, &amp;c. they may al&s;o &s;ee the Covenant &s;ealed in the Sacrament to all pre&s;ent conditionally: But it follows not thence, that Chri&s;t mu&s;t needs be offered Sacramentally to all pre&s;ent, though he be always offered to &s;ome pre&s;ent Sacramentally, and mu&s;t be &s;o received by them.</P>
<P N="2">2. Its fal&s;e, that unle&s;s the Sacramental bread be eaten (under&s;tand proportionably of the Sacra|mental Cup as Chri&s;ts blood) its not Chri&s;ts body: for 1. Its Chri&s;ts body by con&s;ecration, according to Chri&s;ts in&s;titution, before it be taken and eaten, otherwi&s;e the Mini&s;ter would utter an untruth in &s;peaking tho&s;e words, <HI>Take eat, this is Chri&s;ts body, &amp;c.</HI> 2. The not receiving of &s;ome pre&s;ent (whether it be orderly or &s;inful) cannot make void Chri&s;ts in&s;titution, but by vertue thereof the bread
<PB N="365" REF="180">
is Chri&s;ts body, &s;o long as the &s;olemnity of the Sa|crament continues.</P>
<P N="3">3. Though Chri&s;t be not offered <HI>Sacrament|tally</HI> to all at the Lords Supper, yet he is offered <HI>Spiritually</HI> to all pre&s;ent, and the promi&s;e of Chri&s;t &s;piritual is &s;ealed conditionally to all pre|&s;ent; who &s;eeing Chri&s;t crucified by them, and for them, may be much affected and wrought upon, though they do not receive the Elements, <HI>Gal.</HI> 3. 1. as well as the Communicants them&s;elves, who I hope, are affected with the Elements &s;et apart, broken and poured out, before their actual re|ceiving. May not a <HI>Look</HI> upon Chri&s;t crucified, affect <HI>as well</HI> as a <HI>receiving</HI> of Chri&s;t crucified? <HI>Zach.</HI> 12. 10. I do not &s;ay <HI>as much,</HI> &s;ince both of the&s;e actions will affect more then one of them.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H. p.</HI> 191. <HI>As the Mini&s;ter doth not one|ly loo&s;e, but binde in the word; &s;o doth he in the Sacrament, but conditionally in both.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> If his meaning be, that the Mini&s;ter loo&s;es and bindes <HI>onely</HI> conditionally, then he loo&s;es the wicked as much as the godly, and bindes the godly as much as the wicked; the rea&s;on is, becau&s;e at the &s;ame time that he loo&s;es the godly conditionally, he bindes them al&s;o conditionally; and at the &s;ame time he bindes the wicked condi|tionally, he loo&s;es them al&s;o conditionally. Dare he &s;ay ab&s;olutely to a godly man; <HI>Thy &s;ins are remitted, though thou repent not;</HI> or to a wick|ed man, <HI>Thy &s;ins are bound, though thou repent?</HI> I pray what difference between <HI>Timothy</HI> and <HI>Judas</HI> as to this particular, upon M. <HI>H.</HI> his principles. <HI>Timothies</HI> &s;ins are loo&s;ed if he repent, and bound if he repent not; <HI>Judas</HI> his &s;ins are
<PB N="366" REF="181">
bound if he repent not, and loo&s;ed if he repent. Is it not evident here, that <HI>Judas</HI> is loo&s;ed as much as <HI>Timothy,</HI> and <HI>Timothy</HI> bound as much as <HI>Judas,</HI> if the binding or loo&s;ing be onely condi|tional on both &s;ides. Therefore &s;ay we, the Mini&s;ter loo&s;es the wicked conditionally, when he bindes the wicked ab&s;olutely; he loo&s;es the godly ab&s;olutely, when he bindes them conditionally: yea, when he loo&s;e the godly conditionally, he loo&s;es them ab&s;o|lutely; and when he bindes the wicked conditional|ly, he bindes them ab&s;olutely; and that becau&s;e the conditions upon which the fir&s;t is loo&s;ed, and the &s;econd bound, are <HI>in</HI> them ab&s;olutely, or are performed <HI>by</HI> them. And a conditional loo&s;ing or binding, where the condition is performed, is ab&s;olute, as before. The Mini&s;ter acting <HI>clave non errante,</HI> bindes the wicked ab&s;olutely, as to his pre&s;ent &s;tate, but loo&s;es the godly ab&s;olutely both as to his pre&s;ent and future-&s;tate, becau&s;e the godly hath performed the condition of loo&s;ing, and &s;hall certainly per&s;evere in the performance of that condition; but many wicked men do not per&s;evere in the condition of binding (namely, unbelief and impenitency) therefore the Mini&s;ter cannot binde them ab&s;olutely for the future. Now as the Mini&s;ter loo&s;es and bindes, not onely con|ditionally, but al&s;o ab&s;olutely in the word, &s;o he doth in the Sacrament: And &s;o he &s;eals my loo&s;ing or binding, whether I receive or not, &s;ince the Sacrament &s;eals the whole Covenant of Grace made with man, whereof <HI>loo&s;ing</HI> and <HI>binding</HI> are a great part. Nor is it material the Mini&s;ter &s;hould know (as &s;uch) the per&s;ons whom he bindes or loo&s;es ab&s;olutely, the binding or loo&s;ing being as &s;ure and effectual, though he do
<PB N="367" REF="181">
it <HI>ignorans,</HI> as though he did it <HI>&s;ciens volens.</HI> Only the Mini&s;ter mu&s;t take heed he lo&s;e not ei|ther pa&s;torally or juridically where he thinks in his con&s;cience he ought to bind; nor bind where his con&s;cience tells him he ought to loo&s;e, whether it be with the key of Doctrine, or of Di&s;cipline.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>The word is a &s;ealed word only to the Church, the &s;eal is delivered only for her u&s;e, and therefore is to be applied only to her members.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. He may as well &s;ay, The word is a &s;worn and written word only to the Church. God hath not only written, but al&s;o &s;worn, and &s;ealed in the Sacrament the &s;alvation of all beleevers, and the damnation of all unbelevers, whether they be Church-members or no; And do we think the oath and &s;eal &s;hall not take hold of them as well as the writing.</P>
<P N="2">2. Cannot the word be a &s;ealed word, un|le&s;s the Seal be applied to per&s;ons, as well as to the writing? I hope a Will is a &s;ealed Will, though the Seal be not applied to the Legatees, but only to the Will it &s;elf. Had God appointed the elements only to be broken and powred out; I hope tho&s;e very actions had &s;ealed the Covenant, though no per&s;on pre&s;ent had received; and even now they do &s;eal the Covenant before any per&s;on doth receive. The Sin-offering did both &s;ignifie and &s;eal pardon to the penitent offerer, though he are not one bit thereof; and &s;o doth the baptizing of a child &s;eal the Govenant to the whole Con|gregation, though bapti&s;mal-water be applied only to the Babe.</P>
<P><Q REND="inline">Mr. <HI>D. Not only the tenor of the Cove|nant is &s;ealed ab&s;olutely to the worthy re|ceiver,
<PB N="368" REF="182">
but al&s;o his intere&s;t in it. And though the word &s;peak not particularly of any mans &s;ingle intere&s;t by name, yet it doth by &s;igns, &amp;c.</HI></Q></P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H. p.</HI> 192. <HI>If a mans particular in|tere&s;t depends upon the&s;e &s;igns and marks, then is his intere&s;t only conditional, and mu&s;t be &s;ealed as it is;</HI> and the rather, becau&s;e <HI>the word doth no where tell me, that I have the&s;e &s;igns and marks.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. I deny the con&s;equence as pro|pounded by Mr. <HI>H.</HI> my intere&s;t indeed upon the &s;uppo&s;ition is conditional, which is no bar to ab|&s;olutene&s;s, as hath been formerly &s;hewed. But that it is only conditional is Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his mi&s;take: For where the condition is performed (as it is in the worthy Receiver) there his intere&s;t is ab&s;o|lute, and is &s;ealed ab&s;olutely, yea, though nei|ther the Mini&s;ter, nor the Receiver know the con|dition to be performed, God ratifying his Co|venant ab&s;olutely to them that keep Covenant, though neither the Mini&s;ter, nor them&s;elves know they keep Covenant.</P>
<P N="2">2. The word doth no where tell Mr. <HI>H.</HI> in par|ticular that he hath the &s;igns of a man, yet I hope the general. <HI>That all men &s;hall ri&s;e at the day of judgement,</HI> doth as certainly prove that Mr. <HI>H.</HI> &s;hall ri&s;e, as if the word had &s;aid particularly, <HI>John Humphrey</HI> Mini&s;ter of <HI>Froom, Anno</HI> 1653. &s;hall ri&s;e at the day of judgement. In like man|ner, The word never &s;ayes, Thou <HI>Timot by</HI> &s;halt be on Chri&s;ts right hand at the day of judge|ment, but it &s;ayes, All the &s;heep &s;hall be then at Chri&s;ts right hand; therefore it &s;ayes ab&s;olutely <HI>Timothy</HI> &s;hall be at Chri&s;ts right hand; Why?
<PB N="369" REF="182">
Becau&s;e <HI>Timothy</HI> is a &s;heep; for the condition be|ing performed makes the promi&s;e or prediction ab&s;olute; and otherwi&s;e its not an ab&s;olute truth that Mr. <HI>H.</HI> &s;hall ri&s;e at the la&s;t day. Set the pro|po&s;itions together;</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>If</HI> Mr. <HI>H. be a man he &s;hall ri&s;e at the la&s;t day.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>If</HI> Timothy <HI>be a &s;heep, he &s;hall &s;tand on Chri&s;ts right hand at the la&s;t day.</HI> Here both the propo&s;itions are conditional in terms, yet I hope they are ab&s;olute in &s;en&s;e. Why I pray? Becau&s;e the conditions are performed in each of them, for Mr. <HI>H.</HI> is a man, and <HI>Timothy</HI> is Chri&s;ts &s;heep.</P>
<P><Q REND="inline">Mr. <HI>D.</HI> vi&s;ible intere&s;t is &s;ealed to vi&s;ible Saints.</Q></P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>Church members are vi&s;ible Saints, therefore</HI> con&s;ideratis con&s;iderandis, <HI>mu&s;t be ad|mitted.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. I &s;peak of vi&s;ible Saints <HI>ab&s;olutely</HI> &s;o, he of vi&s;ible Saints only <HI>relatively</HI> &s;o, that is, divers per&s;ons wor&s;e than heathen, that have no|thing to plead, but that they are born in the Church, baptized in their infancy, and have the name of Chri&s;tians.</P>
<P N="2">2. True vi&s;ible Saints mu&s;t be admitted <HI>con|&s;ideratis con&s;iderandis;</HI> but Mr. <HI>H.</HI> will not <HI>con|&s;iderare omnia con&s;ideranda;</HI> therefore by his own rule his vi&s;ible Saints mu&s;t not be admitted.</P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 192 &amp; 193. Mr. <HI>H.</HI> falls foul upon me as que&s;tioning Mr. <HI>Baxters</HI> truth of grace, whom yet he quotes &s;o blindly.</P>
<P N="1">That 1. He mentions not Mr. <HI>Baxters</HI> name.</P>
<P N="2">Nor 2. His book out of which he quotes.</P>
<P N="3">Nor 3. Did I know it was Mr. <HI>Baxter,</HI> or who it was particularly.</P>
<P N="4"><PB N="370" REF="183">
Nor 4. Have &s;o much as read Mr. <HI>Baxters</HI> Aphori&s;mes, out of which the Quotation was taken.</P>
<P N="5">Nor 5. Had Mr. <HI>H.</HI> rea&s;on to cen&s;ure me for putting an <HI>if &s;o,</HI> upon Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> pre&s;ented to me under a confu&s;ed di&s;gui&s;e, when him&s;elf puts an <HI>if &s;o</HI> upon all the godly men in the world, in &s;ay|ing, <HI>The Mini&s;ter cannot &s;eal &s;alvation to any but conditionally,</HI> that is, if he be Evangelically worthy; and what is this, but an <HI>if &s;o?</HI> Yet, I hope, by that <HI>if &s;o,</HI> he doth not out of a bitter &s;pirit que&s;tion their piety. If herein I am more charitable to him, than he hath been to me, I hope he will not take it unkindly. My words p. 140. of my <HI>Bar,</HI> are the&s;e:</P>
<P><Q REND="inline"><HI>I hope that godly per&s;on</HI> (if &s;o) <HI>was conver|ted before Mr. H. his</HI> Embryon <HI>was hatcht.</HI></Q></P>
<P>Upon the&s;e very words, Mr. <HI>H.</HI> is plea&s;ed to charge me <HI>with &s;elf-conceit, prejudice, and a bitter &s;pirit,</HI> p. 192. when as him&s;elf in that very place where he quotes Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> &s;o blindly, p. 48. of his Vindication, gives him in effect, an <HI>if &s;o,</HI> in the&s;e words, <HI>I cannot but be glad to find a piercing godly man (I take him) &amp;c.</HI> Him|&s;elf dare not &s;ay ab&s;olutely he was a godly man, but he takes him to be &s;o; I &s;ay that godly man, <HI>if &s;o,</HI> was converted before, &amp;c. I leave it to the judicious Reader, whether Mr. <HI>H.</HI> or my &s;elf were more guilty of &s;elf-conceit, prejudice, and a bitter &s;pirit. Withall, what ever Mr. <HI>Baxters</HI> judgement be for Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his &s;yllogi&s;m, I am &s;ure he is not of Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his opinion for admitting all pell-mell. Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> is a per&s;on whom I highly honor in the Lord, though I cannot in every thing <HI>jurare in verba magi&s;tri.</HI></P>
<P><PB N="371" REF="183"><HI>Page</HI> 193. Mr. <HI>H.</HI> comes to his &s;yllogi&s;m, <HI>Who&s;oever beleeves &s;hall be &s;aved, I beleeve,</HI> ergo, <HI>I &s;hall be &s;aved.</HI> p. 141. of my <HI>Bar,</HI> I en|deavour to prove the conclu&s;ion of this &s;yllogi&s;m (I &s;hall be &s;aved) is &s;ealed in the Sacrament. My argument is drawn from the general, and parti|cular promi&s;e, <HI>Joh.</HI> 3. 16. and <HI>Rom.</HI> 10. 9. and confirmed from the particular offer of grace, and from the argument <HI>&agrave; genere ad &s;peciem.</HI> See p. 141. and 142. of my <HI>Bar.</HI> Now what is pro|mi&s;ed in the Covenant is &s;ealed in the Sacra|ment.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H. denies my argument,</HI> and gives his rea&s;on, <HI>page</HI> 193. <HI>becau&s;e the Covenant pro|mi&s;es only conditionally that I &s;hall be &s;aved.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> It hath been formerly &s;hewed, that what is promi&s;ed conditionally, is promi&s;ed ab|&s;olutely, where the condition is performed; and what is promi&s;ed in the Covenant, is &s;ealed in the Sacrament. As in this conditional propo&s;ition, <HI>If</HI> Mr. <HI>H. be a man, he is a living creature.</HI> I hope the conditionality of this propo&s;ition is no bar to the ab&s;olutene&s;s of the con&s;equent. Mr. <HI>H.</HI> is conditionally an <HI>animal,</HI> as is evident in the hypothe&s;is, yet he is ab&s;olutely an <HI>animal</HI> too. Why? becau&s;e the condition of animality (namely humanity) is in him.</P>
<P>In like manner, <HI>If</HI> Timothy <HI>beleeve, he &s;hall be &s;aved;</HI> the con&s;equent (Timothy <HI>&s;hall be &s;a|ved</HI>) is ab&s;olute in &s;en&s;e, becau&s;e he hath per|formed the condition of faith, though it be con|ditional in terms: And that promi&s;e which &s;ayes, All that beleeve &s;hall be &s;aved, &s;ayes <HI>Timothy</HI> &s;hall be &s;aved, becau&s;e <HI>Timothy</HI> beleeves; as he that &s;ayes, All men &s;hall ri&s;e, &s;ayes <HI>Timothy</HI> &s;hall
<PB N="372" REF="184">
ri&s;e, becau&s;e <HI>Timothy</HI> is a man.</P>
<P>Note by the way, that I do not &s;ay, The con|clu&s;ion is ab&s;olute <HI>to all,</HI> but only to tho&s;e who have performed, or have in them the condition; and withall, that though it be true, that he who once receives with faith &s;hall be &s;aved, <HI>yet it fol|lows not, that he who once receives without faith &s;hall be damned,</HI> as Mr. <HI>H.</HI> ab&s;urdly infers, <HI>page</HI> 194. &s;ince even a &s;tate of unbeleef doth not prove ab&s;olutely that I &s;hall be damned, but only that at pre&s;ent I am in a &s;tate of damnation; much le&s;s doth a receiving once without faith in|fer any &s;uch direful conclu&s;ion; and the rea&s;on is, becau&s;e a &s;tate of unbeleef is changeable through grace, but a &s;tate of faith is unchangeable through grace; and one act of faith, argues a &s;tate of faith, but one omi&s;&s;ion of the act of faith, doth not argue a &s;tate of unbeleef.</P>
<P><HI>Ib.</HI> His argument is too weak to convince my di&s;tinction of weakne&s;s, for though the matter of the offer and promi&s;e be all one, yet that grace may be offered ab&s;olutely which is not accepted, but no grace is promi&s;ed ab&s;olutely, which is not, or &s;hall not be accepted.</P>
<P><Q REND="inline">Mr. <HI>D. Where the condition is performed, there the promi&s;e is ab&s;olute.</HI></Q></P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>I deny it; what is but upon &s;uppo|&s;ition is not ab&s;olute; you may &s;ay, It is as good to me, as if it were ab&s;olute; it is certain, (there lyes the equivocation) but how is it certain? not ab&s;olutely certain (as election is) but con|ditionally certain; for the promi&s;e is &s;till the &s;ame, and no new promi&s;e.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. If a conditional promi&s;e be <HI>as good to me,</HI> as if it were ab&s;olute; that is, <HI>certain,</HI> then
<PB N="373" REF="184">
M. <HI>H.</HI> doth but wrangle about terms. Grant the Believers &s;alvation is certain, as if it were ab|&s;olute, we have enough: And its evident, there is a wide difference between the conditionality of <HI>Peters</HI> and <HI>Judas</HI> his &s;alvation, &s;ince <HI>Peters</HI> con|ditional &s;alvation is certain, not &s;o <HI>Judas</HI> his con|ditional &s;alvation. That which is ab&s;olute can but be certain, and that which is conditional is certain. Now that which is certain in the Covenant, is &s;ealed in the Sacrament; therefore its &s;ealed in the Sacrament that <HI>Peter</HI> &s;hall certainly be &s;aved (not &s;o that <HI>Judas</HI> &s;hall certainly be &s;aved) which is the conclu&s;ion of the Syllogi&s;m.</P>
<P N="2">2. There is no equivocation, but a plain and downright a&s;&s;ertion, <HI>That conditionality is no Bar to ab&s;olutene&s;s:</HI> And, if this be not true, there is no ab&s;olute propo&s;ition in the world. To in&s;tance in that of election, which M. <HI>H.</HI> grants is ab&s;olute. Let the propo&s;ition be, <HI>All that are elected, &s;hall certainly be &s;aved.</HI> This propo&s;i|tion in truth is ab&s;olute, and is &s;o granted to be by M. <HI>H.</HI> Now let M. <HI>H.</HI> or any other, prove this propo&s;ition; he will clearly &s;ee, it is condi|tional al&s;o. For evidence whereof, I &s;hall pro|pound this Agument,
<Q TYPE="syllogism"><HI>If God be all-wi&s;e, all-&s;ufficient, and un|changeable in his eternal purpo&s;e of free|grace, then all that are elected &s;hall cer|tainly be &s;aved. But God is &s;o;</HI> ergo.</Q>
Is it not here evident, that the con&s;equent (which is the conclu&s;ion) is conditional? yet withal, we &s;ay truly, it is ab&s;olute. Why? Becau&s;e the condi|tion of infinite wi&s;dom, power, and unchange|ablene&s;s (which are the nece&s;&s;ary <HI>mediums</HI> to prove the conclu&s;ion) are really, nece&s;&s;arily, and e&s;&s;enti|ally
<PB N="374" REF="185">
in God. Now if <HI>conditionality</HI> be no bar to the ab&s;olutene&s;s of election, why &s;hould it be a bar to the ab&s;olutene&s;s of the <HI>promi&s;e</HI> as made to the elect and regenerate, for whom, or by whom the condition either is, or &s;hall certainly be per|formed, and is undertaken for in the promi&s;e, as well as are the good things promi&s;ed upon that condition.</P>
<P>M. <HI>D.</HI> <Q REND="inline"><HI>When I believe, the condition is per|formed;</HI> ergo, <HI>the promi&s;e, that I &s;hall be &s;aved, is ab&s;olute.</HI></Q></P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>That which a&s;&s;ures me of a benefit onely upon condition, and does not a&s;&s;ure me the condition, doth not a&s;&s;ure me ab&s;olutely of the benefit. The Sacrament a&s;&s;ures me of &s;alvati|tion onely upon condition I believe, but doth not a&s;&s;ure me I believe: Therefore it doth not a&s;&s;ure me ab&s;olutely of &s;alvation.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. M. <HI>H.</HI> his an&s;wer is not home to the matter immediately under debate; I &s;peaking of the ab&s;olutene&s;s of the promi&s;e to a believer, and he an&s;wering of the Sacraments &s;ealing to a be|liever. Now the promi&s;e is ab&s;olute, whether the Sacrament &s;eal or no, yea, though there &s;hould be no Sacrament or Seal at all.</P>
<P N="2">2. There is a twofold a&s;&s;urance, 1 Real. 2. Sen|&s;ible. The Sacrament gives to <HI>Peter</HI> real a&s;&s;u|rance of his faith, though not always &s;en&s;ible a&s;&s;u|rance, for which not the Sacrament, but <HI>Peter</HI> him&s;elf is to be blamed, who fails haply, 1. In a direct act, not con&s;idering the nature and u&s;e of the Sacrament. 2. In a reflex act, not ob&s;erving his own faith of adherence; whereupon he may well fall &s;hort of &s;en&s;ible a&s;&s;urance. The Sacra|ment can &s;eal but what is in the Covenant, and
<PB N="375" REF="185">
the Covenant doth not undertake &s;o ab&s;olutely for faith of evidence, as it doth for faith of adhe|rence.</P>
<P N="3">3. There is an ambiguity in the words, <HI>I be|lieve:</HI> The Sacrament doth not &s;eal, <HI>I believe, de prae&s;enti,</HI> unle&s;s actually I do believe <HI>de prae|&s;enti,</HI> for then it &s;hould &s;eal a fal&s;ity; which how ab&s;urd? But it &s;eals, 1. That every true believer hath &s;aving grace. 2. That he hath believed, and &s;hall believe by intervals till he dye. And this it doth by con&s;equents; namely, by &s;ealing the Covenant, and therein the truth of tho&s;e marks and &s;igns which accompany the act of adherence, produced by a Believer at the Sacrament, or at any other time.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>Again,</HI>
<Q TYPE="syllogism"><HI>That propo&s;ition that con|tains the Covenant is &s;ealed: But the ma|jor contains the Covenant, not the con|clu&s;ion; therefore the major not the con|clu&s;ion, is &s;ealed.</HI></Q></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. The major of his Syllogi&s;m is not &s;ufficient to infer the conclu&s;ion, unle&s;s the term <HI>onely</HI> or <HI>alone</HI> be added to it.</P>
<P N="2">2. I deny the &s;econd branch of his <HI>minor,</HI> and affirm the contrary propo&s;ition, namely, <HI>That the conclu&s;ion is in the Covenant,</HI> to wit, remote|ly, and by con&s;equence, though not immediate|ly, as is the <HI>major.</HI> M <HI>H.</HI> will not deny; that all &s;olid con&s;equences from Scripture are virtually in Scripture; otherwi&s;e our Saviour could never have proved the Re&s;urrection from that text, <HI>I am the God of Abraham, &amp;c.</HI> Let us compare the Syllogi&s;ms.</P>
<P N="1"><PB N="376" REF="186">
1. Syllog.</P>
<Q TYPE="syllogism"><HI>If God be the God of</HI> Abraham, <HI>&amp;c. then there is a Re&s;urrection: God is the God of</HI> Abraham; <HI>therefore there is a Re&s;ur|rection.</HI></Q>
<P N="2">2. Syllog.</P>
<Q TYPE="syllogism"><HI>If all believers &s;hall be &s;aved; then</HI> Peter <HI>&s;hall be &s;aved: All believers &s;hall be &s;aved; therefore</HI> Peter <HI>&s;hall be &s;aved.</HI></Q>
<P>The <HI>Antecedent</HI> in each Syllogi&s;m is expre&s;s Scripture, and virtually includes the <HI>Con&s;equent.</HI> Nor is it material as to the pre&s;ent <HI>Conclu&s;ion,</HI> whether <HI>Peter</HI> by a reflex act knows that he doth believe, the conclu&s;ion of certain &s;alvation flowing from the pre&s;ence, and acting of faith in <HI>Peter,</HI> not from <HI>Peters</HI> knowledge thereof. <HI>Peters</HI> comfort indeed depends upon the knowledge of his faith; but that is the <HI>minor</HI> of the fir&s;t Syllogi&s;m of a&s;&s;urance (of which anon) not the conclu|&s;ion.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> p. 195. M. <HI>D. p.</HI> 143. <HI>undertakes the minor, although before,</HI> p. 128. <HI>he tells us, <Q REND="inline">He knows none &s;o &s;imple as to a&s;&s;ert, that God doth atte&s;t our faith:</Q> Yet here he is grown &s;o wi&s;e as to a&s;&s;ert, that God doth &s;eal to this propo&s;iti|on, I believe.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> In the&s;e expre&s;&s;ions M. <HI>H.</HI> doth not carry him&s;elf as a fair and candid Adver&s;ary, but mangles and corrupts my text, thereby to &s;lur me. My words, <HI>p.</HI> 128. of my <HI>Bar,</HI> are the&s;e, <Q REND="inline"><HI>I know none &s;o &s;imple as to a&s;&s;ert, that God doth</HI> in terminis <HI>atte&s;t our faith in the Sacrament.</HI></Q> And to prevent (what in me lay) all po&s;&s;ibility of cavil, I have the&s;e words in the margin, <Q REND="inline"><HI>My meaning is, The Sacrament doth not &s;ay</HI>
<PB N="377" REF="186">
in expre&s;s terms. <HI>Thou</HI> Roger <HI>believe&s;t, no more than the word doth, but onely by con|&s;equence.</HI></Q> Now M. <HI>H.</HI> (more prudently than honorably) leaves out tho&s;e words, <HI>in terminis;</HI> and withal, takes not the lea&s;t notice of my margi|nal explication, that thereby he might make the Reader believe I &s;peak here a contradiction; whereas if both my a&s;&s;ertions be candidly pre&s;ent|ed, there is no &s;hew of contradiction. For proof, let the propo&s;itions be compared.</P>
<P N="1">1. Propo&s;. <HI>The Scripture &s;ays not in expre&s;s terms, Thou</HI> Roger <HI>believe&s;t.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. Propo&s;. <HI>The Scripture &s;ays by con&s;equence, Thou</HI> Roger <HI>believe&s;t.</HI></P>
<P>I hope its no contradiction to affirm, The Scri|pture &s;ays that by con&s;equence, which it doth not &s;ay in expre&s;s terms. But enough of this ca|vil, which I leave at M. <HI>H.</HI> his door, and pro|ceed.</P>
<P>M. <HI>D.</HI> <Q REND="inline"><HI>What the Covenant a&s;&s;ures, the Sacrament &s;eals: The Covenant a&s;&s;ures me that I believe; therefore the Sacrament &s;eals that I believe. The</HI> minor <HI>is proved, becau&s;e the Covenant gives me clear evidence of my faith by infallible &s;igns of faith, &amp;c.</HI></Q></P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> p. 195. <HI>You may &s;ee here how much prejudice will blinde a man. The mi&s;take is manife&s;t in reckning that to the</HI> minor, <HI>which belongs to the</HI> major: <HI>for when the word &s;ays, If I believe, I &s;hall be &s;aved, it is all one with, If I receive Chri&s;t for righteou&s;ne&s;s, and have the&s;e and the&s;e marks, whereby it de&s;cribes this faith to me: All which go to the</HI> major. <HI>Now the</HI> minor <HI>or A&s;&s;umption is, But I have the&s;e marks, &s;igns, or that true faith thus de|&s;cribed.</HI>
<PB N="378" REF="187">
And this <HI>is no where affirmed to me in the word, and con&s;equently not &s;ealed.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. If this Logick of M. <HI>H.</HI> be good, there is no <HI>minor</HI> or A&s;&s;umption, but the proof of it belongs to the <HI>major.</HI> Take one in&s;tance, I would prove my &s;elf (by Philo&s;ophy) to be a <HI>man,</HI> the very &s;ame way I have proved my &s;elf (by Scripture) to believe. Ob&s;erve now how the argument and an&s;wer run parallel with my ar|gument, to prove I believe, and M. <HI>H.</HI> his an|&s;wer applyed thereto; by which compari&s;on the ab&s;urdity of M. <HI>H.</HI> his an&s;wer will evidently ap|pear. The argument &s;tands thus;
<Q TYPE="syllogism"><HI>If I am</HI> animal rationale, <HI>I am</HI> homo: <HI>I am</HI> animal rationale; <HI>therefore I am</HI> Homo,</Q></P>
<P>The <HI>minor</HI> is proved, becau&s;e Philo&s;ophy gives me clear evidence of my animality and rationality, by &s;ure &s;igns thereof.</P>
<P>May not M. <HI>H.</HI> here with as much &s;hew of rea&s;on argue, The mi&s;take is manife&s;t in reckning that to the <HI>minor,</HI> which belongs to the <HI>major;</HI> for when <HI>Philo&s;ophy</HI> &s;ays, If I am <HI>animal rati|onale,</HI> I am <HI>homo;</HI> it is all one with, If I am a &s;en|&s;itive body indued with a rea&s;onable &s;oul, and have all other nece&s;&s;ary &s;igns and marks where|by it de&s;cribes animality and rationality to me, then I am <HI>Homo,</HI> all which go to the <HI>major.</HI> Now the <HI>minor</HI> or A&s;&s;umption is, But I have the&s;e marks and &s;igns, or that true anima|lity and rationality thus de&s;cribed: and this is no where affirmed to me in Philo&s;ophy; for <HI>Phi|lo&s;ophy</HI> doth not &s;ay in expre&s;s terms, Thou <HI>Roger</HI> ha&s;t the true &s;igns or marks of animality and rati|onality; therefore <HI>Philo&s;ophy</HI> doth not &s;ay, Thou
<PB N="379" REF="187">
<HI>Roger</HI> art a man; and &s;o it cannot be proved from Philo&s;ophy that I am a man. You may argue as ab&s;urdly, from <HI>Scripture,</HI> if you plea&s;e, The <HI>Scri|pture</HI> doth not &s;ay in expre&s;s terms, Thou <HI>Roger</HI> ha&s;t the certain &s;igns of animality and rationality, therefore it doth not &s;ay, Thou <HI>Roger</HI> art a man: And &s;o, belike, it cannot be proved from Scri|pture, that I am a man. Is not this rare Logick think you? If now I &s;hould de&s;ire M. <HI>H.</HI> to prove him&s;elf to be a <HI>man,</HI> he mu&s;t prove it from <HI>Scripture</HI> or <HI>Philo&s;ophy.</HI> And how I pray, but by tho&s;e infallibly and nece&s;&s;ary marks laid down in <HI>Scripture,</HI> or in <HI>Philo&s;ophy?</HI> Suppo&s;e then I &s;hould return, and &s;ay, I but Sir, neither <HI>Scri|pture</HI> nor <HI>Philo&s;ophy</HI> &s;ay tho&s;e &s;igns are in M. <HI>H.</HI> therefore neither <HI>Scripture</HI> nor <HI>Philo&s;ophy</HI> prove that M. <HI>H.</HI> is a man: Did I not de&s;erve to be hooted at for &s;uch a return?</P>
<P>It is evident then, that though neither <HI>Scripture</HI> nor <HI>Philo&s;ophy</HI> &s;ay in expre&s;s terms, <HI>Thou</HI> Ti|mothy <HI>art a man;</HI> yet becau&s;e both of them lay down the certain &s;igns of a man, which are really in <HI>Timothy;</HI> therefore both <HI>Scripture</HI> and <HI>Phi|lo&s;ophy</HI> &s;ay by con&s;equence (though not in ex|pre&s;s terms) <HI>Thou</HI> Timothy <HI>art a man.</HI> Pro|portionably, though the Scripture &s;ay not in ex|pre&s;s terms, <HI>Thou</HI> Timothy <HI>believe&s;t;</HI> yet be|cau&s;e the Scripture lays down the infallible &s;igns of faith, which are really in <HI>Timothy,</HI> it &s;ays by con&s;equence, <HI>Thou</HI> Timothy <HI>believe&s;t.</HI> And that which the <HI>Scripture</HI> &s;peaks by con&s;equence, is as true, as that which it &s;peaks expre&s;ly. If the <HI>Scripture</HI> &s;ay, whoever hath the&s;e marks of faith, hath &s;aving faith, it &s;ays <HI>Timothy</HI> hath &s;aving faith: And though the propo&s;ition be conditional, <HI>If</HI>
<PB N="380" REF="188">
Timothy <HI>have the&s;e marks, he hath &s;aving faith;</HI> yet the con&s;equent is ab&s;olute, becau&s;e the condition is performed in <HI>Timothy.</HI> And it is as ab&s;urd to argue, I but <HI>the e&s;&s;ential marks of faith are the &s;ame with faith; and therefore cannot prove believing to be faith:</HI> as to argue, <HI>The e&s;&s;ential marks of a man are the &s;ame with a man; and therefore cannot prove</HI> Timothy <HI>to be a man.</HI></P>
<P>You &s;ee the ab&s;urdity. <HI>If you ask how M.</HI> H. <HI>was beguiled to clo&s;e with &s;uch an ab|&s;urdity?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> He was deceived by a fal&s;e principle, as apprehending, <HI>That what&s;oever is a medium of demon&s;tration, mu&s;t not be one and the &s;ame with the thing it demon&s;trates.</HI> This is evident by tho&s;e expre&s;&s;ions of his, <HI>p.</HI> 195. <HI>When the Word &s;ays, if I believe I &s;hall be &s;aved; it is all one with, if I receive Chri&s;t for righteou&s;|ne&s;s, and have the&s;e and the&s;e marks, &amp;c.</HI> The Argument &s;tands thus,
<Q TYPE="syllogism"><HI>If I believe, I &s;hall be &s;aved: I believe, therefore I &s;hall be &s;aved.</HI></Q></P>
<P>The Antecedent (which is the &s;ame with the <HI>minor</HI>) is thus proved, He that receives Chri&s;t for righteou&s;ne&s;s believes: I receive Chri&s;t for righ|teou&s;ne&s;s; therefore I believe. <NOTE PLACE="marg">The fir&s;t Propo&s;iti|on is not at all a&s;&s;erted in the <HI>ma|jor,</HI> but &s;uppo&s;ed: the &s;econd propo&s;iti|on is a&s;|&s;erted on|ly condi|onally in the <HI>major:</HI> but <HI>that</HI> is a&s;&s;erted ab&s;olutely in the <HI>minor, this</HI> in the Conclu&s;ion. And though both propo&s;itions were fal&s;e, yet the <HI>major</HI> or hypothe&s;is is good, if the connexion be right.</NOTE> Here M. <HI>H.</HI> an|&s;wers, that receiving Chri&s;t for righteou&s;ne&s;s, is the &s;ame with believing; and therefore belongs to the <HI>major,</HI> not to the <HI>minor</HI> or <HI>A&s;&s;umption.</HI> True, it belongs to the <HI>major materially,</HI> as one part thereof; which <HI>major</HI> being an hypothetical
<PB N="381" REF="188">
propo&s;ition is compounded of two propo&s;itions; namely, the Antecedent and the Con&s;equent, <HI>I receive Chri&s;t for righteou&s;ne&s;s, I believe;</HI> both which propo&s;itions are united by the note of con|&s;equence <HI>(if)</HI> but it doth not formally belong to the <HI>major,</HI> as an hypothetical propo&s;ition, or as a Con&s;equence, who&s;e e&s;&s;ence lies not in the truth of the parts, but in the connexion of the parts. Reduce the hypothetical into a Categorical Syl|logi&s;m, it will evidently appear, that this pro|po&s;ition <HI>(I receive Chri&s;t for righteou&s;ne&s;s)</HI> be|longs not to the <HI>major,</HI> but to the <HI>minor.</HI> Thus:
<Q TYPE="syllogism"><HI>He that receives Chri&s;t for righteou&s;ne&s;s believes: I receive Chri&s;t for righteou&s;|ne&s;s; therefore I believe.</HI></Q></P>
<P>Will M. <HI>H.</HI> now &s;ay, the <HI>minor</HI> belongs to the <HI>major?</HI></P>
<P>Object. <HI>I but</HI> Receiving Chri&s;t for righteou&s;|ne&s;s, <HI>and</HI> believing, <HI>are all one, and &s;o</HI> you <HI>do but prove</HI> idem per idem.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> True: And how will M. <HI>H.</HI> prove <HI>idem,</HI> but <HI>peridem?</HI> Is not that the cleare&s;t and &s;tronge&s;t demon&s;tration that proves a &s;ubject <HI>&agrave; priori,</HI> by its e&s;&s;ential principles, that are the very &s;ame with the &s;ubject? Can he demon&s;trate the <HI>definitum</HI> better, than <HI>per definitionem?</HI> and is not <HI>definitio</HI> the fame with the <HI>definitum?</HI> Is not <HI>animal rationale,</HI> the very &s;ame with <HI>homo?</HI> And if M. <HI>H.</HI> will prove him&s;elf to be a <HI>man,</HI> is not the be&s;t demon&s;tration thereof by <HI>animal ra|tionale,</HI> which yet I hope is one and the &s;ame thing with a <HI>man.</HI> The <HI>definition</HI> indeed differs <HI>vatione</HI> from the <HI>definitum,</HI> but not really. In like maner, is not <HI>ens</HI> the &s;ame with <HI>unum, verum, bonum?</HI> yet <HI>Philo&s;ophy</HI> demon&s;trates <HI>ens</HI> by
<PB N="382" REF="189">
tho&s;e properties of <HI>ens,</HI> as it doth al&s;o <HI>per e&s;&s;en|tiam,</HI> which mu&s;t needs be the &s;ame with <HI>ens.</HI> Thus too, it demon&s;trates <HI>animal per animali|tatem,</HI> which <HI>animalit as</HI> is the very &s;ame with <HI>animal.</HI> To conclude, Gods e&s;&s;ence is demon|&s;trated by his properties, and one divine proper|ty is demon&s;trated by another; yet Gods e&s;&s;ence and properties are all one and the &s;ame thing, the divine nature having not the lea&s;t compo&s;ition; yea, can M. <HI>H.</HI> prove him&s;elf to be a man by that which is not really a man? If the be&s;t de|mon&s;tration be <HI>per idem,</HI> then &s;ure I erre not in demon&s;trating faith by it &s;elf; which if M. <HI>H.</HI> will deny, he mu&s;t make not onely a new Logick, but al&s;o a new Scripture, &s;eeing the Scripture de|&s;cribes, and &s;o proves <HI>receiving Chri&s;t,</HI> and <HI>be|lieving in Chri&s;t,</HI> each by other, <HI>John</HI> 1. 12.</P>
<P>Object. <HI>Is not this a circular demon&s;tra|tion?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Not at all, &s;o the <HI>medium</HI> or argu|ment be <HI>notius,</HI> more known of it &s;elf, or to the learner, than the thing proved is. Thus, If you ask me, what is faith? <HI>An&s;.</HI> Its a receiving of Chri&s;t for righteou&s;ne&s;s. This de&s;cription is the very &s;ame indeed with faith, but more known to a learner than the term faith is; and therefore doth very aptly both open and demon&s;trate the nature of faith, as being the &s;ame with faith <HI>reali|ter,</HI> though not <HI>ratione.</HI> Its evident then, that though faith be the very &s;ame with receiving of Chri&s;t, yet its no <HI>Paralogi&s;m</HI> to prove or de|mon&s;trace faith by receiving of Chri&s;t, as M. <HI>H.</HI> would make the world believe.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>I will therefore return his argument; If the word or Covenant doth not a&s;&s;ure me, I
<PB N="383" REF="189">
leeve, then this</HI> minor <HI>cannot be &s;ealed; but this it doth not, for it no where &s;ayes, I have the&s;e marks and &s;igns, ergo.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Since Mr. <HI>H.</HI> will needs be ab&s;urd, let me be ab&s;urd al&s;o to convince him. Suppo&s;e the <HI>minor</HI> be <HI>I am a man.</HI> Let me now act Mr. <HI>H.</HI> If neither <HI>Scripture,</HI> nor <HI>Philo&s;ophy</HI> a&s;&s;ure me that I am a man, then the <HI>minor</HI> cannot be proved from <HI>Scripture</HI> or <HI>Philo&s;ophy;</HI> but this they do not, for they no where &s;ay, I <HI>Roger</HI> have the marks and &s;igns of a man.</P>
<P>Yet further to evidence the ab&s;urdity, let us argue proportionably about the <HI>Command,</HI> as we have done about the <HI>Promi&s;e.</HI> I ask Mr. <HI>H.</HI> then, Whether the <HI>Scripture</HI> doth not &s;ay, I <HI>Roger</HI> mu&s;t not commit adultery. I prove it doth, thus: The <HI>Scripture</HI> &s;ayes, No man &s;hall commit adultery; Therefore it &s;ays, I <HI>Roger</HI> mu&s;t not commit adultery. The <HI>minor</HI> of the <HI>Enthy|meme, I Roger am a man,</HI> is thus proved, He that hath the nece&s;&s;ary marks of a man, is a man; I have the&s;e marks, therefore I am a man.</P>
<P><HI>Object.</HI> I but the <HI>Scripture</HI> or <HI>Philo&s;ophy</HI> no where &s;ay, That I <HI>Roger</HI> have tho&s;e marks of a man, therefore it cannot be proved from them that I am a man, and by con&s;equence it cannot be proved from <HI>Scripture</HI> that I am forbid to com|mit adultery: Would not &s;uch an an&s;wer be both ridiculous and prophane? Yea by &s;uch a loo&s;e argument might not all obedience be waved, as al&s;o the e&s;pecial commands of the Go&s;pel? If the Word and Covenant do not a&s;&s;ure me that I mu&s;t repent, then it cannot be proved from Scripture that I mu&s;t repent. But this the word doth not a&s;&s;ure me, <HI>ergo.</HI> The <HI>minor</HI> is proved, becau&s;e
<PB N="384" REF="190">
the <HI>Scripture</HI> no where &s;ayes, <HI>Then</HI> Roger <HI>mu&s;t repent; ergo.</HI> How will Mr. <HI>H.</HI> now convince me but by arguing thus? The <HI>Scripture</HI> &s;ayes, Every <HI>man</HI> mu&s;t repent, <HI>Acts</HI> 17. 30. Thou <HI>Roger</HI> art a <HI>man, ergo;</HI> &s;uppo&s;e now I &s;hould return, the Scripture no where &s;ayes, <HI>Thou</HI> Roger <HI>art a man, or ha&s;t the marks of a man</HI> (under&s;tand the &s;ame of <HI>Phi|lo&s;ophy</HI>) therefore it cannot be proved that I am a man, and by con&s;equence, that I am commanded in <HI>Scripture</HI> to repent. Would not &s;uch a reply de|&s;erve a Cudgel rather than an an&s;wer? Its evident then that the <HI>Scripture</HI> doth by con&s;equence (though not in expre&s;s terms) a&s;&s;ure <HI>Timothy That he doth beleeve,</HI> which is the <HI>minor</HI> of the &s;yllogi&s;m of a&s;&s;urance: And what the Covenant a&s;&s;ures, that the Sacrament &s;eals, namely, That <HI>Timothy doth beleeve, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> ib. &amp; p. 196. <HI>Again, if it were in the word, it were an object of faith; but it is no object of faith;</HI> Probo, <HI>That which is &s;een is no object of faith, for &s;en&s;e takes away faith,</HI> 2 Cor. 5. 7. <HI>and faith is an evidence of things not &s;een,</HI> Heb. 11. 1. <HI>But the</HI> minor, <HI>I beleeve, is an object of &s;en&s;e, &s;piritual experience, or thing &s;een.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. It is in the word (by con&s;equence) and &s;o an object of faith, <HI>That</HI> Timothy <HI>be|leeves.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his argument to prove the contrary is invalid, &s;ince the &s;ame thing may be both an object of <HI>faith,</HI> and an object of <HI>&s;en&s;e;</HI> and &s;uch was Chri&s;ts re&s;urrection both to <HI>John</HI> and <HI>Tho|mas, Joh.</HI> 20. v. 8. &amp; 29. both which &s;aw and be|leeved that Chri&s;t was ri&s;en. Chri&s;ts re&s;urrection then was the object both of faith, and of &s;en&s;e.</P>
<P>Object. <HI>How then &s;hall we reconcile the
<PB N="385" REF="190">
Scriptures quoted by Mr.</HI> H.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Very ea&s;ily, thus: Faith and &s;en&s;e are not always oppo&s;ite in order to the object, but in order to the maner of apprehending the object. Both faith and &s;en&s;e may at the &s;ame time apprehend the &s;ame object, but not in the &s;ame maner. Thus faith a&s;&s;ents to Chri&s;ts re&s;urrection as a thing revealed by divine te&s;timony; &s;en&s;e a&s;&s;ents to it as a thing &s;een and felt. <HI>Joh.</HI> 20. 27, 29. Faith a&s;&s;ents not properly upon the principles of &s;en&s;e, nor doth &s;en&s;e a&s;&s;ent upon the principles of faith. The pro|per object of faith is a thing not &s;een, the proper object of &s;en&s;e is a thing &s;een; and the &s;ame ob|ject in one &s;en&s;e is con&s;iderable as not &s;een, in ano|ther &s;en&s;e as &s;een. Thus heathen <HI>by &s;en&s;e</HI> a&s;&s;ent to a Deity, <HI>Rom.</HI> 1. 20. Chri&s;tians both by <HI>faith</HI> and <HI>&s;en&s;e;</HI> whence the Deity is &s;aid to be both vi|&s;ible and invi&s;ible in the fore-quoted place, and <HI>Heb.</HI> 11. 27. invi&s;ible to &s;en&s;e, vi&s;ible to faith; invi&s;ible in its e&s;&s;ence, vi&s;ible in its effects. Its evident then that in &s;ome re&s;pects &s;en&s;e doth not take away faith, and that therefore this propo&s;i|tion, <HI>I beleeve,</HI> may be an object both of faith and &s;en&s;e. It depends upon faith in order to evi|dence by <HI>Scripture</HI> &s;igns, it depends upon &s;en&s;e in order to experience by an act of reflexion. Thus the <HI>major</HI> in the &s;yllogi&s;m of a&s;&s;urance depends purely upon faith, the <HI>minor</HI> partly upon faith, partly upon &s;en&s;e. The Conclu&s;ion flows nece&s;&s;a|rily from both. Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his illu&s;tration if rightly &s;tated will favour us, in order whereunto I &s;hall reduce Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his <HI>The&s;is</HI> to an <HI>hypothe&s;is,</HI> Thus, <HI>Jo&s;h.</HI> 2. The Spies treat with <HI>Rahab</HI> about articles of peace and &s;afety, upon condition of her con&s;tant friend&s;hip to them, which is the quali|fication.
<PB N="386" REF="191">
How is <HI>Rahab</HI> now a&s;&s;ured of her pre|&s;ervation? <HI>An&s;.</HI> By being a&s;&s;ured of her con|&s;tant friend&s;hip. How is &s;he a&s;&s;ured of her con|&s;tant friend&s;hip? <HI>An&s;.</HI> By the &s;ure marks there|of given by the Spies; namely, if &s;he continued to keep their coun&s;el, and to keep them &s;afe from the King of <HI>Jerico</HI> his danger, &amp;c. Is it not here then true, that the evidence of her friend&s;hip to the Spies, depended upon an act of humane faith, <HI>That the forementioned hiding of the Spies, &amp;c. were &s;ure &s;igns of her friend&s;hip;</HI> and partly up|on experience, by reflection that &s;he had the&s;e &s;igns. In like manner in the &s;piritual treaty, <HI>Ti|mothy</HI> is a&s;&s;ured of his &s;alvation, by being a&s;&s;ured of his faith. He is a&s;&s;ured of his faith, by the in|fallible &s;igns thereof held forth in the Covenant. Suppo&s;e (which is M. <HI>H.</HI> his illu&s;tration) Arti|cles are granted and &s;ealed to a Town, upon &s;uch and &s;uch <HI>qualifications;</HI> here it concerns me (if a Town&s;man) to evidence that I have the right qua|lifications. For evidence hereof, I mu&s;t appeal, not onely to witne&s;&s;es, but al&s;o to the Covenant of Articles, where there is any controver&s;ie about the rectitude of my qualifications; el&s;e might not the <HI>General</HI> &s;ay? Friend, you bring witne&s;s of &s;uch and &s;uch qualifications, but you are mi&s;taken in the manner of them, or in &s;ome nece&s;&s;ary cir|cum&s;tance about them? mu&s;t not I now appeal to the Covenant of Articles to make out that the qualification thus evidenced, is right for manner, and all requi&s;ite circum&s;tances? And doth not my evidence then depend partly upon my witne&s;&s;es, and partly upon the Covenant? Now in proving the <HI>minor, That I believe,</HI> it &s;eldom falls out, but there is &s;ome di&s;pute within me again&s;t this
<PB N="387" REF="191">
act of evidence, which may ari&s;e from temptati|on without, from the oppo&s;ite corruption within, and from the weakne&s;s of my faith, &amp;c. upon which account, I mu&s;t to the Covenant for the clearing of tho&s;e objections and exceptions. And otherwi&s;e, why do Mini&s;ters take &s;o much pains in laying down tryals, &s;igns and evidences of faith, and other graces, but to help my faith of evidence, which is the <HI>minor</HI> of the Syllogi&s;m of a&s;&s;urance? A godly man will ea&s;ily a&s;&s;ent to the <HI>major, That all who believe, are justified by Chri&s;t,</HI> this being expre&s;s Scripture, <HI>Acts</HI> 13. 39, but the difficulty is to bring him to &s;ay con|fidently, <HI>I believe,</HI> which is the <HI>minor</HI> of the <HI>Syllogi&s;m</HI> of a&s;&s;urance. Now to produce this a&s;&s;ent, you mu&s;t clear it by <HI>Scripture</HI>-evidence, that his act of adherence is conformable to the rule of the covenant. In order whereunto two things are nece&s;&s;ary, 1. An a&s;&s;ent by reflexion, that I have produced an elicite act of adherence upon Chri&s;t. 2. An a&s;&s;ent of faith in my under&s;tand|ing, that this act of adherence is not an act of pre|&s;umption, but a regular adherence, according to the minde of the Covenant. Both the&s;e concur to make out the <HI>minor,</HI> which therefore depends partly upon faith, and partly upon inward &s;en&s;e and experience. Now &s;o far as my faith of evidence depends upon <HI>Scripture,</HI> &s;o far its evidenced by the Covenant, and &s;ealed in the Sacrament, which is all I drive at. And here I mu&s;t intreat M. <HI>H.</HI> to take heed, le&s;t by oppo&s;ing the truth I bold in this particular, he turn not too much a&s;ide to the Papi&s;ts, who upon this very account deny faith of evidence (without an immediate revelation) becau&s;e its no where &s;aid in Scripture, Th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1+ letters"> <HI>J<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1+ letters"></HI>
<PB N="388" REF="192">
or <HI>William</HI> believe&s;t. If I <HI>mi&s;take</HI> not, this is a good maxim in Divinity, <HI>The act of Grace is &s;een by reflexion, the truth of grace in that act is known by comparing it with the rule of tryal.</HI> Evidence is the beautiful childe of a di|rect and reflex act married together. Its po&s;|&s;ible &s;ome evidence may be (like Chri&s;t) a vir|gin birth, but ordinarily that evidence which hath not both the forementioned parents is a <HI>Ba&s;tard,</HI> pre&s;umption in&s;tead of faith.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>D.</HI> <Q REND="inline"><HI>The marks and &s;igns which Con&s;ci|ence makes u&s;e of to evidence the</HI> minor, <HI>are in</HI> Scripture; <HI>therefore the</HI> minor <HI>is con&s;equent|ly in</HI> Scripture.</Q></P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>That is, becau&s;e the</HI> medius ter|minus <HI>is both in the</HI> major <HI>and the</HI> minor; <HI>there|fore what&s;oever proves the</HI> major, <HI>mu&s;t prove the</HI> minor.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> That M. <HI>H.</HI> wrongfully fathers on me &s;o ab&s;urd a Con&s;equence, I &s;hall endeavor to evi|dence by clearing his mi&s;ty expre&s;&s;ions: which mu&s;t be done by in&s;tance and example, thus; The Syllogi&s;m of A&s;&s;urance is,
<Q TYPE="syllogism"><HI>He that believes &s;hall be &s;aved: I believe;</HI> ergo.</Q></P>
<P>The <HI>minor (I believe)</HI> is thus proved; He that receives Chri&s;t for righteou&s;ne&s;s believes: I receive Chri&s;t for righteou&s;ne&s;s; <HI>ergo.</HI> The middle term or argument in the fir&s;t Syllogi&s;m is <HI>be|lieving;</HI> the middle term in the &s;econd Syllogi&s;m, is <HI>receiving Chri&s;t for righteou&s;ne&s;s.</HI> Whence its evident, I prove not the <HI>minor</HI> of the fir&s;t <HI>Syllogi&s;m,</HI> by proving its <HI>major;</HI> for the argu|ment that proves the <HI>major,</HI> is pure Scripture in expre&s;s terms. If any &s;hould &s;ay, its fal&s;e, <HI>That he who believes &s;hall be &s;aved,</HI> will you bring
<PB N="389" REF="192">
<HI>receiving of Chri&s;t for righteou&s;ne&s;s,</HI> as the <HI>medium</HI> to prove it? He will &s;till deny, <HI>That he who receives Chri&s;t for righteou&s;ne&s;s &s;hall be &s;aved;</HI> and &s;o <HI>in infinitum.</HI> Therefore to prove the <HI>major</HI> irrefragably, you mu&s;t argue thus, That which the <HI>Scripture</HI> &s;ays &s;hall be, that &s;hall cer|tainly be: The <HI>Scripture</HI> &s;ays, <HI>He that believes &s;hall be &s;aved;</HI> therefore he that believes &s;hall cer|tainly be &s;aved. The <HI>major</HI> holds forth the con|nexion between faith and &s;alvation; the <HI>minor</HI> holds forth the a&s;&s;ertion of my faith; which as they are very different propo&s;itions, &s;o they are proved by very different <HI>mediums.</HI> The way to prove the <HI>minor,</HI> is not pure <HI>Scripture</HI> in expre&s;s terms; for no <HI>Scripture</HI> &s;ays in expre&s;s terms, <HI>Thou</HI> Roger <HI>believe&s;t, &amp;c.</HI> But partly <HI>Scripture,</HI> and partly <HI>Experience,</HI> namely, <HI>Reflexion</HI> upon an Act compared with the rule of <HI>Scripture,</HI> and therefore cannot be the &s;ame way of proof, with expre&s;s <HI>Scripture,</HI> unle&s;s &s;imple and compound be the &s;ame. Therefore I do not prove the <HI>minor, (I believe)</HI> by the &s;ame <HI>medinus terminus</HI> by which I prove the <HI>major (He that believes &s;hall be &s;aved.)</HI> Where a thing con&s;i&s;ts of more terms than one, it mu&s;t be proved by more terms than one: <NOTE PLACE="marg">Faith of e|vidence doth nor depend upon a &s;imple or double <HI>di|rect</HI> act, as do &s;undry other proofs drawn from <HI>Scri|pture;</HI> but upon a <HI>di|rect</HI> and <HI>reflex</HI> a&s;|&s;ent com|bined, w^c^h holds &s;o long, till the <HI>reflex</HI> a&s;&s;ent be as evident to me, as it is evident that I &s;ee or hear, &amp;c. for if there be the lea&s;t doubt or &s;cruple, it mu&s;t be removed by <HI>Scripture,</HI> el&s;e the reflex a&s;&s;ent cannot be firm &amp; undeceiving. Suppo&s;e I would prove that <HI>Paul</HI> had faith of evidence, or affurance. I mu&s;t u&s;e this <HI>Syllogi&s;m, He that by producing regularly a direct and reflex act, a&s;&s;ents to grace inherent in him&s;elf, hath a&s;&s;urance:</HI> Paul <HI>did this;</HI> ergo <HI>he had a&s;&s;urance.</HI> Here you &s;ee the <HI>medium</HI> proving <HI>Pauls</HI> a&s;&s;urance is a direct and reflex act regularly united: or, he that a&s;&s;ents directly to this propo&s;ition <HI>(He that receives Chri&s;t believes)</HI> &amp; reflexly to this propo&s;ition <HI>(I receive Chri&s;t)</HI> hath a&s;&s;urance that him|&s;elf believes. <HI>Paul</HI> had both the&s;e a&s;&s;ents; <HI>ergo,</HI> he had a&s;&s;urance.</NOTE> But faith of evidence con&s;i&s;ts of more terms than one, namely, a direct and reflex act, and
<PB N="390" REF="193">
therefore mu&s;t be proved by more terms than one; which terms yet being united, make one compound <HI>medium</HI> or argument. You may prove <HI>Gabriel</HI> to be an Angel, by one &s;imple term of <HI>&s;pirituality;</HI> but you cannot prove <HI>David</HI> to be a man, but by two terms, of <HI>Spirituality</HI> and <HI>Materiality</HI> united. Why? Becau&s;e <HI>David</HI> is compounded of &s;pirit and matter; and therefore mu&s;t be proved by tho&s;e terms united in one <HI>medium</HI> or argument. In like manner, faith of evidence con&s;i&s;ts of two terms, namely, a direct and reflex act united, and therefore mu&s;t be proved by two terms united: not &s;o the faith of general a&s;&s;ent: But two terms united are not the &s;ame with one &s;imple term. And if proof by two terms united, be not the &s;ame with proof by one &s;imple term, then the <HI>medius terminus</HI> proving that <HI>I believe,</HI> is not the &s;ame with the <HI>medius terminus</HI> proving that <HI>He who believes &s;hall be &s;aved.</HI></P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>Though the evidence in</HI> actu &s;ignato <HI>be in Scripture, this is nothing, &s;eeing that goes to the major propo&s;ition: But his evidence in</HI> actu exercito <HI>is the bu&s;ine&s;s; and that is no where I hope in Scripture, by his own Confe&s;|&s;ion.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. <NOTE PLACE="marg">If by <HI>going to the</HI> ma|jor, he mean an <HI>Identity with the</HI> major; its true, the evidence <HI>in actu &s;ignate</HI> is the <HI>major,</HI> or the &s;ame with the <HI>major,</HI> the evidence <HI>in actu exercito</HI> is the <HI>minor.</HI> But I pray, may I not prove a weak and trembling evidence <HI>in actu exercito</HI> (&s;uch are generally our evidences) by a &s;trong and firm evidence <HI>in actu &s;ignato?</HI></NOTE> If by going to the <HI>major,</HI> he mean proving the <HI>major</HI> of the foregoing Syllogi&s;m (which he mu&s;t mean, or he &s;peaks not to pur|po&s;e) then its fal&s;e, that the evidence <HI>in actu &s;ig|nato</HI> goes to the <HI>major;</HI> which I mu&s;t evidence
<PB N="391" REF="193">
by the former in&s;tance of the Syllogi&s;m of A&s;&s;u|rance: thus,
<Q TYPE="syllogism"><HI>He that believes &s;hall be &s;aved: I believe;</HI> ergo.</Q></P>
<P>The <HI>minor (I believe)</HI> is thus proved. He that receives Chri&s;t for righteou&s;ne&s;s, believes: I receive Chri&s;t for righteou&s;ne&s;s; <HI>ergo.</HI> In the &s;econd Syllogi&s;m (which proves the <HI>minor</HI> of the fir&s;t Syllogi&s;m) is the evidence of my faith; 1. <HI>In</HI> actu &s;ignato, in the <HI>major (He that receives Chri&s;t for righteou&s;ne&s;s believes.)</HI> 2. <HI>In</HI> actu exercito in the <HI>minor (I receive Chri&s;t for righ|teou&s;ne&s;s.</HI> Now, I pray, how doth the <HI>major</HI> of the &s;econd Syllogi&s;m, prove the <HI>major</HI> of the fir&s;t Syllogi&s;m? Set them together in an hypotheti|cal Syllogi&s;m, and &s;ee if they hang not together like ropes of &s;and: thus,
<Q TYPE="syllogism"><HI>If I receive Chri&s;t for righteou&s;ne&s;s, then he that believes &s;hall be &s;aved: I receive Chri&s;t for righteou&s;ne&s;s;</HI> ergo.</Q></P>
<P>I pray, what connexion is there in the foremen|tioned <HI>hypothe&s;is?</HI> Had it run thus, If I receive Chri&s;t for righteou&s;ne&s;s, then I believe: I re|ceive Chri&s;t for righteou&s;ne&s;s, <HI>ergo.</HI> There is an evident connexion: but in the former <HI>hypothe&s;is,</HI> there are clearly <HI>quatuor termini:</HI> 1. The pro|noun, I. 2. Receiving Chri&s;t. 3. Believing. 4. Salvation. The <HI>major</HI> then of the &s;econd Syllogi&s;m doth not prove the <HI>major,</HI> but the <HI>minor</HI> of the fir&s;t Syllogi&s;m, as is evident, becau&s;e not the <HI>major,</HI> but the <HI>minor</HI> of the fir&s;t Syllogi&s;m is the conclu&s;ion in the &s;econd Syllogi&s;m.</P>
<P><Q TYPE="syllogism"><HI>He that receives Chri&s;t for righteou&s;ne&s;s be|lieves: I receive Chri&s;t for righteou&s;|ne&s;s; therefore I believe.</HI></Q>
<PB N="392" REF="194">
The conclu&s;ion <HI>(I believe)</HI> is the <HI>minor</HI> of the fir&s;t Syllogi&s;m; and that was the thing to be proved, but not the <HI>major</HI> of the fir&s;t Syllogi&s;m, which was taken for granted, as being expre&s;s Scri|pture.</P>
<P N="2">2. That the evidence <HI>in actu exercito,</HI> is in Scripture by con&s;equence, I have formerly proved, and wait to &s;ee what M. <HI>H.</HI> hath further to &s;ay to it.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> p. 196, 197. <HI>Whereas Mr.</HI> D. <HI>puts this off with a not</HI> in terminis, <HI>but by con&s;equence, Let us &s;ee his Con&s;equence,</HI> <Q REND="inline"><HI>All are &s;inners, therefore thou</HI> Roger <HI>art a &s;inner: All mu&s;t ri&s;e, therefore thou mu&s;t ri&s;e.</HI></Q> <HI>This is true, becau&s;e the one includes the other. So, who|&s;oever believes, &s;hall be &s;aved, includes this</HI> de fide, <HI>If thou</HI> Roger <HI>believe&s;t, thou &s;halt be &s;aved: but it cannot include</HI> de fide <HI>Therefore thou</HI> Roger <HI>believe&s;t.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. If that propo&s;ition <HI>(All that are men &s;hall ri&s;e)</HI> include, <HI>Therefore thou</HI> Roger <HI>&s;halt ri&s;e;</HI> then this propo&s;ition <HI>(All that believe &s;hall be &s;aved)</HI> includes, <HI>Therefore thou</HI> Roger <HI>&s;halt be &s;aved.</HI> The rea&s;on is, becau&s;e as the former propo&s;ition includes not <HI>Roger</HI> but as a man (hu|manity being &s;uppo&s;ed to be in him) &s;o that latter propo&s;ition includes not <HI>Roger</HI> but as a Be|liever (faith being &s;uppo&s;ed to be in him) which faith being really-in him as well as humanity (up|on the &s;uppo&s;ition) its evident the la&s;t propo|&s;ition includes <HI>Roger</HI> as well as the fir&s;t; and therefore <HI>Rogers</HI> &s;alvation is as &s;ure as his re&s;ur|rection. True, &s;eldom is it as &s;ure to <HI>Roger,</HI> be|cau&s;e <HI>Rogers</HI> faith is &s;eldom as evident to him as his humanity: but it is as &s;ure in it &s;elf. Thus,
<PB N="393" REF="194">
if <HI>Roger</HI> be a <HI>Babe,</HI> his re&s;urrection is &s;ure in it &s;elf, though not to <HI>Roger,</HI> becau&s;e he cannot re|flect to know him&s;elf to be a man; and &s;o if <HI>Roger</HI> be a <HI>Babe</HI> in Chri&s;t, he cannot by a reflex act di&s;|cern him&s;elf to be a true Believer, as he can di&s;|cern him&s;elf to be a man; yet his &s;alvation &s;till is as &s;ure as his re&s;urrection, though not as &s;ure to him: And the Conclu&s;ion is firm, <HI>Roger &s;hall be &s;aved,</HI> though <HI>Roger</HI> do not know he &s;hall be &s;aved.</P>
<P N="2">2. As that propo&s;ition <HI>(Who&s;oever believes &s;hall be &s;aved)</HI> includes this <HI>de fide, If thou</HI> Ro|ger <HI>believe, thou &s;halt be &s;aved;</HI> but doth not include <HI>de fide, Thou</HI> Roger <HI>believe&s;t:</HI> So that propo&s;ition <HI>(All men &s;hall ri&s;e)</HI> doth include <HI>de fide, If thou</HI> Roger <HI>art a man, thou &s;halt ri&s;e;</HI> but doth not include <HI>de fide, Thou</HI> Roger <HI>art a man.</HI> And if <HI>Roger</HI> may be &s;ure by <HI>Scripture</HI>-evidence, that he &s;hall ri&s;e at the day of Judge|ment, though the <HI>Scripture</HI> doth not &s;ay in ex|pre&s;s terms, <HI>Thou</HI> Roger <HI>art a man;</HI> then <HI>Ro|ger</HI> may be &s;ure he &s;hall be &s;aved, though the <HI>Scripture</HI> doth not &s;ay in expre&s;s term, <HI>Thou</HI> Roger <HI>believe&s;t.</HI></P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> ib. M. <HI>D.</HI> &s;ays, <Q REND="inline"><HI>Yes, becau&s;e the</HI> mi|nor <HI>here is the Conclu&s;ion in the Pro&s;&s;yllogi&s;m; to wit, He that hath the&s;e &s;igns believes: But I have the&s;e &s;igns;</HI> ergo <HI>I believe.</HI></Q> <HI>I an&s;wer</HI> contra, <HI>&s;eeing the Conclu&s;ion in the Pro|&s;yllogi&s;m is the &s;ame with the</HI> minor <HI>in the prin|pal Syllogi&s;m, it cannot be in Scripture or</HI> de fide, <HI>by the &s;ame con&s;equence he proves it can: For that he hath the&s;e and the&s;e &s;igns, is not in Scripture: but to have the&s;e and the&s;e &s;igns is all one with to believe,</HI> ergo, <HI>That he believes
<PB N="394" REF="195">
is not in Scripture, or</HI> de fide <HI>by con&s;equence. He that hath the&s;e &s;igns, I &s;ay, is all one with, he that believes; and &s;o his Pro&s;yllogi&s;m then comes effectually but to this, He that believes, believes: But he believes;</HI> ergo <HI>he believes.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Here Mr. <HI>H.</HI> undertakes to prove, That the <HI>minor, (I believe)</HI> in the Syllogi&s;m of A&s;&s;urance, is not in Scripture &s;o much as by con|&s;equence: An high attempt, I confe&s;s, and of &s;o &s;ad con&s;equence (if true) as to thru&s;t out of our Sermons all U&s;es of Tryal, break in pieces brui&s;ed reeds, increa&s;e the fears of doubting Chri&s;tians, and in a word, di&s;courage all &s;orts from the great and nece&s;&s;ary work of &s;elf-examination; for wherefore &s;hould I try my faith by <HI>Scripture,</HI> unle&s;s by <HI>Scripture</HI> I can come to know that I believe? If by <HI>Scripture</HI> I can come to know that I believe, then it follows nece&s;&s;arily that this propo&s;ition <HI>(I believe)</HI> depends &s;ome way or o|ther upon <HI>Scripture:</HI> but it doth not depend up|on Scripture in expre&s;s terms; therefore it mu&s;t depend upon Scripture by con&s;equence: And &s;o by con&s;equence the Scripture &s;ays, <HI>I believe,</HI> or, <HI>Thou John, Peter, or Roger believe&s;t,</HI> which is the <HI>minor</HI> in the Syllogi&s;m of A&s;&s;urance. Now, what in me lies, to convince M. <HI>H.</HI> and to &s;tabli&s;h weak Chri&s;tians, that they may not be overborn by principles that &s;trike, not onely at Church-exami|nation, but al&s;o at &s;elf-examination, I &s;hall en|deavor as much plainne&s;s as the &s;ubject will bear, being made the more intricate by <HI>terms</HI> of <HI>art;</HI> and the rather, con&s;idering I have to deal, not onely with a Scholar (my Antagoni&s;t) but al&s;o with weak and plain-hearted Chri&s;tians, who&s;e life of comfort lies very much in the Vin|dication
<PB N="395" REF="195">
of this &s;weet truth here oppo&s;ed by Mr. <HI>Humphrey.</HI></P>
<P>Let me only premi&s;e (to prevent mi&s;take) That the <HI>minor</HI> in the Syllogi&s;m of A&s;&s;urance is not &s;ealed in the Sacrament, as it is formally the <HI>minor</HI> or A&s;&s;umption of the principal Syllogi&s;m, but as it is the conclu&s;ion of the Pro&s;&s;yllogi&s;m, <HI>He that receives Chri&s;t, &amp;c. believes: I receive Chri&s;t;</HI> therefore <HI>I believe.</HI> And thus, as the conclu&s;ion of the principal Syllogi&s;m <HI>(I &s;hall be &s;aved)</HI> depends partly upon <HI>Scripture,</HI> as to the <HI>major;</HI> partly upon <HI>&s;en&s;e</HI> and <HI>experience</HI> as tp the <HI>minor:</HI> &s;o doth the <HI>conclu&s;ion</HI> of the <HI>Pro&s;&s;yllogi&s;m (I believe)</HI> and therefore as the fir&s;t, &s;o the &s;econd <HI>conclu&s;ion</HI> depends upon Scripture by con&s;equence, &amp;c. <HI>Ame&s;ius</HI> is clear to this purpo&s;e in his Ca&s;es of Con&s;cience, <HI>Lib.</HI> 1. <HI>Cap.</HI> 9. <HI>Sect.</HI> 2. &s;peaking of the application of con&s;cience in the conclu&s;ion of &s;uch practical Syllogi&s;ms; in the&s;e words, <HI>Pendet igitur i&s;ta conclu&s;io partim ex generali illo jure quod in propo&s;itione Syntere&s;is dictar, &amp; partim ex recognitione illa facti vel &s;tatus quae in a&s;&s;umptione continetur, &amp;c.</HI> thus, <HI>He that receives Christ, &amp;c. believes: I receive Chri&s;t; therefore I believe.</HI> This <HI>conclu&s;ion (I believe)</HI> in Dr. <HI>Ame&s;ius</HI> his judgement, flows from the <HI>major</HI> as well as the <HI>minor,</HI> and &s;o in part depends upon <HI>Scripture.</HI></P>
<P>I &s;hall in order hereunto, fir&s;t propound the principal Syllogi&s;m, and the Pro&s;&s;yllogi&s;m. The principal Syllogi&s;m is,
<Q TYPE="syllogism"><HI>He that believes &s;hall be &s;aved: I believe; therefore I &s;hall be &s;aved.</HI></Q></P>
<P><PB N="396" REF="196">The <HI>Pro&s;&s;yllogi&s;m</HI> is,
<Q TYPE="syllogism">He that hath the true marks of faith be|leeves: I have the true marks of faith; Therefore I beleeve. <NOTE PLACE="marg">Among&s;t which marks re|ceiving of Chri&s;t is a princi|pal one.</NOTE></Q></P>
<P>Here you &s;ee the <HI>minor</HI> of the principal <HI>Syllo|gi&s;m (I beleeve)</HI> is the <HI>Conclu&s;ion of the Pro&s;|&s;yllogi&s;m.</HI></P>
<P>Now &s;ayes Mr. <HI>H.</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Page 197.</NOTE> <HI>Seeing the Conclu&s;ion in the Pro&s;&s;yllogi&s;m is the &s;ame with the</HI> minor <HI>in the principal Syllogi&s;m, it cannot be in Scrip|ture, or</HI> de fide, <HI>by the &s;ame con&s;equence</HI> Mr. <HI>D. proves it can.</HI> Why I pray? <HI>For, that he hath the&s;e &s;igns and marks is not in Scripture; but to have the&s;e and the&s;e &s;igns is all one with to beleeve,</HI> ergo. <HI>That he beleeves is not in Scripture, or</HI> de fide <HI>by con&s;equence.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Though the <HI>Conclu&s;ion</HI> in the <HI>Pro&s;&s;yl|logi&s;m</HI> be the &s;ame with the <HI>minor</HI> in the princi|pal <HI>Syllogi&s;m,</HI> yet it is in <HI>Scripture,</HI> or <HI>de fide</HI> by con&s;equence.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> His rea&s;ons to prove the contrary are invalid, his &s;cope being to prove. That the <HI>Con|clu&s;ion</HI> (I beleeve) is not <HI>de fide</HI> by <HI>Con&s;equence,</HI> becau&s;e its <HI>medium</HI> (I have the true &s;igns of faith) is not <HI>de fide expre&s;ly,</HI> or <HI>in terms.</HI></P>
<P>His &s;econd rea&s;on is, <NOTE PLACE="marg">Page 197.</NOTE> <HI>Becau&s;e to have the&s;e and the&s;e &s;igns of faith is all one with to be|leeve; And &s;o my Pro&s;&s;yllogi&s;m comes effectually but to this, he that beleeves, beleeves, but I be|leeve; Therefore I beleeve.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Proportionably, to have the marks and &s;igns of a man is all one with <HI>to be a man;</HI> and &s;o the Pro&s;&s;yllogi&s;m, proving that I am a man (and therefore &s;hall ri&s;e) comes effectually but to this, <HI>He that is a man, is a man: but I am a man; therefore I am a man.</HI></P>
<P><PB N="397" REF="196">In like manner, To have the marks and &s;igns of a living creature is all one with <HI>to be a living creature;</HI> and therefore my argument (proving Mr. <HI>H.</HI> to be a living creature) comes effectually but to this, He that is a living creature, is a living creature, But Mr. <HI>H.</HI> is a living creature; therefore he is a living crea|ture; and &s;o its impo&s;&s;ible to prove Mr. <HI>H.</HI> to be <HI>animal,</HI> for I cannot prove it but by the marks of animality, and the&s;e marks and &s;igns are the &s;ame with animality. You &s;ee now to what &s;treights and ab&s;urdities be hath brought him&s;elf, and all by that fundamental error again&s;t faith and rea&s;on, <HI>That a thing cannot be proved by it &s;elf;</HI> which if true, then I cannot prove the thing de|fined by its definition; I cannot prove entity by unity; I cannot prove God by his Attributes, yea it is impo&s;&s;ible to demon&s;trate any thing <HI>&agrave; priori</HI> by its e&s;&s;ential principles; and then farewell Divi|nity, Science, Rea&s;on, and all. But of this more largely before.</P>
<P>Now <HI>contr&agrave;,</HI> If I may prove a thing by it &s;elf, then I may prove a man by the marks of a man, which (if e&s;&s;ential, <HI>&amp; &agrave; priori</HI>) are him&s;elf; I may prove faith by the marks of faith, which (if e&s;&s;ential, <HI>&amp; &agrave; priori</HI>) are faith it &s;elf: And &s;uch is that mark of <HI>receiving Chri&s;t for righteou&s;ne&s;s.</HI> Nor is there any ab&s;urdity in it, &s;o the Argument proving be not both <HI>re</HI> and <HI>ratione,</HI> the &s;ame with the thing proved. <NOTE PLACE="marg">Thus the <HI>Whole</HI> or <HI>totum</HI> is defined or de&s;cri|bed by all its parts; all which together differ <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word"> <HI>re,</HI> but only <HI>ratione</HI> from the <HI>whole,</HI> and that whether this <HI>Totum</HI> be <HI>&V;niver&s;ale, E&s;&s;entiale</HI> or <HI>Integrale.</HI></NOTE> But in Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his ab&s;urd Syl|logi&s;m, <HI>Beleeving</HI> is the &s;ame both <HI>re</HI> and <HI>ratione</HI> with <HI>beleeving;</HI> but <HI>beleeving</HI> is not the &s;ame <HI>ra|tione</HI>
<PB N="398" REF="197">
with <HI>receiving Chri&s;t for righteou&s;ne&s;s,</HI> though it be the &s;ame <HI>realiter,</HI> as <HI>animal ratio|nale</HI> is not <HI>ratione</HI> the &s;ame with <HI>homo,</HI> though it be <HI>realiter</HI> the &s;ame with <HI>homo;</HI> but differs, as <HI>definitio</HI> differs <HI>&agrave; de finito.</HI></P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>And whereas to illu&s;trate this he &s;o elaborately demon&s;trates he is a man, and &s;o that he &s;hall ri&s;e, &amp;c.</HI> <Q REND="inline"><HI>partly by &s;en&s;e, partly by faith: fir&s;t, by a direct act, and then by a reflex act on the &s;igns of his humanity, &amp;c.</HI></Q> Spectatum admi&s;&s;i? <HI>when, I am a man, and I be|leeve, are propo&s;itions of equal evidence. Mr.</HI> Drakes <HI>Argument &s;hall carry it. He that is a man, is a man; he that beleeves, beleeves; he that is in the right, is in the right; But Mr. D. is in the right,</HI> ergo, <HI>he is in the right.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Nay, &s;oft there Sir, rather becau&s;e they are not propo&s;itions of equal evidence, there|fore Mr. <HI>Drakes</HI> Argument will carry it. If <HI>I be|leeve</HI> were of equal evidence with <HI>I am a man,</HI> then (haply) I had no more need of Scripture marks to prove <HI>I beleeve,</HI> than I have of Scrip|ture marks to prove <HI>I am a man,</HI> though it be a truth that both propo&s;itions are by con&s;equence in Scripture; But becau&s;e my faith is not &s;o evi|dent as my man-hood, therefore I mu&s;t to Scrip|ture for proof of my faith, when I need not go to Scripture for proof of my man-hood: And if I mu&s;t to Scripture to prove <HI>I beleeve</HI> by the marks of faith, then its evident that this propo&s;ition, <HI>I beleeve,</HI> depends upon Scripture by virtue of tho&s;e marks, as well as upon &s;en&s;e and experience by virtue of my reflexion.</P>
<P N="2">2. Let me ask Mr. <HI>H.</HI> whether this Conclu&s;ion (<HI>John &s;hall ri&s;e at the day of judgement</HI>) be in
<PB N="399" REF="197">
Scripture by con&s;equence or not? If it be not, then by the &s;ame rea&s;on, No particular Conclu&s;ion drawn from a general expre&s;ly in Scripture, is in Scripture by con&s;equence; which how ab&s;urd? for in&s;tance, then it is not in Scripture by con&s;e|quence, <HI>That I mu&s;t not &s;teal, &amp;c.</HI> If it be, then upon the very &s;ame ground it is in Scripture by con&s;equence, That <HI>John</HI> &s;hall be &s;aved: For as <HI>John</HI> being a man is included in the general, <HI>All men,</HI> &s;o <HI>John</HI> being a beleever is included in the general <HI>All beleevers:</HI> And as by con&s;equence I may argue from Scripture, <HI>If all men &s;hall ri&s;e, then this man &s;hall ri&s;e;</HI> &s;o I may firmly argue, <HI>If all beleevers &s;hall be &s;aved, then this beleever &s;hall be &s;aved.</HI> It flows then as nece&s;&s;arily from Scripture, That <HI>John</HI> the believer &s;hal be &s;aved, at it flows from Scripture, That <HI>John</HI> the man &s;hal ri&s;e again. So likewi&s;e that <HI>John</HI> the receiver of Chri&s;t is a beleever, as that <HI>John</HI> the rea&s;onable creature is a man. I grant for the mo&s;t part it is not &s;o evident that <HI>John</HI> is a beleever, as that he is a man; and that therefore it is not &s;o ea&s;ie for him to beleeve that he &s;hall be &s;aved, as to beleeve that he &s;hall ri&s;e; but &s;till its a truth, That both the&s;e Conclu&s;ions flow from Scripture by con&s;equence, and there|fore are in Scripture by con&s;equence, which is the thing here oppo&s;ed by Mr. <HI>Humphrey.</HI> He might therefore well have &s;pared him&s;elf the labour of his merry <HI>Tautologies (he that is in the right, is in the right, &amp;c.)</HI> but that he hoped to catch his Reader by a frothy expre&s;&s;ion, rather than to convince him by a &s;olid Argument. Had he clo|&s;ed with this Syllogi&s;m; If Mr. <HI>D.</HI> be in the right, then Mr. <HI>H.</HI> is in the wrong, but Mr. <HI>D.</HI> is in the right, <HI>ergo,</HI> he had done both him&s;elf, his
<PB N="400" REF="198">
Reader, and his Antagoni&s;t more right than now he doth.</P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 198. Mr. <HI>H.</HI> mentions an Objection of mine about the Sacrament &s;uppo&s;ing a&s;&s;urance and faith; unto which he &s;ayes, I can make no &s;olu|tion, when at the &s;ame time my &s;olution is laid down, <HI>p.</HI> 147 &amp; 148. of my <HI>Bar;</HI> only he tells the Reader that he is not of my mind, <HI>That we mu&s;t forbear the Sacrament, till we have effe|ctual faith:</HI> And truly I think he is not of my mind in that particular; nor is it material what is his mind, or what is my mind, but what is the mind of truth.</P>
<P><HI>Ib.</HI> Mr. <HI>H.</HI> grants, <HI>That a general faith and acknowledgement of the Go&s;pel, or Covenant of Je&s;us Chri&s;t, as the only means to be &s;aved by, is prerequi&s;ive to adult Church-member&s;hip, and &s;o to the Sacraments.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Then 1. What will become of all gro&s;ly ignorant Church-members that know no|thing of Faith, Chri&s;t, or the Go&s;pel? He that blames us, as too &s;evere for &s;u&s;pending them; is here &s;o &s;evere as to excommunicate them, and make them no Church-members.</P>
<P N="2">2. We accept (as to the latter branch) his good confe&s;&s;ion, which makes &s;trongly again&s;t the free admi&s;&s;ion of gro&s;ly ignorant Church-members.</P>
<P>Again, we grant with Mr. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>That the con|dition is not ab&s;olutely prerequi&s;ite to ingage to the condition;</HI> but the Que&s;tion is whether a natural man be bound to ingage all manner of wayes to the condition; He may ingage to the condition (and &s;o to the Covenant) though he do it not by receiving the Sacrament.</P>
<P><PB N="401" REF="198"><HI>Page</HI> 199. Mr. <HI>H.</HI> tells us, <HI>The receiver &s;eals not to his condition nece&s;&s;arily in</HI> e&s;&s;e, <HI>but in</HI> fieri.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> What then? Our pre&s;ent debate is not what the beleever &s;eals to God, but what God &s;eals to the beleever in the Sacrament, and God at the Sacrament may &s;eal to the beleever the condition, <HI>in e&s;&s;e,</HI> when the beleever cannot &s;eal to God that him&s;elf hath the condition <HI>in e&s;&s;e.</HI></P>
<P>In the &s;ame page Mr. <HI>H.</HI> pins upon me ano|ther contradiction, by mi&s;-quoting my Text, <HI>p.</HI> 147. of my <HI>Bar;</HI> which &s;ayes not the Sacra|ment is, but <HI>may be</HI> the means of initial a&s;&s;urance; and its one thing to &s;ay the Sacrament <HI>is;</HI> another thing to &s;ay it <HI>may be</HI> the means of initial a&s;&s;u|rance. I beleeve if God plea&s;e, the Sacrament <HI>may be</HI> the means both of initial grace, and of ini|tial a&s;&s;urance; I do not &s;ay it is the means of either. Be&s;ides, initial a&s;&s;urance is <HI>real,</HI> or more <HI>&s;en&s;ible.</HI> The word that works conver&s;ion works <HI>real</HI> a&s;&s;urance at the &s;ame time it works grace, which yet is not then &s;o <HI>&s;en&s;ible,</HI> as being hid and over-born by much corruption, till the beams of grace have in &s;ome mea&s;ure di&s;pelled the cloud; but the fir&s;t <HI>&s;en&s;ible</HI> or prevailing a&s;&s;urance may be wrought at the Sacrament. Grace (as light) brings its own evidence with it, though a per&s;on diverted haply minds <HI>neither</HI> for a while: He wrongs me therefore in &s;aying, <HI>p.</HI> 200. That I affirm <HI>the</HI> Sacrament <HI>is</HI> &s;ometimes the means of initial a&s;&s;urance; whereas my expre&s;s words are, The Sacrament <HI>may be</HI> &s;ometimes the means of initial a&s;&s;urance, and <HI>&agrave; po&s;&s;e ad e&s;&s;e non valet con|&s;equentia.</HI> I hope he that &s;ayes, Mr. <HI>H. may be</HI>
<PB N="402" REF="199">
mi&s;taken, doth not therein &s;ay Mr. <HI>H. is</HI> mi&s;taken. Mr. <HI>H. If the Sacrament work further degrees in the &s;ame kinde, why not the kind it &s;elf?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> If food work further degrees of life, why not life it &s;elf? Mu&s;t every thing that &s;trengthens a weak man, needs rai&s;e a dead man? Acts pro|duce <HI>moral</HI> habits, but no act of the will works in it &s;elf <HI>&s;upernatural</HI> habits; yet, I hope, acts of the will may, and do promote <HI>&s;upernatural</HI> habits, therefore that may further degrees, which cannot produce the kinde. Nor is the fir&s;t grace wrought effectually, either <HI>per modum ob&s;ignationis,</HI> or <HI>proponendo obje|ctum,</HI> or <HI>per moralem, actionem,</HI> or <HI>mediante &s;ignificatione;</HI> (for then all would be converted who have the&s;e) but <HI>per creationem &amp; infu&s;io|onem,</HI> &s;ince the fir&s;t grace (as &s;ome think of mans &s;oul) <HI>creando infunditur &amp; in fundendo crea|tur.</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Under|&s;tand me here, that initial grace is not wrought by any, or all of the&s;e joyned regether (if ab&s;tractedly con&s;idered) as moral habits may be, but as a&s;&s;i&s;ted in an e&s;pecial manner by divine concour&s;e, which concour&s;e amounts to a <HI>Creation.</HI> Not <HI>opus operatum,</HI> but <HI>&s;piritus operaus,</HI> acts eminently for the production of initial grace.</NOTE> And God may annex this creating act to what Ordinance he plea&s;e. Now the great con|trover&s;ie between us is, whether God do thus in|fu&s;e initial grace by the Sacrament as a moral In&s;trument thereof, as he doth by the word? This Mr. <HI>H.</HI> &s;eems to affirm, but we deny.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> p. 201. <HI>For this we thank him; and if a man may come as lo&s;t and undone, then he may come while he judges and humbles him&s;elf, though he is in doubt of his regeneration.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. I am glad of any agreement between us in this unhappy controver&s;ie, e&s;pecially in a point
<PB N="403" REF="199">
of this nature, which tends &s;o much to the bind|ing up of brui&s;ed reeds. Yet</P>
<P N="2">2. There is &s;ome ambiguity in that expre&s;&s;i|on of M. <HI>H. If a man may come as lo&s;t;</HI> nor are they my expre&s;s terms, <HI>p.</HI> 148. of my <HI>Bar.</HI> A man is lo&s;t three ways, 1. <HI>Really,</HI> when in the &s;tate of nature (I mean, he is in a lo&s;t condition.) 2. <HI>Sen&s;ibly,</HI> and that either <HI>in him&s;elf</HI> (and thus we mu&s;t ever be lo&s;t, if we mean to be &s;aved) or by mi&s;take, thinking he is in the &s;tate of nature, at that very time when in truth he is in the &s;tate of grace. 3. <HI>Both ways,</HI> when clearly convinced by the Spirit of bondage, that he is in a natu|ral e&s;tate, and &s;o under the work of Legal humi|liation, which is ever accompanied with reigning pride, till evangelical humiliation melt the rock, and level the mountain. By legal humiliation a per&s;on is <HI>humbled,</HI> but by Evangelical humiliation he is made <HI>humble;</HI> by legal humiliation God humbles him, by evangelical humiliation he hum|bles him&s;elf; the one is humbled pa&s;&s;ively, the other actively.</P>
<P>To apply the di&s;tinction:</P>
<P N="1">1. He that is lo&s;t <HI>really,</HI> and <HI>&s;en&s;ibly,</HI> ought at pre&s;ent to ab&s;tain: Such are they, who know them&s;elves to be in the &s;tate of nature, and have no re&s;olution at the pre&s;ent to come up to the terms of the Go&s;pel, but are under the Regal power of &s;in, e&s;pecially of &s;ome bo&s;om corrupti|on, and that &s;en&s;ibly.</P>
<P N="2">2. He that is lo&s;t really, but not &s;en&s;ibly, as thinking him&s;elf converted, when unconverted, is (I conceive, with &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion to better judgements) in the condition of one who thinks a &s;in to be a duty, <HI>ligatus,</HI> but not <HI>obligatus, bound,</HI> by con|&s;cience
<PB N="404" REF="200">
mi&s;informed, to receive; but not obliged to receive; yea, obliged by the precept, to ab&s;tain: or as he who thought him&s;elf clean, but was unclean, was bound and obliged in order to the Pa&s;&s;over.</P>
<P N="3">3. He that is &s;en&s;ibly lo&s;t (as thinking him&s;elf unconverted, when really converted) &s;eems <HI>bound</HI> by con&s;cience to ab&s;tain, but is <HI>obliged</HI> by the command to receive; and in order thereunto, mu&s;t endeavor to get his doubts &s;atisfied. He that is both really and &s;en&s;ibly <HI>found,</HI> as having <HI>&s;en&s;ibly</HI> evangelical preparation (of which &s;elf-lo&s;s, and &s;elf-unworthine&s;s in a Go&s;pel &s;en&s;e, is a chief part) is both <HI>bound</HI> and <HI>obliged</HI> to come, unle&s;s detained by a ju&s;t occa&s;ion.</P>
<P>What M. <HI>H.</HI> addes <HI>page</HI> 201. I &s;hall go along with him as far as I can, and be glad of his com|pany too. And therefore grant 1. That the Sa|crament is a &s;eal of faith <HI>Con&s;ecutiv&egrave;.</HI> 2. <HI>Ob|jectiv&egrave;.</HI> 3. <HI>Conditionaliter.</HI> 4. <HI>Obligatori&egrave;,</HI> as obliging the receiver to believe. 5. That the Sa|crament is not properly a &s;eal of rea&s;on and expe|rience; and therefore in a &s;trict &s;en&s;e, doth not &s;eal the Conclu&s;ion, as it depends upon the <HI>minor,</HI> which &s;peaks experience; but as it depends upon the <HI>major,</HI> which &s;peaks expre&s;s Scripture.</P>
<P>But whereas he addes, <HI>ibid. But if you &s;ay it is a &s;eal of faith &s;ubjectiv&egrave;, properly to confirm and ratifie faith, or any way &s;o to a&s;&s;ure or evi|dence faith, that God &s;hall be made to &s;et his &s;eal to a lye, if any come without &s;aving faith, this mu&s;t be denied and rejected, and an&s;wered, that the Sacrament is not thus a &s;eal of faith (to wit, formally, directly, properly) but of the Covenant, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><PB N="405" REF="200">
<HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. If I may but crave to be candidly under&s;tood, its no &s;uch mon&s;ter as M. <HI>H.</HI> would make it, to a&s;&s;ert, That the Sacrament is a &s;eal of faith <HI>&s;ubjectiv&egrave;;</HI> namely, that by <HI>Con&s;equence</HI> the Sacrament &s;eals to <HI>Peter,</HI> that he believes. The rea&s;on whereof hath formerly been given, becau&s;e it &s;eals the <HI>major</HI> propo&s;ition, upon which the Conclu&s;ion of A&s;&s;urance doth partly depend. For, as no Conclu&s;ion depends onely up|on the <HI>major,</HI> or onely upon the <HI>minor,</HI> but upon both premi&s;es; &s;o the Conclu&s;ion of the Pro&s;|&s;yllogi&s;m (<HI>That</HI> Peter <HI>believes</HI>) depends not <HI>&s;olely</HI> upon the <HI>major (He that receives Chri&s;t, &amp;c. believes)</HI> nor <HI>&s;olely</HI> upon the <HI>minor</HI> (Peter <HI>receives Chri&s;t</HI>) but upon both. And therefore &s;o far forth as this Conclu&s;ion (Peter <HI>believes</HI>) depends upon the <HI>major</HI> (which is ex|pre&s;s Scripture, and as a &s;ign di&s;covers to <HI>Peter,</HI> that the act of adherence he produces is not coun|terfeit) &s;o far forth its &s;ealed in the Sacrament, it being &s;ealed in the Covenant onely as it is in the Covenant; namely, by Con&s;equence; as is that Conclu&s;ion, <HI>That</HI> Peter <HI>&s;hall ri&s;e,</HI> which depends upon the <HI>major, That all men &s;hall ri&s;e;</HI> as well as upon the <HI>minor, That</HI> Peter <HI>is a man.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. Whereas M. <HI>H.</HI> hints, that by this means <HI>God &s;hall be made to &s;et his &s;eal to a lye, if any come without &s;aving faith:</HI> this is a mo&s;t fal&s;e, gro&s;s, and uncharitable inference and imputation, it being far from my judgement or argument to hold forth, that the Sacrament &s;eals to all re|ceivers, that they have true faith; but onely un|to tho&s;e who have &s;aving faith indeed. Suppo&s;e now <HI>Judas</HI> did receive; the Sacrament which &s;eals to <HI>Peter that he believes,</HI> &s;eals no &s;uch mat|ter
<PB N="406" REF="201">
to <HI>Judas,</HI> but the quite contrary, namely, <HI>That he doth not believe;</HI> and that becau&s;e it &s;eals, That he who doth not receive. Chri&s;t rightly, doth not believe: But <HI>Judas</HI> never received Chri&s;t rightly; therefore by con&s;equence it &s;eals to <HI>Judas</HI> his unbelief, and &s;o his damnation <HI>in &s;tatu quo.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. Therefore, If by <HI>formally, directly, pro|perly,</HI> M. <HI>H.</HI> mean <HI>expre&s;ly,</HI> we grant the Sacra|ment is not &s;o a &s;eal of faith <HI>&s;ubjectiv&egrave;;</HI> for it can &s;eal nothing thus expre&s;ly, but what is in expre&s;s terms in the Covenant, and that is onely the <HI>major:</HI> yet this is no bar, but that the Sa|crament may &s;eal that con&s;equentially, which is con&s;equentially in the Covenant; and &s;uch is this Conclu&s;ion, <HI>Peter believes,</HI> as well as that Con|clu&s;ion, <HI>Peter &s;hall ri&s;e.</HI></P>
<P>As for his vapor therefore in the clo&s;e of this Section, I &s;hall &s;ay but onely this to it, However <HI>my arguments be but earthen ware,</HI> yet God can u&s;e them to break his conceited bar of iron.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. 5.</HEAD>
<P>THe fifth Objection is, <HI>The Covenant belongs not to all; therefore the Seals neither.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 202. M. <HI>H.</HI> fir&s;t &s;tates his an&s;wer to this Objection, and in the &s;ame breath overthrows it in the&s;e words, <HI>The state of my an&s;wer then lies plainly, that all tho&s;e to whom the Cove|nant belongs by way of intere&s;t in it, though but according to title, are in Covenant &s;o far as the external &s;eal belongs to them, without &s;ome known bar otherwi&s;e.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Grant the whole, it will not much pre|judice either us or the Objection: Not us, who ea&s;ily yield that all Churchmembers are to be ad|mitted without a <HI>known</HI> bar, the term <HI>known</HI> be|ing
<PB N="407" REF="201">
rightly under&s;tood. Nor the Objection, &s;ince the &s;eals cannot belong to any, but as the Cove|nant belongs to him (&s;peaking now of the vi&s;ible Covenant) but the Covenant cannot vi&s;ibly be|long to any who vi&s;ibly reject it: and this (with us) is one of the principal <HI>known</HI> bars.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>D.</HI> <Q REND="inline"><HI>The Sacrament belongs conditionally to all, but ab&s;olutely to the worthy Receivers.</HI></Q></P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> p. 203. <HI>If there be any &s;en&s;e and vali|dity in this, he mu&s;t argue thus, The Sacra|ment is not to be delivered to all it belongs conditionally, but to tho&s;e onely to whom it be|longs ab&s;olutely: But it belongs onely to the worthy receiver ab&s;olutely; therefore it mu&s;t be delivered onely to the worthy receiver. Now this you &s;ee is apparently fal&s;e, &s;eeing he admits &s;ome onely vi&s;ibly worthy, to whom he him&s;elf counts it belongs not ab&s;olutely.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. To &s;hew the fallacy, let us put the &s;ame ca&s;e about the Pa&s;&s;over, and the receivers thereof: thus,</P>
<P>"<HI>The Pa&s;&s;over belongs conditionally to all I&s;raelites, but ab&s;olutely to the clean I&s;raelite.</HI> Suppo&s;e now Mr. <HI>H.</HI> reply as above, <HI>mutatis mutandis.</HI></P>
<P><Q REND="inline"><HI>If there be any &s;en&s;e and validity in this, he mu&s;t argue thus, The Pa&s;&s;over is not to be</HI> delivered <HI>to all it belongs to conditionally, but to tho&s;e onely to whom it belongs ab&s;olutely; But it belongs onely to the clean I&s;raelites ab|&s;olutely; therefore it mu&s;t be</HI> delivered <HI>onely to the clean I&s;raelites ab&s;olutely: Now this, you &s;ee, is apparently fal&s;e, &s;eeing he admits &s;ome onely vi&s;ibly clean, to whom him&s;elf counts the Pa&s;&s;over belongs not ab&s;olutely.</HI></Q> Is
<PB N="408" REF="202">
not the fir&s;t branch now evidently fal&s;e? namely. <HI>That the Pa&s;&s;eover is to be delivered onely to tho&s;e to whom it belongs ab&s;olutely.</HI> I hope the Prie&s;t or Ma&s;ter of the Family might, and ought to admit all per&s;ons vi&s;ibly clean to eat the Pa&s;&s;over, when at the &s;ame time he that was vi&s;ibly clean, but really unclean (to whom therefore the Pa&s;&s;over be|longed conditionally, but not ab&s;olutely) &s;inned in receiving the Pa&s;&s;over.</P>
<P N="2">2. Is it not a meer <HI>non &s;equitur,</HI> as to the Objection, which mentions not to whom the Pa&s;&s;cover is to be <HI>delivered,</HI> or not, but onely to whom it <HI>belongs,</HI> or doth not <HI>belong?</HI></P>
<P>Apply now the &s;ame an&s;wer to the Lords Sup|per, and it will appear my &s;en&s;e is good and va|lid; and that I do not argue, as M. <HI>H.</HI> would make the Reader believe I do, who to make my &s;en&s;e ab&s;urd, &s;huffles into his own an&s;wer the term <HI>delivered,</HI> in &s;tead of the term <HI>receiving.</HI> Let my an&s;wer run thus, The Sacrament is not to be <HI>received</HI> by all to whom it belongs condi|tionally, but onely by tho&s;e to whom it belongs ab&s;olutely: But it belongs ab&s;olutely onely to the worthy receiver; therefore it is to be <HI>received</HI> onely by the worthy receiver.</P>
<P>Where is now M. <HI>H.</HI> his ab&s;urd Conclu&s;ion, Therefore it mu&s;t be <HI>delivered</HI> onely to the wor|thy receiver?</P>
<P>The Mini&s;ter, I hope, may, and in &s;ome ca&s;es ought to <HI>deliver</HI> it to them, who at the &s;ame time ought not to <HI>receive</HI> it, he acting (as Chri&s;ts Officer) by the rule of vi&s;ible, not of real wor|thine&s;s, and &s;o regularly admitting tho&s;e to whom it belongs vi&s;ibly, though at the &s;ame time it be|long not to them ab&s;olutely. They to whom the
<PB N="409" REF="202">
Covenant belongs <HI>conditionally,</HI> to them the &s;eals belong conditionally; to whom it belongs <HI>vi&s;ibly,</HI> the &s;eals belong vi&s;ibly; to whom it belongs <HI>ab|&s;olutely,</HI> the &s;eals belong ab&s;olutely. The fir&s;t mu&s;t neither be <HI>admitted,</HI> nor <HI>receive</HI> till they have vi&s;ibly or really performed the condition. The &s;econd mu&s;t be <HI>admitted,</HI> but if onely vi&s;i|ble Saints, ought not to <HI>receive.</HI> The third mu&s;t both be <HI>admitted,</HI> and ought to <HI>receive,</HI> unle&s;s detained by a ju&s;t occa&s;ion.</P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 203. M. <HI>H.</HI> charges me with railing, for &s;hewing him the horrid conclu&s;ion that follows from his loo&s;e principles; namely, <HI>That the Sa|crament doth more ingenuou&s;ly belong to one out of Covenant, than to one in Covenant:</HI> See <HI>p.</HI> 51. of his vindication. Which if true, it mu&s;t more ingenuou&s;ly belong to Drunkards, Whore|ma&s;ters, Murderers, &amp;c. than to real and vi&s;ible Saints, the former being out of Covenant, the latter in Covenant. An inference &s;o mon&s;trous, that I apprehended &s;uch a &s;oar and ulcer required a &s;harp knife to open it; yet withal, I told the Reader what M. <HI>H.</HI> his meaning &s;hould be, name|ly, that the Sacrament belongs more ingenuou&s;ly to weak Saints, than to &s;trong Saints. An Adul|terer, &amp;c. re&s;olving &s;incerely to believe and repent, hath already begun to do both; and &s;o is not out of Covenant, but a weak Saint. This was my &s;cope, and is the &s;ame &s;till, though I will not ju&s;tifie every quick expre&s;&s;ion that either there or el&s;ewhere pa&s;&s;ed from me.</P>
<P>What he cites from my text el&s;where, to &s;alve his contradiction, wil do himlittle &s;ervice; &s;ince I charge him not with ab&s;urdity for &s;aying, a man may have a good re&s;olution before he is in Covenant;
<PB N="410" REF="203">
but for &s;aying, <HI>The Sacrament be longs more in|genuou&s;ly to one out of Covenant,</HI> if he have &s;ome good re&s;olutions for kinde, through fear of Hell, &amp;c. (which are but legal or meer velleities) then to a real and vi&s;ible Saint, who comes fully up to Chri&s;ts terms in point of &s;incerity, but acts weakly, as a Babe in Chri&s;t. That a man may not onely re&s;olve well, but al&s;o enter into Cove|nant with God, and yet his heart be naught, I never que&s;tioned; <HI>or that he may have good re|&s;olutions before be believe, or enter into Cove|nant &s;incerely,</HI> as M. <HI>H.</HI> notes, <HI>p.</HI> 204. But what is this to M. <HI>H.</HI> his purpo&s;e? or how doth it follow (what he charges me <HI>ib.</HI>) that I am too narrow in &s;peaking of the&s;e things, unle&s;s becau&s;e I cannot extend my &s;elf to his latitude? If &s;tudy of brevi|ty, and therefore pa&s;&s;ing by tho&s;e things which are well known, and not to our pre&s;ent pur|po&s;e, be narrowne&s;s of expre&s;&s;ion, I mu&s;t confe&s;s I affect &s;uch narrowne&s;s, and wi&s;h I were better at it than I am: But M. <HI>H.</HI> his clouding and jumbling things together, forces me to be larger than otherwi&s;e I would; yea, withal, I mu&s;t confe&s;s, I am always too narrow in di&s;cour&s;ing of the things of God, which are far above my weak comprehen&s;ion, much more above my poor expre&s;|&s;ions. This ever is the glory of divine Truth, That the apprehen&s;ions and expre&s;&s;ions of the able&s;t, are but cockle-&s;hels to its Oceans, <HI>P&s;alm</HI> 119. 96. and mine are but cockle-&s;hels to the flood of their appehen&s;ions and expre&s;&s;ions.</P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 151. of my <HI>Bar,</HI> I took &s;ome pains to reconcile (if it might be) M. <HI>H.</HI> to him&s;elf; which being difficult to do (haply becau&s;e of my dulne&s;s and inability to reach his &s;ea&s;e) I was bold to
<PB N="411" REF="203">
conclude, that he wrote contradictions. For this M. <HI>H.p.</HI> 204. and 205. is plea&s;ed to correct me as one very dull, and prone to vent contradicti|ons.</P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. I thank him for his reproof.</P>
<P N="2">2. Intreat him to write more plainly.</P>
<P N="3">3. As I have in part, &s;o I hope to clear it, that I write not contradictions; or if at any time I do, I &s;hall not wittingly own them.</P>
<P>I &s;hall relate M. <HI>H.</HI> his words, and then let the Reader judge whether my dull apprehen&s;ion might not be puzled about them. His words are the&s;e, <HI>page</HI> 51. of his <HI>Vindication, The benefit of the Covenant you may truly &s;ay belongs not yet to him, until he is in Covenant</HI> (Where note from M. <HI>H.</HI> that &s;ome Church-members are not in Covenant) <HI>but the Covenant it &s;elf is of epidemi|cal concernment, and &s;o far belongs to all, that it is to be tendered freely, and offered to them, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><Q REND="inline"><HI>Had he now &s;aid, That the benefits of the Covenant do not belong to him, as to right or fruition, till he be in Covenant: but the condition of the Covenant belongs to all by way of obligation, and the benefits of the Co|venant belong to all by way of tender, &amp;c. I am &s;ure he had &s;poke plainer to my dull capa|city, and I think al&s;o to the capacity of divers of his Readers.</HI></Q></P>
<P>He that divides the whole into parts, and pre|&s;ently gives the name of the whole to one of tho&s;e parts, &s;peaks neither Logically, nor clearly. But this doth M. <HI>H.</HI> by di&s;tingui&s;hing the Covenant into its <HI>condition,</HI> and its <HI>benefits;</HI> and then &s;ay|ing the Covenant is of epidemical concernment as
<PB N="412" REF="204">
to its tender (he &s;uppo&s;ing and holding, that the <HI>conditions</HI> are required, not tendered, and that onely the benefits are tendered conditionally to all) here the <HI>Covenant</HI> is the <HI>totum,</HI> the <HI>condi|tion</HI> and <HI>benefits</HI> are the <HI>partes;</HI> which la&s;t <HI>part</HI> (in applying his di&s;tinction) he pre&s;ents under the notion of the whole, and thereby makes his &s;en&s;e ob&s;cure and &s;ubject to exceptions. Nor doth he clear it in his an&s;wer, <HI>p.</HI> 204. though in order thereunto he di&s;tingui&s;h the Covenant into its <HI>Condition, Benefits, Tenor, which con&s;i&s;ts of both.</HI> For &s;till I ask him, Whether the <HI>Tenor</HI> of the Covenant belong to all by way of <HI>Tender?</HI> If he hold the affirmative (as he &s;eems to do) I di&s;prove him thus, The <HI>whole</HI> can belong to none further, than as both <HI>parts</HI> belong to him: But both <HI>parts</HI> of the Covenant belong not to all by way of <HI>tender;</HI> therefore the <HI>whole</HI> (namely the <HI>tenor</HI>) belongs not to all by way of <HI>tender.</HI> The <HI>major</HI> is firm, as I &s;hall clear by in&s;tance. Let <HI>homo</HI> be the <HI>totum,</HI> its evident <HI>homo</HI> cannot belong to <HI>Socrates,</HI> farther than <HI>materia &amp; for|ma hominis,</HI> which are its <HI>parts</HI> belong to him. The <HI>minor, That both parts of the Covenant be|long not to all by way of tender,</HI> is as evident (upon M. <HI>H.</HI> his principles) &s;ince, according to him, the <HI>condition,</HI> which is one <HI>part,</HI> is not <HI>tendered,</HI> but <HI>required.</HI> The <HI>Condition</HI> then be|longs not to all by way of <HI>tender,</HI> but onely by way of duty and obligation. And though it be a truth, that the benefits of the Covenant are ten|dered to all upon condition of faith, yet becau&s;e M. <HI>H.</HI> holds that faith is not tendered, but required, (in the revealed Covenant &s;ealed in the Sacrament, of which we now &s;peak) he cannot &s;ay the <HI>tenor</HI>
<PB N="413" REF="204">
(called by him the Covenant) is tendered to all, without contradicting him&s;elf; but mu&s;t &s;ay, if he &s;peak uniformly to his own doctrine, that the <HI>tenor</HI> of the Covenant is partly required of all, and partly is tendered to all; the <HI>tenor</HI> con&s;i&s;ting (as him&s;elf declares) of the condition required, and of the benefits tendered; and he may as ra|tionally &s;ay, the <HI>tenor</HI> is <HI>required</HI> of all, as &s;ay the tenor is <HI>tendered</HI> to all; both being fal&s;e in his &s;en&s;e, and contradictory to his Doctrine.</P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 152. and 153. of my <HI>Bar,</HI> I oppo&s;e four things to M. <HI>H.</HI> his univer&s;al obligation of receiving.</P>
<P N="1">1. Infants, &amp;c. and becau&s;e this infant-pa&s;&s;age offends him now &s;eventeen times, I &s;hal put in the room of it his <HI>ip&s;o jure</HI> excommunicate.</P>
<P N="2">2. I &s;ay there, <Q REND="inline"><HI>All have a mediate, but not an immediate right.</HI></Q></P>
<P>He tells me, <HI>page</HI> 205. <HI>This di&s;tinction is in vain, becau&s;e all mu&s;t prepare as well as come.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> True, yet 1. I hope a per&s;on prepared hath a more immediate right, than a per&s;on un|prepared. 2. If he &s;in who prepares, but doth not receive when he may, why doth not he &s;in al&s;o who receives, but doth not prepare when he ought? Let not M. <HI>H.</HI> &s;eparate, where him&s;elf confe&s;&s;es that God hath joyned.</P>
<P><HI>My illu&s;tration from the Pa&s;&s;eover,</HI> he tells me, <HI>That one Text,</HI> 2 Chron. 30. 18, 19, 20. <HI>may convince.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> True, when M. <HI>H.</HI> can prove that one extraordinary di&s;pen&s;ation makes a rule and command to be void.</P>
<P N="3"><PB N="414" REF="205">
<HI>The third Mr.</HI> H. <HI>&s;ayes is an&s;wered &s;ome|where el&s;e.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> And I hope that an&s;wer is confuted &s;omewhere el&s;e.</P>
<P N="4">4. <Q REND="inline">I &s;ay, <HI>That in a &s;trict &s;en&s;e, actual re|ceiving is no more an act of wor&s;hip, than preaching is, &amp;c.</HI></Q></P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> an&s;wers, <HI>I &s;hould &s;ay they are no du|ties neither, el&s;e it will not adde one cubit to my &s;tature.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Mr. <HI>H.</HI> did prudently omit my third an&s;wer, which but mentioned had &s;topt the mouth of this Objection. There I &s;hew that affirmative precepts binde not at all times, nor in all ca&s;es; therefore though receiving be a duty, yet being an affirmative precept, it bindes not at all times, nor in all ca&s;es. For his flouting <HI>Simile</HI> in the clo&s;e of this Section, I forgive him, and confe&s;s that in &s;ome part of it he &s;peaks too true, I being no bigger than my &s;hadow, that is, an empty no|thing, and &s;o very unfit to compare with him, or any of my brethren and fathers in the Lords work. The Lord &s;end me more humility, and him more charity.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="6" TYPE="section">
<HEAD><HI>Sect.</HI> VI.</HEAD>
<P>THe &s;ixth Objection is, <Q REND="inline"><HI>The Sacrament is only for the regenerate; it is no conver|ting Ordinance, &amp;c.</HI></Q></P>
<P>From page 206-212. Mr. <HI>H.</HI> is large by way of preamble, before he come to down-right blows.</P>
<P>And 1. He &s;ayes, <HI>Suppo&s;e the Sacrament convert not, yet it mu&s;t be received by all, be|cau&s;e God commands all to receive it.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><PB N="415" REF="205">
<HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Is not this the very <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 span">, whether God command all to receive?</P>
<P N="2">2. Mr. <HI>H.</HI> knows I di&s;pute again&s;t a natural mans receiving, not only upon the &s;uppo&s;ition, that it cannot convert him, but al&s;o becau&s;e it can do him no good <HI>in &s;tatu quo,</HI> but evil; which an|&s;wers his in&s;tance of Alm&s;-deeds commanded a natural man, though it be not converting. And this argument doth no where cro&s;s Gods revealed will, but highly commends his rich and free grace, which commands nothing but what is profitable to the creature, as well as what is honourable to his Maje&s;ty. I grant God may command with|out re&s;pect to the creatures profit, but I deny that in the Covenant of grace he doth command any thing, the performance whereof is not (of its own nature, and by divine in&s;titution) advantagous to the creature. Its a &s;lander therefore, that by this argument <HI>I advance my benefit above divine authority, &amp;c.</HI> as Mr. <HI>H.</HI> would make the Rea|der beleeve, <HI>p.</HI> 206. yea I joyn together Gods authority, and my benefit, in &s;aying, That in the way of duty, I am ever in a po&s;&s;ibility, yea proba|bility of &s;piritual good, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4. 8. and that act which imports no &s;uch po&s;&s;ibility, or probability is no duty. Yea Mr. <HI>H.</HI> him&s;elf confe&s;&s;es in the &s;ame page, <HI>That there is no man, but &s;o far as he doth his duty, it &s;hall tend to his good;</HI> which if true, then that which tends not to my good, is not my duty. If therefore this doctrine be a <HI>tradition,</HI> Mr. <HI>H.</HI> is guilty of it, as well as my &s;elf.</P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 208. Mr. <HI>H.</HI> makes the Sacrament a converting Ordinance, <HI>not for Heathen, but for Church-members.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><PB N="416" REF="206">
<HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. I de&s;ire a Scripture proof for this di&s;tinction.</P>
<P N="2">2. I perceive Mr. <HI>H.</HI> is not clear in opening this di&s;tinction, but confounds <HI>Conver&s;ion,</HI> and <HI>Edification</HI> together, in the&s;e words, <HI>The Sacra|ment, as it &s;erves to edifie unregenerate Church-members, it mu&s;t be a means of their regene|ration,</HI> p. 208. I had thought <HI>Conver&s;ion</HI> was the <HI>Foundation, Edification</HI> the &s;uper&s;tructure, and that as there is a double <HI>Conver&s;ion,</HI> 1. To profe&s;&s;ion. 2. To truth of grace, &s;o there is a double <HI>Foundation,</HI> the one upon the <HI>&s;and,</HI> the other upon the <HI>rock, Matth.</HI> 7. <HI>v.</HI>24, 26. and proportionably a double <HI>Edification,</HI> one of the <HI>hou&s;e</HI> upon the <HI>&s;and,</HI> the other of the <HI>hou&s;e</HI> upon the <HI>rock,</HI> which doctrine, if true, then &s;urely the <HI>hou&s;e</HI> upon the <HI>&s;and</HI> is not properly <HI>edified</HI> by &s;aving <HI>Conver&s;ion,</HI> but is new <HI>founded</HI> upon the <HI>rock.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 209. Mr. <HI>H.</HI> layes a foundation in two Propo&s;itions.</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>That the &s;ame faith which &s;erved to ad|mit men to be Church-members, &s;erved to ad|mit them to the Communion.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>That a faith that falls &s;hort of &s;aving (to wit, the very receiving of the Apo&s;tles do|ctrine) &s;erved to make men di&s;ciples, and adde them to the Church.</HI></P>
<P><HI>With all,</HI> he grants there, <HI>That conver&s;ion of a&s;&s;ent (which alone reaches &s;o far as to ingage one to the Covenant) is nece&s;&s;arily prerequi&s;ite to adult Church-members, and both the Sacra|ments; not &s;o the conver&s;ion of Con&s;ent,</HI> which he opens well; and <HI>page</HI> 210. concludes, <HI>That in order hereunto, God u&s;es this Sacrament e&s;peci|ally,
<PB N="417" REF="206">
where is a more vigorous confluence of all the Ordinances.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. By conce&s;&s;ion of both Propo&s;itions in relation to <HI>admi&s;&s;ion</HI> (which is Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his own term) though I do not beleeve, that <HI>receiving</HI> mentioned, <HI>Act.</HI> 2. 41. fell &s;hort of &s;aving grace in mo&s;t of them. The Mini&s;ter mu&s;t &s;ome|times <HI>admit</HI> him, who at the &s;ame time ought not to <HI>receive.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. If the fore-mentioned <HI>Conver&s;ion of a&s;&s;ent be nece&s;&s;arily pre-requi&s;ite to adult Church-members, and both Sacraments</HI> (which is the very truth, and acknowledged here by Mr. <HI>H.</HI>) then tho&s;e Church-members who cannot give &s;uch an a&s;&s;ent, ought not to be admitted to the Sa|crament (I might adde, by Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his pre&s;ent doctrine, they ought to be excommunicated; though we ri&s;e not, e&s;pecially at fir&s;t, to that &s;e|verity) but this is the condition of many, gro&s;ly ignorant adult Church-members, whom if you ask, <HI>Whether Chri&s;t be a woman?</HI> They are as like to give their a&s;&s;ent, as if you ask them, <HI>Whe|ther Chri&s;t be God-man?</HI> And &s;o of other fun|damental truths.</P>
<P N="3">3. We grant, <HI>The Sacrament (as having a more vigorous confluence of all Ordinances) may be &s;ingularly u&s;eful in order to conver&s;ion of con&s;ent</HI> (as he expre&s;&s;es it) and therefore judge, none &s;hould be hindred from pre&s;ence at it, any more than from pre&s;ence at Bapti&s;m, where by pre&s;ence they may be converted, though they partake not with the childe, or <HI>Catechumenus,</HI> of Bapti&s;mal water; and the rather becau&s;e the Lords Supper (as well as Bapti&s;m, Prayer, or Preaching) is a publick Ordinance, and therefore may be
<PB N="418" REF="207">
honoured with univer&s;al pre&s;ence, though not abu&s;ed by univer&s;al partaking.</P>
<P>Whereas <HI>p.</HI> 310. Mr. <HI>H.</HI> pleads humane te&s;ti|mony.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> With due re&s;pect to the Authors, Mans te&s;timony is either 1. Ambiguous in this point; Or 2. may be ballanced by oppo&s;ite te&s;timonies of man; Or 3. at be&s;t is not authentick. Mans te&s;ti|mony may <HI>&s;uadere,</HI> but only Gods te&s;timony can <HI>per&s;uadere.</HI></P>
<P>As for his di&s;tinction about real and relative grace here repeated; The latter branch thereof hath been formerly an&s;wered, which therefore I pa&s;s.</P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 211. <HI>He thinks its un&s;ound to hold the Sacrament conveyes real grace morally by way of Ob&s;iguation:</HI> Why I pray? <HI>Becau&s;e moral in&s;truments cannot exhibit any thing real.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. If this be true, then how can the Sa|crament convey grace by way of <HI>&s;ignification,</HI> &s;ince the <HI>Sacrament</HI> (him&s;elf confe&s;&s;ing) is <HI>only a moral in&s;trument.</HI> And if it convey grace neither by way of <HI>&s;ignification,</HI> nor of <HI>ob&s;ignation,</HI> nor of <HI>exhibition,</HI> it conveyes grace no way. Thus by Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his principles the Sacrament conveyes no grace at all; and if &s;o, then it neither converts, or edifies, which how ab&s;urd? yea, <HI>pari ratione,</HI> how doth the word convert, &s;ince it al&s;o is but a moral in&s;trument?</P>
<P N="2">2. Grace is not &s;trengthned, but by &s;uper-added degrees (I mean ordinarily) but grace is &s;trengthned by the <HI>&s;ealing,</HI> as well as by the <HI>&s;ignifying</HI> virtue of the Sacrament, therefore degrees of grace are <HI>mo|rally</HI> conveyed by the <HI>&s;ealing</HI> power of the Sacra|ment.
<PB N="419" REF="207">
The <HI>major</HI> is firm till Mr. <HI>H.</HI> can &s;hew &s;ome other way of &s;trengthning grace <HI>immedi|ately</HI> (for of that &s;trength I now &s;peak) be&s;ides &s;uperadded degrees. The <HI>minor</HI> is proved by in|&s;tance, the Sacrament is a Seal, a&s;&s;ures the Cove|nant to <HI>faith;</HI> by this a&s;&s;urance <HI>faith</HI> is confirm|ed, as was <HI>Abrahams</HI> by the Seal of Circumci|&s;ion, <HI>Rom.</HI> 4. 11. Faith is not confirmed but by <HI>intention;</HI> an habit is not <HI>intended</HI> but by degrees &s;uperadded. The conclu&s;ion then will follow, That degrees of grace are conveyed by the <HI>&s;eal|ing</HI> power of the Sacrament; and becau&s;e the Sa|crament works only <HI>morally,</HI> therefore they are conveyed by it <HI>morally.</HI></P>
<P>I doubt not but the Sacrament may beget grace; but the Que&s;tion in di&s;pute is, whether every Sacramental action doth &s;o, and particularly the act of <HI>receiving;</HI> for till Mr. <HI>H.</HI> proves this, he is &s;till at a lo&s;s, and while he would charge me, <HI>p.</HI> 212. <HI>as being injurious to poor Chri&s;tians, di&s;valuing this means of grace, bringing in que&s;tion how it can beget any degree of grace at all</HI> (a charge to which, I tru&s;t, I can grounded|ly plead not guilty) him&s;elf is found guilty of his own charge, by <HI>denying the Sacrament conveyes real grace morally;</HI> as I have &s;hewed in the fore|going Paragraph.</P>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> H. <HI>p.</HI> 212. <HI>I agree with him as for In|fants; but for the intelligent,</HI> Johns <HI>Bapti&s;m may convince</HI> him, whom we finde admitting <HI>all to it, and then exhorting them to amendment, as the u&s;e or end of it, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. If Bapti&s;m be a converting Ordi|nance, I &s;ee no rea&s;on why Mr. <HI>H.</HI> &s;hould <HI>&s;u&s;pend</HI> Infants any more from its efficacy than from its
<PB N="420" REF="208">
u&s;e. And to what purpo&s;e are Infants baptized, if they are <HI>(in &s;tatu quo)</HI> capable of no good by it? e&s;pecially tho&s;e of them who dye within few hours or dayes after Bapti&s;m. They were rela|tively holy, and &s;o members of the Church (in the right of their parents) before Bapti&s;m, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 7. 14. as in hereditary Kingdoms, the Heir upon the death of his Father, is King before his Corona|tion. His argument drawn from their <HI>non</HI>-intelli|gence &s;eems as &s;trong again&s;t their edification or confirmation by Bapti&s;m, as again&s;t their conver|&s;ion and regeneration by it, &s;ince the baptized In|fant can under&s;tand no more in order to his edifi|cation, than in order to his regeneration by his Bapti&s;m.</P>
<P>Therefore (with &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion) I rather appre|hend, That Bapti&s;m being a Divine Ordinance, doth undoubtedly attain all its ends for good in the elect ve&s;&s;els of mercy, be they Infants or grown per&s;ons; and that either in their Infancy, or when they come to riper years.</P>
<P>Upon &s;uppo&s;ition that it is a converting Ordi|nance, I &s;ee no ab&s;urdity in it if we &s;ay, it may (at the very moment of Baptizng) be morally in&s;trumental to convert the Infant-baptized, not by way of &s;ignification to the apprehen&s;ion of the Babe, who can under&s;tand nothing of it (nor is it nece&s;&s;ary he &s;hould under&s;tand; man cannot get into the heart, but by the head, God needs not that porch or thre&s;hold) but by way of &s;uper|natural concour&s;e with this, as with other Or|dinances when ever they become effectual. Chri&s;t at the very moment when the Mini&s;ter baptizes the Babe with water, can baptize it with the Holy Gho&s;t, and powr grace into its heart as
<PB N="421" REF="208">
the Mini&s;ter powrs water upon his face, the childe being equally pa&s;&s;ive both in the &s;ign, &amp; in the thing &s;ignified, and under&s;tanding nothing of either. If an Infant may be bewitched by a Diabolical Ce|remony u&s;ed by the Devils mini&s;ters, and that Witchery be removed by a &s;pell, or the like, which the Babe cannot under&s;tand (and if he could, the under&s;tanding avails not to its efficacy) why may not the &s;ame Babe be regenerated by a Di|vine Ceremony applyed to it by Gods Mini&s;ter? the Devil in things of this nature being but Gods Ape. How did <HI>Jordan</HI> cure the Leper? 2 <HI>King.</HI> 5. 14. How did <HI>Peters</HI> &s;hadow cure the &s;ick? <HI>Acts</HI> 5. 15. How did <HI>Pauls</HI> handkerchiefs both cure di&s;ea&s;es, and ca&s;t out Devils? <HI>Acts</HI> 19. 12. All the&s;e were but &s;igns and &s;eals of Gods mira|culous pre&s;ence. And why may not God (when he plea&s;es) concur &s;upernaturally with Bapti&s;m, in order to Regeneration, as he concurred with <HI>Jordan,</HI> a Shadow, or Handkerchief, in order to cure or di&s;-po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion? I believe Divine concour&s;e is much after this nature in every Ordinance when &s;avingly effectual. And Bapti&s;m applyed to an Infant, or to a man, is but as <HI>Pauls</HI> handkerchief was to an Infant, or to a man. The man might under&s;tand this handkerchief came from <HI>Pauls</HI> body, and would be effectual to heal him; this the Infant could not under&s;tand, yet the effect of heal|ing followed alike in both. Nor was the hand|kerchief more powerful to heal the man, becau&s;e he was intelligent; but po&s;&s;ibly his intelligence might prove a bar, he being thereby capable of an act of unbelief, which might hinder the cure, <HI>Matth.</HI> 13. 58. and 17. 19, 20. <HI>Mark</HI> 6. 6. and 9. 23, 24. <HI>Acts</HI> 14. 9. which actual unbelief In|fants
<PB N="422" REF="209">
are not capable of. Thus the word preach|ed hath a natural aptitude to illuminate the minde with common knowledge of Chri&s;t, but never of it &s;elf can work a &s;aving under&s;tanding or regene|ration, this being wholly in Gods power. We mu&s;t therefore extend the notion of a moral in|&s;trument further than M. <HI>H.</HI> doth; that being truly a moral in&s;trument, not onely which works by way of &s;ignification to my under&s;tanding, but that al&s;o upon which being u&s;ed, an effect of ano|ther kinde follows, by way of compact, or other|wi&s;e, whether I under&s;tand it or not. Thus a Witch is the moral cau&s;e of a childes death, but the Devil is the phy&s;ical cau&s;e thereof, he apply|ing his natural power (by Gods permi&s;&s;ion, up|on the Witches u&s;ing of his ceremonies for that purpo&s;e) to kill the childe. And thus the Mini&s;ter and Ordinances are the moral in&s;truments of con|ver&s;ion, but God is the phy&s;ical, or rather hyper|phy&s;ical cau&s;e thereof.</P>
<P>Nor do we by this doctrine deviate to the Po|pi&s;h <HI>opus operatum;</HI> but honor Gods Liberty, Soveraignty and Grace, who when he plea&s;eth concurs with his Ordinances &s;upernaturally, in or|der to Conver&s;ion and Regeneration wrought then infallibly, and not otherwi&s;e. And certainly, if Bapti&s;m be a converting Ordinance, why may not Infants thus be converted by it as well as elder per&s;ons? e&s;pecially when at the hour of Bapti&s;m, faith and devotion are upon the wing in the Pa|rents, Friends, Gods people, and the Mini&s;ter, a&s;&s;embled to wre&s;tle with God, that he would plea&s;e to wa&s;h the childe in the Laver of Rege|neration, &amp;c. whence publike Bapti&s;ms are more eligible than private Bapti&s;ms. And thus upon
<PB N="423" REF="209">
the &s;uppo&s;ition, it may al&s;o be effectual to the in|telligent per&s;on baptized; yet not &s;imply becau&s;e he is intelligent, but becau&s;e of Gods &s;upernatural concour&s;e in him, as well as in the Infant, the work of Conver&s;ion being &s;upernatural in every &s;ubject.</P>
<P N="2">2. Whereas M. <HI>H.</HI> &s;ays, <HI>ib. John fir&s;t bap|tized the people, and then exhorted them to re|pentance.</HI></P>
<P>If his meaning be exclu&s;ive, that <HI>John</HI> did not exhort to repentance before, but onely after Bapti&s;m, I believe he will finde little favor from the Text for &s;uch an opinion. Its evident, <HI>Mat.</HI> 3. 11. that <HI>John</HI> leads them from his Bapti&s;m to Chri&s;t, for the Bapti&s;m of the Holy Gho&s;t, as a future thing; withal, that he preached to them before he baptized, to me &s;eems more than pro|bable, by comparing ver&s;. 2, 5, 6, 7. of <HI>Mat.</HI> 3. Be&s;ides, &s;uppo&s;ing the exhortation were after Bapti&s;m, and that &s;ome were converted upon the place, the great que&s;tion will be (which &s;hews the weakne&s;s of M. <HI>H.</HI> his inference) whether they were converted by <HI>Johns</HI> Bapti&s;m, or by his fol|lowing exhortation? For his in&s;tance in the Con|verts, <HI>Acts</HI> 2. it is more than M. <HI>H.</HI> can prove, that their faith was onely hi&s;torical. Likely, it might be &s;o in &s;ome of them; but what is this to prove that their Bapti&s;m did convert them (any more than it did <HI>Simon Magus</HI>) who might after|wards be converted by &s;ome of tho&s;e Sermons which they heard every day, or hold out in a form of Godline&s;s to their dying day, as <HI>Ananias</HI> and <HI>Saphira</HI> did. The Text &s;ays, <HI>they were all bap|tized,</HI> Acts 2. 41. but it doth not &s;ay, that any of them were converted by Bapti&s;m.</P>
<P><PB N="424" REF="210">M. <HI>D.</HI> <Q REND="inline"><HI>Can any man make the Seal a cau&s;e of the writing?</HI></Q></P>
<P>M. <HI>H. p.</HI> 212. <HI>Here is the mans error &s;till; the &s;eal of the inward writing in mens hearts, is not the Sacrament, but the Spirit, and that &s;eal I hope, is the cau&s;e of the writing, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. That the Sacrament is a &s;eal of the inward writing (though not the &s;ole or principal &s;eal) hath formerly been proved, which therefore I pa&s;s.</P>
<P N="2">2. That one and the &s;ame thing may be both a &s;eal and a cau&s;e (as well as a &s;ign and a cau&s;e) I deny not: but I hope it is not a cau&s;e as it is a &s;eal. The Spirit fir&s;t works, then evidences grace wrought; in that it acts as a cau&s;e, in this as a &s;eal: When therefore I &s;ay, the &s;eal is not the cau&s;e of the writing, my meaning is, that as a &s;eal, it is not a cau&s;e of the writing, but under an other notion. M. <HI>H.</HI> interprets it <HI>&s;impliciter,</HI> which I propound <HI>&s;ecundum quid,</HI> and &s;o abu&s;es both me and the Reader.</P>
<P>Page 213. M. <HI>H.</HI> would fain court me <HI>from my yielding to univer&s;al pre&s;ence, to yield to univer&s;al receiving.</HI> But I mu&s;t in|treat him to excu&s;e me, &s;ince I finde none in Scripture forbid to be pre&s;ent; but I finde divers in Scripture forbid to receive, as hath formerly been proved. And I hope, that upon &s;econd thoughts, he will be more charitable, than to judge me upon this account, <HI>as trifling with this holy Ordinance, and with the Con&s;ciences of people.</HI></P>
<P>His argument drawn from the <HI>&s;eeing</HI> to the <HI>ta&s;ting</HI> of Chri&s;t Sacramental, will not hold, till
<PB N="425" REF="210">
he can prove that a &s;ight of Chri&s;t Sacramental is effectual to convert, and withal, that the precept <HI>(Take, eat)</HI> doth immediately take in all in|telligent Church-members; and if &s;o, then let his <HI>jure</HI> excommunicate receive al&s;o. His in&s;tance of <HI>Thomas</HI> feeling and believing, proves onely that feeling may draw out an act of faith, from a principle of faith inherent: But what is that to the producing of a principle of faith; where there is no faith at all.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, M. <HI>H.</HI> &s;hould con&s;ider, not barely the application, but the end of application in the Lords Supper, which is evidently <HI>nutrition,</HI> but no where (as I know) <HI>Conver&s;ion.</HI></P>
<P>Mr. <HI>D.</HI> <Q REND="inline"><HI>Taking and Eating call for acts of faith, but pre&s;uppo&s;e the habit, &amp;c.</HI></Q></P>
<P>M. <HI>H. p.</HI> 214. <HI>When Chri&s;t and his Di&s;ciples preached (Believe and Repent) the command did call for faith and repentance, but I hope it did not pre&s;uppo&s;e the habit in tho&s;e who were to be converted; &s;o when Chri&s;t &s;ays here,</HI> Take, <HI>&amp;c. There is a virtue or power from Chri&s;t goes along with his command.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> True: &s;o far as Chri&s;t hath promi&s;ed, vertue &s;hall go along with his command. But the great que&s;tion is, Where Chri&s;t hath promi&s;ed that converting power &s;hall go along with his com|mand of <HI>taking</HI> in the Sacrament, as he hath, that it &s;hall accompany the command of <HI>believing</HI> in the word preached?</P>
<P>M. <HI>H. p.</HI> 216. <HI>God hath promi&s;ed in general, to meet with tho&s;e that wait on him in his ways.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Here he begs the que&s;tion; as if <HI>re|ceiving</HI>
<PB N="426" REF="211">
were a way God commands unregenerat men to walk in.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>Chri&s;t con&s;ecrated this Ordinance with a ble&s;&s;ing.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> So he did the Ordinance of the Mi|ni&s;try, yet I hope all are not therefore bound to turn Mini&s;ters.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>Mr.</HI> Drake <HI>tells us this (Take) is a &s;hort exhortation, and will he demand a pro|mi&s;e to prove that Exhortation is Convert|ing?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w. Mr.</HI> D. <HI>p.</HI> 158. of his <HI>Bar,</HI> <Q REND="inline"><HI>onely &s;uppo&s;es the word</HI> Take, <HI>as a &s;hort and virtual Sermon, may convert; and then addes, What think you of that per&s;on who &s;tands out again&s;t this word al&s;o, can he be converted by actual receiving?</HI></Q></P>
<P>A Suppo&s;ition, I hope, is not a Po&s;ition. Be|&s;ides, it will puzzle Mr. <HI>H.</HI> to prove, that every virtual Sermon is converting; for then every mo|ral Precept, yea, every Creature, &s;hould be a means of Conver&s;ion.</P>
<P>M. <HI>D.</HI> <Q REND="inline"><HI>The word is both &s;eed and food, not &s;o the Sacrament.</HI></Q></P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> p. 216. <HI>The Sacrament works by the word, and therefore may work the fir&s;t grace, as well as further degrees of grace.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> The que&s;tion is not, What the Sacra|ment may do, if God plea&s;es, but what it doth. Let M. <HI>H.</HI> produce one Scripture to prove that the Lords Supper, as received, is converting.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> p. 217. <HI>In the Sacrament there is a</HI> Take, <HI>and this is certainly &s;eed; and there is an</HI> Eat, <HI>including food,</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> A &s;trange interpretation, and contra|dictory
<PB N="427" REF="211">
to it &s;elf, That the command of taking Chri&s;t for nouri&s;hment, &s;hould be <HI>&s;eed,</HI> as is the command of taking Chri&s;t for Conver&s;ion.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>Prayer is no where called the im|mortal &s;eed, yet it is &s;eed, I doubt not, in this &s;en&s;e, to beget grace in us.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Prayer, as &s;uch, converts not as &s;eed, but by way of <HI>impetration,</HI> &s;etting God on work to ca&s;t the &s;eed of grace into the heart. If an Hu&s;|bandman upon Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his reque&s;t ca&s;t &s;eed into the ground, I hope M. <HI>H.</HI> will not &s;ay, His reque&s;t was the &s;eed wherewith the ground was &s;own.</P>
<P N="2">2 The matter of Prayer is the Word, &s;ince we can ask nothing but what is promi&s;ed; Upon which account Prayer in &s;ome &s;en&s;e may be cal|led an <HI>immortal &s;eed,</HI> and may prove very effe|ctual, in order to conver&s;ion, e&s;pecially where &s;piritually and powerfully uttered: But as <HI>Prayer,</HI> it works properly by way of <HI>Impetra|tion,</HI> P&s;al. 2. 8. And thus <HI>Stephens</HI> prayer, <HI>Act.</HI> 7. 60. might be effectual to convert <HI>Paul.</HI></P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>Ex quibus na&s;cimur, ex iis nutri|mur, That which nouri&s;hes us can beget us.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> I perceive Mr. <HI>H.</HI> is better at quota|tion than at tran&s;lation: A Grammar-Scholar would have tran&s;lated it better thus, <HI>That which begets us, nouri&s;hes us,</HI> or <HI>we are nouri&s;hed by tho&s;e things by which we are begotten:</HI> Which makes for us, and again&s;t Mr. <HI>H.</HI> we being nouri&s;hed by the word that begets, but not be|ing begotten by the Lords Supper that nouri&s;hes us. And though nouri&s;hment contribute re|motely to the making of &s;eed, yet I hope nouri&s;h|ment (as &s;uch) is not &s;eed, though &s;ometime &s;eed may be nouri&s;hment.</P>
<P><PB N="428" REF="212"><Q REND="inline">Mr. <HI>D. But &s;uppo&s;e a man &s;touts it out be|fore and after the word</HI> take; <HI>If actual re|ceiving can convert him, the Apo&s;tles rule is not univer&s;ally true, He that eats unworthily eats judgement to him&s;elf.</HI></Q></P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H. Suppo&s;e the Jaylor had &s;touted it out again&s;t the word, Beleeve, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> He belonging to the election of grace, the Lord, no doubt, would have converted him by another word of command to beleeve, &amp;c. as he doth all the Elect &s;ooner or later, 2 <HI>Pet.</HI> 3. 9. the word being &s;till the In&s;trument of conver&s;ion, not &s;o the Lords Supper.</P>
<P>What ever Mr. <HI>H.</HI> may think, or would make the Reader beleeve, a <HI>Dilemma,</HI> if right, is no Sophi&s;try, but a forcible Argument. On the other hand, Let me warn the Reader to take heed he be not deceived by Mr. <HI>H.</HI> to think that a per|&s;on in the &s;tate of nature can receive worthily in the Apo&s;tles &s;en&s;e; Or, that the &s;in of not di&s;|cerning the Lords body, is nothing el&s;e but the making of the Table of the Lord a common table, in the gro&s;s and litteral &s;en&s;e. But of this formerly.</P>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> D. <Q REND="inline"><HI>But &s;uppo&s;e a man may be con|verted by that &s;hort exhortation,</HI> Take; <HI>this may be done by pre&s;ence, &amp;c.</HI></Q></P>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> H. <NOTE PLACE="marg">Page 218.</NOTE> <HI>If all come to this &s;till, you may &s;ee what he mu&s;t have, a Sacrament without re|ceiving, which yet him&s;elf decryes.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Soft, Sir, no &s;uch thing follows; If there be per&s;ons either vi&s;ibly, or really worthy, there will be no Sacrament without receiving: If there be none &s;uch in a Congregation, I think that at pre&s;ent there ought to be no Sacrament in
<PB N="429" REF="212">
&s;uch a Congregation. Though the Sacrament as a mixed Ordinance, may convert &s;tanders by, yet I am far from turning the Sacrament into a Ma&s;s to be received by the Mini&s;ter alone, all the people in the mean time being only Spectators, and Au|ditors. I beleeve &s;ome pre&s;ent mu&s;t receive; but it follows not that all mu&s;t receive who are pre|&s;ent, or that none mu&s;t be pre&s;ent unle&s;s they re|ceive. Nor is the command of <HI>Taking</HI> an empty livele&s;s word, unle&s;s it convert; I hope an edify|ing word, is no empty livele&s;s word.</P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 219. Mr. <HI>H.</HI> is a little too confident in da|ring to lay his life upon his opinion, <HI>That Chri&s;t would never have &s;o indeterminately command|ed, Drink you all of it, if &s;o many thou&s;ands of unregenerate members that come thither, mu&s;t but nece&s;&s;arily therefore eat their damnation.</HI> He con&s;iders not that the term <HI>all</HI> in Scripture-phra&s;e, very &s;eldome notes an ab&s;olute uni|ver&s;al.</P>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> D. <Q REND="inline"><HI>Every natural man, notwith&s;tand|ing all his preparatory acts, hath &s;till the un|worthine&s;s of per&s;on, and comes to the fea&s;t without the wedding garment, &amp;c.</HI></Q></P>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> H. p. 219. f. <HI>This him&s;elf &s;atisfies, for the fea&s;t he &s;ayes is Chri&s;t, and I hope a man mu&s;t come to Chri&s;t for conver&s;ion, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> A man indeed mu&s;t come to Chri&s;t for conver&s;ion, but not under every notion. I come to Chri&s;t as a <HI>Father</HI> for conver&s;ion, I come to him as a <HI>Fea&s;t</HI> for nouri&s;hment and edifica|tion. Chri&s;t as a <HI>Father</HI> beget<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter"> us by the word, as a <HI>Fea&s;t</HI> he nouri&s;hes us by the Sacrament. Such confounding of notions by Mr. <HI>H.</HI> may well puzzle, but will not inlighten, or edifie the Reader.</P>
<P><PB N="430" REF="213"><HI>Page</HI> 220. Mr. <HI>H.</HI> catches now again at a marginal &s;cape of mine, <HI>p.</HI> 160. of my <HI>Bar,</HI> which I will not ju&s;tifie; but thank Mr. <HI>H.</HI> for &s;hew|ing me my error, though it be with a &s;coff.</P>
<P>That fruit is to be attained by the Sacrament as tactible and gu&s;tible, I deny not, but the Que&s;tion is whether the fruit of regeneration be attainable by touch and ta&s;te; and whether an unregenerate per&s;on can attain any benefit at all by receiving. I &s;eek not to vilifie Antiquity by &s;aying, that <HI>Ite mi&s;&s;a e&s;t,</HI> was an humane tradition; but de&s;ire Scripture-proof to make it a divine Or|dinance, which is not evinced by Chri&s;ts command|ing all the Apo&s;tles to receive (&s;uppo&s;ing <HI>Judas</HI> did receive al&s;o) for that proves not that all pre|&s;ent did receive; For 1. Can he &s;ay, Our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour did receive? 2. Doth he know what waiters were pre&s;ent at the Celebration; or can he &s;ay groundedly that none were pre&s;ent? He will finde tough work of it to prove &s;uch nega|tives.</P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 220. &amp; 221. Mr. <HI>H.</HI> flouri&s;hes, but &s;peaks not to the purpo&s;e, <Q REND="inline"><HI>In&s;tead of an&s;wer|ing what I laid down, That humiliation, if not right, leaves a man &s;till in the &s;tate of nature, and &s;o Evangelically unworthy,</HI></Q> He asks me how my &s;oul was infu&s;ed into my body after due preparation of the matter, I can tell him &s;ome hold, It is <HI>ex traduce;</HI> others that <HI>cre|ando infunditur, &amp;c.</HI> But whether I can an&s;wer him or no, as to that particular, this I am a&s;&s;ured of, That till the &s;oul be united to the body, that body hath not the dignity of a man; and til grace be in the heart, that man hath not Sacramental wor|thine&s;s.</P>
<P><PB N="431" REF="213">Mr. <HI>H.</HI> p. 222. <HI>Me thinks the man here &s;peaks very carnally. His doctrine is this, If you partake of the Lords Table without faith, you are without danger; but if you actually touch the bread upon the Table, and eat, you become a debtor.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Here Mr. <HI>H.</HI> doth me a great deal of wrong. Where do I teach any &s;uch doctrine, <HI>That if you partake of the Lords Table without faith, you are without danger?</HI> I beleeve that &s;tanders by do more partake of the Lords Table than they do of Bapti&s;m, yet they may receive much good by <HI>pre&s;ence</HI> at both <HI>Ordinances,</HI> be they re|generate or unregenerate. For the latter branch, I hope Mr. <HI>H.</HI> will not deny <HI>that unworthy re|ceivers are debtors.</HI> Surely he that doth not eat cannot be guilty of unworthy <HI>eating,</HI> though I grant he may be guilty of unworthy <HI>carriage;</HI> yet not &s;o deeply guilty <HI>caeteris paribus</HI> as he that receives unworthily.</P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 164. to 167. of my <HI>Bar,</HI> I indeavoured to convince Mr. <HI>H.</HI> of his error, in holding, <HI>That the Ordinances are primarily and directly means of grace, and remotely means of conver&s;ion and confirmation.</HI></P>
<P>For an&s;wer, page 223. <HI>Mr.</HI> H. <HI>&s;ayes I mi&s;take him for want of di&s;tingui&s;hing between</HI> gratia operans <HI>and</HI> gratia operata; <HI>and that his meaning is, the Ordinances are primarily means of</HI> gratia operans, <HI>and then of</HI> gratia operata.<NOTE PLACE="marg">If by <HI>gra|tia operans</HI> he mean an act of the crea|ture un|converted, which is the cau&s;e of habitual grace, or initial conver|&s;ion; will it not thence follow, that Mr. <HI>H.</HI> beleeves a natural or moral act of free will, can, or doth produce a &s;upernatural habit? a thing <HI>extra &s;phaeram activitatis liberi Arbitrii;</HI> And what is this but <HI>Pelagiani&s;m?</HI></NOTE></P>
<P><PB N="432" REF="214"><HI>An&s;.</HI> That this cannot be his meaning (unle&s;s he mi&s;take him&s;elf) is evident by his own Text, <HI>page</HI> 59. of his Vindication, in the&s;e words, <HI>This grace we receive in the u&s;e of them, is that which converts &s;ome, and &s;trengthens others.</HI> Now grace received is not the <HI>divine Act,</HI> which he calls <HI>gratia operans,</HI> but the <HI>terminus</HI> of that action, called <HI>gratia operata,</HI> and which being re|ceived, doth, formally and immediately convert, regenerate, and change the heart; of which effect or <HI>terminus</HI> the word preached is the moral In|&s;trument, but God as creating and infu&s;ing is the principal cau&s;e: and as the <HI>divine action</HI> is really di&s;tinct from the <HI>terminus</HI> wrought by it, &s;o the <HI>divine action</HI> is not <HI>receptible,</HI> but only its <HI>termi|nus,</HI> namely the habits of grace. Whence it fol|lows &s;trongly again&s;t Mr. <HI>H.</HI> (by his own expli|cation of him&s;elf) that the Ordinances as they are primarily and directly means of grace, &s;o they are primarily and directly (not remotely) means of conver&s;ion, they being the primary and direct means of <HI>grace received,</HI> which <HI>grace received is nothing</HI> el&s;e but the habits of grace infu&s;ed, not the <HI>divine action</HI> of creating and infu&s;ing, for that cannot be received.</P>
<P>In vindicating his di&s;tinction of <HI>outward</HI> and <HI>effectual conver&s;ion,</HI> Mr. <HI>H.</HI> p. 223. &amp; 224. hath divers mi&s;takes.</P>
<P>And 1. He mi&s;takes in &s;aying, <HI>That con|ver&s;ion to the knowledge of what we knew not before, is nece&s;&s;arily wrought by teaching only, and per&s;wa&s;ive arguments, unle&s;s by miracle.</HI> There is a wide difference between humane, and divine di&s;coveries; the former doth change our under&s;tandings in an ordinary way, the latter
<PB N="433" REF="214">
(when effectual) by &s;pecial and &s;upernatural con|cour&s;e, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12. 3. True, by hearing or reading, I may come to have a notion or apprehen&s;ion of a thing, be the report true or fal&s;e, but the under|&s;tanding is not converted by the knowledge of apprehen&s;ion, but by the knowledge of a&s;&s;ent, <HI>Joh.</HI> 8. 32. And this a&s;&s;ent is not wrought only by teaching and per&s;wa&s;ive arguments, but by the power of God concurring with them, <HI>Joh.</HI> 6. 45. yea though it be but a common a&s;&s;ent, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12. 3. yet we call not this <HI>A&s;&s;ent</HI> miraculous in Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his &s;en&s;e, becau&s;e God ordinarily works it in the u&s;e of means, to wit, the word preached, though the means cannot work it without Gods e&s;pecial concour&s;e.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his &s;econd mi&s;take is <HI>p.</HI> 224 (&s;uppo|&s;ing the Sacrament a converting Ordinance, which is his po&s;ition) <HI>That God hath not appointed the Sacrament to convert heathen.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. I de&s;ire a Scripture-proof, <HI>That God hath not appointed the Sacrament</HI> (&s;uppo&s;e it be converting) <HI>to convert Heathen, as well as unconverted Church-members.</HI> His argument from analogy of the Pa&s;&s;eover reaches not home, for though uncircumci&s;ed per&s;ons might not eat thereof, yet they were no where forbid to be pre|&s;ent at the Pa&s;&s;eover eaten (&s;uppo&s;e an uncircum|ci&s;ed &s;ojourner or hireling de&s;ired to &s;ee the Pa&s;&s;eover eaten in the hou&s;e where he lodged, where doth God forbid &s;uch to be &s;pectators or auditors?) Nor is any unbaptized per&s;on forbid by Chri&s;t to be pre&s;ent at the Lords Supper, though I beleeve he ought not to receive till fir&s;t initiated by Bapti&s;m.</P>
<P N="2"><PB N="434" REF="215">
2. M. <HI>H.</HI> grants, <HI>p.</HI> 223. and 224. <HI>That the Sacrament is</HI> apta nata <HI>to convert an Heathen &s;ufficiently knowing in the my&s;terie of our Reli|gion,</HI> if he be pre&s;ent, though he do not receive; and I pray then why may not pre&s;ence convert a prophane Chri&s;tian &s;ufficiently knowing, though he do not receive? And if the Sacrament cannot convert an ignorant Heathen, how &s;hall it convert an ignorant Chri&s;tian? yea, la&s;tly, if it have an aptitude to convert any pre&s;ent, though he do not receive, how can M. <HI>H.</HI> forbid any to be pre&s;ent at that which is apt to convert him, without an ex|pre&s;s warrant from heaven? If he have any &s;uch warrant, let him produce it.</P>
<P>His argument for excluding infants, <HI>Becau&s;e the Sacrament converts by a joynt virtue of the word and di&s;cernment, which children have not,</HI> may as well exclude them from Bapti&s;m, of which they have no more di&s;cerning than of the Lords Supper.</P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 224. M. <HI>H.</HI> grants, 1. <HI>That the Lords Supper is in&s;tituted for edification.</HI> 2. <HI>That this edification refers to the whole Church.</HI></P>
<P>Whence I infer from M. <HI>H.</HI> his five principles, That tho&s;e intelligent Church-members who are warrantably &s;u&s;pended (in&s;tance in his <HI>jure</HI> excom|municate) at lea&s;t may (if not mu&s;t) be pre&s;ent in order to their edification, to which in his &s;en&s;e the Sacrament refers. How can I edifie by an Or|dinance, if I be not pre&s;ent at that Ordinance? He that is ab&s;ent in reference to place, is further from edification, than he that is ab&s;ent in under|&s;tanding, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. <HI>v.</HI>17, 24.</P>
<P>His conceit of making regeneration to be edi|fication, hath been formerly an&s;wered. We
<PB N="435" REF="215">
di&s;pute not about the latitude of the word <HI>edifi|cation;</HI> but grant, that in a large &s;en&s;e, he who lays a foundation edifies, if the foundation be a part of the building; yet I hope, in preci&s;e &s;peak|ing, the terms and notions of <HI>founding</HI> and <HI>build|ing,</HI> are di&s;tinct, both in the Civil and Spiritual Edifice, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 3. 10. and that an Ordinance, or part of an Ordinance, may be effectual to <HI>edifie,</HI> which is not effectual to <HI>found</HI> in a preci&s;e &s;en&s;e. Be|&s;ides, edification mu&s;t be proportionable to the foundation; therefore edification in common grace follows and &s;uits with the foundation of common grace; and edification in &s;aving grace, follows and &s;uits with the foundation of &s;aving grace, which is regeneration: Common grace founds but upon the &s;and, &s;aving grace founds upon the rock, which are two di&s;tinct foundations, and mu&s;t have two di&s;tinct edifications. But of this for|merly.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> p. 225. <HI>In that word (fancy) he wrongs me; for his &s;en&s;e is an&s;wered: A vital Ordinance can beget life.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Then M. <HI>H.</HI> wrongs him&s;elf, the word <HI>Fancy</HI> being his own word, <HI>page</HI> 63. of his Vin|dication. An Ordinance may be called Vital, not onely as it begets, but al&s;o as it pre&s;erves and in|crea&s;es life. Chri&s;t indeed is vital food, but not before he be vital &s;eed, and in the Sacrament he is <HI>received</HI> as vital food, not as vital &s;eed.</P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 170. of my <HI>Bar,</HI> I blame M. <HI>H.</HI> for &s;ay|ing, <HI>That confirmation of the Covenant is a primary end, confirmation of faith a &s;econdary end of the Lords Supper.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 225. of his <HI>Rejoynder,</HI> M. <HI>H.</HI> tells me &s;coffingly, <HI>That I blame him for &s;aying but what
<PB N="436" REF="216">
I &s;ay my &s;elf.</HI> For confirmation whereof he quotes <HI>page</HI> 126. of my <HI>Bar.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> I &s;ay there indeed, <Q REND="inline"><HI>That Sacra|mental &s;eals confirm,</HI> 1. <HI>The Covenant.</HI> 2. <HI>The faith of the worthy receiver.</HI></Q> But where do I &s;ay, that confirmation of the Covenant is the pri|mary <HI>end,</HI> confirmation of faith the &s;econdary <HI>end</HI> of the Lords Supper? Is not that generally fir&s;t in <HI>time,</HI> which is la&s;t in <HI>intention.</HI> Confir|mation of the Covenant, as a <HI>means,</HI> is fir&s;t in or|der of <HI>time,</HI> or at lea&s;t in order of <HI>nature,</HI> be|fore the confirmation of faith, as the <HI>cau&s;a &s;y|nechtica,</HI> is before the effect: but the confirma|tion of faith, as the <HI>end,</HI> is in order of <HI>intention,</HI> before the confirmation of the Covenant. That is fir&s;t in order of <HI>exi&s;tence,</HI> which is la&s;t in order of <HI>intention,</HI> and <HI>contr&agrave;.</HI> In order of <HI>exi&s;tence,</HI> the confirmation of the Covenant, is before the confirmation of faith, as the means are before the end; but in order of <HI>intention</HI> or <HI>de&s;ign,</HI> the con|firmation of faith, is before the confirmation of the Covenant, as the end is before the means. I &s;ay, the confirmation of the Covenant is in order of <HI>exi&s;tence,</HI> before the confirmation of faith. M. <HI>H.</HI> &s;ays, it is in order of <HI>intention,</HI> before the confirmation of faith. Let the Reader judge whe|ther the&s;e two propo&s;itions are all one; and whe|ther M. <HI>H.</HI> does not violate the Law of Moral Philo&s;ophy, as well as Divinity, in holding, <HI>That the confirmation of the Covenant is the primary, the confirmation of faith, the &s;econdary end of the Lords Supper.</HI> Who knows not, that the Cove|nant is confirmed by the &s;eals (as well as by Gods oath, <HI>Heb.</HI> 6. <HI>v.</HI>17, 18. in order to the confirma|tion of our we ak faith. As Gods oath, &s;o the
<PB N="437" REF="216">
&s;eals, by confirming the Covenant, do <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word"> in order to the confirmation of our faith, as the <HI>end.</HI> And if &s;o, then the confirmation of our faith, is the end of the confirmation of the Cove|nant; whence it follows nece&s;&s;arily, that the con|firmation of the Covenant cannot be the primary end of the &s;eals, and confirmation of our faith their &s;econdary end, as M. <HI>H.</HI> would have it.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> p. 226. <HI>Let me help him out here, There is the end of the Ordainer, and the end of the Ordinance. It may be true, that the Churches edification is primarily the intention of the Or|dainer: But the primary end of the Ordinance mu&s;t be that which goes into the in&s;titution, and the &s;econdary that which flows from it: Now the end that is thus expre&s;s in the in&s;titution is, for to be a memorial of Christs death, and &s;o outwardly to &s;eal, &s;olemnize or confirm the Co|venant, and then the confirming a mans faith (as begetting it in others) is plainly a con&s;equent effect, re&s;ult or concomitant thereof. By this one pa&s;&s;age well con&s;idered, you may have a gue&s;s at the man.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> In the former branch of his an&s;wer, M. <HI>H.</HI> is plea&s;ed to make him&s;elf and his Reader merry with me; with the rehear&s;al whereof I &s;hall not wa&s;te and defile paper, but give him leave to make up in frothy wit, what he falls &s;hort of in &s;olid argument. Now he profers to make amends by helping me (rather him&s;elf) but I fear his help will prove as un&s;erviceable, as his je&s;ting is un&s;avory.</P>
<P N="1">1. Therefore, its fal&s;e that an effect or con&s;e|quent of another end, is not, or cannot be a pri|mary end; yea on the contrary, its mo&s;t certain,
<PB N="438" REF="217">
that the la&s;t effect or con&s;equent is the fir&s;t, pri|mary or highe&s;t end, and &s;o by proportion, this being a &s;ure maxim in morality, <HI>Finis, ut in executione ultimus e&s;t, ita in intentione pri|mus.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. Its likewi&s;e untrue, that the primary end mu&s;t go into the in&s;titution of a Sacrament (I mean <HI>expre&s;ly,</HI> for at that Mr. <HI>H.</HI> drives) as is evident (to go no further) by the Pa&s;&s;eover, of which Chri&s;t and &s;alvation by him was the pri|mary end, yet not &s;o much as mentioned in the in|&s;titution thereof, <HI>Exod.</HI> 12.</P>
<P N="3">3. Suppo&s;ing his rule were true, that the primary end of the Sacrament, mu&s;t go expre&s;ly into the in&s;titution;</P>
<P>Then 1. The confirmation of the Covenant (by Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his own rule) is not the primary end of the Lords Supper, &s;ince the <HI>confirmation</HI> of the Covenant is not <HI>expre&s;ly</HI> mentioned in the in&s;ti|tution, though the Covenant it &s;elf be.</P>
<P>Or 2. The confirmation of our faith is as evidently mentioned, as the confirmation of the Covenant, and therefore (by M. <HI>H.</HI> his rule, though again&s;t his dictate) may be a primary end of the Sacrament. For proof compare <HI>Matth.</HI> 26. 28. <HI>This is the blood of the Covenant which is &s;hed for many for the remi&s;sion of &s;ins,</HI> Luke 23. 20. <HI>This cup is the New Te&s;tament in my blood, which is &s;hed for you,</HI> 1 Cor. 11. 24. <HI>This is my body which is broken for you.</HI> Tho&s;e words <HI>for you,</HI> and <HI>for many,</HI> evidence that Chri&s;t in the In&s;titution as expre&s;ly minded the con|firmation of his peoples faith, as the confirma|tion of the Covenant which is &s;ub&s;ervient there|unto; and that therefore by M. <HI>H.</HI> his rule it
<PB N="439" REF="217">
<HI>may be</HI> a primary end of the Sacrament. That, compared with the Confirmation of the Cove|nant, it is a primary end, hath been formerly proved; which is al&s;o more evident by the words of in&s;titution in the fore-quoted places. Should I now for a clo&s;e return M. <HI>H.</HI> his <HI>Epiphonema</HI> upon him&s;elf, and &s;ay, <HI>By this one pa&s;&s;age well con&s;idered, you may have a gue&s;s at the man,</HI> I &s;uppo&s;e the Reader could not blame me. But I forbear.</P>
<P>In the &s;ame <HI>page</HI> M. <HI>H.</HI> mentions &s;ome excepti|tions I make from <HI>page</HI> 171. to <HI>page</HI> 175. of my <HI>Bar,</HI> and confutes them with a da&s;h or two of his pen, &s;aying, <HI>That I carp, &s;narl, my ex|ceptions are not worth any further an&s;wer, what pittiful things are they, as if I envyed him a bare expre&s;sion, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. The Reader cannot expect I &s;hould &s;pend time in vindicating tho&s;e five pa&s;&s;ages which M. <HI>H.</HI> doth not an&s;wer, but onely vilifies with re|proachful terms. If this be to an&s;wer and confute, the Ladies of <HI>Billin&s;gate</HI> are excellent Di&s;putants. We have had too much heat already on both &s;ides, I had rather bring water, than fuel to this fire. I be&s;eech you, Sir, think not that I envy you any <HI>expre&s;&s;ion;</HI> I think too many of your expre&s;&s;ions, and of mine al&s;o, de&s;erve rather pitty than envy. Can we not &s;eek the light of truth, without the heat of pa&s;&s;ion?</P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 227. He pre&s;ents his Jury of Arguments, to prove the Lords Supper a Converting-Ordi|nance. His fir&s;t Argument is,</P>
<P><PB N="440" REF="218">
Argument 1.</P>
<P><HI>It is the duty of every intelligent member to frequent the Sacrament: But</HI> officium e&s;t propter beneficium; <HI>ergo.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. I deny the <HI>major,</HI> if by frequenting the Sacrament, he mean actual receiving, other|wi&s;e it militates nothing again&s;t us, who grant univer&s;al pre&s;ence.</P>
<P N="2">2. Suppo&s;ing &s;ome benefit did accrew to all re|ceivers, mu&s;t that benefit needs be initial Conver|&s;ion? Studying to know by the Creation, is a duty required of Heathen, and no doubt but it was <HI>eo nomine,</HI> beneficial to them; but doth it thence follow, they were converted by this &s;tudy of na|ture? or were the Sun, Moon, and Stars their Go&s;pel? This for the <HI>minor.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. He a&s;&s;erts untruly, <HI>That mans benefit is not the ground of duty.</HI> He had as good &s;ay, The Promi&s;es are no ground of obedience. Shall <HI>Self</HI> be no ground of duty, becau&s;e it is not the &s;ole or principal ground?</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>A thing is not good, and our du|ty, and therefore God wills it: But God wills it, and therefore it is good, and our duty.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> I a&s;&s;ent fully to the latter, but que&s;ti|on the former branch, if univer&s;ally under&s;tood. Some things are e&s;&s;entially good, and therefore nece&s;&s;arily our duty, as rational Creatures; in|&s;tance in the duty of <HI>Loving God,</HI> this is good, and our duty, though there had been no po&s;itive command to enjoyn it. Other things are our duty, meerly becau&s;e required by a po&s;itive Law; in|&s;tance
<PB N="441" REF="218">
in Sacrifices, Sacraments, &amp;c. Hence the di&s;tinction of natural and in&s;tituted wor&s;hip, with which latter God often di&s;pen&s;es, not &s;o with the former.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>That the Sacrament can do an unregenerate man good, I have formerly proved.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> And that proof hath been formerly an|&s;wered, which therefore I pa&s;s. Hence it fol|lows, That no unregenerate man is bound to eat and drink his own damnation, becau&s;e he is not bound to eat and drink the Sacramental elements. I have given M. <HI>H.</HI> more than one Text to prove, that per&s;ons Evangelically unworthy, mu&s;t not receive; and have al&s;o proved, That every na|tural man is Evangelically unworthy. I hope there|fore M. <HI>H.</HI> will be as good as his word in this place, in yielding to me, <HI>That receiving is not the natural mans daty;</HI> as eating the Pa&s;&s;over was not the unclean mans duty.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> p. 227, and 228. <HI>Let the pious Reader under&s;t and this point, and that is, through mans impotency, to make void Gods Autho|rity.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> When a duty in <HI>the&s;i,</HI> is therefore every mans duty in <HI>hypothe&s;i,</HI> then M. <HI>H.</HI> &s;peaks &s;omewhat to purpo&s;e. Are there not many du|ties? which binde not all per&s;ons in every &s;tate, but this or that per&s;on, as his &s;tate and relation varies; in&s;tance in the fifth Commandment, and in duties of in&s;titured-wor&s;hip, of which nature is the Sacrament. That may be a married mans duty, which is not a &s;ingle mans duty; and that a godly mans duty, which is not a natural mans duty. I hope here is no intrenching upon Gods
<PB N="442" REF="219">
Authority, but onely an explication how Divine Authority applies it &s;elf to binde one man, where it doth not bind another.</P>
<P>Argument 2.</P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 228. M. <HI>H.</HI> his &s;econd Argument, <HI>All Gods Ordinances within the Church, are means of grace, whether fir&s;t or &s;econd, to beget or encrea&s;e it;</HI> ergo.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> The Antecedent is true <HI>in &s;en&s;u divi&s;o,</HI> not <HI>in &s;en&s;u compo&s;ito.</HI> Among all Gods Ordinances, &s;ome are means to beget grace, others to encrea&s;e grace; but the thing to be proved is, That every Ordmance, yea, every part of an Ordinance, is a means both to beget, and to encrea&s;e grace; nor can M. <HI>H.</HI> prove, that the act of receiving is a way God would have natural men to walk in. He that &s;ays, <HI>Receiving</HI> is a Converting-Ordinance, mu&s;t produce, 1. A command for all natural men within the Church to receive. 2. A promi&s;e of Conver&s;ion annexed to that command.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>You mu&s;t produce &s;ome Text where converting grace is denyed peculiarly to this means. If any &s;ay, This is a negative, which ought not to be proved: I an&s;wer, though it be &s;o in the words, yet materially in the thing it is an affirmative; for he that excepts out of a general, affirms a limitation, and mu&s;t prove it.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Here M. <HI>H.</HI> his Logick fails him. Him&s;elf as <HI>Opponent</HI> in this place, undertakes to prove, That <HI>receiving</HI> is a Converting-Ordi|nance. I as <HI>Re&s;pondent,</HI> deny his Antecedent
<PB N="443" REF="219">
(That every Ordinance is Converting, and parti|cularly tho&s;e Ordinances which have no promi&s;e of Conver&s;ion annexed to them) doth it not ap|parently concern M. <HI>H.</HI> to prove (if he will make good his <HI>minor</HI> or <HI>Antecedent</HI>) that all Ordinances have a promi&s;e of Conver&s;ion annexed to them? It lies indeed upon the <HI>Re&s;pondent,</HI> to grant a true Propo&s;ition, to deny a fal&s;e one, to di&s;tingui&s;h a doubtful one; but it lies onely upon the <HI>Opponent</HI> to prove what he undertakes, unle&s;s he mean to yield up his cau&s;e; which in my poor judgement would be more for M. <HI>H.</HI> his comfort and honor. Suppo&s;e M. <HI>H.</HI> would prove the Sun, Moon and Stars to be means of Conver&s;ion, becau&s;e they di&s;|cover to us much of God, &amp;c. I as <HI>Re&s;pondent</HI> an&s;wer, That is not proof &s;ufficient, but he mu&s;t produce a promi&s;e of Conver&s;ion annexed to the ob&s;ervation of tho&s;e Heavenly Bodies, if he will make it out, that they are a Converting-Ordi|nance. Were it now a rea&s;onable demand on M. <HI>H.</HI> his part, to bid me produce any one Text of Scripture, where Converting grace is denyed to the Contemplation of the Heavenly Bodies? The ca&s;e is here much alike; nor is every means of Edification, a means of Conver&s;ion. True, the <HI>Re&s;pondent</HI> denying an univer&s;al Propo&s;ition, and &s;o by con&s;equence affirming a limitation, is bound to give an in&s;tance for that limitation; but it lies not upon him to prove that in&s;tance, but upon the <HI>Opponent</HI> to di&s;prove it. For example, I deny M. <HI>H.</HI> his univer&s;al (that all Ordinances are Converting) in this denyal, by con&s;equence I affirm a limitation, and give in&s;tance of tho&s;e Or|dinances which have no promi&s;e of Conver&s;ion annexed to them. Doth it not here lie upon
<PB N="444" REF="220">
M. <HI>H.</HI> to prove, that every Ordinance hath a pro|mi&s;e of Conver&s;ion annexed to it, if he mean to fortifie his Univer&s;al? Will any fair <HI>Opponent</HI> here require of me to produce &s;ome Text, where Converting-grace is denyed to any Ordinance?</P>
<P>Argument 3.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> p. 229. <HI>There is but a</HI> peradventure <HI>for the Conver&s;ion of any in the u&s;e of all means be&s;ides, becau&s;e there is no &s;pecial promi&s;e of grace in the be&s;t u&s;e of meer naturals: But there is,</HI> an it may <HI>be granted by our Op|po&s;ites, to the Sacrament.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> There is a wide difference between the fir&s;t and &s;econd <HI>it may be;</HI> the fir&s;t <HI>it may be,</HI> or <HI>peradventure,</HI> flowing from Gods ordinate power, as declared by his revealed will, that it &s;hall con|cur with &s;ome Ordinances for the Conver&s;ion of his: the &s;econd <HI>it may be,</HI> flowing onely from his ab&s;olute power, which is a poor ground of encouragement to expect Conver&s;ion from any &s;tanding Ordinance, to which God hath annexed no promi&s;e of Conver&s;ion. Its po&s;&s;ible, by Gods ab&s;olute power, the damned may be &s;aved through the &s;atisfaction of Chri&s;t; but by Gods ordinate power, its po&s;&s;ible onely for the Living to be &s;aved. The former <HI>it may be,</HI> &s;peaks no comfort to the Damned, but the latter <HI>it may be,</HI> &s;peaks much comfort to the living, e&s;pecially tho&s;e under the means of grace. Why? Becau&s;e the efficacy of Chri&s;ts &s;atisfaction, is by promi&s;e annexed to divers of the living, but to none of the damned. In like manner, its po&s;&s;ible, by Gods ab&s;olute power, <HI>receiving</HI> may convert, not &s;o by Gods
<PB N="445" REF="220">
ordinate power, unle&s;s a promi&s;e can be produced which annexes conver&s;ion to actual receiving. There is a wide difference, I hope, between the&s;e two <HI>it may bees.</HI> It may be God may convert me occa&s;ionally by my &s;in (as he did divers of the Cru|cifiers of Chri&s;t) but it were madne&s;s thence to conclude that &s;in is a means of conver&s;ion. <Q REND="inline">By &s;aying therefore, that actual receiving cannot convert any;</Q> I do not limit the Spirit of God, but onely declare that the Spirit is plea&s;ed to limit him&s;elf not to convert any by <HI>receiving,</HI> and that becau&s;e he wills not to convert any by it: And that God wills not to convert any by this, as well as by other Ordinances, I conclude, becau&s;e God hath not revealed his will to convert any by this, as by other Ordinances. Let it appear, that God wills to convert any by receiving, and I &s;hall ea&s;ily be of M. <HI>H.</HI> his judgement, That actual receiving is a converting Ordinance.</P>
<P>For his amplification, <HI>ib.</HI> by a di&s;tinction of <HI>an half promi&s;e, and a full promi&s;e.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> The&s;e half promi&s;es are made to none but &s;uch as attend upon God, in, and under the means of conver&s;ion; and that actual receiving is a means of conver&s;ion, is the Que&s;tion to be proved.</P>
<P>Argument 4.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> p. 230: <HI>If the Sacrament be convert|ing as it is a vi&s;ible word, then it mu&s;t be converting as it is a gu&s;table, tactible word, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Its not granted that the Lords Sup|per converts as a vi&s;ible word. See my <HI>Bar,</HI> p. 155. and 156, but that the word reed', opened, and
<PB N="446" REF="221">
applied at the Sacrament, is, and may be a means of conver&s;ion.</P>
<P N="2">2. We de&s;ire Mr. <HI>H.</HI> to produce one promi&s;e that the Sacramental elements, either as &s;een, touched, or ta&s;ted, are a means of conver&s;ion.</P>
<P>Argument 5. <HI>ib.</HI></P>
<P><HI>The precepts of God are lively and opera|tive, and the offers of grace are the means and conveyances of that power we have not in our &s;elves to receive it: But here is this mo&s;t &s;weet and gracious offer and command, Take and eat.</HI> Ergo:</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> The precepts of God are lively and operative in order to the ends, for which he ap|points them, and the offers of grace are means to convey unto the heirs of grace that grace which God offers by them; but that in the Sacrament God commands us to receive in order to conver&s;ion, or that he offers converting grace in tendering the Sacramental elements, is &s;till the <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 span">.</P>
<P>Argument 6. <HI>ib.</HI></P>
<P><HI>The reclayming of a man from &s;ome particu|lar vice, or vices, is a good &s;tep forwards towards repentance and conver&s;ion: But the Sacrament is a con&s;tant experiment hereof.</HI> Ergo.</P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. There is a wide difference be|tween a &s;tep towards repentance materially, and repentance it &s;elf. In the Devils and damned, there
<PB N="447" REF="221">
are &s;ome &s;teps towards repentance, as conviction, fear, &amp;c. Yet they, I hope, are far enough from repentance.</P>
<P N="2">2. A man may turn from one &s;in to another, from prodigality to covetou&s;ne&s;s, is this a &s;tep to|wards repentance or conver&s;ion?</P>
<P N="3">3. That receiving the Sacrament reclaims a natural man from any &s;in is &s;till the Que&s;tion begged. Mr. <HI>H.</HI> pretends con&s;tant experience, but names here no experiment. We are &s;ure, upon his own principle, we can &s;hew him an experi|ment to the contrary. Suppo&s;ing (as he will have it) <HI>Judas</HI> did receive, I pray what vice or vices was he reclaimed from by his receiving? doth not the very Liturgie hold him forth as a warning un|to natural men not to venture in that e&s;tate upon the holy Sacrament?</P>
<P><HI>He &s;uppo&s;es indeed a drunkard coming to the Sacrament with a re&s;olution again&s;t drun|kenne&s;s, taking the Sacrament upon it, and proving ever after a &s;ober man.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. This re&s;olution of his is either again&s;t drunkenne&s;s alone, which is purely carnal, upon carnal principles, and is often ju&s;tly plagued with returning to the vomit; or it is again&s;t all other &s;ins too; and this either a velleity and faint re&s;olution, made by the &s;trength of natural free will; or real and &s;incere: the former is but a good mood, or <HI>turning upon the hinges,</HI> Prov. 26. 14. expo&s;ing him to a more dangerous fall; the latter is true repentance begun, and &s;uch a one comes not a natural man to the Sacrament, but is converted be|fore receiving.</P>
<P><PB N="448" REF="222">
Argument 7.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> 231. <HI>The acting or exerci&s;e of com|mon grace, and endeavouring to do what a man can, is another good &s;tep forward towards con|ver&s;ion: But the Sacrament is the means to ex|erci&s;e common grace in the unregenerate.</HI> Ergo.</P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. It hath formerly been &s;hewed, that a &s;tep towards repentance may be far enough from repentance.</P>
<P N="2">2. If this be warrant enough for receiving be|cau&s;e the Sacrament is a means to exerci&s;e com|mon grace, then why &s;hould not per&s;ons <HI>jure</HI> ex|communicate be admitted in order to the exer|ci&s;e of common grace, and that thereby they may get a &s;tep nearer repentance?</P>
<P N="3">3. Common grace may be exerci&s;ed by pre|&s;ence, and I am not again&s;t free pre&s;ence, but again&s;t free receiving. For <HI>his half or com|parative acceptance,</HI> ibid. I beleeve he &s;ins le&s;s in divers ca&s;es who performs the matter of a duty, than he that prophanely omits both matter and manner; yet on the other hand its as true, that better omit the duty altogether, than venture upon it in an unwarrantable way, witne&s;s the &s;ad fate of <HI>Nadab, Abihu,</HI> and <HI>&V;zza, Levit.</HI> 10. 2. and 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 15. 13. and of the unworthy gue&s;t, <HI>Matth.</HI> 22. 12, 13.</P>
<P>Argument 8.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>The &s;olemn ingagement of the &s;oul to Chri&s;t upon his terms, &amp;. is a
<PB N="449" REF="222">
means of full and effectual clo&s;ing with him, if Gods Spirit &s;hall be plea&s;ed to act with it. But actual receiving is &s;uch a means, &amp;c.</HI> ergo,</P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Then let per&s;ons <HI>jure</HI> excommuni|cate be thus ingaged.</P>
<P N="2">2. An ingagement will binde poorly where its not under&s;tood, which is the ca&s;e of gro&s;ly ignorant per&s;ons who know neither the nature of the Sacrament, nor of &s;uch a &s;olemn ingage|ment.</P>
<P N="3">3. He that comes to ingage with no re&s;olution to keep that ingagement, yea with a re&s;olution again&s;t it (which is the ca&s;e more or le&s;s of all natural men) will be no more tyed by tho&s;e in|gagements than <HI>Samp&s;on</HI> was with cords and withs, or the Legion was with chains and fetters. Nor can any expect the Spirits acting out of the way and road of the Spirit. A penny earne&s;t would binde no more than a promi&s;e were it not for the coactive power of the Law; and there is no compul&s;ion of elicite, but only of imperate acts.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Not but that natu|ral men ought to ingage again&s;t &s;in, and to duty, which in|gagement may be al&s;o very u&s;eful and beneficial, but that may be done otherwi&s;e, and with le&s;s danger than by receiving.</NOTE></P>
<P>Argument 9.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> p. 232. <HI>That which can beget more degrees of the &s;ame grace, can beget the fir&s;t grace, unle&s;s the&s;e degrees are be|gotten &s;ome other way than that is. But all grace (fir&s;t and &s;econd) is begotten alike, by
<PB N="450" REF="223">
propounding the object, by illumination, and by a touch upon the will; which object is &s;hewed forth in the Sacrament, as in the Word, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. M. <HI>H.</HI> an&s;wers him&s;elf by his own li|mitation, &s;ince the fir&s;t grace is ever begot by &s;upernatural infu&s;ion; not &s;o alwayes the &s;econd, but may be got by exerci&s;e of the fir&s;t grace, the Holy Gho&s;t concurring to excite, and act the principle received, but not alwayes in&s;u&s;ing new grace, as God fir&s;t powred down fire from heaven, which afterward was pre&s;erved and increa&s;ed by the Prie&s;ts applying fuel, &amp;c. <HI>Lev.</HI> 6. 12. This truth is held forth by the Parables of the Talents and Pounds, which were at fir&s;t given by the Lord, but improved and increa&s;ed by the &s;ervants indu&s;try. As moral habits are &s;trengthned by moral acts, &s;o &s;piritual habits are &s;trengthned by &s;piritual acts. Light may be intended by reflection or refraction, but cannot at fir&s;t be generated with|out a direct beam; Such is the fir&s;t grace darted into the &s;oul by the Holy Gho&s;t, but afterwards intended by exerci&s;e, and multiplied acts as &s;o many reflections and refractions, though withall the Holy Gho&s;t may at plea&s;ure dart in fre&s;h beams of grace, as the Lord did often-times cau&s;e fire to fall from heaven.</P>
<P N="2">2. The external propounding of the object, either by the Word or Sacrament, can no more work &s;aving grace than the &s;etting of an object before a blind man, or one that is in the dark can work upon him before the <HI>medium</HI> and organ be illuminated. Now the Holy Gho&s;t is that light which illuminates the faculty &s;avingly; and that he conveyes the fir&s;t illumination by actual
<PB N="451" REF="223">
receiving is the que&s;tion to be proved.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>It is a mi&s;take to think that the &s;econd grace is exhibited by way of ob&s;ignation, but it is wrought (I &s;ay) through the Spirit of God by the way of moral operation onely; as the fir&s;t and &s;econd grace, both are begotten in reading and hearing, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. We beleeve that &s;eparation, tender, ob&s;ignation, and exhibition are di&s;tinct acts in the Sacrament; nor do we think that that Sacra|mental action which doth the one doth formally perform the other, which yet it may do virtually; and why grace received &s;hould not be confirmed by the &s;ealing virtue of the Sacrament (which is really, though not formally, the exhibition of the &s;econd grace) as well as by Gods oath and pro|mi&s;e laid hold on by faith, I &s;ee no &s;olid rea&s;on.</P>
<P N="2">2. That the fir&s;t grace is wrought by way of moral operation <HI>only,</HI> as M. <HI>H.</HI> &s;eems more than to hint in <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">aragraph, is a <HI>Pelagian,</HI> and a dangerous <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word">; nor did <HI>Pelagius</HI> him&s;elf deny the grace or concour&s;e of the Spirit; but what that grace of his was, is too well known, namely natural rea&s;on, common illumination, propound|ing the object, moral &s;wa&s;ion, &amp;c. I will not here charge M.<HI>H.</HI> in the &s;ame kinde, but wi&s;h he had explained him&s;elf, that the world might know his meaning whether he really think that the fir&s;t grace is infu&s;ed, or whether it be wrought (as moral habits are) by moral &s;wa&s;ion, by &s;trong and iterated acts which are both the &s;eed and fruit of moral habits.</P>
<P><PB N="452" REF="224">
Argument 10.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> p. 232. <HI>The &s;ad Con&s;equence of this Tenet,</HI> that the Sacrament belongs onely to the effectually converted, <HI>is &s;orely again&s;t it, and that both for the giver and re|ceiver. For the Receiver, this will cut off every poor doubtful Chri&s;tian from the Sacrament. For</HI> 1. <HI>If I am bound to re|ceive when I am regenerate, and bound to forbear if I am unregenerate, then I mu&s;t be per&s;waded in my Con&s;cience that I am regenerate, or el&s;e I cannot eat in faith; and he that eateth and doubteth is damned if he eat. I de&s;ire this may be tonderly weighed.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> In general. This Argument hath more accidentall than natural &s;trengt<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1+ letters"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1+ letters">d is more plau&s;ible than powerful; as pretending much re|&s;pect to tender con&s;ciences, and charging our principles with the contrary. I &s;hall therefore endeavor to weigh it tenderly in the ballance of the Sanctuary, that thereby I may &s;atisfie tender con&s;ciences; and if it may be, my Antagoni&s;t al&s;o. <NOTE PLACE="marg">In&s;tance in the op|po&s;ite te|nets about the time of Ea&s;ter, which &s;o merly vexed the church &amp;c.</NOTE></P>
<P N="1">1. Therefore I lay this down as a foundation, That a &s;ad Con&s;equent is no &s;olid Argument a|gain&s;t any Tenet, unle&s;s fir&s;t it be a proper and natural effect of &s;uch a Tenet. And,</P>
<P N="2">2. Unle&s;s it be a moral evil. Or,</P>
<P N="3">3. That Tenet be &s;o trivial, that the lea&s;t af|flictive evil is too much to &s;uffer for it. And other|wi&s;e, if all &s;ad Con&s;equents &s;hould be Argu|mentative
<PB N="453" REF="224">
in M.<HI>H.</HI> his &s;en&s;e, we might by a like Argument conclude again&s;t Chri&s;t and Religion, the &s;ad con&s;equents whereof are troubles, divi&s;ions, temptations, per&s;ecutions, &amp;c. But to de&s;cend from the <HI>The&s;is</HI> to the <HI>Hypothe&s;is,</HI> what &s;ad con|&s;equents follow as to the Receiver, from our Tenet, <HI>That onely the regenerate ought to re|ceive.</HI></P>
<P>M.<HI>H.</HI> tells us, 1. <HI>This will cut off every poor doubting Chri&s;tian from the Sacrament.</HI> Why, I pray? <HI>Becau&s;e he cannot eat in faith, be|ing under a doubt of his regenerate estate.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. No more can he ab&s;tain in faith, if this argument were good; &s;ince, as he is bound to ab&s;tain, if he be unregenerate, &s;o he is bound to receive if regenerate (I mean, unle&s;s warrant|ably detained by &s;ome ju&s;t occa&s;ion; for affirma|tive Precepts do not binde <HI>ad &s;emper</HI>)</P>
<P>You will &s;ay, <HI>This makes more again&s;t us, and for M.</HI> H. <HI>&s;ince it hereby appears, that a doubting Chri&s;tian, is in a &s;nare, whether he receive or not.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. No more then a doubting Jew was in a &s;nare in order to his eating of the Pa&s;&s;over (the rule being, that no unclean per&s;on &s;hould eat, <HI>Numb.</HI> 9. 13. compare 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 30. 18.) Suppo&s;e now <HI>Caleb</HI> doubting whether he were clean or no, yet without any folid ground; but <HI>it may be,</HI> I have touched, or have been touched by an un|clean per&s;on, or thing, &amp;c. think you this ground|le&s;s &s;cruple had been &s;ufficient to detain him from the Pa&s;&s;over?</P>
<P N="2">2. The be&s;t way under &s;uch &s;cruples, is to con&s;ult with God, and to di&s;cover their ground (either real or apparent) to &s;ome faithful friend
<PB N="454" REF="225">
or Mini&s;ter; whereby, through mercy, their con|&s;ciences would &s;oon come to &s;ome &s;ettlement, far better than by M. <HI>H.</HI> his Doctrine of admitting all pell-mell.</P>
<P N="3">3. If yet his &s;cruple &s;till remain, its wi&s;dom to take the better part, which is the affirmative. He that doubted whether he were clean or no, might cat the Pa&s;&s;over; and he that doubts whe|ther he be regenerate or no, having <HI>faithfully</HI> u&s;ed Gods way of di&s;covery, by &s;elf-examination, ad|vice with others, and prayer, I believe both may and ought to come to the Sacrament, though he cannot yet attain full &s;atisfaction of his &s;cruples. That &s;cruple which cannot exclude me out of the &s;tate of grace, &s;ure cannot &s;u&s;pend me from the Sacrament; for then who &s;hall receive? The be&s;t are not without &s;cruples about their e&s;tate; which &s;cruples may weaken, but cannot aboli&s;h evidence. As faith, &s;o evidence is gradual, ebbing and flowing upon &s;everal occa&s;ions. Nay, the Sacrament is e&s;pecially in&s;tituted for doubting Saints.</P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 233. M. <HI>H.</HI> his &s;econd &s;ad Con&s;equent, as to the Receiver is, <HI>That upon this account every one that comes, profe&s;&s;es him&s;elf con|verted; and if any man be but doubtful that he is not yet converted, he cannot come, but he acts a lie, and is a publike hypocrite, &amp;c. thus &s;hall every humble, tender Chri&s;tian keep away, and the &s;elf-ju&s;titiary harden to death.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Its a mi&s;take, <HI>That upon this account every one that comes profe&s;&s;es him&s;elf converted.</HI> This onely follows upon our principle, That every one who <HI>receives,</HI> doth virtually profe&s;s he apprehends or thinks him&s;elf converted; as every
<PB N="455" REF="225">
Jew that came to the Pa&s;&s;over; profe&s;t onely that he believed him&s;elf to be clean, which belief yet might &s;tand with &s;ome doubt or &s;cruple. Hence it follows indeed, That he who knows him&s;elf to be in the &s;tate of nature, and yet comes to re|ceive, acts a lie, and plays the gro&s;s hypocrite; which con&s;ideration well weighed, may be bar &s;ufficient to a generation of Receivers, who wil dare before God, Angels and men, to profe&s;s they believe them&s;elves to be real Saints, when their own con&s;ciences, and divers of their neighbors, can groundedly evidence again&s;t them as profance per|&s;ons, and &s;corners of holine&s;s. But what is this to a poor doubting Saint, who hath &s;olid evidence of grace, yet &s;omewhat &s;haken by &s;cruples, to whom Gods Me&s;&s;engers and people can and ought cordially to give the right hand of fellow&s;hip, and per&s;wade, yea, charge hi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter"> <GAP DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word"> receive, and not be afraid to clo&s;e with his be<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1+ letters"> friend in the Sa|crament. We a&s;&s;ert, That none but real Saints ought to receive, and that all real Saints, with due provi&s;ion, mu&s;t receive: But many doubting Saints are real Saints, and therefore by our a&s;&s;er|tion ought to receive. <HI>Contra,</HI> hypocrites, whe|ther doubting or confident, ought not to receive; and if they receive, they do &s;o at their own peril: And &s;hould Chri&s;t ask any of them, <HI>Friend, how camest thou in hither?</HI> he would be as &s;peechle&s;s as was the pre&s;umptuous gue&s;t, <HI>who for all the general invitation, was bound hand and foot, &amp;c. becau&s;e he came without th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter"> wedding gar|ment,</HI> Matth. 22. <HI>v.</HI>9, 10, 11, 12, 13. Yet further, if a con&s;ident hypocritereceive, his dan|ger is the greater, the Sacrament (through Gods rihteous judgement) building him up accidental|ly
<PB N="456" REF="226">
in a damnable error of fal&s;e a&s;&s;urance: A &s;ad Edification.</P>
<P>We have &s;canned M. <HI>H.</HI> his &s;ad Con&s;equents for the <HI>Receiver.</HI> Next let us view his &s;ad Con|&s;equents for the <HI>Giver.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 233. M. <HI>H. For the Giver,</HI> 1. <HI>The ca&s;e will be neer the &s;ame; for the Sacrament cannot be admini&s;tred according to rule, nor he (that is,</HI> the Giver) <HI>act in faith, unle&s;s both the Re|ceiver is regenerate, and he a&s;&s;ured of it (which he cannot be) if Regeneration were a qualifi|cation commanded as nece&s;&s;ary to receiving.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> This imaginary Con&s;equent, di&s;covers more of M. <HI>H.</HI> his weakne&s;s than the former. He might as well argue about the Pa&s;&s;over, thus, If no unclean per&s;on might eat thereof, then the Pa&s;&s;over cannot be admini&s;tred according to rule; nor the Giver of <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word"> act in faith, unle&s;s both the <HI>Eater</HI> be clean, and the <HI>Giver</HI> or Over&s;eer be a&s;&s;ured thereof (which he cannot be) if legal puri|ty were a qualification commanded, as nece&s;&s;ary to the eating of the Pa&s;&s;over. Think you the Prie&s;ts or other Over&s;eers were to admit none to the Pa&s;&s;over, but tho&s;e whom they knew to be clean? yet the rule was &s;trict, <HI>No unclean per&s;on &s;hall eat thereof:</HI> Whence I infer, As the &s;trict|ne&s;s of their rule obliged not them to know certain|ly who were clean, who unclean; &s;o the &s;trictne&s;s of the Go&s;pel-rule (let no unregenerate man re|ceive) obliges not Church-Officers to know cer|tainly, who are regenerate, who not; but onely to take care, that no per&s;ons vi&s;ibly unclean in an Evangelical &s;en&s;e, be admitted to the Sacrament. Will it follow, That becau&s;e none but regenerate per&s;ons mu&s;t receive, therefore none but &s;uch mu&s;t
<PB N="457" REF="226">
be admitted? The latitude of <HI>Admi&s;&s;ion</HI> is as far beyond the latitude of <HI>Receiving,</HI> as the latitude of <HI>vi&s;ibility,</HI> not contradicted by gro&s;s ignorance and &s;candal, is beyond the latitude of <HI>true Grace.</HI></P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>Secondly, men will be ready to think them&s;elves converted, when they are admitted, and the formal Chri&s;tian re&s;t in his e&s;tate, when he &s;hould come hither to repent of it.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Carnal per&s;ons are apt to conclude their e&s;tate good, by catching at any evidence that &s;eems to favor them; as, becau&s;e they are Church-members, attend upon the Ordinances, have the good word and opinion of eminent Pro|fe&s;&s;ors, &amp;c. yea, &s;ome people abu&s;e right evi|dences; mu&s;t Mini&s;ters therefore forbear to preach evidences and tryals of grace?</P>
<P N="2">2. Though we hold, that none but vi&s;ible Saints mu&s;t be admitted; yet withal we teach, that few vi&s;ible Saints are real Saints, and that therefore admi&s;&s;ion to the Sacrament is no evidence of true grace, though it be a &s;trong obligation to grace. It argues indeed, that the Admitters have a good opinion of the per&s;ons admitted; but what folly is it to infer, I mu&s;t needs have true grace, becau&s;e Gods people give me the right hand of fellow&s;hip, and hope well of me?</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>Thirdly, the be&s;t Mini&s;ter mu&s;t fall infinitely &s;hort in the di&s;charge of his tryal, were any at all required upon this ground.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> No more than the Prie&s;ts and Levites, who were not bound to know certainly who were clean or unclean, but upon &s;u&s;pition, might and ought to bring the ca&s;e to i&s;&s;ue by the parties
<PB N="458" REF="227">
confe&s;&s;ion, or &s;ufficient te&s;timony. Or no more than a Judge is bound to know certainly, whether the per&s;on &s;u&s;pected be a Felon or not, but mu&s;t endeavor to &s;eek out the truth by the per&s;ons con|fe&s;&s;ion, or legal evidence; which being done, the Judge is innocent, however eventually a guilty per&s;on may be cleared, and &s;o enjoy the privi|ledges of an hono&s;t man, <HI>&amp; contra.</HI></P>
<P>However therfore in the clo&s;e of this Argument, M. <HI>H.</HI> is plea&s;ed <HI>to judge. That the fir&s;t touches of Con&s;cience, before mature deliberation, have inclined pious per&s;ons to plead for tryal of others in order to the Sacrament;</HI> yet the &s;erious de|bates both in the A&s;&s;embly and Parliament about this particular, before it was ratified by the Civil Sanction; as al&s;o the con&s;tant practice of our own and other Churches before the&s;e times, may per&s;wade M. <HI>H.</HI> that his judgement is not infallible. If Self-examination exclude Church-examination, then <HI>pari ratione,</HI> Self-judging ex|clude Church-judging, and Self-teaching Church-teaching.</P>
<P>Argument 11.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> 234. his 11 Argument, <HI>The Sacrament is a means to confirm faith of A&s;&s;ent:</HI> Ergo, <HI>Its a means of Conver&s;ion.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. This Argument proves indeed, the Sacrament is a means to confirm Conver&s;ion, by confirming a&s;&s;ent in tho&s;e who are regenerate.</P>
<P N="2">2. That it may confirm a common a&s;&s;ent in any that under&s;tands it: But the great que&s;tion is, Whether actual receiving can beget a &s;aving
<PB N="459" REF="227">
a&s;&s;ent, and &s;o work initial Conver&s;ion. His te&s;ti|mony out of <HI>Calvin,</HI> proves Gods orderly and gradual proceeding about the work of Conver&s;ion, fir&s;t by the word, then by the Sacrament, yea, after|wards by both together, but that by the Sacrament God opens a pa&s;&s;age <HI>for initial Conver&s;ion,</HI> is M. <HI>H.</HI> his glo&s;s, not M. <HI>Calvins</HI> text. Be&s;ides, by the word, God teaches not onely convincingly, but al&s;o effectually; and &s;o far as the word teaches, the Sacrament may confirm, either in relation to degrees of Conviction, or of Conver&s;ion; in or|der to both of which, the Spirit is a nece&s;&s;ary Agent.</P>
<P>Argument 12.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> his 12. Argument, <HI>ib. The &s;olemn ap|plication of the Covenant to a mans &s;elf, according to his e&s;tate, &amp;c. is the very onely way whereby the Spirit u&s;ually worketh Conviction, and &s;incere Conver|&s;ion: But actual receiving is a &s;olemn means of &s;uch an application,</HI> Ergo.</P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. I deny the <HI>minor,</HI> as to the &s;econd branch about &s;incere Conver&s;ion. M. <HI>H.</HI> his Pro&s;|&s;yllogi&s;ms drawn from Legal-conviction, and &s;elf|judging, will not help him, till he can prove, that an in&s;tantaneous act of Legal-Conviction, with a like in&s;tantaneous and hypocritical act of Self-judging (if produced at all by the unworthy Com|municant) in the act of receiving, are effectual means of converting &s;uch an obdurate &s;inner, who re&s;i&s;ts all the grace of the Sacrament, till he come to the la&s;t act of receiving.</P>
<P N="2"><PB N="460" REF="228">
2. The fore-mentioned application may be made (with le&s;s danger of guilt) by pre&s;ence without receiving.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H. p.</HI> 236. and 237. <HI>He that is willing to go on in his &s;ins, and refu&s;e Je&s;us Christ, I will not gratifie him &s;o far, to &s;ay he mu&s;t &s;tay away. This were doctrine after the fle&s;hes own heart.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. How comes it then to pa&s;s, that the mo&s;t fle&s;hly men are u&s;ual mo&s;t eager for the Sacrament, and think them&s;elves mo&s;t wronged when kept away? Ask the wor&s;t in every Pari&s;h, Whether the Mini&s;ter gratifie them mo&s;t by &s;u&s;|pen&s;ion, or by admi&s;&s;ion?</P>
<P>Yet 2. By &s;u&s;pen&s;ion we affect not &s;imply either to gratifie or di&s;plea&s;ure any, unle&s;s care and endeavour to prevent their &s;in, and bring them to &s;aving knowledge and grace be a gratification or di&s;plea&s;ure; and I hope every godly man &s;hould be willing to gratifie all, nor afraid to di&s;plea&s;e any by endeavour to prevent their &s;in, and to work in them real conver&s;ion.</P>
<P>What ever therefore M. <HI>H.</HI> is plea&s;ed to in|&s;inuate, <HI>p.</HI> 237. be not deceived as if by ab&s;tention, or &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, <HI>thou either gave&s;t up thy &s;elf, or wert given up as lo&s;t;</HI> Or <HI>that any unworthy re|ceiver can make &s;o good u&s;e of the Sacrament, or of the blood of Chri&s;t as to wa&s;h away any one &s;tain of &s;in.</HI> Such conceits may puzzle and trouble, but will never convert or edifie thee. If the guilt of Chri&s;ts body and blood can bring thee nearer heaven, then may unworthy receiving bring thee thither. Study well tho&s;e two Texts, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11. v.27, 29. and thou wilt ea&s;ily perceive, that M. <HI>H.</HI> is better at <HI>Rhetorick</HI> than &s;piritual <HI>Logick.</HI>
<PB N="461" REF="228">
Attend upon the word which undoubtedly is a means, and hath clear promi&s;es of cover&s;ion: And upon true, though weak di&s;coveries of grace, come to the Sacrament as Gods &s;econd Chariot that will carry thee apace to heaven.</P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 239-240. M. <HI>H.</HI> endeavours to back all his twelve Arguments by an in&s;tance or ex|ample; before which he in&s;erts the&s;e words, <HI>Whereas Mr.</HI> Drake <HI>is ready to cite me before the great Tribunal, I may appeal thither to tho&s;e many Saints in heaven, together with this party, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Sir, Had you noted the place where I cite you before the great Tribunal, you had done me a favour. I do not remember &s;uch ex|pre&s;&s;ions, and &s;hould cen&s;ure my &s;elf for ra&s;hne&s;s if I uttered &s;uch words without a very weighty ground.</P>
<P N="2">2. In appealing thither to the Saints departed, how ever your meaning may be good, the ex|pre&s;&s;ions are not very &s;utable to Prote&s;tant prin|ciples. But I let it pa&s;s as a &s;uperfluity of Rhe|torick, and come to &s;can the in&s;tance and example, I doubt not but Mr. <HI>Fairclough</HI> reported faith|fully and candidly according to what he appre|hended by information and ob&s;ervation: which te|&s;timony Mr. <HI>H.</HI> pre&s;ents to publick view, <HI>p.</HI> 240. I hope <HI>verbatim</HI> without addition or detraction. Onely here I intreat the Reader to note three particulars, &s;o I have done with this Section.</P>
<P N="1">1. By this te&s;timony its evident Mr. <HI>F.</HI> dif|fered from Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his opinion about free Ad|mi&s;&s;ion.</P>
<P N="2">2. That <HI>Thoma&s;in Budde</HI> &s;aid not, <HI>That her receiving the Sacrament was the fir&s;t thing
<PB N="462" REF="229">
which by the power of the Holy Gho&s;t, brought over her will to the acceptance of our Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t.</HI> But that it was the fir&s;t thing <HI>which &s;he &s;en&s;ibly perceived</HI> brought over her will, &amp;c. whence it follows, &s;he had her <HI>fir&s;t &s;en&s;ible evi|dence</HI> at the Sacrament in receiving; but whether &s;he were not really converted till that in&s;tant is &s;till in di&s;pute.</P>
<P N="3">3. Mr. <HI>F.</HI> confe&s;&s;es, <HI>That before her ad|mi&s;&s;ion &s;he had &s;ome &s;leight motions and con|viction wrought upon her.</HI> Who can &s;ay, but the&s;e &s;leight motions (in mans judgement) might be converting motions. That may be real and glorious with God which is but &s;leight with man, <HI>&amp; contra,</HI> Luke 16. 15. Hence I may (without injury to that pious woman) conclude that this example affords no &s;olid bottome to prove actual receiving a converting Ordinance.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="7" TYPE="section">
<HEAD><HI>SECT.</HI> VII.</HEAD>
<P>THe &s;eventh Objection is, <Q REND="inline"><HI>Judas received not the Sacrament becau&s;e he went out,</HI></Q> <HI>John</HI> 13. 30.</P>
<P>This Objection is con&s;iderable as overthrow|ing Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his foundation, <HI>That Judas did re|ceive.</HI> But whether he received or not, its not very material to us.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H. p.</HI> 241. My an&s;wer was, <Q REND="inline"><HI>That this Supper of</HI> John <HI>was before the Fea&s;t of the Pa&s;&s;eover, and that very likely two nights. &V;nto this, all Mr.</HI> D. <HI>an&s;wers</HI> (p. 176.) <HI>is Mr. H. in two leaves takes &s;ome pains to &s;mall purpo&s;e. I pray note it, while I alledge Scripture to prove that this Supper in</HI> John,</Q>
<PB N="463" REF="229">
<HI>and the Pa&s;&s;eover were two different Suppers, and in two different pl<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1+ letters">es; he tells us this is to &s;mall purpo&s;e, as if the alledging</HI> Judas <HI>went out to agree with the High-Prie&s;ts from a Supper two nights before the Sacrament, wa<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter"> &s;ufficient proof that therefore he went out at the Sacra|ment.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Sure tho&s;e words are not all Mr. <HI>Drakes</HI> an&s;wer, as is evident to any that will but ca&s;t an eye upon what I &s;ay, <HI>p.</HI> 176. &amp; 177. of my <HI>Bar:</HI> though withal I mu&s;t confe&s;s I wonder at my &s;elf upon what account I &s;hould let pa&s;s &s;o me|morable a place as that of <HI>John</HI> 13. untouched in my an&s;wer, and am beholding to Mr. <HI>H.</HI> for mind|ing me here of it. 2. Therefore now, what in me lyes to make up that defect; I &s;hall fir&s;t coap with Mr. <HI>H.</HI> in his humble vindication; and then proceed to what he addes is his <HI>Rejoynder.</HI></P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H. p.</HI> 64. and 65. of his Vindication, <HI>There was a Supper a little before the Pa&s;&s;eover, where St.</HI> John <HI>relates a wa&s;hing of the di&s;ciples feet, and other things, that were not to be done at the &s;olemnity of the Pa&s;&s;eover; but the feet were to be &s;hod then, and the like ge&s;tures quite con|trary.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. To this Mr. <HI>H.</HI> cites his own an|&s;wer, <HI>p.</HI> 65. in the&s;e words, <HI>Some &s;ay, tho&s;e pa&s;|&s;ages which noted their <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">a&s;te out of Egypt were not obligatory when they came to the land of re&s;t.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. Yet &s;uppo&s;e they were then obligatory, why might they not have their feet wa&s;hed ju&s;t before the Pa&s;&s;eover, and then put on their &s;hooes, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> and eat the Pa&s;&s;eover with ob&s;erva|tion of the original rites? If you &s;ay, This
<PB N="464" REF="230">
wa&s;hing was a &s;ervile work, and therefore prohi|bited at that holy time, <HI>Exod.</HI> 12. 16.</P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. All &s;ervile works were not forbid upon &s;uch holy Convocations, and particularly wa&s;hing, anointing, dre&s;&s;ing of meat, which &s;er|ved to chear and refre&s;h them, as the Rabbins note.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Mr. <HI>Good|win</HI> in his <HI>Jewi&s;h Antiq.</HI> notes L. 3 c. 2. &amp; 4. That at al fea&s;ts, e&s;|pecially at the Pa&s;&s;eover, wa&s;hing of the feet was an u&s;ual ceremony.</NOTE></P>
<P N="2">2. This work, though &s;ervile in form, was holy in u&s;e, and in Chri&s;ts de&s;ign; and holy works, though bonily, are no prophaning of an holy day.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>So large a circum&s;tance as is here mentioned of</HI> John, <HI>to be introduced of Chri&s;t at this time is not probable,</HI> Joh. 12. 1.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. I hope all tho&s;e circum&s;tances men|tioned, <HI>Joh.</HI> 12. might ea&s;ily fall out in &s;ix dayes. 2. For the circum&s;tances of wa&s;hing and giving the Sop, &s;uppo&s;e they took up half an hour be|tween the common &s;upper, and the Pa&s;&s;eover (the celebration whereof, as al&s;o of the Lords Supper, is not recorded by <HI>John</HI> as being &s;uffici|ently handled by the other Evangeli&s;ts) I pray what ab&s;urdity follows? May not the Lord of time borrow a little time to te&s;tifie his great love and humility, and to unca&s;e an hypocrite?</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> ib. and <HI>p.</HI> 66. <HI>About two nights be|fore the Pa&s;&s;eover, when it drew neer, Sathan entred into</HI> Judas, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> compare <HI>Matth.</HI> 26. 2.14. and <HI>Mark.</HI> 14. 1.11. <HI>So that it could not be at the time &s;uppo&s;ed, that is manife&s;t.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Grant, that two nights before the Pa&s;&s;eover Sathan entered into <HI>Judas,</HI> doth not <HI>John</HI> take particular notice of that circum&s;tance as a thing pa&s;t, by expre&s;&s;ing it in the participle of the preterperfect ten&s;e, <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word">, <HI>John</HI> 13. 2.
<PB N="465" REF="230">
though upon other occa&s;ions Sathan got further entrance, <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 27. The circum&s;tance of time then is not again&s;t us, unle&s;s Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his bare a&s;&s;er|tion be a demon&s;tration: With the &s;ame confidence he affirms, <HI>ib. That</HI> Judas <HI>was pre&s;ent till the Lords Supper, and all was done,</HI> for which he quotes <HI>Lukes</HI> Hy&s;tor<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">ogie, <HI>Luke</HI> 22. 21. and hath been formerly an&s;wered. Al&s;o, <HI>that</HI> Judas <HI>&s;tole away when Chri&s;t was going with his di&s;|ciples to Mount Olivet, &amp;c.</HI> But 1. where is his Scripture-proof for this particular? 2. That the di&s;covery of <HI>Judas</HI> by the Sop, and by dip|ping in the di&s;h, was a twofold di&s;covery, and at two &s;everal times &s;eems not probable. What need they &s;u&s;pect every man him&s;elf on the Pa&s;&s;eover Even, if Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his a&s;&s;ertion be true, that but two dayes before the Traytor was &s;o particularly di&s;covered by the Sop given unto him? Its more probable therefore, that Chri&s;t at one and the &s;ame time, and that before the Sacrament, did di&s;cover <HI>Judas</HI> in general by his dipping in the di&s;h; and in particular by the Sop given him, <HI>John</HI> 13. 26. and by word of mouth al&s;o, <HI>Matth.</HI> 26. 25. Upon which he immediately went out, <HI>John</HI> 13. 30. and (as &s;ome think) nei|ther received the Pa&s;&s;eover, nor the Lords Supper: Its enough for our purpo&s;e if he received not the Lords Supper</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H. p.</HI> 67. <HI>Johus Sop was before the bar|gain, Matthews dipping was at the very time of accompli&s;hing it.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. How will Mr. <HI>H.</HI> make it out that <HI>Johns</HI> Sop was before the bargain? If he urge, <HI>John</HI> 13. 1. <HI>Now before the Fea&s;t of the Pa&s;&s;eover, &amp;c. is not immediately before,</HI> as
<PB N="466" REF="231">
truely <HI>before</HI> as two dayes <HI>before?</HI> If Chri&s;t wa&s;hed his Di&s;ciples feet, &amp;c. between the com|mon &s;upper, and the Pa&s;&s;eover, I hope it was as truly done <HI>before</HI> the Pa&s;&s;eover as if he had wa&s;h|ed them two dayes <HI>before</HI> the Pa&s;&s;eover; and the Sop being given at that time, it &s;eems con&s;onant to rea&s;on, and not again&s;t Scripture, that <HI>Judas</HI> went away before the Pa&s;&s;eover, much more before the Lords Supper, to acquaint the Prie&s;ts with that fair opportunity of taking our Saviour in the Garden that very night if they would furni&s;h him with a &s;ufficient number to attach him; compare <HI>John</HI> 18. v. 2. 3. with <HI>Joh.</HI> 13. 30. which, if &s;o, aggravates <HI>Judas</HI> his malice, who out of de&s;ign to kill the true Pa&s;&s;e|over, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5. 7. for&s;ook and &s;leighted the typi|cal Pa&s;&s;eover.</P>
<P>If he argue from the &s;ame expre&s;&s;ion u&s;ed, <HI>Luke</HI> 22. 3. and <HI>John</HI> 13. 27.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Why might not Sathan have a double entrance by tempting <HI>Judas,</HI> fir&s;t to &s;trike the bargain two dayes before, and next by tempt|ing him to complear it two dayes after.</P>
<P>Yet 2. The adverb of time (<GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word">) is not mentioned by <HI>Luke</HI> in the original, but onely in|&s;erted by the Tran&s;lators, which makes it prob|able enough that <HI>Luke</HI> ob&s;erved not &s;o much the order of time, as the truth of the narrative here, as el&s;ewhere. <HI>Luke</HI> tells you that Satan entred, <HI>John</HI> &s;pecifies the time, immediately after the Sop gi|ven; which Sop, I proved a little above, was given on the Pa&s;&s;eover even, after the common &s;upper. Yea, <HI>page</HI> 67. of his Vindication Mr. <HI>H.</HI> ac|knowledges that many learned men think there were three Suppers on the Pa&s;&s;eover Even, which
<PB N="467" REF="231">
though he is plea&s;ed to term <HI>conjectures,</HI> yet we need not be afraid to ballance his conjecture with their conjectures. His pronouncing <HI>(tan|quam &egrave; tripode) that they have erred, and are not to be built upon,</HI> I hope is no oracle: Nor well his Argument hold again&s;t them though <HI>Judas</HI> were at the Table (which was fir&s;t a common table, then a Pa&s;&s;eover table, and la&s;tly the Lords Table) unle&s;s he can prove that <HI>Judas</HI> was pre|&s;ent at all the three Suppers upon the &s;ame Table. Onely I mu&s;t confe&s;s his la&s;t Argument, <HI>ib.</HI> is wonderful, as being drawn from <HI>Johns</HI> &s;ilence; thus, <HI>John &s;ayes nothing of this Supper at all; Ergo, Judas</HI> received the Lords Supper. Should we now imitate Mr. <HI>H.</HI> and argue, <HI>John</HI> &s;ayes nothing of the Lords Supper; <HI>Ergo, Judas</HI> did not receive; might not the Reader from &s;uch profound arguments conclude (with a &s;mile) that both of us were rare Logicians? Nor will it follow (with M. <HI>H.</HI> his good leave) that becau&s;e Chri&s;t offers grace to all, therefore the &s;igns of grace mu&s;t be tendered to all, or received by all. This for his <HI>Vindication;</HI> I come now to his <HI>Re|joynder.</HI></P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H. page</HI> 241. notes well, <HI>That there are many difficulties about the Pa&s;&s;eover;</HI> which may warn us not to be too a&s;&s;ertory. <HI>Page</HI> 242. He endeavours to prove that this Supper of <HI>John</HI> was before he Evening of the 14. of <HI>Ni&s;an,</HI> and &s;o before the in&s;titution of the Lords Supper which immediately followed the Pa&s;&s;eover, thus,</P>
<P><HI>The evening of the</HI> 14. <HI>day of Ni&s;an, and the morning of the</HI> 15. <HI>was the Fea&s;t of the Pa&s;&s;eover</HI> (<HI>&s;o called</HI> <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 span">) <HI>but</HI> Johns <HI>Supper he tells us expre&s;ly was before the Fea&s;t
<PB N="468" REF="232">
of the Pa&s;&s;eover;</HI> Ergo, <HI>It was before the</HI> 14. <HI>day of Ni&s;an, and the time Chri&s;t in&s;titu|ted his Supper.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. I deny his <HI>major,</HI> which con|founds the Pa&s;&s;eover day, and the Fea&s;t of the Pa&s;&s;eover together. The Pa&s;&s;eover day was the fourteenth day of <HI>Ni&s;an</HI> or <HI>Abib,</HI> on which the Pa&s;chal Lamb was killed, and its blood &s;prinkled &amp;c. about three of the clock in the afternoon. The Fea&s;t of the Pa&s;&s;eover was the 15. day, which began preci&s;ely at Sun-&s;et, till which time they were roa&s;ting the Pa&s;&s;eover in their &s;everal hou&s;es, which being an whole Lamb of a year old might well be roa&s;ting and dre&s;&s;ing till about &s;ix at night (at which time the 15. day began, it being then Equinoctial) Thus our Sa|viour probably &s;ent two of his Di&s;ciples about the noon of the 14. day to prepare the Pa&s;&s;e|over, <HI>Mark</HI> 14. 12, 13. But him&s;elf with the re&s;t did not eat it till about &s;ix at night, <HI>Matth.</HI> 26. 20. the Evangeli&s;t notes expre&s;ly <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 span"> <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Now <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word"> <HI>&amp;</HI> <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word"> was the fir&s;t watch of the night, beginning at &s;ix, and ending at nine of the clock at night, <HI>Mark.</HI> 13. 35. Therefore the Learned di&s;tingui&s;h well between the two Evenings, whereof one was <HI>ve&s;pera decli|nationis</HI> called <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word"> <HI>Luke</HI> 24. 29. the other <HI>ve&s;pera occa&s;us,</HI> called <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word"> or <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word">, after the Sun was &s;et, <HI>Mark</HI> 1. 32. In the former evening, which ended the 14. day, they kild the Pa&s;&s;e|over; in the latter evening, which began the 15. day they are it, which therefore was very pro|perly called the Fea&s;t of the Pa&s;&s;eover, and was not part of the 14. and part of the 15. day, but preci&s;ely the 15. day, beginning at Sun-&s;et;
<PB N="469" REF="232">
on which day al&s;o they did eat other Pa&s;&s;over-offerings of the herd, as well as the Pa&s;chal-Lamb, <HI>Deut.</HI> 16. 2. compare 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 35. <HI>v.</HI>7, 8,9, where Oxen are called <HI>Pe&s;ach</HI> and <HI>Pe&s;achim,</HI> as well as the le&s;&s;er cattel; which may be of good u&s;e to reconcile that difficulty, <HI>John</HI> 18. 14. 28. Pa&s;s|over there being meant, not of the Pa&s;chal-Lamb, but of the Oxen, &amp;c. that were for Pa&s;&s;over-offer|ings, which they ate on the fifteenth day about noon (on which day our Saviour &s;uffered) yea, all the &s;even days of the fea&s;t, as the Learned <HI>Broughton</HI> notes.</P>
<P N="2">2. Granting therefore M. H. his <HI>minor, That</HI> Johns <HI>&s;upper was before the fea&s;t of the Pa&s;&s;over,</HI> let us examine his Conclu&s;ion; ergo, <HI>It was be|fore the evening of the fourteenth day of Ni&s;an, and the time Chri&s;t in&s;tituted his Supper.</HI> The <HI>major</HI> failing, this Conclu&s;ion mu&s;t needs be lame. Yet further to clear my &s;elf about this par|ticular, we mu&s;t know, That (as every day, &s;o) the fourteenth of <HI>Ni&s;an</HI> had a double evening: 1. The evening that began it, at the Sun-&s;et of the thirteenth day. 2. The evening that con|cluded it, holding from twelve at noon, to &s;ix of the clock at night; or at lea&s;t, from three to &s;ix, which made the fourth and la&s;t great hour of the day. After which began the fifteenth day, who&s;e fir&s;t evening extended from Sun-&s;et, to nine at night, and was the fir&s;t watch of the night, <HI>Mark</HI> 13. 35. That by the Learned is called <HI>Ve&s;pera declinationis,</HI> this <HI>Ve&s;pera occa&s;us.</HI> Now <HI>Johns</HI> Supper was on the &s;econd evening of the fourteenth of <HI>Ni&s;an,</HI> between three and &s;ix of the clock, haply about five of the clock, which began the twelfth and la&s;t hour of the artificial day of the
<PB N="470" REF="233">
14 of <HI>Ni&s;an,</HI> After which, between &s;ix and nine the fir&s;t great hour, or watch of the fifteenth of <HI>Ni&s;an,</HI> the Pa&s;sover was eaten; of which al&s;o po&s;&s;ibly <HI>Judas</HI> might partake (for about that I mu&s;t <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word">) and being di&s;covered, as &s;ome think, by the &s;op dipt in the <HI>Chato&s;heth</HI> or Sauce of bitter herbs, went out in a pet to get a band of Souldiers or Officers for the Attatchment of our Saviour.</P>
<P>I doubt not but M. <HI>H.</HI> here will &s;oon cry out, <HI>a Contradiction, a Contradiction.</HI> Did you not lately &s;ay, That Chri&s;t came and &s;ate down <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 span">: compare <HI>Mark</HI> 14. 17. &amp; <HI>Mat.</HI> 26. 20. and did you not teach us, that <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word">, the even, be|gan at Sun&s;et? If Chri&s;t came not till the Sun was &s;et, then he could not begin the common Sup|der, till the Sun was &s;et; at which time the fifteenth day of <HI>Ni&s;an</HI> beginning, is it not evident by your own principles, that Chri&s;t ate not the common Supper till the fifteenth of <HI>Ni&s;an,</HI> which was pro|perly the fea&s;t of the Pa&s;&s;over? And is not this in terms contradictory both to our &s;elves, and to the Apo&s;tle, who tells us, <HI>John</HI> 13. 1. that that Supper (which we term the com|mon Supper) was before the fea&s;t of the Pa&s;&s;|over?</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> This is ea&s;ily &s;alved with a di&s;tinction of <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word">, which in &s;trict terms noted the fir&s;t watch of the night; as al&s;o did <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word"> <HI>Mark</HI> 13. 35. be|ginning the natural day with the Jews, and is cal|led <HI>Ve&s;pera occa&s;us.</HI> But in a large &s;en&s;e its ex|tended al&s;o to the evening that terminated the day foregoing, at lea&s;t, from three in the after|noon to &s;ix of the clock at night, called <HI>Vespera declinationis.</HI> Take one place for proof, <HI>Mark</HI>
<PB N="471" REF="233">
15. 42. its evident there, that <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word"> was the even|ing that ended the fifteenth day: 1. Becau&s;e its called the Preparation, 2. The day before the Sabbath, which was the &s;ixteenth day of <HI>Ni&s;an,</HI> and began ju&s;t at Sun-&s;et. This evening was be|tween three and &s;ix; about three in the afternoon of the fifteenth of <HI>Ni&s;an</HI> our Saviour dyed, between it and the Sabbath, beginning at &s;ix, <HI>Jo|&s;eph</HI> begged his body, and together with <HI>Nico|demus,</HI> wrapt it in linnen with &s;pices, <HI>John</HI> 19. <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 38. to 42. but they could not perfectly im|balm it, becau&s;e the Sabbath beginning at &s;ix, came &s;o fa&s;t upon them, compare <HI>Luke</HI> 23. 56. and 24. 1. Our Saviour then might eat the com|mon Supper on the evening that terminated the fourteenth day, which is our Thur&s;day, coming haply to <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> between four and five in the afternoon, and the Pa&s;&s;over on the evening which began the fifteenth day, which we call Thur&s;day night, but began their Friday, or &s;ixth day of the week, and was properly the fea&s;t of the Pa&s;s|over. And thus without contradiction, the com|mon Supper might be before the fea&s;t of the Pa&s;s|over, &amp; I neither contradict S. <HI>John</HI> nor my &s;elf. For Chri&s;t might well eat the common Supper after five, and the Pa&s;&s;over after &s;ix, the common Sup|per at the end of the fourteenth day, and the Pa&s;s|over at the beginning of the fifteenth day of <HI>Ni&s;an,</HI> the fourteenth day ending, and the fifteenth day beginning preci&s;ely at &s;ixth of the clock at even.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> p. 242. <HI>As for tho&s;e other rea&s;ons, M.</HI> D. <HI>repeats again&s;t</HI> Judas <HI>receiving, and are an&s;wered before, I count them onely as &s;o many Ciphers, &amp;c. And yet there is one pa&s;&s;age he hath very remarkable, and not to be forgotten,
<PB N="472" REF="234">
that is,</HI> Chri&s;t excluded <HI>Judas</HI> in particular in the&s;e words, <HI>Luke</HI> 12. 21. <Q REND="inline"><HI>But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is at the Table.</HI></Q></P>
<P>An&s;w. <HI>A very probable argument;</HI> Judas <HI>was excluded from the Sacroment, becau&s;e Chri&s;t &s;ays expre&s;ly he was pre&s;ent at it.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Suppo&s;e my Rea&s;ons, or rather An|&s;wers, were but Cyphers (as M. <HI>H.</HI> calls them) yet Cyphets with a Figure, him&s;elf grants are powerful. You mu&s;t conceive his figurative an|&s;wers have turned them into Cyphers. I confe&s;s he is good at Figures, and can play the Rhetori|cian well; but M. <HI>H.</HI> &s;hould con&s;ider, that Logick is fitter for a Di&s;putant than Rhetorick. I &s;hall not &s;ay my Arguments are Figures, nor &s;hould M. <HI>H.</HI> &s;ay they are Cyphers, till he can prove, and not barely &s;peak them to be &s;o; we being parties, its not fit we &s;hould be Judges in our own ca&s;e. Let us leave that work to the indifferent and judi|cious Reader.</P>
<P N="2">2. In his remarkable ob&s;ervation, he quotes not my text candidly; my words <HI>page</HI> 176. of my <HI>Bar</HI> are the&s;e, <Q REND="inline"><HI>It &s;eems probable that Chri&s;t excluded</HI> Judas <HI>particularly in tho&s;e words, &amp;c.</HI></Q> M. <HI>H.</HI> brings me in affirming downright, <HI>That Chri&s;t excluded</HI> Judas, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> whereas I &s;pake doubtfully, 1. <HI>It &s;eems</HI> &s;o. 2. <HI>It &s;eems probable.</HI> This is not fair dealing.</P>
<P N="3">3. For the thing it &s;elf, 1. Where doth Chri&s;t &s;ay expre&s;ly, <HI>Judas</HI> was pre&s;ent at the Sacrament? He &s;ays indeed, <HI>The hand of the Traytor was at the Table.</HI> But might not that be at the com|mon Supper, or at the Pa&s;&s;over? Hath he forgot <HI>Lukes</HI> hy&s;torologie? 2. Suppo&s;e he were pre|&s;ent
<PB N="473" REF="234">
when Chri&s;t was ready to in&s;titute the Lords Supper, might not Chri&s;t by that &s;harp reproof vir|tually bid him be gone; as asking him, What hath a Traytor to do at the Lords Table among&s;t Chri&s;ts faithful Di&s;ciples? Upon which, and the follow|ing di&s;covery by the Sop, &amp;c. <HI>Judas</HI> might pro|bably go away in a pet; as the Ma&s;ter virtually turned away the pre&s;umptuous Gue&s;t, by tho&s;e words, <HI>Friend, how came&s;t thou in hither? &amp;c.</HI> Matth. 22 12. and with us, when per&s;ons attempt to receive before approbation, the Mini|&s;ter or Elders deal with them upon the place, ei|ther by Interrogation, or otherwi&s;e to forbear at pre&s;ent. This for the &s;ub&s;tance of his an&s;wer, his flouting and feigned in&s;tance, I leave to them who need &s;ome of M. <HI>H.</HI> his mirth.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="8" TYPE="section">
<HEAD><HI>SECT.</HI> VIII.</HEAD>
<P>THe eighth Objection was, <HI>Tho&s;e that re|ceive unworthily, eat their own Damna|tion.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 243. M. <HI>H.</HI> an&s;wers, 1. <HI>On the Churches part.</HI> 2. <HI>On the receivers part. On the Churches part, I judge this cannot be made to concern them whom Mr.</HI> D. <HI>excepts,</HI> p. 178. <HI>the Apo|&s;tle commanding us to examine our &s;elves, but not others to examine us,</HI> 1 Cor. 11. 28.</P>
<P><HI>Dr.</HI> D. <Q REND="inline"><HI>The Apo&s;tles words are not to be un|der&s;tood re&s;trictively.</HI></Q></P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> p. 243. <HI>Belike then by Mr.</HI> D. <HI>the Apo&s;tles</HI> <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word"> <HI>mu&s;t be thus interpreted, Let a man examine him&s;elf,</HI> <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 span">, <HI>and &s;o, the Presbyterie having examined him, Let him eat.</HI></P>
<P><PB N="474" REF="235"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Let M. <HI>H.</HI> take heed, le&s;t by &s;traight|ning the word, he attempt al&s;o to &s;traighten the Spirit of God, <HI>Micha</HI> 2. 6, 7. The word <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word"> (u&s;ed in the Text) &s;ignifies in Scripture|phra&s;e, not onely to <HI>examine,</HI> but al&s;o to <HI>ap|prove,</HI> Rom. 1. 28. Phil. 1. 10. and 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 16. 3. and particularly notes an approbation upon tryal, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3. 10. and 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 13. 5. the primary end of examination being approbation, which he will attain unto &s;ooner or later, who is con&s;tant and con&s;cientious in this duty. By proportion, <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 span">, notes not onely &s;elf-tryal, but al&s;o &s;elf-approbation, which mu&s;t be not one|ly to my own con&s;cience, but al&s;o (what in me lies, upon ju&s;t occa&s;ion) to the con&s;ciences of others. See a like phra&s;e, 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 4. 2. and 6, 4. And this mu&s;t e&s;pecially be done to tho&s;e who are over us in the Lord. Now I approve my &s;elf to others, either by an holy conver&s;ation, or by a good confe&s;&s;ion, when called to it, by divine providence, as in per&s;ecution; or by the intreaty of equals, or authority of &s;uperiors, upon ju&s;t occa&s;ion; which &s;uppo&s;e for the particular and &s;pecial &s;ea&s;on it may be prudential, yet in the general it is a moral precept, and tends much to edification. Now if the word <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word"> have this latitude in Scripture; upon what account will M. <HI>H.</HI> &s;traighten it here? Is it neither con|trary to the analogy of faith, nor to good manners, to teach, that <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 span"> &s;ignifies to ap|prove ones &s;elf to God and his own con&s;cience always, and to man, as ju&s;t occa&s;ion requires: And &s;hall M. <HI>H.</HI> be &s;ole Judge of the ju&s;tne&s;s or fitne&s;s of &s;uch occa&s;ions? what ab&s;urdity is there in this Paraphra&s;e? Let a man approve him|&s;elf
<PB N="475" REF="235">
to God, to his own con&s;cience, and upon ju&s;t occa&s;ion to man, and &s;o let him eat, &amp;c. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11. 28.</P>
<P>For his third an&s;wer, I grant it with Limitati|on; namely, that tho&s;e who admit per&s;ons vi&s;ibly unworthy (when they have power to keep &s;uch away) <HI>had need pray, Lord forgive us our other|mens &s;ins.</HI> And this I apprehend con&s;onant both to Truth, and to our principles.</P>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> D. <Q REND="inline"><HI>Its ab&s;urd by an affirmative, to exclude a negative, &amp;c.</HI></Q></P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>Let Mr.</HI> D. <HI>&s;ee the &s;ame ab&s;urdity in him&s;elf (who goes wholly on this ground) for if affirmative Propo&s;itions are not exclu&s;ive (which is his meaning) then how can he &s;till argue and impo&s;e on us, that becau&s;e the Apo|&s;tle &s;ays,</HI> Let a man &s;o eat, <HI>therefore a man mu&s;t not eat, unle&s;s &s;o?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> I &s;ee I am like to be ab&s;urd enough, if Mr. <HI>H.</HI> mu&s;t be my Expo&s;itor: his candor ap|pears here, as well as in other places, I &s;ay, <HI>An affirmative doth not exclude a negative;</HI> this is a particular propo&s;ition. M. <HI>H.</HI> tells the Reader my meaning is, that <HI>Affirmative propo&s;itions are not exclu&s;ive;</HI> this is a general propo&s;ition. <NOTE PLACE="marg">I mean its parti|cular, if compared to the fol|lowing propo&s;iti|on that &s;ays, affir|mative propo&s;iti|ons are not exclu|&s;ive at all. That ex|clu&s;ion which excludes all propo&s;itions, per&s;ons and things, &s;ure is more general, than that which excludes onely a negative propo&s;ition.</NOTE> Doth not he excellently open my meaning, who tells the world, <HI>that by a particular I mean a general?</HI> Let the affirmative be, <HI>Let a man &s;o eat:</HI> This affirmative, I &s;ay, doth not exclude the negative, <HI>Let not a man eat, unle&s;s &s;o,</HI> but rather includes it; as, <HI>Let a per&s;on circumci&s;ed and clean, eat the Pa&s;&s;over,</HI> doth not exclude, but include, <HI>Let not a per&s;on eat, if he be uncircumci&s;ed or un|clean.</HI>
<PB N="476" REF="236">
But M. <HI>H.</HI> his unhand&s;ome (I will not &s;ay witting) mi&s;take is, that he applies that to a <HI>per|&s;on,</HI> which is to be applied to a <HI>propo&s;ition.</HI> An affirmative precept, I hope, doth not exclude a <HI>negative precept;</HI> but it may, yea often doth ex|clude a <HI>per&s;on</HI> from an Ordinance, as is evident in the former Propo&s;itions.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> ib. 2. <Q REND="inline"><HI>If this be ab&s;urd in Di|vinity and Logick, it may be demanded, How then will Mr.</HI> D. <HI>make good,</HI></Q> <HI>therefore an other mu&s;t examine me?</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. By the &s;ame rule in proportion, 1. That one affirmative includes another; and that either by way of &s;ubordination, or by way of analogy, <HI>Rom.</HI> 4. 23. 24. If I mu&s;t do good to my &s;elf, I mu&s;t al&s;o do good to my neighbour as God offers ju&s;t occa&s;ion.</P>
<P N="2">2. And more particularly by that rule which bindes me to endeavour the &s;alvation of another, as well as my own &s;alvation, <HI>Jam.</HI> 2. 18. <HI>Shew me thy faith, and I will &s;hew thee my faith, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>For his Rhetorical flout in the clo&s;e of this Pa|ragraph, it proclaims him more witty than wi&s;e, and may tickle them who are taken more with phancy than rea&s;on. Therefore I leave it for them to make merry withall.</P>
<P>For the <HI>Simile</HI> of poy&s;on, I grant, as I mu&s;t give a man his food, &s;o I mu&s;t give him the Sa|crament; but I mu&s;t not give a feaveri&s;h man, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> that whole&s;ome food, which will hurt him <HI>in &s;tatu quo,</HI> nor mu&s;t I give a per&s;on vi&s;ibly un|worthy the whole&s;ome food of the Sacrament that will hurt him <HI>in &s;tatu quo;</HI> yea, &s;hould an antipathy again&s;t the whole&s;ome&s;t food continue
<PB N="477" REF="236">
in any <HI>durante vit&acirc;,</HI> I ought not to give him that food &s;o long as he lives.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H. p.</HI> 244 <HI>So that he mu&s;t belike give them a little poy&s;on to try them &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> I give not any man poy&s;on in the Sa|crament to try him, but the Childrens bread to them, whom I am bound in charity to think, or to hope they are Children; Nor do I judge the Sacrament is poy&s;on to any by the <HI>effects</HI> only, but al&s;o by the <HI>cau&s;es</HI> that make it &s;o, namely vi&s;ible ignorance and prophanne&s;s, which la&s;t &s;ymp|tome (drawn from the cau&s;es) Mr. <HI>H.</HI> lets pa&s;s in deep &s;ilence, though not fairly.</P>
<P>Dr. <HI>D.</HI> <Q REND="inline">"<HI>All may &s;ee and be pre&s;ent, not eat, &amp;c.</HI></Q></P>
<P><HI>M.H.</HI> ib. <HI>This is but a kinde of &s;pice of &s;e|cret Popery with which Mr. Dr. would &s;weeten the bitterne&s;s of his book, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. I ask Mr. <HI>H.</HI> whether the Lords Supper be a publick Ordinance, or not? If he &s;ay, It is not, let him &s;hew why: If he grant it is, will he then make it a &s;pice of Popery for all to be pre&s;ent at a publick Ordinance? Is there no dif|ference between a Ma&s;s, where none but the Prie&s;t mu&s;t receive (of which M. <HI>Fox,</HI> and M. <HI>Bradford</HI> are to be under&s;tood) and a Communion, where every intelligent Church-member that is vi&s;ibly worthy hath liberty and incouragement to re|ceive in both kinds; and tho&s;e who are vi&s;ibly unworthy are for the pre&s;ent onely denied re|ceiving, but not pre&s;ence at the Ordinance?</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>D.</HI> <Q REND="inline"><HI>How ab&s;urdly doth Mr.</HI> H. <HI>make that the principal duty, which is the carka&s;s and form onely?</HI></Q></P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> p. 245. <HI>Me thinks Mr.</HI> D. <HI>&s;hould
<PB N="478" REF="237">
not &s;peak &s;o lightly of Chri&s;ts own words, who does not know. Do this, includes matter and manner, &amp;c?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> I &s;peak not lightly of Chri&s;ts words, about which we both agree that they include both matter and manner; but I blame Mr. <HI>H.</HI> who makes the bare act of receiving, ab&s;tracted from the right manner, a principal duty, and &s;elf|examination or preparation for right receiving the acce&s;&s;ory. For evincing whereof, con&s;ult his Vin|dication, <HI>page</HI> 70 in the&s;e words.</P>
<P><HI>If a man fails in the one, and is not &s;uffici|ently prepared, I dare not &s;ay, that he mu&s;t keep away</HI> (<HI>I am &s;ure it will not excu&s;e;</HI> but by your leave, Sir, it may &s;u&s;pend) <HI>him from the other.</HI> Two or three lines above in the &s;ame <HI>page</HI> M. <HI>H.</HI> hath the&s;e expre&s;&s;ions, <HI>For the re|ceivers part, there is a double duty, a prin|cipal, do this,</HI> what is this, but <HI>Receive? An ac|ce&s;&s;ory, Let a man examine him&s;elf.</HI> No que|&s;tion, but we are bound to come worthily; but the que&s;tion is whether I be bound to receive when unworthy, unexamined by my &s;elf, and un|prepared? Mr. <HI>H.</HI> thinks you are, <HI>for &s;elf-exami|nation is the acce&s;&s;ory,</HI> I pray then what is <HI>re|ceiving</HI> in him that cannot receive rightly? that mu&s;t be either principal or acce&s;&s;ory, for he makes no other branch of di&s;tinction; the acce&s;&s;ory he makes to be onely &s;elf-examination, what then can the principal be here but the act of receiving ab&s;tracted from preparation, which is unworthy receiving? His &s;imilitude for illu&s;tration is lame, &s;ince even in Civil &s;ociety a Fea&s;t is not the prin|cipal, no nor feeding upon the Fea&s;t, but the nouri&s;hment and confirmation of love between
<PB N="479" REF="237">
the Fea&s;t-maker and the Gue&s;ts, and between the Gue&s;ts mutually, el&s;e a dinner of green herbs is better than a &s;talled oxe, <HI>Prov.</HI> 13. 17. But how can he that is de&s;titute of faith and love, either feed upon Chri&s;t, or bear love to him or his mem|bers as &s;uch. True, the preparation of the Sa|cramental elements is but acce&s;&s;ory to the feed|ing upon them; but right preparation for the Sa|crament is better, I hope, than a bare receiving of the outward elements, and therefore cannot be acce&s;&s;ory to that receiving, but the principal. If Mr. <HI>H.</HI> judge otherwi&s;e, the Lord give me the ac|ce&s;&s;ory of right preparation, though without the principal of the bare elements (&s;uppo&s;ing I mu&s;t be denied one of them) I &s;hall not envy Mr. <HI>H.</HI> or any, that principal of the bare elements, but &s;hall rather pity them.</P>
<P>For his charging me here to ca&s;t up mire and dirt, let but the Reader peru&s;e my words, <HI>p.</HI> 122. of my <HI>Bar,</HI> and then judge, whether Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his phan&s;ie be not foul and turbid, and &s;o mi&s;-repre|&s;ents &s;ea&s;onable and &s;utable reproof as mire and dirt. A black &s;ight makes white objects &s;hew black like it &s;elf.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>A Church-member is as ab&s;o|lutely bound to come to the Sacrament</HI> (under|&s;tand here by coming. <HI>receiving</HI>) <HI>as to pray and hear.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> A per&s;on <HI>jure</HI> excommunicate is a Church-member till actually cut off. Is &s;uch a one as much bound to receive, as to pray, and hear? Yea a per&s;on actually excommunicated, I hope, is bound to pray, nor will Mr. <HI>H.</HI> deny it; Is it not evident then, that the duty of prayer is more obligatory than the duty of receiving?</P>
<P><PB N="480" REF="238">Mr. <HI>H.</HI> p. 246. <HI>Where doth the Scripture</HI> &s;ay any where, <HI>Let a man not eat, or not drink?</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Where doth the Scripture &s;ay ex|pre&s;ly, <HI>Let not an heathen, or excommunicated per&s;on eat or drink?</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. By ju&s;t con&s;equence, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5. 11. and 10 21. &s;ay, <HI>Let a man not eat, or not drink;</HI> But of this formerly.</P>
<P>I am glad that in this <HI>page</HI> Mr. <HI>H.</HI> with &s;ome caution agrees with me, <HI>That unpreparedne&s;s will excu&s;e a man from receiving.</HI> I cannot but like his caution well for its &s;ub&s;tance, and, I pray, let the world here take notice, that as wide as we &s;eem to differ, yet we agree in this, <HI>That as un|preparedne&s;s may excu&s;e a man from receiving at pre&s;ent, &s;o this ab&s;tinence mu&s;t humble him, and put him upon greater care to prepare for next Sacrament.</HI> Let me adde, This is the very end of &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, be it negative, or po&s;itive: were <HI>pa&s;&s;ion</HI> and <HI>prejudice</HI> laid a&s;ide, we &s;hould &s;oon agree; The Lord ca&s;t the&s;e devils out of us all, for man cannot.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> p. 247. <HI>If Mr.</HI> D. <HI>cannot really &s;ever hearing and unworthy hearing, &amp;c. How can he make it a means of grace?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Ju&s;t as he can make unworthy preach|ing a means of grace; who knows how many <HI>Judas</HI> converted? yet he preached unworthily. The evil doing of that work (as to &s;piritual recti|tude) which is materially good, may be a cau&s;e of death to me, when the matter of the duty performed may be a cau&s;e of life to another, as is evident in that Mini&s;ter who preaches orthodoxly, plainly, and powerfully (all which he may do by
<PB N="481" REF="238">
a common gift) yet is acted by, and under the do|minion of pride and &s;elf-&s;eeking, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>For his five Premi&s;es, and three Inferences, <HI>page</HI> 247. and 248. whereby he would make the world beleeve. <HI>That I pre&s;s men to do evil, or to &s;in, that good may come of it.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. I abhor &s;uch damnable doctrine, nor hath Mr. <HI>H.</HI> the lea&s;t &s;olid ground to infer it from my principles.</P>
<P N="2">2. It being a received Scripture-maxim (which M. <HI>H.</HI> cannot deny) <HI>that all the actions of a natural man have not onely &s;in in them, but al&s;o are &s;ins,</HI> being (as the Father notes well) but <HI>&s;plen|dida peccata;</HI> I &s;hall make bold to retort M. <HI>H.</HI> his Conclu&s;ion (again&s;t me) upon him&s;elf. Thus, A wicked mans prayer is &s;in; A wicked man is bound to pray, <HI>ergo,</HI> He is bound to &s;in. Ab&s;urd, and abominable! You may well &s;ay he is nece&s;|&s;itated to &s;in (hypothetically) in every action con|&s;idering his &s;tate, &amp;c. but he is bound to pray, and graciou&s;ly too, which yet he cannot do <HI>in &s;tatu quo;</HI> and for which he mu&s;t thank him&s;elf, but cannot blame God, or his Law, much le&s;s the Go&s;pel. True, all duties of a natural man are &s;ins in him; yet its a greater &s;in for him (<HI>cae|ter is paribus</HI>) to neglect or reject his duty.</P>
<P>You will &s;ay, then a natural man mu&s;t receive (as well as pray) for thats his duty.</P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Let Mr. <HI>H.</HI> prove that receiving is a natural mans duty <HI>in &s;tatu quo,</HI> and then I &s;hall ea&s;ily grant he is bound to receive, as well as to pray, though both praying and receiving be &s;in in him. This for his fir&s;t Query.</P>
<P N="2">For the &s;econd Query. <Q REND="inline">Mr. D. <HI>Unworthy receiving is otherwi&s;e damnable, than un|worthy
<PB N="482" REF="239">
praying, or hearing;</HI> 1. <HI>Becau&s;e its not on univer&s;al duty;</HI> 2. <HI>Becau&s;e not con|verting.</HI></Q></P>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> H. <HI>p.</HI> 248. <HI>The fir&s;t is vain, and incon&s;e|quent; for there are &s;ome duties belong onely to men in &s;uch and &s;uch relations; is the neglect hereof ever the le&s;s damnable becau&s;e they are not univer&s;al?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Sir, Let me crave leave to tell you that here you are clean be&s;ides the Cu&s;hion, we are not now &s;peaking of the neglect of a duty, but of pre&s;uming to act out of my place, and relation. Unworthy receiving is not &s;imply an omi&s;&s;ion, but a commi&s;&s;ion, and a pre&s;umptuous act of him that will venture to receive when prohibited; up|on which account it is more damnable than un|worthy praying, &amp;c. &s;ince no man in what e&s;tate &s;oever, is prohibited to pray.</P>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> H. ib. <HI>Again, a natural man cannot convert him&s;elf by his moral works, are his &s;ins therefore ever the le&s;s &s;inful?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> They are, or are not according to the nature of the moral work. He that doth a work naturally moral, yet unworthily (<HI>caeteris pari|bus</HI>) &s;ins le&s;s than he that doth a work moral by in&s;titution unworthily, though he can convert him&s;elf by neither. The rea&s;on is, becau&s;e all men are commanded works really moral, and there|fore in doing them a wicked man &s;ins only in the manner; but divers per&s;ons are prohibited &s;ome parts of in&s;tituted wor&s;hip, who therefore by venturing upon them, &s;in both for matter and manner: Of this nature was the Pa&s;&s;eover, and now is the Lords Supper as received. And for a per&s;on to venture upon a prohibited work which
<PB N="483" REF="239">
<HI>in &s;tatu quo</HI> cannot convert, but hurt him, I think is an aggravation. And &s;o unworthy receiving is more damnable than unworthy praying, or hear|ing.</P>
<P N="3">3. Query. <Q REND="inline"><HI>Whether an unregenerate per|&s;on mu&s;t never come to the Sacrament for fear of eating damnation?</HI></Q></P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his an&s;wer (upon my a&s;&s;ent) was, <Q REND="inline"><HI>That upon the &s;ame ground he mu&s;t ab&s;tain from hearing &amp;c.</HI></Q></P>
<P>Mr. <HI>D.</HI> <Q REND="inline">"<HI>Not &s;o, unle&s;s it can be proved the Sacrament is a converting Ordinance.</HI></Q></P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> p. 244. <HI>To undermine me here, he flyes to all the duties of the Law, as if upon this account a natural man mu&s;t forbear them all, becau&s;e they are not converting.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> But he over&s;hoots him&s;elf, 1. By not con&s;idering the difference between natural and in&s;tituted wor&s;hip (of which above) natural du|ties are required of all by the Law of nature, whether they be converting or no; not &s;o in&s;ti|tuted duties, unle&s;s they be converting, or parti|cularly impo&s;ed as was <HI>Aarons</HI> &s;acrificing, Chri&s;ts Bapti&s;m &amp;c.</P>
<P N="2">2. By not putting a difference between ab&s;o|lute and relative duties, the former mu&s;t be done by all, not &s;o the latter. Its as great homage to omit where God forbids, as to perform where God commands. This &s;aves me the labour of an&s;wering a leaf.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H. p.</HI> 250. <HI>Where did Mr.</HI> D. <HI>learn a man mu&s;t hear the word, though he hear un|worthily upon this ground, becau&s;e its a means of conver&s;ion?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> A &s;trange que&s;tion, as if he that com|manded
<PB N="484" REF="240">
me to convert, did not in that very com|mand charge me to attend upon all the means of conver&s;ion. What he addes for confirmation, is as frothy, as his que&s;tion is uncouth, and hath formerly been an&s;wered. Every duty of a natural man is turned into &s;in by rea&s;on of his &s;tate, mu&s;t he not therefore do his duty? As we mu&s;t not do a thing materially evill that good may come of it, &s;o I mu&s;t do that which is good for the matter (though it be evilly done for the manner, and ever will be &s;o in natural men) that good may come of it.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> p. 251. <HI>Mr.</HI> D. <HI>his di&s;tinction of ab&s;tainers and refu&s;ers cannot be applied here, becau&s;e a man cannot alwayes forbear an Ordi|nance, but his omi&s;&s;ion makes him a refu&s;er, or neglecter: And my que&s;tion is, Whether an unregenerate man mu&s;t never receive?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> What if the ground of ab&s;taining for a time hold alwayes? Is there not &s;till the &s;ame rea&s;on of ab&s;tinence? No unclean per&s;on was to eat the Pa&s;&s;eover. Now I ask Mr. <HI>H.</HI> whether leprous <HI>&V;zziah</HI> was not &s;u&s;pended, and bound to ab&s;tain all his life long from the Pa&s;&s;e|over, and why not (<HI>pari ratione</HI>) a &s;piritual Leper from the Lords Supper, if his lepro&s;ie hold him to his dying day? I hope <HI>Uzziahs</HI> ab&s;tinence was no refu&s;al.</P>
<P>In the &s;ame page Mr. <HI>H.</HI> charges me with a malicious a&s;per&s;ion for &s;aying, <Q REND="inline"><HI>Its an appa|rent fal&s;ity that the &s;ame thing is &s;ealed to all in the Sacrament. My a&s;&s;ertion I proved, be|cau&s;e damnation is &s;ealed to one, &s;alvation to another; and the&s;e are not the &s;ame.</HI></Q></P>
<P><PB N="485" REF="240">M. <HI>H.</HI> p. 251. <HI>That which is &s;ealed is the Covenant, and that is the &s;ame I hope.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> But I hope, Sir, the &s;ame branches of the Covenant are not &s;ealed to all. Its not enough to &s;ay two things are the &s;ame, becau&s;e they agree <HI>in genere proximo vel remoto;</HI> for then fle&s;h and Spirit, fire and water, man and bea&s;t, yea, the very Covenant of works and of grace &s;hould be the &s;ame; which how ab&s;urd in common ac|ception?</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> p. 252. <HI>The Sacrament can convert him that hath common grace, becau&s;e it can confirm him in common grace.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Then the Sun, Moon and Stars may convert him, becau&s;e they can confirm him in common grace. But, I pray, where is the pro|mi&s;e of Conver&s;ion by receiving the Sacra|ment.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> ib. fir&s;t <HI>charges me as &s;aying,</HI> The Receiver &s;eals as nece&s;&s;arily to the condition of the Covenant <HI>in e&s;&s;e,</HI> as <HI>in fieri.</HI> And then &s;pends half a &s;ide in di&s;puting again&s;t me.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> He &s;ets up a Puppet of my Text, cor|rupted by his own gro&s;s omi&s;&s;ion, and then fights again&s;t it.</P>
<P>My words <HI>p.</HI> 188. of my <HI>Bar,</HI> are the&s;e, <Q REND="inline"><HI>The Receiver &s;eals as nece&s;&s;arily</HI> (in point of duty) <HI>to the condition</HI> in e&s;&s;e <HI>as</HI> in infieri.</Q> But tho&s;e words, <HI>in point of duty,</HI> he omits, and thereby makes my &s;en&s;e ab&s;urd. His oppo&s;ite in&s;tance of Children in Bapti&s;m is impertinent, &s;ince he knows we are now &s;peaking of intelligent per&s;ons.</P>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> D. <Q REND="inline"><HI>By the very act of receiving he &s;eals to faith</HI> in e&s;&s;e, <HI>or</HI> de prae&s;enti <HI>in point of profe&s;&s;ion. The very language of his receiving
<PB N="486" REF="241">
the Elements is, I receive Chri&s;t &s;ignified and offered to me in particular by them; and therefore he that receives the Elements, and doth not act faith at the &s;ame in&s;tant, he plays the hypocrite wofully, &amp;c. and &s;o doth every unworthy receiver.</HI></Q></P>
<P>The &s;um of M. <HI>H.</HI> his an&s;wer to this in three pages is,</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>That he hath true hi&s;torical faith, and therefore plays not the hypocrite.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>That the ca&s;e is the &s;ame at all Ordi|nances.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. <HI>That Chri&s;t is given to him, and received by him, &s;o far as he is in Chri&s;t.</HI></P>
<P N="4">4. <HI>He is ingaged to receive &s;incerely.</HI></P>
<P N="5">5. <HI>That he may receive Chri&s;t, as the Mini|&s;ter tenders Chri&s;t, that is conditionally.</HI></P>
<P N="6">6. Mr. <HI>H. tells us in effect,</HI> page 225. <HI>That by receiving, he profe&s;&s;eth not &s;aving faith, or that he is converted, for he holds the Sacrament a means of conver&s;ion.</HI> What el&s;e he in&s;erts is in effect the &s;ame with the&s;e heads, or hath for|merly been an&s;wered.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. By receiving, he profe&s;&s;es not onely hi&s;torical faith, or faith of a&s;&s;ent (that he may pro|fe&s;s by bare pre&s;ence, though bare pre&s;ence is not always a profe&s;&s;ion) but al&s;o faith of adherence, or that faith which receives Chri&s;t, as his hand receives the Elements, &amp;c. which is an act of the will, an act of election; But the natural man doth not &s;o receive Chri&s;t, when he receives the Ele|ments, and therefore in that act di&s;&s;embles.</P>
<P>To the &s;econd. The ca&s;e is not the &s;ame in all Ordinances: A per&s;on coming to hear, doth not &s;imply by that act profe&s;s faith in Chri&s;t; in|&s;tance,
<PB N="487" REF="241">
1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. 24. Be&s;ides, the Word and Prayer are parts of natural wor&s;hip, to which all are bound, be they di&s;&s;emblers or not. But the Sacrament, as &s;uch; is purely in&s;tituted.</P>
<P>To the third. If by <HI>giving,</HI> M.<HI>H.</HI> mean ten|dering (which he mu&s;t mean, or he writes a tauto|logy) his a&s;&s;ertion is fal&s;e, &s;ince whole Chri&s;t is tendered to him, but not &s;o received by him; and &s;o Chri&s;t is further tendered to a carnal receiver, than Chri&s;t is in a carnal receiver: for Chri&s;t is tendered to him &s;incerely, and compleatly, but Chri&s;t is not in him &s;incerely and compleatly.</P>
<P>To the fourth. Is my ingaging to receive Chri&s;t &s;incerely, a <HI>&s;alvo</HI> for, or rather is it not an ag|gravation of, my receiving Chri&s;t hypocriti|cally?</P>
<P>To the fifth. I pray what is the condition of the Covenant, but the receiving of Chri&s;t? and &s;o belike a natural man receives Chri&s;t, upon con|dition that he receives Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>To the &s;ixth, <HI>page</HI> 255. this, 1. Contradicts his &s;econd an&s;wer, <HI>That attendance upon every Ordinance, is a &s;ignified profe&s;&s;ion that we will obey the minde of God, when revealed;</HI> and he that doth not heartily re&s;olve this, when he hears, mocks God, by playing the hypocrite. 2. Con|tradicts the known and acknowledged &s;en&s;e of re|ceiving. As the Mini&s;ter tenders not onely the bare Elements, but Chri&s;t him&s;elf really and &s;in|cerely, &s;o the Communicant profe&s;&s;es by that very act, that he receives not onely the Elements, but al&s;o Chri&s;t him&s;elf, as he is tendered; which no natural man doth, and therefore by receiving he plays the hypocrite. 3. Its a meer flam for any to &s;ay, I receive Chri&s;t, in order to &s;aving faith
<PB N="488" REF="242">
and conver&s;ion, when at the &s;ame time he hates &s;aving faith and conver&s;ion. Can any really make that to be his end, which he hates and dete&s;ts?</P>
<P>M.<HI>D.</HI> <Q REND="inline"><HI>A&s;&s;urance is not ab&s;olutely requi&s;ite, as a means to receiving.</HI></Q></P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> p. 256. <HI>If regeneration be nece&s;&s;arily required before receiving, then a&s;&s;urance is ab|&s;olutely required as a means;</HI> for that which is not of faith is &s;in, <HI>Rom.</HI> 14. 23.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> By faith, under&s;tand the faith of per|&s;wa&s;ion, to which the doubting there mentioned is oppo&s;ite, compare <HI>Ver&s;</HI> 22.</P>
<P N="1">Now 1: Doubting doth not make an act of duty unlawful (for then prayer &s;hould be un|lawful, to him that doubts whether he &s;hould pray) but it makes an indifferent action (of which the Apo&s;tle &s;peaks) unlawful.</P>
<P N="2">2. Every doubt doth not overthrow per&s;wa&s;i|on, and by proportion it doth not overthrow a&s;&s;u|rance, which is not perfect in this life, but more or le&s;s oppo&s;ed by doubting. No real Saints a&s;&s;u|rance is utterly overthrown by doubting, though his a&s;&s;urance may often times not be &s;o &s;en&s;ible, as to break out into a clear flame, <HI>Matth.</HI> 12. 20.</P>
<P N="3">3. As a Jew being clean might eat the Pa&s;&s;over, though he were not certainly a&s;&s;ured of his clean|ne&s;s; &s;o a Chri&s;tian being clean, may, yea, ought to eat the Lords Supper, though he be not certain of his Go&s;pel-cleanne&s;s. But of this formerly.</P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 256, 257. M. <HI>H.</HI> &s;ays truly, <HI>That the actings of Gods Spirit are very &s;ecret, and that a Chri&s;tian &s;hould &s;till endeavor to blow up all good motions; but &s;eems to he&s;itate, whether common grace differ from &s;pecial grace gradu|ally or &s;pecifically:</HI> By which it appears, that
<PB N="489" REF="242">
I was not much out in &s;aying, that he did not <HI>&s;ibi con&s;tare.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> If common and &s;aving grace differ one|ly gradually, then they are one and the &s;ame grace &s;pecifically; and if &s;o, then common grace is &s;aving grace in a lower degree, and &s;aving grace is but common grace in an higher degree; and what then follows?</P>
<P N="1">1. Where is the di&s;tinction between Babes, Yong men, and Fathers? 1 <HI>John</HI> 2. <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 12, 13, 14.</P>
<P N="2">2. How doth the Apo&s;tle prove, that divers profe&s;&s;ors had not true grace, becau&s;e they turned Apo&s;tates? 1 <HI>John</HI> 2. 19. Then men not onely may, but u&s;ually do apo&s;tatize from &s;aying grace, if this Doctrine be true.</P>
<P N="3">3. How will this turn us back to Arminiani&s;m, and &s;ubvert the very foundation of weak Chri&s;ti|ans comfort, if this be true Doctrine, that their weak beginnings are but common grace, in which many reprobates have gone far beyond them? yea, how &s;hall &s;trong Chri&s;tians now their com|mon grace is rooted enough to make &s;aving grace; how &s;hall they value their gold, when for ought they know it may be but copper?</P>
<P>For what he addes in the clo&s;e of <HI>page</HI> 257. let the Reader judge by comparing our texts, whe|ther I wrong him or no. I perceive the man is di&s;tempered, which makes him &s;o apt upon the lea&s;t occa&s;ion, to change me with frowardne&s;s, Therefore I &s;hall not rub the &s;ore, but pa&s;s on.</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> mu&s;t pardon me, if I be not of his minde, <HI>page</HI> 259. <HI>That an unregenerate man can heartily for the pre&s;ent, engage him&s;elf to the
<PB N="490" REF="243">
terms of Chri&s;t;</HI> yea, his very premi&s;al, <HI>ibid. That he doth this but Legally</HI> (in my poor judgement) overthrows that Conclu&s;ion. Can a Legal and Servile &s;pirit act cordially towards Chri&s;t? withal, let me intreat him, <HI>not to call tho&s;e terms har&s;h, and the opinions of others,</HI> which are either the Apo&s;tles expre&s;s terms, or his &s;en&s;e; and owned in that &s;en&s;e, not by few, or contemptible per&s;ons, both Calvini&s;ts, Lutherans, and Papi&s;ts. Let me but tran&s;cribe two or three te&s;timonies in meeter, <HI>that the Sacrament is poy|&s;on to the wicked.</HI></P>
<Q><L><HI>Sumunt boni, &s;umunt mali,</HI></L>
<L><HI>Sorte tamen inaequali</HI></L>
<L><HI>Vitae &amp; interitus.</HI></L>
<L><HI>Mors e&s;t malis, vita bonis:</HI></L>
<L><HI>Vide paris &s;um&s;ionis</HI></L>
<L><HI>Quam &s;it di&s;par exitus.</HI></L>
<L><HI>Vita pits erit, at&abque; eadem mors &s;ontibus, e&s;ca;</HI></L>
<L><HI>&V;no eodem&abque; &s;alus fluit at&abque; ex fonte venenum.</HI></L>
<L><HI>Gratus odor cerebro est quem mollis Amaracus edit.</HI></L>
<L><HI>Sed necat immundas illius aura &s;ues.</HI></L></Q>
<P>I tru&s;t we &s;hall be as tender of Chri&s;ts Lambs as M. <HI>H.</HI> is, though we dare not own all for Lambs, that have the Lambs cloathing.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="9" TYPE="section">
<HEAD><HI>SECT.</HI> IX.</HEAD>
<P>THe ninth Objection is, <HI>The Ordinances are polluted if all be admitted.</HI></P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> page 260. <Q REND="inline"><HI>Unto the unworthy re|ceivers
<PB N="491" REF="243">
it may be &s;aid defiled, as</HI> Tit. 1. 15, <HI>&amp;c. but not to others.</HI></Q></P>
<P><HI>Unto this Mr.</HI> D. <HI>con&s;ents, and therefore he might have dealt more ingenuou&s;ly to have joyn|ed with me in &s;trengthening the weak, rather than to vilifie the &s;uccors that I brought them;</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 261</NOTE> <HI>but like a trouble&s;om bryar, there is nothing can pa&s;s him without catching, renting and tearing, while he brings his nettles to po&s;&s;e&s;s our plea&s;ant places, and thorns our Taberna|cles, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> This I mu&s;t confe&s;s is a &s;hort an&s;wer to <HI>page</HI> 192, 193. and part of <HI>page</HI> 194. of my <HI>Bar:</HI> In which three pages,</P>
<P N="1">1. I grant, that the actual receiving of a wicked man, doth not &s;imply defile either the Sacra|ment or the Communicants; but &s;inful Conni|vance.</P>
<P N="2">2. I vindicate one or two places of Scripture mi&s;applyed by M. <HI>H.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. I retort his own profe&s;&s;ed principle upon him&s;elf.</P>
<P N="4">4. I intreat him to walk by the light of his own caution, given <HI>page</HI> 78. of his <HI>Vindication.</HI> Let the Reader peru&s;e tho&s;e three pa&s;&s;ages in my <HI>Bar,</HI> and then judge, whether I de&s;erve &s;uch liberal language as M. <HI>H.</HI> is here plea&s;ed to afford me. Is it probable, that he who falls &s;o foulely upon a weak Brother, can be &s;o zealous (as is pretend|ed) to &s;trengthen weak Brethren? Or can I not po&s;&s;ibly &s;trengthen weak Brethren, unle&s;s I be ju&s;t of M. <HI>H.</HI> his latitude?</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> p. 261. and 262. <HI>I cannot wholly free Mr.</HI> D. <HI>for I think there is a deadly wound made upon tender Chri&s;tians, while he involves every
<PB N="492" REF="244">
&s;oul under the guilt of participation with the Receiver, if they do not their be&s;t to hinder him from receiving, which yet is not &s;imply a duty (where &s;till lies this &s;ad fallacy) but onely</HI> &s;e|cundum quid, <HI>in reference to the parties amend|ment, as the end, and excommunication as the means, whereby a man being ca&s;t out of Chri&s;tian Communion in general, is con&s;equently debarred the Sacrament; and otherwi&s;e to keep him from it is ami&s;s, as going upon this fal&s;e ground, that unfitne&s;s to the Sacrament is the formal cau&s;e of excommunication: and I fear &s;inful, becau&s;e it is &s;imply our duty to exhort (and in our places to prepare) all our fellow mem|bers, both to come, and to come worthily un|to it.</HI></P>
<P N="1,2"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Where do I &s;ay, that its <HI>&s;imply</HI> a &s;in to partake at the Sacrament with vi&s;ibly un|worthy Receivers? nay, is not the contrary Tenet my profe&s;&s;ed judgement? Let my own words &s;peak for me, <HI>page</HI> 196, of my <HI>Bar,</HI> <Q REND="inline"><HI>Particu|lar per&s;ons &s;in not in communicating with per|&s;ons vi&s;ibly unworthy, but onely in connivance at their vi&s;ible unworthine&s;s.</HI> 2. <HI>This conni|vance (I there &s;hew) con&s;i&s;ts either in neg|lect of Brotherly admonition, or (if that will not do) of complaining to the Church, in order to their Reformation; or (if that cannot be effected) in order to their &s;u&s;pen&s;ion: And la&s;tly, their di&s;membring;</HI></Q> which is M. <HI>H.</HI> his excommunication. This carriage of ours M. <HI>H.</HI> calls <HI>doing ones be&s;t to hinder a per&s;on vi&s;ibly unworthy from receiving;</HI> whereas indeed by private admonition, &amp;c. I do my be&s;t to prevent his &s;u&s;pen&s;ion and excommunication, and withal,
<PB N="493" REF="244">
deliver my own &s;oul from the guilt of &s;inful con|nivance. To root up this cavil, let me turn a little from M. <HI>H.</HI> to tender Chri&s;tians.</P>
<P>Dear Brethren, will you ju&s;tifie M. <HI>H.</HI> in this Allegation of his? Is it a wound to your con&s;ci|ences to admoni&s;h an offending Brother, and (if upon private admonition he reform not) to tell the Church, according to your Ma&s;ters rule? <HI>Mat,</HI> 18. <HI>ver.</HI> 15, 16, 17.</P>
<P>Object. <HI>We &s;cruple not the thing, but the doing of it in order to</HI> &s;u&s;pen&s;ion.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> If you &s;cruple <HI>Su&s;pen&s;ion,</HI> will you therefore neglect your duty, becau&s;e of the Con|&s;equence which you allow not? When you com|plain to Church-officers, can you not tell them you &s;eek not the Su&s;pen&s;ion, but the reformation or Excommunication of the offending Brother? I wi&s;h we had more &s;cruplers of &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, pro|vided, that in love and humility Church-members would make con&s;cience of the forementioned duties. But this is our mi&s;ery, and one great bar to Reformation, that private Chri&s;tians make little con&s;cience either of fraternal correption, or of telling the Church when private admonition will not do. <NOTE PLACE="marg">His very words are <HI>p.</HI> 262. <HI>if they do not their be&s;t to hinder him from re|ceiving, which yet is not &s;imply a duty, but onely</HI> &s;e|cundum quid, <HI>in reference to the parties amendment as the end, and excommunication as the means, &amp;c.</HI> Doth he not here grant, that its our duty <HI>&s;ecundum quid,</HI> to endeavor to hinder an intelligent Church-member from the Sacrament, in reference to excommunication? <HI>mark it,</HI> he &s;ays, not to hinder him from receiving by excommunication, but <HI>in reference</HI> to excommu|nication; and what is this, I pray, but by &s;u&s;pen&s;ion to make way for excommunication? a doctrine very agreeable to our principles in &s;undry ca&s;es.</NOTE></P>
<P N="3">3. (To return to my Antagoni&s;t) let the Reader judge, if here M. <HI>H.</HI> yield not up his cau&s;e, by granting. <HI>That in reference to excommunication,
<PB N="494" REF="245">
and the parties amendment, it is my duty to do my be&s;t to hinder a per&s;on vi&s;ibly unworthy from receiving.</HI></P>
<P>Hindering from the Sacrament here, cannot be excommunication in M. <HI>H.</HI> his &s;en&s;e, &s;ince his own text tells us, that this hindring from the Sacrament is <HI>in reference</HI> to excommunication; and &s;o it &s;eems to explain his doctrine about the &s;u&s;pen&s;i|on of per&s;ons <HI>ip&s;o jure</HI> excommunicate: And though he &s;ay, <HI>ib. This hindring is in reference to excommunication, as the means, and in refe|rence to amendment as the end,</HI> that will not help him, &s;ince we ea&s;ily grant, that &s;u&s;pen&s;ion may be, yea &s;ometimes ought to be, in reference to excom|munication, as a &s;harp means, but both mu&s;t always be, in reference to reformation, as the end.</P>
<P N="4">4. We renounce, as well as him&s;elf, that fal&s;e ground <HI>(Thas unfitne&s;s to the Sacrament, is the formal cau&s;e of excommunication)</HI> and judge it a very har&s;h doctrine. <HI>Gro&s;s</HI> igno|rance makes a man unfit for the Sacrament, which yet is not <HI>&s;impliciter,</HI> the formal or ju&s;t cau&s;e of excommunication in the rigour, what|ever <HI>affected</HI> ignorance may be.</P>
<P N="5">5. If it be our duty to exhort (and in our places to prepare) all our fellow-members to come worthily (I know no duty incumbent to exhort any to come ab&s;olutely) to the Lords-Supper; &s;ure Church-Officers act not out of their place, by endeavoring to prepare Church-members for the Sacrament, by previous tryal, coun&s;el, and exhortation. I pray, Sir, do not di&s;courage Church-Officers from that which here you cannot but acknowledge is their duty.</P>
<P><PB N="495" REF="245">I hope, Sir, you are not of opinion, that the Elders or private Chri&s;tians mu&s;t turn publick Preachers to prepare their fellow-members for receiving (thats the Mini&s;ters work) it mu&s;t then be done more privately by Chri&s;tian conver&s;e in a way of trial, coun&s;el, and exhortation. Per|&s;wade the people to this, and you will be a better friend to reformation than by pleading for your free admi&s;&s;ion.<NOTE PLACE="marg">I mean not, that publick preaching is &s;o the Mini&s;ters work as to excu&s;e him from private conver&s;e with his flock. See <HI>Act.</HI> 20. 20</NOTE></P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H. p.</HI> 262. <HI>Suppo&s;e a regenerate man de&s;erves to be excommunicate, and I do not complain of him; he comes, and receives in faith. Now if I mu&s;t partake of a mans re|ceiving unworthily, when I &s;hould endeavour his excommunication, and do not, then I must partake in this mans receiving worthily, and &s;o my not endeavouring their excommunication &s;hall be good in the one, and &s;in in the other. It is apparent therefore, that this &s;in is to be &s;ingled by it &s;elf; I am never the more or the le&s;s guilty whether he come or not come, receives worthily, or not worthily; that is</HI> <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word">, <HI>but this is one only continued guilt in me, that I do not my duty in admoni&s;hing, and telling the Church of him, &s;uppo&s;ing the ca&s;e &s;o, that it is my duty.</HI></P>
<P>Grant Mr. <HI>H.</HI> His &s;uppo&s;ition may be true, what then?</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H. Then by my not endeavouring his ex|communication, I mu&s;t partake of his receiving worthily.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> No &s;uch matter, for his worthy recei|ving (upon the &s;uppo&s;ition) is but accidental unto your neglect of duty; and as a &s;in following acci|dentally in another upon my duty performed to|wards
<PB N="496" REF="246">
him &s;hall not be imputed to me (as &s;up|po&s;e upon my admonition my Brother grow wor&s;e) &s;o a moral good following upon the neglect of my duty, &s;hall not be imputed to me, who omitted that duty; but <HI>contra,</HI> the neglect of my duty &s;hall be charged upon me. God mea&s;ures not a &s;in or duty by its accidental events, but fir&s;t by its nature and circum&s;tances; and &s;econdly, by its natural and proper con&s;e|quents. He that omits good that good may come thereby (by <HI>good</HI> under&s;tand my duty, that I am <HI>hic &amp; nunc</HI> obliged to) &s;ins, as well as he that does evil that good may come, <HI>Rom.</HI> 3. 8.</P>
<P>What next? Mr. <HI>H. And &s;o my not endea|vouring their excommunication, &s;hall be good in the one and a &s;in in the other.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> This is as wilde as the former, and &s;uppo&s;es that an omi&s;&s;ion of duty is warranted by a moral good following ca&s;ually thereupon.</P>
<P>I &s;hall therefore an&s;wer this &s;uppo&s;ition with another. Suppo&s;e, I am dangerou&s;ly &s;ick of a feaver; the Phy&s;ician forbids me wine: a carele&s;s Nur&s;e (contrary to the Phy&s;icians prohibition) up|on my importunity lets me drink Sack liberally, upon which I fall a &s;leep for divers hours together, and recover: Will Mr. <HI>H.</HI> &s;ay the Nur&s;es carele&s;ne&s;s was <HI>morally</HI> good becau&s;e it was eventually good? <HI>Pilates</HI> not re&s;cuing of Chri&s;t was eventually good, was it therefore mo|rally good? In like manner, Suppo&s;e a godly man de&s;erving excommunication receive worthily; his worthy receiving is accidental to my neglect of telling the Church; wherefore by omi&s;&s;ion of that my duty I am guilty as if he had received unworthily; that, and not his worthy receiving
<PB N="497" REF="246">
being the natural and proper fruit of my omi&s;|&s;ion.</P>
<P>Yet further; Who ever will &s;eriou&s;ly weigh and compare the &s;uppo&s;ition and inference, may ob&s;erve that Mr. <HI>H.</HI> is no very cordial friend to excommunication, how ever he may cry it up, to cry down &s;u&s;pen&s;ion.</P>
<P>With all, le&s;t I &s;hould &s;eem to be over rigid, I mu&s;t adde. That if this godly man de&s;erved ex|communication for &s;ome foul crime known onely to me, or &s;ome few, and upon reproof humbled him&s;elf, &amp;c. I dare not &s;ay its my duty (in that ca&s;e) to tell the Church, &s;ince the principal end of excommunicating this per&s;on is attained by pri|vate reproof, <HI>Matth.</HI> 18. 15. But in ca&s;e this godly man do ob&s;tinately per&s;i&s;t, and deny, or defend the crime that is evident, there is little hope that in &s;uch a condition, he will receive wor|thily; yet &s;uppo&s;e he &s;hould, that will not ex|cu&s;e my neglect to tell the Church upon his per|tinacy after admonition fir&s;t by my &s;elf, and then with two or three more according to the rule. <HI>Matth.</HI> 18. 17. By all hath been &s;aid, its appa|rent, my &s;in of omi&s;&s;ion is not to be &s;ingled by it &s;elf (as Mr. <HI>H.</HI> would have it) and that I am more guilty if that godly man receive unworthily, than if he had not received at all; &s;ince my telling the Church (in ca&s;e he be ob&s;tinate) might have prevented his great &s;in of unworthy receiving, to which I am acce&s;&s;ory by not hindring it when I might, and &s;hould; but his unworthy receiving will not excu&s;e my neglect to tell the Church, &s;ince his worthy receiving (upon the &s;uppo&s;ition) is not the proper, but accidental con&s;equent of that my neglect and omi&s;&s;ion.</P>
<P><PB N="498" REF="247">To what Mr. <HI>H.</HI> addes in the &s;ame page, I an|&s;wer, We &s;ay not its <HI>ab&s;olutely</HI> a duty to keep from the Sacrament per&s;ons vi&s;ibly unworthy (this act being limitable by &s;everal cautions) but that it concerns Church-members, by private ad|monition, or telling the Church, to &s;eek the re|formation of &s;uch a per&s;on; which regularly done frees private Chri&s;tians from guilt. Nor is there the &s;ame rea&s;on for keeping any from the Word and Prayer, as from the Sacrament. But of this formerly. <NOTE PLACE="marg">As in &s;ome ca&s;es ex|communi|cation it &s;elf may be forborn of which formerly in the Pa|rable of the Tares; &s;o it may fall out in the matter of po&s;itive Su&s;pen&s;ion which is very rare with us, Church-governors ordinarily acting rather by way of intreaty to forbear, than by any juridical cen&s;ure. As for the Mini&s;ters &s;u&s;pending his own act of giving the Sacrament to one he knows to be unworthy; if Mr. <HI>H.</HI> judge it a weakne&s;s in &s;uch a Mini&s;ter, I hope how ever he will not force a weak brother to act again&s;t his con&s;cience.</NOTE></P>
<P>For his in&s;tance (in the clo&s;e of this Section) of the Churches admitting Infants to receive in the dayes of <HI>Augu&s;tine,</HI> he is not ignorant of the ground thereof, which upon better in&s;pection was found weak. Yet withall, I mu&s;t be bold to tell him, that if he will keep to his own bottome of Church-member&s;hip, he cannot turn Infants, or the di&s;tracted out of his &s;ociety, who have better right to the Lords Supper than many he pleads for. But I pa&s;s this as formerly handled.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="10" TYPE="section">
<PB N="499" REF="247">
<HEAD><HI>SECT.</HI> X.</HEAD>
<P><Q REND="inline"><HI>THe la&s;t Objection is, from the &s;everal Texts alleaged for &s;eparation from wicked per&s;ons.</HI></Q></P>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> H. <Q REND="inline"><HI>No Scripture allows a &s;eparation from any of Gods publick Ordinances.</HI></Q></P>
<P>A great part of my an&s;wer to this exception, Mr. <HI>H.</HI> pa&s;&s;es, <NOTE PLACE="marg">Page 265.</NOTE> with telling the Reader, <HI>He hath already &s;atisfied tho&s;e things, onely he leaves two notes.</HI> And 1. where I &s;ay his excommu|nication is a cruel cen&s;ure, as cutting men off from all Ordinances.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> an&s;wers, <HI>I am per&s;waded Mr.</HI> D. <HI>will be of another minde when he comes to under&s;tand me better, how I take this, that is, relatively, wherein I think I am near the truth.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> By <HI>relative</HI> cutting off from Church-communion in generall, Mr. <HI>H.</HI> means (to my be&s;t under&s;tanding) That a per&s;on thus cen&s;ured hath no <HI>relative</HI> right to any Church-Ordinance; yet by the Churches indulgence may be admitted to any, though not as a Church-member. Whence it follows, That he who is no Church-member (&s;uch is his excommunicated per&s;on) may by the Churches indulgence be admitted to any Ordi|nance; which if true (I know no <HI>&s;criptum e&s;t</HI> for &s;uch indulgence) then not onely per&s;ons di&s;|membred, but al&s;o heathen may be admitted to receive the Lords Supper, though not as Church-members; a great latitude indeed. But I pray, Sir (upon the &s;uppo&s;ition) may the Church in|dulge me a real injoyment of the Sacrament, to which (if excommunicated) I have no relative
<PB N="500" REF="248">
right, and may it not indulge me a relative right to the Sacrament, though at pre&s;ent it &s;ee good rea&s;on to deny me the real injoyment thereof? Of this formerly, therefore I pa&s;s it.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> ib. <HI>Not every &s;leight occa&s;ion, but notorious crimes, mu&s;t &s;erve for Church-cen&s;ure. If we allow any cen&s;ure le&s;s than ca|&s;ting out of the Church, Church-cen&s;ures are like to become ordinary, and &s;oon contem|ned, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. By conce&s;&s;ion of the fir&s;t branch; yea, though the crime be heynous (&s;o it be not notori|ous and publick) I do not think it mu&s;t come pre&s;ently to a Church-cen&s;ure, till private admo|nition be &s;leighted, <HI>Matth.</HI> 18. v. 15, 16, 17.</P>
<P N="2">2. Yet that may po&s;&s;ibly be &s;leight to &s;ome, which is very foul in it &s;elf, whether you re&s;pect its &s;ub&s;tance or circum&s;tances: And &s;uch is af|fected ignorance.</P>
<P N="3">3. If there be no cen&s;ure le&s;s than ca&s;ting out of the Church, then belike publick reproof is no Church-cen&s;ure. Sure the Apo&s;tle was not of Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his minde, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 5. 20.</P>
<P N="4">4. If the cau&s;es of Church-cen&s;ures be ordi|nary, Church-cen&s;ures <HI>(caeteris paribus)</HI> mu&s;t be as ordinary. That frequency makes them con|temptible is too true through our innate corrupti|on, which inclines us to contemn Chri&s;t, the choy|&s;e&s;t Ordinances and mercies, becau&s;e they are or|dinary. But thence to argue it were better &s;uch mercies and Ordinances were le&s;s frequent, is an|ti&s;criptural and irrational.</P>
<P N="1">For his per&s;onal reflections, <HI>page</HI> 267-269. I &s;hall onely &s;ay thus much; I He takes too much upon him to charge me &s;o highly, e&s;pecially with
<PB N="501" REF="248">
<HI>malice.</HI> I confe&s;s I hare his free Admi&s;&s;ion, but love his per&s;on.</P>
<P N="2">2. What I &s;peak <HI>in the&s;i,</HI> and &s;till apprehend to be a truth, he fir&s;t applies <HI>in hypothe&s;i,</HI> and then exaggerates, to make it &s;eem more odious.</P>
<P N="3">3. Had I applied it per&s;onally to Mr. <HI>H.</HI> I only noted what God might ju&s;tly do, as him|&s;elf confe&s;&s;eth, <HI>p.</HI> 268. and withall acknowledge as much again&s;t my &s;elf, That God ju&s;tly might deal with me as a <HI>weed,</HI> for cheri&s;hing and tolera|ting of <HI>weeds.</HI></P>
<P>His four Queries propounded <HI>page</HI> 269. have formerly been an&s;wered, therefore I &s;hall not trouble my Reader with Repetitions.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H. p.</HI> 269. <HI>And now if Mr.</HI> Drake <HI>&s;hall have need to write again; as I beleeve nature will work, and his &s;pirit cannot hold: I &s;hall de&s;ire him, if he will go to vent that &s;uperfluity of maliciou&s;ne&s;s, &amp;c. to take along with him that Text,</HI> Deut. 23. 13.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> How true is that &s;aying of the Wi&s;e|man, <HI>Prov.</HI> 27. 19. <HI>As in water face an&s;wereth to face?</HI> &s;o, &amp;c. Mr. H. hath &s;et me &s;o fair a copy in his <HI>Rejoynder,</HI> that he might well expect (con&s;idering both our hearts have the &s;ame inherent principles of naughtine&s;s) I would undoubtedly write after his copy. But I hope I have not &s;o learned Chri&s;t. As in placing the <HI>Bar</HI> (if I know my own heart) I was not acted by malice; &s;o now in fixing the <HI>Bar,</HI> I have, by the grace of God, endeavoured to avoid the appearance of malice, and &s;hall be|&s;hrew my &s;elf, if any pa&s;&s;age have &s;lipt from my Pen, which may favour of that helli&s;h leaven. I would not only &s;eek Truth, but al&s;o follow after Charity, e&s;pecially with Mr. <HI>Humphrey.</HI></P>
<P><PB N="502" REF="249">Page 270. Mr. <HI>H. He concludes with a &s;cruple to the Reader, and tells us, he hath done with Mr.</HI> Humphrey. <HI>Thus</HI> Hiram <HI>hath fini&s;hed the work he had to do, the Pots and the Shovels, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> See a like clo&s;e of his fir&s;t part, <HI>page</HI> 135, 136. I will not di&s;pute how pertinent tho&s;e applications of Scripture are; I am &s;ure they are not very pious. Pray, Sir, If you &s;hall &s;ee cau&s;e of writing again, however you may trample upon Mr. <HI>Drake,</HI> do not abu&s;e the holy Scripture. Its ill je&s;ting with &s;uch Edge-tools. The Word of Salvation de&s;erves better at our hands than to be made either an <HI>Object,</HI> or <HI>In&s;trument</HI> of deri&s;ion.</P>
</DIV2>
<CLOSER>Soli Deo Gloria.</CLOSER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
<BACK>
<DIV1 TYPE="table of contents">
<PB REF="249">
<HEAD>A TABLE OF THE Mo&s;t remarkable Pa&s;&s;ages handled in the &s;everal Sections, There being twelve Sections in the Fir&s;t Part, and ten in the Second Part.</HEAD>
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="part">
<HEAD>PART. I.</HEAD>
<LIST>
<HEAD>SECT. II.</HEAD>
<ITEM>ALL <HI>put for many, and the number</HI> twelve, <HI>by roundne&s;s of number, put for an inferior number.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Ib, Luke, <HI>neither in terms, nor by ne|ce&s;&s;ary Con&s;equence, affirms, that</HI> Judas <HI>was pre|&s;ent at, or received the Lords Supper.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Ib. <HI>Suppo&s;ing Judas did receive, it makes not for Mr.</HI> Humphrey.</ITEM>
<PB REF="250">
<ITEM>Ib. <HI>That &s;candal wiped away,</HI> That we give more power to the Presbytery, than to Je&s;us Chri&s;t.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Ib. <HI>Church-tryal of any, warrantable upon an holy jealou&s;ie about their knowledge and piety.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Ib. <HI>We go not about, by Suspen&s;ion, to puni&s;h any for a future &s;in.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Ib. <HI>His Quotation out of Dr.</HI> Hamond, <HI>makes not again&s;t us, who deny not but Chri&s;tian Profe&s;&s;ors, who&s;e hearts are full of villany, may be admitted, in ca&s;e that villany be not vi|&s;ible.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>SECT. III.</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>DIvers</HI> middle things <HI>between a vi&s;ible Co|venant-relation, and truth of grace, which may be a ju&s;t bar to admi&s;&s;ion.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Ib. Mr. <HI>H. allows the Su&s;pen&s;ion of per&s;ons</HI> ip&s;o jure <HI>excommunicate.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>How grace may be wrought in Infants by the Ordinances, or promoted.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Infants are naturally uncapable of under|standing what is done in Bapti&s;m, as well as in the Lords Supper.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Su&s;pen&s;ion owned both by the ancient and mo|dern Church.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>SECT. IV.</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>MR.</HI> H. <HI>acknowledges a &s;ignified Profe&s;&s;ion, and what it is.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>A word for tender Con&s;ciences, who through &s;cruple &s;tand off from the Sacrament.</HI></ITEM>
<PB REF="250">
<ITEM>1 Cor. 11. <HI>About the Lords Supper, and our addre&s;s to it, opened.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>What it is to be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>How any is bound to apply Damnation to him&s;elf at the Sacrament.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The di&s;tinction between eating and &s;ealing damnation. Comfort to trembling Souls about this particular.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Whether Moral in&s;truments cannot Convey a thing that is real.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>SECT. V.</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>MOral, as well as Levitical uncleanne&s;s, was a bar to the Pa&s;&s;over.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>All unclean per&s;ons mu&s;t be kept from tho&s;e holy things which cannot convert, but prejudice them</HI> in &s;tatu quo. <HI>Niddui a Bar to the Pa&s;&s;over. The Parallel between the Pa&s;&s;over and the Lords Supper.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>How far the Corinthians &s;candals were a bar to the Sacrament.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>All <HI>not put for an ab&s;olute univer&s;al, nor for all of a kinde.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>1 Cor. 10. 21. <HI>opened and vindicated.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>1 Cor. 10. <HI>v.</HI> 3, 4, 5. <HI>vindicated.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The right way of &s;ettling tender Con&s;ciences.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Parable of the Fea&s;t,</HI> Mat. 22. <HI>and</HI> Luk. 14 <HI>vindicated.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Mat. 3. <HI>about</HI> Johns <HI>Bapti&s;m, vindicated,</HI> Acts 2. 41, 42, 46. vindicated.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Who are federally holy, or not.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Revel. 22. 17. <HI>vindicated.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>How the Covenant by the Sacrament is &s;ealed to all the world.</HI></ITEM>
<PB REF="251">
<ITEM><HI>How far men may be compelled to tryal, and that tryal about the truth of mens profe&s;&s;ion, rightly managed, is no entring upon the throne or &s;ecrets of God.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>SECT. VI.</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>THe latitude of the Covenant tender is no &s;olid ground for free Admi&s;&s;ion to the Sa|crament, as received.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>In what &s;en&s;e, and upon what account a Mi|ni&s;ter may &s;ay to a Receiver of the Sacrament,</HI> Chri&s;t is thine, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>A Church-member may be vi&s;ibly in the &s;tate of Nature.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Mini&s;ter doth not &s;eal to a lye, by giving the Sacrament to tho&s;e who are vi&s;ibly worthy, yet really unworthy.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Mr. <HI>H. acknowledges pre&s;ence at the Sacra|ment to be</HI> freer <HI>than actual receiving.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Rom. 2. 3. <HI>vindicated.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>How the word is a &s;ealed word to Heathen, &amp;c.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>All may be pre&s;ent at the Lords Supper, but all may not receive.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>In what ca&s;es a Mini&s;ter may admit or &s;u&s;pend from the Sacrament.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>SECT. VII</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>SAcraments not e&s;&s;ential notes of a vi&s;ible Church.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Mr.</HI> H. <HI>allows a negative Su&s;pen&s;ion upon pru|dential grounds.</HI></ITEM>
<PB REF="251">
<ITEM><HI>The Parable of the Tares opened,</HI> 134</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>SECT. VIII.</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>ARguments to prove Su&s;pen&s;ion is a Divine In&s;titution, backed with Humane Te&s;ti|mony.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>SECT. IX.</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>ITs neither vain, nor impo&s;&s;ible to &s;elect a people for the Sacrament.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Vi&s;ible Worthine&s;s, as distinct from Church-Member&s;hip, warranted by Scri|pture.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>SECT. X.</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>ADmi&s;&s;ion to the Pa&s;&s;over, no warrant for Mr.</HI> Humphrey <HI>his Free Admi&s;|&s;ion.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Mat. 5, ver&s;. 23, <HI>and</HI> 25. <HI>vindicated.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Doubting Chri&s;tians in what ca&s;es they may and mu&s;t receive, though unregenerate per&s;ons ought not to receive.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Mr.</HI> Humphrey <HI>his &s;tating of the Con|trover&s;ie, for him&s;elf, and for us, exa|mined.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<PB REF="252">
<HEAD>SECT. XI.</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>Mr.</HI> Humphrey <HI>his innocency, in ad|mitting all Intelligent Church-mem|bers, tryed.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>SECT. XII.</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>THe Command,</HI> Drink you all of it, <HI>no Argument to prove Mr.</HI> H. <HI>his free Admi&s;&s;ion.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="part">
<PB REF="252">
<HEAD>PART. II.</HEAD>
<LIST>
<HEAD>SECT. I.</HEAD>
<ITEM>MAt. 7. 6. <HI>opened and vindicated.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>SECT. II.</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>SAcramental tryal not &s;o burden&s;ome as divers make it.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Su&s;pen&s;ion far milder than the greater excom|munication.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>SECT. III.</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>WHat Mr.</HI> H. <HI>means by vi&s;ible Saint, and what we mean thereby.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>SECT. IV.</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>MR.</HI> H. <HI>holds none are vi&s;ible blanks within the Church.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>How faith is &s;ealed in the Sacrament.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Mr.</HI> H. <HI>Holds, that God by the Sacrament ingaegs not to give a man faith.</HI> Rejoynder, <HI>page</HI> 71. <HI>whence it follows, that the Sacrament doth not convert.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>How the Sacraments confirm faith formally, and con&s;equentially.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Sacraments are &s;eals, though they do not confirm every Receiver.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Hi&s;torical and particular a&s;&s;ent are often di|vided in the Regenerate.</HI></ITEM>
<PB REF="253">
<ITEM><HI>In the Sacrament God &s;eals to the Regenerate the</HI> condition, <HI>as well as the</HI> benefits <HI>follow|ing upon the</HI> condition.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The difference between Gods and the Mini|&s;ters &s;ealing to a vi&s;ible Blank.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Mr.</HI> H. <HI>is not for the admi&s;&s;ion of all Church-members</HI> de facto, <HI>unle&s;s they be al&s;o Church-members</HI> de jure. <HI>This</HI> Jus <HI>is the very founda|tion of Church-member&s;hip; and what it is.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Sacrament <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">eals to the inward, as well as to the outward Covenant. How the Sacrament is a tropical, yet a proper &s;eal.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Mr.</HI> Calvin <HI>very zealous again&s;t Mr.</HI> H. <HI>his free Admi&s;&s;ion.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>How the Sacraments are Gods Seals, faiths Seals, and the Covenants Seals.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Faith is given by virtue of the Covenant made with man.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The conditionality of the Covenant of grace is no bar to its ab&s;olutene&s;s.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>How the A&s;&s;umption and Conclu&s;ion of the Syllogi&s;m of A&s;&s;urance are in Scripture by Con|&s;equence.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>One and the &s;ame thing may be an object both of faith and &s;en&s;e.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>In what he mu&s;t be</HI> lo&s;t <HI>who will be a worthy Receiver.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>How the Sacrament is a Seal of faith, &s;ub|jectively.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>SECT. V.</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>We agree all Church-members mu&s;t be admit|ted without a</HI> known Bar, <HI>but differ about this known Bar.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<PB REF="253">
<HEAD>SECT. VI.</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>THe confirmation of faith, a primary end of the Lords Supper.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Lords Supper no Converting Ordinance.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Mr.</HI> H. <HI>his twelve Arguments to prove it a Con|verting Ordinance an&s;wered; and one example.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>SECT. VII.</HEAD>
<ITEM>IOhn 13. 1. <HI>opened.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>SECT. VIII.</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>WHat is meant by Self-examination,</HI> 1 Cor. 11. 28.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Mr.</HI> H. <HI>he&s;itates, whether common grace dif|fer gradually or &s;pecifically from &s;aving grace.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Its no har&s;h expre&s;&s;ion to &s;ay, the Sacrament is poy&s;on to the unworthy Receiver.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>SECT. IX.</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>A Digre&s;&s;ion to tender Con&s;ciences.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Not the accidental good effects of &s;in, or bad effects of duty, but the natural, &s;hall be imputed.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>SECT. X.</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>MR.</HI> H. <HI>his</HI> relative <HI>cutting off from Ordi|nances, examined.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV2>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="1" TYPE="errata">
<PB REF="254">
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="part">
<HEAD>ERRATA in the fir&s;t part.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 22. in the Margin, read <HI>page</HI> 22. <HI>p.</HI> 60. <HI>l.</HI> 9. <HI>for</HI> &s;ix <HI>r.</HI> ten, <HI>p.</HI> 67. <HI>l.</HI> 9. <HI>for</HI> Pouls <HI>r.</HI> Pauls, <HI>p.</HI> 80. <HI>l.</HI> 15. <HI>for</HI> he <HI>r.</HI> the, <HI>p.</HI> 85 <HI>l.</HI> 19. <HI>r.</HI> Adultis, <HI>p</HI> 105. <HI>l.</HI> 13. <HI>r.</HI> Mr. <HI>H. p</HI> 155. <HI>l.</HI> 31. <HI>for</HI> own <HI>r.</HI> one, <HI>p.</HI> 131. <HI>l.</HI> 10. <HI>for</HI> principle <HI>r.</HI> principal. <HI>p.</HI> 103. <HI>l.</HI> 27. <HI>del.</HI> in, and the <HI>Comma. p.</HI> 96. <HI>l.</HI> 27. <HI>for</HI> to &s;o <HI>r.</HI> &s;o to, <HI>p.</HI> 205. <HI>l.</HI> 13. <HI>r</HI> Bar. <HI>ib. l.</HI> 26. <HI>for</HI> thus <HI>r.</HI> this. <HI>p.</HI> 214. <HI>l.</HI> 13. <HI>r.</HI> unintelligent, <HI>p.</HI> 220. <HI>l.</HI> 11. <HI>for</HI> there <HI>r.</HI> therefore, <HI>p</HI> 221. <HI>l.</HI> 32. <HI>for</HI> is grace, <HI>r</HI> grace is.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="part">
<HEAD>ERRATA in the &s;econd part.</HEAD>
<P><HI>PAge</HI> 353 <HI>line</HI> 13. <HI>for</HI> si <HI>r.</HI> is, <HI>p.</HI> 389. <HI>line</HI> 22. <HI>read</HI> me|dius, <HI>p.</HI> 420. <HI>l.</HI> 24. <HI>r.</HI> Baptizing, <HI>p.</HI> 463. <HI>l.</HI> 18. <HI>for</HI> is <HI>r.</HI> in, <HI>p.</HI> 468. <HI>l.</HI> 22. <HI>r.</HI> <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word">, <HI>p.</HI> 472. <HI>l.</HI> 2. <HI>for</HI> 12. <HI>r.</HI> 22.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="notice">
<P>WHereas <HI>page</HI> 22. towards the latter end, I &s;ay, there is no mention of <HI>Excommuni|cation</HI> jure <HI>or</HI> facto, in the 24 <HI>page</HI> of Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> his <HI>Vindication;</HI> nor, to my remembrance, in any part of his <HI>Vindication:</HI> I perceive now, upon better information, that tho&s;e terms are u&s;ed <HI>page</HI> 4. of Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his <HI>Vindication;</HI> but the page being mi&s;quoted by his Printer, occa&s;ioned my mi&s;take; which therefore I thought my &s;elf bound here to give notice of.</P>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
</BACK>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
